Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	act_n	statute_n	treason_n	2,888	5	9.4509	5	false

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

Crouch From Calice in France L. C. J. Holt. Prithee hear me this two-and-twenty-Oar-Barge did it belong to any other Ship R. Crouch No not that I can tell L. C. J. Holt. Did he call that Vessel the Loyal Clancarty R. Crouch Yes my Lord. Then Edmund Courtney was call'd Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Courtney pray tell my Lord and the Jury what you know of the going away of a Custom-House Boat Ed. Courtney I will tell you if you please Mr. Phipps My Lord I think they ought not to examine to that because it is not laid in the Indictment The carrying away of the Custom-House Barge is not mentioned in the Indictment and by the New Act for Regulating Tryals in Cases of Treason no Evidence is to be admitted or given of any Overt-Act that is not expresly laid in the Indictment L. C. J. Holt. Nothing else Suppose a Man be Indicted for Levying War against the King or Adhering to the King's Enemies can't they prove any Act that makes out a Levying of War or an Adherence to the King's Enemy Mr. Phipps With submission not by that Act my Lord unless it be laid in the Indictment L. C. J. Holt. Levying of War is the Treason may they not prove that Levying of War without being confin'd to any special or particular Act Mr. Phipps With submission by the 25 of Edw. the 3 d. Levying of War as well as Imagining the Death of the King must have the Overt Acts that are to prove it exprest in the Indictment L. C. J. Holt. Levying of VVar is an Overt-Act Mr. Sol. Gen. The business of Overt-Acts is where the Compassing and Imagining the King's Death is the Crime and Question and this must be discover'd by Overt-Acts But if the Treason be falsifying of the King's Money this is Treason but there can be no Overt-Act of that for that is an Overt-Act it self but there must be an Overt-Act to prove the Compassing and Imagining the Death of the King and in no other sort of Treason L. C. J. Holt. Levying of War that is an Overt-Act so is Adhering to the King's Enemies Now Compassing and Imagining the Death of the King is not an Overt-Act in it self but is a secret imagination in the Mind and a purpose in the Heart but there must be external Acts to discover that imagination and purpose Mr. Phipps What is the meaning of the New Act then that there shall be no Evidence of any overt-Overt-Act but what is laid in the Indictment L. C. J. Holt. What Overt-Acts are there in Clipping and Coyning Mr. Phipps That is not within the New Act of Parliament L. C. J. Holt. That is most true the one is excepted the other is not comprehended but the Question is upon the Statute of 25. Edw. 3 d. to which the late Act doth referr Now proving the adherence to the King's Enemy is proving an overt-Overt-Act Suppose it be the killing of the Chancellor or Treasurer or Judge in the Execution of his Office what Overt-Acts will you have then Adhering to the King's Enemies is a Treason that consists in doing an Overt-Act Mr. Phipps Yes my Lord I take it that it is for the New Act by saying that no Evidence shall be admitted of any Overt-Act that is not expresly laid in the Indictment must be intended of such Treasons of which by Law Overt-Acts ought to be laid Now the killing the Chancellor or Treasurer or Judge in the Execution of his Office are not such Treasons of which it was necessary to lay any Overt-Acts in the Indictment and so not within the meaning of this New Law But Levying War and Adhering to the King's Enemies which are the Treasons in this Indictment must by the express purview of the 25 th of Edw. 3. be proved by Overt-Acts which are to be alledged in the Indictment Mr. Sol. Gen. The New Act does not alter the Law in this particular what was Law before is Law now it leaves the Overt-Acts as they were before and it says not that an Overt-Act need to be exprest where it was not needful before Now if a Man be Indicted for Compassing the Death of a private Person there ought to be some Overt-Act to prove his Design but if there be an Indictment for Murther there needs no other Overt-Act to prove it but the Murther it self L. C. J. Holt. But the force of the Objection lies in this viz. To say a Man Levyed War or Adhered to the King's Enemies is no good Indictment but it is necessary to alledge in what manner he Levyed VVar or Adhered to the King's Enemies as that he appear'd in such a war-like manner or did adhere to and assist the King's Enemies by joyning Forces with them or otherwise assisting them or Confederating with them that must be specified But if you Indict a Man generally for adhering to the King's Enemies and not say how and in what manner he did adhere to them that is not a good Indictment therefore if you particularize what Enemies and how and in what manner he adher'd to them no Evidence can be given of any other kind of adherence but that which is so specified in the Indictment Mr. Sol. Gen. Then we must put all our Evidence into the Indictment Mr. Phipps So you must as to the Overt-Acts Mr. Sol. Gen. That will be the same thing as to put in all our Evidence if we must give Evidence of no Overt-Act but what is exprest in the Indictment But I do not take it that the Act requires all Overt-Acts to be put in the Indictment Mr. Phipps The Act says so Suppose you had left out the Overt-Act would the Indictment have been good Mr. Sol. Gen. We did not intend to put in all the Over-Acts but only what related to that part of the Treason Mr. Phipps The Treason must be proved by Overt-Acts and the Overt-Acts that prove the Treason must be mention'd in the Indictment Mr. Sol. Gen. What the Overt-Acts of the Treasons before-mentioned as Counterfeiting the King's Money and the like are all to be mentioned L. C. J. Holt. Consider if you can make that a good Indictment to say that the Prisoner adhered to the King's Enemies without mentioning any Overt-Acts to manifest such an adherence then your Answer to Mr. Phipps is full but if it be not a good Indictment without alledging particular Acts of adherence then it necessarily follows that if Particulars are alledged and you do not prove them as is alledged you have failed in the Indictment and so his Objection will lie hard upon you Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord we framed our Indictment according to the Letter of the Statute L. C. J. Holt. In compassing the death of the King you must shew how that is manifested by the Overt-Acts Mr. Sol. Gen. But compassing and imagining must be discovered by some Overt-acts L. C. J. Treby This is a doubt I have often thought of I thought it most natural that the Word Overt-act should relate to

to the King's Enemies but says not against the King Now every body knows that the French King is in War not only with England but Holland and Spain and the Emperour But if a Man joyn with the French against any of them he adheres to the King's Enemies and yet it cannot be said to be against the King therefore they ought to have laid it that he did adhere to the King's Enemies contra Dominum Regem it must be aiding and comforting them against the King that makes the Treason L. C. J. Holt. It does say so Mr. Phipps No my Lord it only says that Captain Vaughan did adhere to the King's Enemies and does not say it was against the King and if that be Treason is what we desire to know L. C. J. Holt. If he adhere to the King's Enemies it must be against the King though he assist them only against the King's Allies for thereby the King's Enemies may be more encouraged and enabled to do Mischief or Damage to the King Suppose you assist the French King against the King of Spain that is now in Allyance and League with the King of England and the French in actual Enmity that is to adhere to the King's Enemies against the King Mr. Phipps Would that be Treason my Lord L. C. J. Holt Yes certainly though that is not a point in this Case and so not necessary to be determined now for the Act of Parliament of 25 of E. 3 defines Treason in adhering to the King's Enemies and expresses the overt-Overt-Act in giving them aid or comfort it is sufficient to alledge the Treason in the Words of the Statute adhering to the King's Enemies An overt-Overt-Act alledged shews it to be against the King and in pursuance of that adherence he did so and so he was a Captain and Soldier in the Ship did join with the King's Enemies c. with a design to destroy the King's and his Subjects Ships surely that is most manifest an adherence to the King's Enemies against the King Mr. Phipps The Overt-Act if it were alledged sufficiently would not help it for if there can be an adhering to the King's Enemies that is not Treason they ought to alledge such adhering as is Treason and if the Treason it self is not well alledged the Overt-Act will not help it L. C. J. Holt. There is an Overt-Act to shew it to be against the King It is said all along he being in this Vessel Clancarty cum diversis Subditis Mr. Phipps But then that Overt-Act is not well alledged for 't is said only he went a cruizing whereas they ought to have alledged that he did commit some Acts of Hostility and attempted to take some of the King's Ships for cruizing alone cannot be an Overt-Act for he might be cruizing to secure the French Merchant Ships from being taken or for many other purposes which will not be an Over-Act of Treason L. C. J. Holt. I beg your Pardon Suppose the French King with Forces should come to Dunkirk with a design to invade England if any one should send him Victuals or give him Intelligence or by any other way contribute to their Assistance it would be High-Treason in adhering to the King's Enemies Mr. Phipps If the French King had designed an Invasion upon England and Captain Vaughan had assisted in his Vessel in forwarding the Invasion it would have been Treason but here is nothing mentioned but cruizing L. C. J. Holt. Cruizing about the Coast of England with a design to destroy the King's Ship Mr. Phipps That design ought to be made appear by some Act of Hostility for in the Case of Burton and Bradshaw and others which my Lord Coke cites the agreeing to rise and pull down inclo●●res and meeting and providing Arms for that purpose is agreed not to be levying of War and they were indicted for Conspiring to levy War upon the Statute of Queen Eliz. And in this Case here being only a Conspiring and nothing attempted it can be no more Treason than it was in that Case L. C. J. Holt. When Men form themselves into a Body and march Rank and File with Weapons offensive and defensive this is levying of War with open Force if the design be Publick Do you think when a Ship is armed with Guns c. doth appear on the Coast watching an opportunity to burn the King's Ships in the Harbour and their design be known and one goes to them and aids and assists them That this is not an adhering to the King's Enemies Here are two Indictments one for levying War and the other for adhering to the King's Enemies but the adhering to the King's Enemies is prinncipally insisted on and there must be an actual War proved upon the Person Indicted in the one yet need not be proved in the other Case Mr. Phipps The same certainly is necessary in one as well as the other for barely adhering to the King's Enemies is not Treason but there must be an actual Aiding and Comforting them and a meer intention to assist the King's Enemies is not an adherence within the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. L. C. J. Holt. If there be not High-Treason in the Act alledged that is if it do not make out an adherence to the King's Enemies than your Objection would hold good Mr. Phipps The going to cruize my Lord does not make out an adherence to the King's Enemies for his cruizing may be for other purposes as well as to take the King's Ships and your Lordship will intend the best in favour of Life Mr. Whitaker To burn the King's Ships L. C. J. Treby The Indictment is laid for Adhering to and Comforting and Aiding the King's Enemies You would take that to be capable to be construed adhereing to the King's Enemies in other respects but I take it to be a reasonable Construction of the Indictment to be adhering to the King's Enemies in their Enmity What is the Duty of every Subject It is to sight with and subdue and weaken the King's Enemies And contrary to this if he Confederate with and Strengthen the King's Enemies he expresly contradicts this Duty of his Allegiance and is Guilty of this Treason of adhering to them But then you say here is no aiding unless there were something done some Act of Hostility Now here is going a Board with an intention to do such Acts And is not that Comforting and Aiding Certainly it is Is not the French King comforted and aided when he has got so many English Subjects to go a cruizing upon our Ships Suppose they Man his whole Fleet or a considerable part of it Is not that aiding If they go and enter themselves into a Regiment List themselves and March though they do not come to a Battel this is helping and encouraging such things give the Enemy Heart and Courage to go on with the War or else it may be the French King would come to good Terms of Peace It is certainly Aiding and Comforting of

THE TRYAL AND Condemnation OF Capt. Thomas Uaughan FOR High Treason In Adhering to the FRENCH-KING And for Endeavouring the Destruction of His Majesty's Ships in the NORE Who upon full Evidence was found Guilty at the Sessions-House in the Old-Baily on the 6 th of Novemb. 1696. With all the Learned Arguments of the King 's and Prisoners Council both of the Civil and Common Law upon the New Act of Parliament for Regulating Tryals in Cases of High Treason Perused by Sir Charles Hedges Judge of the High Court of Admiralty the Lord Chief Justice Holt the Lord Chief Justice Treby and the Council Present at the TRYAL To which is Added Captain Vaughan's Commission at Large which he had from the French-King As also an Account of the TRYAL of John Murphey for HIGH TREASON LONDON Printed for John Everingham at the Star near the West-end of St. Paul's 1697. Die Sabbati tricesimo primo Octobris Annoque Regni Regis Willielmi Octavo Annoque Domini 1696. The Court being sate at which were present Sir Charles Hedges Judge of the High Court of Admiralty the Lord Chief Justice Holt the Lord Chief Justice Treby the Lord Chief Baron Ward Mr. Justice Turton and others of his Majesties Commissioners The Court proceeded on this manner Cl. of Arr. MAKE Proclamation Cryer O Yes O yes O yes All manner of Persons that have any thing more to do c. and were Adjourn'd to this Hour draw near and give your Attendance God save the King Then the Grand Jury were call'd over and the Appearances mark'd And Witnesses being Sworn in Court to give Evidence to them against Thomas Vaughan they withdrew to hear the fame Then the Keeper of Newgate was ordered to bring his Prisoner Thomas Vaughan to the Bar. Which he did Cl. of Arr. Tho. Vaughan hold up thy Hand Which he did Thou standest Indicted c. How sayest thou Tho. Vaughan Art thou Guilty of the High Treason whereof thou standest Indicted or Not Guilty T. Vaughan Not Guilty Cl. of Arr. Culprit How wilt thou be Try'd T. Vaughan By God and this Country Cl. of Arr. God send thee a good Deliverance And then the Court proceeded to the Tryal of the Pyrates and gave notice to Mr. Vaughan to prepare for his Tryal on Friday next the 6th of November 1696. Die Veneris sexto Novembris Annoque Regni Regis Willielmi Octavo Annoque Domini 1696. Cl. of Arr. CRYER make Proclamation Cryer O yes O yes O yes All manner of Persons that have any thing more to do at this Sessions of Oyer and Terminer Adjourn'd over to this Day draw near and give your Attendance And you Sheriffs of the City of London return the Precepts to you directed upon Pain and Peril which will fall thereupon Then the Under Sheriff return'd the Precepts Cl. of Arr. Make Proclamation Cryer O yes You good Men of the City of London Summon'd to appear here this Day to try between our Sovereign Lord the King and the Prisoner at the Bar Answer to your Names as you shall be called every one at the first Call and save your Issues The whole Pannel was call'd over and the Appearances of those that answered Recorded and the Defaulters were again call'd over Mr. Phipps Will your Lordship please to order that two Men may be brought from the Marshalsea in behalf of the Prisoner L. C. J. Holt. You shall have an Order Then the Court went on the Tryal of the Six Pyrates and after the Tryal was over Tho. Vaughan was call'd to the Barr. T. Vaughan My Lord my Irons are very uneasie to me I desire they may be taken off L. C. J. Holt. Ay ay take them off Mr. Phipps If your Lordship please we have some doubts as to the Indictment L. C. J. Holt. If you have any Exceptions you ought to have made them before the Prisoner pleaded to it Mr. Phipps I thought you had allow'd it my Lord in former Cases L. C. J. Holt. No we did not allow it as of Right due to the Prisoner the Exceptions should have been made before the Plea You were indulg'd in being heard at first in the Cases of Rookwood Cranburne and Lowick but it was not the intent of the Act to alter the Method of the Proceeding and so upon consideration hath it been determin'd The Prisoner hath time given by the Act to make any exception to the Indictment before he pleaded but you may move what you will afterwards in Arrest of Judgment if it be material Cl. of Arr. Thomas Vaughan Those Men that you shall hear called and Personally appear are to pass between our Sovereign Lord the King and you upon Tryal of your Life and Death if therefore you will Challenge them or any of them your time is to speak unto them as they come to the Book to be Sworn before they be Sworn Mr. Phipps There was one Man here that desir'd to be excus'd because he was on the Grand Jury therefore it seems there are some return'd upon this Jury that were on the Grand Jury which I think ought not to be L. C. J Holt. Challenge them then Mr. Phipps We do not know the Men. Then the Pannel was call'd over and a great many Challenges made and the Twelve Men that were Sworn were these Fd. Leeds Caleb Hook Nath. Green Joceline Roberts Hen. Sherbrook Tho. Parker Jo. Sherbrook Peter Gray Tho. Emms. Roger Poston Peter Parker Woolley Cl. of Arr. Cryer make Proclamation Cryer O Yes If any one can inform my Lords the King's Justices the King's Serjeant the King's Attorney General the King's Advocate in his High Court of Admiralty before this Inquest be taken of the High Treason whereof Thomas Vaughan the Prisoner at the Barr stands Indicted let them come forth and they shall be heard for now the Prisoner at the Bar stands upon his Deliverance and all others that are bound by Recognizance to give Evidence against the Prisoner at the Bar let them come forth and give their Evidence or else they forfeit their Recognizance Cl. of Arr. Tho. Vaughan hold up thy Hand Which he did You that are Sworn look upon the Prisoner and hearken to his Cause He stands Indicted by the Name of Thomas Vaughan Whereas That before and until the 8th day of July in the 7th Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King William the Third there was open War between our said Lord the King and Lewis the French King And that the said War continued on the said 8th Day of July in the 7th Year aforesaid and doth still continue And that for all the time aforesaid the said Lewisthe French King and his Subjects were and at present are Enemies of our said Lord the King that now is And that at the time of the said War and before the said 8th day of July in the 7th Year aforesaid the said Lewis the French King set out amongst others a certain small Ship of Warr called the Loyal Clencarty