CHAPTER IX (7)

“And when we were brought before thee, and stood upon our legal issue, and no accuser or accusation came in against us, as to what we had been wrongfully imprisoned, and in prison detained for nine weeks, shouldst not thou have caused us to be acquitted by proclamation? Saith not the law so? Oughtest thou not to have examined the cause of our commitment? And there not appearing a lawful cause, oughtest thou not to have discharged us? Is it not the substance of thy office and duty, to do justice according to the law and custom of England? Is not this the end of the administration of the law? of the general assizes? of the jail delivery? of the judges going the circuits? Hast not thou by doing otherwise, acted contrary to all these, and to Magna Charta? which, cap. 29, saith, ‘We shall sell to no man, we shall deny or defer to no man, either justice or right.’ Hast thou not both deferred and denied to us, who had been so long oppressed, this justice and right? And when of thee justice we demanded, saidst thou not, ‘If we would be uncovered, thou wouldst hear us, and do us justice?’—‘We shall sell to no man, we shall deny or defer to no man, either justice or right,’ saith Magna Charta, as aforesaid. Again, ‘We have commanded all our justices, that they shall henceforth do even law, and execution of right to all our subjects, rich and poor, without having regard to any man’s person; and without letting to do right for any letters or commandments, which may come to them from us, or from any other, or by any other cause, &c., upon pain to be at our will, body, lands, and goods, to do therewith as shall please us, in case they do contrary,’ saith Stat. 20. Edw. III. cap. 1. Again, ‘Ye shall swear that ye shall do even law and execution of right to all, rich and poor, without having regard to any person; and that ye deny to no man common right by the king’s letters, or other man’s, nor for any other cause. And in case any letter come to you contrary to the law, that ye do nothing by such letter, but certify the king thereof, and go forth to do the law notwithstanding those letters. And in case ye be from henceforth found in default in any of the points aforesaid, ye shall be at the king’s will of body, lands, and goods, thereof to be done, as shall please him,’ saith the oath, appointed by the statute to be taken by all the judges, Stat. 18. Edw. III. But none of these nor any other law hath such an expression or condition in it as this, viz., ‘provided he will put off his hat to you, or be uncovered:’ nor doth the law of God so say, or that your persons be respected; but the contrary. From whence then comes this new law, ‘If ye will be uncovered I will hear you, and do you justice?’ This hearing complaint of wrong, this doing of justice, upon condition, wherein lies the equity and reasonableness of that? When were these fundamental laws repealed, which were the issue of much blood and war; to uphold which cost the miseries and blood of the late wars, that we shall now be heard, as to right, and have justice done us but upon condition, and that too such a trifling one as putting off the hat? Doth thy saying so, who art commanded, as aforesaid, repeal them, and make them of none effect, and all the miseries undergone, and the blood shed for them of old, and of late years? Whether it be so or not indeed, and to the nation, thou hast made it so to us, to whom thou hast denied the justice of our liberty (when we were before thee, and no accuser, nor accusation came in against us,) and the hearing of the wrong done to us, who are innocent, and the doing us right. And bonds hast thou cast, and continued upon us until this day, under an unreasonable and cruel jailer, for not performing that thy condition, for conscience-sake. But thinkest thou that this thine own conditional justice maketh void the law? or can it do so? or absolve thee before God or man? or acquit the penalty mentioned in the laws aforesaid? unto which hast thou not consented and sworn? viz., ‘And in case ye be from henceforth found in default, in any of the points aforesaid, ye shall be at the king’s will, of body, lands, and goods, thereof to be done as shall please him.’ And is not thy saying, ‘If ye will be uncovered (or put off your hats), I will hear you, and do you justice;’ and because we could not put them off for conscience-sake, thy denying us justice, and refusing to hear us, as to wrong, who had so unjustly suffered, a default in thee against the very essence of those laws, yea, and overthrow thereof, for which thing’s sake (being of the highest importance to the well-being of men), so just, so equal, so necessary, those laws were made, and all the provisions therein? To make a default in any one point of which provisions, exposeth to the said penalty. Dost not thou by this time see where thou art? Art thou sure thou shalt never be made to understand and feel the justice thereof? Is thy seat so high, and thy fence so great, and art thou so certain of thy time and station, above all that have gone before thee, whom justice hath cut down, and given them their due, that thou shalt never be called to an account, nor with its long and sure stroke be reached? Deceive not thyself, God is come nearer to judgment than the workers of iniquity in this age imagine; who persecute and evil-entreat those that witness the just and Holy One, for their witnessing of him who is come to reign for ever and ever. Saith he not, he will be a swift witness against the false swearers? God is not mocked.

“Surely, friend, that must needs be a very great offence which deprives a man of justice, of being heard as to wrong, of the benefit of the law, and of those laws afore-rehearsed; to defend the justice and equity of which a man hath adventured his blood and all that is dear to him. But to stand covered (or with the hat on), in conscience to the command of the Lord, is made by thee such an offence (which is none in law), and rendered upon us (who are innocent, serving the living God), effectual to deny us justice, though the laws of God, and of man, and the oath, equity and reason, say the contrary, and on it pronounce such a penalty. ‘If ye will be uncovered (uncovered, saidst thou), I will hear you, and do you justice;’ but justice we had not, nor were we heard, because Jesus Christ, who is the higher power, the lawgiver of his people, in our consciences commanded us not to respect persons, whom we choose to obey rather than man. And for our obedience unto him hast thou cast us into prison, and continued us there till this very day, having showed us neither law for it, nor Scripture, nor instances of either, nor example of heathens nor others.

“Friend, come down to that of God, that is just in thee, and consider, was ever such a thing as this heard of in this nation? what is become of seriousness, of true judgment, and of righteousness? An unrighteous man, standing before thee with his hat off, shall be heard; but an innocent man, appearing with his hat on in conscience to the Lord, shall neither be heard nor have justice. Is not this regarding of persons contrary to the laws aforesaid, and the oath and the law of God? Understand and judge: Did we not own authority and government oftentimes before the court? Didst not thou say in the court, thou wast glad to hear so much from us of our owning magistracy? Pleaded we not to the indictment, though it was such a new-found one as England never heard of before? Came we not when thou sent for us? Went we not when thou bade us go? And are we not still prisoners at thy command and at thy will? If the hat had been such an offence to thee, couldst not thou have caused it to be taken off, when thou heard us so often declare, we could not do it in conscience to the commands of the Lord, and that for that cause we forbore it, not in contempt of thee or of authority, nor in disrespect to thine, or any man’s person (for we said, we honoured all men in the Lord, and owned authority, which was a terror to evildoers, and a praise to them that do well; and our souls were subject to the higher powers for conscience-sake): as thou caused them to be taken off, and to be kept so, when thou called the jury to find us transgressors without a law?

“What ado hast thou made to take away the righteousness of the righteous from him, and to cause us to suffer further, whom thou knew to have been so long wrongfully in prison contrary to law? Is not liberty of conscience a natural right? Had there been a law in this case, and we bound up in our consciences that we could not have obeyed it, was not liberty of conscience there to take place? For where the law saith not against, there needs no plea of liberty of conscience; but the law have we not offended, yet in thy will hast thou caused, and dost thou yet cause us to suffer for our consciences, where the law requires no such thing; and yet for liberty of conscience hath all the blood been spilt, and the miseries of the late wars undergone, and (as the Protector saith,) this government undertakes to preserve it; and a natural right, he saith, it is; and he that would have it, he saith, ought to give it. And if it be a natural right, as is undeniable, then to attempt to force it, or to punish a man for not doing contrary to it, is to act against nature; which, as it is unreasonable, so it is the same as to offer violence to a man’s life. And what an offence that is in the law thou knowest; and how, by the common law of England, all acts, agreements, and laws, that are against nature, are mere nullities; and all the judges cannot make one case to be law that is against nature. But put the case, had our standing with our hats on been an offence in law, and we wilfully, and in contempt, and not out of conscience had stood so (which we deny as aforesaid), yet that is not a ground wherefore we should be denied justice, or be heard as to the wrong done to us. ‘If ye will not offend in one case, I will do you justice in another;’ this is not the language of the law, or of justice, which distributes to everyone right; justice to whom justice is due, punishment to whom punishment is due. A man who does wrong may also have wrong done to him; shall he not have right wherein he is wronged, unless he right him whom he hath wronged? The law saith not so; but the wrong-doer is to suffer, and the sufferer of wrong to be righted. Is not to do otherwise a denying, letting, or stopping of even law and execution of justice, and a bringing under the penalties aforesaid? Mind and consider.

“And shouldst thou have accused, when no witness appeared against us, as in the particulars of striking Peter Ceely, and dispersing books (as thou saidst) against magistracy and ministry, with which thou didst falsely accuse one of us? Saith not the law, ‘the judge ought not to be the accuser?’ much less a false accuser? And wast not thou such a one, in affirming, that he dispersed books against magistracy and ministry, when as the books were violently taken out of our chamber (as hath been said,) undispersed by him, or any of us? Nor didst thou make it appear in one particular, wherein those books thou didst so violently cause to be taken away, were against magistracy or ministry? or gave one instance, or reply, when he denied what thou charged therein, and spoke to thee to bring forth those books and make thy charge appear. Is not the sword of the magistrate of God to pass upon such evil-doing? And according to the administration of the law, ought not accusations to be by way of indictment, wherein the offence is to be charged, and the law expressed against which it is? Can there be an issue without an indictment? Or can an indictment be found before proof be made of the offence charged therein? And hast thou not herein acted contrary to the law and the administration thereof, and thy duty as a judge? What just cause of offence gave George Fox to thee, when, upon thy producing a paper concerning swearing, sent by him (as thou said) to the grand jury, and requiring him to say, whether it was his handwriting? he answered, ‘read it up before the country, and when he heard it read, if it were his, he would own it?’ Is it not equal, and according to law, that what a man is charged with before the country, should be read in the hearing of him and of the country? When a paper is delivered out of a man’s hand, alterations may be made in it to his prejudice, which, on a sudden looking over it, may not presently be discerned, but by hearing it read up, may be better understood, whether any such alterations have been made therein? Couldst thou in justice have expected or required him to do otherwise? Considering also, that he was not insensible how much he had suffered already, being innocent, and what endeavours were used to cause him further to suffer? Was not what he said, as aforesaid, a plain and single answer, and sufficient in the law? Though (as hath been demonstrated) thou didst act contrary to law, and to thy office, in being his accuser therein, and producing the paper against him. And his liberty it was, whether he would have made thee any answer at all, to what thou didst exhibit, or demand, out of the due course of law; for to the law answer is to be made, not to thy will. Wherefore then wast thou so filled with rage and fury at his reply? Calmly, and in the fear of the Lord, consider, wherefore didst thou revile him, particularly with the reproachful names of juggler and prevaricator? Wherein did he juggle? wherein did he prevaricate? Wherefore didst thou use such threatening language, and such menacings to him and us, saying, thou wouldst ferk us, with such like? Doth not the law forbid reviling, and rage, and fury, threatening, and menacing of prisoners? Soberly mind, is this to act like a judge or a man? Is not this transgression? Is not the sword of the magistrate of God to pass on this as evil-doing, which the righteous law condemns, and the higher power is against, which judgeth for God?