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.

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.

Table of contents

Title page

The Introduction.

§

A Declaration from the People of God, called Quakers, againſt all Plotters and Fighters, &c. Preſented to the King, 1660.

§

[Page]

[Page]

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.

LICENSED,

Octob. 19th. 1693.

Dan. Poplar.

Printed firſt Beyond-Sea, and now Reprinted in London, for Richard Baldwin in Warwick-lane. 1693.

The Introduction.

[Page]

[Page]

TO the end that all Impartial People may have a right underſtanding in the preſent Proſecution, I intend to give a ſhort Relation of the firſt riſe, and cauſe, and ground of this preſent Difference, and Perſecution.

In the Year 1689. by the good Providence of God George Keith was earneſtly invited to remove from his Plantation in Eaſt-Jerſey, to keep a School in Philadelphia, which he did; but kept an Uſher, and ſpent a great part of his time in Reading, Meditation, Viſiting Meetings, and anſwering the Conſcientious Doubts and Queſtions of many People; and there was a more than ordinary ſeeming Satisfaction in general among the People called Quakers, that they were ſo favoured with the aſſiſtance of George Keith. But alas! this great love was but ſhort-liv'd; and as in other Caſes one Extream begets the contrary, ſo in this; for their love and reſpects to him were never ſo great, but now the Envy and Hatred of many exceeds; and that upon the account of his Chriſtian Teſtimony. For it was but a little time that he had been amongſt us, and preached the true Faith of Chriſt, both without and within, but ſome began to be diſſatisfied, and whiſpered it about in private, which, when he came to underſtand, he laboured in much love and tenderneſs to undeceive and ſatisfie thoſe that he came to know were diſſatisfied; and ſome did receive good Satisfaction; but others caſt his Labours of Love behind their backs; and much whiſpering and back-biting there were in private againſt the Doctrine held forth by G. K. and ſome began to contradict his Teſtimony in publick Meetings; but yet this were born with, and no open Difference until one William Stockdale accuſed Geo. Keith of Preaching Two Chriſts, becauſe he held forth (as neceſſary to our Salvation) The Faith of Chriſt as he died for our Sins, roſe again for our Juſtification, and aſcended into Heaven, and is in Heaven in the true and intire glorified Nature of Man, our Mediator with the Father; and alſo, That Chriſt was ſpiritually preſent by his Light and Life, in all his Children. Whereupon he dealt with him, and endeavoured much to convince him, but not prevailing, G. K. laid it before a Meeting of [...] the Miniſtry, but they did nothing in the matter, but [...] [Page] and contradict G. K. in his Doctrine. Whereupon G. K. did again renew his complaint to them of the Miniſtry at the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia the 7th Month, 1691. deſiring to know their ſence and judgment, viz. Whether to preach Faith in Chriſt within us, and Faith in Chriſt without us, was to preach Two Chriſts, or One? and ſix Meeting were held in debate about this matter, and yet nothing done in it: So this paſt on, and ſome Months after Tho. Fitzwater openly in a Monthly Meeting accuſed G. Keith, That he denied the ſufficiency of the Light; which G. K. denied, but T. F. ſaid, he would prove it at the next Monthly Meeting; which being come, G. K. called on T. Fitzwater to prove his Charge, which he endeavoured to do, and brought W. Stockdale for his Evidence, but to no purpoſe, only W. Stockdale again renewed his Charge againſt G. K. in the open Meeting, to the admiration of many, to ſee his great Ignorance and Impudence; but ſeeing that T. F. was not like to prove his Charge againſt G. K. Thomas Lloyd, and ſome few others withdrew, yet the generality of the Meeting ſtayed, and after ſome time it growing dark, John Jennet, (a great ſtickler againſt G. K.) deſired that the Meeting might be adjourned till the next day, which was unanimouſly agreed unto, and alſo by Tho. Fitzwater; the next day all Parties appeared, and great and long Contention there was moſt part of that day betwixt George Keith and Tho. Lloyd, Arthur Cook, &c. G. K. affirming and arguing for the Neceſſity of the Faith of Chriſt crucified, &c. the others denying, and arguing, That the Light within was ſufficient without the Man Chriſt Jeſus, &c. but finding that the ſtream went againſt them, T. Lloyd, A. Cook, and ſome others withdrew, and the Meeting (conſiſting of at leaſt Sixty Monthly-Meeting Members) proceeded and gave Judgment againſt T. Fitzwater and W. Stockdale, the ſubſtance of which was, That they ſhould forbear preaching and praying in Meetings till they had condemned their Ignorance and Unbelief, &c. but at the next Quarterly Meeting, a Party withſtood the ſaid Judgments, and ſaid, That the Perſons being Miniſters, none but them of the Miniſtry were fit to judge; which many thought reliſht too much of Popery; yet notwithſtanding many ſhowed their diſlike thereto, Tho, Lloyd, Arthur Cook, Sam. Jenings, &c. denied the ſaid Meeting and Judgment; and then it was that T. Lloyd's Party changed their time and place of meeting againſt and contrary to the declared mind of their then Brethren, who gave their Reaſons why they conſented not to the changing the Time and Place of Meeting; but prevailed nothing with them, for the next firſt Day George Keith and Party met at the uſual time and place, and Tho. Lloyd and Party went to the Meeting-houſe at the Centre, which made the firſt Seperation. Now the Difference being thus far advanced, cauſed much [Page] diſcourſe and enquiry into the matter by all ſorts of People, and great flocking to Meetings there was, both in Town and Country, where G. K. came, and his Teſtimony had much reception in the Hearts of many; which being perceived by Tho. Lloyd and Party, the only Expedient they could deviſe, was to condemn G. K. Whereupon the 20th of the 4th Mon. 1692. Twenty Eight of them called Miniſters, met together at Philadelphia and without ever ſo much as acquainting G. K. publiſhed a Paper of Judgment againſt him, condemning him as a Perſon without the fear of God before his Eyes, &c. which done, Thomas Lloyd, Samuel Jenings, Arthur Cook, John Delavall, and others, made it their buſineſs to follow G. K. from Meeting to Meeting, violently oppoſing his Teſtimony, and ſometimes making uſe of their Magiſtratical Power to effect their Deſigns, which cauſed great Conteſts and Confuſions; and G. K. from time to time complaining of their Injuſtice, for condemning of him without all Hearing or Trial, upon a time in Chester-County Tho. Lloyd ſaid, George, if thou thinkeſt thy ſelf aggrieved by that Judgment, there is relief for thee; thou mayſt appeal to the Yearly Meeting, which is now approaching; which Advice G. K. followed, and made an Appeal to the ſaid Yearly Meeting, and propoſed twelve particular Heads to be conſidered, 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; [Page] 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 [Page] 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.—

[Page] Now foraſmuch as we, as well as others, have born, and ſtill do patiently endure the ſaid George Keith and his Adherents many perſonal Reflections againſt us, and their groſs Revilings of our Religious Society, yet we cannot without the Violation of our Truſt to the King and Governour, as alſo to the Inhabitants of this Government, paſs by or connive at ſuch part of the ſaid Pamphlet and Speeches, that have a tendency to Sedition and Diſturbance of the Peace, as alſo to the Subverſion of the preſent Government, or to the aſperſing the Magiſtracy thereof. Therefore for the undeceiving of all People, we have thought fit by this Publick Writing, not only to ſignifie that our Procedure againſt the Perſons now in the Sheriffs Custody, as well as what we intend againſt others concerned, in its proper place, reſpects only that part of the ſaid printed Sheet, which appears to have the tendency aforeſaid, and not any part relating to Differences in Religion. But alſo, theſe are to Caution ſuch who are well affected to the Security, Peace and Legal Administration of Juſtice in this place, that they give no Countenance to any Revilers and Contemners of Authority, Magiſtrates or Magiſtracy; as alſo, to warn all other perſons, that they forbear the future publiſhing and ſpreading of the ſaid Pamphlet, as they will anſwer the contrary at their Peril. Given under our Hands and County Seal, the Day, Year and Place aforeſaid.

Arthur Cook, Samuel Jenings, Samuel Richardſon, Humphrey Murrey, Robert Ewer, Anthony Morris.

Note, There being an Anſwer to this Proclamation publiſhed in Print by O. R. and T. B. I ſhall only in this place make the following Obſervations.

Firſt, They ſay, At a private Seſſions, &c. and then relate a Preamble of the Government being veſted in W. Penn, who had made T. Lloyd his Deputy, &c. Did they think to tell us News in this? Or did they think we had forgot Thomas Lloyd was Deputy-Governour? Surely methinks not the latter, ſince we have been ſo ſmartly remembred thereof by his Agent White, who (when they could not effect their late great Tax) [Here the Copy being blotted, it could not be read.] ſo that one would think that Paſſage might have been ſpared: Oh, but 'tis plain their end therein is to inſinuate, That Geo. Keith being legally and judicially brought before the Governour to anſwer to ſome heinous Crime and Miſdemeanour, and that a multitude of People were preſent to hear how he could anſwer for himſelf; (for they ſay, publickly reviled, &c.) yet this G. K. like a rude man, tho' he pretends to be a Minister, was ſo far from behaving himſelf before the Governour like a Chriſtian, that he fell a reviling him, and amongſt other ſcandalous Expreſſions, ſaid to him, Thou impudent Man, [Page] thou art not fit to be Governour, thy Name will ſtink. Certainly their drift was to poſſeſs their Readers with this Belief, as is clear and evident from their following ſuppoſition, or rather ſuggeſtion, where they ſay, He that uſeth ſuch Exorbitancy of Speech to the Governor, will eaſily dare to call the Members of Council and Magiſtrates Impudent Raſcals, as he hath lately called one in an open Aſſembly, who was conſtituted by the Governour to be a Magiſtrate. Which alſo is a baſe and wicked Inſinuation; for George Keith never ſpoke thoſe words to any of them as Magiſtrates or Officers in the Government, neither did he ever ſpeak to the preſent Governour all thoſe words together, as is inſinuated by the ſaid Paper, but on the contrary, what he ſpoke to Tho. Lloyd was in Monthly Meetings and Religious Controverſies; and T. Lloyd hath ſaid ſeveral times, That he would take no advantage by words ſpoke at ſuch times; but we find them practiſe the contrary; for on a certain time T. L. ſtood up, and affirmed, That G. K. was guilty of Contradiction; and being put to prove it, ſaid, That fifteen years ago in his printed Books he owned the Seed to be Chriſt. Whereupon G. K. ſaid, Thou impudent man, I do not deny it now, but own it as much as ever. But by all the diligent enquiry that I have made, I cannot find that G. K. ſaid, he was not fit to be Governour, [Here the Copy being blotted, it could not be read.] ſecond Chapter of the Laws of this Province, That all Officers and Perſons commiſſioned and employed in the Government, ſhall be ſuch as profeſs and declare, They believe in Jeſus Chriſt to be the Son of God the Saviour of the World, &c. [Here agian the Copy was blotted.]

And as to G. K. ſaying, That his Name would ſtink, T. L. knows in his Conſcience, that it was ſpoke to him only as he was one of the 28 unjuſt Judges for giving of falſe Judgment againſt him, and that without all hearing or trial. And as touching the Perſon whom they ſay he call'd Impudent Raſcal, it was one whom he knew not to be conſtituted, as they ſay he was; but his Brother being ſo conſtituted, and refuſing to ſerve, the People of the Town choſe him in his Brothers ſtead to ſerve as a Magiſtrate within that Town Bounds, which was altogether unknown to G. K. and therefore Paul's Excuſe, Acts 23. 4. I wiſt not Brethren that it was the High Priest, might be an Apology for him. But let us conſider the word Raſcal; according to Goldman's Dictionary, a Raſcal is a Brawler and Empty Talker, and one that deceiveth his Neighbour by falſe and weak Arguments; and Cole in his Latine and Engliſh Dictionary ſaith, the Latin word Nebulo comet of the Hebrew word [...] Nabal, and any ordinary School-boy that hath but learned his Accidence, knoweth that Nebulo ſignifieth Raſcal, Villain, Knave or Rogue; and in Scripture we find the ſame word, ſee [Page] Iſa. 32. 6. [...] For the Raſcal will ſpeak Villany; and Jer. 29. 23. [...] They commit Villany; and as Gouldman in his Dictionary ſaith, a Villain and a Raſcal is of the ſame Signification. But this Perſon whom they mention went about to deceive his Neighbours by falſe and weak Arguments, viz. That he did not expect to be ſaved by that which died at Jeruſalem; And that God was not preſent in all his Creatures; which Unchriſtian and Atheiſtical Principles G. K. being about to refute in a Monthly Meeting, and holding forth, That God was preſent in all his Creatures, this Perſon ſtood up, and with much oppoſition queſtioning, as Paul's Fool did about the Reſurrection, ſaid in a rude and boyſterous manner, What, George, doth the Spirit of God ſpeak in Trees? Whereupon G. K. ſaid (being greatly provoked by his interrupting of him, and Unchriſtian Behaviour and Diſcourſe) Thou Impudent Raſcal, who ſaith the Spirit of God ſpeaks in Trees, as it doth in Men? But to make the thing ſeem odious, the Publiſhers of this Publick Writing ſay, It was in a Publick Aſſembly; as if it had been in ſome Court, or as if he had been brought before this Magiſtrate, (as they call him) upon ſome Examination, and there, inſtead of behaving himſelf ſoberly, he preſently calls him Impudent Raſcal; this they would falſly inſinuate, as alſo, That before long he'll go into the Council-Room, and into the Courts, and there Revile the Counſellours and Magistrates, and call them impudent Raſcals. Oh, the horrid Impudency of thoſe Men! Let Shame cover their Faces, if they have any in them!

And whereas they further ſay, That G. K. with ſeveral of his Adherents with an unuſual Inſolency having Traduced the Industry, Care and Vigilancy of ſome Magiſtrates here, in their late Proceedings againſt ſome Privateers, &c. and hath thereby alſo defamed and arraigned the Determinations of the Provincial Judicatory, &c. As if G. K. and ſeveral others had printed a Book, and defamed and arraigned them, and denyed their Power of Magiſtracy; whereas all that impartially read the ſaid printed Appeal, will find that G. K. did not defame nor arraign them, but they having given a Commiſſion, and hired Men to fight (which was diametrically oppoſite and contrary to the often declared and known Principle of the People called Quakers, againſt all uſe of the Carnal Sword) it was propoſed, amongſt other things, to be conſidered by all faithful Friends at the Yearly Meeting, whether theſe Men ought not to be condemned and diſowned as Quakers, but it was never intended to deny them to be Magiſtrates; for as Magiſtrates they were obliged to do what they did and it was commendable in them who did ſo commiſſionate and hire Men to fight, and alſo ſearch the Town for Arms, &c. But the great Queſtion is, Whether they did not [Page] tranſgreſs as they profeſſed to be Miniſters and Quakers? If nay, but that the Care and Vigilancy of theſe Magiſtrates here at Philadelphia, called Quakers, is worthy of Commendation, as they intimate, for ſaving of a Sloop by Force of Arms, how much more ſhall their Care and Vigilancy be worthy of Commendation, to raiſe a Militia to ſave and defend the whole Country, if any occaſion ſhould offer? But how ſteadfaſt this doth manifeſt them to be the Quakers Principle of Refuſing in all caſes to fight, and that for Conſcience ſake, I ſhall leave all to judge. I always thought that which was a matter of Conſcience to the Quakers in Old England, Barbadoes, and other places, had been a matter of Conſcience to them under a Government of their own; but I find the contrary in theſe Magiſtrates and many others joyned with them here. But that which ſeems the moſt ſtrange to ſeveral obſerving Perſons in this place, is, that ſeveral called Quakers in Maryland, Barbadoes, and other places, that pretend its a matter of Conſcience to them not to bear Arms, yet now will own theſe here in that Practice, unleſs they now think to leave that Article out of their Creed.

In the next place, whereas Peter Boſs being offended with the Judgment of the 28. writ a Letter to Samuel Jenings, (being then in Church-Fellowſhip with him) ſhowing his Diſlike thereof, and telling S. J. of ſome of the Scandals he lay under; for this they iſſued forth a Warrant againſt him, and put him into Priſon, without ever dealing with him in a Church Method, and at the next Court preſented him for the ſame, to which Court he was bound to anſwer, where he gave his Attendance, with his Witneſſes ready, but not brought to Trial, although much deſired by him and his Wife, who urged the Injuries of the delay thereof.

At the ſame Court William Bradford and John M“Comb appeared, and deſired they might come to a Trial, it being greatly to their Prejudice to be kept Priſoners; and ſaying, it is provided by Magna Charta, That Juſtice ſhall not be delayed to any, and we being free born Engliſh Subjects claim this as our Priviledge, and hope this Court will not deny it us, becauſe not only our Perſons are reſtrained, but William Bradford's Working Tools are detained from him, with which he ſhould work to maintain his Family.

Juſtice Cook ſaid, What Bold, Impudent and Confident Fellows are theſe to ſtand thus confidently before the Court?

J. M“Comb.

You may cauſe our Hats to be taken off, if you pleaſe.

W. Bradford.

We are here only to deſire that which is the right of every free-born Engliſh Subject which is ſpeedy Juſtice; and its ſtrange that that ſhould be accounted Impudence, and we Impudent Fellows therefore, when we have ſpoke nothing but words of Truth and Soberneſs, [Page] in requeſting that which is our Right, and which we want, it being greatly to our prejudice to be detained Priſoners.

J. Cook,

(ſpeaking to W. Bradford) ſaid, If thou hadſt been in England, thou wouldſt have had thy Back ſlaſht before now.

W. B.

I do not know wherein I have broke any Law, ſo as to incur any ſuch Puniſhment.

Juſtice Jenings.

Thou art very ignorant in the Law ſurely; does not thou know that there's a Law, that every Printer ſhall put his Name to the Book he prints, or the Preſs is forfeited.

W. B.

I know there was ſuch a Law, and I know when it expired.

J. Cook.

But it is revived again, and is in force, and without any regard to the matter of the Book, provides, That the Printer ſhall put his Name to all that he prints, which thou haſt not done.

But waving from that, the Priſoners ſtill preſs'd for a Tryal. To which Juſtice Cook ſaid, A Trial you ſhall have, and that to your Coſt too, it may be. And Juſtice Jenings ſaid, A Tryal you ſhall have, but for ſome Reaſon known to us, the Court defers it to the next Seſſions; and that is the Anſwer we give, and no other you ſhall have.

All this time John White Sheriff, pleaded vehemently againſt the Priſoners, greatly aggravating their (pretended) Crimes; and when complained of, that the Sheriff, (through whoſe hands goes all Fines and Forfeitures) ſhould be ſo bitter an Attorney againſt the Priſoners, he cloaked it under the Viſor of a Prothonitor.

So this Court paſſed over, and the ſaid Perſons not brought to Tryal, but yet not wholly barren of Action, nor void of Injuſtice; for tho' they had not only got W. Bradford into Priſon, and taken his Letters from him, (with which he ſhould work) and his Paper and Books out of his Shop, but alſo they had got the Body of John M”Comb, with which one would think they might have been ſatisfied, had any thing of tenderneſs remained in them, the time they committed him being when his Wife was newly brought to Bed, and who lay very weak in a ſtrong Fever, and ſeveral thought ſhe would not live; and tho' he acquainted them of her Condition, and how deſtitute his Family was, requeſting them to let him go home, and he would promiſe to be ready at any time they ſhould call for him; This they would not grant, but to Priſon he was ſent; (tho' to give every one their due, White the Goaler was ſo kind as to let him go home an hour or two ſometimes in an Evening after it was dark) yet our hot-ſpur'd Juſtices being not ſatisfied with having his Body, would do what in them lay, to ruin him and his Family; for whereas he kept an Ordinary, and for his Licenſe ſo to do had paid Governor Lloyd Twelve Pieces of Eight, which is Three Pound Twelve Shillings for the laſt twelve Months [Page] before, [No inconſiderable Price for a Licenſe] yet they now proceeded to ſuppreſs his keeping of an Ordinary, though he had fulfilled, and in no reſpect tranſgreſſed the Conditions of his Licenſe, as will appear by a Copy of the ſaid Licenſe, which here follows verbatim, viz.

§

By the Lieutenant Governor,

Philadelphia Sſ.

JOhn M”Comb requeſting Licenſe from me to keep an Ordinary in Philadelphia, and he being recommended to me as a fit and qualified Perſon for ſuch an Imploy; I do hereby admit and Licenſe the ſaid John M”Comb to keep an Ordinary, or a Houſe of Publick Entertainment in the Houſe he now lives in, he taking care, according to Law, to keep good Orders and ſufficient Conveniences for Man and Horſe. This Licenſe to continue for a Twelve Month enſuing the date hereof. Given at Philadelphia the Tenth day of the 4th Month, 1692.

Thomas Lloyd.

Now let us hear what great and heinous Crimes are alledged for the ſuppreſſing John M”Comb in his Imploy: If he had trangreſt any Law, or broke any Conditions in his Licenſe, they ought to have call'd him before them, and convicted him thereof, but without ever ſo doing, they ſuppreſs his ſo-dear-bought-Licenſe, as follows.

§

At a Court held at Philadelphia the 4th of October, 1692.

THE Court taking notice of John M”Comb's Contemptuous Behaviour, as alſo his ſpreading a Seditious Paper in his Houſe, to the Diſturbance of the Peace, do therefore ſuppreſs his Licenſe, and do Command him not to preſume to keep an Ordinary after the Tenth Day of the next Month, being November, on pain of incurring the Penalty of the Forfeiture of Five Pound for keeping an Ordinary without a Licenſe: And that notice be given him of this Order.

A true Copy by John White, Deputy-Clerk.

Note, That the Contemptuous Behaviour they mention, was his and W. B's requeſting of the Court to come to a Trial, as before is related; and the Seditious Paper they mention, was the printed Appeal, which he having bought two of them, and ſome Perſons happening to ſee them, got them from him again, becauſe it ſuited not with their convenience to go ſo far as the Printer's; and J. M. did not buy or receive them to ſell again, but his diſpoſing of thoſe two Papers was accidental, and for which he was impriſoned, and to come to Trial for it, but this ſatisfied not theſe cruel Men, for they make that a main matter whereby to ſuppreſs his Licenſe [No leſs than Two Puniſhments for One Offence] and yet though they were ſo zealouſly warm to proſecute and puniſh theſe Offenders, and which (they ſaid) they could not avoid, without [Page] violating their Truſt to the King and Governor; yet without any Violation of their ſaid Truſt they could paſs by ſeveral others that were much more concerned in ſpreading thoſe Papers than J. M. Oh! the Partiality, Deceit and Cruelty of theſe Men!

This Seſſions paſſeth over, and the ſaid Perſons continued under Dureſs till the next Seſſions, which being come, let us hear the Proceedings, which here follows, viz.

§

At a Court of Quarter-Seſſions held by the King and Queens Authority, and in the Proprietary's Name at Philadelphia the 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 days of the 10th Month, 1692.

There being preſent on the Bench, as Juſtices, Samuel Jenings, Arthur Cook, Samuel Richardſon, Robert Ewer, Henry Waddy, Griffith Owen, Quakers.

John Holmes,

Robert Turner, 10th and 12th days.

Lacy Cock, and Anthony Morris on the 12th day.

The Names of the Perſons, that preſented Peter Boſs, George Keith, Thomas Budd, William Bradford, &c.

† Alexander Beardſly, † William Carter, † John Jennit, Will. Oxly, Emanuel Dauſon, William Allaway, Lewis Thomas, Reece Peters, John Comes, Chriſtopher Pennock, Mouns Jones, Thomas Griffith, † William Harwood, William Hearn, William Finley, Will. Lawrance.

Obſerv. That moſt, if not all of theſe Men are known to be highly prejudiced againſt G. K. T. B. and thoſe that ioyn with them, becauſe of their zealous Teſtimony to Chriſt without, as well as Chriſt within. And John White, Sheriff, is known to be greatly prejudiced againſt them, who packt this Jury on purpoſe to preſent and defame G. K. and the reſt, as was in ſome degree well obſerved by Juſtice Holme, when he ſaw they brought in new Preſentments againſt G. K. in matters concerning their Religious Differences, for which he was ſharply reproved and menaced on the Bench by Samuel Jenings and Arthur Cook, the laſt ſaying, They were the Fathers of the Country, and they had done well, and like honeſt men, in bringing in thoſe Preſentments and they gave them Thanks for their care and pains; but (ſaid Juſtice Cook) if they muſt be found fault with, who will ſerve upon a Grand Jury? and ſo went on highly reſenting thoſe few words Juſtice Holme had ſpoke; Arthur Cook not minding that himſelf had ſaid ſome little time before, to a Grand Jury of more ſubſtantial Men than theſe (upon their bringing in a Preſentment that did not pleaſe him) you are a Company [Page] of Infamous Men: and for which he was preſented by the next Grand Jury, but 'tis ſuppoſed that Preſentment was buried in the Clerks Study of Oblivion, for we have never heard more of it.

The 9th day of the 10th Month, Peter Boſs call'd into Court, and ſet to the Bar.

Cryer,

O yes, Silence is commanded, upon pain of Impriſonment.

The Indictment read,

Philadelphia, the 5th of the 8th Month, 1692. We of the Grand Jury for the Body of this County, do preſent Peter Boſs, for that he hath accuſed Samuel Jenings, being a i. e. Maſter-like, as ſaith the Engliſh Expoſitor. Magiſterial Officer, with being an unjuſt Judge, and of his being Drunk, and of laying a Wager with John Slocum, and for many other ſcandalous, reproachful and malicious Expreſſions, to the Defaming of him, and tending to the Diſturbance of the Peace, contrary to the Law in that caſe made and provided.

Clerk,

Peter Boſs, What ſaiſt thou, art thou guilty or not guilty?

Peter Boſs,

Not guilty in manner and form as there preſented.

Clerk,

By whom wilt thou be tryed?

Peter Boſs,

By God and the Country.

Clerk,

Call over the Jury.

Humphery Waterman, Joſeph Kirle, † Thomas Wharton, Tho. Marle, Richard Sutton, Samuel Hoult, † James Fox, Abraham Hardiman, Nicholas Rideout, Thomas Morris, Richard Walter, † John Whitpane.

Clerk,

Doſt thou object any thing againſt any of theſe Perſons?

Priſoner,

Yes, I object againſt all of them that are called Quakers, becauſe they are ſuch as I know to be deeply prejudiced againſt G. K. and all that favour him, but am willing to be tryed by any that are not called Quakers, or ſuch of them as are not manifeſtly prejudiced.

But they would not allow of his Exception. Whereupon the Jury were atteſted. The form of the Atteſtation, as follows, viz.

In the Preſence of Almighty God and this Court, you ſhall promiſe, well and truly to Try and true Deliverance make betwixt the Honourable William Penn, Proprietor and Governor of this Province, and the Priſoner at the Bar, according to Evidence.

After which, David Lloyd firſt, and John White next pleaded very hard againſt him, that that Letter did defame Sam. Jenings as a Magiſtrate, confirming it, as they pretended, by reading ſome Paſſages out of ſome Law-books, and ſome Laws of this Province againſt defaming Magiſtrates.

To which the Attorneys of Peter Boſs pleaded, That he acknowledged the writing that Letter, but what was ſaid therein concerning S. Jenings, was not againſt him as he was a Magiſtrate, nor could it [Page] be reckoned a Defamation, becauſe 'twas only a private Letter ſent to himſelf, ſhowing his diſlike in ſome things, and deſiring him to clear himſelf of other groſs and ſcandalous things that were reported of him, as is uſual for one Church member to do to another; and they brought a Caſe out of Shepherd's Faithful Counſellor, that what is ſaid muſt be Falſo & Malicioſe, i. e. falſly and maliciouſly, otherwiſe not actionable. And that if a Man ſpeak ſlightly of a Magiſtrate, if it be when he is not in the exerciſe of his Office, it is no defaming of him as a Magiſtrate, and ſo no treſpaſs againſt the Law alledged.

To which David Lloyd replyed, That what was ſpoke againſt Samuel Jenings, muſt needs relate to him as a Magiſtrate, for take away Samuel Jenings, and where will the Magiſtrate be?

And Sam. Jenings ſaid, Take away Sam. Jenings the Magiſtrate, and where will Sam. Jenings the Quaker be?

Note, By this it ſeemeth to S. Jenings that it is as inherent in him to be a Magiſtrate as to be a Quaker, and therefore when his Magiſtracy ceaſeth, his Quakeriſm (according to him) muſt ceaſe, and like Hypocrates Twins live and die together; but yet he may remain to be Sam. Jenings, when he is neither Magiſtrate nor Quaker.

And when his Attornies were about further to open the matter, how he writ to him only as a Church-member, and offered to produce ſome Preſidents in the Caſe, Arthur Cook interrupted, ſaying, They would not have matters of Religion diſcourſed there, ſaying, What muſt Religion be made a cover to revile and defame men, by ſaying, he did not write to him as a Magiſtrate, but as a Church-member?

To which G. K. (as his Friend) deſired Liberty to ſpeak, as the Law in that caſe allows, but they were very unwilling to ſuffer him to ſay any thing in behalf of Peter Boſs, John White ſaying, G. K. was not Rectus in Curia; but through much and long importunity, he was permitted, who then told them, That a diſtinction muſt needs be allowed of words ſpoke to a Man as he is only in a private Capacity, and as he is a Magiſtrate; for when Magiſtrates, as Arthur Cook and Sam. Jenings, give us hard words, calling us Ranters, Apoſtates, Lyars, Wicked and Ungodly Men, &c. ye will not ſay ye give us theſe Names as Magiſtrates; and then if ye can ſpeak to us, not as ye are Magiſtrates, we may alſo ſpeak to you not as ye are Magiſtrates.

Thomas Harris his Attorney, and G. Keith his Friend, proffered to ſpeak further to ſeveral things that had been alledged by D. Lloyd and J. White, but were much menaced by Arthur Cook, and ſo was Peter Boſs himſelf, which was much reſented in the minds of many, that a man hath not liberty boldly to ſpeak in his own defence, nor his Attorneys nor Friends for him, but often when they were pleading, [Page] Commanded Silence upon pain of Impriſonment: Whereupon ſome complained, that it was hard that he had not liberty fairly to plead his own Cauſe. To which Arthur Cook ſaid, That as a Chriſtian he could bear any thing, but not as a Magiſtrate. Which was noticed by many how A. Cook ſet the Chriſtian and Magiſtrate in oppoſition the one to the other, as if we were not to expect that when they act as Magiſtrates they are indued with Chriſtian Patience, Meekneſs and Longſuffering, as if when they act the Magiſtrate, they put off the Chriſtian.

[Note, That a little before Sam. Jenings and David Lloyd would not allow of any diſtinction betwixt the Magiſtrate and Quaker, and yet now to ſerve his turn their Brother Cook grants it: Oh! the Confuſion. Deceit and Hypocriſie of theſe men!]

G. Keith pleaded further, though with much difficulty, That Peter Boſs being a Member of the Quakers Church, they ought not to go to Law with him until they had proceeded orderly with him in their mens Meetings, and given him Goſpel Order; for the things of difference betwixt him and Sam. Jenings relate wholly to Church Diſcipline, and belong to a Spiritual Court, and not to this.

Da. Lloyd,

This is a ſpiritual Court; for in England they can try Atheiſm in this Court.

G. K.

But Peter Boſs is not accuſed of Atheiſm; and if a man profeſs one Almighty God, this Court hath nothing to do with him for his Opinions or Perſwaſions in Religious matters.

Then D. Lloyd read a paſſage out of a Law-book, That certain words ſpoke againſt a Biſhop or Miniſter, were actionable, tho' not actionable when ſpoke againſt a private perſon; which (ſaid he) is the preſent caſe.

A Perſon ſtanding by, ſaid, May not ſin be reproved in a Biſhop or Magiſtrate? At which they were greatly offended, and cauſed an Officer to take the ſaid Perſon, viz. Ralph Ward, out of the Court.

But for the further ſatisfaction of the Jury, and all others preſent, that he did not defame Sam. Jenings as a Magiſtrate, Peter Boſs greatly preſſed to have his ſaid Letter read, which after ſome time was done, tho' with great Impatience. The which Letter here follows, viz.

THE Paper lately publiſht at Philadelphia by 28. againſt G. K. and thoſe joyned with him, &c. has and is like to occaſion much Trouble and Difference among us, not only becauſe of the falſe Things compact in it, as is well known to many Witneſſes, and now to impoſe it on all the Meetings, is plain downright Popery, and gives juſt occaſion to all, not only to judge it as it is, for the abuſe, but alſo inſpect further into things, and them theſe miniſtring Impoſers upon other mens Conſciences, like unto the Roman Clergy. And to ſhow how ill the People do reſent theſe things, one who was not a Quaker, [Page] ſo ſoon as the Paper was made publick, ſays, What D... liſh work is here like to be! a Pack of Fools have ſent their Bull out: what a piece of work you'll ſee in a ſhort time, and how they'll expoſe themſelves, and force others to ſend it home in Print, ſays he, with worſe words of ſome, unfit to mention here, &c. By expoſing this your Edict, you have made all People your Judges, into whoſe hands it ſhall come (the Papiſts themſelves) for your Unrighteous Judgment, and drawing in thoſe with you that have ſubſcribed to they know not what, who were not preſent at either of the Meetings, ſo conſequently did not hear the words charged on G. K. to be ſpoke by him, &c. but have taken all upon Trust, and ſigned as a Man that would be a falſe Witneſs to a Bill or Bond for Money, where none is due. 'Tis hoped, that ſome will ſee their over-haste, and repent it, as well as others have done: How can you expect this Act of yours will be accounted Righteous Judgment, to condemn a Man for Words, and cover one anothers Deeds, as well as worſe words in and among our ſelves. Has J. S. ever been dealt with for his many Enormous, palpable, groſs Miſcarriages chargeable upon him, his Greatneſs and Pride ſo Inſolent and Lofty, none dared to touch him? and for his abuſes to a poor Worm, who writ to him for Justice and Satisfaction, could have no anſwer of ſaid Letter; and being diſcontented to hear him preach to an Auditory, knowing his Life to be unſavoury, and an Unjuſt Judge, I write the ſecond Letter to him of diſlike to his Preaching, which after he had read, flung it in the Fire: Why did he not anſwer it, and get ſatisfaction from the Author, but that he knew himſelf Tardy, reſolv'd to exerciſe Bonner's Cruelty on my poor Paper: And its matter of Sorrow there's divers among you know enough of S. J. but you cover him and one another, and whom you pleaſe to abaſe, down with him amain; do you think people are blind, and without ſenſe? Be it known, they ſee, they hear, &c.

1. Pray let it be queried into, whether it was not true that S. J. did wage his Horſe with John Slocum, to ride a Race with their Horſes? and whether J. Slocum did not refuſe to take the Advantage of him, becauſe S. J. was Drunk, &c?

2. And pray let it be inquired into, whether S. J. at another time was not ſo drunk, could ſcarce get over the Ship ſide of Joſeph Bryar, when at Burlington?

3. And pray let it be inquired, whether the ſaid S. J. did not wickedly in ſurveying a Tract of Land which Joh. Antrum had actually begun to do?

4. And pray let it be enquired into, whether S. J. did not take away the Meadow of Richard Matthews, who being in England, took the Advantage? What the Effect will be, Time muſt manifeſt, how Odious he will render others for S. J's ſake, he being a pretty eminent man in London.

5. And pray let it be enquired into the Actions and Abuſes of S. J. to John Skeen, deceaſed, which ſhould have been anſwered at Burlington Meeting,

[Page] 6. And pray let it be enquired into, whether it was S. J. or J. Simcock that was by two Perſons carried to Bed Drunk?

7. And pray let it be further enquired into, whether it was the ſaid S. J. or J. Simcock that was ſo drunk loſt a Coat that was borrowed of another man, &c? Seeing ſo many of you have condemned G. K. for words let theſe Actions be alſo condemned, they being as great Pretenders to be Miniſters as him. And pray take ſpecial care this be not burnt, as the former, having a Copy of the ſame.

Peter Boſs.

Which being read, Peter Boſs produced the Teſtimonies of ſeveral credible Perſons, concerning the matters contained in the ſaid Letter, and preſt hard to have them read, becauſe they proved ſome of the things queried, at leaſt. But they were very unwilling to have them read, ſaying, It was no evidence unleſs the perſons were preſent in Court; altho' it is well known, that Atteſtations in writing have been often accepted in this Court; and it may be noted, that at the former Seſſions he had his Witneſſes ready in Perſon waiting all the time of the Court, which was great Charge to him, but by reaſon of the Extremity of the Weather, could not be preſent now: However, at laſt, through much importunity they admitted ſome of the Papers to be read, which here follow, viz.

§

§

Concerning a Report which has been about Sam. Jening's riding a Wager with John Slocum, I do here teſtifie, That about three Years now paſt, Sarah Biddle, Wife of W. Biddle, ſenior, ſhe being at Burlington, did tell it me thus, as followeth, That ſhe reproving her Son William, who had been riding hard, ſhe ſaid, his anſwer was, Why Mother, may not I ſo well as Sam. Jenings, he could ride a Race, or did ride one, with John Slocum, and John won his Horſe, but he would not take the advantage of Samuel, becauſe Samuel was Cacuſe (John Slocum ſaid) ſays William to his Mother: This I do here affirm, that I had it from Sarah Biddle's one mouth, and that we underſtand the word Cacuſe to be drunk.

Mary Budd.

Burlington in Weſt-New-Jerſey, the 1ſt of October, 1692.

Atteſted before me, Edward Hemlock, Juſtice.

§

Whereas there is a report of S. Jenings riding a Race with J. Slocum, thus much I William Buſtill do hereby affirm to the truth of the ſaid Report, Will. Biddle, ſen. did tell me, that S. Jenings and J. Slocum did ride a Race together, and that John did win S. Jenings Horſe, which was a white Gray, and that which J. Slocum did ride on W. Biddle did buy of J. Slocum; and that it was at or about the time when the Provinces were divided, and that the Race was run in ſome place between Amboy and George Keith's Land in Eaſt-Jerſey, as they came from Amboy.

Will. Baſtill.

October the 21th, 1692.

§

[Page] As concerning a Report of S. Jenings riding a Race with J. Slocum about three Years ago, W. Biddle, ſen. at Dinner, and his Wife in company at his own Houſe did tell me that S. Jenings did ride a Wager with J. Slocum, and loſt his Horſe, which I am ready to be atteſted to, if further need ſhall require, as witneſs my hand hereunto ſet, this ſecond of Novemb. 1692.

Henry Beck.

§

Memorand. That my Siſter Sarah Bainbridge told me, that William Biddle did ſay in her hearing, that as he was riding from Eaſt Jerſey towards his own Houſe, he heard a noiſe, whereupon he looked behind him, and did ſee Sam. Jenings and J. Slocum rid after him very faſt, and J. Slocum ſaid to S. Jenings, I have won thy Horſe as fair as ever any man won any thing in this World.

John Bainbridge.

§

As concerning the Report that S. Jenings ſurveyed the Meadow of Rich. Matthews, I have this to ſay, being then and there preſent, I being Aſſiſtant at that time to Simon Charles in ſurveying Land for Samuel, I went with S. Jenings to the ſaid Meadow, and told him that was the Meadow that I had formerly ſurveyed to Rich. Matthews: He bid me ſhew him the Lines of the ſurvey: we went and ſearched, and found only one Tree or two marked by the Meadow ſide, and no more; for there had been a Fire, that had not only burnt up moſt of the Trees there by the Root, but alſo the ſurface of the Meadow it ſelf, ſo that we could find no marks in any order; then I produced a Copy of the Records of the Survey, which was the ſame with this following, viz. Surveyed alſo that piece of Meadow lying at the Northweſt corner of the ſaid Land, extending to the Neck or narroweſt place of the ſame as it is now marked, all making up the number of 500 Acres, as aforeſaid. But notwithſtanding Samuel bid Simon put it into the ſurvey, which he accordingly did. Now Elias Far being Attorney for Rich. Matthews, and hearing of what Samuel had done, he made application to me, whereupon I wrote to Sam. Jenings about it, and ſignified to him, that in my Judgment, he could not hold that Meadow, neither by Equity nor by Law. Thus much is teſtified by me,

Daniel Leeds.

Atteſted before me Edward Hemlock, Juſtice,

Octob. 1. 1692.

§

Memorandum, That I James Silver, then Servant to Sam. Jenings, being troubled at his Severity towards both Servants and Creatures, viz his knocking one down and breaking his Cane upon him, and over-leading and beating both Servants and Cattle, when not able to go forwards, and one time broke the Rib of an Ox by his unmerciful beating, and taking Benj. Moore by the Throat as he was coming off his Bed, bore my Teſtimony againſt it, as unſuitable to the Spirit of Chriſt, he took occaſion to deal very hardly [Page] with me, and let me go almoſt naked; and when Winter grew on, and I complained under the ſence of Cold, he threatned to make me creep, or come on my Hands and Knees to him, like a Dog or Spaniel, or break my Bones.

Burlington, the 5th Month, 1692.

James Silver.

[Note, This James Silver was a Man in Years, and a Friend, and one that had many Servants himſelf, whom he thus treated for witneſſing againſt his Cruelty.]

§

John Smith ſaith, That being at Philadelphia on or about the 28th of Auguſt, 1692. meeting with Sam. Jenings before his own Door, his firſt Salutation to me was this, as followeth, What! art thou a Keithian, Raſcally Fellow, worſe than an Infidel, that neither knows Law nor Goſpel; muſt thou prate, ſorry Raſcally Fellow, I'll call for a Conſtable, and ſend thee to the Crew, thou art like them, a Company of Raſcally Fellows; I'll have thee to know, that we are able to judge both George Keith and the Country. And thus he did revile and call me Raſcal, and worſe than an Infidel many times over; and this was preſently after he was come from a Meeting, and for no other Cauſe than ſaying to one who hanged up the Proclamation, (againſt G. K. which they poſted up both in Town and Country) Ye may as well hang the other ſide forward for it ſhews their folly a little Haman-like: This Abuſe to me was not unlike his former Actions and Behaviour to other his Servants; as inſtance on a time, James Silver, an ancient Man, his poor Servant, for ſhowing him his naked Thighs, and complaining for want of Cloaths, Sam. Jenings, told him he would make him to creep on his Hands and Knees, like a Spaniel, and ſlap his back, if he would [...] hold his prating, &c.

John Smith.

Note, That ſeveral [...] Teſtimonies might be here ſet down concerning S [...]erly walking and behaviour in his Family and among his [...] and particularly his Inhumane Whipping of his Servant [...] naked in her Bed, the manner and circumſtances of which I ſhall here omit for modeſties ſake; but theſe here produced are ſufficient to ſhow, that there was cauſe for Peter Boſs to write to him; and tho theſe Evidences do not prove every thing queried in that Letter yet theſe things being commonly reported abroad, were cauſe enough one would think, for the Quakers to call him to an Account, and ſearch out the bottom of theſe things, but that he is grown ſo Proud, ſo High and Imperious, that none dares to touch him. Nay, lately one of his own Church-members, not coming into Court at his Command, he bid fetch him Headlong, and fined him Ten Pound for not coming, and committed him to Goal, to remain till paid, tho' the man ſays, he had no buſineſs at Court, and it would have been to his prejudice to have gone; but all People reſenting theſe Actions of [Page] Sam. Jenings very ill, Arthur Cook ſaid, I'll go to my Lord Judge, and ſee if I can perſwade him. Yet the next day he can put on his Canonical Robe, and imitate a Diſciple of the Meek Jeſus, and compare himſelf to poor Mordccai; and then again before he leaves the Pulpit, and that on a Sunday, or firſt day of the Week, put on his Magiſterial Robes, and tell the People, That now he ſpeaks to them as a Magistrate; and becauſe they did not break up their Religious Meeting at his Command, he calls out, Is there ever an Officer there; let Proclamation be made in the King and Queen's Name for all Perſons to depart to their own Habitations, and ſee if they'll dare to ſit here. They that cannot ſee this Man ſwell'd above the meekneſs of a true Miniſter of Chriſt, and transforming himſelf, like Satan, into an Angel of Light, 2 Cor. 11. 13, 14. I muſt conclude they are blind, and have loſt their Senſes.

But to leave this Digreſſion, after the reading in Court of as many of the above-cited Teſtimonies as they would ſuffer, the Jury went out upon it, and brought in Peter Boſs only Guilty of Tranſgreſſing the 29th Chapter of the Laws of this Province, viz. Against ſpeaking ſlightingly of a Magiſtrate. Upon which the Bench gave Judgment, That Peter Boſs ſhould pay Six Pound.

And to back the former Inſtances and Hints of the unjuſt Actions of this Man, take the Breviate of a Letter from one of their preſent Church-Members to him, which is as follows, viz.

Samuel Jenings, I perceive thou art no Changeling, thou looks like a Man for Bulk and Talk, like a Chriſtian ſometimes; but really Samuel, whatever thy ſelf or others think of thee, I do hereby tell thee, and that under my Hand, That I have met with more truly Noble and Manlike Treatment, and the Exerciſe of better Chriſtianity among Turks, than hath appeared hitherto in thee towards me: Surely Samuel, hadst thou exerciſed but the common ſenſe and capacity of a rational man, thou couldſt not think that the Governour would ſend a man three thouſand Miles with Inſtruction to take care and charge of his Servants, Goods and Stock, ſhould be in a meaner Capacity than his Negroes, and not have a ſupply of Neceſſaries, &c. but this thou haſt very irrationally and unmanly denyed unto me, and both thy ſelf and Wife have proved Falſe and Deceitful unto me: Thou requeſted me to write for thee, and promiſed Satisfaction for my Labour, and I wrote about 149 Laws of the Province, and a Copy of the King's Charter to the Governour, and a Liſt of the Governours Tenants in the County of Bucks, with the Quantity of Land they hold, and upon what Tenure; but like a deceitful Man thou refuſeſt to perform thy Promiſe: And know this, that beſide thy Promiſe, I have thy Letter under thy Hand to produce, as alſo the Evidence of one of the moſt credibleſt Perſons in the Town, whom thou toldſt, That I had wrote a Copy of the Laws for thee, and thou waſt to pay [Page] me 18 s. for it. Nay, yet further, Samuel, when the Commiſſioners, which are thy Overſeers, (to whom thou art obliged to render an Account, ſo often as they require it of thee) had ordered thee to let me have 50 s. for a Supply of Neceſſaries, thou refuſed to let me have it, unleſs I would take it in thy Shop Goods, (which would have proved little better than a Cheat) for thou wouldst have charged 50 s. to the Governours Account, when, its like, I ſhould not have had really the value of 25 s. of thee. I once more conſulted the Commiſſioners, who very freely and willingly wrote to thee a few Lines, Signed with their own Hands, and gave it to me to deliver to thee, wherein they ordered thee to pay me 50 s. in Silver Money, according to their former Order; but thou return'd them this Anſwer by me, That thou wouldſt not anſwer their Bill, bidding me carry it back to them again; which indeed is no other than an unchristian and unmanly ſlighting of the Commiſſioners, and a baſe and ſordid Contempt of, and trampling on that Power which the Governour hath inveſted them with over thee and his Affairs; one might think by thy Deportment towards them, that thou doſt neither know thy ſelf, nor the Station in which thou art placed by the Governour; for Samuel, thou art no other than a mercenary Servant, and that during the Will and Pleaſure of the Governour, and the Commiſſioners are thy Overſeers and Controulers, to whom thou art obliged to render an Account, &c.

Thy true Friend, John Philly.

Then next George Keith called into Court, and ſet to the Bar.

Cryer.

O Yes, Silence is commanded upon pain of Impriſonment.

The Preſentment read.

We of the Grand Jury do preſent George Keith and Thomas Budd as Authors of a Book, entituled, The Plea of the Innocent, where in p. 13. about the latter end of the ſame, they the ſaid Geo. Keith and Tho. Budd defamingly accuſe Sam. Jenings, (he being a Judge and Magiſtrate of this Province) of being too high and imperious in Worldly Courts, calling him an Ignorant, Preſumptuous and Inſolent Man, greatly expoſing his Reputation, and of an ill Preſident, and contrary to the Law in that made and provided.

Clark.

What ſay you, George Keith? Are you Guilty or Not Guilty of this Preſentment?

G. Keith.

Before I be demanded to plead to the Preſentment, I deſire to be heard a few words: which the Court granting, he ſaid, I would have you to conſider, that both ye and we are as a Beacon ſet on a Hill, and the Eye of God, Angels and Men are upon us; and if ye do any thing againſt us that is not fair and juſt, not only theſe parts hereaway will hear of it, but Europe alſo; for if we be wronged (if God permit) we think to make it known to the World.

Here ſome were very impatient, telling him, he menaced the Court, but he would do well to take heed what he did; for if he ſpoke or [Page] publiſhed any thing in derogation of the Sentence of Court, it was againſt a Law in this Province, and he would be puniſhed for it.

G. K.

An able Lawyer hath ſaid, When a Man is wronged and can have no other Remedy printing is the laſt: Ye muſt give Loſers leave to complain: Our Friends have done it formerly in Old England when they have been unjuſtly dealt by, and particularly William Penn and George Whitehead. I will not ſay any thing againſt your Law, but I ſuppoſe the true ſence of it is, that if any derogate from the Sentence of a Court, if the Sentence be juſt, he is puniſhable, but not otherwiſe. Are your Courts infallible? Is it not poſſible that at times they may give an unjuſt Sentence?

David Lloyd.

Yea, our Courts are infallible in Law,

George,

I aſſure thee.

G. K.

Then why do you admit of Appeals? If they be infallible, there is no occaſion to appeal to a higher Judicatory.

Then David Lloyd went about to mend the matter, ſaying, They were infallible ſo far as the Law was infallible, and ſo far as they kept to the Law.

Note, This is as if he had ſaid, they are infallible ſo far as they are Infallible, which is not very good Senſe, unleſs they mean, that they are not abſolutely Infallible, but conditionally; and if conditionally only, it is poſſible they may give a wrong Sentence and he who they give it againſt may complain, without juſt cauſe of Offence, otherwiſe their Court here is as arbitrary as any in the World.

Next, G. K. deſired to know in what Capacity D. Lloyd did plead there againſt them, ſeeing he was not the Kings Attorney.

D. Lloyd.

We have no King's Attorney.

G. K.

I underſtand that Patrick Robinſon is the Kings Attorney.

D. Lloyd.

No, he is not.

G. K.

But he is Attorney General.

D. L.

He is neither King's Attorney, nor Attorney General.

G. K.

What is he then?

D. Lloyd.

He is the Proprietary's Attorney.

Now G. K. ſtill preſſing to know in what Capacity D. Lloyd did plead, it was anſwered, That the Court allowed him to plead.

Note, That it was admired by the A [...]ory, that this David Lloyd ſhould be ſo confident and brazen-fac'd [...], in an open Court, that Patrick Robinſon was not the Kings Attorney, and thruſt himſelf into that place, purpoſely to vent ſort [...] of his [...] are Hatred and Malice againſt G. Keith and the reſt which he did to purpoſe, by ſtraining and perverting the places, [...] brought from their true ſence; and yet this man pretends to be a late Convert to the Religion [Page] of the People called Quakers. If they were all ſuch, it would make one abhor them for Notorious Hypocrites.

G. K.

I deſire you to hear me a little further, and that is, That I think it very unfair, that thoſe who are deeply prejudiced againſt me, and my oppoſite Parties and Accuſers, ſhould be my Judges, as particularly Sam. Jenings and Arthur Cook, the laſt of which but a few days ago, (the 5th of the 10th Month) told me at his own Houſe, before divers Witneſſes, and John White Sheriff is Witneſs, that when he warned me to the Court, I told him, I thought to come, but did not think to plead, unleſs I had a fair Jury, Arthur Cook ſaid, Truly George, a foul one will ſerve thee. Now let the Court judge, whether this Man is fit to ſit upon the Bench to judge me, who ſays, That a Foul Jury will ſerve me. Suppoſe I had been the greateſt Malefactor, will any ſay, A Foul Jury will ſerve to try me? Is not this to deſtroy all Fundamental Laws? I appeal to you here, the Juſtices and Jury, ſuch of you as are moſt manifeſtly prejudiced againſt me, for my faithful Teſtimony to the Quakers ancient Principle againſt all uſe of outward Weapons, whether ye do as you would be done by? Would ye be willing that a Company of Men wholly of our ſide, (tho' honeſt) ſhould be on a Jury to judge you?

Sam. Jenings.

We ſhall take care that ye ſhall not be our Judges. Which was an Evaſion from the Queſtion, and ſeemed to be a Jeſt or Scoff that he pleaſed himſelf with, and which are more frequent with him than Expreſſions of Mercy and Juſtice.

G. K.

I have yet ſomething further to ſay, before I plead to the Preſentment; but being unacquainted with your Formalities in Law, deſire that no advantage may be taken againſt me on that account.

Court.

No advantage ſhall be taken againſt thee on that account.

Clerk.

What ſay you, George Keith, to your Preſentment? Are you Guilty or Not Guilty?

G. K.

Not Guilty in manner and form. And now that I have anſwered to the Preſentment, Not Guilty, my chief and only Plea that I think to make uſe of, unleſs ye will ſay that ſo to do is a Contempt of the Court, and of your Authority, which by no means I would be guilty of, my chief Plea is, That I am not preſentable by the Grand Jury for any thing alledged againſt me, they being no Offences againſt the King, Governour nor Country; what I have ſaid was only againſt particular Perſons, who if they think themſelves wronged by me, may Sue me in their own Names, and I am ready to anſwer them.

Court & Clerk.

It is no Contempt of Court, but the ſeaſon of your ſo pleading is over, you ſhould have ſaid ſo before you pleaded Not Guilty; now you muſt ſubmit to be tried by the Country.

[Page]G. K.

I knew not this Formality in Law; ye told me, ye would take no advantage againſt me in that reſpect. But the Clerk ſtill preſſing him to come to a Tryal, G. K. further ſaid, I think not to make any other Plea; for the things for which I am preſented are not againſt the King, Governour, nor any Nuſance to the Country; nor againſt particular Perſons, as Magiſtrates, and therefore not preſentable.

Clerk.

If ye refuſe to be tryed by the Jury, the Bench has Power to fine you.

G. K.

I ſhall take my hazard of that; I have able Council that the things whereof I am accuſed are not preſentable by the Grand Jury.

D. Lloyd.

If able Council has ſo adviſed thee, their Counſel has failed in this.

G. K.

To call a Man Proud and Imperious is not Actionable.

D. Lloyd.

Tho' not Actionable, yet Preſentable.

G. K.

If not Actionable, not preſentable.

D. Lloyd.

That is not a good Conſequenee.

But let all Impartial Readers judge, whether it be not a good Conſequence, that if Words ſpoken concerning particular Perſons, not as Magiſtrates, be not actionable, that therefore they are not preſentable; becauſe, for what are they preſentable, ſeeing they are neither againſt the King, nor Governour, nor Country, nor particular Men as Magiſtrates?

D. Lloyd.

There is a Law of this Province, that no words of Defamation muſt be ſpoken againſt a Magiſtrate; nor ſhall any ſpeak ſlightingly or abuſively of them, which thou haſt done.

G. K.

They were not ſpoke to him as a Magiſtrate, nor when he was in the exerciſe of his Office; and to call him High and Imperious, doth not reflect on him as a Magiſtrate: If I had called him Ignorant in the Laws, and Unjuſt in the Execution of them, this would have reflected on him as a Magiſtrate, but not to call him High and Imperious; for Piety, whereof Humility is a Branch, is no eſſential Qualification of a Magiſtrate tho' it be of a Chriſtian and Miniſter of Chriſt; the only eſſential Qualifications of a Magiſtrate, are to be knowing the Laws, and juſt in the execution of them.

[Note, That it is no Reflection on a Taylor, Shoe maker, or the like Trades-man, to be called Proud, for he may be a good Artificer, altho' he be proud: but to be proud reflecteth on him as he profeſſeth to be a Chriſtian or Miniſter of Chriſt. And this diſtinction. S. Jenings muſt needs allow, unleſs he will ſay, that when he exerciſeth his Magiſterial Office he is no Chriſtian, but wholly putteth off his Qualifications of a Chriſtian, as a man putteth off one Garment and putteth on another. But if he will ſay he is ſtill a Chriſtian, as well as a Magiſtrate, [Page] then he ought to be humble, meek and forbearing, eſpecially to his Fellow Church-Members, not high and imperious, and exacting the ſeverity of the Law of them; for even the Law ſaith, Summum jus, Summa Injuria, i. e. The Rigour of the Law is high Injuſtice; for if the Law of England be Lex Miſercordiae, as it is called, then well may the Law of Chriſtianity be called Lex Miſercordiae, i e. The Law of Mercy, that is, forbearing, and exacteth not the utmoſt Farthing.

Note further, That one Reaſon of theſe words being mentioned in the Plea of the Innocent, viz. That S. Jenings had ſhown himſelf too high and imperious in worldly Courts, was, that a little time before he had commanded to bring one of his Fellow Members, (viz. Samuel Buckley) Headlong to the Court, and fined him Ten Pound for refuſing to come at his Command, and ſent him to Priſon, to remain without Bail till paid. Now admit he did not illegally in this, or becoming a ſevere auſtere Magiſterial Officer, yet was it not unbecoming a tender Chriſtian, who ſhould be meek and merciful?

G. K. Having refuſed to plead otherwiſe then as above-mentioned, Dav. Lloyd bid the Clerk record him Nihil dicit, i. e. he ſaith nothing. To which G. K. replied, Why ſhould he Record me nihil dicit? I think I have ſaid a great deal. And after ſome further Diſcourſe G. K. was ſet aſide, and Thomas Budd ſet to the Bar. The moſt material Diſcourſe that paſſed here follows, viz.

The Preſentment being read, the Clerk ſaid, Thomas Budd, What ſay you? Are you Guilty, as you ſtand here preſented, or Not Guilty?

T. Budd.

Not Guilty, as there preſented, but own my ſelf to be one of the Authors of that Book, called, The Plea of the Innocent.

Clerk.

By whom will you be tried?

T. Budd.

By God and the Country.

D. Lloyd, as Attorney againſt him, pleaded, That to call a man Proud and Ignorant, was to reflect on the Governour that constituted him, &c.

G. Keith in behalf of Tho. Budd, anſwered, That what was there ſaid of Sam. Jenings, as to calling him Ignorant and Preſumptuous, was not ſaid of him as he was a Magiſtrate, but as he profeſſed himſelf to be a Chriſtian and Miniſter of Chriſt; I penn'd thoſe words in the Plea of the Innocent, concerning S. Jenings, and know they were not intended againſt him as a Magiſtrate, as the foregoing words in that Book do manifeſt; but that he is ignorant in Divinity, that Book gives an Inſtance, and we now here affirm, elſe he would never have ſaid, That to do Gods Buſineſs, we need God's Power; but to do our own Buſineſs, as men, we needed not a Supernatural Power, nor have joyned with them that ſay, The Light within is ſufficient to Salvation without any thing elſe, thereby excluding the Man Chriſt Jeſus from having any part in our [Page] Salvation. And our calling him Preſumptuous and Inſolent did relate to his ſevere preſſing me to an abſolute Submiſſion to their Judgment, in a matter of Conſcience, when as S. J. refuſed to ſubmit to the Judgment of Friends, both here and at London, in worldly matters; alſo, his calling me Apoſtate and worſe than Prophane, in a Publick Meeting, as well as in private, and ſaying, We ſhall let thee know, George, that we ſhall judge thee: And his Signing that Paper of the 28. againſt me, wherein they ſo boldly aſſert, That they have tenderly and orderly dealt with me; when as they never dealt with me.

After ſome further pleading, the Jury were called, and Tho. Budd was asked, If he had any Exceptions to make againſt any of them?

Tho. Budd.

Yes, I except againſt all of them that are called Quakers, becauſe I perceive they are them that are Parties againſt me.

D. Lloyd.

That is too general, and is no Exception in Law.

Tho. Budd.

I except particularly againſt Rich. Walter, becauſe he Signed the Paper of the 28. againſt us (which this Book was an Anſwer to) and againſt James Fox, becauſe he ſigned a Paper in the Quarterly againſt us; and I except againſt Joſeph Kirle and John Whitpane, becauſe they have ſpoke againſt G. K. and me, and juſtified theſe Preſentments againſt us.

But theſe Exceptions would not be allowed of, and therefore the above-named Jurors went forth, and next Morning brought in their Verdict, That Thomas Budd was guilty of ſaying, Samuel Jenings had behaved himſelf too high and imperiouſly in Worldly Courts.

To which Tho. Budd and Geo. Keith pleaded, That it was no Verdict, not being found to be a Breach of any Law, any more than the Verdict of the Jury at Old Bayly, which was, That they found W. Penn guilty of ſpeaking in Grace Church-ſtreet, which the Court took to be a clearing of him. But this was nothing regarded by our Juſtices, for they proceeded and gave Judgment againſt Thomas Budd and George Keith, viz. That they ſhould each of them pay Five Pound a piece, as a Fine. And tho' in this caſe S. Jenings was the Perſon only concerned as the Adverſary Party, yet he ſat on the Bench when they gave Judgment againſt G. K. and T. B. which was judged moſt unreaſonable and illegal, that Sam. Jenings, (who is the Governour's Receiver of all Fines and Forfeitures) ſhould be ſo actively concerned in fining theſe Men, having ſo manifeſtly before ſhewed his Prejudice againſt them. Beſide, it being expreſly contrary to a Vote of an Aſſembly of this Province, the 3d Month, 1689. (where Arthur Cook was Speaker) viz.

Reſolved, Nemine contradicente, That it is an Agrievance that any Perſon who is commiſſionated or appointed by the Governour to receive the Governour's Fines, Forfeitures and Revenues whatſoever, ſhall ſit in Judgment [Page] in any Court of Judicature within this Government, in any matter or cauſe whatſoever, where a fine or forfeiture ſhall or may accrue to the Governour.

But Arthur Cook could not wink at this Agrievance, and let Samuel Jenings ſit on the Bench when theſe Perſons were Fined.

But for a further proof that Sam. Jenings has ſhown himſelf too High and Imperious, obſerve what follows, viz.

1ſt, That when G. K. was pleading in Court, and ſhowing how S. J. had behaved himſelf too high and imperious, he ſaid, If this be High and Imperious, I will be yet more High and Imperious.

2dly, Upon the Jury's bringing in their Verdict againſt Tho. Aſhly, S. J. thus menaces him, viz. Thou told me formerly that I had done my worſt, but now thou art fallen into my hands, thou ſhalt know that I have not done my Worſt yet.

3dly, He ſaid to another Perſon, Thou ſhalt have as little Juſtice as I can.

4thly, He ſaid to John Skeen, who had been Governor, and was then Judge, Thou pitiful Whip-jack, I deſpiſe thee; and yet we find not that John Skeen had him preſented or proſecuted at Court for this more than ordinary abuſive and ſcurrilous Expreſſion, ſhort of common Humanity; and yet this is he who now can ſay, He will bear no affront, thereby ſhowing how unlike he is to a true Chriſtian, and even to many as well Heathen as Chriſtian Magiſtrates, who have born with Patience great Affronts and Reflections from Perſons far inferior to them.

5thly, Another inſtance of S. J's Pride and Inſolency is, that on the 10th on the 10th Month, coming out of Court, ſaid to Ralph Ward and John M”Comb, in the open Street, before many Witneſſes, If I draw forth my hand againſt you, (ſtretching forth his Arm and ſhaking it) I will not pull it in until I have quelled you all. This preſumptuous Expreſſion ſavoureth too much of Lucifer's Pride, who ſaid I will be like the moſt High, I will exalt my Throne above the Stars of God, Iſa. 14. 13, 14. It is too high an Expreſſion, and too peremptory for any mortal Man to ſay, If I draw forth my hand, I will not pull it in until I have quelled you all. What is this in a manner, but to equal himſelf to God Almighty, Deut. 32. 40, 41. For I lift up my Hand to Heaven, and ſay, I live for ever, If I whet my glittering Sword, and mine Hand take hold on Judgment, I will render vengeance to mine Enemies, &c. Oh! is it not above the Power of mortal Man, to ſay, If I draw out my Hand, I will not pull it in until I have quelled you all? Is not this to talk as if he were the Almighty? But know, O vain weak Man! thy Breath is in thy Noſtrils, and that Infinite Power that made thee, (if thou draw forth thy Hand againſt the Innocent, glorying in thy Power that is but ſmall) may cauſe thy Hand to Wither or turn Leprous, and lay thy Body and Power in the Duſt, and caſt both Soul and Body [Page] into Hell-fire. And therefore repent of this thy abominable Pride and Inſolency before it be too late.

And tho' Sam. Jenings is now ſo zealous for the proſecuting them that ſay any thing againſt Magiſtrates, yet it's not long ago that he ſpoke much againſt Tho. Lloyd, Deputy Governour, and carried about (out of one County into another) a parcel of Lampooning Rhimes, made againſt T. L. call'd Taffy's Fair, which he repeated over his Pots of Beer to make ſport for the Company.

But to return, altho' the Jury brought in a ſpecial Verdict, which was only, That Thomas Budd was guilty of ſaying, Sam. Jenings had ſhown himſelf too high and imperious in Wordly Courts, which is no Tranſgreſſion of any particular Law, yet the Bench gave Judgment againſt them as tho' they had broke ſome Law, which was, That G. K. and T. B. ſhould pay 51. a piece. Whereupon they 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. [Page] 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 [Page] 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 was Seditious, as well as whether Will. Bradford Printed; and ſome of them deſired to be diſcharged.

—A great Noiſe and Confuſion among the People.

Some on the Bench ſhowing their willingneſs to allow of W. B's Exceptions againſt the two Jurors, Juſtice Cook ſaid, I will not allow of it; is there four of us of a mind?

Then D. Lloyd began to read the 9, 10, 11, and 12. Articles of the ſaid Appeal, and commented thereupon, denying, 1st, That any man were hired to fight, but only to fetch back the Sloop; 2dly, That there was no Commiſſion given, but only a Hue-and-Cry or Warrant, as might be in any other ordinary caſe, and what was done was in caſe of great neceſſity, when a [Page] Company of Rogues had Pyratically ſtolen away a Sloop to the great terror of the People of this place; and if the Magiſtrates muſt be blamed for their proceedings herein, what do you think will be the conſequence thereof, but to encourage all manner of wickedneſs? And Will. Bradford is preſented for printing and publiſhing this Seditious Paper, whereof you of the Jury are to find him guilty, if it appear to you that he has printed it.

W. Bradford,

I deſire you of the Jury, and all here preſent, to take notice, that what is here contained in this Paper is not Seditious, but wholly relating to a Religious Difference, and aſſerting the Quakers Ancient Principles, and is not laid down poſitive, that they ought not to have proceeded againſt the Privateers, but laid down by way of Query, for the People called Quakers to conſider and reſolve at their Yearly Meeting, Whether it was not a Tranſgreſſion of the Quakers Principles to hire and commiſſionate men to fight?

Juſtice Cook,

If it was intended for the Yearly Meeting at Burlington, why was it publiſhed and ſpread abroad before the Meeting?

W. B.

Becauſe it might be peruſed and conſidered of by Friends before the Meeting, even as the Bills that are prepared to be paſſed into Laws, they are promulgated a certain number of days, before the Aſſembly meets, that all may have opportunity to conſider them.

Then D. Lloyd read the Act againſt Printing, 14 Car 2. cap. 33. againſt Books being Printed without the Printers Name to them, and he ſaid, That was one Act which they proſecuted W. Bradford upon.

To which G. K. anſwer'd, and it may be obſerved, the ſingular and extraordinary Severity of theſe Juſtices, called Quakers, who will pick out a Statute made in Old England, and proſecute a man upon it here, which might Ruin him and his Family, tho' it's not certain whether that Act be in force; when as moſt of W. Penn's and the Quakers Books were printed without the Printers Name to them, when that Act was in force; and yet we never heard that any Printer in England was proſecuted for that; and therefore theſe here have exceeded them in England; which manifeſts their Malice and revengeful Spirit, that becauſe they cannot fix the matter to be any Breach of the Peace, (tho' they pretend it is) they'll proſecute the Printer for not putting his Name to what they ſuppoſe he Printed.

Note, That all the time theſe Perſons were upon Trial, the Grand Jury ſate by them, over-awing and threatning them when they ſpoke boldly in their own defence, and one of the Jury had Pen, Ink and Paper to write down ſuch words as they diſliked, ſignifying that they would preſent them, and Juſtice Cook other times bid them take notice of ſuch and ſuch words, thereby over-awing the Priſoners that they had not liberty to plead freely. And when Tho. Harris, at the Requeſt of the Priſoner began to ſay ſomething to the matter, they [Page] ſtopt him, and bid an Officer take him away, and Arthur Cook ſaid, That he ſhould plead no more there.

After a long time of pleading, D. Lloyd began to ſummons up the matter to the Jury, How that the printed Appeal was a Seditious Paper, and tended to weaken the Hands of the Magiſtrates, and encourage all manner of Wickedneſs; and that it was evident W. Bradford printed it, he being the Printer in this place, and the frame on which it was printed, was found in his Houſe.

W. B.

I deſire the Jury, and all here preſent to take notice, that there ought to be two Evidences, to prove the matter of Fact, but not one Evidence has been brought in this caſe.

Sam. Jening,

The Frame on which it was printed is Evidence enough.

W. B.

But where is the Frame, there has no Frame been produced here; and if there had, it is no Evidence, unleſs ye ſaw me print on it.

Sam. Jenings,

The Jury ſhall have the Frame with them, it cannot well be brought here; and beſide the Seaſon is cold, and we are not to ſit here to endanger our Health; you are minded to put Tricks upon us.

W. B.

You of the Jury, and all here preſent, I deſire you to take notice, that here has not one Evidence been brought to prove that I printed the Sheet, call'd, An Appeal. And whereas they ſay, the Frame is Evidence, which the Jury ſhall have; I ſay, the Jury ought not to hear or have any Evidence whatſoever, but in the preſence of the Judge and Priſoner.

Yet this was nothing minded, but Sam. Jenings ſummoned up to the Jury what they were to do, viz. To find, 1ſt, whether or not that Paper, call'd, The Appeal, had not a tendency to the weakening the hands of the Magiſtrates, and encouragement of Wickedneſs? 2dly, Whether it did not tend to the Diſturbance of the Peace? And, 3dly, Whether William Bradford did not print it, without putting his Name to it, as the Law requires?

The Jury had a Room provided them, and by that time they had been a quarter of an hour together, the Sheriff cauſed the Frame to be carried in to them, for an Evidence that W. B. printed the Appeal.

The Jury continued about forty eight hours together, and could not agree, then they came into Court to ask a Queſtion, viz. Whether the Law did require two Evidences to find a man guilty? To anſwer which D. Lloyd read a paſſage out of a Law-Book, That they were to find it by Evidences, or on their own knowledge, or otherwiſe: Now (ſays D. Lloyd) this otherwiſe is the Frame which you have, which is Evidence ſufficient.

W. Bradford,

The Frame which they have is no Evidence, for I have not ſeen it, and how do I or the Jury know that that which was carried in to them, is mine,—Interrupted—The Jury ſent forth again, and an Officer commanded to keep them without Meat, Drink, Fire or Tobacco.

[Page] In the Afternoon the Jury came into Court again, and told, they were not like to agree. Whereupon the Court diſcharged them.

Then W. Bradford told the Court, That ſeeing he had been ſo long detained Priſoner, and his Utenſils with which he ſhould work having been ſo long detained, he hoped now to have his Utenſils returned, and to be diſcharged from his Impriſonment.

S. Jenings.

No, thou ſhalt not have thy things again, nor be diſcharged, but I now let thee know, thou ſtandeſt in the ſame Capacity to anſwer next Court, as before.

Next Court being come, Will. Bradford attended, and deſired to know whether he ſhould have his Utenſils, and be diſcharged. Arthur Cook anſwered, Thou ſhalt not have thy Goods until releaſed by Law.

W. Bradford.

The Law will not releaſe them, unleſs executed.

Arthur Cook.

If thou wilt requeſt a Tryal, thou mayſt have it.

Whereupon I query, 1ſt. Whether it be practicable, or according to Law, to ſeiſe Men's Goods and impriſon their Perſons, and ſo detain them under the Terror of a Goal, one ſix Months after another, and not bring them to Trial, unleſs requeſted by the Impriſoned?

2ly. When a Jury is Sworn, Well and truly to Try, and true Deliverance make between the Proprietor and Priſoner, whether it be not very illegal to abſolve them from their Oath, diſmiſs them, and put it to another Jury to try?

Now it may be obſerved, that nine of theſe Jurors were Perſons prejudiced againſt G. K. and the reſt, and the other three happened to be moderate Perſons that were not called Quakers; and the reaſon they could not agree, was (as ſome of the ſaid Jurors, called Quakers, have told) that theſe three Perſons ſtood upon the Nicety (as they call'd it) of Evidence that W. B. printed that Paper; whereas the other Jurors, called Quakers, ſaid, they believed that W. B. printed it, and that it was a ſeditious Paper, &c. and they would not acquit him.

Does not this ſhow the great Declenſion of theſe People from their ancient Principle againſt the uſe of Carnal Weapons, that for only propoſing it to be enquired into, Whether it be not a Tranſgreſſion of the Quakers Principle, for any of that People to hire and commiſſionate men to fight, that they will caſt men into Goal, and proſecute them as Seditious Perſons for ſo doing.

Here follows a Breviate of a Paper that was preſented to the Court, to ſhow, that it was agreeable to the Quakers ancient Teſtimony, not to fight, which they took little or no notice of.

A Declaration from the People of God, called Quakers, againſt all Plotters and Fighters, &c. Preſented to the King, 1660.

[Page]

ALL Bloody Principles and Practices, we, as to our own particulars, do utterly deny, with all outward Wars and Strife, and Fightings with outward Weapons, for any end (mark) or under any pretence whatſoever. And this is our Teſtimony to the whole World.—And we do certainly know, and ſo teſtifie to the World, that the Spirit of Chriſt, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight and war againſt any man with outward Weapons, either for the Kingdom of Chriſt, nor for the Kingdoms of this World.—We have uſed no Force nor Violence againſt any man, &c. when we have been wronged, we have not ſought to revenge our ſelves.—So that if we ſuffer as ſuſpected to take up Arms, or make War againſt any, its without any ground from us; for it neither is, nor ever was in our Hearts ſince we owned the Truth of God, neither ſhall we ever do it, becauſe it is contrary to the Spirit of Chriſt, his Doctrine, and the Practice of the Apoſtles. Given forth by George Fox, John Stubs, Leonard Fell, Rich. Hubberthorn, Francis Howgill, Samuel Fiſher, John Boulton, Gerrard Roberts, Henry Fell, John Furley, jun. Thomas Moore, John Hind.

See alſo Rob. Apology, Theſ. 15. § 13. p. 399. And § 15. p. 407. he ſays, ‘As to what relates to the preſent Magiſtrates of the Chriſtian World, albeit we deny them not altogether the Name of Christians, becauſe of the publick Profeſſion they make of Chriſts Name, yet we may boldly affirm, that they are far from the Perfection of the Chriſtian Religion, becauſe of the ſtate in which they are, they have not come to the pure Diſpenſation of the Goſpel; but for ſuch whom Chriſt hath brought hither, it is not lawful to defend themſelves by Arms, but ought over all to truſt in the Lord.’

Object. The Scriptures and old Fathers, ſo called, did only prohibit private Revenge, not the uſe of Arms for the Defence of our Country, Bodies, Wives, Children, Goods, when the Magistrate commands it.

Anſw. ‘If the Magiſtrate be truly a Chriſtian, or deſires to be ſo, he ought in the firſt place to obey the Command of his Maſter, ſaying, Love your Enemies, &c.’

R. B's Anſwer to Brown, § 16. p. 181. Brown mentions the neceſſity of Defenſive War, to defend from thoſe that unjuſtly aſſault, and Thieves, Robbers and Cut-throats, &c. R. Barclay ſaith, Herein he ſpeaks more like an Atheiſt than a Christian, and like one who believeth nothing of a Divine Providence in reſtraining Evil Men.

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

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.

Edition statement

1693

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A63218

ID [STC]

Wing T2254

ID [STC]

ESTC R26327

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

09431836

ID [OCLC]

ocm 09431836

ID [VID]

43068

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A63218)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 43068)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1318:17)

Source

— 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..

Extent

34 p.

Reprinted for Richard Baldwin,. London :: 1693.. (Attributed to George Keith--LC.) (Reproduction of original in the Bodleian Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.