Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/510

 The Court of Star Chamber. refused it out of fear and cowardice." He urged the following grounds why his petition should be granted, viz. : — (i) Close, Dr. Leyton and others had been allowed it, and there was no precedent against it but one, and in that case the de fendant was a woman, " not a man, much less a lawyer"; (2) upon an ore tenns in the Star Chamber, at the council table, in parliament and in the King's Bench, the de fendants made their defense without counsel; (3) counsel were allowed, not of necessity, but of favor, " as a help to the defendants; but when they find them no help, but that they advise them to their prejudice, why may they not answer without them?" (4) the answer was in the eye of the law the defendant's, — not the counsel's; (5) should an innocent man suffer without conviction "through the want, fear, neglect, ignorance, diversity of opinions or treachery of counsels? (6) the law of nature teacheth every crea ture .... to defend himself, and in the pres ent case the defendant's answer rested upon books, matters of divinity and other points wherein counsel have little skill." (7) "At the general day of judgment every man shall be allowed to make answer for himself, much more should earthly judges allow the same where others will not or dare not." (8) " By the judicial law among the Jews, and by the civil law among the pagan Romans, every one might answer for them selves; Nabroth, Susanna, Christ and others, though unjustly condemned, yet were not condemned as guilty for not answering by counsel." (9) St. Paul, when he was slan dered and accused by Ananias the high priest, and Tcrtullus, and several times before Felix, Festus, and King Agrippa (three heathen magistrates), was suffered to speak for himself, without any counsel assigned. In conclusion he prayed that " being ac cused by the English prelates and high priests' instigation, of sedition and other like crimes, as St. Paul was," he should "enjoy the same privileges and freedom

473

before Christian judges as St. Paul had among pagans, which his adversaries will not be against unless they will be deemed more unreasonable than Ananias himself." Bastwick submitted a similar petition urging the same ground, namely, that his counsel refused to sign his answer. The court adhered to its former ruling, and directed that the answers be put in according to the form decreed, or else the information would be taken pro confesso. Prynn and Bastwick thereupon left their answers at the office and tendered another draught thereof to the court. The court observing that Bastwick's an swer " was five skins and a half of parch ment, close written, and (as was alleged) contained much scandallous, defamatory matter," ordered that the information as against him should be taken pro confesso. He again petitioned leave to introduce another signature of counsel, but to no pur pose. Prynn in a second petition " desiring of the court not to require impossibilities of him, his counsel's hand not being at his command (for thus the most innocent man may be betrayed and condemned through the unfaithfulness, wilfulness, fear, corrup tion or default of counsel), he prayed them to deal with him as they would be dealt with themselves were they (which God for bid) in his condition, and as they would have Christ proceed with them at the day of judgment." The court hereupon directed Mr. Holt, one of Prynn's counsel, to go to him in the Tower and take his instructions for his answer. But the Lieutenant of the Tower was sent for and rebuked by court for having suffered Prynn to dictate such a petition; and one Gardener, who wrote it by the Lieutenant's license, was the same evening, by a warrant signed among others by Laud himself, apprehended, imprisoned for two weeks, and not released till he had given a bond to appear when called.