Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/222

 The Judicial History of Individual Liberty.

179

argued that to imagine the levying of war up on the king was not equivalent, as claimed, to a design to kill him. But his main re liance was that no two witnesses had sworn to the same overt act. Chief Justice Pemberton's conduct of the trial was temperate and humane, although he ignored the prison er's defense with respect to the required number of witnesses.

the king, seeking cooperation from Scot land, and writing a treasonable libel affirm ing the subjection of the king to Parlia ment and the lawfulness of deposing kings. The only legal evidence on the first charge was the testimony of Lord Howard, which was completely discredited. The second charge was not proved. With respect to the third charge the authorship of the objection-

Sidney's trial before Chief Justice Jeffreys possesses many more elements of interest than Russell's case. Jeffreys disgraced him self by his brutality, but Sidney defended himself with great ability and vigor. The prisoner was charged with three overt acts of treason: holding consultations which amounted to a conspiracy to levy war against

able manuscript was proved, but there was nothing to show that it was intended to be published. Among the many points which Sidney argued with much acuteness he laid most stress, as Russell had done, upon the lack of the required number of witnesses to the same overt act. Jeffreys told the jury that there was scarce a line in Sidney's