By W. W. Ravenhill, Esq. 259 
21. Ask the prosecutor, whether he came voluntarily to prosecute against us, 
and if he did not, but was forced, then desire the jury to judge whether they 
that are come hither from London purposely, have not an intention to take away 
our lives. 
22. If they indict us as traitors by any act of the long parliament, it will be 
for treason against the king, or against the commonwealth, and keepers of the 
liberty; we have done nothing against either of them, and let them prove it. 
28. If they ground the indictment on any act or ordinance since the long 
parliament was dissolved, which was April 20th, 1653, deny it to be an act ; for 
the two last parliaments made no acts at all concerning treason, and there can be 
no treason by an ordinance.* Therefore leave it upon the conscience of the jury 
whether there be any laws to guide them in their verdict, besides common law 
and acts of parliament. 
24, Tell the jury, that if the king had formerly with his council made a pro- 
clamation, order, or ordinance, declaring something to be treason, which neither 
the common law nor any act of parliament had so declared, that no jury hereupon 
durst have found any man guilty. 
25. Alledge the case of Chief Just. Tresilian sir Robert Belknappy, and other 
judges in 11. Richard 2, who gave their opinions, that other facts were treason 
than what had been declared by authority of parliament, and did it to please the 
then present governor, were attainted of treason for their opinions and by the 
parliament following 11. Rich. were made examples for their treason. And in 
the 21 Rich, II. the judges giving the like opinion, had no other excuse to avoid 
the attainder of treason in parliament 1 Hen. 1V., than that they durst say no 
otherwise for fear of death; but it was hereupon enacted, that no justice or other 
person whatever shall from thenceforth be admitted to say, that they durst not 
for fear of death speak the truth; so that no force nor fear can excuse any person, 
if he shall now declare any fact to be treason, which cannot be warranted by 
authority of parliament. Therefore leave it upon the conscience of the jury, 
whether they do believe we are indicted for any breach of any common law, or 
act of parliament; and if for neither, whether they can in conscience take our 
blood upon their heads.+ 
26.t If the judge pretend, that we alledge not matter of law sufficient for 
assignment of council then urge, that the ordinance, whereupon the indictment 
is grounded, is not pursued ; that at the time of the indictment there were not 
two lawful accusers or witnesses to the grand jury, which ought to be by the 
* This is so; it must be by a statute duly passed. 
+The Government by framing the Iudictment on the Statute of Edward III. avoided the objections 
raised by pleas 22—25 inclusive. This case of Tressilian and his fellows is given in How. St. Trials, 
-yol.i., p. 90. The story of his being recognized, though in disguise, whilst looking out ofa window 
at Westminster, prior to his capture, reminds us of that of Jefferys, who certainly was not an 
innocent victim of circumstances, whatever Tressilian may have been. Certainly the latter would 
have agreed with the author of “ Jacobite Principles vindicated,’ when he said ‘‘ Would you have 
trials secured? It is the interest of all parties care should be taken about them, or all parties will 
suffer in their turn.’’—10 Somers Tracts, 526. 
No doubt there were plenty of witnesses to satisfy the Statute of Edward VI., which requires 
two, see plea 29; the other matter mentioned in this plea was of no moment in the case of the 
principal prisoners at any rate. 
VOL. XIII.—NO. XXXIX. U 
