Amicus reipublicæ. = The Common-Wealths friend or an exact and speedie course to justice and right, and for preventing and determining of tedious law-suits. With many other things very considerable for the good of the publick. All which are fully controverted and debated in law. By John March of Grayes-Inne, barister.

Whether it be a reasonable Law, that a man shall not have Counsel upon an Indictment of Treason or Fe∣lony?

THat the Law is such, it is ad∣mitted, and without dispute; and the reason that is given for it, is, that the Indictment being heretofore at the Suit of the King, the King in∣tended nothing but Justice with fa∣vour; and therefore he would be con∣tented that the Justices should help forth the parties as far as reason and Justice may suffer; and that in all things that pertain to the form of pleading, the Judges shall so instruct the parties, that they incurre no damage thereby.

This reason at the first aspect,

seems very plausible; but better dived into, I doubt it will not appear so. Do not we know, that though the Judges were sworn to do right between the King and his people; that yet they were the more imme∣diate Counsel of the King? and though a poor man might happily find Justice, as having nothing but a life to lose, I doubt, it did not always fare so with the rich? And therefore, heretofore, when any Gentleman had committed any crime for which his life was in danger, it was usual to in∣quire in the first place, what Estate he had, and if it was answered, a good Estate, it was thereupon replied, that is enough to hang him. Then he had no sooner committed the offence, but his Estate was begged of the King by some great Courtier, and what relation there was then be∣tween the Judges and the Court, we

very well know, but to say no more but this, suppose it shall so fall out, that the Judge be a weak ignorant man himself, before whom the Tryal is, (as we have not been wanting of the like experience in our age) who then shall advise the Prisoner? is not this then a case of great extre∣mity and injustice?

To conclude, in the most petty, ordinary, and inconsiderable action that is, the Law allowes a man coun∣sel; why then should it be denied him in a case of the highest concern∣ment to him that can be, his life? If he shall have Counsel in lesser things, why not in greater, where there is most need of it? we say, that life is one of the Laws Favourites, but it is not so dealt withall in this case; but now the Court is gone, I hope this Law will in time be alter∣ed. The next thing to be considered

is, actions for Slanderous words, in which I make this question;