The Judicial History of Individual Liberty. and Parkyns followed shortly afterwards. The new act regulating the procedure of treason trials was not effective until March 25th. All the prisoners arraigned before the latter date asked for counsel or requested a continuance of their trial until they should be able to avail themselves of the new act. But the judges could not relax the law, and
249
it. Charnock, indeed, showed presence of mind and good judgment, and made as good a defense as counsel could have made for him; but the trial of Freind was a strong illustration of the injustice of forcing an ignorant and helpless prisoner to defend his life against experienced lawyers. He was so ignorant of history as to believe that the
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE HOLT.
the attorney general would not postpone the trials. The real fault would seem to have been with the government in pressing the cases for trial. The prisoners would have gained nothing by delay, and if, as the act had virtually conceded, the old procedure gave an unfair advantage to the crown, it was unseemly in the government, under such circumstances, to avail themselves of
statute of treasons, passed in the reign of Edward III., provided that no papist should be a witness, and insisted on having the whole act read from beginning to end. Par kyns, the last prisoner tried under the old procedure, would have escaped in conse quence of an error by the solicitor general, if it had not been for the acumen of his junior, William Cowper. Rockwood was the first
