July 13. 1683. THen and there the Prisoner appearing he was Arraigned upon an Indictment of High-Treason for conspiring the Death of the King and subversion of the Government To which being required to plead he desired a Copy of his Indictment but being told nothing could be granted till he had pleaded he pleaded Not Guilty And then complain'd of his being arraign'd and tried at the same time desiring a Copy of his Panel having had only some Names of Persons usually upon Juries and that his Trial might be deferr'd till the Afternoon in regard he had a Witness that was not in Town But the Attorn Gen. urg'd the Jury might be called Then the Prisoner desired a Pen and Ink and some to write for him and to have the use of his Papers all which were granted And then John Martin being named the Lord Russel asked if he were a Free-holder of forty Shillings a Year saying that he thought none were allowed but such as were Free-holders To which the Court replied That no Pannel was made in London by Free-holders for that London Estates belonging either to the Nobility or Gentry that lived out of the City or to Corporations London was excepted To this his Lordship urged the Statute of 2 Hen. 5. wherein he said it was positive that in Cases of Life and Death no Man should be judged but by those that have forty Shillings a Year But the Attorn Gen. not allowing the Prisoners Exceptions his Counsel were called and again assigned him by the Court Mr. Pollexfen Mr. Holt and Mr. Ward who learnedly urged what they took to be Law in that Case and were answer'd by the Attorn Gen. Mr. Sol. Gen. Sir George Jefferies and Mr. North the King's Counsel And then it was adjudged by eight of the Judges being present viz. the Ld. Ch. Justice the Ld. Ch. Baron Mr. Justice Wyndham Mr. Justice Jones Mr. Justice Charlton Mr. Justice Levins Mr. Baron Street and Mr. Justice Withens that in case of Treason Free-hold was no good cause of Challenge The Jury-men therefore were called and after the Lord Russel hah challenged 31 of them the following Persons were sworn viz. John Martin William Rouse Jervas Seaton William Fashion Thomas Short George Toriano VVilliam Butler James Pickering Thomas Jeve Hugh Noden Robert Brough Thomas Oneby To whom the Indictment being read the same was opened by Mr. North and the Attorny-General opened the Evidence And then Col. Rumsey being sworn deposed That about the latter end of October or beginning of November the Lord Shaftsbury sent him from his Lodging by VVapping to Mr. Shepherd's to the Duke of Monmouth the Lord Russel Lord Grey Sir Thomas Armstrong and Mr. Ferguson there met to know what Resolution they were come to about the rising of Taunton Their answer was That Mr. Trenchard had failed them that he had promised 1000 foot and 300 Horse but when he came to perform it he could not He thought the People would not meddle unless they had some time to make Provision for their Families That Mr. Ferguson made this Answer the Lord Russel and the Duke of Monmouth being present and the Lord Grey saying something to the same purpose And upon this it was the Lord Shaftsbury prepared to be gone That he was with them at Shepherd's about a quarter of an hour and that there was some discourse about seizing of the Guards at the Savoy and Mews in case the Insurrection had gone on which was to have been on Novemb. 19. and that the Duke of Monmouth the Lord. Grey and Sir Thomas Armstrong undertook to view the Guards and that the Lord Russel assented to all this and the Witness was to have gone to Bristol by the order of the Earl of Shaftsbury against that time Then Mr. Shepherd deposed that in October Mr. Ferguson came to him in the Duke of Monmouth's Name to request the conveniency of his House for him and some other Persons of Quality to meet That in the Evening came the Duke of Monmouth the Lord Grey the Lord Russel Sir Thomas Armstrong Col. Rumsey and Mr. Ferguson one after another That Sir Thomas Armstrong desired they might be private and therefore what they wanted he fetch'd up himself not suffering his Servants to come up That their Discourse was about seizing the Guards and the Duke of Monmouth Lord Grey and Sir Thomas Armstrong went one time to view them and the next time they met at his House he heard Sir Thomas say the Guards were very remiss in their Places and not like Soldiers and that the thing was feasible if they had strength to do it That they met twice at his House and the Prisoner was there both times That Mr. Ferguson read a Paper in the Nature of a Declaration setting forth the Grievances of the Nation in order to a Rising He could not say the Lord Russel was present at the reading of it but Col. Rumsey was who then deny'd it saying it was over before he came Then the Lord Howard being sworn began his long Evidence with a low Voice pretending the News he had just then receiv'd of the Earl of Essex's Fate had sunk his Voice and a long Story of the Designs of the Earl of Shaftsbury an Account of which he had from Capt. VValcot whom he brought acquainted with the Earl of Shaftsbury and by whom the Earl of Shaftsbury sent for him while he absconded at one VVatson's at the end of VVoodstreet and there discover'd to him his Design of the Rising and that he had 10000 brisk Boys ready to follow him whenever he held up his Finger who were to possess themselves of the Gates and would in an Hour's time be 5 times multiplied But that his Design was much retarded by the backwardness of the Duke of Monmouth and the Lord Russel who failed him in not being ready prepared to concur with him in the Country that he then endeavour'd to shew the Earl of Shaftsbury the necessity of having those Lords concurrence in so weighty an Undertaking and proffer'd his Service to bring them to a right Understanding among themselves to this end he spoke with the Duke of Monmouth who deny'd that either he or the Lord Russel had given the Earl of Shaftsbury any incouragement to be so forward because they knew the Country could not be ready to stir so soon That a Meeting was then propos'd but afterwards put off by reason of the Earl of Shaftsbury's fears of being discover'd That the Duke of Monmouth told him that the Lord Russel had been with the Earl of Shaftsbury and preswaded him to put off his Rendezvouz for only a Fortnight against which time they would try to be ready for him But the Country not being ready that Design was disappointed That in October Captain Walcot acquainted him with the Design upon the King with which he acquainted the Duke of Monmouth who said he would never suffer it and they did all they could to prevent it This failing the
last Mr. Bulstrode was asked by the Prisoner What Message he brought and what proffer he made from the Court to his Wife But to this he would say nothing only that Fitz-Harris's Wife refused to be examin'd unless the King would speak to her alone The Dutchess of Portsmouth would likewise own nothing concerning him but that she had three or four times spoke to the King for him to get his Estate in Ireland and that what Mony he had had from her was only for Charity After this the Prisoner concluded his Defence complaining of his hard Usage professing his enmity to the French Interest and that Everard knew the Design of that Libel was otherwise concluding that the Jury could not find him now Guilty because of his Impeachment in a Superior Court The Sol. General then summ'd up the Evidence and Serj. Jefferies and the Ld. Ch. Justice gave the Charge to the Jury who desired the Opinion the Court since the Prisoner had been impeached whether they were compellable by Law to give a Verdict in this Case upon him To which The Ld. Ch. Justice said That the Vote of the Commons viz. That the Prisoner should not be tried in any other Inferior Court could not alter the Law and that the Judges of this Court had conference with all the other Judges concerning this Matter and it was the Opinion of all the Judges of England that this Court had a Jurisdiction to try this Man After which Justice Jones was of Opinion That if the Prisoner were acquitted on this Indictment it might be pleaded in Bar to the Impeachment Justice Dolben and Justice Raymond declared they were of the same Opinion The Jury withdrew for half an hour and then brought the Prisoner in Guilty And on Wednesday June 15. 1681. the Ld. Ch. Justice sentenc'd him to be Drawn Hang'd and Quartered Which was accordingly executed upon him together with Plunket at Tyburn on Friday July 1. 1681. The Trial of Dr. Oliver Plunket Titular Primate of Ireland before the Lord Chief Justice Scroggs at the King's-Bench Bar at Westminster on Wednesday June 8. 1681. ON May the 3d. 1681. the Prisoner was there Arraign'd upon Indictment of High-Treason for Conspiring the Death of the King and to levy War in Ireland and to alter the Religion there and to introduce a Foreign Power To which he urged that he had been arraigned for the same Treason in Ireland and at the Day of his Trial the Witnesses against him did not appear But the Court shew'd him the invalidity of that Plea because he had never yet undergone any Trial therefore he Pleaded Not Guilty On Wednesday June 8. following he was again brought to the Bar and still urged for more time because he pretended he had not yet got over all his Witnesses and some Records from Ireland But he having already had five Weeks the Court would not hearken and therefore the Jury sworn were Sir John Roberts Thomas Harriott Henry Ashurst Ralph Bucknall Richard Gowre Richard Pagett Thomas Earsby John Hayne Thomas Hodgkins James Partherich Samuel Baker VVilliam Hardy To whom the Indictment being read the same was opened by Mr. Heath Serj. Maynard and Mr. Attorny General And then Florence VVyer being sworn deposed That he knew there was a Plot in Ireland both before Plunkets time and in his time which was working in 1665 and 1666 but was brought to full maturity in 1677 then Col. Rely and Col. Bourne being sent from the French King into Ireland with a Commission to muster as many Men as they could promising to send an Army of 40000 Men to land at Carlingford on St. Lewis-day to destroy all Protestants and set up the French King's Authority And one Edmond Angle a Justice of Peace and Clerk of the Crown sent for all the Rebels abroad in the North to come up into the County of Longford and they marched into the head Town of the County and fired it the Inhabitants fled into the Castle but Angle being shot the Rebels fled and carried with them all the Papers Angle had in his Pocket Hereupon Col. Bourne became suspected and was imprison'd and Col. Rely fled into France and the Plot lay under a Cloud till the Prisoner came to be Primate which he got by the French King's help upon his promising to prepare things in Ireland for his Interest and that about 10 or 11 Years ago in the first Year of his Primacy when the Prisoner came to the Friery at Armagh he being there one Quine told him That they thought Duffy would have been Primate said he 't is better as it is for Duffy hath not the wit to do those things that I have undertaken to do That he had heard the Prisoner own himself to be made Primate by the Pope and that he writ himself Oliverus Armacanus Primat Metropolitanus totius Hiberniae and had made Warrants sub paena suspensionis for his Priests to pay Mony for to supply the French Army and to let him know how many there were in all their Parishes from sixteen to sixty And that he had seen him going from Port to Port and that he pitch'd on Carlingford as most convenient for the French to land at Henry O-Neal deposed That in August 1678 Bishop Tyrril came with 40 odd Horse-Men to Vicar-General Brady's House where he gave them all the Oath of Secrecy to forward the Plot against the Protestants whom he said they would make an end of from end to end in Ireland in one hour and that he should have an Order for it from the Lord Oliver Plunket and that he and Plunket had sent Mony into France to get Men and to bring them into Ireland Neal O-Neal deposed the same he also being at that time at Vicar Bradey's House being August 21. 1678. Owen Murfey only swore That Lieutenant Baker told him That Mr. Edmond Murfey did discover the Plot to him that there was a Design to bring in the French but of his own Knowledg he could say nothing Hugh Duffy deposed That he had seen several of the Prisoner's Orders to raise Mony and had collected some for him being Curate of Cogham and a Fryer and had by his Order returned him also a list of the Age of every Person in his Parish from 16 to 60 and that he accompanied him when he view'd the Port of Carlingford which he thought most convenient for landing the French and had seen his Letter in France to Cardinal Bovillon that he should prevail with that King not to invade Spain but rather wage War with the King of England who had been an Apostate and help their poor Country that was daily tormented with Heretical Jurisdiction That he was present at a great Consult near Clouds where the Prisoner was Chief and gave special Order for a List to be got of all the Officers in the late Rebellion and that lost their Estates because they would be more forward in this Design That he himself was forward
he should be call'd to an Account for all his Actions for all the World might see that he did resolve to bring in Arbitrary Power and Popery and that unless he would let the Parliament sit at Oxford since he had called them together and put the People to Charges in chusing them and them in coming down he should be seiz'd at Oxford and brought to the Block as was the Logger-head his Father That the Parliament should sit at Guild-hall and adjust the Grievances of the Subject and of the Nation and that no King of his Race should ever Reign in England after him And unless the King did expel from his Council the Earl of Clarendon cunning Lory Hide the Earl of Hallifax that great turn-coat Rogue that was before so much against the Papists a Rascal whom we should see hang'd and all the Tory Counsellors England should be too hot for him That for this End there was in the City 1500 Barrels of Powder and 100000 Men ready at an hour's warning and that every thing was ordered in a due Method against the sitting of the Parliament at Oxford And that he should see England the most glorious Nation in the World when they had cut off that beastly Fellow Rowley who came of the Race of Buggerers for his Grand-father King James buggered the old Duke of Buckingham Railing then at Judg Pemberton saying Let him try Fitz-Harris if he dare I shall see him go to Tyburn for it I hope a turn-coat Rogue That he was for the Plot whilst he was puisne Judg but now he was Chief Justice he was the greatest Rogue in the World even like one of the Pensioners in the Long Parliament That the Prisoner would moreover have put this Informant upon charging the King With the firing of London and the Murder of Sir Edmondbury Godfry telling him that such and suck Lords should live and die by him and that he needed not to fear but that England should espouse his Cause And discoursing then of the Libel of Fitz-Harris The Devil take me said Colledge every individual Word is as true as God is in Heaven and that if the Informant did not join with Fitz-Harris in his Evidence and charge the King home he was the basest Fellow in the World because he made them Slaves and Beggars and would make all the World so and that it was a kind of Charity to charge him home that we might be rid of such a Tyrant He depos'd further That he also receiv'd a blew Ribbond from Mr. Colledge whom meeting after he came from Oxford he asked Where now were all his Cracks and Braggs for that the King had fool'd them who answered That they had not done with the King yet though they could do nothing then for that no Servant no Man living did know whether he would dissolve the Parliament that Day That he was that very nick of Time at the Lobby of the Lords House and there was a Man came in with a Gown under his Arm and every one looked upon him to be a Tailor and no Body did suspect no not his own intimate Friends except it were Fitz-Gerald that he would Dissolve the Parliament that Day But presently he put on his Robes and sent away for the House of Commons and when he had dissolved them before ever the House could get down he took Coach and went away otherwise that the Parliament had been too hard for him for that there was never a Parliament-Man but had divers armed Men to wait on him and that he had his Blunderbuss and his Man to wait upon him The next Witness against Mr. Colledge was Mr. Turbervile who being sworn deposed That when the Parliament sat in Oxford about the middle of the Week he dined with Mr. Colledge Capt. Brown and Don Lewis Clerk of Derby-House at the Chequer-Inn in Oxford After Dinner Don Lewis went out about some Business and Capt. Brown went to sleep and Mr. Colledge and he fell a talking of the Times and he was observing he thought the Parliament was not a long-liv'd Parliament Whereupon Mr. Colledge answered That there was no Good to be expected from the King for he and all his Family were Papists and had ever been such Then said Turbervile the King will offer something or other by way of surprize to the Parliament Said Colledge I would he would begin but if he do not we will begin with him and seize him for there are several brave Fellows about this Town that will secure him till we have those Terms that we expect from him adding That he had got a Case of Pistols and a very good Sword and a Velvet Cap Giving Turbervile a piece of blew Ribbond to put in his Hat to be a distinction if there should be any disturbance Then Mr. Masters was sworn who deposed That he and Colledge had been long acquainted And that a little before the Parliament at Oxford about Christmass after the Parliament at Westminster at Mr. Charlton's Shop the Wollen-Draper in Paul's Church-Yard discoursing with him about the Government he was justifying of the late Long-Parliament's Actions in Forty He said That that Parliament was as good a Parliament as ever was chosen in the Nation and that they did nothing but what they had just cause for and that the Parliament that sat last at Westminster was of their Opinion and so he should have seen it And that another time he calling him in a jocose way Colonel Colledge bid him mock not for he might be one in a little time Then Sir William Jennings being sworn deposed That Colledge gave him one time a Picture and another time he saw him bring into a Coffee-House a parcel of blew Ribbond with No Popery No Slavery wrought in it and sold a Yard of it there to a Parliament-Man as he took him to be for 2 s. who tied it upon his Sword And that on that very Day the Parliament was Dissolved at Oxford he came to him standing in the School-House-yard telling him Mr. Fitz-Gerald had spit in his Face and that he spit in his Face again and that so they went to Logerheads together and that upon Sir William's telling him his Nose bled he said I have lost the first blood in the Cause but it will not be long before more be lost The Evidence for the King here ending Mr. Serj. Holloway briefly explained to the Jury that the seizing the Person of the King was in Law a compassing and intending his Death as it was worded in the Indictment which therefore they ought so to understand Then Mr. Colledge desired to be resolved these Questions upon the Evidence which he had heard 1. Whether any Conspiracy for which his Indictment was had been herein proved 2. Whether there ought not to be two Witnesses distinct to swear words at one and the same time And 3. Whether any Act of Treason done at London shall be given in Evidence to prove the Treason for which he was now
General summ'd up the Evidence giving this Reason vvhy this Testimony was produced no sooner viz. Because time vvas vvhen the City of London vvas a Refuge for High-Treason and no Justice to be had for the King there it being hardly safe for the Judges to sit on the Bench by reason of the Rabble The Ld. Ch. Justice directed likewise the Jury vvith some Virulency against Oates's Confidence bewailing the Death of so many Innocent Men upon his Evidence reflecting on the Insolency as he called it of those Times crying out Good God of Heaven VVhat an Age have we liv'd in to see Innocence suffer Punishment and impudent Falsity Reign so long c. The Jury withdrawing for half an hour brought in their Verdict That the Defendant was Guilty of the Perjury whereof he stood Indicted To which the Judges gave their Approbation and the Ld. Ch. Justice told the Jury that by it they had Contributed as much as in them lay to Vindicate the Nation from the Infamy it had so long lain under The Court then arose On Monday May 11. 1685. Mr. Wallop procured the same leave as Oates done before for the Defendant to move in Arrest of Judgment upon the Conviction on Saturday also which was Granted And on Saturday May 26. 1685. The Prisoner was set to the Bar but his Counsel said they had nothing to say Then four Exceptions which the Prisoner had given in were read and over-ruled And the Ld. Ch. Justice aggravated his Crime in a Virulent Speech and Mr. Justice Withyns pronounced the Judgment of the Court upon him which was this 1. That he should pay for a Fine 1000 Marks upon each Indictment 2. That he should be strip'd of all his Canonical Habits 3. That he should stand in the Pillory before Westminster-Hall Gate upon Monday next for an hour's time between 10 and 12 a Clock with a Paper over his Head which he must first walk with round about to all the Courts in Westminster-Hall declaring his Crime and that was upon the first Indictment 4. That for the 2d Indictment he should upon Teusday stand in the Pillory at the Royal-Exchange in London for an hour between 12 and 2 with the same Inscription 5. On Wednesday that he should be Whipt from Aldgate to Newgate 6. On Friday That he should be Whipt from Newgate to Tyburn by the Hands of the Common Hangman 7. And for Annual Commemorations That upon every 24th of April as long as he should live he was to stand in the Pillory at Tyburn just opposite to the Gallows for an hour between 10 and 12. 8. That upon every 9th of August he was to stand in the Pillory at Westminster-Hall Gate because he had sworn that Mr. Ireland was in Town between the 8th and 12th of August 9. That on every 10th of August he was to stand in the Pillory at Charing-Cross for an hour between 10 and 12. 10. The Like over against the Temple-Gate every 11th of August 11. And that upon every 2d of September another Notorious Day he was to do the like at the Royal-Exchange for an hour between 12 and 2. That all this he was to do every year during his Life And be Committed a Close Prisoner as long as he liv'd And this he told him he pronounced to be the Judgment of the Court and that if it had been in his Power to have carried it further he should not have been unwilling to have given Judgment of Death upon him for he was sure he deserved it The Trial of William Ring Tailor before the Lord Chief Justice Jones at the Old-Baily on Monday October the 19th 1685. THE Prisoner then and there appearing together with John Fernby and Mr. Cornish was arraigned upon an Indictment of High-Treason for harbouring concealing and relieving one Joseph Kelloway and Henry Lawrence whom he knew to have traitorously levied War against the King c. to which baying pleaded Not Guilty the Jury sworn for Middlesex were Nehemiah Arnold Francis Stevens Richard Fisher John Howlet John Vigures Samuel Birch William Thompson VVilliam Read Samuel Peacock Richard Fitz-Gerrard Richard Bromfield John Haynes To whom the Indictment was read and briefly open'd by Mr. Phipps and Attorney General and then a Copy of the Record of the Conviction of Kelloway and Lawrence was produced to shew them Traitors and to prove the Prisoner harboured and conceal'd them between their Treason and Conviction First Mr. Barrington deposed That on July the 11th last Mr. Ring came to him from Mr. Lawrence to come and speak with him whom he found with one Kelloway at Mr. Ring 's house who said they were just come out of the West-Country That on VVednesday following being July the 15th he called and Mr. Lawrence again at Ring 's house who told him he was going from thence to the Pewter-Platter in St. Jones's Where after he had been examin'd before Mr. Common-Serjeant they searched for them but they were gone only they confessed such Men lodged there on Tuesday and VVednesday Night but not the Thursday Night so they enquired for them at Mr. Ring 's House the Bible in VVich-street without Temple-Bar and there Mr. Ring 's Wife told them they lay there the Thursday Night but could not tell where they were at present Whereupon they went to the Castle-Tavern and Mr. Common Serjeant sent for Ring and examin'd him who denyed all till he had sent and search'd his house and brought a Paper Then Mr. Barrow deposed That in July last he heard Mr. Ring confess before the Lord Mayor that he had lodged Lawrence and Kelloway two or three Nights who told him they had been in the late Western Rebellion in Monmouth's Army Mr. Crip swore that he searching Mr. Ring 's house found in the Window a Letter under Lawrence's own hand to Newberry about a horse he had left there which he stole from his Master which Letter he brought to the Castle-Tavern and the Ring who before had denied every thing owned upon the sight of that Paper that Kelloway was his Cousen but deny'd that he lodg'd him then But afterwards at the Sessions-house when Kelloway and Lawrence were produced before him he owned that he had lodg'd them two or three Nights though they said four Nights and that they told him whence they came Then Mr. Hardisti swore to the Examination of Mr. Ring before Sir James Smith Lord Mayor of London on July the 18th last which was that he did lodg Kelloway and Mr. Lawrence three Nights and they dined twice with him that they told him they were in Monmouth's Army who was routed and had left their Horses at Newbury and that he went to one that was Journey-man to a Glover in St. Bartholomew's Close to come speak with Lawrence something also he confess'd about one Hooper as being concern'd in the Rebellion The Mr. Richardson swore that this Kelloway and Lawrence where the Men he carried down into the VVest where they were both convicted and
where the Case was evident But this Court he took to be of the same Nature though of a Degree higher with the other Ordinary Courts of Judicature where there could be no Adjournment after Evidence given But for satisfaction the Judges were ordered to withdraw to Consult which they did and then the Lords Nottingham and Falconbridge moved that the Peers ought to be the Judges hereof because it concerned their Priviledg and so it was also permitted for them to withdraw And after about half an hour the Judges returned and after an Hour the Peers And then the Ld. Ch. Justice Herbert deliver'd the Opinion of the Judges that this Matter being wholly new to them they could not determin but only tell what the Law was in Inferiour Courts in Cases of the like Nature and the Reason of the Law in those Points and then leave the Jurisdiction of this Court to its proper Judges After which the Ld. H. Steward told them he was the only Judg of that Court and therefore he was to determin it shewing of what ill Consequence the Adjournment of the Court might prove if it should happen to be illegal and therefore he ordered the Prisoner to proceed The Lord Delamere therefore did begin his Defence in Protesting his Innocency and Reflecting on the Loyalty of his Family particularly his Father who had been so signally instrumental in the Restoration of the Royal Family that the late King caused it to be inserted in the Patent which created his Father a Peer which Clause he read out of the Patent to the Court. And as to the Evidence against him he observed that it was all but Circumstantial and by hear-say only except that of Saxon's and therefore he apply'd himself particularly against that and called his Witnesses Mr. Richard Hall testify'd how in 1683 Saxon counterfeited a Letter in the Name of one Richard Hildage to him for 6 l. which he ow'd him and Saxon brought the letter and received the Mony and afterwards Hildage demanded the Mony denying that he ever writ for it Mr. Francis Ling declared how this Saxon received 25 s. at this same Hildage's at Newcastle for Mrs. Wibbram without her order nor did she ever receive any of it Richard Shaw declared how he also forg'd a Letter in William Paugston a Bayliffs Name and sent it to him because he owed him a little Mony Peter Hough declared how Saxon cheated him in making him of a Bond for 20 s. less than was due from Saxon to him reading it false to him at the sealing Edward Wilkinson declared that Saxon hired his Horse June 23d last for only three days at 12 Pence a Day but he never came again nor had he had any satisfaction for his Horse it being supposed this was the Horse he rid into the Rebellion with William Wright said he had dealings with Saxon but never found him so good as his Word Then the Prisoner went off from this part of the Evidence to prove that neither Sir Robert Cotton nor Mr. Offley Crew nor himself were in Cheshire at that time Saxon had sworn he saw them at Mere together And to this end one Billing Margaret Davis Mrs. Sidney Lane Charles Reeves Mr. Ashburnham Sir William Twisden and Mr. Heveningham did all sufficiently testify that Sir Robert Cotton was in Town about that time and some of them being his own Servants that he was never in Cheshire since April 6th last nor never out of London till after June As to Mr. Offley Crew Sir Willoughby Aston declared every day particularly where he was from May 26. to June the 4th on which day he went from Sir Willoughby's House homeward Mr. Gregory and Thomas Kid his Servants testifyed that he went directly Home to Crew-Hall in Cheshire that Night and was not at Mere it not being in his way at all As to the Prisoner himself Mr. Booth one of his Brother's declared that he saw his Brother in Town June 3 4 5 6 and so on to June 10. till he went out of Town himself And another of his Brothers Mr. George Booth said he saw him in Town the 4th And the Lord Lovelace testified that he saw him the 5th of June in the House of Lords at the Lord Macclesfield's Trial against Mr. Fitton After it was thus cleared that none of them 3 were where Saxon had sworn they were at that time the Prisoner shew'd the incredibility of his Evidence and proceeded to give an account of his going down so often and so speedily That the first time he went which was betwixt the Coronation and the fitting of the Parliament was to take Possession of a Lease worth 6 or 7000 l. renewed to him by the Bishop of Chester of whose illness he had notice and this he proved by Mr. John Edmonds who said he was a Witness of his taking possession May 5th and by Mr. Henry who was Attorny and delivered him Possession at the same time And for his going out of Town May 27th the occasion of it was to see a sick Child of his and he went so suddenly and privately because he heard there was a Warrant out to apprehend him But while he was at Mere his Wife sent him an Express that as to the Warrant she hoped it was a Mistake but that his eldest Son was very ill and if he intended to see him alive he must make hast up He came but to his House in Cheshire on Sunday May 31. Whence he came on Tuesday morning June 2d and on Wednesday the 3d he was in Town To prove all this Mrs. Kelsey who was his Servant said my Lord told her there was a Warrant out for him which occasioned his coming and moreover his Childs illness The Lady Delamere his Mother testified the illness of his Child in the Country Mr. Kelsey testified his coming to Mere on Sunday Night and going thence on Tuesday Morning and that he had Letters dated June 4. which gave an account my Lord got to London the Night before And Sir Thomas Millington testified the illness of his Son in Town on May 28. he being sent for to him and remembring the time by the date of his Bills After this the Prisoner summ'd up his Evidence and concluded very handsomly and judiciously his Excellent Defence Then Mr. Sol. Gen. having summ'd up the Evidence and the Lord High Steward speaking a few words to this Point of Law which the Prisoner in his Defence seemed to urge That there is a necessity of two Positive Witnesses to convict a Man of Treason and shewing his Mistake about it The Peers withdrew for about half an hour the Prisoner being taken into a little Room appointed for him at the entrance into the Court and then being returned their appearance was took by a Serjeant at Arms and their Verdict took by the Lord H. Steward Seriatim beginning with the Puisne Peer who all declared the Prisoner Not Guilty upon their Honour's Which the Lord H. Steward acquainted him
Word again That they offered him their Petition to read but he did not think it fit for him to do it and therefore he refused and would not read it but that he went immediately to the King and acquainted his Majesty with it and he commanded him to let them know they might come when they would which he immediately did they said they would go and speak with some of their Brethren that were not far off in the mean time he gave order that they should be admitted when they came and they did in a little time return and went first into the Bed-Chamber and then into the Room where the King was And all this was before they appeared at the Council This was no Evidence Mr. Pollexfen said against the Archbishop because he was not there and nothing had been proved against him as done in Middlesex and for the other 6 Lords the Lord President did not say that this is the Petition that they said they had to deliver to the King Nor did he see them deliver any thing but that is still lest doubtful so that it stands upon Presumption and not upon Proof However the Kings Counsel desired to leave it fairly to the Jury upon this Fact and then therefore the Bishops Counsel desired to be heard in their Defence And First Sir Robert Sawyer in a long and learned Speech told the Jury that the Charge against the Bishops was That they did conspire to diminish the Royal Authority and to this end make a Libel against the King but that the Evidence fell far short of this which only proved that the Bishops in as private and humble a manner as they could presented the Paper to the King which was a Petition to be relieved against an Order of Council which they conceived they were aggrieved by and herein was no Sedition either in the matter or manner of delivering it That it was not to be question'd but that any Subject commanded by the King to do an unlawful Thing or what was against his Conscience might humbly tell the King why he could not obey him And that whereas Mr Attorn Gen. had at first said that the Bishops were not sued as Bishops nor prosecuted for their Religion he could not conceive what they were sued for else the Information being against them for an Act they did as Bishops and no otherwise it being what was their Duty and properly within their Sphere and Jurisdiction That whether therefore they consider'd the Matter of this Petition or Manner of delivering it or the Persons that deliver'd it there can appear no Reason for such an Information against them In the Matter of the Petition he consider'd two Things First the Prayer wherein he shewed there could be nothing of Falsity nor any thing contrary to Law for which reason he said possibly it was left out of the Information as being thought no part of a Libel and so made a deform'd story of it without Head or Tail a Petition directed to no Body and for nothing it being without both Title and Prayer Secondly he considered the Reasons of the Bishops for not complying expressed in it The first whereof is the Declarations of Parliament against the Dispensing Power and the next because it is a Matter of so great Moment and Consequence to the whole Nation that they could not make themselves so far Parties in it For if it be of any effect then by it not only the Laws of the Reformation but of all Religion are suspended and what a mischief that would be to the Church which is under the Care of my Lords the Bishops any one might easily apprehend While Sir Robert was speaking to these things the Ld. Ch. Justice said aside that he must not suffer this They intended to dispute the King's Power in suspending Laws Mr. Justice Powel reply'd to him that they could not avoid that Point because if the King had no such Power which was his Judgment then this Petition could not be Libellous The Lord Chief Justice told him he knew he was full of that Doctrine and because the Bishops should have no occasion to say that he denied to hear their Counsel he would let them talk on till they were weary Then for the Manner of delivering the Petition Sir Robert Sawyer proceeded to shew that from their Evidence it appeared to be in the most private and humble manner Leave being first asked and then given Then for the Persons he shewed that they did no more than what was their Duty and belonged to them the Act of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. making them special Guardians of the Law of Uniformity and of that other Law in his late Majesties Reign where all the Clauses of 1 Eliz. are revived Now in that Statute of 1 Eliz. there is this Clause And for the due Execution hereof the Queen 's most Excellent Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all the Commons in this present Parliament assembled do in God's Name earnestly require and charge all the Archbishops and Bishops and other Ordinaries that they do endeavour themselves to the utmost of their Knowledges that the due and true execution hereof may be had throughout their Diocesses and Charges as they will answer before God for such Evils and Plagues wherewith Almighty God may justly punish his People for neglecting this good and wholsome Law By this he shewed that it was plain that the Bishops upon pain of bringing upon themselves the Imprecation of this Act of Parliament were obliged to see it executed and then when any thing comes under their Knowledg especially if they are to be Actors in it that has such a tendency to destroy the very Foundations of the Church as the Suspending of Laws has it concerns them that have no other Remedy to address the King by Petition about it and 't is the Duty of an Officer or Magistrate to tell the King what is Law and what is not he instancing in Cavendish's Case and another in the time of the Lord Hobbart Next to him Mr. Finch spoke briefly recapitulating the King's Evidence and then shewing that this Petition as well for the Matter of it as Manner of delivering it and the Persons by whom it was delivered was no Libel Particularly that the King 's Regal Authority and Royal Prerogative was no way diminished thereby for that the Declaration was founded upon a Dispensing Power which the King could not have Because a Power to abrogate Laws is as much a part of the Legislature which is only in the King and his two Houses of Parliament as to make Laws and a Power to suspend is equal to a Power of abrogating Laws because they are no longer in being as Laws while they are suspended That this was never attempted but in the last King's time which was took notice of and declared against in Parliament in the Years 1662 and 1672 the effect of which was that His Majesty cancell'd the Declaration and declared that it
should never be drawn into Example or Consequence That the Bishops here had done but what became them as Peers and Bishops in the most decent Manner And that unless this humble Petition so presented may be said to be a malicious and seditious Libel with an intent to stir up the People to Sedition the Jury ought not to find my Lords the Bishops guilty upon that Information Mr. Pollexfen next spoke insisting upon the Illegality of the King's Declaration as setting aside all the Law we have in England almost all being Penal Laws not only those before the Reformation but since especially in matters of Religion And therefore the King's Will not being consonant to Law and not obliging nothing can be done with a more Christian Mind than to inform him of it by way of Petition as the Bishops had done Then Mr. Serjeant Pemberton spoke Affirming that the Bishops had done no more than their Duty to God the King and the Church Denying the Dispensing Power as a thing that strikes at the very Foundation of all the Rights Liberties and Properties of the Kings Subjects whatsoever That the King 's Legal Prerogatives are as much for the Advantage of his Subjects as of himself That these Laws he would by his Declaration suspend are the great Bulwark of the Reformed Religion Intended to defend the Nation against false Religions Particularly the Romish Religion which is the very worst of all Religions a Religion no way tolerable nor to be endured here And yet if this Declaration should take effect all Religions would be let in and even that Religion would stand upon the same terms with the Protestant Religion and all the Care and Statutes that had been against it go for nothing That the Bishops have the Care of the Church by their very Function and Office and are bound to take care to keep out all those false Religions that are prohibited and designed to be kept out by Law and therefore could do no less than they did That our Law did allow the King no such Dispensing Power Instancing in that Check the Parliament had given to it in 1662. But here the Ld. Ch. Justice interrupted him as being what had been spoken to already Then Mr. Serjeant Levinz offered to shew that it has been taken all along as the ancient Law of England that such Dispensations ought to be by the King and Parliament and not by the King alone but he was stop'd enough having been offer'd already Therefore the Bishops Counsel proceeded to prove what had been said and to that end was produced and read in Court the Record of Richard the Second wherein the Parliament gave the King a Power to dispense with the Statute of Provisors which was a Penal Law concerning collating and presenting to Dignities and Benefices of the Church only till the next Parliament declaring withal that it was a Novelty and that it should not be drawn into Example Then the Journal of the House of Lords was produced and his Majesty's Speech to both Houses in 1662 read wherein is this Clause That if the Dissenters will demean themselves peaceably and modestly under the Government his Majesty said he could heartily wish that he had a Power of Indulgence to use upon occasion Whereupon there was a Bill in the House of Lords brought in to enable the King to dispense with several Laws which was read and committed but further than that it went not Which Bill was also read out of the Journal Then the Journal of the House of Commons was produced and a Vote read which passed Feb. 25. 1662. That no Indulgence be granted to the Dissenters from the Act of Vniformity With the Commons Address and Reasons for this Vote wherein was declared That the Act of Vniformity could not be dispensed with without an Act of Parliament The Journal of the House of Lords was again produced and the King's Speech to both Houses on Feb. 5. 1672 read wherein he mentions his Declaration for Indulgence The Journal then of the House of Commons was again produced and the Commons Petition and Address to the King Feb. 14. 1672 was read Wherein they thank him for his Speech And tell him They have considered his Declaration for Indulgence dated the 15th of March last And find themselves bound in Duty to inform his Majesty That Penal Laws in Matters Ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by Act of Parliament And do therefore beseech him That the said Laws may have their free Course until it shall be otherwise provided for by Act of Parliament Then his Majesty's Answer to that Reply was read wherein he expresses his trouble that his Declaration has disquieted them That he does not pretend to the Right of suspending Laws wherein the Properties Rights or Liberties of any of his Subjects are concerned nor to alter any thing in the established Doctrine or Discipline of the Church of England But his only Design in this was to take off the Penalties and the Statutes inflicted upon Dissenters To which the Commons replied which was then read out of the same Journal That they found his Answer not sufficient to clear the Apprehensions that may justly remain in the Minds of his People by his Majesty's having claimed a Power to suspend Penal Statutes in Matters Ecclesiastical and which his Majesty does still seem to assert in his Answer to be intrusted in the Crown and never questioned in the Reigns of any of his Ancestors Wherein they humbly conceive him misinform'd Since no such Power ever was claimed or exercised by any of his Majesty's Predecessors And if it should be admitted might tend to the interrupting the free Course of the Laws and altering the Legislative Power which hath always been acknowledged to reside in his Majesty and his two Houses of Parliament With an unanimous Consent they therefore again besought him That he would be pleased to give them a full and satisfactory Answer to their Petition and Address and take such effectual Order that the Proceedings in this Matter might not for the future be drawn into Consequence or Example Then the Lords Journal was turned to wherein it waâ— read how that the King communicated this Address to the Lords and desired their Advice And that on March the 8th 1672 He made a Speech to both Houses wherein he tells them That if there was any Scruple remaining in them concerning the Suspension of Penal Laws he here faithfully promised them That what had been done in that Particular should not for the future be drawn either into Consequence or Example After which the Lord Chancellor imparted to them That his Majesty found some dissatisfaction remaining concerning the Officers to be employed abroad but if that bred any Umbrage the King commanded him to let them know That he resolves to give both his Houses full Satisfaction to their Desires And that his Majesty had last Night in pursuance of what he then intended and declared this Morning concerning the Suspension of
Meetings was upon the account of carrying on the Conspiracy and discoursing about the Condition the Conspirators were in As to the intended Insurrection he said If he could but see a Cloud at big as a Man's Hand he would not be wanting to employ his Interest That the Prisoner also had told him that he intended to take an House near the Tower to place Men in in order to surprize it to that end he held correspondence with some Sea-Captains and that he had been with them at Coffee-Houses Mr. Richard Goodenough deposed That being in company with the Prisoner he had heard him approve of the Design and promise to use his Interest in raising Men and not only to be assisting in the Division allotted him but in surprising the City Savoy c. and in driving the Guards out of Town Then the Prisoner called several Witnesses to invalidate Lee's Testimony Sir Robert Adams testified to a false Report of his about beating three Knights Sir Simon Lewis was called to the same purpose but appeared not James Child could say nothing but that Lee was an Honest Man One Baker was also call'd to testify that Lee would have suborned him against the Prisoner to his Prejudice some Years since of which he had made Affidavit before Sir William Turner But Baker not appearing Sir William Turner was desired to give account of it but it being above two Years since he could not remember such Particulars His Clerk Mr. Tomkins remembred such an Affidavit was made in 1682 which mention'd Mr. Lee but to the best of his remembrance it was returned before the King and Council and he could not give any account of the Particulars Mr. Bateman then desiring to know upon what Statute he was Indicted and being assisted by his Son by reason of his Incapacity making little more Defence the Ld. Ch. Justice of the King's-Bench summ'd up the Evidence and other Prisoners were tried and just before the Jury went out the aforesaid Baker being found with much ado it was obtain'd that he should give in his Evidence which was That Lee perswaded him to intrude himself into the Prisoner's Company and some others and to discourse of State-Affairs by which means he would find a way to make him a Man of which he had made Affidavit before Sir William Turner But this the Court interpreted to Lee's Advantage as if he only thereby designed to make a discovery of the Plot and so have got a further Evidence to corroborate his own reflecting on Baker as a broken Fellow c. After which the Jury withdrawing for half an hour brought the Prisoner in Guilty And accordingly he being brought again to the Bar on Friday following Mr. Recorder sentenc'd him to be Drawu Hang'd and Quarter'd which was executed upon him at Tyburn on Friday Decemb. 18th following The Trial of John Hambden Gent. At the Session's-House in the Old-Baily on Wednesday Decemb. 30. 1685. THen and there the Prisoner appearing and the grand Jury for the County of Middlesex call'd over his Indictment was read which was for High-Treason in conspiring the Death of the late King and raising a Rebellion in this Kingdom To which before Mr. Hambden pleaded he intimated his having been tried for the same Fact above two Years ago and withal gave the Lord Chief Justice to understand that he thought he had as much to say in Point of Law for himself as any Prisoner that ever came before him but that he was resolved to pass by all Pleas whatsoever and cast himself wholly upon the King's Mercy The Lord Chief Justice told him his former Indictment was for High-Misdemeanour but this for High-Treason and therefore a different Fact requiring him therefore to plead Then he pleaded Guilty to the Indictment requesting his Lordship's Intercession for him with the King Which was readily enough granted and the Method he was perswaded to take highly approved as answering the Design of giving Life and Credit to the Fanatick Rlot and gratifying the Importunity possibly of some Great Ones However the dismal Sentence of Death was by Mr. Recorder pronounced upon him due to High-Treason yet not without a shew of Tenderness and some encouragement of an Obligation this brave Person had hereby merited with them This getting a Pardon when nothing else must Books lately Printed and Sold by Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Pauls Church-yard relating to the great Revolutions in England and Scotland 1688 1689. ☞ AN Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry's Invitation of the Prince of Orange into England Being a Memorial from the English Protestants concerning their Grievances with a large account of the Birth of the Prince of Wales presented to their Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange A Collection of Political and Historical Papers relating to the wonderful Revolutions in England and Scotland in 12 Parts from the time of the seven Bishops petitioning K. James the 2d to the Coronation of K. Willian and Q. Mary A Brief History of the Succession of the Crown of England c. Collected out of the Records and the most Authentick Historians written for the Satisfaction of the Nation Wonderful Predictions of Nostredamus Grebner David Pareus and Autonius Torquatus wherein the Grandeur of their Present Majesties the Happiness of England and Downfall of France and Rome are plainly Delineated With a large Preface shewing That the Crown of England has not been obscurely foretold to their Majesties William the 3d and Queen Mary late Prince and Princess of Orange and that the People of this Ancient Monarchy have duly contributed thereunto in the present Assembly of Lords and Commons notwithstanding the Objections of Men of different Extremes A Seasonable Discourse wherein is examined what is lawful during the Confusions and Revolutions of Government especially in the Case of a King deserting his Kingdoms and how far a Man may lawfully conform to the Powers and Commands of those who with Various Successes hold Kingdoms Whether it be lawful 1 In Paying Taxes 2 In personal Service 3 In taking of Oaths 4 In giving up himself to a final Allegiance A Seasonable Treatise wherein is proved That King William commonly called the Conqueror did not get the Imperial Crown of England by the Sword but by the Election and Consent of the People To whom he swore to observe the Original Contract between King and People An Answer to a Paper Intituled The Desertion Discussed being a Vindication of the Proceedings of the late Honourable Convention in their Filling up the Throne with King William and Queen Mary An Exact Collection of the Debates of the House of Commons particularly such as relate to the Bill of Exclusion of a Popish Successor c. held at Westminster Octob. 21. 1680 Prorogued the 10th and Dissolved the 18th of January following With the Debates of the House of Commons at Oxford Assembled March. 21. 1680. Also a Just and Modest Vindication of the Proceedings of the said
with a solemn Imprecation and disclaiming all the Crime in this Matter that had been charg'd against him Against Corker Dr. Oates swore That he was privy to the Promise of the 6000 l. which was to be raised among the Benedictines for carrying on the Design and as being President of the Benedictines he assented thereto That the said Corker gave Le Chese and the English Monks at Paris an account of the Jesuits Proceedings in England And that he had a Patent to be Bishop of London which the Witness had seen in his hand And that he disposed of several parcels of Mony which they called the Queen's Charity for advancing the Design That also he was privy to the Grand Consult in April and excepted against Pickering's being made choice of for killing the King in regard that he being engag'd to say High Mass an Opportunity might be lost in the mean time Mr. Bedloe further depos'd against him That he had been with him in the Company of others at Somerset-House where he heard him discourse in general concerning the Plot of Letters of Intelligence and raising an Army What Agitators the Conspirators had in the Country and what Interest they had made To this Corker offer'd in his Defence That not knowing his Accusations he could not come with Evidences to support his Plea That there was nothing more easy than to accuse an innocent Person and that the Circumstances ought to be as credible as the Witnesses of which there was neither to be found in his Case using many Flourishes to move the Court and the Jury raising his Arguments from Improbability of Witnesses to maintain his Allegations And the more to invalidate Oates's Testimony he produced one Ellen Rigby Elizabeth Sheldon Alice Broadhead who testified That one Stapleton was President of the Benedictines and not himself and that the said Stapleton had been so for many Years Against Marshal Dr. Oates depos'd That he was present when the 6000 l. was agreed upon and that he made the same Exceptions against Pickering that Corker had done Mr. Bedloe swore also against him That he had carried several Letters to Papists in the Country that were in the Design and particularly one to Sir Francis Ratcliff And that he had sent Letters of his own twice to others concerning the subverting of the Government and introducing Popery To this Marshal throwing himself upon the Court whom he besought to manage his Cause for him as having had so much Trial of their Candour and Ingenuity he made some slight Reflections upon the King's Evidence and desir'd the Court to consider how-little concern'd he was at his being apprehended which was no small sign of his Innocency Relating the manner of it though very falsly as Sir William Waller then swore But the main of his Evidence lay upon this stress That Dr. Oates was a stranger to him and had mistaken him for some other Person which also was evidently made out to the contrary besides that the Prisoner brought no proof of what he affirm'd in that particular The Conclusion of his Defence was a smooth Harangue ad captandum populum and in justification of the Crimes of the five Jesuits that had already suffered which because it was look'd upon as an affront done to the Justice of the Court the Ld. Ch. Justice replied in a very smart and excellent Harangue whereat the people gave a Shout again upon him and the Court desir'd him to forbear his Flowers of Rhetorick which were all to no purpose Against Rumley only Dr. Oates swore That he was privy to the Consult for the raising the 6000 l. and that he pray'd for the Success of the Design And being but one Witness against him he did not think it needful to trouble the Court with a Defence And indeed it was the Opinion of the Court deliver'd to the Jury that they ought to discharge him After this the Ld. Ch. Justice summ'd up the Evidences taking Notice of the weakness of the Prisoners Defences only expressing himself dissatisfied at Dr. Oates's excuse of his own weakness and infirmity for not giving his full Charge against Sir George Wakeman at the Council Board Since he might have charg'd him in the same breath that he denied he had any thing more against him Saying it was strange that the Prisoners should have so little knowledg and so little accquaintance with Oates and Bedloe and so great a matter as they speak should be true c. As soon as my Lord had done speaking Mr. Bedloe told him he had not summ'd up his Evidence right His Reply was I know not by what Authority this Man speaks An Officer then being sworn to keep the Jury the Judges went off the Bench leaving Mr. Recorder and some Justices to take the Verdict And after about an Hours space the Jury returned and brought them all four in contrary to Expectation Not Guilty After which the Court Adjourned The Trials of Andrew Brommich and William Atkins Priests at the Summer-Assizes at Stafford As also of Charles Kern a Priest at Hereford-Assizes before the Lord Chief Justice Scroggs 1679. ON VVednesday Aug. 13. 1679. the Court sate And the Night before the Lord Chief Justice having charged the Sheriff to return a good Jury he now enquired of him if he had observed his Directions The Sheriff acquainted his Lordship That since he had impannelled the said Jury he had heard that one Allen who had being returned said in Discourse with some of his Fellows that nothing was done against the Popish Priests above and therefore he would do nothing against them here nor find them Guilty Whereupon his Lordship called for the said Allen and one Randal Calclough one of his fellow Jury-men and another Witness upon Oath who proving the words against him his Lordship discharg'd him of the Jury and committed him to Prison till he found Sureties for his good Behaviour And likewise three more of the Jury were discharg'd upon suspicion of being Popishly-affected his Lordship commanding the Sheriff to return good Men in their Places which was accordingly done and the Jury sworn viz. Thomas Higgin John Webb Edward Ward Thomas Marshall John Beech. Randal Calclough Richard Trindall James Beckett VVilliam Smyth VVilliam Pinson Daniel Buxton Richard Cartwright Then Andrew Brommich being set to the Bar was Indicted for being a Priest And to prove him so Ann Robinson deposed That she had received the Sacrament from him about Christmas last according to the Church of Rome in a Wafer and four times more before that time twice at Mr. Birch's and twice at Mr. Pursall's Then Jeoffery Robinson deposed That he heard him say something in an unknown Tongue and that he was in a Surplice but being a Papist was hardly induced to say so much Brommich's Defence was only a denial that ever he gave the Sacrament to Ann Robinson or if he did that it could be no Sacrament unless he was a Priest He desired also that it might be took notice
Plot being then present how that on December 23 1678. he meeting Mr. Dugdale at Stafford upon business he perswaded him to discover and got him examin'd that day and afterwards more fully the next day After him one Mr. Thomas Mort who had been Page to the Lord Powis deposed that he saw Turbervile at Paris and knew he convers'd with the Lord Stafford whom he knew not and came with him to Diep to go over with him and my Lord for whom they waited a fortnight much to their Inconveniency and therefore he or some of the Company said Cursed is he that relies on a broken Staff alluding to the Lord Stafford's Name That Turbervile then told him if he went to Calice he might go over with my Lord but how he came to know that he knew not but he got another opportunity and so came over Then Mr. Powel a Gentleman of Greys-Inn deposed that he heard him mention his knowledg about the Plot about a Year ago but that he did not think fit then to reveal it for fear of his Brother's Anger and because some of the Witnesses had been discouraged and he was afraid he should be so too Then Mr. Arnold one of the Members of the House of Commons deposed that he knew Mr. Turbervile to be a very civil honest Gentleman and that the reason he discover'd no sooner was he told him because the Witnesses that were come in were in danger of their Lives and were discouraged and as long as the D. of York had so great a Power in the Council and the Lady Powis's Brother in those Parts he lived which his Lordship usually calls his Province he durst not for his Life Then Mr. Hobby being sworn gave a very good Character also of Mr. Turbervile whom he had known four Years Mr. Matthews a Divine being sworn gave him likewise a good Character and that he had often discoursed with him and found him inclinable to come off from the Roman Religion and that he had known him four Years Mr. William Seys being sworn said he never heard nor knew any ill by Mr. Turbervile whom he had known two Years Captain Scudamore deposed much the same as to Mr. Turbervile's Credit Then whereas the Lord Stafford had brought his Servants to prove he had not been lame of so long a time the Lords Stamford and Lovelace deposed that they had observed him lame within less than seven Years which his Lordship excused saying it was only his Wearines And here the Managers resolving to call no more Witnesses urged the Prisoner to sum up his Defence that the Process might be closed But he called Mr. Whitby again asking him if he had not once complained of Dugdale to the Lord Aston telling him he was a Knave Mr. Whitby confessed he told the Lord Aston that Dugdale was a Dishonour to his Family in not paying People their Mony when they came for it But he was told afterwards it signified nothing for that the present Ld. Aston would hear nothing against him Then the Ld. Stafford gave into the Court Wright's Letter who being called owned his hand saying That was one which he was hired to write which intimated as if Dugdale had suborned him to swear false c. Then the Prisoner being urged to conclude he protested his Unreadiness and Weakness whereupon the Court broke up and the Lords sent a Message to the Commons that to morrow morning at 10 they had ordered the Prisoner again to the Bar. The fifth Day SAturday December the 4th 1680. About 10 the Court being sat and the Prisoner call'd upon to sum up his Defence he prayed leave to call a few Witnesses more which after some Debate and his Lordships Weeping was admitted And then the Lord Ferrers was called upon to speak his Knowledg of Southall who said he could only speak by hear-say that he had been an active Man in the late times against the King and is counted a pernicious Man against the Government The Lieutenant of the Tower also was called and testify'd that Dugdale coming to make up his Accounts the Lord Aston desired the Lieutenant to be present who said he did not understand Accounts but would get one that did whereupon Dugdale said he would come another time but never did that he saw or heard of The Prisoner began to sum up his Defence and ended with proposing these five Points of Law 1st That there is no precedent for criminal Proceedings to be continued from Parliament to Parliament as this had been to three 2ly Whether in capital Cases they can proceed upon Impeachment and by Indictment first found by the Grand Jury 3ly There is a defect in the Impeachment there being no overt Act alledged 4ly The Witnesses by Law are not competent because they swear for Mony And not having proved him a Papist whether he can be concern'd as to the Plot in general 5ly That there ought to be two Witnesses to every point Thus concluding the Managers vindicated Mr. Southall's Credit sufficiently by the Depositions of the Lord Brook and Mr. William Leveson-Gower who knew him very well to be an honest able good Man and of the Church of England and an eager Prosecutor of Papists Then Sir William Jones one of the Managers summ'd up the Evidence very largely and Mr. Powle another of them proceeded and Serjeant Maynard answered his matters in Law shewing to the third several Overt Acts as receiving a Commission being at Consults and hiring Persons to kill the King To the 2d That an Impeachment of the House of Commons is more than an Indictment To the 1st That what is once upon Record in Parliament may at any time be proceeded upon And then Sir William Jones spoke again And to the 5th said there needed but one Witness to one Act and another to another where the several Acts as here fall under the same head of Treason And to the 4th that he had not proved and however that what Mony the Witnesses had was for their Maintenance only Sir Francis Winnington spoke also to the same heads And then the Prisoner urged that his Counsel might be heard as to those Points who were Mr. VVallop Mr. Saunders and Mr. Hunt and the first proposed to be handled being the last Mr. VVallop excused himself from speaking to it because it lately had been determin'd in the inferiour Courts Then the Lords adjourned into the Parliament Chamber to consider the Points the Commons staying and returning after about an hour the Lord High Steward declared that it was the Lords Will that all the Judges present should give their Opinions whether the 5th Point was doubtful and disputable or no. Then all the Judges consulted privately together and afterward gave their Opinions in the Negative Seriatim first the Ld. Ch. Justice North the Ld. Ch. Baron Montague Mr. Justice VVyndham Mr. Just Jones Mr. Just Dolben Mr. Just Raymond Mr. Baron Atkins Mr. Baron Gregory Mr. Baron VVeston and Mr. Just Charlton After
endeavours to have over-ruled without so much as hearing the Prisoners Counsel for the maintaining it for that they said it was nought because it produced no Record of his Impeachment and did not specify what the High-Treason was for which he was Impeached and that the King had Power to proceed on an Impeachment or Indictment for the same thing at his Election Nevertheless the Attorny General demurred and the Prisoner joined in the Demurrer And then after much arguing a Day was given to argue the Plea till Saturday May. 7. At which time the Attorny General added to the Exceptions he took to the Plea Whether a Suit in a Superior Court can take away the Jurisdiction of the Cause of the Person and of the Fact at the time of the Fact committed To maintain the Plea Mr. VVilliams of Counsel for the Prisoner in a very long and learned Discourse first spoke stating the Prisoner's Case upon the Indictment the Plea to the Indictment and the Demurrer to the Plea Alledging the Difference of an Impeachment from an Indictment and offering some Reasons why this Court ought not to proceed upon this Indictment Then answering distinctly Mr. Attorney's Exceptions to the Plea producing some Presidents of this Courts Prosecution being stop'd by Pleas to the Jurisdiction shewing what had been done upon those Pleas What Doom they had Laying before the Court the Right of the Commons to Impeach in Parliament the Judicature of the Lords to determine that Impeachment and the Method and Proceedings of Parliament submitting it to them how far they would lay their Hands on this Case thus circumstantiated Here the Ld. Ch. Justice declared That all these Things were quite foreign to the Case and the Matter in Hand only was Whether this Plea as thus pleaded was sufficient to protect the Prisoner from being questioned in this Court for the Treasonable Matter in the Indictment before them To which Mr. VVilliams reply'd That 't was an hard matter for the Bar to answer the Bench. After which Sir Francis Winnington pleaded That he conceived that it was confessed by the Demurrer that there is an Impeachment by the Commons of England of High-Treason against Fitz-Harris lodged in the House of Lords Secundum Legem consuetudinem Parliamenti And that the Treason for which he was impeached is the same Treason contained in the Indictment So that now the general Question was Whether an Impeachment for Treason by the House of Commons and still depending were a sufficient Matter to oust the Court from proceeding upon an Indictment for the same Offence Which he learnedly endeavoured to make good by several Reasons as well as Presidents Mr. Wallop pleaded next on the same side whose Province was to prove That the Treason in the Impeachment and in the Indictment was the same and that this was well averred in the Plea Mr. Pollexfen pleaded That a general Impeachment in Parliament was a good Impeachment and the Judges had declared so to the King and Council concerning the five Popish Lords who could not therefore be tried upon Indictments so long as general Impeachments were depending for the same Treason and that therefore this Plea was good both as to Matter and Form c. In reply to vitiate the Plea it was insisted on by Mr. Attorn Gen. Mr. Sol. Gen. Serj. Jefferies and Sir Francis VVithens of Counsel for the King that the Plea concluded not in the usual Form That perhaps this Matter if the Prisoner had been acquitted upon the Impeachment might have been pleaded in Bar to the Indictment but it was not pleadable to the Jurisdiction of the Court That in the Case of the five Lords the Indictments were removed into the House of Lords and that the Judges Opinion given at the Council-Board was not a Judicial Opinion nor did any way affect this Cause After which the Ld. Ch. Justice thought fit not to give present Judgment but to take time for Deliberation Whereupon the Prisoner was carried back to the Tower And on Tuesday May 10. Mr. Attorney moved the Court to appoint a Day for their Judgment on the Plea and for Fitz-Harris to be brought up which they appointed to be the next Morning Accordingly on Wednesday Morning May 11. the Prisoner being brought to the Bar the Ld. Ch. Justice deliver'd the Opinion of the Court upon Conference had with other Judges That his Brother Jones his Brother Raymond and himself were of Opinion that the Plea was insufficient his Brother Dolben not being resolved but doubting concerning it and therefore awarded the Prisoner should plead to the Indictment which he did Not Guilty and his Trial ordered to be the next Term. The Trial of Edward Fitz-Harris at the King's-Bench Bar at Westminster before the Lord Chief Justice Pemberton on Thursday June 9. 1681. THE Prisoner then and there appearing after several Challenges made for the King the Jury sworn were Thomas Johnson Lucy Knightly Edward Wilford Alexander Hosey Martin James John Viner William Withers William Cleave Thomas Goffe Ralph Farr Samuel Freebody John Lockier To whom the Indictment was read which was for High-Treason in conspiring the Death of the King and subversion of the Government the which Mr. Heath Serj. Maynard and Mr. Attorn Gen. opened And then Mr. Everard deposed How the Prisoner was with him on Monday Feb. 21. 1681. having a little before been with him to renew the Acquaintance which had been between them while they were both in the French King's Service and to perswade him to re-ingratiate himself into the French and Popish Interest and gave him by word of Mouth Heads to write a Pamphlet to scandalize the King raise Rebellion alienate the Hearts of the People and set them together by the Ears Whereupon he acquainted one Mr. Savile of Lincolns-Inn Mr. Crown Mr. Smith and Sir William Waller with it And the next day Mr. Fitz-Harris coming again to his Chamber in Grays-Inn he convey'd Mr. Smith into a Closet Sir William Waller failing to come where he both saw and heard the Prisoner ask him What he had done as to the Libel and give him further Instructions about what to write viz. That the King was Popishly Affected and Arbitrarily Inclined That King Charles the First had an Hand in the Irish Rebellion and King Charles the Second did countenance the same c. That the People should therefore be stirred up to rebel especially the City c. That the Day after he coming again he had convey'd Sir William Waller into the next Room where he also might both hear and see shewing him to Copies of what he had drawn up which he marked that he might know them again and see what alteration would be made That Fitz-Harris did them read one of the Copies and amended it adding some things and striking out other things saying The Libel was to be presented to the French Ambassador's Confessor and he was to present it to the French Ambassador and that it was to beget a
Cornish and Bethel got in to be Sheriffs 3. Their arresting the Lord Mayor in his Mayoralty-year and not staying till that was ended did carry Vengeance and Malice in the very face of it as if they had a mind to affront the Government in arresting and imprisoning the Kings Lieutenant in one of the highest Places both of Trust and Honour Nay and because they would be sure their Malice and Revenge should take place 4. They took the very Scoundrels of the Party to be employed in this work 5. The Consequents designed herein which was the destruction of the Government all the Magistrates being took up that had any care for it And 5. The particular Persons that were to be sued being only some of the Aldermen and not all though the Mandamus was directed to all and the Return made by the whole Court yet Cornish and his Party were not to be medled with which is another Circumstance of Malice And if it had not been for some Purpose 6. Mr. Papillon is know to be a Person that would never have been so greedy of an Office he had before declined and fined for minding rather his Counting-house than a Scarlet-Gown And therefore the Design he told them was from the beginning to the end nothing but to cause a Tumult and Confusion in the City in order to put that damned hellish Conspiracy for the destruction of the King and his Brother and every Man that was honest and loyal in Execution That therefore they were to find for the Plantiff and to give Damages according to the Malice design'd not as to Sir William Pritchard but as Lord Mayor For that the Government was infinitely concern'd in this Cafe which made it so popular a Cause The Government of the City the Honour of their Chief Magistrate and indeed the Honour of the King whose Substitute he was and that was to put a weight upon their Inquiry into the Damages of this Case telling them that their severity in this Case would deter all People from entring into Clans and Cabals to make Disturbances and affront the Government Then the Jury withdrew to consider of their Verdict and after half an hours stay returned and found for the Plaintiff and assessed Damages to 10000 l. and costs to 4 Marks The Lord Chief Justice then told the Jury that they seem'd to be Persons that had some sense upon them and consideration for the Government and had given a good Verdict and were to be greatly commended for it Aster which the Court broke up The Trial of Titus Oates at the King's-Bench Bar at Westminster before the Lord Chief Justice Jefferies on Friday and Saturday the 8th and 9th days of May 1685. THen and there the Prisoner appearing upon an Information of Perjury shewing how that he had sworn falsly to a Consult of Jesuits at the White-Horse Tavern April 24. 1678. at the Trial of Ireland Pickering and Grove To which having pleaded Not Guilty the Jury sworn were Sir William Dodson Sir Edmund Wiseman Richard Aley Thomas Fowlis Thomas Blackmore Peter Pickering Robert Beddingfield Thomas Rawlinson Roger Reeves Ambrose Isted Henry Collier Richard Howard Then Dr. Oates moved that he might have three very material Witnesses who were Prisoners in the Kings-Bench brought into the Court but the Ld. Ch. Justice told him the Law would not allow it and it would be an Escape The Information therefore was read and Mr. Philips opened it and Mr. Attorn Gen. opened the Evidence Then in order to prove the Information the Record of the Trial of Ireland was produced and read Then Mr. Foster was sworn who deposed that he was one of the Jury at Ireland's Trial and heard Dr. Oates depose about the Consult's being April 24 1678 and that he was at it and carried the Resolution from Chamber to Chamber to be signed and saw it signed c. Then Martin Hilsley Esq a Papist deposed That he came from St. Omers April 14 Old Stile where he lest Oates and saw him but the day before and that he was not at all in his Company from thence to London where he arrived April 21 having staid four or five days at Bockston-street hard by where he met Mr. Burnaly at a Relations of his That afterwards he told Mr. Osborn that he had lest Sampson Lucy by which Name Mr. Oates went as also sometimes by Titus Ambrosius at St. Omers Then Dr. Oates would have ask'd this Witness What his Employment was at St. Omers Whether his Superiors did not set him on to do this And what Inducements he had to give in an Evidence now which he had given six Years ago at Langhorn's Trial and was not believed But these the Ld. Ch. Justice called Ensnaring Questions and would suffer no Answer to them Then Mr. John Dorrel now a Papist deposed that about the 15th or 16th of April he heard one Mr. Osborn telling his Mother of one Sampson Lucy alias Oates being then a Scholar at St. Omers as a Gentleman newly come from thence had assured him Then Mr. Osborn a Papist deposed About the 27th or 28th of April Mr. Hilsley talking to him about Oates telling that he lest him in the Colledg when he came away from St. Omers and this he told afterwards to Madam Dorrel and his own Mother who was since dead Then Mr. Bournaby a Papist supposed a Jesnit who went by the Name of Blunt deposed That he met Mr. Hilsley April 18 1678 that he arrived at St Omers April 21 and saw Oates there the next day and so from day to day to June 10. but that he neither knew or heard of any Consult Then Mr. Pool alias Killingbeck a Papist of the Sodality of the Virgin Mary as was supposed being sworn deposed That he came from St. Omers April 25 and saw Mr. Oates that very Morning and left him there and saw him there the 21st and 22d of the same Month That he heard something of a Triennial Congregation but of no Consult Then Mr. Henry Thornton a Papist deposed That he had been a Student at St. Omers seven Years and came thence about two Years after Mr. Oates that he knew Oates there very well and saw him almost every day in the Colledg from Christmass 1677 to the 13th of June 1678 that in all that time he was never out of the Colledg unless a day or two at Watton in January which is not a League out of Town That he saw him particularly the day of Mr. Hilsley's departure April 14 and Mr. Bournaby's coming April 21 and again the next day April 22 at a Play which the Scholars acted That he heard of a Triennial Congregation but of no Consult Then Mr. William Conway a Papist a Student of St. Omers who went by the Name of Parry when he was a Witness at the Trial of the five Jesuits deposed That he knew Mr. Oates at St. Omers that he came in December 1677 and stirr'd not out of the Colledg except one Night
of the Season had chang'd their Opinion so that now they disbelived that which they believed before and perhaps for as little Reason as they believed him at first For he could not expect that a Man who believes without a Principle should not recant that Belief without a Reason But the Court call'd this a Reflection and spar'd him not for it The other part of his Defence consisted of his endeavouring to prove that he was here seen in London in April and May 1678. To this end Mrs. Cicilia Mayo Sir Richard Barker's House-keeper deposed That she saw Dr. Oates at her Master's House in Barbacan the latter end of Apr. or beginning of May being about a Week before Whitsontide in that Year the Plot broke out That the Coachman told her he had been there once or twice before but this was the first time she saw him he having on grey Clothes a white Hat and a short Periwig and dined there with her Lady's Sister and others Sir Richard being then sick in the Country That he came afterwards when she saw him in black Clothes a longer Periwig which was brown That she never knew the Prisoner before then but they told her who it was Then John Butler Sir Richard Barker's Coachman deposed That he also saw Mr. Oates at his Master's House the beginning of May before the Plot in a disguise having on a grey Coat and white Hat and his Hair cut short but without a Periwig enquiring for Dr. Tongue Mrs. Mayo then also looking upon him in the Court through the Window And that afterwards he came in a Cinnamon-coloured Coat and green Ribbons and a long black Periwig and that he dined there several â—â—mes Then Philip Page Sir Richard Barker's Man that used to make up his Physick for him deposed That he remembred he did see the Prisoner at his Masters in grey Clothes but he was not certain as to the time only he believes it was in May. Then Mr. Walker a Minister deposed he met the Prisoner in a Disguise between St. Martin's-Lane and Leicester-Fields not exactly remembring the Time when only he thought it about a Year and a quarter before he was first examin'd and that the Elm-Trees were then budded forth as big as an Hazle-Nut After this reflecting on the discredit the St. Omers Witnesses had once been in and of their not prosecuting of this Cause before this time he concluded his Evidence And the King's Counsel proceeded to answer his Defence producing the Records of Sir George Wakeman and Earl of Castlemaine's Trials to prove that his Evidence there was not believed which were read and Sir George Wakeman being sworn deposed what it was the Prisoner then swore against him and protested the falsity of it and his own Innocency The same also the Earl of Castlemain did in like manner And then the Lords Journals were produced where it was recorded that the Prisoner said he could accuse no Body else but those that he named and yet soon after he accused the present King and the Queen-Dowager but this upon search being not found to be a Record upon Oath it was not thought valid Evidence Therefore they proceeded to prove his Subornation of one Clay which was a Witness for the Prisoner at the Trial of the five Jesuits whom now he did not call and of Mr. Smith the School-master of Islington To this end part of Oates's Narative was read out of the Lords Journal wherein he accused this William Smith as concerned in the Plot as endeavouring to vilify the House of Commons c. And then a Certificate was read under Oates's Hand of this Smith's Honesty not three days before the Trial of the five Jesuits whence they would infer he had been tampering with him the which Smith himself being sworn was ready to have deposed but the Ld. Ch. Justice would not admit him to swear that he did forswear himself because such should never have the Countenance of ever being Witnesses again Therefore they proceeded to prove the Subornation of Clay and to this end Lawrence Davenport in whose keeping Clay was in Prison deposed that Sir William Waller and the Prisoner did hang'd for that they could prove him to be a Priest unless he would swear for Oates that he dined with him at Mr. Howards in May which he consented to so he might have his Mony restored that was taken from him saying he had been a Rogue before and did not know what he might be And this another Witness produced swore that Davenport told to him the next day in Prison Then Mr. Howard deposed That Clay was mistaken in his Testimony given at the Trials of the five Jesuits in being July and not May 1678 that he and Oates were at his House about which time there was no question of his being in England Then they read out of Oates's Narrative again wherein he had said how he return'd three or four days after the Consult of April 24 was over observing hence how his own Witnesses contradicted him who had deposed that they saw him here in London the latter end of May. And here the Counsel for the King concluding their Evidence Dr. Oates proceeded with his Defence only shewing out of the Lords Journal a Copy of their Resolve That there was a Plot and of their summoning up before them Thomas Bickley of Chichester for vilifying Dr. Oates and thereupon turning him but out of Commission objecting five things against their Evidence 1. Their Religion A Papist not being a good Witness in a Cause of Religion appealing to the Heavens Which the Ld. Ch. Justice call'd a Common-wealth appeal and bid him to be took away falling very foul upon the poor Doctor But stood in 't that 't was Law and the Lord Cooke's practice quoting Bulstrode's Reports 2d Part 155. He Objected 2. Their Education confessing themselves to be bred up in a Seminary which is against Law quoting 27o. Eliz. cap. 2. and 3. Car. 1. Cap. 2. Which also was over-ruled 3. Their Judgments in Cases of Conscience whereby they own they have Dispensations to swear Lies for the promotion of the Cause 4. It was refused at the Lord Shaftsbury's Trial to suffer the King's Evidence there to be Indicted of Perjury But all this the Ld. Ch. Justice told him was idle and nothing to the Purpose And therefore he went on to sum up his Evidence protesting the Truth of his Evidence and that he was resolved to stand by and seal it with his Blood which the Ld. Ch. Justice told him it was pitty but he should Then Mr. Sol. Gen. summ'd up the Evidence which while he was a doing Dr. Oates beg'd leave to withdraw being weak and ill with the Stone and Gout and having lien in Irons 21 weeks After him the Ld. Ch. Justice summ'd up the Evidence with all the Virulency and Gall his Wit or Malice could assist him And then the Jury withdrawing for about a quarter of an hour deliver'd in their Verdict
Messengers attending the Court delivered to the Dean of St. Pauls a Warrant from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to cause this Sentence to be affixt on the Door of that Chapter-House and to certify them of the due Execution hereof Dated Septemb. 28 1686. and sealed with the same Seal as the Sentence which was annexed thereto but no Persons Names Subscribed To the Dean and Chapter of London The Proceedings and Trial in the case of the most Reverend Father in God William Lord Arch bishop of Canterbury and the Right Reverend Fathers in God William Lord Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Lord Bishop of Ely John Lord Bishop of Chichester Thomas Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Lord Bishop of Peterborough Jonathan Lord Bishop of Bristol in the Court of Kings-Bench at Westminster in Trinity-term in the 4th Year of the Reign of King James the 2d Annoque Domini 1688. THese Peers were present on Friday June the 15th 1688 when the Lords the Archbishop and Bishops were brought into Court from the Tower upon the Habeas Corpus Viz. Ld. Marq. of Hallifax Ld. Marq. of Worcester Earl of Shrewsbury Earl of Kent Earl of Bedford Earl of Dorset Earl of Bullingbrook Earl of Manchester Earl of Burlington Earl of Carlisle Earl of Danby Earl of Radnor Earl of Nottingham Ld. Visc Fauconberge Ld. Grey of Ruthyn Ld. Paget Ld. Chandoys Ld. Vaughan Carbery The aforesaid Bishops appearing then and there about eleven a Clock at Mr. Attorney General 's motion the Writ and Return were read in Court Sr. Robert Wright Ld. Ch. Justice Judges Mr. Justice Holloway Judges Mr. Justice Powell Judges Mr. Justice Allybone Judges Then the Bishops being sat in Chairs provided there for them the Attorney General motion'd an Information to be read against them which Sir Robert Sawyer Serj. Pemberton Mr. Pollexfen and Mr. Finch oppos'd being of Counsel for the Bishops requiring a Discharge for the Prisoners because their Imprisonment was illegal the Persons committing having no Authority to commit being said to be Lords of the Council and not in Council and the Fact for which they were committed being a bare Misdemeanour the Bishops as Peers of the Realm ought to be served with the usual Process of Subpoena and not to be committed to Prison and therefore the Bishops not being now regularly in Court they ought to be charged with no Informatian by the express Statute of Edward the 3d. The which Objections caused a long and learned Debate on both sides till at length the Judges over-ruled it only Mr Justice Powell refused to determine without consulting Precedents Then the Information against the Bishops was read the Substance whereof was That whereas the King put out his Declaration for Liberty of Conscience on the 4th of April in the 3d Year of his Reign in which is contained c. Here that Declaration was inserted and on the 27th of April in the 4th Year of his Reign did publish his other Declaration entitled c. Here that Declaration also was inserted which last Declaration he on the 30th of April following caused to be printed and for the more solemn Notification of his favour therein did on the 4th of May following order the same to be read in all Churches c. Here that order of Counsel was inserted After the making of which Order viz. on the 18th of May following at Westminster in Middlesex the seven Bishops being here named did consult and conspire among themselves to diminish the Regal Authority and Royal Prerogative Power and Government of the King in the Premisses and to infringe and elude the said Older and in Prosecution and Execution of the Conspiracy aforesaid they the said Bishops here again naming them with Force and Arms c. there and then falsly unlawfully maliciously seditiously and scandalously did frame compose and write c. a certain false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel in Writing concerning the King his Declaration and Order aforesaid under pretence of a Petition then and there subscribed by them and in the presence of the King did publish wherein is contained Here the Bishops Petition was inserted Whereupon the Attorney General pray'd the Advice of the Court and due Process of Law to be made out against the aforesaid Bishops c. to answer to our Lord the King in and concerning the Premisses Then the Bishops Counsel moved for an Imparlance till the next Term and very learnedly and largely debated with the Kings Counsel concerning the course of the Court as to that Particular but were over-ruled in it Then the Arch-bishop in behalf of himself and his Brethren the other Defendants tender'd their Plea in writing which was read and its Receipt debated but because it was writ upon Paper and not upon Parchment and contained no more than what had been already debated and over-ruled the Court rejected it and put them therefore upon it to plead presently to the Information which they all did Not Guilty and this day fortnight appointed for their Trial at this Bar the Court taking the Bishops own Recognizance of the Arch-bishop in 200 l. and the rest in 100 l. apiece then and there to appear after which the Court arose ON Friday the 29th day of June being the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul the Bishops then and there made their Appearance Sr. Robert Wright Ld. Ch. Justice Judges Mr. Justice Holloway Judges Mr. Justice Powel Judges Mr. Justice Allybone Judges These Peers being present viz. Ld. Marq. of Hallifax Ld. Marq. of Worcester Earl of Shrewsbury Earl of Kent Earl of Bedford Earl of Pembrook Earl of Dorset Earl of Bullingbrook Earl of Manchester Earl of Rivers Earl of Stamford Earl of Carnarvon Earl of Chesterfield Earl of Scarsdale Earl of Clarendon Earl of Danby Earl of Sussex Earl of Radnor Earl of Nottingham Earl of Abington Ld. Visc Fauconberge Ld. Newport Ld. Grey of Ruthyn Ld. Paget Ld. Chandoys Ld. Vaughan Carbery Ld. Lumley Ld. Carteret Ld. Ossulston 'T is possible more of the Peers might be present both days whose Names by reason of the Croud could not be taken The Bishops Names being called over the Jury was sworn whose Names follow viz. Sir Roger Langley Bar. Sir William Hill Kt. Roger Jennings Esq Thomas Harriot Esq Jeoffery Nightingale Esq William Withers Esq William Avery Esq Thomas Austin Esq Nicholas Grice Esq Michael Arnold Esq Thomas Done Esq Richard Shoreditch Esq To whom the Information against the Bishops was read And then Mr. Wright opened the charge to which Mr. Attorney General spoke shewing that the Bishops were prosecuted not as Bishops or for any point of Religion but as Subjects and for a Temporal Crime And that also they were prosecuted not for omitting any thing but for doing something even censuring of his Majesty and Government The Heinousness of which Crime he opened and laid down the Method they would proceed in to prove it And according to the Method observ'd in the Information that every thing might
Penal Laws not being for the future to be drawn either into Consequence or Example caused the Original Declaration under the Great Seal to be cancelled in his presence whereof Himself and several other Lords of the Council were Witnesses The Record of which in the Journal was then read Then his present Majesty's Speech on Novemb 9. 1685 to both Houses was read wherein declaring the Necessity of his Standing Army and requiring a Supply for their Maintenance he says Let no Man take Exception that there are some Officers in the Army not qualified according to the late Tests I will neither expose them to disgrace nor my self to the want of them if there should be another Rebellion to make them necessary to me The Commons Journal being then turned to their Address to the King was then read Wherein after they had thanked him for his Care in the suppressing the late Rebellion they acquaint him that they had considered his Speech and as to that part of it relating to the Officers They do out of their bounden Duty humbly represent to him That those Officers cannot by Law be capable of their Imployments and that the Incapacities they bring upon themselves thereby can no ways be taken off but by Act of Parliament That therefore they are preparing a Bill to indemnify them from the Penalties they have now incurred And because the continuance of them in their Imployments may be taken to be a dispensing with that Law without Act of Parliament the Consequence of which is of the greatest Concern to the Rights of all his Majesty's Subjects and to all the Laws made for the Security of their Religion They therefore do beseech him he would be graciously pleased to give such Directions therein that no Apprehensions or Jealousies may remain in the Hearts of his Subjects After this that forecited Clause of the Statute 1. Eliz. was read and then Mr. Serj. Levinz spoke to this effect That the Charge being for a Libel it ought to be consider'd Whether the Bishops did deliver this Paper to the King of which there has been no direct Proof Publishing he would not talk of because there has been no proof of a Publication or supposing they did deliver it Whether this be a Libel upon the Matter of it the Manner delivering it or the Persons that did it He said it was no Libel taking notice of the disingenuity offered the Bishops in only setting forth part and not the whole Affirming that the Subjects have a Right to Petitioning in all their Grievances That this was a Grievance the Bishops petitioned against it being what the Law neither Common nor Act of Parliament allowed of And therefore the Bishops could not be guilty of the Charge Then Mr. Finch spoke briefly again making a Challenge to shew any one Instance of such a Declaration such a general Dispensation of Laws from the Conquest till 1672. Leaving their Cause upon this Point That to suspend Laws is to abrogate them and that to abrogate Laws is part of the Legislature which Power is lodged in King Lords and Commons To which Sir Robert Sawyer added That he found few Attempts of this Nature in any Kings Reign In the Reign of Henry the 4th there was an Act of Parliament that Foreigners should have a free Trade in London notwithstanding the Franchises of the City After the Parliament rose the King issued out his Proclamation forbidding the execution of that Law and commanding that it should be in suspense till the next Parliament yet that was held to be against Law Then he mentioned another Case upon the Statute of 31. Hen. 8. cap. 8. which enables the King by Proclamation in many Cases to create the Law which Statute was repealed by 1. Edw. 6. cap. 12. That very Act reciting that the Law is not to be altered or restrained but by Act of Parliament Then Mr. Sommers of Counsel also for the Bishops mentioned the Case of Thomas and Sorrel upon the Validity of a Dispensation of the Statute of Edward the 6th touching selling of Wine Where it was the Opinion of every one of the Judges and they did lay it down as a settled Position that there never could be a Suspension of an Act of Parliament but by the Legislative Power Affirming that the Matters of Fact alledged in the Bishops Petition had been proved perfectly true by the Journals of both Houses That there could be no Design thereby to diminish the King's Prerogative because he had none such That the Petition could not be Seditious nor stir up Sedition because it was presented to the King in private and alone False it could not be because the Matter of it is True There could be nothing of Malice because the Occasion was not sought the Thing was pressed upon them and a Libel it could not be because the Intent was innocent and they kept within the Bounds set by the Act of Parliament that gives the Subject leave to petition his Prince when he is grieved Here the Bishops Counsel saying they had done Mr. Attorn Gen. spoke for the King Alledging that the Records produced were nothing to the purpose because they were only Matters transacted in Parliament and not Acts of Parliament That be their Libel never so true yet still it was Libellous That though the Subject may petition the King yet not in such reflecting Terms And though Religion was concerned yet ought not illegal Means he made use of That therefore the Bishops ought rather to have acquiesced under their Passive Obedience till the Parliament met which the King had promised in his Declaration should be in November Then Mr. Sol. Gen. in along Speech added That the Bishops had no right of Petitioning out of Parliament and therefore the Proceedings in Parliament which had been produced were not to the purpose Here Mr. Justice Powel expressed his dislike of this Doctrine aside to the Ld. Ch. Justice who concurred with him Going on to prove from the Statute 1 Hen. 4. that there ought to have been no Complaint made till it had come from the Commons in Parliament that the Law continued so till the 3 Hen. 7. where the Grievance was found that Offences in the Intervals of Parliament could not be well punished and then comes the Statute that sets up the Court of Star-Chamber which yet was abolished by the Statute of the 15 Car. 1. That the Proceedings of Parliament produced were no Declarations of Parliament because never passed into an Act and therefore they are Nullities and cannot be accepted of as any Evidence Here again the Ld. Ch. Justice and Mr. Justice Powel discours'd aside saying he thought to impose upon them but they believed not one word he said Then he appealed to the Case in the 2 Cro. 2. Jac. 1. Where it is asserted That the King may make Orders and Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical And the Case of De Libellis Famosis which says in the 5th Report If a Person does a thing
manner as well that which is for or against the King or any other Person but could never obtain a Copy of the Indictment nor that the Statute should be read The Jury by which he was tried was not as he is informed summoned by the Bailiffs of the several Hundreds after the usual and legal manner but Names were agreed on by Mr. Graham and Mr. Burton and the Under-Sheriff and Directions given to the Bailiff to summon them and being all so chosen a Copy of the Pannel was of no use to him When they came to be called he excepted against some for being your Majesty's Servants which he hoped should not have been returned when he was prosecuted at your Majesty's Suit many others for not being Free-holders Which Exceptions he thinks were good in Law and others were lewd and infamous Persons not fit to be of any Jury but all was over-ruled by the Lord Chief Justice and your Petitioner forced to challenge them peremptorily whom he found to be picked out as most suitable to the Intentions of those who sought his Ruin whereby he lost the Benefit allowed him by the Law making his Exceptions and was forced to admit of Mechanick Persons utterly unable to judg of such a Matter as was to be brought before them This Jury being sworn no Witness was produced who fixed any Thing beyond Hear-say upon your Petitioner except the Lord Howard and them that swore to some Papers said to be found in his House and offered as a second Witness and written in a Hand like to that of your Petitioner Your Petitioner produced Ten Witnesses most of them Men of Eminent Quality the others of Unblemished Fame to shew the Lord Howard's Testimony was inconsistent with what he had sworn before at the Trial of the Lord Russel and declared under the same Religious Obligation of an Oath as if it had been legally administred Your Petitioner did further endeavour to shew That besides the Absurdity and Incongruity of his Testimony he being guilty of many Crimes which he did not pretend your Petitioner had any knowledg of and having no other hope of Pardon but by the Drudgery of Swearing against him he deserved not to be believed And similitude of Hands could be no Evidence as was declared by the Lord Chief Justice Keeling and the whole Court in the Lady Carr's Case so as that no Evidence remained against him But whosoever wrote those Papers they were but a small Part of a Polemical Discourse in Answer to a Book written about thirty Years ago upon General Propositions applied to no Time or any particular Case so that it was impossible to judg of any Part of it unless the Whole did appear which did not the sense of such Parts as were not produced could not be comprehended unless the Whole had been read which was deny'd The Ink and Paper shewed them to be written many Years ago the Lord Howard not knowing of them they could have no concurrence with what your Petitioner is said to have designed with him and others the Confusion and Errors in the Writing shewed they had never been so much as review'd and being written in a Hand that no Man could easily read they were never fit for the Press nor could be in some Years though the Writer of them did intend it which did not appear but they being the only present crude and private Thoughts of a Man for the exercise of his own Understanding in his Studies and never shewed to any or applied to any particular Case could not fall under the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. which takes Cognizance of no such Matter and could not by construction be brought under it such Matters being thereby reserved to the Parliament and is declared in the Proviso which he desired might be read but was refused Several Important Points of Law did hereupon emerge upon which your Petitioner knowing his own Weakness did desire that Counsel might be heard or it might be reserved to be found especial but all was over-ruled by the Violence of the Lord Chief Justice and your Petitioner so frequently interrupted that the whole Method of his Defence was broken and he not suffered to say the tenth Part of what he could have alledged in his Defence so the Jury was hurried into a Verdict which they did not understand Now forasmuch as no Man that is oppressed England can have Relief unless it be from your Majesty your Petitioner humbly prays that the Premisses considered your Majesty would be pleased to admit him into your Presence and if he doth not shew that it is for your Majesty's Honour and Interest to preserve him from this sad Oppression he will not complain though he be left to be destroyed The Trial of Charles Bateman Chirurgeon At the Session's-House in the Old-Baily on Wednesday Decemb. 9.1685 HIS Indictment was for High-Treason in conspiring the Death of the late King To which after some offer to have said something for himself in order to put off his Trial which Mr. Recorder would not admit of he pleaded Not Guilty Then urging his unpreparedness want of notice of his Trial and great indisposedness by reason of his close Imprisonment for ten Weeks he desired his Trial might be put off but it would not be granted His Jurors were Richard Aley Esq Richard Williams John Cannum Patrick Barret John Palmer James Raynor Edward Redish George Lilburn Daniel Fouls Peter Floyer Lawrence Cole John Cooper To whom the Indictment being read Mr. Phips Counsel for the King opened the Case and was seconded by Mr. Serjeant Selby and Mr. Charles Moloy Then Josias Keeling being called and sworn deposed in general concerning his being at divers Meetings wherein the Methods had been proposed about an Insurrection and that the Prisoner was looked upon as a Person fitting to manage one Division in order thereto c. but could not particularly charge him with any thing upon his own knowledg Thomas Lee deposed that Mr. Goodenough told him The Prisoner was to manage one Division and going to him about it from Mr. Goodenough he plainly perceiv'd he was no stranger to it nor bogled to give his Assent and seemed very desirous to speak with Mr. Goodenough about it That going one day with the Prisoner to the late Duke of Monmouth's House the Prisoner after he had had some Discourse with one of the Duke's Servants came to him and told him the Duke was willing to engage in the Business and assur'd him that he had divers Horses kept in the Country to be in a readiness when Matters should come to Extremity That from thence going with him to the King's-Head Tavern they had Discourse to the same effect there That from thence to the Devil-Tavern where the Prisoner proposed the seizing the City Tower Savoy White-Hall and the Person of the late King and promised not to be wanting therein That at another time meeting him at the Half-Moon Tavern in Aldersgate-street the design of all which