Majesty's gracious Government So shall your Petitioner ever pray c. This being read the Bishop return'd and the Chancellor told him they were not concerned in it and asked him If he desired his Answer should be read The Bishop said Yes saying that what he did therein was by Advice of Counsel and therefore hoped would not be interpreted to be done maliciously or obstinately And that in effect he did what the King commanded to be done having advised Doctor Sharp to forbear Preaching till his Majesty had received Satisfaction concerning him and accordingly that he had forborn in his Diocess Then the Bishop's Paper was read which contain'd the King's Letter and Bishop's Answer thereto The King's Letter Dated Monday July 14. 1686. Delivered at Fulham on Thursday June 17. in the Afternoon by Mr. Atterbury the Messenger JAMES R. RIght Reverend Father in God We greet you well Whereas We have been informed and are fully satisfied that Dr. John Sharp Rector of the Parish Church of St. Giles in the Fields in the County of Middlesex and in your Diocess notwithstanding Our late Letter to the most Reverend Fathers in God the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York and Our Directions concerning Preachers given at Our Court at White-hall March 15. 1685. in the Second Year of Our Reign yet he the said Dr. John Sharp in contempt of the said Orders hath in some of the Sermons he hath since preached presumed to make unbecoming Reflections and to utter such Expressions as were not fit or proper for him endeavouring thereby to beget k the Minds of his Hearers an evil Opinion of Us and Our Government by insinuating Fears and Jealousies to dispose them to Discontent and to lead them into Disobedience and Rebellion These are therefore to require and command you immediately upon receit hereof forthwith to suspend him from further Preaching in any Parish Church or Chappel in your Diocess until he has given Us Satisfaction and Our further Pleasure be known herein And for so doing this shall be your Warrant And so We bid you heartily farewel Given at our Court at Windsor June 14. 1686. in the Second Year of Our Reign By His Majesty's Command SVNDERLAND The Bishop of London's Answer sent by Dr. Sharp to the Earl of Sunderland then at Hampton-Court on Friday June 18. Who could have no Answer To the Right Honour able the Earl of Sunderland Lord President c. My Lord I Always have and shall count it my Duty to obey the King in what-ever Commands he lays upon me that I can perform with a safe Conscience But in this I humbly conceive I am obliged to proceed according to Law and therefore it is impossible for me to comply because though his Majesty commands me only to execute his Pleasure yet in the Capacity I am to do it I must act as a Judg and your Lordship knows no Judg condemns any Man before he has knowledg of the Cause and has cited the Party However I sent to Mr. Dean and acquainted him with his Majesty's Displeasure whom I find so ready to give all reasonable Satisfaction that I have thought fit to make him the Bearer of this Answer From him that will never be unfaithfull to the King nor otherwise than My Lord Your Lordships most humble Servant H. LONDON After this the Chancellor ask'd the Bishop if he had any more to say Who then desired his Counsel might be heard by whom they would have more clear and full Satisfaction concerning what he had said Whereupon the Bishop was desired to withdraw and after half an hour he and his Counsel were called in who were Dr. Oldish Hodges Prince and Newton Dr. Oldish pleaded That the King's Letter did not take cognizance of the Cause so that it could not be an absolute Suspension because that supposeth a Proof of the Crime charged upon him That there was no such word in their Laws as suspend from Preaching which therefore must be meant silencing and this the Bishop did and in such a Method as is observed in their Courts Dr. Hodges then pleaded That the Bishop had done what the King commanded and that he could not Suspend which is a Judicial Act without first a Citation and Hearing which is the Method of proving before all Courts and appeared to be so in this otherwise the Bishop needed not to have been cited before them And that in returning the King an Answer why he did not do what he commanded him he did but what was his Duty and what was Law Dr. Price pleaded that a Citation was Jure Gentium and could never be taken away by any Positive Command or Law whatsoever that therefore the Bishop had obeyed the King so far as he could in that he had silenced the Doctor the Advice of a Bishop being in some sense an Admonition which is a Judicial Act and was given by the Bishop and obeyed by the Doctor Dr. Newton pleaded that the Bishop had obeyed the King for as in Nature no Man can be desired to do what is impossible so no man can be obliged to do an unlawful Act which Suspension without Citation and Hearing is That the Bishops are Custodes Canonum and therefore must not break them themselves That he had done what was in his Power to do and it was in effect what the King commanded to be done For where he did Rescribere and heard not the further Pleasure of the King returned he ought to conclude the King was satisfied with what he had written according to his Duty and the King had altered his Commands Then the Bishop of London said If he had erred in any Circumstance he was very ready to beg his Majesties Pardon and would be ready to make any reparation he was capable After which the Bishop withdrew for half an Hour and then being called in was desired to attend the Court again on Sept. 6. So the Bishop desiring that care might be took concerning the Minutes taken by the Clerks of what passed that he might not be misrepresented to the King by the Mistake of the Pen-man he went away While the Counsellors were pleading Dr. Pinfold the King's Advocate stood at the Chancellor's Elbow and took Notes by which it was expected that he should make a Reply but he said nothing and 't is supposed that he staid with the Council when the Bishop withdrew and gave them Reasons for his silence On Monday Sept. 6. 1686. There being present in Council the same as before and the Bishop appearing he was desired to sit down and hear his Sentence which to prevent Mistake they had ordered to be put in Writing The Bishop then would have spoke but was not suffered And then Mr. Bridgman their Register read the Instrument whereby the Bishop of London was suspended from the Execution of his Episcopal Office upon pain of Deprivation during his Majesties Pleasure sealed with their Seal but signed by no Body at all And some day after one of the
Dr. Tillotson and Dr. Lloyd and that he heard him say he had by him several Witnesses that would swear whatever he bid them and that he laid in Provisions of Fire Coals and Billets behind the Palsegrave-Head Tavern and hard by Charing-Cross to burn the City of VVestminster which he produced one Mr. Palmer to swear and that he lent him Mony as also he had Mr. Speke which was yet unpaid which proved to be 6 s. 8 d. for an Order which was for Mr. Speke's Brother aspersing them with being Eves-droppers multiplying words to little purpose His Defence therefore being Artificial as the Lord Chief Justice told him because nothing to the purpose Nay Mr. Justice VVild told him he disgrac'd his Profession by making so weak a Defence And Bedloe own'd some of the Crimes he bespattered him with as part of the Guilt for which the King had given him his Pardon and farther Depos'd That Mr. Reading was to have 100 l. a Year out of every 1000 l. a Year of Bedloe's Reward The Ld. Ch. Justice summ'd up the Evidence to which the Ld. Ch. Baron added some little and then the Jury after a short recess brought the Prisoner in Guilty And then the Court Adjourn'd for half an hour when being met again and the Prisoner at the Bar The Ld. Ch. Justice Sentenc'd him to be Fined 1000 l. to be imprisoned for the space of a whole Year and to be set in the Pillory for the space of one hour in the Palace-Yard in VVestminster On the Monday following he was Pillored accordingly the Sheriff having a particular Charge of his Person that nothing but Shame and Infamy might befal him to which he had been condemned and did deserve as well as any Man that ever was convicted The Trials of Thomas White alias Whitebread Provincial of the Jesuits in England William Harcourt pretended Rector of London John Fenwick Procurator for the Jesuits in England John Gavan alias Gawen and Anthony Turner all Jesuits and Priests At the Sessions-house in the Old-Baily on Friday June 13 1679. THen and there the Court being met and all the Judges of England present Proclamation was made of Silence and Attention whilst the King's Commission of Oyer and Terminer and of Goal-Delivery were openly read then the Prisoners being set to the Bar James Corker a Priest and Jesuit brought thither to be tried with them presented to the Court a Petition setting forth that he was absolutely surprized and unprepared for his Trial and therefore besought the Court that he might not be tried till the next Sessions To which the Court seemed inclinable enough nor did the Attorney General gain-say it upon condition that he could really make it out that he wanted Witnesses without which he could not make his Defence However it was thought fitting that he should hear the Charge that was against him read to the end he might be able to give the Court an account what Witnesses he had that might avail him in reference to his Defence against it which being done the Indictment being in general for High-Treason in conspiring the Death of the King the Subversion of the Government and Protestant Religion the former Question was put to him again and then he named one Alice Gatton now at Tunbridg as a Witness to prove that he was not in Town upon the 24th of April so that being respited till the next day the Court said nothing farther to him that Sitting Immediately after the Indictment was read VVhitebread represented to the Court that in regard he had been tried upon the 17th of December before upon the same Indictment at what time the Jury being impanell'd and the Evidence found insufficient which came in against him the Jury was discharged without a Verdict he was informed that no Man could be tried and consequently put in Jeopardy of his Life twice for the same Cause For which reason he pray'd for Counsel to direct him upon that Point in matter of Law He urged that his Life was in danger as being deliver'd over in Charge to the Jury and to make it out he alledg'd the Case of Sayer in the 31 Eliz. who having pleaded to a former Indictment for a Burglary was indicted a second time upon which it was the Opinion of the Judges that he could not be indicted twice for the same Fact He likewise desir'd a sight of the Record and that he might be informed whether or no when a Person comes upon his Trial he ought not either to be condemned or acquitted Upon the whole matter and his Motion together the Court declar'd to him that the Jury being discharg'd of him his Life was in no danger For that the Jury being sworn to make a true deliverance or the Prisoners in their Charge their Charge could not be full till the last Charge of the Court after Evidence Moreover he was told that such a Plea as he produc'd could not be supported without a Record and it was certain there was none here because there was no Verdict and besides this was not the same Indictment in regard it contain'd new matter Then Fenwick offered the same Plea his Case being the same appearing before with Whitebread upon his Trial but the Court returning the same Answer to him as to the former they both submitted and so all of them pleaded severally Not Guilty to the Indictment Then the Jury being to be impanell'd they unanimously excepted without naming them aganist all those Persons that had serv'd before as Jury-Men in the same Cause which the Court allowed them as but reason And the Jury therefore that were sworn were these twelve Thomas Harriott William Gulston Allen Garraway Richard Cheney John Roberts Thomas Cash Rainsford Waterhouse Matthew Bateman John Kain Richard White Richard Bull Thomas Cox To whom the Indictment being read Mr. Belwood of Counsel for the King in this Cause open'd the Indictment and Sir Creswel Levinz proved the Charge and then Dr. Oates was first called and being sworn he deposed That Whitebread was made Provincial the last December was twelve Month and by virtue of his Authority order'd one Conyers to preach in the English Seminary upon St. Thomas of Becket's-day that the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were Heretical Antichristian and Devilish which accordingly was done That in January or February he wrote Letters to St. Omers concerning the State of Ireland of which he had an account from Arch-bishop Talbot who wrote him word that there were several thousands of Irish ready to rise when the Blow by which was meant the King's Murther should be given in England and he hoped it would not be long ere it was given That he sent over two Jesuits into Ireland in January to see how Affairs stood there of whose return he writ an account to St. Omers in April and of the Consult to be that Month at which he was and signed a Resolve at Wild-house that Pickering and Grove should go on in their design to dispatch
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
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
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