Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	law_n	life_n	power_n	7,966	5	5.2131	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25871	The arraignment, tryal & condemnation of Algernon Sidney, Esq. for high-treason ... before the Right Honourable Sir George Jeffreys ... Lord Chief Justice of England at His Majesties Court of Kingsbench at Westminster on the 7th, 21th and 27th of November, 1683	Sidney, Algernon, 1622-1683, defendant.; Jeffreys, George Jeffreys, Baron, 1644 or 5-1689.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.	1684 (1684)	Wing A3754; ESTC R23343	69,533	67

paid them and 't is like to this L. Ch. Just. And you were never called to account for mispayment Mr. Cooke No my Lord. Mr. Att. Gen. I pray it may be read We will read as much as is necessary to prove the Inditement Col. Sidney I pray it may be all read L. Ch. Just. Mr. Attorney must have what part he desires read and you shall have what part you will have read afterwards Col. Sidney I desire all may be read Mr. Att. Gen. Begin there Secondly There was no Absurdity in this because it was their own Case Clerk Reads 2dly There was no Absurdity in this tho it was their own Case but to the contrary because it was their own Case that is concerning Themselves only and they had no Superiour They only were the Competent Judges they decided their Controversies as every man in his own Family doth such as arise between Him and his Children and his Servants This Power hath no other restriction than what is put upon it by the municipal Law of the Country where any man and that hath no other force than as he is understood to have consented unto it Thus in England every man in a Degree hath a right of Chastizing them and in many places even by the Law of God the Master hath a power of Life and Death over his Servant It were a most absurd Folly to say that a man might not put away or in some places kill an Adulterous VVife a Disobedient Son or an Unlawful Servant because he is Party and Judge for the Case doth admit of no other unless he had abridged his own right by entring into a Society where other Rules are agreed upon and a Superiour-Judge constituted there being none such between King and People That People must needs be the Judg of things happening between Them and Him whom they did not constitute that they might be Great Glorious and Rich but that they might Judge them and fight their Battles or otherwise do good unto them as they should direct In this sence he that is Singulis Major and ought to be obliged by every man in his Just and Lawful commands tending to the Publick Good And must be suffered to do nothing against it nor in any respect more than the Law doth allow For this Reason Bracton saith that the King hath three Superiours to wit Deum Legem Parliament ' that is the Power Originally in the People of England is delegated unto the Parliament He is subject unto the Law of God as he is a man to the people that makes him a King in as much as he is a King the Law sets a measure unto that Subjection and the Parliament Judges of the particular Cases thereupon arising He must be content to submit his Interest unto Theirs since he is no more than any one of them in any other respect than that He is by the Consent of all raised above any other If he doth not like this Condition he may renounce the Crown but if he receive it upon that Condition as all Magistrates do the Power they receive and Swear to perform it He must expect that the Performance will be Exacted or Revenge taken by those that he hath Betrayed If this be not so I desire to know of our Author how one or more men can come to be guilty of Treason against the KING As Lex facit ut sit Rea. No man can owe more unto him than unto any other or he unto every other man by any rule but the Law and if he must not be Judg in his own Case neither he nor any other by Power received from him would ever try any man for an Offence against him or the Law If the King or such as he appoints cannot Judge him he cannot be Judged by the wayes ordinarily known amongst us If he or other by Authority from him may Judge he is Judge in his own Case and we fall under that which he accounts the utmost of all absurdities if a remedy be found for this he must say that the King in his own Case may Judge the People but the People must not Judge the King because it is theirs that is to say the Servants entertained by the Master may Judge him but the Master must not Judge the Servant whom he took only for his own use The Magistrate is bound by no Oath or Contract to the People that Created him but the People is bound to its own Creature the Magistrate This seems to be the ground of all our Authors follies he cannot comprehend that Magistrates are for or by the People but makes this Conclusion as if Nations were created by or for the Glory or Pleasure of Magistrates and affect such a Piece of nonsence it ought not to be thought strange if he represent as an absurd thing that the Headless Multitude may shake off the Yoke when they please But I would know how the Multitude comes under the Yoke it is a badge of Slavery He sayes that the Power of Kings is for the preservation of Liberty and Property We may therefore change or take away Kings without breaking any Yoke or that made a Yoke which ought not to be one the Injury is therefore in Making or Imposing and there can be none in breaking it That if there be not an injury there may perhaps be an inconvenience if the headless Multitude may shake off the Yoke I know not why the Multitude should be concluded to be headless it is not alvvays so Moses was head of the Multitude that went out of Aegypt Othniel led them against the King of Mesopitamia under the conduct of Phaebidas they obtain'd a Victory against the Moabites they had the like success under Shamger Barac Gidion Jeptha Samuel Sampson and others against Cannanites Midianites Philistines and others the Multitude that opposed Saul and Ishbosheth had David for its head and the Ten Tribes that rejected Reoboam chose unto themselves Reoboam the Athenians rising against the Thirty Tyrants had Thracibulus those that drave from Thebes vvere conducted by Pelopidas vvhen the Romans drave out the Tarquins They chose Brutus and Publicola and they destroyed the decem Jurii under Horatius and Vellerius All the Multitudes that afterwards revolted from them under Mauritius Telerius Spartanus and others were not Headless and we know of none that were but all either found Heads or made them The Germans set up Arminius the Britans and others in latter times the Cartinians that rise against Peter the cruel had the Lord Detracta Mara The French when they grew weary of the corrupted Races of Pharomond and Pepin and the same Pepin and Hugh Capet The Scots when they slew James the Third had his Son to be their head and when they deposed and imprisoned Queen Mary the Earl of Murray and others supplyed the want of Age that was in her Son And in all the Revolutions we have had in England the people have been headed by the

not have his Pardon but he must first do this drudgery of swearing I need not say that his Son should say That he was sorry his Father could not get his Pardon unless he did swear against some others Col. Sidney Call Mr. Blake who appeared My Lord I desire he may be asked whether my Lord Howard did not tell him that he could not get his Pardon yet and he could ascribe it to nothing but that the drudgery of swearing must be over first Then my Lord Chief Iustice asked the Question Mr. Blake My Lord I am very sorry I should be called to give a publick account of a private Conversation how it comes about I don't know My Lord sent for me about six Weeks ago to come and see him I went and we talked of News I told him I heard no body had their Pardon but he that first discovered the Plot he told me no but he had his Warrant for it And says he I have their Word and Honour for it but says he I will do nothing in it till I have further order and says he I hear nothing of it and I can ascribe it to no other reason but I must not have my pardon till the drudgery of swearing is over These words my Lord said I believe my Lord won't deny it Then Mr. Sidney called Mr. Hunt and Burroughs but they did not appear Col Sidney 'T is a hard case they don't appear One of them was to prove that my Lord Howard said he could not have his Pardon till he had done some other Jobs L. C. Iust. I can't help it If you had come for assistance from the Court I would willingly have done what I could Then Col. Sidney mentioned the Duke of Buckingham but he was informed he was not subpaena'd Col. Sidney Call Grace Tracy and Elizabeth Penwick who appeared I ask you only what my Lord Howard said to you at my House concerning the Plot and my being in it Tracy Sir he said that he knew nothing of a Plot he protested and he was sure Col. Sidney knew nothing of it And he said If you knew any thing of it he mustneeds know of it for he knew as much of your concerns as any one in the World Col. Sidney Did he take God to Witness upon it Tracy yes Col. Sidney Did he desire my Plate at my House Tracy I can't tell that he said the Goods might be sent to his House Col. Sidney Penwick What did my Lord Howard say in your hearing concerning the pretended Plot or my Plate carrying away Penwick When he came he asked for your Honour and they said your Honour was taken away by a man to the Tower for the Plot and then he took God to Witness he knew nothing of it and believed your Honour did not neither He said he was in the Tower two years ago and your Honour he believed saved his Life Col. Sidney Did he desire the Plate Penwick Yes And said it should be sent to his House to be secured He said it was only Malice Mr. Wharton stood up Mr. Wharton 'T is only this I have to say That if your Lordship pleases to shew me any of these sheets of Paper I will undertake to imitate them in a little time that you shan't know which is which 'T is the easiest hand that ever I saw in my life Mr. Att. Gen. You did not write these Mr. Wharton Mr. Wharton No but I will do this in a very little time if you please L. C. Iust. Have you any more Witnesses Col. Sidney No my Lord. L. C. Iust. Then apply your self to the Jury Col. Sidney Then this is that I have to say Here is a huge Complication of Crimes laid to my Charge I did not know at first under what Statute they were now I find 't is the Statute of 25 of Ed. 3. This Statute hath two Branches one relating to War the other to the Person of the King That relating to the Person of the King makes the Conspiring Imagining and Compassing his Death criminal That concerning War is not unless it be Levyed Now my Lord I cannot imagine to which of these they refer my Crime and I did desire your Lordship to explain it For to say that a Man did meet to Conspire the King's Death and he that gives you the account of the business does not speak one word of it seems extravagant for Conspiracies have ever their Denomination from that point to which they tend as a Conspiracy to make false Coin infers Instruments and the like A Conspiracy to take away a Woman to kill or rob are all directed to that end So Conspiring to kill the King must immediately aim at killing the King The King hath two Capacities Natural and Politick that which is the Politick can't be within the Statute in that sense he never dies and 't is absur'd to say it should be a fault to kill the King that can't die So then it must be the natural sense it must be understood in which must be done by Sword by Pistol or any other way Now if there be not one word of this then that is utterly at an end though the Witness had been good The next point is concerning Levying of War Levying of War is made Treason there so it be proved by Overt Act but an Overt Act of that never was or can be pretended here If the War be not Levyed 't is not within the Act for Conspiring to Levy War is not in the Act. My Lord There is no Man that thinks that I would kill the King that knows me I am not a Man to have such a design perhaps I may say I have saved his Life once So that it must be by Implication that is It is first imagined that I intended to raise a War and then 't is imagined that War should tend to the Destruction of the King Now I know that may follow but that is not Natural or necessary and being not Natural or necessary it can't be so understood by the Law That it is not it plain for many Wars have been made and the Death of the King has not followed David made War upon Saul yet no body will say he sought his Death he had him under his power and did not kill him David made War upon Ishbosheth yet did not design his Death and so in England and France Kings have been taken Prisoners but they did not kill them King Stephen was taken Prisoner but they did not kill him So that 't is two distinct things to make War and to endeavour to kill the King Now as there is no manner of pretence that I should endeavour to kill the King directly so it can't be by inference because 't is Treason under another Species I confess I am not fit to argue these points I think I ought to have Counsel but if you won't allow it me I can't help it but these things are impossible to be jumbled up together Now

That I shall tell the Jury The point in Law you are to take from the Court Gentlemen Whether there be Fact sufficient that is your duty to consider Col. Sidney I say my Lord that since I am Indicted upon that Statute I am not to take notice of any other I am Indicted for Conspiring the Death of the King because such a Paper is found in my House Under favour I think that can be nothing at all to me For though Sir Philip Lloyd did ask me whether I would put my Seal to it he did not ask me till he had been in my Closer and I knew not what he had put in and so I told him I would not do it Then come these Gentlemen upon similitude of hands My Lord We know what similitude of hands is in this Age. One told me within these two days that one came to him and offered him to counterfeit any hand he should shew him in half an hour So then my Lord I have nothing to say to these Papers Then for point of Witness I cannot be Indicted much less Tried or Condemned on 25 E. 3. for by that Act there must be two Witnesses to that very branch unto which the Treason does relate which must be distinguished For the Levying of War and Conspiring the Death of the King are two distinct things distinct in nature and reason and so distinguished in the Statute And therefore the Conspiring the Death of the King is Treason and the other not 1 E. 6. 12. 5 E. 6. 11. does expresly say there must be two Witnesses to either of these Acts. Now here is my Lord Howard I have enough to say of him by and by 'T is he only who speaks of six men whom he calls a select Council and yet selected by no man in the world I desire to know who selected my Lord Howard Who selected me If they were selected by no body 't is a Bull to say they were a select Council If they were not selected but erected themselves into a Cabal then they have either confidence in one another or find they are near equally able to assist in the design Here is nothing of all this These six men were strangers to one another For my own part I never spake with the Duke of Monmouth above three times in my life and one time was when my Lord Howard brought him to my House and cozened us both He told the Duke I invited him and he told me the Duke invited himself and neither of them was true Now that such men as these are not hardly knowing one another should presently fall into a great and intimate friendship and trust and management of such businesses as these are is a thing utterly improbable unless they were mad Now I do find in my Lord Howards Deposition against my Lord Russel that they were in prosecution of my Lord Shaftsbury's design and yet he acknowledges the Duke of Monmouth said he was mad and he himself said so too Now that they should join with four more in the prosecution of the design of a madman they must be mad too Now whether my Lord Howard would have you think he was mad because a madman cannot be guilty of Treason I cannot tell My Lord Howard in his last Deposition at my Lord Russel's Trial fixes the two meetings one about the middle of January the other ten days after Now he fixes one to be the latter end of January the other the middle of February Then he makes it to be the prosecution of my Lord Shaftsbury's design I do not find that any one there had any thing to do with my Lord Shaftsbury for my part I had not I had not seen his face in two years Then my Lord that I go upon is whatever my Lord Howard is here is but one Witness The Law of God and the Law of man understood and taken by all men does require two Witnesses Moses says so so the Apostles the same after him and Christ says the same That every matter is to be established by two Witnesses There ought to be two Witnesses to the same thing Now for one to come and tell a Tale of a Tub of an imaginary Council and another of a Libel a Paper written no body knows when is such a thing you can never go over it But if the Law of God be that there must be two Witnesses to the same Fact there is an end of this matter And under the Judicial Law the penalty would be in this Case to put a man to death Now here there are but two things which if allowed of no body will be safe for Perjury The one is to suffer men to give their testimony one to one thing and another to another that the fraud cannot be discovered and the other is to take away the punishment Now the punishment is taken away in some measure and do but take away the other point whereby the fraud cannot be discovered and then there is no defence can be made That both witnesses should be to the same point see the Story of Susanna Two Elders testified they saw her in the Act of Adultery They were carrying of her to her death both of them said the same thing until they were taken asunder and examined the fraud was not discovered and then one said she was under a Tree of the right hand and the other under the Tree on the left and she escaped and they were punished But now if you apply it to several Facts my Lord Howard may say what he pleases and if another shall come with a supplemental proof no Justice can be had But my Lord I desire this If there be two Witnesses to prove the Conspiracy and in that there were those matters done that are Treason I must answer to it but if there be not I presume I need say nothing to it If you do not allow it me I desire Council to Argue it L. C. J. That is a point of Fact Whether there be two Witnesses I tell you beforehand one Witness is not sufficient Col. Sidney Why then there is my Lord Howard and never another L. C. J. Nay do not make those inferences I will tell the Jury if there be not two Witnesses as the Law requires in this Case they ought to acquit you Col. Sidney You confound me I cannot stir You talk of a Conspiracy What is a Conspiracy to kill the King Is there any more Witnesses than one for Levying of War L. C. J. 'Pray do not deceive your self You must not think the Court and you intend to enter into a Dialogue Answer to the Fact if there be not sufficient Fact the Jury will acquit you Make what Answer you can to it Col. Sidney Then I say There being but one Witness I am not to Answer to it at all L. C. J. If you rely upon that we will direct the Jury presently Col. Sidney Then for Levying War what does any one say My Lord

Fact you say well Col. Sidney I say there are several Judgments of Parliament that doe shew what ever is Constructive-Treason does not belong to any private Court that of 1 Mary 1 E. 6. 1 Eliz. 5 Eliz. 18. another 13 Car shew this Now my Lord I say that the business concerning the Papers 't is only a similitude of hands which is just nothing In my Lady Carrs Case it was resolved to extend to no criminal Cause if not to any then not to the greatest the most Capital So that I have only this to say That I think 't is impossible for the Jury to find this matter for the first point you proved by my Lord Howard that I think is no Body and the last concerning the Papers is only imagination from the similitude of hands If I had published it I must have answered for it or if the thing had been whole and mine I must have answered for it but for these scraps never shewed any Body That I think does not at all concern me And I say if the Jury should find it which is impossible they can I desire to have the Law reserved unto me Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord and you Gentlemen of the Jury The Evidence hath been long but I will endeavour to repeat it as faithfully as I can The Crime the Prisoner stands accused for is compassing and imagining the Death of the King That which we go about to prove that compassing and imagining by is by his meeting and consulting how to raise Arms against the King and by plain matter in writing under his own hand where he does affirm It is lawful to take away and destroy the King Gentlemen I will begin with the first part of it the Meeting and Consultation to raise Arms against the King The Prisoner Gentlemen hath endeavoured to avoid the whole force of this Evidence by saying that this in point of Law can't affect him if it were all proved for this does not amount to a proof of his compassing and imagining the death of the King and he is very long in interpreting the Act of Parliament to you of 25 E. 3. and dividing of it into several Members or Branches of Treason And does insist upon it that tho' this should be an offence within one Branch of that Statute yet that is not a proof of the other which is the Branch he is proceeded upon that is the first Clause against the compassing and imagining the Death of the King And sais he conspiring to Levy War is not so much as one Branch of that Statute but it must be War actually levyed This is a matter he is wholly mistaken in in point of Law It hath been adjudged over and over again That an Act which in one Branch of that Statute may be an overt Act to prove a man Guilty of another Branch of it As levying War is an overt Act to prove a man Guilty of Conspiring the Death of the King And this was adjudged in the Case of Sir Henry Vane so is meeting and consulting to raise to Arms. And reason does plainly speak it to be so for they that conspire to raise War against the King can't be presumed to stop any where till they have Dethron'd or Murdered the King Gentlemen I won't belong in citing Authoritys It hath been setled lately by all the Judges of England in the Case of my Lord Russel who hath suffered for this Conspiracy Therefore that point of Law will be very plain against the Prisoner He hath mentioned some other things as that there must be two Witnesses to every particular Fact and one Witness to one Fact and another to another is not sufficient it hath been very often objected and as often over-ruled It was over-ruled Solemnly in the Case of my Lord Stafford Therefore if we have one Witness to one overt Act and another to another they will be two Witnesses in Law to convict this Prisoner In the first part of our Evidence we give you an account of the general Design of an Insurrection that was to have been that this was contrived first when my Lord Shaftsbury was in England that after my Lord Shaftsbury was gone the business did not fall but they thought fit to revive it again and that they might carry it on the more steadily they did contrive a Counsel among themselves of six whereof the Prisoner at the Bar was one They were the Duke of Monmouth my Lord of Essex my Lord Howard my Lord Russel the Prisoner at the Bar and Mr. Hambden This Counsel they contrived to manage this affair and to carry on that designe that seemed to fall by the Death of my Lord of Shaftsbury and they met this we give you an account of first by Witnesses that gave you an account in general of it And tho' they were not privy to it yet they heard of this Counsel and that Col. Sidney was to be one of this Counsel This Gentlemen If it had stood alone by it self had been nothing to affect the Prisoner at all But this will shew you that this was discours'd among them that were in this Conspiracy Then my Lord Howard gives you an account that first the Duke of Monmouth and he and Col. Sidney met and it was agreed to be necessary to have a Counsel that should consist of six or seven and they were to carry it on That the Duke of Monmouth undertook to dispose my Lord Russel to it and Col. Sidney to dispose the Earl of Essex and Mr. Hambden that these Gentlemen did meet accordingly and the substance of their discourse was taking notice how the design had fallen upon the Death of my Lord Shaftsbury that it was fit to carry it on before mens Inclinations were cool for they found they were ready to it and had great reason to believe it because this being a business communicated to so many yet for all that it was kept very secret and no body had made any mention of it which they looked upon as a certaine argument that men were ready to ingage in it This incouraged them to go on in this Conspiracy Then when the Six met at Mr. Hambden's house they debated concerning the place of rising and the time the time they conceiv'd must be suddenly before Mens minds were cool for now they thought they were ready and very much disposed to it and for place they had in debate whether they should rise first in the Town or in the Country or both together And for the Persons they thought it absolutely necessary for them to have the United Counsels of Scotland to join with them and therefore they did refer this matter to be better considered of another time and they met afterwards at my Lord Russel's House in February and there they had Discourse to the same purpose But there they began to consider with themselves being they were to destroy this Government what they should set up in the room of it to what

instrumental to take away the life of any man that by Law his Life ought not to be taken away For I had rather many Guilty men should escape than one innocent man suffer The question is whether upon all the Evidence you have heard against the Prisoner and the Evidence on his behalf there is Evidence sufficient to Convict the Prisoner of the High Treason he stands charged with And as you must not be moved by the denyal of the Prisoner further than as it is backed with proof so you are not to be inveigled by any insinuations made against the Prisoner at the Bar further or otherwise than as the proof is made out to you But it is usual and it is a duty incumbent on the King's Counsel to urge against all such Criminals whatsoever they observe in the Evidence against them and likewise to endeavour to give answers to the Objections that are made on their behalf And therefore since we have been kept so long in this Cause it won't be amiss for me and my Brothers as they shall think fit to help your memory in the fact and discharge that Duty that is incumbent upon the Court as to the points of Law This Indictment is for High Treason and is grounded upon the Statute of 25 E. 3. By which Statute the compassing and imagining the death of the King and declaring the same by an Overt Act is made High Treason The reason of that Law was because at Common Law there was great doubt what was Treason wherefore to reduce that High Crime to a certainty was that Law made that those that were Guilty might know what to expect And there are several Acts of Parliament made between the time of Edward the Third and that of 1 M. but by that Statute all Treasons that are not enumerated by after Acts of Parliament remain as they were declared by that Statute of 25 E. 3. And so are Challenges and other matters insisted upon by the Prisoner left as they were at the time of that Act I am also to tell you that in point of Law it is not only the Opinion of us here but the Opinion of them that sate before us and the Opinion of all the Judges of England and within the memory of many of you That tho there be Two Witnesses required to prove a man Guilty of High-Treason yet it is not necessary there should be Two Witnesses to the same thing at one time But if two Witnesses prove two several Facts that have a tendency to the same Treason they are two Witnesses sufficient to convict any man of High-Treason In the Case of my Lord Stafford in Parliament all the Judges assisting it is notoriously known That one Witness to a Conspiracy in England and another to a Conspiracy in France were held two Witnesses sufficient to convict him of High-Treason In the next place I am to tell you That tho some Judges have been of Opinion that words of themselves were not an Overt Act but my Lord Hales nor my Lord Coke nor any other of the Sages of the Law ever questioned but that a Letter would be an Overt Act sufficient to prove a man Guilty of High-Treason For scribere est agere Mr. Sidney says The King is a Politick Person but you must destroy Him in His natural capacity or it is not Treason but I must tell If any man compass to Imprison the King it is High Treason so was the Case of my Lord Cobham and my Lord Coke When he says If a man do attempt to make the King do any thing by force and compulsion otherwise than he ought to do that it is High-Treason within that Act of 25 Eliz. III. But if it were an Indictment only for the Levying of War there must be an actual War Levied but this is an Indictment for compassing the Death of the King and the other Treason mentioned in that Act of Parliament for the Levying War may be given in Evidence to prove the Conspiracy the Kings Death For 't is rightly told you by the Kings Council That the imagination of a mans heart is not to be discerned but if I declare such my imagination by an Overt Act which Overt Act does naturally Evince that the King must be Deposed Destroyed Imprisoned or the like it will be sufficient Evidence of Treason within that Act. In the next place having told you what the Law is for Gentlemen 't is our Duty upon our Oaths to declare the Law to you and you are bound to receive our Declaration of the Law and upon this Declaration to inquire whether there be a Fact sufficiently proved to find the Prisoner Guilty of the High-Treason of which he stands Indicted And for that I must tell you what ever happens to be hearsay from others it is not to be applied immediately to the Prisoner but however those Matters that are remote at first may serve for this purpose To prove there was generally a Conspiracy to Destroy the King and Government And for that matter you all remember it was the constant rule and method observed about the Popish Plot first to produce the Evidence of the Plot in general This was done in that famous Ca●e of my Lord Stafford in Parliament Gentlemen I am also to tell you This alone does not at all affect the Prisoner at the Bar but is made use of as a circumstance to support the credibility of the Witnesses and is thus far applicable to the business before you That 't is plain by persons that don't touch the Prisoner at the Bar and I am sorry any man makes a doubt of it at this time of day that there was a Conspiracy to kill the King for after so full a proof in this place and in others and the Execution and Confession of several of the Offenders I am surprised to observe that the Prisoner at the Bar and some others present seem not to believe it But Gentlemen you hear the first Witness I speak of West He tells you he had the honour to be acquainted with Mr. Sidney and that he had Discourse with Walcot a person Convicted and Executed for this horrid Conspiracy Why says he he told me at my Chamber That they were not only the persons concerned but that there were other persons of great Quality that had their Meetings for the carrying on the Business in other places And Ferguson that was the Ring leader in this Conspiracy told him there was a Design of a general Insurrection it was once laid down but it is now taken up again There are other Councellors of great importance and he names among the rest the Prisoner at the Bar. Mr. West goes a little further and he tells you this says he He did not only tell me so but that there was a Design to conciliate a Correspondence with some persons in Scotland and they were to do it under the Cant of having business in Carolina There is Mr. Keeling he tells