for one Offence I will now mention Precedents to prove that this Impeachment is according to the Course and Law of Parliaments Michael de la Poole Rot Park 18 or 28 H. 6. N. 18. was accused by the Commons of Treason and there 't is said that the Course of Parliament is to find out the Truth by Circumstances and such Degrees as the nature of the thing will bear and they are not confined to the strict Rules of other Courts The Earl of Clarendon was Impeached generally and the Commons took time to bring in their Articles I have had the Experience in three or four Parliaments wherein We have been busied with Impeachments tho' We have had no great success in them That tho' the Commons may carry up particular Articles at first yet the Course is for the Lords to receive the general Impeachment and the Commons say that in due time They will bring in their Articles So it was done in the Case of the five Popish Lords and in that Case tho' the Parliament was Dissolved before any Articles sent up yet in the next Parliament the Articles upon the former Impeachments were sent up and received yet Indictments were against them before any Impeachment and preparations made for their Tryals but there hath been no attempt to try them upon the Indictments tho' there have been several Intervals of Parliament Our Case is stronger than that of the Lords for in this the first Suit was in the House of Lords but in the other Case the first was the Suit of the King by Indictment and yet by a subsequent Impeachment that was stop'd and the Lords are yet Prisoners For the Objection That the King may chuse in what Court he will sue It is agreed when it is at his own Suit but this is not so but at the Commons Suit and can be no where else prosecuted but where it depends To conclude This Plea cannot be over-ruled without deciding whether the Lords can proceed upon such general Impeachments and whether the Commons can Impeach in such a general way This Case highly concerns the Jurisdiction of the Lords the Priviledges of the Commons and the Rights of all the People of England Mr Wallop for the Prisoner then argued thus There are in this Plea three principal parts upon which it turns which are expresly alledged 1st That the Prisoner before the Indictment was according to Law and Custom of Parliament Impeached 2d That the Impeachment remains inforce The 3d great Point and Hinge upon which it turns is this That the Treason in the Indictment and the Treason for which he was Impeached is one and the same Treason These three things are confessed by Mr Attorney for all things well alledged and pleaded are confessed by the demurrer I pass the two former points there being no difficulty in them I take the third to be the only point in the Case and if We have well averred it and can by Law be let into such an Averment I hope this Court will not pretend to go on in this Case They object because he is Impeached generally that cannot be averred to be the same and a Demurrer confesses not the Truth of that which by Law cannot be said But if it may be said and is said plainly Then the Demurrer confesses it I conceive the matter is well averrable and We have well averred I grant a Repugnant and impossible Averment cannot be taken But if there be no impossibility repugnancy or contradiction between the matters averred to be the same it is not only allowable to averr it but most proper For quod constat clare non debet verificari In this Case 't is not necessary that it should appear upon view of the Indictment and Impeachment that the matter contained in both is the same But its sufficient that it be provable upon an Issue to be taken and so much is admitted by the Judges in Sparrye's Case Co. 5. Rep. 51. If this matter may appear at first or at last and the thing is possible to be proved We are well enough Corbet and Barnes Case first Croke fol. 320. By taking the Averment We offer them here a fair Issue an Issue of fact tryable by a Jury but the Attorney refuses that and having demurred it must be taken to be true as if found by a Jury And if they had taken Issue upon this Question of fact We might have gone to a Jury where the matter would have been easily proved For upon evidence given The Jury might fairly take into consideration the reading of this very Numerical Libel set forth in the Indictment and the particular and special Debates of the House of Commons thereupon And that upon those very Debates the House voted that Fitz-Harris should be Impeached for matters in that Libel and that upon those Votes the Impeachment was carryed up to the Lords This is Evidence sufficient that the House of Commons intended to accuse him of the same Treason which proves the Issue viz. That the Treason in the Impeachment is the same with that in the Indictment This is not to put the Intention of the Mind or secret Thoughts of the Heart in issue but to put them into a way of proof In the present Case the Intention of the Commons upon the Issue we offered and the Attorney refused might and ought and would have been proved and without doubt found by the Jury Neither is this general Impeachment such a notional thing as is pretended but 't is as if the Commons in Parliament should say We charge him with Crimes that are Treason Now whether those Crimes are the same with those for which he is Indicted is a good and proper Issue And if it appears to the Court to be the same you will certainly take off your Hands from these Proceedings Again they say The Impeachment is too general and no Man shall be put to answer to such a general Accusation And I say so too neither shall Fitz-Harris be put to answer to it without special Articles But here by the Law of Parliament general Impeachments are held good and Articles and Additional Articles also are usually brought in afterwards And therefore We must take the Impeachment as We find it which stands against us as a Record and We must plead it in the same generallity This Impeachment according to the course of Parliament is well lodged in the House of Lords where it only ought to be tryed and we must plead it as we find the Case to be And having averred the Crimes to be the same We have done what we could and therefore enough And That a general Impeachment without Articles is a bar to any Indictment for the same matter was resolved by all the Judges as I am informed in the Case of the Lords in the Tower who were indicted for Treason and afterwards 5th of December 1678. generally Impeached and no Articles exhibited till the 3d of April 1679 And yet in the mean
That if any Judge Justice or Jury proceed upon him and he found guilty that you will declare them guilty of his Murder and Betrayers of the Rights of the Commons of England Hereupon the House came to these Resolves That it is the undoubted right of the Commons in Parliament assembled to impeach before the Lords in Parliament any Peer or Commoner for Treason or any other Crime or Misdemeanour and that the Refusal of the Lords to proceed in Parliament upon such Impeachment is a denyal of Justice and a violation of the Constitution of Parliaments That in the Case of E. Fitz-Harris who by the Commons has been impeached for High Treason before the Lords with a Declaration That in convenient time they would bring up the Articles against him For the Lords to resolve that the said Fitz-Harris should be proceeded with according to the course of the Common-Law and not by way of Impeachment in Parliament is a denyal of Justice and a Violation of the Constitution of Parliaments and an Obstruction to the further discovery of the Popish Plot and of great danger to his Majesties Person and the Protestant Religion That for any Inferiour Court to proceed against him or any other Person lying under an Impeachment in Parliament for the same Crimes for which he or they stand impeached is an high breach of the Priviledge of Parliament This matter thus agitated in the House of Commons was countenanced by a Protestation of many Temporal Lords which was to this effect That in all Ages it had been an undoubted Right of the Commons to impeach before the Lords any Subject for Treasons or any other Crime whatsoever That they could not reject such Impeachments because that Suit or Complaint can be determined no where else for an Impeachment is at the Suit of the People but an Indictment is at the Suit of the King As the King may Indict at his Suit for Murther and the Heir or the Wife of the Party Murthered may bring an †Which was always to be preferred and upon notice thereof all Prosecutions at the Kings Suit were to stop till the Prosecution at the Suit of the Party was determined Appeal And the King cannot Release that Appeal nor his Indictment prevent the Proceedings in it It is an absolute denial of Justice in regard it cannot be tryed any where else The House of Peers as to Impeachments proceed by vertue of their Judicial Power and not by their Legislative and as to that act as a Court of Record and can deny Suitors especially the Commons of England that bring legal Complaint before them no more than the Judges of Westminster can deny any suite regularly commenced before them Our Law saith in the Person of the King Nulli negabimus Justitiam We will deny Justice to no single Person yet here Justice is denyed to the whole Body of the People This may be interpreted an exercise of Arbitrary Power and have an influence upon the Constitution of the English Government and be an encouragement to all Inferiour Courts to exercise the same Arbitrary Power by denying the Presentments of Grand-Juries c for which at this time the Chief Justice stands impeached in the House of Peers These Proceedings may mis-represent the House of Peers to the King and People especially at this time and the more in the particular Case of Edward Fitz-Harris who is publickly known to be concerned in vile and horrid Treasons against his Majesty and a great Conspirator in the Popish plot to Murther the King and destroy and subvert the Protestant Religion Monmouth Kent Huntington Bedford Salisbury Clare Stamford Sunderland Essex Shaftesbury Macclesfield Mordant Wharton Paget Grey of Werke Herbert of Cherbury Cornwallis Lovelace Crew This Protest was no sooner made upon Munday the 28th of March 1681 but the Parliament was instantly dissolved Well The Parliament being dismissed Fitz-Harris must be Hang'd out of the way and the Term approaching Scroggs the Chief Justice who lay under an Impeachment for Treason in Parliament is removed with marks of Favour and Respect being allowed a Pension for Life and his Son Knighted and made one of his Majesty's Learned Council and Sr Francis Pemberton being advanced to the Seat of Lord Chief Justice the Business of Fitz-Harris is brought before him and Justice Jones Justice Dolben and Justice Raymond and proceeded upon in the manner following UPon the 27th of April 1681 an Indictment for high Treason was offered to the Grand-Jury for the Hundreds of Edmonton and Gore in Middlesex against Fitz-Harris whereupon Mr Michael Godfrey the Foreman in the name of the Grand-Jury desired the opinion of the Court whether it were lawful and safe for them to proceed upon it in regard Fitz-Harris was Impeached in the late Parliament at Oxford by the House of Commons in the name of all the Commons of England Mr Attorney General then said That Mr Godfrey and two more were against accepting the Bill but the body of the Jury carryed it to hear the Evidence and that thereupon himself and Mr Solicitor went on upon the * A new way of dealing with Grand-Juries to procure the finding Bills of Indictment Evidence and spent some time in opening it to the Jury and We thought they would have found the Bill but it seems They have prevailed to put these scruples in the others heads Then The Lord Chief Justice Pemberton said your scruple is this here was an Impeachment offered against Fitz-Harris to the Lords which was not received and thereupon there was a Vote of the House of Commons that he should not be Tryed by any other Inferiour Court We do tell you 't is our Opinion that If an Indictment be exhibited to you you are bound to enquire by vertue of your Oathes you cannot nor ought to take notice of any such Impeachment nor Votes and We ought to proceed according to Justice in Cases that are brought before us This We declare as the Opinion of all the Judges of England Then the Jury went away and afterwards found the Bill Upon Saturday the 30th of April Mr Fitz-Harris was brought to the King's Bench-Bar and Arraigned upon the Indictment whereupon he offered a Plea in writing to the Jurisdiction of the Court and the Chief Justice said We do not receive such Pleading as this without a Counsels hand to it Upon which the Prisoner desired the Court to assign Sr Francis Winnington Mr Williams Mr Pollexfen and Mr Wallop for his Council which was accordingly done Upon Monday the 2d of May the four Council moved the Court to have longer time for drawing the Plea and that they might have a sight of the Indictment as necessary to the drawing it but they were opposed therein by Mr Attorney and the Court denyed both Then Sr George Treby and Mr Smith were also assigned as Council for the Prisoner at his request Upon Wednesday the 4th of May Fitz-Harris being brought from the Tower to the King's Bench-Bar
one is to the matter To the Form 1st The general Allegation that he was impeached de alta Proditione is uncertain it ought to have been particularly set out that the Court might judge Whether it be the same Crime and it is not helped by the Averrment 2dly Here is no Impeachment alledged to be upon Record They make a general Allegation that F. Harris was Impeached Impetitus fuit by the Commons before the Lords Quae quidem Impetitio in pleno robore existit prout per Recordum inde c. Now there is no Impeachment mentioned before And quae quidem Impetitio is a relative Clause and no Impeachment being mentioned before in the Plea there is nothing averred upon the Record to be continued or discontinued for Impetitio does not actively signifie the Impeaching or passively the Person Impeached but it signifies the Impeachment the Accusation which is to be upon Record Therefore when they say he was impeached and afterwards alledge Quae quidem Impetitio remains upon Record that cannot be good for the Relative there is only Illusive For the matter of the Plea 't is a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court There the point will be Whether a Suite depending even in a Superior Court can take away the Jurisdiction of an Inferiour Court which had an Original Jurisdiction of the Cause and of the Person at the time of the Fact committed I insist upon these Exceptions Mr Williams for the Prisoner then said I take these things to be admitted Mr Attorney having demurred generally 1. That the Prisoner stands Impeached 2. That the Impeachment is now in being 3. That this was done secundum Legem Consuetudiem Parliamenti and being so remains in plenis suis robore effectu And more particularly the Plea refers to the Record for the parts and Circumstances of the Impeachment prout patet per Record So that it refers the Impeachment to the Record and tells you 't is amongst the Records of that Parliament 4. Moreover That the Treason in the Impeachment and the Treason in the Indictment are one and the same and that this Person Fitz-Harris indicted and F. H. impeached are one and the same Person And withal it appears upon the Record that this Impeachment was depending before the Indictment found for the Parliament was the 21st of March and it appears this is an Indictment of this Term And further it appears not by any thing to the contrary in the Record but that this Parliament is still in being and then it must be admitted so to be Whether your Lordship now will think fit in this Court to proceed upon that Indictment is the substance of the Case I think it will not be denyed but that the Commons may Impeach any Commoner before the Lords That was the Case of Tresilian and Belknap in the time of Richard the second Vpon that Impeachment one of them was Executed and the other Banished in Parliament Mr Attorney allows the Parliament to be a Superior Court but says yet the Inferiour Court having Original Jurisdiction of the Person and Cause may proceed notwithstanding an Impeachment in Parliament I will shew how manifestly an Indictment and an Impeachment differ The Case of an Appeal is like the Case of an Impeachment An Appeal of Murder is at the suite of the Party and in this case 't is at the suite of the Commons t is not in the Name of the King but of all the Commons of England So that 't is like an Appeal and not like an Indictment an Indictment is for the King an Impeachment for the People It is not safe to alter the old ways of Parliament 't is out of the road of Comparisons when they will compare an Indictment and an Impeachment together It becomes not the Justice of this Court to weaken the Methods of Proceedings in Parliament Your proceeding upon this Indictment is to subject the Method of their Proceedings there to the Proceedings of this Court It is not fit that the Justice of the Kingdom and the High Court of Parliament should be crampt by the Methods of an Inferiour Court and a Jury The Parliament is the supreame Court and this Court every way inferiour to it and 't will be very strange that the Supreame Court should be hindred here For the highest Court is always supposed to be the wisest and the Commons in Parliament a greater and wiser Body than a Grand Jury of any one County And the Judges in that Court the Peers to be the Wisest Judges Will the Law of England suffer an Examination Impeachment and Prosecution for Treason to be taken out of the Hands of the greatest and wisest Inquest in England And will it suffer the Judicature to be taken out of the hands of the wisest Judges It stands not with the Wisdom of the Law or of the Constitution of the Government Another thing is this the common Argument in an extraordinary Case there is no Precedent for this way of Proceeding 'T is my Lord Cok's Argument 〈◊〉 Coke's Littleton fol. 108. and in the â—th Instit fol. 17. in the Case of the indictment against the Bishop of Winchester and of that against Mr Plowden He says 't is a dangerous attempt for Inferiour Courts to alter or meddle with the Law of Parliaments So in this case in regard it never was done from the beginning of the World till now it being without President there is no Law for it Another mischief which follows upon this is If you take this Case out of the power of the Parliament and bring it into this Court where the Offence may be pardoned you change the method of proceedings which make the Offence without consent of the Prosecutors not pardonable by Law This may be of dangerous consequence to the Publick by giving this Court a Jurisdiction and possessing it of these Causes expose them to the will of the Prince This way of proceeding inverts the Law in another thing 'T is a Principle that no man's Life is to be put twice in danger for the same thing If you proceed upon this Indictment and he be acquitted will that acquittal bind the Lords in Parliament If they may proceed upon the Impeachment then you invade every English-man's right and his Life may be brought in question twice upon the same account I take it to be a Critical thing now at this time to make such attempts as these are There are Lords now that lie under Impeachments of Treason if you goon in this do you not open a Gap that may be a ground to deliver them By the same Justice the Lords may be tryed by another Court This proceeding will have this effect it will stir up a Question between the Jurisdiction of this Court and the Parliament for in probability if this Person be acquirted the Commons and the Lords too will look into it If he be found guilty here is the Power of the Commons in Impeaching and the Jurisdiction of
Person that I was to trapan But being again asked Whether he was put upon it to trapan the Protestant Lords and the House of Commons He said No I was not I was put upon it by none but Pitz-Harris of whom I asked what will be the use of this and he said We will desperse them We know how And that he was to deliver it to the French Ambassador's Confessor and it was to be drawn in the Name of the Non-conformists to father it upon all the discontented party Mr Smith then gave evidence that he was planted in a Closet in Everard's Chamber and saw him and F. Harris through a hole and heard Everard read a Seditions Paper to him and enquire of him what Heads he would have more than were there To which Fitz-Harris repiled that he would have him represent the King as a Papist and mentioned many other Trayterous things expressed in the Libel And that when Everard told him those were Treasonable things Fiz-Harris said The more Treason the better Sr William Waller was then sworn and declared that he was placed in a Room within Everards Champer where through a crevass of the Door and a Hole in the Hangings he could see him and Fitz-H and he heard Fitz-H enquire of Everard whether he had finshed the Paper according to his Instructions and Everard produced two Papers and gave him one and after he had read a little in it Everard asked whether it was drawn according to his Instructions and he answered It was exactly done And that Everard said This is a business of very dangerous consequence what Reward shall I have for running so great a hazard and he told him I think I run an equal hazard with you for you have a Paper under my Hand which will render me liable to danger and Sr William said he saw Fitz-H after several passages with his Pen and then the Paper being produced he declared it to be the same And that Fitz-H told Everard that the French Ambassador was to Recompence him for his pains Then Fitz-H demanded of Sr William Whether that were the Paper for which he was Impeached and Sr William answered that at was and that he read that Paper in the House And Mr Johnson Fore-man of the Jury demanded whether Fitz-H stood Impeached upon the same Treasons in the Indictment and Sr William answered that he did but being checkt by the Attorney and Solicitor General he said That as soon as he had communicated that Paper to the House the House proceeded to the Impeachment Then the Libel was read in these Words viz. The true English-man speaking plain English in a Letter from a Friend to a Friend I Thank you for the Character of a Popish Successor which you sent me wherein out Just Fears and the grounds of them are justly set out But I am in greater fear of the present Possessor why do we frighten our selves about the Evil that is to come not looking to that which is at hand We would cut off the Budding Weeds and let the Poysonous Root lie still We would stop the Channel of our Evils and let the Fountain still run My meaning is this can Pylades Know and Act all these Bloody Conspiracies and not impart them to his dear Orestes if James be Conscious and Guilty Charles is so too Believe me these two Brethren in Iniquity they are in Confederacy with Pope and French to introduce Popery and Arbitrary Government as all their Actions demonstrate the Parliament Magna Charta and Liberty of the Subjects are as heavy Voaks which they would cast off to be as absolute as their Br. of France and if this can be proved to be their only aim and endeavour why should not every True Brittain be a Quaker thus far Let the English rise and move as one Man to self-defence to open Action and fling off their intollerable Riders Blow the Trumpet stand on your Guard and withstand them as Bears and Tygers And since there can be no trist given to this goodly couple of Popish Brethren nor no relief expected from a Parliament Trust to your Swords in defence of your Eives Laws Religion and Properties like the stout Earl of Old who told a King that if he could not be defended by Magna Charta he would be relieved by Longa Sedda Yet to convince the World that this Scottish Race is Corrupt Root Branch and Popish from the very beginning be pleas'd to consider these reasons following The Grand-Father of these Men James the Scot was of no Religion at the bottom but entred by a pretence of a Sham-Plot of the Papists against his Life whilst really he collogued with the Popish Party under-hand his Mother his Kindred and Companions were French and Papists when came into England he wrote to the Pope with great Submission yet afterwards thinking it for his purpose to cajole the Parliament and write against the Pope and Cardinals he sends a Scots Bird to blind the Eyes of the Vatican Keeper with Money and to steal his Letters from off the Roman File and then he crows as boldly as an unsuspected Harlot for the Protestant Religion and Interest That Man's Son Charles the First held a secret Correspondency with the Pope calling him his Dear and Holy Father as is to be seen in his Letters recorded in Rusworth's Collections Were not his Wife and Courtiers Papists Did he not countehance and promote the Rebellion in Ireland As the Irish Grandees his very Commissions testifie and declare was there not a Popish Plot and an Universal Conspiracy of the Papists discovered to him and his Confessor Laud and did they not piously stifle it lest they should have discovered the Nakedness of their Mother Church Whilst that goodly Protestant Prince pretended to relieve the poor besieged Protestants at Rochel by his confident Buckingham did he not hold Correspondency with the French Cardinal how to betray them for a Sum of Money which his obstinacy with his Parliament made him stand in need of But they who so ill approved themselves to be heads of the Protestant Church Charles and Laud did they not loose their own Heads by a manifest Judgment of God And was not the false Heart of their Emissary Buckingham found out by an Assassins Kinfe But to come nearer to our purpose these two goodly Imps of our days are stark naught arrived at the heigth of Wickedness and of professed Arbitrariness and Popery As for James he was a Papist whilst he had a Regiment in the French and afterwards in the Spanish Service beyond Seas And as for Charles he was reported e're he came into England to have been reconciled to the Church of Rome in one of the French Kings Country-Houses and since they came in how have they wheedled and played fast and loose in their profession of Religion as Occasion and their Affairs required Have they not all along maintained secret Correspondency with France and Rome As Coleman's Letters may
sufficiently instruct such who have not seen more secret Memoires But let us come to Examine their Actions which are a better proof of their hearts were not the Duke's Servants and Confidents all Papists Witness his Talbots Patricks and other Irish Teags were not the Duke and such of his Creatures as were known Papists promoted to all publick Offices of trust both at Sea and Land Witness Bellasis now a Traytor in the Tower did not James by Coleman Throgmorton and others hold open Correspondency with the Pope and Cardinals and could Charles be Ignorant of all this Nay he lik'd all so well that he hardly employed any about him but Papists as Clifford whom he made Treasurer or employed any abroad but Persons of the same stamp Witness Godolphin whom he sent Embassador into Spain as he did others elsewhere what more obvious than that though the Duke's Treachery against the Kingdom and Protestant Religion be fully made out and the People and Parliament seek to bring him to a legal Tryal yet Charles obstructs Justice and will not suffer it How can this be but that he is joyned in Will and Deed in all the Duke's Villanies and that he is afraid to be discovered and found out to be a Papist and a Betrayer of his People and the Protestant Religion If he was heartily concerned for our Religion would he not oppose a Popish Successor who will Infallibly overthrow it Can there be any thing more evident than that he continues the Duke's Adherents and those who were advanced by him in all Offices of Trust And hath he not turn'd out of his Council the most Zealous Protestants such as Shaftesbury Essex and others and introduced in their Rooms other meer Tools or those that are Popishly and Arbitrarily affected Hath he not modell'd all the Sheriffs and Justices throughout England in subserviency to a Popish Design Was not Sir William Waller and Dr. Chamberlain and divers others turn'd out of the Commission in and about London meerly for being Zealous Prosecutors of Priests and Papists Doth not Charles all he can to hinder the further detection of the Popish Plot And doth he not to his utmost discountenance the Discoverers of it and suffer them to want Bread And doth he not in the mean time plentifully encourage and reward Fitz-Gerald and all the Sham-Plotters Whereas Dangerfield had 8 l. a week whilst a Forger of Plots against the Protestants he is cast off with scorn and in danger of his Life since he laid open the Popish Engineer Is not Charles so much in love with his Popish Irish Rebels therein treading in his Fathers steps that he promotes Montgarret Carlingford Fitz-Ratrick and others who were the Heads of the Rebellion to Honours and Preferment tho' Charles took the Covenant and a Coronation Oath to preserve the Protestaut Religion yet hath he not palpably broken them He made large promises and protestations at Breda for the allowing a perpetual Liberty of Conscience to Non-conforming Protestants but he soon forgot them all To what end was the Act which was made soon after his Restoration prohibiting any to call him Papist or to say he was Popishly enclined and render such as should offend Guilty of a Premunire but to stop the Peoples Mouthes when ever he should Act any thing in Favour of Popery as he was then resolved to do Is it not manifest therefore that Scotch Oaths Breda Promises Protestant Profession Liberty of Conscience War with France saving of Flanders is all in Jest to delude Protestant Subjects Is it not apparent that breaking of Leagues Dutch War Smirna Fleet French measures to favour their Conquests loss of Ships War in Christendom Blood of Protestants reprieving of Popish Traytors is all in earnest and done in favour of Popery And are not his fair Speeches his true Protestant Love to Parliaments just Rights and English Liberties his pretended Ignorance of the Plot and his Hanging of Traytors to serve a turn but in meer jest Are not his great Debaucheries his Whoring Courtiers Popish Councils Cheating Rogues Hellish Plottings his saving of Traytors his French Pensioners his Nests of Whores and Swarms of Bastards his Macks his Cut throats his Horrid Murderers his Burning of London and the Provost's House too his Sham-Plotting his suborn'd Villains his Popish Officers by Sea and Land his Struglings for a Popish Successor his agreements with France his frequent Dissolutions of Parliaments his buying of Voices his false returns all of them designs to ruine us in good earnest and in favour of Arbitrary Government And is it not in order to this Blessed end that you see none Countenanced by Charles and James but Church Papists betraying Bishops Tantivy Abhorrers barking Tonzers Popish Scriblers to deceive the People and six the Popish Successors Illegal Title Are not Jesuits Counsels French Assistance to conquer Ireland subdue Scotland winn Flanders beat the Dutch get their Shipping be Masters of the Seas And are not facing a Rebellion the letting the Plot go on the endeavouring to retrieve the Popish Cause by getting a Popish pentionary abhorring Partiaments who shall betray their Country enslave posterity and destroy themselves at last means only to save a Popish Trayterous Successor and a present Popish Possessor James and Charles are Brethren in Iniquity corrupt both in Root and Branch and who study to enslaver England to a French and Romish Yoke is not all this plain Have you not Eyes Sense or Feeling Where is the Old English Noble Spirit Are you become French Asses to suffer any load to be laid upon you And therefore if you can get no remedy from this next Parliament as certainly you will not and if Charles doth not repent and comply with it then up all as one Man O brave English Men look to your own defence e're it be too late rouze up your Spirits remember your Predocessors remember how that the asserting of their liberties justified both by success and Law the War of the Barons against wicked Councellours who misled the Kingâ— And will you now let that go which cost them so dear How many oppressing Kings have been deposed in this Nation as appears in Records referr'd unto in that worthy Patriots History of the Succession were not Rich. 2 d. And Hen. 6. both laid aside not to mention others was there ever such a King as this of ours was not King John deposed for going about to imbrace the Mahometan Religion and for entring into a League with the King of Morocco to that purpose Though Mahometanism and the King of Morocco were no such Enemies to our Rights and Liberties as Popery and the French King are Is it not time then that all should be ready Let the City of London stand by the Parliament for the maintaining of their Liberties and Religion in an extream way if Parliamentary ways be not consented unto by the King let the Counties by ready to enter into an Association as the County of York did in
that the Act passing to disable Roman Catholicks he and others of them were forced to quit their Commands that the common opinion amongst them was for the setling the Roman Catholick Religion in Engd. but that the measures being broken by means of the Peace with Holland and the Duke of York's and other Catholick Officers quitting all Commands and the King failing in his expectations from them the Roman Catholicks came to a Resolutitn to Destroy the King as Father Parry Confessor to the Portuguieze Ambassodor told the Examinant in 1673 who put this Confidence in him being his Confessor and that the same Father repeated the same discourse to him with more assurance in 1678. adding then that the Business then was now near and he should soon see it done That about April 1679. the Duke of Modena's Envoy having sworn him to Secrecy told him That if he would undertake the Killing the King he should have 10000 l. which he refusing the Envoy said The Dutchess of Mazarine understands Poysoning as well as her Sister and a little Viol when the King comes there will do it and that upon the King's Death the Army in Flanders and Parts adjacent to France was to come into England to destroy the Protestant Party and that after that there should be no Parliaments and that the Duke of York was privy to all these designs That about April 1680. Kelly the Priest whom he had known above 12. Years and had some times Confessed him owned to him at Calis that he was concerned in the Murder of Sr Edmund-Bury Godfrey and that the same was done as Prance had related it That the Examinant had been six or seven Years acquainted Monsieur de Puy Servant to the Duke of York and that he told him soon after the Murder of Sr Edmund-Bury Godfrey That that Murder was consulted at Windsor and about that time said that the Duke was very desirous to come to the Crown the King being incertain and not keeping touch with them and that De Puy said there was a necessity of taking off the King and that it would be soon done That the Duke of York possessing part of the Examinant's Fathers Estate in Ireland the Examinant being acquainted with Father Bedingfeild asked him how he could give Absolution to the Duke till he had made Restitution to which the Father said that every Penitent was supposed to know his own Sins and to declare them to his Confessor to which the Examinant replying with warmth But since you know it you ought to take notice thereof the Father answered be not angry for e're it be long you may be in a better condition That in March 1680. he met Father Patrick at Paris and talking of a Rupture that might be between England and France the Father said that the French intended in such Case to send Marshall Bellfonds into Ireland with 10000 Foot and 2000 Horse and Arms and Ammunition for 30000 Men to be raised there and the Father promised the Examinant a Regiment of the Men to be so Raised and the design was to restore that Kingdom to its former Owners in Subjection to France That Father Patrick desired him to send him all the Libels that came out in London and said that Libelling the King was a thing necessary in order to distaste and make him jealous of his People that the Examinant knew Mr Everard at Paris in 1665 and hath since encreased his acquaintance with him and that the Opinion of Father Patrick about Libelling the King incouraged the Examinant to concur with Everard as to the Libel lately Written by Everard It was most evident from the demeanour of Fitz-Harris from the first to the last after his apprehension that he was ready to say deny affirm or do any thing to save his Life Mrs Fitz-Harris his Widow upon the 15th of August 1681. deposed that her Husband a little before his Execution told her what great offers were made him at first to have charged the Libel upon the Earl of Shaftesbury and my Lord Howard and that he advised her to do it as the only means to save his Life tho' he protested at the same time they were wholly innocent and that she was assured that she should have what Money she pleased if she would accuse those Lords of the Libel Nay Fitz-H himself the very Night before his Execution wrote a Paper which he ordered to be delivered to his Wife in order to prevent the spilling innocent Blood informing her by whom he was advised to accuse those Lords and others of the Libels and of having put him upon the discovery of the Popish Plot and that he had the promise of a Pardon to prevail upon him to do it but finding that he was deluded he declared as before God that they were innocent and that what he had deposed against the Papists was true and that he had been only too sparing in accusing great People among them It is observable that for about fourteen dayes between the time of the Condemnation and Execution of Fitz-Harris the poor wretch was wholly under the management of Dr Hawkins of the Tower in which time the Doctor having held several Consults with some at Windsor there was modelled a Paper stuff'd with abominable Malice and Falshood to serve the wicked Designs of that day which the Doctor after his Death emitted to the World under the Title of the Confession of Fitz-Harris and therein he is made to declare abundance of extravagant Falshoods in particular That the Treason of the Libel came from the Lord Howard But his Conscience could not but witness that he had at several times complained to Sheriff Bethel and Sheriff Cornish that he had been pressed to accuse the Lord Howard and also the Earl of Shaftesbury of the Libel Then the Sham Confession proceeds to a Protestant Plot viz. that the Lord Howard told him of a design to seize upon the King to carry him into the City and there detain him till he had yielded to their desires and that himself and Haynes were privy to the design and had several Meetings with the Lord Howard A strange Tale of a Protestant Plot between two Irish Papists and a Protestant English Lord. In the next place this Mock-Confession is to perswade the World that the Protestant Magistrates of London did endeavour to suborn him to make a Confession that might confirm a Popish Plot. It declares That in Newgate the Sheriffs Bethel and Connish came to him with a Token from the Lord Howard and told him nothing would save his Life but discovering the Popish Plot and greatly encouraged him to declare that he believed so much of the Plot as amounted to the introducing the Roman Catholicks or to criminate the Queen his Royal Highness or to make so much as a plansible Story to confirm the Plot. Besides That as it hath been heretofore observed and is most undoubtedly true that Neither of the Sheriffs ever spake privately with Fitz-H until