endeavours to have over-ruled without so much as hearing the Prisoners Counsel for the maintaining it for that they said it was nought because it produced no Record of his Impeachment and did not specify what the High-Treason was for which he was Impeached and that the King had Power to proceed on an Impeachment or Indictment for the same thing at his Election Nevertheless the Attorny General demurred and the Prisoner joined in the Demurrer And then after much arguing a Day was given to argue the Plea till Saturday May. 7. At which time the Attorny General added to the Exceptions he took to the Plea Whether a Suit in a Superior Court can take away the Jurisdiction of the Cause of the Person and of the Fact at the time of the Fact committed To maintain the Plea Mr. VVilliams of Counsel for the Prisoner in a very long and learned Discourse first spoke stating the Prisoner's Case upon the Indictment the Plea to the Indictment and the Demurrer to the Plea Alledging the Difference of an Impeachment from an Indictment and offering some Reasons why this Court ought not to proceed upon this Indictment Then answering distinctly Mr. Attorney's Exceptions to the Plea producing some Presidents of this Courts Prosecution being stop'd by Pleas to the Jurisdiction shewing what had been done upon those Pleas What Doom they had Laying before the Court the Right of the Commons to Impeach in Parliament the Judicature of the Lords to determine that Impeachment and the Method and Proceedings of Parliament submitting it to them how far they would lay their Hands on this Case thus circumstantiated Here the Ld. Ch. Justice declared That all these Things were quite foreign to the Case and the Matter in Hand only was Whether this Plea as thus pleaded was sufficient to protect the Prisoner from being questioned in this Court for the Treasonable Matter in the Indictment before them To which Mr. VVilliams reply'd That 't was an hard matter for the Bar to answer the Bench. After which Sir Francis Winnington pleaded That he conceived that it was confessed by the Demurrer that there is an Impeachment by the Commons of England of High-Treason against Fitz-Harris lodged in the House of Lords Secundum Legem consuetudinem Parliamenti And that the Treason for which he was impeached is the same Treason contained in the Indictment So that now the general Question was Whether an Impeachment for Treason by the House of Commons and still depending were a sufficient Matter to oust the Court from proceeding upon an Indictment for the same Offence Which he learnedly endeavoured to make good by several Reasons as well as Presidents Mr. Wallop pleaded next on the same side whose Province was to prove That the Treason in the Impeachment and in the Indictment was the same and that this was well averred in the Plea Mr. Pollexfen pleaded That a general Impeachment in Parliament was a good Impeachment and the Judges had declared so to the King and Council concerning the five Popish Lords who could not therefore be tried upon Indictments so long as general Impeachments were depending for the same Treason and that therefore this Plea was good both as to Matter and Form c. In reply to vitiate the Plea it was insisted on by Mr. Attorn Gen. Mr. Sol. Gen. Serj. Jefferies and Sir Francis VVithens of Counsel for the King that the Plea concluded not in the usual Form That perhaps this Matter if the Prisoner had been acquitted upon the Impeachment might have been pleaded in Bar to the Indictment but it was not pleadable to the Jurisdiction of the Court That in the Case of the five Lords the Indictments were removed into the House of Lords and that the Judges Opinion given at the Council-Board was not a Judicial Opinion nor did any way affect this Cause After which the Ld. Ch. Justice thought fit not to give present Judgment but to take time for Deliberation Whereupon the Prisoner was carried back to the Tower And on Tuesday May 10. Mr. Attorney moved the Court to appoint a Day for their Judgment on the Plea and for Fitz-Harris to be brought up which they appointed to be the next Morning Accordingly on Wednesday Morning May 11. the Prisoner being brought to the Bar the Ld. Ch. Justice deliver'd the Opinion of the Court upon Conference had with other Judges That his Brother Jones his Brother Raymond and himself were of Opinion that the Plea was insufficient his Brother Dolben not being resolved but doubting concerning it and therefore awarded the Prisoner should plead to the Indictment which he did Not Guilty and his Trial ordered to be the next Term. The Trial of Edward Fitz-Harris at the King's-Bench Bar at Westminster before the Lord Chief Justice Pemberton on Thursday June 9. 1681. THE Prisoner then and there appearing after several Challenges made for the King the Jury sworn were Thomas Johnson Lucy Knightly Edward Wilford Alexander Hosey Martin James John Viner William Withers William Cleave Thomas Goffe Ralph Farr Samuel Freebody John Lockier To whom the Indictment was read which was for High-Treason in conspiring the Death of the King and subversion of the Government the which Mr. Heath Serj. Maynard and Mr. Attorn Gen. opened And then Mr. Everard deposed How the Prisoner was with him on Monday Feb. 21. 1681. having a little before been with him to renew the Acquaintance which had been between them while they were both in the French King's Service and to perswade him to re-ingratiate himself into the French and Popish Interest and gave him by word of Mouth Heads to write a Pamphlet to scandalize the King raise Rebellion alienate the Hearts of the People and set them together by the Ears Whereupon he acquainted one Mr. Savile of Lincolns-Inn Mr. Crown Mr. Smith and Sir William Waller with it And the next day Mr. Fitz-Harris coming again to his Chamber in Grays-Inn he convey'd Mr. Smith into a Closet Sir William Waller failing to come where he both saw and heard the Prisoner ask him What he had done as to the Libel and give him further Instructions about what to write viz. That the King was Popishly Affected and Arbitrarily Inclined That King Charles the First had an Hand in the Irish Rebellion and King Charles the Second did countenance the same c. That the People should therefore be stirred up to rebel especially the City c. That the Day after he coming again he had convey'd Sir William Waller into the next Room where he also might both hear and see shewing him to Copies of what he had drawn up which he marked that he might know them again and see what alteration would be made That Fitz-Harris did them read one of the Copies and amended it adding some things and striking out other things saying The Libel was to be presented to the French Ambassador's Confessor and he was to present it to the French Ambassador and that it was to beget a
Messengers attending the Court delivered to the Dean of St. Pauls a Warrant from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to cause this Sentence to be affixt on the Door of that Chapter-House and to certify them of the due Execution hereof Dated Septemb. 28 1686. and sealed with the same Seal as the Sentence which was annexed thereto but no Persons Names Subscribed To the Dean and Chapter of London The Proceedings and Trial in the case of the most Reverend Father in God William Lord Arch bishop of Canterbury and the Right Reverend Fathers in God William Lord Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Lord Bishop of Ely John Lord Bishop of Chichester Thomas Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Lord Bishop of Peterborough Jonathan Lord Bishop of Bristol in the Court of Kings-Bench at Westminster in Trinity-term in the 4th Year of the Reign of King James the 2d Annoque Domini 1688. THese Peers were present on Friday June the 15th 1688 when the Lords the Archbishop and Bishops were brought into Court from the Tower upon the Habeas Corpus Viz. Ld. Marq. of Hallifax Ld. Marq. of Worcester Earl of Shrewsbury Earl of Kent Earl of Bedford Earl of Dorset Earl of Bullingbrook Earl of Manchester Earl of Burlington Earl of Carlisle Earl of Danby Earl of Radnor Earl of Nottingham Ld. Visc Fauconberge Ld. Grey of Ruthyn Ld. Paget Ld. Chandoys Ld. Vaughan Carbery The aforesaid Bishops appearing then and there about eleven a Clock at Mr. Attorney General 's motion the Writ and Return were read in Court Sr. Robert Wright Ld. Ch. Justice Judges Mr. Justice Holloway Judges Mr. Justice Powell Judges Mr. Justice Allybone Judges Then the Bishops being sat in Chairs provided there for them the Attorney General motion'd an Information to be read against them which Sir Robert Sawyer Serj. Pemberton Mr. Pollexfen and Mr. Finch oppos'd being of Counsel for the Bishops requiring a Discharge for the Prisoners because their Imprisonment was illegal the Persons committing having no Authority to commit being said to be Lords of the Council and not in Council and the Fact for which they were committed being a bare Misdemeanour the Bishops as Peers of the Realm ought to be served with the usual Process of Subpoena and not to be committed to Prison and therefore the Bishops not being now regularly in Court they ought to be charged with no Informatian by the express Statute of Edward the 3d. The which Objections caused a long and learned Debate on both sides till at length the Judges over-ruled it only Mr Justice Powell refused to determine without consulting Precedents Then the Information against the Bishops was read the Substance whereof was That whereas the King put out his Declaration for Liberty of Conscience on the 4th of April in the 3d Year of his Reign in which is contained c. Here that Declaration was inserted and on the 27th of April in the 4th Year of his Reign did publish his other Declaration entitled c. Here that Declaration also was inserted which last Declaration he on the 30th of April following caused to be printed and for the more solemn Notification of his favour therein did on the 4th of May following order the same to be read in all Churches c. Here that order of Counsel was inserted After the making of which Order viz. on the 18th of May following at Westminster in Middlesex the seven Bishops being here named did consult and conspire among themselves to diminish the Regal Authority and Royal Prerogative Power and Government of the King in the Premisses and to infringe and elude the said Older and in Prosecution and Execution of the Conspiracy aforesaid they the said Bishops here again naming them with Force and Arms c. there and then falsly unlawfully maliciously seditiously and scandalously did frame compose and write c. a certain false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel in Writing concerning the King his Declaration and Order aforesaid under pretence of a Petition then and there subscribed by them and in the presence of the King did publish wherein is contained Here the Bishops Petition was inserted Whereupon the Attorney General pray'd the Advice of the Court and due Process of Law to be made out against the aforesaid Bishops c. to answer to our Lord the King in and concerning the Premisses Then the Bishops Counsel moved for an Imparlance till the next Term and very learnedly and largely debated with the Kings Counsel concerning the course of the Court as to that Particular but were over-ruled in it Then the Arch-bishop in behalf of himself and his Brethren the other Defendants tender'd their Plea in writing which was read and its Receipt debated but because it was writ upon Paper and not upon Parchment and contained no more than what had been already debated and over-ruled the Court rejected it and put them therefore upon it to plead presently to the Information which they all did Not Guilty and this day fortnight appointed for their Trial at this Bar the Court taking the Bishops own Recognizance of the Arch-bishop in 200 l. and the rest in 100 l. apiece then and there to appear after which the Court arose ON Friday the 29th day of June being the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul the Bishops then and there made their Appearance Sr. Robert Wright Ld. Ch. Justice Judges Mr. Justice Holloway Judges Mr. Justice Powel Judges Mr. Justice Allybone Judges These Peers being present viz. Ld. Marq. of Hallifax Ld. Marq. of Worcester Earl of Shrewsbury Earl of Kent Earl of Bedford Earl of Pembrook Earl of Dorset Earl of Bullingbrook Earl of Manchester Earl of Rivers Earl of Stamford Earl of Carnarvon Earl of Chesterfield Earl of Scarsdale Earl of Clarendon Earl of Danby Earl of Sussex Earl of Radnor Earl of Nottingham Earl of Abington Ld. Visc Fauconberge Ld. Newport Ld. Grey of Ruthyn Ld. Paget Ld. Chandoys Ld. Vaughan Carbery Ld. Lumley Ld. Carteret Ld. Ossulston 'T is possible more of the Peers might be present both days whose Names by reason of the Croud could not be taken The Bishops Names being called over the Jury was sworn whose Names follow viz. Sir Roger Langley Bar. Sir William Hill Kt. Roger Jennings Esq Thomas Harriot Esq Jeoffery Nightingale Esq William Withers Esq William Avery Esq Thomas Austin Esq Nicholas Grice Esq Michael Arnold Esq Thomas Done Esq Richard Shoreditch Esq To whom the Information against the Bishops was read And then Mr. Wright opened the charge to which Mr. Attorney General spoke shewing that the Bishops were prosecuted not as Bishops or for any point of Religion but as Subjects and for a Temporal Crime And that also they were prosecuted not for omitting any thing but for doing something even censuring of his Majesty and Government The Heinousness of which Crime he opened and laid down the Method they would proceed in to prove it And according to the Method observ'd in the Information that every thing might
Paragraph was read out of another of the like Intelligences Num. 127. Saturday March 11. 1681. which was a kind of challenging an Answer to the first Letter and of the City's inspection of the Truth thereof promising Proof to every Tittle without one Papist or Popishly-Affected Person being concern'd therein c. Thus by these Letters and Intelligences they endeavoured to stifle the Evidence of the King and arraign the Justice of the Nation Then Mr. Sanders of Counsel for Pain acknowledg'd the rashness and unadvisedness of the Act but that it was not out of Malice that he was no Papist nor any of his Family and how ingenuously it was done of him to acknowledg his Letter much more than to write it and bring it to be printed Mr. Gooding of Counsel also for Pain acknowledged him sorry for what was done and offered to give any Satisfaction Mr. Yalden of Counsel for Thompson pleaded That the other two drew him in and that it was honestly done of him to discover the Authors and that what was in his Intelligences was not so much his Fault as the Authors for whom it was free to put what they would in there he being paid for his pains Mr. Osborne of Counsel for Farrell acknowledg'd it a foolish thing but offer'd his Witnesses to be heard Farrell then first of all called one Mr. Hazard who deposed That he went along with Farrell to see Sir E. Godfrey's Body at the White-House That he lay there upon a Table and his Eyes were closed and Shoes clean as if he had been upon an Hay-Mow That he saw Gobbets of Blood in the Ditch where he had lain and likewise at a place where there were two or three things to go over William Batson deposed That he also saw the Body at the White-House and the Blood in the Ditch but that it looked to him as if it had been laid there rather than any thing else Then one Fisher who helped to strip the Body at the White-House deposed That his Shoes were clean and he saw no Blood but on his back-part where was Blood that he seemed to have been strangled and his Neck was so weak that it might be turned any where Then John Rawson deposed That he help'd to carry the Body away out of the Ditch and pulled out the Sword that he saw Blood upon some Posts and upon the Table where it lay and on the Floor and that there were something like Fly-blows in his Eyes tho being ask'd he said he saw no Flies busy at that time of the Year At which the People laughed Mrs. Rawson his Wife only swore That there was Blood and Water ran through the Table and that many People said there were Fly-blows but she did not mind it tho there was something like Fly-blows Then Farrell proposed to prove the difference between Prance's and Bedloe's Evidence by Copies of the Journals of the House of Lords and the Ld. Ch. Justice gave him leave freely to prove what he would or could But he went off from this Proof and called other Witnesses c. Mr. Chase the Son deposed That he saw no Blood in the Ditch but he saw some four or five Yards off which the Constable told him followed the Sword when it was pulled out That he saw the Body in the House wherein was two Wounds and a great Contusion on the left Ear his whole Face much bruised and he believed him strangled and that those Injuries offered him could not be after he was dead Mr. Hobbs deposed That it was his Opinion he was Strangled his Face was bloted and the bloody Vessels of his Eyes full and he observed no Fly-blows Mr. Chase the Father deposed That he observed the Body beaten from the Neck to the Stomach so as he never saw the like That Mr. Farrell telling him soon after what Proof he could make of this Business he disswaded him as being impossible to say any thing against it that had the face of Truth That after his Book came out Mr. Farrell on Easter-Eve told him That six Months before he had given him good Counsel if he had taken it Then Mr. Brown deposed That he saw no Fly-blows on the Body nor ever said he did but that Mr. Farrell would have had him said so and another time told him he was wrong in his Affidavit as if he knew what he could make Affidavit of better than himself Then Mr. Smith deposed That he did not carry any of the Blood home in his Handkerchief as Farrell had called him for to declare Then Mr. Lazingby was sworn to declare Whether Men that kill themselves do not look as Sir E. Godfrey's Body did He deposed That he seemed to him to be strangled and that which strangled him was kept about his Neck till he was cold because his Face look'd bloody and bloted and that he put his Finger into the Blood which lay some four Yards from the Ditch and it smelt like that which comes from a Body after a Fortnight's Time dead rather than a Weeks it being Blood and Water whereas the Water will separate from the Blood That the Body was bruised from the Neck to die Stomach his Eyes were open and Blood-shed That his Clothes were dry which he admired at there having been so great a Storm the Afternoon before Farrell then proffer'd to prove himself no Papist but the Ld. Ch. Justice told him His Religion was not worth inquiring into And Searj Maynard observ'd how little Service his Witnesses had done him not one haying spoke on his side but quite against him and how little it belonged to such Fellows as he to meddle in this Business or to write about it proffering to call some Witnesses in to prove him as wicked a Liar as lived but it was thought unnecessary and was therefore waved The Ld. Ch. Justice observing what liberty he had given the Defendant to call what Witnesses he would because he was willing to hear what could be said in the Case whether a Doubt could be made in the World that Sir E. Godfrey was not murdered c. leaving it to the Jury Whether upon the Evidence they did not believe them all Guilty of this Design of traducing the Justice of the Nation The Jury thereupon without going from the Bar found them all three Guilty of the Information And on Monday July 3. they being brought to the Bar of the Court of King's Bench to receive the Judgment Mr Thompson the Counsellor moved for Judgment and further to satisfy the World produced Mr. Spence's Affidavit before Mr. Justice Dolbin July 10. 1682. wherein he had deposed that on Thursday Octob. 10. 1678. As he was passing by Somerset-House about 7 at Night five or six Men standing at the Water-gate laid hold on both his Arms and dragg'd him about a Yard within the Gate it being dark but one of them cried out which he believes was Hill whom he very well knew and said This is not
he upon which they let him go The Clerk of the Crows said he knew this Spence and that he was very like Sir E. Godfrey Then John Oakeley's Affidavit was read which was made before Sir John Moore Mayor June 22. 1682. and was That he coming by Somerset-House upon Saturday Octob. 12. 1678. the very day on which Sir E. Godfrey was missing about eight or nine at Night he saw Sir Edmond-bury near the VVater-gate and past close by him knowing him very well put off his Hat to him and Sir Edm. did the like to him and having pass'd him he turned and looked upon him and saw him stand still and a Man or two near him And that he told this to Elizabeth Dekin two or three days after and to his Uncle Ralph Oakely of Little St. Bartholomew about a Week after and to his Father Robert Oakely and several others in a short time after Elizabeth Dekin's Affidavit who was his Fellow-Servant before Sir John Moore at the same time hereof and Mr. Robert Breedon's Affidavit who was their Master and a Brewer near Sir E. Godfrey's House made then also that Dekin had told him what Oakely had told her and that before the Body was found And Robert Oakely his Fathers Affidavit made at the same time that his Son had told him the same and his Uncle Ralph Oakeley's Affidavit of the same before Mr. Justice Dolbin July 4. 1683. were all annexed to corroborate his Testimony And whereas it had been reported that Sir E. Godfrey hang'd himself and that one Moore his Clerk cut him down the said Henry Moore made Affidavit before Justice Balam of the Isle of Ely July 28. 1681. That the Report was false and scandalous and that he neither said nor did any such thing John Brown and William Lock also of Maribone made Affidavit before Sir John Moore Mayor June 30. 1682. That they viewing the Body on Thursday Octob. 17. 1678. as it lay in the Ditch found that the Pummel of the Sword-Hilt did not touch the Ground by an handful c.. Benjamin Man also of London Gent. being not called at the Trial tho twice subpoened made Affidavit before Sir W. Dolbin July 3. 1682. That being in the Gatehouse when Green was took and about to be put into Irons and understanding his Crime saying he did not think to have found him such a Man Green thereupon replied He was a dead Man Robert Forset Esq of Maribone made Affidavit also before Sir VV. Dolbin on July 1. 1682. That he was a hunting with his Hounds on Tuesday Octob. 15. 1678. and beat that very place where the Body was afterwards found but there was neither Body nor Gloves nor Cane thereabouts then and that Mr. Henry Harwood who is since dead borrowed his Hounds and told him that he beat the same Ditch the next day and that no Body was there he was sure on VVednesday at Noon George Larkin of London Printer made Oath also before Sir John Moore Mayor March 22. 1681. That he going to see the Body on Octob. 18. 1678. he met Nat. Thompson there who then proposed the printing of a Narrative of this Murder to him desiring his Assistance which they afterward agreed to print and that contain'd how Sir E. Godfrey's Face was of a fresh Colour tho in his life-time Pale a green Circle about his Neck as if he had been strangled c. That there was no Blood in the place and his Shoes as clean as if he had but just come out of his own Chamber which was an evident sign that he was carried thither and that the Coroners Inquest found that he was suffocated before the Wounds were made c. And finally that one of the Jury affirmed that his Mother's Servant searched all those Grounds for a Calf that was missing Monday and Tuesday and at that time there lay no dead Body Belt Gloves Stick c. Farrell it seems was Trustee for Fenwick that was executed and Pain was Brother to Nevill alias Pain who was famous for scribling for Mrs. Cellier and the Papists The Court consulting together Mr. Justice Jones having first set out the greatness of their Crime gave the Judgment of the Court which was That Thomson and Farrell should stand in the Pillory in the Palace-Yard the last day of the Term for an hours space between ten and one and each of them pay 100 l. Fine and to be imprisoned till they had paid it Pain was excused from the Pillory but adjudg'd to the same Fine Accordingly on Wednesday July 5. 1682. Thompson and Farrell were Pillored with this Writing over their Heads For libelling the Justice of the Nation by making the VVorld belive that Sir Edmondbury Godfrey murdered himself The Trial of Nathaniel Reading Esq before the Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer at the King's-Bench-Bar at Westminster on Thursday April 24. 1679. ON Wednesday April 16th 1679 His Majesties Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer did meet at Westminster-Hall in the Court of King's-Bench When and where the Commission was Read and the Grand-Jury Sworn and then Sir James Butler the Chief Commissioner that then appeared gave them their Charge informing them briefly of the Occasion of their meeting desiring them to go together and take the Witnesses being first sworn along with them which they did for about half an hour and then returned finding it Billa Vera. After which the Court Adjourned to Thursday April 24. On which day the Commissioners there met viz. Sir Francis North Kt. Ld. Ch. Justice of His Majesties Court of Common-Pleas William Montague Esq Ld. Ch. Baron of his Majesties Court Exchequer Sir William Wylde Kt. and Bar. one of his Majesty's Justices of the King's-Bench Sir Hugh Windham Kt. one of his Majesty's Justices of the Common-Pleas Sir Robert Atkins Kt. of the Bath another of the Justices of the Common-Pleas Sir Edward Thurland Kt. one of the Barons of the Exchequer Vere Bertie Esq another of the Justices of the Common-Pleas Sir Thomas Jones Kt. another of the Justices of the King's-Bench Sir Francis Bramston Kt. another of the Barons of the Exchequer Sir William Dolben Kt. another of the Justices of the King's-Bench Sir William Jones Kt. his Majesty's Attorney-General Sir James Butler Kt. one of the King's Counsel and the Queen's Attorney Sir Philip Mathews Bar. Sir Thomas Orbey Kt. and Bar. Sir Thomas Byde Kt. Sir William Bowles Kt. Sir Thomas Stringer Serjeant at Law Sir Charles Pitfield Kt. Thomas Robinson Esq Humphrey Wyrle Esq Thomas Haryot Esq Richard Gower Esq After Proclamation made for Attendance the Lord Chief Justice North discharged the Grand Inquest and Mr. Reading being set to the Bar his Indictment was read to him Being for Soliciting Suborning and endeavouring to perswade Mr. William Bedloe to lessen stifle and omit to give Evidence the full Truth according to his Knowledg against the Lord Powis Lord Stafford Lord Petre and Sir Henry Tichborn but to give such Evidence as he the said
of the Dungeon called the condemned Hole She asked Harris the Turn-key what doleful Cry it was who said it was a Woman in Labour she desired they might go to her and help her but he drove them away rudely but listning they soon found it was the Voice of a strong Man in Torture and heard as they thought between his Groans the winding up of some Engine These Cries stopt the Passengers under the Gate and they six went to a Turners Shop without the Gate and stood there amazed when one of the Officers of the Prison came out in great haste seeming to run from the Noise whom catching hold of they asked him what the Noise meant and whether it was not Prance upon the Rack he said he durst not tell them but was not able to hear any longer running away towards Holborn as fast as he could They heard these Groans perfectly to the end of the Old-Baily and they continued till near seven and then a Person in the Habit of a Minister of middle Stature Grey-hair'd accompanied with two other Men went into the Lodg The Prisoners were lock'd up and the outward Door of the Lodg also at which she set a Person to stand and observe what she could and a Prisoner loaded with Irons was brought into the Lodg and examined a long time and the Prisoners that came down as low as they could heard the Person examined with great Vehemency say often I know nothing of it I am innocent he forced me to be-lie my self What would you have me say Will you murder me because I will not be-lie my self and others The Prisoners heard again the same Cry about four of the Clock the next Morning and on Saturday-Morning again and that Morning a Person emplyed to spy seeing the Turn-key carry a Bed into the Dungeon asked who it was for he told her it was for Prance who was gone mad and had torn his Bed in pieces That Night the Examiners came again and after an hours Conference Prance was led away to the Press-yard Soon after this Francis Corral a Coach-Man that had been put into Newgate upon suspicion of carrying away Sir Edmond-bury Godfrey's Body and lay there thirteen weeks and three days in great Misery got out whom she went to see and found him a sad Spectacle having the Flesh worn away and great holes in both his Legs by the weight of his Irons and having been chained so long double that he could not stand upright who told her of his hard usage how he had been squeez'd and hasped into a thing like a Trough in a Dungeon under ground insomuch that he swoonded and that a Person in the Habit of a Minister stood by all the while That a Duke beat him pull'd him by the Hair and set his drawn Sword to his Breast three times and swore he would run him through and another great Lord laid down an heap of Gold and told him it was 500 l. and that he should have it all and be taken into the aforesaid Dukes House if he would confess what they would have him and one F. a Vintner at the Half-Moon in Cheapside by whose contrivance he was accused took him aside and bid him name some Person and say they imployed him to take up the dead Body in Somerset-yard and gave him Mony for so doing that if he would do this both F. and he should have Mony enough And he also told her that he was kept from Thursday till Sunday without Victuals or Drink having his Hands every Night chained behind him and being all his time lock'd to a Staple driven into the Floor with a Chain not above a Yard long that he was forced to drink his own Water and the Jaylor beat his Wife because she brought Victuals and pray'd he might have it In another place of the Libel were these words read My Arraignment which in confidence of my own Innocency I continually pressed for not but that I knew the danger as to this Life of encountring the Devil in the worst of his Instruments which are Perjurors encouraged to that degree as that profligated Wretch Thomas Dangerfield was and has been since his being exposed to the World in his true Colours both at mine and anothers Trial. And in another place of the Libel Nor have I since received any thing towards my Losses or the least Civility from any of them whilst Dangerfield when made a Prisoner for apparent Recorded Rogueries was visited by and from Persons of considerable Quality with great Sums of Gold and Silver to encourage him in the new Villanies he had undertaken not against me alone but Persons in whose Safety all good Men as well Protestants as others in the three Kingdoms are concerned And in the Postscript are these words And whensoever his Majesty pleases to make it as safe and honourable as it is apparent it hath been gainful and meritorious to do the contrary there will not want Witnesses to testify the Truth of more than I have written and Persons that are above being made the Hangman's Hounds for weekly Pensions or any other Considerations whatsoever c. After thus much was read Mr. Baron Weston made some smart Reflections thereon and then Mr. Prance deposed that he was used very civily in Prison and never saw any thing of Torture while he was in Newgate and that Dr. Lloyd was with him many times and if any such thing had been he would have seen it Then Francis Coral was called but appeared not and Captain Richardson informed the Court that they had got him away but that his Wife was there who being sworn deposed that she was not suffer'd to see her Husband in Prison and that she heard that he was like to be starved and saw him with Irons on at length and afterwards holes in his Legs but deny'd that ever she was beat for bringing Victuals to him and the Lord Mayor Sir Robert Clayton declared that her Husband had denyed all upon Oath before him Then Mrs. Cellier called two or three Witnesses to prove that she sent about for her Witnesses in order to make her Defence but that they could not be had in so short time and therefore desired more time and desired the Court to confider she was but a Woman and that she had suffered much for his Majesty and begged therefore Mercy in Justice Then Mr. Baron Weston summ'd up the Evidence and the Jury returned her Guilty at which there was a great shout and so the Keeper carried her back to Newgate from whence on Monday Sept. 13. she was brought to the Bar and Mr. Recorder gave the Judgment of the Court which was that a 1000 l. Fine should be put upon her and she be committed in Execution till it be paid And that she should stand in the Pillory three several days in three several places between the hours of twelve and one The first place at the May-Pole in the Strand the second in Covent-Garden and
1684. was brought from thence by Habeas-Corpus to the Bar at the King's-Bench at Westminster where being Arraign'd he was told of his being Indicted and Outlaw'd and thereby Attainted for High-Treason and ask'd what he had to say why Execution should not be awarded against him upon that Attainder To which be reply'd that since he had made an Ingenuous Confession to his Majesty of all that he knew of any manner of Conspiracy against him he hoped That would render him Capable of Mercy and Pardon Upon which the Attorny-General offer'd him a Trial that if he had any thing to say he Defend himself from the Indictment but he Confessing himself Guilty of many things therein declin'd it and threw himself wholly upon the King's Mercy But the Court telling him that the King was the Dispenser of his own Mercy and that they were only to Execute his Justice gave a Rule for his Execution upon Wednesday Sevennight after there being no other Judgment to be pronounced in such Cases as the Court told the Attorny-General when he moved for it the Outlawry it self being the Judgment Which accordingly was Executed upon him on Wednesday the 30th of April 1684. at Tyburn Proceedings in the Court of King's-Bench against Sir Thomas Armstrong June 14. 1684. Sir George Jefferies being Lord Chief Justice SIR Thomas Armstrong Kt. was upon the 14th of June 1684. brought by a Writ of Habeas-Corpus from Newgate to the Bar of the Court of King's-Bench at Westminster and there Arraign'd upon an Outlawry of High-Treason for conspiring the Death of the King c. And being ask'd what he had to say for himself why Sentence should not be awarded against him upon that Attainder pleaded his being beyond-Sea at the time of the Outlawry and desired to be tried upon the Indictment Which the Court refusing to grant him he pleaded the Statute of the 6th of Edw. the 6th which gives the Person Outlaw'd a Year's time to reverse the Outlawry and desired it might be read which accordingly was done But it appearing by the Statute That the Person Outlaw'd ought to render himself to the Chief Justice of England within a Year's time Sir Thomas was told this did not concern him for he had not rendred himself but was taken and brought thither against his Will To which he answered That the Year was not then expir'd fie was there and did now render himself and pray'd Counsel might be assign'd him to argue it in Point of Law but the Court over-rul'd him in it telling him There was no such Doubt or Difficulty in the Matter as to need any such thing Upon which insisting much upon his Innocency and offering to make proof of it if he might be admitted to a Trial he produc'd Holloway's Case as a Precedent for it who had but a little before been offer'd it at the same Place but the Court told him that what had been done therein was meerly from the King's Grace and Mercy and that the King might extend the same Mercy to him also if he so pleas'd but since he had not done so and it not being their Business they must proceed to award Execution upon the Outlawry Upon which Mrs. Matthews Daughter to the Prisoner call'd out to the Court not to Murder her Father For which the Chief Justice caus'd her to be committed to the Marshal and accordingly she wishing that God Almighty's Judgments might light upon them was carried away the Chief Justice saying That he thanked God he was Clamour-proof After which the Attorn Gen. offered to shew the Reasons why the King extended that Grace to Holloway but ought not to extend it to Sir T.A. as not at all deserving any sort of Indulgence or Mercy but that having relation to the Evidence and not to the Outlawry the Court refus'd to hear any thing of it and so proceeded to give a Rule for his Execution the Friday following telling him upon his earnest pressing to have the Benefit of the Statute he had cited the he should have the Full Benefit of the Law And accordingly on Friday the 20th of June he was Executed at Tyburn Mrs. Matthews upon a Petition being before releas'd out of Custody without Fees The Trial between Sir William Pritchard Kt. and Alderman of the City of London Plaintiff and Thomas Papillon Esq Defendant in an Action upon the Case at the Sessions of Nisi Prius holden for the Court of Kings-Bench at the Guild-hall in the City of London on Thursday the 6th of November in Michaelmas Term in the 36th Year of the Reign of King Charles the Second 1684. Before Sir George Jefferies Kt. and Baronet then Lord Chief Justice of the said Court of Kings-Bench SIR William Pritchard late Lord Mayor of the City of London having in Easter Term last brought an Action upon the Case for falsly maliciously and without probable cause procured him to be arrested and imprisoned in his Mayoralty against Thomas Papillon Esq The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty and thereupon issue being joined it came this day to be tried before the Lord Chief Justice Jefferys and the Jury sworn to try this Cause were these Bartholomew Ferryman Thomas Blackmore Thomas Symonds William Whatton John Green Thomas Amy Joseph Baggs Daniel Chandler John Reynalds John Allen Joseph Caine William Withers jun. Then Mr. Munday being of Counsel for the Plaintiff opened the Case to which Mr. Attorney General added something And then Mr. Solicitor General called Mr. Keeling who being sworn deposed That on April the 24th he being sent for by a Letter from Mr. Goodenough came to Mr. Russel's a Cooks-shop in Iron-monger-lane to meet him where were 30 or 40 Persons together By whom while he was gone for a little while his Name was put into a Warrant to be a special Bailiff to arrest the Lord Mayor which he seeming unwilling to do was urged thereto for fear of displeasing the Discontented Party which he said were such as he and the Goodenoughs were of even such as would have killed the King and the Duke that being prevailed upon he went along with the Coroner Mr. Burton and Mr. Francis Goodenough to Grocers-hall where Sir William Pritchard kept his Mayoralty to whom the Coroner came up and said he had a Warrant against him and therefore pray'd him to give an Appearance at the Suit of Mr. Thomas Papillon and another at the Suit of Mr. John Dubois whereupon some Words passed between them and the Lord Mayor refusing to give any Appearance the Coroner bid us execute our Warrants upon which he came up to the Lord Mayor and touched him upon the Shoulder telling him that he did arrest him at the Suit of Thomas Papillon Esq and one Ferdinando Burley arrested him then again at the Suit of Mr. John Dubois and then the Coroner dismissing them and taking the Lord Mayor into his own Custody he went thence to Sir Henry Tulse's and arrested him also Then Sir Henry Tulse being called and sworn deposed that about
General summ'd up the Evidence giving this Reason vvhy this Testimony was produced no sooner viz. Because time vvas vvhen the City of London vvas a Refuge for High-Treason and no Justice to be had for the King there it being hardly safe for the Judges to sit on the Bench by reason of the Rabble The Ld. Ch. Justice directed likewise the Jury vvith some Virulency against Oates's Confidence bewailing the Death of so many Innocent Men upon his Evidence reflecting on the Insolency as he called it of those Times crying out Good God of Heaven VVhat an Age have we liv'd in to see Innocence suffer Punishment and impudent Falsity Reign so long c. The Jury withdrawing for half an hour brought in their Verdict That the Defendant was Guilty of the Perjury whereof he stood Indicted To which the Judges gave their Approbation and the Ld. Ch. Justice told the Jury that by it they had Contributed as much as in them lay to Vindicate the Nation from the Infamy it had so long lain under The Court then arose On Monday May 11. 1685. Mr. Wallop procured the same leave as Oates done before for the Defendant to move in Arrest of Judgment upon the Conviction on Saturday also which was Granted And on Saturday May 26. 1685. The Prisoner was set to the Bar but his Counsel said they had nothing to say Then four Exceptions which the Prisoner had given in were read and over-ruled And the Ld. Ch. Justice aggravated his Crime in a Virulent Speech and Mr. Justice Withyns pronounced the Judgment of the Court upon him which was this 1. That he should pay for a Fine 1000 Marks upon each Indictment 2. That he should be strip'd of all his Canonical Habits 3. That he should stand in the Pillory before Westminster-Hall Gate upon Monday next for an hour's time between 10 and 12 a Clock with a Paper over his Head which he must first walk with round about to all the Courts in Westminster-Hall declaring his Crime and that was upon the first Indictment 4. That for the 2d Indictment he should upon Teusday stand in the Pillory at the Royal-Exchange in London for an hour between 12 and 2 with the same Inscription 5. On Wednesday that he should be Whipt from Aldgate to Newgate 6. On Friday That he should be Whipt from Newgate to Tyburn by the Hands of the Common Hangman 7. And for Annual Commemorations That upon every 24th of April as long as he should live he was to stand in the Pillory at Tyburn just opposite to the Gallows for an hour between 10 and 12. 8. That upon every 9th of August he was to stand in the Pillory at Westminster-Hall Gate because he had sworn that Mr. Ireland was in Town between the 8th and 12th of August 9. That on every 10th of August he was to stand in the Pillory at Charing-Cross for an hour between 10 and 12. 10. The Like over against the Temple-Gate every 11th of August 11. And that upon every 2d of September another Notorious Day he was to do the like at the Royal-Exchange for an hour between 12 and 2. That all this he was to do every year during his Life And be Committed a Close Prisoner as long as he liv'd And this he told him he pronounced to be the Judgment of the Court and that if it had been in his Power to have carried it further he should not have been unwilling to have given Judgment of Death upon him for he was sure he deserved it The Trial of William Ring Tailor before the Lord Chief Justice Jones at the Old-Baily on Monday October the 19th 1685. THE Prisoner then and there appearing together with John Fernby and Mr. Cornish was arraigned upon an Indictment of High-Treason for harbouring concealing and relieving one Joseph Kelloway and Henry Lawrence whom he knew to have traitorously levied War against the King c. to which baying pleaded Not Guilty the Jury sworn for Middlesex were Nehemiah Arnold Francis Stevens Richard Fisher John Howlet John Vigures Samuel Birch William Thompson VVilliam Read Samuel Peacock Richard Fitz-Gerrard Richard Bromfield John Haynes To whom the Indictment was read and briefly open'd by Mr. Phipps and Attorney General and then a Copy of the Record of the Conviction of Kelloway and Lawrence was produced to shew them Traitors and to prove the Prisoner harboured and conceal'd them between their Treason and Conviction First Mr. Barrington deposed That on July the 11th last Mr. Ring came to him from Mr. Lawrence to come and speak with him whom he found with one Kelloway at Mr. Ring 's house who said they were just come out of the West-Country That on VVednesday following being July the 15th he called and Mr. Lawrence again at Ring 's house who told him he was going from thence to the Pewter-Platter in St. Jones's Where after he had been examin'd before Mr. Common-Serjeant they searched for them but they were gone only they confessed such Men lodged there on Tuesday and VVednesday Night but not the Thursday Night so they enquired for them at Mr. Ring 's House the Bible in VVich-street without Temple-Bar and there Mr. Ring 's Wife told them they lay there the Thursday Night but could not tell where they were at present Whereupon they went to the Castle-Tavern and Mr. Common Serjeant sent for Ring and examin'd him who denyed all till he had sent and search'd his house and brought a Paper Then Mr. Barrow deposed That in July last he heard Mr. Ring confess before the Lord Mayor that he had lodged Lawrence and Kelloway two or three Nights who told him they had been in the late Western Rebellion in Monmouth's Army Mr. Crip swore that he searching Mr. Ring 's house found in the Window a Letter under Lawrence's own hand to Newberry about a horse he had left there which he stole from his Master which Letter he brought to the Castle-Tavern and the Ring who before had denied every thing owned upon the sight of that Paper that Kelloway was his Cousen but deny'd that he lodg'd him then But afterwards at the Sessions-house when Kelloway and Lawrence were produced before him he owned that he had lodg'd them two or three Nights though they said four Nights and that they told him whence they came Then Mr. Hardisti swore to the Examination of Mr. Ring before Sir James Smith Lord Mayor of London on July the 18th last which was that he did lodg Kelloway and Mr. Lawrence three Nights and they dined twice with him that they told him they were in Monmouth's Army who was routed and had left their Horses at Newbury and that he went to one that was Journey-man to a Glover in St. Bartholomew's Close to come speak with Lawrence something also he confess'd about one Hooper as being concern'd in the Rebellion The Mr. Richardson swore that this Kelloway and Lawrence where the Men he carried down into the VVest where they were both convicted and
Word again That they offered him their Petition to read but he did not think it fit for him to do it and therefore he refused and would not read it but that he went immediately to the King and acquainted his Majesty with it and he commanded him to let them know they might come when they would which he immediately did they said they would go and speak with some of their Brethren that were not far off in the mean time he gave order that they should be admitted when they came and they did in a little time return and went first into the Bed-Chamber and then into the Room where the King was And all this was before they appeared at the Council This was no Evidence Mr. Pollexfen said against the Archbishop because he was not there and nothing had been proved against him as done in Middlesex and for the other 6 Lords the Lord President did not say that this is the Petition that they said they had to deliver to the King Nor did he see them deliver any thing but that is still lest doubtful so that it stands upon Presumption and not upon Proof However the Kings Counsel desired to leave it fairly to the Jury upon this Fact and then therefore the Bishops Counsel desired to be heard in their Defence And First Sir Robert Sawyer in a long and learned Speech told the Jury that the Charge against the Bishops was That they did conspire to diminish the Royal Authority and to this end make a Libel against the King but that the Evidence fell far short of this which only proved that the Bishops in as private and humble a manner as they could presented the Paper to the King which was a Petition to be relieved against an Order of Council which they conceived they were aggrieved by and herein was no Sedition either in the matter or manner of delivering it That it was not to be question'd but that any Subject commanded by the King to do an unlawful Thing or what was against his Conscience might humbly tell the King why he could not obey him And that whereas Mr Attorn Gen. had at first said that the Bishops were not sued as Bishops nor prosecuted for their Religion he could not conceive what they were sued for else the Information being against them for an Act they did as Bishops and no otherwise it being what was their Duty and properly within their Sphere and Jurisdiction That whether therefore they consider'd the Matter of this Petition or Manner of delivering it or the Persons that deliver'd it there can appear no Reason for such an Information against them In the Matter of the Petition he consider'd two Things First the Prayer wherein he shewed there could be nothing of Falsity nor any thing contrary to Law for which reason he said possibly it was left out of the Information as being thought no part of a Libel and so made a deform'd story of it without Head or Tail a Petition directed to no Body and for nothing it being without both Title and Prayer Secondly he considered the Reasons of the Bishops for not complying expressed in it The first whereof is the Declarations of Parliament against the Dispensing Power and the next because it is a Matter of so great Moment and Consequence to the whole Nation that they could not make themselves so far Parties in it For if it be of any effect then by it not only the Laws of the Reformation but of all Religion are suspended and what a mischief that would be to the Church which is under the Care of my Lords the Bishops any one might easily apprehend While Sir Robert was speaking to these things the Ld. Ch. Justice said aside that he must not suffer this They intended to dispute the King's Power in suspending Laws Mr. Justice Powel reply'd to him that they could not avoid that Point because if the King had no such Power which was his Judgment then this Petition could not be Libellous The Lord Chief Justice told him he knew he was full of that Doctrine and because the Bishops should have no occasion to say that he denied to hear their Counsel he would let them talk on till they were weary Then for the Manner of delivering the Petition Sir Robert Sawyer proceeded to shew that from their Evidence it appeared to be in the most private and humble manner Leave being first asked and then given Then for the Persons he shewed that they did no more than what was their Duty and belonged to them the Act of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. making them special Guardians of the Law of Uniformity and of that other Law in his late Majesties Reign where all the Clauses of 1 Eliz. are revived Now in that Statute of 1 Eliz. there is this Clause And for the due Execution hereof the Queen 's most Excellent Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all the Commons in this present Parliament assembled do in God's Name earnestly require and charge all the Archbishops and Bishops and other Ordinaries that they do endeavour themselves to the utmost of their Knowledges that the due and true execution hereof may be had throughout their Diocesses and Charges as they will answer before God for such Evils and Plagues wherewith Almighty God may justly punish his People for neglecting this good and wholsome Law By this he shewed that it was plain that the Bishops upon pain of bringing upon themselves the Imprecation of this Act of Parliament were obliged to see it executed and then when any thing comes under their Knowledg especially if they are to be Actors in it that has such a tendency to destroy the very Foundations of the Church as the Suspending of Laws has it concerns them that have no other Remedy to address the King by Petition about it and 't is the Duty of an Officer or Magistrate to tell the King what is Law and what is not he instancing in Cavendish's Case and another in the time of the Lord Hobbart Next to him Mr. Finch spoke briefly recapitulating the King's Evidence and then shewing that this Petition as well for the Matter of it as Manner of delivering it and the Persons by whom it was delivered was no Libel Particularly that the King 's Regal Authority and Royal Prerogative was no way diminished thereby for that the Declaration was founded upon a Dispensing Power which the King could not have Because a Power to abrogate Laws is as much a part of the Legislature which is only in the King and his two Houses of Parliament as to make Laws and a Power to suspend is equal to a Power of abrogating Laws because they are no longer in being as Laws while they are suspended That this was never attempted but in the last King's time which was took notice of and declared against in Parliament in the Years 1662 and 1672 the effect of which was that His Majesty cancell'd the Declaration and declared that it