Sir John Gage of Sussex which the Witness saw to be an Officer in the Army That in August there was a Consult whereat Fenwick was wherein there was a Design laid for killing the Duke of Ormond and raising a Rebellion in Ireland to which VVhitebread also consented when he came over as appears by their Entry-Books That in September VVhitebread having had Intimation from one Beddingfield of the Plots being discover'd and of the suspicion they had of the Witness being waited upon at his Lodgings upon his coming over by the Witness he beat affronted and reviled the said Witness commanding him to go beyond Sea again assaulting him in his Lodging afterwards to have murthered him being jealous that he had betrayed them He deposed also that Grove did go about with one Smith to gather Peter-Pence and that he saw the Book wherein it was entred And confessed to him that he with three Irish Men did fire Southwark for which Grove had 400 l. and the other three 200 l. a piece Then Mr. Bedloe deposed That he had been five Years almost employed by the Jesuits and the English Monks in Paris to carry and bring Letters between them from and to England for the promoting of this Plot Relating how Harcourt began to employ him and naming the particular places whither he had been sent to shew the Reasons of his knowledg in this matter saying that in all their Consults wherein he was it was always concluded on That they would not leave any Member of any Heretick in England that should survive to tell in the Kingdom hereafter that there ever was any such Religion in England as the Protestant Religion Then he proceeded to depose that in August last there was a Consult at Harcourt's Chamber about killing the King as Pritchard inform'd him and of sending the four Ruffians to Windsor who failing it was afterwards concluded Pickering and Grove should go on and Conyers be joyned with them to assassinate the King in his Morning-Walks at New-Market this he heard in Harcourt's Chamber in August also Grove and Pickering and Pritchard and Fogarthy and Harcourt and the Witness being present And Grove being more forward than the rest said Since it could not be done clandestinely it should be attempted openly That those that fell had the Glory to die in a good Cause But if it were discovered the Discovery could never come to the heighth but their Party would be strong enough to bring it to pass That Grove was to have 1500 l. and Pickering a considerable number of Masses That there was a Discourse at the same time of a design to kill several Noble Persons Knight was to kill the Earl of Shaftsbury Pritchard the Duke of Buckingham Oneile the Earl of Ossory and Obrian the Duke of Ormond Then a Letter was produced and read in Court sworn by Sir Thomas Doleman to have been found among Harcourt's Papers four or five days after Dr. Oates had given in his Informations from one Edward Petre giving account when the Consult was to be as ordered by their Provincial Whitebread mightily confirming Dr. Oates's Evidence as to that particular Then the Seals also were shewn in Court that were made use of to sign Commissions taken out of VVhitebread's Chamber Then the King's Counsel here ending their Evidence the Lord Chief Justice took notice to the Jury that there had only one Witness sworn against Whitebread and Fenwick Bedloe charging them with nothing of his own knowledg and that therefore he would discharge them of them and accordingly he sent them back to the Goal And the other three were called upon to make their Defence which was only a bare denial of the Matter of Fact Only Ireland being charged in August laboured very much to prove that he was out of Town all that Month by the Testimony of his Mother and Sister and one Harrison Sir John Southcott's Coachman and one Gifford His Mother and Sister saying expresly that he went out of Town August 3d and Harrison that he saw him at St. Albans August 5th and continued in his Company to the 16th and Gifford that he saw him at the latter end of August and beginning of September at Wolverhampton tho it was reproved by very good Circumstances and upon Oath for the King by Sarah Pain Servant to Grove that she saw him at his own door in London about the 12th or 13th of the same Month. His next Defence was a weak Reflections upon Dr. Oates's Credit to which purpose an Indictment for Perjury never prosecuted was urged against him but the Attourny-General made slight of it as of a thing that had nothing in it Neither was that which Sir Dennis Ashbournham said of greater force concerning the Irregularities of his Childhood which he said would have staggered his Belief of what the Doctor had deposed if the matter had depended solely upon his Testimony but being so corroborated with other Circumstances he was convinced of the Truth of what he had discovered nor did he think any thing could be said against Dr. Oates to take off his Credibility The Lord Chief Justice then summ'd up the Evidence smartly inveighing against the Principles and Doctrines of Popery After which the Jury retired for a very little while and then brought those three Prisoners in Guilty And then the Court Adjourn'd till the Afternoon when being met about five a Clock Mr. Recorder the Judges being gone home made an excellent Speech against Popery to the Prisoners sentencing them to be drawn hang'd and quartered which accordingly was executed upon them at Tyburn on Friday Jan. 24th following The Trials of Robert Green Henry Berry and Laurence Hill at the King's-Bench-Bar at Westminster on Monday Feb. 10th 1678. THE Prisoners there appearing were indicted for the Murder of Sir Edmondbury Godfrey Kt. one of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the County of Middlesex to which they pleaded Not Guilty on Wednesday Feb. 5. and were ordered to be brought the next day to their Trials But Mr. Attourny-General the next day moved the Court that it might be deferred till Monday Feb. 10. that the King's Evidence might be the more ready which was granted On Monday therefore they were brought to their Trials and the Jury impanell'd were Sir Will. Roberts Bar. Sir Rich. Fisher Bar. Sir Mich. Heneage Kt. Sir Tho. Bridges Kt. William Avery Esq Char. Vmphrevile Esq John Bathurst Esq Richard Gowre Esq Thomas Henslowe Esq John Sharpe Esq John Haynes Esq Walter Moyle Esq To whom the Indictment being read Sir Thomas Stringer Serjeant at Law and of Counsel for the King in this Cause opened the Charge and Sir William Jones Attorney-General opened the Evidence Then Dr. Oates being sworn deposed That in September Sir Edmondbury Godfrey in Discourse did tell him what Affronts he had received from some great Persons for being so zealous to take Examinations concerning the Plot And that others who were well inclin'd to have the Discovery made did think that
Secresy as to time and place it appearing of its own Nature necessary The other was a Letter from one Christopher Anderton dated from Hilton by which was meant Rome Feb. the 5th 1677 8. wherein mention was made of the Patents being sent thence both which Letters the Prisoners strugled much to vindicate by such forced Constructions of the matters they contained as all the Court rejected Against Gavan Dr. Oates deposed That he saw his Name to the Resolve though he could not swear he was at the Consult of the 24th of April That he gave an account from time to time of the Affairs of Staffordshire and Shropshire relating to the Plot and that coming to London he gave the same account to Ireland his own Chamber and talk'd of two or 3000 l. that would be ready for the Design Mr. Prance then deposed that Harcourt had told him above a Year before as he was paying him for an Image of the Virgin Mary that there was a Plot upon the Life of the King Mr. Dugdale deposed against him that it was he who had engaged him in the Plot upon the Life of the King and often perswaded and encouraged him to it That at Ewer's and his Chambers at Boscobel and other places several Consultations had been had about the Death of the King and bringing in of Popery wherein Mr. Gaven was always a great Man being a good Orator to perswade People in the Design That at the same Consultations he had heard the Massacre often discours'd of And that Gaven should say That tho they were but in a low condition themselves yet they would have Men and Mony enough to spare for such a Design That the said Gaven had many times endeavoured to convince him of the Lawfulness if not the Merit of killing any person whatsoever for the Advancement of their Religion As to Turner it was sworn by Dr. Oates that he was at the Consult of Fenwick's Chamber and sign'd the Resolve Mr. Dugdale also deposed that Ewers had told him that Turner was to carry on the Design in VVorcestershire That the said Turner had met with Ewers Leveson and others in several places and had in every one of them given his consent to and assisted with his Counsel in the carrying on of the grand Design of killing the King and introducing of Popery This was the main of the Evidence for the King The Prisoner's defence lay chiefly in seeking to invalidate the Testimony given against them and to prove Oates perjured they produced these St Omers Witnesses who testify'd that he was not in England in April viz. Mr. Hilsley William Parry Doddington Gifford Palmer Cox who differed in his Testimony from all the rest and caused two great Laughters in the Court Thomas Billing Townley Fall John Hall Butler Cooke a Taylor some of which were so positive that they affirmed that Dr. Oates never lay but two Nights out of the Colledg from December till the middle of June And to prove further that he did not come over with Sir John VVarner and Sir Thomas Preston as he had deposed elsewhere one Bartlet a Dutchman Carlier Verron Baillee who spoke by an Interpreter John Joseph and Peter Carpenter appear'd Then Gaven produced two Witnesses to prove him to be at VVolverhampton in Staffordshire at the time of the Consult viz. one Mrs. Kath. VVinford at whose House he there lodged and Mary Poole a Servant in the House the latter of whom was so lame in her Testimony as caused both Laughter and Shouts He produced four more that affirm'd him to be in VVolverhampton the last week in July but none that could speak to the other three weeks in that Month. However he protested his Innocency and desired to put himself upon the Trial of Ordeal Then VVhitebread in his defence offered to prove D. Oates mistaken in his Evidence at Mr. Ireland's Trial which the Court would not allow Harcourt endeavoured to prove Dr. Oates mistaken as to Ireland's being with him in his Chamber in August One Gifford the Lady Southcott Sir John Southcott Mr. Edward Southcott his Son Mrs. Harewel her Daughter Eliz. Keeling Pendrel and his Wife two Mrs. Giffords and one Mr. Bedloe affirming him to have been most of that Month in Saffordshire Fenwick offer'd to invalidate Mr. Bedloe's Evidence from his having been an ill Man c. Then Sir Creswel Levinz of Counsel for the King summ'd up the Prisoners Defence and to clear Dr. Oates's Evidence about Ireland he called Sarah Pain who swore that she saw Ireland in London about the middle of August And for the Proof of Dr. Oates's being in England at the time he said he was Mr. VValker a Minister Mrs. Ives Mrs. Mayo Sir Richard Barker Philip Page Butler his Servants Mr. Smith Schoolmaster of Islington and Mr. Clay a Popish Priest all deposed as to his being seen in April and May 78 to which the Prisoners only opposed the Number and Innocency of their Evidence being most young Boys After which the Ld. Ch. Justice directed the Jury and in summing up the Evidence insisted particularly on Dugdal's Evidence concerning Sir Edmondbury Godfrey's Death as a mighty Confirmation of the Plot. Then an Officer was sworn to keep the Jury who withdrew and the Judges also went off from the Bench leaving Mr. Recorder and a competent number of Commissioners there to take the Verdict and about a quarter of an Hour after the Jury brought them all in Guilty Then the Prisoners were carried back to Newgate and the Court adjourned till eight next Morning And then Mr. Langhorn was tried and found guilty After which they were all six brought to the Bar together and received Judgment to be Drawn Hang'd and Quartered which accordingly was done upon these 5 Jesuits and Priests on Friday June the 20th at Tyburn The Trial of Richard Langhorn Esq Counsellour at Law at the Old-Baily on Saturday June the 14th 1679. HIS Indictment was for conspiring the Death of the King Subversion of the Government and Protestant Religion whereto he pleading Not guilty the Jury were impannelled for his Trial who were Arthur Yong Edward Beeker Robert Twyford VVilliam Yapp John Kirkham Peter Pickering Thomas Barnes Francis Neeve John Hall George Sitwel James VVood Richard Cawthorne To whom the Indictment being read Roger Belwood Esq of Counsel for the King in this cause opened the Indictment and Sir Creswel Levins proved the Charge And Then Mr. Dugdale was first called to give Evidence of the general Design from which afterwards it would be brought down particularly to Mr. Langhorn who therefore deposed that he had been in several Consultations for alteration of this present Government and for the introducing of Popery and Murther of the King that he was to have a Sum of Money to be one of them that should kill the King being put upon it by Mr. Ewers Mr Gavan Mr. Luson and Mr. Vavasor all Jesuits that there was then to have been a Massacre of the Protestants and
Lady Tempest would have hang'd him for breaking a Trunk but now he would be even with her and that Sir Miles Stapleton kept Priests in his House but he would apprehend them presently for he might have 20 l. apiece for taking of them Richard Pears Sir Miles's Man testified that three or four days after his Master was taken into Custody Bolron asked him if they did not blame him for accusing his Master and he saying he did not hear him named said he it was not him but I must not tell who it is and said he would have gone to have seen Sir Miles but I think said he he does not know me Then one Stephen Tompson declared some threatning Words of Bolrons against Sir Thomas Gascoyne that he would do him some ill turn but it not concerning the Prisoner the Court would not admit it The Lady Vavasor said she believed her Husband was not at Barnborow in any part of the Year because he was infirm at York Bolron having sworn that Sir VValter Vavasor was one at that Consult but this was not judg'd a conclusive Evidence Then Mr. Leggat said that he had heard Bolron say he knew nothing against Sir Miles Stapleton And Mrs. Elizabeth Holmes said that Bolron meeting her in London said he heard she was to be a Witness against him at York but if she would be kind to him he would be so to her and speak as favourably as he could and he said if he had known he should have been no better rewarded he would never have been a Witness the Devil should have been a Witness as soon as he Then Edward Cooper told what he heard Mowbray say as before in Thwing's Trial but the Court observed that being before his Discovery and while he was a Papist and on the High-way it could not be material Then Madam Sherborn testified that Bolron and Mowbray came to her house under a pretence to search for Priests and Bolron took away several parcels of Silver with him But the Court would not suffer such Evidence besides that Mowbray deposed it was only Chalices and other Popish Trinkets After this the Counsel for the King called one Dixon who swore that he had 40 s. proffer'd him to be a Witness for Sir Tho. Gascoyne in Novemb. 1679. Then Mr. VVilson deposed that Mr. Babbington Sollicitor for Sir Miles would have given him 10 l. and Hickeringil proffer'd him 10 l. to have been a Witness for Sir Miles Then Christopher Langley deposed also that VVil. Batley and John Ross proffer'd him two Oxen and ten Sheep to witness for Sir Miles those things they should direct him Richard Corker deposed that he was by and heard that very proffer made to Langley Then Mr. Baines deposed that Mrs. Holmes proffer'd him 60 l. per annum and Mrs. Hewit said she would give him more if he would say nothing against Sir Miles After this Mr. Justice Dolben summ'd up the Evidence and Baron Gregory proceeded to do the same and then the Jury withdrew for half an hour and gave in their Verdict Not Guilty The Trial of George Busby Priest at the Assizes at Derby on Monday July 25 1681. HE then and there appeared and having been Arraigned he now refused to plead in stead thereof presenting a Petition to the Court shewing that he was committed to the Goal in March last for being a Popish Priest and that having obtained his Habeas Corpus to be removed to London the Under-Sheriff then dying the Habeas Corbus was not executed Praying therefore that he may be removed to the King's-Bench that he may have time to make his Defence he depending upon his Habeas Corpus his most material Evidence to clear him and to prove his being an Alien being then in London c. But the Grand Jury having found the Bill the Court told him they must proceed and he was then Indicted as a Romish Priest and Jesuit upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 2. To which Indictment he excepted because it was not said therein that he took Orders beyond Sea But he was inform'd that his taking Orders any where from the Authority of the Bishop of Rome was Sufficient He then pleaded not Guilty and challenged of the Jury near the Number allowed by the Law Those Sworn were Samuel Ward Gent. Thomas Wilson Gent. John Steer John Ratcliff Ed. Wolmesly Gent. William Horn Gent. George Tricket Gent. Jeremiah Ward John Roper John Creswel Gent. Edmund Woodhead and Anthony Bowne To whom the Indictment being read Mr. Bridges of Counsel for the King in this Cause opened the same and Mr. Coombes another of the King's Counsel opened the Evidence And then Mr. Gilbert a Justice of Peace for the County of Derby was called and Sworn who deposed that he lived within 2 Miles of Mr. Powtrells house at West-Hallam where Busby was took and whose Wife was Busby's Neece and had heard for 6 or 7 Years that he was a Priest and when the Plot broke out that he was a Person concern'd as appeared by a Warrant from the Lords of the Council for his Apprehension which he received March 22 1678. which he producing was read in the Court and on the Monday following searched Mr. Powtrells House for him but could not find him tho afterwards he was informed that he was then in the House In 1679 Mr. Powtrel travelling it was reported Busby was gone with him beyond Sea tho he still remained in that House and last Christmas he was informed that he was seen in Corn-Harvest walking in the Garden with one Anne Smally a Widow which caus'd him to search again for him in March last when this Smally assured him he had been out of England two Years yet he then found in Busby's Chamber Popish Vestments a Surplice Wafers an Altar-stone c. but could not find him About a fortnight after he searched again for him surprizing them at one in the Night but could have no admittance till they broke open the door and going into Busby's Chamber he found the fire had been lately extinguished and the Bed-Clothes laid in confused heaps on the bed some part of them warm and some cold but the feather-bed quite cold till feeling underneath he found it warm and that it had been turned which assured him that the Priest was in the House but the Persons in the house denied it and only jeered them for searching for a Person that was beyond Sea and those that were without tho they heard a trampling and directed the Searchers within to the place yet they were from one till after 10 next Morning before they could find him Which at last they did in a little hole under the Tiling whence they carried him to Derby and Mr. Gilbert having took his Examination committed him to Goal on March 16th and sent Word to the King and Council of what he had done The Prisoner then pleaded his being an Alien born at Brussels his Father removing his Family thither during the Troubles
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
was his unhappiness he had no Witnesses to call The Ld. Ch. Justice therefore in a few words summing up the Evidence the Jury presently brought him in Guilty The Trial of Capt. William Blague at the Old-Baily on Friday July 13. 1683. THE Prisoner having been Arraigned the day before and pleaded Not Guilty to an Indictment for High-Treason for conspiring the Death of the King and subversion of the Government was then and there set again to the Bar and making no Challenges the former Jury was sworn viz. Robert Beddingfield John Pelling William Windbury Theophilus Man John Short sen Thomas Nicholas Richard Hoare Thomas Barnes Henry Robins Henry Kemp. Edward Raddish Edward Kemp. To whom the Indictment being read and briefly opened by Mr. North and Serjeant Jefferies Thomas Leigh deposed That the Prisoner in discourse with him and Goodneough about seizing the Tower told them that the only way was to do it with Mortar-Pieces that he would venture his own Ship and provide 200 Men and lay his own Ship on Southwark side and make up his 14 Guns he had already 24 and would undertake once in 20 times to dismount the five Pieces that fac'd towards Southwark-side That he ask'd Goodenough what Mony was provided who answering 40000 l. He answered the Seamen would swallow that up presently to which Goodenough replied there was more provided at any time Mate Lee swore That the Prisoner told him as they were in a Coach together that one of these days they should have a Ball to toss which afterwards he understood by Rouse and Leigh was the Ball that was to be toss'd on Black-Heath That about six Weeks ago Capt. Blague and he walking about the Tower and discoursing of seizing it his way was to scale it but the Captain said the best was to shoot Mortar-pieces on Southwark-side but about the Ship he could say nothing The Prisoner's Defence was That his Business with Rouse was to procure him Mony as being a Broker which brought him sometimes into Goodenough's Company but that he never discours'd about any Publick Affairs and as to the seizing the Tower it was only accidental Discourse And as for his 200 Men it was impossible his Vessel being but a Pink which had been in his Possession but three Weeks and what Arms he had he bought therewith and that he never heard any thing about either a Ball or Bank of Mony Calling his Witnesses Mr. VVright declared That he had waited on the Captain ever since he had been shipp'd and was in his Pay before he had the Ship in possession Robert Chappel Carpenter declar'd The Vessel was not able to do any Service three Weeks ago and that he had been shipp'd four Months and an half to go for New-York One Bellinger the Chirurgeon declared That he had belonged to the Ship seven Weeks and to the Captain before he had a Ship and for Guns belonging to the Ship there were fourteen Saker-Guns of which four were Wooden ones six above Deck and four in the Hold. The Lord Chief Justice then summ'd up the Evidence taking notice to the Jury that these Men belonged to the Captain a great while ago and that there was only one Evidence that did affect him Wherefore the Jury Withdrawing in a short time returned and brought him in Not Guilty THE next day being Saturday July 14. 1683. the Lord Russel Capt. VValcot Mr. Rouse and VVilliam Hone were brought to the Bar to receive Sentence Where the Lord Russel desired to hear his Indictment read in English which was granted and thereupon demanded an Arrest of Judgment because there had been no Evidence of his conspiring the Death of the King as it was in the Indictment but only of levying War But the Verdict being past the Court told him they must go by what the Jury had found and not the Evidence and therefore Sentence was pass'd upon him to be Drawn Hang'd and Quarter'd Capt. VValcot had nothing to say but desired that his Son and some Friends might come and see him Hone had no more to say but begg'd the same favour Rouse insisted on some Disadvantages he had when he came on his Trial and some difference between the Indictment and their Oaths but Verdict being past Judgment was given against them three as against the Lord Russel And upon Friday July 20. following VValcot being drawn to Tyburn in one Hurdle and Rouse and Hone in another and there put into a Cart attended by Dr. Cartwright the Dean of Rippon and the Ordinary of Newgate who urged them much to discover all they knew of the Plot after they had spoke to the People were executed accordingly The next day being Saturday July 21. the Lord Russel having taken leave of his Lady the Lord Cavendish and several others of his Friends at Newgate took Coach with Dr. Tillotson and Dr. Burnet who accompanied him to the Scaffold built in Lincolns-Inn-Fields where he deliver'd his Speech to the Sheriff and after some Preparation he ordered the Executioner after he had lain down a small moment to do his Office without a Sign and so his Head at three blows was severed from his Body and ordered by the Sheriff to be delivered to his Lordship's Friends and Servants as being given them by his Majesty's Favour and Bounty The Trial of Algernon Sidney Esq before the Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys at the King's-Bench Bar at Westminster on the 7th 21st and 27th of November 1683. UPON Wednesday Nov. the 7th 1683. Algernon Sidney Esq was arraigned at the Kings-Bench Bar upon an Indictment of High Treason for conspiring the Death of the King and intending to raise a Rebellion in this Kingdom Which Indictment he excepted against as erroneous several Crimes being put together therein distinct in nature one from another and distinguished by Law offering to the Court a Parchment wherein were his Exceptions to the Bill but it was refused and he sorced to plead which he did at length Not Guilty And then he desired a Copy of the Indictment which was denyed him but upon his Request it was read to him again in Latin and his Trial appointed to be on Wednesday Novemb. the 21st 1683. Then and there the Prisoner again appearing he desired Pen Ink and Paper and that Mr. VVinn and Mr. Gibs might write for him which were granted him and then he shewed the reason he had before to desire a Copy of his Indictment which the Lord Stafford and the other Lords in the Tower had urging it for Law upon the Statute of 46 Edw. 3. But the Court over-ruled it Then the Clerk of the Crown called the Jury and after several Challenges the Jurors were John Anger Richard VVhite VVilliam Linn Lawrence VVood Adam Andrews Emery Arguise Josias Clerke George Glisby Nicholas-Baxter VVilliam Reeves VVilliam Grove John Burt. To whom the Indictment being read Mr. Dolben opened the same and the Attorney General opened the Evidence and then Mr. VVest was called against whom the Prisoner excepted
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
Penal Laws not being for the future to be drawn either into Consequence or Example caused the Original Declaration under the Great Seal to be cancelled in his presence whereof Himself and several other Lords of the Council were Witnesses The Record of which in the Journal was then read Then his present Majesty's Speech on Novemb 9. 1685 to both Houses was read wherein declaring the Necessity of his Standing Army and requiring a Supply for their Maintenance he says Let no Man take Exception that there are some Officers in the Army not qualified according to the late Tests I will neither expose them to disgrace nor my self to the want of them if there should be another Rebellion to make them necessary to me The Commons Journal being then turned to their Address to the King was then read Wherein after they had thanked him for his Care in the suppressing the late Rebellion they acquaint him that they had considered his Speech and as to that part of it relating to the Officers They do out of their bounden Duty humbly represent to him That those Officers cannot by Law be capable of their Imployments and that the Incapacities they bring upon themselves thereby can no ways be taken off but by Act of Parliament That therefore they are preparing a Bill to indemnify them from the Penalties they have now incurred And because the continuance of them in their Imployments may be taken to be a dispensing with that Law without Act of Parliament the Consequence of which is of the greatest Concern to the Rights of all his Majesty's Subjects and to all the Laws made for the Security of their Religion They therefore do beseech him he would be graciously pleased to give such Directions therein that no Apprehensions or Jealousies may remain in the Hearts of his Subjects After this that forecited Clause of the Statute 1. Eliz. was read and then Mr. Serj. Levinz spoke to this effect That the Charge being for a Libel it ought to be consider'd Whether the Bishops did deliver this Paper to the King of which there has been no direct Proof Publishing he would not talk of because there has been no proof of a Publication or supposing they did deliver it Whether this be a Libel upon the Matter of it the Manner delivering it or the Persons that did it He said it was no Libel taking notice of the disingenuity offered the Bishops in only setting forth part and not the whole Affirming that the Subjects have a Right to Petitioning in all their Grievances That this was a Grievance the Bishops petitioned against it being what the Law neither Common nor Act of Parliament allowed of And therefore the Bishops could not be guilty of the Charge Then Mr. Finch spoke briefly again making a Challenge to shew any one Instance of such a Declaration such a general Dispensation of Laws from the Conquest till 1672. Leaving their Cause upon this Point That to suspend Laws is to abrogate them and that to abrogate Laws is part of the Legislature which Power is lodged in King Lords and Commons To which Sir Robert Sawyer added That he found few Attempts of this Nature in any Kings Reign In the Reign of Henry the 4th there was an Act of Parliament that Foreigners should have a free Trade in London notwithstanding the Franchises of the City After the Parliament rose the King issued out his Proclamation forbidding the execution of that Law and commanding that it should be in suspense till the next Parliament yet that was held to be against Law Then he mentioned another Case upon the Statute of 31. Hen. 8. cap. 8. which enables the King by Proclamation in many Cases to create the Law which Statute was repealed by 1. Edw. 6. cap. 12. That very Act reciting that the Law is not to be altered or restrained but by Act of Parliament Then Mr. Sommers of Counsel also for the Bishops mentioned the Case of Thomas and Sorrel upon the Validity of a Dispensation of the Statute of Edward the 6th touching selling of Wine Where it was the Opinion of every one of the Judges and they did lay it down as a settled Position that there never could be a Suspension of an Act of Parliament but by the Legislative Power Affirming that the Matters of Fact alledged in the Bishops Petition had been proved perfectly true by the Journals of both Houses That there could be no Design thereby to diminish the King's Prerogative because he had none such That the Petition could not be Seditious nor stir up Sedition because it was presented to the King in private and alone False it could not be because the Matter of it is True There could be nothing of Malice because the Occasion was not sought the Thing was pressed upon them and a Libel it could not be because the Intent was innocent and they kept within the Bounds set by the Act of Parliament that gives the Subject leave to petition his Prince when he is grieved Here the Bishops Counsel saying they had done Mr. Attorn Gen. spoke for the King Alledging that the Records produced were nothing to the purpose because they were only Matters transacted in Parliament and not Acts of Parliament That be their Libel never so true yet still it was Libellous That though the Subject may petition the King yet not in such reflecting Terms And though Religion was concerned yet ought not illegal Means he made use of That therefore the Bishops ought rather to have acquiesced under their Passive Obedience till the Parliament met which the King had promised in his Declaration should be in November Then Mr. Sol. Gen. in along Speech added That the Bishops had no right of Petitioning out of Parliament and therefore the Proceedings in Parliament which had been produced were not to the purpose Here Mr. Justice Powel expressed his dislike of this Doctrine aside to the Ld. Ch. Justice who concurred with him Going on to prove from the Statute 1 Hen. 4. that there ought to have been no Complaint made till it had come from the Commons in Parliament that the Law continued so till the 3 Hen. 7. where the Grievance was found that Offences in the Intervals of Parliament could not be well punished and then comes the Statute that sets up the Court of Star-Chamber which yet was abolished by the Statute of the 15 Car. 1. That the Proceedings of Parliament produced were no Declarations of Parliament because never passed into an Act and therefore they are Nullities and cannot be accepted of as any Evidence Here again the Ld. Ch. Justice and Mr. Justice Powel discours'd aside saying he thought to impose upon them but they believed not one word he said Then he appealed to the Case in the 2 Cro. 2. Jac. 1. Where it is asserted That the King may make Orders and Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical And the Case of De Libellis Famosis which says in the 5th Report If a Person does a thing