The Second Part Of the DISPLAY OF Tyranny: OR REMARKS UPON The Illegal and Arbitrary Proceed in the Courts of Westminster, and Guild-Hall London. From the Year, 1678. To the Abdication of the late King James, in the Year 1688. In which time, the Rule was, Quod Principi placuis, Lexesto.  
Printed, Anno Anglia Salutis Secundo, 1690. Sold by Booksellers in London and Westminster.   

TO The Eminently Deserving and Highly Honoured Sir Samuel Barnardiston, Baronet.  
Sir!  
YOu are no more able to deliver yourself from the Persecution of a dedication, than you were, in your single Person, to stem the dreadful deluge of Popery and Tyranny, which very lately brought Old England within an Hair's breadth of that utter Ruin that was manifestly impending.  
Indeed, when I first took the resolution of inscribing your honoured Name, to the first part of my Scribble, I purposed to have petitioned your Licence so to do; but at the time when the thing was finished, I was at such a great distance from you, that I had not opportunity to do it, and therefore (being no nearer to you at this time) I do implore your Pardon for my Presumption therein, and for my repeating that Transgression; and do hope that you will the more readily grant it; when I have made this public Acknowledgement to the World (in case any thing I have said be deemed offensive, which I hope there cannot) that Sir Samuel Barnardiston was no way privy to the writing of the First, or of this Second part of these Stories; and that I can (upon very good ground) say, that he doth not, to this day, know who is the Collector of them.  
Sir! He who is not allowed to use a Sword in his Country's quarrel, may surely be indulged in crying out Murder, Treason; when he sees a Pistol at his Prince's head, or a Dagger at his Heart; and having, with grief, beheld that very same Toryism, which murdered the best of Men, my good Lord Russell, and many others of our best Patriots; to be rampant and impudent; and as irreconcilably bend against the true Government of England, which the glorious and most miraculous providence of Heaven, has lately devolved upon our undoubted rightful King and Queen, as it was against our late blessed Martyrs for the English Liberties; I could not withhold myself from attempting the service of my Generation (according to my mean capacity) in exposing those Principles and Practices which but t'other day had brought the Kingdom to the very brink of irreparable ruin; especially, when I see at this very day, the Men who had sucked in that Poison, Designing and Plotting (not to allure, but) to dragoon us into French Bondage.  
The truth of it is (Sr.) I was much irritated to the prosecution of this Work, by what I met with in my return from the late Trial of Skill in Essex; when those most worthy Gentlemen, Colonel Mildmay and Sr. Fran. Masham were elected Knights for that County; I have heard that it hath been an old Observation, that tho' many Honourable, Reverend and Worthy Persons, have frequently voted against yourself, in Suffolk; and against Colonel Mildmay in Essex; yet, that it hath been rarely seen, that a Tory has voted for either of you: And it is well remembered, that at the time of the mighty struggling between Popery and Christianity in the Critical Year of 1681. the then Lord Chief Justice Scroggs sent for many of the Gentlemen of Essex, and told them that whatever they did, they must not choose Mildmay.  
But I have digressed, what I was saying, is, 
Rigby was one of the Good and True Men, whom the great Care of Sr. Dudley North had returned to pass upon my Lord Russel's Life, and he stood in that Panel within two of Oneby, who was last sworn.  that one Mr. Rigby of Covent Garden (I name him because he stands indicted in Essex for the Crime I am mentioning) returning from voting at that Election (upon the 11th of March last) & being to a high degree enraged, that Colonel Mildmay and Sr. Francis Masham were chosen (for you must know he was of t'other side) said, that 'twas no matter who carried the day there; But if the King would not do as they would have him (innuendo himself, & he knows who besides; But I am most certain my Lord of Oxford doth not) They would make a King that should do as They would have him: And, this being upon the Eve of the Fast appointed by their Majesty's Proclamation, he proceeded, adding, We must keep a damned Fast to morrow, 
This most Loyal Disciple of Sr. Roger's, and designed Juryman for my Lord Russel, (taking Pet because Colonel Mildred may was chosen a Parliament Man) must now by all means have a King of his own making, and 'tis six and twenty to one but if the Silly Woman had pledged him K. James' Health, but the next Glass had been to our Lord Lewis, King Elect.  but we will eat Roasted Beef and be Drunk. He then put a glass of Wine into a very Civil Woman's hand, saying, Drink King James 's Health; and upon her answering him, No, I deny that, but I will drink the Wine; he said, Damn you for a Bitch, would it might poison you where you stand; and added, A Bitch to deny a Gentleman such a Request, She deserves to be Sacrificed.  
Sr. I cannot upon this occasion of Health-drinking, hinder myself from remembering the Case of Mr. Elias Best, a substantial Citizen (but one who had been an Ignoramus Juryman, a great Reproach, and an unpardonable Crime in that day, as you (Sr.) very feelingly know) He was indicted for the Frolic of drinking to the Pious Memory of Honest Stephen College, and condemned to a Fine of 1000 l. to stand Three Times in the Pillory, and to give Sureties for the Good Behaviour for Life. Upon this Judgement he was imprisoned Three Years; to the loss of good Trade, and to the ruin of his Health and his Estate; and when almost ready to expire, he was graciously pardoned, upon payment of 200 l. to the Empson and Dudley of the late Reign; Graham and Burton: 'Tis well for Mr. Rigby, that the accursed Practices of that day, are not to be Precedents, in the present benign and most merciful Reign.  
Sir! I have no sinister nor mercenary end in emitting these Papers to public view; I writ not for reward (for I gave away as many scores of the first part of this Tract, as the Printer gave me, and have not one for myself,) and I should be vain, to the highest degree, to expect applause, for so confused and ill digested a Work, as this is; But I have with a good will (tho' in a very feeble manner) brandished my Pen for the service of that good old Cause which I ever loved and must love, should it cost me my life, I mean the Liberties of England; and it hath deeply wounded me, to hear and know so many instances as I do, of the unpunished (nay, of the unchecked) Seditious and Traitorous discourses and boastings, of the Factious and Malcontent Party, which I encounter; (I mean not Papists, for I know not one Person avowedly so, about London) as tho' the whole Nation were ready (as the Men I talk of vainly flatter themselves) by a unanimous and universal consent, to degenerate and apostatise to Popery and Slavery: But Methinks they should be too early and too quick in their expectation, that the English Nation should no sooner see the Yoke of the Oppressors in a most wonderful manner broken, by the immediate hand of Heaven; but it should tamely submit unto (nay Court, with them) the intolerable Yoke of France; and that at a Juncture when it is thrown off, by a Bigoted Popish Prince, who has been for a long time an unhappy Instrument in the hands of the Bloody Tyrant of France, to the oppressing and destroying the most ancient, pure and best Christians upon the Face of the Earth, the Vaudois.  
That we have such a Race of Animals, walking, and that with no more than two Legs apiece, amongst us; is too well known to be denied or dissembled; and one would think that their Practices, which are so grossly evil, and eminently dangerous, should not be countenanced or defended; but (which is to be lamented) they have their powerful Abettors and Patrons; and therefore, 'tis to be wished, that their Edge may be blunted, and their effronted Impudence duly censured.  
Sir! As to these Collections (if that may be any invitation to your throwing away a very few hours upon their perusal) I do assure you, that I have made them, with all due regard to Truth; and am not conscious of one Mistake or untruth in the whole Work; my Care in that point has put me to much trouble and some charge; for where I doubted, I have traveled to receive true and certain Information of matters of Fact; and such Materials as I wanted, which were upon Record, I fetched from thence; and therefore, the certainty of matters here told, must atone for the want of Method and delighting Language.  
I had the Promise (and so I thought assurance) of some things, at least as valuable, as the best things in this Tract can be esteemed to be; but some Men are too zealously intent and busy in their private Affairs, to be  (though I remember the time when they were eminently so) & therefore, (to touch that Point no further at present) I shall only say, I have done  potui; and wish that some other Person, who could have done this to more advantage had undertaken the Task; I am (what I always was, and ever will be)  
SIR Your Honourer and most humbly-devoted Servant. July 10th, 1690.   

To the  READER.  
'TIs not my design in this Address to commend this Pamphlet, or to invite Thee to throw away thy time or money upon it; for I must tell thee truly, that tho' the Matters here treated of are worthy of any Man's considering; and are not to be forgotten; yet the Disadvantages and Discouragements which I have been under, in compiling the History thereof, have been such; that when thou goest to read them, thou will, I doubt, meet with disappointment; and fall short of the satisfaction thou mayst promise thyself; for it will appear short, immethodical and very confused; but I did my best: here is a geat deal of matter brought into a narrow compass; and the thing had been something valuable, if some Persons had furnished the Materials which they promised; and others had, in time, found leisure to lend what I at last obtained; but they came late to my hand, so that I could not methodise what thou here findest, better, or otherwise than thou seest: If thou dislikest the Book, upon these, or any other Reasons, thou mayst let alone; and then there's no Harm done. And,  
And after this fair Caution, thou wilt buy and read it, and the nature of the thing should render it any way grateful; and thou canst find in thy heart to employ a little time in a Work of this kind, in which I have quite tired myself, I do here present thee with Heads sufficient to fill a Folio (viz.) The Trial and Case of him who is the best Pattern for Magistrates in England: That of the Right Honourable Sir Thomas Pilkington (most happily at this time, Lord Mayor of London) with the Duke of York; wherein a Hertfordshire-Jury gave the Duke 100000 l. Damages.  
His Lordship's Trial with Bolsworth, wherein a Surry-Jury gave the Perfumer 800 l. Damages.  
The Trial of Sir Patience Ward, upon a Pretence of Perjury; but in truth for putting the Inscription upon the Monument, notifying to the Ages to come, that the Papists burned London.  
The Trials of Sir Trevor Williams, Mr Arnold and Mr Colt with the Duke of Beaufort.  
The Trial of the Grave and most Pious and highly learned Mr Baxter.  
The two Trials of the Reverend and eminently learned Divine, and incomparable good Englishman, Mr Johnson, the Confessor for the English Liberties  
The Proceed between the Duke of York and Mr Covert of Chichester; wherein 100000 l. Damages were given to the Duke.  
The Prosecution of Mr Aaron Smith, for his honest and undaunted Assistance of Stephen College at Oxford; And for his not Witnessing against Colonel Sidney, according to the Advice of Sir A. P.  
The Trial of Mr Gutch of Bath, with a Bishop.  
The Prosecutions and Trials of Mr Roswel the Minister, Mr Whitaker, Mr Wilmer, Mr Culliford, Mr Best, Mr Samuel Harris, Mr Joseph Brown, cum multis alijs.  
My good Friend, I have here cut thee out Work, and therefore not to detain thee from it, I bid thee hearty Farewell.   

The CONTENTS.  

REmarks upon the Trial of Mr Braddon and Mr Speke, in relation to the Murder of the Earl of Essex, pag. 1.  
An Abstract of Proofs made before the House of Lords, in relation to the Earl of Exssex's Murder, pag. 31.  
Remarks upon the proceed in the King's Bench in the Case of Fitz-Harris. pag. 52.  
Heads of the Speeches and Resolves in the Oxford Parliament about Fitz-Harris, p. 57  
The Protest of the Lords upon the Refusal of the Impeachment against Fitz-Harris, p. 64.  
The Indictment and Plea of Fitz-Harris in the Court of King's Bench, p. 67.  
Tue Arguments upon the Plea, p. 75.  
The Trial of Fitz-Harris at the King's Bench Bar, p. 122.  
The Libel given in Evidence against Fitz-Harris, as it was read to the Jury, p. 127.  
The Examination of Fitz-Harris by Sir Robert Clayton and Sir George Treby, p. 149.  
Remarks' thereupon, and upon Dr Hawkins his Shame Confession, published in the Name of Fitz. Harris, p. 153.  
Remarks upon Mrs Gannt's Trial, p. 159.  
Mrs Gaunt's Speech, p. 166.  
Remarks upon the Trial of Mr Joseph Hayes, p. 172.  
A touch of Mr Roswell's Trial, p. 199.  
Remarks upon Mr Charles Bateman's Trial. p. 201.  
Remarks upon my Lord Delamere's Trial, p. 217.  
The Fanatical Presentment of the Cheshire Grand Jury, in 1683, against my Lord of Macclesfield, my Lord Delamere, and twenty six more of the honourable and most valuable Gentlemen of that County, p. 268.  
Heads of Informations before the House of Lords, about the Murders of my Lord Russell, Col. Sidney, Sir Tho. Armstrong, Mr Cornish, etc. p. 273.  
An Account of Charters, Dispensations and Pardons passed, between October 1682, and the late King's Abdication. p. 312.  
Copies of some Papers relating to the foregoing Informations, p. 316.  
Copy of Colonel Sidney's Plea, p. 320.  
The Names of the Grand and Petty Juries returned upon my Lord Russell, p. 324.  
The Grand and Petty Juries returned upon Alderman Cornish and Mrs Gaunt, p. 328.  
The Panel of Jurors returned upon Colonel Sidney, p. 331.  
The solemn dying Declarations of seven Persons executed for the Conspiracy against the Life of King Charles the second, and the Duke of York. p. 335.    

REMARKS Upon the Trial of Mr Laurence Braddon, & Mr Hugh Speke; Upon an Information, about the matter of the Murder, of the late Right Honourable Arthur Earl of Essex.  
THis Excellent Person, and right Noble Peer, the Earl of Essex, did (to say no more) equal the best and most deserving of his Contemporaries, in zeal and resolution, steadily to assert and defend, our Religion, Laws and Liberties; in the day, in which they were most highly threatened, and most dangerously invaded: His Lordship, and that sure and never shaken Friend to the right English Government, and to the Interest of his Country; His Grace the Duke of Bolton (than Marquis of Winchester) were usually (if not always) in the Chair, of the secret Committees of the House of Lords; which inspected the business of the damnable Popish Plot, and (which was a Consequent of it) the horrid Murder of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey; who was made the first Sacrifice to the Popish rage, for prying into that Arcanum. His Lordship, the Earl of Essex, added also greatly to his Crimes, in being Chaire-man of that Committee of Lords, which prepared matters, for the Trial of that great Conspirator Colman, the Duke of York's Minion and Secretary. And, he contracted a further and never to be forgiven Gild, in that, soon after the astonishing dissolution of the Parliament, in January 1680, and the King's Declaration of his Resolution, to hold the next Parliament, upon the 21st of March 1680, at Oxford; several Noble Lords agreed upon a Petition, to advise the King against that Resolution; and their Lordship's pitched upon the Earl of Essex to present it; as he did upon the 25th of January 1680; and then made a Speech to his Majesty which deserves eternal Remembrance; it was to this effect,  
☞ That the Lords there present, with other Peers; observing how unfortunate many Assemblies have been, when called remote from London; particularly the Congress at Clarendon, in Henry the second's time: Three Parliaments at Oxford in the time of Henry the third; and the Parliaments at Coventry in Henry the sixth's time; with divers others; which have proved fatal to those Kings, and brought great mischief on the Kingdom; And considering the Jealousies and Discontents amongst the People: They apprehended, the consequences of a Parliament at Oxford, might be as fatal to the King, and the Nation; as those were to the then Reigning Kings; and therefore they conceived, they could not answer it to God, to his Majesty, or to the People; If they, being Peers, should not offer him their advice, to alter that unseasonable resolution. The Petition was to this effect;  
That, whereas the King by Speeches and Messages, to both Houses, had rightly represented the dangers threatening his Majesty and the Kingdom, from the Plots of the Papists, & the sudden growth of a Foreign Power, which could not be stopped, unless by Parliament; and an Union of Protestants.  
That the King, in April 1679, having called to his Council many honourable and worthy Persons; and declared, that being sensible, of the evil Effects of a single Ministry, or private Advice, or foreign Committee, for the direction of Affairs; That he would, for the future, refer all things unto that Council; and that by their constant advice, with the frequent use of the Parliament, he was resolved hereafter to Govern; They began to hope to see an end of their Miseries; But,  
They soon found their expectations frustrated, and the Parliament dissolved, before it could perfect what was intended, for their relief and security; And tho' another was called, yet, by many Prorogations it was put off to the 21st of October past.  
That, though the King then acknowledged, that neither his Person, nor the Kingdom could be safe, till the Plot was gone thorough; yet the Parliament was unexpectedly prorogned on the 10th of January, before any sufficient Order could be taken therein.  
That all their just and pious endeavours to save the Nation were overthrown; The good Bills they had been industriously preparing, to unite Protestants, brought to nought; The Witnesses of the Plot discouraged; Those foreign Kingdoms and States, who by a happy Conjunction with us, might check the French Power, disheartened, even to such a despair, as may induce them to take Resolutions fatal to us: The strength and courage of our Enemies, both at home and abroad increased; And ourselves leftin the utmost danger, of seeing our Country brought into utter Desolation.  
That, in these Extremities, they had nothing under God to comfort them, but the hopes that the King (touched with the Groans of his perishing People) would have suffered the Parliament to meet, at the day to which it was prorogued; and no further interruption should be given to their Proceed, in order to the saving the Nation: But, that that failed them too, for the King, by the private suggestions of Wicked Persons, Favourers of Popery, Promoters of French designs, and Enemies to the King and Kingdom 
* Innuendo Some Body; their Names are (even at this day) worth the knowing, lest any of them should creep into their present Majesty's Councils.  (without the Advice, & against the Opinion of the Privy-Council) dissolved that Parliament, and intended to call another to sit at Oxford; where neither Lords nor Commons could be in safety, but would be exposed to the Swords of the Papists and their Adherents; of whom too many were crept into the Guards; That the Witnesses against the Popish Lords and Impeached Judges, could not bear the charge of going thither, nor trust themselves, under the Protection of a Parliament, that is itself evidently under the power of Guards and Soldiers.  
The Petitioners, out of a just Abhorrence of such pernicious Council (which the Authors dared not to avow) and their direful apprehensions, of the Calamities and Miseries that may ensue thereupon; Most humbly prayed and advised, That the Parliament might not sit at a place, where it would not be able to act with that freedom, which is necessary; but that it might sit at Westminster.  
This Petition was signed, 


Monmouth,  
Kent,  
Huntingdon,  
Bedford,  
Salisbury,  
Clare,  
Stanford,  
Essex,  
Shaftesbury,  
Mordant,  
Ewer,  
Paget,  
Grey,  
Herbert,  
Howard,  
Delamer.     
This humble Application, and most necessary and seasonable Advice, found the same entertainment which King Charles the second ever gave, to the Councils offered to him in favour of the Protestant Religion, and of the true English Government; however, the honest zeal and undaunted Courage of these Noble Lords, made deep impressions upon the Breasts of all true Lovers of the Laws and Liberty of their Country; And the Citizens of London, in Common-Hall assembled (upon the 4th of February, 1680.) spoke their Approbation of their Loraship's Noble Enterprise, in what follows; which was agreed upon, with a general and loud Acclamation of thousands of Citizens.  

To the Worshipful Slingesby Bethel, and Henry Cornish Esquires, Sheriffs of London and Middlesex.  
WE the Citizens of the said City, in Common-Hall assembled, having diligently perused, the late Petition and Advice, of several Noble Peers of this Realm to his Majesty; whose Counsels We humbly conceive, are (in this unhappy juncture) highly seasonable, and greatly tending to the safety of these Kingdoms: We do therefore make it our most hearty request, that you (in the Name of this Common-Hall) will return, to the Right Honourable the Earl of Essex, and (by him) to the rest of the Noble Peers, the grateful Acknowledgement of this Assembly.   
By these means, and indeed by the whole Course of this Noble Lord's Life, which was a steady Course, of Exemplary unshaken Virtue, and showed an unalterable affection, to the true Religion; and detestation of Tyranny; He became insupportable to those, whose Study was Mischief; and to whom no Person was acceptable, but such as they found disposed to betray the Protestant Religion, and the Rights of England; to their Popish and Despotic Designs; and therefore from this time, they grew more assiduous to contrive his Destruction.  
The Conspirators well knew, that this Great Man, had most deservedly acquired a mighty share, in the hearts of the People; And, that as he knew very much of their Designs; so that he was not, by any arts, or allurements, to be Cozened or tempted to a Compliance therewith; therefore (as They told the brave Colonel Sidney) he must die, that their Plot might live; and to avoid the Reproach, of bringing the Son to the Block, by that very Prince, for whom the Father had lost his Head; and, (which is also very probable) to prevent his discovery, of what he could tell, and others knew not; They condemn him, without a Trial, and in a most barbarous manner Murder him in the Tower; But, Heaven intending to bring this accursed Assassination of the brave Earl of Essex to light; a report of very suspicious Circumstances, in relation to that matter, was instantly spread, and reached the Ears of Mr Braddon; a Gentleman of great Integrity and of no less Courage; whose honest Zeal, prompted him to look into that hellish Intrigue; and to endeavour a full discovery of that horrid Villainy; but that Season not allowing it, he and Mr Speke were run upon, and with great fury prosecuted, in the manner following.  
They were brought to Trial, upon an Information, charging them with Subornation, and endeavouring to raise a belief, that the Earl of Ess. did not murder himself.  
The Judges, then in Court, were,  
The Lord Chief Justice Jeffryes,  
Judge Withens, and  
Judge Holloway,  
The Jury, 


Sir Hugh Middleton, a Papist.  
Thomas Harriot,  
Thomas Earsbie,  
Joshua Galliard,  
Richard Shoreditch,  
Charles Good,  
Samuel Rouse,  
Hugh Squire,  
Nehem. Arnold,  
John Byfeild,  
William Wait, &  
James Supple.     
The King's Council, were, 

Attorney General Sawyer  
Solicitor General Finch,  
Jenner, Recorder of London,  
Mr Dolben,  
Mr North,  
Mr Jones.    
Council for the Defendants, were, 

Mr Wallop,  
Mr Williams,  
Mr Thompson,  
Mr Freke.    
Mr Dolben opened the Information to this effect, That whereas the Earl of Essex upon the 10th of July last, was committed to the Tower for Treason, and did there Murder himself, as was found by the Coroner's Inquisition; yet, the Defendants, designing to bring the Government to hatred, the 15th of August, conspired to persuade the King's Subjects, that the said Earl was Muedered by certain Persons unknown; and to procure false Witnesses to prove, that he was not felo de se, but was Murdereds and that they did maliciously declare in writing; that Mr Braddon was the Person that did prosecute the said Murder, to the scandal of the Government, etc.  
Then the Attorney General brought in Evidence, Sir Leoline Jenkins his Warrant, for the Commitment of the Earl to the Tower; and the Inquisition of Mr Farnham the Coroner taken by this Jury. July 14th 1683. viz. 

Samuel Colwel,  
William Fisher,  
Thomas Godsell,  
Thomas Hunt,  
Natha. Mountney,  
Thomas Potter,  
William How,  
Robert Burgoyne,  
Eleazar Wickens,  
Thomas Hogsflesh,  
Henry Cripps,  
Richard Rudder,  
William Knipes,  
John Hudson,  
John Kettlebeater,  
Lancelot Coleson,  
Morgan Cowarne,  
Thomas Bryan,  
William Thackston,  
Richard cliff,  
Zebediah Prichard,  
William Baford, and  
Theophilus Carter.    
Which Jury had found, that the Earl of Essex was Felo de se.  
Then, the Witnesses for the King being called, Mr Evans was sworn, and the Attorney General suggested, that he and old Mr Edwards would prove, that Mr Braddon went about and declared, that the Earl of Essex was Murdered; and that he was the Prosecutor of the Murder; but neither of them answered expectation in that matter.  
Mr Evans testified, that Mr Edward's told it to him and others for News, at the Customhouse that forenoon of the day of the Earl of Essex his death, that his Son said, that he saw a Razor thrown out of the Earl's Window. That upon the Monday after (which was July the 16th) Mr Braddon came with Mr Hatsel to his House, where Mr Hatsel shown him the Coroner's Inquisition in Print; which having read, Mr Evans told Mr Hatsel what he had heard from Mr Edward's at the Customhouse; And he said, that Mr B. did not concern himself, or say any thing, though he might hear Mr Evans his discourse with Mr Hatsel, he being walking about the Room.  
Mr Evans added, that upon the 17th of July, Mr Edward's and Mr Braddon found him in a Coffeehouse; and Mr Edward's then told him, that Mr Braddon had been with him, examining his Son about a Razor that was thrown out of the Earl of Essex his Window.  
Mr Edward's testified, that about ten of the Clock, the day of the Earl's death, he was informed by his Family; and by his Son, that same day at noon, that his Son came from the Tower about ten of the Clock, and said, that he had seen the King and Duke, and that the Earl of Essex had cut his own Throat; and that the Boy saw an hand throw a Razor out of the Window; and a Maid in a white Hood came out of the House and took it up, and then go in again; and that he heard a noise as of Murder cried out.  
Mr Edward's acknowledged, that he told several at the Customhouse the same day, what the Lad had declared; and that Mr Bradden came not to make enquiry about it, till Tuesday the 17th of July; before which time he never knew Mr Braddon; that he then told him what report the Boy brought home; and added, that the Boy never denied it before Mr Braddon came, but did afterwards that same day deny it, as his Wife and Daughter informed him; his Sister having put him into fear about it; and that Mr Braddon did not desire the Boy to give it under his hand, till he had been there two or three times.  
William Edward's the Son, aged 13 years, was then sworn (his Father like a very honest Man charging him in the presence of Almighty God to say nothing but the truth) he said, that he told his Father that he saw an Hand cast out a bloody Razor, and a Maid come out and take it up, and go in again. That Mr Braddon asked him what he saw at the Tower, and that he told him as he had told his Father; and that Mr Braddon bade him speak the truth, and wrote down what he told him, and nothing more; and then read it to him; and asked him whether it were true, and that he told him, that all that was in the Paper was true, and that he then put his Name to it.  
Then, the Chief Justice and King's Counsel interrogating him, he said, that he did at first refuse to put his Name to it, because he was afraid of coming into danger; and being further pressed, he added, that the reason why he feared danger was, because what was in the Paper was not true; but confessed that he did not tell Mr B. that it was not true, but that his Mother was afraid to have him sign it; and declared, upon the question put to him, that Mr B. did not offer or promise him any Money.  
Thomas Hawkins, Son of Dr Hawkins of the jower (Protestant Confessor to Fitz. Harris the Papist) being produced to contradict young Edward's: The A. General suggested, that they were together the whole Morning, and that there was no such thing of the Razor, as Edward's had declared; but this Lad only testified that young Edward's and he, walked round the Tower, as long as the King walked; & that when the King went into the Constable's House, they went to play, & after their play, he left Edward's & went home; and that after he had been there a little time, news was brought to his Father, that the Earl of Essex had killed himself; and that thereupon his Father went down, and he followed; and after he had been a little while there, William Edward's came, and they stood looking up at the Window an hour or two; and went away together; and that he saw no Razeur thrown out.  
Upon this Mr A. General, in a reproachful way said, My Lord, This rumour began in a Fanatic Family; he might have been justly answered, that Mr Edward's his Family, was, and is of as good reputation as one certain Doctor's (not to vie with more) where the stifling of such Evidence as ran against the Stream, had been some Years before notoriously practised.  
But to return to the matter in hand, is it not most evident, that Mr Attorney was not rightly instructed; For 'tis manifest that the Lads were parted when the Murder was committed, and the Razor thrown out; the young Doctor declaring, that he was in his Father's House, when the news of the Earl's death came; and then went with his Father to the place; and 'tis more than probable, that in the crowd and distraction, which must necessarily be there, he might not at his first coming see young Edward's.  
Next Mr Blathwayte and Mr Mon-Stevens (the Earl of Sunderland's Secretary) were called and sworn.  
Mr Blathwayte appeared, rather as an Advocate, than a Witness, against Mr Braddon.  
They testified Mr Braddon's bringing the Information of young Edward's, to my Lord Sunderland the Secretary's Office, and that Edward's declared before the King, that what was contained therein was not true, and yet Mr Braddon would prosecute it.  
The Information was then read, to this following effect, July the 18th 1683.  
The Informant saith, that on Friday the 13th instant, he heard that the King and the Duke of York, were going to the Tower; and that he went thither to see them; and then went about nine of the Clock, to see the Lord Brandon's Lodgings, and as he was standing between these Lodgings, and the Earl of Essex 's, he saw an Hand cast out a bloody Razor out of the Earl's Lodgings, and he was going to take it up, but before he come to it, there came a Maid running out of Captain Hawley's House where the Earl ledged, and took up the Razor, and carried it into the House; and the Informant believes it was the same Maid, which he first heard to cry out Murder; and saith, that he heard the Maid say to some about the Door, after Minder was cried, that she heard the Earl of Essex groan three times that Morning.  
Sir Henry Capel was then produced to thew, as the Council urged, that Mr Braddon prosecuted this matter on his head.  
He testified that Mr Braddon was twice with him, and that he told Mr Braddon, that he was under great grief; and that whatsoever he had to say in the matter, he desired him to acquaint a Secretary of State with it.  

* This very man Beech, was the head Prosecutor of all Protestant. Dissenters in the North of Wittshire; and many of them paid him a yearly Tribute to avoid his rage. When his present Majesty Landed, he said, that he hoped to see them hanged that went in to him. But a more famous Story of his Life was; That his Father telling him, that never Man was cursed in a Son, as he was in him; he replied. That he knew one who was more unhappy, which was his Grandfather in him; upon which occasion, and for his constant course of disobedience, his Father deservedly disinherited him.  Becch (who occasioned Mr. Braddon to be seized in Wiltshire, at the time when he went to make enquiry there, about the Reports of the Earl's having murdered himself, before he was dead) testified, the taking from Mr Braddon a Letter of Mr Speke's, to Sir Robert Atkyns, which was to this effect, (viz.)  
That the bearer Mr Braddon, was a very honest Gentleman; and it was his fate, to be the only Person that prosecuted the Murder of the Earl of Essex: That he had made a considerable discovery already of it, though he rowed against an hard stream.  
That it could never have fallen on so fit a Man; for he had been an hard Student, and was of very good Reputation and Life, and had a great deal of Prudence, and as much Courage as any Man. That Mr Braddon went away Post towards Marlborough, to make some further discovery; and seeing he went into those parts, Mr Speke thought it not amiss for Mr. B. to advise with Sir R. Atkyns, how he had best proceed. That he had charged Mr B. not to discover who he was, lest it should be known that he had been with Sir Robert Atkyns; for he would not for the World that Sir Robert should come to any Prejudice for his kindness towards them, because they laboured under many Difficulties, as the Tide than ran. He therefore desired Sir Robert to call Mr B. by the Name of Johnson; That they did hope to bring the Earl's Murder upon the Stage, before they could any of those in the Tower to a Trial, That Sir H. Capel had told Mr B. that it was a thing too great for him. That Mr B. had been at great trouble and charge about it, and that as times went he knew few would have undertaken it besides himself.  
Mr Lewis of Marlborough, being called by Mr Braddon, witnessed, That upon the day of the Earl's Death, riding within three or four Miles of Andover (fifty two Miles from London) between three and five in the Afternoon, a man told him for news, that he heard the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat; and that at his going home to Marlborough the next day, he told his Neighbours what he had heard the day before; and that they thereupon said, It was done but yesterday, how could you hear it so soon?  
Mr Feilder of Andover witnessed, That upon the Wednesday and Thursday of the Week, in which the Earl of Essex died, it was the common talk of the Town of Andover; 
† Note, in like manner it was proved in the Tayal of the Lord Stafford, that it was reported at a great distance, that Sir Edmundbury Godfrey had murdered himself before it was known at London what was become of him.  that he had cut his Throat; that the Women talked of it, as they came in & out of the Town; and that on the Saturday night in that Week, the certain news of it came.  
M Edward's, (the Boy's Mother) testified, that the Boy came from the Tower, and told her, that he had seen the King, etc. and that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat, and then wept; and further said, That he saw a Razor thrown out at the Window, and was going to take it up, but a short fat Woman came and took it, and went in again, that he told her all this weeping and crying; and never denied it, till after Mr Braddon had been there, and then denied it upon this occasion; when Mr B. came, his enquiry put them all into a great damp; and after he was gone, the Boy being then at School, her Husband said to her Daughter Sarah, Don't you say any thing to your Brother, and when he comes in, we will talk to him; that her Daughter was grievously affrighted thereat, and so amazed, that so soon as the Boy came in, She told him, that there had been a Gentleman to inquire about what he had said; and that he thereupon said to her, Why Sister, will any thing of harm come? and upon her answering him, That She did not know, but it might be, her Father and the Family might be ruined; he then denied what he had said; but at the same time, he came to his Mother, and cried he should be hanged (this was also acknowledged by the Daughter.)  
Sarah Edward's, (the Boy's Sister) testified, what the Boy had declared of seeing the Razor, etc. And that She told him upon Tuesday the 17th of July, that a Gentleman had been there to inquire about it; and that the Boy did thereupon ask her, whether any harm would come of it; and that upon her answering him that She could not tell; he did deny what he had declared. That Mr B. came again soon after, upon the same day, and found them all daunted upon their hearing the Boy deny it; and Mr Brad. asked him about it; & bade him speak the Truth, telling him, 
* Indeed Jovian Hicks, & many others of our passively Obedient and Non-Resisting Gentlemen of the Cassock, have handled many Texts of Scripture at a very unwarrantable rate, to decoy Mankind, to the foolish Exchange of their glorious title to Freedom, for that of Slavery: But we have here the first instance, of a Man's preaching up the lawfulness of Perjury, from the dreadful Judgement of Heaven upon Ananias & Sapphira.  It was a dreadful thing to be a Liar; and bade him read the 5th of the Acts, where he would find, that two were struck dead for telling a Lye.  
She further testified, that Mr Braddon came the next day (the Wednesday) about noon; and that than her Brother [probably having read the 5th of Acts] did again own that what he had declared about the Razor, etc. was true; that Mr Braddon wrote down what he acknowledged; and she further confessed, that she told the Boy, that his Father would be in danger of loseing his Place.  
The matter pinching at this time, the Chief Justice to perplex the Cause, and divert from the Evidence, fell to hectoring Mr Wallop (Counsel for the Defendants) a Person of great Integrity, and Master of more Law, than all the Judges then upon the Bench; telling him, in a most scurrilous manner, that he was zealous for Faction and Sedition [as every Man was deemed to be at that Conuncture, who was so hardy, as to stand up in any honest Cause, in that Court] and impetuous in the worst of Causes; and that his Lordship could see nothing in all this Cause but villainy and baseness, [which in truth, to an high degree, was most evident in the carriage of the Court and Prosecutors of this Cause] and that Mr Wallop should not have liberty, to broach his Seditious Tenets there, [Such, the asserting the native Rights of Englishmen, were in that day esteemed, by the Bene placito Judges of that Court.]  
Mrs Burt, then produced by Mr Braddon, testified, That She was present when Mr Braddon came to speak with the Boy; and that he said to him, if it be true that you have spoken, own it; for 'tis a dreadful thing to be found in a Lie; and that Mr Braddon advised him to read the 5th of Acts; and that the Boy then said, Sir, it is true, and what I said I will speak, before any Justice of Peace in the World; and he then told Mr Braddon the whole Story.  
Jane Lodeman (a Girl 13. years old) called by Mr Braddon, declared, that she did not know young Edward's; and testified, that she saw an hand throw a bloody Razor out of the Earl of Essex's Window; and presently after heard two Shrieks, or two Groans; and saw a Woman come out in a White-Hood; but did not see her take up the Razor; and she added, that she presently told all this to her Aunt.  
Here Mr Solicitor was pleased to sport himself with the Girl, by way of Dialogue, thus.  Solicitor, 
Was the Razor bloody?  Girl, 
Yes.  Solicitor, 
Very bloody:  Girl, 
Yes.  Solicitor, 
Are you sure 'twas a Razor or a Knife?  Girl, 
I am sure 'twas a Razor.  Solicitor, 
Was it open, or shut?  Girl, 
It was open.  Solicitor, 
What colour was the handle?  Girl, 
Sir, I cannot tell, I see it but as it flew out.  Solitior, 
Was it all over bloody?  Girl, 
No.  Solicitor, 
All but a little speck?  Girl, 
It was very bloody.  
Then Jeffryes, finding the Girl to be more than a Match for her first Assailant, falls in to his aid, and first bellows out a terrifying Exclamation, Blessed God What an Age do We live in? [That the King's Learned Council, with all their Cunning, cannot confound these innocent, honest, Infant Witnesses] and then taking up the same Dialoguing Cudgel, falls roundly upon the Girl, thus.  Chief Justice: 
Girl, you say you did not know that 'twas the Earl of Essex's Window.  Girl, 
No, but as they told me.  Chief Justice, 
Nor you did not see any body take up the Razor.  Girl, 
No.  Chief Justice, 
But are you sure you did not?  Girl, 
I am sure I did not.  Chief Justice, 
But, Child, recollect thyself, sure thou didst see some body take it up?  Girl, 
No I did not.  
The Goliath thus miscarrying, Mr Braddon proceeded in his Evidence, and called the Girl's Aunt, Mrs Smyth, who witnessed, that the Girl coming from the Tower, upon the 13th of July, told her, that she saw a Razor thrown out of a Window, &c. and that Mr Braddon hearing of it, came as a Stranger to inquire about it; and ever encouraged the Girl to speak the truth; and bade her speak nothing but what was truth; and that he never offered her or the Girl any thing.  
Mr William Glasbrooke testified, That upon the 13th of July, he heard the Girl very loud with her Aunt, saying, the Earl of Essex has cut his Throat in the Tower; and that her Aunt chiding her, she said, she was sure it was true, for she saw a bloody Razor thrown out of the Window; and that he the said Witness was present, when Mr Braddon first discoursed the Girl; having never seen him before; and he heard her tell Mr Braddon, that the Earl of Essex cut his Throat, and that she saw a bloody Razor thrown out of the Window, and that she heard two Groans, or two Shrieks.  
Then, Mr Smyth, being called by Mr Braddon, testified, that he went with Mr Braddon to the Girl, and heard her tell him, that she saw an hand toss a Razor out at the Earl of Essex's Lodgings; and that she heard two Shrieks; and saw a Woman come out, with White head-Cloathes; but did not see any one take up the Razor.  
Mrs Meux was then produced by Mr Braddon to testify, that she went from London to Berk-shire, the day before the Lord russel's Trial; and that a Gentlewoman in the Coach with her, than told her, that one of the Lords in the Tower had cut his Throat. At this the quondam City Mouth, stormed and huffed at his wont rate, refusing to hear the Evidence, and demanding why they brought not the Woman which told this to Mrs Meux; and was answered, that she was so big with Child, that she could not come.  
Mr Burgess of Marlborough then testified, that he being at Froome (in ) upon the day of the Earl of Essex's death; he heard there, a Report that his Lordship had murdered himself.  
Then, the King's Council produced the Coroner's well instructed Witnesses, to prove that this Noble Peer was Felo de se; who were Bomency (his Lordship's Servant, now in France, and a professed Papist) Hawley, and Russell the Warder, and Lloyd the Centinel.  
Now, because the Depositions of these Fellows, will appear in their most true and best light, in the Abstract of some of the proofs, made about this most barbarous Assassination; which (with the leave of the candid and ingennons Abstracter thereof) I purpose to subjoin, I shall not here enlarge upon them.  
The Evidence on both sides being given, in the last place comes Jeffryes, to descant and remark upon it, which he did in an harangue which makes six leaves in Folio; (half as many, as the Acts of all the Parliaments in the Reign of Charles the Martyr do fill in our Statute Book) He tells the Jury, That there is scarce in nature a greater crime than this before them— It carries all the Venom and Baseness, the greatest Inveteracy against the Government, that ever any Case did— That the Earl of Essex, rather than he would abide his Trial, he being conscious, the great Gild he had contracted, made him destroy himself, immediately after my Lord Russell (one of the Conspirators) was carried to Trial; and it cannot be thought, but it was to prevent the methods of Justice, in his own Case: there was digitus dei in it, and 'tis enough to sati fie all the World of the Conspiracy— 'Tis beyond all peradventure true, that my Lord of Essex did minder himself.  
Then, the Jury by their Verdict, brought in Mr Braddon Guilty of the whole matter charged upon him in the Information; and Mr Speke Guilty of all, but conspiring to procure false Witnesses.  
The Court adjudged Mr Braddon to pay 2000 l. Fine; to find Sureties for good behaviour for Life, and to be committed till performed. Mr Speke, to pay 1000 l. Fine, to find Sureties for good behaviour for Life; and to be committed till performed.   

An Abstract of some material Proofs which have been made in Relation to the Death of the Earl of Essex.  

First for disproof of the Earl's Self-Murder.  
THE Right Honourable Arthur late Earl of Essex was Committed to the Tower, upon Tuesday the 10th of July, 1683, and there were two Warders placed over him (viz) Monday and Russell, and one Servant (viz.) Paul Bomeney was permitted to attend upon him; The very next Friday Morning about nine of the Clock, his Lordship was found dead in his Closet, with his Throat cut through both Jugular Arteries to the Neckbone.  
Now, seeing our Law presumes every Man destroyed by violent Hands, is murdered by others, unless such Evidence appears as gives satisfaction in the contrary, and proves him a Self-Murder; This Lord had been found to be barbarously murdered, had not Bomeney, Monday and Russell appeared to prove the contrary, and they endeavoured to prove it thus;  
My Lord of Essex (they say) called for a Penknife to pair his Nails, which Penknife not being ready, he required a Razor, which was accordingly delivered him, with which his Lordship having pared his Nails, he retired into his Closet, and looks himself in, and there he cut his Throat; and the Razor (before delivered to pair his Nails) lying by the Body.  
But that this Relation is forged, and that there was, First, No Razor delivered to my Lord to pair his Nails, nor had his Lordship pared his Nails with any.  
Secondly, Neither the Body locked into the Closet: Nor  
Thirdly, The Razor lying locked in by the Body, when my Lord was first known to be dead, is evident from what follows, which clearly detects this Forgery. For the first of these, that there was no Razor delivered to my Lord.  
This appears by the Contradictions of Bomeney, Russel and Monday, as to the time of the delivering this Razor, for Bomeney first swears, he delivered this Razor to my Lord to pair his Nails on Friday Morning at eight of the Clock; & within two hours, positively swears in the deposition himself writ, that he delivered it on Thursday morning at eight of the Clock (being the day before his death) and this as to the Thursday, he swears positively and circumstantially, positively, for he doth expressly name Thursday, as the day on which the Razor was delivered; and circumstantially, for he doth swear the Razor was delivered the very next morning after my Lord came to Captain Hawley's; and his Lordship went to Hawley's, on Wednesday the 11th of July. But,  
Russell swears a point blank contradiction to Bomeney's Oath; for Russell deposeth, and now declares, that on Friday morning, in less than half an hour before they found my Lord dead in his Closet, he stood as Warder at my Lord's Chamber-Door, (Monday that morning having first stood as Warder on my Lord, and was then gone down to stand below Stairs) and heard my Lord ask Bomeney for a Penknife to pair his Nails; which being not ready, his Lordship required a Razor; which he did immediately see Bomeney deliver his Lordship. But,  
Monday doth as directly give the Lie to Russell, as Russell did to Bomeney, for Monday, the day my Lord died, declared, he saw my Lord have a Razor in his Hand, paring his Nails with it, at seven a Clock that morning my Lord died, and this about two hours before Russell came up, to stand as Warder at my Lord's Chamber-door.  
Wherefore, unless it can be reconciled how this Razor should be delivered a Thursday Morning at eight of the Clock, according to Bomeneys Oath; and yet not delivered till Friday Morning at nine of the Clock, within half an hour of the time his Lordship was found dead, and delivered whilst Russell stood Warder at the Chamber-door, as Russell deposeth; And notwithstanding this, my Lord to have had the Razor, and pared his Nails with it two hours before Russell came up Stairs to stand Warder at my Lord's Chamber, as Monday declared the very day my Lord died. I say unless these Contradictions can be reconciled, it can't be thought that any Razor at all was delivered; And than whereas all declared my Lord pared his Nails with the Razor; by strict observation, it appeared my Lord's Nails were not newly, before his Death, either pared or scraped.  
2dly, That the Closet-door was not locked upon my Lord's body, appears by the contradictions of these three, as to the opening the Close-door. Bomeney first swore, he did open the Door (when my Lord would not answer upon his knocking at the Door) and there saw my Lord lying dead in his Blood, and the Razor by him, and he then called the Warders; but immediately swears in contradiction to his first Oath, that he peeped through a chink of the Door, and saw Blood and part of the Razor, and then without opening the Door, ran and called Russell, who thereupon first opened the Door, and at Mr Braddon's Trial, swears he knew not who opened the Door.  
Russell deposeth he did first open the Door, and makes no difficulty in it; Then comes Monday, and gives the Lie to both: For,  
Monday (the very day my Lord died) declared (what he hath since often confirmed) that neither Bomeney nor Russell could stir the Door, my Lord's Body lay so close and hard against it, and he being stronger than either, put his Shoulders against the Door, and pressing with all his might broke it open.  
Whosoever there is that can reconcile these Contradictions (in these three men's Relations) and make all appear credible.  
— Erit mihi magnus Apollo.  
A further Argument, that the Closet-Door was not locked upon the Body, appears by my Lord's Legs lying upon the Threeshold of the Closet-door, when the Body was pretended not to have been stirred from its first posture.  
3dly, That there was no Razor lying locked in with the Body, when the Body was first found, appears by the bloody Razour's being thrown out of my Lord's Chamber-Window, (which is about seventeen Foot distant from the Closet-Door, where the Body lay) and no noise of my Lord's death, till after the Maid carried up the Razor; which Maid thereupon first discovered my Lord's death.  
And, as yet other Argument, of the Perjury of these perfidious Villains, add the Mathematical impossibility of the Wound, seeing not above two Inches of the Razor must be without my Lord's hand, (had he done it himself) and yet the Wound above three Inches deep. Moreover, by many eminent Doctors and Chirurgeons; the Wound is thought to be naturally impossible to have been done by my Lord himself, because upon cutting the first Jugular Artery, such an effusion of Blood and Spirit would have immediately thereupon followed, that Nature would not have been strong enough for to cut through the other Jugular Artery, to the Neckbone on the other side, muchless, to make so many, and so large Notches, in the Razor against the Neckbone, as an old foolish or K— Chirurgeon suggested to the Coroner's Jury.  
Wherhfore, by what is before observed, as to the many Contradictions, it plainly appears, that these three (as it is said in the History of Susanna, vers. 6.) are convicted of false Relations by their own mouths; and those other Arguments before observed, are further Detections of these three men's Perjuries. It than remains as at first (viz.) That here is a Body found dead by violent Hands, and the manner of the Death not discovered (for it can't be according to these three men's Relations, for the Reasons before observed) The conclusion that the Law makes in such cases; in this, therefore holds good, (viz.) that this honourable Lord was Murdered by the violent and cruel Hands of barbarous and bloody minded men.  
Secondly, For the proof of the Murder; in this I shall first consider, what is most material which passed before my Lord's death.  
Secondly, The Day of his Death. And then  
Thirdly and Lastly, after the Day of his Death. In the  
First, Before my Lord's death, I shall consider,  
1st, The previous Resolutions by Papists to cut my Lord's Throat. And then,  
2dly, The many previous Reports before my Lord's death, That his Lordship had cut his own Throat in the Tower.  
For the first of these, D. S. declares, that about nine days before the Death of the late Earl of Essex, she heard several Papists consulting together, concerning the said Earl; And this Informant heard them say, the Earl of Essex was to be taken off, and that they had been with his Highness, and his Highness was first for poisoning the Earl; but that manner of Death being objected against; it was then said, one did propose to his Highness; Stabbing the Earl; but this way his Highness did not like; at length his Highness concluded and ordered his Throat to be cut; and his Highness had promised to be there when it was done. Some few days after some of the aforesaid Persons declared, it was resolved the Earl's Throat should be cut, but they would give it out that he had done it himself, and if any should deny it, they would take them, and punish them for it.   

Secondly, For the previous Reports before my Lord's death.  
It's proved, by eight several Witnesses, that before my Lord's death (or before it could be known) it was reported, that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat in the Tower, amongst the rest, it was at from, which is about one Hundred Miles from London, the Wednesday Morning; and at the same time at Andover, about sixty Miles from London, though at neither of these places, especially the former, could it then be known the Earl was a Prisoner in the Tower, his Lordship being not committed to the Tower, till the Tuesday in the Afternoon. All these Reports agreed in the manner how (viz.) cutting his Throat, and the place where (viz.) the Tower; and (which is further) at Andover the Wednesday Morning before my Lord's death, it was reported not only in the manner how, and place where, but likewise the pretended Reason wherefore, was given, for it was then, and there said, that the Earl of Essex being a Prisoner in the Tower, and understanding that the King and Duke were come into the Tower, his Lordship was afraid the King would have come up into his Chamber, and seen him; of which his Lordship's guilt and shame would not bear the Thought, and therefore he did cut his Throat to avoid it. This being declared two days before my Lord's death, when it could not have been in the least forethought, that the King and Duke would have come together into the Tower, where they had not been above twice together since the Restoration; I say, this previous Report, which so particularly clothed this action, with the how, where, and wherefore; clearly proves, That all things were so resolved upon to be done; or otherwise it is impossible it should have been reported under these three essential Qualifications, as to manner, place, and reason, before it was indeed done; especially at Andover, where it could not then be supposed to be known that my Lord was so much as a Prisoner in the Tower; this Reason the Papists themselves gave out just after my Lord's Death.   

Secondly, What passed the day my Lord Died.  
These then attending on my Lord (viz.) Russell and Monday the Warders, Bomeney the Servant, and Lloyd the Centinel at the door, did all deny that day my Lord died, that there were any Men let into my Lords Lodgings that morning before my Lord's Death. But now it appears, that there were some Ruffians, a little before my Lord's death, sent into his Lodgings to Murder him, which they did accordingly.  
R. Meake A Soldier in the Tower, that morning my Lord of Essex was Murdered, about one of the Clock that very day, near Algate, told B— and his Wife, That the Earl of Essex did not cut his own Throat, but was barbarously Murdered by his Royal Highness' Order; For the said Meake declared, That just before the Earl of Essex's Murder, his Highness sent two Men to the Earls Lodgings to Murder him, which after they had done, they threw the Razor out of the Window. Likewise a Soldier that morning in the Tower, about a eleven a Clock that morning my Lord died, in Baldwines-Gardens, informed G. and H. that the Earl of Essex did not cut his own Throat, but was barbarously Murdered by his Royal Highness' town Order. For the Soldier then declared, that a little before the Earl's Murder, his Royal Highness parted a little way from his Majesty, and then two Men were sent into the Earl's Lodgings, to Murder my Lord, which when they had done, they did again return to his Highness.  
Mr E— declares, That he saw his Royal Highness just before the Earl's Death, part a little from his Majesty, and then beckoned to two Gentlemen, to come to him, who came accordingly, his Highness thereupon sent them towards the Earl of Essex's Lodgings, and about a quarter of an hour after, this Informant saw these very two Men return to his Highness, and as they came, they smiled, and to the best of this Informants hearing and remembrance, said, the Business was done; upon which his Highness seemed very well pleased, and then went to his Majesty, to whom the News was immediately brought, that the Earl of Essex had cut his Throat.  
Lloyd the Centinel at my Lord's door, the day my Lord died (till the twenty first of January last) did deny the letting in of any men, (and Russell and Monday still deny it) but now Lloyd doth confess that just before my Lord's Death, two or three men, by Major Hawley's special Order, were let in, and immediately he heard them, (as he did suppose they were) go up Stairs into my Lord's Room, where there was a very great bustle and stir, so great, that the Centinel declared, he would have forced after them, had not the first door been made fast; upon the bustle he heard somewhat thrown down like the fall of a man, which he did suppose was my Lord's Body; soon after which, it was cried out, my Lord of Essex hath cut his own Throat.  
Here is not only these men's going in, but a great bustle confessed immediately thereupon, to ensue in my Lord's Room, and the Body of a man in this bustle to be thrown down; this is in a close Prisoners Room, where no one is admitted, but his Servant, and those that kept the door, denied upon Oath, that any were in my Lord's Chamber that morning my Lord died, before his Death. But these Warders, being supposed privy to the Fact, would not own the admitting of those men, which themselves let in with such a Murderous design; and it is to be presumed that this Centinel was not a stranger to the matter, but enjoined to secrecy; for otherwise he would never have declared to a Friend, under a repeated request of secrecy, that this Confession (as before) laid upon his Conscience, and troubled him night and day, for tho' it was indeed very true, that he did let in these men, it was what he should not have confessed. This Consirmation to his acquaintance (under a great and repeated injunction of secrecy) argues first, that this Confession was indeed true.  
Secondly, That there is some cursed Confederacy (its probable by Oath) entered into to stifle this Murder, for what other probable reason can be assigned for that trouble of Conscience in this Confession, seeing himself at the same time declared it was true, tho' he should not have said it? There are some other arguments that this Centinel was particeps Criminis in the Privity; first his retraction in part of what he did confess; for, upon his being first apprehended, he owned the throwing out of the Razor, before my Lord's Death was known, but now he retracts and disowns it; Another instance of his privity, is his now prevaricating, in his now pretending, that these men were let in an hour, or more before my Lord's Death; whereas at first he declared they were let in before my Lord's Death; for, as soon as let in, he heard several go up Stairs into my Lord's Room, and heard the bustle, etc. as before.  
A third argument of this Sentinels privity, is his not declaring the whole truth, which he must know; for one at a greater distance that saw these Ruffians, as they were bustling with the my Lord, and heard the bustle, did likewise hear one of these in the bustle (as it seemed to be, (and therefore presumed to be my Lord, cry out very loud, and very dolefully, Murder, Murder, Murder; The Centinel who could hear the trampling, or indeed the very walking in my Lord's Chamber, could not but hear this Murder, so loud and often repeated: It appears by five Cuts in my Lords right hand, (viz.) two upon his forefinger, one upon the fourth-finger, another on the little-finger, and the fifth about two Inches long in the palm of his right hand, that his Lordship in this bustle made great resistance; for these Cuts can be supposed to be done no otherwise, then by endeavouring to put off the cruel Instrument of his Death.  
The next thing that I should observe, which happened the day my Lord died, and gives us reason to believe the Murder, is the Irregularity committed upon the Body before the Jury saw it, the Body was stripped and washed, and the Room and Closet washed, and my Lords  carried away (tho' all Men know the Body should have remained in its first posture, till the Coroners Jury had seen it.)  
Sir T. R. as himself saith, declared to the Lords, that the Body was not stirred from its first posture, till the next morning about ten of the Clock. To this Sr. Tho. has not sworn (for he was not sworn before the Lords) and 'tis well he has not, for herein he is so much mistaken, that the contrary can be proved by almost twenty Witnesses, had the Body remained in its first posture, by my Lords Cravat being cut in three parts, the Jury would have plainly seen, that his Lordship could not so do it, with a Razor; And then, Secondly, they would have perceived the print of a bloody Foot upon my Lord as he lay in the Closet, by which it appeared some one had been with the Body in the Closet, and several other material circumstances might have been discovered, which by the total (illegal) alteration of the Circumstances of the Body etc. were destroyed.  
About three of the Clock in the afternoon that day my Lord died, some of those bloody men (who had been at the Consult) met at Holme's House, and one of them leapt about the Room as overjoyed, and as the Master of the House came into the Room, he strikes him upon the back, and cried, The Feat was done, or We have done the Feat; upon which the Master said, Is the Earls Throat cut? To which the other replied, Yes; And further said, He could not but Laugh to think, how like a Fool the Earl of Essex looked, when they came to cut his Throat.  
To destroy the Testimony of this Dorothy Smyth, Holms hath produced two Witnesses who (by many Witnesses) appear to be for-sworn in every part of their Depositions. His defence being false, his Charge therefore may be concluded true.   

Thirdly and lastly, What passed after the day of my Lord's Death.  
That very morning, several Soldiers (which were presumed able to discover what was material, with relation to his Death) were called together (As Meakes then said) and enjoined to secrecy, under very severe Penalties.  
About ten of the Clock in the morning, the next day, the Jury met, and were surprised to see all the Ciroumstances of my Lord's body changed from what was first discovered.  
After the Jury had seen the naked Body at Hawley's, the Coroner adjourned them to a Victualling: House in the Tower; one of the Jury demanded a sight of the , but the Coroner was immediately called into the next Room, from which returning to the Jury in some Heat, he told them, It was the Body, and not the  they were to sit upon, the Body was there, and that was sufficient.  
One of the Jury then said, My Lord of Essex was esteemed a very sober, sedate, and good Man (which Bomeney then confirmed, saying, His Lord was a very pious Man) and therefore it was improbable so good a man should be guilty of the worst of Actions. Upon which Hawley told the Jury, They were misinformed in my Lord's Character, for every man that was well acquainted with my Lord, well knew that it had ever been a fixed Principle in him, that any man might cut his Throat, or any otherwise dispose of his Life, to avoid a disho, nourable and infamous Death; wherefore this Action, which they thought unlike him, was according to his avowed and fixed Principles. This made the Jury the more easily believe that my Lord had indeed done it.  
Some of the Jury were for adjourning their Inquisition to some further day, and in the mean time to fend notice to the Earls Relations, so that if any thing appeared on my Lord's behalf, it might be produced. Hawley hereupon assured the Jury, that they could not adjourn their enquiry, for his Majesty had sent one for their Inquisition, and would not rise from the Coun. till it was brought him; This the Jury believing, immediately made all haste possible, whereas otherwise they might have been more strict, and particular in their Examinations; Hawley in answer to this totally denies all, and protests that he was not nigh the Jury in the Victualing-House all the time the Jury sat, tho' most of the Jury can say the contrary. And as for the suggesting Self-Murder to be my Lord's Principle, he did protest he did never hear it said, till their Lordships in this Committee told him it had been so declared. This clearly proves that the pretended Principle of Self-Murder, was a forgery of that bloody Party which Murdered my Lord, And Hawley pitched upon as the most proper person to corrupt the Jury with the belief of it.  
The backwardness of the then Government to examine this matter, and their unjust proceed against the Prosecution (for they discouraged and ruined him who did humbly offer the matter to a judicial consideration, tho' no crime or colour of offence was proved against him) is further evidence of this Murder.  
The Government turned old Edward's out of his Place for what his Son said in this matter, and hereby inverted the old Proverb, For here the Sons eating sour Grapes, had set the Father's teeth an edge.  
A poor Soldier was barbarously Whipped (after he had been cruelly managed in Prison) for only saying, That he would not say, that he believed the Earl of Essex cut his own Throat. But a more barbarous Cruelty is justly suspected to have been committed in the after Murder of several (viz.) of meek and Hawley, etc. to prevent a defection of this Murder.  
Tho' the Government heretofore had received private Intimations, and in Print public Applications for a Pardon, and thereupon a promise of a full Discovery, and in both these the Duke of York particularly charged as the chief Contriver of this horrid Cruclty, yet the then Government would never permit such an Inquisition to be made, but punished those that dispersed those public Challenges; Had his Highness been really Innocent, none would have been more zealous for such a Proclamation of Pardon, for Innocence desires a Trial, and its only Gild that flies from Justice. Another Argument of this Murder, and likewise of Major Webster's Gild therein, is Webster's producing my Lord's Pocket-handkerchief all bloody to some of his Neighbours, rejoicing at the blood of a Traitor, and the very next day to some of the same Person, he produced part of the price of Blood, viz. a Purse of Gold, wherein there were Forty nine Guineas, and a Pistol which he shown in great Ostentation, but all this was but a small part of that villainous Reward, for sometime after my Lord's Death, when his Wife was upbraided with her Husband's Poverty, she replied, her Husband long since was not so Poor, for he had Five hundred Guineas, at which the other being stariled, answered, most certainly he could not come by them honestly, to which it was said, that he got them by his Trade, but to that it was replied, that his Trade could hardly get Bread, therefore there must be some other way.  
It's very probable that Websters Wife speaking of his Trade, might intent Murder, in which it is supposed he has been more than once concerned, tho' the other misunderstood her.  
That she was not a stranger to his Gild appears, by her often telling him (upon her hard Usage) that he was a Fool, as well as a Rogue to use her so ill, he knowing it to be in her power to Hang both him and another in the Tower; A like Instance there happened upon a Quarrel between Holmes and his Wife, soon after my Lord's Death, she thereupon told him, he was a Murdering Rogue, and he well knew, that she could at any time hang him for it, to which Holmes answered (with his usual scurrolous Language, you Bitch, you Whore, you of all the World have no reason to speak, for do not you remember I bought you a good Satin Gown and Petticoat, whereupon the wife replied, you are a Murdering Rogue for all that.    

REMARKS Upon the Proceed in the Case of Edward Fitz-Harris Esq: in the Court of Kings-Bench, in the Year 1681.  
IT may not be forgotten, that the Popish Plot in 1678, was to have been ushered into the World, by a Presbyterian, or Fanatic Conspiracy; to that end, in July 1678, when the Papists had resolved to dispatch King Charles, to make way for King James the Second; Mr Claypoole (because Son-in-Law to Cromwell) was clapped into the Tower, (upon the Accusation of Sing a Papist) upon a pretence, that he was to seize the King in his way to 
* That Newmarket, or the way to it, was the place designed for dispatching the King, long before Keeling made it so, in the year 1683; is very evident, for by the Journal of the House of Lords (upon the 12th of November 1678) it appears, that Conyers (Confessor to the Lord Bellasis) had at this very time, in 1678▪ undertaken to kill the King, in his morning Walks, at Newmarket; Were the Newmarket Fire throughly (even at this day) examined, it might be found, that that Town was as certainly burnt by the Papists, to countenance Keeling's Plot, which immediately succeeded; as 'tis certain that they Burnt London; and that the great Earl of Essex's Throat was cut, in order to the Murder of the good Lord Russell.  Newmarket; And it doth as well deserve Remembrance, that the Conspirators, having been disappointed and vexed, with the unlucky discovery of their Plot; Resolved, to make one Fanatic Plot, or other, to thrust theirs off the Stage; and to turn the Popish into a Protestant Plot; Thereupon, the danger of Forty one, and of Fanaticism, was most industriously discoursed and preached; And, which was more, a great Prelate declared, that tho' it was true, That there was a Popish Plot, there was also a greater design carrying on by the Forty one Party.  
Matters being thus prepared (cost what it will) we must have another Plot, that the belief of that of the Papists may be blasted, and the management thereof is now committed to Madam Wall, (Chambermaid to the Duchess of Portsmouth, always a Creature of the D. of York's, and now the same Lady Ogelthorp who was lately seized at Chester going for Ireland) this Woman of Intrigue introduces and recommends to K. C. the second, Mr Edward Fitz-Harris, an Irish Papist, and he was directed to make a Counterplot, in which we find Rome and Hell united with our Conspirators, for the destruction of Protestants; and Fitz. H. is encouraged to it with great Rewards and greater Promises.  
In order to the framing and fitting this new intended Plot, against the meeting of the Parliament at Oxford, upon the 21st of March 1680. Fitz. Harris renews an old acquaintance which he had with Mr Everard, who pretended himself a Confident of the Earl of Shaftesbury 's, and en tertained his old Friend Fitz-H. with complaints of that Noble Lord, and his Party; hereby was Fitz-H. encouraged to tamper with Everard, to join with him in framing a most Traitorous Libel against the Government: There were great as well as little Villains in this design; and Fitz. H. was daily instructed at Whitehall, and directed to adapt their Libel to the humour, and make it speak the Language of the highest Malcontents; that thereby their Plot might gain belief, and appear plausible to the World; accordingly they set about it, Fiz. H. furnishing Materials, and Everard drawing it into form; The Conspirators were Cocksure of catching the Earl of Shaftesbury, and the discontented party (as they termed all the avowed Enemies of Popery, and true Friends to the English Liberties) in this share; it being resolved to disperse this hellish Paper amongst them, and then to seize it upon them.  
After several meetings about this Intrigue, between Everard and Fitz-Harris they appointed to complete their work at Everard's Lodgings, about the last of February 1680, against that time, Everard planted Sir William Waller, and Smyth (known by the Name of Narrative Smyth) within hearing; They then perfecting their Libel, and each of them taking a Copy of it, Fitz-Harris runs with great joy with it, to Nell Wall, to Whitehall, but the King being unluckily at Windsor, he fatally miss the opportunity of being beforehand with Everard; and was seized in his Bed by Sir William Waller, and carried to Secretary Jenkins; and being the next day brought before the Council, the Witnesses were examined, and he was committed to Newgate for high Treason; Notwithstanding a great Man said, that Fitz-Harris was his Friend, and that Waller was a Rogue, and had spoiled all.  
Fitz-Harris being fast, and reflecting, no doubt, upon Colman's fate, began to relent, and offers to make full discovery of the Villainy, and of those who omployed him in it; Thereupon, Sir Robert Clayton and Sir George Treby (as Justices of London) took his Examination; This gave great offence at Whitehall; insomuch, that he who had the Power of Life and Death, positively declared that he should die; and to prevent his further discovery, which he had promised to make, he is instantly removed, and kept most closely in the Tower, where he was most rigorously handled, to make him retract his Confession.  
The Conspirators, being thus defeated, of this hopeful Fanatic Plot, calculated for the entertainment of the Oxford Parliament; and well knowing that Fitz-H. and his Wife could make it out, who set them to work; and that he was paid 250 l. at Whitehall for this Service; They came to a resolution, that the Parliament must not pry into this mystery of Iniquity; however,  
The Parliament being met, the House of Commons fell upon it, and on Friday the 25th of March, 1681. Upon the reading Sir Robert Clayton's and Sir George Treby's Examination of Fitz-Harris; Sir John Hotham moved, that it might be printed, to show the World the devilish Conspiracies of the Papists; which motion was seconded by Sir William Jones, who said, that People had been prevailed upon to believe, the Plot not true, and that that Examination confirmed the Informations of Oats and Bedloe.  
Sir Francis Winnington added, that the Treasonable Paper of Fitz-Harris, was to have been sent to many Gentlemen, and they to have been seized thereupon, as Traitors in a Conspiracy against the King; That all was at stake, therefore let not our Courage lessen; Let us go to the bottom of this business of Fitz-Harris; I move, he may be impeached of High-Treason; and it may be he will relent and tell you all.  
Sir Robert Clayton then said, That, when F. Harris his Examination was taken at Newgate, he told him, that he thought he had not dealt ingenuously, unless he would tell what Council he had for drawing the Paper; and that he had him be ingenuous in the whole matter, and he would come and take his further Examination; and that F. Harris having promised this; he was removed out of their reach into the Tower.  
Wherepon, an Impeachment was ordered; & Sir L. Jenkins commanded to carry it to the Lords; and Col. Birch said, That we ought all to give God thanks for this discovery of Fitz-Harris next to the first discovery of the Plot.  
Upon Saturday the 26th of March, 1681, the House of Commons being informed, that the House of Lords had refused to proceed upon the Impeachment.  
Sir Thomas Lee said, That he saw, by the Lords refusing the Impeachment, no further use of Parliaments, That they would be a Court, or not a Court, to serve a present purpose.  
Then Sir William Jones spoke to this effect; Indictments were brought against the Lords in the Tower, and yet that was no impediment to their Impeachment in the Lord's House; but, here is no Indictment, or Prosecution brought against Fitz-Harris. We have an instance fresh in memory, Scroggs a Commoner, and not indicted at Common-Law, yet the Lords without scruple accepted his Impeachment; We find the Lords have determined a great point, The Lords Spiritual, as well as Temporal, have voted the refusal of the Impeachment of Fitz-Harris, which we own not in this Judicature, nor I hope never shall; and, We are denied Justice by the Lords Spiritual, who have no right to Vote; This is a double act of Injustice; Let us then Vote. That the Commons have a Right to impeach in capital Cases; and that the Lords have denied us Justice in refusing the Impeachment, in a Parliamentary way; At a conference, show how unwarrantable the Lords Actions have been, and if the dissolution of the Parl. follows, it's the fault of those Men who will not hear our Reasons.  
Sir Francis Winnington backed this Motion, and said; This Impeachment is not an ordinary Accusation, but it relates to our Religion, and Property and how the Bishops come to stifle this, let God and the World judge— If the Lords will vote, that the Commons shall not impeach him; They may as well vote, they shall not be Prosecutors. This is a new Plot against the Protestants, of which F. Harris is accused; and We must not Impeach him; In this, the Lords say, we must not hear it;— I desire you would come to some Vote, you are willing to discover the Plot, if you could;— If our time be short (as I believe it is) pray come to some Resolution to assert your Right;— A little while ago, when the Duke was presented for a Papist, the Grand-Jury was dismissed by the Chief Justice; This seems, as if the Lords would justify the Judges Proceed, by their own;— If not Man doubts our Right, pray vote it.  
Sir Robert Howard then spoke to this effect, This of Fitz-Harris seems to me, to be a more dangerous breath then usual, a breath fit to be stifled; There is something in this more than ordinary. If there be so sacred a respect to common Trials, in Inferior Courts; 'tis strange, that the House of Commons should be below a Common-Jury;— It seems the Lord's value Fitz-Harris to keep him from us,— If Dangerfield would speak what he knew, nothing of Mercy was too big for him; but they hurry Fitz-Harris away to the Tower, when he began to confess in Newgate; Are you so lost, that you have no Mercy left for the Protestant Religion— We hear that the French Ambassador had a hand in this Plot, which a Jury will not inquire into. I must confess, that by the carriage of this, I have enlarged my suspicion, for I cannot but suspect unusual ways— Something depends upon this Man— Sure We must not lay down all Prosecution of the Plot, and say, that the Protestant Religion shall have no Mercy. Fitz-Harris may merit Mercy by Confession, and if his breath be stopped by the Lords, I am sorry that People will say, If it were not for the Lds. F. H. might have discovered all the Conspiracy, and the Protestant Religion might have been saved.  
Mr Sergeant Maynard then added, We all know what Arts and Crafts have been used, to hid the Plot; it began with Murder, Perjury and Subornation; This of Fitz-Harris is a second part of it; The Lords deny to receive our Impeachment; In effect, they make this no Parliament; if We are the Prosecutors, and they will not hear our Accusation; 'tis strange, when their own lives, as well as ours, are concerned in the Plot— When all is at stake; We must not prosecute; If this be so, Holland and Flanders must submit to the French; and they run over all: This is a strange breach of Privilege, and tends to the danger of the King's Person, and destruction of the Protestant Religion.  
Sir Thomas Player then said, This of Fitz-Harris is a considerable confirmation of the former Plot; I call it the Old Plot, but 'tis still new upon us; when he inclined to discover what he knew, he was fetched to White-Hall, and sent to the Tower; and so We were deprived of all further hopes of discovery; and now they stop his Mouth; I move therefore, That you will declare, That if any Judge, Justice, or Jury, proceed upon him, and he found guilty; that you will declare them guilty of his Murder, and Betrayers of the Rights of the Commons of England; Hereupon the House came to these Resolves.  
That it is the undoubted right of the Commons in Parliament assembled; to impeach, before the Lords in Parliament, any Peer, or Commoner for Treason, or any other Crime or Misdemeanour; and that the Refusal of the Lords to proceed in Parliament upon such Impeachment, is a denial of Justice, and a violation of the Constitution of Parliaments.  
That in the Case of E. Fitz-Harris, who by the Commons, has been impeached for High Treason, before the Lords, with a Declaration, That in convenient time, they would bring up the Articles against him; For the Lords, to resolve, that the said Fitz-Harris should be proceeded with, according to the course of the Common-Law; and not by way of Impeachment in Parliament; is a denial of Justice; and a Violation of the Constitution of Parliaments; and an Obstruction to the further discovery of the Popish Plot; and of great danger to his Majesty's Person, and the Protestant Religion.  
That for any Inferior Court to proceed against him, or any other Person, lying under an Impeachment in Parliament, for the same Crimes, for which he or they stand impeached, is an high breach of the Privilege of Parliament.  
This matter, thus agitated in the House of Commons, was countenanced by a Protestation of many Temporal Lords, which was to this effect,  
That in all Ages, it had been an undoubted Right of the Commons, to impeach before the Lords any Subject for Treasons, or any other Crime whatsoever.  
That they could not reject such Impeachments, because that Suit or Complaint, can be determined no where else; for an Impeachment is at the Suit of the People; but an Indictment is at the Suit of the King; As, the King may Indict at his Suit, for Murder, and the Heir, or the Wife of the Party Murdered may bring an 
† Which was always to be preferred, and upon notice thereof, all Prosecutions at the King's Suit were to stop, till the Prosecution at the Suit of the Party was determined.  Appeal; And the King cannot Release that Appeal; nor his Indictment prevent the Proceed in it.  
It is an absolute denial of Justice; in regard it cannot be tried any where else; The House of Peers, as to Impeachments, proceed by virtue of their Judicial Power; and not by their Legislative; and as to that, act as a Court of Record; and can deny Suitors (especially the Commons of England, that bring legal Complaint before them) no more than the Judges of Westminster, can deny any suit, regularly commenced before them.  
Our Law saith, in the Person of the King, Nulli negabimus Justitiam, We will deny Justice to no single Person; yet here, Justice is denied to the whole Body of the People, This may be interpreted an exercise of Arbitrary Power, and have an influence upon the Constitution of the English Government; and be an encouragement to all Inferior Courts, to exercise the same Arbitrary Power, by denying the Presentments of Grand-Juries, &c for which, at this time, the Chief Justice stands impeached in the House of Peers.  
These Proceed may  the House of Peers to the King and People, especially at this time; and the more, in the particular Case of Edward Fitz-Harris, who is publicly known to be concerned in vile and horrid Treasons against his Majesty; and a great Conspirator in the Popish plot, to Murder the King, and destroy and subvert the Protestant Religion.  

Monmouth,  
Kent,  
Huntingdon,  
Bedford,  
Salisbury,  
Clare,  
Stamford,  
Sunderland,  
Essex,  
Shaftesbury,  
Macclesfield,  
Mordant,  
Wharton,  
Paget,  
Grey of work,  
Herbert of Cherbury,  
Cornwallis,  
Lovelace,  
Crew.   
This Protest was no sooner made upon Monday the 28th of March 1681, but the Parliament was instantly dissolved.  
Well, The Parliament being dismissed, Fitz-Harris must be Hanged out of the way, and the Term approaching, Scroggs the Chief Justice, who lay under an Impeachment for Treason in Parliament, is removed with marks of Favour and Respect; being allowed a Pension for Life, and his Son Knighted and made one of his Majesty's Learned Council; and Sir Francis Pemberton being advanced to the Seat of Lord Chief Justice, the Business of Fitz-Harris is brought before him, and Justice Jones, Justice Dolben, and Justice Raymond; and proceeded upon in the manner following.  
UPon the 27th of April 1681, an Indictment for high Treason, was offered to the Grand-Jury, for the Hundreds of Edmonton and Gore in Middlesex, against Fitz-Harris, whereupon,  
Mr Michael Godfrey, the Foreman, in the name of the Grand-Jury, desired the opinion of the Court, whether it were lawful and safe for them, to proceed upon it; in regard Fitz-Harris was Impeached in the late Parliament at Oxford, by the House of Commons, in the name of all the Commons of England.  
Mr Attorney General then said, That Mr Godfrey and two more, were against accepting the Bill; but the body of the Jury carried it, to hear the Evidence; and that thereupon, himself and Mr Solicitor went on upon the 
* A new way of dealing with Grand-Juries to procure the finding Bills of Indictment.  Evidence, and spent some time in opening it to the Jury; and We thought they would have found the Bill; but it seems, They have prevailed to put these scruples in the others heads; Then  
The Lord Chief Justice Pemberton said, your scruple is this; here was an Impeachment offered against Fitz-Harris to the Lords, which was not received, and thereupon there was a Vote of the House of Commons, that he should not be Tried by any other Inferior Court; We do tell you, 'tis our Opinion, that, If an Indictment be exhibited to you, you are bound to inquire, by virtue of your Oaths; you cannot, nor aught to take notice of any such Impeachment, nor Votes; and We ought to proceed according to Justice, in Cases that are brought before us: This We declare as the Opinion of all the Judges of England.  
Then the Jury went away, and afterwards found the Bill.  
Upon Saturday the 30th of April, Mr Fitz-Harris was brought to the King's Bench-Bar, and Arraigned upon the Indictment; whereupon, he offered a Plea in writing, to the Jurisdiction of the Court; and the Chief Justice said, We do not receive such Pleading as this, without a Counsels hand to it.  
Upon which, the Prisoner desired the Court, to assign Sir Francis Winnington, Mr Williams, Mr Pollexfen, and Mr Wallop, for his Council; which was accordingly done.  
Upon Monday the 2d of May, the four Council moved the Court to have longer time for drawing the Plea; and that they might have a sight of the Indictment as necessary to the drawing it; but they were opposed therein by Mr Attorney, and the Court denied both; Then Sir George Treby, and Mr Smith, were also assigned as Council for the Prisoner, at his request.  
Upon Wednesday the 4th of May, Fitz-Harris being brought from the Tower, to the King's Bench-Bar; Mr Wallop said, That they had not had those Instructions that were fit to direct them in drawing the Prisoner's Plea; not having prevailed for a sight of the Impeachment or Indictment; and that he conceived, that by the Law, as that Case was, upon a special Plea; The Prisoner ought to have a Copy of the Indictment.  
Then the Plea was read in these Words, viz.  
Et predictus Edwardus Fitzharris in propria persona sua ven. & dic. quod ipse ad Indictament. predict. respondere compelli non debet, quia dic. quod ante Indictament. pred. per Jur. pred. in forma pred. compert. scil. ad Parl. Dom. Reg. nunc inchoat. & tent. apud Oxon. in Com. Oxon. vicesimo primo die Martii anno Regni dict. Dom. Reg nunc tricesimo tertio, ipse idem Edw. Fitz-harris per Miiites Cives & Burgenses in eodem Parl. assemblat. nomine ipsor. & omnium Com. Angliae, secundum legem & cons. Parl. de alta proditione coram Magnat. & Procerib. hujus Regni Angl. in eodem Parl. assemblat. impetit fuit; quae quidem impetitio in plenis fuis robore & effect. adhuc remanet & existit, prout per Record. inde inter Recorda Parliamenti remanens plenius liquet & apparet. Et pred. Edw. Fitzharris ulterius dic. quod alta Proditio in Indictamento pred. per Jur. pred. in forma pred. compert. specificat. & mentionat. & alta Proditio unde ipse predict. Edw. Fitzharris in Parl. pred. modo ut prefert. impetit. fuit & existit, sunt una & eadem alta Proditio, & non alia neque diversa; & quod ipse pred. Edw. Fitzharris in Indictamento pred. nominat. & pred. Edw. Fitz-harris in Impetitione pred. nominat. est und & eadem persona, & non alia neque diversa: & hoc parat. est verificare, etc. Vnde ipse pred. Edw. Fitzharris petit Judicium si Cur. Dom. Reg. hic super Indictamentum pred. versus ipsum ulterius procedere vults etc.  
The Attorney General then prayed Judgement upon the Plea; saying, 'Tis an insufficient Plea; nay, 'tis no Plea to to bar you of your Jurisdiction; Whosoever will plead to the Jurisdiction, if he have any Record to plead, must produce it in Court; and for this matter, it will appear a plain frivolous Plea; for there is no such matter depending as this Plea alleges; Another thing is this, They have pleaded no Record at all, nor any Impeachment at all; For they say he was impeached by the Commons de alta Proditione; but that is nought; The Plea ought to set forth, for what Crime particularly; this is no Plea to the Jurisdiction, upon that point.— Upon an Impeachment, or Indictment, the King hath his Election to proceed upon which he will— This is not only apparently, a false Plea, but frivolous in itself, being to the Jurisdiction; For, there was never any thing of a Crime so great, but the Court of King's-Bench (which hath a Sovereign Jurisdiction, for Commoners especially) could take Cognizance of it.  
The Chief Justice then said, Pray consider, whether if it be an insufficient Plea, and such that no Issue can be taken upon it, whether you would not demur to it; Consider whether you think fit to demur, or to take Issue upon it, or reply to it; that it may come judicially for our Opinion.  
The King's Council; Mr Solicitor, Sergeant Jeffryes, Sir Francis Wythens, and Mr Saunders spoke much to the effect with Mr Attorney, and pressed to have the Plea rejected; but after much contrasting about the matter, the Attorney agreed to demur generally, and the Prisoner's Council immediately joined in Demurrer.  
Then Mr Attorney moved thus; I desire your Judgement, that the Plea may stand over ruled, for a plain fatal Error in is, This is a particular Indictment for the framing a most pernicious scandalous Label against the King; They, to out the Court of this Jurisdiction, plead, that he was Impeached of high Treason in general; Now, Pleas to the Jurisdiction, aught to be the most certain of any Pleas whatsoever.  
Mr Solicitor added, This Plea is neither good in matter nor form; he that pleads an Indictment or Impeachment in another Court, must set it forth in the Plea; which is not done in this Case, and We take that to be fatal to it.  
Mr Williams (for the Prisoner) then said, We hope the Court in this Case will not tie us up presently to argue this matter; Mr Attorney says, he never found that any Plea to the Jurisdiction required a Demurer, but was overruled, or allowed by the Court presently; The Precedent in eliot's Case, is full in it; He was Indicted for Misdemeanours in the House of Commons; he Pleaded this to the Jurisdiction of the Court, the Attorney at that time, insisted to have it rejected but the Court overruled him, and put him to demur; This is a Precedent Mr Attorney hath not seen: The Court, in that Case, did not tie them up to argue the Plea presently, but gave them till the next Term. Here is a Man's Life in question, and the Privilege of Parliament concerned in it; We desire a reasonable time; in the Case of Plunket, you gave him till next Term; which is as high a Treason as this, I am sure of it.  
Sir Francis Winnington, spoke to the same purpose, and said, This is a Case well worth our taking care of, and yours too; We hope you will not deny us what time is reasonable.  
Mr Wallop added, That he had been an unprofitable Attendant in that Court near forty Years, and never saw so swift a proceeding as this, which is as swift as lightning; That, whereas they called it a frivolous Plea; he believed the Plea to be of the greatest import, that ever those Gentlemen came there about; That, de Morte Hominis, nulla est Cunctatio longa; That he humbly prayed a reasonable time to be allotted.  
Then, the Lord Chief Justice proposed to the Prisoner's Counsel, that he should plead over. Mr Pollexfen answered, We cannot do it, we have considered it, and are of Opinion, that if we should plead over, it would destroy our Plea; by doing it, we give up the Jurisdiction. It is as indifferent to me, as any Body, to be forced to argue it now; but, No Body can say, they ever saw many Instances of the like nature; Therefore, pray my Lord, let us not go on so hastily with it; If you will not give us leave and time to be prepared to argue it, you must take it as we are able, since we can't have time to make ourselves able.  
The Attorney, Solicitor General and Sir George Jeffryes, vehemently opposed the allowing any time, to argue the matter, and pressed for present Judgement; but after much tugging about it, the Court allowed time till the Saturday following.  
Then, upon Saturday the 7th of May, the Attorney General began, saying, This is a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court, and some of our Exceptions are to the form, and one is to the matter. To the Form, 

1st, The general Allegation, that he was impeached de alta Proditione, is uncertain, it ought to have been particularly set out, that the Court might judge, Whether it be the same Crime; and it is not helped by the Averrment.  
2dly. Here is no Impeachment alleged to be upon Record; They make a general Allegation, that F. Harris was Impeached, Impetitus fuit, by the Commons, before the Lords, Quae quidem Impetitio in pleno robore existit, prout per Recordum inde, etc. Now, there is no Impeachment mentioned before; And quae quidem Impetitio, is a relative Clause; and no Impeachment being mentioned before in the Plea, there is nothing averred upon the Record to be continued, or discontinued; for Impetitio, does not actively signify the Impeaching, or passively the Person Impeached; but it signifies the Impeachment, the Accusation which is to be upon Record: Therefore, when they say, he was impeached, and afterwards allege, Quae quidem Impetitio, remains upon Record; that cannot be good, for the Relative there, is only Illusive.    
For the matter of the Plea; 'tis a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court; There the point will be, Whether a Suit depending, even in a Superior Court, can take away the Jurisdiction of an Inferior Court, which had an Original Jurisdiction of the Cause, and of the Person, at the time of the Fact committed; I insist upon these Exceptions.  
Mr Williams (for the Prisoner) then said, I take these things to be admitted, (Mr Attorney having demurred generally.)  

1. That the Prisoner stands Impeached.  
2. That the Impeachment is now in being.  
3. That this was done, secundum Legem & Consuetudiem Parliamenti; and being so, remains in plenis suis robore & effectu; And more particularly, the Plea, refers to the Record, for the parts and Circumstances of the Impeachment; prout patet per Record. So that it refers the Impeachment to the Record, and tells you, 'tis amongst the Records of that Parliament.  
4. Moreover, That the Treason in the Impeachment, and the Treason in the Indictment, are one and the same; and that this Person Fitz-Harris indicted, and F. H. impeached, are one and the same Person; And withal, it appears upon the Record, that this Impeachment was depending, before the Indictment found, for the Parliament was the 21st of March, and it appears this is an Indictment of this Term; And further, it appears not, by any thing to the contrary in the Record, but that this Parliament is still in being, and then it must be admitted so to be— Whether your Lordship, now, will think fit in this Court, to proceed upon that Indictment, is the substance of the Case.   
I think it will not be denied, but that the Commons may Impeach any Commoner, before the Lords; That was the Case of Tresilian and Belknap, in the time of Richard the second; Upon that Impeachment, one of them was Executed, and the other Banished in Parliament.  
Mr Attorney allows the Parliament, to be a Superior Court; but says, yet the Inferior Court, having Original Jurisdiction of the Person and Cause, may proceed, notwithstanding an Impeachment in Parliament; I will show how manifestly, an Indictment and an Impeachment differ— The Case of an Appeal, is like the Case of an Impeachment: An Appeal of Murder, is at the suit of the Party; and in this case, 'tis at the suit of the Commons; 'tis not in the Name of the King, but of all the Commons of England; So that 'tis like an Appeal, and not like an Indictment, an Indictment is for the King, an Impeachment for the People— It is not safe to alter the old ways of Parliament; 'tis out of the road of Comparisons, when they will compare an Indictment, and an Impeachment together.  
It becomes not the Justice of this Court, to weaken the Methods of Proceed in Parliament; Your proceeding upon this Indictment, is to subject the Method of their Proceed there, to the Proceed of this Court— It is not fit, that the Justice of the Kingdom, and the High Court of Parliament, should be cramped, by the Methods of an Inferior Court, and a Jury.  
The Parliament is the supreme Court; and this Court every way inferior to it; and 'twill be very strange, that the Supreme Court should be hindered here. For the highest Court is always supposed to be the wisest, and the Commons in Parliament, a greater and wiser Body, than a Grand Jury, of any one County: And the Judges in that Court (the Peers) to be the Wisest Judges: Will the Law of England suffer an Examination, Impeachment and Prosecution for Treason, to be taken out of the Hands of the greatest and wisest Inquest in England? And will it suffer the Judicature, to be taken out of the hands of the wisest Judges?— It stands not with the Wisdom of the Law, or of the Constitution of the Government.  
Another thing is this (the common Argument in an extraordinary Case) there is no Precedent for this way of Proceeding; 'Tis my Lord Cok's Argument 〈◊〉 Coke's Littleton, fol. 108. and in the ●th Instit. fol. 17.) in the Case of the indictment against the Bishop of Winchester; and of that against Mr Plowden;— He says, 'tis a dangerous attempt for Inferior Courts to alter, or meddle with the Law of Parliaments. So, in this case, in regard it never was done from the beginning of the World till now, it being without Precedent, there is no Law for it.  
Another mischief, which follows upon this, is; If you take this Case out of the power of the Parliament, and bring it into this Court; where the Offence may be pardoned; you change the method of proceed, which make the Offence, without consent of the Prosecutors, not pardonable by Law; This may be of dangerous consequence to the Public— by giving this Court a Jurisdiction, and possessing it of these Causes, expose them to the will of the Prince.  
This way of proceeding, inverts the Law in another thing; 'Tis a Principle, that no man's Life is to be put twice in danger, for the same thing: If you proceed upon this Indictment, and he be acquitted, will that acquittal bind the Lords in Parliament? If they may proceed upon the Impeachment, than you invade every English-man's right, and his Life may be brought in question, twice upon the same account.  
I take it to be a Critical thing, now at this time, to make such attempts as these are; There are Lords now that lie under Impeachments of Treason; if you goon in this; do you not open a Gap that may be a ground to deliver them; By the same Justice, the Lords may be tried by another Court;— This proceeding will have this effect; it will stir up a Question, between the Jurisdiction of this Court, and the Parliament; for in probability, if this Person be acquirted, the Commons, and the Lords too, will look into it;— If he be found guilty; here is the Power of the Commons, in Impeaching; and the Jurisdiction of the Lords, in Trial and Judgement, taken away by an Inferior Court: This being said in general, I come to the particular Exceptions made by Mr Attorney, to the form of the Plea.  
He insists, that this Plea, doth not set forth any Record of an Impeachment; nor the particular matter of it; and compares it to the Case of a Plea, of altar foitz acquit; If a Man has been Indicted and Acquitted, he may plead it in another Court; that hath Jurisdiction of the Cause, if again Indicted for the same matter.  
I say, I take this to be a very good Plea, and that according to the pleading of altar foitz acquit; In pleading a General Act of Parliament, We need not set forth the whole Act, but refer to the Record;— In the Case of altar foitz acquit; there is an Indictment, Proceeding of the Cor upon the Plea, a Trial and an Acquittal, and a Record of all this matter; and if the party be again Indicted, he hath a Record to plead, which will show the whole matter; and if he does not plead it, 'tis his own default; But in this Case, here is no such Record to plead; and there is Mr Attorney's mistake; you must in this Case, be governed by the Rules and Methods of Parliament, which is this; the Commons Impeach a Man, and bring up the Impeachment to the Lords, in general; and have Liberty to present Articles after due consideration— It is said in this Plea, that it is secundum legem & consuetudinem Parliamenti,— you are to take notice of the Law of Parliaments, and Customs of Parliaments.  
The second Exception is, That it is not said in the body of the Plea; that Fitz-Harris is Impeached for this Treason, but it comes in only in the Averment.  
As to that; we must pursue the Impeachment as it is in the Lord's Journal; 'tis for Treason generally, there; and 'tis said to be, secundum Legem, & consuetudinem Parliamenti; which goes to all, and there is a Record of it, among the Records of Parliament; and Mr Attorney hath confessed it by the demurrer; And this is the same Treason, we do aver, in fact; which also is confessed by the demurrer.  
Mr Attorney hath fancied an exception of Grammar; an Adjective for a Substantive; but, I take it to be as well as any Man can plead in this case; The Prisoner says, the Commons Impeached him; which Impeachment is still in force before the Lords; It is as plain as can be, if they did Impeach him, than there was an Impeachment; it can bear no other sense.  
Another Exception, and which was strongly urged, is, That the King may choose his Court; 'Tis no doubt, the King may choose his Court, for his own Action; but the Impeachment is the Suit of the Commons; and that is to be tried in Parliament, and no where else.  
I have offered these Reasons, as to the form of the Plea to maintain it; As to the Precedents,  
There was the Bishop of Winchester's Case 3 Edw. 3. In Coke's 2 Inst. fol. 15, the Record is recited de verbo in verbum, It was not an Indictment my Lord Coke says, it was a Declaration; the Record sets forth, that the Bishop was attached to answer the King; for that, whereas it was ordained, Per Ipsum Regem, Ne Quis ad domum Parliament. summonitus, ab eodem recederet sine Licentia Regis; And that the Bishop, in contempt of the King, recessit, without his leave; The Bishop comes and says, Si Quis deliquerit erg● dominum Regem in Parliamento aliquo, ie Parliamento debet corrigi & emendari, & non alibi in minori Curia Quam in Parliamento, etc. We find no Judgement given upon this Plea, nor would they venture to do it; My Lord Coke says, It looks as if there was a design to weaken the Parliaments, by bringing their Proceed into Westminster-Hall; but they would not do it.  
Then, there is the Case of Mr Plowden, and others, 1st. and 2d. Phi. and Mar. the Information is this; That they were summoned to Parliament, and departed without leave of the King and Queen, the they had prohibited that any should departed; Mr Plowden pleads a Plea, a hundred times as faulty as ours, if ours be faulty; and yet this Case continued all the time of that Queen, and it appearing, upon the face of the Information, that the Case concerned the Commons, the Court would not give Judgement for or against the Commons.  
There is also eliot's Case, 5 Car. There was an Information against my Lord Hollis, Sir John eliot, and many more; They plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court; their Pleae is, in a manner, as faulty as Plowden's; but the Court goes not upon the insufficiency of the Plea; but gives Judgement generally; that this Court had a Jurisdiction; The assault happened in Parliament, the Words were spoken there, and upon the demurrer, they gave Judgement upon the whose matter; This Judgement was reversed 19 Car. 2. The Judgement was given against these Gentlemen of the House of Commons, Their Plea was a Plea in Abatement; They thought it a very hard Judgement, and were obstinate, and would not plead over; and Judgement was given for want of a Plea; they were fined severely, and continued in Execution for the Fines, & were delivered by the Parliament, 16 Car. 1. & in the second Impression of Croke's Car. it is said, That the House of Commons, 19 Car. 2. voted, That the Judgement was illegal, and against the freedom and liberty of Speech; and that the Lords concurred in that Vote; And, upon the Resolution of both Houses, the Judgement was reversed by Writ of Error; If in our Case, you should give Judgement against the Prisoner's Plea, and he should prove obstinate, and not plead over, and you give Judgement of Death upon him. It may come to be a very hard Case, if your Judgement should be reversed by Writ of Error in Parliament, when the party is dead. 
* Sir Francis Winnington (in his Argument) added to this, that it was agreed by the Lords, unanimously, that the Judgement was erroneous, and that the Parties should be restored to all that they had lost, but if this Man should lose his Life by your Judgement, what help would there be, upon a Writ of Error?   
20 Rich. 2. Ro. Parl. 12. Rushworth 47.48. A Person presented a Petition to the Commons, and something suggested therein, amounted to Treason; He was Indicted out of Parliaement, and found guilty; But, (though he was pardoned) because the Commons would not lie under that Precedent of an Invasion of their Privilege, tho' he was a Person without Doors, and no more hurt done to him, but the prosecution; the Judgement was voided.  
Mr Williams then concluded his Argument, thus; My Lord, I have done with my Reasons for the matter and for the form; Here is the Life of a Man before you, here is the right of the Commons to Impeach in Parliament, before you; Here is the Judicature of the Lords to determine that Impeachment before you; Here is the Method and Proceed of Parliament before you; and I hope you will proceed no further on the Indictment.  
The Chief Justice then said, Here is nothing of the Commons Right to Impeach, before us; nor of the Lords Jurisdiction; nor the Methods of Parliament, in this Case; the sole matter is, whether this be a good Plea, to oust the Court of its Jurisdiction in this matter; To which,  
Judge Jones added, Here is nothing of any fact done in Parliament, insisted on here; this is for a thing done without Doors.  
Mr Williams replied, 'Tis a hard matter (my Lord) for the Bar to answer the Bench.  
Sir Francis Winnington, then argued for the Prisoner, thus; The King's Attorney has demurred generally; and if our Plea be well and formally pleaded, I am sure, all the matter of fact is confessed by the demurrer. And upon the matter of fact so agreed, the general Question is,  
Whether an Impeachment by the Commons, and still depending, be sufficient to oust the Court to proceed upon an Indictment for the same offence?  
The Lord Chief Justice said, That cannot come in question in the Case.  
Sir Francis Winnington, replied, Why my Lord?  
Chief Justice, The Question is, Whether you have pleaded sufficient matter to oust us of our Jurisdiction.  
Sir Francis Winnington proceeded, saying, My meaning is the same; It is agreed that there were no doubt to be made of the Plea, if there had been a particular Impeachment— The House of Lords is a Superior Court to this, and a Suit in a Superior Court, may be pleaded to stop the Proceed of an Inferior Court; and if once the Suit be well commenced in the Superior Court, it cannot after go down to the Inferior; and what is begun in one Parliament, may be determined in another; So is the Case 4. Edw. 3. N. 16. of the Lord Berkley, and those accused of the death of Edw. 2. It was there objected, as 'tis here, that by this means there might be a stop of Justice, by the dissolution of the Parliament; yet the true answer is, That it is presumed in Law, that Parliaments will be called frequently, according to the Statute, 4 Edw. 3.14. 36 Edw. 3.10.  
This Record is well pleaded, and could not be otherwise, unless Mr Attorney would have us plead what is false; the Commons Impeached Fitz-Harris generally, and We allege in our Plea, that 'twas, secundum legem & consuetudinem Parliamenti, and so 'tis confessed by the Demurrer.  
A general Impeachment, is good by the Law and course of Parliament; Coke 4 Inst. 14, 15 says, What the Law and course of Parliament is, the Judges will never intermeddle with. We find 11 Rich. 2. Rot Parl, part 2. and Rushworth, part 1. in the Appendix. 51. Tresilian and others, were appealed against for Treason, the Judges of the Common and Civil Law, were called by the King, to advise of the matter; they all agreed, that the Proceed were neither agreeable to Common, or Civil Law; But, the Lords said, it belonged not to those Judges to guide them; but they were to proceed according to the Course and Law of Parliaments; and no Opinion of theirs, should oust them of their Jurisdiction.  
31 H. 6. Rot. Parl. N. 26. The Judges were demanded, whether the Speaker of the Commons; during an Adjournment, might be Arrested; They excused themselves, saying, That in this great matter, they ought not to interpose, it being a matter of Parliament.  
In the great Council 1st. and 2d. Jac. The Judges refused to give their Opinions, upon questions put to them, about the Union of both Kingdoms; for that such things did not belong to them, but were matters fit for Parliament only; Hence I infer, that since 'tis Pleaded here to be according to Law of Parliaments, and Mr Attorney hath acknowledged it; that you are foreclosed from meddling further with this Case; it being a matter whereof you cannot judge. But,  
'Tis objected, That, if the Impeachment be admitted to be according to the course of Parliament; yet, 'tis so general the Court cannot judge upon it.  
Answer, The House of Commons would not Impeach a Man for no Crime; The Prisoner's Plea avers, that that it was for the same Treason in the Indictment; this makes the matter as clear to the Court; as if the Impeachment had mentioned the particular Treason.  
26 Assiz. Pl. 15. Stamf. Pla. Cor. 105 A Man Indicted for the Murder of I. S. pleads a Record of Acquittal; where he was Indicted for the Murder of I. N. but avers, that I. S. in this Indictment, is the same Person with I. N. in the other Indictment; and it was adjudged a good Plea, tho' the Averment seemed to contradict the Record; This makes it clear, that if an Averment may consist with the Record, the Law will allow it.  
Mr Attorney had his Election, either to plead Nul Tiel Record; Or he might have taken Issue upon our Averment, that it was not for one and the same Offence; but, he has demurred, and thereby confessed, there is such a Record; and confessed the Averment to he true, that he was Impeached for the same Crime, and that he is the same Person.  
I shall now offer some Reasons in general, 

1st, That when the Commons in Parliament, in the name of all the Commons of England, have lodged an Impeachment against any Man; it seems against natural Justice, that any Commoners should afterwards try or judge him for that Fact; Magna Charta says, That every Man shall be tried by his Peers; or by the Law of the Land; This is a way of Trial by the Law of the Land, but not by his Peers; for 'twould be hard, that any Man should come to Try or give Judgement, upon a Person, who hath been his Accuser before; The Lords are here Judges, in point of Fact, as well as Law; the Commoners may come in as Witnesses, but not as Judges.  
2d, Reason, If an Appeal of Murder were depending before the Statute 3 H. 7.1. The King could not proceed upon an Indictment for the same Fact, because the King only takes care, that the Offender should not go unpunished; but the preferrence was given to the Person more particularly concerned, and the King's Indictment must stay, till the year and day were out, to see whether the Person immediately concerned, would prosecute the Suit; so says Lord Hales, in his Pleas of the Crown; Then a Minoriad Majus; does the Law so regard the Interest of the Wife or Heir &c, in their Suit; and has it no regard to the Suit of all the Commons of England? for, manifestly an Impeachment, is the Suit of the People, and not the King's Suit.  
3d Reason, If this Man be tried and acquitted here, Can he plead this in Bar to the Impeachment? it cannot bar that great Court, by saying he was acquitted by a Jury in Westminster-Hall; and if so (contrary to a fundamental Rule of Law) a Man shall be twice put in danger of his Life, for one Offence.    
I will now mention Precedents to prove that this Impeachment is according to the Course and Law of Parliaments. Michael de la Poole, Rotsie, Park. 18 or 28 H. 6. N. 18. was accused by the Commons of Treason, and there 'tis said, that the Course of Parliament, is to find out the Truth by Circumstances, and such Degrees as the nature of the thing will bear; and they are not confined to the strict Rules of other Courts; The Earl of Clarendon was Impeached generally, and the Commons took time to bring in their Articles. I have had the Experience in three or four Parliaments, (wherein We have been busied with Impeachments, tho' We have had no great success in them) That, tho' the Commons may carry up particular Articles at first, yet the Course is, for the Lords to receive the general Impeachment; and the Commons say, that in due time, They will bring in their Articles; So it was done in the Case of the five Popish Lords; and in that Case, tho' the Parliament was Dissolved before any Articles sent up; yet, in the next Parliament, the Articles, upon the former Impeachments, were sent up and received; yet, Indictments were against them, before any Impeachment, and preparations made for their Trials; but there hath been no attempt to try them upon the Indictments, tho' there have been several Intervals of Parliament.  
Our Case, is stronger than that of the Lords; for in this, the first Suit was in the House of Lords; but in the other Case, the first was the Suit of the King, by Indictment; and yet, by a subsequent Impeachment, that was stopped, and the Lords are yet Prisoners.  
For the Objection, That the King may choose in what Court he will sue; It is agreed, when it is at his own Suit; but this is not so, but at the Commons Suit, and can be no where else prosecuted but where it depends.  
To conclude, This Plea cannot be overruled, without deciding, whether the Lords can proceed upon such general Impeachments, and whether the Commons can Impeach in such a general way; This Case highly concerns the Jurisdiction of the Lords; the Privileges of the Commons, and the Rights of all the People of England.  
Mr Wallop (for the Prisoner) then argued thus; There are in this Plea, three principal parts, upon which it turns, which are expressly alleged, 1st, That the Prisoner, before the Indictment, was according to Law and Custom of Parliament Impeached. 2d, That the Impeachment remains enforce. The 3d, great Point and Hinge upon which it turns, is this, That the Treason in the Indictment, and the Treason for which he was Impeached, is one and the same Treason; These three things are confessed by Mr Attorney, for all things well alleged and pleaded, are confessed by the demurrer.  
I pass the two former points; there being no difficulty in them; I take the third to be the only point in the Case; and if We have well averred it, and can by Law be let into such an Averment; I hope this Court will not pretend to go on in this Case; They object; because he is Impeached generally, that cannot be averred to be the same; and a Demurrer confesses not the Truth of that, which by Law cannot be said; But if it may be said, and is said plainly, Then the Demurrer confesses it.  
I conceive the matter is well averrable, and We have well averred; I grant, a Repugnant and impossible Averment cannot be taken; But if there be no impossibility, repugnancy, or contradiction, between the matters averred to be the same; it is not only allowable to aver it, but most proper; For, quod constat clare, non debet verificari; In this Case, 'tis not necessary, that it should appear upon view of the Indictment and Impeachment; that the matter contained in both, is the same; But its sufficient, that it be provable upon an Issue to be taken; and so much is admitted by the Judges, in Sparrye's Case, Co. 5. Rep. 51.— If this matter may appear at first or at last, and the thing is possible to be proved, We are well enough, Corbet and Barnes Case first, Croak fol. 320.  
By taking the Averment, We offer them here a fair Issue, an Issue of fact tryable by a Jury; but the Attorney refuses that; and having demurred, it must be taken to be true, as if found by a Jury; And, if they had taken Issue upon this Question of fact, We might have gone to a Jury, where the matter would have been easily proved; For upon evidence given, The Jury might fairly take into consideration, the reading of this very Numerical Libel, set forth in the Indictment, and the particular and special Debates, of the House of Commons thereupon: And that, upon those very Debates, the House voted that Fitz-Harris should be Impeached for matters in that Libel, and that upon those Votes, the Impeachment was carried up to the Lords; This is Evidence sufficient, that the House of Commons intended to accuse him of the same Treason; which proves the Issue (viz.) That the Treason in the Impeachment, is the same with that in the Indictment; This is not to put the Intention of the Mind, or secret Thoughts of the Heart in issue, but to put them into a way of proof— In the present Case, the Intention of the Commons, upon the Issue we offered, and the Attorney refused, might, and aught, and would have been proved, and without doubt, found by the Jury; Neither is this general Impeachment such a notional thing as is pretended; but 'tis, as if the Commons in Parliament should say, We charge him with Crimes that are Treason; Now, whether those Crimes are the same, with those for which he is Indicted, is a good and proper Issue; And if it appears to the Court to be the same, you will certainly take off your Hands from these Proceed.  
Again, they say, The Impeachment is too general, and no Man shall be put to answer to such a general Accusation.  
And I say so too; neither shall Fitz-Harris be put to answer to it, without special Articles;— But here, by the Law of Parliament, general Impeachments are held good; and Articles, and Additional Articles also, are usually brought in afterwards; And therefore, We must take the Impeachment as We find it, which stands against us as a Record, and We must plead it in the same generality.  
This Impeachment, according to the course of Parliament, is well lodged in the House of Lords; where it only aught to be tried; and we must plead it, as we find the Case to be: And having averred the Crimes to be the same; We have done what we could, and therefore enough. And,  
That a general Impeachment without Articles, is a bar to any Indictment for the same matter, was resolved by all the Judges (as I am informed) in the Case of the Lords in the Tower, who were indicted for Treason, and afterwards (5th of December 1678.) generally Impeached, and no Articles exhibited, till the 3d of April, 1679; And yet, in the mean time, the Judges resolved it at the Council-Table, that they could not be proceeded against upon those Indictments; tho' the Parliament was dissolved. That was a stronger Case, than this of Fitz-Harris, for there, the Inferior Court was first possessed of the Cause, and yet, the general Impeachment tied up the Hands of the Court; But here, the Parliament was first possessed of the Cause; which the Inferior Court cannot take out of their Hands.  
An Impeachment differs also from an Indictment, in that in an Indictment you cannot plead altar foitz Arraigned; but must plead altar foitz Convict, or Acquit; as in Sir William Wishople's Case; But in an Impeachment, They will acknowledge, that after Articles exhibited, They cannot proceed upon an Indictment, for the same Offence; although the Defendant be neither Convict or Acquit.  
I shall say no more, but observe how serupulous the Judges have been, to touch upon a Case, where they had the least suspicion that the Parliament had, or pretended a Jurisdiction; or were possessed of the Cause; I am sure, I could never obtain any thing by any Labours of mine in those Cases; But upon such Motions They (being ware of the Consequence) would always worship afar off, and never come near the Mount: They ever retired, when They came near the Brink of this Gulf.  
My Lord! If you retain this Cause; in consequence you charge yourselves with this Man's Blood,— I leave it to your Wisdom to consider it.  
Then Mr Pollexfen proceeded thus; I shall not make any long Argument; But I would fain come to the Question, if I could; for I cannot see what the other side make the Question; Our Plea is objected against, both for the matter and form; But, if for the matter, it be admitted, that an Impeachment, for the same matter, will out this Court of Jurisdiction, I will say nothing of it, for that is not then in Question.  
The Chief Justice assented to this, saying, No, not at all.  
Then Mr Pollexfen added, The matter than seems to be agreed, and only the manner and form of the Plea are in question; for the manner, they say, 'tis not alleged there is any Impeachment upon Record; I confess Form is a subtle matter in itself, and 'tis easy for one that reads other men's Words, to make what Construction he will of them, even Nolumus to be Volumus; To answer the Objection, I think 'tis as strongly and closely penned, as can be; He was Impeached, Quae quidem Impetitio, etc. What can the Quae quidem signify, but the Impeachment just mentioned before.  
The great Question now is, whether this be not too general, to allege that he was Impeached in Parliament, and not saying how, or for what Crime; tho' there be an Averment that 'tis for the same Crime; whether this Plea should therefore be naught.  
1st. For this of the Averment, be the Crimes never so particularly specified in the Record that is pleaded, and in that upon which the party is brought in Judicature; yet there must be an Averment, which is so much the substantial part of the Plea, that without it, it would be naught; and it must come to be tried Per Pais, whether the Offence be the same or not; Then the Objection to the generality, is not to the substance, but rather an Objection to the Form, on their side, because the plea alleges the substance, that 'tis for the same Treason; which, had not Mr Attorney demurred, but taken Issue on, must have been tried Per Pais.  
To speak to the general Allegation; that he was Impeached for Treason, and not saying particularly, what the fact was.  
If they admit the Law, That an Impeachment suspends the Jurisdiction of this Court; They admit a great part of the fact; and then the Question will be, what Impeachment will take away the Jurisdiction? and there can be but two sorts; the one at large, where the Offence is specified; the other in general words, where the Commons Impeach such a one of Treason; Now, if such an Impeachment be good, then have we the most plain Case pleaded that can be; as plain as the Fact; that this is an Impeachment in Parliament, and then this Court is ousted of its Jurisdiction.  
The Court, and We, are to take notice of the proceed in other Courts; as other Courts are to take notice of the proceed of this; generally the Writ or Declaration (as 'tis in Sparrye's Case) does in all Civil Causes, set forth the particularity of the thing in question; yet in some Cases it doth not do so; but the Course and Practice of some Courts admits general proceed; Now where that is so, the party cannot mend himself, by making their Course otherwise then it is; for he must not say, it is more particular than the Course of the Court does make it; Therefore, he hath no other way by the Law, to bring his matter on, and help himself, but by an Averment that 'tis the same;— The Law must be governed by its own proceed, and take notice of the nature of the things depending before the Court; and if there is as much of certainty set forth, as the Case will admit, and is possible to be had; We must permit the party to plead as he can, and help himself by the Averment.  
Then, the Question is, Whether an Impeachment, generally be good or no? If they say, it is not, than the bottom of the Plea is naught, and all is quite gone; But if they say it is, than I have pleaded my matter as it is; For I cannot say, that that is particular, or make that particular that is not; and I have done all that is possible for me to do in my Case; I have pleaded what is in the Record, and as 'tis in the Record, from which my Plea must not vary; and I have averred 'tis for the same matter, and you have confessed it by the demurrer.  
I would not entangle the Question, but I see not how they can extricate themselves out of this Dilemma, if they admit a general Impeachment is good.  
In December 1678. the Lords in the Tower were Indicted, and after (Decem. the 5th) the Commons considering that it was intended to bring them to Trial before the Peers; They, purposely to have the carriage and prosecution of this horrid Treason, and to take off the Prosecution upon the Indictment; Impeach the Lords, and the Impeachment, is just the same as this in our Plea; of Treason; but not of any particular Fact; Now the Judges took so much notice of it, that tho' the Parliament was dissolved, before the particular Articles were carried up; yet in February following (some of the Judges are here, and they will rectify me, if I am mistaken) the Opinions of the Judges being asked about it, at the Council-Board; upon the Petition of the Lords, to be either bailed or tried; They declared, that the Impeachment, tho' thus general, was so depending in Parliament, that they could not be tried.  
We have pleaded, as our Fact is, an Impeachment of Treason; what would They have had us to do, or wherein is our fault? What would They have had us said, We were Impeached of Treason, so and so particularising? how can that be? There is no such thing; Then they would have us said, Nul tiel Record, and We must have been condemned for failing in our Record; then indeed we had been, where They would have had us; but having done according to our Fact, if that Fact will oust this Court of Jurisdiction; I see not how we should plead otherwise; or what answer they will give to it.  
This must needs be agreed to me; If this Impeachment be in the nature of an Appeal; surely an Appeal does suspend the Proceed upon an Indictment for that Fact; and so 'tis expressly, in my Lord Dyer, fol. 296. Stanley was indicted and convicted of Murder, and before Judgement, the Wife brought her Appeal; and They moved for Judgement; No, said the Court, here is an Appeal brought; They could not go to Judgement till the Appeal was determined; So the Stat. 3. H. 7. Cap. 1. and Vauxes Case, 4 Rep. 39 If this than be of the nature of an Appeal, this Suit ought to have its Course and Determination, before you proceed on this Indictment.  
Inferior Courts have never taken upon them to meddle with the Actions of Superior Courts; but leave them to proceed according to their Laws; and if that be done in any Case, there will be as much regard had, in this great Cause to the Court of Parliament, as in others.  
In the Earl of Northumberland's Case, (Cotton's Records 5 H. 4. fol. 426.) He confesses himself guilty of an Offence against his Allegiance; the King would have the Justices to consider of it; No, said the Parliament, 'tis matter of Parliament, and the Judges have nothing to do with it; The Lords make a Protestation to this purpose, and went on themselves, and adjudged it to be no Treason; There is that Record more, Rot. Parl. 11 R. 2. Pars 1. N. 6. I only offer these things, with what my Lord Coke says, Hath been formerly thought Prudence in the Judges to do.  
So I hope, That if the matter be good, the form is as good as the matter can be put into; and therefore we hope you will allow us the benefit of it.  
The Attorney General argued thus for the King; Notwithstanding what hath been said, I take it, this is a Naughty Plea; and there is no matter disclosed therein, that we can take Issue upon.  
The great substance of the Arguments of the Prisoners Counsel is against him; for 'tis lest he should escape, but he pleads this Plea that he might escape.  
For the Cautions given you; what a difficult thing it is, for two Jurisdictions to interfeir; Fitz-Harris is much concerned in that matter, who hath forfeited his Life to the Law; yet he would fain live a little longer; and is concerned that the Judicature of Parliament should be preserved.  
I observe 'tis an unusual Plea; It concludes Si Curia procedere vult; I wonder they did not put in, aut debeat; you have no Will but the Law, and if you cannot give Judgement, you ought not to be pressed in it; but it being according to Law, that Malefactors be brought to condign punishment, We must press it, whatsoever the Consequences are; It is the Interest of all the Kingdom, as well as of the King, that so notorious a Malefactor should not escape, or the Truth be stifled, but brought into Examination in the face of the Sun; but They say, if it be not Law, you will not proceed, it ties up your Hands; But they give not one Instance to make good what they say.  
Put the Case, it had been a good Impeachment & he had been arraigned upon it and acquitted; and had afterwards come to be Indicted in this Court, and would not plead this in Bar, but to the Jurisdiction; it would not have been a good Plea; Then certainly, an Impeachment depending singly, cannot be a good Plea to the Jurisdiction.  
This Court hath a full Jurisdiction of this Case, and of this Person; and this you had at the time of the Fact committed; What then is it, that must oust this Court of Jurisdiction; For all the Cases that have been put, about matters not originally examinable in this Court, make not to the matter in question; where the Fact is done out of the Jurisdiction of the Court, that may be pleaded to the Jurisdiction; but, where the Court may originally take Cognizance of it, I would know, what can oust that Jurisdiction, less than an Act of Parliament; I will be bold to say, the King by his Great Seal cannot do it. To say the Proceed in Parliament ought to be a Bar; that is another Case, the Party may plead it in Abatement or Bar, as the Case requires: For the Cases they put, the Reasons are, that the Court had no Original Jurisdiction. There is not one of the Cases cited, but where it was out out of the Jurisdiction of the Court originally.  
As for the Case of the five Lords in the Tower; I observe the House of Lords removed the Indictments into their, House; foreseeing that the King might have proceeded upon them, if not removed thither; But our Case is quite another thing, for those Lords were not fully within your Jurisdiction.  
The Case of 11. R. 2. will be nothing to our purpose at all; that was in the Case of the Lords Appellants; a proceeding contrary to Magna Charta, contrary to the Statute of Edw. 3. and the known Privileges of the Subject. Those proceed had a Countenance in Parliament; and they would be controlled by none, nor be advised by the Judges; but proceed to the trying of Peers and Commoners, according to their own Will and Pleasure: And between the time of 11 R. 2. and 1 H. 4. see what Havoc they made by those illegal proceed, and in 1 H. 4. these very Lords were sentenced; and it was resolved by Act of Parliament, That no more Appeals should be any more in Parliament.  
The other great point is this; There is nothing at all certainly disclosed to you by this Plea; therefore, there is nothing confessed by us, only the Fact that is well pleaded.  
They say, They have pleaded it to be, secundum Legem & Consuetudinem Parliamenti; but I say, They must disclose to you what is the Law and Custom of Parliament, in such Case; or you must take it upon you, upon your own knowledge, or you cannot give Judgement.  
There are three things to be considered of the Parliament; the Legislative part, the matters of Privilege, and the Judicial part; For the two first, both Houses proceed only Secundum Legem & Consuetudinem Parliamenti; But for the Judicial part, they have in all times been guided by the Statutes and Laws of the Land; and have been ousted of a Jurisdiction in several Cases; as by the Statute of 4 Edw. 3. & 1 H. 4. And the Lords, in all Writs of Error and matters of Judgement, proceed, Secundum Legem Terrae, and so for Life and Death; And there is not one Law in Westminster-Hall, as to matters of Judgement, and another in the Lord's House.  
It is not sufficiently disclosed to you, that there is any such thing as an Impeachment depending there; 'tis only alleged that he was Impeached, and so much the New-Books told us; but to infer thence, that there was an Impeachment carried up, and lodged for the same Treason; is no consequence, And then 'tis alleged, Quae quidem Impetitio, when no Impeachment is before set forth; but only that he was Impeached generally.  
When a Record is pleaded in Bar, or in Abatement; the Crimes ought to be set out, to appear the same; so are all the Precedents of Cok's Entries 53. Holcroft and Burgh's Case, and Watts and Bray's Case, in 41 & 42 Eliz. Cok's Entries 59 Wrote and Wiggs Case 4 Rep. 45, etc. The Record must be set out, that the Court may judge upon it, and the Record must not be tried per Pais, but by itself.  
Mr Wallop was of opinion; that upon this Averment, the Jury may try the Fact; what a pretty Case would it be, that a Jury should judge upon the whole debates of the House of Commons, whethere it be the same matter or No?  
I did demur with all the care I could, to bring nothing of that in question; I take it there is nothing of that matter before you, concerning an Impeachment depending before the Parliament; but whatsoever was done, 'tis so imperfectly pleaded, that this Court cannot take any notice of it.  
The Soticitor General's Argument was to this effect, The Point in question is, whether this Plea be sufficient in point of Law.  
They on the other fide, argue the Plea to be good both in matter and form— I will not now debate, whether, Magna Charta, which Ordains that every Man shall be tried by his Peers, and the Statute 4 Edw. 3. which says, that the Lords shall not be compelled, nor shall have power, to give Judgement upon a Commoner, have sufficiently secured the Liberty of the Subject from Impeachments; Nor is it the question before you, whether you shall judge of any matter that is a Right or Privilege of Parliament; This is an Indictment for Treason. Neither will it be the Question, whether an Impeachment depending in the House of Lords against a Commoner, by the Commons; will bar this Court of its Jurisdiction.  
They say, the Commons are the grand Inquest of the Nation, and They make their Presntments to the Lords; Now, when such a Presentment is made, 'tis worthy consideration, whether it be not a Presentment for the King; for an Impeachment does not conclude, as an Appeal does; but, contra Ligeantiae suae debitum, & Coronam & digintmem demini Regis; so far 'tis the King's Suit; In an Impeachment, the Witnesses for the Prisoner are not sworn, neither hath the Prisoner Counsel in matter of Fact, as he has in an Appeal at the Subjects Suit; The King may pardon part of the Sentence; It was so done in Richard the second's time; and in my Lord Stafford's Case, but suppose it, that 'tis the Suit of the People, yet that cannot preclude the King from his Suit.  
The Consequence which they urge, as such a dismal one, will be nothing; which is, If he should be acquitted here, he could not plead altar foitz acquit, and so would be twice brought in Jeopardy for the same Offence; for it is the same in all Cases of Appeals.  
This is not like the Case of an Appeal for Murder, neither; for tho' it hath been used discretionarily, to stay the Suit of the King, and prefer the Subjects Suit; it was because the Subject had the nearest concern; as the Son in the Death of the Father; The reason of that turns quite contrary here; in this Case, that very reason, will have the King's Suit to be preferred; for there is no Treason but against the King, he has the nearest concern, and the wrong is primarily and originally to himself.  
Now, for the Objection, that if you try this Man, upon the same reason you may try the Lords in the Tower; Their Case is different, and the Lords removing the Indictments against them into Parliament, that no Prosecution might be upon them; seems to imply, that this Trial may be in this Case; for certainly they thought, the King's Court might proceed; had not the Indictments been removed.  
As to the form of the Plea; I conceive 'tis not a formal Plea.  
We know here, of no form of Pleading an Indictment, but what sets forth the Indictment particularly; 'tis so in all the Precedents I have seen; and the Law-Books resolve it must be so, as Wrote and wigs Case;  
But they say, there is a difference between their Case, and those I put; for that 'tis the Course of Parliament to Impeach generally? so they could not have pleaded otherwise then the Case was; This Reason holds rather the other way; For if in any Case such a general way of pleading, with reference to the Record, were to be admitted, it were in Case of an Indictment; because there is no Indictment, but what particularly sets forth the Felony; and when produced, is capable of being applied; but here, if the Record be brought in, 'twill no more ascertain the matter of the Impeachment, than the Plea does already.  
And as the Plea is naught, for not setting out the Record; so is the Averment insufficient too; for the he does aver, That the Treason in the Indictment and the Treason for which he was Impeached, are one and the same, and not divers, affirmatively and negatively, yet he ought to have said; That the Treason for which he is indicted, and the Treason mentioned in the Impeachment it one and the same; For if he was Impeached generally, without mention of particulars; it is impossible to be reduced to a certainty; so 'tis an Averment of a Fact, not capable to be tried.  
We do think upon the whole matter, without entering upon the debate, whether a particular Impeachment, lodged in the House of Lords, does preclude the King from his proceed; We have a good Case upon this Plea, for that is not a Question necessary to be resolved, tho' it be not granted by the King neither; But the Question is, whether this be a formal Plea; and whether here be sufficient matter set forth upon a Record, to bring the other matter into Question, and tie up the hands of the Court.  
Sergeant Jefferies then said, I shall only offer one word to the informality of the Plea.  
They cite the Case of the Lords in the Tower, as a Judgement for them, which seems to be against them; for by the, Lords removing the Indictments into Parliament, They seem to be of Opinion, that notwithstanding they were Impeached before the Lords, yet there might have been proceed upon those Indictments, had they not been removed; and there they remain to this day; nay further, to those Impeachments they have pleaded to Issue, which is ready for Trial; but in the Case at the Bar, there is only an accusation, without any further proceed thereupon.  
I take not this to be such a dangerous Case, as the Gentlemen of the other side do pretend, for you to determine; For I am sure it will be better for the Court to answer, if ever they shall be required; That they have performed their Duty, and done Justice according to their Consciences, & Oaths; than ever to be afraid of any Threats or Bugbears from the Bar.  
For would not they by this manner of Pleading, put upon your Lordships a difficulty to judge; without any thing contained in the Impeachment to guide your Judgement; whether the Prisoner be Impeached for the same thing for which he is Indicted? May not the Treason intended in this Impeachment be Cliping or Coining?  
We rely upon the informality and uncertainty of the Pleading only; and meddle not with the Question, whether an Impeachment in the House of Lords supersedes an Indictment in the King's Bench; For We say, they have not Pleaded it so substantially, as to enable the Court to Judge upon the Question; and therefore We pray your Judgement that the Plea may be overruled.  
Sir Francis Wythens added, I say that this Plea cannot be good to oust this Court of Jurisdiction; The Prisoner shall by no means be admitted to aver the intention of the House of Commons, before they have declared it themselves; and therefore I conceive the Plea to be naught, for that reason; also for another, because the Court, in this Case, by any thing expressed in the Plea, cannot discern or takenotice, whether it be the same Treason or not.  
Treason generally alleged in the Impeachment, is the Genus, and the particular Treason in the Indictment, is only a Species; And the Averment in the Plea is, That the Genus and the Species is the same; which is absurd; and if allowed, tends to hoodwink and blind the Court, instead of making the matter plain for their Judgement. The Arguments being ended,  
The Chief Justice said; We never intended, when We assigned four Council to Fitz-Harris, that they all should make formal Arguments, in one day; 'tis the first time that ever it was done; but, because 'tis in a Case of Blood; We were willing to hear all you could say: But I must tell you, you have-started a great many things, that are not in the Case at all: We have nothing to do here whether the Commons, at this day can Impeach a Commoner in the House of Lords; nor what the Jurisdiction of the Lords is; nor whether an Impeachment (when the Lords are possessed fully of it) does bar the bringing any Suit, or hinder the Proceeding in an Inferior Court; but here We have a Case, that rises upon the Plead, Whether your Plea be sufficient, to take away the Jurisdiction of the Court, as you have pleaded it; And you have heard what Exceptions have been made to the form, and to the matter of your Pleading; We ask you again, whether you are able to mend your Pleading in any thing; for the Court will not catch you, if you can amend it, either in matter or form; But if you abide by this Plea, than We think 'tis not reasonable, nor will be expected of us, in a matter of this Consequence, to give our Judgement concerning this Plea, presently.  
All the Cases cited, concerning Facts done in Parliament, and where they have ender voured to have them examined here, are nothing to the purpose, for We call none to question here for Words spoken, or Facts done in the Commons House, or in the Lords; which takes off the Instances you have given, but our Question is, barely upon the Pleading of such an Impeachment, whether it be sufficient to fore-close the Hands of the Court? And we will not precipitate in such a Case, but deliberate well upon it, before we give our Judgement. Take back your Prisoner.  
Upon Wednesday May 11th, Fitz-Harris was again brought to the Bar, and the Attorney moved for Judgement on the Plea, and  
The Chief Justice thus delivered the Opinion of the Court; Why, Mr Fitz-Harris, you have pleaded to the Jurisdiction of the Court, that there was an Impeachment against you, by the Commons before the Lords; and you do say, that that Impeachment is yet in force; and by way of Averment, that this Treason whereof you are Indicted, and that whereof you are Impeached, are one and the same Treason; And upon this, the Attorney for the King hath demurred, and you have joined in demurrer; And we have heard the Arguments of your Counsel, and have considered of your Case among ourselves; and upon full consideration and deliberation concerning it, and all thath hath been said by your Counsel; And upon conference with some other of the Judges; We are, three of us, of Opinion, that your Plea is not sufficient to bar this Court of its Jurisdiction; my Brother Jones, my Brother Raymond, and myself, are of Opinion, your Plea is insufficient; My Brother Dol-been not being resolved, but doubting concerning it; And therefore, the Court does order and award, that you shall answer over to this Treason.  
Thereupon he pleaded Not guilty, and the Court appointed his Trial to be upon the first Thursday in the next Term.  
Upon Thursday the 9th of June 1681.  
Fitz-Harris being brought to the King's Bench Bar, the Court ordered the Jury to be called; and Major Wildman being returned upon the Jury, and appearing;  
The Attorney General demanded whether he were a Freeholder in Middle sere. He answered, I was a Parliament Man, and one that voted the Impeachment against this Person, and dare not serve upon this Jury; and he was set aside as not being a Freeholder.  
John Kent being called, said that he was no Freeholder, and the Chief Justice declared, that then he could not be sworn of the Jury.  
Then Gites Shute, Nathaniel Grantham, Benjamine Dennis, Abraham Graves, Henry Jones, and Isaac Heath, were set aside, as not being Freeholders; And the Jury sworn, were, 

Tho. Johnson,  
Lucy Knightley,  
Edward Wilford,  
Alexander Hosey,  
Martin James,  
John Vyner,  
William Withers,  
William Clenve,  
Tho. Goffe..  
Ralph Far,  
Samuel Freebody, &  
John Lockyer.    
Then the Indictment was read, comprising several Treasonable passages, in a Libel called, The true Englishman speaking plain English.  
Then Mr Heath as Counsel for the King, opened the Indictment; and the Attorney General enlarged upon it, and called the Witnesses.  
Mr Everard testified, that he and Fitz-Harris became acquainted in the French King's Service; and F. Harris invited him to frame a Pamphlet to reflect upon the King; and gave him Heads and Instructions tending to it; and told him that he should have forty Guineas, and a Monthly Pension, which should be some thousand Crowns.  
Fitz-Harris then demanded of Everard, Whether he was not put upon this to trapan others? which Everard answered, with this question, Can you mention any Person that I was to trapan? But being again asked, Whether he was put upon it, to trapan the Protestant Lords and the House of Commons? He said, No, I was not. I was put upon it by none but Pitz-Harris, of whom I asked, what will be the use of this? and he said, We will desperse them, We know how; And that he was to deliver it to the French Ambassador's Confessor, and it was to be drawn in the Name of the Non-conformists, to father it upon all the discontented party.  
Mr Smith then gave evidence, that he was planted in a Closet in Everard's Chamber, and saw him and F. Harris through a hole; and heard Everard read a Seditions Paper to him, and inquire of him, what Heads he would have more, than were there; To which Fitz-Harris repiled; that he would have him represent the King as a Papist, and mentioned many other Traitorous things expressed in the Libel; And that when Everard told him those were Treasonable things, Fiz-Harris said, The more Treason the better.  
Sir William Waller was then sworn, and declared, that he was placed in a Room within Everards' Champer, where through a crevass of the Door, and a Hole in the Hang, he could see him and Fitz-H. and he heard Fitz-H. inquire of Everard, whether he had finished the Paper, according to his Instructions; and Everard produced two Papers, and gave him one; and after he had read a little in it, Everard asked whether it was drawn according to his Instructions; and he answered, It was, exactly done; And that Everard said, This is a business of very dangerous consequence; what Reward shall, I have for running so great a hazard; and he told him; I think I run an equal hazard with you, for you have a Paper under my Hand, which will render me liable to danger; and Sir William said, he saw Fitz-H. after several passages with his Pen, and then, the Paper being produced, he declared it to be the same; And that Fitz-H. told Everard, that the French Ambassador was to Recompense him for his pains.  
Then Fitz-H. demanded of Sir William; Whether that were the Paper for which he was Impeached, and Sir William answered, that at was, and that he read that Paper in the House, And Mr Johnson. Foreman of the Jury, demanded whether Fitz-H. stood Impeached upon the same Treasons in the Indictment; and Sir William answered that he did, but being checked by the Attorney and Solicitor General, he said, That as soon as he had communicated that Paper to the House, the House proceeded to the Impeachment.  
Then the Libel was read, in these Words, viz.  

The true Englishman speaking plain English, in a Letter from a Friend to a Friend.  
I Thank you for the Character of a Popish Successor which you sent me, wherein out Just Fears, and the grounds of them, are justly set out. But I am in greater fear of the present Possessor, why do we frighten ourselves about the Evil that is to come, not looking to that which is at hand? We would cut off the Budding Weeds, and let the Poisonous Root lie still; We would stop the Channel of our Evils, and let the Fountain still run: My meaning is this, can Pylades Know and Act all these Bloody Conspiracies, and not impart them to his dear Orestes? if James be Conscious and Guilty, Charles is so too: Believe me, these two Brethren in Iniquity, they are in Confederacy with Pope and French to introduce Popery and Arbitrary Government, as all their Actions demonstrate: the Parliament, Magna Charta, and Liberty of the Subjects are as heavy Voaks which they would cast off to be as absolute as their Br. of France; and if this can be proved to be their only aim and endeavour, why should not every True Britain be a Quaker thus far? Let the English rise, and move as one Man to self-defence, to open Action, and fling off their intolerable Riders. Blow the Trumpet, stand on your Guard, and withstand them as Bears and Tigers, And since there can be no trist given to this goodly couple of Popish Brethren, nor no relief expected from a Parliament, Trust to your Swords in defence of your Eives, Laws, Religion and Properties, like the stout Earl of Old, who told a King, that if he could not be defended by Magna Charta, he would be relieved by Longa Sedda.  
Yet to convince the World that this Scottish Race is Corrupt Root & Branch, and Popish from the very beginning, be pleased to consider these reasons following.  
The Grandfather of these Men, James the Scot, was of no Religion at the bottom, but entered by a pretence of a Sham-Plot of the Papists against his Life, whilst really he collogued with the Popish Party underhand; his Mother, his Kindred and Companions were French and Papists when came into England, he wrote to the Pope with great Submission, yet afterwards thinking it for his purpose to cajole the Parliament, and write against the Pope and Cardinals, he sends a Scots. Bird to blind the Eyes of the Vatican Keeper with Money, and to steal his Letters from off the Roman File; and then he crows as boldly as an unsuspected Harlot for the Protestant Religion and Interest.  
That Man's Son Charles the First, held a secret Correspondency with the Pope, calling him his Dear and Holy Father, as is to be seen in his Letters recorded in Rusworth's Collections? Were not his Wife and Courtiers Papists? Did he not countehance and promote the Rebellion in Ireland? As the Irish Grandees & his very Commissions testify and declare, was there not a Popish Plot, and an Universal Conspiracy of the Papists discovered to him and his Confessor Laud, and did they not piously stifle it lest they should have discovered the Nakedness of their Mother Church? Whilst that goodly Protestant Prince pretended to relieve the poor besieged Protestants at Rochel by his confident Buckingham, did he not hold Correspondency with the French Cardinal how to betray them for a Sum of Money (which his obstinacy with his Parliament made him stand in need of.) But they who so ill approved themselves to be heads of the Protestant Church, Charles and Laud, did they not lose their own Heads by a manifest Judgement of God? And was not the false Heart of their Emissary Buckingham, found out by an Assassins' Kinfe?  
But to come nearer to our purpose, these two goodly Imps of our days are stark naught; arrived at the height of Wickedness, and of professed Arbitrariness and Popery.  
As for James, he was a Papist whilst he had a Regiment in the French, and afterwards in the Spanish Service beyond Seas. And as for Charles, he was reported,  he came into England, to have been reconciled to the Church of Rome in one of the French Kings Country-Houses; and since they came in, how have they wheedled and played fast and lose, in their profession of Religion as Occasion and their Affairs required? Have they not all along maintained secret Correspondency with France and Rome? As Coleman's Letters may sufficiently instruct such who have not seen more secret Memoires.  
But let us come to Examine their Actions which are a better proof of their hearts, were not the Duke's Servants and Confidents all Papists? Witness his Talbots, Patrick's and other Irish Teags, were not the Duke and such of his Creatures as were known Papists promoted to all public Offices of trust, both at Sea and Land? Witness Bellasis now a Traitor in the Tower; did not James by Coleman, Throgmorton and others, hold open Correspondency with the Pope and Cardinals? and could Charles be Ignorant of all this? Nay he liked all so well, that he hardly employed any about him but Papists, as Clifford whom he made Treasurer; or employed any abroad but Persons of the same stamp, Witness Godolphin whom he sent Ambassador into Spain, as he did others elsewhere, what more obvious than that, though the Duke's Treachery against the Kingdom and Protestant Religion be fully made out, and the People and Parliament seek to bring him to a legal Trial, yet Charles obstructs Justice, and will not suffer it? How can this be, but that he is joined in Will and Deed in all the Duke's Villainies, and that he is afraid to be discovered and found out to be a Papist, and a Betrayer of his People and the Protestant Religion? If he was hearty concerned for our Religion, would he not oppose a Popish Successor, who will Infallibly overthrow it? Can there be any thing more evident than that he continues the Duke's Adherents, and those who were advanced by him, in all Offices of Trust? And hath he not turned out of his Council the most Zealous Protestants, such as Shaftesbury, Essex and others, and introduced in their Rooms other mere Tools, or those that are Popishly and Arbitrarily affected? Hath he not modelled all the Sheriffs and Justices throughout England in subserviency to a Popish Design? Was not Sir William Waller and Dr. Chamberlain, and divers others turned out of the Commission in and about London, merely for being Zealous Prosecutors of Priests and Papists? Doth not Charles all he can to hinder the further detection of the Popish Plot? And doth he not to his utmost discountenance the Discoverers of it, and suffer them to want Bread? And doth he not in the mean time plentifully encourage and reward Fitz-Gerald and all the Sham-Plotters? Whereas Dangerfield had 8 l. a week whilst a Forger of Plots against the Protestants, he is cast off with scorn, and in danger of his Life since he laid open the Popish Engineer, Is not Charles so much in love with his Popish Irish Rebels (therein treading in his Father's steps) that he promotes Montgarret Carlingford; Fitz-Ratrick and others, who were the Heads of the Rebellion, to Honours and Preferment; tho' Charles took the Covenant and a Coronation Oath to preserve the Protestaut Religion, yet hath he not palpably broken them? He made large promises and protestations at Breda for the allowing a perpetual Liberty of Conscience to Nonconforming Protestants, but he soon forgot them all: To what end was the Act which was made soon after his Restoration, prohibiting any to call him Papist, or to say he was Popishly inclined, and render such as should offend, Guilty of a Praemunire, but to stop the People's Mouths when ever he should Act any thing in Favour of Popery as he was then resolved to do?  
Is it not manifest therefore, that Scotch Oaths, Breda Promises, Protestant Profession, Liberty of Conscience, War with France, saving of Flanders is all in Jest to delude Protestant Subjects? Is it not apparent that breaking of Leagues, Dutch War, Smirna Fleet, French measures to favour their Conquests, loss of Ships, War in Christendom, Blood of Protestants, reprieving of Popish Traitors, is all in earnest, and done in favour of Popery? And are not his fair Speeches, his true Protestant Love to Parliaments, just Rights, and English Liberties, his pretended Ignorance of the Plot, and his Hanging of Traitors to serve a turn but in mere jest? Are not his great Debaucheries, his Whoring Courtiers, Popish Councils, Cheating Rogues, Hellish Plottings, his saving of Traitors, his French Pensioners, his Nests of Whores and Swarms of Bastards, his Macks, his Cut throats, his Horrid Murderers, his Burning of London and the Provost's House too, his Sham-Plotting, his suborned Villains, his Popish Officers by Sea and Land, his Struggle for a Popish Successor, his agreements with France, his frequent Dissolutions of Parliaments, his buying of Voices, his false returns, all of them designs to ruin us in good earnest, and in favour of Arbitrary Government? And is it not in order to this Blessed end that you see none Countenanced by Charles and James, but Church Papists, betraying Bishops, Tantivy Abhorrers, barking Tonzers, Popish Scribblers to deceive the People and six the Popish Successors Illegal Title? Are not Jesuits Counsels, French Assistance to conquer Ireland, subdue Scotland, win Flanders, beat the Dutch, get their Shipping, be Masters of the Seas? And are not facing a Rebellion, the letting the Plot go on, the endeavouring to retrieve the Popish Cause by getting a Popish pentionary, abhorring Partiaments, who shall betray their Country, enslave posterity and destroy themselves at last, means only to save a Popish Traitorous Successor, and a present Popish Possessor? James and Charles are Brethren in Iniquity, corrupt both in Root and Branch, and who study to enslaver England to a French and Romish Yoke, is not all this plain? Have you not Eyes, Sense or Feeling? Where is the Old English Noble Spirit? Are you become French Asses to suffer any load to be laid upon you? And therefore if you can get no remedy from this next Parliament (as certainly you will not) and if Charles doth not repent and comply with it, then up all as one Man. O brave English Men, look to your own defence  it be too late; rouse up your Spirits, remember your Predocessors, remember how that the asserting of their liberties, justified both by success and Law, the War of the Barons against wicked Counsellors who misled the King's. And will you now let that go which cost them so dear? How many oppressing Kings have been deposed in this Nation, as appears in Records referred unto in that worthy Patriots History of the Succession; were not Rich. 2 d. And Hen. 6. both laid aside, not to mention others, & was there ever such a King as this of ours? was not King John deposed for going about to embrace the Mahometan Religion, and for entering into a League with the King of Morocco to that purpose? Though Mahometanism and the King of Morocco, were no such Enemies to our Rights and Liberties as Popery and the French King are. Is it not time then that all should be ready? Let the City of London stand by the Parliament for the maintaining of their Liberties and Religion in an extreme way, if Parliamentary ways be not consented unto by the King, let the Counties by ready to enter into an Association, as the County of York did in Henry 6th time.   
Sir Philip Lloyd and Mr Bridgman, Clerks of the Council then testified; that Fitz-Harris acknowledged the Paper of Instructions given to Everard, to be his own hand-writing.  
The Prisoner then called his Witnesses; and Dr Oats testified, that after the Business was talked abroad, he discoursed Everard about the Libel; and asked him what the design of it was; and he told him it was to be Printed, and sent by the Penury Post. to the Protesting Lords, and leading Men of the Commons; and they were to be taken up, as soon as they had it, and to have it found about them; And that Everard told him, the Court had a hand in it; and the King had given Fitz-Harris Money already, and would give him more if it had success.  
Sheriff Cornish was then called, and the Prisoner demanded of him, what the King said to him, when he came to his Majesty from him from Newgate; whether the King did say Fitz-Harris was employed by him, and received any Money, and what for?  
The Sheriff answered; when I gave his Majesty an account that I found the Prisoner disposed to make a Discovery, he was pleased to tell me, he had often had him upon Examination, and could make nothing at all of what he did say, or discover to them, and that he had for near three Months before acquainted him, that he was in pursuit of a Plot, and the King did say, That in as much as he made great Protestation of Zeal for his Service, he did Countenance and give him some Money.  
Mr Attorney, (seeming to be under a surprise at this Evidence) demanded of the Sheriff, whether the King ever declared that he saw Fitz-Harris in his Life, or that he ever was in his Presence, Mr Sheriff answered, yes.  
The Attorney said, Ay! but did the King say he ever saw him, before he was Arrested for this Fact?  
The Sheriff replied, yes, his Majesty said he came to him about three Months before, and pretended he would discover a great Plop to him.  
Then the Prisoner called Colonel Mansel, and demanded what he heard Sir William Waller say, after the Discovery was made.  
Colonel Mansel testified, that he heard Sir W. Waller say; that when he had acquainted the King with this business, he told him, he had done a great piece of Service, and gave him thanks; but that Sir William was no sooner gone, but two worthy Gentlemen told him, that the King said, he had broken all his measures, and he would have him taken off one way or another; And Colonel Mansel added that Sir William said, That the design was against the Protestant Lords and the Protestant Party.  
Sergeant Maynard, upon hearing this, declared, that he did not doubt, that it was against the Protestaut Party.  
Mr Hunt being called by the Prisoner, said, that Sir W. Waller told him and others, That the King gave him particular thanks for detecting Fitz-Harris; but that he was told by two Gentlemen of undoubted Credit, that heard the King speak it; that his Majesty was in extreme Passion, and said, He would give any thing to take him out of the World; that he was an insufferable vexation to him, and that he had broken all his measures; and that Sir William said the same at Oxford, in the presence of Sir Philip Harcourt, and of my Lord Radnor's Son, Mr Roberts; and did also say, it was a design, to make these Papers Evidences of Rebellion; and that this was the Counter part of Dangerfield's Plot; and that he hoped he would not deny it, if he be asked, here he is.  
Sheriff Bethel then testified, that Everard told him, he wrote the Libel, and that before Everard knew him, or heard him speak a word in his days, he put in an Information of Treason against him, at the instigation of his Mortal Enemy; and it was so groundless, that tho' it was given in three years ago, he never, heard a word of it till Friday last.  
Mrs' Wall was then called by the Prisoner; he demanded of her, whether he had not conveyed some Libels and Treasonable Papers to the King by her means, and received Money upon that account? but she would not acknowledge it.  
He then asked her, whether it was not about Christmas was twelve Month, that he gave her the Libel about the King and her Lady; and the King thanked him extremely, and he had 250 l. given him? and he said to her, Come Mrs Wall, don't think to trick me out of my Life, can you deny that I had the 250 l. speak, had I the 250 l.  
Mrs' Wall answered, That was not the Question you asks me at first, There was 250 l; I think it was 200, or 150, or 250 l. you know it was not for any Libel— you once told me, you could bring in People to the King and Duke's Interest, that were very considerable, and the Secretary of State desired to know who they were, and you named one Thomas Merry and my Lord Howard of Escrick; and the Secretary desired me to get him in if I could.  
Fitz-Harris then demanded of her, whether he did not come to her the Wednesday before he was taken, and tell her he desired to speak with the King; and that he had a Libel to present to him.  
Mrs' Wall answered, No, it was the Thursday; you desired me to bring you to the Speech of the King, which was a thing you never desired before; and you said, you believed you could say something to him, that might do him Service, but she denied that he said any thing to her of the Libel.  
Upon further questions put to her, she said that Fitz-Harris was never admitted to the King, and that the King never took notice of him, or spoke to him, by her means; and that the Money was paid for the bringing of my Lord Howard, who came first to her two years ago; and whether it be a year and an half since his Lordship met with the King, she said she could not tell.  
Mr Cowling declared, That Mrs Wall told him, that the second or third night before he was taken, Fitz-Harris came to her, to bring him to the King, but she asked him why he did not go to one of the Secretaries, and he said that he could not do that without being taken notice of, and that she then said to him, Writ down your Business, and I will carry it to the King; and he said, No, I will not do that; and that she thereupon replied, I must then beg your pardon, if I don't bring you to the King.  
My Lord Howard then testified, That about ten or fourteen days before the Sitting of the Parliament in October last; Fitz-H. applied to him in the King's name, to have him wait upon the King, but that he declined it, and that he then pressed his Lordship to wait upon the Duchess of Portsmouth, and when he came to her, he found the King there; his Lordship added, that if the 250 l. were given for bringing him thither, he feared the King did not think he deserved it; That about ten days after he saw the King again by the means of Fitz-H. and that when the Parliament was ended, he waited again upon the Duchess, and then requested her to represent Fitz-H. his condition to the King.  
His Lordship further acknowledged (upon the Question put to him by F. H.) that he came to him the night before my Lord Stafford was Condemned, and told him, the King desired his Lordship would go the next day, and give his Vote for my Lord Stafford, and that he thereupon answered him, seeing there is so great an account put upon it, If I had but breath enough to pronounce his Doom, he shall die.  
Here, Dr Oats desired leave to go away, saying, the Crowd was so great he could not stand; upon which, Mr Attorney scoffingly said, my Lord, that may be part of the Popish Plot to keep Dr Oats here, to kill him in the Crowd.  
The Prisoner then demanded of the Duchess of Portsmouth's Porter, how long it was since he paid him the Money from my Lady Portsmouth, but he said he could not tell, it was so long.  
The Earl of Arran was then called by the Prisoner, and acknowledged upon his questions, that he did show him a Libel, (perhaps it was this) the day he was taken, and his Lordship told him, he would do himself a mischief one time or other by meddling with such Papers; and that they drank a Bottle or two of Wine and parted, and that as soon as his Lordship came home, he heard Fitz-H. was taken.  
My Lord Conway and Seoretary Jenkins denied that the King did own that he had employed Fitz-H. but my Lord C. acknowledged, that he had heard the King say, he did formerly employ him in some 
* Making a Protestant Plot, or so.  trifling things; and that he had got Money of him; and that, his Lordship said, was for my Lord Howard's Business; He added, that the King never spoke with him till after he was taken.  
The Duchess of Portsmouth then appeared, and Fitz-H. asked her, Whether he was not employed to bring Papers to the King, and amongst the rest the Impeachment against her Grace; and he said that thereupon she told him, that it was a great piece of service to bring those sort of Papers; and that he told her he knew one Mr Everard, who knew all the Intrigues and Clubs in the City; and could tell all the designs of my Lord of Shaftesbury, and all that Party; and her Grace encouraged him to go on, and by her means he came to speak with the King about it.  
The Duchess answered, I have nothing to say to Mr Fitz-H. nor was concerned in any sort of Business with him; he desired me to give a Petition to the King, to get his Estate in Ireland, and I spoke three or four times to the King about it, and he had the Money for Charity.  
Hereupon Fitz-H. said, I am sorry your Grace is so much under Mrs Wall's Influence; and then addressing himself to the Court said; I will tell you what I know, since my Witnesses will not; I shall rely upon the Consciences of the Jury for the Issue; Tho' my Lady Portsmouth, Mrs Wall and the rest say, that I was not employed, nor received Money for secret Services, yet 'tis very well known I did so; As to Everard, he told me, he was well acquainted with my Lord Shaftesbury, and my Lord Howard, and he knew their Intrigues in several Clubs in the City; I humoured him in his discourse, and discoursed him to reduce the Paper he accuses me of, under some heads; And I no sooner had the Paper, but I came to White-Hall with it; and was advised to go to my Lord Clarendon, or Mr Hid, and showed it to a Gentleman who was to give it to my Lord Clarendon, but before he could get to him, I was taken; What I did was with design to serve the King, according as I was employed, tho' both the Secretaries will not declare it; These are great Persons that I have to do with, and where great State matters are at the bottom, 'tis hard to make them tell any thing, but what is for their Advantage; and so I am left in a sad Condition.  
If the Jury Convict me, They overthrew the Law and Course of Parliaments; Whereas if they bring me in Not Guilty, my Impeachment stands good still, and I am liable to answer it before the Parliament; I hope you will consider the Persons I have had to deal with, and that it cannot be made so plain, as in matters wherein We deal with common Persons. I desire notice may be taken that Sir William Waller declares, that for this very thing, I was Impeached by the House of Commons.  
Then the Solicitor General and Sir George Jeffryes summed up the Evidence, and the Chief Justice directed the Jury, his Lordship, and the three other Judges, Jones, Dolben and Raymond, telling them, that they were sworn to the Point, whether Fitz H. were guilty of the Treason or not; but that it lay not before the Jury, whether the Court have Authority to try him; that was a question proper for the Judge's determination, and they had determined it.  
Thereupon, the Jury found him Guilty; Before the Sentence was passed upon him, he said, that he thought it would be prejudicial to the King's Service, that Sentence should pass; before he had made an end of the Evidence he had given in against my Lord Howard; but the Chief Justice said, They could take no notice of any thing of that nature, and he was Sentenced to die as a Traitor, which was Execnted the 1st. of July, 1681.   

An Abstract of the Examination of Edward Fitz-Harris, relating to the Popish Plot, taken the 10th of March, 1680. by Sir Robert Clayton and Sir George Treby.  
THe Examinant saith that he was born in Ireland, and was bred, and is a Roman Catholic; That he had a Commission, and Raised a Company of Foot in Ireland for the French King's Service, and Conducted them into France.  
That in 1672, going to take his leave of Father Gough an English Priest at Paris, he told him, within this two years, you will see the Catholic Religion Established in England as it is in France; the Examinant ask how that could be, the King being a Protestant, he answered, If the King would not comply, there was Orders taken, and things so laid; that he should be taken off or killed; That the Duke of York was a Catholic, and in his Reign there would be no difficulty of doing it; That the Father then told him, that the Declaration of Indulgence, was for the Introducing the Catholic Religion, and that to the same end, the War was made against Holland, it being a Nest of Heretics; and that Madam came over to Dover upon this Design.  
That the Examinant, about February, 1672, had a Lieutenant's Commission in Captain Sidenham's Company, in the Duke of Albermarl's Regiment, in the Black-Heath Army; and that he knew many of the Officers to be Roman Catholics; and that the Act passing to disable Roman Catholics, he and others of them were forced to quit their Commands; that the common opinion amongst them was, for the settling the Roman Catholic Religion in Engd. but that the measures being broken, by means of the Peace with Holland, and the Duke of York's, and other Catholic Officers quitting all Commands, and the King failing in his expectations from them, the Roman Catholics came to a Resolutitn to Destroy the King, as Father Parry, Confessor to the Portuguieze Ambassodor told the Examinant in 1673; who put this Confidence in him being his Confessor; and that the same Father repeated the same discourse to him with more assurance in 1678. adding then, that the Business then was now near, and he should soon see it done. That about April 1679. the Duke of Modena's Envoy having sworn him to Secrecy, told him, That if he would undertake the Killing the King, he should have 10000 l. which he refusing, the Envoy said, The Duchess of Mazarine understands Poisoning as well as her Sister, and a little Viol when the King comes there will do it; and that upon the King's Death, the Army in Flanders and Parts adjacent to France, was to come into England to destroy the Protestant Party, and that after that, there should be no Parliaments, and that the Duke of York was privy to all these designs.  
That about April 1680. Kelly the Priest whom he had known above 12. Years, and had some times Confessed him, owned to him at Calis, that he was concerned in the Murder of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey, and that the same was done as Prance had related it.  
That the Examinant had been six or seven Years acquainted Monsieur de Puy, Servant to the Duke of York, and that he told him soon after the Murder of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey, That that Murder was consulted at Windsor, and about that time said, that the Duke was very desirous to come to the Crown, the King being incertain, and not keeping touch with them; and that De Puy said, there was a necessity of taking off the King, and that it would be soon done; That the Duke of York possessing part of the Examinant's Father's Estate in Ireland, the Examinant being acquainted with Father Bedingfeild, asked him, how he could give Absolution to the Duke, till he had made Restitution; to which the Father said, that every Penitent was supposed to know his own Sins, and to declare them to his Confessor; to which the Examinant replying with warmth, But since you know it, you ought to take notice thereof; the Father answered, be not angry, for e'er it be long you may be in a better condition.  
That in March 1680. he met Father Patrick at Paris, and talking of a Rupture that might be between England and France, the Father said, that the French intended in such Case, to send Marshal Bellfonds into Ireland, with 10000 Foot, and 2000 Horse, and Arms and Ammunition for 30000 Men to be raised there; and the Father promised the Examinant a Regiment of the Men to be so Raised, and the design was to restore that Kingdom to its former Owners in Subjection to France.  
That Father Patrick desired him to send him all the Libels that came out in London, and said, that Libelling the King was a thing necessary in order to distaste and make him jealous of his People; that the Examinant knew Mr Everard at Paris in 1665, and hath since increased his acquaintance with him; and that the Opinion of Father Patrick about Libelling the King, encouraged the Examinant to concur with Everard, as to the Libel lately Written by Everard.  
It was most evident from the demeanour of Fitz-Harris (from the first to the last, after his apprehension) that he was ready to say, deny, affirm, or do any thing to save his Life.  
Mrs Fitz-Harris (his Widow) upon the 15th of August, 1681. deposed, that her Husband, a little before his Execution, told her what great offers were made him at first, to have charged the Libel upon the Earl of Shaftesbury, and my Lord Howard; and that he advised her to do it, as the only means to save his Life, tho' he protested at the same time, they were wholly innocent; and that she was assured that she should have what Money she pleased, if she would accuse those Lords of the Libel.  
Nay, Fitz-H. himself, the very Night before his Execution, wrote a Paper which he ordered to be delivered to his Wife, in order to prevent the spilling innocent Blood; informing her, by whom he was advised to accuse those Lords, and others of the Libels, and of having put him upon the discovery of the Popish Plot; and that he had the promise of a Pardon to prevail upon him to do it; but finding that he was deluded, he declared, as before God; that they were innocent, and that what he had deposed against the Papists was true, and that he had been only too sparing, in accusing great People among them.  
It is observable, that for about fourteen days, between the time of the Condemnation and Execution of Fitz-Harris, the poor wretch was wholly under the management of Dr Hawkins of the Tower; in which time, the Doctor having held several Consults with some at Windsor; there was modelled a Paper, stuffed with abominable Malice and Falsehood, to serve the wicked Designs of that day, which the Doctor after his Death, emitted to the World, under the Title of the Confession of Fitz-Harris, and therein he is made to declare abundance of extravagant Falsehoods, in particular.  
That the Treason of the Libel came from the Lord Howard; But his Conscience could not but witness, that he had at several times complained to Sheriff Bethel, and Sheriff Cornish; that he had been pressed to accuse the Lord Howard, and also the Earl of Shaftesbury, of the Libel.  
Then the Shame Confession proceeds to a Protestant Plot (viz.) that the Lord Howard told him of a design to seize upon the King, to carry him into the City, and there detain him, till he had yielded to their desires; and that himself and Haynes were privy to the design, and had several Meetings with the Lord Howard.  
A strange Tale of a Protestant Plot, between two Irish Papists and a Protestant English Lord.  
In the next place, this Mock-Confession is to persuade the World, that the Protestant Magistrates of London, did endeavour to suborn him to make a Confession that might confirm a Popish Plot.  
It declares, That in Newgate the Sheriffs, Bethel and Connish came to him, with a Token from the Lord Howard, and told him nothing would save his Life, but discovering the Popish Plot; and greatly encouraged him to declare, that he believed so much of the Plot, as amounted to the introducing the Roman Catholics; or to criminate the Queen, his Royal Highness; or to make so much as a plansible Story to confirm the Plot.  
Besides, That as it hath been heretofore observed, and is most undoubtedly true; that Neither of the Sheriffs ever spoke privately with Fitz-H. until he had been thrice examined by the Secretaries of State, and sworn to the substance of his Examination, taken by Sir Robert Clayton and Sir George Treby; So, this idle Tale in itself, could never deserve the least credit, in that it made the Sheriffs so foolish and vain, as to think a Declaration from such a Wretch as Fitz-H. of his belief of the Popish Plot, to have been of great value, and that it was worth a high Reward, for him to have invented a plausible story, to confirm the Plot, after the belief thereof, had been confirmed by many Proclamations, by the Votes of four Parliaments, and the Condemnation and Execution of several of the Plotters.  
Further, Dr Hawkins his Paper brings in Fitz-H. charging it upon the Sheriffs; that they extorted from him false Confessions about the Popish Plot; and it makes him to speak thus; I finding myself in Newgate fettered, Monyless and Friendless, and I could see no other refuge for my Life, but complying with them (the Sheriffs) so, to save my Life I did comply.  
But as soon as the Doctor had published this Shame, the falsehood thereof was detected, and the World rightly informed in the matter; that Fitz-H. was never fettered, or put in Irons; but was treated with all imaginable civility, for which he thanked the Sheriffs, even with his dying Breath.  
The Doctor's impudent Libel than fell upon Sir Robert Clayton and Sir George Treby; and insinuates, that they would have induced Fitz-Harris to say more than was true, and says, that what he deposed before them about Father Patrick, was forced out of him, and was not true.  
F. H. himself well knew, that Sir Robert Clayton and Sir George Treby, came to take his Confession, upon his earnest importunity; and that after he had been thrice examined by the Secretaries and Attorney General, and he had sworn before them all the matters in substance, contained in the Examination by Sir R. C. and Sir G. T. except that one passage about de Puy; and when that Examination was read to the House of Commons, at Oxford; Secretary Jenkins acknowledged, that he had confessed the same to the Lord Conway, the Attorney General, and himself, except that about de Puy; yet, the Contriver of the Shame Retractation, took no care to retract, or excuse his Swearing the same matters, before the Secretaries and Mr Attorney; because, Reason of State did at that day require, that not They, but the City Magistrates must be exposed.  
Then, the impudence of Hell is assumed, to bring in Sir George Treby, inviting Fitz-H. to accuse the Earl of Danby, and the Popish Lords in the Tower, by speaking thus; do but you say it, We have have those that will swear it.  
Had they been provided with false Witnesses, and had they had such an accursed design; There was no need of Fitz-H. his saying any thing: Neither the false Suggestions, nor the Perjuries, could have gained any weight or credit from the Authority of Fitz-H. by his saying what they were to Swear.  
To conclude, there are Persons who can unriddle this whole Mystery, & pull off the Disguises and Vizors, wherewith this affair is even to this day obscured; and therefore, I have made this Recapitulation of the foregoing particulars, to incite those who are better able, to oblige the World, with a more full knowledge of the vile Practices, with this poor, deluded, timorous Wretch; and than it may be evident, that the Doctor gave him expectation, if not assurance of Life, to the very last Moment that he drew breath.   

Remarks upon the Trial of Mrs Elizabeth Gaunt at the Old-Bayly, London, upon the 19th day of October, 1685.  
WEre my Pen qualified to represent the due Character of this Excellent Woman, it would be readily granted, that she stood most deservedly entitled to an eternal Monument of honour, in the hearts of all sincere Lovers of the Reformed Religion: All true Christians (tho' in some things differing in persuasion with her) found in her a universal Charity and sincore Friendship, as is well known to many here, and also to a Multitude of the Scotch Nation, Ministers and others; who, for Conscience sake, were thrust into Exile by Prelatic Rage; These found her a most refreshing Refuge; She dedicated herself with unwearied industry to provide for their supply and support; and therein (I do incline to think) she outstripped every individual Person (if not the whole Body of Protestants) in this great City? Hereby she became exposed to the implacable fury of the bloody Papists, and those blind Tools, who co-operated to promote their accursed designs; and so there appeared little difficulty to procure a Jury (as there were well prepared Judges) to make her a Sacrifice (as a Traitor) to Holy Church.  
Upon Monday the 19th day of October 1685, Mrs Gaunt was arraigned, upon an Indictment, to this effect, (viz.) That she intending to disturb the Peace and Tranquillity of the Kingdom, and to stir up Rebellion against the King, and to subvert his Government, and depose and put him to death; for bringing her Traitorous purposes to pass, she, well knowing James Burton to be a Traitor, did secretly and Traitorously entertain and conceal him, and did give him Meat, Drink, and 5 l. in Money, for his Maintenance and Sustenance.  
She having pleaded Not guilty, the following Jury was sworn.  

Tho. Rawlinson,  
Tho. Langham,  
Ambrose Isted,  
Tho. Pendleton,  
John Grice,  
Tho. Oneby,  
William Cloudesley,  
Richard Holford,  
William Longboate,  
Steven Colman,  
Robert Clavel and  
William Long.   
Then Mr Attorney General said, The Prisoner is indicted for harbouring Burton, a great Traitor, and procuring a way for his escape beyond Sea, and giving him 5 l. to bear his Charges; She and her Husband were the great Brokers for carrying over such Traitors, as my Lord Shaftesbury and others; He then called James Burton, and demanded an account of him, whether he were engaged in the matter of the Rye-House; and how Mrs Gaunt harboured him?  
Burton testified, that Keeling brought him and Barber, and Thompson into the company of Rumbold; 
It looks as though Keeling had been employed at Whitehall to make, as well as to discover this Plot, for of the very small number accused of it, We have him here, drawing in three at once.  That upon Keeling's discovery, he was put into the Proclamation for being at that Meeting, and absconded about two Months, and then Mrs Gaunt came to inquire of his Wife for him, who brought her to him; and she told him, that there were some Persons about to make an escape, and she would have him go along with them; and sent him (with Rumbold) to Rochford-Hundred in Essex, to take Ship, but not liking the Vessel, and the Wether being bad, they returned to London.  
That many Months afterwards, Mrs Gaunt came and gave him 5 l. and sent him in a Boat to Gravesend; from whence he went in a Vessel to Amsterdam.  
Marry Gilbert (Burton's Daughter) was sworn, and said, that she met Mrs Gaunt with her Father in Hounds-ditch, and they went to a House without Bishopsgate, and that she there saw him with a Man that had but one Eye, and was full of Pock-holes.  
Burton's Wife then testified, that Mrs Gaunt came to inquire where here Husband was, and she told her he was at her Daughter's; and Mrs Gaunt told her, That if she were willing her Husband should go away, she would take care therein; and Mrs Gaunt appointed them to meet without Bishopsgate.  
The Lord Chief Justice Jones and Judge Wythens, and also the King's Counsel (viz.) the Attorney, the Solicitor General, Mr North, and Crispe the Common Sergeant, racked their Inventions to draw Burton and his Wife, to charge Mrs Gaunt with the knowledge of his being in a Plot, or in the Proclamation; but nothing of that could be made out; Nor is here any sort of proof, that Mrs Gaunt harboured this ungrateful Wretch; or that she gave him either Meat or Drink, as the Indictment charges her; And it must be further noted, that here is only the single Testimony of Burton; of her giving him Money, and sending him away; The Evidence being short in this,  
The Chief Justice fell upon the Prisoner with ensnaring Questions; demanding of her, What was the reason she would send Burton away? whether she gave him Money? Whether she heard that his Name was in the Proclamation, & c?  
Here Captain Richardson officiously interposed, saying, She says she is not come here, to tell your Lordships what she did.  
The Chief Justice then summed up the Evidence thus, Burton says this Woman was very solicitous to send him beyond Sea; That her Husband being concerned in the Plot, and she (as Burton believes) knowing that he could make some discovery concerning her Husband, endeavoured to convey him away; It is true, there is not direct proof, that there was any particular mention that Burton was in the Proclamation; but he and his Wife say, that they verily believe the Prisoner knew that he was in the Proclamation; and she herself being examined, says, that she might hear that he was in the Proclamation, and that his House was searched, and he could not be found, and yet she conceals him; what could be the meaning of this, but that she was very zealous to maintain the Conspiracy, and was a great Assistant to all concerned in it? She will not tell you any other cause, why she should be concerned to convey this Man beyond Sea; and therefore, in all reason, you ought to conceive it was for this.  
The Jury being thus sent out, and returning, Mrs Gaunt desired to be heard, declaring, that she hoped they would not take any advantage against her, and that she had some Witnesses to call; But,  
Wythens said, It ought not to be done, you ought to take the Verdict; and so the Jury pronounced her Guilty, and Jenner the Recorder passed this Sentence,  
You are to be carried back to the place from whence you came, from thence you are to be drawn upon a Hurdle to the place of Execution, and there you are to be burnt to Death. Mrs Gaunt only said, I say, this Woman did tell several Untruths of me; I don't understand the Law.  
The Sentence was executed upon this Excellent Woman, upon Friday then following, being the 23d of October 1685. When she left her Murderers the following Memorial.  
Newgate, 22d of October, 1685.  
NOt knowing whether I should be suffered or able, because of Weaknesses that are upon me, through my hard and close Imprisonment, to speak at the place of Execution, I writ these few Lines, to signify I am well reconciled to the way of my God towards me, tho' it be in ways I looked not for, and by terrible things, yet in Righteousness; for having given me Life, he ought to have the disposing of it, when and how he pleaseth to call for it; and I desire to offer up my all to him, it being but my reasonable service; and also the first terms that Christ offers, that he that will be his Disciple must forsake all and follow him; and therefore, let none think it hard, or be discouraged, at what hath happened unto me; for he doth nothing without cause; in all that he hath done unto us; he being Holy in all his Ways, and Righteous in all his Works; and it is but my lot in common with poor desolate Zion at this day; neither do I find in my heart, the least regret of any thing that I have done, in the service of my Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in favouring and succouring any of his poor Sufferers, that have showed favour to his righteous Cause; which Cause, tho' it be now fallen and trampled on, as if it had not been anointed; yet it shall revive, and God will plead it at another rate, than yet he hath done, with all its Opposers, and malicious Haters; and therefore let all that love and fear him, not omit the least duty that comes to hand, or lieth before them, knowing that Christ hath need of them, and expects that they should serve him; and I desire to bless him that he hath made me useful in my Generation, to the comfort and relief of many distressed Ones, that the Blessing of those that have been ready to perish hath come upon me, and I have been helped to make the Heart of the Widow to sing; and I bless his holy Name, that in all this, together with what I was changed with, I can approve my Heart to him, that I have done his Will, tho' I have crossed man's Will; and the Scripture that satisfied me in it, is the 16th of Isa. 3, 4. Hid the Outcasts, betray not him that wandreth; let my Outcasts dwell with thee. Obadiah 12.13, 14. Thou shouldst not have given up him that escaped, in the day of distress. But Man saith, You shall give them up, or you shall die for it. Now whom to obey, judge ye. So that I have cause to rejoice & be exceeding glad, in that I suffer for Righteousness sake, and that I am accounted worthy to suffer for well-doing, and that God hath accepted any Service from me, that hath been done in Sincerity, tho' mixed with manifold Weaknesses and Infirmities, which he hath been pleased for Christ's sake to cover and forgive. And now as concerning my Fact, as it's called, alas it is but a little one, and might well become a Prince to forgive, but, He that showeth no Mercy, shall find none; and I may say of it, in the Language of Jonathan, I did but taste a little Honey, and lo, I must die for it; I did but relieve a poor, unworthy and distressed Family, and lo, I must die for it. I desire in the Lamblike Will, to forgive all that are concerned; and to say, Lord lay it not to their Charge; but I fear and believe, that when he comes to make Inquisition for Blood, Mine will be found at the Door of the furious 
* Wythens.  Judge, who, because I could not remember things, through my dauntedness, at Burton's Wife & Daughter's witness, and my Ignorance; took advantage thereat, and would not hear me, when I had called to mind, that which I am sure would have invalidated their Evidence; and tho' he granted some things of the same nature to another, yet he granted it not to me; my Blood will be also found at the Door of the Unrighteous Jury, who found me Guilty upon the single Oath of an Outlawed man; for there was none but his Oath about the Money, who is no legal Witness, tho' he be pardoned, his outlawry not being recalled; and also the Law requires two Witnesses in point of Life; and then about my going with him to the place mentioned, it was, by his own Words, before he could be Outlawed, for it was two Months after his absconding, and tho' in a Proclamation, yet not high Treason, as I have heard; so that I am clearly murdered by you; and also bloody Mr Atterbury, who so insatiately hunted after my Life; and tho' it is no profit to him, yet through the ill-will he bore me, left no Stone unturned, as I have ground to believe, until he brought me to this; and shown favour to Burton, who ought to have died for his own Fault, and not to have bought his Life with mine: And lastly, Richardson, who is cruel and severe to all, under my Circumstances, and did at that time, without all Mercy or Pity, hasten my Sentence, and held up my Hand that it might be pronounced; all which, together with the great one of all, 
* King James the second.  by whose Power all these, and multitudes of more Cruelties are done, I do hearty and freely forgive, as done against me: But as it's done in an implacable mind against the Lord Christ, his Righteous Cause, and Followers, I leave it to him who is the Avenger of all such Wrongs, and hath said, I have raised up one from the North, and he shall come upon Princes as upon Mortar, and as the Potter treadeth Clay, Isa. 41.25. He shall cut off the Spirit of Princes, and be terrible to the Kings of the Earth, Psal. 76.12. And know this also, that though you are seemingly fixed, and because of the Power in your Hands, and a weighing out your Violence, and dealing with despightful Hand, because of the old and new hatred, by impoverishing, and by every way distressing those you have got under you; yet unless you secure Jesus Christ, and his holy Augels, you shall never do your business, nor your Hands accomplish your Erterprises; for he will come upon you ere you are ware; and therefore, O that you will be wise, instructed and learn, is the desire of her that finds no Mercy from you,  
Elizabeth Gaunt.  

Postscript.  
Such as it is, you have it from her, who hath done as she could, O is sorry she can do not better; hopes you will pity and cover weakness, shortnese, and any thing that is wanting; and begs that none may be weakened or humbled, at the lowness of my Spirit; for God's design is to humble and ●baseus, that he alo●● may be exalted in this day; and I hope he will appear in the needful time, and it may be reserved the best Wine tall last, as he hath done for some before me; none go●●● to Warfare at his own charge, and the Spirit bloweth, not only where, but when it listeth; and it becomes me, who have so often grieved, quenched and resisted it, to wait for and upon the motions of the Spirit, and not to murmur; but I may mourn, because through want of it, I honour not my God, nor his blessed Cause, which I have so long loved and delighted to love; and repent of nothing about it, but that I served him and it no better.    

Remarks upon the Trial of Mr Joseph Hayes, at the King's Beath upon an Indictment of high Treason, for corresponding with Sir Thomas Armstrong.  
MR Hayes was brought by Habeas Corpus upon the 3d of November 1684, from the Gat●●house, and was arraigned, upon an Indictment to this effect, viz.  
That he being a false Traitor against the King, &c the 31st of August, in the 31th Year of the King; knowing Sir Thomas Armstrong to have constired the death of the King, and to have stead for the same; did traitorously relieve, comfort and maintain him; and for his Relief and Maintenance, did pay the sum of 150 l. against the duty of his Allegiance, etc. To this, he pleaded Not Guilty.  
Upon the 21st of November 1684, He was brought to Trial, before the Lord Chief Justice Jeffryes, Judge Holloway, Judge Wythens and Judge Walcot; and the Jury being called, he prudently challenged the following Persons; which if he had not done, it is more than probable, that he had died as poor College did at Oxford.  

Sir Thomas Griffith,  
Richard Ellis,  
Thomas Langham,  
Henry Whistler,  
Nicholas Smyth,  
Thomas Soper,  
Tho. Passenger,  
Henry Minchard,  
Peter Jones,  
William Crouch,  
Peter Devet,  
Henry Loads,  
William Pownes,  
Charles Gregory,  
William Peele,  
Richard Weedon,  
Thomas Pory,  
Tho. Peircehouse,  
Richard Burden,  
John George,  
John Steventon,  
Robert Watkins,  
George Twine,  
Thomas Short,  
Robert Townshend,  
James Bush,  
Walter Mastors,  
Thomas Larkham,  
Edward Cook,  
William Fashion,  
John Flowerdew,  
John Green's,  
John Grice,  
Charles Fowler, and  
James Smyth.   
In all 35.  
The Jury sworn, were, 


Samuel Sheppard,  
Daniel Allen,  
Rowland Platt,  
Adam Bellamy,  
Daniel Templeman,  
William Dewart,  
Edward Pigget,  
Tho. Brailesford,  
Edward Cheek,  
Edw. Underwood,  
Robert Masters, &  
William Warren.     
It is likely that he would have challenged one, if not more of the last four, but that he had challenged the number of 35. before these four were called; and the Law allowed him not to challenge more.  
Then, the Indictment being read, Mr Dolben as Counsel for the King, opened it to the Jury.  
Mr Attorney General then enforced the Charge thus; After Sir Tho. Armstrong had fled, the Prisoner relieved and aided him with Money; and that, after he was Indicted, and sued to the Exigent; besides, a Proclamation followed upon his flight, which was a sufficient notice to all the King's Subjects; Sir Thomas went by the Name of Henry Laurence, beyond Sea; by that Name the Prisoner held a Correspondence with him, and sent him a Letter, dated the 21st of August, and tells him, he had sent him a Bill of Exchange, for 165 l. drawn upon his Brother, Israel Hayes, who was acquainted with Sir Thomas.  
If it were not for these, receiving and nourishing of Traitors, they would not lurk at Amsterdam, as they do. The Letter was taken about Sir Thomas, and we shall prove it is the Prisoner's Handwriting, and that Sir Thomas received the Money.  
I hope you will take care, 
But like good Men, they took all the care they could, to stop the Fountain of Blood, that to the scandal of the Nation had too long issued from the Old-Bayly.  by Convicting this Gentleman, to stop the Fountain, that issues so much supply to these Traitors, that lurk abroad.  
Mr Hayes then affirmed, that he never knew Sir Thomas in his life.  
Then, the Indictment against Sir Thomas was read, which was found the 12th of July; and Mr Glover proved a Copy of the King's Proclamation against Sir Thomas dated the 28th of June, 1683.  
Then, Ezekiel Everis was sworn, and testified, that in August 1683, he was at Cleve in Germany, with the Lord Grey, who went by the name of Thomas Holt, and Sir Tho. A. came thither, by the Name of Mr Henry Laurence, and showed him a Bill of Exchange, from England, upon Mr Israel Hayes in Amsterdam, for 160 l. odd Money; and that it was, for 150 Guineas, paid in England; and he told him, it was drawn by Joseph Hayes; and it was signed Joseph Hayes; and the Bill was accepted, and he saw Israel Hayes his Letter to Sir Thomas, by the Name of Laurence, which mentioned the sending the said sum to Cleve.  
The Common Sergeant (crisp) then delivered a parcel of Letters into the Court, and swore that he received them of the Lord Godolphin, and they had been ever since in his hands.  
The Lord Godolphin then testified, that he received three Letters produced in Court, from Mr Constable, Mr Chudley's Secretary, who told him they were taken about Sir Thomas, that one of them, without any Name, mentioned 150 Guineas returned to Henry Laurence.  
Constable testified, that he was present, when the Scout of Leyden apprehended Sir Tho. A. and that the Letters were taken out of his Pocket, and he himself delivered them to Mr Chudley, who sealed them up and sent them, by him, to the Lord Godolphin.  
Charles Davis testified, that taking Boat from Amsterdam to Rotterdam, he met Israel Hayes and Sir Tho. A. coming to take Boat, and Sir Thomas went with him in the Boat, and he told him his Name was Henry Laurence.  
Davis added, that he lodged a Month in one Briscowe's House at Amsherdam, where there was a Club every Thursday; There were Mr Israel Hayes, Mr Henry Ireton, one Wilmore, Emerton, Dare, and some other English Merchants; and he heard them several times, abuse the King at the Table.  
The Attorney General then shown Mr Hayes a Letter, saying, It may be he will save us the labour of proving it; but Mr Hayes disowning it,  
Mr Walpoole was called, and Mr Hayes said, he was my Servant, and went away, after a rate, that possibly would not be allowed.  
Walpoole testified, that he served Mr Hayes almost four Years and three quarters, and did believe the Letter to be Mr Hayes his hand.  
Mr Hayes said, My Lord, in matters of Treason, I hope you will not admit of comparison of hands and belief, for Evidence.  
The Chief Justice answered, Yes, no doubt of it.  
Mr Hayes replied, It has not been so in other Cases, that have not been Capital; as particularly in the Lady Carr's Case.  
The Chief Justice said, that is a mistake, you take it from Algernon Sidney, but without all doubt, it is good Evidence.  
Judge Wythens said, Comparison of Hands was allowed for good Evidence in Colman's Case.  
Mr Hayes answered, That, with submission, vastly differs; Those Letters were found in his own Custody; This was not found in my possession, but in another Man's, and in another Nation.  
Sir John Trevor, Counsel for the King, said, This Gentleman was a Trader with the East-India-Company, and made Contracts with them, which are entered in their Books; We will compare them with the Writing in this Letter.  
The Common Sergeant then called Harman and Brittle, and demanded of them, where the Books were; and they produced them.  
Harman testified, that he knew Mr Hayes, and that he made several Contracts in 1683, and that he saw him in September 1683, subscribe his Hand to a Book of the Companies, shown to him.  
Brittle testified, that he is Porter in the Street to the East-India-Company, and that he saw Mr Hayes writ his Hand, to a Book shown to him.  
Capt. Piercehouse produced a Note, 
Query, if not the same Peircehouse in the Panel of the Jury.  which he said was Mr H. his, and that he supposed it to be his hand, and compared it with the hand in the Book, and said, that he delivered the Goods upon it; and Walpoole then said, he believed it to be Mr Hayes his hand.  
Then Mr Sturdivant was called, and they showed him the Letter, and he said, Here is Joseph Hayes writ, but I do not know it to be his Hand.  
The Common Sergeant warmly said, that Mr Sturdivant swore he did know Mr H. his hand, before the Grand Jury; but Mr Sturdivant affirmed, the Common Sergeant was under a mistake.  
Then Sir John Trevor called for Mr Hardresse, but the 
* The Common Sergeant, as hath been elsewhere observed, upon the discovery of Keeling's Plot, in 1683, boasted what work that Plot would make, when it came into the City; We now have him pulling it into the City, by Head and Shoulders; and find him, in this Case, appearing and exerting himself, in a three or four sold capacity, (viz.) the Manager, (if not Contriver) of this prosecution; and a Counsel, Solicitor, and Witness, against the worthy Citizen, now designed to destruction.  Common Sejeant answered, That he was out of Town, before he could be served with a Subpena.  
Then the Letter was read, it was subscribed Joseph Hayes, and dated the 31st of August 1683. directed to Mr Henry Laurence signior, at Amsterdam; and began thus, Sir, at your desire I have sent you a Bill, etc.  
The Letter and the East-India-Books were then shown to the Jury, and to the Prisoner.  
Mr Hayes denied the Letter to be his Writing, and said, 'Tis very strange I should not know my own hand; May not Counsel be admitted to plead, Whether comparison of hands and belief, are any evidence in Criminal Causer? I have been informed, it hath been denied to be evidence.  
The Ch. Justice told him he was under a mistake; some body has put it into your Head, and puffed you up with a vain Story; there is no such thing, 'Tis a Fiction, a mere Whim, only said by Mr Sidney, and no ground in the World for it.  
Mr Hayes replied, Was it not so in the Case of my Lady Carr? there is a Record of that I suppose.  
The Chief Justice affirmed, it was not so, and said, Don't talk of it, 
* It was in Trinity Term 1669. Anno 21 Car. 2.  there was no such thing at all— Comparison of hands was allowed for good proof, in Sidney's Case; We must not alter the Law for any Body.  
Mr attorney General said, Besides this comparison of hands, We shall give an account of the Correspondence of the Prisoner's Brother, and that he received the Money of him; and then said, Mr Common Sergeant, Where had you this Papery?  
The Common Sergeant, to show his care and zeal in this matter, said, Pray have a care of the Papers; and then gave evidence that he had them from my Zord Godolphin, and said, This is an Account of the Receipt and Disbursement of the Money; Show it Mr Constable.  
Constable said, This is one of the Papers was taken out of Sir T. A's Pocket.  
It being shown to the Jury, one of them demanded, whether any one proved the hand, that was in that Note?  
The Attorney answered, No, but Everis swears, that Sir T. A. showed him a Bill, subscribed Joseph Hayes; for so many hundred Guilders.  
The Common Sergeant said, He says it was 160 odd Pounds; now the sum of this Note is 161 l. 5 s. which is the change of 150 Guineas.  
Mr North concluded, saying, We have done at present.  
Mr Hayes then said, Here is no body proves this Letter to be my hand, positively; They only prove it by similitude, and comparison, and belief.  
I conceive there is but one Witness, that that Letter was found in Sir T. A's hands. Everis says, he saw a Bill had my Name to it; Sir, you did not know me, nor ever saw my hand.  
Everis answered, No, never in my Life.  
Mr Hayes then said, 'Tis only an evidence of Reputation; he heard it was my Bill; you saw no Money paid upon it, did you?  
Everis, No; but I saw a Letter from Mr Israel Hayes, that gave some account of it.  
Mr Hayes said, All this is but Similitude and Circumstance; and I thought in case of Treason there ought to be two Witnesses, and hope you will let it be so here;— here is no evidence but the Letter, and that is not two Witnesses; There is no body has proved, the knowingly, in the Indictment; that runs, that I knew Sir T. A. and his Treason, that aught to be proved, but I am sure 'tis not; your Lordship says that the Indictment and the Proclamation, are sufficient notice, that he was a Traitor; that may admit of Counsel to debate it; There aught to be Witnesses that could show me to be concerned with him; which no Body in the World can prove; or that I ever saw him; and that Witness, that says he saw the Bill, or this Letter, does not know that I wrote it. There are them that say, they heard of Money paid upon this Bill, but there is not one of them says, he saw any Money paid; and these are several Witnesses, every one to a several thing.  
Here is no proof, but by the East-India Porters, and those who say, they believe this Eetter to be my hand; No body says he saw me write this Letter, or had any Correspondence with Sir T. A.  
If they pretend there was Money paid beyond Sea; Is this Indictment well laid; for it is laid to be paid in London? The payment of Money beyond Sea, can be no evidence of the Fact upon this Indictment, for the Jury of London; are to inquire of matters arising in London only; If I am to be tried for payment of Money boyond Sea, the fact should have been laid there, and the Trial were to proceed upon the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 2. The Indictment should be taken, by Special Commission, from the King; and the Trial be in the County, that the King should choose; I desire Counsel upon this point.  
Lord Chief Justice, No, 'tis an idle Whim, and I would fain know the Counsel, that put that foolish Notion into your head.  
Mr Hayes. If you will allow me Counsel, you shall hear who they are; I have been informed the Law is so.  
Chief Justice. We are of another opinion: If any whimsical Notions are put into you, by some Enthusiastic Counsel, the Court is not to take notice of their Crotchets.  
Mr Hayes proceeded, and said, The Witnesses are Strangers to me; There is is one that has been sworn, to whom I have paid several thousands of pounds, that says he does not believe it to be my hand; then he called Mr Sturdivant, who looking upon the Letter, said, I do not believe it to be his hand; I have had deal with him, and he hath given me many Receipts.  
Mr Hayes then said, There have been a great many Forgeries; and this Letter is forged; there have been Forgeries so like, that the Persons themselves have not known their own hands.  
Chief Justice. Every body knows, that a hand may be counterfeited, very like; in Mr Sidney's Case, Mr Wharton, a young Gentleman, not above one or two and twenty, said, he could undertake to counterfeit any Man's hand whatsoever.  
Mr Hayes then told the Jury, that he was not a Man of that Quality, to give Sir T. A. 150 Guineas.  
Chief Justice. We all know you have been a very 
† The resolution in that day, was to enslave the City & the Nation, and every one who was found to withstand it, was treated with this sort of Language, and then made a Traitor, if they found an opportuniry, unless by chance, as in this case, a Jury failed them.  active Man, a busy Fellow about the City; as forward a Spark, as any I know, of a great while. I don't know what you talk of your Quality, but We know your qualifications, you have always been factious and turbulent, against the King and the Government.  
Mr Hayes then affirmed, that he neither gave, nor lent, nor returned, any sum of Money to this Person; and then called Mr Langley, who testified, that a Letter was Counterfeited, and a Bill of Exchange for 450 l. and so exactly like, that if he had not known of it before he saw it, he must have owned it, for his hand; and the party that paid the Money, paid it in his own wrong, for he never drew any such Bill.  
Mr Hayes added, Mr Common Sergeant had my Books several days in his hands, where there is an Account of 20000 l. between my Brother and me; and if I would set my hand to such a Letter and Bill, and write my Name at length, is it not as reasonable that I should put the Name of Laurence in my Books; and if it were there, it would appear.  
Indeed, here is an Account produced, of divers parcels of Money disbursed, in little sums; but, I appeal to the Merchants, whether ever any Bill of Exchange, was ever paid, in such parcels; No foreign Bill, was ever paid by 3 l. or 5 l. or 20 l. at a time: it must be paid at the day, or it will be protested— here is a computation of a sum, like to the sum in the Bill; but these are Suppositions, and not proof.  
Then Mr Hayes called Alderman Jeffryes, to speak to his Reputation and Conversation; who said, that he had known him many Years, and never knew any hurt by him.  
The Chief Justice demanded of the Alderman, whether he had been at any of the Elections at Guildhall for Mayors or Sheriffs, when Mr Bethel and Mr Cornish and them People were chosen; and whether he had seen Mr Hayes there, and how he did behave himself? 
* It is true, that he was, upon every occasion, active in the maintenance of the City-Rights; and his Lordship, and the Common Sergeant had ever been as forward Sparks on the other side; & that made them so intent, upon the destruction of every well deserving, worthy Citizen, whom they could draw under an Accusation.  A very forward active Man, I will warrant you.  
Alderman Jeffryes answered, I suppose I may have seen him there, but I cannot say any thing to his behaviour.  
Then Mr Hayes called Mr Pollet, Mr Lloyd, Mr Withers signior, Mr Withers junior, and Mr Hugh White, who gave a fair account of his dealing and Conversation. He then said, that he would trouble the Court with no more Witnesses.  
Mr Attorney General then said, that he would call one Witness more against him; and ordered Atterbury the Messenger to be sworn, and the Letter was showed to him.  
Atterbury said, that he apprehended Mr Hayes, and brought him before the King, and was present when the Letter was showed to him, and the King and Lord Keeper North, pressed him to own, whether it was his hand or no; and he said, he should say nothing to it, if they could prove it upon him well and good.  
Mr Hayes contradicted this Mischievous and Bloody Man, saying, his Majesty was not there.  
Atterbury answered, As I remember, the King was there; but by and by said, he did only imagine the King was there.  
The Chief Justice then backed Atterbury's Evidence, saying, I was there, what he says is true; you said, I am not bound to accuse myself; 'tis true, you did deny that you knew Laurence or Armstrong; and 'tis as true you would not absolutely deny the Letter, but said, you were not bound to accuse yourself.  
Mr Hayes then said, My Lord, I did hope, that in point of Law, my Counsel should have been heard to those things I mentioned; and I wish you would favour me in it; But that being denied him, he addressed himself to the Jury, saying, Nothing has more troubled me, since my Confinement, than the imputation of high Treason, a thing I always detested; I never knew any, the least thing of the Conspiracy, but by the Trials, or other printed Papers; not one of the Conspirators, who have come in, or been taken, have charged me in the least; nor did he himself accuse me, with whom I am charged to have this Correspondence. Gentlemen, I desire you to consider, that 'tis my Life is concerned, & I beg you would consider what these Witnesses have testified; They are not positive in any respect, nay, there are not two, to any one thing that is charge; Constable says, the Letter was found amongst Sir T. A's Papers; he says no more; and here are not two Witnesses to that; Everis tells you, he saw this Bill, but did not know my hand; There is No body tells you I wrote this Letter, but it is found in another Man's dustody, in another Nation.  
Gentlemen, 'tis very hard, that by comparison of hands, a man's Life should be in danger; when, in lesser Crimes, it has been denied to be good evidence; and none of you can escape the same danger, if this be allowed to be evidence; for your hands may be counterfeited, as well as mine.  
If there had been any probability of my knowing him, it had been something; but there is not one that testifies, that ever I knew him, nor indeed did I; There is a great deal of Circumstance made use of, upon the account of his acquaintance with my Brother, in Holland; but, 'tis strange, there should not be some evidence, of a further Correspondence between him and me, if there were that intimacy, that such a Letter as this doth import.  
I must, with Reverence to the divine Majesty say, and I call God, Angels and Men, to witness the truth of it; as I shall answer it to him, before whom, for aught I know, I am quickly to appear; that I never in my Life spoke with Sir T. Armstrong, nor was ever in his Company, nor ever wrote to him, by the Name of Laurence, or any other Name; And I do solemnly say, in the presence of God, that I never gave, sent, lent, paid, or ordered to be paid, any Money, directly or indirectly, to Sir T. A. or H. Laurence, or to him by any other Name, or to his use; I speak it without any counterfeiting or equivocation.  
Gentlemen, There have been Overtures, if I would say some things, that my Life might be saved; and 'tis not to be believed, that I would run the Risque of my Life, if by speaking the Truth, I could save it—  
The Chief Justice did here appear enraged, and interrupted him, saying, What do you mean by this?  
Mr Hayes. I say—  
Chief Justice. Ay, but you must say those things that are decent and fit for us to hear; you must not insinuate, as if the Government would make any such Compacts as you talk of.  
Mr Hayes. I say that Mr Foster told me—  
Chief Justice. If you offer that, I can tell you a Story, that perhaps you will be very unwilling to hear; on my word, 'twill be very unpleasant to hear it; you had better let those things alone, for you will but draw a load upon you.  
Mr Hayes. I beseech your Lordship to hear me—  
Chief Justice. Yes, I will hear you, provided you keep within due bounds, but we must not suffer these things.  
Mr Hayes. I say nothing but this, It has been told me, the way to save my Life is to confess.  
Chief Justice. As you represent it, 'tis a reflection upon the Government— you talk of Overtures having been made you; don't make me say, what I have no mind to say.  
Mr Hayes. I say, Mr Foster by Name told me, there was no way for me to escape, but by Confession.  
Chief Justice. You had best call Mr Foster, to know how he came to tell you so; If you do, I will tell you of another thing, of 
* The Story of the 4 or 5000 l. was this, an eminent Papist, very acceptable to King Charles the second, undertaken to some of the Friends of Mr Hayes, that a Pardon should be had, for 4000 Guineas to the King, & 1000 to himself; but he afterwards declared, that the King had refused him therein, and told him, that he was advised, that he had better give that Popish Friend 4000 l. out of the Exchequer, than pardon Hays; but that he gave his Royal Word, that the Overture should not hurt Mr Hayes; nevertheless, the murdering Adviser of that King, doth here publish it, to insinuate the Prisoner's guilt.  4 or 5000 l. that was offered for your escape, you had better forbear, or else I shall put you in mind, of a Brother of some Body, that is at the Bar.  
Mr Hayes, My Lord, I was told that was the way; Gentlemen of the Jury, I have declared to you the whole truth, with all the solemnity that becomes any nnocent Man, & not an ill Man— Besides, that you have heard, in all this evidence, is nothing but Circumstance and Hear-say; and shall a Man's Life be taken away, for I believe, and I think, or I have heard?  
Gentlemen, I know you are my Fellow Citizens and Fellow Christians, and of the same Reformed Religion that I am; and I hope you are sworn into this service without any prejudice against me; but with an impartial Resolution to do Justice; and therefore I cheerfully leave the matter with you; I am sure, that if God help me and deliver me in this Exigency, that it is he and you under him, that preserve my Life—  
Gentlemen, The great Incertainties, Improbabilities and Consequences in this case, I hope will be weighed by you; and make you the better to consider the proof, which is made, by none but such as are Strangers to me; since then, they know me not, I hope you will weigh it, before you give it against me; We must all die, and I am sure it will be no grief to you, to acquit a Man that is innocent; I leave it with you: The Lord direct you.  
Then Jenner the Recorder, to aggravate the matter spoke thus; The Treason charged on the Prisoner, is of that sort, that if he be guilty; he will be a just example, to terrify others from doing the like; for if Traitors had not persons to supply them with Money abroad, it may be, they would not have so much Courage to run away.  
We have satisfied you, that Sir T. A. was indicted, that an Exigent was gone against him, upon that account; here was a Proclamation, and Sir T. A. named in it; and so, at his rate of talking, the Recorder repeated the Evidence of the Witnesses, and concluded.  
Gentlemen, We think that his defence has been so little, and our proof so strong, that you have good ground to find him Guilty.  
The Chief Justice, than summed up the matter to the Jury, in a Speech of of a vast length, which was in substance this.  
Gentlemen of the Jury, This is an Indictment of high Treason, against the Prisoner at the Bar; and you are to try it, according to your evidence; The Prisoner's affirmation of his innocence, is not to weigh with you. Nay,  
I must tell you, I cannot, but upon this occasion, make a little Reflection upon several of the horrid Conspirators, that did not only, with as much solemnity, imprecate Vengeance upon themselves, if they were guilty of any Treason; but thought they did God Almighty good service in that hellish Conspiracy: It is not unknown, one of the Persons proscribed in this Proclamation, did declare, they should be so far from being esteemed Traitors, That they should have Trophies set up for them; and all this, under the pretence and enamel of Religion: Nay, I can cite to you, an instance of another of the Conspirators, that after a full and evident proof, and plain Conviction, of having an hand in it, when he comes upon the Brink of Death, and was to answer for that horrid fact, before the great God, he blessed Almighty God, that he died by the hand of the Executioner, with the Axe, and did not die by the Fiery Trial: He blessed God, at the place of Execution, that he died a Traitor against the King and Government, rather than died a Martyr for his Religion.  
I think it necessary to make some Reflection upon it, when Men under the pretence of Religion, are wound up to that height, to foment Differences, to disturb and distract the Government, to destroy the Foundations of it, to murder his sacred Majesty, and his Royal Brother; and to subvert our Religion, and Liberty and Property; and all this carried on, upon pretence of doing God good service.  
You are to go according to evidence; as the Blood of a Man is precious, so the Government also is a precious thing; the Life of the King is a precious thing; The preservation of our Religion is a precious thing; and therefore, due regard must be had to all of them.  
I must tell you, in this horrid Conspiracy, there were several Persons, that bore several parts; Some, that were to head and to consult; there was a Council to consider; Others were designed to to have a hand, in the perpetrating of that horrid Villainy, that was intended upon the Persons of his Sacred Majesty and his Royal Brother, and with them, upon the Persons of all his Majesty's Loyal Subjects, that acted with duty, as they ought to do; There were others, that were to be aiding and assisting (as in the case of the Prisoner, if you find him guilty) aiding, abetting, assisting by Money, or otherwise, or harbouring any of those Persons, that were concerned therein.  
Then he recounted the Evidence given against the Prisoner, and made such Remarks upon the same, as he thought fit.  
The Jury withdrew, and spent two hours in consideration of the matter; and then returning, gave their Verdict (to the disappointment and vexation of the Chief Justice, Common Sergeant and others) that the Prisoner was Not Guilty.  
Mr Attorney General thereupon said, My Lord, tho' they have acquitted him, yet the Evidence was so strong, that I hope, your Lordship and the Court will think fit, to bind him to his good behaviour, during his Life.  
The Chief Justice answered, Mr Attorney, that is not a proper Motion, at this time.  
So the Prisoner was discharged, after he had been imprisoned five Months.  
Tho' Mr Hayes, to the eternal Honour of some good Men, who were upon his Jury, came off with his Life; he was by this Prosecution, beaten out of as good and valuable a Trade, as most Linen Drapers in London had; and was, by consequence, highly impaired in his Estate.  
About the same time, Mr Roswell, a very worthy Divine, was tried, for Treasonable Words in his Pulpit, upon the Accusation of very vile and lewd Informers; and a Surry Jury found him Guilty of high Treason, upon the the most villainous and improbable evidence, that had been ever given, notwithstanding Sir John Talbot (no Countenancer of Dissenters) had appeared with great generosity and honour, and testified, that the most material Witness, was as scandalous and infamous a Wretch as lived.  
It was at that time given out, by those who thirsted for Blood, that Mr Roswel and Mr Hayes should die together; and it was upon good ground believed, that the happy deliver ance of Mr Hayes, did much contribute to the preservation of Mr Roswel; tho', it is very probable, that he had not escaped, had not Sir John Talbot's worthy, and most honourable detestation, of that accursed Villainy; prompted him, to repair from the Court of King's Bench, to King Charles the second; and to make a faithful representation of the Case to him; whereby, when inhuman bloody Jeffreyes', came a little after, in a transport of Joy, to make his Report of the eminent service he, and the Surry Jury had done, in finding Mr Roswel guilty; the King (to his disappointment) appeared under some reluctancy, and declared that Mr Roswell should not die. And so he was most happily delivered; and being, by this remarkable Providence of God, still alive; he would (at least in my opinion) do a very useful and seasonable piece of service to this Age, and to those which are to succeed; in publishing a full Account of the whole Proceed against him.   

Remarks upon the Trial of Mr Charles Bateman, at the Old-Bayly, Upon the 9th day of December 1685, before the Lord Chief Justice Herbert, etc.  
IT was very well known that Mr Bateman, as a good Citizen & true Englishman, had constantly asserted and stood up for his native Rights & Privileges; and by consequence, he became obnoxious to those, who had conspired and resolved the ruin thereof, and of the Protestant Religion with them.  
It is an undoubted truth, that this worthy Citizen's seasonable and necessary endeavour (with many others of eminent desert) to withstand the fatal Usurpation of Sr. John Moor, in imposing Sir Dudley North and Sir Peter Rich, upon the City for Sheriffs, in the year 1682, did expose him to the implacable rage of the Conspirators.  
Our Parliaments and Courts of Justice had been for some years, most strenuously attempting to extirpate the hellish Popish Plot, and accursed Popery; but there were then found Miscreants, who set themselves to run the Kingdom upon a wrong scent; and they never wanted a Protestant Plot, when it might cover and secret their own; and all wise men saw them ready to start one, when Sir John Moor had constituted proper Sheriffs.  
At that time the Earl of Shaftesbury, well knowing that his Innocence would not be able to guard him, against hired and suborned Rascals, and packed Juries; and he remembering what base and villainous Arts had been used to destroy him; his Sagacity prompted him to put himself out of the reach of that implacable rage, which had so long pursued him; and in order to it, he concealed himself, for some time, in Mr Bateman's House; and afterwards (till he retired into Holland) in the house of that worthy upright Englishman Captain Tracy, in Goodman's Fields, whose Life was therefore threatened, and eminently endangered, but the divine Providence delivered him, after he had suffered a long and close Imprisonment (in Irons) in Newgate, under the Tyranny of Richardson.  
Mr Bateman was also the Refuge of that eminent and well-deserving Citizen Sr. Patience Ward, whose innocence could not defend him against those wrathful Enemies, with his undaunted appearance against Popery, had stirred up against him; He retired to Mr Bateman's House, and was, by him concealed, until discovered by that Bloodhound Atterbury.  
About that time (viz.) in June, 1683, the Conspirators had brought Keeling's Plot upon the Stage; and thereupon, Mr. Bateman was taken up by Atterbury, and carried before King Charles the second, and there accused by 
* He swore many of his Neighbours into Prisons and Irons, tho' till now (Rouse excepted) no man was ever tried upon his Evidence.  Lee the Dyer. The King had declared of that infamous Varlet, that if he were not checked, he would swear all mankind into the Plot; Nevertheless, the King demanded of Mr Bateman, whether the Earl of Shaftesbury and Sir Patience Ward, did lodge at his House; which Mr. Bateman acknowledging; he was committed Prisoner to the Marshalseas, and there kept eighteen Weeks; and then, there being no Prosecution, he was discharged upon Bail.  
At the time of the Duke of Monmouth's Landing, not only the Prisons about London, but the Halls of many of the City Companies, were filled by the then Lieutenancy, with the best Citizens; under the imputation of being Traitorously affected, or Enemies to the Government; without any manner of accusation; and amongst them, Mr Bateman was imprisoned in Cloth-workers-Hall; but, being discharged from thence; in a short time afterwards, Atterbury (who in that day took up whom he pleased) fetched him from his House at Highgate, and kept him some time Prisoner in his own House (which he made a Goal, as long as Men would feed his Avarice) and then delivered him over to Richardson, by whom he was kept in a close Room, (with the Windows boarded up) sixteen or seventeen Weeks, before he was brought to Trial.  
That Mr Bateman, was a Person of very good sense and understanding, will not be denied, by any Man to whom he was known, but by the rigour, severity and inhuman usage, wherewith he was treated, during his long Imprisonment; he was found, at the time of his Trial to be very much shattered in his understanding, and very uncapable of making a defence; and that defence which he made, was by the assistance of his Son, a very young Man, of about twenty years of age.  
The Jury returned and sworn to pass upon him were, 

Richard Aley,  
Richard Williams,  
John Cannum,  
Patrick Barret,  
John Palmer,  
James Raynor,  
Edward Radish,  
George Lilburne,  
Daniel Fowls,  
Peter Floyer,  
Laurence Cole,  
John Cooper.    
Mr Phips opened the Indictment, to this effect, (viz.) That the Prisoner, the 30th of May 1683, traitorously, with other Rebels, conspired to depose and kill the King, and to change and subvert the Government; and did promise and undertake to be assisting and aiding, in the apprehending the King, and in taking and seizing the City of London, and the Tower; the Savoy and Whitehall.  
Then Sergeant Selby and Mr Moloy, aggravated the charge in the Indictment, And,  
Josia Keeling witnessed, that Rumbold 
* Note, all this is hear-say, and no manner of Evidence against the Prisoner. Keeling had heard it discoursed, but for aught appears, it might be by Secretary Jenkins, for he named no Body.  said he had a House, very convenient to plant Men in, to seize the King; and that he had heard it discoursed, that Mr Bateman was looked upon, as a Person fitting to manage one Division, in order to an Insurrection, to seize the Tower, etc.  
Tho. Lee the Dyer, testified, that, he being acquainted by Goodenough, 
This Lee at the same time, that he swore against Mr Bateman, also offered to swear Treason against a Person with whom (to my certain knowledge) he never exchanged one word in his Life, and who never was in company with him, nor otherwise seem by Lee, than at a considerable distance, in a Coffee-house.  how the City was to be divided into twenty parts, and managed; he the said Lee, nominated Mr Bateman, as a fit Man, to manage one part; and thereupon, he was desired by Goodenough, to speak with him about it; and that when he discoursed him, he plainly apprehended Mr Bateman was no stranger to it, nor boggled to give his consent.  
That he went with Mr Bateman to the Duke of Monmouth's House; and after he had had some discourse with one of the Duke's Servants; he came to him, and told him, the Duke was willing to engage in the business; and had Horses kept in the Country, to be in readiness, when matters should come to extremity.  
That he the said Lee and Mr B. went to the Devil-Tavern; and there Mr B. proposed the seizing the City, Tower, Savoy and Whitehall, and the King's Person; And that Mr B. told him, at the Half-Moon-Tavern in Aldersgate-street, that if he could but see a Cloud as big as a Man's hand, he would not be wanting to employ his Interest.  
That Mr Bateman had told him, 
Just as likely a story as that of Colledge's Plot, in his single person, to seize the King at Oxford.  that he intended to take an House near the Tower, to place Men in, in order to surprise it.  
Mr Bateman objected to this evidence, that if he had been guilty of such discourse, he had been fit for Bedlam; and if Lee had heard him speak such words, he wondered he had not sooner accused him.  
Richard Goodenough then witnessed, that in discourse with Mr B. at the King's Head-Tavern in Swithens Alley, about the intended Insurrection, M. B. promised to use his interest in raising Men; and to be assisting in surprising the City, Savoy, etc. and in driving the Guards out of Town.  
Mr Bateman having subpenaed Sir William Turner, to give an Account of an Information, given in upon Oath before him; by one Barker, above two Years before; that Lee would have suborned him against the Prisoner; Sir William would testify nothing thereof, but said, that it being above two Years since, he could not charge his memory, with any of the particulars contained therein.  
Mr Tomkins, Sir William Turner's Clerk, being asked about Baker's Information, said, there was such an Examination taken, Anno 1683; but, to the best of his remembrance, it was returned before the King and Council; and he could not give any account of the particulars.  
Baker being called, declared, That being in Lee's company, in the year 1683, Lee would have persuaded him, to insinuate himself into Mr Bateman's company; and he demanding of Lee, to what end he should do it, and about what he should discourse; Lee told him, he might talk about State matters, 
Lee, by these horrid practices, made himself a great Man, being put into the place of a Messenger, which he enjoyed till of late, though some time before he became a Witness, he borrowed Money to buy Bread for his Family.  and by that means he would find a way to make him a great Man, and Baker testified, he was examined about this, before Sir William T.  
The Court, upon this Evidence, declared, that what Baker said, 
A wicked, but customary practice of that day, to abet and justify Suborners and Trapans.  was nothing to the purpose, but that Lee had a design therein, to make a discovery of the Conspiracy, if he could have procured a Witness to corroborate his Evidence.  
The Jury being sent out, without Hesitation, brought Mr Bateman in guilty of the Treason, (tho' 'tis certain King Charles laughed at Lee's evidence.)  
It being demanded of Mr B. what he had to say, why Judgement should not be pronounced; He desired to know whether Mr Goodenough was fully pardoned; and he was answered, that as for the Outlawry, he was pardoned; and for any thing else, he was not prosecuted; and then, he was condemned, and was executed upon the 18th of December, 1685.  
That the matter relating to Sir William Turner, may appear in it its true Light; I shall subjoin the following account thereof.  
Mr Bateman's Son, having (as he thought) very providentially heard, that Baker had, about two Years before, given an Information, upon Oath, to Sir William Turner, of the Villain Lee's tampering with him, to ensnare and accuse Mr Bateman; The Son was advised by Counsel, to apply himself to Sir William; and in several attendances upon him, when he was engaged in other matters, and his Books of Entries lay upon his Table; he turning over the Leaves, found the Entry of Baker's Information, about Lee's attempting to suborn him, against Mr Bateman.  
The Son thereupon, in the first place, applied to Tomkins, Sir William's Clerk, to get a Copy of that Information; and did once think him inclined to let him have it; but at last, he told him he must ask Sir William: Thereupon he applied himself to Sir William for it, who demanded of him, Whether it were against the King; and young Mr Bateman answered him, No; it may save the Life of one of his Subjects; whereupon Sir William said, You shall not have it.  
The only Refuge then was, to subpena Sir William Turner, and his Clerk; which was done; and Sir William being examined, & saying, he could not charge his Memory with any of the particulars in the Information of Baker; young Mr Bateman said, Let the Book be sent for, it is in such a Book, and such a Page.  
Whereupon, Herbert the Chief Justice in a passion, commanded young Mr Bateman to be removed out of the Court, as he was.  
If the truth of what is here related, in reference to Sir William Turner, be any way doubted, it will evidently, and beyond control appear, by the Proceed before the House of Lords, where it hath been very lately made out, by Mr Bateman's Son, and also by another Witness, who was privy to the whole transaction thereof, with Sir William Turner.  
Mr Bateman being thus condemned to Death, by the foregoing wicked Practices; expressed himself thus to his Son, Richard, Your Father needs not to die, if he will accuse others, but he dies because he will not be a Rogue. And 'twas most undoubtedly true, as 'tis, that a greater Rogue lives not, than this Lee, (Mr Batemen first Accuser) who having miscarried in his cursed Attempt to suborn Baker, is now seconded by Goodenough, who was brought with a Halter (in effect) about his Neck, to swear this good Man out of his Life.  
In relation to the Witnesses and their Evidence, some things deserve to be further remarked.  
The late King James had no sooner possessed himself of the Throne, but by his order, and special recommendation, a most malicious Tract was emitted to the World, under the Title of Atrue Account and Declaration of the horrid Conspiracy against the late King, his present Majesty, and the Government; The temporising Penman (who ever he was) showed more Art than Honesty, in compiling that History, and omitted nothing therein, which might serve the turn of Popery; but most wickedly magnified the Evidence of the Conspiracy he treated of. His lose and virulent Pen runs thus, as to Keeling, one of the Witnesses in the case before us;  
Josia Keeling (a most perverse Fanatic) was the Man whom God chose to make the first discoverer; It pleased the divine Goodness so to touch his Soul, that he could not rest till after much conflict in his mind, he had fully determined to discharge his Conscience of the Hellish Secret.  
Now the truth of it is, Keeling was found, about that time, to be under some Conflict; but it was with Satan and his Instruments; who quickly vanquished and made him a Witness; as hath been lately made out beyond contradiction; by the Testimony of many unblemished Persons, before the House of Lords (of which more in it is proper place) he had indeed before that time, frequented an Assembly of Christians, who dissented from the Church of England; but being thrown out (as a perverse Fanatic) he made his way by a Profligate Fellow, like himself, one Peckham; to Sir Leoline Jenkins the Secretary of State, who listed him of his Church, and the first in his Roll of Witnesses; and since he became so, 'tis notoriously known, that he hath given up himself to all manner of Vices, and is a profane lewd debauchee.  
This Keeling is brought in as the first Witness against Mr Bateman; tho' his Evidence, touched him no more in Law, than it did every of the Jurymen; and it is remarkable, 
Page 1. etc. of the true Account, etc.  that in the four Informations, which he at several times gave in to Jenkins, Mr Bateman is not so much as once named, and yet we here find Keeling a witness against him.  
The  bitter and malicious History doth likewise present us at large, 
Page 34. of the true Account, etc.  (as it did Keeling's) with the Information of Lee the dyer, against Mr Bateman; therein Lee swears, that he told Mr B. a story he had from Goodenough, of our Rights and Privileges being invaded; and that some Gentlemen had taken into consideration, how to retrieve them, etc. That Mr Bateman thereupon told him, he must have a care, and speak at a great distance; that he was willing to assist, if he could see but a Cloud as big as a Man's hand; And that Mr B. told him, that the Duke of Monmouth told him the said Mr B. that he was glad that he came acquainted with those Protestant Lords; and that Mr B. assured Lee, that the Duke was very right for the Protestant Interest; and that we need not mistrust him; And Lee added, in that Information, That Goodenough told him, that they must seize the Tower, and take the City, and secure the Savoy and Whitehall, and the King and the Duke.  
The Case, as to poor Mr Bateman, was much altered, between the time of Lee's giving the foregoing Information, and this Trial; for at first, the managers were for hanging Goodenough, (of whom, the Author of the True Account, pag. 55. saith, that he, with monstrous Impiety, maintained and recommended the Murder of the King and the Duke, as a pious design, and a keeping of one of the ten Commandments, and the best way to prevent shedding Christian Blood) rather than Bateman; and to that end, Lee's main force was then bend against Goodenough; but now, it being found, that Goodenough (and the City- Juries of that day) could hang Alderman Cornish and Bateman (and also Sr. Robert Peyton could they have catcht him) the story, of a Cloud as big as a man's Hand, is expatiated, and breaks in a dreadful storm upon Mr B. That, of the Duke of Monmouth's being right for the Protestant Interest, is now mightily improved; and Bateman made to have said, The Duke would engage in the business, and had Honses in readiness, etc. And, that he the said Bateman, would take an House near the Tower, in order to surprise it, etc.  
As matters were at first concerted, the Evidence ran thus, Goodenough told Lee, that they must seize and secure the Tower, the City, the Savoy, Whitehall; the King and the Duke; Now Lee swears (and Goodenough backs him in it) that all this discourse of seizing and securing, etc. proceeded from Mr Bateman.  
To conclude, the whole was a hellish Contrivance to destroy the most valuable men of the Age, and with them the Protestant Religion; and the wicked History I have mentioned, is a lying & most malicious Libel, upon the great and noble Names and Families of the D. of Monmouth, the Earls of Bedford, Leicester, Essex, Shaftesbury, Argyle, and others; and also upon the present learned Bishop of Salisbury; and therefore, seeing that Author doth not unwrite it, 'tis pity that 'tis not condemned to be burnt by the hands of the Common-Hangman; And should it receive that deserved Sentence, the Executioner is hereby advertised, that he may find the Book in Custody (unless escaped since the Prince of Orange's Landing) and also in Irons; it being affixed, (very fairly bound) with a Chain (not far from Newgate) at Saddler's Hall; with an Inscription on the Title Page, The Gift of Mr Nott of the Pall Mall.   

Remarks upon the Trial of the Right Honourable Henry Lord. Delamere, upon the 14th Day of January 1685. Before the Lord Jeffryes, Lord High Steward on that occasion.  
SOon after the defeat of the Duke of Monmouth, in the Year 1685, a Proclamation was issued, requiring my Lord Delamere to render himself, which his Lordship accordingly did; and upon the 26th of July 1685, the Earl of Sunderland, Secretary of State, committed him to the Tower for high Treason.  
The Parliament sitting in November following, the House of Lords began to inquire into his Lordship's case, but were quickly after prorogued to the 10th of February following, and never sat more.  
The County Palatine of Chester, did, at that time, furnish the Conspirators with as good Juries, as could be packed in the City of London, by Sir John Moore's Sheriff's; as is well known to the right honourable the Earl of Macclesfield, my Lord Delamere, Sir Robert Cotton, and many other eminently deserving Patriots of Cheshire.  
Thither, was a Commission of Oyer and Terminer sped, and an Indictment was preferred against his Lordship, before Sir Edward Lutwich, Chief Justice of Chester, and the Bill was readily found against him, by a well prepared and instructed Grand-Jury. Thereupon his Lordship was brought to Trial, before the Lord Jeffryes, High Steward, and the following Peers (viz.) 
Laurence, Earl of Rochester, Lord high Treastrer of England.  
Robert, Earl of Sunderland, Lord Precedent of the Council.  
Henry, Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal of England.  
James, Duke of Ormond, Lord Steward of the Household.  
Charles, Duke of Somerset.  
Christopher, Duke of Albemarle.  
Henry, Duke of Grafton.  
Henry, Duke of Beaufort, Lord Precedent of Wales.  
John, Earl of Mulgrave, Lord Chamberlain of the Household.  
Aubery, Earl of Oxford.  
Charles, Earl of Shrewsbury.  
Theophilus, E. of Huntingdon.  
Thomas, E. of Pembroke.  
John, E. of Bridgewater.  
Henry, E. of Peterborow.  
Robert, E. of Scarsdale.  
William E. of Craven.  
Richard, E. of Burlington.  
Lovis E. of Feversham.  
George, E. of Berkley.  
Daniel, E. of Nottingham.  
Thomas, E. of Plymouth.  
Thomas Viscount Fanconberg.  
Francis Viscount Newport, Treasurer of the Household.  
Robert, Lord Ferrer.  
Vere Essex, Lord Cromwell.  
William, Lord Maynard, controller of the Household.  
George, Lord Dartmouth, Master General of the Ordnance.  
Sidney, Lord Godolphin.  
John, Lord Churchill.   
Who being called over, and appearing, the High Steward began thus;  
My Lord Delamere, you stand indicted of High Treason, by a Bill found against you, by Gentlemen of Great Quality and known Integrity, within the County Palatine of Chester, the place of your residence, and the King has thought it necessary, to order you a speedy Trial.  
My Lord, if you know yourself innocent, do not despond, 
A Compliment which Jeffryes never put upon any Man before.  For you may be assured of a fair and patiented hearing; and a free liberty to make your full defence.  
He then ordered the Indictment to be read, which was to this effect, (viz.)  
That my Lord D. as a Traitor against King James the second, the 14th of April last, conspired, with other Traitors, the deposing and death of the King, and did traitorously assemble, consult and agree with the Lord Brandon and other Traitors, to raise Money, and procure Armed Men, to make a Rebellion, and to seize the City and Castle of Chester, with the Magazines; and that upon the 27th of May, he took a Journey from London, to Mere, to accomplish his Treasonable intentions; and that upon the 4th of June, he incited divers to join with him in his Treason.  
To this Indictment his Lordship pleaded Not Guilty.  
Jeffryes then addressed himself to the Lords, to this effect; 
Note, my Lord Delamere was at that time in the House of Commons, and a great Promoter of the Bill of Exclusion.  That their Lordships could not but remember the insolent Attempts made upon the unalterable Succession to the Crown, under the spetious pretence of Religion, by the fierce, froward and Fanatical Zeal of some of the Commons, which had been often found the occasion of Rebellion.  
That, that not prevailing, the Chief Contrivers of that horrid Villainy, consulted how to gain the advantage by open force; and in order thereto, had several Treasonable Meetings, made bold and riotous 
* The Duke of Monmouth's progress into Cheshire & the West.  Progresses in several parts of the Kingdom, to debauch the minds of the well-meaning, tho' unwary part of the King's Subjects.  
That God frustrated their evil purposes, by bringing to Light that cursed Conspiracy, against the Life of the late King and his present Majesty.  
That one would have thought, these hellish and damnable Plots, could not have survived the just Condemnation and Execution of some of the 
† Innuendo, Lord Russel, Col. Sidney, etc.  Chief Contrivers of them; especially considering, that no sooner the present King was seated in his Throne, but he endeavoured to convince the world, that he had quite forgot those impudent and abominable Indignities, that had been put upon him, only for being the best of Subjects, and best of Brothers; and also gave the most benign Assurances imaginable, that he would approve himself the best of Kings.  
And, to evince the reality of his gracious Resolutions, he called a Parliament, and there repeated, and solemnly confirmed, his former Royal Declarations, of having a particular care of maintaining our Established Laws and Religion.  
And yet, at that Juncture, that wicked and unnatural Rebellion broke out; and thereupon, the Arch-traitor Monmouth, was, by a Bill brought in the lower House, and passed by the general consent in both Houses, and I could wish, my Lords, for the sake of that Noble Lord at the Bar, that I could say, it had passed with the consent of every particular 
* The Lords are here told, that my Lord Delamere opposed the Bill to attaint the D. of Monmouth.  Member of each House) justly attainted of High Treason.  
After this harangue, he concluded thus, My Lords, what share my Lord at the Bar had in those other matters, I must acquaint you, 
To what end then, was this malicious Tale told?  is not within the compass of this Indictment, for which you are to try him; for that is a Treason, alleged to have been committed, in the present King's Reign.  
Then Sir Tho. Jenner, the Recorder of London opened the Indictment.  
The Attorney General then aggravated the Charge, saying; We crave leave to give a short Account of a former 
* The Plot in 1683.  design;— Cheshire, the Province of this Noble Lord, was one of the Stages, where that Rebellion was principally to be acted; and preparatory to it, great Riotous Assemblies and Tumultuous Gatherings of the People, were set on foot by the Conspirators.  
We shall prove, that a little before the Rebels came over, this last Summer, the Duke of Monmouth dispatched one Jones into England, to let his Friends know, that tho' he had intended to go into Scotland, and begin there, he was resolved for England; with this he was to acquaint some Lords, particularly the Prisoner; And also to acquaint them, that they should have notice four or five days before, of the place of his Landing, and that then the Lords should repair immediately into Cheshire, there to wait for the News.  
We shall give you an account, that the late Duke of Monmouth looked upon Cheshire as one of his main supports; and upon my Lord Delamere, as a principal Assistant there.  
Jones was to communicate his Message to Captain Mathews, who was to transmit it to this Lord, and those concerned with him; Jones arrived upon the 27th of May, but Mathews, (nor Major Wildman, to whom he was to apply, in the absence of Mathews) was not to be found; Thereupon he sends for one Disney, since executed for Treason, and one Brand, whom your Lordships will hear of; and communicates his Message to them, and they undertake to deliver it to the Persons concerned.  
That very night, My Lord, this same Brand & Disney met this Noble Lord, and give him an account of the Message; and as soon as ever he received it, upon the 27th of May, at ten at Night, my Lord dispatches out of Town, with only one Servant, and two other Friends that he had picked up.  
With all these Badges of Plot and Design, does my Lord Delamere set out, the same night Jones came to Town; he chose to go all the By-Roads, and went with great speed, to repair into Cheshire, by the name of Brown, by which he was known among all his own Party; by that name, several of the late Duke of Monmouth's Traitorous Declarations, were sent for, to be sent to him, or by him into Cheshire.  
When he comes into Cheshire, he actually sets about the work, to put that County in a forwardness, 
This means the impudent, but ridiculous story of Saxon, which could never obtain upon any, but the Credulous Prosecutors of this Noble Lord, who were disposed to believe any thing.  to assist in the Rebellion; endeavours to stir up the People to join with him; and acquaints one that he employed in that Affair, that he was engaged to raise so many Thousand Men, and so much Money to be ready by such a day.  
My Lords, We shall plainly show you all this in plain proof.  
Then Mr Attorney called their old Drudge at swearing, my Lord H. of E. and demanded of him, his oft repeated History, of a design of an Insurrection, that was to have been, in the late King's time, and what share Cheshire was to have in it?  
The Lord H. told his threadbare history of the Plot, in 1682, and 1683; but not a word of Cheshire; and said, that he knew nothing concerning my Lord Delamere.  
The Lord Grey was then called, and said, That about the time of the contested Election of Sheriffs, The Duke of Monmouth and Earl of Shaftesbury, resolved, that they would make what interest they could, to procure a Rising in three several parts of the Kingdom at once; one in Cheshire, whether the Duke of Monmouth was to betake himself, and there to be advised by my Lord Macclesfield, my Lord Brandon, my Lord Delamere that then was, and the Prisoner; what Gentlemen to apply to, for joining in the Design; The second was in London, which was assigned to be the Province of my Lord Shaftesbury; and the third in the West, under the care of my Lord Russell, and that the Duke accordingly, went his Progress into Cheshire.  
That soon after Mr Crag came over to Holland, (as I was informed) from Major Wildman, and gave an account that Men and Money were prepared; thereupon, the Duke sent over Captain Mathews, to Major Wildman, to desire him to meet with my Lord Macclesfield, Lord Brandon, Lord Delamere, and I think Mr Charleton; and acquaint them, that he had ordered his own Affairs, to join with the Earl of Argyle.  
He likewise sent Crag with a Message to the same purpose, to other Friends in London; and he dispatched away one Battiscom, into the West, to prepare things there.  
When Crag returned to the Duke, he gave him an account, that Major Wildman had procured a Meeting with those Lords and Gentlemen, who were all of opinion, that the Duke should go for Scotland; That Crag said the Prisoner was there. There was also a particular Message from Major Wildman to the Duke, that he desired, he would bring over with him a Broad Seal, to seal Commissions with; And would take upon him the Title of King—  
Jones came some time after Crag returned, and gave an account of other things, conformable to what Crag had said, and was sent again to England by the Duke, to give an account that he was ready to Sail, and would land by that time he could get thither.  
The Attorney General demanded of the Lord Grey, upon whose assistance the Duke of Monmouth relied.  
He answered, I suppose few will believe we were so weary of our Lives, 〈◊〉 to come and throw them away with threescore, or a few more, Men; except we had expectation of good Assistance— The Duke did very much depend upon Cheshire, and upon my Lord Macclesfield, my Lord Brandon, and my Lord Delamere.  
Mr Nathaniel Wade being sworn, testified, that after the death of King Charles, Captain Mathews came to Am●terdam, and brought word that the Duke of Monmouth would shortly come ●hither, to consult with my Lord Argyle; and thereupon Mr Wade was sent into Freezland, to desire the Earl of Argyle to ●ome to Amsterdam, which he did.  
That the Duke and his Lordship, ha●ing concerted matters, the Duke sent Captain Mathews, to England; who amongst other things, was to go to the Duke's Friends in Cheshire, amongst whom my Lord Delamere was named; ●nd the business was, to desire them to ●ssist him when he should land.  
That a little after Captain Mathews went, Crag came over from Major Wildman, to desire them to endeavour a good understanding between the Duke and Argyle, who were then at some difference; That a little after, he was sent back to Major Wildman, to desire him to assist them with some Money; and he went and returned, but brought no Money; that thereupon, Crag was sent again by the Duke; because he did not send him at first; the sum demanded was 6000 l. or 4000 l. and at last he sent for 1000 l.  
That Crag returned with answer, that they could not assist them with Money, for that they did not know, to what end they should have Money, but to buy Arms, and for that the People were well provided already. Whereupon the Duke sent Crag, and pawned all his Jewels, and fitted out three Ships, laden with Ammunition; and resolved to go for England, having so promised the Earl of Argyle; and desired (by Mr Crag) that since the Lords and Gentlemen who were to assist him, had sent no Money; they should repair into their own Countries, to be ready when he should come.  
That after the Duke Landed, he so ordered his march, as most conveniently to meet his Cheshire Friends; and in pursuance of it, They came to Keinsham-Bridge, where a Party of the King's Horse set upon them, and the Duke's Party took some Prisoners; but went not over the Bridge, thinking it advisable, not to let the King's Army join, but to go back and engage those that were come together.  
That before Crag's going last away, Jones came over, to know why We stayed so long; and he was dispatched to acquaint them, the Duke was coming; and was directed to Major Wildman; and amongst the rest, to my Lord Delamere, my Lord Macclesfield, and my Lord Brandon, to raise what Forces they could to assist him.  
My Lord Delamere then, declared, that he had never seen Mr Wade's face.  
Then Richard Goodenough witnessed, That Mr Jones was sent to my Lord Delamere, to give him notice to be ready against the Duke's Landing; and to take care to secure himself, that he might not be seized in Town.  
That they were informed in Holland, that my Lord Delamere was one of the Lords, that had promised to draw his Sword in the Duke's behalf; and that the Duke told him, that he hoped my Lord Delamere would not break his promise with him.  
The High Steward said, My Lord Delamere, will you ask him any Questions.  
My Lord Delamere answered, No my Lord, I never saw his face before.  
The High Steward replied, That is pretty strange, so famous an Under-Sheriff of London and Middlesex, as he was.  
Mr. Jones being next sworn, testified, That he went to Holland (where he had business) about the latter end of April last.  
That Mr Disney had darkly communicated to him, that there were intentions of doing something; and desiring to know more of the Design, the night before he went, he acquainted Disney with his intended Journey, and that he intended to see the Duke of Monmouth, and if he had any Message to him, he would deliver it safely.  
That Mr Disney told him all the Message he should deliver, was, To desire the Duke to keep to the last conclusion, which he would find in a Letter, that had been sent to him, by the Crop-haired Merchant; which Message was, That the Duke's Friends, would not by any means have him come for England, but to continue where he was; or if he thought fit to go for Scotland they approved it.  
That when Jones came to the Duke, and delivered the Message, he was in a great Passion, and reflected very much on Major Wildman, and said, 'twas too late to send such a Message now, for he was resolved to come for England, and would make Wildman Hang with him, or Fight for it, with him; That Wildman did think by tying his own Purse, to tie his Hands, but he should find it should not be so.  
That the Duke told him, Money was very short, and he had pawned all he had, to raise what Money was raised; That he would be glad Jones should return to England, as soon as he could; and that he should tell Wildman, that he would come for England, and he should either Fight with him, or Hang with him; and that was all he had to say to him.  
That going again to the Duke, the same evening, he told him he would have him stay till Tuesday morning; That then (the Duke being gone out of Town) the Lord Grey told Jones from the Duke; That he intended to be in England within nine days; and bid him remember to tell Brand, that when he heard the Duke was Landed, he should acquaint Sir Robert Peyton with it, but not till he was Landded.  
That Jones missing passage to England from Rotterdam, he returned to Amsterdam, and went to the Duke, and told him the reason why he was not gone; and the Duke said he was glad he was not gone, for he had a further Message, and would have him stay two or three days.  
That upon the 21st of May, the Duke ordered him to come to him in the Evening, and when he came, the Duke took a Paper that lay upon the Table, and sensed it, and told him, that when he came to London, he must see for Captain Mathews, and desire him to acquaint my Lord Macclesfield, my Lord Brandon, and my Lord Delamere, that he was resolved to set out the next Saturday morning.  
That the Duke then said, that Mathews was to send one Post to that place that was named in the Note, to receive Intelligence of his Landing; and that News he designed, should be brought to his Friends here, 24 hours before the Court had notice of it; and those Lords were to be in readiness, and as soon as they knew he was Landed, they were to repair to their Posts to assist him.  
That Jones asked the Duke, what he was to do with the Paper, who said, I do by you, as Princes do by their Admirals, they have their Commissions sealed up, and not to open them till at Sea; so I deliver your Instructions sealed up, which you are not to open till you are at Sea; and when you have opened and read what is contained in them, I would have you tear the Paper, and throw it into the Sea, lest you be surprised and fearched at your Landing; And that the Duke ordered him, that if he miss of Captain Mathews, he should deliver the Message to Major Wildman.  
That the Instructions in the Paper were to this effect, (viz.)  
Taunton is the place to which all are to resort, The Persons to be acquainted with the time of Landing are the Lord Macclesfield, the Lord Brandon, and the Lord Delamere. The place to send the Coach to, is to Mr Savage's, the Red Lion; The Post is to return to Captain Mathews, or as he shall appoint.  
Jones added, that he came home the 27th of May, (the Wednesday fortnight before the Duke Landed) and Disney came immediately to him, and told him, that Captain Mathews and Major Wildman were both out of Town; whereupon he delivered the Message to Disney, and left it to him to convey it to the Lords concerned.  
That Disney met him the same night in Smithfield, with Mr Crag, Mr Lisle, and Mr Brand; and Disney took Jones and Brand aside, and asked Jones, what was the place to which the Post was to go.  
That Jones met the Duke at Lyme, and told him what he had done with the Message, who said he was satisfied he had done what he could, but seemed troubled that Mathews was out of Town.  
It being demanded of my Lord Delamere, whether he would ask Jones any Questions, his Lordship answered, No, I never saw his face before.  
Mr Story. (the Duke of Monmouth's Commissary General) testified, that Mr Brand (who lived about Bishopsgate, and was killed at Keinsham Bridge) told him, upon the 28th of May last; that Mr Jones was returned from Holland, and brought a Message from the Duke, and that he the said Brand was to go to Taunton, to expect, from Mr Dare or Mr Williams, the account of the Duke's Landing.  
That Brand told him, that Jones his Message was delivered to Disney, who went and had some discourse with my Lord Delamere, and that that night, his Lordship went out of Town, and two Friends of Mr Brand's went with him, and conveyed him, by a By-way, through Enfield-chace, towards Hatfield.  
That Story went out of Town, the 28th of may, and overtook Brand that night; That he heard the Duke of Monmouth say at Shepton-mallet, that his great dependence was upon my Lord Delamere & his Friends in Cheshire; but he was afraid they had failed him; and he said, he could have been supplied otherwise, but that he had a dependence upon them.  
My Lord Delamere then demanded of Story, whether he knew one Thomas Saxon.  
Mr Story answered, yes, my Lord, I was a Prisoner with him in Dorchester Prison.  
The Attorney General then called Vaux, and said, My Lord; this is an unwilling Witness, and we are forced to pump all out of him by Questions. And then demanded of him, what day it was my Lord Delamere sent for him.  
Vaux answered, It was the 26th of May, his Lordship sent for me to the Rummer Tavern in Queen-street; and the next day I went out of Town with him, about nine or ten in the Evening; My Lord went by the name of Brown; We got to Hoddesden about twelve at night.  
Mr Attorney demanded whether they went next; whether my Lord Delamere was going; and whether that was the direct Road to Cheshire?  
Mr Vaux answered, We then went to Hitchin, and I returned home the next day; My Lord was going to see his Son, who was sick in the Country, and we made that the way, it being the freest Road from Dust.  
Mr Edlin then testified the same in substance with Mr Vaux, that upon the 27th of May, he went with my Lord Delamere to Hoddesden, etc.  
Mr Attorney then said, my Lord, to confirm and explain this Evidence, I shall prove, that this Gentleman went by the name of Brown, in the Cant of those that were engaged in this Business; that the name was known as his name, by all the Party, and called so constantly in their Letters and Messages.  
Tracey Paunchforth being called, witnessed, That he was at Disney's house, the 14th of June, with Joshua Lock, one Hooper, and one Horsley; and Lock stayed for some of the Duke of Monmouth's Declarations, which were finished about nine of the Clock, and three were delivered to him; and there was a discourse of having them sent into Cheshire, to one Mr Brown, whom he understood to be my Lord Delamere; and Mr Disney used to mention him by the name of Brown.  
That Paunchforth was at the Castle Tavern, with Mr Vermuyden, his Brother Babington, and Mr Manning; but there was no mention (as he remembers) of my Lord, or Mr Brown, but only something in relation to the Duke's Landing; & Mr Vermuyden who also went by the name of Brown) said, he did not know where he was to Land.  
Babington (the Betrayer of that worthy Gentlemen Mr Disney) then swore, That when he first knew of any of the Transactions, he was with Mr Vermuyden, his Brother Paunehforth, and Mr Chadwich; where there was discourse of Mr Brown, and that his Uncle Vermuyden afterwards told him, it was my Lord Delamere; and ordered him to call my Lord by that name.  
That he was at Mr Disney's, over the water, with Paunchforth, and Horsley; and Disney shown him a Declaration that was not quite perfected; and some body said, some of the Declarations were to be sent to my Lord Delamere; and Mr Disney said he was afraid my Lord Delamere was not capable of doing that Service that was expected from him in Cheshire, for want of some of those Declarations, which would be mighty useful to inform the People. And that Disney said, he hoped to have 500 Printed in twenty four hours, and a good number of them were to be sent to my Lord Delamere.  
Hope (of the three Tuns in Coventry) then witnessed, 
Non hosts ab hospitetutus; Those who travel that Roid, will do well to beware of such a Landlord, for he kept a Diary, and was a Spy upon this Noble Lord.  that my Lord Delamere upon the Sunday before the Coronation, came Post to his House, towards Cheshire; and sometime after that, he came down Post again; and a little after went up Post, and told him he went down another way: and upon the 21th of June (the Sunday seven-night after the D. of M. landed) he came down Post again; and then his Lordship told him, that it was said the Duke of Albemarle was killed, and that the D. of M. had several Field Pieces, and Arms for near 30000 Men; and that his Lordshap shown him in a Map, which way Monmouth went; and pointed out such and such Towns, that he was possed of; and withal said, That he feared there would be many bloody Noses, before the business was at an end.  
Mr Attorney the called Thomas Saxon, & said, Pray Mr Saxon, 
Their dependence was upon this well instructed witness therefore he is Mr Saxon, & those before him were only Wade, Jones, Vaux, etc.  will you give an account what you know of my Lord D. the Prisoner at the Bar, concerning any Insurrection or Rebellion designed by him in Cheshire, and when?  
Saxon swore, that he was sent for to Mere, my Lord Delamere's House at the beginning of June, (he believes the third or fourth day) and was conveyed into a Tower Room, where were my Lord D. Sir Robert Cotton, and Mr Crew Offiey; who told him, he was recomended to them by my Lord Brandon, who said, he was an honest useful Man, and they hoped he would prove so; For they had sent to the D. of M. and received an answer by Jones; and as soon as they had an answer, my Lord D. came down Post under another Name (being conveyed through Moorfields) to raise ten Thoufand Men for the D. of M. in Cheshire, by the 1st of June, but they found they could not raise them till Midsummer, for they must have time to raise 40000 l. in that Country, to maintain the Men.  
That they asked him to undertake to carry a Message to the D. of M. and he told them he would; and my Lord D. gave him eleven Guineas, and 5 l. in Silver for his Journey; and he went and delivered the Message to the Duke.  
The High Stemard demanded of Saxon, 
* His Lordship was well apprised of the Answer their Witness would make, and to them who discern it, in this Question, it may well seem strange, that they should bring this great Man to Trial, upon such nauseating Evidence, as some had put into this Varlet's Mouth.  how he came to be recommended to them, by my Lord Prandon; & whether he were acquainted with my Lord Brandon? [Saxon tho' a very willing Witness, had forgot to tell the Story of drinking Ale with my Lord Brandon; and therefore, the Monster, than called his Grace, pumps it out by this Question.] Saxon (knowing what my Lord wanted) answered, I was acquainted with him; the first time I was with him, was at Over; the next time was at my Lord's House.  
The Attorney General thereupon said, Ay, pray tell my Lord, how you became acquainted with my Lord Brandon.  
Saxon said, Upon Monday in Easter-Week last, being at Over, my Lord sent for me, to drink a Glass of Ale, and take a Pipe of Tobacco with him; and when I came, my Lord told me, he had a desire to be acquainted with me; so We drank a considerable while; and my Lord discoursed, how unfairly the Elections of Parliament Men had been carried; which had so exasperated the Country, that they were resolved to rise in Arms, under, pretence of maintaining the Christian English Liberties, and that they had a design to send for the D. of M. and make him King; and that they must use such men as me, that were Men of Interest in the Country, to stir up the People to rise in Arms; And if I would come the next Monday to his 
* 'Twas happy that my Lord Delamere never took a pipe with this Villain; nor courted his Acquaintance.  House, he would tell me more of the business; and I went accordingly, and he told me a great deal to the same purpose, and shown me a Letter that he had written to the D. of M. which I afterwards saw at Bridgewater.  
My Lord D. then said, I desire to know when was the first time that he declared this, he has now sworn against me, and to whom?  
Saxon answered, I suppose I told Mr Storey of it first, at Dorchester, after I was taken Prisoner for the Rebellion: and I think it was a fortnight, after my acquaintance with him, (I lay with him in the same Bed.)  
My Lord D. demanded when was the first time he made Oath of this, and upon what occasion?  
Saxon said, I remained a Prisoner at Dorchester, from the 10th of July to the beginning of the last Term, when I was removed to Newgate; and I gave my first information before is Majesty's Counsellors, who were sent 
* To instruct him, he would have said, but that it must be Perjury throughout.  to take my Examination, immediately after I was brought to Newgate.  
My Lord D. then demanded, Whether ever he had employed him about any of his Concerns, that should give him an occasion of trusting him with such Secrets?  
Saxon answered, I never was in his company but only then; and then, as recommended by my Lord Brandon; for they said; they must make use of such as me, to make their Desigus known to the Country, for the accomplishing what they did intent.  
I was to inform the Country of the time of Rising; my Acquaintance abounded that way; and by their discourse, they had got Men in every place, to acquaint the Country when they should rise.  
My Lord D. then said, I desire to know who was the Messenger was sent for him to my House?  
Saxon answered, I asked his Name, but the would not tell me; he said he was a Tenant to my Lord, and had been employed in such businesses for my Lord's Father Sir George Booth; he was a Lame Man in one Arm, for he had his Hand shoe away at the Siege of Nantwich.  
My Lord D. demanded what time of day or night it was, when he came to his House; and whether, when he came, he alighted at the Stables or not; and who took his Horse; and at what Door he was let in; and who let him into the House?  
Saxon said, It was just when it began to be dark; that he alighted just at the Old Buildings; and that the Man that eaine with him, took his Horse; and he went into the House, and brought out a Candle; that he never was at the House before, and cannot tell which Door he went in at; That the Man went with him just to the Door, and let him within the Door; and he saw no other man, but that man, till he came into the Room, where my Lord; and the two Gentlemen were.  
My Lord D. asked him, whether no body else but they were there?  
Saxon answered. No; you were so wise, you would let no Body be by.  
Mr Attorney then said, My Lord, We shall give no more evidence at present, but shall rest here, till We see what defence this Noble Lord will make for himself.  
My Lord Delamere then proceeded, saying, May it please your Grace, and you my Lords; It is an Offence of a very high nature for which I am this day to answer, before your Lordships; yet I thank God, I am not afraid to speak in this place, because I am not only very well assured of my own innocence, but also well assured of your Lordship's Wisdom and Justice, which cannot be imposed upon, or surprised by Instnuations and slorid Har angues, nor governed by any thing but the Justice of the Cause.— I think that in matters relating to the Church, and the things enjoined therein, few have conformed more in practice, than I have done; and yet I am not ashamed to say, that I have always a ten derness for all those who could not keep pace with me; and Charity for those that have out gone me, and differed from me, tho' never so far, nay, tho' of a different Religion; for I always thought Religion lay more in Charity than Persecution.— In every public Trust, I was faithful in the discharge of it, for I never voted nor spoke in any manner but as my Conscience and Judgement did dictate to me. I have always made the Laws the measure of my Loyalty,— and have endeavoured as far as in me lay, to live peaceably with all men.  
This, my Lords, was not only the dictates of my own Inclination, but it was the Principle of my Father, and the Lesson that he taught me— Whosoever did know him, I dare say did believe him to be a good Man. For my part, I endeavoured always to imitate his Example, and that I hope, will go very far, to vindicate me from the imputation of being inclined to any such Crime as I stand charged with.  
Here have been a great many Witnesses, and a great deal of Swearing, but little or nothing of legal Evidence to affect me; for there is but one Man that faith any thing, home and positively against me; All the rest are but Hearsays, and such remote Circumstances as may be tacked to any Evidence, against any other Person; but are urged against me, for want of greater matters to charge me with; and therefore, I hope the produced & pressing of these things against me, is rather a strong Argument that I am innocent, and that there have been mischievous and ill Designs of some against me; than that I am guilty: Had they had geater matters, your Lordships would have been sure to have heard of them.  
My Lord of Nottingham, when he sat in the same place, that your Grace does now, at the Trial of my Lord Cornwallis, speaking to the Peers, had this passage.  
I know your Lordships will weigh the fact with all its Circumstances, from which it is to receive its true and its proper doom; your Lordships are too just, to let pity make any abatement for the Crime, and too wise, to suffer Rhetoric to make any Improvement of it; This only will be necessary to be observed by all your Lordships, That the fouler the Crime is, the clearer and plainer ought the proof of it to be 3 There is no other 
* 'Tis then great pity that the Law, as to this is not altered, and every English man (who may have what Counsel he will in a Cause of 40 s. value) allowed Counsel, when he is concerded for his Life.  good reason can be given, why the Law refuseth to allow the Prisoner at the Bar Counsel, in matter of Fact, when Life is concerned, but only this; because the Evidence, by which he is condemned, aught to be so very evident, and so plain, that all the Counsel in the World should not be able to answer it.  
My Lords, I think the Evidence given against me doth not come up to this; and I hope your Lordships will regard this of my Lord Nottingham's, as more worthy of your consideration, than the fine Flourishing and Insinuations of the King's Council, which tend (if it be not so designed) rather to misguide your Lordships, than to lead you to find out the truth.  
My Lords, I shall begin with Saxon, for he I perceive is the great Goliath, whose evidence is to maintain this Accusation, and if I cut him down, I suppose I shall be thought to have done my own business; I shall first call some of his Neighbours who have conversed with him, and know him.  
My Lord Delamere then called Six Witnesses, who proved Saxon to be a very ill Man, and to have been guilty of Forgeries, and several Cheats.  
That being done, his Lordship said, I shall pass over this part of my Evidence, tho' I have many more Witnesses to this point, and come to matter of fact, to encounter this positive proof against me.  
Saxon has testified, that about the 3d or 4th of June, he (as on extraordinary Person, being confided in) was sent for by me, to Mere, where he found me, Sir Robert Cotton and Mr Offley; who employed him to transact the stirring up the Country, to rise and join with the D. of M. Now I will prove, that Sir Robert was not in Cheshire for several Months, both before and after the time he speaks of; and I shall prove he was then in London at that time.  
Mr Billing (Sir Robert Cotton's Steward) testified, that Sir Robert came to London the 10th of April last, and that he saw him constantly once or twice a day; That about the end of July, he went for three days to Epsam, and came to Town again, and continued here, till he was committed to the Tower, and never was in Cheshire, since the 6th of April last.  
Margaret Davis witnessed, that Sir Robert Cotton came to Town the 10th of April, and has not been out of Town any night since, except it were in August.  
The Lord High Steward catcht hold of this, saying, You say he did not go out of Town till 
† See here the vast difference between this Trial, before an August Assembly, and the Trials in that day, by Common Juries; had this petty difference of the end of July, and August; happened in an ordinary case (as the like did, in the Case of Oats his Perjury) what bawling would have been upon it; and had this Excellent person, been upon his Trial, before my Lord Russel's Jury, or Colonel Sid ney's three Carpenters, with the Tailor, and their Crew; it might have been improved (by this Mushroom Lord Jeffryes, and the King's Counsel) to his Destruction.  August; The other Man says, it was the latter end of July.  
My Lord Delamere thereupon said, The other Witness saith, it was the latter end of July, and that may be very well consistent, neither of them speaking to a day.  
Mrs Sidney Lane (who lived in Sir Cotton's House) testified, That Sir Robert came to Town in April last, and never lay out of Town all those Months of April, May and June, after he came to Town.  
Charles Reeves (Sir Robert's Footman) testified, That Sir Robert was in Town before the Coronation (the 23d of April) and he saw him every day that time till after July.  
Then, Mr Ashburnham, Sir William Twisden and Mr Heveningham witnessed, that they saw Sir Robert Cotten in Town in June; Mr Heveningham, in particular, that upon the 3d of June, he was walking with Robert in the Court of Requests, when Mr Neale came and told him, the House of Commons had then determined a point, about the Election of Thetford.  
Sir Willoughby Aston then proved, that upon the 26th of May, Mr Offley and his Lady came to his House; and he gave a particular account, how he spent his time there till the 4th of June, when he returned home to his own House, which is directly another way from my Lord Delamere's, whose House is eleven of those Northern Miles from Sir Willoughby's.  
Mr Gregory and Tho. Kid (Servants to Mr Offley) witnessed, that Mr Offley went from Sir Willoughby Aston's, upon the 4th of June, directly home to his own House, Crew-Hall, in Cheshire; and did not go from thence that night.  
Mr Booth my Lord Delamer's Brother proved that he saw my Lord in Town, the 3d of June in the evening, and also the 4th, 5th, 6th, and so on to the 10th of June, sometimes twice or thrice a day.  
Mr George Booth, another of my Lord's Brothers testified, that he saw my Lord in Town, the 4th of June, by the partioular circumstance, that he went with him, the next day, to the House of Lords, to hear my Lord Macclessield's Cause upon Fitton's Appeal.  
My Lord Loulace proved that he saw my Lord D. in the House of Lords, at the hearing of my Lord Macclesfield's Cause (the 5th of June) and that my Lord D. stood by the Bar, and took notes.  
My Lord D. then said, I hope I have now satisfied your Grace, and the rest of my Lords, that none of us three, whom this Fellow has mentioned, were at that time at Mere, when he said we were. I affirm in the presence of Almighty God, that I have not seen Sir Robert Cotton at my House these many years, and I believe Mr Offley was never there since I was Master of it: and I do protest, that, to my knowledge, I never saw the Face of this Man till now: I am sure I never spoke with him, nor sent for him to my House.  
If his Story be considered, it will easily appear to be very improbable, for he neither tells, who the Messenger was, that was sent for him, nor the way that he came into the House, and he must needs discern which way he came in, for I have but one Door into my House, except that by the Stables, which is a great way off the House.  
Besides, my Lords, Is it probable, that he should see no Body stirring about the House, except the Man without a Hand, that he says was sent for him? I assure your Lordship, I have not, nor had my Father ever, that I know of, any Servant or Tenant, that was maimed in the manner he speaks of; Is it to be imagined that I would take a Man I knew nothing of, into so great a confidence, as to employ him about a business of this nature? I beseech your Lordships to look at him; Is this Fellow a likely Fellow to be used in such an affair? Does he look as if he were fit to be employed for the raising 10000 Men? your Lordships likewise see, that he is so well thought of, that he dare not be trusted out of Newgate; but is kept still a Prisoner, and as such, giveth evidence here; He Swears to save himself, and would fain exchange his Life for mine.  
My Lords, The King's Council lay a great weight upon my going down the 27th of May, and my frequent riding Post; I shall satisfy your Lordships of the Reasons of my Journeys; the first time I went to take Possession of a Lease of six or seven Thousand pounds' value, which was renewed to me by the Bishop; and I had word that the Bishop was ill, and that obliged me to make haste down.  
All this being fully proved by Mr Edmond and Mr Henry; my Lord Delamere proceeded, saying, I had resolved to go see a sick Child, but hod not taken my journey so soon as the 27th of May, nor with such privacy; but that I had notice there was a Warrant to apprehend me; and I was willing to keep out of custody, as long as I could; Being at my House in Cheshire, my Wife sent me an Express, that, as to the Warrant, She hoped it was a mistake; but my Eldest Son was very ill, and if I intended to see him alive, I must make haste up; This was the occasion of my quick return.  
Mrs Kelsey then witnessed, that my Lord came to his House in Cheshire the 31st of May being Sunday, and that his Child was ill; and my Lord told her, that he heard there was a Warrant to take him up; That he stayed Monday the 1st of June, and went away on Tuesday morning.  
My Lady Delamere (my Lord's Mother) testified the Child's being ill in the Country; and that while my Lord was there, his Lady sent for him Post, if he intended to see his eldest Son alive.  
Mr Kelsey proved, That my Lord ᵈ D. came down upon the Sunday night, at eleven of the Clock; and stayed at home all Monday, and on Tuesday, at three in the Morning, he took Horse for London; and that Mr Kelsey had Letters from my Lady Delamere, and Mrs Vere Booth; dated the 4th of June; that told him my Lord was come to Town the night before.  
Sir Thomas Millington (the Physician) witnessed; that upon the 28th of May, he was sent for to my Lord Delamere's Son, and found him very ill, and he continued so two days, and he told my Lady Delamere, that he thought the Child would not escape. That he knows punctually this was the time, by the Apothecary's Bills, which he wrote, and finds the date on them.  
My Lord Delamere then said, My Lord, I hope I have given their Lordship's satisfaction in all points, and need to give no further Evidence.  
I acknowledge I did go at that time privately a By-Road, by the name of Brown; as for Jones, I appeal to him himself, and call God to witness, I never saw the Man before now, in my Life; All that has been said against me, (except what this Fellow Saxon testifies) is but Hear-say, nay indeed but Hear-say upon Hear-say, at the third and fourth Hand.  
It is at the pleasure of any two Men in the World, to take away the Lives, Honours & Estates of any of your Lordships, if it be a proof sufficient to make you guilty of Treason, for them to swear you were intended to be drawn into Treason.  
Upon the whole matter, my Lords, I must leave my Case to the consideration of your Lordships; I am not Master of so much Law or Rhetoric as the King's Council, to plead in my own Cause; But I hope what Evidence I have offered, has given your Lordship full satisfaction that I am not Guilty, of what I stand charged with.  
My Lords, I would beg you to consider this, that if I, with those other two Gentlemen that he has named, had had any transactions of this kind with such a Fellow as Saxon; so as at first sight, to put such large confidence in him; Can it be imagined I so little regarded my own Life, and all that is dear to me; as to have surrendered myself; were it not, that I was certain of my own innocence and integrity? Life itself, my Lords, is to be preferred above all things, but Honour and Innocence; and Job saith, Skin for Skin, and all that a Man hath will he give for his Life; and why should I be presumed to have so little a value for it, as voluntarily to deliver up myself to destruction; had I been Conscious that there was any one, who could really testify any thing that could hurt me?  
Besides, my Lords; This very Fellow Saxon, is but one Evidence; and surely, one Witness will never be sufficient to convict a Man of Treason, tho' thousands of Hearsays, and such trivial circumstances be tacked to it; especially, when tacked to an evidence, which, I dare say, your Lordships are far from thinking it deserves credit.  
Would not any of your Lordships think himself in a very bad Condition as to his Fortune, if he could produce no better Evidence to prove his Title to his Estate, than what has been now produced against me, to take away my Life, and if such Evidence as this, would not be sufficient to support a Title to an Estate, certainly it can never be thought sufficient to deprive a Man of Life, Honour, Estate and All.  
My Lords, God knows how soon the Misfortune of a false Accusation may fall to the Lot of any of your Lordships; since that may happen; I question not but your Lordships will be very cautious, how, by an easy Credulity, you give encouragement to such a Wickedness; For Knights of the Post will not end in my Trial, if they prosper in their Villainy; and perhaps it may come home to some of your Lordships, if such Practices be encouraged.  
My Lords, the Eyes of all the Nation are upon your Proceed this day; Nay I may say, your Lordships are now judging the Cause of every Man in England, that shall hereafter happen to come under the like Circumstances with myself; For accordingly as you Judge of me now, just so will Inferior Courts be directed to give their Judgement in time to come.  
Your Lordship's very well know, Blood once spilt can never be gathered up again; and therefore, you, I am sure, will not hazard the shedding of my Blood upon a doubtful Evidence;— If it should be indifferent, or but doubtful to your Lordships (which upon my Proofs, I cannot believe it can be) whether I am Innocent or Guilty; Both God and the Law require you to acquit me.  
My Lords, I leave myself, My Cause, and all the Consequences of it, with your Lordships; And I pray the Alwise, the Almighty God, to direct you in your determination.  
Mr Solicitor General then said, May it please your Grace, and you my Noble Lords,  
The Evidence against this Noble Lord is of two Natures, part of it is positive Proof and part is Circumstantial, and tho' it be allowed, that there must be two Witnesses in cases of Treason; and that Circumstances, tho' never so strong to fortify one positive proof, cannot make a second positive Witness; yet, I crave leave to say, that there may be Circumstances, so strong & cogent, so violent and necessary, to fortify a positive Testimony; That will in Law amount to make a second Witness; such as the Law requires.  
My Lords, If a man comes and swears against another, That he said, he will go and kill the King, and another Man, that did not hear these words, testifies his lying in wait; That Circumstance of lying in wait, that was an Action indifferent in itself, when applied to the positive Proof, will be a second Witness to satisfy the Law.  
It is not my duty to carry the Evidence in this Case, further than it will go; and I am sure it is not my Duty, to let it lose any of its Weight.  
My Lord; Our positive prooff, is but one single Witness, and that is Saxon, (Mr Solicitor then repeated his Evidence, and went on saying) This, I must acknowledge standing single, will make but one Witness; but whether the Circumstances that have been offered by the other Witnesses, be such violent Circumstances, as necessarily tend to fortify and support that positive Evidence, and so will supply the defect of a second Witness; is the next Question I come to consider.  
Mr Solicitor then repeated the Evidence of the Lord Grey, and Mr Jones; (how truly let any who will be at the trouble of reading the Trial at large, judge) and proceeded saying, Here, my Lord, is the main Circumstance that renders the matter suspicious; 
But, though it was not observed in she whole Proceeding of the Trial, Vaux witnessed, that my Lord sent to him, and engaged him the 26th of May, to go out of Town with him the next day.  That very night that Jones came to Town (the 27th of May) does my Lord Delamere, at ten at Night, go out of Town, under the disguise of the Name of Brown, and a By-Road, into Cheshire; this I say, is the Circumstance that renders the thing suspicious.  
But now, my Lords, comes the Question, the main Question, how it is made out, that my Lord Delamere had notice, Jones brought the Message from the Duke of Monmouth.  
Jones indeed does not say that he imparted it to him, But Story says that Brand, who knew of the Message, did acquaint him, that my Lord had received it at the Coffeehouse, and that Night went out of Town.  
It is true, this is but a hear-say, but that which followed, being matter of Fact; My Lord's going out of Town that Night, and in such an unusual suspicious manner, gives more credit to the Relation, than, as a bare hear-say, could have of itself.  
For unless there be a good account given of my Lord's thus going out of Town; it is a kind of necessary presumption, that he acquainted him with the Message; and if so, it can have no other Construction, than to be in pursuance of the directions brought him from the Duke of Monmouth.  
Another thing, my Lords, that renders this matter suspicious, is, the Name which my Lord assumed; a Name by which the Party used to call my Lord; which is proved by Babington and Paunchforth.  
Paunchforth tells you, that one Lock came for some of the Duke of Monmouth's Declarations, for Mr Brown, to be sent into Cheshire; So that tho' some body else was called by the Name of Browne yet you have had no account given you, that there was any other Brown in Cheshire.  
It is very suspicious, that if my Lord went into Cheshire under the name of Brown, and some came on Brown's behalf, for Declarations to be sent into Cheshire; and my Lord commonly, with that Party, went by that Name; That will be a great Evidence of his Correspondence with Monmouth.  
I confess, my Lords, all this while, our proof is circumstantial; and indeed there is no positive proof, but that of Saxon's; and here I must confess there are Objections made, which I cannot readily answer— There is no good account given, what reason there was for so many Post-Journeys, backward and forward;— These are matters of suspicion; But I confess matters of suspicion only, unless clear, positive, probable proof be joined with them, will not weigh with your Lordships to convict a Man of High Treason; but whether these matters of suspicion, be such violent and necessary presumptions, as tend to fortify the positive Testimony, I must leave that to the consideration of your Lordships.  
The High Steward then concluded, saying, my Lords, There is something I cannot omit taking notice of, that one mistake in point of Law might not go unrectified; viz. That there is a necessity in point of Law, that there should be two positive Witnesses to convict a Man of Treason.  
Without all doubt, what was urged by hat learned Gentleman who concluded for the King, is true; There may be such other substantial Circumstances, joined to one positive Testimony; that by the Opinion of all the Judges, has been several times adjudged to be a sufficient Proof.  
As in this Case; If your Lordships should believe Saxon swears true; and shall believe there was that Circumstance of Jone's coming over from Holland, with such a Message the 27th of May (which is directly sworn in Evidence) and what the other Witnesses have sworn likewise, that my Lord Delamere went out of Town that Night, changed his Name, and went an indirect By-Road; certainly these Circumstances; if your Lordships be satisfied he went for that purpose; do necessarily knit the positive Testimony of Saxon; and amount to a second Witness.  
Your Lordships are Judges, 
'Twas well for my Lord D. & amultitude more, that they were so; for had his Lordship fallen, weshould not have known where they, would have stopped; and the High. Steward could have made this Evidence to have passed, to the cutting off hundreds of Men in the West.  And if you do not believe the Testimony of Saxon, which has been so positively contradicted by divers Witnesses of Quality; The Prisoner ought to be acquitted of this Indictment.  
The Peers having thereupon withdrawn, for about half an hour; returned and took their Seats, and unanimously declared, upon their Honours, that the Lord Delamere was not Guilty, and so his Lordship was most happily delivered; and with him the Right Honourable my Lord of Stanford, my Lord Brandon, Sir Robert Cotton, Mr Offley, and many other valuable Persons and good Patriots, who were locked up in the Tower, and other Prisons, in order to their Trials; and Trial and death in that day, were rarely found to be far asunder.  
Thus Saxon, one of the vilest Miscreants of human Race, had a fair blow at one of the most valuable and deserving Persons of this Generation; the Right honourable Henry Lord Delamere, Grandson of the most worthy and never to be forgotten Patriot Sir G. Booth; and Son & Heir, as well of the Virtues, as of the Estate, of the incomparably good and great Man, Sir George Booth (Lord Delamere) But when the Villain came to bedetected of Perjury; And his Suborners found that the shame would not pass; they were ready to wish themselves half hanged, that ever they pretended to believe him at all.  
The repeated Imprisonment, Vexation and eminent danger of this excellent Person, my Lord Delamere; and many other honourable & highly deserving Patriots of the Vale Royal of England; having been promoted and abetted by a Fanatical Presentment or Address of a Grand Jury of Cheshire; which bears the Style of Sir Roger L' Estrange; I shall here subjoin it, (viz.)  
WE the Grand Jury, sworn to inquire for the Body of the County of Chester, at the Assizes held in the Common-Hall of Pleas in the Castle of Chester, upon Monday the 17th day of September, in the 35th year of his now Majesty's Reign, and in the Year of our Lord 1683, having heard his Maj●y's Declaration to all his Loving Subjects, touching the treasonous Conspiracy against his sacred Person and Government, lately discovered, openly read to us in Sessions, by order of the Court, as well as in our respective Parish Churches by Royal Command, and seriously considering the extensiveness of the said Conspiracy and dreadful Consequences thereof, had it taken offect; since notions of Sedition and Rebellion have been cultivated to such an amazing height, that some have not only dared to draw them into practice in their Lives, but to propagate them with their latest Breath, by Devilish Insinuations of their consistency with Religion and Law; We conceive it high time to manifest our Separation from such Persons and Principles; their Favourers and Abettors, with detestation of that dreadful Climax, the Bill of Exclusion, Treasonous Association, Ignoramus Juries, and seducing Perambulations; by which the Accomplices advanced towards their intended Assassination & Massacre; which barbarous design, it cannot be imagined that Forty, or the Council of any Six, durst undertake, without confident reliance on Confederate Auxiliaries, and not knowing the Latitude of such dire Combinations, but heedful of our present charge and duty with the indispensable Obligation the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, lay upon all; We hold ourselves boundin this distempered juncture of Affairs, to present, that We have strong apprehensions of danger from a dissatisfied party in this Country; who not only showed their defection openly, by an Address made to Henry Booth, Esq and Sir Robert Cotton, Knight and Baronet, at the last Election of Knights of the Shire, tending to alter the Succession of the Crown; with other dangerous and seditious purports, giving assurance of standing by them, in that design, without respecting their Oath of Allegiance to the King and his Heirs; but also by their several Meetings and Cabals sinee, which administer greater suspicion, from the store of Arms many of them were provided with; And for that the same Persons unanimously assembled with Schismatics and disaffected Persons in the public reception of James Duke of Monmouth, who has appeared a prime Confederate in the late treasonable Conspiracy the concourse of armed Persons then attending him, especially in and near several populous Towns in this County, where, the invited and instigated Rabble, in a broad mixture of various Sectaries; with superfluous joy and popular noise, tumulted on that occasion, has had an evil influence upon this yet unsettled Country, and brought a terror upon his Majesty's good and peaceable Subjects; for remedy whereof, with relation to the public Peace, and to prevent as far as in us lies, the spreading of such contagion, as also to wash our Hands from all misprision, by concealing proceed that may encourage greater Evils in other parts of his Majesty's Dominions; We conceive it expedient that the Principal Persons who promoted the aforesaid Seditious Address, and also those who were notorious in consorting, aiding and abetting, in the Riotous reception and entertainment of the said Duke of Monmouth and his Associates in this County; together with the frequenters of Conventicles, and those that harbour and countenance any Nonconformist Minister or Preacher should be obliged to give security of the Peace, And particularly;  
Charles, Earl of Macclesfield,  
Richard, Lord Colchester,  
Charles, Lord Brandon,  
Henry Booth Esq  
Sir Robert Cotton, Knight and Baronet,  
Sir Willougby Aston, Baronet,  
Sir Thomas Mainwaring, Baronet,  
Sir Thomas Bellat, Baronet,  
Sir John Crew, Knight,  
Nathaniel Booth, Esq  
Colonel Thomas Leigh junior.  
John Mainwaring of Baddeley, Esq  
Peter Leigh of Booths, Esq  
Colonel Roger Whitley of Peele, And  
Mr Thomas Whittley his Son.  
Roger Mainwaring of Kiruuntham, Esq  
Tillston Bruen of Stapleford, Esq  
Sir Robert Duckenfield, Baronet,  
Thomas Lea of Dernal, Esq  
Mr Robert Hid of Cattenhall,  
Edward Glegge of Grange, Esq  
Richard Leigh of Highleigh, Esq  
Mr Roger Whittley,  
Mr Robert Venables of Winthcombe,  
William Minshall of Namptwith, Esq  
John Hurlston of Newton, Esq And  
Charles his Son, And  
William Whitmore of Thutstaston, Esq  
We present also, that all persons not frequenting the Church according to Law are Recusants; it being impossible to know the hearts of men, for what cause they refuse to come to Church; And that all connivance and indulgence in that case, is the ready Road to Rebellion, Popery and Arbitrary Power; And further We desire humbly to present to his most sacred Majesty our repeated Congratulations of Joy, for his and his Royal Brother's happy deliverance from the late Treasonable Conspiracy; with our assurances that We will, with our Lives and Fortunes, stand in defence of his sacred Person and Government, his Heirs and Lawful Successors; To all which we subscribe our Names;  

The Grand Jury, 


T. Grosvenor,  
W. Cotten,  
Edw. Legh,  
Peter Shakerley.  
Tho, Warburton,  
Anthony Eyre,  
Hen. Dayies,  
Jo. Dod,  
John Daniel,  
T. Minshall,  
J. Starkey,  
Hen. Meals,  
Rob. Alpart,  
Ran. Dod,  
Edw. Bromley,  
J. Hockenhull,  
Francis Leche,  
Tho. Baruston  
John Davis,       

Heads of some Informations and Examinations, taken upon Oath before a Committee of the House of Lords, appointed to inspect, Who were the Advisers and Prosecutors of the Murders of the Lord Russell, Colonel Sidney, Sir Thomas Armstrong, Mr Cornish & others; And who were Advisers of issuing Quo Warrantoes against Corporations; & who were Assertors of the dispensing Power; whereof a Report was made, by the Right honourable the Earl of Stamford, upon the 20th day of December, 1689.  
Also Copies of some other material Papers, relating to the Murders and Oppressions perpetrated upon pretence of a Conspiracy against King Charles the second, and the Duke of York, in the year 1683.  
MR John Phelps, Mr Thomas Morris, Mr Peter Hagar, Mr Robert Bates, Mr Richard Haly, Mr Horneby and Mr Crispe Grang (all Persons of good value and unspotted Reputation) being examined upon Oath in relation to Josin Keeling, deposed in substance as follows, (viz.)  
That Keeling three or four days, or a week, before his Discovery, of the Presbyterian Plot, came into their Company at the Fleece Tavern in Cornhill; where, he appearing to be much disturbed and confused; one of their Company enquired of him, why he seemed to be so disordered; to which he answered, that he lay under a great Temptation, for he was sent to, 
The Popish Lords were then in the Tower.  by the Lords in the Tower; and some Gentlemen that came to him from them, told him, his own Party had disobliged him, 
He had, as a lose Fellow, been cast out by the Congregation, to which he belonged.  and he had now an opportunity to be revenged of them; That he could not be insensible of some Persons that designed against the Government; and that if he would discover, 
Subornation was, at that day, carried on, by the tender term of discovering.  he might make himself and his Family; That he had great proffers of Money, and a Place of 100 l. per annum; and might go in a Coach and six Horses to Windsor. And that he was to meet those who treated with him, again that Night, at the Bullhead Tavern near the Tower.  
That upon Keeling's talking at this rate, one of the Company asked him, why he troubled them with this discourse, and told him, if he knew any thing against the Government, he ought to discover it; but if he knew nothing, he would do well to keep out of such Temptations, and not go to the meeting appointed; but he said he would go, because he had promised them in the morning, that he would meet them again, but declared that he knew nothing, & said that he acquainted them with it, because if he should be prevailed upon, by Temptation of Money, to witness any thing, they should be able to witness against him, that he had declared that he knew nothing in agitation against the Government, and that they should testify, that he was the greatest Rogue and Villain living, if he should swear against any Man.  
Mr Phelps (in particular) deposed, That he, attended to have testified this at my Lord russel's Trial, bat was not asked to come in at any of the other Trials, and durst not appear, unless desired; That he remembers not, whether or not, he knew of Walcot's Trial, before it was over; but that he knew not that Keeling was a Witness against him, till after the Trial was over.  
Mr Morris deposed, That he knew not that Keeling was a Discoverer of a Plot, till after Walcot's Trial; but believes he acquainted Sir William Poultney what he heard Keeling say, before the Lord Ruse sell's Trial; and also told it to Mr Stevens; whereupon he was subpaenaed to that Trial, and went, but the Trial was not till three or four days after the time he was directed to attend; That a second Subpaena came the night before the Trial, but he being from home, did not receive it till after the Trial.  
Mr Hagar deposed, That he thinks he knew Keeling was a Witness against Captain Walcot, but did not then offer himself to be a Witness, because times were so difficult; but when he heard of my Lord russel's Trial, he acquainted his Lordship's Servant with what he has now sworn, and that he attended at the Trial, but Keeling was no Witness.  
Mr Bates deposed, That he believes he told what he hath now sworn about Keeling's Declaration at the Fleece Tavern, to twenty persons, before the Lord russel's Trial; and that he heard Keeling say, in the Amsterdam Coffeehouse, It is reported, that I have discovered a Plot, of the Duke of Monmouth, my Lord Russell, and others; but I know nothing of it, and am innocent and falsely accused.  
Mr Haly deposed, that he remembers not that he spoke of what he has now sworn to any Person, for times were such he was afraid to speak of it.  
John Keeling deposed, that Josia Keeling his Brother (who gave his first Information upon Oath to Sir Leoline Jenkins, upon the 12th of June 1683.) came to him the next day, and called him out, and carried him into the Company of Goodenough, at the Dolphin-Tavern, where they talked of taking off the Blackbird and the Goldsmith (meaning the King and the Duke) That the Company being parted, he the said John Keeling, told his Brother, that he did not understand that Gibberish, and therefore would not be concerned.  
That his Brother then carried him to one Mr Peckham, at the Fleece-Tavern in Southwark; where Peckham encouraged him, and told him, if he would be a Witness, he should be well rewarded; Then he carried him to two Gentlemen (whom he knew not) to the Flanders Coffeehouse, who encouraged him, and would have had him to a Dinner, but he declined it.  
That then his Brother told him, he must go with him to Secretary Jenkins, to give Information of what he had heard; to which he showing aversion, his Brother told him, he must go thither or to Newgate; and so he was compelled to comply.  
That he gave notice to Mr Tory (his Brother's Master) how his Brother had trapan'd him, 
An honest Whig Tory Citizen, living in St martin's Legrand, and is reckoned the only Tory in London, who at all Elections votes for the true English Interest.  and made him to swear; and that he acquainted Mr Jones therewith, and desired him to give notice to the Persons accused.  
That he did not believe the Plot, till he saw the Proclamation, and understood that Lee the Dyer came in for a Witness; That his Brother had 500 l. of the King; and brought it to a Coffeehouse.  
That he the said John Keeling was subpenaed to be a Witness against the Lord Russell, and was sworn to give Evidence to the Grand-Jury; but was not examined.  
Mr Nathaniel Wade deposed, that Josia Keeling accused him of being in the Rye-Plot; tho' he had never been above twice in his company: That, at the Salutation Tavern in , he heard Keeling 
* He was ordered by Jenkins to draw Men in, and that he might accomplish it, They gave him Licence to talk Treason.  speak very extravagantly, and say he would do some brisk thing; and that thereupon Mr Nelthorpe said, I prithee be not mad: And that presently after Mr Wade heard his own Name in a Proelamation.  
Mr John Tisard deposed, that at my Lord russel's Trial, four Gentlemen told him, that Keeling (who was to have been the first Evidence against his Lordship) had confessed that he was to meet some Gentlemen at a Tavern, who were to give him Instructions what to swear; but he said, when he had received the Instructions, he would make a discovery.  
That however, Keeling was not produced against my Lord, and he believes the reason was, because some were apprised of the defence, which his Lordship would have made against his evidence.  
Mr Nathaniel Gael deposed, that by the persuasion, of Keeling's Mother, he procured 100 l. to be lent to him, by Mr Wolf a Merchant, to supply his necessities, which Keeling repaid three Months after, which was after he was an Evidence.  
Josia Keeling being examined, declared, That he remembers not that he was in an Agony or trouble at the Fleece-Tavern, or that he told the Company there, he was to meet any Persons concerning the discovery of a Plot, or that he was promised a Groat or Employment, or that he desired them to bear Witness against him, if he pretended to say any thing of a Plot, or that he knew nothing.  
That he was subpenaed at the Lord russel's, and Walcot's Trial; and was there during the whole Trial of the Lord Russell.  
That he applied himself to the Lord Privy Seal, at his House, to help him to his place in the Victualling Office; and he thinks he applied also to the D. York; That he after reminded the Lord Hallifax going up into the Gallery at Whitehall; and after that, he heard he had his place, he thanked him that Evening, and he continued in his place till within these six Weeks.  
That he had Money of the King as Subsistance; and also received 500 l. of Mr Duncumb the Banker; That the King told him he should have 100 l. a Year, but he never had it.  
Mr Aaron Smyth deposed, That he was a Prisoner in the Tower, when my Lord Russell and Colonel Sidney were tried; and was kept close Prisoner above nineteen Weeks, at 5. l. a week charge, and two Warders watched him, or lay in the Room.  
That one of his Warders told him, that Mr Ambrose Philip's was come to speak with him, and had an Order from one of the Secretaries to come as often as he would, and bring whom he would along with him; but then he was alone; When Mr Philip's came in, after some other discourse, he told him it was in his Power to make himself what he would; for said he, you know this Rogue Sidney is a Traitor, and you way make yourself what you will, if you will DISCOVER what you know of his designs against the Government.  
That he replied, he could not say any thing that could touch a Hair of Colonel Sidney's head; and that then Mr Philip's said, If he might advise the King, he would have all the damned Whig Rogues hanged; and for your part, any Body knows you are Guilty.  
Sir Ambrose Philip's being examined, confessed that Aaron Smyth had been his Client, and there was a Friendship between them, and he thought he might have prevailed with him to have declared what he knew, which he thought would be a service to the Public, and service to himself.  
That he cannot be positive, whether Mr Roger North gave him an Order to go to Aaron Smyth, or told him he should find an Order with the Lieutenant of the Tower.  
That he used to Mr Smyth, the Arguments a Friend might do; and told him he came not to trapan him; nor would he discover more of what he would tell him, but what he would give him leave; but he found him very resolute; and so fairly took his leave, and never came near him more.  
That he believes he might say to Mr North, that he had such a power in Mr Smyth, to persuade him to tell what he knew; That no body besides Mr North, either persuaded, or advised him to go to Mr Smyth.  
Mr Roger North being examined said, that he procured no Order for Sir Ambrose Philip's to go to Aaron Symth; nor doth he believe he ever had any conversation with him about that matter; and he is confident he never delivered him any Order for going to him; nor told him that he should find any such Order at the Tower; nor to the best of his remembrance, knew he of any such Order; and that Sir Ambrose Philip's mis-remembers, if he says he had any such Order from him.  
Sir John Moor being examined, said, That 'twas not he that rejected the Sheriffs, but the Court of Aldermen; That Mr Papillon was set aside by the Court, because Sir John had drunk to Sir Dudley North.  
That he doth not believe or remember, that he had any Orders from Court to drink to Sir Dudley; That Secretary Jenkins was often to visit him, but never gave him any 
* Persuasion would do, with an easy, willing Man.  Directions.  
That he believes Mr Papillon and Mr Dubois demanded the Poll, That he had no direction from Whitehall to reject the Poll, but the Court of Aldermen did reject it.  
That the Soldiers were sent to keep the Peace; that he remembers not, that he, either the day before, or that morning of the Poll, made any promise not to disturb the Poll; nor doth he remember what time of the day he went to disturb the Poll; Many of the Citizens came to his House, and would have him to the Hall, telling him, the Poll went on, tho' he adjourned it; which Adjournment, he saith, was by advice of the Court of Aldermen.  
Mr Normansel and Mr Trotman the Secondaries, deposed, that Graham and Burton were the Prosecutors of my Lord Russell; that Sir Dudley North had the Books from them, and returned my Lord russel's Jury; that Juries had usually been returned by the Secondaries, and taken out of two, three, or four Wards; but this Jury was taken out of about nineteen Wards. That Sir Benjamine Thorowgood returned the Jury upon Alderman Cornish.  
Mr Trotman added, that Graham and Burton were also the Prosecutors of Alderman Cornish.  
Mr Perry (who had been Clerk to Mr Trotman nine Years) deposed, That he was not by, at the return of my Lord russel's Jury; but he made a Copy of it, and is was under Sir Dudley North's hand.  
That he was with Mr Trotman at Sir Benjamine Thorowgood's House, who had the Books of both the Compters, and he wrote the Names, as Sir Benjamine directed him.  
That in common cases, the Panels used to be returned out of two or three Wards.  
Mr Crisp the Common Sergeant deposed, 
The proper Officers, swear out of two or three, but the Common Sergeant swears out of six, so makes some advance towards Sir Dudley North's number.  that he hath known Juries returned out of six Wards, and never out of fewer than four.  
That he was in Court at part of the Lord Ruffell's Trial; That he remembers his Lordship desired he might be heard by Counsel, and that they might have time to consider of it; but the Court heard them immediately; [The Gentleman paid too great a deference to the Coure, to say they refused my Lord Russell time, and therefore expresses it in the tender Words, That the Court heard them immediately.]  
Sir Dudley North being examined, said, That he was a Freeman of London; and the Lord Mayor drank to him as Sheriff; and he took upon him the Office, and was 2000 l. out of Purse, which he never had again directly or indirectly.  
[But he was wellrewarded, by being first one of the Commissioners of the Customs, and then of the Treasury; whereby he was sufficiently reimbursed; and rewarded also, for the good service he did in his Sheriffalty.  
Sir Dudley went on, saying, That he impanuelled the Juries for the Sessions, when the Lord Russell was tried; That he returned the best 
* It being Sir Dudley's own Jury, and they doing their business to content, he treated them at a Tavern, after the Verdict given, as appears by the Journal of the House of Lords.  Jury he could, without observing any Ward; and drew this out of several Wards, because they might be the more substantial Men.  
That, to the best of his remembrance, Sir Peter Rich concurred in this Jury; if he had opposed it, he should not have done it.  
That the Juries before, were returned by the Secondaries, but this being a very 
* It was indeed a very extraordinary business, to murder as valuable a Noble Man, as ever drew Breath in England.  extraordinary business, he thought it requisite to take care of it himself.  
That he took no care of what opinion the Jury were of, but only that they were substantial Men [yet he cannot show one Man called a Whig, returned on the Jury.]  
That he had no order or directions from any Man 
* Note, his Brother the Lord Keeper was now mination.  alive, to take care of this business.  
Sir Peter Rich declared, That he was never asked in his whole year to impannel a Jury; and that he never impanneled any, or signed any Panel to his knowledge; and says positively, that the Books were sent to him by the Secondaries, and that he never saw the Panel (of my Lord russel's Jury) till he heard it read in Court.  
That the usual practice of the return of Juryes, in London, is by the Secondaries.  
Sir Benjamin Thorowgood, being examined, said, that he was Sheriff at the time when Mr Cornish suffered; That the two Secondaries brought him the Books. That he knows not out of how many Wards the Jury was returned, but he thinks out of most of them, and he believes it to be the Custom to return the Jury so. [But the Secondaries swear the contrary.]  
That he thought it a piece of justice in him, to see the Jury fairly returned; being the Gentleman to be tried, had been one of his Predecessors.  
That the Jury were of the sufficientest, 
This is Sir Benjamine's opinion that the substance as well as the honesty of the City was got into Tory Hands (the Jury being all of that stamp) but to let their honesty alone, the contrary is as evident, as to the ability of more than one of these Jurymen, as 'tis that Juryes were wont to be taken out of most of the Wards.  ablest and honestest Men, of the City of London; and he believes all the Men that served of the Jury, were those he returned.  
Mr Henry Cornish, being examined, deposed, that his Father was kept close from his Commitment to the day of his Trial, and Captain Richardson would admit none of his Friends to come to him.  
That he went to Normansel the Secondary, for a Copy of the Panel, and either he or his Clerk told him, that Burton and Graham hadit; and when he came again in the Evening to them for it, one of them told him, They had orders from above, not to let him have it.  
Sir James Forbes, deposed, that the Dake of Monmouth desired him to show Mr Hambden a Paper written with the King's own Hand; which was, for the Duke's owning of the Evidence of Romsey and others.  
That, he told the Duke that that Paper would make him infamous, and would be a means of destroying many Men's Lives; whereupon, the Duke sent him with the Paper to the Earl of Anglesey; who, upon the reading of it, presently wrote a a Paper of Reasons against it.  
That before Sir James went to the Earl of A. the Duke told him, if it were so as he had told him, he would have the Paper again, tho' he died for it; whereupon Sir James asked him how he would get it. That the Duke said the King would show it him, and then he would tear it out of his Hand; and then further said, the Duke of York was his implacable Enemy.  
That, as soon as Mr Hambden had read the Paper, he said, he was a Dead Man; and asked leave of Sir James to show it to his Father, which he consented to.  
That he returned to the Duke and gave him the Earl of Anglesey's Reasons against the Paper, together with his own thoughts of it; whereupon the Duke replied, that he saw they had a mind to ruin him; and he was only brought into Court to do a ; and that he would not Sleep before he had retrived the Paper.  
That, the Duke told him how kindly the King had expressed himself to him; and Sir James desired the Duke to save Colonel Sidney, if possible; but he feared he could not; but said, he had told the King, how good a Man the Lord Russell was, and how unjustly he had been put to death.  
That, at the desire of Mr Hambden, the Duke went to visit him, before he had his Pardon: tho' he thought it to be very dangerous; and was with him two or three Hours in private, and Sir James believes it was about saving the Colonel's Life.  
That, the Duke's Servants told Sir James, at the Cockpit, that they were ordered not to suffer any of his old Friends, or whigs (and such and such in particular) to see, or pay a Visit to the Duke.  
That the Duke told St James, that the Lord Hallifax persuaded him to sign the Paper; but whether it were for his good or not he knew not.  
That when Sir James told the Duke how it was reported in the Town, that he was come in to be a Witness, he answered, he never would.  
That the next day after Sir James had given the Duke the Earl of Anglesey's Reasons, and Mr Hambden's and his own Opinion: Colonel Godfrey came to him, and told him that the Duke had recovered the Paper, and got it into his own possession; and Sir James went to tell Mr Hambden, Mr Charlton, and Major Wildman of it.  
Colonel Godfrey, deposed That the first night the Duke of Monmouth came to Court, he went to him with Sir James Forbes; and the Duke told them how kind the King was to him, in giving him his Pardon: and that he believed he owed a great deal of it, to the Lord Hallifax; and several times he heard him say, that the Lord Hallifax had been kind and serviceable to him.  
That the Duke said, the King told him, that he must submit to be asked Questions in public, concerning the Plot; and must submit to him, and not contradict him.  
That within two or three days after the Duke surrendered himself, he shown him a Paper, which was, a Declaration or seeming Confirmation of the Plot, with which the Lord Russell and Colonel Sidney were charged; and he thinks the Paper was signed, with the Duke's name to it.  
That the Paper which the Duke got from the King was not the same with the other: and he believes he did not see that Paper; That the Duke told him, after the Paper had been sent to the Council, that he had signed such a Paper; he understood in general from him, that this Paper was a Confirmation of the Plot, the Lord Russell and Colonel Sidney suffered upon.  
That he thinks the Duke told him, the Lord Hallifax persuaded him to sign that Paper; The Reasons he used were, that he might keep at Court, and be near the King or else he must go from thence.  
Anthony Rowe Esq deposed, That the Duke of Monmouth sent him to the King, with two or three Letters; whom he found very angry with him, for the Company he kept; 
Observe here what value that King put upon the Blood of Lord Russell and Col. Sidney, etc.  and particularly the Lord Howard, who, he said was so ill a Man, that he would not hang the worst dog he had, on his Evidence.  
That he heard the Duke had a Paper given him from the King to consider of; he seemed unwilling to sign it, but at last consented, so he might not be asked to sign any other; He being in the Bedchamber, when the King told him he should not; whether he signed it or not, Mr Row knows not.  
That this Paper was given to the King, and shown to the Council, but they not liking it, it was either Burnt or Torn, and another Paper drawn.  
That about that time, some thing of this being put into the Gazette, Mr Row acquainted the Duke with it: Who was displeased at it; and bid them tell every Body they met, that it was false.  
That Mr Row doing so in the Coffee-house that night, the King, was acquainted with it; and sent for him early the next morning, and chid him; and told him, he did the Duke more hurt than he was ware of, and commanded him to speak no more of it.  
That the Duke told him he was resolved not to sign the second Paper; That one day afterwards, he, and Godfrey and Barker, were in the outward Room, and the Lord Hallifax, was with the Duke and Duchess in her Room; and the Duke came out to them once or twice, and at last laid he had done it; and that night he seemed angry with himself that he had signed the Paper, for that it might hurt others, and that if it had concerned none but himself he had not cared; but said, he would not rest till he had the Paper again, and the next morning he told him he had got it.  
That the Duke told them, that the King had often pressed him to sign it, and told him he should never see his face more if he did not do it, but if he would he should ask him nothing, but he would grant it; But when he did sign it, he knows not, nor that there was any in the Room, but the Duchess and the Lord Hallifax.  
That the Duke told him, after he came out, that the Lord Hallifax had over persuaded him, and made him do it; and engaged to him, the King should never let the Paper be seen; and said, this was the time to gain the King's favour: It being long ago, Mr Row declared these things as he believes, and to the best of his Remembrance.  
Mr Robert Yard, being examined, declared, that the Advertisement concerning the Duke of M. which was put into the Gazete, was what was handled in Council, the day after the Duke came in, It was the giving an Account of what passed betwixt the King and the Duke. That he had the Paper either from the Lord Sunderland or Sir Leoline Jenkins.  
John Hambden Esq declared himself thus; His Case is so twisted with those of the Noble Persons, whose Murders you inquire after, that he knows not how to speak of theirs, without relating his his own, and that he looks upon himself almost as much murdered, as any of them, by reason of his Sufferings.  
My Lord Russell and Col. Sidney were clapped up in the Tower; after which he was sent for, and brought into the Cabinet Council, or select number of Lords; and asked, whether he was of the Council of six; so the Lord Howard was pleased to call it: He saw there, the King, the Lord Keeper North, and Lord Hallifax; there were some others present, whose faces he did not fee; he does not remember a Clerk with them; my Lord Keeper asked some Questions, and so did the King; He was pressed much to confess; he claimed the Liberty, as an Englishman, not to accuse himself; he was sent to the Tower, and made close Prisoner; he was kept in the strictest custody for twenty Weeks; when he had been there, after the Lord R. was executed, and a little before Col. Sidney was executed, he had an intimation by a private note, that there was an intention to try him; for a Misdemeanour, he was bailed out upon 30000 l.  
After this, it happened, the D. of M. came in, and had a Pardon; but several coming to see him, he spoke some things freely, which did not please the Court; and at the Old Duchess of Richmond 's, he spoke as if those Gentlemen that were put to Death, died unjustly.  
Whereupon, after the King was told this, by a Lady; he would have him confess his being concerned in the Plot; and a Paper was drawn to that purpose, which the King would have him sign, which he did.  
A Gentleman (viz.) Sir James Forbes, came to him from the Duke, with the Copy of the Paper the Duke had signed, to own the Plot; as soon as he saw it, he said it was a Confession 〈◊〉 the Plot, and according to the Law then in practice, it would hang him; because a Paper had been given in evidence against Col. Sidney; upon which he was condemned; for if a Paper which was said, and not proved to be writ by him, could supply the place of a second Evidence; then a Paper which could be proved to be written and signed by the D. of M. might much more properly be made use of as his Evidence, to hang other People.  
He said, he was told by Sir James Forbes, that the D. was in a manner forced to do it; and persuaded and overborne in it, by the Lord H. when Sir James Forbes went back, the D. was concerned to madness; and said, if he lived till next day, he would have the Paper again; and accordingly he went to the King, and told him he could not rest till he had it; The King with great indignation threw him the Paper, and bid him never see his face more; and he believes he did not; and so the Duke went away; and by that he escaped the Trial then.  
He was told by Mr Waller, who is since dead, that the Duke's owning the Plot to the King, was the cause of Colonel Sidney's death; for the King balanced before.  
He was after this, brought to a Trial for Misdemeanour, and was convicted on the Lord Howard's evidence. He pleaded Magna Charta, that a Salvo Contenemento; but the Court fined him 4000 l. and to Imprisonment, till the Fine paid, and security for the good Behaviour.  
The King made his choice of putting him in Prison, and he was committed to the Marshal's House in the King's Bench, where he was ten Months.  
He offered several sums of Money, and they answered, they had rather have him rot in Prison, than he should pay the Fine.  
After this, they put him in the Common Prison, where he was kept ten or eleven Months, very close; then, they contrive a Writ called a long Writ, to reach his Real and Personal Estate, whilst he was thus a Prisoner.  
After this, he heard a new Witness appeared, which was after the defeat of the Duke of Monmouth. He was sent Close Prisoner to the Tower, by the Lord Sunderland's Warrant, and put into such a Room, where he had no conveniency, and with two of the Rudest Warders in the Tower, to lie in the Room with him.  
After seven or eight weeks, he was removed to Newgate, where he was kept close eleven weeks; his Friends offered Money for his Pardon to some in power; who were the Lord Jefferyes and Mr Petre; the sum was 6000 l. and that was effectual; It is not possible for a Man to suffer more than he did.  
By the help of the Money, on condition he would plead Guilty to his Indictment, he was to come off.  
His Friends advised him to it, because it could hurt none; there being none living of those called the Council of six, but the Lord Howard.  
Whereupon, pleading guilty, he was discharged; paying 3 or 400 l. to Burton and Graham for the charge of his Pardon.  
As for the Subject matter of what he confessed, 
* The designing to rise in Arms to rescue the Laws and Liberties of his Country, when threatened with destruction.  no man will think he ought to be ashamed, that thinks my Lord Russell was Murdered; And he said, this was the way that our Ancestors always took, when the Sovereign Authority came to so great a height; as may be made out by many instances; he said, Custom had made this the Law of England; and that all Civilised and well governed Nations about us, had used the same way.  
Notwithstanding his pleading Guilty, he hath been very ready to secure the Kingdom; and he was one of the two or three Men, that received Letters from Holland of this Revolution; And, he saith he thinks King William's coming into England, to be nothing else but the Continuation of the Council of six; and if not, he desires to be better informed.  
Being asked by the Lord H. how he came to send his Wife to the Man, whom he thought was instrumental in obtaining the Paper, which he thought endangered his Life; He answered, did not he send his Wife to the Lord Jefferies, Mr Petre and others? who should he send to but to those in power? and who could help him but those in power?  
He did not think that the Lord H. struck directly at his Life, or that his Lordship had any personal Pique against him; but against the Cause he was engaged in; His Wife did go several times to the Lord H. and by her he believes he sent him thanks; He knows no solid effects of his kindness; if there were, he desires the Lord H. to tell him in what; He believes no part of the 6000 l was given to the Lord H.  
He never heard any thing of the D. of Monmouth's Confession of the Plot, till after the Paper was signed by the Duke, and sent to him; He has heard it, as common talk, that the Duke had confessed a Plot, and that Mr Waller told him so indefinitely; he could not tell whether he meant before the signing the Paper, or no; He saith what the Duke did at that time was all of a piece; whether speaking or writing; he is sure that it was with the utmost reluctancy, that the Duke signed the Paper.  
He remembers no more in the Cabinet Council, but the Lord Radnor, besides those he has already named; but believes there were three or four more.  
He was bailed the 28th of November, 1683. and Colonel Sidney he thinks was Executed, the 5th of December following.  
The Duke of Monmouth appeared very firm to him, and engaged to do his utmost to save Colonel Sidney.  
He saith he came out of the Tower some days before Colonel Sidney was Executed; he had an intention to have visited him, but his Friends thought it useless and dangerous to them; and that he might write any thing he had to say; Accordingly, he wrote to him, that he would come to him, if he desired it, but Col. Sidney charged him not to come, but to write, if he thought any inconveniency would come of it; The Messenger which brought him the Message , was Dr Hall now Bishop of Oxford; who applied to the Duchess of Portsmouth for his Release; but her answer to him, afterwards was, That she had tried, and could do nothing, for they would rather have him rot in Prison, than have the 40000 l.  
Dame Katherine Armstrong, being examined, deposed, that she demanded a Writ of Error of the Cursitor of London, for Sir Thomas Armstrong, and told him she was ready to pay all due Fees; but he told her she must go to the Attorney General; and she demanded it publicly in Court of the Lord Keeper North; but he said it was not in him to give, but the King.  
Mrs Jane Mathews being examined, said, that her Father was sent to Prison, and could have no Council admitted to him; nor any Friends speak with him; but in the presence of his Keeper; he had one Chain on him, and was kept close Prisoner; she saith, she questions not but to prove the Lord Howard perjured, for Sir Thomas could have proved by ten Gentlemen, and the Servants of the House, those base Reflections the Lord Howard made on him, to be falsehoods.  
She saith, her Father demanded his Trial, and also Counsel, in the Court; but was denied both, the Chief Justice Jefferies telling him, they had nothing but the Outlawry to go on. Withens, Holloway, and Walcot were other three of the Judges; And she thinks, he was brought from aboard the Yatch by the Lord Godolphin's Warrant.  
She saith, Mr Richardson beat her Sister, while she was ask her Father Blessing.  
She saith, that her Father was at Sparrow's at Dinner, that day that the Lord Howard swore he was not; and she saith, that when her Father in Court said, My Blood be upon you; The Lord Chief Justice Jeffryes said, let it, let it; I am Clamour proof.  
Mrs Katherine Armstrong, being examined saith, That Captain Richardson used her Father ill, and made him lie in a Chain on one Leg; and would not let her see him alone; and was rude to her, and struck her in such manner, that she had so fore a Breast, that she could not put on Bodies in three quarters of a year.  
She saith, she went with her Mother to the Cursitor of London, to demand a Writ of Error, but he refused it.  
She went also on the same Errand to the Lord Keeper North, Mr Attorney, and the Lord Chief Justice, but had none.  
Mr Richard Wynne declared, That he was Solicitor to Colonel Sidney; That the Colonel excepted against several of the Judy; to some as not being Freeholders, and others, as being in the King's Service, and receiving Wages from his Majesty.  
That presently after the Trial, the Lord Chief Justice sent him Prisoner to the King's Bench, 
Mr Wynne said this, to Angier (the Foreman of that murdering Jury) and to Glisby (another of the three Carpenters which were upon that Jury) and to another of their Brethren near the King's Bench Court; whereupon they went to lay hold upon Mr. Wynne; at which instant Mr Forth (the King's Joiner) coming, interposed; upon which Angier said, Mr Forth will you assist this Man? he says Colonel Sidney's Jury, was a Loggerheaded Jury. To which Mr Forth answered; I have nothing to do with the Jury, but Glisby knows, that I know he it a Loggerhead. Of this, They complained to Jeffryes, who committed Mr Wynne and Mr Forth to the King's Bench; It cost Mr Forth about 50 l. whereof Burton had 24 l. and he being a Protestant Joiner, he 'scap'd well out of their Hands, as times than went; especially with that Trade.  for saying the Jury were a Loggerheaded Jury, & that They had not Evidence sufficient to find such a Verdict; or found a Verdict contrary to Evidence.  
Mr Sergeant Rotherham, being examined, declared, That he was of Counsel for Colonel Sidney, and drew a Plea for him; which the Colonel desired to have read, and threw it into the Court; It was to distinguish the Treasons, laid in the Indictment, and quoted the three Acts of Treason: But the Court told him, if the Plea had any slip in it, he must have Judgement of Death, pass on him immediately: After this he pleaded Not Guilty.  
That he demanded a Copy of the Indictment, as his due; but the Court refused it him; That Col. Sidney told him, that they proved the Paper, they accused him of, to be his Handwriting, by a Banker, who only had his hand upon a Bill. Col. Sidney quoted the Lady Carr's Case in the King's Benel's, Trinity Term, 1669, Anno 21. Car. 2. wherein it was adjudged, that in a Criminal Case, 'tis not sufficient for a Witness to swear he believes it to be the hand, but that he saw the party writ it: The words in the Case are, That it must be proved, that she actually writ it, and not her hand, ●ut credit.  
[Note, Colonel Sidney demanded the Copy of the Indictment, upon the Statute 46 Edw. 3. which allows it to all Men, in all Cases.]  
That Colonel Sidney asked him, with the rest of the Council, whether all the Book should be read at his Trial; The Council said it aught; The Book was by way of Questions, and merely polemical discourse of Government in general; as far as Sergeant Rotherham could find, after reading in it several hours; He believes it consisted of seven or eight hundred Sheets.  
Mr Joseph Ducas, upon his Examination, informed the Lords in substance as follows; That Colonel Sidney was taken up by a Messenger, before there could be any pretence of proof against him; for the Lord Howard (the only Witness) was not seized till fourteen days after.  
That when Sir Philip Floyd seized and carried away Colonel Sidney's Papers, he promised him that the Trunk and Pillowbier, in which they were sealed up; should not be opened, but in the Colonel's presence; but that promise was not performed.  
That they seized the Colonel's Goods and Money in the City and Country; five or six Months before any Indictment was found against him.  
That the Colonel was brought to Westminster the 7th of November; by an 
* A most clear demonstration, that the Prosecutors of this great Man had good Intelligence with the Grand Jury, & Influence upon them.  Habeas Corpus, sent the day before; to be arraigned upon an Indictment; tho' no Indictment was then found against him; and they kept him in a Tavern in the Palace-yard, an hour; till they had got the Grand Jury to find the Indictment.  
That the Colonel being carried to the Court of King's Bench; and the Indictment read; he demanded a Copy thereof; but the Court refused it. That the Colonel offered a Special Plea engrossed in Parchment, and desired it might be read; but the Chief Justice said, that if the Attorney General demurred, and the Plea were overruled; Judgement of Death should pass upon him; (and Wythens said, if your Plea be overruled, your Life is gone) and so he was forced to Plead Not Guilty.  
That he challenged several of the Jury, as being the King's Servants; and others, as not being Freeholders; but was overruled therein. Some Gentlemen and very worthy Persons were, for Fashion sake, put into the Panel and called; but did not appear [and it may be reasonably thought they were never summoned.]  
That Colonel Sidney was informed, that when the Jury was withdrawn, the Chief Justice, under pretence of going to drink a Glass of Sack; went to the Jury, when they were consulting about their Verdict.  
That when it was demanded of the Colonel, what he had to say, why Judgement should not pass; he urged several points of Law, but was overruled, in every thing.  
To this effect, was the Information of Mr Ducas, a very valuable French Protestant Gentleman, and Colonel Sidney's true Friend; To which I shall here subjoin a few words, uttered by that great Man, at the time of his Condemnation: I was brought to Westminster the 7th of this Month by 
* This leads me to correct an Error committed in the first part of this History, pag. 185. where I said, as I then understood it, that Colonel Sidney brought the Habeas Corpus; but it appears, that it was brought at the instance of his Prosecutors; And upon this occasion I shall confess another mistake, (& therein, all with which I have been charged in the first part) that I said Robert Masters, one of Sir S. Barnardiston's Jury, was a principal Witness against College; But I must acknowledge, that Richard was the Witness, & Robert the Jury man was his Brother, and only sucked the same Milk with him.  Habeas Corpus, granted the day before to be arraigned; when yet no Bill was exhibited against me, and my Prosecutors could not know it would be found, unless they had a Correspondence with the Grand Jury; That the Jury was not summoned by the Bailiff, but agreed upon by the under-sheriff, and Graham and Burton.  
Upon the Sentence he expressed himself, in that excellent manner, which the Reader may turn to, in the first part of the Display of Tyranny; Page 200. Whereupon, the Chief Justice, (foaming at the Mouth) told him he was mad; To which Colonel Sidney, with great composure and gallantry of mind (stretching out his hand) said, My Lord, feel my Pulse, and see if I am disordered; I bless my God, I never was in better Temper, than I now am.  
Dr. Chamberlain being examined, deposed, That meeting the Lord Hallifax in the Gallery at Whitehall; he asked his Lordship whether the Aldermen were to blame that defended the City Charter, and he believes he did not blame them, but said the King must, or will have the Charter; he rather thinks it was, must have it; he believes he might tell this to the Duke of Monmouth, my Lord Russell and others.  
That it was for Sir John Laurence's sake, he asked the Lord Hallifax; and to him, he gave advice to take care in what he did, he being one of the Committee to defend the Charter.  

A Memorial of the Numbers of Charters, Dispensations and Pardons, passed, between October 1682, and the time of the late King's Abdication.  
THe Marquis of Hallifax was Lord Privy Seal from October 1682. to February 1684. In which time 166 Charters were granted; whereof one passed immediatè.  
No Dispensations passed in that time.  
In that time 47. Pardons, with Non-Obstante's and Clauses with Dispensations, were granted, whereof three passed immediatè.  
The Earl of Clarendon was Lord Privy Seal from February, 1684, to December 1685. in which time 94. Charters were granted; whereof 17 passed immediate.  
No Dispensations passed in that time.  
In that time 10 Pardon, with Non-Obstante's and Clauses with Dispensations, were granted, whereof two passed immediatè.  
The Lord Tiveot and others, were Commissioners of the Privy Seal, from December 1685. to March 1686, 7. in which time, 26 Charters were granted; which passed in the usual manner.  
Dispensations with the Penal Laws, in that time were Six, whereof one was immediatè.  
In that time 70. Pardons, with Non-Obstante's were passed; whereof one of them immediatè.  
The Lord Arundel of Wardour was Lord Privy Seal, from March 1686, 7. to 4 Jacobi 2. in which time, 56 Charers were granted, whereof 41. passed immediatè.  
Dispensations in that time were 35. whereof 3 passed immediate.  
In that time were 47 Pardons with Non-Obstante's passed; whereof 25 passed immediate.  
These are the heads of the Earl of Stamford's Report, which being read in the House of Lords, the same, was by Order, sent down to the House of Commons, for their Information in these Affairs.   

Copies of some Papers mentioned in, or relating to the foregoing Informations.  
Copy of the Advertisement in the Gazette, Number 1880. November 26. 1683. relating to the Duke of Monmouth, mentioned in the Examinations of Mr Row and Mr Yard.  
WHite-hall, November 25. His Majesty having this afternoon called an Extraordinary Council, was pleased to acquaint them; that the Duke of Monmouth did the last night surrender himself to Mr Secretary Jenkins; having before writ a very submissive Letter to his Majesty; entirely resigning himself to his Majesty's disposal; That his Majesty & his Royal Highness went down to Mr Secretary's Office, where the Duke of Monmouth was; who shown himself very sensible of his crime in the late Conspiracy; making a full Declaration of it; And that having showed an extraordinary penitence, for the same, and made a particular submission to his Royal Highness, for his misbehaviour towards him; His Majesty and his Royal Highness received so much satisfaction, that upon his Royal Highness' desire and entreaty; His Majesty was pleased to Pardon the said Duke, and thereupon, did order Mr Attorney General, to stop further proceed against him; but ordered he should proceed, notwithstanding, against all the rest of the Conspirators.   

Copy of the Paper, mentioned in the preceding Informations, was wrote by King Charles the seconds' own hand; who imposed upon the Duke of Monmouth, to transcribe and sign it.  
I have heard of some reports of me, as if I should have lessened the late Plot, and gone about to discredit the evidence given against those, who have died by Justice; your Majesty and the Duke know, how ingeniously I have owned the late Conspiracy; and tho' I was not conscious of any design against your Majesties Life, yet I lament the having had so great a share in the other part of the said Conspiracy.  
Sir, I have taken the Liberty to put this in writing, for my own vindication; and I beseech you to look forward, and endeavour to forget the faults you have forgiven me; I will take care, never to commit any more against you; or come within the danger of being again misled from my duty; but make it the business of my Life, to deserve the Pardon, your Majesty hath granted to, your dutiful,  
Moumouth.   

Copy of a Paper delivered to the Lord Keeper North, the Lord Chief Justice Jeffryes and the Attorney General; by the Lady Armstrong, on behalf of her Husband, Sir Thomas Armstrong.  
I am informed, that by the Common Law of England, any Man that was outlawed, in Felony or Treason, might bring a Writ of Error, to reverse the Outlawry; which was to be granted ex debito Justitiae; tho' it may be, the sueing forth such a Writ of Error to the King, might be by way of Petition; As in a Petition or Monstrans de droit, for Lands; And so it was resolved, in Ninian Melvin's Case, Co. 4. Just. 215.  
Next, by the Common Law, if any Man were in England, at the time of the Exigent awarded; and went out of the Realm after that, and before the Outlawry pronounced; he could never assign that for Error, that he was beyond Sea at the time of pronouncing the Outlawry; And the reason is, because he was here, at the awarding of the Exigent, and might reasonably have notice of it.  
On the other side, if any Man were out of England, during the whole Process, and pronunciation of the Outlawry; it was never yet a doubt, but that was Error, and might be assigned for Error, either by the party, or by his Heir, at the Common Law; and so continues to this Day, and was not long since adjudged in O. Kerney's Case, the Irish man, 
But that Case differed greatly from this, O. Kerney, being a Friend of Holy Church  who came in two Years after the Outlawry.  
Then comes the Statute of 5. & 6. Edw. 6. Cap. 11. and enlarges the Law, for the benefit of the outlawed person; and gives him liberty to assign for Error, that he was beyond Sea at the time of the Outlawry pronounced; which he could not do, by the Common Law, if he went away after the Exigent: For if he went before the Exigent, that was Error by the Common Law, before the Statute; and so continues.  
Then comes the Proviso, and saith, That he must come in, within a Year, and render himself, to be entitled to the benefit of that Act; which was, to assign for Error, that he was beyond Sea, at the time of the Outlawry ponounced; So that upon this State of the Law, and my Husband's case; he being beyond Sea at the time of the Process, and at the time of the Outlawry pronounced; It is conceived, he is well entitled to assign this for Error at the Common Law, without any aid of the Statute; tho' the Proviso in that ●tatu●e, should be ruled against him; which, with submission, it is the opinion of many learned Persons in the Law, that he is within the intent and meaning of that Proviso, for many Reasons, too long to trouble your Lordship with now; Therefore I do hope, that this Case of my Husband's, being the first Case, that ever any Man was executed upon an Outlawry (that did not desire it) may have that weight with your Lordship which it deserves; 
Holloway, a little before, being in the same condition, refused a Trial, and so was executed upon the Outlawry.  And do hope, that your Lordship will so advise the King, in matter of Law) whose Counsel you are) that my Husband may have a Writ of Error granted him, and Counsel assigned him, to argue these points; as by Law hath been allowed to Criminals, in Capital Cases; with, whatever else shall appear upon the Record of Outlawry produced; which, as yet, my Husband, nor any for him ever saw.  

Colonel Sidney's Plea drawn by Mr Serjeant Rotherham.  
PRedict Algernon Sidney dicit quod per Statut in Parliamento inchoat & tent apud Westm octavo die Maij Anno regni domini Regis nunc decimo tertio, & ibi continuat usque tricesimum diem Julij tunc prox sequen & ab eodem tricesimo die Julij Adjornatum usque vicesimum diem Novembris tunc prox sequen Intitulatum, An Act for Safety and Preservation of his Majesty's Person and Government, against Treasonable and Seditions Practices and Attempts, inter alia, Ordinat & inactitat fuit per Autoritatem Parliamenti predicti quod null. Persona sive Personae virtute Actus predicti incurreret aliquas penalita tes in Actu predicto mentionat Nisi Ipse vel Ipsi prosecut esset vel essent infra sex Menses prox offens commiss. & indictat esset superinde infra tres Menses post talem prosecutionem, aliquo in Statuto predict content in contrarium non obstante, Et predictus Algernon ulterius dicit quod ipse proseeut fuit & commissus Prisonoe Turris de London pro Offens. in Indictamento predict mentionat vicesimo sexto die Junij ultimo preterito & non anta & ibidem continuat Prisonar huousque Et quod ipse predict Algernon non fuit indictat pro aliquo vel aliquibus Offens in Indictimento predict mentionat in fra tres Menses prox post prosecutionem predict Et hoc predict Algernon parat est verificare unde petit judicium si ipse predict Algernon quoad aliquod Crimen sive Offens in Indictamento predict mentionat quod Crimen vel Offens non fuit Alta Proditio ante confectionem Statuti predict respondere debeat et quoad omnes Proditiones Crimina & Offens in Indictimento predict mentionata quae non fuere vel fuit alta proditio ante confectionem Statuti predict idem Algernon dicit quod per Statutum in Parliamento tento apud Westm in Com Middlesex in Festo sancti Hillarij Anno regni Domini Edwardi nuper Regis Angliae tertij Anno regni sui vicesimo quinto editum intitulatum, A Declaration; Which Offences shall be judged high Treason, inter alia, inactatum fuit Autoritate ejusdem Parliamenti quod si ullus casus suppositus esse Proditio qui non specificatur in eodem Statuto acciderit coram aliquibus Justitiarijs, Justitiarij moram facient Anglice shall tarry sine aliquo progressuad Judicium Anglice going to Judgment de predictâ proditioni nsqu; Causa monstretur & declaretur coram Rege & Parliamento suo, Quodque per Statatum in Parliamento tent apud West in Com Midds. quinto die Octobris Anno regni Dominae Mariae nuper Reginae Anglae primo intitulatum, A Repeal of several Treason's Felonies and Premunires inactit fuit inter alia, Autoritate ejusdem Parliamenti quod abinde nullum factum vel Offens. existen per actum Parliamenti vel Statut fact Proditio per Verba Script Notationem Anglice Ciphering fact aut aliter quocunque capt habit Census Anglice deemed vel adjudicat esse alta Proditio, nifi tantum tal. quae declarantur & exprimuntur esse Proditio in vel per Actum Parliamenti vel Statut factum in Anno vicesimo quinto regni prenobilis Regis Edwardi tertij tangen vel concexnen Proditiones vel Declarationes Proditionis & nul al. nec quod aliquae paene mortis penalitates vel forisfactur in aliquo modo sequuntur Anglice ensue vel sint alicui Peccatori Anglice Offender vel Peccatoribus Anglice Offenders pro facien vel committen aliquam Proditionem aliter quam tal. quae in Statuto predicto facto in dicto Anno vicesiano quinto regni dicti Edwardi Regis ordinat & provis, aliquo Actu vel Actus Parliamenti Statut vel Statuta ad aliquod empus antea habit vel fact post dictum vicesimum quintum Annum dictinuper Regis Edwardi tertij; vel aliquam al Declarationem vel materiam in contrarium aliquo modo non obstante Et predictus Algernon dicit quod ipse non est culpabilis de aliqua vel aliquibus Proditione vel Proditionibus in Indictamento predicto mentionat quae specificatur vel specificantur in Statuto ultimo mentionato modo & forma prout in Indictimento predicto mentionat Et de hoc ponit se super Patriam.    

The Names of the London Grand-Jury returned, July 1683. When the Conspirators had decreed the Murdering my Lord Russell.  

RIchard Alie, Esq Sworn.  
Peter Parivicini, Sworn.  
Benjamin Skutt, Sworn.  
Philip Harman, Sworn.  
Benjamin Thorowgood, Sworn.  
William Longmore, Sworn.  
John Price, Sworn.  
Francis Brerwood, Sworn.  
William Withers seni. Sworn.  
William Lovel, Sworn.  
John Debnam, Sworn.  
Prcival Gilborne, Sworn.  
Henery Wood, Sworn.  
JOhn Cooper, Sworn.  
Samuel Newton, Sworn.  
Henry Wagstaffe, Sworn.  
Thomas Blackmore, Sworn.  
Thomas Larner, Sworn.  
John Potts. Sworn.  
Leonard Bates,  
John Femill,  
Barth. Ferryman,  
Spencer Johnson, and  
James Kelke.    

The Panel of Jurors picked for the Trial of my Lord Russell, in July 1683.  

Colman-Street-Ward.  

SIR James Ward,  
Sir Tho. Davall,  
Arthur Baron,  
Thomas Moffit,  
John Martin,  
Thomas Hadges,  
Will. Fitzacherly, &  
William Rouse,    

Tower-Ward.  

Peter joy,  
John Pelling,  
Tho. Porey,  
Will. Winberry,  
Tho. Normansel,  
Richard meynel,  
William Pellatt,  
Jervas' Seaton, &  
Richard Burden.    

Algate-Ward.  

Jacob Lucy,  
Peter Jones, and  
William Crouch,    

Billingsgate- Ward.  

Henry Loads,  
Hugh Strode,  
Robert Mellish, and  
Abraham Wright,    

Breadstreet- Ward.  

Peter Ayleworth,  
William Danes,  
John Steventon,  
William Rutland,  
William Fashions,  
Thomas Short,  
Samuel Skinner,  
Theophilus Man,  
George Baker,  
Richard Kent Ar. &  
Gerlington Chapman,    

Dowgate-Ward.  

Richard Hamond,  
Fr. Chamberlain,  
John Jenew, and  
John Bridges.    

Ward of Bishopsgate within.  

John Busson.  
Joel Andrews, and  
Ralpo Izard.    

Bridge-Ward.  

John Short senior.  
Thomas nichols, &  
Roger Mingay.    

Candlewick- Ward.  

George Toriano,  
William Butler,  
William Parker, and  
James Pickering.    

Limestreet- Ward.  

John Hall,  
Matthew Gibbon,  
Thomas Angier,  
Robert Masters,  
Luke Pead,  
Christopher Johnson,  
Philip Perry,  
Stephen Gittings, and  
William Warren.    

Walbrooke- Ward.  

John Westbrooke,  
John Tempest,  
John West, and  
Edward Le Neve.    

Langborne-Ward.  

William Gerrard,  
Anthony Mingay.  
Nathaniel Hornby,  
Henry colyer,  
James Smith,  
Thomas Lowfield,  
Thomas Jenny, &  
Samuel Hanckee,    

Cripplegate- Ward.  

Robert Ask,  
Thomas Jeve.  
Hugh Noden.  
Robert Brough,  
John Mallory,  
Thomas Yate.  
William crisp,  
John Walkly,  
Thomas Oneby,    

Ward of Farringdon within.  

Francis Griffith,  
Peter Pickering,  
Edward Rigby,  
Richard Hoare,  
Thomas Barnes,  
Henry Robins,  
Henry Kempe,  
John Owen,  
William Simonds,  
Thomas Grice,    

Ward of Farringdon without.  

Paul Weeks,  
Roger Reeve,  
Edw. Reddish,  
Edw. Kempe,  
Will. Brown,  
Ambros. Istead,  
Thomas Fowls,  
Thomas Hamond,  
Thomas Fitzer,  
Thomas Dring,  
Henry Baldwin,  
Robert Fowls,  
Thomas Rawlinson,  
William Warne,  
Valentine Castillion,  
Jervas' Wilcox,  
James Smith,    

Ward of Aldersgate within.  
Peter Floyer.   

Ward of Aldersgate without.  

Robert Scott,  
John Andrews;  
Jeremiah Wright,  
Jacob Sheldrake,    

Cordwayner- Ward.  
Thomas Coulson.   

Unity- Ward.  

George Perk.  
John Hoyle,    

Ward of Castlebaynard.  

Sir William Dodson,  
Sir Edm. Wiseman,  
William Goslin,  
Nicholas Alexander,  
Nicholas Charleton,  
Christopher Pitt,  
Robert Beddingfield  
Thomas Warren,    
By Peter Rich Esq Sheriffs. and Sir Dudley North, Sheriffs. Knight, Sheriffs.   

The Names of the Grand-Jury at the Sessions the 14th of October, 1685. when the Conspirators had resolved to Murder Alderman Cornish and Mrs Gaunt.  

PErcival Gilborne,  
Bart. Ferryman,  
Thomas Blackmore,  
Thomas Simonds,  
William Watton,  
Thomas Barnesly,  
John Greene,  
Thomas Amy,  
Jofeph Baggs,  
John Reynolds,  
Robert Blackmore,  
Joseph Caien,  
W. Withers, Junior.  
Thomas Deacon,  
Richard Browne,  
Thomas Mills,  
John Bernard,  
William Fownes,  
John Luker.    

The Panel of Jurors for the Trial of Alderman Cornish, in October 1685. returned out of most of the Wards of the City, by the particular care of Sr. Benjamin Thorowgoed, in regard that Mr Cornish had been one of his Predecessors, (See this page 289.)  

SIr William Russell,  
Sir Mich. Hicks,  
Sr. John Mathews,  
Sir William Dodson,  
Sir Thomas Griffith,  
Sir Edmun. Wiseman,  
Sir John Clarke,  
Sir Thomas Vernon,  
Sir Edward Boveree,  
Richard Alie, Esq  
Ralph Box, Esq  
Thomas Hartepp Esq  
Thomas Fowl,  
Arthur Baron,  
Benjamin Skutt,  
Thomas Rawlinson,  
John Short, Senior,  
Thomas Goddard,  
William Gore,  
John Kent,  
Edward Griffith, Esq,  
William Withers, Sen.  
John Midgly,  
John Carpenter,  
Franc. Chamberlain,  
Peter Joy,  
Thomas Langham,  
George Toriano,  
Henry Loads,  
Robert Bedingfeild,  
Ambrose Istead,  
William Butler,  
Kenelm Smith,  
Ralph Lee,  
William Moyer,  
Robert Scott,  
William Warne,  
Thomas Short,  
Jermingham Chaplin,  
John Jenew,  
James Pickering,  
James Smith,  
Thomas Lofeild,  
James Woods,  
Tho. Pendleton,  
Samuel Hinton,  
Nicholas Smith,  
James Smith,  
Tho. Peircehouse,  
John Grice,  
Thomas Oneby,  
Richard Cotton,  
Richard Hoare,  
Roger Reeves,  
William Crouch,  
John Foster,  
Thomas Sergeant,  
James Richardson,  
William Cloudsly,  
Richard Holford,  
Thomas Crane,  
Lewis Wilson,  
Henry Wood,  
William Tigh,  
John Pelling,  
Gervis Wilcox,  
Jacob Sheldracke,  
George Perk,  
Francis Breerewood,  
W. Longmore,  
John Price,  
William Fitzacherly,  
William Fashion,  
Walter Acton,  
Stephen Coleman,  
Robert Clavel,  
William Long,  
John Wells,  
Maurice Mosely,  
John Pott,  
Thomas Lardner,  
James Kelke,  
John Perrott,  
Thomas Ashby,  
Samuel Skinner,  
William Rouse,  
Noel Basano,  
Paul Sherman,  
John Walkly and  
William Humfreys.    

The Panel of Jurors returned for the Trial of the Honourable Colonel Sidney.  

SIR Reignald Foster of Cripplegate Bar.  
Sir John Musters, of Hornsey Knight.  
Peregine Bertie, of St martin's in the Fields, Esqrs  
Richard Morely, of St martin's in the Fields, Esqrs;  
James Supple, of the same,  
John Angier, Carpenter; of Westminster.  
Richard Fisher, of Westminster.  
John Kirke, of Westminster.  
Christopher Granger, of Westminster.  
John Nchol, of Finchley.  
William Cleeve, of Cripplegate  
Richard White, of Cripplegate  
Sir Charles Gerard, of Harrow on the Hill.  
Sir Richard Fisher, of Clerkenwell.  
Sir Robert Dacres, of Clerkenwell.  
Sir John Kirke, of St martin's in the Fields  
John Wells, of Marybone.  
Samuel Linne, signior, of Clerkenwell.  
Michael Todd, of Clerkenwell.  
William Linne, of Clerkenwell.  
Laurence Wood, of Holborn, (Tailor)  
John Powel, of the Strand.  
Hugh Hamersly, of the same.  
John Cannon, of St Giles in the Fields.  
Sir John Brattle, of Enfield (an Officer in the Mint)  
Sir John Downton, of Isleworth,  
Sir William Hill, of Tedington.  
Ralph Hawtry, of Rislip, Esq  
Francis Knowles, of Covent-Garden, Esq  
Thomas Hinton, of St Giles in the Fields.  
John Merridel, of St Giles in the Fields.  
John Bailey. of St Giles in the Fields.  
Abel Andrews, of Edmonton.  
Reuben Bourne, of Edmonton.  
Emery Arguise, of Westminster (Carpenter)  
Richard Cooper, of St martin's in the Fields.  
Thomas Row, of Hornesey, Esq (a Captain in the Army)  
John Bathurst of Edmonton, Esq  
Richard Pagitt, of Westminster, Esq  
Nehemiah Arnold. of Westminster, Esq  
William Freeman of Hatton-Garden Esq  
William Avery of Enfield.  
Francis Stevens of Westminster Esq  
Thomas Phelps of Saint Martin's in the fields.  
John Smalbone of Saint Martin's in the fields.  
Tho. Whitfield of Saint Martin's in the fields.  
John Haynes. of Saint Martin's in the fields.  
Charles Monk. of Saint Martin's in the fields.  
John Sharp of Wapping (Lieutent Colonel)  
Josia Clerk of Chiswick.  
William Wait of St Chements Danes (keeper of the Privy Garden.)  
John Bignal Senior. of Saint Martin's in the Fields,  
George Glisby (Carpenter) of St martin's in the Fields,  
Nicholas Baxter of Saint Martin's in the Fields,  
Tho. Roberts— of Saint Martin's in the Fields,  
John Hazard (Vintner.) of St Clements Danes.  
Jeremi. Plainer, (Vintner) of St Clements Danes.  
William Reeves. of St Clements Danes.  
William German of St Clements Danes.  
Tho. Claxton of Harrow Esq  
Charles Pryor of Highgate.  
Tho. Curtis of St Clements Danes.  
— Bradshaw of the Strand Esq  
Tho. Kensey of Saint Giles' in the Fields Esq  
Richard Tailor of Chiswick Esq  
William Groves of St Clements Danes.  
John Bert of the Savoy.  
Samuel Lynne junior of Holborn.  
Richard Bromfield. of Holborn.  
Edward Hampsted. of St Giles.  
Benjamin Boltby. of St Giles.  
Christopher Chambers of St Giles.  
Arthur Blyth of Paddington.  
John Leeson of the Strand.  
Tho. Elton of Stepney.  
Nicholas Grice of Hesson.  
Simon Smith of Westminster Esq  
Bartholomew Parr of East Smithfield,  
Francis Child of Acton Gentleman,  
John Davis of Saint Martin's.  
John White (the King's Founder) of St martin's.  
Stephen Philips.—  
Richard Foster of Westminster.  
Tho. Graves, of the Strand.  
John Singleton, of the Strand.  
Tho. Tatton Gentleman, of the Strand.  
Robert Longland Gentleman, of St Giles.  
James Blagrave Gentleman, of St Giles.  
William Abel. of St Giles.    

To draw to (what I have impatiently desired) a conclusion; It is a sad Truth, that the Conspirators had long resolved to go to hanging work, & Sir Roger L' Estrange could more certainly predict the time, than Mr Gadbury could that of the Birth of his Prince of Wales; for at that very Juncture, when it was resolved, That Sir Dudley North must be Sir John Moor's Sheriff; We had the direful Consequences foretold in the Observator, of May 20. 1682, Number 140. in these words. If it should please God to send us SEASONABLE SHERIFFS, 
The same celebrated Author, told the World whom the esteemed his seasonable Sheriffs; for in his Observator of May 17th 1684. he says; Prithee will thou set their Cornish and Bethel their Pilkington and Shnte, against Our North and Rich; Our Daniel and Dashwood; and say which of these Sheriffs are the likelier Men, to juggle Protestants out of their Lives. [But the Poor Whigg durst not for his Ears, at that day, answer this ensnareing Question; for if he had, and done it honestly, it might have cost him his Head.]  and fair Play for our money, there are set a soot so many Titles in competition for the Gallows, that it would be a hard matter to settle their Claims, and say, who should go first. And We know that the Gentleman was a Minister of State in that Reign: But to allow every thing its due weight, and to set the Tragedy of that dismal day In its proper Light; I sha' here revive the Remembrance of the dying Testimonies of very serious Persons who then lost their Lives, for that horrid Conspiracy against the late Kings Charles and James the Second; which frighted the Cheshire Grand Jury, and with them, a great part of the Kingdom, out of their Wits.  
'Tis well known, that the Witnesses against them, swore for their own Lives, with halters about their Necks; and it's as true, that most of the Witnesses had talked at a mad rate, in the hearing of some of those whom they destroyed; But see, what those dying Protestants in a most solemn manner declared, with their last Breath.  
Mr College took it upon his death, That he was never engaged in any manner of Plot or Conspiracy against the King, the Laws or the Government; or knew of any, except that of the Papists; That if it had been true, that he was to have seized the King; he knew not of so much as one single Person, that was or would have stood by him, in that attempt.  
Captain Walcot denied any design of killing the King, or of engaging the Guards, whilst others killed him; And said, that the Witnesses invited him to Meetings, where some things were discoursed of, in order to the asserting our Liberties and Properties; which we looked upon to be violated and invaded:— That They importuned and perpetually solicited him, and then delivered him up to be hanged— That They combined together to swear him out of his Life, to save their own; and that they might do it effectually, They contrived an Untruth.— That he forgave them, tho' guilty of his Blood; But, withal, earnestly begged, That they might be observed, that Remarks might be set upon them, whether their end be peace: and he concluded (with what made Sir Roger L'Estrange a great deal of Sport, but yet Heaven has made it good) That when God HATH A WORK TO DO, HE WILL NOT WANT Instruments.  
Mr Holloway declared, that Mr West proposed the Assassination, but none seconded him.— That he could not perceive that Mr Ferguson knew any thing of it; and Holloway said, It was our design to shed no Blood; He being interrogated, by Mr Ferguson's Friend, Mr Sheriff Daniel, whether he knew Ferguson; He answered that he did know him, but knew him to be against any design of killing the King.  
Sir Tho. Armstrong, at his death spoke thus; Mr Attorney said, I was accused for being one of Those who were to kill the King; I take God to witness, I never had any such design; nor ever had a thought to take away the King's Life; Neither ever had any man the impudence to propose so barbarous and base a thing to me.  
Mr Nelthorp at his death in 1685, said, I can with great comfort appeal to the great God; before whose Tribunal I am to appear; what I did was in the sincerity of my Heart, thinking it my duty to hazard my Life, for the Preservation of the Protestant Religion, and the English Liberties; which I thought invaded, and in great danger to be lost; As to the design of Assassinating or Murdering the late King, or his present Majesty; it was a thing I always detested; and I never was in the least concerned in it; Nor did I believe there was such a design,— I die in Charity with all the World; and can readily and hearty forgive my greatest Enemies, and even those that have been the Evidence against me.  
Mr Rouse declared, that he was told, that They did not intent to spill one drop of Blood; and affirmed that Lee, the Witness against him, did (by his Evidence) make him the Author of the very words, that came out of his the said Lees own Mouth.  
Mr Richard Rumbold (who at his death, at Edinburgh, in 1685, was found to be a very brave Man, & most serious Christian, and had been represented as the main Promoter of the Murdering design) with his last breath desired all to believe his dying Words, and therewith affirmed; that he never directly, or indirectly, intended such a Villainy as the death of King Charles the second, and the Duke of York; but declared, that he abhorred the thoughts of so horrid an intention: That he was sure this Truth, would at the great day, be manifest to all Men; And he concluded, that he died in the defence of the just Laws and Liberties of the Nation; and said, that for that Cause, were every Hair of his Head and Beard a Life, he would joyfully sacrifice them all; and wished he had a Limb for every Town in Christendom.  
To conclude, these solemn, serious, dying Declarations, Protestations and Appeals to the heart-searching God; have always, outweighed with me, the Evidence of those two or three Witnesses, who swore these Persons out of their Lives, and by so doing saved their own. And I did and do most steadfastly believe, that the only Plot in that day, was the same, which the Almighty has at length owned, and most signally prospered, in the hand of our gracious August and Rightful Sovereign King William; I mean, the rescuing the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of England, from a most impetuous Torrent of Popery and Tyranny; wherewith they were very dangerously threatened. And methinks it should even convert a Tory (unless his Brains were picked out of his shul, by him who picked the Guineas out of his Pocket) when he casts his Eye upon that apposite & Emphatical Expression in the Observator, vol. 2. Number 125. To deal freely with thee, TRIMMER, I have more Faith, in the Words of one dying Traitor, under the stroke of justice, than of twenty Living.    

Erratas.  
PAge 34. last Line read Closet. p 63 first line r and he be found. p 91 line 9 deal that. p 105 l 2. deal us. p 151 l 25 r acquainted with. p 203 l 5 for with r which. p 213 l 20 for it is r its. p 241 l 14 r possessed. p 247 l 22 r always had. p 252 l 25 r every day from that p 253 l 3 r Sir Robert. p 277 l 26 r Goldfinch. p 288 l 9 r were not sent.