SEt Richard Langhorn to the Bar.

hold up thy hand, which he did.

Thou standest indicted in London, by the name of Richard Langhorn late of London, Esq

For that you Ric. Langhorn the elder, as a false Traitor of the most Illustrious Serene and Ex­ullent Prince Charles the Second, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France, & Ireland, Defender of the Faith, your Supream and Natural Lord, not having the fear of God in your heart, nor weighing the duty of your Allegiance, but being moved & seduced by the instigation of the Devil the cordial love & true, due & natural Obedience, which true and faithful Subjects of our said Sovereign Lord the King, towards him do & ought to bear, altogether withdrawing, and devising, and with all your strength intending the Peace and common Tranquility of this Kingdom to disturb, and the true Worship of God within this Kingdom used, and by Law established, to overthrow, and Sedition and Rebellion within this Kingdom to stir up and pro­cure, and the true love, duty and obedience, which true and faithful Subjects of our said Lord the King, towards him do and of right ought to bear, to withdraw, relinquish and extin­guish, on the 30th day of September, in the 30th. year of his Majesties Reign at London, in the Parish of St. Dunstans in the West, in the Ward of Faringdon without London a­forsaid, falsly, maliciously, sub [...]illy, and traiterously, with many other false Traitors of our Sovereign Lord the King unknown, did purpose, compass, imagine, intend, consult, and agree, to stir up Sedition and Rebellion within this Kingdom of England, against our said Sove­raign Lord the King, and a miserable slaughter amongst the Subjects of our said Lord the King, of his Kingdom of England, to procure and cause, and our said Sovereign Lord the King from his Kingly State, Title, Power, and Government of his Kingdom of England, to­ [...]lly to deprive, depose, and disinberit, and our said Soveraign Lord the King to death and final destruction to bring and put, and the Government of this Kingdom to subvert and [...]ange, and the true Worship of God in this Kingdom by Law established and u­ [...]ed, to alter, and the State of this Kingdom in all the parts thereof well instituted, total­ [...]y to subvert and destroy, and War-within this Kingdom of England to procure and levy, [...]nd the same most wicked-Treasons, traiterous imaginations, purposes, compassings, and a­ [...]uments aforesaid, and to perfect and fulfil: You the said Richard Langhorn afterwards, [Page 4]to wit, the 30th. day of September, in the 30th. year aforesaid, and diverse other times be­fore at London, &c. falsly, advisedly, maliciously, subtilly, and traiterously, did compass, con­triue; and write two Letters, to be sent to certain Persons unknown at Rome, and at Saint Omers, in parts beyond the Seas, to procure the adherence, aid, and [...]ssistance of the Pope, and of the French King, and others, to you the said Richard Langhorn, and other false Trai­tors unknown, the true Worship of God within this Kingdom of England, by Law establish [...]d and used, to the Superstition of the Church of Rome to alter, and the Government of this King­dom of England to subvert, and our said Soveraign Lord the King to death and final de­struction to bring and put, and that you the said Richard Langhorn, in further prosecution of the said Treason, traiterous imaginations, intentions, and agreements aforesaid, on the day and year aforesaid, and the said other days and times before at London, &c. did compass, contrive, and write two other Letters to be sent to Rome, in parts beyond the Seas, to one Christopher Anderton, then Rector of the English Colledge at Rome aforesaid, & a other Letter, to be sent to St. Omers, in parts beyond the Seas, to divers persons unknown there residing, & by the said respective Letters traiterously you did advise the said Pope, and Christopher Anderton, and other persons unknown residing beyond the Seas, of the ways and manner to be taken for ac­complishing the said most wicked Treasons, for altering the true Worship of God in this King­dom established and used, to the Superstition of the Church of Rome, and for subverting the Government of this Kingdom, and for the death and destruction of our said Lord the King, and to the intent that the said Christopher Anderton, and others unknown, should give their aid, assistance and adherence, and should procure other aid, assistance and adberence, to you the said Richard Langhorn, and other false Traitors unknown, to alter the true Worship of God aforesaid, to the Superstition of the Church of Rome, and to subvert the Government of this Kingdom of England, and to put our said Soveraign Lord the King to death, and that you the said Richard Langhorn afterwards, to wit the day and year aforesaid at London; &c. traiterously did deliver the Letters aforesaid, to be sent to the said Christopher Ander­ton, and others, persons beyond the Seas, to perfect thē traiterous purposes aforesaid, and that you the said Richard Langhorn, further to fulfil and accomplish the same most wicked Trea­sons, traiterous imaginations, purp ses, and compassings aforesaid, afterwards the said 30th. day of September, in the 30th, year aforesaid at London, &c. five Commissions in Writing made by Authority derived from the See of Rome, for constituting Military Officers, for leading the Forces to be levyed in this Kingdom against our said Soveraign Lord the King, for the altering the Protestant reformed Religion, to the use and Superstition of the Church of Rome, and for subverting the Government of this Kingdom of England, traiterously you did receive, and five other Commissions in writing made by Authority derived from the See [...] Rome, for constituting Civil Officers for Governing this Kingdom after the most wicked Trea­sons and traiterous imaginations, purposes and compassings aforesaid were fulfilled and accom­plished, then and there traitero [...]sly you d [...]d receite, And that you the said Richard Lang­horn, afterwards, to wit, the day and year aforesaid at London, &c. The said several Com­messions so received, to divers false Traitors of our Soveraign Lord the King, unknown, falsl [...] knowingly, and traiterously, did distribute, give and dispose for constituting Officers, as w [...] Military as Civil, to the traiterous purposes aforesaid. And that you the said Richard Langhorn, a [...]e wards on the day and year aforesaid, at London, &c. a Commission [...] constitute and authorise) unto be Advocate General of the Army, to be levied in this King­d [...]m, to war against our said Soveraign Lord the King, falsly, traitero [...]sly, and against the d [...] ­ty of your All giance, from a cortain person [...]u known, did receive and had; and the sa [...] [Page 5]Commission then and there falsly, advisedly, and Traiterously, did inspect and read, and in your custody, keep; and to the same Commission Traiterously did give your consent, to the intent that you the said Richard Langhorn, should have and Execute the place and Office of Advocate, General of the Army aforesaid, after the Army aforesaid should be rais'd against our said So­veregin Lord the King, by you the said Richard Langhorn, and other false Traitors unknown in Execution of the said Tratiterous Compassings, Imaginations, and Agreements aforesaid And that whereas William Ireland, John Grove, and Thomas Pickering, and other false. Traitors of our Sovereign Lord the King, unknown, on the 24th. af April, in the 30th. Year aforesaid, in the County of Middlesex, did consult to bring and put our said Sovereign Lord the King to Death, and final Destruction, and to change and alter Religion in this Kingdom of England, Rightly and by Law Established, to the Superstition of the Church of Rome, at London, &c. had Notice of that Consultation; and the same Consultation for the D [...]struction of the King, and for the alteration of Religion in this Kingdom rightly Established, to the Su­perstion of the Church of Rome, and the Treasonable Agreements had in that Consultation, on the said 30th. day of September, in the 30th. Year aforesaid, from our said Sovereign Lord the King, Advisedly, and Traiterously did conceal, and to that Consultation Traiterously [...] did consent. And the said William Ireland, John Grove. and Thomas Pickring, on the day and Year last aforesaid, at London, the Treasons aforesaid to perpetrate and perfect, malieiously, Subtilly, and Traiterously, you did Abet, Counsel, maintain and comfort; and that you the said Richard Langhorn, afterwards (to wit) the said 30th. day of September, in th 30th Year aforesaid, at London, &c. falsly, subtilly, and Traiterously, you did move and s [...]licit the Benedictine Monks, (unknown) to experd and pay the some of Six Thousand Pounds, to precure a person Traiterously to Kill and murder our said Soveraign Lord the King And whereas Edward Coleman, and other false Traitors of our said Sovere [...]gn Lord the King unknown, on the 29th. of September, in the 30th, Year aforesaid in the County of Middle­sex, Traiterously had conspired and consulted to procure Rebellion and Sedition, within this Kingdom of England, against our said Sovereign Lord the King, and him from his Kingly state and Government of this his Kingdom of England, to deprive and disinherit, and to bring and put him to final Death and Destruction, and the Government of this Kingdom of England to alter, and the true Religion in this Kingdom of England by Law Established, to alter and change. And whereas he the said Edward Coleman had Traiterously written four Letters to Monsieur Le Cheese, then Counsellor of the French Kings, to procure the aid, assistance, and adherance of the French King, to perfect and accomplish the Traiterous imaginations a­foresaid, you the said Richard Langhorn afterwards, to wit the said 30th. day of Septem­ber, in the 30th. year aforesaid at London, &c. well knowing the Treasonable matters in the same Letters contained, to the same Letters did consent, and then and there falsly, subtilly, ad­visedly, maliciously, and traiterously did abet. counsel, maintain, and comfort the said Ed­ward Coleman, to perpetrate and accomplish the Treason aforesaid, against the duty of your Allegiance, against the peace of our Soveraign Lord the King, his Crown and Dignity, and against the form of the Statute in this case made and provided.

How sayest thou Richard Langhorn, art thou guilty of this High-Treason whereof thou standest Indicted, or not gullty?

Not Guilty.

Culprit. how wilt thou be tried?

By God and my Country.

God send thee a good deliverance.

Then the Petty Jury impannelled for this Trial, was called, the Prisoner put to his Challenges, but challenging none, the 12 Sworon were thes [...].

JURY,

• Arthur Yong
• Edward Becker
• Robert Twyford
• William Yapp
• John Kirkham
• Peter Piokering
• Thomas Barnes
• Francis Neeve
• John Hall
• George Sitwell
• James Wood, &
• Richard Cawthorne.

After which, Proclamation for information was made in usual manner.

Rich. Langhorn, hold up thy hand, (which he did) You of the Jury look upon the Prisoner, & hearken to his Cause: He stands Indicted in London by the name of Rich. Langhorn, late of London Esq for that as a false Traitor, &c. (put in the Indictment Mu­tatis Mutandis) & against the form of the Statute in that case made & provided. Upon this Indictment he hath been Arraigned, & thereunto hath pleaded Not guilty, your charge is to enquire whether he be guilty of the High-Treason whereof he stands indicted, or not guilty; if you find him guilty, then you are to enquire what goods, or chattels, lands or Tenements he had at the time of the High-Treason committed, or at any time sinces if you find him not guilty, you shall enquire whether he fled for it, if you find that he fled for it, you are to enquire of his Goods & Chattels, as if you had found him guilty: If you find him not guilty, nor that he did fly for it, say no more, and hear your Evidence. Then Roger Belwood Esq of Counsel for the King in this Cause, open'd the Indictment thus:

May it please your Lordship, and you Gentlemen of the Jury:

The Prisoner at the Bar, Mr. Langhorn, stands Indicted of High Treason, & it is for con­spiring the Murder of the King, & endeavouring an alteration in the Government in Church and State. And the Indictment sets forth, that the 30th of August, in the 30th year of the King, he & other false Traitors did agree to stir up Sedition and Rebellion in the kingdom, & to cause a great slaughter of his Majesties Subjects; to introduce the Superstition of the Church of Rome, and depose and Murther the King, and to alter the Government in Church & State. And 'tis there said that to accomplish these Evil Designs, he writ Two Letters to be sent to Rome, and St. Omers, the effect of which letters was to procure the assistance of the Pope, & the French King, to alter the Religion Established by Law in this Kingdom, to Romish Superstition, to Subvert the government, & to put the King to death; & that in further prosecution of these Trai­terous designs, he writ Two other letters to be sent to Rome to one Christopher Anderton, Rector of the English Colledge, & a Jesuit, & Two other to be sent to St. Omers; and in these letters he took upon him to advise the way & means by which these treasons might be effected, & that these several letters were sent & delivered by him, & received. The indictment further sets forth that in further prosecution of these traiterous imagi­nations of his, he did receive 5 several commissions in writing, by authority derived from the See of Rome; & those were for the making of military Officers, to execute these trea­sons by force of Arms, & that he did likewise receive 5 other Commissions for constitu­ting Civil Officers in this Realm, after the Treason was Committed. And that amongst the rest he did receive for himself one Commission to be Advocate general of the Army that was to be rais'd. And the Indictment further Charges upon the Prisoner, that to accomplish these treasons, whereas Ireland, Pickering & Grove, & other false traitors, had consulted these treasons which I before mentioned, Mr. Langh had Notice of the treasons & did consent to them & abet them, & that he did solicit the Benedictine Monks to ad­vance 6000 l. for the murther of the King, for the Alteration of Religion, & for the Sub­version of the Government in Church and State, And further, whereas Mr. Coleman, [Page 7](who was Executed for Treason) had (with others) conspired the death of the King, and the introducing of Popery, and has writ a letter to the French Confessor Le Cheese, for Aid and assistance, that the Prisoner at the Bar had notice of this, and that he did consent to it, and did abet it. This, Gentlemen, is charged to be Traiterously, and de­vilishly done against the Prisoners Allegiance, and the form of the Statute. To this he hath pleaded Not Guilty, but if we prove these Treasons, or any of them, you are to find him Guilty.

Then Sir Creswel Levins, one of his Majesties Learned Council in the Law, opened the Charge thus prout: —

May it please your Lordship, and you Gentlemen of the Jury;

is Indicted for Treason, for having a part in that general Treason that you have heard several times before of, and some persons there were Indicted, Tried, and convicted yesterday, for that Treason that Mr. Lang. had an hand in: for the Indictment does set forth, that there were letters written by him to Rome to the same purpose, of which Gentlemen you have heard so often, and will hear again.

This Treason was no less than to murther the King, to alter the Religion, to overturn the Law, to raise an Army, by force to effect all this, and in short to do all the mis­chief that men (if it be lawful to call such creatures men) could do. That there was In order to this, consultations held the 24th. of April among the Jesuits; & there it was resolved that the King should be killed, there were persons appointed to do it, that was Pickering and Grove, but they failed therein, and they prosecuted it at Windsor, but happening to fail there also, they followed him to New-market, and ordered that it should be done there: And when all this failed, they took another course, his Majesty was to be poisoned, and as I said before, to make all this good, an Army was to be rais­ed of 50000 men in England, to perfect this work; but if that would not do, they were to have Forces from beyond Sea to joyn with them: And Mr. Langhorn he writ letters to procure these Forces, and he not only did so, but he found the effect of his letters, and received Commissions from beyond Sea, whereof one was for himself, to be Advo­cate general of the Army. All these things are laid to Mr. Langhorn's Charge.

But Ile begin first, and shew you before I come to the particular Evidence against Mr. Langhorn, some Evidence of the general design, and therefore we will call some witnes­ses to do that in the first place, and then bring it down to Mr. Langhorn himself.

(who were both sworn, & Mr. Dugdale first stood up.) Sir Cr. Levins, Come Sir, what do you know of any design to murther the King? speak what you know concerning the Plot and conspiracy.

I was in several Consultations for alteration of this present Government. & for the introducing of Popery, and for the murther of the King. I was a person in most of the consultations to the same purpose, and heard the very words used, and was [...]ited to be instrumental in it, and was to have a sum of money to be one of them that [...]hould do It. I was to be an actor in it, and was to have a place appointed to do it.

What were you hired to do?

I was to kill the King,

And who were the persons that put you upon it?

There was Mr. Ewers, Mr. Gaven, Mr. Luson, and Mr. Vavasor.

What were these men?

They are all Jesuits.

Do you know any thing of an Army that was to be raised to effect it.

They always did speak of an Army that was to be raised, but it was [Page 8]not actually to be done, till the King was killed; that was the last Conclusion: it was in [...]e [...]d at first concluded on to raise an Army, but the last Consultation was that there should no A [...]ms appear, till the King was killed.

You do not know any thing of Mr. Langhorn in particular? do you?

No, I do not know any thing in particular of him, I have heard of him.

Why, you brought him only to prove the general Design.

There was a M [...]ss [...]cre to be, and then there should be an Army, a pretty good considerable Army, there was no certain number that I could hear of, but those that did escape the Massacre, should be cut off by the Army.

Where were these Consultations?

One was at Tixal, another was at Boscobel, at my Lord Aston's, and Mr. Gerrards

Where were these places?

In Staffordshira,

Pray who were to be Massacred in the first place?

All Protestants, and those we could not be sure of to be Papists.

Pray Sir, what do you know of any Letter to be writ to mr. Ewert concerning S [...]r Edmund-bury Godfreys death?

I do remember a Letter that came to mr. Ewers from mr. Harcourt which did express, and begin thus, (This very Night, Sir Edmond-bury Godfrey [...] dispatched) with some other words of like impor [...]; and then I sent to Mr. Ewers about it And do you think this will carry on the Design? I will be hang'd if it don't spoil in N [...] said he, he was a person that used to be very severe against debauch'd lewd persons and so it will be laid, as if they had done it out of Revenge,

What day of the week was that Letter dated?

It was, as I can very well make it out, on Saturday.

And when was it received?

It was received on Monday night.

What were the contents of it, do you say?

It began thus, (This very night, Sir, Edmond-bury Godfrey is dispatched.

Who did it come from?

It came from mr, Horcour [...]

They themselves know that he was not found here in London, [...] Thursday.

I could not hold, it run so much in my mind, but the next morning go­ing to an Ale houss hard by, I there spoke of it, and immediately it was carryed to m [...] Chetwin, and he was here yesterday to make it out, that I so did.

But why did they kill him? was it expressed why?

I had several time heard, he was too much privy to their Consultation [...]

That is you mean, he had had too much discovered to him.

And so they were afraid of mr. Coleman too; that he carried things to high, and he was out of their favour for 2 years.

Then call mr. Prance. Pray Sir, what can you say?

There was one mr. M [...]ssenger, a Gentleman of the Horse to my Lo [...] Arundel of Warder, who was employed by my Lord Arundel of Warder and my Lo [...] Powis, and he was to kill the King, and to have a very good reward for the doing it, and I was told so by my Lords Butley: I after wards metwith this Messenger, and a [...] [Page 9]asked him what his reason was that he would kill the King. He told me he was off it now.

But what was to be done after they should kill the King?

Presently there should be an Army of 50000 men raised, to be governed by my Lord Arundel, and my Lord Powis, and them: I have heard mr. Fenwik, and mr. Ireland, and Grove, to speak of this at the same time together.

What was that Army to be raised for?

To settle the Catholick Religion.

What was to be come of other Persons?

They were to be killed and ruined all: So Fenwick told me.

Look you mr. Langhorn, these Witnesses speak nothing to you in par­ticular, but onely that there was a Conspiracy in general, to kill the King, and intro­duce Popery: If you will ask them any Question you may.

No my Lord, they not accusing me, I have nothing ro say to them.

I heard one mr. H [...]rcourt say, that the King was to be killed by several, before one mr. Thompson, twice in his own Chamber in Duke-street. And I heard Fen­wick say, that mr. Langhorn was to have a great hand in it.

Is that all you have to say, as to me?

It is all that I know of,

Then the Lord Chief Justice Scroggs came in.

Now my Lord, we will call the Evidence, that shall prove the par­ticular matters of the Indictment, as of writing the Letters beyond Sea, of his receiving. Commissions, of his distributing them here to the several persons to whom they were directed; of his Soliciting for the mony, the 6000 l. to be raised by the Benedictine Monks, which was either for a particular purpose to poison the King, or to carry on the design in general. And first we call Dr. Oates (who was sworn, and stood up)

Sir, you hear what the matter is as to Mr. Langhorn, be pleased to tell the Court whether you knew he writ any Letters, and received any Commissions, speak your whole knowledge.

I hope your Lordship will-be pleased to give me leave to use my own method.

Ay Ay, take your own way Mt. Oates:

Then I begin thus. In the month of April 1677, I went into the King­dom of Spaint in the month of September following, the sons of Mr. Langhorn came into the Kingdom of Spain it was September or sooner, but I will not be possitive as to the time of their coming, the one was a Scholar of the English Colledge at Madrid, the o­ther was a Scholar of the English Colledge at Valadolid. They came there to study Phylosophy in order to their receiving of the Preisthood. my Lord, my occasions called me into England in the month of November following, and coming into England, mr. Lan. sons did give me some letters to mr. Lang. their Father; and assoon as I had rested my self for a day or two after my journey, I came to mr, Lang horns's house in Sheerlane. Now mr. Lang. Wise being a zealous Protestant, I did whisper his footboy or his servant boy in the ear, that he should go and whisper his master, Mr. Lang. and [...]ell him, there was one would speak with him from his sons. mr. Lang by his son, did desire me to meet him at his chamber in the [...]Temple, (in the Inner-Temple-Lane it was I think) I know the chamber however, and accordingly I did meet mr. Langh. that night by the. means of his half Brother, who is brother I think by the mother and not by the Father, [Page 10]his name is Smithson; & when I came into mr. Langh. chamber, their chambers being di­rectly oposite one to another, I was treated by mr. Langh. with a great deal of civility, & I delivered mr. Langh. the letters from his sons, & I told him that I thought his sons would enter into the society: mr. Langh. was mightily pleased with the news, being himself a great Votary for the Society, that his sons would enter into it. Now may it please your Lord­ship m. Langh. did say, he thought if they did continue in the world, that is [...]ecular Priests they would suddenly have very great promotion in England, for he said, Things would not last long in this posture, that is at that time he then spoke, I speak the words now that he said then. And now my Lord, I was with mr. Langhorn another time while I was in England, but in the latter end of November old stile, in the beginning of December new stile, I went to St. Omers, and there were Letters that he delivered me (looking upon the Prisoner) a pacquet to carry to St. Omers. And when the pac­quet was opened, there was a letter signed Richard Langhorn, in which he gave the Fathers at St. Omers great thanks for the great care had of, and kindness they shew'd to his sons, and that what they had been out of pocket for their Viaticum, in order to their journey into Spain which wss 20l. he promised them they should be repaid it, & in this letter he did expresly say, that he had written to Father Le Cheese in order to our conce [...]ns, those were his words. Now my Lord the letter that he writ to Father Le Cheese I saw not, but only this letter I saw, which gave an account of that letter he had writ to Father Le Cheese and he said mr. Coleman had been very large with him, & therefore it would not be necessary for him to trouble his Reverence with any large epistles at that time. my Lord, there was another letter, and I think that was in the month of March, or April I cannot be positive as to the particular time, but it was upon this remarkable circumstance. mr. Langhorn had a son that had been in Rebellion, and had turned Souldier, or some such thing in France, and this young Gentleman came to St. Omers being the place where he had been educated; and mr. Langhorn by the inter­cession of the Fathers there, did order him 5 l. to bring him over into England, upon promise of his sons submission, who had been very extravagant in several respects. In this letter my Lord, mr Langhorn did express his great care for the carrying on of the design of the Catholicks, and several other expressions there were in it bad enough, which I cannot now call to mind, but they were to this effect; The Parliament began to flag in promoting the Protestant Religion, and now they had a fair opportunity to begin & give the blow; what that blow was I leave to the Court & to the Jury to ex­pound.

But was that an expression in the letter?

It was, my Lord: But it was a very large letter, I can't give a particular ac­count of every thing in it. my Lord, in the month of April, or the beginning of May, your Lordship remembers there was a consult that hath been Sworn here in this Court, to which Consult —

Pray speak it out.

There were several of us came over from St. Omers, and from other parts beyond the Seas to this Consult at which Consult Mr Langhorn was not present, but I had orders from the Provincial to give Mr Langhorn an account of what Resolu­tions and passages and minutes passed at this Consult; and this I did as well as I could, and when I did so, Mr. Langhorn lift up his hands and his eyes, and pray­ed to God to give it good success. My Lord, while I was at Mr. Langhorns Cham­ber, [Page 11]giving this account, I saw several Parchments lying upon the Table in his Study.

You had best tell the effect of the account you gave Mr. Langhorn in his Chamber, that you speak of.

My Lord, I told him who went Procurator to Rome, that was one Father Cary, I told him what was the Resolve of the Consult concerning the death of the King.

Did you so?

Yes my Lord, I did: I told Mr. Langhorn that several of the Fathers were to be admonished for their irregular living, as they termed it: and to this Mr. Langhorn did reply as near as I can remember, that he found some of them did not live up to the rules of the Society.

Pray tell us more particularly what you told him. And tell us as near as you can, as you told it him then, the business of the Plot upon the King.

I told him the Resolve of the Society, and of that Consult, and what was that which was resolved, that Pickering and Grove should go on to attempt to assasinate the Kings person, and what was to be their Reward, th'one was to have; that is Grove, 1500 l. and the other, that is Pickering, was to have 30000. Masses: he lift up his hands and eyes when I told him this (and I told him more particularly than I can now remember) and he lift up his hands and Eyes, and prayed God that it might have good success.

Did you tell him they had Signed to this agreement?

Yes, my Lord, I told him that they had all Signed it.

When was this?

It was the latter end of April. or beginning of May.

How long after they had Signed the Consult?

A day or two after.

Do you know the day of the month? you have asserted the day of the month formerly, pray do it now.

Let him go on, you shall ask him what Question you will by and by. another to my Lord Powis; the one was to be Lord High Chancellor, and the other to be Lord High Treasurer; there was a Commission for my Lord Bellasis, to be General, another for my Lord Peter, to be Lieutenant-General, and there were other Commissions, of which I cannot remember the particular names, but there was a Com­mission for Coleman to be Secretary of State, and there was a Commission for the Pri­soner at the Bar, to be Advocate of the Army.

By what Authority were those Commissions?

They were by Authority derived from the See of Rome, by virtue of a Breve from the Pope, directed to the General of the Society, and they were Signed [...], and with the mark of the Cross through the IHS and they were Signed Jo: hannes Paulus de Olivas

That is the Jesuits mark?

Yes, my Lord.

Where did you see those Commissions?

In Mr. Langhorns Study of his Chamber in the Temple.

Where? Did they lie open that any one might see them?

They lay upon a corner of his Desk, folded up.

How came you to see them?

My Lord, if your Lordship please, I will tell your Lordship how I came to see them. We had notice they were come, by a Letter from one Father Anderton, and he called these Commissions, Patents, and if it please your Lordship, I did ask Mr. Langhorn, whether he had received them: he told me, yes: then I asked him whether he would do me the favour to let me see them: and because I had been privy to the Consults, and came to wait upon him by Order of the Provincial, he did let me see them.

And you saw them in his Study upon his Desk?

Yes, my Lord, I did. And particularly one more I can tell of, which his Son was to deliver to a Son of my Lord Arundel of Warder.

How many Commissions were there?

I cannot say, about 7 or 8 I think, I did see, and looked over.

And you knew what they were?

Yes, for those that I saw, that I can remember?

What was my Lord Powis to be?

Lord High-Treasurer.

And what my Lord Arundel.

Lord High-Chancellor of Engl [...]

And what my Lord Stafford.

As to my Lord Stafford, I cannot give so good an account; but as I remem­ber, he was to be a Pay-Master in the Army, or some such Office relateing to the Army.

What was the Prisoner at the Bar to be?

A Judge in the Army, or an Advocate General, so they called him.

You saw most of these?

I saw several of them, most of them in his custody, I cannot say all: There was more than for these Lords, for other inferior Officers.

How many might there be of them, as near as you can guess?

I think he told me they were about 50.

VVhat number did you see?

I saw about half a dozen, or 8.

VVell Sir, go on.

My Lord, I am now to speak to your Lordship concerning some Letters that he wrote to Rome, and there was —

Had you any discourse with him concerning the matters of any of the Com­missions of my Lord B [...]llasis, and my Lord Powis?

No my Lord, I had but little skill in Military Affairs, and therefore I said but little, and I cannot give you an account word for word, what the discourse was, for it was out of my way. My Lord, there were several Letters which Mr. Langhorn writ to Father Le Cheese, the Answers to which I saw in April and May; whereupon the Fathers did desire they might have the Originals of those Copies: He gave me the Originals to carry to the Fathers, I think it was that very day I had been with him in the afternoon; for I was with him in the morning the Fathers did read the Letters.

From whom came they?

From Father le Cheese, and from Father Anderton. And le Cheese in his letter did assure him of his stedfastness and constancy, to assist the Society for the car­rying on the Cause: And that they should not need doubt, but the French King would stand by them; or to that purpose. I cannot remember exactly the words, but it was to that effect.

But they were directed to Mr. Langhorn?

I cannot Swear that directly, but he gave them me.

Who were le Cheese, and Anderton?

The one was Confessor to the French King, and the other Rector of the [...]lledge at Rome.

But you saw those in the Prisoners custody you say?

Yes my Lord, I did.

He gave them you to deliver to the Fathers, to Whitebread and the Rest of them?

Yes, my Lord, but I cannot say who they were directed to.

But pray repeat what was the substance of that Letter.

My Lord, as to the words of them, I dare not charge my memory, but [...] was to this purpose, That Le Cheese would stand by the English Society, and assist [...]em, and that they should not need to doubt the French King, or to that effect.

Do you remember any Letters that were writ by Mr. Coleman to Le Cheese.

Yes, my Lord, I remember several Letters that Coleman writ, but Mr. Langhorn was not affected in them.

Did he know of them?

He gave an accompt in this letter to the Society, that Coleman had wri [...] ­tters to Le Cheese, and was very large, and therefore he should not trouble his Re­ [...]rence with any long Epistles.

What do you know of any money that was to be raised by the Bene­ [...]ctine Monks.

I had forgot that.

You say that he said they should not need to doubt the French, but he [...]uld stand by them with men and money, for what purpose pray?

Ile-tell you for what purpose it was, the words of the letter did alledge to be for carrying on of the Cause.

You mean the Catholick Cause.

So it was generally understood.

But for the other money, what say you?

Mr. Langhorn was employed as Sol [...]citor for the Jesuits, and did accom­ [...]y some of the Society, Father Harcourt, Father Fenwick, Father Kaines, and Fa­ther Langworth, and they went and did communicate the Secret to the Benedictine Monks, desiring them to stand by them with a Sum of money for the carrying on the [...]sign: now upon Mr. Langhorns solliciting them, and appearing for them, as I have [...]rd, 6000 l. was promised and paid.

By whom promised and paid?

By the Benedictine Monks.

To whom?

To the Society.

To what person?

That I cannot say, but it was said Mr. Langhorn was to receive it.

Did you see the money paid?

No, I did not.

Did you hear Mr. Langhorn confess it was paid?

Mr. Langhorn did say in the month of July or August, I cannot be posi­ [...] which, but thereabouts, when he was spoken to about it, that he would stir in it, [Page 14]and do to the utmost of his power for the procuring of it. And another thing, I am sure Mr. Langhorn was very much disgusted, that Sir George Wakeman was not con­tented with the 10000l.

What was the 60000 l. for?

It was for the general Cause.

For the murther of the King:

Yes, and for the alteration of Religion.

How did it appear that Mr. Langhorn was disgusted, that Sir George Wakeman would not take the 10000 l? and what was it for?

It was to poison the King; and he said he was a covetous man, that it was in a publick Concern, and that being it was to carry on the Cause, it was no mat­ter if he did it for nothing; but he said he was a narrow spirited, and a narrow soul'd Physician.

When was it that he said he would stir for the money?

It was in July, or in August.

My Lord, may I ask him any Questions?

Yes, yes, Mr. Langhorn, you may.

Pray Mr. Oates, you saw such and such Commissions from the Superior of the Jesuits, that were signed Jobannes Paulus de Oliva, pray will you look upon this, and see whether you know it, (and a Writing under the Jesuits Seal w [...] shew'd him.)

This is the hand, the very hand, that was to the others, and they had put such a Seal; and that is for Mr. Stapleton, to be Rector of St. Omers.

Now my Lord, if you please, this was not one of those Commission that Mr. Langhorn did distribute to the persons that were to have them, no, he would let us have none of those, but it is a Commission of another nature, 'tis neither for a [...] Office civil nor military, but Ecclesiastical, yet it is under the same Hand and Seal.

You say you came to me the first time in November? and you went t [...] St. Omers, when Sir?

The latter end of November?

When arrived you at St. Omers?

I think it was the 10th of December new Stile, I will not be positive.

All their defence lies in Catches upon a point of time, in which no m [...] living is able to be positive.

My Lord, if the 26th of November fell upon a Monday, then it was [...] the 26th. day that I set out for Dover in the Coach, as near as I can remember, and got to St. Omers a Friday morning following.

A Friday after, you say you got to St. Omers?

About that tim [...]

How long did you stay there?

Till April following I stay' [...]

Without any moving from thence?

Only went to Paris, and after that a night or two at Watton, and the came away in April. My Lord, I desire, if your Lordship please, that Mr. Lang­horn may ask the Court and the Court ask me; for I know the Court will be so kin [...] as to ask me such Questions as are reasonable, and proper for me to answer.

That indeed is the regular way, for Prisoners should not ask t [...] Question, but the Court.

Very well, I shall observe the method, if your Lordship please. I des [...] to know what time in April he came back for England.

I came about the middle of April, or latter end, I will not be so positive in that, and I was in England under 20 days.

Can you tell what day you came into England?

No, I cannot exactly, but I came in April the middle or the latter end.

I desire to know who came with him?

My Lord there came a matter of 9 or 10 of us in all.

Name them.

There was Father Williams, and Father March, the Rector of Liege, and Sir John Warner.

What is the Rector of Lieg's name?

Warren, I think, I cannot tell names so exactly.

Go on Sir, pray.

I cannot name any more.

You named them all in the Records of the Lords House.

Tis like I have, I refer you to that.

Did Sir Thomas Preston come over with you?

Yes he did.

Did Pool come over with you?

Yes.

Look you Mr. Langhorn, we had all this matter spoken of yesterday, and there were Witnesses that prove that Sir Jeremy Warner, and Sir Thoms Preston, were there.

I humbly conceive, that was upon an Issue tried in another County by a­nother Jury, and therefore I hope I do not amiss in urging what I can say for my self to this Jury.

You are not debarred, I only told you of it. Was Sir Robert Bret there?

Yes, I think he was, I am not confident of that. My Lord, I own what Mr. Langhorn can bring to the Court upon Record.

I only ask it, because he says so in the House of Lords.

If you can shew the Record of what I said there do.

I do not desire him to name them now, but to know whether he does now [...]ff [...]m the truth of what he Swore in the House of Lords.

If you can produce, as you may, if you have been diligent, a Copy of the Record in the House of Lords, and have it Sworn to be a true Copy of the Records, it will be Evidence for you, and shall be read; but to put him to remember a Record without Book, must not be, it would be hard for him to undertake that.

I desire to know how he came from Dover; whether in a Coach, or on Horseback, to London?

Indeed the question is so sudden, that I cannot be positive, but as near as remember, I came by Coach.

I will give you my reason why I ask this; because he hath formerly upon [...] Tryal in the Kings-bench, affirmed he came by Coach; in the company of mr. Hilsley.

No, I did never say so; but I came over in the Pacquet Boat, in the com­ [...]any of mr. Hilsley, but when we were come over, mr. Hilsley went out of the way [...]om us.

I desire to know where he lodged, when he came to town?

Where did you lodge the first night?

I did lie at Mr. Grove's house, when I came to London in April.

But the first night when you came from Dover, when you came into Lon­don in April?

My Lord, I cannot say, I lay there the first night; but my lodging was pro­ [...]ded for me there.

You are to answer as well as you can, If you cannot remember it say s [...] Do you say the first absolutely, or not?

My Lord, I cannot remember the first night, but I lay several nights a [...] mr. Grove's

Then I ask, whether he did generally lie there, during his stay?

I did lie there some nights.

How many times did you lie there [...]

I believe three or four nights, I won't be positive as to the Number.

What day was the Consult?

It was the 24th. of April

What day did you acquaint me with it?

A day or 2 after

When did he return back to St Omers?

When did you go back? about what time?

My Lord, I think it was a week in May, I cannot be positive, but I think that was the outside.

They said, yesterday you affirmed you stay'd but 6 days.

I do not say so, but I say under 20.

Come, have you any thing else to ask him?

Those letters that he speak of, I desire to know whether he saw me write them?

Those letters you speak of, did you see him write them?

I did not see him write them, but I am sure they were his Letters because I knew his hand.

How did you come to know his hand, since you did not see him write them [...]

I saw the Letter whereby he ordered money to be paid, 5 l. to his So [...] And I saw the money paid to his Son, by that Order.

Do you know that Le Cheese, and Anderton, writ to me?

I do not say that they writ to him, but he had letters Subscribed by the [...] Names, and they were said by him to come from them, and they were to be communi­cated to the Priests and Jesuits; and he delivered them to me to that end.

When you returned to St. Omers, how long did you stay there?

Till 23d. June new Stile, which is the 13th. old Stile.

I remember he professed himself a Ronan Catholick, I see he is a Minister I desire to know of him when he left the Protestant Religion, and became a Convert, as he called himself; call it what you will, when he left being a Protestant, and became a Papist, that is it I mean?

He does it for nothing but to quarrel,

When did you leave the Church of England?

My Lord, if it be the pleasure of the Bench to ask me that Question—

You ought to answer it, though it be nothing to the purpose.

Then I answer, it was either in February or March 1676/7.

My Lord, I desire to know whether he had any Benefice?

Yes; I was sometime Viear of Bobbing — in Kent. But I suppose this is to make me accuse my self of Something, whereby I might forfeit my living: for my Lord, I have a right in a point of Equity still to that living, but only for going beyond Sea withou leave of my Ordinary, I am not now Vicar of—

When did you come to your Vicaridge?

In 1672.

You became a Papist in 1677. I ask this Question, whether he did leave his living before he turned Papist?

my Lord, I am not willing to answer that Question.

When did you leave your living? did you leave it before you went away?

It was not very long before, but the reason why I am not willing to tell; when I left the Parish, I left it in the charge of mr. Thomas Turner, V [...]car of M [...]lton, & I did go near about Chichester, and served a sequestration there. The Air was not a good Air in that part of Kent, and I had not my health, and that was one reason and for other reasons best known to my self.

After he became a Papist, I desire to know, whether he became a Jesuit? Were you in any Order there?

Mr. Langh. it is not a proper Question, we ought not to ask it him: You are a man of the law, and therefore you know it is not fair to ask any person a Question about a criminal matter that may bring himself in danger.

I take him to be out of danger, he hath his Pardon.

I don't know what his pardon is, nor how far it reaches, nor whether this be contained in it; but if Mr. Oates pleases to answer that Question, he may.

Though he hath his pardon, he may be in danger of the Ecclesi­astical Censure.

He says he will not.

Il'e give you another reason why I ask it, because in one of his Narratives he seems to call himself so; he says, There came over 9 of us Jesuits. I suppose him to be one of that Order; this I took to be a ground, why I might properly call him so.

Narratives are no Evidence at all.

But that gave me an occasion to ask the Question.

I cannot answer it, because it tends rather to raise a debate in the Court, than conduces to the Question, to acquit or condemn the Prisoner.

You are not bound to answer it.

He tells you, he is not bound by law to answer, and he refuses to answer.

I desire to know, whether he ever saw me, or conversed with me, from the time he acquainted me with the Consult, and saw the Commissions in my chamber?

How often did you converse with mr. Langhorn?

After I returned again in July and August, once or twice.

How often in April and May.

Twice I think, about the time of the Consult,

And when you came over again, how often?

Twice more I think, Twice or thrice.

So, then he hath been four or five times in your company.

He would not l [...]t [...]e come to his house, for he used to say, his Wife was but aumes a [...] turned from a Devil; and therefore he would not have me come thither.

I hope he will not go out of the Court?

No, he will sta [...] here, but you have done with him at present, have you not?

Yes, my Lord, I have.

Swea [...] Mr Bedloe, (which was done.)

Mr Bedloe, I ask you but one short Question, because I would not interrupt you afterwards, That Paper that you saw signed by the Superior of the Jesuits, where had you it?

I had it at Mr. Daniel Arthur's.

What is that?

It is an instrument signed and Sealed, just as the things were, which Mr. [Page 18] Oates says, he saw you in your Chamber.

And besides you must take notice, that this was found a long time after Mr. Oates, had given his testimony publickly, for his closet was not searched till a great while after.

It is to shew you what Seals they used to have to their Commissions. Mr Oates describes several Commissions that he saw in your study, so sealed and subscribed and after the searching Mr. Arthurs study, being a Papist, that Commission is found there. Now though it be a thing of a private concern, a Church matter not relating to the matters in Question, yet this very Commission is so subscribed and so signed and sealed, as Mr. Oates had described those to be before in your chamber.

Because it was exactly the hand and seal that I saw to the commissions in Paris, I did take particular notice of the Paper, and brought it to the Council.

Well Sir, now go on with your Evidence.

First, my Lord, I'll only ask this Question of the Court, whether a known Roman Catholick may take Notes of the Evidence in such a cause?

Truly no, I think not.

There is an honourable Lady in that Gallery, the Lady Marchionis of Winchester, that hath took Notes all this Trial.

She will do her self, nor no body else any great hurt, by what she writes.

I only speak it for the information of the Court.

A Womans Notes will not signifie much truly, no more than her tongue.

My Lord, about three years since, I was sent by Mr. Harcourt, and Mr. Coleman, to le Cheise, with some letters for the carrying on of this Design. With these letters, Mr. Coleman asked me, if I could go with him as far as the Temple. I have no particular acquaintance with Mr. Langhorn, I was but twice at his Chamber, once with Mr. Harcourt, and once with Mr. Coleman. I waited upon Mr. Coleman to Mr. Langhorns Chamber in the Temple,: There did he register such letters as Mr. Coleman brought to him, and afterwards Mr. Coleman sealed them up, and gave them me to carry to le Cheese.

How do you say? when you went with Mr. Coleman to Mr. Langhorns Chamber, were the letters writ there?

The letters were writ first at Colemans house, and brought open by Coleman to Mr. Langhorn, and he read them and registred them, and then Coleman sealed them up and gave them to me to carry away.

What letters were these?

Do you know what the effect of those letters were?

The letters were read some of them at the King-Ben [...]b Bar, at Cole­mans Trial: There was one of them writ by Mr. Harcourt, another by Mr. Coleman to le Cheese.

What was the effect of them?

Only to let le Cheese know, that they waited only now for his Answer, how far he had proceeded with the French King, for the sending of money; for they only wanted money all other things were in readiness. That the Catholicks of Eng­land were in safety had made all Places, and all Offices, to be disposed of to Catho­licks, or such as they thought would be so; that all Garrisons were either in their [Page 19]own hands, or ready to be put into them; that they had so sair an opportunity, (as I remember that was one of the expressions in the letter to Father Stapleton.) that they had so fair an opportunity, having a King so easy to believe what is dictated to him by our Party, that if we slip this opportunity, we must despair of ever introducing Popery into England; for having a King of England so easy, and the French King so powerful, they must not miss such an opportunity.

For what?

To send over money for the carrying on of the Cause: for they only wanted that, all else was in readiness: And the other letters were to the same effect, though in other words. That letter was in English, but the letters to le Cheese, and the Nuncio, were both in French.

But you understand French, don't you?

Yes, my Lord, I do.

Did he copy them out, while you were there by?

He registied them before me.

Did he write them into a Book? and were you there all that time?

Yes, my Lord, I and Coleman walked in the Chamber, whi [...]st he went in and writ, as he did other things; for he registred all their Accompts: There was not a penny of money either received or laid out, nor any thing done almost in relation to this Concern, but he did keep a Register of it: I cannot say, that ever he did talk any thing before me of the Kings death particularly, but talked of the whole Design. About a year and a half since, Mr. Harcourt sent another Pacquet of letters by me to Mr. Langhorn to be registred; he looked strangely upon me, and received the letter, and sent an Answer to Mr. Harcourt, that Mr. Williams (for I went them under the name of Captain Williams) had delivered him such letters, and that he should have them again to morrow, after he had copied them, and registred them. Mr Harcourt read the letter of Answer to me, and in the letter it was Mr. Williams. Said I to Master Harcourt, I thought I might have heen registred by my right name, because when any thing should take effect and occasion serve, I resolved to bear my own name. Alas, says he, this does not signifie any thing at all, for as for this Register, it is not so considerable: there shall be a new Register made, of things of weight and moment, this is only a blind Register amongst our selves. The two letters that I brought from Harcourt, there was one of them from Sir William Godolphin, that I had brought before from Spain.

Who was that directed to?

To my Lord Bellasis; and about three weeks after it was that I was sent to Mr. Langhorn, to have it registred; the other was from the Irish Colledge of Jesuits in Salamanca. The letter from the Rector did specifie, that they would have my Lord Bellasis, and the rest of the Lords that were concerned, and the rest of the Party in England, to be in readiness, and to have this communicated with all expedi­tion; for now they had provided in Spain, under the notion of Pilgrims for St. Ja­go, some Irish Cashier'd Souldiers, that had left their Country, some for Religion, and some for their Crimes, and a great many Lay-brothers, whom they had procured, and gathered together under the notion of Pilgrims to be ready to take shipping at the Groin, to land at Milford-Haven, there to meet my Lord Powis, and an Army that he was to raise in Wales, to further this Design. And these letters said they had al­most brought it to a Period, that they did only expect a return from England, to shew [Page 20]in what readiness they were here, that accordingly they might proceed.

Did Mr. Langhorn see these letters?

He took these letters from me, and told me Mr. Harcourt should have them again, when he had transcribed them; and writ a letter to Mr. Harcourt, that Mr. Williams had brought him such letters?

And he did transcribe them?

I suppose so, for he afterwards sent them back to Mr. Hareourt.

Was it a good large Book that he registred them in?

I know not what Book he registred them in, not those letters.

It is a proper Question, because he said I registred those letters before him.

I say, I saw him in his Study transcribe Colemans letter, whilst Coleman and I walked in his Chamber.

Into what kind of Book did he Register that? Had he more Books than one pray?

My Lord, I cannot tell that, I judge it might be the same Book. I saw the Book then, it was a large Parchment Book; but I did not see it when Harcourts Letters were Registred. When Coleman and I came thither, he went into his Study [...] and left us in the Chamber, I saw him transcribing the Papers that lay before him [...] but when I brought those Letters from Mr. Harcourt, I onely delivered them sealed up [...] and his Answer to Father Harcourt, was, that Mr. Williams had brought him so many Letters, and he should have them again assoon as he had transcribed them.

mr. Langhorn, you would do well to shew us the Book, and that would make the matter plain.

North, Could you see how far he had gon in the Book, and what Room there was left to write other letters.

It was a book at least 3 Inches thick, and as near as I could guess, he had gotten through 2 thirds of the Book.

But you should shew us your Book, Mr. Langhorn.

I say my Mord, if I had such a Book it must needs be found in my Study, if I had it, it must be there, for I never removed it,

That was not a Book fit to br left there.

My Lord Pritchard did tell me, that the Commissions were come, and that mr, Langhorn, had them, and things, says he, are now in a readiness. Then said I. When shall I have my Commission? Said he, those that mr, Longhorn hath are only for the General Officers; you must have yours, said he, from my Lord Belasis.

Do you know any thing of any money that was to be raised by the Benedictine Monks; 6000l. or what other sum?

My Lord, in May 1696. among the letters I carryed to Le Cheese one of them was directed to Stapleton a Benedictine Monk, to raise the mony for England

The money, what money?

The money they had promised to remit into England.

B [...] t [...]id they name no sum?

No my Lord, for they had no particular promise, but only that they did make their [...]usiness to raise what they could.

[...]nd what was i [...]? Do you know of any sum of money that was raised, and by whom.

Le. Cheese told me himself, that they had no reason to suspect him or his Interest with the French King, for he had laid that sure enough. And that when he found a fit opportunity, the mony was ready to be remitted into England, and that he had remitted some of it already to mr. Coleman and Ireland.

You know not, but by what le Cheese told you?

No.

He speaks what le Cheese told him that he would raise mony, and that he had sent some to Mr. Coleman and Ireland.

Yes, and that the rest should follow when he found there was absolute eccasion; but he would not part with his mony till they had assurance of their bring in readiness here, and likely to further and carry on the design.

Mr. Bedloe, had you any discourse with the prisoner about any Com­missions.

No my Lord, 'tis at least a year and an half since I saw him.

Did he ever own any Commissions he had?

No Prichard told me he had some.

You have seen the Commissions, have you not?

No, I never saw any in Mr. Langhorns hand.

Where did you see them then?

Sir Henry Tichbourn did shew me three Commissions in Paris, Signed by the Genneral of the Order, and sealed with the Jesuits Seal, which made me take up this paper, which hath been shewn, tho it were a thing indifferent, yet because was written with the same hand, and Sealed with the same Seal that the Commissions were that I saw at Paris.

Did Mr. Langhorn know any thing of the Treason to murther the King, by Pickering and Grove.

That I do know only by report; but when Grove, Pickering and Conyers were going to New-Market I was at Harcourts Chamber, and I had a Design to go to Windsor, to observe what they did; and I did ask Father Harcourt to give me leave to goo see a friend of mine take shipping at Plymouth, to send some Commendations by him to my Friends in Italy; then sayes Father Harcourt, you cannot be spared, you must not go now, for we don't know what return these Gentlemen will make of their jour­ny and what occasion there may be for you, if there should be any good effect of it: then said I, I will go and write, and send it by a friend down to be sent into Italy, but said he, you must stay a while till I come back again. I am going to Mr. Langhorns Chamber in the Temple, to take the Minutes of what they have done this morning: that was he contrivance of sending down those people to New-Market to ass [...]ssinate the King.

That is no Evidence against the Prisoner, because it is by Hear-say.

It is right, and the Jury ought to take notice, That what another man said is no Evidence against the Prisoner, for nothing will be Evidence against him, but what is of his own knowledge: But I desire Mr. Bedloe, as well as you can, you would repeat the effect of one of the most material Letters Mr. Langhorn did transcribe.

Though I was not so exact a French man in the nicety of the Tongue, yet I understood enough to learn the sence of those Letters. The English Letter from Stapleton, which he transcribed, was to this effect; That Coleman and Harcourt, nam­ing themselves We, (that is, We and the Jesuites, and it was to the Rector of the En­glish Monks in particular, but I missed of the Rector and Mr. Stapleton receiv'd it I [Page 22]say the Effect of that Letter was, they would have a certain answer from them—

when was it?

It was in (76)

What was the effect, say you?

The effect was, that they would have a final Answer from those Religi­ous at Doway, and Paris, to know how far they had proceeded with the English Rel [...] ­ous, and all their Friends beyond Sea, in making Collections, and remitting of money for there was only money wanting; for the Armes of the Catholicks were all ready, and they had all a good mind to the Business, their Arms and hearts were ready, and the easiness of the King of England, and the strength of the power of France, made it an [...] oppertunity not to be neglected: That the Garrisons were ready to be put into such hands as they could trust.

Was there such an expression in the Letter, upon your Oath, that they had such Arms and that the Garrisons were ready to be put into their hands, and whose hands they were ready to be put into.

Yes, my Lord, there were such expressions, and they would have the Garrisons only in such ha [...]ds as they could trust.

And did he transcribe those Letters?

He did transcribe those 3. while we were in his Chamber.

Was there any mention of Exciting the French king by power, to invande this Kingdom?

There was in the French Letter to Monsieur Le Cheese, which he tran­scribed too.

That was in French he says.

I suppose you understand French too, or else you could not do what you did.

I Understand Law French.

Mr. Bed. did you never hear him discourse in French?

No, my Lord [...]

I cannot write nor read French, but I can Translate it.

If you have any questions to ask him, you may ask him.

How many were the Letters that then I transcribed?

There were there, my Lord; one was to the English Monks at Paris, an­other was to Monsieur Le Cheese, another to the Pope's Nuntio,

Were they long or short ones, I ask for this reason, because I observe that in the Narrative, Coleman's Letters are very long, of what length might they be.

They were the best part of half a sheet of paper, for Mr. Coleman writ [...] curious fine small hand, and would put a great deal of Business into a little paper, the Popes Nuntio's Letter was very short.

Did he transcribe them all before you went a way?

whilst we walked in his Chamber, he Registred them: we took a great many turns about in the Chamber; and I saw the papers before him, and his Book.

Did those Letters express what the money was to be raised for, or did they leave it to be understood; my meaning, my Lord, of my question is this, whether Mr. Coleman writ to him to hasten the money, and said it was for such a particular use or only in general.

He hath answered it already, but he will do it again.

my Lord, though it was not expressed in the Letter, but only we want nothing else from beyond Sea, but your assistance; tho it was not expressed in the let­ter to destroy the King and the Protectants Religion, yet the full of the discourse [Page 23]betwixt Mr. Coleman, and mr. Langhorn, was to this effect. We only stay for money, when we have got that, we will put our selves into a posture.

If you observe it, he said so before; when we asked him what the effect of those Letters was, that all things were ready, it is a good opportunity now for the effecting of our design, having so easie a King to deal with, and your King haveing so powerful a Treasury, do you but get the mony of him, and we shall do well enough.

Though it was not specified in the Letters what the mony was for, yet in the discourse between Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Langhorn, it was worded so, that it was plain, it was to destroy the Government and introduce Popery.

My Lord, ask whether this be all that he charges upon me?

I cannot say that my Lord that this is all I have to say against him; things may occur to my memory hereafter, which do not now.

But at this time you remember no more, do you?

No.

But to my apprehension what you said last is most material, that is the discourse between him and mr. Coleman, for that Rivets the whole. When he said, that if we had but a return of this mony, then we have made our selves safe, or words to that effect; but it was to the full meaning of this, that the Protestant Religion could [...]otstand any longer here, having assistance from France.

So they consulted together after the letters were transcribed; did they?

Yes my Lord:

My Lord, I omitted one thing that was very material in my Evidence, which comes in my mind since. The Congregation at Rome did contribute 800000 Crowns to be sent into England, and mr. Langhorn did inquire concerning that money, [...]d had knowledge of the Receipt of it in France, as mr. Langhorn did, s [...]y in the month of July or August.

Did he say it to you?

He did to Father Harcourt, Father Kaines, and Father Fenwick, that there were, 800000 Crowns come to France.

What said he then concerning the 800000 Crowns?

He gave an account of the moneys being lodg'd at Paris?

You hear what he says, that you gave an account of 800000. Crowns that were raised abroad, that it was Lodg'd and receiv'd at Paris.

I recollect somthing more now, tho I wannot in mr. Langhorns cham­ber, I met with Father Kaines one day, and said he, I must go and speak with one Mr. Langhorn presently, and when he came out again, he brought a Letter in his hand, and afterwards we went to a Toba [...]osh [...]p in Wild Street, and there Father Kaines told me [...]e effect of the letter. He told me it was a Chiding letter from the Secretary de propa­ [...]ndi fide, Cardinal Barb [...]rino who had sent a chiding letter to mr. Langhorn and the rest of the Conspirators, for going on no faster whe [...] they had sofair an opportunity.

Did you see the letter directed to Mr. Langhorn?

Father Kaines told me the Effects of it, and he had the letter from Mr. Langhorn.

He told you so, well but this Evidence is as to the Plot in general, but [...]t to Mr. Langhorn in particular. But that which he charges you particularly with, [...] this Your transcribing the letters, wherein there was an Expression made, of your [Page 24]being all in readiness as for Arms and the Garisons; and your discourse afterwards with Mr. Coleman, in what a posture all things were for the destruction of the Govern­ment, and the bringing in Popery, and there wanted nothing but mony for the effe­cting the whole Design. This is that he says.

My Lord, I suppose he won't go out of the Court neither.

No, no, he will stay here.

My Lord, there is one Witness that he had not ready here, when we began to give some account of the General Plot, I pray he may be examined, his name is Buss.

What can you say of any Design upon the Kings life? What is your Name?

My name is Thomas Buss.

What Profession are you of?

I serve the duke of Monmouth.

In what capacity do you serve him?

I am his Cook.

How long have you served him?

Thirteen years I have lived with him.

Well, what is it you have to say?

Being at Windsor, my Lord, with an old Acquaintaince of mine, one Handkindson that was then newly come from Italy —

When was this?

In September last, within a Week after the Duke came from Falnders, and we were drinking together, for I had not seen him for many years before, and there was one Anthony was in the company, and said he, I am newly come from Italy, and I am going again, and I am come to take my leave of my Friends. When do you go away, said I? I believe I go to morrow, said he; but pray, said he to Anthony, Have a spe­cial care of those four worthy Gentlemen, what Gentlemen said I? Four worthy Gen­tlemen, said he, that I brought over with me. What, said I, from Italy? No, said he, they are four worthy Irish Gentlemen; They are very worthy Persons, said he, have a special care of them, for they will do our business.

What said you to that?

Nothing, for I knew nothing of it, till I saw Colemans Tryal, where it speaks of the four Irish men that were to kill the King at Windsor, then I be thought me of it.

Would you not ask him what that business was, or so?

No, I did not know at that time.

But no man in England but would have asked such a question.

No he said, they were four Strangers: But, said I, did you bring them out of Italy? No, saith he, they are four Irish Gentlemen that I brought over with me, worthy Persons.

And what Religion was he of that said so?

He was a Catholick, one that bought all into a Colledge, that did so here before he went.

He belonged to the Benedictine Monks, my Lord, in the Savoy.

And what was he that he spoke to?

He was a Catholick too, he was Servant to one that belongs to the Queens Chappel.

Did you understand what the Business was they said they were to do?

Not till I read Mr. Colemans Tryal, and then I did guess these were the persons that were to have killed the King at Windsor.

You saw them not, did you?

No, they were in charge of this Anthony, that is now in some place in the Queens Chappel.

Did he speak to Anthony to have a care of them, or to you?

To Anthony, he was the person that was to take care of them.

Is Anthony a Papist?

Yes, a very strong Papist, and we used to be often together; but now he is jealous, and will not come near me to talk with me as we used to do.

Now I understand the reason of it, why he did not ask the Que­stion; it was not likely he should, for it was not spoken to him, but he stood by all the while the discourse was to Anthony, another man, and it was to him that he spoke to have a care of the four Irish men, for they would do their Business. What did Anthony say?

He promised he would have as much care of them, as of his own life.

Where is this Anthony to be found?

My Lord, Anthony is a Portuguese, and the Queens Confessors man.

When did you see him?

He was seen this morning; they call him Signior Antonio.

North, You should have an Order to take this same Anthony into Custody, but in order to the finding of him, let him go to my Lord Oss [...]ry.

Mr. Tisser, we give you an Order for the taking of this Signior Antonio, you will find him at Somersethouse; for the doing of this, we do advise you to wait upon my Lord Ossory, and tell him that you have such an Order, but that out of Reverence to the Queen, we have also ordered you to wait upon him, to desire him to send him.

North, What is become of this Hankinson?

He is abroad beyond the Seas, my Lord, for he said he was come thither to take leave of his Friends, and was to go the next morning into Surrey, and so away.

Well, what have you now to say Mr. Langhorn?

I conceive this last Witness says nothing to me.

North, He speaks only to the Plotin general, as the first Witnesses did; but that which is upon you, is as to Mr. Oaies, who speaks to every Article of the Indictment expresly; and Mr. Bedloe says, he did not only see you transcribe and copy out that treasonable letter, but he carried other letters to you, which you pro­mised to transcribe; and these are Overt-acts that make you a Party to the Trea­son.

Besides your Discourse with Coleman, after the letters were tran­scribed.

These two Gentlemen were Farties in this supposed Crime, the two Witnesses which do concern me, are Mr. Oates, and Mr. Bedloe and they both of them clearly appear to have been in the same Treason that I suppose they charge me with; I desire to know whether they have had their Pardon or no?

I believe they have. Mr. Oates, and Mr. Bedloe, Have you your Pardons?

Yes, my Lord, I have three.

I have two Pardons under the Broad Seal, but I don't know what is in them.

North. But make your Objection how you will, whether they had, or whe­ther they had not, they are Witnesses.

I never gave any Evidence till I had my Pardon.

I ask for this reason, I look upon your Lordship and the Court as my Counsel, to advise me in matters of Law, whether these be good Witnesses or not?

We do tell you, that if we had not judged them to be Witnesses, we would not have heard them.

They come under the same reason of Law with an Approver, having had their Pardon; I don't say they are directly Approvers, but I conceive they come under the same reason of Law with them, and then if the Approver be pardoned, by the Law the Appellee ought to be discharged; & methinks by the same reason, these men having been participes Criminis, and having got their Pardons, ought not to be such substantial Witnesses against the Prisonet at the Bar. But, my Lord, I have one thing yet further to ask, I desire to know whether they have not received any Re­wards, or Gratifications, for the Discovery they have made, and the Service they have done? And whether they do not expect further Rewards?

Is there any Allowance to be made to you?

I have received a Reward, by disbursing 6 or 700 l. out of my pocket, and I don't know when I shall see it again.

Mr. Langhorn does suppose that the Witnesses are corrupted and bribed; Do you think Mr. Langhorn, that the King will bribe his Witnesses?

My Lord I only propose it as a Question.

Would you answer that Question your self?

North, If you can suppose there was any Subornation or Corruption, call your Witnesses, and prove it; but for their receiving sustenance and maintenance from the King, that is but reasonable, and can be no Objection. And you your self know, that an Approver, while he is in that service, hath a Peny a day, which in an­cient times was a great matter for livelihood and sustenance; so that any Reward that they have, if you can prove it by Contract or Subornation, you cannot make an Objection.

My Lord, I am informed by a Prisoner in the Goal, that Mr. Bedloe hath hath received 500 l.

If you can prove any ting do, prove what you can.

That 500 l. was about a particular Fact.

But pray what is his Name?

His Name is Mr. Reading.

North, He is an infamous person, he hath stood in the Pillory, we cannot take him for a Witness; but now I'll tell you for the 500 l. 'tis a thing we all know of. It was a reward for a particular business, not relating to the Plot, but it was for the discovery of the murtherers of Sir Edmondbury Godfrey.

I think Mr. Prance is here, that will give an account of that, for Bedloe discoversed him.

I am so far from having any benefie by this Discovery, that I am 700 l. out of pocket.

You shall have the liberty to make what good defence you can for your self, and prove what you can, you must not go this way to work.

'Tis pretty reasonable for us to give a publick satisfaction to all the world, that we do nothing under-hand, but that we do in this Case as in all other cases; any thing that is fit to be answered, they shall answer, and perchance in this Case something more than can be strictly required of us, 'Tis notorious enough, that Mr. Oates and Mr. Bedloe have been fed at the Kings charge, and it cannot be objected against them, and need not be wink'd at, for they were parties in the Plot. And when they come to make the Discovery, without which we should never have known the Plot, for yow know 'tis hard to discover any Crime, Forgery, or the like, but by one that hath been privy to it, and a guilty person; yet these men always have been, and are in Law Witnesses, and 'tis just they should have a Competency to maintain them, since they came for the publick Good to make such Discoveries.

North, And that particular Sum of money was paid to Mr. Bedloe in pursuance of the Kings Proclamation, which we all know, which was all publickly done.

The Reason why I press this was, because of the Proclamation, which was to invite Persons to come, touching the discovery of this Plot; and to encourage them to it by a promise of reward. I think it may be reasonable enough, where any person that is charged with a Crime doth absent, to propose a Reward for the bring­ing him in. But I think it is hard, that when a Prisoner is in Custody, Witnesses should be brought in against him by such means.

North, You do artificially go off from the Point, Answer the Evi­dence that hath been given against you, and you shall be heard; but you labour very much, and trouble your self to make answer to another matter that is not pertinent.

Does your Desence consist wholly of this sort of matter, objecting the incompetency of the Witnesses? Can you make no Answer to the Fact?

I must tell your Lordship, my whole Defence must run to disable the Witnesses, for my Lord I was committed to Newgate the 17th of October, and I have been kept there a close Prisoner till this day was seven-night, or Friday the last week, I never conversed with any Friend, or any Relation, nor knew any thing of News, only with some few persons sent by Authority of the House of Commons or the Council. And I was never examined by any since I was committed. I never heard what was charged against me, and I could not foresee what these men could testifie, because I was not confident whereupon they would proceed; therefore I can have no Desence, unless it be by lessening their Credit, 'tis impossible I should.

Do, lessen it if you can. If you have any Witnesses to take off their Credit, or contradict them, call them.

But I would say one thing to you Mr. Langhorn; you seem to put a very ill Construction upon the Kings Proclamation as if it were to [...] vite and encourage persons to come and swea [...] about a Plot, where there was none; it was to invite people to make a further Discovery of, Plot that lay close, and we could not fully discover for the preservation of the King and Kingdom witho [...] such a means.

He did propose a Reward.

Ay in order to a further Discovery of that Plot which we had E­vidence of before.

And so you would be close in all your Accounts, and none should be rewarded that could make us any discovery of them, but presently their Testimony must be gone. 'Tis very fine, but the Court over-rules it.

Mr. Langhorn, whatsoever your object of this kind does fly in the face, and reflect upon the integrity and wisdom of King Lords, and Commons.

North. For it was done by the advice of all Three.

If you'l go on and prove any thing, but pray don't spend our time to no purpose.

Call Parry and Townely, and Doddington. and the rest.

Mr. Lord, here are papists come into the Court with their Swords on.

They will not draw them here.

'Tis Well enough, 'tis well enough, Dr. Oates you are sase enough here.

Who will you have first?

I would h ave Hilsly set up.

What Would you ask him?

Your Lordship hath heard Dr. Oates affirm he came over such a time in, the Pacquet Boat with mr. Hilsly. I desire to know whether that be true or no?

I can help you in that, for we had him & his Companions here yesterday, but however we will hear them again, if you will have them. Do you know mr. Oates?

I do my Lord very well.

When did you come over from St. Omers?

I came over the 24th. of April, N. S.

Did mr. Oates come with you?

No, he did not.

No, my Lord, he did leave me there, but I overtook him at Calis.

Look you there now, you did leave him there, but he overtook you at, Calis. Did you leave him there?

I did leave him there.

Ay, but he over took you then, did he not?

No, he did not.

He answers as he did yesterday, that [...]he did not come over with him; you lost your mony did you not?

Yes, I did.

How did you lose it? Did you lose it at play?

'Tis to matter how I lost it, I did not lose it at play.

I' [...]l tell the Court if your Lordship please how he lost it, he lent a great­deal of mony to a Gentleman, who went away with his mony and left him to pay the Reekoning.

What say you to that?

That is very true, and I confess it, but what is all this? nothing to the matter, he was told this by some body else, I never saw him, nor ever-any man in the Ship saw him come over with me.

I' [...]l tell you what then; first here is something now that you would not con­fess yesterday, nor indeed would you confess it now, I asked you how you lost your mo [...]y; you see mr. Oates can tell you how it was, tho' you wont tellius, so that tho, this be a secret, he knows it, and how could he know this secret unless he were there¿

There is, one that I met by the way that did tell him this Story.

Th [...]n one Gifford stoed d [...]p [...]

Did you see mr. O [...]se [...]?

Yes my Lord.

What discourse had you with him concerning Hilsly?

Why he told us of his departure,

When?

After he was gone away.

How long after?

Three or four days.

What said he to you?

He only told us he was gone.

What else said you of him.

He only said he departed out of the Colledge then.

What did you say to mr. Oates about it?

I don't remember what I said in particular?

Hilsly, call up the other person that you say told mr. Oates.

He is not here my Lord, but here is one that was in the company when he told it.

Who was by?

Mr. Burnaby, who came thither the first of May.

Hearken to me, when you talked with Mr, Oates concerning mr. Hilsly's being gone from the Colledge, was there any body by?

I cannot tell.

Was mr. Burnaby by when mr. Oates and you talked about Mr. Hilsly?

Then another Witness started up.

Yes, my Lord, there was mr. Oates with me, and mr. Burnaby put himself into our Company in the Garden, and he acquainted me with this Story.

What said he?

He said he met this Gentleman, and that this Gentleman was chea [...]ed of his money.

How did he tell you he was cheated?

I dont know the occasion but he said a fellow cheated him of the mony.

Was that all he said.

Yes, my Lord, but I do not remember upon what occasion, he said he was cheated by a shirking fellow.

Did he name the place he met him at?

I don't know my Lord whether he mentioned it or no.

So that mr. Oates names the place which he was never told, and unless he was there, how could he then tell it?

But this does not prove that I speak against my Conscience, that do [...]s [...]ot argue.

Look you, the answer is this mr. Langhorn, You would charge mr. Oates [...]th falsity in saying he came over in the Pacquet-Boat with Hilsly, and you call up [...]m, and he says, he did nor come, but he left him at St Omers; mr. Oates comes and [...]d says, 'tis true, he left me there, but I over-took him at Calis, by this very token, [...]d he, you: were cheated of your mony by a person that you lent it to, who went a­ [...]ay, & left you to pay the Reckoning. When I asked mr. Hilsly how he could tell if it were [...]ue that he was not with him, he answered, he was told it by another; but when I come [...] know what that other person said, it was no more than this, he said in mr. Oats hear­ [...]g mr. Hilsly was cozened of his mony, but did not say how, nor by whom, nor where. [...] Langhorn. Now to prove that what mr. Hilsly said is true, and that therefore mr. [...]tes his knowledge must come by another hand, I desire that the Witness may be ask­ [...] how long mr. Oates was at St. Omers?

How long was mr. Oates at St. Omers.

From December till June he was there, except one particular day that [...] went to Watton.

And you saw him almost every day.

Yes I did.

You have 15 or 16 Witnesses that will say all this, but yet if you will we [...]ll call them.

When went he away, do you know that?

He went in June, I cann't certainly say the day.

Well call another.

Pray my Lord, let me speak, if your Lordship please to let me give you my Reason, why I might see him; I saw him in the Refectory; he had a little Table by himself distinct from the rest, and dining together in a publick place, it was impossible but we should see his place empty, if he were gone, and I know the number of my own Schoole, and can tell whether any one be absent.

What because he sat at a Table by himself therefore you think he was there all the while.

Certainly if I may believe mine own eyes, I saw him there every day.

Were you there every day your self?

Yes my Lord, I was, I did not miss one day I had no Infirmity.

My Lord mr. Oates hath affirmed that there was with him when he came over in April, Sir Robert Brett.

He says only he believes so, he says positively he came over in the company of Sir John Warner, Sir Thomas Preston, & he thinks also Sir Robert Brett, but is not positive.

This he affirmed both in his Narrative, & upon Oath in the Lords-house.

Shew any thing that he was sworn to here.

But what says this lad more, let him speak, for he is very full of it.

The first day of May I saw him in the Garden with a Lay Brother at Kittlepins in the view of all the Colledge.

Let us examine him as to persons, and then refer it to the Lords Register.

Why If you will prove something mr. Oates hath sworn there that you can contradict, first prove what he swore and then contradict it.

Pray take notice you must not go to oppose him in any thing of that Oath, unless he hath sworn it here; whatsoever there be there, except he hath sworn the same here, 'tis in vain to object it, for he cannot be intended to have Witness to make good what he swore there.

Let us hear what he does offer.

Under favour mr. Oats hath acknowledged what he swore there was true.

You are mistaken mr. Langhorn, indeed when you asked him that Question, he said as far as what concerned what he swore here, was true, and he is bound at this time to answer no more.

Then as to Sir John Warner, I desire my Witnesses may be examined.

I suppose they may be here, and say the same they did yesterday; that he did not stir from his house at Watton all April and May.

Yea, my Lord, he lived there all that while.

What Year?

In year 1678.

That is the time that Oates says he came over with him. You saw him all most every day, did not you?

Yes, I did, only four days that I was absent, being sent by him to St [...] Omers at a great Feast.

And when you came back you found him there?

Yes, I lid [...]

You are his Gardner, are you not?

Yes, I am.

Did you stay all those four days at St. Omers?

I was sent to the high Kirk, and carried some Instruments for the musick. and there I stayed four days, and the last day of April, and the first, and second, and third of May. And I saw mr. Oates there in the house, and I saw him going into [...]

He says that Sir. John Warner was at home all April. and May, that he him­self was absent but four days, that he left him there, and when he came back, found him there, and that in the four days he was at St. Omers, he saw Mr. Oates, which was the last of April, the first, second and third of May. You don't know when mr. Oate; went away?

No, my Lord, not I.

Was Sir John Warner there all June?

My Lord, I can't tell that, I only speak to April and May.

Those are the two Months that fit him.

Why how came you not to remember that, as well as the other two, for that is since?

Because I took not so much notice of him in those Times.

How came you to take more special notice of them two Months, than of the other?

Because our Rector did then come into England, and he took the charge of the House upon him in the Rectors absence.

When did he come?

He came the 24th of April.

Pray who is your Rector? What is his Name?

Sir Francis Williams.

Where was Sir John Warner in June and July?

I cannot tell.

And where was he in August and September?

He went out of Town, but where, I am not certain.

You were Gardener there then.

Yes, I was.

Why can't you as well tell me then where he was in June and July, as in April and May? Answer me plainly.

I think he was there all that time, but I can't be certain.

Why not so certain for those two months, as you are for the other?

Because I did not take so much notice.

How come you to take more notice of the one, than the other? That he was [...]ere in April and May, rather than that he was there in July.

Because the Question, my Lord, that I came for, did not fall upon that me.

Now he hath answered plainly; when I asked the Question, Why he did [...]t take so much notice of those Months, as he did of April and May? He answered me, [...] cause the Question did not fall upon those months; and that, without all Question, [...] a plain and an honest Answer.

Indeed he hath forgot his Lesson, you should have given him [...]ter Instructious.

Look you Mr. Langhorn, If he be to be believed, and that he doth not speak [...]sly, or more than he knows, it is impossible that Oates Testimony and his can stand [...]gether; for he directly [...]ffirms he saw Mr. Oates the last of April, the first second, and [...]rd of May. Now Mr. Oates says he was here then, so that these two cannot stand to­ [...]her. The Question then is, Whether he be to be believed? And whether he does [...] come wilfully, or prepared? the Jury have heard what a kind of testimony he gives [...]en the Question was asked him, How he came to take notice of the Months of April [...] May, more than of June and July? And why he was more sure Sir John Warner [Page 32]was there at the one time, than at the other? Why, said he, Because the Question falls upon those former months, and not upon those of June or July. Now that does shake all that was said before, and looks as if he came on purpose, & prepared for those months, and now this, I am afraid, will go through all your St Omers men.

North, Indeed I doubt it will go a great way, to shake all their Testimony.

You Gardener, what do you say was your Rector's name?

Sir Francis Walliams.

And he came over in April or May, Did he?

He came over the 24th of April.

VVhy that is the time that mr. Oates came over, and he was one of the persons that he said came over with him.

No, he came alone only with a certain Officer of the Colledge.

Pray let Gifford be asked the same Question about Sir John Warner; for if he did come, as he saith, from Waiton to St Omers, at that time he must see him at St. Omers, for he was at St. Omers then. The question is. about Sir John Warner, if he were at Watton, or St Omers, then he could not come over with Mr. Oates.

VVhen did you see Sir John Warner?

I saw him about June or thereabouts.

VVhere did you see him?

I saw him there in St. Omers House.

VVhen?

In June or July, when he invited me over to Watton.

This man does not serve the turn, he does not know the Month upon which the Question runs.

The first day of May there was a great Feast, St. Fortunatus and Gordianus, and then I saw Mr. Oates four dayes, and he was there all the month of May.

VVhere was Sir John Warner then?

I cannot tell but at St Omers I saw Mr. Poole, and Sir Ro. Brett at that time.

Did mr. Poole come over with you?

Yet, my Lord, he did,

Witness, when did Mr. Poole come from St. Omers?

He came first to St. Omers with mr. Whitebread, he was my master of Mosick, and he taught me, and it was impossible he should be missing without my knowledge.

But he was gone to England long before that; and he could not be at Eng­land and St Omers, at the same time.

You say right, he could not.

VVen came he from St. Omers?

In the month of June or May.

Or April.

No, it was the month of June.

These are but Collateral matters, mr. Langhorn, for you to stand upon this it spends time to no purpose; but the great Question is, Friend, whether you don't mi­stake the month?

Yes, yes, (at which the people laughed) no, no, I don't mistake the month I only speak the truth according to my knowledge.

How can you so precisely remember the month of May he was there; for when I asked you when he went away, you could hardly tell the month.

Yes, my Lord, Mr. Oates says, in the month of May he was in England but I say I saw Mr. Poole then at St. Omers.

But the great Question is, Whether you are to be believed? We know you answer the Question positively, but my reason why I fear you are not to be be­lieved, is, because you are so precise, that Mr. Poole taught you all May, but I ask you once more, was it in June, or was it in May?

It was about June.

May is about June. Why then you cannot tell. Was it in June?

Yes, may Lord, it was; it was about June. And this is nothng but [...]hat I know, for I actually saw Mr. Oates there at that time.

I'll tell you what Mr. Langhorn, use your discretion, call whom you will, and we will hear them as long as you will; but we had sixteen of them ye­sterday, that did all speak to the same purpose, but in answer to these sixteen Wit­nesses, Mr. Oates did produce, and he will produce again six or seven Witnesses, and one of them a Papist, if not a Priest, who do swear that Mr. Oates was here in April and May; I'll tell you beforehand, do you as you will.

Then one Baille stood up, and being a Foreigner, an Interpreter was called.

Where did you see Sir John Warner in April and May?

He says he saw him actually at St. Omers.

What all the month of May?

Yes, he says he conversed with him all the month of May.

And was he there all April, and conversed with him then?

Yes, he says every day of both months. He says he saw him from the first Sunday in April, to the 14th of May, and conversed with him.

Where did Sir John Warner go the 14th of May?

My Lord, he says he went for one day only to St. Omers, and came back again.

Ask him, How he knows this?

He says he was employed about a Building by Sir John Warner.

Then Carpenteer stood up.

When did you see Mr. Oats, and where?

I speak as to Sir Thomas Preston.

What say you as to Sir Thomas Preston?

I saw him at Liege.

When?

All the months of March, April, May, and June, he was still there.

When went he away?

In the time of the Vacancies.

When is that?

That is from the beginning of August, till the end of September.

When came he again?

When they came to School again, and that was in the 2d. or 3d. of October.

Were you with hm all that time?

Yes, I was. He hath not been in England these three years.

How long have you been there?

I have been there four years, and I never knew that he was absent, but [...]n the time of nhe Vacancies.

Call another Witness.

Then stood up another Witness, who being a Dutch man, and not speaking English, an Interpreter was called for him also.

Well, what comes he for?

He says he comes to testifie. That Sir John Warner was at Watton in A­pril; and he says he saw him there, from the 14th of April, to the 25th of April.

And then to what time?

He says he was there till the 16th of May?

Ask him where he was the beginning of April?

He says he was Superior there in the House, and did govern.

Ask him where he was in the latter end of May?

He says he was likewise in the House, save only one day, when he went to St. Omers.

Then he might have said, in short, he was there all April and May.

Call another Witness.

Call John Joseph.

What do you ask him, Mr. Langhorn?

That which I say is this, That Sir, Thomas Preston was at Liege in March, April, May, and June, in the year 1678

Did you see him every day in those months?

That I cannot well tell.

Did you see him every other day?

Yes, my Lord, I believe I did once in two or three days.

Where was he in July?

He was at Liege too. He was obliged to be so; but in the time of the Va­cancies in August, he was absent.

Then you say he was all those months, March, April, May, June & July there.

Yes, my Lord, those four months I am sure of it.

What became of him in August, when he went, during the Vacancies, a­broad? Do you know whither he went?

Do you know whether he went into England?

I never heard that he was in England.

When did he return again?

When they began School, and that is in the beginning of October.

Then another Witness stood up.

Well, what say you?

I can say that Mr. Oats never stirred out of the Colledge at that time when he says he came to England, that is, he says he came upon monday the 25th of April, but he did not, for that day he went into the Infirmary, and he stayed at Saint Omers all April and May.

And how much longer?

A great of Junes

Was he there the 20th of June?

I am sure he was, but how much longer I cannot tell.

Where was he in February and March?

He was there too; in January he lay our one night, and that was at Wotton, but I am sure he did not come over the 24th of April, N. S. as he says.

Now he says, it is New Stile, not Old Stile, as he said yesterday.

Then another Witness stood up.

Well, what do you say?

Mr. Poole was sick, and I can remember when his Nephew went to [Page 35]him into the Infirmary before he went away from the Colledge, and he gave him good Counsel, as he said, and I remember that Mr. Brett was sick at Watton, and did come home again on Horseback, and I believe he did not stir out; and Mr. Poole was at St. Omers, I am sure I saw him once in two or three days all April and May. He went by the name Kilingbeck.

But he does not positively say he say Sir Robert Brett every day there, he says he believes he did.

He came into the School and gave the [...]oys Questions to dispute of.

Call the rest of your Witnesses.

Then another witness was called and stood up.

When did you see Mr. Oates at St. Omers?

I saw him almost every other day from the time he came till he went away.

When was the first time you saw him?

The beginning of December.

Did you see him in April there?

Yes, I saw him in April there at an Action.

And did you see him in May there?

Yes, I can testifie I saw him the first day of May in the Garden.

How long staid he there?

Till June.

How came you to take such precise notice?

By his very place I could not but take notice if he were missing.

How can you say you saw him in the Garden the first of May?

I'll tell your Lordship, why, because there was a great Feast, and he played at Nine-pins in the Garden, and I can tell what they played for.

What say you as to Mr. Nevil, and Sir Robert Brett's being at St. Omers.

I did not take so much notice of Sir Robert Brett, as for Nevil, I think [...] saw him once in three days.

And there is nothing said of him here.

Then another witness stoop up.

When did you see Mr. Oates first at St. Omers?

I first saw him in the month of December.

Did you see him in April and May?

Yes, my Lord, I did.

Was he there all those months?

Yes, my Lord, he was.

Was he there all the month of June?

He went away towards the latter end of June?

Yesterday you said the latter end of July. Call another witness.

Then another witness stood up.

Come, you hear the Question, Did you see Mr. Oats at St Omers, in the month of April?

Yes, my Lord, he was there all the month of April?

Was he there all the month of May?

Yes, my Lord, he was.

And a good part of June?

Yes, my Lord.

What do you say as to mr. Poole?

I saw mr Poole in the infirmary the third day of May.

How came you to take notice of it so well, as to remember it that was the third of May?

It was a Festival day. And the Feast we kept was the Invention of the Holy Cross. We had the Action the day before, and some that were in the Infirma­ry would have it Acted over again to them, and we did so. My Lord, within one or two days after, Mr. Hilsley went away, I discoursed with Mr. Oates about half an hour, he came out within a day or two after out of the Infirmary, and I saw him walking in the Gallery. And again, the 2d of May I saw him walking with one Mr. Burnaby, who arrived the day before, the first of May, and then I saw him the 3d, 4th, and fifth; in this Burnabys company; I saw him again the 26th of May, with a Band about his head in order to confirmation, for they alwayes have a Linnen Cloth bound about their head at such a time.

Call another.

VVhat can you say?

All that I can say is this, that between the said month of December, 1677, and June 1678. which is the time in Question, mr. Oates was never out ofthe Colledge, above one night. when he went to VVatton in January, and this is certain, that from the time that I saw him first, till the time he went away for altogether, there were not 2 days that passed away wherein I did not see him, except in the month of March, and when he was n the Infirmary the 24th of April, but then I heard that he was there—

VVho did tell you so?

The man that keeps that part of the House; and coming into my Office af­ter my Revovery out of a fit of sickness a week before Christmas or thereabouts, I saw Mr. Oates by this Circumstance, The Servitors of the House said they were glad to see me, and Mr. Oates being in that Place at the Refectory that was assigned to him I ask­ed who he was, and they told me such an one, but I had heard of his admission a few dayes before. Likewise Mr. Oates was there when mr. Hilsley came for England, which was about the 24th of April, by his circumstance, that he was present in the Refectory with some of the Scholars. mr. Richard Burnaby came to the Colledge about a week after mr. Hilsley went away. & mr. Oates was actually there then, & we did very much won­der that he became acquainted with him so quickly after his arrival. I say Mr. Oates was actually there when mr. Killingbeck and mr. Conquest came for England about the 3d. of May, by this circumstance, that I had some discourse with mr. Oats, & some others of the Scho­lars, that Mr. Conquest would by no means get out of his Bed betimes that day he was to go away, being unwilling to leave the Colledge. He wa there the 26th of May by this cir­cumstance, that the Bishop dined there that day, & Mr. Oats was there confirmed that day. Mr. Oates was there also in June my Lord.

Yes he was there in June, he does not deny it.

And was he there all May?

Yes, my Lord, he was, and all April, except the time he was in the Infirmary, which was 3. or 4 days.

What do you say as to Pool and Nevil?

They were there all the whole time in Question, and they were never absent any competent time co come to England as he says.

We must not allow that, you must tell us what time they were there, that we may know it.

They were there in March, April, May, June and July.

But did you see him every day from the beginning of Christmas to the time he went away in June?

Yes except the time be was at Watton, and when he was in the Infirmary.

But was not Mr. Oates twice in the infirmary?

He was I Remember there on St. Thomas of Canterbury's Day, and I remember he was there in April.

I did hear you say something of some body that was absent five or six days, was it you?

I was sick in the month of March, and I was in the Infirmary till about the twelve or fourteen day.

And did you see him there all that time?

I excepted that time, but I heard his voice once in that time in the next Room to the Infirmary, where I was by this Circumstance; He used to come to a Table by himself, and it was neer the Door, and Nevil and Poole were there, as I said before.

He speaks much more to the purpose to day Mr. Langhorn than he did Yesterday.

And much louder.

I hope your Lordship will take notice that he speaks likewise of the Re­sidence of Mr. Poole, Sir Robert Brett, and Mr. Nevil

Yes I do, Call another Witness.

(VVho stood up, and being a Foreigner, his Evieence was likewise Interpreted.)

Ask him what he says.

He says he saw Mr. Oates, he was there, and he remebers it, till about the 25th of June.

Where did he see him?

He says it was either in the House, or in the Garden.

When was that, that he wa in the Infirmary?

He says, he was in the Infirmary towards the latter end of December or beginning of January.

Ask him what he says about Nevil and Poole.

He says they were there all June, and that Mr. Pool went away in the months of July; and he further says, that he being a Waterman; he carried this same VVilliams and March in his Boat the last Sunday in April.

Who is your next, Mr. Lanhorn? let him stand up: (which he did) when did you see mr. Oate at St. Omers?

In the month of April, 1678.

And in May too was he?

Yes, he was.

Was mr. Poole there all that time?

Yes, he was and so was mr. Nevil and mr. Breet.

Where is Nevil now?

I believe I left him there.

What are these persons?

The one is a Prefect, and I believe he is there still. In the month of May I made mr. Killingbeck a sute of clothes, and mr. Oates came into the shop, and asked me whose clothes they were? I said mr. Killingbecks: said he, how can that be? they are black: said I they must be black, for he is in mourning.

Here is mr. Grove's wife and his maid. Then Mis. Grove stood up.

What question would you ask of her?

Mr, Oates hath sworn, and given us several circumstances of his coming o­ver, and being here at that which he calls the Consult, and that he lay at mr. Groves three or four nights; I desire she may be asked that question, whether he did so or no?

Do you know mr. Oates, Mrs. Grove?

No I never saw him.

Were there any lodgers lay at your house in April was Twelve month.

Yes, my Lord there were.

Do you use to have lodgers that you do not know?

My house was full of lodgers at that time: I did not know them till they lay there

Why then, mr. Oate. might be there, and you not know him?

If he lay there, I must needs know him.

Why might not a man lye with any of your lodgers three or four Nights & you not know him?

Who should he lye withall my Lord?

I had a bed to my self when I lay there.

Mr. Oates describe the chamber as well as you can.

It was a place taken out of another Room, where two men were taken out, that were committed to prison?

Were there any persons taken out of your house, and sent to prison?

Yes, my Lord, there were.

In that very room he lay out of which those persons were taken.

He did not

Upon my Oath I did lye there three or four nights more or less.

You were in a disguise Sir at that time, were you not, and went by another name, and so the woman might not know you?

Yes, I did so:

You cannot make any great matter of this, she had some lodgers and she knew them, but he went by a wrong name, and was in a disguise.

Mrs. Grove says, she knew all the lodgers that then lay there, pray ask her if she did not?

Do you remember who lodged in your house in April was a twelve month?

Yes, I do.

Name them.

Why, there was one pair of stairs', one mr. Strange by Name, and one mrs. Firz-Herbert, and above there lay my Sister.

What all the month of May and April?

Yes.

And not in June?

I am not demanded of June:

She answers exactly to them two months, what say you to March?

They were there in March.

Who lay in the Room from whence the men were taken that were carried to prison?

There was one mster Crupper, and another young man that lay with him.

Why might not hat be mr. Oates?

He was one that was a Prisoner by mr. Oates Orde. And mrs Fitzherbert lay there.

What, in tha Room whence the young men were taken out in April or May.

Yes, my Lord.

Well, what say you to the other months, Marth, and June, and July?

I was not to be Examined further than the two Months I spoke of before.

Look you, she says; that for April and May two Gentlemen had the Lodg­ing that Mr. Oates says he lay in; but for any other time she was not to be examined. Well, have you any more witnesses?

Here in Mrs. Grove's Maid:

Maid, Can you tell who lay in Groves house in April and May was twelve-month?

Yes, my Lord, I can.

Who were they?

There was my Mistresses Brother and Sister lay there.

Do you know them all? what men lay there?

None but Master Strange, my Lord.

Mistris Groves said, that her house was full.

Ineed my Lord, there was her Brother, Mr. York and his Wife.

But who is that Fitzherbert?

she is a Gentle woman.

Who lay there in march? And who lay there in July?

master Strange and Mistress Fizherbert.

How long did they lye there?

In April, May, June, July and August.

She sayes, they lay there in March, April, May, June, July and August, and her mistress said, they were there but a quarter of a year, only she said she was to be exa­mined no further.

My Lord, I desire to prove a Copy of the Record in the Lords house.

That is not to be given in Evidence here.

You know how far such a thing will be Evidence, manage your own evidence-well.

It is an Extract out of the journal of the House of Lords.

VVhat particular do you pitch upon?

About those persons who, he says, came over with him from St. Omers.

North. Do you think it Reasonable, that any man should come to answer now all that ever he hath sworn in his life? If you can shew any Record to contradict what he hath sworn here, shew it. Do you think he can come prepared to justifie all he haht sworn in any other place?

He referred to that himself.

No, he does not.

But he hath said over and over, that Sir John Warner came over with him, Sir Thomas Preston, and Poole.

What should you urge that Book for? Can you make any other proof?

I would have the persons called that took the Narrative of Irelands Trya.

If you have any more Witnesses, call them.

Won't your Lordship allow me to prove by Witnesses what he affirmed [...]n relation to me at another Tryal?

By no means, you must not meddle with that:

Pray, my Lord, why not? I will prove the words spoken by a VVitness.

You must not, that is no Evidence against you, nor can it be an Evi­lence for you:

Then you take off the Defence that I have, & make it as if I had never any:

That is not evidence in a Civil Cause, and therefore must not be [...] ­dence here.

What do you come for, Sir? what is your Name.

My Name is Castlemain.

Are you my Lord of Castlemain?

Yes, my Lord, I am.

Does your Lordship come as a witness for Mr. Langhorn? Mr. Langhorn, do you call my Lord of Castlemain?

My Lord, I do not know what he comes for, whether he comes as a witness for me or not, perhaps he may.

My Lord, I come to wait upon your Lordship and the Court to give you an account, that some of the witnesses that were summoned here for the Pri­soners are so beaten and abused without, that they dare not come to give their Evi­dence, for fear of being killed.

That is a thing that is not to be suffered, let us but see my person that dares but offer to meddle with them, and I'le assure you we will take care to see them punished according as they do deserve.

'Tis a very unjustifiable thing, a thing that we will very severely punish, if they be hindred of free ingress and regress.

Indeed 'tis a very horrid thing that they should be so abused, they ought to have their liberty of coming and giving their Evidence here without any molestation.

I can assure your Lordship, that one of them was so beaten and bruised, that we cannot tell but it may cost him his life.

Nay, we must look to such a thing as that; for it is by no means to be al­lowed of. If your Lordship will but tell us who they are, let us but know them, and we will take care for the punishment of them; for we will shew our selves just and fair, and give them all the fair play that can be.

have you any more Witnesses?

Call the woman that kept the white-horse-Tavern.

To what purpose do you call this woman?

I desire, my Lord, to ask one Question of Mr. Oates, touching the Con­sult at the white-horse Tavern in the Strand: How many persons met there?

Before that Question be asked, I pray your Lordship would ask her when she came to the white-horse-Tavern to keep it?

I don't keep it now.

When did you keep it?

I kept it in June, and I left it the beginning of July.

She does not come to the time.

Did you keep it all the year before that?

I kept it seven years before, till July last.

I would know of him, How many might be there at that time.

What number of persons do you say met at that Consult?

That Question, if it please your Lordship, hath no reference to this Tri­al, neither is it at all material, but because I have given the Prisoners so much free­dom, they impose upon me with questions.

'Tis a Question they cannot expect a precise Answer to from you But yet I would have you give them as satisfactory an Answer as you can, what num­ber there might be there at a time.

My Lord I think there might be at the white-horse-Tavern at a time a­bout eighteen or twenty.

Were they in one Room, or in several Room,?

They were in two or three Rooms.

Is this Mr. Oates, my Lord?

Yes, that he is.

Was there no body never in your Tavern but who you knew? what can you tell all the people that were ever in your Tavern?

The most of my Company were people that I knew.

What is your Company?

Those that frequented my house.

Can you say who was in your house April 24, 1678?

No, my Lord, I will not undertake that, but I will give you as true an ac­count as I can.

I'll tell you why I ask this Question, Mr. Oates, did say in his Depositi­ons before the Lords, there met fifty.

At several times in the day.

But this must all be in the morning.

Who so? suppose there met of that Company twenty in the morning, and then some went away, and others came in their Room, and so they did for di­vers times in the day, is not this properly said of me, that there might be about fifty at that Consult.

He saith in Colemans Trial there met fifty upon the 24th of April, and afterwards they adjourned into lesser Colloquies.

I say they met there the 24th day, but the Consult was not dissolved till the 26th day at night.

You must go only upon what is sworn now. And we ask the Question upon your Proposal, How many were there at a time? and he says a­bout eighteen or twenty at a time. Now if he proves there were eighteen at one time, twenty at another time, and ten at another, that makes about fifty.

Good woman, is your house a little house?

'Tis a small inconsiderable house, there is not a Room in it that will hold above a dozen, I never remembred so great a Company was in my house at one time but once in all my seven years, and that was a Jury of the Parish, and they could not be together, but were divided into three Rooms.

Then there stood up a Stranger who was sworn.

Well, Sir, do you know the White Horse Tavern in the Strand?

Yes, my Lord, I do very well.

Do you know the biggest Room in the House?

Yes, I do, my Lord.

How many my dine there?

It may be twenty people, I have seen a dozen or sixteen there often.

Did you know the Tavern a year ago?

Yes, my Lord, this was a year ago.

Then a second witness stood up in the Court, and said, that twenty five or thirty might dine in one Room that was backward, and another that was forward And a third attested, that he was at a wedding and there did dine above twenty in one Room next the street.

If she make a Jury to be in three Rooms, that i but four in a Room.

Those Juries are sixteen generally or more.

My Lord, I don't know this Tavern my self; but I thought it very considerable, if they had not a Room that would hold such a number as he spoke of, fifty.

But you see how unfortunately it happens, the matter had not been much, if it had been proved; but it is very unlucky that these persons should be here in Court by whom the other is contradicted, it had been better it were ne­ver medled with. That she should be so peremptory in what standers by know to be false, makes this contradiction in one thing to give a suspicion, that all your witnes­ses may be false in all the rest.

Here is a Gentleman of good. Quality that saith, there have been fifty in a Room.

My Lord, I hope neither the Court nor the Jury will reflect upon me for this.

No, it can't do that, but it reflects upon your Evidence, especial­ly this woman.

I have been a Prisoner so long, and I know nothing but what Friend and Relations inform me.

The thing was reasonably offered, but it proves so unfortunately will not hold. Have you any more witnesses to call?

Yes, my Lord.

I pray call them.

My Lord, I desire I may examine them after the Kings Counsel have done.

You may say what you will for your desence, but you must ex­amine no new witnesses then, Mr. Langhorn.

I must ask this Gentleman a Question or two, if the Court think sit.

Propose them to the Court, what is it you would have?

My Lord, it is in relation to a matter that happened at Irelands Tryal I know not whether it be proper, but the Question I would ask is, whether Ireland were here in August or no?

He hath given you no occasion to ask this Question at this Tryal [...] And is there any reason that we should examine him to such a thing? Do you thin [...] it reasonable, or according to Law, that Mr. Oates should be examined in your T [...] a concerning what he then said of Irelands being here in August, or not being here when 'tis no part of his accusation that he brings against you? Can he be imagines to be prepared for such a Justification, since he does not at all give any Evidence of is here?

Since he gave not any occasion or use for such a proof now at this time, 'tis not sit he should be examined about it: Indeed yesterday he gave it in Evi­dence, because it concerned a circumstance of time that related to the Prisoners the [...] to be tried.

'Tis true, as my Lord says. That it was yesterday proper, because he gave Evidence that Fenwick and Ireland were here in August together. Now this did some way concern him, but you have no concern at all in it.

That brought it in at that time, but this is a foreign matter it cannot be here.

Have you any more witnesses, master Langhorn?

My Lord, Mr. Oates hath affirmed, when I asked him touching his receiving Re­ward, he said, he had his Reward, for he had been out of purse six or seven hundred pound, and it is my desire to examine a couple of witnesses touching the probability of that; for he was so very poor before this happened, that it is impossible without [...] [Page 43]Purse being made for him to lay out fix or seven hundred pound.

Look you, here is the thing, he gives you an Answer to which he was not in the least bound, nor is it to be charged by you; he sayes he is out 700 l. but that is not any Evidence, nor is the Jury to take notice of it, nor is it to affect him. And would you have him give us an account how he came by that money?

My Lord, I'll tell you how far it concerns me, the proving of his Indi­gency before this thing happened, will concern me thus far, —

If you should prove this man in an indigent condition, what is that to the present purpose, it goes to no part of the Evidence.

My Lord, I ask the Question for this Reason, for certainly if he were so very indigent, it cannot be imagined in probability that any man would trust him with such a great sum, unless it were to give this Evidence.

If you have any more witnesses call them, and make an end of them; if not, then you may observe what you will to the Court and Jury after the Kings Council have done.

But all your witnesses you must call now.

Doth your Lordship debar me from using this Copy of the Record of the House of Lords?

To what purpose would you have it read?

Because Bedloe therein says, that he had no person more to charge either in the house or out of the house, than what he then charged.

What then?

I was not one of those persons, then he knew nothing against me.

'Tis but a memorial taken by a Clerk, and do you think that his Omissi­on shall be conclusive to us?

'Tis the journal of the Lords House, my Lord.

But can you think that can be used as Evidence here? If you had an Affidavit signed by the party, and had witnesses to prove that he did make such an Oath, you say something.

You cannot read that against his Testimony, you understand that being a Lawyer. If you have any witnesses call them, but you pick out collataral mat­ters, and spend our time to no purpose.

Really if it were a thing conducing to the point, I would very much stretch; but it being such a kind of thing as this is, he says he had nothing to say against any bedy else, and I was not named then: what is this to the Fact you are charged with?

Why, it may be he did not remember it then, will you conclude him that he should never remember it, or speak of it?

You see that now at these Trials, he says sometimes, this is all I can re­member at present, but by and by he recollects himself; would you hinder him from saying then what he remembers?

Besides, upon an Affidavit or an Answer in Cliancery we never al­low it, unless we have the party to prove that he took the Oath.

I desire to know of Mr. Oates, whether he did distribute any of these Com­missions, and to whom? for he hath said I did.

That which I say is this, those Commissions that I named they were di­stributed, but the persons I do not know; I know the Commissions were for those [Page 44]five persons, and in July or August he did say he had distributed them, but he said not to whom, only one indeed the sent by his Son to the eldest Son of the Lord Arundel of Warder to be Commissary General, and he came back, and said, it was delivered.

You do not speak of any other?

I do not recollect that I know of any other.

I ask for this reason, because, in the Lords house he hath charged me, that I sent my Lord Arundels Commission, and that I sent it by my son, and that he saw a letter in my Chamber of the receipt of it.

My Lord, there is some part of the Evidence that does reflect upon the Lords, which I charge not upon Mr Langhorn, because I would not discover my Evi­dence against the Lords, He goes now to expatiate upon the Informations, but I hope the Court will excuse me because I reserve it for another Trial.

I desire Mr. Lydcot may be asked whether he did not hear Master Oates at a former Trial, say, (for so I find it in the Narrative,) (it was at Colemans Trials) that he came to me the next day after the Consult, and communicated it to me, and that he never saw me afterwards.

Do you know any Testimony Mr. Oats gave concerning Mr. Langhorn?

You are not the person that took the Trial, are you?

I know nothing of the business at all, I was at the Trial, but I cannot parti­cularly speak what was said there.

The persons that took the Trial were summoned to be here. Call Mrs. Sylliard. (But she appeared not) Call Mr. Blayney.

Here is Mr. Blayney, what would you ask him?

I would know of him what Mr. Oates hath testified concerning me?

Do you know what Mr. Oates said concerning Mr. Langhorn?

When, my Lord?

Nay, I cannot tell.

At Colemans Trial, Sir.

My Lord, I was present at Colemans Trial, and I remember Mr. Oates did say son ething about Mr. Langhorn, but I have not my Book here, I cannot tell what it was.

Here is the Book, Sir, here is his Narrative.

That was not printed by my Copy, Sir.

Who were they that did take it?

Of my own knowledg I don't know whose Copy it was, but by hear say.

It was taken as well as it could be taken, but you must not urge that which is but an Historical Narrative against him.

Mr. Langhorn, do you think to convict a man by an History? To say that a man is forsworn because he does not swear as that History says he did swear

We will do you all the right, and give you all the fair play we can; but we are of opinion that it signifies nothing, that you can make no use of it.

If I can have no light, how can I imagine what they will charge me with?

Have you in any other Case observed it? If a man be indicted of Felony or Treason, any Capital Crime, he is clapt up, and is not permitted to have a Copy of the Indictment nor he cannot by Law.

They know something of what they are accused for, they are confronted before a Justice of Peace.

Why, I'll suppose you had been examined, do you think your Examination would have been Evidence for you here?

Then one Elizabeth Sylliard was called, but affirming, That She durst not speak, un­less the Court would promise her protection against the Rabble, because some of the Wit­nesses had been abused; which the Court not being able to do otherwise than by pro­mising to punish those that offered to meddle with her if she brought them before them, She was, by Mr. Langhorns consent, set aside, and not examined.

She comes in relation to a point that happened at Readings Trial, where Mr. Bedloe did depose, That he did not say all he could have said against Mr. White­bread, and Mr. Fenwick, but he knew more against them than he gave in Evidence at their first Trials.

What is that to you?

That I take to be a kind of Perjury in him; for they are sworn, To speak the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

Is this mateiral in your Case what he said about Whithebread and Fenwick?

It makes it material to make him uncreditable.

Mr. Whitebread made that objection, but he was answered; for he was told, that he could not tell all that he knew at that time, because he was in treaty with Mr. Reading about the lessening his Evidence against them, and the Lords in the Tower, and the Lords were to judge what measure they should have from him by his kindness to Whitebread and Fenwick. If you have no more, the Kings Coun­sel will go on.

My Lord & Gentlemen of the Jury, you have heard the Evidence that Mr. Langhorn hath given for the making of his defence, which hath been principally to reflect upon Mr. Oates; and he first calls mr. Hilsly to prove that whereas mr. Oates did swear he came over with him, he affirms he did not; but it falls out, that mr, Oates hath counterproved him by such a circumstance as does contradict him in what he says; for speaking of the loss of his money, Hilsly said, some body else had told him of it; but producing his Witness for that, he only offirms, that Mr. Oates in his company was told, that mr. Hilsly had lost his money, but not how nor where; but mr. Oates gives you a particular circumstance, that he was cheated by a person he lent his money to, and that left him to pay the reckoning, which m. Hilsly does confess was true, and which he could not hear from the others, for the others did never know it Gentlemen, they have brought you a great many other witnesses to prove, that Mr. Oates was not in England on the 24th of April, the time he says he was, and they all agree to that time, [...]ho' as to other times they are not so exact; but we shall give you as plain and as full an Evidence that he was here at that time as that you are there now, and shall very fully satisfie you in it For that of Sir John Warner, and Sir Thomas Proston they are matters, that were transacted beyond Sea, to be sure they did not come over by those Names, no more did mr. Oates himself; therefore it would be hard to find out these Persons, or to give you so particular an account of them that were thus in Disguises, and had changed their Names: but truly if that were a matter done in England, it were far more easie for us to confront their Testimony in that; for matters that are done here [...]ye more ready for our proof than those that are done beyond Sea; for the last woman that he called which was the woman about the White Horse Tavern, her Evidence [Page 46]would have gone as punctually for truth, if it had been a matter done in Flanders as any thing could be in the world: but it happening to be near home, it hath the ill fortune to meet with a very sudden Answer, which is a manifest proof how they stretch to help themselves, and in my opinion this contradiction overthrows all their Evi­dence. Gentlemen, we will call our Witnesses, and prove it as plainly as any thing can be in the world, that Mr. Oates was here at that time. First swear VVill. VValker (which was done)

Do you know Mr Oats

Yes, Sir, I have known him seven or eight years.

VVhen did you see him in England last year?

I saw him the latted end of March 1678. or towards the middle of April following, I saw him then in a disguise, in so much as that I knowing what he was & what he had been I could not a great while recollect the face of the man, & it was a great trouble tom, that having known him so many years, I should not then know him. I went home, but could not recollect my self that night; but before I rose again the next morning I did recollect my self that it was Titus Oats, and I presently turned my self out of my bed and went to a Gentlewon an whose name I did not then well know to inquire of her about it. After the Salutation, said I, How does Mr Oats said she, knocking her hand upon the Counter, He is an undone man: VVhy, what is the matter, said I, He is turned, said she, to the Church of Rome: Do you know where he is, said I? No, said she, but he is lurking up and down the Town, and only dares appear in the even­ings, Well then, said I, I saw him later than you did; for I saw him between St. Martins lane and Leicester house yesterday, but he was in a disguise and I told her what habit he was in.

What time was that?

It was about ten of the Clock in the morning.

But what time of the year was it?

It was the litter end of March, or the middle of April.

It was before the end of April?

Ay, Ay, my Lord.

And that contradicts all your Witnesses; for they say, that he was there all March and all April and all May, nay from December to June.

He hath said the latter end of March, or the middle of April, I would have him be as certain as he can.

He cannot be certain; for those things in point of time, you know and all mankind must agree, that a thing done a year ago that was of no greater im­portance at that time, cannot so easily be remembred, or that he should take such special notice of the critical day. What man in the world does remember or take notice so as to charge himself in what week or what month such an accidental thing as this happened? But to satisfie M. Langhorn I ask you, can you speak any more particularly than you have done?

Because I would not be mistaken or do any one any wrong, I do rather take an uncertain time then a certain, but I do think it was in the month of April, and towards the middle of the month, that is all I can say.

But how [...]he sure, since he is so uncertain in his memory, that this was 1078. and not 1677?

Because, my Lord, it was but a little more than a year since, & I am [Page 47]able to judge of the year as well as another.

Do you remember what you went about?

I was wont about that time of year to receive money of my Lord. Thomas Howard, and upon that Errand I come to Town then.

But are you sure it was Mr. Oates that you saw?

Yes, my Lord; for according to my apprehension I did know the face when I first saw it, but I could not recollect who it was till I had refreshed my memory, and the next morning I did so, and then concluded it was he.

How came you hither?

I was brought here for a VVitness.

Did you discover this to Mr. Oates or did mr. Oates first come to you, to put you in mind of it?

I had discoursed with some persons about it a while after the Plot was discovered, and so I suppose it came by accident to him.

Then Mrs. Ives was sworn and stood up.

Well, mistress, what say you?

This is the Gentleman that told me this business.

What did he tell you?

He asked me when I saw Titus Oates? I told him I had not seen him a long time, that he was gone beyond Sea: he asked me, if I never saw nor heard from him since? I told him, No; but of late some of his friends had told me, that he was about the Town, and that they had seen him, but they did not know the place where he lodged. Then said he, I have seen him since you; for I was yesterday go­ing into L [...]ie [...]ster. fields, and going along I saw him, for he was in Colloured Cloths; and very much altered from what he had been.

When was this? How long was it agoe?

It was about the middle of April was twelve-month, and I remember it by a very good token; for his Father mr. Oates came then to my house to see me, and that is the first month that our new thin Cheeses come in, and I did then ask him if he would not come in and eat some new thin Cheese, and when he was come in and sate down eating of Cheese, and drinking a draught of drink, I was a saying to him, pray, Sir, when did you see your Son? Said he, I have not seen him of late, I heard from him a little while ago, but I have not seen him; Then, said I, I can tell you news of him. Here was such a Gentleman in my Shop that says he met him in Leicester field, but in a disgui [...]e, and he told me what habit he was in.

Set up Butler.

How long have you known mr. Oates?

I have known him two or three years before he went to Sea.

When did you see him last year?

When he came back, he came to my masters house the beginning of May last was twelve month.

Who is your master?

Richard Barker, my Lord.

What did he come there for?

He came to enquire for Doctor Tongue.

Did you know him?

Yes, I did.

Are you sure that's he?

This is the Gentleman.

And what said he?

I was in the Gate about my Coach, and he comes in and asked me if Dr. Tongue was within: I told him no; at present I did not know him, because he was in such a disguised habit; I knew him very well before, because he went in such an habit he does now; but this is the man, and Titus Oates is his name. Said I, mr. Oates you are welcome into England again, but he took no notice but went forward into the house, but he made but a little stay there, and came out again; it seems somebody had affronted him, and laughed at him, because he was more like a Shepherd than a Minister: His hair was cut and had a gray Coat on, and plain Shooes, and a flopping Hat, and so he went out of the Gate, and would not take any notice of me, or what I said.

How does he know it was in 1678, and not 1677. He says it was in the month of May was twelve-month.

I know it by this circumstance: In February I went down into Lincolnshire, and I came up again the same month: Sir Rich. Barker was then sick and in the Country and there he was a great while, and when he came to Town I did acquaint my master that, Dr. Oates was there to enquire for Dr. Tongue in the strangest habit that ever I saw m [...]n in in my life.

How long after he had been there was it that you did tell your master?

It was as soon as my master came back, as soon as I saw him, it might be a week.

Was it about a week or a fortnight?

I do not know exactly,

Then swear Gicily Mayo.

Do you know master Oates?

I never saw his face before that time, nor had I taken notice of him then but that there was a young man that lived with Sir Richard Barker. who had a great ac­quaintance with him, and seeing him in that Garbe, he called me to the window, and said mr. Oates surely is turn'd Quaker, or Jesuit by the change of his habit no said I [...] he is ro Quaker, for he hath got a Perriwig on.

Maid, when was this?

This was before Whitsontide.

Which Whitsontide?

Whitsontide was twelve-month.

How long before that was it?

It was a matter of a fortnight before, as I remember.

Are you sure you know him now?

Yes this is the man.

Did you tell your master of it?

I was not so well acquainted with him as to speak to Sir Richard Barker about it, but the other Servants they told him.

Set up Philip Page. (Who was sworn.) Do you know mr. Oats

Yes, my Lord, I have known him these five years.

When did you see him?

About May was twelvemonth.

Where?

In Sir Richard Barker's house.

Are you sure this was the man?

Yes, I am sure it was he.

What time in May was it?

About the beginning of M [...]

And you take it upon your O [...]th that you saw Mr. Oates the beginning [...] May wa [...] twelvemonth in Sir Richard Barker's house.

Yes, my Lord, I do.

What is become of the B [...] that spoke to the woman about him?

He is dead, my Lord.

Then swear Sir Richard Barker.

Do you know Dr. Oates, Sir?

I have known him these many years, I have known him from a Child.

Did you see him about a year ago?

my Lord, I did not see him then; I was out of town, but as the ser­vants tell your Lordship, so they told me, when I came home, that mr. Oates had been there in a strange kind of habit, that he was either turned Quaker, or Jesuite. I did very much admire at it, sor I had seen his Father but a little while before, and he told me nothing of it. I had a mind to have give him a Living while he was in our Church.

When did your Servants tell you they saw him?

They told me when I came home, which was in the latter end of Whisun-week, or the beginning, as I remember.

Was it in Whitsuntide?

It was about that time; they told me the odd kind of posture he was in, and that young Fellow that they speak of told me several passages of Mr. Oates (He is now dead)

But when did they speak of it to you?

My Lord, when I came home, two or three of them told me of it with great admiration, as they have told your Lordship and the Court; and I said to one of them, What! did he leave no message? They told me he enquired for Dr. Tonge, and asked for me, but that was all that they told me.

Come, was it in May?

Yes, my Lord, it was May was twelvemonth.

How do you know it was in May was twelvemonth?

It was last year, about the beginning of May.

North, Nay, he tells you this, when you asked him the Question, whether he knew Mr. Oates? Yes, said he, I did know him sormerly; and when he was of our Church I did intend to have given him a Benefice.

Certainly his change, that is, his becoming a Roman Catholick, could not be a thing so strange that he should intend then to give him a Benefice.

But hark you, Sir, I suppose you remember it by your own Sickness very well.

Yes, my Lord, very well; I had a little distemper upon me, and Dr. Needham of the Charter-house came to see me; and I Jay sick a matter of six or seven Weeks, and the latter end of my sickness I continued taking of Physick till I came to Town.

But you are sure of the year by that?

Yes, my Lord, and Yesterday I should have acquainted your Lord­ship and the Court, that there are some persons, not unknown to some of the Bench, if not near ally'd to them, and that is Sir William Tyrrills Family, of Lincolnshire, his Grandson, who had been at Cambridge, and then came to visit me, though I happened not to be at home, (they being my Wives Relations) and it was before Witsontide, because he came to take the advantage of that Season of the Year: and he had convers­ed with Mr. Oates, but he is not in Town at present; and there are two or three of the University that conversed with Mr. Oates at that time.

Are they here?

I only tell it you for a Circumstance.

Then set up Mr. Clay.

Do you know Mr. Oates?

Yes, I know him very well

How long have you known him?

Since last April was a Twelve-month.

Where did you see him then?

I saw him at Mr. Howards my Lord.

What Howard? one of my Lord of Norfolks Brothers?

Yes, my Lord.

What is his Christian Name?

His Name is Mr. Charles Howard, my Lord.

Where was it?

In his house.

Where was his house?

It was part of Arundel House, 'tis now made a new Street.

Did you speak with him there?

Yes, we saluted one another, and he said, Your Servant, Sir. I am sure I saw him there.

How often did you see him in that House?

Twice.

In April and May.

Yes, in April, and in the beginning of May.

I asked you if you do remember any circumstance of it, to bring this to your memory?

By what token do you remember it, that it was April and May.

By this Token, that Mr. Charles Howard told me he was one that was come from beyond the Seas, from St. Omers; and, said he, he hath some thoughts of being a Jesuite, but I think I shall divert him from that.

How do you know that it was that month?

It was in the latter end of April, and beginning of May.

Are you sure it was last year?

Yes, I am, it was in the year 1678.

Was it at Dinner, or no?

No no.

Did he dine there that day?

I did not see him at Dinner, but I saw him there twice.

Are you a Roman Catholick?

Yes, I am of the Church of Rome, but not of the Court of Rome.

That is no new distincton.

North, No, they have the Court of Rome distinct from the Church, and particular Favourites of it, as other Princes have, and there are those that profess themselves of that Religion, that won't acknowledge the exorbitant Power that the Pope claims.

Will your Lordship please to ask him, whether he does remember that mr. Oates did at that time play with mr. Howard's Sor, and instruct him, and talk to him about his learning, and put questions to him.

Did you ta [...]k or put any questions to mr. Howard's Son about learning his Book?

Not any thing that I heard.

Was mr. Howard's son there?

No not in the Room, as I think, I cannot tell certainly, my memory is frail. Then mr. Smith was called and sworn.

How long have you known Dr. Oates.

I knew him before the Fire, he was my Scholar at the School where I was Usher.

What time did you see him last year?

The beginning of May.

How do you know that?

He came to see me, and dined with me.

Where?

At Islington, at my house there.

How long was he with you?

Three or four hours.

What time was it?

It was, as I take it, the first monday in May, and I give this reason for my remembrance why it was in May, because we dined by the Fire side, being a little cold, of which we took particular notice.

And you wondered that you should dine by the Fire side in May?

Was it on a monday in May?

It was on the first monday in May, to the best of my remembrance.

Was there none of the Family there besides?

Yes, there was my Wife there.

Why did you not bring her to testifie the same?

He cannot find his Wife.

North, How long do you say was he with you?

Three or four hours.

What did you talk of?

We talked about his Travels, about his journy into Spain, and to Val­ledolid, and Sallamanca.

Was he in a Priests Habit, or in another Habit?

My Lord, he was in a Cinnamon-coloured Suit, trim'd with green Rib­bons.

We have done with our Evidence, my Lord.

Now, Mr. Langhorn, the Kings Council have done with their Witnesses.

Pray call Mr. Charles Howard and his wife.

I do not think Mr. Charles Howard will appear.

North, I believe he does not think it safe to come here; we know upon what account.

But upon caling after a while he did appear and stood up.

Well, what have you to say to Mr. Howard?

The Question that I would ask him is this; it hath been affirmed here by Mr. Clay, that old Gentleman, that about the end of April, or beginning of May last was a Twelvemonth, he did meet Mr. Oater at Mr. Howards House; I would know the truth of it.

Mr. Howard, you have heard the Question, do you know Mr. Oates?

Yes, my Lord, very well.

How long have you known him?

Above two years.

When was he at your house?

My Lord, he hath been at Arundel house about two years ago, and several times since.

Was he there about a year ago?

thereabouts he was.

Do you think he was there about May was Twelve-month?

My Lord, after July I remember he was there.

Was he there in May?

No my Lord, not to my Remembrance.

Pray Sir, When did your Son dye?

The Fisth of May was two year, 1677.

Why, how does that appear to be any thing in this case; he did not say that Mr. Howards Son was there.

He said he was in the House, but he could not tell whether he was in the Room or no.

You asked him whether he talked any Latin, or asked him any Questions; and he says he cannot tell whether the Son were there in the Room or no.

North, He says, About two years ago I remember he was at my house, and about a year ago, which contradicts all your Witnesses.

No, he says, About two year ago I remember he was there, and about a Twelve­month ago, after July, but he cannot remember whether he was here in April and May was a Twelve-month.

Mr. Oates was in my lodging in April 1677, and then my Child was alive, and dined together with him and Mr. Clay.

That is two years ago?

Yes, my Lord, two years ago Mr. Oates was there with Mr. Clay, but not since.

Call Mr. Clay again to confront him in that.

I did not know Mr. Clay two years ago.

You are mistaken, I believe, for Mr. Clay does pretend that he did but just begin to know Mr. Oates in April was a Twelve-month, and so Oats swear; too.

And he says he knows nothing whether you had a Child died or no.

When was the time that you first knew Mr. Oates?

The latter end of April last year.

Did you ever know him before that time?

I never did.

Do you remember that ever you dined with him?

I do not remember the day exactly, and I do not remember that ever I dined with him.

But he is positive that he did not know him but a year ago.

Do you remember whether Mr. Howards Son was alive?

He had a Son alive at that time.

He had one Son indeed that died a year before Mr. Clay and I met there.

I speak of my eldest Son, who died two years ago.

I never knew him.

Well, 'tis plain there was a mistake in it, he spoke of a Son that was then and is now alive, and you speak of your eldest Son that died two years ago. Have you any more Witnesses Mr. Langhorn?

No, My Lord, I have no more witnesses.

Well, would you say any thing? If you would, say what you have a mind to say.

My Lord, I am charged here by two Witnesses, the first is Mr Oates? If I can prove any one point (in answer to that which he hath given in Evidence) not to be [Page 53]true, then I conceive, my Lord, he ought to be set aside: And I think it hath been clearly proved. That whereas he said Sir Tho. Preston came over with him in April, it hath been clearly proved he was then at L ige; and whereas he hath affirmed, Sir John Warner, Mr. Poole, and two or three more that were at St. Omers came over with him, I have proved that not to be true beyond any contradiction: Then, as the wit­nesses about his own not coming over in April. Mr. Hilsly says he came not over with him in the Pacquet Boat; and the other says that he was sick in the Infirmary after Mr. Hilsly came away: These points being thus proved, I think there can be no credit given to what he says; for I can say, and I know it to be truth, that from November 1677, to this very day I never saw him: I have been a close Prisoner so long, and have had but one weeks time to provide, and therefore must be sain to take such in­formation as my Friends and Relations could pick up, to answer what he hath said in his Narratives, supposing he would have said the same here; therefore I am not able to make any better defence.

Did you never know Mr. Oats?

I have seen him once or twice.

When was that?

In Michaelmas Term, 1677.

Upon what occasion?

He brought me a letter from one of my Sons, my younger Son in Spain, and then he told me he was going to St. Omers. He said he could not be settled in any of the Colledges in Spain, and therefore he would go to St. Omers: and from that day I never saw him till I saw him in the Court: I hope truly I have well proved that he was not here in England when he says he was, but that I must leave to the Jury: But surely these Boys cannot be supposed to have any design, or to be bribed by any Re­ward, for I never saw the Face of any of them till now.

North, They are all Papists, and speak in a general Cause.

If that be an Objection against them, I think it is hard if they are not to be believed because they are Papists and Friends; then the other on the contrary are not to be believed because they are Enemies. I think it is clear that he did not lodge [...]t Groves house, and I think it is clear that he did not come over in the Pacquet Boat with Mr. Hilsly, and that Sir Tho. Preston did not come over with him, nor Warner, nor Pool; and if any of these points be clear for me, I think his Testimony ought to be set [...]side. Now as to what Bedloe says, in truth it is impossible for me to examine any Witnesses, and that I think will be your Lordships Opinion; it will not seem proba­ble that one that was in my way of practice should become a Clerk to register letters, and to keep Accounts of any particular Religious Order, as he makes me to do; or, [...] I were, that I should admit Mr. Bedloe to be privy to those Accounts; but that I [...]ust leave to the Court, my Lord, 'tis impossible to prove a Negative: Mr. Bedloe [...] a person that I have no acquaintance with, truly I do not know that ever I saw him before this time in all my life; though it is possible I may have seen him, but I do [...]ot know that ever I did; Now that I should admit such a person to such a privacy [...] Accounts of this nature, (if I were guilty of them) seems very improbable; but [...]t, as I said, it is impossible to prove a Negative. If I had known what he would [...]ve charged upon me before, perhaps I might have made a better defence; and for [...]ose Witnesses that I have had, they were prepared by such Friends as thought they [...]ould be useful for me. These men have had time to get their Witnesses together: never saw one of mine till they came into the Court: I hope, my Lord, I shall find [Page 54]no disadvantage in my coming here upon the account of my Religion, for that would seem as if you condemned me meerly for that: I disclaim all Principles of Disloyaly, [...] I do assure your Lordship I do believe it is Damnation to any one that shall go about t [...] kill the King, or deprive him of his Government; I shall leave the rest to your Lord ship and the Jury.

The Lord Chief Justices Directions to the Jury against Mr. Langhorn.

Look you, Gentlemen; You have had an Accompt in the fi [...] Part of the Evidence in general, That there was a general Design of bringing in Po­pery; and in order to that, as the best and quickest means to accomplish it, to de stroy the King. And without doubt, they were in the right for that matter: To destroy the King, was the most effectual Course to introduce Popery they could take Whether they would do it or no, is not now any Question; but how much Mr. Lang­horn, the Prisoner at the Bar, is concerned in it; and that depends upon the Testi­mony of Witnesses.

The Testimony that Mr. Oates gives against him, amounts but to thus much: i cannot affirm (says he) that Mr. Langhorn was at the Consult on the twenty fourth of A­pril, at the White-Horse Tavern, where they signed the Agreement to destroy the King But this I can say, That the next day, or within a day or two, I went by Order from the Fathers, Whitebread and Harcourt, to Langhorns Chamber, and acquainted him with what they had agreed upon. And he swears, that Mr. Langhorn did lift up his Hands and Eyes, and pray to God to give them good Success. He tells you further, That after some Talk with him about bringing in of Popery, and destroying of the King, he had al­so Discourse concerning several Commissions; that he saw about seven or eight of them, and that he told him, he had more: One for my Lord Bellasis to be General, and one for himself to be Advocate-General, with others; but those (he says) he saw, and perused then: And though he does not know of the delivery of those several Com­missions, yet he does know of the delivery of one to his Son, to be carried to my Lord Arundels eldest Son; and he does say, That Mr. Langhorn did tell him he had sent it; and Swears, that he had some discourse with him concerning Killing the King.

he comes and swears, That he was there Twice, and that he saw him tran­scribe letters; and that the Effect of one of them was, That they were prepared with Arms, and all things but Money. That the Garrisons also were ready to be deliver­ed up to them, but they staid only for this, and Six Thousand pounds would do it, which the Benedictines were to raise. If that came, then there was nothing wanting. They had an easie King, whom they could destroy as they pleased; an Army in readi­ness, every thing in good posture, and no time like this, to bring in Popery: Which Discourse, he says, was before Mr. Coleman. Here is the Effect then of those Letters which by him were written into a Book, and in which this Plot and this Contrivance was mentioned. These were transcribed by Mr. Langhorn (says he) while Mr. Coleman and I walked in his Chamber. I saw him write them, and he swears it.

Now the matter is this; If these two Witnesses do swear true, then is this Indict­ment of Treason highly proved. For the Contriving To bring in Popery, To levy War, and To kill the King (which, when he was acquainted withal, he life up his Hands and Eyes, and begg [...]d of God to give it good Success; and which Bedlow says was the Ef­fect [Page 55]of the Letters that he transcribed into the Book) Mr. Langhorn himself will not [...]eny to be High Treason? and when this is Sworn here by Two Witnesses, he must [...]ither invalidate their Testimony, or acknowledge it just, if you find him Guilty of the indictment with which he is Charged. Now the Question is, What Defence there is against it?

If I can disprove a Witness in any one material thing that he says, [...]hen will it take off from his Credit in every thing he says. And first as to Mr. Oates, [...]ith he, I did know him, I must confess, but I never saw him since the year 1677. The thing that Mr. Oates charges him with, is in April or May 1678, or thereabouts; and Mr. Langhorn says, he never saw him since 77. Why? Mr. Oates, saith he, was [...] here in England, and produces a great many Witnesses that came from beyond Sea, to testifie that Mr. Oates was there in April and May, and longer. And whereas Mr. Oats says, that there came over in his Company with him Sir John Warner, Sir Tho, [...]ttston, Mr. Poole, and others. He proves by some Witnesses, that Mr, Oates was there [...]oth months; and by others, that Sir John Warner was at Watton, and Sir Tho, Preston [...] Leige, and Poole at St Omers at the time that Mr. Oats says they came over with him: [...]nd this, says he, I hope will be plain Evidence why you should not believe Mr. Oats; [...]nd the rather, because these Witnesses are such (says he) as that I do not so much as [...]ow their Faces; and you will not presume, that People to whom I am wholly a [...]tranger, should come hither from St. Omers, to testifie a Lye for me.

In Answer to this, I say, 'Tis no good Argument for all that; for though I believe shey are Strangers to him, they are not Strangers to the Errand they come about. They some to Defend all the Roman Catholicks, whom we would hang here for a Plot, and they are sent over for that purpose, as far as their Testimony can go. How far that [...]s, Though they are not upon their Oaths, (for the Law will not permit it) I must say [...] you, in favour of the Prisoner at the Bar, as I did to the Jury Yesterday, You must [...]ot take it therefore, as if it were mere Talk and no more; nor reject them too such, because they do not swear: They would swear ('tis likely) if the Law would al­ [...]w it. Only one remark I must observe to you upon their own Evidence: The St. O­ats Gardiner (which is one of them) takes upon him to give a very exact Account, [...] mr Oates, in the months of April and May; but when I came to enquire what the [...]new of him in the months of June and July, he tells you, Those were not the months [...] Question,

But on the other side, did not the Principles of their Religion so teach, and make [...]s to know, that they will not stick at any Wickedness, to propagate it, Did not the be [...]t, and chiefest Doctors of their Church, Preach and Print it: Did not his Holiness, the [...]ope allow it; and never condemn any one Book in the World, that hath Afferted the lawfulness of Depoling and Killing Kings, for separating from their Religion: Did [...]ot they Teach and Practice all sorts of Equivocations, and that a Lye, does God good service, if it be for the Propagation of the Faith: Were not these Young Boys capable shaving this Doctrine inslih'd into them; & were not they bred up in Colledges chiefly [...]serve that End, Then Mr. Langhorn had said something. Neither are those things [...]rtificially objected against them, for the Doctrines of their Church are so False and per­sitious, sordestructive and soo Boody; and the way they take to come off from all Vows, [...]aths, and Sacraments, by Dispensations before hand, or Indulgence and Pardons af­terwards, is a thing still so much worse, that they are really unfit for Human Society, [Page 56]They should g [...]t their Pope, If they would not have it thrown into their Dish, and have it beloved by [...] [...]ay they should get the Pope of Rome to decry and Anathematize such Doctrine [...] of Deposing and Killing Kings, and D [...]charging Subjects from their A [...]leg [...]ance: But that will never be; for his Holiness, the Pope, will keep himself where he is, and will part with nothing that he hath of advantage over any.

Look you, Gentlemen, thus much I cannot omit with a good Conscience to say, The Pro [...]ession, the Doctrines, and the Discipline of the Church of Rome is such, that it does take away a great part of the Faith that should be given to these Witnesses; never­theless we must be fair, & should hear them, if we could not answer what they alleadge, by Evidence to the contrary. Mr. Oates therefore to justify himself, hath produced I think, Seven or Eight VVitnesses, that do prove, that he was here in the latter end of April and beginning of May, which does contradict all their Testimony, who does say he was abroad all along from December to June; and that they saw him every other day.

'Tis true, if we were certain that what these Young-men spake, were indeed so as they say it is impossible for Mr. Oates testimony to be believed. If I were satisfied that really & truly Mr. Oates was not here, but was Six Months together there, and that he hath in­vented this Story & made this himself, I could no longer confide in the Man, nor find Mr. Langhorn Guilty: Yet is not the time really the substance of the thing, though he hath made it so now, because the Consult was the Twenty fourth of April, at which he was present; and he did go ( [...]he sayes) to Mr. Langhorn within a Day or two after to ac­quain him with the resolution of it.

To this end hath Mr. Oates produced Seven or Eight VVitnesses that saw him, as they swear. He hath produced a minister, that says he saw him in a Disguise, but haveing known him before, recollected him to be the man. He hath produced a VVoman that agrees with that Story; for she says, that he came and talk'd with her about it, and told her then that he had seen mr. Oates the Day before, and gives you a token why it was about that time of the Year. Now if this be not a new matter, and new found out, this VVoman (if she swears true) does justifie the other in what he did say a Year ago, when they could never Imagine that any great weight and moment should be laid upon that Accident of his seeing Oates in the Street. He hath produced to you the Coach [...] of Sir Richard Barker, that says he knew him well, when he came to his masters house There he call'd him by his name, That asking for Dr. Tongue, but not finding him within, he went away presently. That he was in disguise, That they acquainted th [...] master with it assoon as he came home, and their master says that so they did. [...] And th [...] person that then lived in the house, and now is dead, said to the Maid: Yonder is m [...] Oates I think he is either turned Quaker or Priest, what a kind of Habit is he got into No said the Maid, he can't be a Quaker because he wears a Perriwigg; but she says, h [...] named him to her, Oates, and that this is the man, she knew him since, 'tis the sam [...] man that the young man spoke to her about.

He hath produced farther one of their own Religion, one that is a Papist still; and b [...] says, he saw him twice at mr. Charles Howard's, in Arundel house. There was indee [...] some perplexity, they would have put upon it, by reason of mr. Howards Son being de [...] a year before; but the witness saies he did not know the Son. A Papist he confesse [...] himself expresly to be, if not a Priest; and I would not ask him the Question, because [...] not fair to make him accuse himself: but he does swear expresly, he saw mr. Oates a [...] mr. Charles Howards in April or May, which contradicts all their witnesses. He also pro­duces [Page 57]a Schoolmaster, that tells that he dined with him the beginning of May: and I re­member it (says he) very well, for we dined by the fire-side, which gave me occasion to wonder at it in May and remember it. He says moreover, that he stayed 3 or 4 hours with him, and talked of all his Travels in Spain. Now must all these people be down-right perjured; it can be no mistake, but they are all falsly forsworn, if there be not truth in it. And when here are 7 or 8 witnesses positively swearing against the affirmation of so many others, we leave the credit of both sides to you, who are the Judges of the Fact.

There is indeed (and I will Repeat it for you, for, I would not miss any thing as near as I can that would make for the prisoners advantage); there is a proof concern­ing Sir John Warner, and Preston, and Pool, that they were there at the time, and there hath been no answer given to it: But I say still, tis the same thing, for if you do not believe those Witnesses to speak true, that affirm that Oates was there all the time, but rather believe that he was here, by seven or Eight people that Testify it: I say if you cannot be­lieve he was there you will never change your mind for one Circumstance, whether he came over with Sir John Warner and others, or not; for it is but a Circumstance.

They are not the same Witnesses.

'Tis true, they are not; You have four or five Witnesses that speak a­part; but two of them do say, that they knew Oats also was there at the same time that they speak that Sir John Warner was at home.

Not those two of Leige my Lord about Sir Thomas Preston.

No, they do not, for I leave it to you of the Jury upon the whole matter, there is little more to be said by me. If so be Credit is to be given to these Witnesses of Oates more than to the others, then you must find him Guilty, and the rather, because I do a little suspect they come over instructed to say what they do. You find they ap­ply themselves to the thing they came for, and not only the Gardiner, but another could [...]ll you (which hath a very great Influence upon me as to their credit) that the months of April and May were the months in question, and they were not to be examin­ed any farther. So that it looks, as if these yong men were sent of an Errand, and though you do not know them Mr. Langhorn, and are Innocent as to any tampering with them, yet I am afraid they are come to serve the Catholick Cause, as they call [...]t. For, they are very well taught, and they keep to those months of April and May of all the months in the Year. Then they bring the Woman of the White-Horse-Tavern, where the Consult of the twenty fourth of April was; and what is the use they would make of her? why it is, that Mr. Oates should make a story of Fifty Fathers be­ing in her Tavern at one time (but he insists now, there was a matter of twenty) when there was not a Room in her House that would hold Ten: But you hear how she was Answered, from Testimony rising up in the Court of themselves that were acquainted with her House, and know, that forty people may dine in two of her Rooms: And the Kings Counsel observed well, how chance it self hath put to silence this evidence. So that when matters are alledged to be done at home, there is not so great a difficulty as in proving things that are done abroad.

I leave it to you Sirs. Here is a Gentleman that stands at the Bar upon his life on the one Hand: but if mr. Oates say true, all our lives, and Liberties, our King and Reli­gion, are at the Stake on the other Hand. God defend that Innocent Blood should be shed, and God defend us also from all Popish Plots, and from all the bloody principles of Papists; which are very Cruel as we know by experience; and you cannot blame [...] [Page 58]to look to our selves. For I must tell you, the Plot is proved as plain as the day, and that by Oates, and farther, Oates Testimony is confirmed by that which can never be Answered. For when he comes at his first Testimony and says that upon the twenty fourth of April such a Consult was summoned and held, it falls out that five days after a Letter is found amongst Harcourts papers, (a principal Person in the Design) which does order the meeting upon the twenty fourth of April, bing the day after St. Georges Feast, and gives them a Caution that they should not come too soon to Town; That they should not appear too much in London for fear of discovering the Design, And of dis­closing that, the nature of which requires Secrecy. Plainer than this is hardly to be writ from a Jesuit, Especially in so dangerous a matter. And what can be answered to this Letter that is found in a Priests Hand four days after Mr. Oates had given in his Infor­mation about it?

Put all this together, and if you be satisfied herein, you may judg the better, as to the particular business of mr. Langhorn, how far the Testimony, of Oates and Bedlow affect him. You know what you do. And for Bedloe 'tis true what he says, that there is nothing to be said to his Evidence, because no man can prove a Negative; and he swears expresly that he had this discourse with him of these Treasonable matters, Killing the King, and Altering Religion. If this be so, and you are satisfied in that particular (and that a man may very well bee as to the substance) I do not see any considerable Answer that is given. I say once more, there is the life of a Gentleman at stake, and there are all our lives at the stake: Follow you your consciences; do Wisely, do Ho­nestly, and consider what is to be done,

With my Lords leave, because there hath been mention made of this letter which goes much in Confirmation of mr. Oates Testimony; It is in Court, but it hath not been produced at the Bar, I desire it may, if your Lordship please.

It is here in Court my Lord, we will give your Lordship an account how we came by it. Swear Sr. Thomas Doleman,

Sir Thomas, Did you find the Paper amongst mr. Harcourt's Papers?

I found this letter among the Papers of mr. Harcourt that were committed to my search.

When did you find it Sir?

It was some five or six days after mr. Oates had given in his in­formation to the King and Council.

Do you mark it Gentlemen? After mr. Oates had told the Councel of the Consult in the Twenty fourth of April, is this letter found.

'Tis in Confirmation of mr. Oates's Testimony.

Then the letter was Read, being the same with that in Page 37. In the Tryal of White bread, Harcourt, &c.

This Letter is only as to the Plot in General, and no to be applyed to mr. Langhorn in particular.

Mr. Oates might very well be able to speak of this meeting, of this congre­gation as they call it, before this letter was taken, 'tis easy to believe, because mr. Oates being at Saint Omers, I supposed the like letters of summons might come over to Saint Omers, to fetch some of them over hither.

You say well, but if you have but the luck to give me an answer, to a thing or two, you'l have better fortune, and more skill than the Priests. 'Tis true, he might perchance know of the Consult, if he were at St. Omers: But will you tell us what that [Page 59] Design was? And what is the meaning of the putting those words into the letter, That they should not come too soon to London nor appear too much about Town, for fear of discover­ing that design, which they knew required Secrecy in its own nature?

My, Lord, I will tell you what I take to be the meaning of that letter. The design was the holding of a Congregation: There were diverse of them, and it was like the meeting of a Dean and Chapter in a Colledge, and he bids them not to come too long before the time, for they were certainly in very great danger to be taken,

What! At that time? What danger were they in then?

Yes, my Lord, the Parliament was then sitting.

But you know what Indulgence there was to all Papists at that time, if they would be but quiet. Well but put it altogether, they were to come to London, not too soon, nor to appear too much, because the Parliament was sitting for fear of Discovering the Design. What, was that only for Mr. Whitebread, and his fellows, to make an Officer Can it be answered by that:

Certainly their holding of a Congregation in England, does require secrecy.

Gentlemen! Here is the thing, This is only an Evidence to the Plot, in ge­neral, that there is a Plot, and you may make what reasonable use you think fit of it. It is not a Particular Evidence against Mr. Langhorns particular person, Only it shews there was a Plot, and you have heard what they say to him in particular about it. And I'le tell you one thing more, which if Oats swears true, concerns you very much. He saith they were a talking of the Ten Thousand Pounds that Sir George Wakeman was to have for Poysoning the King when their other attempts had failed, and that he would not take under. Fifteen Thousand Pound. You mr. Langhorn, was very angry,, and said it was a base covetous thing in him; and it being such a public Cause, it would have been no matter if he had done it for Nothing. I have repeated as much as I can well remember without any prejudice to Mr. Langhorns Testimony. And so I leave it with you:

Than an Officer was Sworn to keep the Jury, who withdrew to consider of their Verdict, and the Judges also went off from the Bench. The Lord Chief Justice telling the Auditory, that the day being so far spent, and the Commission determining that night, because of the Term, Sir George Wakeman and the rest could not be tryed till next Sessions. And after a short space, the Jury returned, and answering to their Names, delivered in their Verdict.

Gentlemen, are you all Agreed of your Verdict?

Yes'

Who shall say for you?

Foreman.

Richard Langhorn, hold up thy hand, look upon the Prisoner: You of the Jury. How say you? Is he Guilty of High-Treason whereof he stands Indicted, or Not Guilty?

Guilty.

What Goods or Chattles?

None to our Knowledg.

Hearken to the Verdict as the Court hath Recorded it: You say that Richard Langhorn is Guilty of the High Treason whereof he stands Indicted. But you say that he had no Goods or Chattels, Lands or Tenements, at the time of High Treason com­mitted, or at any time since to your Knowlege. And so you say all.

Yes.

It is a Verdict according to the Justice of the Evidence. Ʋpon which there was a very great shout.

Then Mr. Reorder sent for the Prisoners Convicted before, to receive their Judgment, and they were brought to the Bar, and the Court proceeded thus.

Richard Langhorn. hold up thy Hand. Thou standest Convicted of High Treason: What canst thou say for thy self, why the Court should not give Judgment on thee to Dye, according to Law?

I have nothing to say.

Thomas White, otherwise Whitebread, hold up thy Hand; Thou standest Convicted in Middlesex of High-Treason: what canst thou say for thy self, why the Court should not give Judgment on thee to Dye, according to Law.

I can say nothing.

John Fenwick, hold up thy hand. Thou art in the same case with him that went last before thee; What canst thou say, &c?

I have nothing more to say.

William Harcourt, hold up thy Hand: Thou art in the same case with the two that went last before thee; What canst thou say, &c?

I have nothing at all to say.

John Gaven, Hold up thy Hand: Thou art in the same case with the Three that went last before thee; what canst thou say, &c.

I have nothing more to say then I did say. God bless the King, and the Kingdom.

Anthony Turner, hold up thy hand: Thou art in the same case with the Four that went last before thee; What canst thou say, &c?

I have nothing to say.

Then Cryer make Proelamation of Silence while Judgment is given, up­on pain of Imprisonment. Which was done on both sides the Court.

Then Mr. Recorder gave the Judgment thus:

You, the Prisoners at the Bar: You have been severally Araigned, and now are severally Convicted of High Treason. And that attended with all the ill cir­cumstances that can be possible to aggravate so High a crime. You attempted the Life of the best of Kings; who was full of mercy and Compassion even to you, under whom you might still have lived peaceably and quietly, had not your own Malice and Mischiefs prevented it. Nor were you satisfied with that alone; for you intended there­by to make way for the Destruction of the greatest part of the Kingdom, by a Publick Massacre, by cutting the Throats of all Protestants; for that also appears to be your de­signe: To effect which, the nearest way, and the hest means you could think of, was first to kill the King. And this was to be done, for the introducing of another Religion as you call it; which, as we think, we more properly call Superstition; and so root out the best Religion that is Established amongst us by Law. And I therefore call it the best of Religions even for your sakes; for had it not been for the sake of our Religion, that teaches us not to make such Requitals, as yours seems to teach you, you had not had that fair formal way of Tryal, and of being Heard, as you now have been; but mur­der would have been returned to you, for the murder you intended to commit both up­on the King, and most of his people. What a strange sort of Religion is that, whose Doctrine seems to allow them to be the greatest Saints in another World, that can be the most Impudent Sinners in this? murder, and the Blackest Crimes here, are the best means among you, to get a man to be Canonized a saint hereafter. Is it not strange, that men professed in Religion, that use all eadeavours to gain Proselytes for heaven, should so pervert the Scripture. (as I perceive, some of you have done) and make that Justify your Impious Designes of Assassinating Kings, and murdering their Subjects? [Page 61]What can be said to such a sort of People, the very Foundation of whose Religion is laid in Blood? Nay, lest you should not be able so easily to perswade them so cleverly to imbibe those Bloody Principles, you do absolve them from all the Obligations that they remain under, of Obedience to their Soveraign; You do therefore from the Pul­pits publickly teach, That the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, signifie nothing. It's a strange Religion, that applies every thing to these wicked and detestable purposes.

There is one Gentleman that stands at the Bar, whom I am very sorry to see with all my heart in this condition, because of some acquaintance I have had with him here­tofore: To see a man who hath Understanding in the Law, and who hath arrived to so great an Eminency in that Profession, as that Gentleman hath done, should not re­member, that 'tis not only against the Rules of all Christianity, but even against the Rules of his Profession, to attempt any injury against the Person of the King. He knows, that it is against all the Rules of Law, to endeavour to introduce any Foreign Power into this Land. So that, you sinned both against your Conscience, and your own certain knowledge. But your several Crimes have been so fully proved against you, that truly. I think no person that stands by, can be in any doubt of the Guilt: Nor is there the least room for the most scrupulous man to doubt of the Credibility of the Witnesses, that have been examined against You: And sure I am, You have been fully Heard, and stand fairly Convicted of those Crimes you have been indicted for.

I rather mention these things to you, because I know not whether you will think it necessary to have any Assistance, (I mean, such Assistance as by the Law of the Land, [...]s to be allowed to Persons in your Condition, of any Protestant Divines, or of any other Protestants) to prepare you for another World. And though what hath been [...]id proceeds from a Lay-man, to you that are professed in Religion; yet I hope, it [...]ill not be thought amiss, it being intended for your Advantage. Let that vast E­ternity, that you are ere long to enter into, you are now on the brink of it; I say let that prevail with you to consider, that there is a God in Heaven, who will call you [...]o an Account for every one of those private Consultations, of which we can never [...]ome to any certain knowledge. Though you have put all those Obligations of Se­ [...]resie upon your Party, which Religion could tye them by: Though you give them [...]he Sacrament, not only to oblige them to do wicked Acts, but to conceal them when they are done; Yet remember, there is a God in Heaven, from whom you cannot keep them secret. All your Tyes and Obligations, all the Dispensations that you can give [...]o your Inferiors, or your Superiors to you, will never dispense with that Accompt [...]ou are to give to the great God of Heaven.

Gentlemen, with great Charity to your immortal Souls, I desire you for the Love of God, and in the Name of his Son Jesus Christ, Consider these things; For, it will not be long e're you be summon'd before another Tribunal about them: And great and dreadful is the Day of Judgment, at which you and all men must appear.

And I hope all persons that stand by, will take notice, that it is not the Principles [...]f the Protestant Religion to murder any (let it be upon their own Heads that pro­cess it) for we abhor these things. And we hope these publick Testimonies of our Religion, and this fair sort of Tryal, will not only confirm those that are Protestants [...]ow, but will prevail upon those whom they have inveigled into their Perswasion, to [...]esert such a Religion, till such time as they alter their Principles, from the bloodi­ness and inhumanity they are stained with, and which these men have instilled into all [Page 62]their Proselites: And this I thought fit to premise to you in great Compassion and Charity. And I pray God it may have that effect, which I designed, that is, that is, may put you in mind of that great immortality that you are to enter upon ere long. And thus having given you this hint, and the Law having had its Course upon you you have been fairly tryed, fully heard, and have nothing to say why that Judgment should not be pronounced, which the Law hath designed against such Offenders: I am therefore in the Name of the Court to do the Duty which the Law requires of the Court; and I do in the Name of the Court pronounce this to be your Sentence

That you be conveyed from hence to the Plate from whence you came; and from thence you be drawn to the place of Execution upon Hurdles, that you be there severally hang' [...] by the Neck, that you be cut down alive, that your Privy Members be cut off, that your Bowels be taken out and burnt in your view, that your Heads be sever'd from your Bodies, that your Bodies be divided into four Quarters, and your Quarters to be on the Kings Dispose.

And the God of infinit merey be mereiful to your Souls.

After which there was a very great Acclamation.

My Lord, since we have not long to live, we desire we may have the benefit of the Company of our Friends, that they may be permitted to come at us.

Yea 'tis fit they should have the Comfort of their Friends and Re­lations: and God forbid, but we should do all we can to make their Passage as com­fortable as may be. You must keep that Decorum that becomes such as are in your Condition. You know you are under the publick notice of the World, therefore you must use the Liberty that is granted to you with that moderation and prudence that 'tis fit to use such a Priviledge with; for, I shall not deny you any lawful Favor.

Sir There will be more people come to me than ordinary, in regard of their business that I have had in my hands; I desire they may have the liberty to come to me.

I would not deny Mr. Langhorn any thing that I could grant him: [...] it be any business that any person would have an accompt of which you have been concerned in for them, they may be permitted to come to you.

There is no body to be in private with him, to say any thing but what I sha'l hear?

Yes, my Lord, I hope my Wife and Children may.

Yes, God forbid but he should have his Wife and Children with him.

Or any others that come about business

Yes Captain, with the Caution I have given you.

Then the Court adjourned for London, to Guild-Hall the Fourteenth of July and for London and Middlesex in the Old Bayley, the Sixteenth of July next: And the Prisoners were carried back to the Goal.