Ʋpon Saturday the 14th. of June, 1679. at the Sessions in the Old-Bayley, London, the Court (accord­ing to their adjournment the preceeding day) met and pro­ceeded to the Trial of Richard Langhorn, Esq; in this manner.

Cl. of Cr. SEt Richard Langhorn to the Bar.

Richard Langhorn, 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 Rich. Langhorn the elder, as a false Traitor of the most Illust­rious Serene and Excellent Prince Charles the Second, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France, and 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 and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, the Cordial love and true due and natural obedi­ence, which true and faithful Subjects of our said Soveraign Lord the King, towards him do and 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 aforesaid, Falsly, Ma­liciously, Subtilly, and Traiterously, with many other false Traitors of our Soveraign 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 Soveraign Lord [Page 2]the King from his Kingly State, Title, Power, and Government of his Kingdom of England, totally to deprive, depose, and disinherit, 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 change, and the true Worship of God in this Kingdom by Law Established and used, to alter, and the State of this Kingdom in all the parts thereof well instituted, totally to subvert and destroy, and War within this Kingdom of England to procure and levy, and the same most wicked Treasons, Traiterous ima­ginations, purposes, compassings, and agreements aforesaid, and to perfect and fulfil: You the said Richard Langhorn afterwards, to wit [...] [...] 30th. day of September, in the 30th. year aforesaid, and divers [...] [...] be­fore at London, &c. Falsly, Advisedly, Maliciously, Subti [...]y, [...] [...] ­terously, did Compass, Contrive, and Write two Letters, to be sent to certain Persons unknown at Rome, and at St. Omers, in parts beyond the Seas, to procure the adherance, aid, and assistance 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 established 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 2 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, and two other Let­ters to be sent to St. Omers, in parts beyond the Seas, to diverse Persons unknown there residing, and 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 adherance, and should procure other aid, assistance, and adherance, 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 the traiterous purposes aforesaid, and that you the said Richard Langhorn, further to fulfil and accomplish the same most wicked Treasons, traiterous imaginations, purposes, 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 [Page 3]this Kingdom of England, Traiterously you did receive, and Five other Commissions in writing made by Authority derived from the See of 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 Traiterously you did receive. And that you the said Richard Langhorn, afterwards, to wit, the day and year afore­said at London, &c. The said several Commissions so received, to divers false Traitors of our Sovereign Lord the King, unknown, falsly, knowingly, and Traiterously, did distribute, give and dispose for Constituting Officers, as well Military as Civil, to the Traiterous purposes aforesaid. And that you the said Richard Langhorn, afterwards on the day and year aforesaid, at London, &c. a Commission to Constitute and Authorise you to be Advocate Ge­neral of the Army, to be Levied in this Kingdom, to war against our said Sove­reign Lord the King, Falsly, Traiterously, and against the duty of your Alle­giance, from a certain Person unknown, did receive and had; and the same 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 Rich. 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 Sovereign Lord the King, by you the said Richard Langhorn, and other false Traitors un­known, in Execution of the said Traiterous 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 day of 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 Destruction 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 Consulta­on, on the said 30th day the September, in the 30th Year aforesaid, from our said Sovereign Lord the King, Advisedly, and Traiterously did conceal, and to that Consultation Traiterously you did consent. And the said William Ire­land, John Grove, and Thomas Pickering, on the day and Year last afore­said, at London, the Treasons aforesaid to perpetrate and perfect, Maliciously, 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 the 30th Year aforesaid, at London, &c. falsly, subtilly, and Traiterously, you did move and solicit the Benedictine Monks, (unknown) to expend and pay the Sum of Six Thousand Pounds, to procure a Person Traiterously to Kill and Murder our said Sovereign Lord the King. And whereas Edward Coleman, and other false Traitors of our said Sovereign 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 [Page 4]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 Sovereign Lord the King, his Crown and Dignity, and against the form of the Statute in this case made and provided.

How say'st thou Richard Langhorn, art thou guilty of this High-Treason whereof thou standest Indicted, or not guilty?

Not Guilty.

Culprit, how wilt thou be tried?

By God and my Countrey.

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 Sworn were these.

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

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

Richard Langhorn, hold up thy hand. (which he did) You of the Jury look upon the Prisoner, and hearken to his Cause: He stands Indicted in London by the name of Richard Langhorn, late of Lon­don Esq; for that as a false Traitor, &c. (put in the Indictment Mutatis Mu­tandis) and against the form of the Statute in that case made and provided. Upon this Indictment he hath been Arraigned, and 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 since; if you find him guilty, you shall enquire whether he fled for it, if you find that he fled for it, you are to enquire of his Goods and 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, and it is for Conspiring the Murder of the King, and 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 and other false Traitors did agree to stir up Sedition and Re­bellion in the Kingdom, and 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 and 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, and the French King, to alter the Religion Established by Law in this Kingdom, to Romish Super­stition, to Subvert the Government, and to put the King to Death; and 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 Colledg, and a Jesuit, and Two others to be sent to St. Omers; and in these Letters he took upon him to Advise the way and means by which these Treasons might be effected, and that these several Letters were sent and delivered by him, and received. The Indictment further sets forth that in further prosecution of these Traiterous Imaginations of his, he did recieve 5 several Commissions in Writing, by Authority derived from the See of Rome; and those were for the making of Military Officers, to Execute these Treasons by force of Arms, and 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, and Grove, and other false Traitors, had consulted these Treasons, which I before mentioned, Mr. Langhorn had Notice of the Treasons, and did Consent to them and Abet them, and that he did solicit the Benedictine Monks to advance 6000 l. for the Murther of the King, for the Alteration of Reli­gion, and for the Subversion of the Government in Church and State. And further, whereas Mr Coleman, (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 Lee 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—

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

Mr. Langhorn 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. Langhorn 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; and 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 perect 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.

Call Mr. Dugdale, and Mr. Prance, (who were both Sworn, and Mr. Dugdale first stood up.)

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, and 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 hired to be instrumen­tal in it, and was to have a Sum of Money to be one of them that should 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. Gavan, 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 not actually to be done, till the King was killed; that was the last Conclusion: it was indeed at first concluded on to raise an Army, but the last Consultation was, that there should no Arms 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 Massacre 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 Staffordshire.

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. Ewers, concerning Sir Edmond-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 is dispatched) with some other words of like import; 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 it: No 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. Harcourt.

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

I could not hold, it run so much in my mind, but the next morning going to an Ale-house hard by, I there spoke of it, and im­mediately it was carryed to Mr. 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 times heard, he was too much privy to their Consultations.

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 too 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. Messenger, a Gentleman of the Horse to my Lord Arundel of Warder, who was employed by my Lord Arun­del of Warder, and my Lord Powis, and he was to kill the King, and to have a very good reward for the doing of it; and I was told so by my Lord Butler: I afterwards met with this Messenger, and asked him what his reason was that he would kill the King. He told me he was off of 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. Fenwick, 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 become 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 only 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 to say to them.

I heard one Mr. Harcourt 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.

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 Mr. Oates.

Then I begin thus. In the month of April 1677, I went into the Kingdom of Spain: 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 Valledolid. They came there to study Philosophy in order to their receiving of the Priesthood. my Lord, my occasions called me into England in the month of November following, and coming into England, Mr. Langhorns sons did give me some Letters to Mr. Langhorn their Father; and as soon as I had rested my self for a day or two after my Journey, I came to Mr. Langhorns's house in Sheer-Lane. Now Mr. Langhorns Wife 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. Langhorn, and tell him, there was one would speak with him from his sons. Mr. Langhorn, 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. Lang­horn that night by the means of his half Brother, who is brother I think by the mother and not by the Father, his name is Smithson; and when I came into Mr. Langhorns Chamber, their Chambers being directly opposite one to another, I was treated by Mr. Langhorn with a great deal of Civility, and I delivered Mr. Langhorn the Letters from his sons, and I told him that I thought his sons would enter into the Society: Mr. Langhorn 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, Mr. Langhorn did say, he thought if they did continue in the world, that is secular 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 was 20 l. he promised them they should be re­paid it, and in this Letter he did expresly say, that he had written to Father Le Cheese in order to our concerns, 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, and 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 [Page 10]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 Five pounds 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 and give the Blow; what that Blow was, I leave to the Court and 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 pass'd 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 pray'd to God to give it good success. My Lord, while I was at Mr. Langhorns Chamber 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 ai 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.

Dr. Oates, 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 Questi­ons you will by and by.

My Lord, I saw there a Commission for my Lord Arun­del of Warder, and 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 [...] to be Lieutenant-General, and there were other Commissions, of [...] cannot remember the particular names, but there was a Com­ [...] [...] [...]ecretary of State, and there was a Commissi­ [...] [...] 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 Ι Η Σ, and with the mark of the Cross through the I ^✚HS and they were Signed Johannes Paulus de Oliva.

That is the Jesuits mark?

Yes, my Lord.

Where did you see those Commissions?

In Mr. Langhorn's 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 England.

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 relating 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.

What number did you see?

I saw about half a dozen, or 8.

Well 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 Bellasis, 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 Colledge 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 it was to this purpose, That Le Cheese would stand by the English Society, and assist them, 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 his Letter to the Soceity, that Coleman had writ Letters to Le Cheese, and was very large, and therefore he should not trouble his Reverence with any long Epistles.

What do you know of any money that was to be raised by the Benedictine Monks.

I had forgot that.

You say that he said they should not need to doubt the French, but he would 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 it 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 Solicitor for the Jesuits, and did accompany 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 Design: now upon Mr. Langhorn's Soliciting them, and appearing for them, as I have heard, 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 positive which, but thereabouts, when he was spoke to a­bout it, that he would stir in it, 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 10000 l.

What was the 6000 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 Sould 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 Johannes Paulus de Oliva, pray will you look upon this, and see whether you know it, (and a Writing under the Jesuits Seal was 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 Commissions 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 an 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 to 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 man living is able to be positive.

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

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

About that time.

How long did you stay there?

Till April following I stay'd.

Without any moving from thence?

Onely went to Paris, and after that a night or two at Watton, and then 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 kind, 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 the Question, but the Court.

Very well, I shall observe the Method, if your Lordship please. I desire 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 Liege's name?

Warren I think, I cannot tell names so exactly.

Go on Sir, pray.

I cannot name any more.

You have 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 Thomas 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 affirm 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 Lord, 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 I remember, I came by Coach.

I will give you my reason why I ask this; because he hath formerly upon a Trial 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 company of Mr. Hilsley, but when we were come over, Mr. Hilsley went out of the way from 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 provided for me there.

You are to Answer as well as you can, if you cannot remember it, say so. Do you say the first absolutely, or not?

My Lord, I cannot remember the first night, but I lay several nights at 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 know 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 Son: 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 their 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 Roman 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 Vicar 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 without leave of my Or­dinary, I am not now Vicar of—

When did you come to your Vicandge?

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, Vicar of Milton, and 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. Langhorn, 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.

Ile 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, all 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 re [...]uses 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 let me come to his house, for he used to say, his Wife was but aumes ace 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 stay here, but you have done with him at present, have you not?

Yes, my Lord, I have.

Swear 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. Oates says, he saw 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, Ile only ask this Question or 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 Marchioness 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 signify much truly, no more than her tongue.

My Lord, about 3 years since, I was sent by Mr. Har­court, and Mr. Coleman, to Le Cheese, 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. Langhorn's 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. Langhorn's Chamber, were the Letters writ there?

The Letters were writ first at Coleman's 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 Kings-Bench Bar, at Coleman's 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 own hands, or ready to be put into them; that they had so fair 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 Registred 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, whilst he went in and writ, as he did other things; for he Regist­red all their Accompts: There was not a peny 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. Laghorn 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 then 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 Mr. Harcourt, I thought I might have been 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 2 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 specify, 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 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. Harcourt.

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 said I Registred those Letters before him.

I say, I saw him in his Study transcribe Coleman's Letter, whilst Coleman and I walked in his Chamber.

Into what kind of Book did he Register that? Had he more Books then 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 in 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 as soon as he had transcribed them.

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

Could you see how far he had gone 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 threw 2 thirds of the Book.

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

I say my Lord, 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 be 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. Langhorn 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; 6000 l. or what other sum?

My Lord, in May 1676. 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 mony, what mony?

The mony they had promised to remit into England.

But did they name no sum?

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

And what was it? Do you know of any sum of mo­ny 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 occasion; but he would not part with his mony till they had assurance of their being 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, Pritchard 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 General 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 it was written with the same hand, and Sealed with the same Seal that the Commissions were that I saw in Paris.

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

That I do know only y breport; but when Grove, Picke­ring and Conyers were going to New-Market I was at Harcourt's 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 go see a friend of mine take shipping at Plymouth, to send some Commendations by him to my Friends in Italy; then says 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 the contrivance of sending down those people to New-Market to assassinate 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 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 Religious, and all their Friends beyond Sea, in making Collections, and remitting of money, for there was only money wanting; for the Arms 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 opportunity 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 hands as they co [...]l [...]ust.

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 Invade 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. Bedloe, 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 Three, 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 a 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 away?

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 [Page 24]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 Pro­testant Religion, yet the full of the discourse 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 observed 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 having 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 is we had but a Return of this money, 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 not stand 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, and had knowledge of the Re­ceipt of it in France, as Mr. Langhorn did say in the month of July or August.

Did he say it to you?

He did to Father Harcourt, Father Kaines, and Father Fen­wick that were there, 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 was not 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 Tobaccoshop in Wild-Street, and there Father Kaines told me the effect of the Letter. He told me it was a Chiding Letter from the Secretary de propaganda fide, Cardinal Barbarino who had sent a chiding Letter to Mr. Langhorn and the rest of the Conspirators, for going on no faster when they had so fair an opportunity.

Did you see the Letter directed to M ^r Langhorne?

Father Kaines told me the Effects of it, and he had the Letter from M ^r Langhorne.

He told you so, well but this Evidence is as to the Plot in gene­ral, but not to M ^r Langhorne in particular. But that which he charges you particularly with, is this, Your Transcribing the Letters, wherein there was an Expression made, of your being all in readiness as for Arms and the Garisons; and your discourse afterwards with M ^r 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 we 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 King's 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 Acquaintance of mine, one Handkinson that was then newly come from Italy—

When was this?

In September last, within a Week after the Duke came from Flanders, 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 Coleman's Tryal, where it speaks of the four Irish men that were to kill the King at Windsor, then I bethought 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? Nor, 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 M ^r Coleman's 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.

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 Ossory.

M ^r 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.

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 M ^r Langhorne?

I conceive this last Witness says nothing to me.

He speaks only to the Plot in general, as the first Wit­nesses did; but that which is upon you, is as to M ^r Oats, who speaks to eve­ry Article of the Indictment expresly; and M ^r Bedloe says, he did not on­ly see you Transcribe and Copy out that Treasonable Letter, but he car­ried [Page 27]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 Parties in this supposed Crime, the two Witnesses which do concern me, are M ^r Oats, and M ^r 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. M ^r Oats, and M ^r 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.

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; and 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 Prisoner 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. Langhorne does suppose that the Witnesses are corrupted and bribed; Do you think M ^r Langhorne, that the King will bribe his Witnesses?

My Lord, I only propose it as a Question.

Would you answer that Question your self?

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 Gao [...], that M ^r Bedloe hath received 500 l.

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

That 500 l. was about a particular Fact.

But pray what is his Name?

His Name is M ^r Reading.

He is an infamous person, he hath stood in the Pillory, we can't 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 M ^r Prance is here, that will give an account of that, for Bedloe discovered him.

I am so far from having any benefit 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 M ^r Oates and M ^r Dedloe have been fed at the King's 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 you 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.

And that particular Sum of Mony was paid to M ^r Bed­loe, in pursuance of the King's 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 or 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.

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

Does your Defence 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 17 ^th 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, but only with some few [Page 29]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 Defence, 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. Langhorne; you seem to put a very ill Construction upon the Kings Proclamation, as if it were to invite and encourage persons to come and swear about a Plot, where there was none; it was to invite people to make a further Discovery of a Plot that lay Close, and we could not fully Discover for the preservation of the King and Kingdom without 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. Langhorne, whatsoever you object of this kind does fly in the face, and reflect upon the integrity and wisdom of King, Lords and Commons.

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.

My 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 safe enough here.

Who will you have first?

I would have 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 and his Companions here yesterday, but however we will hear them again, if you will have them. Do you know Mr. Oats?

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. Oats 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 over-took 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 loose it? Did you loose it at play?

'Tis no matter how I lost it, I did not loose it at play.

I'll tell the Court if your Lordship please how he lost it, he lent a great deal of mony to a Gentleman, who went away with his mo­ny and left him to pay the Reckoning.

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'll 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 mony; you see Mr. Oats can tell you how it was, tho' you wont tell us, 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.

Did you see Mr. Oats?

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 our 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. Oats about it?

I don't remember what I said in particular?

Hilsly, call up the other person that you say told Mr. Oats.

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. Oats concerning Mr. Hilsly's being gone from the Colledge, was there any body by?

I cannot tell.

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

Yes, my Lord, there was Mr. Oats 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 cheated of his money.

How did he tell you he was cheated?

I dont't 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. Oats 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 does not argue.

Look you, the answer is this Mr. Langhorne. You would charge Mr. Oats with falsity in saying he came over in the Pacquet-Boat with Hilsly, and you call up him, and he says, he did not come, but he left him at St. Omers; Mr. Oats comes and says, 'tis true, he left me there, but I over-took him at Calis, by this very token, said he, you were cheated of your mony by a person that you lent it to, who went away, and left you to pay the Reckoning. When I asked Mr. Hilsly how he could tell if it were true that he was not with him, he answered, he was told it by another; but when I come to know what that other person said, it was no more than this, he said in Mr. Oats's hearing Mr. Hilsly was cozened of his mony, but did not say how, nor by whom, nor where.

Now to prove that what Mr. Hilsly said is true, and that therefore Mr. Oats his knowledge must come by another hand, I desire that the Witness may be asked how long Mr. Oats was at St. Omers.

How long was Mr. Oats at St. Omers?

From December till June he was there, except one parti­cular day that he 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 will 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 School, 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 Oats 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, and he thinks also Sir Robert Brett, but is not positive.

This he affirmed both in his Narrative, and 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 Kittle-pins 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. Oats 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. Langhorne, 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.

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

What year?

In year 1678.

That is the time that Oats says he came over with him. You saw him almost 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 did.

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. Oats there in the house, and I saw him going into the Refectory to dinner.

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. Oats, which was the last of April▪ the first, second and third of May. You don't know when Mr. Oats 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 come 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 Rector's absence.

When did he come?

He came the 24 ^th 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 there 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 time.

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

Indeed he hath forgot his Lesson, you should have given him better Instructions.

Look you M ^r Langhorne, If he be to be believed, and that he doth not speak falsly, or more than he knows, it is impossible that Oats's Testimony and his can stand together; for he directly affirms he saw M ^r Oats the last of April, the 1 ^st, 2 ^d, and 3 ^d of May. Now M ^r Oats says he was here then; so that these two cannot stand together. The Question then is, Whether he be to be believed? And whether he does not come wilfully, or prepared? the Jury have beard what a kind of testimony he gives, when the Question was asked him, How he came to take notice of the Months of April and May, more than of June and July? And why he was more sure Sir John Warner was there at the one time, than at the other? Why, [Page 34]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, and prepared for those Months, and now this, I am afraid, will go through all your S ^t Omers men.

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 Williams.

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

He came over the 24 ^th of April.

Why that is the time that M ^r Oats 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 Watton to S ^t Omers, at that time he must see him at S ^t Omers, for he was at S ^t Omers then. The Que­stion is about Sir John Warner, if he were at Watton, or S ^t Omers, then he could not come over with M ^r Oats.

When did you see Sir John Warner?

I saw him about June, or thereabouts.

Where did you see him?

I saw him there in S ^t Omers House.

When?

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, S ^t Fortuna­tus and Gordianus, and then I saw M ^r Oats four days, and he was there all the Month of May.

Where was Sir John Warner then?

I cannot tell, but at S ^t Omers I saw M ^r Poole, and Sir Ro­bert Brett at that time.

Did M ^r Poole come over with you?

Yes, my Lord, he did.

Witness, when did M ^r Poole come from S ^t Omers?

He came first to S ^t Omers with M ^r Whitebread, he was my Master of Musick, 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 S ^t Omers, at the same time.

You say right, he could not.

When came he from S ^t Omers?

In the Month of June or May.

Or April.

No, it was the Month of June.

These are but Collateral Matters, M ^r Langhorne, 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,

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, M ^r Oats says, in the Month of May he was in England, but I say I saw M ^r Poole then at S ^t 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 M ^r 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, my Lord, it was; it was about June. And this is nothing but what I know, for I actually saw M ^r Oats there at that time.

I'll tell you what M ^r Langhorne, 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, M ^r Oats 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 M ^r Oats was here in April and May; I'll tell you beforehand, do you as you will.

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

He says he saw him actually at S ^t 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 14 ^th of May, and conversed with him.

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

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

Ask him, How he knows this?

He says he was employ'd about a Building by Sir John Warner.

When did you see M ^r 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 2 ^d or 3 ^d of October.

Were you with him all that time?

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

How long have you been there?

I have been four Years, and I never knew that he was absent, but in the time of the Vacancies.

Call another Witness.

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 14 ^th of April, to the 25 ^th of April.

And then to what time?

He says he was there till the 16 ^th 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 S ^t 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, M ^r Langhorne?

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 and 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.

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 St. Omers all April and May.

And how much longer?

A great part of June.

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 out one night, and that was at Watton, 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.

Well, what do you say?

Mr. Poole was sick, and I can remember when his Ne­phew went to 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 of Killingbeck.

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

He came into the School and gave the Boys Questions to dispute of.

Call the rest of your Witnesses.

When did you see Mr. Oats 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 play'd at Nine-pins in the Garden, and I can tell what they play'd for.

What say you as to M ^r Nevil, and Sir. Robert Brett's being at S ^t Omers.

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

And there is nothing said of him here.

When did you see M ^r Oats first at S ^t 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.

Come you, hear the Question, Did you see M ^r Oats at S ^t 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 it 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. Hilsly went away, I discoursed with Mr. Oats 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 5th; in this Burnaby's company; I saw him again the 26th of May, with a Band about his head in order to Confirmation, for they always have a Linnen Cloth bound about their head at such a time.

Call another.

What 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. Oats was never out of the Colledge above one night, when he went to Watton 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 two days that pas­sed away wherein I did not see him, except in the Month of March, and when he was in the Infirmary the 24th of April, but then I heard that he was there—

Who did tell you so?

The man that keeps that part of the House; and coming in­to my Office after my Recovery out of a Fit of Sickness a week before Christmas or thereabouts, I saw Mr. Oats by this Circumstance, The Ser­vitors of the House said they were glad to see me, and Mr. Oats 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 days before. Likewise Mr. Oats was there when Mr. Hilsly came for England, which was about the 24th of April, by this 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. Hilsly went away, and Mr. Oats was actually there then, and we did very much wonder that he became acquainted with him so quickly after his arrival. I say Mr. Oats 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, and 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 was there the 26th of May by this Circumstance, that the Bishop dined there that day, and Mr. Oats was there Confirmed that day. Mr. Oats 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 Poole and Nevil?

They were there all the whole time in question, and they were never absent any competent time to 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 Christmas to the time he went away in June?

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

But was not Mr. Oats 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 here 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 12 or 14 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 near the Door, and Ne­vil and Poole were there, as I said before.

He speaks much more to the purpose to day Mr. Lang­horne 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.

Ask him what he says.

He says he saw Mr. Oats, he was there, and he remembers it, till about the 25 of June.

Where did he see him?

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

When was that, that he was 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. Poole went away in the Month of July; and he further says, that he being a Water­man, he carried this same Williams and March in his Boat the last Sun­day in April.

Who is your next, Mr. Langhorn? let him stand up:

When did you see Mr. Oates 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. Bret.

Where is Nevil now?

I believe 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.

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 twelvemonth.

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. Oates 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, and 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 3 or 4 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 known 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. Fitzherbert, 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 Master Crupper, and another young man that lay with him.

Why might not that be Mr. Oates?

He was one that was a Prisoner by Mr. Oates Order. And Mrs. Fitzherbert lay there.

What, in that Room whence the young men were taken out in April or May?

Yes, my Lord.

Well, what say you to the other months, March, 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 is Mrs. Grove's Maid:

Maid, Can you tell who lay in Grove's house in April and May was twelvemonth?

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.

Indeed my Lord, there was her Brother, M ^r York and his Wife.

But who is that Fitzherbert?

She is a Gentlewoman.

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

Master Strange, and Mistress Fitzherbert.

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.

What particular do you pitch upon?

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

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 hath 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 Tho. 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 Ireland's Tryal.

If you have any more Witnesses, call them.

Won't your Lordship allow me to prove by Witnesses what he affirmed in 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 Witness.

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

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

That is not Evidence in a Civil Cause, and therefore must not be Evidence 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 don't 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 any 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 can't 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 [Page 44]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.

Mr. Langhorn, 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 Queston of M ^r 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 ho reference to this Tryal, 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 can't 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 Rooms?

They were in two or three Rooms.

Is this M ^r Oates, my Lord?

Yes, that he is.

I never saw him in my house in my life.

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, M ^r 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.

Why 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 Coleman's Tryal there met fifty upon the 24 ^th 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.

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 may 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.

If she make a Jury to be in three Rooms, that is 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's 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 Friends and Relations inform me.

The thing was reasonably offered, but it proves so unfortunate it 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 defence, but you must examine no new Witnesses then, Mr. Langhorn.

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

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

My Lord, it is in relation to a matter that happened at Irer­lands 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 think it reasonable, or according to Law, that Mr. Oates should be examined in your Tryal 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 imagined to be prepared for such a Justification, since he does not at all give any Evidence of it here?

Since he gave not any occasion or use for such a proof now at this time, 'tis not fit 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 then to be tryed.

'Tis true as my Lord sayes, That it was yesterday pro­per, because he gave Evidence that Fenwick and Ireland were here in Angust together. Now that 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 a 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 a Purse being made for him to lay out six 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'le 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 summ, 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 hath 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 can't read that against his Testimony, you under­stand that being a Lawyer. If you have any Witnesses call them, but you pick out collateral 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 body 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 Tryals, 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 Chancery 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 five persons, and in July or August he did say he had distri­buted them, but he said not to whom, only one indeed he sent by his Son to the eldest Son of my 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 Arundel's 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 wilt excuse me, because I re­serve it for another Tryal.

I desire Mr. Lydcot may be asked whether he did not hear Master Oates at a former Tryal, say, (for so I find it in the Narrative,) (it was at Coleman's Tryal) 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 Master Oates gave con­cerning Master Langhorn?

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

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

The Persons that took the Tryal were summoned to be here. Call Mrs. Sylliard.

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. Oats said concerning Mr. Langhorn?

When, my Lord?

Nay, I can't tell.

At Coleman's Tryal, Sir.

My Lord, I was present at Coleman's Tryal, and I remem­ber Mr. Oates did say something about Mr. Langhorn, but I have not my Book here, I can't tell what it was.

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

That was not printed by my Copy, Sir.

Who were they that did take it?

Of my own knowledge 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?

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

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 material in your Case what he said about White­bread 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 and 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 M ^r Hilsly to prove, that whereas Mr. Oats did swear he came over with him, he affirms he did not; but it falls out, that Mr. Oats 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 [Page 51]of it; but producing his Witness for that, he only affirms, that Mr. Oats in his company was told, that Mr. Hilsly had lost his money, but not how nor where; but Mr. Oats 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 Mr. Hilsley 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 24 ^th of April, the time he says he was, and they all agree as to that time, tho' 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 Preston they are matters that were trans­acted beyond Sea, to be sure they did not come over by those Names, no more did Mr. Oats 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 lye 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 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 out Witnesses, and prove it as plainly as any thing can be in the world, that Mr. Oats was here at that time. First swear Will. Walker (which was done.)

Do you know Mr. Oats?

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

When did you see him in England last year?

I saw him the latter end of March 1678. or towards the middle of April following, I saw him then in a disguise, insomuch as that I knowing what he was, and what he had been, I could not a great while recollect the face of the man, and it was a great trouble to me, 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 Gentlewoman 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: Why, 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 latter 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 [Page 52]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 Mr. 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 than 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 is he sure, since he is so uncertain in his memory, that this was 1678, and not 1677?

Because, my Lord, it was but a little more than a year since, and I am 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 came to Town then.

But are you sure it was Mr. Oats 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 Witness.

Did you discover this to Mr. Oats, or did Mr. Oats 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.

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 Oats? 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 Leicester­ fields, and going along I saw him, for he was in coloured Cloaths, and very much altered from what he had been.

When was this? How long was this ago?

It was about the middle of April was twelve-month, and I remember it by a very good token; for his Father Mr. Oats 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, can tell you news of him. Here was such a Gentleman in my Shop that says he met [Page 53]him in Leicester fields, but in a disguise, and the 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 Master house the beginning of May last was twelve month.

Who is your Master?

Sir Rich. 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 as he does now; but this is the man, and Titus Oates in 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 he 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 man 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 Cicily Mayo.

Do you know Master Oates?

I never saw his fact before that time, nor had I taken notice of him then, but that there was a young man that lived with Sir Rich. Barker who had a great acquaintance with him, and seeing him in that Garb, he called me to the window, and said, Mr. Oates surely is turn'd Quaker or Je­suite by the change of his habit; no said I, he is no 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 Sr. Richard Barker about it, but the other Servants they told him.

Set up Philip Page.

Do you know Mr. Oates?

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 May.

And you take it upon your Oath that you saw Mr. Oats the beginning of May was twelvemonth in Sir Richard Barker's house.

Yes, my Lord, I do.

What is become of the Boy 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 M ^r Oates had been there in a strange kind of habit, that he was either turned Quaker, of Jesuite. I did very much admire at it, for I had seen his Father but a little while before, and he told me nothing of it. I had a mind to have given 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 Whitsun-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 in May was twelvemonth.

How do you know it was May was twelvemonth?

It was last year, about the beginning of May.

Nay, he tells you this, when you asked him the Question, Whether he knew Mr. Oates? Yes, said he, I did know him for­merly; 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 lay 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 Whitsontide, 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. (Who was sworn.)

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. Howard's, my Lord.

What Howard? one of my Lord of Norfolk's 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 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 ask 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 thin. 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 here 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 distinction.

No, they have the Court of Rome distinct from the Church, and particular Favourites of it, as other Pri [...]s h [...]ve, 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 Son, and instruct him, and talk to him about his Learning, and put Questions to him.

Did he talk 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.

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.

VVhat time was it?

It was, as I take it, the in 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.

VVas 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.

How long do you say was he with you?

Three or four hours.

What did you talk of?

VVe talked about his Travels, about his Journey into Spain, and to Valledolid, and Sallamanca.

VVas he in a Priest's Habit, or in another Habit?

My Lord, he was in a Cinamon-coloured Suit, trim'd [...]th green Ribbons.

We have done with our Evidence, my Lord.

Now, Mr. Langhorn, the King's Council have done with their Witnesses.

Pray call Mr. Charles Howard and his wife.

I do not think Mr. Charles Howard will appear.

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

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 Centleman, that about the end of April, or beginning of May last was a Twelve month, he did meet Mr. Oates at Mr. Howard's 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 Fifth of May was two year, 1677.

Why, how does that appear to be any thing in this case; he did not say that Mr. Howara's 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 Lattin, or asked him any Questions; and he says he cannot tell whether the Son were there in the Room or no.

He says, About two year 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 Twelve month ago, after July, but he cannot remember wether 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 Oates swears too.

And he say he knows nothing whether you had a Child dyed 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 e're I dined with him.

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

Do you remember whether Mr. Howard's Son was alive?

He had a Son alive at that time.

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

I speak of my eldest Son, who dyed 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 dyed 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 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 Leige [...]; and whereas he hath affirmed, Sir John Warner, Mr. Poole, and two or three more that [Page 58]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 ovvn not coming over in April, Mr. Hilsly says he came not over vvith him in the Pacquet-Boat; and the other says that he vvas sick in the Infirmary after Mr. Hilsly came avvay: 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 savv him: I have been a close Prisoner so long, and have had but one weeks time to provide, and therefore must be fain 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. Oates?

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 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.

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 at Grove's 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 Poole; and if any of these points be clear for me, I think his Testimony ought to be set aside. Now as to what Bedloe says, in truth it is impossible for me to examine any Witnesses, and that I think will be your Lordship's 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, if I were, that I should admit Mr. Bedloe to be privy to those Ac­counts; but that I must leave to the Court, my Lord, 'tis impossible to prove a Negative: Mr. Bedloe is 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 not knovv that ever I did: Now that I should admit such a person to such a privacy in Accounts of this nature, (if I were guilty of them) seems very improbable; but yet, as I said, it is impossible to prove a Negative. If I had known what he would have charged upon me before, perhaps I might have made a better defence; and for those Witnesses that I have had, they were prepared by such Friends as thought they would be useful for me. These men have had time to get their Witnesses together. I never saw one of mine till they came into the Court: I hope, my Lord, I shall find no disadvantage in my condemned me meerly for that: I disclaim all Principles of disloyalty, and I do assure your Lordship, I do believe it is Damnation to any one that shall go about to kill the King or deprive him of his Government; I shall leave the rest to your Lordship and the Jury.

The Lord Chief Justices Directions to the Jury against Mr. Langhorne,

Look you, Gentlemen; You have had an Accompt in the first Part of the Evidence in general, That there was a gene­ral Designe of bringing in Propery; and in order to that, as the best and quickest Means to Accomplish it, to destroy 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 Barr, is concerned in it; and that depends upon the Testimony of Witnesses.

The Testimony that Mr. Oats gives against him, amounts but to thus much: I cannot affirm (sayes he) that Mr. Langhorne, 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 Langhorne 's Chamber, and acquainted him with what they had Argeed upon. And he swears, that Mr. Langhorne 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 sayes) he saw, and perused them: 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 carryed to my Lord of Arundel's 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.

Bedlow, 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 Armes, 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 easy 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 sayes, 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 (sayes 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 withall, he lift up his Hands and Eyes, and begg'd of God to give it good Success; and which Bedlow sayes was the Effect of the Letters that he Transcribed into the Book) Mr. Langhorn himself will not deny to [Page 60]be High Treason: and when this is Sworn here by Two Witnesses, he must either Invalidate their Testimony, or Acknowledge it Just, if you find him Guilty or the Indictment with which he is Charged. Now the Question is, What Defence there is against it?

Mr. Langhorn sayes, If I can Disprove a Witness in any one material thing that he sayes, then will it take off from his Credit in every thing he sayes. And first as to Mr. Oats, saith he, I did know him, I must Confess, but I never saw him since the year 1677. The Thing that Mr. Oats Charges him with, is in April or May 1678, or thereabouts; And Mr. Langhorn sayes, he never saw him since 77. Why? Mr. Oats, saith he, Was not here in England, and produces a great many Witnesses that came from be­yond Sea, to Testifie that Mr. Oats was there in April and May, and lon­ger. And whereas Mr. Oats sayes, that there came over in his Company with him, Sir John Warner, Sir Tho. Preston, Mr. Pool, and others. He proves by some Witnesses, that Mr. Oats was there both Months; and by others, that Sir John Warner was at Watton, and Sir Tho. Preston at Leige, and Pool at St. Omers at the time that Mr. Oats sayes they came over with him: And this sayes he, I hope will be plain Evidence why you should not believe Mr. Oats; and the rather, because these Witnesses are such (sayes he as that I do not so much as know their Faces; and you will not presume, that People to whom I am wholly a Stranger, should come hither from St. Omers, to testify a Lye for me.

In Answer to this, I say, 'Tis no good Argument for all that; for though I believe they are Strangers to him, they are not Strangers to the Errand they come about. They come 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 is, Though they are not upon their Oaths, (for the Law will not permit it) I must say to you, in favour of the Prisoner at the Bar, as I did to the Jury Yesterday, You must not take it therefore, as if it were mere Talk and no more; nor reject them too much, because they do not Swear: They would Swear ('tis likely) if the Law would allow it. Only one remark I must observe to you upon their own Evidence: The St. Omers Gardiner (which is one of them) takes upon him to give a very exact Account of Mr. Oats, in the Months of April and May; but when I came to enquire what he knew of him in the Months of June and July, he tells you, Those were not the Months in question.

But on the other side, Did not the Principles of their Religion so Teach, and make us to know, that they will not stick at any Wicked­ness, to propagate it: Did not the best and chiefest Doctors of their Church, Preach and Print it: Did not his Holiness, the Pope, allow it; and never condemn any one Book in the World, that hath Asser­ted the Lawfulness of DEPOSING and KILLING KINGS, for separating from their Religion: Did not 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 of having this Doctrine instill'd into them; and VVere not they bred up in Colledges chiefly to serve that End, then Mr. Lang­horn had said something. Neither are these things Artificially obje­cted against them, for the Doctrines of their Church are so False and Penurious, so Destructive and so Bloody; and the way they take to come off from all Vows, Oaths, and Sacraments, by Dispensa­tions [Page 61]before-hand, or Indulgence and Pardons afterwards, is a thing still so much worse, that they are really unfit for Human Society. They should get their Pope, if they would not have it thrown into their Dish, and have it believed by us; I say, they should get the Pope of Rome to decry and Anathematize such Doctrines of Deposing and Killing Kings, and Discharging Subjects from their Allegiance: 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 Profession, 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, and should hear them, if we could not Answer what they alleadge, by Evidence to the contrary. Mr. Oats therefore to justify himself, hath produced I think, Seven or Eight Witnesses, 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. Oats's Testimony to be believed. If I were satisfyed that really and truly Mr. Oats was not here, but was Six Months together there, and that he hath invented this Story and 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, which he was present; and he did go (he saies) to Mr. Langhorn within a Day or two after, to acquaint him with the resolution of it.

To this end hath Mr. Oats produced Seven or Eight Witnesses that saw him, as they swear. He hath produced a Minister, that says he saw him in a Disguise, but having 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. Oats 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 justify 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 Oats in the Street. He hath produ­ced to you the Coach-man 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 their Master with it as soon as he came Home, and their Ma­ster says that so they did. And the person that then lived in the House, and now is Dead, said to the Maid: Yonder is Mr. Oats, 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, he named him to her, Oats, and that this is the man, she knew him since. 'Tis the same 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 he says, he saw him twice at Mr. Charles Howard's, in A­rundel House. There was indeed some perplexity, they would have put upon it, by reason of Mr. Howards Son being dead a year before; but the VVitness saies he did not know the Son. A Papist he confesses himself expresly to be, if not a Priest; and I would not ask him the Question, because 'tis not fair to make him accuse himself: but he does swear expresly, he saw Mr. Oats at Mr. Charles Howards in April, or May, which contradicts all their VVitnesses. He also produces 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 stayd Three or Four hours with him, and tall'd 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 Seven or Eight 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 VVitnesses 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 VVitnesses.

'Tis true, they are not; You have Four or Five VVitnesses that speak apart; but two of them do say, that they knew Oats also was there at the same time that they speake that Sir John VVarner 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 VVitnesses of Oats 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 tell 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 Young men were sent of an Errand, and though you do not know them Mr. Langorn, and are Innocent as to any tampering with them, yet I am afraid they are come to serve the Catholick Cause as they call it. 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 VVoman 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. Oats [Page 63]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 accquainted 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 Popery, and 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 us to look to our selves. For I must tell you, the Plot is proved as plain as the Day, and that by Oats; and farther, Oats Testimony is confirm'd 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 & 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, being 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 satisfi'd 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 Bedlow '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 satisfi'd in that particular (and that a man may very well be 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. Oats Testimony; It is in Court, but it hath not been produc'd 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.

Sr. 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.

VVhen 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. Oats had told the Councel of the Consult in the twenty fourth of April, is this Letter found.

'Tis in Confirmation of Mr. Oats's Testimony.

This Letter is only as to the Plot in General, and not to be applyed to Mr. Langhorn in particular.

Mr. Oats 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. Oats being at Saint Omers, I suppose 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 Saint Omers: But will you tell us what that 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. VVell, 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 publick Cause, [Page 65]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.

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 the High-Trea­son whereof he stands Indicted, or Not Guilty?

Guilty.

What Goods or Chattels?

None to our Knowledge.

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 the High Treason committed, or at any time since to your Knowledge. And so you say all.

Yes.

It is a Verdict according to the Justice of the Evidence.

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; VVhat 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; VVhat 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; VVhat canst thou say, &c.

I have nothing more to say than 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; VVhat canst thou say, &c?

I have nothing to say.

Then Cryer make Proclamation of Silence while Judgment is given, upon pain of Imprisonment.

Then Mr. Recorder gave the Judgment thus:

You, the Prisoners at the Bar: You have been se­verally Arraigned, 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 satisfy­ed 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 best 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 VVorld, that can be the most Impudent Sinners in This? Murder, and the Blackest of 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 Endeavours 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? VVhat 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, signify nothing. It's a strange Religion, [Page 67]that applyes 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 Forreign 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, is 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 said proceeds from a Lay-man, to you that are Professed in Religion; yet I hope, it will 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 to an Account for every one of those Private Consultations, of which we can never come to any certain Knowledge. Though you have put all those Ob­ligations of Secresy, upon your Party, which Religion could tye them by: Though you give them the Sacrament, not only to oblige [...]em 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 to your Inferiors, or your Superiors to you, will ne­ver dispense with that Accompt you 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 of the Protestant Religion to Murder any (let it be upon their own Heads that profess 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 now, but will prevail upon those whom they have Inveigled into their Perswasion, to desert 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 their Proselites. And this I thought fit to premise to you in great [Page 68]Compassion and Charity. And I pray God it may have that effect, which I designed; time is, that it may put you in mind of that great immortallity 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 thing 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 Place from whence you came; and from thence you be drawn to the place of Execution upon Hurdles, that you be there severally hang'd by the Neck, that you be Cut down alive, that your Privy Members be cut off, that you Bowels be taken out and burnt in your view, that your Heads be sever'd from you Bodies, that you Bodies be di­vided into four Quarters, and your Quarters to be at the King's Dispose.

And the God of Infinit Mercy, be Merciful 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 Freinds, 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 Deco­ru [...] [...]hat 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: If it be any business that any person would have an accompt of which you have been Concern'd 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 shall 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.