with a good conscience, have given the verdict and Mrs. Richards said, he owned he was emthe then jury did; or whether an upright ployed to put a plot upon the dissenting Procourt could, with a good conscience have declar-testants? When Whaley testified against him ed they were well satisfied in the verdict given, that he was a thief, and had stole Whaley's as all the four judges in that case did, though tankard? When Lun testified that Haynes said the chief justice North only spoke the words. the parliament were a company of rogues for not And though it is too late to advantage the de- giving the king money; but he would help the ceased, yet it will do right to the memory of king to money enough out of the fanatics estates? When Hickman testified against him he the man, to whose dextrous management on his trial, many now alive owe the continuance heard him say, God damn him, he cared not what of their lives to this day. It was not their in- he swore, nor against whom he swore, for it was nocence protected the lord Fairfax, sir John his trade to get money by swearing? When Brooks, and many others before-mentioned, Mrs. Oliver said, that he had writ a letter in and many not named in the trial, but Colledge's her father's name, without her father's knowWhen Bolron testified against him, baffling that crew of witnesses, and so plainly ledge? detecting their falshood, that the king's counsel that he said he knew nothing of a Popish or a never durst play them at any other person but Presbyterian Plot, but if he were to be an evithe earl of Shaftesbury, as shall be shewn; dence, he cared not what he swore, but would and failing there they were paid off, and va- swear any thing to get money? When Everard nished, and never did more harm visibly; what testified against him, that he said, Necessity under-hand practices they might be afterwards and hard pay drove him to say any thing against guilty of, I know not. the Protestants; and being taxed that his evidence against Colledge agreed not with what he had formerly said, he said he could not excuse it, but his poverty and self-preservation drove him to it? Which was a plain confession of the falshood of his evidence, and of the reason of it; and added, it was a judgment upon the king or people, the Irishmen's swearing against them, for outing the Irish of their estates: which can have no other sense, than the Irishmen's forswearing themselves against the English was a judgment, &c.

Who could believe any one of those four witnesses, Dugdale, Haynes, Turbervile, and Smith, if it were for no other reason than the improbability of the thing; for (as Colledge said) was it probable he should trust things of that nature with papists, who had broke their faith with their own party, who could lay greater obligations of secrecy upon them than he was able to do? That he, a Protestant, should trust people who had been employed to cut Protestants' throats? And neither of them ever discovered of the things they swore, till any after the Oxford parliament, though most of them were pretended to be spoken and transacted before.

Who could believe Dugdale in any of his evidence against the prisoner, when Oates testified against him, that he said he knew nothing against any Protestants in England? And being taxed by Oates, that he had gone against his conscience in his evidence against Colledge to the grand jury at London, he said, It was long of colonel Warcup, for he could get no money else; which is a plain confession he had sworn wrong, and of the cause for which he did it, and of the person who induced him to do it. That he had given out that he was poisoned, whereas his disease was a clap: which was an ill thing in him, as it implied a charge of poisoning him on other persons. And when Elizabeth Hunt testified against him, that he said, after Colledge was in prison, that he did not believe Colledge had any more hand in any conspiracy against the king than the child unborn; and that he had as lieve have given an hundred pounds he had never spoken what he had; and that he had nothing to say against Colledge which could touch his life: And when Yates testified against him, that when Yates said Colledge was an honest man, and stood up for the good of the king and government; Yes, said Dugdale, I believe he does, and I know nothing to the contrary.

Who could believe Haynes in any part of his evidence against the prisoner, when Mrs. Hall

How could Turbervile be believed in any part of his evidence against Colledge, when Oates testified against him, that he said, a little before the witnesses were sworn against Colledge at the Old-Bailey, that he was not a witness against him, nor could give any evidence against him; and yet afterwards, at Oxon, Turbervile told him he had sworn against Colledge to the grand-jury, and said, the Protestant citizens had deserted him, and God damn him, he would not starve: which words, I think, need no explanation.

And lastly, how could Smith be believed in any part of his evidence against the prisoner, when it was testified against him by Blake, that he said Haynes's discovery was a ShamPlot, a Meal-Tub-Plot? The meaning of the words, I think, are well-known: That he would have had Bolron swear against sir John Brooks, the lord Shaftesbury, and Colledge, things of which he knew nothing, and told him what he should swear, lest they should disagree in their evidence. When it was testified against him by Oates, that he said God damn bim, he would have Colledge's blood? when it was testified against him by Mowbray, that he tempted Mowbray, to be a witness against Colledge and sir John Brooks, and was very inquisitive to know what discourse he had with the lord Fairfax, sir John Hewley, and Mr. Stern, on the road to Oxon; and said, if the parliament did not give the king money, stood on the bill of Exclusion, that was pretence enough to swear a design to seize the

but

Had the evidence been of the mischiefing the king by means which a single person is capable of using, as stabbing, shooting, and the like, the matter is not impossible; but it being by means which it is impossible for a single person to execute, it carries such disbelief with it, that it is impossible to find a man in his senses at the same time guilty of it. And a man that is non compos mentis, if my lords Coke* and Halet are to be believed, cannot be guilty of high-treason within that branch of the statute, compassing and imagining, &c.

It is true, a madman may be guilty of treason, in attempting the king's person; but for that he is no more said to be punished, than beasts of prey are when killed; which are more properly said to be destroyed than punished for the public good. But if so good a counterproof in Colledge's case was not made, as ought to have been, some allowances ought to be made for the prisoner's ignorance of what he was accused of, his usage and strict imprisonment before his trial, the ruffling him just before his trial in the manner before declared, the depriving him of his notes, the giving an evidence of many hours long against him, before he was permitted to answer any part of it. And the use of pen, ink, and paper was but of little advantage to him; for a man that hath not been used to do it, cannot take notes of any use. And in truth, he complained he had not taken notes of half said, but relied on the court to do him justice in summing up the evidences; which they promised to do, but broke their words.

defence says; and Mr. Masters, after much pumping, recollected himself, and said he thought the prisoner said, the papists had a hand in those things; which proved the truth of Colledge's assertion.

As for the evidence of Colledge's saying he might be a colonel in time; if he hoped for what he said, it was no crime, or proof of a crime, it is no more than what every soldier hopes for, and he himself had been one.

As for the evidence of Atterbury, Sawel, and Stevens, of their seizing the pictures; admit they swore true, it did not amount to the proof of the treason in the indictment, or of any sort of treason: and yet if Colledge's maid said true, it looks as if the finders or some other person sent them to Colledge's house, in order

to find them there.

Of all sorts of evidence, the finding papers in a person's possession is the weakest, because no person can secure himself against designs upon him in that kind. And after Dangerfield's design upon colonel Mansel, and the evidence in Fitzharris's trial, that the design of that pamphlet was to convey copies of it into some members of parliament's pockets, and then seize them, that piece of evidence ought to have been spared, till those and other practices of the like kind had been forgotten.

The last witness was sir William Jennings, of Colledge's saying he had lost the first blood in the cause, but it would not be long before more would be lost; what was that more, than that he thought more would be lost in the cause, which he interpreted the Protestant It must likewise be considered, that the con- cause? Suppose he thought so without reason, cern a man hath upon him, when he is upon and was mistaken, where was the crime? But trial for his life, is so far from fortifying, that if he thought so upon good reason, and good it weakens his memory: Besides, the foul reason he had to think so, there was no pretence practice, without any remorse, put upon him of a crime in it. I believe most men thought and his witnesses; some of them imprisoned, as Colledge did, from the time of the business that he could not have them at the trial; others of Fitzharris; and what imputation was it to so threatened, that they durst not appear for him? Why were not all the expressions he him, and the cry of the auditory against him used in his trial as good evidence against him and his witnesses, were mighty discourage- as that saying? For he then said, it was an ments. All these things being considered, horrid conspiracy to take away his life, and how could any understanding jury take it on would not stop at him, for it was against all their oaths, That the evidence against the pri- the Protestants of England, and the like; soner, of a design to seize the king, &c. was which was his opinion, and after-times shewed as clear as the sun at noon-day? him a true prophet.

As for the evidence which Mr. Masters gave, if it were true, it was no evidence of treason; an erroneous opinion may make an heretic, but not a traitor: it is a very distant consequence, that because he affirmed that the parliament in 40 had done nothing but what was just in respect of king Charles the first, therefore the prisoner was guilty of a design against king Charles the second: Besides, that in all probability, though Mr. Masters might inveigh against the parliament, Colledge might only justify them by throwing the ill things done in that time upon the papists, as Colledge in his

*

3 Inst. 4. 6. 4 Co. Rep. 124, b.

One thing was very dishonestly insinuated, that the prisoner was a papist, which was only to incense the jury against him, and it had its effect; whereas it was very plain that he was a Protestant, though perhaps a dissenter, and therefore had not lately come to the public church; and under that notion the papists and some Protestants were contented that dissenters should be punished as papists; yet if they could have proved him a papist, no doubt they would have done it, for the destruction of the man was the design of the prosecution, and it mattered not for what treason he was convicted, so he was convicted. And he himself gave a pretty sort of evidence against himself, if they

+ H. P. C. p. 10, 43. Hist. of P. C. Vol. 1, could have proved him a papist: he proved,

p. 37.

and confessed, he was educated a Protestant ;

and if they could have proved him reconciled | could not be prevailed upon to do an ill thing to the Popish religion, which was treason, he to save his life, his execution was ordered; helped them a great deal in their proofs: it yet as a shew of mercy, his quarters were perwas therefore very disingenuous in the chief mitted to be buried; a favour he slighted, with justice to reproach him at his condemnation, saying that he cared not whether he was eaten that he had not made that proof of his religion up with flies or worms. The same favour was as it was expected, when his religion was not likewise shewed Fitzharris, but the true reason the matter of which he was indicted; that was of both was, that they had a mind that the slily insinuated to exasperate, and no proof trials and pretended crimes, for which Fitzpretended to be made of his being a papist. harris and Colledge were condemned, should But he had more reason to complain of the in- be forgotten; which would not be so soon justice of the Court in summing up the evi- done, if their quarters were always exposed to dence, who did it in such a manner, that if they view. But though all people were quiet, yet had been counsel for the prisoner, as they pre- there was great grumbling, and most honest tended, they would have been justly suspected men were afraid; and the constancy of Colto have taken a fee of the other side to betray ledge at his execution was such, that it made their client. the most violent against him relent.

For, as Colledge readily said, if the chief. justice had looked on his notes, he would have found more evidence against Turbervile, and Dugdale, than he had repeated. And it was a lame excuse for the chief justice to say, he referred it to the memory of the jury, for he could not remember more; when, as I dare say, after about thirteen hours evidence, the jury remembered no more, than that they were to find him Guilty.

The author of the Critical Review of the

State Trials, in justification of these proceedings against Colledge, or rather, perhaps, by way of set-off to them, alleges the parliament's This Ordinance is cap. 44 of that year, and it Ordinance of 1649 making words Treason. enacts, "That if any person shall maliciously or advisedly publish, by writing, printing, or tyrannical, usurped or unlawful, or that the openly declaring that the government was Commons in Parliament assembled were not the supreme authority of the nation, every such offence should be adjudged to be High Treason."

From N. Luttrell's "Brief Historical Re

The truth is, upon the whole, what Colledge said was true; they took away all helps from him for defending himself, and therefore they had as good have condemned him without a trial. Notwithstanding all which, the courage of the man never fainted, but after he was condemned, boldly asked, when he was to be executed? To which the lord chief justice re-lation," MS. in All Souls' Library, Oxford, it plied, it depended on the king's pleasure; but appears that in "July, 1682, Mrs. Goodwin, smoothly said, in those cases of high treason sister to Stephen Colledge, lately executed for they did not use to precipitate the execution, it treason, was committed to Newgate, on the should not be so sudden but that he should have information of her own husband, for treason;" notice to prepare himself. And in truth he and that, on " Sept. 6th, Mrs. Sarah Goodwin, had from the 18th, on which he was consister to Stephen Colledge, was tried for high demned, to prepare himself, to the 31st of treason, on the testimony of her husband, for August 1681, on which he was executed; a treasonable words spoke; but there being no Inuch longer time than was allowed my lord other evidence against her, she was dis Russel, or Mr. Cornish, and many others. charged." And the true reason of so long a reprieve, was It appears by 3 Modern Rep. 52, that in to see how the nation would digest the matter, Mich. Term, 36 Car. 2, a person convicted of and whether the man by the terror of death drinking to the pious memory of Colledge, was could be prevailed upon to become a tool to de-in the Court of King's-Bench, sentenced to stroy other innocents: but when it was found pay a fine of 1,000l. to stand in the pillory, and that the people were quiet, and that the prisoner to find sureties for his good behaviour.

282. The Trial of SLINGSBY BETHEL, esq. at the Bridge-House in Southwark, for an Assault and Battery on Robert Mason, at the Election of Members of Parliament for the Borough of Southwark: 33 CHARLES II. A. D. 1681.