L. C. J. Here are two witnesses to prove that my lord was angry with him for going to the Tower in his name; and they both testify he was extremely high, and refused to carry a letter to my lord; and yet he says, in August following he had this discourse. Pris. I have now only one thing to say what hath passed between Mr. Oates and Mr. Dangerfield. L. C. J. Do it as near as you can. Sol. Gen. We have some other evidence to answer this. Att. Gen. If your lordship please, we will call two or three witnesses to prove the point. First, to prove this last thing, that we have been in my lord's company later than my lord speaks of. L. C. J. He says August. Att. Gen. We will prove after that time, that is the time that pinches us. Pris. My lady Powis is in Court, will you hear her? Sol. Gen. Pray inform my lord and the jury. what time it was you saw Mr. Dangerfield at my lord Castlemaine's. L. C. J. What month can you charge yourself to say you saw Dangerfield in my lord Cas tlemaine's company. Turner. I can't say just the time. Turner. I can't well tell, I think it might be about July. Just. Raymond. Why do you think so? L. C. J. You are not asked to accuse your self in any thing, but when you saw them to Lady Powis. My lord, I never did send a let-gether. ter by Mr. Dangerfield to any body in my life, İ nor never read a letter in Mr. Dangerfield's presence, nor never had him so much in my company to read a letter or any tittle to him. L. C. J. I will tell you gentlemen, what he says; Mr. Dangerfield swears he carried a letter from my lady Powis to my lord Castlemaine, and there was an answer brought back, and that that answer of my lord Castlemaine's was read before him; and (you will do well to call Mrs. Cellier in again) my lady Powis doth | deny that she ever sent a letter by him to my lord Castlemaine, or any body else, by him in her life; or that she ever communicated any letter to him: This is apt evidence, this is the truth of it; for it answers directly to what he says against my lord Castlemaine. Sir R. Barker. Yes, my lord; the evidence that I gave, my lord, was only this, that my servants told me that Mr. Oates had been at my house: It was before Whitsontide in May 1678. L. C. J. Did you see him then? When was it you saw him? Sir R. Barker. My lord, I saw him after. Sir R. Barker. My lord, it was about the latter end of June. L. C. J. He says to his own knowledge he saw him in June. Att. Gen. But we have his servants here too, Philip Page, and Cecily Mayo. L.C. J. Do you hear, Mrs. Cellier, was there any letters sent by my lord Castlemaine to my lady Powis, that was read before you and Dangerfield? VOL. VII. Turner. I was coming down stairs, my lord. Just. Raymond. You don't tell when it was. L. C. J. Tell us whether you can tell or no: If you are doubtful, say you are doubtful; but speak the truth. Turner. I can't be positive. L. C. J. It might be in June, or July, or August; but you think July. Turner. Yes, sir. Sol. Gen. The sooner it is after that, the evidence is the better against it. Att. Gen. Madam, I think your ladyship says you never sent a letter by Dangerfield? Lady Powis. Yes, sir. Att. Gen. Nor did you never receive any notes from him? Lady Powis. I have received some notes from Mrs. Cellier, which were his writing. L. C. J. But did you ever receive a letter from my lord Castlemaine? Lady Powis. Never, my lord. Just. Raymond. What do you say, Mr. Attorney? Att. Gen. Hark you, Woodman, were you sent with any letter? Woodman. To whom? Att. Gen. To my lord Castlemaine, or any body? Woodman. I was sent with one letter, it was Woodman. To my lord Castlemaine; as I remember, my lord, I took it from Mrs. Cellier's daughter. Att. Gen. Did you ever receive any money of my lord Castlemaine? Woodman. Yes, my lord. L. C. J. What was it; How much was it? Woodman. About three pounds, or thirty shillings, I believe. L. C. J. How do you believe it? Att. Gen. Was it for Dangerfield? Sol. Gen. My lord, I have this to say, to prove Dr. Oates was in London in April 1678. L. C. J. He doth not deny but he might be here too. Pris. I don't dispute it my lord, I have only this one word more. It is not of treason, but it is against my reputation; because this man, before your lordship, I think, has accused me of it; and I think, my lord, I shall give you very good satisfaction: That is, that the boys that came from St. Omers were not instructed and taught by me. Now, if you please, my lord, to give me leave to shew it, I have done. Look my lord, the thing that I can say, is this; Mr. Littcott Just. Raymond. You see he said it was morally impossible. Pris. Pray, my lords Just. Raymond. I will undertake you will say it is time lost. L. C. J. I will stay some time to observe to the jury what I have taken notice of, with all my heart, but I should be gone. Pris. I have done, my lord, I would not say any thing to disgust any body. L. C. J. Gentlemen of the jury, I will deliver my observations in this cause as I would in any cause, to the best of my understanding, and I will make those observations that are as natural as I know how to do; and proper for you to take notice of. It is in vain to dispute what my lord stands indicted of: it is for attempting to murder the king, and change our government and our religion. To prove this there have been two witnesses only that are material, and that is Mr. Oates in the first place; and Mr. Oates his evidence, the sum of it is to be reduced up to L. C. J. Mr. Attorney, do you stand speak any thing? Att. Gen. If your lordship pleases, we will sum up the evidence for the king, not to offend your lordship. L. C. J. If you would be short, Mr. Attorney, we would not hinder you of any thing. Att. Gen. I will be very short. If it please your lordship, and you gentlemen of the jury, my lord Castlemaine is here charged with hightreason. The proof that we have against him is by two witnesses, that is, Dr. Oates and Mr. Dangerfield. Mr. Oates he doth swear this, namely, that after the consult (for I will bring it in short) that after the consult that was for killing the king and altering the government, iny lord Castlemaine being acquainted with it at Mr. Fenwick's chamber, did hope it good success, and that he should come to be revenged. Mr. Dangerfield he hath proved, That being treated with to kill the king, and having refused to do it, my lord Castlemaine was very angry with him for it, and said, Why won't you do that for which you were taken out of prison? Here are two witnesses express. What is said against Mr. Oates signifies nothing. As to Mr. Dangerfield, there are some exceptions, which we must confess to be true; but he is a witness, and, my lord, such matters are to be expected to be proved by such witnesses: for if a man will discover robberies, he must go to such persons as do such things; and if treasons, it must be among them that have been employed in such things. Though he were a dishonest man before, yet he may be honest now he was never guilty of any treason but as he was employed among them. There are some witnesses brought to encounter him, and one is my lady Powis, who, as he says, sent him with a letter to my lord Castlemaine; but she says she did never send a letter by him : and others say, he would never come at my lord Castlemaine after he was angry, which was in June. Now for that, gentlemen, you do hear Turner say, That in July or August, for he cannot tell which, he thinks it might be July, he saw Dangerfield at my lord Castlemaine's so that that encounters that evidence. L. C. J. If Mr. Attorney had not interrupted me, I would not have left out any thing of this nature, for I would be certainly careful where the king's life lies at stake: I would be sure to preserve my sovereign above all things; and therefore no man ought to think that I should be partial in a cause wherein our religion, and the life of the king and the government is in danger. But I must say on the other side, that there should be good competent proofs of these things against those accused, because their lives and fortunes, and honours, and all are at stake. And so, gentlemen, we shall discharge our consciences to the best of our understandings, and deal uprightly on both hands. For the case it stands thus: It is truly observed by Mr. Attorney, that there are but two material witnesses to the charge of this indictment, that is to say, Mr. Oates and Mr. Dangerfield. Mr. Oates his testimony is in two things; the one close, the other is more remote. That more remote is, that he had a letter to send to my lord Castlemaine, which he gave to the provincial to send it, and as he says, he saw a letter subscribed Castlemaine; and that afterwards by seeing him write a superscription, he could recollect the character so well, that he believed that to be his hand which be saw in Spain among the jesuits or the fathers, as they call them there, to whom they communicated that letter; wherein he mentioned the general design, that is, the bringing in popery, which is the bringing in the Catholic religion, as they call it. That is more remote. He says, there were letters passed between them, wherein my lord approved of some things, and disapproved of others, which related to the design; by which, says Mr. Oates, we meant the whole matter and transaction of killing the king; and that doth appear by that letter be saw of my lord Castlemaine's, for that annexes to design the advancing the Catholic religion, The first time he saw him he did not know who he was; and there, at Wild-house, he says, that my lord Castlemaine should drop out some words which were suspicious, and one thing, as if he understood something of this matter that they had in agitation. of every judge; and I cannot see how he can discharge his conscience, and the duty he owes to the government, in respect of his oath and place, if he doth not make those just observations to the jury which are done in all cases: that is to say, when men have contracted great crimes upon themselves, though by law they may be witnesses; yet it hath always been observed, and their credit left them to consider of. You see how many crimes they have produced, a matter of six great enormous crimes; and by them you will see how far you ought to consider his testimony. Had Mr. Dangerfield been guilty only of being concerned in the treason, and come in as a witness, I should have thought him a very competent witness, for that is Mr. Oates's case; but they prove crimes of another sort and nature, and whether the man of a sudden be become a saint by being become a witness, I leave that to you to consider, and how far you are satisfied in the main. The next thing is the opposition to his testimony. He hath sworn that he carried a letter from my lady Powis to my lord Castlemaine, and an answer returned back from my lord to her, and that my lady Powis did read it in the presence of Mrs. Cellier and him. Of this my lady Powis hath been asked (it is true, they are not upon their oaths, but that is not their fault, the law will not allow it), and my lady Powis hath affirmed to it, as much as lay upon her to do, that she never sent a letter by Mr. Dangerfield to my lord Castlemaine, nor any body else. And whereas he says Mrs. Cellier was present, she says she knows of no such letter, nor was any read in her company. And this is a contradicting his evidence, supposing him to be a But more particularly he says, that when he came to Fenwick's chamber, there was the great matter. They talked before but of the design in general, at Wild-house; but afterwards meeting in Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, where he was told who he was, they went to Fenwick's chamber, where they fell a discoursing about several things that related to the concern, and at last they fell upon the matter in hand, and said, they were glad to see the fathers so unanimous in this matter: I asked about what matter? He said, the killing of the king and bringing in popery; to which, he says, that my lord should make answer, he wished them good success in their design, and that then he should be revenged. This is the substance of what Mr. Oates says; against whose testimony, I must tell you, there hath been but little. There is but little thrown upon Mr. Oates by way of disgrace and infamy; for that verdict that the jury found against his evidence, it is not material, for then every man must be accused when the jury does not go according to the testimony he gives. It is not to be denied, but there is something said against him in another particular, and that is his coming over from St. Omers; where he says that Mr. Hilsley came over with him in the pacquet-boat, but Mr. Hilsley denies it; Mr. Oates would have salved it, by saying he left him at St. Omers. It is true, says Mr. Oates, but I overtook him afterwards; but he says to the point, that he came not with him. Now, it is not to be denied on the other hand, but Mr. Oatesman otherwise untouched. And whereas Danmight be here, and my lord of Castlemaine seems to admit it, and it is probable enough Mr. Oates might be here. This is all I remember in reference to Mr. Oates. You must weigh well with yourselves how probable or not probable what he does swear is. But I must tell the jury they are to weigh the natures of people among themselves, as they carry probability or not, or else the confidence of a swearer shall take away any man's life whatsoever. And to that Mr. Õates says first, I understand not how he should be so free, Mr. Oates being a stranger to him, when he knew not my lord, and doth not know whether my lord knew him or no. But he says, my lord must needs see the Jesuits trusted him, and that might make him more confident that af terwards going to Fenwick's house, he spoke broader in plain English. They were talking of a design to kill the king and bring in the Catholic religion; and Mr. Oates says, he wished them good success in the design, and that then he should be revenged. How far this oath is to be taken or not, I must leave to your consideration. : The next is Mr. Dangerfield; for nothing infamous is proved against Mr. Oates. Dan gerfield is a man of whom there is enough. You see what crimes there are; for it is the duty 6 gerfield says, that in August he was with my lord, and he said, how chance you would not do that thing for which you were brought out of prison? What? Would you have me kill the king? Yes, saith he, that is it. And my lord speaking very angrily and very roughly, made him think it time to withdraw out of his company, and never come into his company more; and that this was the time of his anger, and no other time, my lord rather complimenting him, as he would say, with friendly salutations. But they produce witnesses against this. Says Mrs. Cellier, this day twelvemonth; and says t'other, about a week after the jesuits were executed, which was about the beginning of July, saith she, I would have you carry a letter to my lord Castlemaine; saith he, I would not do that, I would go an hundred miles upon another errand, but I would not go to him. Another witness says, my lord was mighty angry with him, and told him the cause, because he went in his name to the lords in the Tower. First, this contradicts what he said, as if there had been no anger before. The next is, that it is very improbable that my lord should be angry with him so much, that my lord should be very angry with him for going in his name to the Tower, and afterwards for his refusing to kill the king; when he said, Why did you not do that you came out of prison for? What, my lord, to kill the king? Yes, that.' This is an argument in opposition to his testimony. a person guilty, or no? I am of opinion, it is but one witness, if you do not believe one; and I am sure one is not sufficient to find one guilty: And therefore if so be you are of another opinion, let us deal fairly and above-board, that it may appear we deal rightly between the king and his subjects, and so preserve men that are accused, and not guilty. Just. Jones. I think, in the first place, my lord hath very faithfully delivered the evidence; and I do think it necessary, in a case of Treason, that there must be two witnesses believed by the jury. The next is a consideration for his testimony. Turner says, in answer to that, in July he takes it, but cannot charge himself whether June, or July, or August, but he himself thinks July, that he saw him at the lord Castlemaine's house. And the king's counsel would gather from that, there could not be such an unwillingness to go before that time, it being after the time they speak of that this man saw him there. Whether or no it was in June, or July, Just. Raymond. I never heard any man quesor August, is something uncertain. So that I tion it. If the law says there must be two withave repeated, as near as I can, all that is sub-nesses produced, it says they must be both stantial on either part; and I have, according to the best of my understanding, dealt fairly on both sides, and observed to you what hath been sworn against my lord, and what hath been said in contradiction to what they swear, and what appears upon record, as to Dangerfield. There is a great deal of difference between Mr. Oates's testimony and Mr. Dangerfield's; for you may believe one, when you may perchance not believe another. There are not those things cast upon Mr. Oates that are upon Mr. Dangerfield. Now I must tell you, thongh they bave produced two, if you believe but one, I think (if so be my brethren's opinions be otherwise, I would be very willingly contradicted in this matter) if two witnesses are produced, both speaking materially to the thing, the one is believed, and the other not. Whether upon these two witnesses the jury can find believed. L. C. J. Now you have our sense of it. Cl. of Cr. Who shall speak for you? Cl. of Cr. Roger Palmer, esq.; earl of Castlemaine in the kingdom of Ireland, hold up thy hand, look upon the jury. Cl. of Cr. Is Roger Palmer esq. earl of Castlemaine in the kingdom of Ireland, Guilty of the High-Treason whereof he stands indicted, or Not Guilty? Jury. Not Guilty. Cl. of Cr. This is your verdict, you say he is 267. The Trial of HENRY CARR, or CARE, at the Guildhall of London, for a Libel: 32 CHARLES II. A. D. 1680. 6 AN information was filed in the Crown-office our now lord the king, at the parish of Sepulagainst Henry Carr, which sets forth, That a chres, London, a certain false, scandalous and certain plot of a traiterous conspiracy was malicious book, intituled, "The Weekly Packet lately bad within this kingdom of England," of Advice from Rome, or the History of amongst divers false traitors of this kingdom of Popery," maliciously and unlawfully hath England, to put to death and murder our lord printed, and caused to be published: In which king Charles 2. and the government of this book is contained among other things, as folkingdom of England, and the sincere religion of loweth: There is lately found out by an exGod within this kingdom of England well and perienced physician, an incomparable medipiously established, to destroy and subvert,cament, called "The Wonder-working Plaisand the Romish religion within this kingdom ofter," truly Catholic in operation, somewhat England to introduce; and that also divers of kin to the Jesuits Powder, but more effectraitors for high-treason aforesaid, were law-tual. The virtues of it are strange and va fully convicted and attainted, and other per-rious. It will make justice deaf as well as sons, for high-treason, aforesaid, were by due blind, takes out spots out of deepest treasons, Course of law tried and acquitted. Neverthe more cleverly than Castile-soap does common less, one Henry Carr, of the parish of Sepul-stains. It alters a man's constitution in twə chres, London, gent, knowing well the premises, but minding, and maliciously intending the government of the kingdom of England, and the administration of justice in the same kingdom to scandalize, and to bring the same in contempt: The 1st day of August, in the 31st year of or three days, more than the virtuosos transfusion of blood in seven years. Is a great alexipharmic, and helps poisons, and those 'that use them. It miraculously exalts and purifies the eye-sight, and makes people behold nothing but innocence in the blackest malefactors. It is a mighty cordial for a declining cause, stifles a plot as certainly as the itch is destroyed by butter and brimstone. In a word, it makes fools wise men, and wise men fools, and both of them knaves. The colour of this precious balm is bright and dazzling, and being applied privately to the fist in decent manner, and a competent dose, infallibly performs all the said cures, and many others not fit here to be mentioned.'* To the great contempt of our lord the king and his laws, to the great scandal of the government of our now lord the king, and the laws of this kingdom of England, and the administra tion of justice in the same kingdom; to the evil example of all others in such a case offending, and against the peace of our lord the king, his crown and dignity. To which Information appeared in the Court of King's-Bench, Henry Carr, by his attorney, Benedict Brown, the 11th of February, and having heard the Information aforesaid, said that he was Not Guilty. Issue being joined, it was tried by writ of Nisi Prius, at the Guild-hall, before the lord chief Justice Scroggs, upon the 2nd of July, 1680, where a jury was summoned, whose name are as followeth: Benj. Thorogood, Richard Blackbourne, Godfrey Richards, Leonard Bates, Phillip Harman, Francis Breerwood, Thomas Kemble, William Longman, John Debman, Lewis Wilson, Henry Loshoe, Thomas Salter, Jeremiah Gregory, Nich. Bondy, George Day, Nich. Dawes, Richard Blaney, Henry Averie, Joseph Hall, William Bridges, Thomas Lee, Richard White, Randal Dod, Richard Bowater. Of all which only four appeared and were sworn, viz. Nicholas Bondy, Leonard Bates, Henry Averie, Randal Dod. Whereupon a tales was prayed and granted, and then were sworn and added to the principal pannel, according to the form of the statute. Nicholas Caplin, Richard Cawtham, Arthur Young, William Yap, James Wood, Thomas Gilby, John Odensel, Emanuel Conyers. After which the court proceeded, and the Recorder began to open the offence, as follows. *"The Weekly Pacquet of Advice from Rome, &c." was first published on Tuesday December the 3rd 1678, and the three next numbers appeared respectively on the 10th, 17th and 24th of that month. Then the day of publication was changed from Tuesday to Friday for the convenience of dispatching the paper into the country by the post accordingly; the 5th number was published on Friday, January the 3rd, 1679. The work was continued until Friday, May 28, 1680; when I conjecture it ceased in consequence of the prosecution out of which arose the trial before us. In the year 1679, the first 31 numbers were published in a volume with this title, "The Weekly Pacquet of Advice from Rome, or the History of Popery: A deduction of the usurpations of the Bishops of Rome, and the errors and superstitions by them from time to time brought into the church. In the process of which the Papists arguments are answered, their fallacies detected, their cruelties registered, their treasons and seditious principles observed, and the whole body of Papistry anatomised, performed by a single sheet, coming out every Friday, but with a continual connexion." To each being added, "The "Popish Courant, or some occasional Joco-se-gether that are continued on, which, my lord, "rious Reflections on Romish Fopperies." In the next year, the 47 succeeding numbers were collected into the "Second volume of the Weekly Pacquets of Advice from Rome, or History of Popery, displaying the horrid lives of the several bishops of Rome down to the year of our lord one thousand, and the usurpations, errors, and superstitions from time to time introduced or advanced in the church. Wherein also divers of our most important controversies with the Papists are fairly stated and argued, their arguments solved, their objections answered, and the truth asserted, together with the Popish Courants, or, &c." Both volumes as well as the single numbers were pub ished by Langley Curtis, on Ludgate Hill. [See the Case of Jane Curtis, in this Collection.] Mr. Recorder. (Sir George Jefferies.) This person among others intending to scandalize the government, hath caused a book to be published, which I have here in my hand, called the Weekly Packet of Advice from Rome; there are some papers besides what are bound up to would not be amiss for us that are of the king's counsel to take notice of, not only for the jury's satisfaction, but likewise for the satisfaction of this great auditory, some whereof I know come to pick advantage, and to know whether or no rascals may have liberty to print what they please. Now all the judges of England having been met together, to know whether any person whatsoever may expose to the public knowledge any manner of intelligence, or any matter whatsoever that concerns the public, they gave it in as their resolution, that no person whatsoever could expose to the public knowledge any thing that concerned the affairs of the public, without licence from the king, or from such persons as he thought fit to entrust with that affair. But such is the age that we live in, that The passage which is set forth in the informa man that hath wit enough to libel any man ation is part of the "Popish Courant," No. 4, in the government, thinks he hath licence of the 2d volume. In the argumentative part enough to expose that man to public knowledge of the work there is much historical and contro. also. And they do it under specious pretences, versial learning. In the other part the at- because they think that any man may be extempts at wit are but rarely successful; the jo-posed to the public censure that they can either cularity is generally coarse and sometimes brutal. The whole is written with great acrimony, call a papist, or but popishly affected, and that man is either the one or the other, that is not agreeable to every rascally humour that |