the same account of the transaction to him"-evidence that would not now be received, though I must own that when you are inquiring whether what a witness has said is true, to shut out evidence that he has always told the same story, is, as it appears to me, to shut out what may be very material. The evidence may be worth much, or little, or nothing at all; but admitted, subject to such remarks as it deserves, it ought undoubtedly to be; and as our law allows evidence to be given that the witness has given a different account of the transaction, it seems inconsistent that it should not allow you to prove that he has always given the same. It is true that such proof does not add to the value of the character of the witness, as it is very possible that a false witness may adhere to the same story, but it certainly prevents that character from being impeached in that particular respect, if you shew that to whatever credit a witness is entitled who tells the same story always, that ingredient of credit is possessed by the witness in question. It is not sufficient of itself, and unsupported by other circumstances, much less when contradicted by them to constitute a credible witness; but it is a part of the whole, it is an element in the credibility of a witness, and ought to be received. The English legislator, (with the want of discrimination which usually belongs to him), says, because it is not every thing it shall be nothing. These three witnesses were all called by the prosecution. The prisoner made a very conclusive defence in spite of the repeated interruptions of Scroggs, and called a witness to prove his loyalty. The witness said, that on several occasions the prisoner had expressed himself in terms of loyalty and affection to the King; "That was," observed the wicked judge, "when he spoke to a Protestant." Scroggs said to the jury, "The Parliament thought it reasonable even to make desperate words to be treason, that is, such words as if the thing done had been treason, the speaking it is treason; when we come to observe the manner of this speaking, methinks there is no great difficulty to satisfy the jury that

they were spoke advisedly and maliciously

cannot have a plainer proof in the world than this

So you

...

Excuse me," the miscreant continues, "if I am a little warm it is better to be warm here than in Smithfield." "When a papist hath once made a man a heretic there is no scruple to murder him. Whoever is not of their persuasion are heretics, and whoever are heretics may be murdered . . . Therefore discharge your consciences as you ought to do. . . and you shall do well to begin with this man, for perchance it may be a terror to the rest." The man protesting his innocence was found guilty. Scroggs passed sentence on him, telling him that the matter, manner, and all the circumstances of it made it plain; that he seemed rather to be obstinate than sorrowful; that he might harden his heart as much as he would, and lift up his eyes. Stayley was put to death in tortures within five days from the trial. To such a state had love of form, and submission to routine, phrases about the constitution, and the panegyrics of lawyers on the absurd and cruel proceedings in our Courts of justice, and the heap of almost unmixed, and certainly never equalled, nonsense, administered as law among us, brought Englishmen towards the close of the seventeenth century. There was no civilized country in Europe where (unless the sovereign was provoked) liberty and life were not more secure, or where, if he was provoked, the destruction of the offender was more inevitable. Such, under the Stuarts, was our law, and such our constitution. Burnet's account of these proceedings shews the consummate wickedness of Shaftesbury, a man of whom it is difficult to speak in terms of sufficient abhorrence-it seems that Burnet, knowing the infamous character of Carstairs and Sutherland, sent intelligence of it to the Chancellor and the Attorney General. The Attorney General, as was to be expected from a man trained to legal murder, "took it ill of me that I should disparage the King's witnesses." He then applied to the whig leaders; some were shocked, but the Earl of Shaftesbury

could not bear the discourse, he said, "we must support the evidence, and that all those who undermined the credit of the witnesses, were to be looked upon as public enemies."

This was the morality of public men in England; there is nothing in the history of the most execrable villains in times of the greatest horrour that shews more flagitious cruelty. Robespierre, wretch as he was, has hardly more to answer for, and far more to plead in his defence, than the men, statesmen, lawyers and juries, who were the instruments, accomplices, abettors and movers of Carstairs, Praunce, Oates, Dugdale, Dangerfield, and Bedloe; and in this list, to the shame of England, almost every active public man (Algernon Sidney excepted) must be included. To the scenes of infamy which now occurred in England, and which continued almost without interruption till the Revolution, the history of no free country can find a parallel; nor should it be forgotten that the worst of them were applauded by the House of Commons, and that all of them took place in our Courts of justice. Indeed, nothing but the integrity and the wisdom of the judge, an integrity and wisdom by no means so much a matter of course, as it has been the fashion to suppose, has prevented the English law from being as convenient an instrument of oppression as ever was devised by the wit of man, in all civil cases, down to our own time, and in criminal cases, down to a very recent period. But in the days of Scroggs and Jeffreys, when the prisoner was refused a copy of the indictment, which was read aloud to him in barbarous Latin, and was also refused a counsel, the workman, the instrument, and the work, were exactly fitted to each other. Coleman was the next victim. He was a fanatical Roman Catholic, Secretary to the Duchess of York; in his case the rules of evidence shared the same fate as the rules of probability and the maxims of natural justice. Oates gave at considerable length evidence of the contents of a letter, which he said had been written by Coleman to the Rector of St. Omers, and of another written

to Père la Chaise. After saying that he had delivered a letter to Père la Chaise, Scroggs said, "Père la Chaise asked you after a gentleman with a French name. Whom meant he by that name?" Oates. -"I understood him to mean Coleman." Scroggs.-"Did he know him by that name? What said you?" Oates.—“I could say little to this." Lord Chief Justice.— "Could you guess whom he meant? Did you hear Fenwick speak to Mr. Coleman to write for him?" Oates.-" Strange told me he had spoke to him." Oates then stated that Coleman had been active in contriving the plan to destroy the King. The Chief Justice asks him, how he came, when he mentioned Wakeman to the council, who was to receive 15,0007. for poisoning the King, which, or a large portion of which, Coleman was to give him, not to mention Coleman's name at all to the Privy Council, Coleman being so desperate a man, when he charged the others? Oates.-"For want of memory."

Coleman then proved that he had not been able to recognise him at the Privy Council. The Chief Justice put the question-were you asked, did you know Mr. Coleman? Oates gave so rambling and evasive an answer that even Scroggs was ashamed of him :

"Answer the question, Mr. Oates, short, and without confounding it with length. Were you asked if you knew Mr. Coleman (h)?"

Oates." Not to my knowledge."

Prisoner." He said he did not know me." Sir Thomas Dolman then proved what ought to have ended the case, that Oates had said he did not well know Coleman, thereby completely disproving all he had said. Coleman also proved that he was in Warwickshire during the time that Oates had described his repeated interviews with him in London. Scroggs summed up with great eloquence and abominable wickedness. In his charge he did what very few Chief

(h) North's Examen, p. 181, 4to.

Justices, from his days to Lord Denman's (exclusively), could have done, for he quoted Lucretius (i):

(i) Scroggs expressed himself with great vigour, ease, and purity, as the following extract from a judgment he passed on Raylett for libelling himself will shew :

"First, I would have all men know, that I am not so revengeful in my nature, nor so nettled with this aspersion, but that I could have passed by this and more; but that the many scandalous libels that are abroad, and which reflect upon public justice, as well as upon my private self, make it the duty of my place to defend one, and the duty I owe to my reputation to vindicate the other.

"And having this opportunity, I think this the properest place for both. If once our Courts of justice come to be awed or swayed by vulgar noise, and if judges and juries should manage themselves so as would best comply with the humour of times, it is falsely said, that men are tried for their lives or fortunes; they live by chance, and enjoy what they have as the wind blows, and with the same certainty; the giddy multitude have constancy, who condemn or acquit always before the trial, and without proof.

"Such a base, fearful compliance made Felix, willing to please the people, leave Paul bound, who was apt to tremble, but not to follow his conscience. The people ought to be pleased with public justice, and not justice seek to please the people. Justice should flow like a mighty stream; and if the rabble, like an unruly wind, blow against it, it may make it rough, but the stream will keep its course. Neither, for my part, do I think we live in so corrupted an age, that no man can with safety be just and follow his conscience; if it be otherwise, we must hazard our safety to preserve our integrity.

"And to speak more particularly as to Sir George Wakeman's trial, which I am neither afraid nor ashamed to mention, I know that all honest and understanding men in the kingdom [speaking generally] are thoroughly satisfied with the impartial proceedings of that trial, taking it as it is printed, which was done without the perusal of one line by me, or any friend of mine. Though, by the way, I wonder by what authority that arbitrary power was assumed, to forbid any friend of mine the seeing of it before it was put out. However, as it is, I will appeal to all sober and understanding men, and to the long robe more especially, who are the best and properest judges in such cases, as to the fairness and equality of that trial.

"For these hireling scribblers that traduce it, who write to eat, and lie for bread, I intend to meet with them another way, for they are only safe whilst they can be secret; but so are vermin, so long only as they can hide themselves. And let their brokers, those printers and booksellers, by