any questions? None,' said Sydney, 'I have no question to ask Lord Howard.' 'Silence' said the Attorney General"You know the proverb.'

If the third part of Dryden's wonderful poem, the Hind and Panther, had then been written, Sydney might have replied by quoting the lines, which no doubt describe his feelings, "She supprest

The boiling indignation of her breast,

She knew the virtue of her blade, nor would

Pollute her weapon with ignoble blood,

Her fainting foe she saw before her eye,

And back she drew the shining weapon dry."

A collision with Sydney was not to ennoble such an enemy. "The Lord Howard," he says in the paper he delivered to the sheriff, "is too infamous by his life and the many perjuries not to be denied, or rather sworn to by himself, to deserve mention, and being a single witness would be of no value, though he had been of unblemished credit, or had not seen and confessed that the crimes committed by him would be pardoned only for committing more, and even the pardon promised could not be obtained "until the drudgery of swearing was over" (u). Lord Anglesey said, as before, that Howard, in Lord Bedford's presence, had denied all knowledge of the plot, and protested that Russell had nothing-could have nothing-to do with any such proceeding. Lord Clare said, that Lord Howard said of Sydney with great asseveration, that he was as innocent as any man breathing.

Att. Gen." When was this?"

Lord Clare." At my house."

Att. Gen." How long before Lord Howard was taken ?" Lord Clare.-" About a week."

The next question was intended to destroy Lord Clare.

Att. Gen.-"I would ask you, my Lord, upon your honour, would not any man have said as much who had been in the plot ?"

(u) Howard's own words.

Lord Clare.-"I cannot tell. I know of no plot."

Philip Howard swore that Lord Howard had told him the plot was false, "a plot made upon us, and, therefore, no man was free;" and added, “I have that particular obligation from Colonel Sydney that no one man had from another."

Burnet swore that Lord Howard, in his presence, with hands and eyes lifted up to Heaven, protested he knew nothing of the plot.

Joseph Ducas, a French servant of Sydney's, swore that after Sydney's arrest, Lord Howard said to him, "God knows I know nothing of this! and if Colonel Sydney was concerned in the matter he would tell me something, but I know nothing."

Lord Paget said, that Lord Howard had to him denied all knowledge of the plot.

Edward Howard, who had been browbeaten at Lord Russell's trial, said, "Lord Howard assured me, under great asseverations, he could neither accuse himself nor any body living. I add, I think if he had known any such thing he would not have made his application to the King in this manner, I am afraid not so suitable to his quality."

L. C. J.-"No reflections upon anybody."

Mr. Howard.—" My Lord, I reflect upon nobody, I understand where I am; but since your Lordship has given me this occasion, I must needs say that that reproof which was given me at the trial of Lord Russell, made me, by reason of a weak memory, omit some particulars. I will speak now which are these. My Lord, upon the discourse of this plot, did further assure me that it was certainly a sham. How, my Lord, do you mean a sham (v)? said I. Why, such an one, cousin, says he, as is too black for any minister of public employment to

(v) "A sham" verba meretricis speciem subrustici pudoris præ se ferentis et cupido amanti dicentis-"I am a-sham-ed"—amatoris deinde gravi morbo laborantis, nota vox fuit, se in-"a sham"-incidisse. North's Examen.

have devised, &c. And I am sure if I had the honour to be of this gentleman's jury I would not believe him."

L. C. J.-" This must not be suffered."

Att. Gen.-"You ought to be bound to your good behaviour for that."

L. C. J.-"The jury are bound by their oaths to go according to their evidence; they are not to go by men's conjectures."

Sydney." My Lord, I spake of a mortgage that I had of my Lord Howard. I do not know whether it is needful to be proved, but it is so."

Lord Howard - "I confess it."

-

Then Blake was called.

Blake swore that Lord Howard

said to him, he had his warrant for the pardon

drudgery of swearing is over."

66 as soon as the

Tracy swore that Lord Howard said, in his presence, he was sure Colonel Sydney knew nothing of the plot. Sydney." Did he take God to witness upon it." Tracy.-"Yes."

Sydney." Paswick, what did my Lord Howard say in your hearing about the pretended plot, or my plate ?"

Paswick." He asked for your Honour, and they said your Honour was taken away by a man to the Tower for the plot, and then he took God to witness he knew nothing of it, and believed your Honour did not either. He said he was in the Tower two years ago, and he believed your Honour saved his life."

Sydney." Did he desire the plate?"

Paswick.- "Yes, and said it would be sent to his house to be secured."

A record of the conviction of Lord Russell was then produced, and read without objection (w). This was scandalous

(w) In Horne Tooke's trial, the counsel for the prisoner gave in evidence the acquittal of Hardy. The Attorney General (who knew the jurors were well aware of the fact) did not object to its admission.

C C

injustice. The papers found in Sydney's closet were then put in, and although the act of Parliament averring the attainder, alleges with the ignorance and confusion peculiar to such documents, that the evidence of the handwriting was insufficient, there can be no doubt that it was complete and satisfactory. All evidence of handwriting, unless where the witness has seen the pen form the characters, is evidence by comparison. From what we have seen before of A.'s writing we conclude this to be A.'s writing. The evidence of course varies in degree from being almost valueless, to that which brings conviction; but to say that it ought to be excluded altogether is ridiculous. In Sydney's case the evidence was abundant. Three witnesses were called: one of them had seen him write; another had paid bills on his signature, and his payments had been always recognised; the third had seen, examined, and acted upon documents purporting to be in his hand in business. The evidence (a) of these witnesses would be admissible in any English Court of justice at this day.

But the iniquity was, first, in holding that these unpublished papers were tantamount to a second witness to prove an overt act of treason, without which second witness Sydney was by law entitled to his acquittal; secondly, in holding that writing a treatise, even if it had been published, to prove that Kings were made for the sake of the people, and not people for the sake of Kings, and that to set up a Divine right was blasphemous nonsense, amounted to an overt act of treason ; thirdly, in holding that such writing not proved to be in any way connected with any design or treasonable practice charged

(x) Doe v. Suckermore, 2 Nev. & Per. 48; 5 Adol. & Ell. 730. A point was made, whether a person, who had gained his knowledge of the handwriting by an examination of it, might prove the attestation of the writer. Two judges held he might, and two that he might not. And such is the wisdom of English law, there the matter stands till somebody is ruined by obtaining a positive decision on the subject, which positive decision may, perhaps, be overruled, and ruin somebody else. I own I cannot understand on what principle such evidence is excluded.

in the indictment, also amounted to an overt act, as required by the statute.

The following extracts are from the charge of Jeffreys to the jury:

"I must tell you, whatever happens to be hearsay from others, it is not to be applied immediately to the prisoner; but, however, those matters that are remote at first may serve for this purpose, to prove there was generally a conspiracy to destroy the King and government: and for that matter, you all remember it was the constant rule and method observed about the Popish Plot, first to produce the evidence of the plot in general: this was done in that famous case of my Lord Stafford, in Parliament.

"So, gentlemen, I must tell you, that if in case there be but one witness to prove a direct treason, and another witness to a circumstance that contributes to that treason, that will make two witnesses to prove the treason: because I would explain my mind, not long ago all the judges of England were commanded to meet together, and one, that is the senior of the King's counsel, was pleased to put this case: If I buy a knife of J. S. to kill the King, and it be proved by one witness I bought a knife for this purpose, and another comes and proves I bought such a knife of J. S., they are two witnesses sufficient to prove a man guilty of high treason; and so it was held by all the judges of England then present, in the presence of all the King's counsel.

"Another thing which I must take notice of to you in this case is, to mind you how this book contains all the malice, and revenge, and treason, that mankind can be guilty of: it fixes the sole power in the Parliament and the people; so that he carries on the design still, for their debates at their meetings were to that purpose. And such doctrines as these suit with their debates; for there a general insurrection was