Judges. None of us know it. Marshal. I desire the worthy jury to take notice, that among all the persons named, there is no such name mentioned as mine. Justice Pemberton. There is no such thing proved here. Marshal. They deny all the Lords' Records. L. C. J. Well, have you done? Look you, gentlemen of the jury. Marshal. I desire but one word: These things I have insisted upon as far as I can for myself; but the main matter I relied upon was, that Mr. Oates did not know me, neither as to my calling, conversation, words nor actions. He can bring no person, man nor woman, that ever saw him in my company, nor took notice of our meeting together, nor Bedlow neither; he can name no place where he saw me, none but the Savoy, against which no proof can be found. And then at the searching of the house, I desire the jury to take notice, that at that time he disowned us, and said he did not know us. A sufficient rational cause cannot be given why, he should say now he knows me, and did not then take me. Justice Pemberton. You have said all this before. Marshal. Then, my lord, for a conclusion, I have been told, and I will only desire the jury to take notice of it, that every jury that finds a man guilty of death, upon the testimony of witnesses that come in against him, do take it solemnly upon their consciences, that what such witnesses swear is true. L. C. J. That they believe they swear true: For we have no infallibility with us: It is one thing to say it is true, and another thing to say we believe it is true. Look you, the jury may give a verdict that is false, and yet go according to their consciences. Do you understand that, priest? Justice Pemberton. You need not teach the jury what they are to do. Marshal. But considering in case an oath be false, and the jury have reason to doubt what the prisoners say in their own defence, upon what they hear or have learned of their own knowledge, if they find such doubt grounded upon that double matter, then they are in great danger to bring the fault to their own doors, and make the crime of perjury their Own. Justice Pemberton. What, do you go over things again and again? L. C. J. All this signifies but little; if you had Popery here, you would get but little by it. We should hardly part with our Peter Pence for all your speeches. We all know what things are, it is not a parcel of words patched thus together, will do your business. Marshal. I wish all thoughts were as openfaced as ours are. L. C. J. Look you, gentlemen of the jury, here are four prisoners; as to one of them, that is Rumley, the truth of it is, there is but one witness against him, and by the law there ought to be two; so I cannot say, but you ought to discharge him: we do not find that there is testimony sufficient, according to the law, to condemn him, and therefore you ought to acquit him. As to the rest, here is sir George Wakeman, Mr. Corker, and Mr. Marshal; there hath been two sorts of evidences given, I will repeat them as well as I can, and as short as I can. There hath been a general evidence, and a particular evidence: there was a general evidences given by Mr. Dugdale, of the Plot in general, and by Mr. Praunce, and something of intimation by Mr. Jennison. These of Dugdale, Praunce, and Jennison, do not mention so much as the names of the three gentlemen that are upon their lives; but I will tell you why it was necessary, and answers a great objection that they seem to make: for you are to believe men, say they, and to believe men upon probable circumstances, something to guide you besides the positiveness of an oath; and that is well enough said: Now here is something besides, and that is the Plot;' that there was a conspiracy to introduce popery, by the likeliest means, which was to kill the king; and that such people as these men were to do it. Now that there was such a general design to do it, is a circumstantial evidence, (as to these men I call it so.) And these are circumstances which may answer the objection they make, when they say, You are not to give credit to positive oaths without any thing to govern you by; for you have this to govern you by, besides the oath, that there was a Plot. The testimony of Mr. Jennison does go more particularly to the business of Ireland, which I would observe, by the way, for the sake of that gentleman that stands so much upon the innocency of those men, and would have them to be believed upon their own assertions, because he says they dare not die with a lye in their mouths. I believe it is notorious enough, Mr. Jennison that comes here is a man of quality, and one against whom there is no objection, and he is justified by one or two more. He says, he saw Mr. Ireland the 19th of August, when he, to his death, took upon him to aver he was then in Staffordshire, and brought several of his own religion, who would outface it to the court, that he kept them company so many days, and was in the country all the while. There was a maid, before this, that came and testified that she saw Ireland, and saw him at his own door, in August, but this gentleman comes and proves it upon him more particularly, and tells you when, the day of the week, and of the month, that he was with him at his own lodging, that night he came from Windsor, that he was pulling off his boots, and pretended to come post from Staffordshire, and so that he was in Staffordshire is true, because he came thence post, but he hath always constantly denied that he was here, and that may serve for the integrity even of their dying oaths. And you are not going, according to your own doctrine, so immediately to Hell, I hope you suppose a purgatory, where you may be purged from such peccadillos as this of dying with a lye in your mouths. As for the testimony of the particular evidence, first, against sir George Wakeman, Mr. Oates says he saw a letter subscribed George Wakeman; and it was writ to Mr. Ashby, and therein, among other expressions, was this particular, That the queen would assist him to kill the king. He was asked, How he knew it was his hand? He said, He had never seen his hand before, but afterwards he saw him writing, (as he thinks, writing,) in a writing posture, and there he looked upon that paper when he was gone from it, while it was wet, and that character, to his thinking, was just the character of the letter. Now I must observe this to you. First, Supposing it to be true, yet it is somewhat hard, for a man that had never known a man's hand in his life, to see a hand to-day, and some time after to come and see his hand to a bill of physic, and to recollect the character so much backward, as to know, this is that, or that man's hand that I saw before. It is one thing to know hands we are used to, but it is another thing, if we see a hand we never saw before in our lives, and then by reflection at another time, and by comparison of hands to say this is the same, that is hard; but that is supposing it to be true. Sir George Wakeman, as all people will that are accused, does deny the fact, and says there was no such thing. Against him besides, he says he saw, in a book that the Jesuit priests kept among them of their transactions and affairs, he saw, in Harcourt's chamber, a book, wherein was written, this day, (and there was a certain day in August named, but he cannot tell what day,) this day agreed with sir G. W. for 15,000l. to which he consented. And under was written, Received 5,000l. part of 15,000l. by order of Mr. Coleman. George Wakeman. This he says he saw, and he believes that to be the very same hand he saw before, so it is by a comparison of hands. He does not charge sir George Wakeman, to the best of my memory, with any positive things of his own knowledge, more than as I tell you of this matter. Sir R. Sawyer. Yes, my lord, he says he saw his commission. L. C. J. Indeed he does say, he saw a commission in his hands, to be physician-general of the army that was to be raised. And that he denied 10,000l. and would have 15. The truth I leave with you, gentlemen. Look you, gentlemen, we will show ourselves what we ought to do, let them be as they will; we would not, to prevent all their Plots, (let them be as big as they can make them) shed one drop of innocent blood, therefore I would have you, in all these gentlemens cases, consider seriously, and weigh truly the circumstances, and the probability of things charged upon them. There is an additional evidence against sir George Wakeman, by Bedlow: he says he saw him have a note for 2,000l. which was | said came from the queen, there were discourses of doubtful words, but whether they be plain enough to satisfy your consciences, when men are upon their lives, I leave to you. That sir George Wakeman should say, Are you ready for me? Why am I drilled on thus, in a matter of this concern? This he would have to imply the poisoning of the king; but there is but one thing that sounds any thing plain to the matter, and that was this, said he, If they miss (speaking of killing the king) if they miss at Windsor, and you miss your way, then it shall be done at New-Market. This he did swear directly, and then sir George Wakeman replied, He would be ready. Now if you believe this, then there are two witnesses against sir George Wakeman, for the matter of the bill alone would do nothing, but when he says he saw such a bill, it must be for something; and if he did say so, If they miss killing him at Windsor, and you miss your way, we will do it at New-Market; and he replied, I will be ready, the thing is made plain; I leave it to you; and this is all the evidence against sir George Wakeman, as I remember: I hope my brothers, if they remember more, will repeat it to you. I cannot undertake to repeat every word; I remember so much as is material, and my brothers I hope will help me out, in what they have better observed. As to Mr. Corker, Oates says, that he saw a letter under his hand, that is, his name, I suppose was to it, wherein he consented to the raising the 6,000l. which was to be raised out of the Benedictine estates, and was in order to the carrying on of this Plot. I do not find that he does prove that he did know Mr. Corker's hand. And he says of him further, he was their president, and so it was necessary to have his consent for the raising the 6,000l. and particularly he says, that he did except against Pickering's being designed for the murdering of the king; for, said he, He is a man that waits at the altar, and methinks you should choose some fitter person. For that, says Mr. Corker, which he says, that I was president; I was not president; and he makes it necessary for me to set my hand, because I being president, it was supposed it could not be done without me: and Dr. Oates does intend such a thing by his enforcing of it too: but he does produce to you two or three witnesses, that do say, Mr. Stapleton hath been president for four or five years; and said he, If I were not president, what needs all this ado about my consent? So he contradicts him in that particular, that he was not president, and it is not only a bare immaterial thing, because his being president made his hand more necessary to the raising the 6,000l. And for that matter of his saying, that he did except against Pickering, and they might have chose another, he does not charge him to be actually at the consultation, but he says he knew of it, because he said Pickering was not a fit man to do it. And he said, they had better choose a layman. He proves no fact, but only these words. And Mr. Bedlow he speaks against him, and what he says is rather less than what Oates says. For it is, that he talked with La Fevre the priest about the Plot in general words. It may be, he was talking with some body else, and yet he could hear that they talked together in general about it. That is all against him. ble, they have almost undone themselves in their own defences, by making weak observations, and insisting upon trivial things; improper for the Court to hear, and impertinent for them to urge. But I deal faithfully with you, I will discharge my own conscience to you. It lies upon the oaths of these two men. Though Against Mr. Marshal, it is rather less than there was a Plot in general proved, yet that against Corker, that is, that he did consent to does not affect these men in particular, but was the 6,000l. that should be raised among the only used to answer that objection, that it Benedictines, he being a Benedictine too, and should not be believed upon positive swearing, that he took exceptions against Pickering, as hand over head, without something else. Here Corker did, that it was not convenient to em- was something else, the Plot in general, and ploy him in killing the king. And this is that their being priests, is another circumstance to Oates says, and that he was a carrier of letters me, who are mad to bring in popery, and would up and down, and a factor that way. And do any thing to get their tyranny again estabBedlow says, that he knew that he carried let-lished amongst us. And there is more than ters, and was at the consult where they were read and answered, and when they asked him, Where? He said, At the Benedictine convent in the Savoy. And names in particular, a letter to sir Francis Radcliff, and that there was a discourse concerning the plot, in his hearing. They say for themselves, they cannot answer any more than by circumstances, it is a very strange thing, if Dr. Oates knew this of us, why did not he take us before? And says sir George Wakeman, Why did not he accuse me of this letter that he talks of, before the king and council? He makes an answer (which to me indeed is a very faint one) at if he were so weak and tired, that he could not speak any word farther. When the council asked sir George Wakeman what he had to say for himself, and he behaved himself ruggedly, they call for Oates again, What, said they, do you know any thing of your own knowledge? No, said he, God forbid; I know nothing more; as sir Philip Lloyd says, and as the matter speaks: For if he had charged him that he had seen that letter, the lords would infallibly have committed him. If he had but said, I saw a letter with his name to it, which by the character I believe was his, because I saw his writing elsewhere: And it is wonderful to me; I do not know, if a man be never so faint, could not he say, I saw a letter under his hand, as well as, I knew nothing more of him? There are as few words in one, as in the other. If he had said, I beg your lordships or his majesty's pardon, I am so weak I cannot recollect myself, it had been something; but to make a great protestation that he knew nothing of him. This is that that is said by sir Philip Lloyd, on his behalf. These other gentlemen say, that Oates did not know them, and the woman does say, that she did tell them, when they came to search, that Corker and Marshal were there, and Dr. Oates and they said, they had nothing to do with any but Pickering. They make answer now and say, that they had no commission to take any but him. But it is strange indeed, if they were there, and they did see them, that they did not apprehend them. For what defence they make about what talk was had at the Gate-house, it is all contradicted by sir William Waller. And indeed, if it were possi | probable evidence of that I assure you. Sir Tho. Doleman did indeed say Mr. Oates was very weak, so that he was in great confusion, and scarce able to stand; weigh it with you how it will, but to me it is no answer. I tell you plainly, I think a man could not be so weak but he could have said, he saw a letter under his hand. It was as short as he could make an answer, and it is strange that he should go and make protestation that he knew nothing. And so I pray you weigh it well. Let us not be so amazed and frighted with the noise of Plots, as to take away any man's life without any reasonable evidence. If you are satisfied with the oaths of these two men; so, I have observed to you what objections they make for themselves, and those objections are material: What sir George Wakeman says about his not accusing him before the council, and what these men say that he did not apprehend them. And it is very strange, they should have so little knowledge, and so little acquaintance with Oates and Bedlow, and so great a matter as they speak should be true. And it is well enough observed, that he was a begging there; it is very much that such a man should know of such a great design on foot, and they should use him in that manner. These are the things that I remember, worthy of your consideration. These men's bloods are at stake, and your souls and mine, and our oaths and consciences are at stake; and therefore never care what the world says, follow your consciences; if you are satisfied these men swear true, you will do well to find them guilty, and they deserve to die for it: If you are unsatisfied, upon these things put together, and they do weigh with you, that they have not said true, you will do well to acquit them. Bedlow. My lord, my evidence is not right Some Observations upon the late Trials of Sir GEORGE WAKEMAN, CORKER, and MARSHAL, &c. By Tom Ticklefoot, the Tabourer, late Clerk to Justice Clodpate. THE Reader may perhaps wonder why I should wave the employment of clerking to a Westminster Justice, who seldom are of the wisest, and turn minstrel; but upon serious thought she will respect me for my integrity, and give greater faith to what I shall offer now; for to say the truth, the methods of my former life were so villainous, in order to my calling, as I could no longer dispense with them; for I was forced to inform my master's worship of all the bawdyhouses within his district, which by that means were all set under contribution, and out of their compositions for enormities I had poundage, which was all my subsistence, for his worship engrossed all the warrant-revenue to himself; so I grew of late melancholy, through the failing of trade, the private misses driving all before them, that public sinners are now of all people the most miserable; so I retired some time before my master's death: in which retirement, as barbers have nothing to do, learn to play on the cittern, I got a stroke upon the pipe and tabor, by which means I now live very comfortably; yet willing to give the world a taste of my old office of clerkship, I have made these following observations: The first part of the trial was spent in the examination of Dugdale, Praunce, and Jennison, to prove the Plot, so to obviate the common objection that it was unreasonable to believe two men against so many, upon bare testimony, without other circumstantial evidence, that was done with such notoriety, as satisfied all unprejudiced persons: among other things it was proved, by an undeniable witness, Mr. Jennison, corroborated with notable circumstances, that Ireland died with a lye in his mouth; as by consequence sir John Southcot and his lady live with the same veracity, which my old master would have made another kind of use on than was made: then were some fine harangues about it, to answer some objections; yet nothing was reduced to practice in the case during that part of the trial, in which the prisoners were but remotely concerned, It may be observed, that Corker fell into great undecencies of passion against the witness Dugdale; an argument of guilt, my old master would have said; yet no inferences nor reproofs upon it. Now I have given a short, yet true account of what was but preliminary to Wakeman's, and their trials, I shall go on. Doctor Oates proved that Wakeman refused 10,000l. as too little for poisoning the king; which he termed so great a work, and afterwards did undertake it for five thousand more, as it was written down in the entry-book, kept sometimes at Wild-house, sometimes at Langhorn's chamber. And further, as appeared by the said entry-book, there were 5,000l. paid in part, and a receipt subscribed George Wakeman, which by a comparison of hands, was sworn to be sir George's hand; which sir George shifted off by the help of an apothecary, as he thought well enough; yet granting the apothecary to say true, which is questionable too, for they are often slippery chapmen, especially considering former relations, and future hopes; and Oates to swear true, which no wise man will dispute, there might be two letters, which sir George would slur off, from the improbability of writing two letters to one thing, and gravely bids the jury take notice that he writ but one letter; he might with the same modesty have advised them not to believe a word against him; yet little notice. taken. The improbability of writing two letters to one thing, seemed to weigh something with the Lord Chief Justice; though not so with Justice Pemberton, who said, It might be so, to serve a turn very well. It was proved likewise by Dr. Oates, that Wakeman had a commission to be physiciangeneral to the new army; which my Lord Chief Justice had like to have forgotten. Amongst other matters, Bedlow deposed, That sir George Wakeman came into Harcourt's chamber in a chafe, and told him, he knew not whether he should go on or no. Harcourt went to his cabinet, and took out a bill, and asked sir George if he was ready? Sir George said he was, and had been long since, but they were not punctual with him; but what have you there? a bill for 2,000l. at your service, replies Harcourt. Which bill sir. George accepted, and afterwards told Bedlow, that the goldsmith had allowed of it, and would pay him in the afternoon. When Wakeman objected, it was not likely he should discover so great a secret upon so small an acquaintance; Bedlow replied, he would have a hundred times more, if Harcourt had but told him he was his confidant, as he had done then. Wakeman rambled out into a passion, and swore that he never saw him in all his life: yet Bedlow made it out by circumstances, that he had taken physic of him at the bath; and that acquaintance he did not deny, but called him rogue, &c. Before the prisoner called his witnesses, it may be observed, that the Lord Chief Justice said, that Bedlow, the second witness, said no material thing against Wakeman, but only some circumstantials about a 2,000l. bill; but had not said for what, only some things about the queen, his lady and mistress. Sir Robert Sawyer replied, under favour, and began to sum up Bedlow's evidence; so the Lord Chief Justice seemed not pleased, and answered, What is all this? Call Mr. Bedlow again. To whom he made a godly speech about innocent blood, and bade him give his evidence anew; who gave what is above said. Sir George replied, What if the queen had given me 2,000l. for my service done her, is that any harm? I have deserved it, I am sure, for nine years service; yet a little before he made a protestation before God, he never saw Bedlow; a likely matter, as if an absolute stranger should come to the knowledge of such a money-circumstance, and agree in the sum too. Bedlow went on, and swore, that Harcourt said to sir George, This must be well followed, and closely observed; because much depends upon it: For if we should miss to kill him at Windsor, or you miss in your way, then we will do it at Newmarket. The Lord Chief Justice made Bedlow repeat the words again; which he did, only interposing [which we hope you will not.] The Lord Chief Justice replied very modestly, he says now quite another thing; but was contradicted by the Lord Chief Justice North, the Recorder, and sir Robert Sawyer, and submitted to it most christianly. Then Bedlow went on, and swore, that sir Ġ. Wakeman, in his hearing, declared his consent; and that it was one entire discourse: Upon which the knight, as well he might, said to the prisoners, Then is my business done; and he had been a true prophet, if either wit or honesty bad exercised a due dominion over the jury. Now if my old master Clodpate had been on the bench, he would have hung hard upon that expression, as also upon sir George's allowing of 2,000l. to be paid for wages; he would have swaggered it, and have said, This is not to be said to us that know the methods of the Court, never to pay so much wages at a time, they al VOL. VII. ways instance such sums; you might, however, have brought some other authority besides yourself, which can deserve no credit here, when it is clear by all circumstances you invoke God to witness to a lye, about your never seeing Bedlow, within these ten minutes. Against Corker, Oates deposed, That be saw his patent from Kome to be bishop of London; that he was privy, and did consent to Langhorn's proposal to the Benedictine monks, to advance 6,000l. towards carrying on his design, his consent being necessary, because he was president; and that Corker should say farther, that he carried on the design under the disguise of bestowing the queen's charity; and that he did except against Pickering, being chosen to kill the king, being that a mere layman was more proper. Mr. Marshal was charged with the same thing, and that Marshal went half with Conyers, who laid a wager that the king would eat no more Christmas pies. Bedlow deposed further against Corker, That he had heard him discourse about raising an army, but nothing positively to the murder of the king. Bedlow accused Marshal much about that rate; but Marshal not being shy of his lip-labour, fell to impertinent questioning him about his knowing him; but was confuted (but not at all ashamed in his lies) by sir William Waller, who was sworn in the case; but Marshal, with a company of soft words, would have persuaded sir William that he forswore himself; the priest surely loved to hear himself prattle, to spend so much time in the wasting of his credit, about a thing which was not of a farthing concern, true or false: Then he asked Bedlow, whether he had ever seen him before he was taken? Who said, at the Savoy. Then with an unheard of impudence he replied, He would be content to be hanged, if Bedlow could prove that he was ever at the Savoy Bedlow, though he had none by to prove that, as perhaps he would have been in the same case if he had been to have proved himself ever to have been in Westminster Hall, as the Lord Chief Justice intimated; yet he did it by a sufficient circumstance, when he gave sir William Waller directions where to search for the gun that was to have killed the king; which was found accordingly. This is now the substance of what the prisoners, Wakeman, Corker, and Marshal, were charged with: The other, Rumley, had but one witness against him; so went off on course. Sir George now called his witnesses; the chief was Chapman the apothecary, of which I have given a former account. Then was his man Hunt, and Elizabeth Henningham, called, who talked at the apothecary's rate; so that Oates was not at all contradicted by them, but they might both say true, and that the Chief Justice told them. Then sir Philip Lloyd was called upon by sir G. Wakeman, to adjust what Dr. Oates should say at the Council-table; who said but not upon oath, that when sir George was called in before the council, and told of his accusation, he utterly denied all, and did indeed carry him 2 Y |