by any reward, for I never saw tle face of any of them till now. L. C. J. North. They are all papists, and speak in a general cause. Langhorn. If that be an objetion against them I think it is hard if they are not to be believed because they are papists and friends; then the other, on the contrary, are not to be believed because they are enemies: I think it is clear that he did not lodge et Grove's house; and I think it is clear that he did not come over in the pacquet-boat with Mr. Hilsley, and that sir Thomas Preston did not come over with him, nor Warner, nor Poole and if any of these points be clear for me, I hink his testimony ought to be set aside. Now, as to what Bedlow says, in truth it is inpossible for me to examine any witnesses, and that I think will be your lordship's opinion it will not seem probable that one that was n my way of practise should become a clerk to register letters, and to keep accounts of any particular religious order, as he makes me to do; or, if I were, that I should admit Mr. Bedlow to be privy to those accounts; but that must leave to the court; my lord, it is impossible to prove a negative: Mr. Bedlow is a person that I have no acquaintance with; truly I do not know that ever I saw him before this time in all my life; though it is possible I may have seen him, but I do not know that ever I did: now, that I should admit such a person to such a privacy in accounts of this nature, (if I were guilty of them) seems very improbable; but yet, as I said, it is impossible to prove a negative. If I had known what he would have charged upon me before, perhaps I might have made a better defence; and for those witnesses that I have had, they were prepared by such friends as thought they would be useful for me. These men have had time to get their witnesses together: I never saw one of mine till they came into the court. I hope, my lord, I shall find no disadvantage in my coming here upon the account of my religion, for that would seem as if you condemned me merely for that; I disclaim all principles of disloyalty; and I do assure your lordship, I do believe it is damnation to any one that shall go about to kill the king, or deprive him of his government; I shall leave the rest to your lordship and the jury. him, amounts but to thus much: I cannot affirm, says he, that Mr. Langhorn was at the consult, on the 24th of April, at the Whitehorse tavern, where they signed the agreement to destroy the king: but this I can say, That the next day, or within a day or two, I went, by order from the Fathers, Whitebread and Harcourt, to Langhorn's chamber, and acquainted him with what they had agreed upon. And he swears, That Mr. Langhorn did lift up his hands and eyes, and pray to God to give them good success. He tells you further, that after some talk with him, about bringing in of popery, and destroying of the king, he had also discourse concerning several commissions; that he saw about seven or eight of them, and that he told him, he had more: one for my lord Bellasis, to be general, and one for himself to be advocate-general, with others; but those, he says, he saw and perused them: and though he does not know of the delivery of those several commissions, yet he does know of the delivery of one to his son, to be carried to my lord of Arundel's eldest son and he does say, That Mr. Langhorn did tell him, he had sent it; and swears, that he had some discourse with him, concerning killing the king. Bedlow, he comes, and swears, that he was there twice, and that he saw him transcribe letters; and that the effect of one of them was, that they were prepared with arms, and all things, but money. That the garrisons also were ready to be delivered up to them, but they staid only for this, and 6,000l. would do it, which the Benedictines were to raise. If that came, then there was nothing wanting. They had an easy king, whom they could destroy as they pleased; an army in readiness, every thing in good posture, and no time like this, to bring in popery which discourse, he says, was before Mr. Coleman. Here is the effect then of those letters which by him were written into a book, and in which this Plot and this contrivance was mentioned. These were transcribed by Mr. Langhorn, says he, while Mr. Coleman and I walked in his chamber. I saw him write them. And he swears it. Now the matter is this: if these two witnesses do swear true, then is this indictment of treason highly proved. For the contriving, to bring in popery, to levy war, and, to kill the king, (which, when he was acquainted L. C. J. Look you, gentlemen, you have had withal, he lift up his hands and eyes, and an account, in the first part of the evidence, in begged of God to give it good success; and general, that there was a general design of which Bedlow says, was the effect of the letbringing in Popery; and in order to that, as ters that he transcribed into the book) Mr. the best and quickest means to accomplish it, Langhorn himself will not deny to be highto destroy the king. And without doubt they treason: and when this is sworn here by two were in the right, for that matter: to de- witnesses, he must either invalidate their testistroy the king, was the most effectual course mony, or acknowledge it just, if you find him to introduce popery they could take. Whe-guilty of the indictuuent with which he is ther they would do it, or no, is not now any question; but, How much Mr. Langhorn, the prisoner at the bar, is concerned in it? And that depends upon the testimony of wit nesses. The testimony that Mr. Oates gives against charged. Now the question is, what defence there is against it? Mr. Langhorn says, If I can disprove a witness in any one material thing that he says, then will it take off from his credit in every thing he says. And first as to Mr. Oates; destructive and so bloody; and the way they take to come off from all vows, oaths, and Sacraments, by dispensations before-hand, or indulgence and pardons afterwards, is a thing still so much worse, that they are really unfit for human society. They should get their pope, if they would not have it thrown into their dish, and have it believed by us; I say, they should get the pope of Rome to decry and anathematize such doctrines of deposing and saith he, I did know him, I must confess, but I never saw him since the year 1677. The thing that Mr. Oates charges him with, is in April or May 1678, or thereabouts. And Mr. | Langhorn says, he never saw him since 1677. Why, Mr. Oates, saith he, was not here in England; and produces a great many witnesses, that came from beyond sea, to testify, that Mr. Oates was there in April and May, and longer. And whereas Mr. Oates says, that there came over in his company with him, sir John War-killing kings, and discharging subjects from ner, sir Thomas Preston, Mr. Poole, and others; he proves by some witnesses, that Mr. Oates was there both months; and by others, that sir John Warner was at Watton, and sir Thomas Preston at Liege, and Poole at St. Omers, at the time that Mr. Oates says they came over with him and this, says he, I hope will be plain evidence why you should not believe Mr. Oates; and the rather, because these witnesses are such, says he, as that I do not so much as know their faces; and you will not presume, that people to whom I am wholly a stranger, should come hither from St. Omers to testify a lie for me. In answer to this, I say, it is no good argument for all that; for though I believe they are strangers to him, they are not strangers to the errand they came about. They came to defend all the Roman Catholics, whom we would hang here for a Plot; and they are sent over for that purpose, as far as their testimony can go. How far that is, though they are not upon their oaths, (for the law will not permit it) I must say to you, in favour of the prisoner at the bar, as I did to the jury yesterday, you must not take it, therefore, as if it were mere talk, and no more; nor reject them too much because they do not swear: They would swear, it is likely, if the law would allow it. Only one remark I must observe to you upon their own evidence: the St. Omers gardener (which is one of them) takes upon him to give a very exact account of Mr. Oates, in the months of April and May; but when I came to enquire, what he knew of him in the months of June and July; he tells you, those were not the months in question. But on the other side, did not the principles of their religion so teach, and make us to know, that they will not stick at any wickedness to propagate it: did not the best and chiefest doctors of their church preach and print it: did not his holiness the pope allow it; and never condemn any one book in the world that hath asserted the lawfulness of deposing and killing kings, for separating from their religion: did not they teach and practise all sorts of equivocations, and that a lye does God good service, if it be for the propagation of the faith: were not these young boys capable of having this doctrine instilled into them; and, were not they bred up in colleges chiefly to serve that end; then Mr. Langhorn had said something. Neither are these things artificially objected against them, for the doctrines of their church are so false and pernicious, so VOL. VII, their allegiance: but that will never be; for his holiness the pope will keep himself where he is, and will part with nothing that he hath of advantage over any. Look you, gentlemen, thus much I cannot omit, with a good conscience, to say, the profession, the doctrines, and the discipline of the church of Rome is such, that it does take away a great part of the faith that should be given to these witnesses; nevertheless we must be fair and should hear them, if we could not answer what they alledge, by evidence to the contrary. Mr. Oates, therefore, to justify himself, hath produced, I think, seven or eight witnesses, that do prove that he was here in the latter end of April, and beginning of May, which does contradict all their testimony, who do say, he was abroad all along from December to June, and that they saw him every other day. It is true, if we were certain that what these young men spake, were indeed so as they say, it is impossible for Mr. Oates's testimony to be believed. If I were satisfied, that really and truly Mr. Oates was not here, but was six months together there, and that he hath invented this story, and made this himself; I could no longer confide in the man nor find Mr. Langhorn guilty: yet is not the time really the substance of the thing, though he hath made it so now, because the consult was the 24th of April, at which he was present; and he did go, he says, to Mr. Langhorn, within a day or two after, to acquaint him with the resolution of it. To this end hath Mr. Oates produced seven or eight witnesses that saw him, as they swear. He hath produced a minister, that says he saw him in a disguise, but having known him before recollected him to be the man. He hath produced a woman that agrees with that story; for she says, that he came and talked with her about it, and told her then, that he had seen Mr. Oates the day before, and gives you a token why it was about that time of the year. Now, if this be not a new matter, and new found out, this woman (if she swears true) does justify the other in what he did say a year ago, when they could never imagine that any great weight and moment should be laid upon that accident of his seeing Oates in the street. He hath produced to you the coachman of sir Richard Barker, that says, he knew him well when he came to his master's house. There he called him by his name, that asking for Dr. Tongue, but not finding him within, he went 21 away presently; that he was in disguise; that they acquainted their master with it, as soon as he came home; and their master says, that so they did. And the person that then lived in the house, and now is dead, said to the maid, Yonder is Mr. Oates, I think he is either turned quaker, or priest; what a kind of habit he is got into! No, said the maid, he can't be a quaker, because he wears a periwig; but she says, he named him to her, Oates, and that this is the man, she knew him since. It is the same man that the young man spoke to her about. He bath produced farther one of their own religion, one that is a papist still, and he says he saw him twice at Mr. Charles Howard's in Arundel-House. There was indeed some perplexity they would have put upon it, by reason of Mr. Howard's son being dead a year before; the witness says he did not know the son. A papist he confeses himself expressly to be, if not a priest; and I would not ask him the question, because it is not fair to make him accuse himself: but he does swear expressly, he saw Mr. Oates at Mr. Charles Howard's in April or May, which 'contradicts all their witnesses. He also produces a schoolmaster, that tells that he dined with him the beginning of May and I remembered it, says he, very well, for we dined by the fire-side, which gave me occasion to wonder at it, in May, and remember it. He says, moreover, that he staid three or four hours with him, and talked of all his travels in Spain. Now must all these people be downright perjured; it can be no mistake but they are all falsly forsworn if there be not truth in it. And when here are seven or eight witnesses positively swearing against the affirmation of so many others, we leave the credit of both sides to you who are the judges of the fact. There is indeed (and I will repeat it for you, for I would not miss any thing, as near as I can, that would make for the prisoner's advantage) there is a proof concerning sir John Warner, and Preston, and Poole, that they were there at the time, and there hath been no answer given to it but I say still, it is the same thing; for if you do not believe those witnesses to speak true, that affirm that Oates was there all the time, but rather believe that he was here by seven or eight people that testify it, I say, if you cannot believe he was there, you will never change your mind for one circumstance. Langhorn. They are not the same wit Desses. L. C. J. It is true, they are not you have four or five witnesses that speak apart, but two of them do say, that they knew Oates also was there at the same time that they speak that sir John Warner was at home. Langhorn. Not those two of Liege, my lord, about sir Thomas Preston. L. C. J. No, they do not, for I leave it to you of the jury, upon the whole matter; there is little more to be said by me. If so he redit is to be given to these witnesses of Oates more than to the others, then you must find him guilty, and the rather, because I do a little suspect, they come over instructed, to say what they do. You find they apply themselves to the thing they came for; and not only the gardener but another could tell you (which hath a very great influence upon me; as to their credit) that the months of April and May were the months in question, and they were not to be examined any farther. So that it looks as if these young men were sent of an errand; and though you do not know them, Mr. Langhorn, and are innocent as to any tampering with them, yet I am afraid they are come to serve the Ca-® tholic cause, as they call it. For they are very well taught, and they keep to those months of April and May, of all the months in the year. Then they bring the woman of the WhiteHorse-tavern, where the consult of the 24th of April was; and what is the use they would make of her? Why, it is that Mr. Oates should make a story of fifty fathers being in her tavern at one time (but he insists now there was a matter of twenty) when there was not a room in her house that would hold ten: but you hear how she was answered, from testimony rising up in the court of themselves, that were acquainted with her house, and know, that forty people may dine in two of her rooms, and the king's counsel observed well, how chance itself bath put to silence this evidence. So that when matters are alledged to be done at home there is not so great a difficulty as in proving things that are done abroad. I leave it to you, Sirs. Here is a gentleman that stands at the bar, upon his life, on the one hand; but if Mr. Oates says true, all our lives, and liberties, our king, and religion, are at the stake, on the other hand. God defend that innocent blood should be shed, and God defend us also from Popery, and from all popish plots, and from all the bloody principles of papists, which are very cruel, as we know by experience; and you cannot blame us to look to ourselves. For I must tell you, the Plot is proved as plain as the day, and that by Oates; and farther, Oates's testimony is confirmed by that which can never be answered. For when he comes at his first testimony, and says, that upon the 24th of April, such a consult was summoned, and held, it falls ont, that five days after a letter is found amongst Harcourt's Papers, (a principal person in the design), which does order the meeting upon the 24th of April, being the day after St. George's feast, and gives them a caution that they should not come too soon to town; that they should not appear too much in London, for fear of discovering the design, and of disclosing That, the nature of which requires secrecy.' Plainer than this is hardly to be writ from a Jesuit, especially in so dangerous a matter. And what can be answered to this letter, that is found in a priest's hands, four days after Mr. Oates had given in his information about it? Put all this together, and if you be satisfied herein, you may judge the better, as to the par ticular business of Mr. Langhorn, how far the testimony of Oates and Bedlow affect him. You know what you do. And for Bedlow, it is true, what he says, that there is nothing to be said to his evidence, because no man can prove a negative; and he swears expressly, that he had this discourse with him, of these treasonable matters, killing the king, and altering religion. If this be so, and you are satisfied in that particular, (and that a man may very well be, as to the substance,) I do not see any considerable answer that is given. I say once more, there is the life of a gentleman at stake, and there are all our lives at the stake: Follow you your consciences; do wisely, do honestly, and consider what is to be done. L. C. J. North. With my lord's leave, because there hath been mention made of this letter, which goes much in confirmation of Mr. Oates's testimony; it is in Court, but it hath not been produced at the bar, I desire it may, if your lordship please. Sir Cr. Levinz. It is here in Court, my lord, we will give your lordship an account how we came by it. Swear sir Thomas Doleman, Which was done. Sir Cr. Levinz. Sir Thomas, did you find the Paper amongst Mr. Harcourt's Papers? Sir Thomas Doleman. I found this letter among the papers of Mr. Harcourt, that were committed to my search. L. C. J. When did you find it, Sir? Sir Thomas Doleman. It was some 5 or 6 days after Mr. Oates had given in his information to the king and council. L. C. J. Do you mark it, Gentlemen? After Mr. Oates had told the council of the consult on the 24th of April, is this letter found. L. C. J. North. It is in confirmation of Mr. Oates's testimony. [Then the Letter was read, being the same with that in page 350 in the Trial of Whitebread, Harcourt, &c.] L. C. J. This letter is only as to the Plot in general, and not to be applied to Mr. Langhorn in particular. Langhorn. Mr. Oates might very well be able to speak of this meeting of this congrega tion, as they call it, before this letter was taken, it is easy to believe, because Mr. Oates being at St. Omers, I suppose the like letters of summons might come over to St. Omers, to fetch some of them over hither. 1. C. J. You say well; but if you have but the luck to give me an answer to a thing or two, you will have better fortune, and more skill than the priests. It is true, he might, perchance, know of the consult, if he were at St. Omers: But will you tell us what that design was? And what is the meaning of putting those words into the letter, That they should not come too soon to London, nor appear too much about town, for fear of discovering that design, which they knew required secrecy in its own nature? Langhorn. My lord, I will tell you what I' take to be the meaning of that letter. The design, was the holding of a congregation : There were divers of them, and it was like the meeting of a dean and chapter in a college, and he bids them not to come too long before the time, for they were certainly in very great danger to be taken. L. C. J. What! at that time? What danger were they in then? Langhorn. Yes, my lord, the parliament was then sitting. L. C. J. But you know what indulgence there was to all papists at that time, if they would be but quiet. Well, but put it all together, they were to come to London, not too soon, nor to appear too much, because the parliament was What, was that only for Mr. Whitebread, and sitting, for fear of discovering the design. swered by that? his fellows, to make an officer! Can it be an Langhorn. Certainly, their holding of a congregation in England does require secrecy. L. C. J. Gentlemen, here is the thing, this there is a Plot, and you may make what reais only an evidence to the Plot in general, that sonable use you think fit of it. It is not a particular evidence against Mr. Langhorn's particular person, only it shews there was a Plot, and you have heard what they say to him in particular about it. And I will tell you one thing more, which if Oates swears true, concerns you very much. He saith, they were a talking of the ten thousand pounds that sir George Wakeman was to have for poisoning the king, when their other attempts had failed, and that he would not take under 15,000l.: You, Mr. Langhorn, was very angry, and said it was a base, covetous thing in him; and it being such a public cause, it would have been no matter if he had done it for nothing. I have repeated as much as I can well remember, withAnd so I leave it with you. out any prejudice to Mr. Langhorn's testimony. who withdrew to consider of their Verdict; and [Then an officer was sworn to keep the jury, the Judges also went off from the Bench. The the day being so far spent, and the commission Lord Chief Justice telling the Auditory, that determining that night, because of the term, sir George Wakcinan, and the rest, could not be tried till next sessions. And after a short space the Jury returned, and answering to their names, delivered in their Verdict.] Clerk of the Crown. Gentlemen, Are you all agreed of your Verdict? Omnes. Yes. Recorder. It is a verdict according to the justice of the evidence. (Upon which there was a very great shout.) Then Mr. Recorder sent for the prisoners I convicted before, to receive their Judgment; and they were brought to the bar, and the Court proceeded thus: Cl. of Cr. Richard Langhorn, hold up thy hand: Thou standest convicted of High Trcason; what canst thou say for thyself, why the Court should not give judgment on thee to die, according to law? Lang horn. I have nothing to say. Cl. of Cr. Thomas White, otherwise Whitebread, hold up thy hand: Thou standest convicted, in Middlesex, of High Treason; what canst thou say for thyself, why the Court should not give judgment on thee to die, according to law? Whitebread. I can say nothing. Cl. of Cr. John Fenwick, hold up thy hand: thou art in the same case with him that went last before thee; what canst thou say, &c.? Fenwick. I have nothing more to say. Cl. of Cr. William Harcourt, hold up thy hand; thou art in the same case with the two that went last, before thee; what canst thou say, &c.? Harcourt, I have nothing at all to say. Cl. of Cr. John Gavan, hold up thy hand: thou art in the same case with the three that went last before thee; what canst thou say, &c.? Gavan. I have nothing more to say, than I did say. God bless the king and the kingdom. Cl. of Cr. Anthony Turner, hold up thy hand thou art in the same case with the four that went last before thee; what canst thou say, &c.? Turner. I have nothing to say. Cl. of Cr. Then, Crier, make proclamation of silence while judgment is given, upon pain of imprisonment. (Which was done on both sides of the Court.) Recorder (sir George Jefferies). You the prisoners at the bar: You have been severally arraigned, and now are severally convicted of High-Treason and that attended with all the ill circumstances that can be possible to aggravate so high a crime. You attempted the life of the best of kings, who was full of mercy and compassion, even to you, under whom you might still have lived peaceably and quietly, had not your own malice and mischiefs prevented it. Nor were you satisfied with that alone; for you intended thereby to make way for the destruction of the greatest part of the kingdom, by a public massacre, by cutting the throats of all Protestants; for that also appears to be your design: to effect which, the nearest way and the best means you could think of, was first to kill the king. And this was to be done for the introducing of another religion, as you call it; which, as we think, we more properly call superstition; and so root out the best religion that is established among us by law. And I therefore call it the best of religions, even for your sakes; for had it not been for the sake such requitals, as yours seems to teach you, of our religion, that teaches us not to make you had not had that fair formal way of trial, and of being heard, as you now have been; but murder would have been returned to you, for the murder you intended to comit, both upon the king, and most of his people. What a strange sort of religion is that, whose doctrine seems to allow them to be the greatest saints in another world, that can be the most pa• dent sinners in this! murder, and the blackest of crimes here, are the best ineans among you, to get a man to be canonized a saint hereaiter. Is it not strange that men pr. fessed in religion, that use all endeavours to gain proselytes for heaven, should so pervert the scripture (as I perceive some of you have done) and make that justify your impious designs of assassinating kings and murdering their subjects? what can be said to such a sort of people, the very foundation of whose religion is laid in blood? nay, lest you should not be able so easily to persuade them so cleverly to imbibe those bloody principles, you do absolve them from all the obligations that they remain under, of obedience to their sovereign; you do therefore from the pulpits publicly teach, that the oaths of allegiance and supremacy signify nothing. It is a strange religion, that applies every thing to these wicked and detestable purposes. There is one gentleman that stands at the bar, whom I am very sorry to see, with all my heart, in this condition, because of some acquaintance I have had with him heretofore: to see a man who hath understanding in the law, and who hath arrived to so great an eminency in that profession, as that gentleman bath done, should not remember, that it is not only against the rules of all Christianity, but even against the rules of his profession, to attempt any injury against the person of the king. fle knows, that it is against all the rules of law, to endea vour to introduce any foreign power into this land. So that you sinned both against your conscience, and your own certain knowledge. But your several crimes have been so fully proved against you, that truly, I think no person that stands by, can be in any doubt of the guilt: nor is there the least room for the most scrupulous man to doubt of the credibility of the witnesses that have been examined against you; and sure I am, you have been fully heard, and stand fairly convicted of those crimes you have been indicted for, |