Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/221

 178

him for the same deed, but at a different time. Their testimony was incoherent and contra dictory, and Dates pieced out his venom by testifying orally to the contents of letters written by Stafford which he claimed to have seen. Stafford raised the point that one wit ness to prove an overt act at one time and another witness to prove an overt act at an other time, was not a compliance with the statutory requirement of two witnesses in cases of treason. This objection was over ruled by the judges. Atkyns said in the course of his opinion: "In the case of Sir Henry Yane and others this very question was started, but was not thought worthy of debate. If it should be otherwise it would touch the judgments which have been given upon this kind of proof; and what would the consequence of that be but that those per sons who were executed upon those judg ments have suffered illegally." The prisoner might well term this "a strange position." Lord Stafford was convicted by a vote of fifty-five to thirty-one. Lord Nottingham's otherwise admirable and humane speech in delivering sentence was marred by a refer ence to the alleged burning of London by papists, concerning which there had not been the remotest reference during the trial. Two cases having more or less connection with the 'plot deserve notice. Fitzharris' case (8 St. Tr. 243) was a struggle between the commons and the courts for jurisdiction. The real object of the Parliamentary proceed ings was to elicit information bearing upon the plot. The king sought to forestall the commons by instituting an action in the regular courts for treasonable libel. Very full reports have been preserved of the elabo rate arguments on the question of jurisdiction by Sawyer, Jeffreys, Williams, Winnington and Pollexfen. Pressed by both king and Commons Fitzharris was, of course, con victed and executed. The trial of Colledge before North (8 St. Tr. 549) was scandulous. On the way to his

trial the prisoner was deprived of all the pa pers provided for his defense, and with the information thus gained the crown counsel astutely refrained from calling witnesses whom the prisoner could have impeached. Nevertheless Colledge defended himself ad mirably, though unsuccessfully. Within less than five years after the san guinary denouement of the Popish Plot a re vulsion took place, and the Rye House Plot absorbed the attention of the courts. Scroggs, Jeffreys and Xorth then sacrificed Whigs as they had previously sacrificed Catholics. As in the former plot, some desperate men had undoubtedly organized a plot against the king. But there was no evidence that Rus sell, Sidney, Essex and other Whig leaders had been parties to it. These men feared for the cause of liberty, and they undoubtedly consulted with a view to revolutionary action in case of need; but they committed no overt act of treason. Yet while history has con demned their taking off,' it must be remem bered that they had helped to raise the Pop ish Plot, and Russell had voted for Stafford's death. Essex committed suicide in the Tow er, and interest in the carnival of judicial murder which ensued centers around the trials of Lord Russell (9 St. Tr. 577) and Algeron Sidney (9 St. Tr. 818). At the trial of Russell, Chief Justice Pemberton presided over the bench of nine judges. Sawyer, Finch, Jeffreys and North prosecuted for the crown. Pollexfen, Holt and Wood were assigned to advise the prisoners. Russell was accused of having conspired to raise an insurrection against the king, and with hav ing concurred, to that end, in a scheme to seize the royal guards. The witnesses against him were his alleged accomplices, Howard and Ramsey, both of whom were discredited by their character, complicity and contradictory statements. Aided by his wife, who acted as his amanuensis, Russell made a weak and hesitating defense. He