such a certainty, we humbly insist, they have failed in a material part of this accusation. L. C. J. This act of parliament makes it high treason only with respect to this individual person, who is here called the pretended prince of Wales: Now, if the person hath no where any christian name, or sirname, must we not take notice of the description of him, and how he is called in almost all the acts of parliament? In one act of parliament he is called the pretended prince of Wales: In the act on which this Indictment is founded, he is called the pretended prince of Wales, and that now takes upon himself the stile and title of king of England: In the Abjuration Act, he is called by the name in the indictment; if it be the same person, must not we take notice, this is one and the same person? and if so, no matter which of the names he is described by. Mr. Ketelbey. My lord, I beg leave to mention one word more. The act of parliament says (any right to the crown of these realms,) and so it goes through in the plural number (hath any right or title to the crown of these realms ;) it relates to the Union of the two realms of England and Scotland, and from one end to the other mentions them plurally; they have expressed it in the indictment only in the singular number hujus regni,' and afterwards, innuendo, coronam hujus regni.' Att. Gen. The words are Magne Britanniæ.' Mr. Ketelbey. With submission, the words are, innuendo, jus hereditarium ad coronam hujus regni,' without Magne Britannis.' . Att. Gen. The words in the beginning of the indictment are, de et concernen, coron. Magna Britanniæ;' you have got upon innuendoes again. Mr. Ketelbey. Why, if you do not like the innuendoes, you may leave them out of the case, and see how it will stand then; if the last innuendo-(jus hereditarium ad coronam hujus regni') be laid aside, the words of the indictment will be barely, " he hath that to plead in his favour," without any thing more, and then it doth not appear, if you go through without the innuendoes, that it is any offence against the statute. Mr. Hungerford. My lord, the objection is this, the act of parliament makes it high-treason to affirm, &c. that any person bath a right to the crown of these realms; which expres sion comprehends Great Britain and Ireland; in the indictment they have not mentioned Ireland, it is only ad coronam hujus regni ;' it is indeed Magne Britannia' in the beginning; though England and Scotland make one united kingdom, Ireland is not included. Att. Gen. My lord, we have done, and pray your lordship's Judgment. Then the Recorder passed sentence, as usual in cases of high-treason; and he was executed at Tyburn, November 6th, 1720, aged nineteen. I don't find he made any Speech, or left any Paper behind him. [The following Case of a conviction of Treason for publishing a treasonable Paper, I have extracted from the Harleian MSS. in the Brit. Mus. N° 6846, art. 104, fol. 335. I know not exactly the date of the Trial; but it seems likely that sir John Trenchard was Secretary of State when the parties were carried before him. According to Beatson, Trenchard was Secretary of State from 1692 to 1695.] THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM NEWBOLT AND EDWARD BUTTLER, PRINTERS, FOR HIGH TREASON, IN COMPASSING AND IMAGINING THE DEATH OF THEIR MOST SACRED, MAJESTIES KING WILLIAM AND QUEEN MARY. [NOW FIRST PUBLISHED FROM THE HARLEIAN MSS. IN THE British MUSEUM.] ON Friday, the 8th of this instant September, being the 3rd day of this sessions, the pri soners were brought to the bar, and were arraigned upon an indictment of high-treason, for composing, printing, and publishing the late king James's Declaration,* &c. To which Indictment they both pleaded Not Guilty; and for their trial they put themselves upon God and their country. Then the jury was called over, and the prisoners having made their law. ful challenge to the number of 26, the Court proceeded to their trial, and the gentlemen sworn to try the issue were those whose names follow: JURY. Then the prisoners desired they might have pen, ink, and paper allowed them, which was granted; and then the Indictment was read again, which set forth, that the prisoners stood indicted by the names of William Newbolt and Edward Buttler, of the parish of St. Margaret's, Westminster, gents. for that they not having God before their eyes, but being moved and instigated by the power of the devil, and being enemies of our sovereign lord and lady the king and queen, and minding and intending to raise war and rebellion in this kingdom, and the government of this kingdom wholly to subvert, alter and change, and a miserable slaughter amongst their majesties' subjects to make, and to depose and put to death their most sacred majesties, on the 20th day of May last past, * See this Declaration, vol. 12, p. 1209. ! and divers other times, as well before as after, they did compose, print and publish, or cause to be composed, printed and published, a most false, scandalous, malicious and traitorous libel, entitled, " His Majesty's most gracious Declaration to all his loving Subjects," signed J. R. and beginning to this effect: "When we reflect upon the calamities of our kingdom, we are not willing to leave any thing unattempted that may be for the good of our subjects, and to regain our own rites, "* &c. reciting the Declaration at large. Then the counsel for their majesties opened the nature of the offence contained in the indictment against the prisoners; how that they stood accused for high-treason, which indeed was a crime of the highest nature against any person or government whatsoever, and the offence alleged in the indictment was printing of a treasonable libel, entitled, “The late king James's Declaration," which tended only to the deposing of the king and queen, and to the bringing of them to final death and destruction, and that whosoever does go about to depose the king and queen, this was a compassing, imagining, and contriving the death and destruction of the king and queen, and in the libel there was contained the most rank and basest treason that could possibly be imagined, in that it did set up, the title of the late king James against the present king and queen, and the government; and this did tend to incite and stir up all their majesties' subjects to take part with their enemies against them, and that the prisoners having printed the said treasonable Declaration, this was an overt act of hightreason in law; therefore if it was proved to them, the Court* did not doubt but that they would find the prisoners guilty of high-treason. And the Court hoped that the gentlemen of the jury were men so conscientious and so judicious, that they would value the welfare of the government so much, as to find a just and true verdict against the prisoners, &c. Then the evidence for the king and queen were called and sworn, the first of which stood up and gave account, that about the 20th of May last past, he was in company of the prisoners, at the Ship, in Charles-street, in Covent-garden, where they had an haggas to dinner; and after dinner the man of the house brought up word, that one captain Griffiths was below and wanted to speak with Mr. Newbolt; he went down, and when he came up again he told the company, that captain Griffiths wanted 10,000 of the Declarations for the use of the country, and that he would give 15l. for them. About four or five days afterwards, he being there again, Mr. Buttler pulled out a Declaration out of his pocket, and one Mr. Farr was there at the same time, and looked upon it, and said, that it wanted the king's-arms to it, and the letters God save the King;' so Farr said at last, Come, we will go to my lord's and do it, (meaning at Douglass's, where the printing * So in the MS. press stood), and that was to set the Declara tion; and after this, on the 1st of June following, he met Buttler in Charles-street again, and he had some Declarations about him, and bis heart failed him, and he gave them to this evidence; and then the messenger went and took them, and they were carried before sir John Trenchard, and there they confessed the matter; and there were thirty of them found upon Buttler, and that they were to have 151. for printing 10,000 of them. Another evidence swore, that the prisoners had a printing-press, and this was kept at one Douglass's, at Westminster, and there they printed the Declarations, and that both of them were concerned equally in the matter; and that that were seen to compose and set the letters in the press, and the frame so set by their hands was brought into Court, on which the Declaration had been printed, and sworn to be set by the prisoners; and all this was fully and clearly sworn against them by the king's evidence. The prisoners did not deny the fact, nor that they did not print this Declaration, but alleged that it could not be treason to print; for nothing could be accounted treason but what was contained in the 25th of Edw. the 3rd, now printing was not in that statute; therefore printing could not be made an overt act of high-treason, and they were but servants and worked for their livelihood; the press was not their's, and what they did was through mere necessity, &c. therefore they hoped that they could not be found guilty of treason, for that it was never known that servants did suffer for their master's fault. They were answered by the Court, that the matter contained in the Declaration was treasonable; and the question was, whether the intention of their minds were not to destroy the king by printing such treasonable libels and by sending of them abroad; for they would not print 10,000 of them to put them in their pockets, and printing treasonable books had always been accounted treason; yea, bare writing was treason too, and though printing in itself simply considered is no offence, yet printing of treason is an overt act,† and it must be left to the jury to consider, whether their minds were not concerned when they went about to print those treasonable libels; and as for their being servants, that was not proved, but if it had, that would no ways excuse them, for they were to be told that there were no accessaries in treason. Then the Jury having considered of the evidence; after about an hour's time they brought this verdict, that they were both Guilty of hightreason. When they received sentence, they desired Mr. Recorder to make a favourable report of their circumstances to the queen, how that they were poor men, and only worked for a living, * So in the MS. ↑ See East's Pl. Cr. c. 2, § 56, and that they were tricked and trepanned into this matter, acknowledging themselves to be true Protestants, &c. They desired that their friends might have leave to come to them, which was granted by the Court. 460. The Trial of the Rev. Mr. WILLIAM HENDLEY, for preaching a Charity Sermon at Chislehurst, in Kent, for the Charity Children of St. Ann's, Aldersgate, London; and of GEORGE CAMPMAN, ROBERT HICKS, FILIAR HARDING, and WALTER PRATT, the Schoolmaster, and Trustees for the Charity Children, for collecting Money for the same; at Rochester Assizes in Kent, before sir Littleton Powys, knt. one of his Majesty's Justices of the Court of King's-Bench: 4 GEORGE I. A. D. 1719. July 15, 1719. THE CASE. ON Saturday, August 23, 1718, upon leave obtained, first, from the bishop of Rochester, (Atterbury, then bishop of the diocese) and secondly, from the reverend Mr. Wilson, rector of Chislehurst, to preach two Charity Sermons for the children of St. Ann's, Aldersgate; the schoolmaster, with four or five more, carried down some of the children to Chislehurst. Campman and Mr. Prat, two of the trustees for the children, to collect for them from pew to pew. The people gave liberally, till they came to Mr. Farrington, who not only refused giving, but seized the collector, asserting it was illegal, and no collection should be made; that the children were vagrants, and sent about begging for the Pretender. Mr. Hendley called out from the pulpit, and commanded them to proceed; Mr. Wilson (from the altar) did the like; but the collectors answered they could not. Mr. Wilson came down and said he would collect in person, and Mr. Hendley called for a common prayer book, and read the several rubrics which authorised these proceedings, and told the justices, they could not answer disturbing divine service, and must expect a complaint to the bishop of Rochester. The justices said they cared not for the bishop, or them either, and were charged by sir Edward Bettison and captain Farrington to desist from Immediately after they arrived, they were taken up, and carried before sir Edward Bettison, bart. Thomas Farrington, esq. justices of the peace, and major Stephens, high sheriff of the county; by whom they were asked, how they dared to come strolling and begging about the country, without licence or authority first obtained? To which they answered, that if archbishops and bishops thought it a good work to preach for such children, they imagined it to be a good work to collect for them: To which the justices replied, they cared not for arch-collecting. bishops or bishops, and were resolved the thing should not be pursued. On Sunday August 24, a Sermon was preached by the reverend Mr. Hendley, suitable to the occasion: The Sermon being ended, the reverend Mr. Wilson (whose curate read prayers) put on a surplice, and repaired to the altar to read the offertory sentences before the prayer for the church militant; when Mr. Wilson made his offering in one of the communion patens, and then gave them to Mr. * Taken from a pamphlet, intituled, Charity still a Christian Virtue; or, an Impartial Account of the Trial of the reverend Mr. Hendley, &c. for preaching a Charity Sermon at Chilsehurst in Kent. Former Edition. It appears, that this frivolous squabble was employed as a test of party zeal, and an instrument of party malignity; for which purposes perhaps it was provoked. Different pamphlets were written concerning it. In the mean time, the rector had good success in collecting, many people crowding up to give before their turn: and others, kept back by mere force, threw their money into the plate. Mr. Farrington made a snatch at the plate to take the money; when Mr. Wilson ordering the money to be brought to the altar, Mr. Wilson took one paten and Mr. Hendley the other, and decently placed them thereon. Mr. Farrington pressed to come within the rails; Mr. Hendley held the door, and told him, bis place was not there, and forbid him touching the money. Then sir Edward Bettison came up to captain Farrington, who called for a constable, who came up with a long staff; upon this they were ordered to disperse, upon pain of being guilty of a riot, being seconded by sir Edward Bettison; when Mr. Wilson and Mr. Hendley told them, that the service of the church was not tinished, for the prayer for the church militant was not read, nor the blessing given; and if any riot, it was occasioned by the two justices. Sir Edward answered, that the service was finished, and forbid them to proceed; and that all concerned in bringing down the charity children should suffer for what was done. Mr. Wilson then called the churchwarden to tell the money with him, and agree to the disposal of it according to the rubric. The justices countermanded the same, whom Mr. Churchwarden rather chose to obey. Upon this Mr. Wilson and Mr. Hendley told the money on the Lord's table, and committed it that afternoon into the custody of the bishop of Rochester. In the evening, the rector, the preacher, and three persons who brought the children down, were taken into custody, and bound over to the quarter sessions at Maidstone, as rioters and vagrants. These gentleman appeared at Maidstone upon their recognizance; but no bill being found against them, they moved to be discharged; but the justices obliged them to put in fresh bail for their appearance at the next assizes, when they appeared, and the following indictment was found against them: "Kent ss. Juratores pro Domino Rege super sacramentum suum presentant, quod Willielmus Hendley nuper de Chislehurst in comitatu Kantiæ Clericus, Georgius Campman nuper de eadem Painter, Robertus Hicks nuper de eadem Labourer, et Filiar Harding nuper de eadem Packer, et Walterius Prat nuper de eadem Upholsterer, existentes personæ seditiose et male dispositi, ad gubernationem bujus regni sub excellentissimo Domino Georgio nunc Rege feliciter stabilito maxime aversi, et iniqui lucri avidi, et nequiter et injuste intendentes grandes denariorum summas illicite lucrari et obtinere sub colore colligendi eleemosinas et alias charitates et dona ad sustentationem et mantenationem diversorum puerorum et puellarum, scilicet viginti puerorum, et triginta puellarum, vicesimo quarto die Augusti, anno regni dicti Domini Georgii, nunc Regis Magna Britanniæ, &c. quinto, apud Chislehurst in comitatu Kantiæ prædicto, inter sese et quamplurimas alias male dispositas personas juratoribus prædictis ignotas, conspiravere et confederavere cum prædictis pueris et puellis pro oberrare, itinerari, et vagari ad diversas parochias in comitatu Kantiæ prædicto; et in aliis comitatibus Anglia in parochialibus ecclesiis et aliis parochiis illicite et injuste lucrari, colligere, et obtinere diversas grandes denariorum summas, colore et prætextu colligendi eleemosinas et charitatis dona pro sustentatione et mantenatione prædictorum puerorum, puellarumque. Et juratores prædicti super sacramentum suum ulterius presentant, quod prædictus Willielmus Hendley, Georgius Campman, et Walterius Prat, in prosecutione et per formatione conspirationis prædictæ, et juxta conspirationem et confederationem prædictam inde prius habitam ad nequissimas intentiones suas prædictas ad effectum redigendas, postea, scilicet vicesimo quarto die Augusti, anno quinto supradicto, apud parochiam de Chislehurst prædictam in comitatu Kantiæ prædicto, VOL. XV. cum prædictis pueris et puellis, seu aliquo seu aliqua eorum,fadtunc non existentibus, residentibus, vel residente, nec nato, seu nata, intra parochiam de Chislehurst prædictam, itineraverunt, iverunt et vagati fuerunt ad parochialem ecclesiam de Chislehurst prædictam, et in parochiali ecclesia de Chislehurst prædicta, die dicto, scilicet vicesimo quarto die Augusti, anno quinto supradicto, sese cum prædictis pueris et puellis, et multis aliis male dispositis personis juratoribus prædictis ignotis, assemblaverunt in ecclesia parochiali de Chislehurst, prædicto tempore celebrationis divini servitii in eadem : Ac prædictus Willielmus Hendley adtunc servitii et ibidem secundum conspirationem prædictam, inde ut præfertur, bic illicite et injuste, absque licentia dicti Domini Regis, seu alia legali authoritate quacunque, incitavit et rogavit parochiantes et alias personas in eadem Ecclesia adtunc et ibidem existentes, dare eleemosinas, et alia charitatis dona, sub colore et prætextu charitatis exhibere, pro prædicti pueris et puellis. Ac idem Georgius Campman, et Walterius Prat, non existentes guardiani ecclesiæ parochialis prædictæ, vel alii officiarii de dicta parochia, seu inhabitantes seu commorantes in, seu intra dictam parochiam de Chislehurst, secundum conspirationem prædictam, ut præfertur, inde hic illicite et injuste, sub colore et prætextu colligendi eleemosinas et charitatis dona pro sustentatione et supportatione prædictorum puerorum et puellarum, ad Rolandum Tryon parochianum prædicta parochie de Chislehurst, et alias personas in eadem ecclesia tunc existentes, durando tempore divini servitii in eadem ecclesia tunc celebrandi, illicite et injuste accesserunt, et requisiverunt eos dare eleemosinas et charitatis dona, pro illicitis propositis prædictis: Ac iidem Georgius Campman, et Walterius Prat, adtunc et ibidem sub colore et prætextu colligendi eleemosinas et charitatis dona, adtunc et ibidem in prosecutione confederationis et conspirationis prædicta, et secundum couspirationem et confederationem prædictam, inde prius ut præfertur, ac absque aliqua legali authoritate, collegere, recepere, et obtinuere diversas summas monetæ, in toto attingentes ad tres libras, à prædicto Rolando Tryon, et aliis parochianis et inhabitantibus prædictis et aliis personis in parochiali ecclesia prædicta existentibus, in maxima disturbatione quietis celebrationis divini servitii in eadem ecclesia tunc celebrandi per Georgium Wilson Rectorem ejusdem ecclesiæ; in maxima defraudatione et deceptione prædicti Rolandi Tryon, ac prædictorum aliorum parochianorum parochia de Chislehurst prædicta et predictarum personarum in eadem ecclesia tunc existentium; in malum et pessimum exemplum omnium in simili casu delinquentium contra leges, ac in contemptum dicti domini Regis, legumque suarum, necnon contra pacem dicti Domini Regis, coronam et dignitates suas." "MITCHELL." The sum of which Indictment in English runs thus: "The Jury for our lord the king present, that 4 X 1411] 4 GEORGE I. William Hendley, late of the parish of Chisle- To which they pleaded Not Guilty. JURY.* Sir Thomas Roberts, of Cranbrook, bart. *The publisher of The Account of this As to challenge of a juryman because he had | John Smith, of the same, esq. John Batchelor, of Raynham, esq. For the Plaintiffs.-Serjeant Darnell, Mr. For the Defendants.-Serjeant Comyns, sir Mr. Marsh, with a warmth, alleged, that in time charity schools might raise such sums of money, as to enable them to make head against the government; their drums beat to arms, and their trumpets sound a most dreadful alarm; the Protestant religion had its quarters beaten up at Chislehurst, and the terror had struck the head quarters in town; the sum of three pounds was raised even in that little parish, and suppose ten thousand parishes in England, from each of which if that sum was raised, it would be enough to bear the Chevalier's charges into Italy, and help him to consummate the marriage with the princess Sobieski, upon whom he might get new Pretenders, to the great disquiet of the Protestant interest; and that if a stop were not put to these proceedings, in time the clergy would grow up into friars mendicant; and then quoted several acts of parliament against vagrants, to prove the defendants were within the meaning of them; and shewed the illegality of collecting money without letters patents or briefs;* and then called the justices, constable, and others, to prove the bringing down the charity children to Chislehurst, the preaching, and collecting charity for them after they were forbid, &c. The Defendants proved that they had the bishop's and incumbent's consent, by the oaths of John Reeves, William Moor, Richard Neeves, and Thomas Shackleton. William Tryon, esq. and George Jefferies proved, that the justices were the authors of the disturbance. To prove the archbishop of Canterbury preached at St. Dionis Back-church for the charity children of Shadwell, the reverend Mr. Hume, Mr. Tryon, captain Thomas Shackleton, and Richard Payne, were called who proved the same. And, That the archbishop of York did the same, was proved by captain Thomas Shackleton. Mr. Archdeacon Spratt offered in evidence, It is great pity this Trial was never taken Former Edidown in short hand; it would have been very entertaining, as well as useful. tion. Son of Atterbury's predecessor; as to whom see vol. 12, pp. 492, et seq. (Note. In p. 493, 1. 16, the words Anniversary of the' should be inserted after the word 'first'), 1051, et seq. |