The History of the whiggish-plot, or, A brief historical account of the charge and deefnce [sic] of [brace] William Lord Russel, Capt. Tho. Walcot, John Rouse, William Hone, Captain Blague, [brace] Algernoon Sidney, Esq., Sir Sam. Barnardiston, John Hambden, Esq., Lawrence Braddon, Hugh Speak, Esq. together with an account of the proceedings upon the outlawry against James Holloway, and Sir Thomas Armstrong : not omitting any one material passage in the whole proceeding : humbly dedicated to His Royal Highness.

The Charge and Defence of Sir Samuel Bar∣nardiston, Tryed for High Misdemeanour the 14th. of February, 1683. before the Right Honourable the Lord Chief Justice Jefferies, at the Sessions of Nisi Prius for the City of London, after the Term.

The Names of the JƲRY were:

• ...Thomas Vernon
• ...Percival Gilburn
• ...Edward Bovery
• William Withers, Sen.
• ...James Wood
• ...Robert Masters
• ...Samuel Newton
• ...George Torriano
• ...Kenelm Smith
• ...Thomas Goddard
• ...Thomas Amy
• ...Richard Blackburn.

THE Information against the Defendant was, for Scanda∣lising * 1.1 and Vilifying the Evidence in the last Horrid Plot, which he did in several Letters, in one of which he Related the great Favour into which the Duke of Monmouth was returnd: and seem'd to Triumph, that all the Pri∣soners that were in the late Sham Protestant-Plot, were Discharg'd upon Bayl, that Braddon was not Prosecuted, that the passing Sentence upon the Author of Julian, &c. and the Printer of the Lord Russels Speech were pass'd over in silence, &c.

To which he added these Expressions: 'Tis generally said the Earl of Essex was Murthered. The brave Lord R••sse•• is afresh la∣mented. The Plot is lost here, unless you can find it in the Country among the Addressers and Abhorrers. That ••he High Tories and Clergy were mortify'd, and Sir George ••as grown humble.

This was the substance of the rest of the Letters, with some alterations of Words.

To prove him the Author of the several Letters, Mr. Brathwayt * 1.2 was Sworn, who deposed, That Sir Samuel, upon the 10th of December, before the King and the Lords of the Council, own'd three of the Letters to be of his own hand writing. Being ask'd whether Sir Samuel said they were published by him, or sent to any person? the Witness Answered, That he did not deny but that he had publisht and sent them.

Mr. Atterbury being Sworn, deposed, That he own'd three of the Letters to be written by him: and that being ask'd by His * 1.3 Majesty who subscrib'd them? he Answered, They were sub∣scribed by one of his Servants, and so order'd to be sent to the Post-House.

Mr. Osland being call'd and Sworn, deposed, That he wrote one of the Letters out of a Copy, given him by Sir Samuel, as he * 1.4 was his Servant, to go down into the Country to Sir Phillip Skippon.

The same Witness being ask'd what became of the Letters af∣ter they were subscrib'd? made Answer, That he believ'd they all went to the Post-House.

To this Mr. Williams of Counsel for the Defendant pleaded, That there was no proof of Sir Samuels publishing the Letters, only what Mr. Brathwayt said, That he did not deny the publish∣ing of them, and what Mr. Atterbury said, That Sir Samuel should say they were sent to the Post-House. Upon which Mr. Williams put it to the Court, Whether if a Gentleman writes a Letter to a private Friend, that was a publishing of a Libel? neither was

Sir Samuels Servant positive as to the Letter which he Copy'd, whether he delivered it back to Sir Samuel or no, or whether he delivered it in at the Post-House, but only as he believ'd.

Then it was urg'd that there was no Evidence given about his Malice. To which the Lord Chief Justice reply'd, That the thing was Evidence of it self; For that if any person wrote Li∣bels, or published any Expressions which in themselves, carryed Se∣dition and Faction, and ill will to the Government, they could not be otherwise expressed in his Accusation, then by the words Ma∣liciously, Seditiously, and Factiously; and the very proof of the thing it self, prov'd the Evil Mind wherewith it was done.

Then as to the first Objection about the writing and publishing, it was delivered as the Judgment of the Court, that there was as full and plain proof of the dictating and writing of the Letters, as could be made.

Then as to what Mr. Williams objected against the publishing it, was ask'd him, whether it were not very absur'd, to think that such a person as Sir Samuel, should take such a wonderful deal of pains and care to write such a deal of Malicious Factious Stuff, give them his Man to Copy out, subscribe and seal them to carry in his Pocket. Besides that, they were directed to Persons where Sir Samuel was known to have a Correspondence: and far∣ther, the purport of the Letters, which was, To d••sire their Friends to bestir themselves, to get in sober Men, and to be sure to keep the sober Party up, spoke in its own Nature, that the L••tters were intended and written with a Design, that they should be Communicated.

In short the Proof was so full, and the Defence so weak, that the Jury gave in their Verdict without stirring from the Bar, and found Sir Samuel Barnardiston guilty of the Offence and Misde∣meanour charg'd upon him in the Information.

The Sentence of the Court was, That he should pay to the King a Fine of 10000 l. and to find Sureties for his good Behaviour during Life, and to be Committed till the same be performed.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Infor∣mation and substance of the Letters.
• * 1.2

  Mr. Brath-Wayt.
• * 1.3

  Mr. Atter∣bury.
• * 1.4

  Mr. Osland.