him for the same deed, but at a different time. Their testimony was incoherent and contradictory, and Oates 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 witness to prove an overt act at one time and another witness to prove an overt act at another time, was not a compliance with the statutory requirement of two witnesses in cases of treason. This objection was overruled by the judges. Atkyns said in the course of his opinion: "In the case of Sir Henry Vane 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 persons who were executed upon those judgments 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 reference 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 elaborate arguments on the question of jurisdiction by Sawyer, Jeffreys, Williams, Winnington and Pollexfen. Pressed by both king and Commons Fitzharris was, of course, convicted 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 papers 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 admirably, though unsuccessfully.

Within less than five years after the sanguinary denouement of the Popish Plot a revulsion took place, and the Rye House Plot absorbed the attention of the courts. Scroggs, Jeffreys and North then sacrificed Whigs as they had previously sacrificed Catholics. Aş in the former plot, some desperate men had undoubtedly organized a plot against the king. But there was no evidence that Russell, 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 condemned their taking off, it must be remembered that they had helped to raise the Popish Plot, and Russell had voted for Stafford's death. Essex committed suicide in the Tower, 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 having 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

which had been once examined could not be reprinted without fresh license, and books brought from abroad were to be landed only in London, where they were carefully examined by licensers who were empowered to seize and destroy all such as were in their opinion seditious, schismatical or offensive. Periodical searches of book sellers' shops and private houses were also authorized and enjoined. The Long Parliament abolished the Star Chamber but continued the censorship; and the Commonwealth in its turn endeavored "to repress disorders in printing." by the most oppressive ordinances, empowering messengers to break open doors and locks, by day or by night, in order to discover their authors, printers and publishers. Upon the Restoration, the Licensing act of 1662 again placed the entire control of printing in the hands of the government, which was clothed with all the arbitrary powers theretofore exercised by the Star Chamber. These powers were applied with savage vindictiveness; authors, printers and publishers of obnoxious works were hung, mutilated, flogged, imprisoned or fined, according to the temper of the judges. When, in 1679, the Licensing act was suffered temporarily to expire, freedom of discussion was promptly suppressed by the declaration of the judges that it was a crime at common law to publish anything whatever concerning the gov ernment without the royal license. At the accession of James II., in 1685, the Licensing act was revived for seven years, and was thus in force at the Revolution.

Under the Tudors and the Stuarts objectionable speaking and writing was generally punished under special acts as treason. This class of offenses was the special province of the Star Chamber, and in this province this court attained its utmost infamy. But Parliament and the regular courts were equally prompt in suppressing discussion. There could, of course, be no rational

discussion or development of freedom of speech while a censorship existed, and it will suffice to refer simply to the prominent public prosecutions prior to the Restoration: Udall (1 St. Tr. 1271), 1590; Peacham (2 ib. 870), 1615; Floyd (4 ib. 1154); Hollis (2 ib. 1022), 1615, for traducing public justice; Wraynham (ib. 1059), 1618, for slandering Lord Bacon; Floyd (ib. 1154; Hollis (2 ib. 1022), by the Commons; Mainwaring (3 ib. 335), 1621, for advocating forced loans; Pine (ib. 359), 1628, for speaking contemptuously of the king; (Chambers (ib. 374), 1629, speaking seditious words before the Privy Council; Elliot and others (ib. 294) 1629, seditious speeches in Parliament; Prynne (ib. 562), 1633, for publishing the Hiltrio-Mastix; Fowles and others (ib. 586), 1633, traducing officers of State; Bastwick and others (ib. 711), 1637, for publishing seditious and schismatical books; Lilburne (ib. 1315), 1637, for seditious publications; Harrison (ib. 1370), 1638, for speaking ill of a judge.

From the Restoration to the Revolution the leading cases are Twyn, Brewster and others (6 St. Tr. 514), 1663; Keach (ib. 702), ∙1665; Jenkes (ib. 1190), 1676; Harris (7 St. Tr. 926), 1680; Smith (ib. 931), 1680; Carr (ib. III), 1680; Cellier (ib. 1183), 1680; Thompson (8 ib. 1); Barnardiston (9 ib. 1334), 1684: Baxter (11 ib. 493), 1685; Johnson (ib. 1339), 1686, and the case of the Seven Bishops (12 ib. 183). With the exception of the last named, these cases show no improvement over the methods of the Star Chamber. Barnardiston, for instance, was fined £10,000 for writing to a friend some private letters giving some account of the rumors of the day. Barnardiston expressed opinions favorable to Russell and Sidney, and asserted, among other things, that "the Papists and high Tories are quite down in the mouth," and that "Sir George [Jeffreys] is grown very humble." Jeffreys himself tried the case, and instructed the jury that it was unnecessary to show