design, that nothing but a conclave of devils in hell, or a college of
such Jesuits as yours on earth, could have thought upon.'

At the trial of Berry, Green and Hill, for the murder of Sir Edmondbury
Godfrey, the improbabilities of the testimony and the contradictions of
the witnesses were so glaring that it seems incredible that any man could
believe them. As a specimen: Praunce, the chief witness, said that the
body was taken to Hill's lodgings where it remained two days in a certain
room he mentioned. In defence, it was shown by all the family, that that
room was an open one; that scarcely an hour passed but some one went
through it. But instead of receiving this testimony, the Chief Justice
told the witnesses that it was very suspicious they had not seen the body,
and that it was well for them they were not indicted. But we have not
space to quote further. The extracts we have already made will be
sufficient to show Scrogg's utter contempt for those duties which the law
imposed upon him as the counsel for the prisoners; his abusive and
threatening demeanor toward their witnesses; his appeals to the passions
of the jury, their bigotry and their fears; and in a word, his total
destitution of every quality that marks the honest, fair-minded, and
impartial judge.

We intended to speak of the disgraceful and cowardly part which Charles
the Second bore in these proceedings. Convinced that the Plot was a mere
fiction, he saw day by day his innocent and faithful subjects led to the
gallows without making an effort for their safety, or giving utterance to
a word of disapprobation. It was not until the Queen was attacked, that
the selfish monarch interfered. A word from him turned the abuse of
Scroggs into an opposite channel, and Oates and Bedlow were now as
bitterly reviled as the Jesuits had been before. We believe that Charles
was a willing spectator if not an active promoter of these legal
butcheries, hoping that thereby a vent would be given to the popular fury,
and he himself, by such a sacrifice, regain the lost affections of his
people.

We intended also to speak of the conduct of the leading English statesmen
during this period; of Lauderdale, of Shaftsbury, of Danby, and of
Buckingham; but our limits are already overpassed. We can only say that
the character of the monarch was truly reflected in the character of his
counsellors; that as England has never had so faithless and profligate a
king, she has never be