ed great wealth and credit, and always firmly
adhered to the interests of king James. The other was likewise a man of
fortune, violently attached to the same principles, though he had
taken the oaths to the present government as one of the six clerks in
chancery. Porter and Blair, another evidence, deposed, that sir John
Friend had been concerned in levying men under a commission from king
James, and that he knew of the assassination plot, though not engaged
in it as a personal actor. He endeavoured to invalidate the testimony
of Blair, by proving him guilty of the most shocking ingratitude. He
observed that both the evidences were reputed papists. The curate of
Hackney, who officiated as chaplain in the prisoner's house, declared
upon oath, that after the revolution he used to pray for king William,
and that he had often heard sir John Friend say that though he could not
comply with the present government, he would live peaceably under it,
and never engage in any conspiracy. Mr. Hoadley, father of the present
bishop of Winchester, added, that the prisoner was a good protestant,
and frequently expressed his detestation of king-killing principles.
Friend himself owned he had been with some of the conspirators at a
meeting in Leadenhall-street, but heard nothing of raising men, or any
design against the government. He likewise affirmed that a consultation
to levy war was not treason; and that his being at a treasonable consult
could amount to no more than a misprison of treason. Lord chief justice
Holt declared, that although a bare conspiracy, or design to levy war,
was not treason within the statute of Edward III., yet if the design or
conspiracy be to kill, or depose, or imprison the king, by the means of
levying war, then the consultation and conspiracy to levy war becomes
high treason though no war be actually levied. The same inference might
have been drawn against the authors and instruments of the revolution.
The judge's explanation influenced the jury, who, after some
deliberation, found the prisoner guilty. Next day sir William Perkins
was brought to the bar, and upon the testimony of Porter, Ewebank, his
own groom, and Haywood, a notorious informer, was convicted of having
been concerned not only in the invasion, but also in the design against
the king's life. The evidence was scanty, and the prisoner having been
bred to the law, made an artful and vigorous defence: but the judge
acted as counsel for the crown; a