med.

Such was the state of things when the first victim of this extraordinary
popular delusion were brought to trial. The earliest trial, although the
accused was not charged with being concerned in the plot, was that of
Stayley, a goldsmith or broker, on the 21st of November, 1678. The charge
against him was that he had called the king a heretic, and threatened to
kill him. The chief witness against him was one Castars. Bishop Burnet,
who was well acquainted with him, says, that when he heard who the
witnesses were, he thought he was bound to do what he could to stop it:
'so I sent both to the lord chancellor and the attorney general to let
them know what profligate wretches these witnesses were. Jones, the
attorney general, took it ill of me that I should disparage the king's
evidence. Duke Lauderdale, having heard how I had moved in this matter,
railed at me with open mouth. He said I had studied to save Stayley for
the liking I had to any one that would murder the king.' The trial
proceeded, and one of the witnesses testified to the following words as
spoken by the prisoner: 'The King of England is the greatest heretic, and
the greatest rogue in the world; here's the heart and here's the hand that
would kill him; I myself.'

PRISONER. 'Here's the hand, and here's the heart that would kill myself;
not would kill him myself.'

L. C. J. 'What Jesuit taught you this trick? It is like one of them. It is
the art and interest of a Jesuit so to do.'

In this, as in all the subsequent trials, the existence of the Plot was
taken for granted as an incontestable fact. Another fact was also assumed,
most improperly indeed, but not without some show of reason, that it was
an admitted doctrine of the Romish church, that however sinful an act
might be in itself, it lost its sinfulness if the interests of the church
demanded its performance. Therefore it was argued, to kill a heretic-king,
to swear falsely, to deceive an enemy, is to do nothing wrong in the eyes
of a Papist, if the pope or the bishops command it. Such a man it is
proper for us to regard as an enemy, for his principles would lead him to
employ any means for the destruction of those whom he was taught to regard
as the enemies of his church.

It is unnecessary for us to stop to point out the fallacy of this mode of
reasoning. Our business at present is only to show the effect it had upon
the minds both of the court and the jury. Thus the Chief Justice reasoned
in