passions, it tends much
to remove those great restraints, horror and shame; when men find
that no iniquity can lose them the applause of their own party, and no
innocence secure them against the calumnies of the opposite.

But though there is no reason to think that Essex had been murdered by
any orders from court, it must be acknowledged that an unjustifiable
use in Russel's trial was made of that incident. The king's counsel
mentioned it in their pleadings as a strong proof of the conspiracy; and
it is said to have had great weight with the jury. It was insisted on in
Sidney's trial for the same purpose.

Some memorable causes, tried about this time, though they have no
relation to the Rye-house conspiracy, show the temper of the bench and
of the juries. Oates was convicted of having called the duke a Popish
traitor; was condemned in damages to the amount of one hundred thousand
pounds; and was adjudged to remain in prison till he should make
payment. A like sentence was passed upon Dutton-Colt, for a like offence
Sir Samuel Barnardiston was fined ten thousand pounds, because, in some
private letters which had been intercepted, he had reflected on the
government. This gentleman was obnoxious, because he had been foreman
of that jury which rejected the bill against Shaftesbury. A pretence
was therefore fallen upon for punishing him; though such a precedent
may justly be deemed a very unusual act of severity, and sufficient to
destroy all confidence in private friendship and correspondence.

There is another remarkable trial, which shows the disposition of the
courts of judicature, and which, though it passed in the ensuing
year, it may not be improper to relate in this place. One Rosewel,
a Presbyterian preacher, was accused by three women of having spoken
treasonable words in a sermon. They swore to two or three periods, and
agreed so exactly together, that there was not the smallest variation in
their depositions. Rosewel, on the other hand, made a very good defence.
He proved that the witnesses were lewd and infamous persons. He proved
that, even during Cromwell's usurpation, he had always been a royalist;
that he prayed constantly for the king in his family; and that in his
sermons he often inculcated the obligations of loyalty. And as to the
sermon of which he was accused, several witnesses who heard it, and some
who wrote it in shorthand, deposed that he had used no such expressions
as those which were imputed