CHARLES II.

4i

he could not be tried for treason. To preventthis inconvenience, which it had been better toremedy by a new law, they had commonly laidtheir indictment for intending the death of theking, and had produced the intention of rebellionas a proof of that other intention. But thoughthis form of indictment and trial was very fre-quent, and many criminals had received sentenceupon it, it was still considered as somewhatirregular, and was plainly confounding, by asophism , two species of treason , which thestatute had accurately distinguished. What madethis refinement still more exceptionable, was,that a law had passed soon after the restoration;in which the consulting or the intending of arebellion, was, during Charles’s life-time, de-clared treason ; and it was required, that theprosecution should be commenced within sixmonths after the crime was committed. Butnotwithstanding this statute, the lawyers hadpersevered , as they still do persevere, in the oldform of indictment; and both Sir Harry Vaneand Oliver Plunket, titular primate of Ireland,had been tried by it. Such was the generalhorror, entertained against the old republicans,and the popish conspirators , that no one hadmurmured against this interpretation of the sta-tute; and the lawyers thought, that they mightfollow the precedent, even in the cafe of thepopular and beloved lord Russel. Russel’s crimefell plainly within the statute of Charles the lid;but the facts sworn to by Rumsey and Shephard

HAP

LXIX.

I68Z»