Norwich bulletin., 1915-01-06
FAMOUS TRIALS
TRIAL OF TITUS OATES.

IlluS OaCeS4 WAO was tired ana convicted of perjury in 1885, seems
 to have been either much wronged or type of man who cared nothing
 for public opinion. He probably was
 the latter, for he is included i'll Sec ombe's Twelve Bad Men,
 Six years previous to his own trial,
 Jates, proba J-y to gain favor and
 fame from Charles IL had several
 men whom he declared were Jesuits, onvicted of plotting to kill the King,
 Jf changing the religion of England
 nd Of helping to promote an invasion
 f Ireland. Three of these men were
 -ecuted in 1879. His fame then be-
 ame wide, and growing bolder
 le fabricated several other plots, us-
 -ng the names of several of the lead
 ng papists. So well established was
 le in the favor of the King and the
 eople that he had the nerve to pre-
 sent petition for over S5500 which,
 he said, were incurred in expenses.
 Later he constructed more plots against the King, and no one dared to cross his path for fear of being
 made to plot" against the monarch. He walked around in hi5 Episcopal
 gown. always with two or three serv- ants for protection. So affrig.hted were the people of his power that we are told Whoever he pointed at
 was taken mp and committed: so many people got out of his way as from a blast, and glad if they could prove their last two years conver- sion
 But his power began to wane from the time he faileI to have convicted one Isaac Backhouse, who. it was
 charged, called after him in St. James Park There goes Oates; the public began 10 shake regarding 1 him, but 1t was not before Oates had 1 directly or indirectly contrived the ju- dicial murder of 35 men. So much for Oates himself.
 The charge at his trial was read ] n Latin, and was to the purport that Oates had sworn in 1878 that in 1 the April of the same year there was gathering of Jesuits at the White i Horse Tavern, at which, he said. l assassination of the King. The three l leaders. who were later convicted and ] executed, Whitehead, Fenwicl7, and 1 Ireland, were said by Oates to be
 present and that he had carried a document from room to room and 1 which these three unfortunaUes had l signed: whereas in fact the prisoner l had not been in London at the time | and So could not possibly have been ] present at such & meeting, and thus 1 Oates was guilty of wilfuI and cor l rupt perjury.
 Oates vehemently declared that he l was not guilty as ne would later prove l One of the jurymen who had presided l aJL NlIC U Idi SlA NGIES DEloES, brought 1 forth eNldnce that Oates had sworn i as was charged, as he himself had 1 taken notes on the entire trial which 1 outings he had kept by him ever since 1 Then over 20 gentlemen. who were students at the same college which 1 Oates attended, all sWore that he was 1 the school on the date upon which | 10 claimed he was at the meeting 1 Rather a curious slur on the dispOsi- | tlon of the prisoner was the evidence l of one witness.
 1 He (Oates) was so remarkable for 1 his stories and ridiculous actions, and 1 quarreling with everybody in the col | lege that, if he had been out Of the ! college so long as to go to London and 1 back again, everybody in the college i would have missed him
 1 Another witness, d Samuel Nor 1 "an, iu his evidence said that of l the date which Oates had pretended
 70 be in London he knew for a cer-
 ainty that he was in St OmerS (the l college) for he himself on that day ] had been playing ball, and on striking 1 it over into the court, borrowed Oates 1 key to recover it. He also said that | he, as had all the rest of the college, 1 wondered at the audacity of Oates | when they had read printed accounts 1 of the trial of the Jesuits.
 In his defense, Oates called forth a woman who swore that she had 1 seen Oates on the days in ques- l IOn. 1hen & MT W alker was called ! but the two witnesses did not agree and in many points absolutely con 1 tradicted each other. It was then ] proved that the executed man, Ire | land, had not been in London at the 1 said date and that even if Oates had l been there, he could not have sen him. Oates was then found guilty on l four Of the charges and the Judges having consulted together, Justice l WIthins pronounced the sentence
 as follows:
 1 That the defendant should pay 1000 1 marks on each indictment; be stripped l of all his canouica1 habi1iments; stand 1 in the pillory before Westminster Hall gate, on the Monday following for an hour with a paper over his head, de- l claring his crime, and walk around l with 1t through all the courts of the l hall. That on Tuesday he should stand 1 in the pillory at the Royal Exchange; on Wednesday whipped from Aldgate to Newgate: Friday whipped from Newgate to Tyburn and that for every year of l1is life he should stand for a l whole day once a year at each of the ] I0'Ilories at Westminster Hall gate. Charins Cross; against the Temple, at ] the Royal Exchange and on the 24th of April every wear Ut TVburn"