Rumsey and Shephard were very unwilling witnesses against Lord Russel; and it appears from Grey's Secret History,[*] that, if they had pleased, they could have given a more explicit testimony against him.
* Page 43.
This reluctance, together with the difficulty in recollecting circumstances of a conversation which had passed above eight months before, and which the persons had not at that time any intention to reveal, may beget some slight objection to their evidence.

But, on the whole, it was undoubtedly proved, that the insurrection had been deliberated on by the prisoner, and fully resolved; the surprisal of the guards deliberated on, but not fully resolved; and that an assassination had never once been mentioned nor imagined by him.

So far the matter of fact seems certain: but still, with regard to law, there remained a difficulty, and that of an important nature.
The English laws of treason, both in the manner of defining that crime, and in the proof required, are the mildest and most indulgent, and consequently the most equitable, that are any where to be found.

The two chief species of treason contained in the statute of Edward III.

are the compassing and intending of the king's death, and the actually levying of war against him; and by the law of Mary, the crime must be proved by the concurring testimony of two witnesses, to some overt act, tending to these purposes.