The theory that if a man was seen among rebels (although he might be there only by force laid upon him, and did not avail himself of every opportunity to escape, but by his presence abetted and comforted them)――he was guilty of high treason, prevailed with the jury assembled at Westminster on the 11th. They had to try separately, Mr. Hall, of Otterburn, a county magistrate, and Robert Talbot who served as captain of a troop of four-and-twenty horse, the whole way from Kelso to Preston. Hall proved clearly that as he was riding home from Alnwick, he and his man were surrounded and carried off by mounted rebels. The ‘man’ himself deposed that, after they were carried to the rebel head-quarters, his master rode about at pleasure. Patten swore that Hall of Otterburn, moved about as freely as that ordained knave did himself. In Robert Talbot’s case, two of his own troopers swore away the life of their old captain by their testimony, which saved their own necks. They swore, however, to what was true. In Robert Talbot’s case there was no doubt. He had been a dangerously active Jacobite. Poor Hall had been merely passive, and he protested that he was no Jacobite at all, but a loyal supporter of the king on the throne. Both were found guilty. Talbot did not pretend to have anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed on him. ‘He had drawn the wine,’ he remarked, ‘and now he must drink it.’ Justice Hall pleaded that he was in a strange place, friendless, and tried by a new law which he did not understand. If time were given him, he could prove that his principles were sound, and that he had never been disaffected to the Government. Time was refused. Justice Hall and Captain Robert Talbot were condemned to be hanged. [Sidenote: _GASCOGNE’S TRIAL._] On the 17th Richard Gascogne was put to the bar. He had travelled over England, plotting, planning, collecting material and storing it away, with a view of dethroning King George. Gascogne’s spirit, astuteness, courage, restless activity, and unselfishness, made him almost the head and front of the rebellion. The king’s counsel curiously remarked that ‘there were some evidences (witnesses) of his, under their own hands, as would put the matter out of all doubt, but that there were some reasons which rendered it not so proper yet to divulge those evidences, but which would, however, be produced when time served.’