Chapter 12

Hulet said he could bring thirty or forty witnesses to prove that some one else did the act, and others to prove that he was not there on that day; he also produced a paper of examinations taken before the Lord Mayor, being of Mary Brandon and others. He was reminded that he had been examined in the Tower, and admitted that he was then charged with cutting off the King's head. 'Then,' said the Chief-Baron, 'you had time to provide your witnesses,' to which Hulet replied that he had been a close prisoner since then. He further said that he had been a prisoner, together with six or eight others, on the day of the execution; they were imprisoned because they refused to be on the scaffold. Hulet wished to call Hacker, Huncks, and Phayre, but the Court pointed out that Hacker had already been tried for his life (and condemned), and that Phayre was a prisoner in the Tower. Huncks had been called as a witness against Axtell. Hulet then called a _Sheriff's Officer_, who said that he had been told by one of his fellow-officers

that he was in Rosemary Lane a little while after the execution of the King, drinking with the hangman [_i.e._ George Brandon], that he did urge him whether he did this fact; God forgive me, saith he, the hangman, I did it, and I had forty half-crowns for my pains.

ABRAHAM SMITH--My Lord, as soon as that fatal blow was given I was walking about Whitehall, down came a file of musketeers; the first word they said was, Where be the bargemen? Answer was made, Here are none; away they directed the hangman in my boat; going into the boat he gave one of the soldiers a half-crown. Said the soldiers--Waterman, away with him, be gone quickly; but I fearing this hangman had cut off the King's head, I trembled that he should come into my boat, but dared not examine him on shore for fear of the soldiers; so I launched out, and having got a little way in the water, said I, who the devil have I got in my boat? Says my fellow, says he, why? I directed my speech to him, saying, Are you the hangman that cut off the King's head? No, as I am a sinner to God, saith he, not I; he shook every joint of him; I knew not what to do; I rowed away a little further, and fell to a new examination of him, when I had got him a little further, Tell me true, said I, are you the hangman that cut off the King's head? I cannot carry you, said I; No, said he, I was fetched by a troop of horse, and I was kept a close prisoner at Whitehall, and truly I did not do it; I was kept a close prisoner all the while; but they had my instruments. I said I would sink the boat if he would not tell me true; but he denied it with several protestations.

WILLIAM COX--When my lord Capel, duke of Hamilton, and the Earl of Holland were beheaded in Palace Yard in Westminster,[40] my lord Capel asked the common hangman, saith he, Did you cut off my master's head? Yes, saith he. Where is the instrument that did it? He then brought the ax. This is the same ax. Are you sure? saith my lord. Yes, my lord, saith the hangman, I am very sure it is the same. My lord Capel took the ax, and kissed it, and gave him five pieces of gold. I heard him say, Sirrah, wert thou not afraid? Saith the hangman, they made me cut it off, and I had thirty pounds for my pains.

_Richard Abell_ heard one Gregory confess that he cut off the King's head. The Lord Chief-Baron then asked Hulet whether he wished for any further time to examine into the truth of the matter; but on his saying that he needed a fortnight for the purpose the trial was proceeded with at once.

A STRANGER--My Lord, I was with my master in the company of Brandon the hangman, and my master asked Brandon whether he cut off the King's head or no? He confessed in my presence that he did cut off the King's head.

The Lord Chief-Baron then summed up the case, briefly repeating the substance of the evidence. He pointed out that the evidence went two ways, meaning apparently that Hulet either cut off the King's head, or held it up after it was cut off, and whichever he did, the jury ought to find him Guilty. He concluded by telling them that they were not to consider what was said of the prisoner by another unless it was corroborated by what the prisoner said.

After a more than ordinary time of consideration the jury returned to their places, and found the prisoner Guilty.

Hulet was brought up for sentence on the 16th of October, and sentenced to death in the usual way, with other prisoners. At the same time he was informed that his execution would be delayed in order that the King's pleasure might be known. He was eventually reprieved.[41]

FOOTNOTES:

[26] Sir Orlando Bridgman (1606-1674) was the eldest son of the Bishop of Chester. He entered Queens College, Cambridge, in 1619; became a fellow of Magdalene in 1624, and was called to the bar in 1632. He became Chief-Justice of Chester in 1638, and Solicitor-General to the Prince of Wales in 1640. He sat in the Long Parliament as a Royalist, and in the Oxford Parliament in 1644. He was one of the King's Commissioners at the Uxbridge negotiations in 1644-45. He ceased appearing in court under the Commonwealth, but enjoyed a considerable practice as a conveyancer, at that period a very profitable branch of the profession. At the Restoration he was made a Serjeant, Chief-Baron of the Exchequer, and a Baronet. After this trial he became Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas. On the disgrace of Clarendon he became Lord Keeper in 1667, a position in which he did not add to his fame as a lawyer. According to North, he was both ignorant and weak; 'and what was worst of all, his family were very ill qualified for that place; his lady being a most violent intriguess in business, and his sons kept no good decorum whilst they practised under him.' He avoided the political intrigues of the time; he was kept in ignorance of the Treaty of Dover, and refused to let the Declaration of Indulgence pass the Great Seal in its original state in 1672. Finally, when Charles declared the Exchequer closed for twelve months he refused to grant an injunction to protect the bankers who were likely to be ruined. He was accordingly removed from office in November 1672, and was succeeded by Lord Shaftesbury.

[27] Sir Robert Foster (1589-1663), the youngest son of a judge of the Common Pleas, was called to the bar in 1610. He supported Charles I.'s most tyrannical proceedings, and became a Justice of the Common Pleas in 1640. He followed Charles to Oxford, and attempted to hold his court there. He was removed from his office by the Parliament, and practised as a conveyancer during the Commonwealth. He was at once restored to his office at the Restoration. After this trial, he was, in the dearth of good lawyers who were also Royalists, made Lord Chief-Justice. He presided at the trial of Sir Harry Vane the younger, who was convicted of treason in compassing the death of Charles II., his real offence being the part he took against Strafford; and was instrumental in inducing the King to sign his death-warrant in breach of the Act of Indemnity. In other trials of political opponents he acquired the reputation of a partisan judge.

[28] Sir Robert Hide (1595-1665) was cousin to Lord Clarendon. He was called to the bar in 1617, and became Recorder of Salisbury in 1638. He sat as a Royalist in the Long Parliament, and joined the King at Oxford. He was committed to the Tower in 1645 and 1646, and deprived of his recordership. He was made a Justice of the Common Pleas in 1660, and Lord Chief-Justice on Foster's death, through his cousin's influence. He was celebrated for his trials of seditious printers, and died in court as he was about to begin the trial of one of them.

[29] Sir Thomas Mallet (1582-1665) came of a legal family, and was called to the bar in 1606. He sat in Charles I.'s first two parliaments, and was made a Justice of the King's Bench in 1641. He came into opposition to Parliament by opposing their measures in relation to the Book of Common Prayer and the Militia, and was twice imprisoned by them and fined. He was replaced on the Bench at the Restoration, at the age of seventy-eight, but retired in 1663.

[30] Sir Geoffrey Palmer (1598-1670) was called to the bar in 1623, sat in the Long Parliament, was one of the managers of Strafford's impeachment, but rallied to the King's side on the passing of the Act perpetuating Parliament in 1641. He voted against Hampden's motion for printing the remonstrance in November 1641, and was committed to the Tower. He withdrew from the House after the passing of the Militia Ordinance, and sat in the Parliament at Oxford. He was one of the King's representatives at the Uxbridge negotiations, 1644-45, and was committed to the Tower in 1655. He became Attorney-General at the Restoration, and so remained till his death.

[31] See vol. ii. p. 5.

[32] Sir John Kelyng was the son of a barrister, and was called to the bar in 1631-32. He practised for a short time in the oppressive Forest Courts, attempted to present some persons at the Hertford Quarter Sessions in 1642, for what he held to be unlawful drilling under the Militia Ordinance, and was in consequence committed to Windsor Castle till 1660. He was released at the Restoration, and was called upon to supply the place of the King's Serjeant, Glanville, at this trial. He was afterwards knighted, and entered Parliament, where he was employed in drafting the Act of Uniformity. As to his connection with the trial of the Bury St. Edmunds witches, see _post_, pp. 226, 229. He took a prominent part in Vane's trial, and was made a puisne judge in 1663. He was appointed to succeed Hyde as Lord Chief-Justice in 1667, after the post had been vacant seven months. He was said to owe his place to corrupt dealings with Clarendon, or to the favour of Lady Castlemaine, but this is doubted by Campbell, who otherwise takes a most unfavourable view of his career. His subsequent conduct on the bench was such that, though he never presided at any trials of great importance, a petition against him was considered in the House of Commons, and a Committee reported most unfavourably on his behaviour. He made his peace with the House, but sank into insignificance, and died in 1671, still in office.

[33] See vol. ii. pp. 35, 37.

[34] It does not appear whether any difference was made in Hulet's case.

[35] The Regicides actually tried were Sir Hardress Waller, Colonel Thomas Harrison, William Hevingham, Isaac Pennington, Henry Martin, Gilbert Millington, Robert Tichburne, Owen Roe, Robert Lilburne, Adrian Scroop, John Carew, John Jones, Thomas Scot, Gregory Clement, John Cook, George Fleetwood, Simon Meyn, James Temple, Peter Temple, Thomas Wait, Hugh Peters, Francis Hacker, Daniel Axtell, William Hulet, Henry Smith, Edmund Harvey, John Downes, Vincent Potter, and Augustin Garland. They were all convicted. Of these there were executed--Thomas Harrison, John Carew, John Cook, Thomas Scot, Hugh Peters, Gregory Clement, John Jones, Daniel Axtell, Francis Hacker, Adrian Scroop.

[36] Thomas Harrison (1606-1660) was born in Staffordshire of lowly origin. He is said to have enlisted in Essex's Life Guard, which was the corps used for the purpose of training officers for the Parliamentary Army, in 1642. In 1644 he was serving in Fleetwood's regiment in Manchester's army. He was present at the battles of Marston Moor and Naseby, and at the captures of Winchester, Basing House, and Oxford. He entered Parliament in 1646, and represented the Army in their quarrels with Parliament. He served with distinction in the second civil war, and was zealous in bringing the King to trial and condemning him to death. He conducted the pursuit of the Royalists after the battle of Worcester, and, continuing to represent the extreme military party, was a party to Pride's Purge. He was a prominent member of the Barebones Parliament, but after its extinction ceased to exercise any political influence. He refused to recognise the government in 1653, and was deprived of his commission. He was afterwards imprisoned on various occasions on suspicion of a connection with Anabaptist and other plots; but at the Restoration refused to pledge himself not to disturb the government or to save himself by flight. The Fifth-Monarchy men professed to look forward to his resurrection to judge his judges and to restore the Kingdom of Saints.

[37] Sir James Livingstone was descended from the Livingstones of Callendar. He became a Gentleman of the Bedchamber to Charles, and was made Viscount of Newburgh in 1647. The King was to have escaped from his house at Bagshot on the occasion referred to above, on one of his horses, reputed to be the fastest in England, but owing to the horse falling lame, and the strictness of the watch kept on the King, the scheme failed. After the King's execution he fled to the Hague, but returned to Scotland in 1650. He accompanied Charles II. to England in 1651, and after the battle of Worcester fled to France. At the Restoration he was made Captain of the Guard and an earl. In 1666 he, with others, received a licence to dig coal in Windsor Forest. He died in 1670.

[38] The Court included Albemarle, Manchester, and Denzil Hollis.

[39] Hugh Peters (1598-1660) graduated at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1617-18. He was ordained in London, and at once made his mark as a preacher, but being suspected of heresy, went to Holland about 1629. There he inclined to Independency, and through the pressure put on the Dutch by the English government, found it advisable to sail for Boston, where he arrived in October 1635. There he took a prominent part in local affairs, upholding clerical influence against Vane. In 1641 Peters came to England to ask for assistance for the colony, and became Chaplain to the Forces in Ireland. Returning to England, he became famous as a military preacher, preaching exhortatory sermons before assaults on fortified places, and attracting adherents to the Parliamentary forces. He also acted as the confidential agent of Fairfax and Cromwell in dealing with their troops, and chronicled their victories. He was regarded with great aversion by the Presbyterians, and by the numerous persons of other sects to whom buffoonery in the pulpit was distasteful. He upheld the Army against the Parliament, and was credited with a share in drawing up the Army Remonstrance in 1648. He was in Ireland in 1649, and was present at the taking of Wexford. He afterwards continued to occupy an influential position in politics, and indulged in many unpolitical schemes, particularly the reformation of the law, of which he knew but little, and the improvement of religious teaching, both at home and in America. He maintained his influential position till the Restoration.

[40] In 1648-49, after the taking of Colchester in 1648.

[41] It seems now to be considered fairly certain that Richard Brandon was the man who actually cut off the King's head. He died the next June, after having executed Lord Capel and his companions in the rising which terminated in the siege of Colchester. It is the more curious that Hulet should have been tried for the offence, because Brandon certainly incurred the odium attaching to the act at the time of his death; and it seems that the fact was mentioned on an inscription on his grave. As far, however, as the evidence given at the trial is concerned, it seems possible that Hulet was the second masked figure on the scaffold. All that is known on the subject is set out in the _Dictionary of National Biography_, under the title 'Brandon.' See too a note by Mr. . G. Stephens in _Notes and Queries_, 5th series, vol. v. p. 177.

COLONEL TURNER AND OTHERS

The trial of Col. James Turner, John Turner, William Turner, Mary Turner, and Ely Turner, at the Old Bailey, for Burglary, 1664.

The foregoing persons were all indicted together, the first three for committing burglary on the 7th of January 1664 at the house of Francis Tryon, and stealing a quantity of jewellery, some gold, and L1023 in cash; Mary, who was the wife of James, and Ely for receiving and comforting John the next day.

They were tried before Lord Chief-Justice Hyde[42] of the King's Bench, and Lord Chief-Justice Bridgman[43] of the Common Pleas.

All the prisoners pleaded Not Guilty.

_Turner_ then complained that Sir Richard Ford, the sheriff, was in possession of his house and goods. Bridgman, Chief-Justice, explained that, though once it had been the sheriff's duty to take process against the goods of an indicted man, this was done no longer since the statute of Philip and Mary;[44] but as their responsibility continued unaltered, they ought to have good security. Eventually it was settled that the sheriff should let Turner have what he wanted for the night, and bring what papers he wanted into Court the next day.

The next day a jury was sworn, and Sir Thomas Aleyn was called.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE HYDE--Pray, Sir Thomas Aleyn, tell your knowledge to the jury.

SIR T. ALEYN--May it please your lordships, and you gentlemen of the jury; Upon Friday morning last was sevennight, I heard of this robbery at Guild-Hall, and the person robbed being my acquaintance, I went to visit him in the afternoon; and coming there, not thinking but the business had been already examined, several persons with Mr. Francis Tryon put me upon the business to examine it. I went and examined the two servants, the man and the maid: upon their examination I found they had supped abroad at a dancing-school, and had been at cards, and came home afterwards; but before they came home, they heard that an ancient gentleman, one Mr. Tryon, was robbed, and then they hastened home. I examined them further, whether they used to go abroad after their master was in bed? The man confessed he had been abroad twenty or thirty times at col. Turner's house at supper, about a year since. The maid denied they had been there at all: but it is true the man's saying he supped there (although it was false) was the first occasion of suspicion of col. Turner.

When I had examined these two, I went to the examination of Turner, Where he was all that day, where at night? he told me, at several places and taverns, and in bed at nine of the clock, and was called out of his bed: but having myself some suspicion of him, I wished him to withdraw. I told Mr. Tryon, that I believed if he was not the thief, he knew where the things were. The old gentleman said, He could not mistrust him, he had put a great confidence in him: but I desired him to give me leave to charge him with it; and thereupon I called him in, but he denied it; but not as a person of his spirit, which gave me some cause of further suspicion. I desired to search his house; nay told him I would, whether he would or no. He desired to go home; I told him, if he would go with them (some persons there) he should: but you shall not speak with your sons or daughters, or servants; they shall be examined by me. They searched his house, the marshal and constable, they said they could find nothing. The old gentleman was very unwilling to charge him with felony; some friends there were as well satisfied as I was, that he was guilty of it; and they brought me a paper that he would charge him: and thereupon I wished him to read that paper, told him I could do no less than send him to Newgate. Says he, you will not undo a family will you? Will you not take bail? No I cannot. What proof have you material against me? I will give you as good bail as any man; give me leave to speak with Mr. Tryon. I did give him leave: he had no sooner spoke with him, but Mr. Tryon would not charge him, he promising to endeavour to find the thief. I took Mr. Turner on one side, and told him, I did as verily believe if he was not the thief, he could find him out, as I believed I should go home to my wife and children; and I said, That if an angel from Heaven should come, and tell me otherwise, I could hardly believe it. This passed on this night: I could not sleep all the night, still it was in my thoughts that this man was the man that had done the robbery.

The next morning Alderman Love told him that if he went presently to the Minories, he would meet with Love's maid, who would help him to discover the person who robbed Tryon; accordingly, taking Major Tasker, whom he met in Bishopsgate, with him, he went without Aldgate, where

I met with two maids that were the persons to shew me the place: the maid told me these were the maids. I bid them come behind me. At the further end of all the Minories I went into the shop, and found col. Turner with his hands in a chest: I charged him to take nothing out, and not to stir himself. There were two wallets, one of L100 and the other L200. I took the keys from him, laid them upon the compter: I went with him into the next room, which was the kitchen, and in another chest was two wallets more: and now the gentleman was speechless. I told him it was just as I told him the last night, that your roguery would come out; what (said I) is become of the rest of the money? Says he, Your haste will spoil all. I called in the maid, to examine her: but she was fearful, and so trembled there was no examining her before col. Turner. But in conclusion, said I, Col. Turner, if you will tell me whether this be Mr. Tryon's money, I will do you all the favour I can. Says he, I cannot say it is his money. I called for a constable, and made a Mittimus to send him to Newgate, thinking he would discover the truth. Said I, Will you give me your examination? He did: It is in court. I asked him whence this money came? He told me it was removed by himself, his wife and children this morning.

TURNER--My son and I, I told you.

SIR T. ALEYN--I asked him where he had received it? He told me at a goldsmith's 14 days since: He did not remember his name. I asked why he should remove his own money? His answer was, He did remove it for two or three days, till this foolery was over. When I saw I could get nothing further from him, I discoursed with him touching the remainder of the money and the jewels. Says he, Sir Thomas, do not trouble yourself, you will lose the jewels and the rest of the money by this course; and, says he, I am now in pursuit of them. If you will give me leave to go to the old gentleman, I know all will be well. I was not content to let him go: But presently we called a hackney-coach, and myself and him, and major Tasker went, and carried that money to Mr. Tryon. When we came there, I told Mr. Tryon I thought we had brought L500 of his money; and I did not doubt but I had brought a person that could tell of the rest of the money and jewels. Col. Turner desired to speak with Mr. Tryon himself in private. I gave him leave. He calls me a little after: Sir, says he, Mr. Tryon and I am agreed; I must have this money delivered to me again; I have assured him he shall have all his money and jewels again by 3 this afternoon. I told him I could not agree that he should have the money back again, pressed him that he would stay there, and send for the rest of the money and jewels. But he [_i.e._ Mr. Tryon] would (if I did not) trust him: Mr. Tryon would have the rest of his money and all his jewels again.

TURNER--I said, I would endeavour it.