Part 4

Lord Russell was accompanied from Newgate to Lincoln's Inn Fields, where the execution took place, by Tillotson and Burnet. He spoke a few words on the scaffold, expressing his affection for the Protestant religion, and denying knowledge of any plot against the King's life, or the government. He left a paper of considerable interest from a general point of view justifying his action in relation to the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Bill. As to his trial, he asserts that he never saw Sheppard but once, and then there was no undertaking as to seizing the guards and no one appointed to view them. It may have been discoursed of then and at other times, but he never consented to it, and once at Shaftesbury's he strongly protested against it. He had an intention to try some sherry when he went to Sheppard's; but when he was in town

the duke of Monmouth came to me and told me he was extremely glad I had come to town, for my lord Shaftesbury and some hot men would undo us all, if great care be not taken; and therefore for God's sake use your endeavours with your friends to prevent anything of this kind. He told me there would be company at Mr. Sheppard's that night, and desired me to be at home in the evening, and he would call me, which he did: And when I came into the room I saw Mr. Rumsey by the chimney, although he swears he came in after; and there were things said by some with much more heat than judgment, which I did sufficiently disapprove, and yet for these things I stand condemned. It is, I know, inferred from thence, and was pressed to me, that I was acquainted with these heats and ill designs, and did not discover them; but this is but misprision of treason at most. So I die innocent of the crime I stand condemned for, and I hope nobody will imagine, that so mean a thought could enter into me, as to go about to save myself by accusing others; the part that some have acted lately of that kind has not been such as to invite me to love life at such a rate.... I know I said but little at the trial, and I suppose it looks more like innocence than guilt. I was also advised not to confess matter of fact plainly, since that must certainly have brought me within the guilt of misprision[30]. And being thus restrained from dealing frankly and openly, I chose rather to say little, than to depart from ingenuity, that by the grace of God I had carried along with me in the former parts of my life; so could easier be silent, and leave the whole matter to the conscience of the jury, than to make the last and solemnest part of my life so different from the course of it, as the using little tricks and evasions must have been.

Lord Russell's attainder was reversed by a private Act of 1 Will. and Mary on the ground that the jury were not properly returned, that his lawful challenges to them for want of freehold were refused, and that he was convicted 'by partial and unjust constructions of the law.'

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Sir Francis Pemberton was born 1625, entered Emmanuel College 1640, entered the Inner Temple 1645, was called 1654, was made a bencher 1671, a serjeant 1675, and was imprisoned by the House of Commons for an alleged breach of privilege in the same year. He was made a Judge of the King's Bench in 1679, and took part as such in several trials connected with the Popish Plot; he was discharged in 1680, returned to the bar, and replaced Scroggs as Chief-Justice of the King's Bench in 1681. He was moved to the Common Pleas in 1683, to allow Sir Edmund Saunders, who had advised in the proceedings against the City of London, to act as judge in the case. He was dismissed from his office of judge in the same year, about five weeks after Lord Russell's trial. Returning to the bar, he helped to defend the Seven Bishops, but was imprisoned by the Convention Parliament for a judgment he had given six years before against Topham, the serjeant-at-arms, who had claimed to be without his jurisdiction. He bore on the whole a high character for independence and honesty; and it is curious to learn that he lived to advise the Earl of Bedford whether Lord Russell's attainder would prevent his son succeeding to the earldom.

[2] Sir Robert Sawyer was born in 1633, entered Magdalene College, Cambridge, in 1648, where he was chamber-fellow with Pepys, joined the Inner Temple and went the Oxford circuit. He was elected to the House of Commons for Chipping Wycombe in 1673, and assisted in drafting the Exclusion Bill. He appeared for the Crown in most of the State Trials of this period. He afterwards led in the defence of the Seven Bishops, took part in the Convention Parliament, and was expelled from the House on account of his conduct in Armstrong's case. He was re-elected and became Chief-Justice of the King's Bench in 1691, and died in 1692.

[3] Heneage Finch, first Earl of Aylesford, was born about 1647: he was educated at Westminster and Christ Church. He entered the Inner Temple, became Solicitor-General in 1679, being elected to the House of Commons for the University of Oxford in the same year. He was deprived of office in 1686, and defended the Seven Bishops. He sat in the House of Commons in 1685, in all Parliaments from the Convention Parliament (1689) till he became a peer in 1703, under the title of Baron Guernsey. He was made Earl of Aylesford on the accession of George I. (1714), and died in 1719.

[4] See vol. i. p. 240.

[5] Francis North, Lord Guilford (1637-1685), the third son of the fourth Lord North, was educated at various Presbyterian schools and St. John's College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar in 1661, and with the help of the Attorney-General, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, soon acquired a large practice. After holding various provincial posts, he became Solicitor-General in 1671. He entered Parliament in 1673, and became Attorney-General the same year, becoming Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas in 1675. He always strongly supported Charles II.'s government, temporising during the Popish Plot, and being chiefly responsible for the execution of Colledge. He became Lord Keeper in 1682, and was raised to the peerage in 1683: but during his tenure of office was much vexed by intrigues, particularly by the conduct of Jeffreys, who had succeeded him in the Common Pleas. He is now chiefly remembered on account of the very diverting and interesting life of him written by his brother Roger.

[6] Pollexfen. See Note in Alice Lisle's trial, vol. i. p. 241.

[7] Sir John Holt (1642-1710) was called to the bar in 1663. He appeared for Danby on his impeachment in 1679, and was assigned to be counsel for Lords Powys and Arundell of Wardour, who were impeached for participation in the Popish Plot in 1680, but against whom the proceedings were stopped after Stafford's conviction. He appeared for the Crown in several trials preceding that of Lord Russell, and having expressed an opinion in favour of the Quo Warranto proceedings against the City of London was appointed Recorder, knighted, and called as a serjeant in 1685. He was deprived of the recordership after a year on refusing to pass sentence of death on a deserter, a point which owed its importance to Charles II.'s attempts to create a standing army; but as he continued to be a serjeant, he was unable thenceforward to appear against the Crown. He acted as legal assessor to the Convention called after the flight of James II., as a member of the House of Commons took a leading part in the declaration that he had abdicated, and was made Chief-Justice in 1689.

[8] This decision and unspecified 'partial and unjust constructions of law' were the professed ground on which Russell's attainder was subsequently reversed: see _post_, p. 56. Sir James Stephen (_Hist. Crim. Law_, vol. i. p. 412) expresses an opinion that the law upon the subject at the time was 'utterly uncertain.'

[9] Lord Grey was the eldest son of the second Baron Grey of Werk. He succeeded his father in 1675: he voted for Stafford's conviction, and was a zealous exclusionist. He was convicted of debauching his sister-in-law, Lady Henrietta Berkeley, in 1682, and consequently took no part in Russell's plot. He was arrested in connection with the Rye House Plot, but escaped to Holland, whence he returned to take part in Monmouth's rising. He was captured after Sedgemoor, but his life was spared on his being heavily fined and compelled to give evidence against his friends. He left England, but returned with William III., during whose reign he filled several offices. He was created Earl of Tankerville in 1695, and died in 1701.

[10] Lord Howard, the third Lord Howard of Escrick, was born about 1626. He entered Corpus College, Cambridge. He served in Cromwell's Life-guards. As a sectary he seems to have favoured the Restoration. He was committed to the Tower for secret correspondence with Holland in 1674. After succeeding to the peerage he furthered the trial of his kinsman Stafford. After giving evidence in this trial (see p. 15), he gave similar evidence against Algernon Sidney, was pardoned, and died in obscurity at York in 1694.

[11] The Earl of Essex was the son of the Lord Capel who was one of Charles I.'s most devoted adherents and lost his life after his vain defence of Colchester in 1648. The younger Lord Capel was made Earl of Essex at the Restoration. Though opposed to the Court party by inclination, he served on various foreign missions, and was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland from 1672 to 1677. On his return to England he associated himself with the Country party, and on Danby's fall was placed at the head of the Treasury Commission, and thereafter followed Halifax and Sunderland in looking to the Prince of Orange for ultimate assistance rather than Shaftesbury, who favoured the Duke of Monmouth. He left the Treasury in 1679, supported Shaftesbury in 1680 on the Exclusion Bill, and appeared as a 'petitioner' at Oxford in 1680. He voted against Stafford. He was arrested as a co-plotter with Russell on Howard's information, and committed suicide in the Tower on the day of his trial (see p. 16).

[12] Algernon Sidney (1622-1683) was the son of the second Earl of Leicester, and commanded a troop in the regiment raised by his father, when he was Lord-Lieutenant in Ireland, to put down the Irish rebellion of 1641. He afterwards came over to England, joined the Parliamentary forces, and was wounded at Marston Moor. He continued serving in various capacities, returning for a time to Ireland with his brother, Lord Lisle, who was Lord-Lieutenant. He was appointed one of the commissioners to try Charles I., but took no part in the trial. He was ejected from Parliament in 1653, and adopted a position of hostility to Cromwell. He remained abroad after the Restoration, though not excepted from the Act of Indemnity, and lived a philosophic life at Rome and elsewhere. He tried to promote a rising against Charles in Holland in 1665, and opened negotiations with Louis XIV. during the French war. He returned to England in 1677 to settle his private affairs, and stayed on making friends with the leaders of the Opposition, and vainly trying to obtain a seat in the House of Commons. He quarrelled with Shaftesbury, who denounced him as a French pensioner (which he probably was), and seems to have had no connection with his plots. He was arrested on 27th June, tried by Jeffreys on 7th November, condemned, and executed on 7th December 1683.

[13] John Hampden (1656-1696) was the second son of Richard Hampden. After travelling abroad in his youth he became the intimate friend of the leaders of the Opposition on his return to England in 1682. He was arrested with them and tried in 1684, when he was imprisoned on failing to pay an exorbitant fine. After Monmouth's rising he was tried again for high treason. As Lord Grey was produced as a second witness against him, Lord Howard, who had testified before, being the first, he pleaded guilty, implicating Russell and others by his confession. He was pardoned, and lived to sit in Parliament after the Revolution; but falling into obscurity failed to be elected for his native county in 1696, and committed suicide.

[14] Rumsey had been an officer in Cromwell's army, and had served in Portugal with distinction. He obtained a post by Shaftesbury's patronage; and with West, a barrister, was responsible for the Rye House Plot. According to his own account, he was to kill the King, whilst Walcot was to lead an attack on the guards. He appeared as a witness in the trials of Walcot and Algernon Sidney, as well as in the present one. His last appearance before the public was as a witness against Henry Cornish, one of the leaders of the opposition of the City to the Court party, whom he and one Goodenough accused of participation in Russell's plot, and who was tried and executed in 1685. He had offered to give evidence against Cornish before, in 1683, but the second witness necessary to prove treason was not then forthcoming. The unsatisfactory nature of Rumsey's evidence led to Cornish's property being afterwards restored to his family, while, according to Burnet, 'the witnesses were lodged in remote prisons for their lives.' Cornish was arrested, tried and executed within a week.

[15] Walcot was an Irish gentleman who had been in Cromwell's army. He frequented West's chambers, where he met West and Rumsey, who were the principal witnesses against him. Rumsey's story was that though Walcot objected to killing the King, he promised to attack the guards. He was tried and convicted earlier on the same day.

[16] The following passages seem to give a true account of the measure of the complicity of Russell and his friends with the Rye House Plot.

[17] Aaron Smith is first heard of as an obscure plotter in association with Oates and Speke. He was prosecuted in 1682 for supplying seditious papers to Colledge, and sentenced to fine and imprisonment. He managed to escape, however, before sentence was pronounced, and was arrested in connection with the present trial, when, as nothing could be proved against him, he was sentenced for his previous offence. After the Revolution he was appointed solicitor to the Treasury; but failing to give a good account of various prosecutions which he set on foot, he was dismissed in 1697.

[18] Sir John Cochram or Cochrane was the second son of William Cochrane, created Earl of Dundonald in 1689. He escaped to Holland at the time of Russell's trial, took part in Argyle's insurrection in 1685, turned approver, and farmed the poll tax after the Revolution, but was imprisoned in 1695 on failing to produce proper accounts.

[19] George Melville was the fourth baron and the first Earl of Melville. He supported the Royalist cause in Scotland, and tried to induce a settlement with the Covenanters before the battle of Bothwell Bridge. He escaped from England after the discovery of the Rye House Plot, and appeared at the Court of the Prince of Orange. After the Revolution he held high offices in Scotland till the accession of Anne, when he was dismissed. He died in 1707.

[20] West was a barrister at whose chambers in the Temple Rumsey, Ferguson, and other plotters used to meet, and it was alleged that the Rye House Plot was proposed: said by Burnet to have been 'a witty and active man, full of talk, and believed to be a determined atheist.'

[21] As to what is treason under 25 Edward III., see _post_, p. 36. Under 13 Car. II. c. 1 it is treason, _inter alia_, to devise the deposition of the King; but the prosecution must be within six months of the commission of the offence.

[22] The question was, 'What is included in the expressions "Imagine the King's death" and "Levying war against the King"?' The Attorney-General was evidently placing a gloss on them, which was perhaps justified from a wider point of view than a merely legal one. However that may be, the same process was continued till it culminated in the theory of 'constructive treason,' according to which it was laid down in 1794 that a man who intended to depose the King compassed and imagined his death. The matter was eventually decided in 1795 by a statute which made such an intent and others of the same kind treason of themselves. See further Stephen's _History of Criminal Law_, vol. ii. pp. 243-283.

[23] He had been twice sent to the Tower: once in 1674 in consequence of the discovery of a secret correspondence with Holland; once in 1681 on a false charge by Edward Fitzharris of writing the _True Englishman_, a pamphlet advocating the deposition of Charles II. and the exclusion of the Duke of York, which was in fact written by Fitzharris, it is suggested with the purpose of imputing its authorship to the Whigs. It is no doubt the second of these occasions that is referred to.

[24] Burnet had at this time retired into private life, having lost the Court favour which he had gained at an earlier period. He had been an intimate friend of Stafford, and was living on terms of the closest intimacy with Essex and Russell at the time of their arrest. After Russell's execution he left the country, and eventually found his way to the Hague just before the Revolution, where he performed services for William and Mary requiring the utmost degree of confidence. He landed at Torbay with William, soon became Bishop of Salisbury, and until the end of William's life remained one of his most trusted councillors. He retained a position of great influence under Anne, and died in 1715. In relation to his evidence in this case, it is interesting to read in his history that Russell was privy to a plot for promoting a rebellion in the country and for bringing in the Scotch. He says further: 'Lord Russell desired that his counsel might be heard to this point of seizing the guards; but that was denied unless he would confess the fact, and he would not do that, because as the witnesses had sworn it, it was false. He once intended to have related the whole fact just as it was; but his counsel advised him against it'; in fact Russell admitted that he knew of a traitorous plot, and did not reveal it. 'He was a man of so much candour that he spoke little as to the fact; for since he was advised not to tell the whole truth, he could not speak against that which he knew to be true, though in some particulars it had been carried beyond the truth.' See too _post_, p. 55.

[25] John Tillotson (1630-1694) was the son of a weaver of Sowerby. He entered Clare Hall in 1647, and became a a fellow of the same college in 1651. He received an early bias against Puritanism from Chillingworth's _Religion of Protestants_, and his intercourse with Cudworth and others at Cambridge. He became tutor to the son of Prideaux, Cromwell's Attorney-General in 1656; he was present at the Savoy Conference in 1661, and remained identified with the Puritans till the passing of the Act of Uniformity in 1662; afterwards he became curate of Cheshunt in Hertfordshire and rector of Keddington in Suffolk. In 1664 he was known as a celebrated preacher, and was appointed preacher in Lincoln's Inn. In 1678 and 1680 he preached sermons to the House of Commons and the King respectively, exhorting the former to legislation against Popery, and pointing out to the latter that whilst Catholics should be tolerated, they should not be allowed to proselytise. He attended Russell on the scaffold, and with Burnet was summoned before the Council on a suspicion of having helped to compose Russell's published speech. He acquired great influence after the Revolution; and having exercised the archiepiscopal jurisdiction of the province of Canterbury during Sancroft's suspension, became himself archbishop in 1691.

[26] Henry Brooke, the eighth Lord Cobham, after losing Court favour on the death of Elizabeth, was accused in 1603 of plotting with Aremberg, the Spanish ambassador, to place Arabella Stuart on the throne, and to kill the King. His evidence contributed largely to the conviction of Sir Walter Raleigh of the same treason, and he was tried and convicted the next day. He was kept in prison till 1617, when he was allowed to go to Bath on condition that he returned to prison; but he was struck by paralysis on his way back and died in 1619. See vol. i. pp. 19-57.

[27] Oliver Plunket (1629-1681) was Roman Catholic bishop of Armagh and titular primate of Ireland. He attained these positions in 1669; in 1674 he went into hiding when the position of the Catholics in England drew attention to their presence in Ireland. He was arrested, on a charge of complicity with the Popish Plot in 1678, and eventually tried in the King's Bench for treason in 1681 by Sir Francis Pemberton, when the law was laid down as stated above. He was convicted, hung, beheaded and quartered.

[28] Rumsey says the 19th, Howard the 17th. The 17th was the anniversary of the Queen's accession.

[29] Thomas Walcot and William Hone, tried for and convicted of participation in the Rye House Plot.

[30] See _ante_, p. 42.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

March 28, 1699. About eleven of the clock the Lords came from their own house into the court erected in Westminster hall, for the trials of Edward, earl of Warwick and Holland, and Charles lord Mohun[31], in the manner following. The lord high steward's gentleman attendants, two and two. The clerks of the House of Lords, with two clerks of the crown in the Courts of Chancery and King's Bench. The masters of Chancery, two and two. Then the judges. The peers' eldest sons, and peers minors, two and two. Four serjeants at arms with their maces, two and two. The yeoman usher of the house. Then the peers, two and two, beginning with the youngest barons. Then four serjeants at arms with their maces. Then one of the heralds, attending in the room of Garter, who by reason of his infirmity, could not be present. And the gentleman usher of the Black Rod, carrying the white staff before the lord high steward. Then the lord chancellor, the lord high steward, of England, alone.

When the lords were seated on their proper benches, and the lord high steward on the wool-pack; the two clerks of the crown in the courts of Chancery and King's Bench, standing before the clerk's table with their faces towards the state;

The clerk of the crown in Chancery having his majesty's commission to the lord high steward in his hands, made three reverences towards the lord high steward, and the clerk of the crown in Chancery on his knees presented the commission to the lord high steward, who delivered it to the clerk of the crown in the King's bench (then likewise kneeling before his grace) in order to be opened and read; and then the two clerks of the crown making three reverences, went down to the table; and the clerk of the crown in the King's Bench commanded the serjeant at arms to make proclamation of silence; which he did in this manner.

SERJEANT-AT-ARMS--O yes, O yes, O yes, My lord high steward his grace does straitly charge and command all manner of persons here present, to keep silence, and hear the king's majesty's commission to his grace my lord high steward of England directed, openly read, upon pain of imprisonment.