c. 15 (1661), enacting that Lord Monson, Sir Henry Mildmay, and Robert

Wallop (and others who had fled) should on January 27, 1662, be “carried to the Tower of London and from thence drawne upon Sledges with Ropes about theire necks, and according to the manner of persons executed for High Treason quite through the streets of London unto the Gallows att Tiburn,” and then carried back in like manner to the Tower or such other prison as the king may think fit, and remain prisoners during their lives.

Accordingly on January 27, 1662:—“This morning, going to take water, upon Tower-hill we met with three sleddes standing there to carry my Lord Monson and Sir H. Mildmay and another to the gallows and back again, with ropes about their necks: which is to be repeated every year, this being the day of their sentencing the king.”[193]

The Act, however, contains nothing as to the repetition of the ceremony.

=1661.= This year witnessed the outbreak of the Fifth Monarchy men. John James, a small-coal man, was executed at Tyburn. “The sheriff and hangman were so civil to him in his execution, as to suffer him to be dead before he was cut down, beheaded, bowelled, and quartered. His quarters were set on the gates of the City, his head was first fixed on London bridge, but afterwards upon a pole, near Bulstake Alley, Whitechapel, in which was James’s meeting-house.”[194]

=1662.= _December 22._ Thomas Tonge, George Phillips, Francis Stubbs and Nathaniel Gibbs, convicted of taking part in a plot to seize the Tower and Whitehall, to kill the King and declare a Commonwealth. They were drawn to Tyburn on two hurdles, hanged, beheaded and quartered; their heads were set up on poles on Tower Hill.[195]

=1668.= _May 9._ This day Thomas Limerick, Edward Cotton, Peter Messenger, and Richard Beasley, four of the persons formerly apprehended in the Tumult during the Easter Holydays, having upon their Trial at Hicks-Hall been found guilty and since sentenced as Traytors, were accordingly Drawn, Hang’d, and Quartered at Tyburn, where they showed many signs of their penitence, their quarters permitted Burial, only two of their Heads ordered to be fixt upon London-Bridge.[196]

=1670.= In February of this year ended the brilliant career of Claude Duval, the famous highwayman. There had been highwaymen before Duval, as he was succeeded by others. But the great merit of Duval is that he gave a tone and dignity to the profession which it never wholly lost. Before giving any account of this prince of highwaymen it may be permitted to say something on this branch of the profession of the art of thieving.

The century from 1650 to 1750 may be considered the era of the highwayman. When civil war rages bands of marauders will spring up, whose operations present a resemblance to the methods of a soldiery not kept well in hand. Thus during the Commonwealth James Hinde was the captain of a band of twenty or more whose operations were coloured by a pretence of acting for the king. On November 11, 1651, Hinde was examined by the Council of State, and “confessed his serving of the king in England, Scotland and Ireland.” Highwayman as he was, his pretensions as a servant of the king must have been admitted, as he was condemned at the Old Bailey, sent to Worcester, and drawn, hanged, and quartered, for high treason against the State. Accounts of his exploits were printed even a century after his death. The catalogue of the British Museum contains more than twenty entries relating to this worthy.

The prevalence of highway robbery is shown by the great number of Proclamations issued during the reigns of Charles II. and his immediate successors. Thus royal Proclamations offering rewards for the apprehension of highwaymen were issued on December 23 and 30, 1668. These were followed by others in 1677, 1679-80, 1681, 1682-3. In this last eleven notorious robbers are specially named. In 1684 and 1684-5, two more Proclamations were issued, followed in 1687 by an Order in Council of the same tenor. In 1690 came a new Proclamation. These Proclamations were not wholly successful in breaking up gangs, for in December, 1691, the Worcester waggon was plundered by sixteen highwaymen of £2,500 of the King’s money.

Still worse, in 1692 seven highwaymen robbed the Manchester carrier of £15,000 of royal treasure. A Proclamation was now issued raising the reward for capture. In the earliest Proclamations this had been fixed at £10, afterwards raised to £20. The reward now offered was £40. In the same year, 1692, was passed the Act 4 William and Mary, c. 8, taking effect after March 25, 1693. The reward of £40 was to be paid by the sheriff, or if he was not in funds, by the Treasury. Under date April 8, 1693, Luttrell writes, “Some moneys have been issued out of the Exchequer pursuant to the late Act for taking highwaymen.”

To return to Duval. He was born in Normandy, and came over to England as page to the Duke of Richmond. His best-known exploit is told at length in memoirs, ascribed to William Pope (reprinted in “Harleian Miscellany,” iii. 308-16):—

This is the place where I should set down several of his exploits; but I omit them, both as being well known, and because I cannot find in them more ingenuity than was practised before by Hind and Hannum, and several other mere English thieves.

Yet, to do him right, one story there is that savours of gallantry, and I should not be an honest historian if I should conceal it. He with his squadron overtakes a coach, which they had set over night, having intelligence of a booty of four-hundred pounds in it. In the coach was a knight, his lady, and only one serving-maid, who, perceiving five horsemen making up to them, presently imagined they were beset; and they were confirmed in this apprehension by seeing them whisper to one another, and ride backwards and forwards: the lady to show she was not afraid, takes a flageolet out of her pocket and plays. Du Vall takes the hint, plays also, and excellently well, upon a flageolet of his own; and in this posture, he rides up to the coach-side. “Sir” (says he, to the person in the coach), “your lady plays excellently, and I doubt not but that she dances as well; will you please to walk out of the coach, and let me have the honour to dance one currant with her upon the heath.” “Sir” (said the person in the coach), “I dare not deny anything to one of your quality and good mind; you seem a gentleman, and your request is very reasonable.” Which said, the lacquey opens the boot; out comes the knight, Du Vall leaps lightly off his horse, and hands the lady out of the coach. They danced, and here it was that Du Vall performed marvels; the best master in London, except those that are French, not being able to show such footing as he did in his great riding French boots. The dancing being over, he waits on the lady to her coach; as the knight was going in says Du Vall to him, “Sir, you have forgot to pay the musick.” “No, I have not” (replies the knight;) and, putting his hand under the seat of the coach, pulls out an hundred pounds in a bag, and delivers it to him; which Du Vall took with a very good grace, and courteously answered, “Sir, you are liberal, and shall have no cause to repent your being so; this liberality of yours shall excuse you the other three-hundred pounds”: and giving him the word, that if he met with any more of the crew, he might pass undisturbed, he civilly takes his leave of him.

Here is the account of the lying in state after the execution:—

After he had hanged a convenient time, he was cut down, and, by persons well dressed, carried into a mourning-coach, and so conveyed to the Tangier-tavern in St. Giles’s, where he lay in state all that night, the room hung with black cloth, the hearse covered with escutcheons, eight wax-tapers burning, and as many tall gentlemen with long black cloakes attending; mum was the word, great silence expected from all that visited, for fear of disturbing this sleeping lion. And this ceremony had lasted much longer, had not one of the judges (whose name I must not mention here, lest he should incur the displeasure of the ladies) sent to disturb this pageantry.

The “Memoirs” are not to be taken too seriously. They are satirical, as is sufficiently shown by the title—“Intended as a severe Reflexion on the too great Fondness of English Ladies towards French Footmen: which, at that Time of Day was a too common Complaint.”

According to the “Memoirs” Duval’s tomb bore the family arms curiously engraved and under them this epitaph:—

Here lies Duval: reader, if male thou art, Look to thy purse: if female, to thy heart. Much havoc hath he made of both: for all Men he made stand, and women he made fall. The Second Conqueror of the Norman race, Knights to his arms did yield, and ladies to his face. Old Tyburn’s glory, England’s bravest thief: Duval, the ladies’ joy: Duval, the ladies’ grief.

It must be admitted that the accounts of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, do not mention this monument.

It is probable that Duval did really introduce gentler methods into the practice of robbery. The author of “Hudibras” in a “Pindaric Ode” claims this merit and one other for Duval:—

Taught the wild Arabs on the road To act in a more gentle mode: Take prizes more obligingly than those Who never had been bred filous And how to hang in a more graceful fashion Than e’er was known before to the dull English nation.

The third chapter of Macaulay’s History gives an excellent account of highwaymen in the reign of Charles II.

=1677.= Thomas Sadler is said to have been in prison fifteen times before he planned his last and greatest exploit. With the aid of two accomplices, he stole from Great Queen Street, the Lord Chancellor’s mace and purse (the official purse, one of the emblems of the office). Sadler was so delighted with his success, that in crossing Lincoln’s Inn Fields he made one of the confederates precede him with the mace on his shoulder, while he himself strutted behind him, followed by the purse-bearer. They bore their plunder to a house in the City, where it was locked up in a cupboard. Curiosity led a maid to look through a chink in the door, when to her wonderment she saw what she took to be the King’s crown. This led to the discovery of the robbery. On his trial Sadler behaved with superb frankness. “‘My lord,’ he said, addressing the court, ‘I own the fact, and it was I and this man’ (pointing to one that stood by him at the bar) ‘that robbed my Lord Chancellor: and the three others are clear of the fact, though I cannot say but they were confederates with us in the concealment of the prize after it was taken. This I declare’ (said he) ‘to the honourable bench, that I may be clear of the blood of these other three persons.’”… “However, the court went on in a legal way, and another witness began to demonstrate in what manner he was taken: to whom the prisoner answered in this manner: ‘Prithee, fellow, do not make such a long narration of my being taken; thou seest I am here, and I own that I and this man, as aforesaid, are guilty of the fact.’”

It seems that one of the confederates was reprieved. Sadler, and Johnson, one of his companions, were among the five men executed at Tyburn on March 16, 1677 (“A Perfect Narrative,” &c., 1676-7, reprinted in Harleian Mis., v. 505-6).

=1678.= We now come to one of the blackest pages, not only in the history of England, but in the history of civilised communities.

Eighteen years of misgovernment had brought the people to a point at which an outbreak of some kind became inevitable. Dunkirk had been ceded to the French: the sound of Dutch guns had been heard in the Thames. The Court was known to be under French influence. “There were two things,” says Bishop Parker, “which, like Circe’s cups, bewitched men and turned them into brutes, viz., popery and French interest, and, if either of these happened to be whispered in the House of Commons, they quitted their calm and moderate proceedings, and ran immediately into clamour and high debates.” Politicians had for years played on the fears of the people. France was to send a great army to reduce the country to popery and slavery. “They kept the people in constant fear: and there was scarce greater uproar when Hannibal was at the gates of Rome.” Charles had no successor in direct line; on his decease the crown would fall to his brother, the Duke of York, known to be a catholic. This was the position “when the Popish Plot broke out, a transaction which had its roots in hell, and its branches in the clouds.”

Two men saw a private advantage in this state of things. It is impossible to say anything of the infamy of Titus Oates which would not fall short of the reality; his associate in the invention of the Popish Plot, Tonge, was a fanatic, who could forge on occasion.

“God Almighty,” he said, “will do His own work by His own methods and ways.” Between them the two produced a story of murder and massacre, which they contrived to lay before the King. It was so manifestly absurd that it would have failed of its effect but that Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, a magistrate, who had taken the depositions of these men, suddenly disappeared. His body was found a few days later at the foot of Primrose Hill, transfixed by Godfrey’s own sword. There is little doubt that, but for family interests, the case would have been recognised as one of suicide. But the discovery came in the very nick of time to save the authors of the Popish Plot. It was set about that Godfrey had been murdered by the papists in Somerset House, the palace of the Catholic queen. The politicians, Lord Shaftesbury at their head, were not slow to see the advantage to be gained by playing upon the credulity of the people.

The word went round that the plot must be handled as if it were true, whether it were so or not. It soon became dangerous to express doubt. To do this was to incur the certain danger of being reckoned a papist, a concealed papist, one inclined to popery; and the prison or the gallows was the fate of the doubter. The courts sat merely to condemn men denounced by Oates and his gang. Three men were hanged at Tyburn as guilty of the murder of Godfrey. Even those who to-day contend that Godfrey was murdered admit that these men were innocent. Theories have been constructed based on the evidence of infamous informers who contradicted one another on every point, and when this fails, the writer’s imagination is employed to patch up the story.

On November 26, 1678, William Stayley was drawn to Tyburn and there hanged and quartered. He had been convicted, on the evidence of two infamous informers, of a design to assassinate Charles. But this case, a judicial murder, does not properly belong to the Popish Plot.

On account of the plot were executed sixteen persons, three for the murder of Godfrey, thirteen for high treason. Except perhaps in the case of one, Coleman, it is now universally admitted that not one was guilty of the crime for which he suffered. Here is a list of the victims:—

=1678.= _December 3._ Edward Coleman, secretary to the Duchess of York.

=1679.= _January 24._ William Ireland and John Grove. _February 21._ Robert Green and Lawrence Hill, for the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. _February 28._ Henry Berry, for the same. _May 9._ Thomas Pickering, for high treason. _June 20._ Thomas Whitebread, William Harcourt, John Fenwick, John Gavan, and Anthony Turner, known as “The Five Jesuits,” all for high treason. _July 14._ Richard Langhorn, for high treason.

=1680.= _December 29._ Viscount Stafford, for high treason.

=1681.= _July 1._ Dr. Oliver Plunket, the catholic primate of Ireland, for high treason.

Lord Stafford was executed on Tower Hill all the others at Tyburn. The sixteenth victim was Thomas Thwing, drawn, hanged, and quartered at York. In addition to these, eight priests were executed in 1679, under the penal laws, now revived, making it death for a priest to be in England. Many died in prison, thousands suffered imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods.[197]

Together with Dr. Plunket was executed Edward Fitz-Harris, but this case, like that of Stayley, does not properly belong to the Popish Plot.

The story would be incomplete without telling what befell the infamous creatures by whose means this innocent blood was shed. Shaftesbury, the politician who took up the Plot and directed the operations of the perjurers, died in exile. Bedloe, one of the chief witnesses, died in his bed, asserting with his last breath the truth of his perjured evidence.

On May 8 and 9, 1685, Oates was tried on two indictments for perjury. The evidence was full and complete. The sentence passed upon him was that he should pay a fine of a thousand marks on each indictment: that he should be stripped of his canonical habits: that he should be put in the pillory at Westminster and at the Royal Exchange: that he should be whipped from Aldgate to Newgate, and on the next day but one from Newgate to Tyburn. Further, that on April 24, as long as he lived, he should stand in the pillory at Tyburn: every ninth of August in the pillory at Westminster: on every tenth of August in the pillory at Charing Cross: on every eleventh of August in the pillory near the Temple Gate, and on every second of September, in the pillory at the Royal Exchange.

Of the sentence and its execution more presently.

Dangerfield was, next to Oates and Bedloe, the worst of the informers. He also was brought to trial. He was condemned to be put in the pillory and whipped. On July 4, 1685, he was being brought back from Tyburn, having been whipped on the road thither, when a Mr. Francis jeered at him, as he sat in the coach. Dangerfield replied by an insult, and Francis struck at him with a cane, the point of which entered Dangerfield’s eye. Of the wound he died the next day. For this, Francis was tried, found guilty of murder, and executed at Tyburn, he being carried thither in a coach.[198]

Miles Prance, a third informer, was also brought to trial. He had been dragged into the business of informing by Bedloe, and, in fear of his life, concocted a story of Godfrey’s murder. He confessed his perjuries, and was, in consequence, let off with standing in the pillory, a fine and a whipping being remitted.

To return to Oates. In sentencing him the judge remarked upon the inadequacy of the punishment allotted by the law to a perjurer whose false testimony had shed innocent blood. Indeed, if the punishment of death was ever due to any man, it was due to Oates. The whipping was so severe that none but Oates could have survived it. That he did survive was hailed by his partisans as a miracle.

Luttrell records that in September, 1688, “Oates stood in the pillory over against the Royal Exchange, according to annual custom.” This was his last appearance in the pillory prior to his re-establishment as Protestant champion by the following resolution of the House of Commons:—

=1689.= _June 11._ Resolved that the Prosecution of Titus Oates, upon Two Indictments for Perjury in the Court of King’s Bench, was a design to stifle the Popish Plot: And that the Verdicts given thereupon were corrupt: And that the Judgments given thereupon were cruel and illegal.

A heated contest arose between Lords and Commons on the subject. The sentence was illegal,[199] and finally Oates received a pardon and was set at liberty. But it was not alone a passion for justice which animated those who insisted on the illegality of the sentence. Oates was by many regarded as one who had rendered inestimable services to the cause of liberty and religion.

Paul may plant, Apollos may water: the labour of each supposes that of the other. Shaftesbury, Burnet, Oates—to which of the three are we to award the palm? It is certain that but for Oates there would have been no Popish Plot; it is arguable that but for the Popish Plot there would have been no Glorious Revolution.

Oates’s services were rewarded with a considerable pension.

To recur to the executions on account of the Popish Plot. Most unfairly Charles has been blamed for these executions. Never once, says Fox, did he exercise his glorious prerogative of mercy. At the outset Charles was warned from the bench that the two Houses would interpose if he attempted to exercise this prerogative. Had he done this, it would probably have led to a general massacre of Catholics. Grave crimes are with justice laid to the charge of both Charles I. and Charles II., but against these crimes must be set the fact that each did what in him lay to prevent the shedding of innocent Catholic blood. We have seen how Charles I. resisted the importunities of the Commons, thirsting for the blood of priests against whom was no charge but that of being priests. Charles II. strove in vain against the mad fury of the times. Here is a revolting account, recently published, showing the influences brought to bear on Charles when he scrupled to order the execution of men whom he believed to be innocent, as we now know they were:—

Mr. Speaker told him frankly how universal an expectation was fixed upon the execution of Ireland, Grove, and Pickering, who are condemned. But His Majesty did, on the other side, manifest wonderful reluctance thereunto—that he had no manner of satisfaction in the truth of the evidence, but rather of its falsehood.… Most of the Board did labour with His Majesty to show … the ill-grounded scruple His Majesty had taken, and that the evidence and trial were much fairer than His Majesty had been told, and that he could not be answerable for any wrong done or innocent blood shed, but it lay upon the witnesses and jury, if such a thing could be thought of in this case. None laboured herein more vigorously than the Lord Treasurer, Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Lauderdale, who, it seems, had in private done their uttermost before. At last it was ordered that when the Judges come on Friday, so many of them as sat upon that trial are to inform His Majesty how the proofs appeared. And the Bishops that are of the Board are then to be present, and to assist His Majesty as to the point of conscience in this matter.[200]

Ireland and Grove were executed on January 24, 1679. Pickering was respited. On April 27th the Commons voted an address praying for his execution. Finally in this case also Charles had to yield. Lord Russell was the bearer of Charles’s answer that he would comply with the prayer. Pickering was executed on May 9th.

=1680.= _March 8._ Was executed at Tyburn twelve men and three women for several crimes (Luttrell, i. 38).

=1683.= In this year we have the executions for the Rye House Plot, the object of which was to capture Charles II. on his return from Newmarket.

_July 20._ Capt. Thomas Walcott, John Rouse, and William Hone, were drawn, about 9 in the morning, upon sledges, the two last in one, and the 1st by himself, to Tyburn, and there hanged and quartered, according to the sentence past on them on the 14th at the Old Baily, for the late conspiracy.

_July 21._ The quarters of Walcot, Hone, and Rouse are buried, but their heads are sett on these places following: Hone on Aldersgate, Walcot on Algate, and Rouse on Guildhall (Luttrell, i. 270-1).

William lord Russell was executed in Lincoln’s Inn Fields on July 21, 1683.

=1684.= Sir Thomas Armstrong was concerned in the Rye House Plot, but had fled to Holland and was outlawed. He was taken at Leyden by order of the States, brought to England, and committed to Newgate. Brought to the king’s bench bar, he was refused trial, and sentence of death was passed upon him as an outlaw:—

The 20th June, Sir Thomas Armstrong was drawn upon a sledge, with a very numerous guard to Tyburn; where being come, Dr. Tenison prayed with him, who seemed very penitent: he prayed himself also very fervently; which done, he delivered a paper to the sheriffs, and submitted himself to the sentence: after he had hang’d about half an hour he was taken down, and quartered according to his sentence, and his quarters were brought back in the sledge to Newgate.… Sir Thomas Armstrong’s quarters are disposed off: a fore-quarter is sett on Temple bar, his head on Westminster, another quarter is sent down to the town of Stafford, for which he was a Parliament man (Luttrell, i. 311-2).

The head was taken down after the Revolution.

* * * * *

We now enter on the short and troubled reign of James II.

=1685.= James Burton was outlawed for having taken part in the Rye House Plot (1683). Elizabeth Gaunt, a poor woman, gave him shelter and finally got him a passage to Holland. Burton returned, took part in Monmouth’s rebellion in 1685, and after Monmouth’s defeat again sought refuge in London. At the entreaty of his wife, Fernley, a barber, a neighbour of Mrs. Gaunt, gave him shelter. To save his own neck Burton gave information against his benefactors for protecting him. He was not ashamed to appear in court against them, and the Crown lawyers were not ashamed to produce his evidence. Fernley was hanged at Tyburn, Elizabeth Gaunt was burnt in the same place on October 23, 1685. In prison she wrote her Last Speech. She says, “I did but relieve an unworthy, poor, distressed family, & lo I must dye for it; well, I desire in the Lamb-like nature of the Gospell to forgive all that are concerned, & to say, Lord, lay it not to their charge; but I fear it will not; nay I believe, when he comes to make inquisition for blood, it will be found at the door of the furious Judge: … my blood will also be found at the door of the unrighteous Jury, who found me guilty upon the single oath of an out-lawd man.”

“Pen, the quaker,” says Burnet, “told me, he saw her die. She laid the straw about her for burning her speedily; and behaved herself in such a manner, that all the spectators melted in tears” (Burnet, “Hist. of his Own Time,” i. 649).

“Since that terrible day,” writes Macaulay, “no woman has suffered death in England for any political offence.” This is true only if we except the cases in which women were burnt as guilty of treason for coining. It was by a narrow chance that Mrs. Gaunt was the last. On January 19, 1693, Mrs. Merryweather was sentenced to be burnt for printing treasonable pamphlets, but, after being more than once reprieved, was pardoned on February 23rd (Luttrell).

=1686.= _May 20-2._ Sessions at Old Bailey, when 16 received sentence of death.

The 28th, five men of those lately condemned at the Sessions were executed at Tyburn; one of them was Pascha Rose, the new hangman, so that now Ketch is restored to his place (Luttrell, i. 378).

=1686.= On the night of April 12 two of his Majesty’s mails from Holland were robbed, near Ilford, of £5,000 in gold, belonging to some Jews in London. Richard Alborough, Oliver Hawley, and John Condom were indicted for the robbery. Alborough pleading guilty was sentenced to death, & the same sentence was passed on the others after trial.

July the 2d, Oliver Hawley and John Condom were executed at Tyburn (Luttrell, i. 374-82.)

Here is a strange incident:—

At the Sessions at the Old Baily held on October 13-16 fourteen persons received sentence of death.

Edward Skelton, one of the criminalls that received sentence of death this last sessions at the Old Baily, has been beg’d of the King by 18 maids clothed in white, and since is married to one of them in the Presse yard (Luttrell, i. 387.)

=1686.= Samuel Johnson, rector of Corringham, is described as a “political divine.” In 1682 he published a famous piece, “Julian the Apostate,” Julian being for the nonce the Duke of York. Johnson represented that popery was a modern form of paganism; he argued against unconditional obedience to the Crown. After the Rye House Plot proceedings were taken against him, and he was fined and imprisoned. On his release he wrote and distributed other tracts, one, published after the Duke of York came to the throne, was “An Humble and Hearty Address to all the English Protestants in this present Army.” In this he appealed to the soldiers not to be “unequally yoked with idolatrous and bloody Papists”:—On November 16, 1686, Samuel Johnson, clerk, convicted upon an information of writing and publishing two libells, was this day brought to the court of Kings bench, where he offered something in arrest of judgment, but the Court overruled it, and the chief justice told him he blasphemously wrested scripture; so the court pronounced judgment on him, to stand thrice in the pillory, pay a fine of 500 marks, and to be whipt from Newgate to Tyburn.…

The 20th, Samuel Johnson, clerk, was brought before the commissioners for the diocese of London, and other the clergy in the chapter house of St. Pauls, and there degraded and devested accordingly, and delivered over as a secular person (Luttrell, i. 388).

The execution of the sentence on Mr. Johnson is thus described: And immediately they proceeded to execute the said Sentence, and to degrade him by putting on his Head a square Cap, and then taking off again; then they pulled off his Gown, then his Girdle, which he demanded as his proper Goods, bought with his Money, which they promised to send; but they cost him Twenty Shillings to have them again. After all, they put a Bible into his Hand; which he would not part with, but they took it from him by Force.… On the Monday after, viz. Two-and-twentieth of November, the judgment in the King’s Bench were executed with great Rigour and Cruelty, the Whipping [from Newgate to Tyburn] being with a Whip of Nine Cords, Knotted, shewed to the Committee; and that Mr. Rouse the Under Sheriff tore off his Cassock upon the pillory and put a Frize Coat upon him (“Journals of the House of Commons,” June 24, 1689, x. 194).

In 1689, after the accession of William III., Parliament annulled the judgment.

=1690.= The same day [September 12] 6 persons were executed at Tyburn; some of them behaved themselves very impudently, calling for sack, and drank king James’s health, and affronted the ordinary at the gallows, and refused his assistance; and bid the people return to their obedience and send for king James back (Luttrell, ii. 103).

=1690.= In this year occurred a famous case of stealing an heiress. This was made a felony by 3 Henry VII. (1487), c. 3:—

Where Wymmen aswell Maydens as Wydowes and Wyfes havyng substaunce somme in goods moveable, and somme in landes and tenements, and summe beyng heires apparaunte unto their auncesters, for the lucre of suche substaunce been oft tymes taken by mysdoers contrarie to their Will, and after maried to such mysdoers or to other by their assent, or defoulled, to the great displesire of God and contrarie to the Kyngs lawes and dispargement of the seid Women and utter hevynesse and discomforte of their frendes and to the evyll example of all other.…

The Act goes on to make the offence a felony.

We will let Luttrell tell the story of the abduction and its result, day by day:—

_November 7._ One Mrs. Mary Wharton, a young heiresse of about £1500 per ann., and about 13 years of age, comeing home with her aunt, Mrs. Byerley, in their coach about 9 at night, and alighting out of it at her own aunt, was violently seized on and putt into a coach and 6 horses and carried away.

_November 15._ Mrs. Wharton, who was lately stole, is returned home to her friends, having been married against her consent to Captain Campbell [brother to Lord Argyle].… A proclamation hath been published by their majesties for the discovering and apprehending captain James Campbell, Archibald Montgomery, and sir John Jonston, for stealing away Mrs. Wharton. [The proclamation included “divers others.”]

_November 25._ Sir John Jonston, concerned in the stealing of Mrs. Wharton, is taken and committed to Newgate.

_December 10._ The sessions began at the Old Baily, and held the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 17th dayes of this month, where 22 persons received sentence of death (and among them sir John Jonston, for stealing Mrs. Wharton), 9 were burnt in the hand, 1 ordered to be transported, and 6 sentenced to be whipt.

_December 18._ Intercession has been made to his majestie on the behalf of sir John Jonston, lately condemned, for his pardon; which he hath denied unlesse it be desired by the friends of Mrs. Wharton.

_December 23._ Sir John Jonston, condemned for stealing Mrs. Wharton, went up in a mourning coach to Tyburn, and was executed for the same; and his body was delivered to his friends, in order to it’s being buried (Luttrell, ii. 128-48).

Here is a further notice of Mistress Wharton. Let us hope she was happily married:—

=1692.= _March 19._ On Thursday last colonell Byerley was married to Mrs. Wharton, stole formerly by Campdell (Luttrell, ii. 394).

=1690.= _December 22._ Thirteen persons were executed at Tyburn for several crimes; also a woman at Newgate for setting the prison on fire; and also a notorious highway man, commonly called the Golden Farmer [this was William Davis, known by this title], was executed in Fleetstreet, at the end of Salisbury court, and is after to be hang’d in chains upon Bagshott heath (Luttrell, ii. 148).

=1692.= _September 22._ Information is given of near 300 coyners and clippers dispersed in divers parts of this citty, on which warrants are out against severall; one from the lords of the treasury, another by the cheife justice, and a 3d by the masters of the mint (ii. 571).

=1692.= Towards the end of the year Luttrell has several entries in his diary relating to a celebrated highwayman, “captain” James Whitney:—

_December._ Witney, the notorious highway man, offers to bring in 80 stout men of his gang to the kings service, if he may have his pardon (ii. 630).

_December 6._ This morning his majestie sent a party of horse to look after Whitney, the great highwayman, on some notice he was lurking between Barnet and St. Albans: they mett with him at the first of the said towns, who finding himselfe attackt, made his defence and killed one of them, and wounded some others: but at last was taken and brought to London. His majestie was very glad he was taken, being a great ringleader of that crew (ii. 633).

This must have been a mistake, as shown by the following entries:—

_December 20._ The lords C. and B. were on Satturday last to meet Whitney, a great highwayman, on honour; he offers to bring in 30 horse, with as many stout men, to serve the king, provided he may have his pardon, and will give a summe of money besides: but the issue thereof not known (ii. 644).

=1693.= _Tuesday, 3d January._ On Satturday last Whitney, the famous highwayman, was taken without Bishopsgate; he was discovered by one Hill as he walkt the street, who observed where he housed, then, calling some assistance, he went to the door; but Whitney defended himselfe for an hour, but the people encreasing, and the officers of Newgate being sent for, he surrendered himselfe, but had before stabb’d the said Hill with a bagonet, but not mortall: he was cuff’d and shackled with irons and committed to Newgate; and on Sunday 2 more of his gang were also seized and committed; one kept a livery stable in Moor feilds (iii. 1).

_January 7._ Strongly reported yesterday that Whitney had made his escape out of Newgate, but he continues closely confined there, and has 40 pound weight of iron on his leggs; he had his taylor make him a rich embroidered suit, with perug and hatt, worth £100; but the keeper refused to let him wear them, because they would disguise him from being known (iii. 5).

On the 8th five of Whitney’s gang apprehended but 2 of them escaped.

=1693.= At the Old Baily sessions “8 highwaymen received sentence of death, Whitney, Grasse, Fetherstone, Nedland, Poor, Holland and 2 more” (iii. 16).

_January 28._ Yesterday 9 persons were carried to Tyburn, where 8 were executed, 7 hyghwaymen, and one for clipping; Whitney was brought back, having a repreive for 10 dayes, and was brought back to Newgate with a rope about his neck, a vast crowd of people following him.

Last night Whitney was carried in a sedan to Whitehall and examined; ’tis said he discovers who hired the persons to rob the mailes so often.

Whitney, ’tis said, has been examined upon a design to kill the King.…

Whitney, ’tis said, will be executed next week; others say his repreive is grounded on the discovery of his accomplices, with their houses of reception, and way of living (iii. 24).

=1693.= _February 2._ Yesterday being the 1st instant, capt. James Whitney, highwayman, was executed at Porter’s block, near Cow crosse in Smithfeild; he seemed to dye very penitent; was an hour and halfe in the cart before turn’d off (iii. 27).

Luttrell mentions that in January there were near 20 highwaymen in Newgate (iii. 10).

=1693.= _April 27._ A person was this day convicted at sessions house for sacriledge, rape, burglary, murder, and robbing on the highway; all committed in 12 hours time (Luttrell, iii. 85).

_October 24._ Yesterday, 14 malefactors were executed at Tyburn; 6 of them clippers (Luttrell, iii. 212).

=1694.= _July 19._ Yesterday 11 men and 3 women were executed at Tyburn; amongst them was Wilkinson the goldsmith, with several others for clipping; one Paynes, convicted for murder, who by the confession of one of his accomplices has killed 5 or 6 persons in a short time; he kickt the ordinary out of the cart at Tyburn, and pulled off his shoes, sayeing, hee’d contradict the old proverb, and not dye in them (Luttrell, iii. 345).

=1694.= On Wensday the 12th instant 18 persons were executed at Tyburn; 7 men, and 1 woman burnt for clipping and coyning [this does not mean that the men were burnt, but the woman only], 8 highway men, and 2 for burglary (Luttrell, iii. 413).

=1695.= _January 10._ Several persons have malitiously spread abroad that Tyburn was hung in mourning, but upon examination it proves a mistake (Luttrell, iii. 424).

The Queen had died on December 28.

=1695.= At the Old Bailey Sessions:—

_July 6._ Mr. Moor, the rich tripeman of Westminster, was found guilty of clipping and coyning; and some others will be tried for the like offence (Luttrell, iii. 495).

_July 13._ Yesterday four men were executed at Tyburn, three of them for clipping, one of which was John Moore, the tripeman, said to have gott a good estate by clipping, and to have offered 6000 l. for his pardon (Luttrell, iii. 497).

_July 16._ Moor the tripeman being hang’d for clipping, the duke of Somerset has seized upon his house, worth 1000 l., being within his mannor of Isleworth.

This day a rich chandler of Lambeth and a housekeeper in Long Acre were seized for clipping (Luttrell, iii. 499).

=1695.= About this time Luttrell tells of the arrests of “nests” of coiners, among them an attorney in the Temple, and a merchant in Birchin Lane; at one time 105 coiners and clippers lay in Newgate awaiting trial. The condition of the coinage became a great question of State so pressing that after six Proclamations on the subject an Act 7 and 8 William III c. 1 (1695-6) was passed “An Act for remedying the Ill State of the Coin of the Kingdome.” The Act recites that “the Silver Coins of this Realm (as to a great part thereof) doe appeare to bee exceedingly diminished by such persons who (notwithstanding several good laws formerly provided and many examples of justice thereupon) have practised the wicked and pernicious crime of Clipping until att length the course of the Moneys within this Kingdom is become difficult and very much perplext, to the unspeakable wrong and prejudice of His Majestie and His good Subjects in their Affairs as well Publick as particular and noe sufficient Remedy can bee applied to the manifold Evils ariseing from the clipping of the Moneys without recoining the clipt pieces.”

Then follow very lengthy provisions for dealing with coins of “Sterling Silver or Silver of a courser Allay then the Standard” from which we may infer that the Government had played its part in the debasing of the coinage.

This was followed, in the same year, by an Act, c. 19 “to incourage the bringing Plate into the Mint to be coined and for the further remedying the ill State of the Coine of the Kingdome.” The next year saw another