modern eloquence was destined to display its powers, and reap its laurels. On Saturday, the 14th of July, Lord Russell. was brought to the bar to receive sentence. Upon being asked why judgment of death should not be passed upon him, he requested to have the indictment read. At the words "of conspiring the death of the King," Lord Russell said, "Hold: I thought I had not been charged in the indictment as it is, of compassing and conspiring the death of the King.' Attorney-General. Yes, my lord." Lord Russell. " But, Mr. Recorder, if all that the witnesses swore against me be true, I appeal to you and to the Court,-I appeal to you, whether I am guilty within the statute of 25th Edward III., they having sworn a conspiracy to levy war, but no intention of killing the King; and, therefore, I think, truly judgment ought not to pass upon me for conspiring the death of the King, of which there was no proof by any one witness." To this the Recorder replied, that it was an exception proper to be made before the verdict; but that the Court was now bound by the verdict, as well as the prisoner. Thus, in the state of the law at that time, the prisoner was unable to introduce counsel before the verdict, because that were admitting the fact; and he was ex cluded from arguing the point after the verdict, because the jury had given judgment on the fact and the law together.* Judginent was then given from the mouth of Sir G. Treby, who had been one of Lord Russell's associates in parliament, in the usual form, with all its disgusting circumstances. The King afterwards changed this sentence into that of beheading; and upon this occasion he is said to have added, with a cool and cruel sarcasm, "Lord Russell shall now find that I am possessed of that prerogative, which, in the case of Lord Stafford, he thought proper to deny me." This anecdote, which has been copied by Hume and Dalrymple, rests on the authority of Echard, and I am willing to believe that the remark proceeded from the envenomed tongue of a partisan, rather than from the mouth of the sovereign. Had it been genuine, it would scarcely have been omitted by Burnet, North, and Reresby. I am the more inclined to distrust the anecdote, because, in the rest of this transaction, the King, though inexorable, seems by no means to have been wantonly unfeeling. * In the following year, however, Rosewell, a dissenting preacher, having been found guilty of speaking treasonable words, moved in arrest of judgment that the words were not treason, and got off on that ground. Many attempts were made to save Lord Rus sell's life. It is said that 50,000l. (some say 100,000l.) were offered by the Earl of Bedford for a pardon, and that the King refused it, saying, “ He would not purchase his own, and his subjects' blood at so easy a rate." * In the Duke of Monmouth's Journal, it appears that the King, in conference with Monmouth, falling on the business of Lord Russell, said, he inclined to have saved him, but was forced to consent to his death, otherwise he must have broke with his brother. And when Monmouth was going to remonstrate how cruelly that noble lord had been dealt with, the King bid him "think no more of it." It also appears by an extract from Lord Dartmouth's MSS., that his father told the King the pardoning Lord Russell would lay an eternal obligation upon a very great and numerous family, and the taking his life never would be forgotten; that his father being still alive, it would have little effect on the rest of the family, except resentments; and there was some regard due to Southampton's daughter, and her children. The King answered, "all that is true, but it is as true, that if I do not take his life, he will soon have mine." + Lady Ranelagh was one of those who showed * Narcissus Luttrell's Diary. + Dalrymple. the most anxiety to save Lord Russell. In the Woburn papers are the two following letters from her: "To the Earl of Bedford. "This is to beg your lordship to let my Lady Russell know, that her lord's address to the Duke ought to be by way of petition; and that the sooner it is presented, the better. It is said that Captain Richardson is he who has informed that my Lord Russell says his sufferings are but the prosecution of the Popish plot; but I can scarce believe that true: but being told it, and that that suggestion has much incensed His Majesty against his lordship, I durst not but tell it to your lordship, from whom some good news of the petition, carried by my Lady Russell, would very welcome to, be "I have, Madam, just now obtained from my Lord Rochester, (who has really been very affectionate and faithful in your service,) a promise that he will speak to His Majesty, to get a reprieve for a month; which I urged, by saying none of the rest could be tried in that time. I am advised by another, that, if it were possible, your ladyship should, by some means or other, surprise His Majesty, and cast yourself at his feet, though in the gallery or park, to beg, if not his life, a reprieve: for he avoids seeing and hearing you yourself, because he fears if he did both, he could not deny you. That he may not be able to do so, is the hearty prayer of "Your ladyship's humble Servant, Burnet says that a difference was observed on this subject between the King and the Duke: the former would not hear Lord Russell mentioned; whilst the latter listened patiently when the question was argued before him. * It is said by Dalrymple, that upon Lord Russell's condemnation, the younger Rouvigny begged the life of Lord Russell from Lewis XIV., and that Lewis consented to write to Charles in his favour. There seems to be no foundation for this story, nor, consequently, for the reply, (in bad French,) which Dalrymple puts into the mouth of Charles. † There is, in the papers at * Burnet. + In Dalrymple's first edition, Charles is made to reply"Je ne veux pas empecher que M. de Rouvigny ne vienne pas ici." This answer, however, is omitted in the octavo edition, and there is merely a reference to Barillon's letter of the 19th July, 1683. See State Trials, vol. ix. p. 685. |