pleasing the Court, during the present reign. The first was, on the trial of Hampden, the grandson of the great Hampden, for a trifling misdemeanour. Although this young gentleman was only heir apparent to a moderate estate, and not in possession of any property, he was sentenced to pay a fine of 40,000l.,-Jeffreys saying that the clause in MAGNA CHARTA, "Liber homo non amercietur pro magno delicto nisi salvo contenemento suo," does not apply to fines imposed by the King's Judges.*-The other was the inquisition in the action of scan. mag. brought by the Duke of York against Titus Oates, in which the jury, under his direction, awarded 100,000l. damages.t

Ever since the disfranchisement of the City of London, the Exrecorder had ruled it with a rod of iron. He set up a nominal Lord Mayor and nominal Aldermen; but, as they were entirely dependent upon him, he treated them with continual insolence.‡

On the sudden death of Charles II., Jeffreys no doubt thought the period was arrived when he must be rewarded for the peculiar zeal with which he had abandoned [FEB. 1685.] himself to the service of the successor; but he was at first disappointed, and he had still to "wade through slaughter" to the seat he so much coveted.

Not dismayed, he resolved to act on two principles: 1st, If possible, to outdo himself in pleasing his master, whose arbitrary and cruel disposition became more apparent from the hour that he mounted the throne. 2dly, To leave no effort untried to discredit, disgrace, disgust, and break the heart of the man who stood between him and his object.

Being confirmed in the office of Chief Justice of the King's Bench, he began with the trial for perjury of Titus Oates, whose veracity he had often maintained, but with whom [MAY 1.] he had a personal quarrel, and whom he now held up to reprobation,-depriving him of all chance of acquittal. The defendant was found guilty on two indictments, and the verdict on both was probably correct; but what is to be said for the [MAY 5.] sentence; To pay on each indictment a fine of 1000 marks; to be stript of all his canonical habits; to be imprisoned for life; to

* 9 St. Tr. 1125.

† 10 St Tr. 125. It is curious to observe that, in this case, after judgment by default, the inquisition being before the Court of King's Bench in banco, the Sheriffs of Middlesex attending in person, sat covered before the Judges, and the counsel began their speeches, "May it please your Lordships, you Mr. Sheriffs, and gentlemen of the Jury."

Sir John Reresby, giving an account of his dining with Sir James Smith, the Lord Mayor, says: "This gentleman complained to me that he enjoyed no more than the bare title of Lord Mayor, the Lord Chief Justice Jeffries usurping the power; that the City had no sort of intercourse with the King but by the intervention of that Lord, and that himself and the aldermen were looked upon by the Court as no better than his tools; that upon all occasions his Lordship was so forgetful of the high dignity of the City, as to use him and his brethren with contempt."-Reresh. Mem. 207.

stand in the pillory on the following Monday, with a paper over his head, declaring his crime; next day to stand in the pillory at the Royal Exchange, with the same inscription; on the Wednesday to be whipped from Aldgate to Newgate; on the Friday to be whipped from Newgate to Tyburn; upon the 25th of April in every year, during life, to stand in the pillory at Tyburn opposite the gallows; on the 9th of August in every year to stand in the pillory opposite Westminster Hall Gate; on the 10th of August in every year to stand in the pillory at Charing Cross; and the like on the following day at Temple Bar; and the like on the 2d of September, every year, at the Royal Exchange;"-the Court expressing deep regret that they could not do more, as they would "not have been unwilling to have given judgment of death upon him."*

Next came the trial of Richard Baxter, the pious and learned Presbyterian divine, who had actually said, and adhered to the saying, "Nolo episcopari," and who was now prosecuted for a libel, because in a book on church government he had reflected on the Church of Rome in words which might possibly be applied to the Bishops of the Church of England. No such reference was intended by him; and he was known not only to be of exemplary private character, but to be warmly attached to monarchy, and always inclined to moderate measures in the differences between the established church and those of his own persuasion.† Yet, when he pleaded not guilty, and prayed on account of ill health, that his trial might be postponed, Jeffreys exclaimed, Not a minute more to save his life. We have had to do with other sort of persons, but now we have a Saint to deal with; and I know how to deal with Saints as well as Sinners. Yonder stands Oates in the pillory, [Oates was at that moment suffering part of his sentence in Palace Yard, outside the great gate of Westminster Hall,] and he says he suffers for the truth; and so says Baxter; but if Baxter did but stand on the outside of the pillory with him, I would say two of the greatest rogues and rascals in the kingdom stood there together." Having silenced the defendant's counsel by almost incredible rudeness, the defendant himself wished to speak, when the Chief Justice burst out, Richard, Richard, thou art an old fellow and an old knave; thou hast written books enough to load a cart; every one is as full of sedition, I might say treason, as an egg is full of meat; hadst thou been whipt out of thy writing trade forty years ago, it had been happy. Thou pretendest to be a preacher of the gospel of peace, and thou hast one foot in the grave; it is time for thee to begin to think what account thou intendest to give; but leave thee to thyself, and I see thou wilt go on as thou hast begun; but, by the grace of God, I'll look after thee. Gentlemen of the jury, he is now modest enough; but time was when no man was so ready at Bind your Kings in chains, and your no† Fox's Hist. James, ii. 96.

* 10 St. Tr. 1315,

bles in fetters of iron, crying To your tents, O Israel! Gentlemen, for God's sake do not let us be gulled twice in an age." The defendant was, of course, found guilty, and thought himself lucky to escape with a fine of 5007., and giving security for his good behaviour for seven years.*

[MAY 15.]

The Lord Chief Justice, for his own demerits, and to thrust a thorn into the side of Lord Keeper Guilford, was now raised to the peerage by the title of "Baron Jeffreys of Wem,”—the preamble of his patent narrating his former promotions-averring that they were the reward of virtue,—and after the statement of his being appointed to preside in the Court of King's Bench, adding, “ubi etiamnum justitiam et tutelam subditis nostris ad normam legis intrepide et fideliter administrans: quarum ejus virtutum intuitu eum inter pares hujus regni cooptandum esse censuimus," &c.

He took his seat in the House of Lords on the first day of the meeting of James's only parliament, along with nineteen others either raised in the peerage or newly creat[MAY 19.] ed since the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament,—the junior being John Lord Churchill, afterwards Duke of Marlborough. The Journals show that Lord Jeffreys was very regular in his attendance during the session, and as the House sat daily and still met at the same early hour as the Courts of law, he must generally have left the business of the King's Bench to be transacted by the other Judges. He was now occupied day and night with plans for pushing the already disgraced Lord Keeper from the woolsack.

I have already, in the life of Lord Guliford, related how these plans were conducted in the Cabinet, in the royal circle at Whitehall, and in the House of Lords,-particularly the savage treatment which the “staggering statesman" received on the reversal of his decree in Howard v. Duke of Norfolk, after which he never held up his head more.† The probability is, that although he clung to office so pusillanimously in the midst of all sorts of slights and indignities, he would now have been forcibly ejected if his death had not appeared to be near at hand, and if there had not been a demand for the services of "Judge Jeffreys" in a scene very different from the drowsy tranquillity of the Court of Chancery.

By the month of July Monmouth's rebellion had been put down,

* 11 St. Tr. 495. 3 Mod. Rep. 68.

† Ante, p. 386, et seq. From the slight passed upon the Lord Guilford at the opening of the session, and the elevation of Jeffreys to the peerage, a speedy transfer of the Great Seal seems to have been generally anticipated. Evelyn, in his Memoirs under May 22, 1685, after giving an account of the meeting of parliament, thus proceeds: "There was no speech made by the Lord Keeper after his Majesty as usual. It was whispered he would not be long in that situation, and many believe the bold Chief Justice Jefferies, who was made Baron of Wem, in Shopshire, and who went thurrough stitch in that tribunal, stands fair for that office. I gave him joy the morning before of his new honour, he having been always very civil to me."

and he himself had been executed upon his parliamentary attainder without the trouble of a trial: but all the gaols in the West of England were crowded with his adherents, and, instead of Colonel Kirke doing military execution on more of them than had already suffered from his "Lambs," it was resolved that they should all perish by the flaming sword of Justice,-which, on such an occasion, there was only one man fit to wield.

No assizes had been held this summer on the Western circuit; but for all the counties upon it a special Commission to try criminals was now appointed,-at the head of which Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys was put ;-and by a second Commission he, singly, was invested with the authority of Commander in Chief over all his Majesty's forces within the same limits.*

On entering Hampshire he was met by a brigade of soldiers, by whom he was guarded to Winchester. During the rest of his progress he never moved without a military escort;—he daily gave the word;-orders for going the rounds, and for the general disposal of the troops were dictated by him,-sentinels mounting guard at his lodgings, and the officers on duty sending him their reports.

I desire at once to save my readers from the apprehension that I am about to shock their humane feelings by a detailed statement of the atrocities of this bloody campaign in the West, the character of which is familiar to every Englishman. But, as a specimen of it, I must present a short account of the treatment experienced by Lady Lisle, with whose murder it commenced.

She re

She was the widow of Major Lisle, who had sat in judgment on Charles I., had been a Lord Commissioner [AUG. 27, 1685.] of the Great Seal under Cromwell, and, flying on the restoration, had been assassinated at Lausanne†. mained in England, and was remarkable for her loyalty as well as piety. Jeffreys's malignant spite against her is wholly inexpli cable; for he had never had any personal quarrel with her, she did not stand in the way of his promotion, and the circumstance of her being the widow of a regicide cannot account for his vindictiveness. Perhaps without any personal dislike to the individual, he merely wished to strike terror into the West by his first opera

tion.

The charge against her, which was laid capitally, was that after the battle of Sedgemoor she had harboured in her house one Hickes, who had been in arms with the Duke of Monmouth,she knowing of his treason.‡ In truth she had received him into her house,-thinking merely that he was persecuted as a non-con

*There is preserved in the War Office an order dated 24th August, 1665, for furnishing horse and foot at his request.

† Ante, p. 60, et seq.

Another person of the name of Nelthorp was mentioned in the indictment; but with respect to him there was not the shadow of a case made out in evidence.-11 St. Tr. 297.

formist minister, and the moment she knew whence he came, she (conveying to him a hint that he should escape) sent her servant to a justice of peace to give information concerning him. There was the greatest difficulty even to show that Hickes had been in the rebellion, and the Judge was worked up to a pitch of fury by being obliged himself to cross-examine a Presbyterian witness, who had showed a leaning against the prosecution. But the principal traitor had not been convicted, and there was not a particle of evidence to show the scienter, i. c. that the supposed accomplice, at the time of the harbouring, was acquainted with the treason. Not allowed the benefit of counsel, she herself, prompted by natural good sense, took the legal objection that the principal traitor ought first to have been convicted, "because, peradventure, he might afterwards be acquitted as innocent after she had been condemned for harbouring him;" and she urged with great force to the jury, "that at the time of the alleged offence she had been entirely ignorant of any suspicion of Hickes having participated in the rebellion; that she had strongly disapproved of it, and that she had sent her only son into the field to fight under the royal banner to suppress it."

It is said by almost all the contemporary authorities, that thrice did the Jury refuse to find a verdict of guilty, and thrice did Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys send them back to reconsider their verdict.* In the account of the proceeding in the STATE TRIALS, which has the appearance of having been taken in short-hand, and of being authentic, the repeated sending back of the Jury is not mentioned; but enough appears to stamp eternal infamy on Jeffreys, if there were nothing more extant against him. After a most furious summing up, "the Jury withdrew, and staying out awhile, the Lord Jeffreys expressed a great deal of impatience, and said he wondered that in so plain a case they would go from the bar, and would have sent for them, with an intimation that, if they did not come quickly, he would adjourn, and let them lie by it all night; but, after about half an hour's stay, the Jury returned, and the foreman addressed himself to the Court thus: My Lord, we have one thing to beg of your Lordship some directions in before we can give our verdict: we have some doubt whether there be sufficient evidence that she knew Hickes to have been in the army.'-L. C. J. There is as full proof as proof can be; but you are judges of the proof; for my part I thought there was no difficulty in it.'Foreman. My Lord, we are in some doubt of it.'-L. C. J. ‘I cannot help your doubts: was there not proved a discourse of the battle and the army at supper time?-Foreman. but, my Lord, we are not satisfied that she had notice that Hickes was in the army.'—L. C. J. I cannot tell what would satisfy you. Did she not inquire of Dunne whether Hickes had been in the army? and

Ι

* Sce Coke's Detection, ii 1719, Kennet, iii. 433. Rapin, v. 750. Oldmixon, i. 706. Echard, 1068. Ralph, i. 889.