But a great controversy has arisen, "who is chiefly to be blamed for them-Jeffreys or James?" Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham, declares that the King never forgave the cruelty of the Judge in executing such multitudes in the west against his express orders." Père d'Or léans says, "Le Roi fut trop tard averti de ce désordre, mais on ne l'en eût pas plustôt informé qu'il en témoigna de l'indignation; et si des services importans, qu'il avoit reçu de ceux qui en étoient accusez, l'obligea de les épargner, il répara autant qu'il put leur injustice, par le pardon général qu'il accorda à ceux des révoltez qui étoient encore en état d'éprouver les effets de sa clémence." And reliance is placed by Hume,* on the assertion of Roger North, that his brother, [A. D. 1685.] the Lord Keeper, going to the King and moving him "to put a stop to the fury which was in no respect for his service, and would be counted a carnage, not law or justice,-orders went to mitigate the proceeding." I have already demonstrated that this last assertion is a mere invention, and though it is easy to fix deep guilt on the Judge, it is impossible to exculpate the monarch. Burnet says that James" had a particular account of his proceedings writ to him every day, and he took pleasure to relate them in the drawing-room to foreign ministers, and at his table, calling it Jeffreys's campaign; speaking of all he had done in a style that neither became the majesty nor the mercifulness of a great Prince." Jeffreys himself (certainly a very suspicious witness), when in the Tower, declared to Tutchin, that "his instructions were much more severe than the execution of them; and that at his return he was snubbed at Court for being too merciful." And to Dr. Scott, the divine who attended him on his death-bed, he said, "Whatever I did then I did by express orders; and I have this further to say for myself, that I was not half bloody enough for him who sent me thither." We certainly know from a letter written to him by the Earl of Sunderland at Dorchester, that "the King approved entirely of all his proceedings." And though we cannot believe that he stopped short of any severity which he thought would be of service to himself; there seems no reason to doubt (if that be any palliation), that throughout the whole of these proceedings his object was to please his master, whose disposition was now most vindictive, and who thought that, by such terrible examples, he should secure to himself a long and quiet reign.‡ The two were equally criminal, and both had their reward. But in the first instance, and till the consequences of such wickedness and folly began to appear, they met each other with mutual joy and congratulations. Jeffreys, returning from the [A. D. 1685.] + Ante, p. 380. * Vol. viii. 236. * One of the strongest testimonies against James is his own letter to the Prince of Orange, dated Sept. 24, 1685, in which, after giving him a long account of his foxhunting, he says, "As for news, there is little stirring, but that Lord Chief Justice has almost done his campaign. He has already condemned several hundreds, some of which are already executed, some are to be, and the others sent to the plantations.”—Dalrymple's App. part ii. 165. west, by royal command stopped at Windsor Castle. He arrived there on the 28th of September; and after a most gracious reception, the Great Seal was immediately delivered to him, with the title of Lord Chancellor. We learn from Evelyn that it had been three weeks in the King's personal custody. "About six o'clock came Sir Dudley North and his brother Roger North, and brought the Great Seal from my Lord Keeper, who died the day before. The King went immediately to Council; every body guessing who was most likely to succeed this great officer: most believed it would be no other than Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys, who had so rigorously prosecuted the late rebels, and was now gone the western circuit to punish the rest that were secured in the several counties, and was now near upon his return."* The London Gazette of October 1, 1685, contains the following notice : "Windsor, Sept. 28. "His Majesty taking into his royal consideration the many eminent and faithful services which the Right Honourable George Lord Jeffreys, of Wem, Lord Chief Justice of England, has rendered the Crown, as well in the reign of the late King, of ever blessed memory, as since his Majesty's accession to the throne, was pleased this day to commit to him the custody of the Great Seal of England, with the title of Lord Chancellor."+ CHAPTER CI. CONTINUATION OF THE LIFE OF LORD CHANCELLOR JEFFREYS TILL THE GREAT SEAL WAS TAKEN FROM HIM BY JAMES II. AND THROWN INTO THE RIVER THAMES. THE new Lord Chancellor, having brought the Great Seal with him from Windsor to London, had near a month to pre[SEPT. 29, 1685.] pare for the business of the term. He took a large house in Duke Street, Westminster; and there fitted * Mem. i. 569. + The Crown Office Minute Book, not imitating the amusing circumstantiality of the old entries on the Close Roll, after stating the death of the late Lord Keeper on the 5th of September, the delivery of the Seal next day to the King," who kept it in his own custody till the return of the Lord Jeffreys from the Western circuit,”merely states, that," on the 28th of the same September, his Majesty was pleased to deliver the Seal to him with the title of Lord Chancellor."-p. 121. Burnet relates, that as a farther reward he was created a Peer (ii. 335); and Hume and most sub. sequent historians repeat the statement, although it is quite certain that he had been created a Peer before the meeting of the parliament months before, and had taken an active part in the House of Lords before Monmouth's rebellion broke out. As such mistakes are little noticed, I am encouraged to hope that those I may fall into may be overlooked or forgiven. up a Court, which was afterwards consecrated as a place of public worship, and is now called "Duke Street Chapel."* He had had only a very slender acquaintance with Chancery proceedings, and he was by no means thoroughly grounded in commonlaw learning; but he now fell to the study of equity pleading and practice, and though exceedingly inferior to his two immediate predecessors in legal acquirements, his natural shrewdness was such, that, when entirely sober, he contrived to gloss over his ignorance of technicalities, and to arrive at a right decision. He was seldom led into temptation by the occurrence of cases in which the interests of political parties, or religious sects, were concerned; and, as an Equity Judge, the multitude rather regarded him with favour. He took his place in the Court of Chancery on the 23d of October, the first day of Michaelmas term. I find no account of his procession from Duke Street to Westminster Hall; and I rather suspect that, on account of the offence he had given to so many persons by his brutal manners and his general unpopularity, it was not well attended. When he took the oaths in the Court of Chancery, there were present "the Earl of Rochester, Lord Treasurer, the Earl of Clarendon, Lord Privy Seal, the Duke of Beaufort, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Sunderland, the Earl of Craven, the Earl of Burling[A. D. 1685.] ton, Lord Fauconbridge, and several other persons of honour, who only stayed while he heard one motion, and then departed, leaving him sitting."+ The public and the profession were much shocked to see such a man at the head of the law; but as soon as he was installed in his office, there were plenty ready enough to gather round him, and, suppressing their real feelings, to load him with flattery and to solicit him for favours. Evelyn, who upon his appointment as Chief Justice, describes him as "most ignorant, but most daring," now assiduously cultivated his notice; and, having succeeded in getting an invitation to dine with him, thus speaks of him: "31st Oct. 1685. "I dined at our great Lord Chancellor Jeffreys, who used me with much respect. This was the late Chief Justice, who had newly been the western circuit to try the Monmouth conspirators, and had formerly done such severe justice amongst the obnoxious in Westminster Hall, for which his Majesty dignified him by creating him first a Baron, and now Lord Chancellor; is of an assured and undaunted spirit, and has served the Court interest on all hardiest occasions; is of nature civil, and a slave of the Court." * Pennant, in his "London," speaking of Jeffreys's house, says, "It is easily known by a large flight of stone steps, which his royal master permitted to be made into the park adjacent, for the accommodation of his Lordship. These steps terminate above in a small court, on three sides of which stands the house. The cause room was afterwards converted into a place of worship called Duke Street Chapel, and is on the left. When Jeffreys found it inconvenient to sit at Westminster or Lincoln's Inn, he made use of this court." † Mem. i. 617. + Cr. Off. Min. B. fol. 122. A slave of the Court he still continued, till the wicked and insane measures which he unscrupulously supported proved the ruin of himseli and his master. He who originated and commanded these incurred much less moral blame, as he was a sincere believer in the religion he wished to establish in the country; and it may be forgiven to a King to desire to extend his prerogative. Had he been resisted by a firm and virtuous minister, he might have continued to reign prosperously, and have transmitted his Crown to his posterity :— The "How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds, Makes deeds ill done. Hadst not thou been by, A fellow by the hand of nature mark'd, very first measure which James proposed to his new Chancellor, literally, was the hanging of an alderman. He was still [OCT. 1685.] afraid of the mutinous spirit of the City, which, without some fresh terrors, might again break out, although the charters were destroyed; and no sufficient atonement had yet been made for the hostility constantly manifested by the metropolis to the policy of his family for half a century. His Majesty proposed that Alderman Clayton, a very troublesome agitator, should be selected as the victim. The Chancellor agreed that "it was very fit an example should be made, as his Majesty had graciously proposed; but if it were the same thing to his Majesty, he would venture to suggest a different choice. Alderman Clayton was a bad subject, but Alderman Cornish was still more troublesome, and more dangerous." The King readily acquiesced, and Alderman Cornish was immediately brought to trial before a packed jury, and executed on a gibbet erected in Cheapside, on pretence that some years before he had been concerned in the Ryehouse Plot.* The apologists of Jeffreys say (and as it is the only alleged instance of his gratitude I have met with, I have great pleasure in recording it) that he was induced to save Sir Robert Clayton from recollecting that this alderman had been his pot companion, and had greatly assisted him in obtaining the office of Common Serjeant.† Monmouth's rebellion in England, and Argyle's in Scotland, being put down, and the City of London reduced to subjection, James expressed an opinion, in which the Chancellor concurred, that there was no longer any occasion to disguise the plan of governing by military force, and of violating at pleasure the solemn acts of the legislature. Parliament reassembled on the 9th of November, when Jeffreys took his seat on the Woolsack. The King alone (as had been concerted) addressed the two Houses, and plainly told them that he could rely upon * 11 St. Tr. 381-465. This iniquitous attainder was reversed by act of parlia ment, 1 W. and M. + Steward's Anecdotes, "Jeffries." However, the prosecution of Cornish excited such general horror, that even Sir John Trevor, the Master of the Rolls, vainly remonstrated against it, and told Jeffreys that if he pursued that unfortunate man to execution, it would be no better than murder."-Yorke's Tribes of Wales, 110. "nothing but a good force of well-disciplined troops in constant pay," and that he was determined to employ "officers in the army, not quali. fied by the late tests, for their employments." When the King had withdrawn, Lord Halifax rose, and said, sarcastically, "They had now more reason than ever to give thanks to his Majesty, since he had dealt so plainly with them, and discovered what he would be at." This the Chancellor thought fit to take as a serious motion, and immediately put the question, as proposed by a noble Lord, "that an humble address be presented to his Majesty to thank him for his gracious speech from the throne." No one ventured to offer any remark, and it was immediately carried, nemine dissentiente. The King returned a grave answer to the address, "That he was much satisfied to find their Lordships were so well pleased with what he said, and that he would never offer any thing to their House that he should not be convinced was for the true interest of the kingdom."t But the Lords very soon discovered the false position in which they had placed themselves, and the Bishops were particularly scandalized at the thought that they were supposed to have thanked the King for announcing a principle upon which Papists and Dissenters might be introduced into every civil office, and even into ecclesiastical benefices. Accordingly, Compton, Bishop of London, moved “that a day might be appointed for taking his Majesty's speech into consideration," stating, "that he spoke the united sentiments of the Episcopal bench when he pronounced the test act the chief security of the established Church." This raised a very long and most animated debate, at which King James, to his great mortification, was present. Sunderland, and the popishly inclined ministers, objected to the regularity of the proceeding, urging that, having given thanks for the speech, they must be taken to have already considered it, and precluded themselves from finding fault with any part of it. The Lords Halifax, Nottingham, and Mordaunt, on the other side, treated with scorn the notion that the constitution was to be sacrificed to a point of form, and, entering into the merits of the question, showed that if the power which the Sovereign now, for the first time, had openly claimed were conceded to him, the rights, privileges, and property of the nation lay at his mercy. At last the Lord Chancellor left the Woolsack, and not only bitterly attacked the regularity of the motion after an unanimous vote of thanks to the King for his speech, but gallantly insisted on the legality and expediency of the power of the Sovereign to dispense with laws for the safety and benefit of the state. No Lord Chancellor ever made such an unfortunate exhibition. He assumed the same arrogant and overbearing tone with which he had been accustomed from the bench to browbeat juries, counsel, witnesses, and prisoners, and he launched out into the most indecent personalities against his opponents. He was soon taught to know his place, and that frowns, noise, and menaces would not pass for |