BEFORE Concluding this work, it will be proper to give some account

of those who were involved with Lord Russell in the accusation of conspiring against the King, and to offer some observations on the reality of the Rye-House plot.

In November, Algernon Sydney was brought to trial. He was much more hardly used than Lord Russell had been; and the trial exhibits a strange and unnatural contrast between the violence, the injustice, and the brutality of the judge; and the calmness, the pointed reasoning, and the heroic fortitude of the prisoner. He was tried by a jury, many of whom were not freeholders. Jeffries, then Chief Justice, said the point had been decided on Lord Russell's trial, although, in that case, the trial had been in the city of London, and this was at the King's Bench. Rumsey and West were the first witnesses against him; and they swore that they knew nothing of the prisoner since the conspiracy began. They had heard that he was one of the council of six; and, what is most curious, West had heard this from Rumsey, and Rumsey had heard it from West. Lord Howard followed, adding many particulars to his former tale; but as he was the only direct witness, the evidence required by law was filled up with a manuscript-book, in Sydney's hand-writing, writtten some years before. Quotations, proving that he approved of the conspiracies against Nero, and against Caligula, were read as proofs of his having compassed the King's death. The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up the evidence, laid it down as law, that if one witness deposed that a man had said he would kill the King with a knife, and

another witness deposed that he had bought a knife, these two would form the two witnesses required by law. It is needless to enter farther into this well-known case; but I cannot help expressing my own sentiment, that there is no murder which history has recorded of Cæsar Borgia, which exceeds in violence, or in fraud, that by which Charles took away the life of the gallant and patriotic Sydney.

The Duke of Monmouth was persuaded, by Lord Halifax, to make his confession. He did this in a letter, in very general terms; but being told that he might hurt Mr. Hampden, and others of his friends, he went to the King, and desired to have it back. The King gave him his letter, but accompanied it with some severe expressions, and forbad him the court. He retired to Holland, where he was treated

by the Prince of Orange with particular respect.

Not even a scrap of old writing could be found to corroborate the evidence of Lord Howard against Hampden; but the crown-lawyers thought proper to try him for a misdemeanour, for which one witness is sufficient. To convert the acts for which Russell and Sydney had been beheaded into a misdemeanour, seems strikingly absurd; but a fine of 40,0001., which was equivalent to imprisonment for life, shows the intention of the Royal brothers. After this sentence, he was confined in different prisons, and all his real and personal property sequestered, till Monmouth's unsuccessful attempt. At that time Lord Grey consented to become a second witness against him; but some of his friends having raised six thousand pounds, which they offered to Jeffries and Mr. Petre, obtained his pardon, on condition that he should plead guilty. * Dalrymple, who was perfectly aware of these facts, mixes them up, as usual, with romance. He attributes it to the unpopularity which Sydney's trial had brought on the government, that Hampden was not at first tried for his life; and he suppresses the fact of 60001. having been given for his pardon, in order to insert the following passage, which is a mixture of odious misrepresentation and affected sentiment:-" In despair he pleaded

* Hampden's Examination before the Lords, 1689.

guilty. It was a sad spectacle to the generous of all parties, to see the grandson of the great Hampden entreating the meanest of mankind to interpose with the King for his life. Satisfied with the humiliation, because it was worse than death, Jeffries obtained his pardon from James."

In 1684, Holloway, who had been sent home, confessed all he knew, refused a trial, and was executed. He hinted, at his death, that had he chosen to discover more than was true, he might have saved his life. His discoveries produced an impression unfavourable to the belief of the plot.

*

This impression was strengthened by the last words of Armstrong, who was taken in Holland, and condemned on a sentence of outlawry. He asked in vain for a trial, on the ground that the year allowed for him to come in was not expired, so that he might have surrendered himself voluntarily some months afterwards. When he asked for the benefit of the law, and said he demanded no more, Jeffries answered, with a savage repartee, "That you shall have, by the grace of God. See that execution be done on Friday next, according to law. You shall have the full benefit of the law."

We come now to the trials in Scotland. By an order in council of October 22. 1683, the King ordered the laird of Cesnock, and his son, the lairds of Rowallan, elder and younger, Crawford of Crawfordland, Fairly of Brunsfield, Alexander Monro of Beaucrofts, Baillie of Jerviswood, Mr. William Carstairs, Hepburn, son to Major Hepburn, and Spence, servant to the Earl of Argyle, to be sent prisoners to Edinburgh, to be tried according to the law of Scotland. This was done, as Wodrow says, because the Scotch law was far more arbitrary than the English.

Sir Hugh Campbell, of Cesnock, was indicted in February, 1684, not for the Rye-House plot, but for harbouring rebels in the rising of Bothwell-Bridge. For the purpose of convicting him, two witnesses were brought, Ingrham and Crawford. When Ingrham was brought in,

and was holding up his hand to swear, Cesnock, addressing him, said, "Take heed now what you are about to do, and damn not your own soul by perjury; for, as I shall answer to God, and upon the peril of my own soul, I am here ready to declare I never saw your never saw your face before this process, nor spoke to you."* This appeal had such an effect on both the witnesses, that they deposed nothing against him; and, notwithstanding the angry endeavours of the judge to draw evidence out of them, the jury would hear no more, and the prisoner was acquitted. The following account of some curious circumstances which occurred during this trial, is thus given by Wodrow :

“As Ingrham was going on in his deposition, one of Cesnock's lawyers asked him, whether he had communicated this to any others, to seduce them thus to depone, and told him, he was now under a deep oath, and nothing less than his soul at stake. Ingrham answered, I believe I have spoken of it to several.' Then the JusticeGeneral asked, if Cesnock spake any other words to Crawford? Ingrham answered, My Lord, I am now upon my great oath; and I declare I do not remember he spake any more at all.'

66

Upon this there was a great shout, and clapping of hands in the court; at which the King's Advocate said, in a great passion, that he believed that Cesnock had hired his friends to make this acclamation, in order to confound the King's evidence; and he never heard of such a Protestant roar, except in the trial of Shaftesbury; that he had always a kindness for that persuasion till now; that he was convinced in his conscience it hugs the most damnable trinket in nature.

"After silence, the Justice-General interrogated Ingrham again; who answered, he had said as much as he could say upon oath; and the Justice-General offering, a third time, to interrogate Ingrham, Nisbet, of Craigentinny, one of the assizers, rose up, and said, My Lord Justice-General, I have been an assizer in this court above twenty times, and never heard a witness interrogated upon the same

* Wodrow.

6

thing more than twice; and let Cesnock's persuasion be what it will, we who are assizers, and are to cognosce upon the probation, upon the peril of our souls, will take notice only to Ingrham's first deposition, though your Lordship should interrogate him twenty times.' The Justice-General answered him, with warmth, Sir, you are not judges in this case.' The laird of Drum, another of the assizers, presently replied, Yes, my Lord, we are (the) only competent judges as to the probation, though not of its relevancy.' Whereupon the whole assizers rose up, and assented to what those said. The Justice-General, in a great heat, said, I never saw such an uproar in this court, nor, I believe, any of my predecessors before me; and it is not us you contemn, but His Majesty's authority.'

6

"Silence being commanded, Crawford, the other witness, was called in, who, being duly sworn, and no objection being made against him, he deponed negative, that he did not see Cesnock for a considerable time, either before or after Bothwell-Bridge; that he does not remember that Cesnock spake any thing to him, either about the West-land army, or who commanded them."

66

Whereupon there was another great cry made, and clapping of hands, which put the Justice-General and Advocate into a great rage, at what they reckoned an irreverent insulting of the Court. Then Cesnock's advocate craved the probation might be remitted to the knowledge of the assize, which could not be refused; and, after a short speech made to them by Cesnock's lawyers, they inclosed themselves, and very soon returned their verdict, Not Guilty.'" Notwithstanding this verdict, the two Campbells were sent back to prison; and being afterwards condemned by the Scotch Parliament, James the Second annexed their lands to the Crown, and confined them as prisoners at the Isle of Bass.*

It is to the honour of Scotland, that no witnesses came forward, voluntarily, to accuse their associates, as had been done in England,

* State Trials, vol. x. p. 974.