« ПредишнаНапред »
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: wastreated by the ‘Prince of Orange with’ particulan respect;
Not even a scrap of old could. be found to corroborate the evidence of Lord Howard against Hampden ;' but the crown. lawyers thought proper to try him for a‘ misdemeanor, for which one witness is sufiicient. To convert the acts for which Russell and Sydney had been beheaded into a misdemeanor, seems strikingly absurd; but a fine of. 40,000 1., which was equivalent to imprisonment for life, shows the intention of the Royal brothers. After this sentence, he was: confined in. diflbrent prisons, and all his real and personal: property sequestiered, 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 J efi'ries 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 6000 1. having been given for his pardon, in order to insertthe following passage, which is a mixture of odious misrepresentation and afl‘ected sentiment :—“ In despair he pleaded 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, J efl'ries obtained ‘his pardon from James.”
* Hampdeu’as Examination before the Lords, 1689.
, 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 be chosen to discover more than was true, he might ‘have saved his life. His discoveries [produced an impression unfavourable to the belief oftheplot. *
This ‘impression was strengthened :by the last words of Armstrong, who was taken in Holland,
and condemned on a sentenceofoutlawry. He
asked ‘in vain for a trial, on ‘the ground that the year allowed for him to come in was not ,expired, so that ‘heimight havesurrendered himself voluntarily some months‘afterwards. When 'he
‘ asked for the ‘benefit of ‘the ‘law, and said he de
the peril of my own soul, I am here ready to declare I 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 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 J usticeGeneral 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.’ uz3.. _ “ 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 acclamatiorrnin 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 3 that he was convinced in his conscience it hugs the most damnable trinket in nature.
“ After silence, the Justice-General interroa gated Ingrham again; who answered, he had said as much as he could say upon oath: and the Justice-General ofl'ering, 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 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 anwered him, with warmth, ‘ Sir, you are not judges in this case.’ The laird of Drum, another of the assizers, presently replied,