State Trials, Political and Social Volume I Part 10

Here the Court stood up, as a.s.senting to what the President said.

KING--Will you hear me a word, Sir?

LORD PRESIDENT--Sir, you are not to be heard after the Sentence.

KING--No, Sir?

LORD PRESIDENT--No, Sir; by your favour, Sir. Guard, withdraw your Prisoner.

KING--I may speak after the Sentence--By your Favour, Sir, I may Speak after the Sentence ever.

By your Favour (Hold!) the Sentence, Sir----

I say, Sir, I do----

I am not suffered for to speak: Expect what Justice other People will have.

O yes: All manner of Persons that have any thing else to do, are to depart at this time, and to give their attendance in the Painted Chamber; to which place this Court doth forthwith adjourn itself.

Then the Court rose, and the King went with his guard to sir Robert Cotton's, and from thence to Whitehall.

FOOTNOTES:

[20] John Bradshaw (1602-1659) was the son of a Cheshire gentleman.

Called to the bar in 1627, he practised at Congleton till about 1643, when he became judge of the Sheriff's Court in London, and was enjoying, according to Campbell, 'a considerable but obscure practice'; had, according to Clarendon, 'a good practice in his chamber, and [was] much employed by the fractious'; and became, according to Milton, 'a profound lawyer, an eloquent advocate.' He defended Lilburne successfully in 1645. He was made President of the High Court for the purpose of this trial, after the position had been declined by Whitelock, Rolle, St.

John, and Wilde. After this trial he presided at the trials of the Duke of Hamilton following on the Battle of Worcester; and Holland, Norwich, Capel, and Owen after the siege of Colchester. Later on he vigorously opposed Cromwell, and accepted a seat in Richard Cromwell's Council of State. He became a Commissioner of the Great Seal in 1659, and died in October of that year. His body was exhumed at the Restoration with those of Cromwell and others, hung at Tyburn, and buried under the gallows.

According to a legend perpetuated by an inscription on a cannon, his body was taken to Annapolis and buried there. A panegyric was written on him by Milton.

[21] John Cook acted with Bradshaw as one of the counsel defending Lilburne in 1646. After the trial, of a scurrilous account of which he was probably the author, he was made Master of the hospital of St.

Cross, and afterwards held various judicial posts in Ireland. On the Restoration he was tried and executed with the other regicides.

[22] See _post_, p. 150.

[23] 'This is as the king expressed it; but I suppose he meant Answer.'--Former Edition.

[24] Clement Walker says: 'Whether these breaches and interruptions were made by Bradshaw, or are omissions and expunctions of some material parts of the king's speech, which this licensed penman durst not set down, I know not. I hear much of the king's argument is omitted, and much depraved, none but licensed men being suffered to take notes.'

[25] See p. 150.

THE REGICIDES

Before Charles II. left Breda to return to England as King; he published a proclamation dated 4-14th April 1660, in which he promised among other things a general pardon for all crimes, to everybody who made submission to the new order of things within forty days, 'excepting only such persons as shall hereafter be excepted by Parliament.' Accordingly, on the 8th of July 1661, the matter was discussed in the Parliament which recalled the King, and a list of excepted persons was drawn up. The House of Lords, as was natural, showed a greater desire for severity than the House of Commons, which gave Charles an opportunity, of which he was not slow to avail himself, of appearing before the House of Lords as an advocate for leniency. The result was that the Act of Oblivion was pa.s.sed by the newly elected Parliament on 11th July 1661. The Act, which deserves careful study for various reasons, begins by pardoning all crimes committed between 1st January 1637 and 24th January 1660. There then follow exceptions. These include murders not committed under the authority of the King or Parliament, double marriages, witchcraft, and 'any theft or stealing of any goods, or other felonies' committed since 4th March 1659. But the more important exceptions are contained in three sections, by one of which various persons are excluded from the benefit of the Act, while by the other two some of them are not to be executed without the authority of an Act of Parliament. It is obvious that, as is pointed out by Bridgman in Tichburne's trial, these sections did not affect the functions of the jury in the trials of any of the named persons. Marten, who was in the second category of exceptions, condescended to attempt to defend himself on the ground that his name was Harry Marten, and the name in the Act was Henry Martin; and Cook took a still more technical point of defence on the same subject. In the result the King's conduct in the matter seems generally to have been regarded as lenient, and indeed his character seems to be free from the reproach of cruelty or a desire for vengeance. It is interesting to observe that there was a question of including Milton in the list of excepted persons. He was not, however, so included, and as he would otherwise have been subjected to a long term of imprisonment, we must, if we agree with Lord Campbell in attributing to Hale any credit for the composition of _The Pilgrim's Progress_, consider that Charles missed a chance of contributing to the writing of _Paradise Lost_.

As a preliminary to the trial a meeting was held to settle certain points of law which it was foreseen would arise. This was attended by all the judges then in office, namely, Sir Orlando Bridgman, Chief-Baron of the Exchequer;[26] Justices Foster[27] and Hide of the Common Pleas;[28] Justice Mallet[29] of the King's Bench; together with Sir Geoffry Palmer,[30] the King's Attorney; Sir Heneage Finch,[31] the King's Solicitor; Sir Edward Turner, Attorney to the Duke of York; Mr.

Wadham Windham, of Lincoln's Inn; and Mr. Kelyng,[32] the reporter. It was there resolved to try the prisoners at Newgate by commission of Gaol Delivery, rather than by a special commission of Oyer and Terminer, so as to proceed with the trial at once; that all the prisoners should be arraigned the first day; that the King's counsel might privately manage the evidence before the Grand Jury (the practice of allowing any advocates to appear before the Grand Jury has long fallen into disuse); that the murder of the King should be precisely laid in the indictment, and be made use of as one of the overt acts to prove the compa.s.sing of his death; that any act tending to the compa.s.sing of the King's death besides the one laid in the indictment might be given in evidence; that the two witnesses required in treason need not speak to the same overt act;[33] that the fact that a juror had already found another prisoner guilty on the same indictment was no good ground for a challenge; that the prisoners should not be tried in irons; that the murder of the King should be stated to have been committed by _quidam ignotus_, with a visor on his face;[34] that the compa.s.sing of the King's death should be laid to have been committed on the 29th Jan. 24 Car. I., and the murder itself on _tricesimo mensis ejusdem Januarii_, without naming any year of any king; and that the indictment should conclude '_contra pacem nuper domini regis coron' et dignitat' suas_,' etc.; and other technical matters were settled in the same way. The indictment was in Latin, being preferred after Michaelmas, until which time English was allowed by the Convention which was sitting when the King was restored.

The trials began on the 9th of October 1660, at Hick's Hall in the County of Middles.e.x, when the Grand Jury were charged by the Lord Chief-Baron Bridgman. True bills were found against thirty-one persons,[35] a true bill being found against Hulet on the 12th.

On the next day Thomas Harrison[36] was put up to plead.

CLERK--Thomas Harrison, How sayest thou? Art thou Guilty of the treason whereof thou standest indicted, and art now arraigned?

Or not Guilty?

HARRISON--My Lords, have I liberty to speak?

COURT--No more (at this time) than Guilty or Not Guilty. Mr.

Harrison, you have heard the direction before. We can but give you the same rule. If you plead Guilty you shall be heard at large; if Not Guilty, you know what remains.

HARRISON--Will you give me leave to give you my answer in my own words?

LORD CHIEF-BARON--There is no answer but what the law directs; it is the same with you as with all others, or as I would desire if I was in your condition. You must plead Not Guilty, or if you confess Guilty, there must be judgment on your confession.

HARRISON--You express your rule very fair, as well to me as to this gentleman (pointing to sir H. Waller, who had just pleaded guilty); but I have something to say, which concerns your Lordships as well as myself.

COURT--You must hold, and plead Guilty or Not Guilty.

HARRISON--My Lord, I have been kept close prisoner near these three months, that n.o.body might have access to me. Do you call me to give you a legal answer, not knowing of my trial till nine of the clock last night, and brought away from the Tower to this place at six of the clock this morning?

COURT--You must give your direct answer, Guilty, or Not Guilty.

You cannot say it is sudden or unprovided. You spend your time in vain. You trouble the Court. You must plead Guilty, or Not Guilty. We must not suffer you to make discourses here. You must plead either Guilty or Not Guilty.

CLERK--Are you Guilty, or Not Guilty?

After objecting to plead in this way for a little more time, Harrison was at last persuaded to plead Not Guilty. He then objected to complete the usual formula by saying that he would be tried by G.o.d and his Country, saying that they were vain words; but eventually--

HARRISON--I do offer myself to be tried in your own way by G.o.d and my Country.

CLERK--G.o.d send you a good deliverance.

On the next day, the 11th, at seven o'clock in the morning, Harrison's trial began by the calling of the jury, of whom Harrison challenged thirty-five, his maximum number.

The case was then opened by Finch, the Solicitor-General, who, after explaining the law of treason by quotations from the Bible and c.o.ke, charged the prisoner more particularly with having brought the King up to London; with having signed the warrant const.i.tuting the Court which tried him; with having sat as a member of the Court; and with having signed the death-warrant.

All the witnesses were then sworn, six in all.

_Masterson_ proved that he saw Harrison sitting 'in that which they called the High Court of Justice' on the 27th of January 1649, the day when the King was sentenced; and that when the sentence was read he, with others, stood up as a.s.senting to it. _Clark_, _Kirk_, and _Nutley_ also gave evidence to the same effect; the latter adding that some few days before the 20th there was a Committee in the Exchequer Chamber of which the prisoner was a member.

I do remember well it was in the evening; they were lighting of candles, they were somewhat private. This gentleman was there, I saw him; for through the kindness of Mr. Phelps, who was then Clerk to that Committee, I was admitted, pretending first to speak with the said Mr. Phelps, and that I had some business with him; and so (as I said before) I was admitted into the Committee Chamber. Being there I did observe some pa.s.sages fall from the prisoner at the bar; the words were to this purpose; he was making a narrative of some discourse that pa.s.sed between his late majesty and himself in coming between Windsor and London, or Hurst Castle, I know not well which. My Lord, that pa.s.sage that I observed to fall from him in that discourse was this; he said that the King as he sat in the coach with him was importunate to know what they intended to do with him. The King asked, What do they intend to do with me; Whether to murder me or no? 'and I said to him, There was no such intent on as to kill him, we have no such thoughts.' But (said he) the Lord has reserved you for a public example of justice. There is one word more, my Lords, and that is this, which I heard from the prisoner at the bar. The reason and end of their meeting together at that Committee was concerning the charge. So much I observed. It was concerning the contracting of the impeachment.

I observed that some found fault with the length of that as it was drawn. They were offering some reasons to contract it, and I heard this prisoner at the bar vent this expression; 'Gentlemen, it will be good for us to blacken him what we can; pray let us blacken him,' or words to that purpose. I am sure 'blacken' was his word.

_Lord Newburgh_,[37] when he was living at Bagshot, saw Harrison conducting the King in custody from Hurst Castle to London. The two warrants, one for the trial, the other for the execution of the King, were produced, and Harrison's signatures to them were proved to be in his handwriting. The Court pointed out that they were not produced as records, but as evidence of overt acts of const.i.tuting a compa.s.sing of the King's death on his part.

HARRISON--I do not come to be denying anything that in my own judgment and conscience I have done or committed, but rather to be bringing it forth to the light.