State Trials, Political and Social Volume I Part 13

The Solicitor then notices the main facts of the case in a still more abbreviated form, concluding:

The honour of the pulpit is to be vindicated; and the death of this man will preach much better than his life did; it may be a means to convert many a miserable person, whom the preaching of this person hath seduced; for many come here and say they did it 'in the fear of the Lord'; and now you see who taught them; and I hope you will make an example of this carnal prophet.

The jury after a little consultation found the prisoner Guilty; and he was forthwith sentenced to death in the usual terms.

WILLIAM HULET

William Hulet was arraigned on the 15th of October, and tried on the same day. He challenged no jurors, and refused pen and ink because he could not write; but as he had not well understood the indictment he desired it to be read over again, which was done.

Sir Edward Turner opened the case, alleging that Hulet was on the scaffold, in disguise, on the occasion of the execution, and suggesting that it was he who actually beheaded the King; a fact which he proposed to prove chiefly by Hulet's own admissions.

_Gittens_ was the first witness. He stated that he and Hulet were both serjeants in the same regiment at the time of the execution. A day or two before the King came to the scaffold about thirty-eight of them were sworn to secrecy by Colonel Hewson, and they were all asked whether they would behead the King for a hundred pounds, and a promise of preferment in the army. They all refused. At the time of the execution it seems that part of the regiment was on guard in Scotland Yard, and part in the Banqueting Chamber and on the scaffold. The witness was with the former part, but managed to get near the scaffold before the execution actually happened. 'Hulet (as far as I can guess), when the King came on the scaffold for his execution, and said, Executioner, is the block fast? fell on his knees.'

COUNSEL--Who did?

GITTENS--Hulet, to ask him forgiveness; by his speech I thought it was he. Captain Atkins said, who would not undertake to do this fact? I told him I would not do it for all the city of London; no, nor I neither for all the world, saith Atkins; you shall see Hulet quickly come to preferment; and presently after he was made captain-lieutenant.

COUNSEL--Was he with his regiment that day?

GITTENS--We could not see him with the regiment all that day; he was never absent at any time before.

COUNSEL--Did you know his voice?

GITTENS--Yes, sir. He had a pair of freeze trunk breeches, and a vizor, with a grey beard; and after that time col. Hewson called him 'father grey beard' and most of the army besides, he cannot deny it.

In cross-examination Gittens repeated that he knew Hulet by his voice, and that he was by Captain Webb at the door of the Banqueting House.

_Stammers_ was afterwards in Hewson's troop when Hulet was captain-lieutenant, and marched at his orders to Luttrels-town; there Hulet questioned him as to his previous service, and asked whether he had ever served in the King's army: 'with that he walks about the room two or three turns; saith he, I was the man that beheaded King Charles, and for doing it I had an hundred pounds, saying I was a serjeant at that time.'

Cross-examined, he said that he had been in the troop about a fortnight; and that when he first saw Hulet he pretended that he was brother to one Chambers. Hulet said that his evidence did not agree with that which he had given in his examination at Dublin, and desired that the latter might be read; which was done, and it agreed with the testimony he had just given.

_Toogood_ was in Dublin in 1650, about September; he had some business with Hewson, where he saw Hulet, and observed that he was very familiar.

I asked Hewson what he was, he told me he was his captain-lieutenant of horse; I desired to know where he had him?

he told me he made him so from a serjeant, and a very mettled fellow he was; it was he that did the King's business for him upon the scaffold. In 1653 there was a disbanding of the army in Ireland; this gentleman was then continued captain-lieutenant in Pretty's regiment; I discoursed with Pretty concerning him, and one part of it, I remember, was about the King's death; and he did tell me that he was a.s.sured by col. Hewson that Hulet either cut off the King's head, or held it up, and said, 'Behold the head of a traitor.' Col. Pretty could not tell me which of the two it was; but I saw the person that did it, and methought he did resemble this person.

Twelve months afterwards he came to live near the prisoner in Ireland, and meeting him at the White Horse in Carlow, asked whether he was the man that cut off the King's head or not.

Saith he, Why do you ask me this question? I told him I had heard so by several, namely by Hewson and Pretty; upon that he said, 'Well, what I did, I will not be ashamed of; if it were to do again I would do it.' Once since that time, about half a year afterwards, I was in the same place, and there talking about the King's death, he was telling me it was true, he was one of the two persons that were disguised upon the scaffold. I desired to know what if the King had refused to submit to the block? saith he, there were staples placed about the scaffold, and I had that about me that would have compelled him, or words to that effect; other times I have heard him speak something to this ... I have observed in Ireland, that it hath been generally reported that he was either the man that cut off the King's head or he that held it up, as I said before, and I have heard them sometimes call him Grandsire Greybeard.

_Walter Davis_ had two years before been drinking with Hulet in Dublin, and

said I to Hulet, I pray resolve me this one question; it is reported that you took up the King's head, and said, Behold the head of a traitor; Sir, said he, it is a question I never yet resolved any man, though often demanded; yet, saith he, whosoever said it, it matters not, I say it now; it was the head of a traitor.

_Lieut.-Colonel Nelson_ had asked Colonel Axtell (who had just been tried and condemned) who were the two disguised persons on the scaffold.

He told me I knew the persons as well as himself; saith he, they have been on service with you many a time; pray, sir, said I, let me know their names? Truly, said he, we would not employ persons of low spirits that we did not know, and therefore we pitched upon two stout fellows. Who were those? said I. It was Walker and Hulet, they were both serjeants in Kent when you were there, and stout men. Who gave the blow? said I. Saith he, poor Walker, and Hulet took up the head; Pray, said I, what reward had they? I am not certain whether they had thirty pounds apiece or thirty pounds between them.

_Col. Thompson_ and _Benjamin Francis_ both saw the execution, and said that it was a man disguised in a light wig that cut off the King's head.

Hulet said he could bring thirty or forty witnesses to prove that some one else did the act, and others to prove that he was not there on that day; he also produced a paper of examinations taken before the Lord Mayor, being of Mary Brandon and others. He was reminded that he had been examined in the Tower, and admitted that he was then charged with cutting off the King's head. 'Then,' said the Chief-Baron, 'you had time to provide your witnesses,' to which Hulet replied that he had been a close prisoner since then. He further said that he had been a prisoner, together with six or eight others, on the day of the execution; they were imprisoned because they refused to be on the scaffold. Hulet wished to call Hacker, Huncks, and Phayre, but the Court pointed out that Hacker had already been tried for his life (and condemned), and that Phayre was a prisoner in the Tower. Huncks had been called as a witness against Axtell. Hulet then called a _Sheriff's Officer_, who said that he had been told by one of his fellow-officers

that he was in Rosemary Lane a little while after the execution of the King, drinking with the hangman [_i.e._ George Brandon], that he did urge him whether he did this fact; G.o.d forgive me, saith he, the hangman, I did it, and I had forty half-crowns for my pains.

ABRAHAM SMITH--My Lord, as soon as that fatal blow was given I was walking about Whitehall, down came a file of musketeers; the first word they said was, Where be the bargemen? Answer was made, Here are none; away they directed the hangman in my boat; going into the boat he gave one of the soldiers a half-crown.

Said the soldiers--Waterman, away with him, be gone quickly; but I fearing this hangman had cut off the King's head, I trembled that he should come into my boat, but dared not examine him on sh.o.r.e for fear of the soldiers; so I launched out, and having got a little way in the water, said I, who the devil have I got in my boat? Says my fellow, says he, why? I directed my speech to him, saying, Are you the hangman that cut off the King's head? No, as I am a sinner to G.o.d, saith he, not I; he shook every joint of him; I knew not what to do; I rowed away a little further, and fell to a new examination of him, when I had got him a little further, Tell me true, said I, are you the hangman that cut off the King's head? I cannot carry you, said I; No, said he, I was fetched by a troop of horse, and I was kept a close prisoner at Whitehall, and truly I did not do it; I was kept a close prisoner all the while; but they had my instruments. I said I would sink the boat if he would not tell me true; but he denied it with several protestations.

WILLIAM c.o.x--When my lord Capel, duke of Hamilton, and the Earl of Holland were beheaded in Palace Yard in Westminster,[40] my lord Capel asked the common hangman, saith he, Did you cut off my master's head? Yes, saith he. Where is the instrument that did it? He then brought the ax. This is the same ax. Are you sure? saith my lord. Yes, my lord, saith the hangman, I am very sure it is the same. My lord Capel took the ax, and kissed it, and gave him five pieces of gold. I heard him say, Sirrah, wert thou not afraid? Saith the hangman, they made me cut it off, and I had thirty pounds for my pains.

_Richard Abell_ heard one Gregory confess that he cut off the King's head. The Lord Chief-Baron then asked Hulet whether he wished for any further time to examine into the truth of the matter; but on his saying that he needed a fortnight for the purpose the trial was proceeded with at once.

A STRANGER--My Lord, I was with my master in the company of Brandon the hangman, and my master asked Brandon whether he cut off the King's head or no? He confessed in my presence that he did cut off the King's head.

The Lord Chief-Baron then summed up the case, briefly repeating the substance of the evidence. He pointed out that the evidence went two ways, meaning apparently that Hulet either cut off the King's head, or held it up after it was cut off, and whichever he did, the jury ought to find him Guilty. He concluded by telling them that they were not to consider what was said of the prisoner by another unless it was corroborated by what the prisoner said.

After a more than ordinary time of consideration the jury returned to their places, and found the prisoner Guilty.

Hulet was brought up for sentence on the 16th of October, and sentenced to death in the usual way, with other prisoners. At the same time he was informed that his execution would be delayed in order that the King's pleasure might be known. He was eventually reprieved.[41]

FOOTNOTES:

[26] Sir Orlando Bridgman (1606-1674) was the eldest son of the Bishop of Chester. He entered Queens College, Cambridge, in 1619; became a fellow of Magdalene in 1624, and was called to the bar in 1632. He became Chief-Justice of Chester in 1638, and Solicitor-General to the Prince of Wales in 1640. He sat in the Long Parliament as a Royalist, and in the Oxford Parliament in 1644. He was one of the King's Commissioners at the Uxbridge negotiations in 1644-45. He ceased appearing in court under the Commonwealth, but enjoyed a considerable practice as a conveyancer, at that period a very profitable branch of the profession. At the Restoration he was made a Serjeant, Chief-Baron of the Exchequer, and a Baronet. After this trial he became Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas. On the disgrace of Clarendon he became Lord Keeper in 1667, a position in which he did not add to his fame as a lawyer. According to North, he was both ignorant and weak; 'and what was worst of all, his family were very ill qualified for that place; his lady being a most violent intriguess in business, and his sons kept no good decorum whilst they practised under him.' He avoided the political intrigues of the time; he was kept in ignorance of the Treaty of Dover, and refused to let the Declaration of Indulgence pa.s.s the Great Seal in its original state in 1672. Finally, when Charles declared the Exchequer closed for twelve months he refused to grant an injunction to protect the bankers who were likely to be ruined. He was accordingly removed from office in November 1672, and was succeeded by Lord Shaftesbury.

[27] Sir Robert Foster (1589-1663), the youngest son of a judge of the Common Pleas, was called to the bar in 1610. He supported Charles I.'s most tyrannical proceedings, and became a Justice of the Common Pleas in 1640. He followed Charles to Oxford, and attempted to hold his court there. He was removed from his office by the Parliament, and practised as a conveyancer during the Commonwealth. He was at once restored to his office at the Restoration. After this trial, he was, in the dearth of good lawyers who were also Royalists, made Lord Chief-Justice. He presided at the trial of Sir Harry Vane the younger, who was convicted of treason in compa.s.sing the death of Charles II., his real offence being the part he took against Strafford; and was instrumental in inducing the King to sign his death-warrant in breach of the Act of Indemnity. In other trials of political opponents he acquired the reputation of a partisan judge.

[28] Sir Robert Hide (1595-1665) was cousin to Lord Clarendon. He was called to the bar in 1617, and became Recorder of Salisbury in 1638. He sat as a Royalist in the Long Parliament, and joined the King at Oxford.

He was committed to the Tower in 1645 and 1646, and deprived of his recordership. He was made a Justice of the Common Pleas in 1660, and Lord Chief-Justice on Foster's death, through his cousin's influence. He was celebrated for his trials of seditious printers, and died in court as he was about to begin the trial of one of them.

[29] Sir Thomas Mallet (1582-1665) came of a legal family, and was called to the bar in 1606. He sat in Charles I.'s first two parliaments, and was made a Justice of the King's Bench in 1641. He came into opposition to Parliament by opposing their measures in relation to the Book of Common Prayer and the Militia, and was twice imprisoned by them and fined. He was replaced on the Bench at the Restoration, at the age of seventy-eight, but retired in 1663.

[30] Sir Geoffrey Palmer (1598-1670) was called to the bar in 1623, sat in the Long Parliament, was one of the managers of Strafford's impeachment, but rallied to the King's side on the pa.s.sing of the Act perpetuating Parliament in 1641. He voted against Hampden's motion for printing the remonstrance in November 1641, and was committed to the Tower. He withdrew from the House after the pa.s.sing of the Militia Ordinance, and sat in the Parliament at Oxford. He was one of the King's representatives at the Uxbridge negotiations, 1644-45, and was committed to the Tower in 1655. He became Attorney-General at the Restoration, and so remained till his death.

[31] See vol. ii. p. 5.

[32] Sir John Kelyng was the son of a barrister, and was called to the bar in 1631-32. He practised for a short time in the oppressive Forest Courts, attempted to present some persons at the Hertford Quarter Sessions in 1642, for what he held to be unlawful drilling under the Militia Ordinance, and was in consequence committed to Windsor Castle till 1660. He was released at the Restoration, and was called upon to supply the place of the King's Serjeant, Glanville, at this trial. He was afterwards knighted, and entered Parliament, where he was employed in drafting the Act of Uniformity. As to his connection with the trial of the Bury St. Edmunds witches, see _post_, pp. 226, 229. He took a prominent part in Vane's trial, and was made a puisne judge in 1663. He was appointed to succeed Hyde as Lord Chief-Justice in 1667, after the post had been vacant seven months. He was said to owe his place to corrupt dealings with Clarendon, or to the favour of Lady Castlemaine, but this is doubted by Campbell, who otherwise takes a most unfavourable view of his career. His subsequent conduct on the bench was such that, though he never presided at any trials of great importance, a pet.i.tion against him was considered in the House of Commons, and a Committee reported most unfavourably on his behaviour. He made his peace with the House, but sank into insignificance, and died in 1671, still in office.

[33] See vol. ii. pp. 35, 37.

[34] It does not appear whether any difference was made in Hulet's case.

[35] The Regicides actually tried were Sir Hardress Waller, Colonel Thomas Harrison, William Hevingham, Isaac Pennington, Henry Martin, Gilbert Millington, Robert Tichburne, Owen Roe, Robert Lilburne, Adrian Scroop, John Carew, John Jones, Thomas Scot, Gregory Clement, John Cook, George Fleetwood, Simon Meyn, James Temple, Peter Temple, Thomas Wait, Hugh Peters, Francis Hacker, Daniel Axtell, William Hulet, Henry Smith, Edmund Harvey, John Downes, Vincent Potter, and Augustin Garland. They were all convicted. Of these there were executed--Thomas Harrison, John Carew, John Cook, Thomas Scot, Hugh Peters, Gregory Clement, John Jones, Daniel Axtell, Francis Hacker, Adrian Scroop.

[36] Thomas Harrison (1606-1660) was born in Staffordshire of lowly origin. He is said to have enlisted in Ess.e.x's Life Guard, which was the corps used for the purpose of training officers for the Parliamentary Army, in 1642. In 1644 he was serving in Fleetwood's regiment in Manchester's army. He was present at the battles of Marston Moor and Naseby, and at the captures of Winchester, Basing House, and Oxford. He entered Parliament in 1646, and represented the Army in their quarrels with Parliament. He served with distinction in the second civil war, and was zealous in bringing the King to trial and condemning him to death.

He conducted the pursuit of the Royalists after the battle of Worcester, and, continuing to represent the extreme military party, was a party to Pride's Purge. He was a prominent member of the Barebones Parliament, but after its extinction ceased to exercise any political influence. He refused to recognise the government in 1653, and was deprived of his commission. He was afterwards imprisoned on various occasions on suspicion of a connection with Anabaptist and other plots; but at the Restoration refused to pledge himself not to disturb the government or to save himself by flight. The Fifth-Monarchy men professed to look forward to his resurrection to judge his judges and to restore the Kingdom of Saints.

[37] Sir James Livingstone was descended from the Livingstones of Callendar. He became a Gentleman of the Bedchamber to Charles, and was made Viscount of Newburgh in 1647. The King was to have escaped from his house at Bagshot on the occasion referred to above, on one of his horses, reputed to be the fastest in England, but owing to the horse falling lame, and the strictness of the watch kept on the King, the scheme failed. After the King's execution he fled to the Hague, but returned to Scotland in 1650. He accompanied Charles II. to England in 1651, and after the battle of Worcester fled to France. At the Restoration he was made Captain of the Guard and an earl. In 1666 he, with others, received a licence to dig coal in Windsor Forest. He died in 1670.

[38] The Court included Albemarle, Manchester, and Denzil Hollis.