Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

1662.

Fifth
Monarchy
Rebellion.
James'
case.

Defence.

"By God and my country," alleging he should be tried by the Law of God alone.

On the 19th November he was brought up for trial.

The counsel for the Crown were Serjeants Maynard, Glynn, Wilde and Kelyng, The Attorney-General Sir Geoffry Palmer, The Solicitor-General Sir Heneage Finch.

After several peremptory challenges on the prisoner's part a jury was sworn.

The Attorney-General opened the case, and after a long speech on the antiquity of monarchy and the virtues of government, alleged that if he proved that the prisoner spoke the words charged in the indictment he was guilty of treason within the Statute 13 Car. II. c. 11.

John Tipler, one of the congregation swore he heard James speak the words alleged in a sermon; that he reported it to a Justice and that thereupon James was arrested.

James cross-examined Tipler as to whether he was sure that he was the person who spoke the words. Tipler declared he was positive.

Chard was called and gave a detailed account of James'

arrest.

Another witness proved that James said the Lord had a great work to do for his people, and they were the people to do it; he would not swear that he heard the other words alleged, nor if James was the man who preached.

Bernard Osborn swore that he heard James speak the words in a sermon that were alleged in the indictment.

James in his defence, denied that he had any malicious intent against the King's person, or that he was actuated by the devil, but what he had done was in the fear of God. He had no idea of worldly advantage, he lived on his means, he had no idea of putting the King to death. He denied using the words alleged. That the land mourned for the innocent blood shed; that though poor and mean he was called forth to testify and declare that the Lord Jesus Christ was King of nations and King of saints, and that the government of kingdoms did of right belong to him; that the seventh angel had sounded, and that there were great voices in heaven saying, "the kingdoms of the world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Church and he shall reign for ever and ever."

The Chief Justice interrupted him asking, Do you think you are in your conventicle in Whitechapel, preaching? and ordered the clerk to read the 13 Car. II. c. 1 to the prisoner; 1 See ante, p. 53.

1662.

Fifth
Monarchy

this being done, the Chief Justice told him to address himself to that. James denied that it reached his case; the Court held it did. On being asked if he had more to add, James added he desired to lay before them that Scripture: "That Rebellion. make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate'."

The Chief Justice told him he was inveighing against the Parliament; James said he had no thought of Parliament, but he wanted the jury to know that if he was guilty of those words there was no law of God to take away a man's life for words.

Serjeant Glynn replied that if the jury were satisfied that the prisoner used the words alleged in his sermon, as had been proved, he was guilty.

Serjeant Maynard and Sir Heneage Finch the SolicitorGeneral also addressed the jury.

James desired to speak again, but this the Court refused; whereupon he said if he could not speak he might as well have been hung at his chapel gate as brought there to cover over the matter with pretence of law.

James'

case.

Defence.

Chief Justice Foster charged the jury; he said the prisoner Summing was one of those who wanted to set the nation in a flame up. again, that no treason was comparable to that treason that was covered with a pretence of religion, that they had heard the evidence, and it was for them to find the matter of fact laid before them.

The jury retired for a quarter of an hour, and then found Convicted. James guilty.

The Attorney-General asked for judgment but the Court refused, saying, that judgment was never given the same day a prisoner was arraigned: accordingly the prisoner was remanded until 22nd November, when he was brought up, and after a theological wrangle with the Court sentenced to die; he was soon afterward executed.

The case is thus reported by Keble:

"John James was indicted and found guilty for compassing and imagining of the King's death and intending his deprivation, manifested by preaching at Whitechapel after the 24th June 1661; viz. 18th October affirming of the King and his nobles that the King was a blood-thirsty and tyrannical King, and so of the nobles, and that the cup of their iniquity was almost filled with the blood of the saints a year ago, but the putting of the Covenanters to death in Scotland had (to fit them for destruction) filled it fuller, and he was sorry he had 1 Isaiah xxix. v. 21.

Sentence

Keble.

1662.

Fifth
Monarchy
Rebellion.
James'

case.

King's message.

neglected his opportunity of fighting the Lord's battles, but hoped if ever he had it again he should consider it more fully. Serjeant Kelyng opened the indictment; the Court on his desire refused to allow any friend to take notes for him. Mr Attorney-General further observed that the intent and imagination was the prisoner's treason, the preaching an evidence of it, which was the law before any statute made in the world, as ancient as monarchy itself; but the uncertainty is bounded by the Statute 25 Edward III. which is only declaratory of the common law; for the case of the subject bare words at common law being treason, there is more than that, preaching is an overt act, at least by Statute 13 Car. II. c. 1, of preserving the King's person, that he endeavoured not only to overthrow the King but monarchy (that divine rule from all antiquity) in the land. After the evidences that swore the words practically, the prisoner objected against the testimony, the Court summed up the evidence, and verdict pro rege!"

Although as reported there is little to object to in James' trial, as the question was really one not of law but of fact, did the prisoner speak the words alleged in his sermon, for if he did, under the act of Charles, he was clearly guilty. Yet the Attorney-General's speech, as given by Keble, states some law of most questionable authority. Sir Geoffry Palmer is there said to have laid down that words were treason at common law. This is directly opposed to the resolution of the Judges in Pine's case, where it was laid down by all the Judges that except by Statute words were not treason. The point does not really arise in this case, as the Act of 13 Car. II. c. 1 makes words such as these treason. seems to have been prejudiced by the terror of the government and the fear of the court from the Fifth Monarchy rising; but there is nothing in his trial even as reported by James' friends to which objection can be taken in point of law. The prisoner had clearly no right to address the Court after the reply. prisoner's religious views doubtless prejudiced the Court against him, and led to the Chief Justice summing up strongly for a conviction.

James

The

The government were still alarmed at the state of the nation. On the 19th December 1661, Lord Clarendon stated in the House of Lords, "That he had a message to deliver from the King which was to let them know that, besides the apprehension, and fears that are generally abroad, his Majesty hath received letters from several parts of his kingdom, and 1 1 Keble. 2 See Vol. 1. p. 439.

Fifth

Rebellion.

also by intercepted letters it doth appear that divers discon- 1662. tented persons are endeavouring to raise new troubles to the disturbance of the peace of the kingdom as in many particulars Monarchy was instanced, which matters being of so great consequence, his Majesty's desire is that the House of Commons may be made acquainted with it, so that his Majesty may receive the advice and counsel of both Houses of Parliament what is fit to be done herein, and to think of some proper remedy to secure the peace of the kingdom."

That some

A joint committee of both Houses was accordingly appointed, and from the report it appears that they found in the possession of one Salmon a list of 160 officers of the late army; that there was to have been a meeting in London on the 10th December; that by the end of January the conspirators intended to secure Shrewsbury, Coventry, and Bristol, to rise in several places at once, to begin by assassination. of the King's Judges were entertained in France, Holland, and Germany, and held constant correspondence with them, they were fomented by foreign princes; that many arms were collected. That under pretence of being Quakers, a great number of persons had assembled at Huntingdon, and rode about in great multitudes by night. That the Duke of Albemarle had put troops into Shrewsbury and into Coventry to preserve order. That a report was spread that the King's real design in appointing a committee was only an excuse to keep up an army, but that was not so, as a real danger existed. That twenty-one persons were the chief managers of the plot; who met in Bow Street, St Martin's-le-Grand, Millbank, and other places; there were seven different interests represented, three for the Commonwealth, three for the Long Parliament, three for the City, three for the Puritans, three for the disbanded army, three for the Independents, three for the Fifth Monarchy men; their first business was how to select proper members of Parliament, especially for the City of London, then to frame a petition to Parliament for a preaching security and liberty of conscience, to divide into sub-committees so as to carry on the work all over the kingdom. That James Harrington was their chairman; that they had taken an oath of secrecy, and that they had concerted measures for raising men and levying money. Harrington was arrested and sent to the Tower, and while there examined by Lord Lauderdale, Sir George Carteret and Sir Edward Walker, but nothing was learnt on his examination.

Government however determined to keep up certain regi

Report of

joint com

mittee.

1662.

Fifth
Monarchy
Rebellion.

Sir Henry
Vane's case.

ments, and the Guards, as they were called, were selected on Monk's advice he answering for their loyalty. It is said that the regiments were so chosen that all the privates knew their drill as officers, and could at any moment take the command of a number of men, so that a nucleus was obtained for an indefinite expansion of the army.

It was probably owing to this growing discontent that Lord Clarendon had recourse to those violent measures that were afterwards charged against him; he no doubt kept in distant fortresses and in close confinement some of the republicar leaders, such as Lambert and those he considered too dangerous to be at large; it is equally certain he was desirous of keeping a body of troops sufficient to prevent any danger from a rising of the various discontented elements in the country. It is the fashion to say that this was part of the arbitrary government of Charles and his ministers, and intended to reduce the nation to slavery. Arbitrary it certainly was, and the legality of some of the acts are more than questionable; but in judging of them what is too often forgotten should be borne in mind, that much of the loyalty was only on the surface, that the throne of Charles was really insecure. This feeling of insecurity more than anything else led to the trial of Sir Henry Vane.

Sir Henry Vane's Case.

The outbreak of the Fifth Monarchy men made it incumbent on the government to deal with those state criminals who were confined for the part they had taken in the late troubles. Of these the most important were Vane and Lambert. By the Act of Indemnity' they were excepted by name from its benefit. Both Houses of Parliament presented the following petition to Charles as to them.

"The petition of both Houses of Parliament to the King's most excellent Majesty on behalf of Sir Henry Vane and Col. John Lambert, after they had left them incapable of having any benefit of the Act of Indemnity.

To the King's most excellent Majesty.

The humble petition of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament sheweth,

That your Majesty having declared your gracious pleasure to proceed only against the immediate murderers of your royal Father, we your Majesty's most humble subjects the Lords and

1 12 Car. II. c. 11, sec. 42. See ante, p. 35.

« ZurückWeiter »