Bailey,[28] before Mr. Baron Weston, for the publication of a libel, in
which many circumstances were related for the purpose of inducing a
belief that Prance, when a prisoner in Newgate, had been tortured there,
and he was produced to prove the falsehood of the publication. The
learned judge in summing up the evidence to the jury said, “But you must
first know the laws of the land do not admit a torture, and since Queen
Elizabeth’s time there hath been nothing of that kind ever done. The
truth is indeed, in the twentieth year of her reign, Campion was just
stretched upon the rack, but yet not so but he could walk; but when she
was told it was against the law of the land to have any of her subjects
racked (though that was an extraordinary case, a world of seminaries
being sent over to contrive her death, and she lived in continual
danger) yet it was never done after to any one, neither in her reign,
who reigned twenty-five years, nor in king James’s reign, who reigned
twenty-two years after, nor in king Charles the first’s reign, who
reigned twenty-four years after; and GOD in Heaven knows there hath been
no such thing offered in this king’s reign; for I think we may say we
have lived under as lawful and merciful a government as any people
whatsoever, and have as little blood shed, and sanguinary executions as
any nation under heaven.”
The learned judge may have been mistaken when stating Campion to be the
last person racked, for in Murden’s state papers, one Atslow, as before
observed, is mentioned to have been tortured four years afterwards. Mr.
Baron Weston states that upon a suggestion made to Queen Elizabeth of
the illegality of the practice, it was discontinued in her reign, and
thus we may account for Campion being racked with so little severity, as
to be able to walk afterwards, and to manage the conferences with
protestant doctors during his confinement in prison.
In the Jurisprudence of the Romans the deceitful and dangerous
experiment of the criminal _quæstion_, as it is emphatically styled, was
admitted, rather than approved. The Roman government applied this
sanguinary mode of examination only to servile bodies, whose sufferings
were seldom weighed by those haughty Republicans in the scale of justice
or humanity; but they would never consent to violate the sacred person
of a citizen, till they possessed the clearest evidence of his
guilt.[29] The annals of tyranny, from the reign of Tiberius to that of
Domitian, circumstantially relate the executions of many innocent
victims; but as long as the faintest remembrance was kept alive of the
national freedom and honour, the last hours of a Roman were secure from
the danger of ignominious torture. The conduct of the provincial
magistrates was not, however, regulated by the practice of the city, or
the strict maxims of the Civilians. They found the use of torture
established not only among the slaves of oriental despotism, but among
the Macedonians, who obeyed a limited monarch; among the Rhodians, who
flourished by the liberty of commerce; and even among the sage
Athenians, who had asserted and adorned the dignity of human nature.[30]
The acquiescence of the people in the provinces encouraged their
governors to acquire or perhaps to usurp, a discretionary power of
employing the Rack, to extort from vagrants or plebeian criminals the
confession of their guilt, till they insensibly proceeded to confound
the distinctions of rank, and to disregard the privileges of Roman
citizens. The apprehensions of the subjects urged them to solicit, and
the interest of the Sovereign engaged him to grant, a variety of special
exemptions, which tacitly allowed, and even authorized, the general use
of torture. They protected all persons of illustrious or honourable
rank, bishops and their presbyters, professors of the liberal arts,
soldiers and their families, municipal officers, and their posterity to
the third generation, and all children under the age of puberty. But a
fatal maxim was introduced into the new jurisprudence of the Empire,
that in the case of treason, which included every offence that the
subtlety of lawyers could derive from an _hostile intention_ towards the
prince or republic, all privileges were suspended and all conditions
were reduced to the same ignominious level. As the safety of the Emperor
was avowedly preferred to every consideration of justice or humanity,
the dignity of age, and the tenderness of youth were alike exposed to
the most cruel tortures; and the terrors of a malicious information,
which might select them as the accomplices, or even as the witnesses,
perhaps, of an imaginary crime, perpetually hung over the heads of the
principal citizens of the Roman world.[31]
Footnote 17:
_Vide_ Serjeant Heywood’s Vindication of Mr. Fox’s History of James
the Second, p. 397.
Footnote 18:
Fuller’s Worthies, p. 317.
Footnote 19:
There is a small book, printed in black letter, containing an account
of the treatment and trial of Anne Askew, which contains many curious
particulars.—She was the daughter of Sir William Askew, of Kelsay, in
the county of Lincoln, where she was born about 1520. She had a
learned education, and while young was married to a person of the name
of Kyme, much against her inclination. On account of some harsh
treatment from her husband, she went to the Court of Henry the Eighth
to sue for a separation, where she was greatly taken notice of by
those ladies who were attached to the Reformation; in consequence of
which, she was arrested, and having confessed her religious
principles, was committed to Newgate. She was first racked with savage
cruelty in the Tower, and then burnt in Smithfield, in 1546, in
company with her tutor, and two other persons of the same faith. From
her letters and other pieces in Fox and Strype, it appears she was an
accomplished, as well as a pious, woman.
Footnote 20:
Burnet’s Reformation, vol. 1. p. 325; vol. 2. p. 382.
Footnote 21:
Collier’s Eccl. Hist. vol. 2. p. 591.—Murden’s State Papers, p. 9,
101.
Footnote 22:
Collier’s Eccl. Hist. vol. 2. p. 139.—Murden’s State Papers, p. 452.
Footnote 23:
Observations on Ancient Statutes, p. 496, _note_.
Footnote 24:
State Trials, vol. 1. p. 199.
Footnote 25:
Observations on Statutes, p. 495.
Footnote 26:
State Trials, vol. 1. p. 221.
Footnote 27:
Observations on Statutes, p. 92.
Footnote 28:
State Trials, vol. 3. p. 99.
Footnote 29:
The Pandects (1. xlviii. tit. xviii.) contain the sentiments of the
most celebrated civilians on the subject of torture. They strictly
confine it to slaves.
Footnote 30:
The Citizens of Athens could not be put to the rack, unless it was for
high treason. The torture was used within thirty days after
condemnation. There was no preparatory torture. In regard to the
Romans, the third and fourth law _de Majestate_, by Julius Cæsar,
shews that birth, dignity, and the military profession exempted people
from the rack, except in cases of high treason.—_Montesquieu’s Spirit
of Laws_, vol. 1. p. 132.
Footnote 31:
Archadius Charisius is the oldest lawyer quoted in the Pandects to
justify the universal practice of torture in all cases of treason; but
this maxim of tyranny, which is admitted by Ammianus with the most
respectful terror, is enforced by several laws of the successors of
Constantine.—_Gibbon’s Rom. Hist._ vol. 3. p. 81.
DR. JOHNSON’S CONVERSATION WITH THE LATE KING.
In February, 1767, there happened one of the most remarkable incidents
of Johnson’s life, which gratified his monarchical enthusiasm, and which
he loved to relate with all its circumstances, when requested by his
friends. This was his being honoured by a private conversation with his
late Majesty, in the Library at the Queen’s house. He had frequently
visited those splendid rooms, and noble collection of books, which he
used to say was more numerous and curious than he supposed any person
could have made in the time which the king had employed. Mr. Barnard the
Librarian, took care that he should have every accommodation that could
contribute to his ease and convenience, while indulging his literary
taste in that place, so that he had here a very agreeable resource at
leisure hours.
His Majesty having been informed of his occasional visits, was pleased
to signify a desire that he should be told when Dr. Johnson came next to
the library. Accordingly the next time that Johnson did come, as soon as
he was fairly engaged with a book, on which, while he sat by the fire he
seemed quite intent, Mr. Barnard stole round to the apartment where the
king was, and, in obedience to his Majesty’s commands, mentioned that
Dr. Johnson was then in the library. His Majesty said he was at leisure
and would go to him; upon which Mr. Barnard took one of the candles that
stood on the king’s table, and lighted his Majesty through a suite of
rooms till they came to a private door into the library, of which his
Majesty had the key. Being entered, Mr. Barnard stepped forward hastily
to Dr. Johnson, who was still in a profound study, and whispered him,
“Sir, here is the king.” Johnson started up, and stood still. His
Majesty approached him, and at once was courteously easy.
His Majesty began by observing, that he understood he came sometimes to
the library; and then mentioned his having heard that the Doctor had
been lately at Oxford, asked him if he was not fond of going thither. To
which Johnson answered, that he was indeed fond of going to Oxford
sometimes, but was likewise glad to come back again. The king then asked
him what they were doing at Oxford. Johnson answered he could not much
commend their diligence, but that in some respects they were mended, for
they had put their press under better regulations, and were at that time
printing Polybius. He was then asked whether there were better libraries
at Oxford or Cambridge; he answered, he believed the Bodleian was larger
than any they had at Cambridge; at the same time adding, “I hope whether
we have more books or not than they have at Cambridge, we shall make as
good use of them as they do.” Being asked whether All-Souls or Christ
Church library was the largest, he answered, “All-Souls library is the
largest we have except the Bodleian.” “Aye, (said the king) that is the
public library.”
His Majesty enquired if he was then writing any thing, he answered, he
was not, for he had pretty well told the world what he knew, and must
now read to acquire more knowledge. The king as it should seem with a
view to urge him to rely on his own stores as an original writer, and to
continue his labours, then said, “I do not think you borrow much from
any body.” Johnson said he thought he had already done his part as a
writer. “I should have thought so too,” said the king, “if you had not
written so well.”—Johnson observed to me, says Boswell, that “No man
could have paid a handsomer compliment; and it was fit for a king to
pay. It was decisive.” When asked by another friend at Sir Joshua
Reynolds’s, whether he made any reply to this high compliment, he
answered, “No, Sir. When the king had said it, it was to be so. It was
not for me to bandy civilities with my Sovereign.” Perhaps no man who
had spent his whole life in courts could have shewn a more nice and
dignified sense of true politeness than Johnson did in this instance.
“His Majesty having observed to him, that he supposed he must have read
a great deal, Johnson answered, that he thought more than he read; that
he had read a great deal in the early part of his life, but having
fallen into ill health, he had not been able to read much compared with
others; for instance he said he had not read much, compared with Dr.
Warburton. Upon which the king said, that he heard Dr. Warburton was a
man of such general knowledge, that you could scarce talk with him on
any subject on which he was not qualified to speak, and that his
learning resembled Garrick’s acting in its universality. The king
observed that Pope made Warburton a bishop; ‘True, Sir,’ said Johnson,
‘but Warburton did more for Pope, he made him a Christian;’ alluding no
doubt, to his ingenious comments on the ‘Essay on Man.’ His Majesty then
talked of the controversy between Warburton and Lowth, which he seemed
to have read, and asked Johnson what he thought of it. Johnson answered,
‘Warburton has most general, most scholastic learning; Lowth is the more
correct scholar. I do not know which of them calls names best.’ The king
was pleased to say he was of the same opinion; adding, ‘You do not think
then, Dr. Johnson, that there was much argument in the case.’ Johnson
said he did not think there was. ‘Why, truly,’ said the king, ‘when once
it comes to calling names, argument is pretty well at an end.’“
His Majesty then asked him what he thought of Lord Lyttelton’s history,
which was just then published. Johnson said, he thought his style pretty
good, but that he had blamed Henry the Second rather too much. “Why,
said the king, they seldom do these things by halves.” “No, Sir,
answered Johnson, not to kings.” But fearing to be misunderstood, he
proceeded to explain himself, and immediately subjoined, “That for those
who spoke worse of kings than they deserved, he could find no excuse;
but that he could more easily conceive how some might speak better of
them than they deserved, without any ill intention; for, as kings had
much in their power to give, those who were favoured by them would
frequently, from gratitude, exaggerate their praises; and as this
proceeded from a good motive, it was certainty excusable, as far as
error could be excusable.”
The king then asked him what he thought of Dr. Hill. Johnson answered,
that he was an ingenious man, but had no veracity; and immediately
mentioned, as an instance of it, an assertion of that writer, that he
had seen objects magnified to a much greater degree by using three or
four microscopes at a time than by using one. “Now,” added Johnson,
“every one acquainted with microscopes knows, that the more of them he
looks through, the less the object will appear.” “Why,” replied the
king, “this is not only telling an untruth, but telling it clumsily;
for, if that be the case, every one who can look through a microscope
will be able to detect him.”
I now, (said Johnson to his friends, when relating what had passed)
began to consider that I was depreciating this man in the estimation of
his Sovereign, and thought it was time for me to say something that
might be more favourable. He added, therefore, that Dr. Hill was,
notwithstanding, a very curious observer; and if he would have been
contented to tell the world no more than he knew, he might have been a
very considerable man, and needed not to have recourse to such mean
expedients to raise his reputation.
The king then talked of Literary Journals, mentioned particularly the
_Journal des Savans_, and asked Johnson if it was well done. Johnson
said it was formerly very well done, and gave some account of the
persons who began it, and carried it on for some years; enlarging at the
same time, on the nature and use of such works. The king asked him if it
was well done now. Johnson answered, he had no reason to think that it
was. The king then asked him if there were any other Literary Journals
published in this kingdom, except the Monthly and Critical Reviews; and
on being answered there were no other, his Majesty asked which of them
was the best; Johnson answered, that the Monthly Review was done with
most care, the Critical upon the best principles; adding that the
authors of the Monthly Review were enemies to the church. This the king
said he was sorry to hear.
The conversation next turned on the Philosophical Transactions, when
Johnson observed that they had now a better method of arranging their
materials than formerly. “Aye, said the king, they are obliged to Dr.
Johnson for that”; for his Majesty had heard and remembered the
circumstance, which Johnson himself had forgot.
His Majesty expressed a desire to have the literary biography of this
country ably executed, and proposed to Dr. Johnson to undertake it.
Johnson signified his readiness to comply with his Majesty’s wishes.
During the whole of this interview, Johnson talked to his Majesty with
profound respect, but still in his firm manly manner, with a sonorous
voice, and never in that subdued tone which is commonly used at the
levee and in the drawing-room. After the king withdrew, Johnson shewed
himself highly pleased with his Majesty’s conversation, and gracious
behaviour. He said to Mr. Barnard, “Sir, they may talk of the king as
they will; but he is the finest gentleman I have ever seen.” And he
afterwards observed to Mr. Langton, “Sir, his manners are those of as
fine a gentleman as we may suppose Lewis the fourteenth, or Charles the
second.”
DR. BEATTIE’S CONVERSATION WITH THE LATE KING AND QUEEN.
Dr. Beattie had been informed by Dr. Majendie, who lived at Kew, and was
often at the palace, that the king having asked some questions of the
doctor respecting him, and being told that he sometimes visited Dr.
Majendie there, his Majesty had desired to be informed the next time Dr.
Beattie was to be at Kew. What his Majesty’s intentions were, Dr.
Majendie said he did not know; but supposed the king intended to admit
him to a private audience. A day was therefore fixed, on which Dr.
Beattie was to be at Dr. Majendie’s house early in the morning, of which
the Doctor was to give notice to his Majesty. Of this interesting event,
so honourable to Dr. Beattie, I shall transcribe in his own words, says
Sir William Forbes, the account he has given in his diary:—
“Tuesday, 24th August, (1773) set out for Dr. Majendie’s at Kew Green.
The Doctor told me that he had not seen the king yesterday, but had left
a note in writing, to intimate, that I was to be at his house to-day;
and that one of the king’s pages had come to him this morning, to say,
‘that his Majesty would see me a little after twelve.’ At twelve, the
Doctor and I went to the king’s house at Kew. We had been only a few
minutes in the hall, when the king and queen came in from an airing; and
as they passed through the hall, the king called to me by name, and
asked how long it was since I came from town? I answered about an hour.
‘I shall see you,’ says he, ‘in a little.’ The Doctor and I waited a
considerable time, for the king was busy, and then we were called into a
large room, furnished as a library, where the king was walking about,
and the queen sitting in a chair. We were received in the most gracious
manner possible, by both their Majesties. I had the honour of a
conversation with them, nobody else being present but Dr. Majendie, for
upwards of an hour on a great variety of topics; in which both the king
and queen joined, with a degree of cheerfulness, affability, and ease,
that was to me surprising, and soon dissipated the embarrassment which I
felt at the beginning of the conference. They both complimented me in
the highest terms on my ‘Essay,’ which they said was a book they always
kept by them; and the king said he had one copy of it at Kew, and
another in town, and immediately went and took it down from a shelf. I
found it was the second edition. ‘I never stole a book, but one,’ said
his Majesty, ‘and that was your’s (speaking to me) I stole it from the
queen, to give it to Lord Hertford to read.’ He had heard that the sale
of Hume’s ‘Essays’ had failed, since my book was published; and I told
him what Mr. Strahan had told me, in regard to that matter. He had even
heard of my being in Edinburgh last summer, and how Mr. Hume was
offended on the score of my book. He asked many questions about the
second part of the ‘Essay,’ and when it would be ready for the press. I
gave him, in a short speech, an account of the plan of it; and said my
health was so precarious, I could not tell when it might be ready, as I
had many books to consult before I could finish it; but, that if my
health were good, I thought I might bring it to a conclusion in two or
three years. He asked how long I had been in composing my Essay? praised
the caution with which it was written; and said he did not wonder that
it had employed me five or six years. He asked, about my Poems. I said
there was only one poem of my own, on which I set any value (meaning the
‘Minstrel’) and that it was first published about the same time with the
‘Essay.’ My other poems, I said were incorrect, being but juvenile
pieces, and of little consequence, even in my own opinion. We had much
conversation on moral subjects; from which both their Majesties let it
appear, that they were warm friends to Christianity; and so little
inclined to infidelity, that they could hardly believe that any thinking
man could really be an Atheist, unless he could bring himself to
believe, that he made himself; a thought which pleased the king
exceedingly; and he repeated it several times to the queen. He asked
whether any thing had been written against me. I spoke of the late
pamphlet, of which I gave an account, telling him, that I had never met
with any man who had read it, except one quaker. This brought on some
discourse about the quakers, whose moderation, and mild behaviour the
king and queen commended. I was asked many questions about the Scots
Universities: the revenues of the Scots Clergy; their mode of praying
and preaching; the medical college of Edinburgh; Dr. Gregory, of whom I
gave a particular character, and Dr. Cullen; the length of our vacation
at Aberdeen, and the closeness of our attendance during the winter; the
number of students that attend my lectures; my mode of lecturing,
whether from notes, or completely written lectures; about Mr. Hume, and
Dr. Robertson, and Lord Kinnoul, and the Archbishop of York, &c. &c.