Look to thy purse: if female, to thy heart.
Much havoc hath he made of both: for all
Men he made stand, and women he made fall.
The Second Conqueror of the Norman race,
Knights to his arms did yield, and ladies to his face.
Old Tyburn’s glory, England’s bravest thief:
Duval, the ladies’ joy: Duval, the ladies’ grief.
It must be admitted that the accounts of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, do
not mention this monument.
It is probable that Duval did really introduce gentler methods into the
practice of robbery. The author of “Hudibras” in a “Pindaric Ode” claims
this merit and one other for Duval:—
Taught the wild Arabs on the road
To act in a more gentle mode:
Take prizes more obligingly than those
Who never had been bred filous
And how to hang in a more graceful fashion
Than e’er was known before to the dull English nation.
The third chapter of Macaulay’s History gives an excellent account of
highwaymen in the reign of Charles II.
=1677.= Thomas Sadler is said to have been in prison fifteen times
before he planned his last and greatest exploit. With the aid of two
accomplices, he stole from Great Queen Street, the Lord Chancellor’s
mace and purse (the official purse, one of the emblems of the office).
Sadler was so delighted with his success, that in crossing Lincoln’s
Inn Fields he made one of the confederates precede him with the mace
on his shoulder, while he himself strutted behind him, followed by the
purse-bearer. They bore their plunder to a house in the City, where it
was locked up in a cupboard. Curiosity led a maid to look through a
chink in the door, when to her wonderment she saw what she took to be
the King’s crown. This led to the discovery of the robbery. On his trial
Sadler behaved with superb frankness. “‘My lord,’ he said, addressing
the court, ‘I own the fact, and it was I and this man’ (pointing to one
that stood by him at the bar) ‘that robbed my Lord Chancellor: and the
three others are clear of the fact, though I cannot say but they were
confederates with us in the concealment of the prize after it was taken.
This I declare’ (said he) ‘to the honourable bench, that I may be clear
of the blood of these other three persons.’”… “However, the court went on
in a legal way, and another witness began to demonstrate in what manner
he was taken: to whom the prisoner answered in this manner: ‘Prithee,
fellow, do not make such a long narration of my being taken; thou seest I
am here, and I own that I and this man, as aforesaid, are guilty of the
fact.’”
[Illustration: THE TRIPLE TREE, ABOUT 1680.]
It seems that one of the confederates was reprieved. Sadler, and Johnson,
one of his companions, were among the five men executed at Tyburn on
March 16, 1677 (“A Perfect Narrative,” &c., 1676-7, reprinted in Harleian
Mis., v. 505-6).
=1678.= We now come to one of the blackest pages, not only in the history
of England, but in the history of civilised communities.
Eighteen years of misgovernment had brought the people to a point at
which an outbreak of some kind became inevitable. Dunkirk had been ceded
to the French: the sound of Dutch guns had been heard in the Thames. The
Court was known to be under French influence. “There were two things,”
says Bishop Parker, “which, like Circe’s cups, bewitched men and turned
them into brutes, viz., popery and French interest, and, if either of
these happened to be whispered in the House of Commons, they quitted
their calm and moderate proceedings, and ran immediately into clamour
and high debates.” Politicians had for years played on the fears of the
people. France was to send a great army to reduce the country to popery
and slavery. “They kept the people in constant fear: and there was scarce
greater uproar when Hannibal was at the gates of Rome.” Charles had no
successor in direct line; on his decease the crown would fall to his
brother, the Duke of York, known to be a catholic. This was the position
“when the Popish Plot broke out, a transaction which had its roots in
hell, and its branches in the clouds.”
Two men saw a private advantage in this state of things. It is impossible
to say anything of the infamy of Titus Oates which would not fall short
of the reality; his associate in the invention of the Popish Plot, Tonge,
was a fanatic, who could forge on occasion.
“God Almighty,” he said, “will do His own work by His own methods and
ways.” Between them the two produced a story of murder and massacre,
which they contrived to lay before the King. It was so manifestly absurd
that it would have failed of its effect but that Sir Edmund Berry
Godfrey, a magistrate, who had taken the depositions of these men,
suddenly disappeared. His body was found a few days later at the foot of
Primrose Hill, transfixed by Godfrey’s own sword. There is little doubt
that, but for family interests, the case would have been recognised as
one of suicide. But the discovery came in the very nick of time to save
the authors of the Popish Plot. It was set about that Godfrey had been
murdered by the papists in Somerset House, the palace of the Catholic
queen. The politicians, Lord Shaftesbury at their head, were not slow
to see the advantage to be gained by playing upon the credulity of the
people.
The word went round that the plot must be handled as if it were true,
whether it were so or not. It soon became dangerous to express doubt.
To do this was to incur the certain danger of being reckoned a papist,
a concealed papist, one inclined to popery; and the prison or the
gallows was the fate of the doubter. The courts sat merely to condemn
men denounced by Oates and his gang. Three men were hanged at Tyburn
as guilty of the murder of Godfrey. Even those who to-day contend that
Godfrey was murdered admit that these men were innocent. Theories
have been constructed based on the evidence of infamous informers who
contradicted one another on every point, and when this fails, the
writer’s imagination is employed to patch up the story.
On November 26, 1678, William Stayley was drawn to Tyburn and there
hanged and quartered. He had been convicted, on the evidence of two
infamous informers, of a design to assassinate Charles. But this case, a
judicial murder, does not properly belong to the Popish Plot.
On account of the plot were executed sixteen persons, three for the
murder of Godfrey, thirteen for high treason. Except perhaps in the case
of one, Coleman, it is now universally admitted that not one was guilty
of the crime for which he suffered. Here is a list of the victims:—
=1678.= _December 3._ Edward Coleman, secretary to the Duchess of
York.
=1679.= _January 24._ William Ireland and John Grove.
_February 21._ Robert Green and Lawrence Hill, for the murder
of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey.
_February 28._ Henry Berry, for the same.
_May 9._ Thomas Pickering, for high treason.
_June 20._ Thomas Whitebread, William Harcourt, John Fenwick,
John Gavan, and Anthony Turner, known as “The Five Jesuits,”
all for high treason.
_July 14._ Richard Langhorn, for high treason.
=1680.= _December 29._ Viscount Stafford, for high treason.
=1681.= _July 1._ Dr. Oliver Plunket, the catholic primate of Ireland,
for high treason.
Lord Stafford was executed on Tower Hill all the others at Tyburn. The
sixteenth victim was Thomas Thwing, drawn, hanged, and quartered at York.
In addition to these, eight priests were executed in 1679, under the
penal laws, now revived, making it death for a priest to be in England.
Many died in prison, thousands suffered imprisonment, banishment, loss of
goods.[197]
Together with Dr. Plunket was executed Edward Fitz-Harris, but this case,
like that of Stayley, does not properly belong to the Popish Plot.
The story would be incomplete without telling what befell the infamous
creatures by whose means this innocent blood was shed. Shaftesbury, the
politician who took up the Plot and directed the operations of the
perjurers, died in exile. Bedloe, one of the chief witnesses, died in his
bed, asserting with his last breath the truth of his perjured evidence.
On May 8 and 9, 1685, Oates was tried on two indictments for perjury. The
evidence was full and complete. The sentence passed upon him was that he
should pay a fine of a thousand marks on each indictment: that he should
be stripped of his canonical habits: that he should be put in the pillory
at Westminster and at the Royal Exchange: that he should be whipped from
Aldgate to Newgate, and on the next day but one from Newgate to Tyburn.
Further, that on April 24, as long as he lived, he should stand in the
pillory at Tyburn: every ninth of August in the pillory at Westminster:
on every tenth of August in the pillory at Charing Cross: on every
eleventh of August in the pillory near the Temple Gate, and on every
second of September, in the pillory at the Royal Exchange.
Of the sentence and its execution more presently.
Dangerfield was, next to Oates and Bedloe, the worst of the informers. He
also was brought to trial. He was condemned to be put in the pillory and
whipped. On July 4, 1685, he was being brought back from Tyburn, having
been whipped on the road thither, when a Mr. Francis jeered at him, as he
sat in the coach. Dangerfield replied by an insult, and Francis struck
at him with a cane, the point of which entered Dangerfield’s eye. Of the
wound he died the next day. For this, Francis was tried, found guilty of
murder, and executed at Tyburn, he being carried thither in a coach.[198]
Miles Prance, a third informer, was also brought to trial. He had been
dragged into the business of informing by Bedloe, and, in fear of his
life, concocted a story of Godfrey’s murder. He confessed his perjuries,
and was, in consequence, let off with standing in the pillory, a fine and
a whipping being remitted.
To return to Oates. In sentencing him the judge remarked upon the
inadequacy of the punishment allotted by the law to a perjurer whose
false testimony had shed innocent blood. Indeed, if the punishment of
death was ever due to any man, it was due to Oates. The whipping was so
severe that none but Oates could have survived it. That he did survive
was hailed by his partisans as a miracle.
Luttrell records that in September, 1688, “Oates stood in the pillory
over against the Royal Exchange, according to annual custom.” This was
his last appearance in the pillory prior to his re-establishment as
Protestant champion by the following resolution of the House of Commons:—
=1689.= _June 11._ Resolved that the Prosecution of Titus Oates, upon
Two Indictments for Perjury in the Court of King’s Bench, was a design
to stifle the Popish Plot: And that the Verdicts given thereupon were
corrupt: And that the Judgments given thereupon were cruel and illegal.
A heated contest arose between Lords and Commons on the subject. The
sentence was illegal,[199] and finally Oates received a pardon and was
set at liberty. But it was not alone a passion for justice which animated
those who insisted on the illegality of the sentence. Oates was by many
regarded as one who had rendered inestimable services to the cause of
liberty and religion.
Paul may plant, Apollos may water: the labour of each supposes that of
the other. Shaftesbury, Burnet, Oates—to which of the three are we to
award the palm? It is certain that but for Oates there would have been no
Popish Plot; it is arguable that but for the Popish Plot there would have
been no Glorious Revolution.
Oates’s services were rewarded with a considerable pension.
To recur to the executions on account of the Popish Plot. Most unfairly
Charles has been blamed for these executions. Never once, says Fox, did
he exercise his glorious prerogative of mercy. At the outset Charles was
warned from the bench that the two Houses would interpose if he attempted
to exercise this prerogative. Had he done this, it would probably have
led to a general massacre of Catholics. Grave crimes are with justice
laid to the charge of both Charles I. and Charles II., but against these
crimes must be set the fact that each did what in him lay to prevent the
shedding of innocent Catholic blood. We have seen how Charles I. resisted
the importunities of the Commons, thirsting for the blood of priests
against whom was no charge but that of being priests. Charles II. strove
in vain against the mad fury of the times. Here is a revolting account,
recently published, showing the influences brought to bear on Charles
when he scrupled to order the execution of men whom he believed to be
innocent, as we now know they were:—
Mr. Speaker told him frankly how universal an expectation was fixed
upon the execution of Ireland, Grove, and Pickering, who are condemned.
But His Majesty did, on the other side, manifest wonderful reluctance
thereunto—that he had no manner of satisfaction in the truth of the
evidence, but rather of its falsehood.… Most of the Board did labour
with His Majesty to show … the ill-grounded scruple His Majesty had
taken, and that the evidence and trial were much fairer than His Majesty
had been told, and that he could not be answerable for any wrong done
or innocent blood shed, but it lay upon the witnesses and jury, if
such a thing could be thought of in this case. None laboured herein
more vigorously than the Lord Treasurer, Lord Chancellor, and the Lord
Lauderdale, who, it seems, had in private done their uttermost before. At
last it was ordered that when the Judges come on Friday, so many of them
as sat upon that trial are to inform His Majesty how the proofs appeared.
And the Bishops that are of the Board are then to be present, and to
assist His Majesty as to the point of conscience in this matter.[200]
Ireland and Grove were executed on January 24, 1679. Pickering was
respited. On April 27th the Commons voted an address praying for his
execution. Finally in this case also Charles had to yield. Lord Russell
was the bearer of Charles’s answer that he would comply with the prayer.
Pickering was executed on May 9th.
=1680.= _March 8._ Was executed at Tyburn twelve men and three women for
several crimes (Luttrell, i. 38).
=1683.= In this year we have the executions for the Rye House Plot, the
object of which was to capture Charles II. on his return from Newmarket.
_July 20._ Capt. Thomas Walcott, John Rouse, and William Hone, were
drawn, about 9 in the morning, upon sledges, the two last in one, and
the 1st by himself, to Tyburn, and there hanged and quartered, according
to the sentence past on them on the 14th at the Old Baily, for the late
conspiracy.
_July 21._ The quarters of Walcot, Hone, and Rouse are buried, but their
heads are sett on these places following: Hone on Aldersgate, Walcot on
Algate, and Rouse on Guildhall (Luttrell, i. 270-1).
William lord Russell was executed in Lincoln’s Inn Fields on July 21,
1683.
=1684.= Sir Thomas Armstrong was concerned in the Rye House Plot, but
had fled to Holland and was outlawed. He was taken at Leyden by order of
the States, brought to England, and committed to Newgate. Brought to the
king’s bench bar, he was refused trial, and sentence of death was passed
upon him as an outlaw:—
The 20th June, Sir Thomas Armstrong was drawn upon a sledge, with a very
numerous guard to Tyburn; where being come, Dr. Tenison prayed with him,
who seemed very penitent: he prayed himself also very fervently; which
done, he delivered a paper to the sheriffs, and submitted himself to the
sentence: after he had hang’d about half an hour he was taken down, and
quartered according to his sentence, and his quarters were brought back
in the sledge to Newgate.… Sir Thomas Armstrong’s quarters are disposed
off: a fore-quarter is sett on Temple bar, his head on Westminster,
another quarter is sent down to the town of Stafford, for which he was a
Parliament man (Luttrell, i. 311-2).
The head was taken down after the Revolution.
* * * * *
We now enter on the short and troubled reign of James II.
=1685.= James Burton was outlawed for having taken part in the Rye
House Plot (1683). Elizabeth Gaunt, a poor woman, gave him shelter and
finally got him a passage to Holland. Burton returned, took part in
Monmouth’s rebellion in 1685, and after Monmouth’s defeat again sought
refuge in London. At the entreaty of his wife, Fernley, a barber, a
neighbour of Mrs. Gaunt, gave him shelter. To save his own neck Burton
gave information against his benefactors for protecting him. He was not
ashamed to appear in court against them, and the Crown lawyers were not
ashamed to produce his evidence. Fernley was hanged at Tyburn, Elizabeth
Gaunt was burnt in the same place on October 23, 1685. In prison she
wrote her Last Speech. She says, “I did but relieve an unworthy, poor,
distressed family, & lo I must dye for it; well, I desire in the
Lamb-like nature of the Gospell to forgive all that are concerned, & to
say, Lord, lay it not to their charge; but I fear it will not; nay I
believe, when he comes to make inquisition for blood, it will be found at
the door of the furious Judge: … my blood will also be found at the door
of the unrighteous Jury, who found me guilty upon the single oath of an
out-lawd man.”
“Pen, the quaker,” says Burnet, “told me, he saw her die. She laid the
straw about her for burning her speedily; and behaved herself in such a
manner, that all the spectators melted in tears” (Burnet, “Hist. of his
Own Time,” i. 649).
“Since that terrible day,” writes Macaulay, “no woman has suffered death
in England for any political offence.” This is true only if we except the
cases in which women were burnt as guilty of treason for coining. It was
by a narrow chance that Mrs. Gaunt was the last. On January 19, 1693,
Mrs. Merryweather was sentenced to be burnt for printing treasonable
pamphlets, but, after being more than once reprieved, was pardoned on
February 23rd (Luttrell).
=1686.= _May 20-2._ Sessions at Old Bailey, when 16 received sentence of
death.
The 28th, five men of those lately condemned at the Sessions were
executed at Tyburn; one of them was Pascha Rose, the new hangman, so that
now Ketch is restored to his place (Luttrell, i. 378).
=1686.= On the night of April 12 two of his Majesty’s mails from Holland
were robbed, near Ilford, of £5,000 in gold, belonging to some Jews in
London. Richard Alborough, Oliver Hawley, and John Condom were indicted
for the robbery. Alborough pleading guilty was sentenced to death, & the
same sentence was passed on the others after trial.
July the 2d, Oliver Hawley and John Condom were executed at Tyburn
(Luttrell, i. 374-82.)
Here is a strange incident:—
At the Sessions at the Old Baily held on October 13-16 fourteen persons
received sentence of death.
Edward Skelton, one of the criminalls that received sentence of death
this last sessions at the Old Baily, has been beg’d of the King by 18
maids clothed in white, and since is married to one of them in the Presse
yard (Luttrell, i. 387.)
=1686.= Samuel Johnson, rector of Corringham, is described as a
“political divine.” In 1682 he published a famous piece, “Julian
the Apostate,” Julian being for the nonce the Duke of York. Johnson
represented that popery was a modern form of paganism; he argued
against unconditional obedience to the Crown. After the Rye House Plot
proceedings were taken against him, and he was fined and imprisoned. On
his release he wrote and distributed other tracts, one, published after
the Duke of York came to the throne, was “An Humble and Hearty Address to
all the English Protestants in this present Army.” In this he appealed
to the soldiers not to be “unequally yoked with idolatrous and bloody
Papists”:—On November 16, 1686, Samuel Johnson, clerk, convicted upon an
information of writing and publishing two libells, was this day brought
to the court of Kings bench, where he offered something in arrest of
judgment, but the Court overruled it, and the chief justice told him he
blasphemously wrested scripture; so the court pronounced judgment on him,
to stand thrice in the pillory, pay a fine of 500 marks, and to be whipt
from Newgate to Tyburn.…
The 20th, Samuel Johnson, clerk, was brought before the commissioners
for the diocese of London, and other the clergy in the chapter house of
St. Pauls, and there degraded and devested accordingly, and delivered
over as a secular person (Luttrell, i. 388).
The execution of the sentence on Mr. Johnson is thus described: And
immediately they proceeded to execute the said Sentence, and to degrade
him by putting on his Head a square Cap, and then taking off again; then
they pulled off his Gown, then his Girdle, which he demanded as his
proper Goods, bought with his Money, which they promised to send; but
they cost him Twenty Shillings to have them again. After all, they put a
Bible into his Hand; which he would not part with, but they took it from
him by Force.… On the Monday after, viz. Two-and-twentieth of November,
the judgment in the King’s Bench were executed with great Rigour and
Cruelty, the Whipping [from Newgate to Tyburn] being with a Whip of Nine
Cords, Knotted, shewed to the Committee; and that Mr. Rouse the Under
Sheriff tore off his Cassock upon the pillory and put a Frize Coat upon
him (“Journals of the House of Commons,” June 24, 1689, x. 194).
In 1689, after the accession of William III., Parliament annulled the
judgment.
=1690.= The same day [September 12] 6 persons were executed at Tyburn;
some of them behaved themselves very impudently, calling for sack, and
drank king James’s health, and affronted the ordinary at the gallows, and
refused his assistance; and bid the people return to their obedience and
send for king James back (Luttrell, ii. 103).
=1690.= In this year occurred a famous case of stealing an heiress. This
was made a felony by 3 Henry VII. (1487), c. 3:—
Where Wymmen aswell Maydens as Wydowes and Wyfes havyng substaunce
somme in goods moveable, and somme in landes and tenements, and summe
beyng heires apparaunte unto their auncesters, for the lucre of suche
substaunce been oft tymes taken by mysdoers contrarie to their Will, and
after maried to such mysdoers or to other by their assent, or defoulled,
to the great displesire of God and contrarie to the Kyngs lawes and
dispargement of the seid Women and utter hevynesse and discomforte of
their frendes and to the evyll example of all other.…
The Act goes on to make the offence a felony.
We will let Luttrell tell the story of the abduction and its result, day
by day:—
_November 7._ One Mrs. Mary Wharton, a young heiresse of about £1500
per ann., and about 13 years of age, comeing home with her aunt, Mrs.
Byerley, in their coach about 9 at night, and alighting out of it at her
own aunt, was violently seized on and putt into a coach and 6 horses and
carried away.
_November 15._ Mrs. Wharton, who was lately stole, is returned home to
her friends, having been married against her consent to Captain Campbell
[brother to Lord Argyle].… A proclamation hath been published by their
majesties for the discovering and apprehending captain James Campbell,
Archibald Montgomery, and sir John Jonston, for stealing away Mrs.
Wharton. [The proclamation included “divers others.”]
_November 25._ Sir John Jonston, concerned in the stealing of Mrs.
Wharton, is taken and committed to Newgate.
_December 10._ The sessions began at the Old Baily, and held the 11th,
12th, 13th, and 17th dayes of this month, where 22 persons received
sentence of death (and among them sir John Jonston, for stealing Mrs.
Wharton), 9 were burnt in the hand, 1 ordered to be transported, and 6
sentenced to be whipt.
_December 18._ Intercession has been made to his majestie on the behalf
of sir John Jonston, lately condemned, for his pardon; which he hath
denied unlesse it be desired by the friends of Mrs. Wharton.
_December 23._ Sir John Jonston, condemned for stealing Mrs. Wharton,
went up in a mourning coach to Tyburn, and was executed for the same;
and his body was delivered to his friends, in order to it’s being buried
(Luttrell, ii. 128-48).
Here is a further notice of Mistress Wharton. Let us hope she was happily
married:—
=1692.= _March 19._ On Thursday last colonell Byerley was married to Mrs.
Wharton, stole formerly by Campdell (Luttrell, ii. 394).
=1690.= _December 22._ Thirteen persons were executed at Tyburn for
several crimes; also a woman at Newgate for setting the prison on fire;
and also a notorious highway man, commonly called the Golden Farmer [this
was William Davis, known by this title], was executed in Fleetstreet,
at the end of Salisbury court, and is after to be hang’d in chains upon
Bagshott heath (Luttrell, ii. 148).