clippers dispersed in divers parts of this citty, on which warrants are
out against severall; one from the lords of the treasury, another by the
cheife justice, and a 3d by the masters of the mint (ii. 571).
=1692.= Towards the end of the year Luttrell has several entries in his
diary relating to a celebrated highwayman, “captain” James Whitney:—
_December._ Witney, the notorious highway man, offers to bring in 80
stout men of his gang to the kings service, if he may have his pardon
(ii. 630).
_December 6._ This morning his majestie sent a party of horse to look
after Whitney, the great highwayman, on some notice he was lurking
between Barnet and St. Albans: they mett with him at the first of the
said towns, who finding himselfe attackt, made his defence and killed one
of them, and wounded some others: but at last was taken and brought to
London. His majestie was very glad he was taken, being a great ringleader
of that crew (ii. 633).
This must have been a mistake, as shown by the following entries:—
_December 20._ The lords C. and B. were on Satturday last to meet
Whitney, a great highwayman, on honour; he offers to bring in 30 horse,
with as many stout men, to serve the king, provided he may have his
pardon, and will give a summe of money besides: but the issue thereof not
known (ii. 644).
=1693.= _Tuesday, 3d January._ On Satturday last Whitney, the famous
highwayman, was taken without Bishopsgate; he was discovered by one Hill
as he walkt the street, who observed where he housed, then, calling some
assistance, he went to the door; but Whitney defended himselfe for an
hour, but the people encreasing, and the officers of Newgate being sent
for, he surrendered himselfe, but had before stabb’d the said Hill with
a bagonet, but not mortall: he was cuff’d and shackled with irons and
committed to Newgate; and on Sunday 2 more of his gang were also seized
and committed; one kept a livery stable in Moor feilds (iii. 1).
_January 7._ Strongly reported yesterday that Whitney had made his
escape out of Newgate, but he continues closely confined there, and has
40 pound weight of iron on his leggs; he had his taylor make him a rich
embroidered suit, with perug and hatt, worth £100; but the keeper refused
to let him wear them, because they would disguise him from being known
(iii. 5).
On the 8th five of Whitney’s gang apprehended but 2 of them escaped.
=1693.= At the Old Baily sessions “8 highwaymen received sentence of
death, Whitney, Grasse, Fetherstone, Nedland, Poor, Holland and 2 more”
(iii. 16).
_January 28._ Yesterday 9 persons were carried to Tyburn, where 8 were
executed, 7 hyghwaymen, and one for clipping; Whitney was brought back,
having a repreive for 10 dayes, and was brought back to Newgate with a
rope about his neck, a vast crowd of people following him.
Last night Whitney was carried in a sedan to Whitehall and examined; ’tis
said he discovers who hired the persons to rob the mailes so often.
Whitney, ’tis said, has been examined upon a design to kill the King.…
Whitney, ’tis said, will be executed next week; others say his repreive
is grounded on the discovery of his accomplices, with their houses of
reception, and way of living (iii. 24).
=1693.= _February 2._ Yesterday being the 1st instant, capt. James
Whitney, highwayman, was executed at Porter’s block, near Cow crosse in
Smithfeild; he seemed to dye very penitent; was an hour and halfe in the
cart before turn’d off (iii. 27).
Luttrell mentions that in January there were near 20 highwaymen in
Newgate (iii. 10).
=1693.= _April 27._ A person was this day convicted at sessions house
for sacriledge, rape, burglary, murder, and robbing on the highway; all
committed in 12 hours time (Luttrell, iii. 85).
_October 24._ Yesterday, 14 malefactors were executed at Tyburn; 6 of
them clippers (Luttrell, iii. 212).
=1694.= _July 19._ Yesterday 11 men and 3 women were executed at Tyburn;
amongst them was Wilkinson the goldsmith, with several others for
clipping; one Paynes, convicted for murder, who by the confession of
one of his accomplices has killed 5 or 6 persons in a short time; he
kickt the ordinary out of the cart at Tyburn, and pulled off his shoes,
sayeing, hee’d contradict the old proverb, and not dye in them (Luttrell,
iii. 345).
=1694.= On Wensday the 12th instant 18 persons were executed at Tyburn;
7 men, and 1 woman burnt for clipping and coyning [this does not mean
that the men were burnt, but the woman only], 8 highway men, and 2 for
burglary (Luttrell, iii. 413).
=1695.= _January 10._ Several persons have malitiously spread abroad
that Tyburn was hung in mourning, but upon examination it proves a
mistake (Luttrell, iii. 424).
The Queen had died on December 28.
=1695.= At the Old Bailey Sessions:—
_July 6._ Mr. Moor, the rich tripeman of Westminster, was found guilty of
clipping and coyning; and some others will be tried for the like offence
(Luttrell, iii. 495).
_July 13._ Yesterday four men were executed at Tyburn, three of them for
clipping, one of which was John Moore, the tripeman, said to have gott
a good estate by clipping, and to have offered 6000 l. for his pardon
(Luttrell, iii. 497).
_July 16._ Moor the tripeman being hang’d for clipping, the duke of
Somerset has seized upon his house, worth 1000 l., being within his
mannor of Isleworth.
This day a rich chandler of Lambeth and a housekeeper in Long Acre were
seized for clipping (Luttrell, iii. 499).
=1695.= About this time Luttrell tells of the arrests of “nests” of
coiners, among them an attorney in the Temple, and a merchant in Birchin
Lane; at one time 105 coiners and clippers lay in Newgate awaiting trial.
The condition of the coinage became a great question of State so pressing
that after six Proclamations on the subject an Act 7 and 8 William III
c. 1 (1695-6) was passed “An Act for remedying the Ill State of the Coin
of the Kingdome.” The Act recites that “the Silver Coins of this Realm
(as to a great part thereof) doe appeare to bee exceedingly diminished
by such persons who (notwithstanding several good laws formerly provided
and many examples of justice thereupon) have practised the wicked and
pernicious crime of Clipping until att length the course of the Moneys
within this Kingdom is become difficult and very much perplext, to the
unspeakable wrong and prejudice of His Majestie and His good Subjects in
their Affairs as well Publick as particular and noe sufficient Remedy
can bee applied to the manifold Evils ariseing from the clipping of the
Moneys without recoining the clipt pieces.”
Then follow very lengthy provisions for dealing with coins of “Sterling
Silver or Silver of a courser Allay then the Standard” from which we may
infer that the Government had played its part in the debasing of the
coinage.
This was followed, in the same year, by an Act, c. 19 “to incourage the
bringing Plate into the Mint to be coined and for the further remedying
the ill State of the Coine of the Kingdome.” The next year saw another
Act 8 and 9 William III. c. 2, “for the further remedying the ill State
of the Coin of the Kingdome,” an Act, c. 8, for “Incouraging the bringing
in wrought Plate to be coined”; c. 26, “for the better preventing the
counterfeiting the current Coine of the Kingdome.” Other Acts of the same
kind were 9 William III. c. 2; c. 21; these are in addition to numerous
Proclamations. Nothing can better show the state of the coinage than the
record of petitions of seamen and shipwrights in the King’s yards who had
been paid in clipped and counterfeit half-crowns.
In February, 1696, came to a head “the Assassination Plot,” the most
dangerous of all the Plots formed against William III. The King was,
according to custom, to go to hunt in Richmond Park on February 15.
Advantage was to be taken of this to assassinate him. For some reason he
did not go, and the execution of the scheme was deferred. But meanwhile
one of the conspirators gave information to the Government. Numerous
arrests were made, followed by trials and executions. On March 18 Robert
Charnock, Edward King, and Thomas Keys were executed at Tyburn. They
were followed on April 3 by Sir John Friend and Sir William Perkins.
The populace of London flocked to Tyburn in numbers exceeding all
precedent to witness the execution of Friend, found guilty by the Court
of high treason, and by the people of a crime that touched them more
nearly—the brewing of execrable beer. Three non-juring divines attended
the condemned men to the scaffold, Jeremy Collier, and two of less note,
Shadrach Cook and William Snatt, who absolved the criminals “in a manner
more than ordinarily practised in the Church of England.” For this Cook
and Snatt were committed to Newgate. Macaulay says that they were not
brought to trial. It appears, however, that they were actually indicted,
and found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours (Luttrell, iv. 80)
and imprisoned for a short time. Collier kept out of the way, and was
in consequence outlawed, remaining under the sentence to the end of his
days. Numerous tracts were written on the subject.
On April 29 Brigadier Rookwood, Charles Cranburne, and Major Lowick were
executed at Tyburn, they also having been condemned for the Plot.
This completes the story of the executions at Tyburn for the
Assassination Plot, but it is impossible to refrain from mentioning
a case dismissed by Macaulay in a sentence referring to “Major John
Bernardi, an adventurer of Genoese extraction, whose name has derived a
melancholy celebrity from a punishment so strangely prolonged that it at
length shocked a generation which could not remember his crime.” It is
hardly fair to call Bernardi an adventurer. Apart from this, the reader
would certainly not gather from Macaulay’s remark that no crime was ever
proved against Bernardi. In writing of a shocked generation the historian
probably referred to some very mild remarks of Dr. Johnson, in his
“Life of Pope.” Pope wrote an epitaph on Secretary Trumball, who, from
his official position, took a leading part in persuading Parliament to
consent to the imprisonment of Bernardi. The concluding lines of Pope’s
epitaph are:—
Such this man was, who, now from earth remov’d
At length enjoys the liberty he lov’d.
On this Johnson wrote: “The thought in the last line is impertinent,
having no connection with the foregoing character, nor with the
condition of the man described. Had the epitaph been written on the poor
conspirator who lately died in prison, after a confinement of more than
forty years, without any crime proved against him, the sentiment had been
just and pathetical; but why should Trumball be congratulated upon his
liberty, who had never known restraint?”
Major Bernardi was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the
Assassination Plot; he was in the company of Rookwood when the latter,
afterwards condemned and executed, was arrested. Against Bernardi there
was but one witness, an informer. Even taking this informer’s testimony
without abatement the case against Bernardi did not reach higher than
suspicion. But the resources of civilisation were equal to the occasion.
A clause in an Act, 8 & 9 William III. (1696-7) c. 5, gave power to keep
in Newgate Bernardi and five others named, till January 1, 1697-8. An
Act, 9 William III. (1697-8) c. 4. gave power to prolong the imprisonment
for a second year. A third Act, 10 William III. (1698) c. 19, enacted
that the same six persons should be kept in custody during his Majesty’s
pleasure.
The rest of the story would be incredible if it were not supported
by Acts of Parliament. The Act last mentioned necessarily expired on
William’s death, but on the accession of Anne another Act was passed,
1 Anne (1701) st. 1, c. 29. for continuing the imprisonment of these
men during the Queen’s pleasure. Anne, however, released one. This Act
lapsed on the Queen’s death. On the accession of George I. a similar Act
was passed, 1 George I. (1714) st. 2, c. 7. During this reign two of the
prisoners died in Newgate. Once more the death of the sovereign put the
prisoners in a position to move to be brought to trial or admitted to
bail. But an Act of the same tenor as the preceding Acts was passed,
1 Geo. II. (1727) st. 1, c. 4, once more continuing the imprisonment
during the sovereign’s pleasure. In vain was the king petitioned; in vain
did Bernardi’s doctors depose to his lamentable state, “his miserable
lameness, and swelling in his arms, by humours flowing to an old wound”;
in vain did his wife pray for her husband’s liberation. Finally, in 1736,
after an imprisonment of 40 years, Bernardi, then in his eighty-second
year, was set free, not by the clemency of the King, but as he had
himself foreseen, “by the great and merciful God himself above, the King
of Kings and only Ruler of Princes.”[201] Thus ended the imprisonment
of this sick and aged man, the longest imprisonment recorded in the
law-books, an imprisonment awarded and continued through several reigns
on mere suspicion of one never brought to trial. The case is instructive,
as showing how with strict observance of constitutional forms, it is
possible to emulate the dark deeds of uncontrolled despotism.
Magna Carta, the magnificent conception of a great English ecclesiastic
of the thirteenth century, would perhaps be found even to-day, if a time
of stress came upon us, to be still a counsel of perfection. If that is
so, the blame must rest upon William III. and his advisers. Strange that
men to whom power was given in order that they might protect us from
arbitrary government should have exceeded those they displaced in the
exercise of arbitrary power! Cromwell derided Magna Carta in terms not to
be reproduced here.[202] The accession of William was almost immediately
followed by the suspension of habeas corpus, resting upon the great
Charter.
Macaulay tells us that Charles II. “would gladly have refused his assent
to that measure,” the habeas corpus Act. We will not dispute it; but
Charles did not ask for the suspension of habeas corpus when the Rye
House Plot broke out. Macaulay tells us that James II. hated the Act.
This, again, we will not dispute. But he did not ask for its suspension
when Monmouth invaded England. William did not wait for the Assassination
Plot to ask Parliament to suspend the Act. Before he had been on the
throne a month he established an evil precedent which has ever since
been followed; no minister has since ever hesitated to ask Parliament to
suspend habeas corpus, and no Parliament has ever refused the request
when made. Suspended four times in the reign of William and Mary and
William, once in the reign of Anne, thrice in the reign of George I.,
four times in the reign of George II., and twenty times in the reign of
George III. (Ireland is left out of account), habeas corpus was reduced
to the point at which it afforded exactly the amount of protection that a
man would receive from a waterproof coat, worn in sunshine, and carefully
left at home when rain falls.[203]
=1696.= _December 31._ Yesterday 14 men were executed at Tyburn, 10 of
them for clipping and coining, the other 4 for robbery (Luttrell, iv.
162).
=1697.= _July 20._ The 16th past, 14 malefactors were executed at Tyburn;
3 men and 1 woman for coining, 2 men for counterfeiting stamp’t paper,
a woman for murthering her bastard child; and 7 more for robbery and
burglary; and the French woman, who murdered Mrs. Pullein, was hanged at
the end of Suffolk Street, where the fact was committed (Luttrell, iv.
254).
=1697.= _November 4._ Yesterday 6 persons were executed at Tyburn; two
for coining, one for robbing on the high way, and 3 for counterfeiting
stampt paper, of which Mr. Salisbury the minister was one; he had the
favour to goe to Tyburn in a mourning coach, and his body was brought
back in a herse.
Salisbury was a non-juring parson of Sussex; the evidence against
him showed that he did not commit the forgery for want, “as having a
good estate and a good living, but only to prejudice king William’s
Government” (Luttrell, iv. 292, 302).
A few days later Luttrell records the committal of another parson for the
same offence.
=1698.= _December 22._ Yesterday fourteen men and one woman were executed
at Tyburn; two of the men were drawn in a sledge, and were for coining;
one man was carried in a coach, for robbing on the high way; and the rest
in carts, for burglary and robbery on the high way; and one for murther
(L., iv. 464).
Including these, Luttrell records the execution at Tyburn this year of 62
persons.
=1699.= Luttrell records the execution this year at Tyburn of 51 persons.
In this year was passed the Act so often and so strongly denounced by
Romilly in later years (10 William III., c. 12 in the folio edition of
the Statutes), which came into operation after May 20. It was directed
against burglary and horse stealing as well as against “the crime of
stealing goods privately out of shops and warehouses, commonly called
Shoplifting.” The notoriety of the Act was earned by its inflicting the
penalty of death for shoplifting to the value of five shillings. This
Act also established the “Tyburn ticket,”[204] as it came to be called,
a certificate awarded for the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.
This gave exemption from parish and ward offices. It further enacted
that all persons convicted of theft, who had benefit of clergy should,
instead of being burnt in the hand, be “burnt in the most visible part
of the left cheek nearest the nose,” the burning to be done in court
in presence of the judge. Luttrell records in connection with the May
sessions that “two were burnt in the left cheek, according to the new act
of parliament”; at the next sessions eighteen were so branded. But the
innovation did not prove successful. Luttrell says that retaliation was
threatened—“the said offenders for the future threaten whatever house
they break into, &c., they will mark the persons on the cheek to prevent
distinction.” The provision was repealed by 5 and 6 Anne (1706), c. 6,
and burning in the hand was again established. The repealing Act states
in the preamble that “the said punishment [of burning on the cheek] hath
not had its desired effect, by deterring such offenders from the further
committing such crimes and offences, but on the contrary, such offenders
being rendered thereby unfit to be intrusted in any service or employment
to get their livelihood in any honest and lawful way, become the more
desperate.” But the penalty of death for stealing to the value of five
shillings remained.
=1700.= _March 16._ Three prisoners were this week taken in the very act
of coining in Newgate.
_April 20._ Yesterday, one Larkin, _alias_ Young, with another, were
executed at Tyburn; the former for coyning in Newgate (Luttrell, iv. 624,
636).
=1705.= _December 12._ “One John Smith, condemned lately at the Old Baily
for burglary, was carried to Tyburn to be executed, and was accordingly
hanged up, and after he had hung about 7 minutes, a reprieve came, so he
was cutt down, and immediately lett blood and put into a warm bed, which,
with other applications, brought him to himself again with much adoe”
(Luttrell, v. 623).
The story is told at greater length by James Mountague in “The Old
Bailey Chronicle,” 1700-83, i. 51-3:—
“After hanging five minutes and a quarter, a reprieve was brought.… The
malefactor was cut down and taken with all possible expedition to a
public house where proper means was pursued for his recovery, and with so
much success that the perfect use of all his faculties was restored in
about half an hour.”
The account given by Smith of his sensations was that when first turned
off he felt excessive pain, but that it almost immediately ceased. The
last circumstance he recollected was like an irregular and glimmering
light before his eyes: the pain he felt in hanging was infinitely
surpassed when his blood was recovering its usual course of circulation.
Hatton, in his “New View of London” 1708, i. 84-5, says that Smith hanged
for about a quarter of an hour; he adds that the executioner, while Smith
was hanging, pulled his legs, and used other means to put a speedy period
to his life.
Smith did not profit by this severe lesson. For a while indeed he served
the cause of law and order, as will be seen by the following:—
=1706.= _March._ Smith, who, sometime since was half-hanged and cut down,
having accused about 350 pickpockets, house breakers, &c., who gott to
be soldiers in the guards, the better to hide their roguery, were last
week upon mustering the regiments drawn out and immediately shipt off
for Catalonia: and about 60 women, who lay under condemnation for such
crimes, were likewise sent away to follow the camp (Luttrell, vi. 25).
And again: =1706.= _November 9._ The officers of her majesties guards
yesterday drew out their companies in St. James’s Park, which were viewed
by Smith (sometime since hang’d at Tyburn, but a reprieve coming was cut
down before dead) and two other persons in masks, in order to discover
felons and housebreakers: out of which 2 serjeants with 6 soldiers were
seized as criminals and committed to the Marshalsea prison (Luttrell, vi.
105).
Smith had received an unconditional pardon; later he was again tried for
burglary, and acquitted on a point of law. Lesson number 2. But Smith was
a third time apprehended on a charge of burglary and committed for trial.
The prosecutor died, and Smith was discharged. It is said that finally he
was drowned at sea.
Smith’s recovery from hanging does not stand alone. In 1740 there was a
case of a man who was left hanging for the usual time, and recovered:—
=1740.= _November 25._ “Yesterday only five of the Malefactors were
executed at Tyburn: two of them, viz., George Wight and Abraham Hancock
having obtain’d a Reprieve thro’ the Intercession of a Noble Peer.
“Duel, executed for the Rape, was brought to Surgeons-Hall, in order for
Anatomy, but after he was stripp’d and laid on the Board, and one of the
Servants was washing him, to be cut up, he perceived Life in him, and
found his Breath to come quicker and quicker, on which a Surgeon bled
him, and took several Ounces of Blood from him, and in about two Hours he
came so much to himself as to sit up in a Chair, groan’d very much, and
seem’d in great Agitation, but could not speak: tho’ it was the Opinion
of most People if he had been put in a warm Bed and proper Care taken,
he would have come to himself. Whether he’s now living we know not, but
a great Mob assembled at Surgeons-Hall on this Occasion, and according
to _their Law_, he could not be executed again: but according to the
Law of the Land, the Sheriffs have a Power to carry him again to Tyburn
and execute him, his former sentence, _of being hung till he was dead_,
not having been executed. Its reckon’d his coming to Life was owing to
the wrong Disposition of the Halter” (_London Daily Post and General
Advertiser_).
Duel or Dewell did not recollect being hanged: he said that he had been
in a dream; that he dreamed of Paradise, where an angel told him his sins
were forgiven. He made a complete recovery. At the next sessions at the
Old Bailey he was ordered to be transported for life.
Some years before this, the problem of the recovery of persons hanged
had received careful attention. Thus, we find the following in the
_Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1733 (April 27), p. 213:—
Mr. Chovet, a Surgeon, having by frequent Experiments on Dogs,
discovered, that opening the Windpipe, would prevent the fatal
Consequences of the Halter, undertook Mr. Gordon, and made an Incision in
his Windpipe: the Effect of which was, that when Gordon stopt his Mouth,
Nostrils, and Ears for some Time, Air enough came thro’ the Cavity to
continue Life. When he was hang’d he was perceived to be alive after all
the rest were dead: and when he had hung 3 quarters of an Hour, being
carried to a House in Tyburn Road, he opened his Mouth several Times and
groaned, and a Vein being open’d he bled freely. ’Twas thought, if he had
been cut down 5 Minutes sooner, he might have recover’d.