the business, his friends bought for him a commission in a foot regiment.
While with a recruiting party at Huntingdon, he was invited to the
country house of Lord Sandwich, and fell violently in love with the
Earl’s mistress. In 1776 he left the army, took orders, and in 1779 was
presented to the living of Wiverton, in Norfolk. It is doubtful whether
he ever officiated there. He had not been able to forget Martha Ray. He
continued his attentions, and offered her marriage. On the fatal day,
having written a letter to a friend, announcing his intention to destroy
himself, he went to the theatre armed with two pistols. After discharging
one at the lady, he shot himself and fell at the lady’s feet, beating his
head with the butt-end of a pistol and calling on the bystanders to kill
him. On his trial his only defence was that a momentary frenzy overcame
him. The letter contained nothing to indicate an intention to kill Miss
Ray. He was executed on April 19.
Boswell records a stormy discussion between Dr. Johnson and Mr. Beauclerk
on the subject of the murder. Did the fact that Hackman carried two
pistols indicate an intention to kill Miss Ray as well as himself?
Johnson held that it did; Beauclerk maintained the contrary, citing the
case of a man inordinately fond of muffins, which disagreed with him.
Determined to enjoy a last repast, he ate his muffins and then shot
himself. He had ready two pistols for the purpose. As too often happens,
neither disputant could convince the other (ed. Hill, iii. 383-5).
Here is a portion of a Grub Street ballad on the tragedy:—
A Sandwich favourite was this fair,
And her he dearly loved:
By whom six children had, we hear:
This story fatal proved.
A clergyman, O wicked one,
In Covent Garden shot her:
No time to cry upon her God,
Its hop’d he’s not forgot her.
Martha Ray bore several children to the Earl. One of them, Basil Montagu,
is in our days remembered, if at all, by a savage snarl of Carlyle at the
man and his parentage (“Reminiscences,” i. 224), “considerably a humbug
if you probed too strictly.” Basil has already been mentioned in this
book as the founder of the Society for the Diffusion of Knowledge upon
the Punishment of Death. By his numerous writings on this subject he did
perhaps more than any other man to bring home to the public the frightful
cruelty of our criminal law. He may at least be credited with sincerity
in this matter. On one occasion, in 1801, he posted through the night to
Huntingdon, arriving with a respite just in time to save the lives of two
men.
Lord Sandwich gave to the world a thing and its name. He was an
inveterate gambler, and, in order that he might continue this diversion
uninterruptedly, he caused to be served to him thin slices of meat placed
between bread. Hence the “sandwich,” known to all civilised men.
=1779.= _August 25._ Four malefactors were carried to Tyburn for
execution, and had been tied up for near twenty minutes when a report
was spread that a reprieve was come to Newgate for one of them. They
were all untied and left in the cart while one of the sheriffs went to
Lord Weymouth to learn the truth. No reprieve having been granted, the
execution took place at near one o’clock.
=1779.= _October 27._ Isabella Condon, condemned for coining, was at
Tyburn first strangled, and then burnt.
=1780.= _April 12._ A man was executed at Tyburn for robbing the house
of Jeremiah Bentham. This was the father of Jeremy Bentham. One wonders
whether this execution directed his thoughts to the question of capital
punishment.
=1781.= _July 27._ Francis Henry de la Motte, executed at Tyburn for
giving to the French Government information as to the movement of British
ships. The sentence was in the usual form for high treason, that he
should be hanged “but not till you are dead,” but he was allowed to hang
for nearly an hour. The head was severed from the body, four incisions
made in the body, and part of the entrails thrown into a fire. Then
the body was delivered to an undertaker, and was buried in St. Pancras
churchyard.
=1783.= _August 29._ William Wynne Ryland executed at Tyburn for forgery.
Ryland was an engraver of repute in the manner of Bartolozzi. He is the
subject of a careful study, perhaps too sympathetic, by Mr. Bleackley, in
his “Some Distinguished Victims of the Scaffold,” 1905.
=1783.= _November 7._ On this day took place the last execution at
Tyburn. The occasion requires us to give in full the account, not
otherwise particularly interesting. It is quoted from the _Gentleman’s
Magazine_:—
This morning was executed at Tyburn, John Austin, convicted the preceding
Saturday of robbing John Spicer, and cutting and wounding him in a cruel
manner. From Newgate to Tyburn he behaved with great composure. While the
halter was tying, his whole frame appeared to be violently convulsed.
The Ordinary having retired, he addressed himself to the populace: “Good
people, I request your prayers for the salvation of my departing soul:
let my example teach you to shun the bad ways I have followed: keep good
company, and mind the word of God.” The cap being drawn over his face, he
raised his hands and cried, “Lord have mercy on me: Jesus look down with
pity on me: Christ have mercy on my poor soul!” and, while uttering these
words, the cart was driven away. The noose of the halter having slipped
to the back part of his neck, it was longer than usual before he was
dead.
The transference of executions to Newgate involved the suppression of the
processions which for six hundred years had been a feature of the city’s
life. The change did not receive the approval of Dr. Johnson. “The age,”
he said, “is running mad after innovation: all the business of the world
is to be done in a new way: Tyburn itself is not safe from the fury of
innovation!” It having been argued that this was an improvement—“No, Sir
(said he eagerly), it is not an improvement: they object that the old
method drew together a number of spectators. Sir, executions are intended
to draw spectators. If they do not draw spectators, they don’t answer
their purpose. The old method was most satisfactory to all parties: the
public was gratified by a procession: the criminal was supported by it.
Why is all this to be swept away?”
From the “moral lesson” point of view Dr. Johnson was quite right. But
the procession was abolished simply because the best quarter of the town
had extended to Tyburn.
On December 9, 1783, the first executions took place in front of Newgate
prison, on the new gallows, with a “drop.” The illustration shows
THE DAWN OF THE NEW ERA.
[Illustration: THE NEW GALLOWS AT NEWGATE, 1783.]
The ten persons seem to fill the stage, but it would be doing an
injustice to the designer of this national monument to assume that he had
not taken into account the possible demands of the State.
On February 2, 1785, twenty men swung in a batch in front of the debtors’
door. Of these, five—FIVE—were hanged for assaulting a man and robbing
him of two glass drops, set in metal, value 3d.; a one-inch rule, value
2d.; two papers of nails, value 1d.; one knife, value 1d.; two shillings,
and a counterfeit half-penny.
Tyburn gallows was in full vigour when the claims of a “genteel”
neighbourhood demanded its abolition. In the last year of its existence
one hundred and eight persons were condemned to death at the Old Bailey
sessions—fifty-eight in a single sessions. Most of the condemned were
reprieved: the crimes of these must have been light, for John Kelly was
actually hanged for robbing another of sixpence-farthing.
Within view of the accursed spot Catholics have instituted an Oratory of
the English Martyrs. It is well: the world cannot afford to forget the
example of those who, whether at Tyburn or Smithfield, gladly faced the
most horrible of deaths rather than be false to themselves.
But in honouring them, let us not forget the thousands of martyrs for
whom no one has claimed the crown of martyrdom—the martyrs to ferocious
laws, not seldom put in force against the innocent, the martyrs to cruel
injustice, to iniquitous social conditions. Thousands have had the
life choked out of them at Tyburn on whom pity might well have dropped
a pardoning tear: to whom compassion might well have stretched out a
helping hand.
If not a sparrow falls unheeded, these obscure martyrs may not have died
in vain.
FOOTNOTES
[1] “My opinion is that we have gone too far in laying it [capital
punishment] aside, and that it ought to be inflicted in many cases not at
present capital. I think, for instance, that political offences should in
some cases be punished with death. People should be made to understand
that to attack the existing state of society is equivalent to risking
their own lives” (“Hist. of the Criminal Law of England,” 1880, i. 478).
[2] Spelman, “Glossarium” (_s.v._ Furca) gives a notable instance of the
drowning of a woman about A.D. 1200.
[3] Walsingham, Gesta Abbatum Monas. S. Albani, ed. Riley, i. 39-41.
[4] Chron. of the Reigns of Stephen, &c., ed. Howlett, ii. Preface p. 1.
[5] Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., ed. Luard, v. 56-60, 369. The “Statute of
Winchester,” 13 Edward I. (1285), enacted that trees and brushwood should
be cut down for 200 feet in width on either side of highways between
market towns.
[6] “De Corona,” book iii. Second Treatise, chap. i.
[7] “Subito enim et sine certa causa, quasi lymphatico metu correpti, de
villa in villam cum cornuum strepitu, quod Anglice Uthes dicitur, fere
per totam Angliam deduxerunt” (“Hist. Coll. of Walter of Coventry,” ed.
Stubbs, ii. 206).
[8] “Hist. of the Norman Conquest,” ii. 34.
[9] “De sorte qu’on a long-temps douté si un ecclésiastique pouvoit, sans
hazard d’irrégularité, faire exercer Justice de sang en sa terre; estant
chose étrange qu’on puisse commettre à autruy, ce qu’on ne peut faire
soi-mesme” (Loyseau, Œuvres, ed. 1701, p. 4).
[10] Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 479.
[11] Chron. William of Malmesbury, ed. Stubbs, i. 171.
An interesting story is told of the rescue by a bishop of a man in the
year 1184. One, Gilbert Plumpton, actually had the rope round his neck
when the bishop passed by. He ordered the executioners to let the man
down, alleging that the day was Sunday, and besides the feast of St.
Mary Magdalene. But he had heard the people crying out that Plumpton
was innocent, and he believed them. On threat of excommunication the
executioners loosed the rope. The bishop prevailed with the king to spare
Plumpton’s life. Plumpton remained in prison till the death of the king
(Chron. Roger de Hoveden, ed. Stubbs, ii. 286).
[12] Annales de Waverleia (in Annales Monastici), ed. Luard, ii. 395.
Waverley Abbey, which, by the way, has nothing to do with Scott’s
“Waverley,” was founded in 1218, being the first Cistercian Abbey in
England. The abbey is, of course, in ruins, but the abbat’s mill still
exists, and the place retains more of the character of a monastery than
any I have seen. Cobbett, who was born at Farnham, not far distant,
speaks of the ruins, which probably inspired one of the best passages in
his writing. (“Hist. of the Protestant Reformation,” pars. 184, 155.)
In one of the abbey’s charters mention is made of the oak of Tilford as
existing in the time of Stephen. It is to-day one of the sights of this
part of Surrey.
[13] Rot. Hund., i. 407, 417, 418, 422, 425, 429; Plac. de Quo War., pp.
478, 480.
[14] Spelman, “Glossarium,” _s.v._ Trailbaston. Rot. Parl. i. 178, 218-9;
ii. 174; iii. 24.
[15] Annals of Tewkesbury, in Annal. Monas., ed. Luard i. 511-6.
[16] Dugdale, Monast. Anglic., ed. in 8 vols., vi. 240.
[17] Annals of Dunstable, in Annal. Monast., ed. Luard, iii. 261.
[18] Rot. Parl., i. 45.
[19] Ducange, “Glossarium,” _s.v._ Furca.
[20] Loyseau, “Traité des Seigneuries,” ed. 1610, p. 46.
[21] Camden’s “Britannia,” ed. Gough, 1789, ii. 238.
[22] Thorpe, “Ancient Laws and Inst. of England,” fo. ed., p. 125.
[23] Chron. Roger de Hoveden, ed. Stubbs, iii. 36.
[24] Borough Customs (Selden Soc.), pp. 73, 74.
[25] Boys’ “Hist. of Sandwich,” p. 465.
[26] Liber Custumarum, ed. Riley. i. 150.
[27] Harrison, in Holinshed’s Chron. An instance is recorded in Machyn’s
Diary: “1557. The vj day of Aprell was hangyd at the low-water marke
at Wapyng be-yond santt Katheryns vij for robyng on the see,” p. 131.
According to Hentzner, who visited England about 1598, 300 pirates were
hanged yearly in London.
[28] Borough Customs (Selden Soc.), pp. 73, 74.
[29] Fortescue, “De Laudibus Legum Angliæ, with the Summs of Sir Ralph de
Hengham.” Notes by Selden, 1741, p. 33, _note_.
[30] Borough Customs (Selden Soc.), pp. 73, 74.
[31] The Act making poisoning high treason was repealed by 1 Edward VI.,
c. 12, sec. 12, which made poisoning wilful murder, to be punished as
murder. Harrison was therefore mistaken in writing of the punishment as
if it still existed. Curiously enough Bacon, on the trial of the Earl of
Somerset, eulogised Henry’s Act, without hinting at its repeal.
[32] “The Christian Prudence of this Customary Law” is defended in a
little work, “Hallifax and its Gibbet-Law Placed in a True Light,”
1708, containing an illustration copied in Gough’s edition of Camden’s
“Britannia,” and in the enlarged “Magna Britannia,” ed. 1731, vi. 384.
In “Hallifax and its Gibbet-Law” it is stated, with every appearance
of probability, that the custom goes back to a date before the Norman
Conquest. It appears that the last persons executed were Abraham
Wilkinson and Anthony Mitchell in 1650 for stealing 9 yards of cloth and
two colts.
[33] Thorpe, “Anc. Laws and Inst. of England,” fo. ed., p. 252.
[34] Chron. Benedict of Peterborough, ed. Stubbs, i. 122-3.
[35] “Gleanings from Westminster Abbey” (Sir Gilbert Scott), 1863, pp.
282-90, where the original authorities are mentioned.
[36] Chrons. of the Reigns of Edward I. and Edward II., ed. Stubbs, i.
132.
[37] “Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey,” 1868, pp. 384-5.
[38] Chron. Walter of Coventry, ed. Stubbs, ii. 251-2; Gregory’s Chron.
(Camden Socy.), p. 63; Chron. Grey Friars, in Mon. Francisc., ed.
Howlett, ii. 146; Capgrave, ed. Hingeston, p. 151. Coggeshall, Chron.
Angl., ed. Stevenson, p. 11.
[39] “Tractus” is the usual form; for the other forms see, for example,
Chron. Angliæ, ed. Thompson, p. 2; Chron. Barth. Cotton, ed. Luard, pp.
132, 159, 164, 166.
[40] See illustration in Annals, under year 1242.
[41] Annals, under year 1196.
[42] “Et super corium bovinum tractus, ne concito moreretur” (Annales de
Vigornia, in Annales Monastici, ed. Luard, iv. 523).
[43] “Liber Assisarum, Le Livre des Assises et Pleas del’ Corone,” &c.
Sir Robert Brook, 1679. This sentence contains the first mention of the
hurdle in this connection. In the Popish Plot sentences “sledge” and
“hurdle” are used indifferently as names for the same thing.
[44] Chronicles: Waverley, ed. Luard, ii. 378; Flores Hist. ed. Luard,
iii. 24-6; Osney (in Annales Monastici, ed. Luard, iv. 251); Cotton, ed.
Luard, p. 148; an account unfavourable to the prior is found in Liber de
Antiq. Leg., Riley’s translation, pp. 150-3.
[45] Matthew Paris, Chron. Majora, ed. Luard, iii. 497, 498.
[46] Chrons. Osney, Worcester, in Annales Monas. ed. Luard, iv. 294, 488.
Between the executions for high treason of Prince David and Sir William
Wallace, comes that, in 1295, of Sir Thomas de Turberville. His crime
was undoubtedly high treason, but the punishment was abnormal; he was
drawn to the gallows, and there hanged, no doubt alive, by a chain of
iron. See Annals, under the year. A passage in “Fleta,” written about
1285, seems to indicate that at the time the character of the punishment
was not rigorously fixed: “If he is found guilty, he shall undergo the
last punishment (ultimum supplicium) with aggravation of the corporeal
penalty” (book i., chap. xxi).
[47] “Primo per plateas Londoniæ ad caudas equinas tractus usque ad
patibulum altissimum sibi fabricatum, quo laqueo suspensus, postea
semivivus dimissus, deinde abscisis genitalibus et evisceratis intestinis
ac in ignem crematis, demura absciso capite ac trunco in quatuor partes
secto, caput palo super pontem Londoniæ affigitur; quadrifida vero membra
ad partes Scotiæ sunt transmissa” (“Flores Hist.,” ed. Luard, iii. 124).
Another chronicler expressly states “ultimo decollatur,” and a third,
“demum decollatus est.” Walsingham, Ypodigma, ed. Riley, p. 235; Chron.
Rishanger, ed. Riley, pp. 225, 226.
[48] Hawkins (William), “A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown,” 1771,
c. 48, p. 443. See for details, Sir William Stanford, “Les Plees del
Coron.,” 1560, fol. 182, 182b. Sir Matthew Hale, “Hist. Placit. Coronæ,”
i. 350-1. “Les Reports de Henry Rolle,” 1675, i. 185-7, containing a good
example of law-French of the time of James I., the most exquisite jargon
ever invented by man. Coke, “Institutes,” part iii., 1644, p. 210, where
Coke gives scriptural authority for all the horrors of the sentence.
In passing sentence on the Gunpowder Plot men Coke gave an elaborate
justification of each part of the sentence (“State Trials,” ii. 184).
[49] “State Trials,” xviii. 350-1.
[50] Ellis, “Original Letters,” 1st series, ii. 261.
[51] “Constitut. Hist.,” ed. 1854, i. 148.
[52] “A Declaration of the favourable Dealing of her Majesties
Commissioners appointed for the Examination of certaine Traytours, and of
Tortures unjustly reported to be done upon them for Matters of Religion,
1583.” Reprinted in “Harleian Miscellanies,” iii. 565-8, and in “Somers’s
Tracts,” i. 209-12. In the latter the tract is ascribed to Burghley. I
think that the only non-official defence of torture published in England
is contained in a pamphlet published in 1656, under the Commonwealth, by
Sir R. Wiseman (the title belongs to the Restoration). He writes: “So
that to bring men to the rack in such cases [where there was only one
witness] for trials sake is not to be censured for cruelty.… This rigour
of the Law (if it be any) is recompensed with advantage to the whole
Commonwealth; for by the terror hereof it is free from the machinations
of wicked and lewd men.” (“The Law of Laws,” 1656.) It was written when
Cromwell’s power and life were the object of numerous plots, but there
is nothing in the book to connect this defence of torture with current
affairs. The last _recorded_ case of torture in England, and the last
that a careful inquirer could discover, was on May 21, 1640, Jardine,
David, “A Reading on the Use of Torture in England,” 1837, pp. 57, 58,
108, 109.
[53] Ed. Oxford, 1865, i. 26-7.
[54] Book i. c. 34, § 33.
[55] Chron. Barth. Cotton, ed. Luard, p. 228.
[56] Chron. Year Books of Edward I., years 30-31, p. 499.
[57] Rymer, “Fœdera,” vi. 13.
[58] Year Book, 8 Henry IV., Michaelmas term.
[59] Holinshed, i. 185.
[60] Mr. John Mush’s Life of Margaret Clitherow, in “The Troubles of Our
Catholic Forefathers,” by Father John Morris, 3rd series, 1877, p. 432.
[61] “The Unhappy Marksman,” in Thomasson Tracts, Brit. Mus. (E. 972),
reprinted in “Harleian Mis.,” vol. iv.
[62] “Et sic nota que il ne dit co̅e Britton ad dit deuant, s. que ceo
serra son diet ta̅que il voet doner direct respons, mes que ceo serra
son diet tanqz il soit mort absolutement: sans ascun condition en le
iudgement expresse ou implie, s. que a tel te̅ps que il voile responder,
il serra release de son penance. Car tiel releas nad estre view a nul
te̅ps. & ne serroit reason que per tiel repentance: le roy serroit tolle
del forfaiture de les biens le felon, a quel il est intitle per le dit
iugem̅t du pain fort et dure” (Fols. 150b, 151).
[63] See Annals, 1721, February 8th and December 22nd.
[64] A Report of Divers Cases, &c., collected by Sir John Kelyng Knight,
ed. 1708, p. 27.
[65] See in Annals, under 1538, July, and 1556, July 2nd.
[66] “State Trials,” ii. 335.
[67] Blount, “Glossogr.,” 1656: “Deric … is with us abusively used for a
Hang-man.”
[68] George Lord Carew, to Sir Thomas Roe, in “Cal. of State Papers,”
Domestic series, 1611-8, p. 428.
[69] See in Annals, under 1649.
[70] Luttrell, i. 271.
[71] “Autobiography of Sir John Bramston” (Camden Society), p. 192.
[72] _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1750, pp. 233, 425.
[73] Ibid., 1767, p. 276.
[74] Stow’s “Survey,” ed. Thoms, p. 161.
[75] Grey Friars’ Chron., ed. Howlett, pp. 199, 200.
[76] Ellis, “Original Letters,” 1824, ii. 298.
[77] Challoner’s “Memoirs of Missionary Priests,” 1842, pt. ii. p. 37.
[78] Laws of Alfred, in Thorpe’s “Anc. Laws and Inst. of England,” fo.
ed., p. 42.
[79] Thorpe, p. 97.
[80] Laws of William the Conqueror, De Suppliciorum modo: “Interdicimus
eciam ne quis occidatur vel suspendatur pro aliqua culpa, sed enerventur”
(other texts have “eruantur”) “oculi, et abscindantur pedes, vel
testiculi, vel manus, ita quod truncus remaneat vivus, in signum
prodicionis et nequicie sue: secundum enim quantitatem delicti debet pena
maleficis infligi. Ista precepta non sint violata super forisfacturam
nostram plenam. Testibus, &c.” (Thorpe, “Ancient Laws and Institutes of
England,” fol. ed., p. 213).
[81] Chron. Roger de Hoveden, ed. Stubbs, i. 165.
[82] Chron. Benedict of Peterborough, ed. Stubbs, ii. 59.
[83] “En France … nous voyons aujourd’huy, qu’il n’y a presque si petit
Gentil-homme, qui ne prétend avoir en propriété la Justice de son village
ou hameau; tel même qui n’a ni village, ni hameau, mais un moulin ou une
basse court près sa maison, veut avoir Justice sur son meusnier, ou sur
son fermier: tel encore qui n’a ni basse court ni moulin; mais le seul
enclos de sa maison, veut avoir Justice sur sa femme et sur son valet:
tel finalement qui n’a point de maison, prétend avoir Justice en l’air
sur les oyseaux du Ciel disant en avoir eu autrefois.” Loyseau, Charles,
“Discours de l’abus des Justices de Village,” p. 1 (in Œuvres).
[84] Stanley, “Hist. Mem. of Westminster Abbey,” ed. 1882, p. 354;
Brayley, “Londiniana,” iv. 215; “Arch. Cantiana,” vii. 96, 97.
[85] Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 479.
[86] Maitland, “History of London,” ii. 1363; Parton, “Some Account of
the Hospital and Parish of St. Giles,” p. 38.
[87] Thus Sir John Oldcastle was executed here in 1417, and those
implicated in Babington’s conspiracy in 1586, but in each case there were
special reasons for the selection of St. Giles’s.
[88] Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 479.
[89] Burnings in Smithfield for heresy took place in the following
years: 1401, 1410, 1415, 1422, 1431, 1438, 1441, 1494, 1499. The writ
in the first case is given in Rot. Parl., iii. 459: “Item, mesme ceste
Mesquerdy, March 2, 1400-1, un Brief feust fait as Meir & Viscontz
de Londres, par advis des Seigneurs Temporelx en Parlement, de faire
execution de William Sautre, jadys Chapelein Heretic, dont le tenure
s’ensuyte.” Then follows in Latin the text of the writ, Henry to
the Mayor and Sheriffs of London. It recites that the Archbishop of
Canterbury, with the consent and assent of the bishops and the whole of
the clergy of the province assembled in his provincial council, condemned
William for heresy, degraded him, and decreed that he be left to the
secular court, and Holy Mother Church has no more to do in the premises.
The writ orders that in some public and open place within the liberty of
the said city they shall cause, for the reason set forth, Sawtre to be
publicly, before the people, committed to the fire and to be burnt.
Smithfield, long established as a place of execution, was naturally
selected by the civic authorities; hence the evil celebrity of Smithfield
as the place of burning of heretics. The fires of Smithfield, associated
in the popular mind with “bloody Mary,” were kindled long before her
time, and continued long after her.
[90] “Henricus Dei gratia et cetera Vicecomiti Midilsex’ salutem.
Precipimus tibi quod sine omni dilatione in loco ubi furche prius erecte
fuerunt videlicet ad ulmellos fieri facias duos bonos gibettos de forti
et optimo mæremio ad latrones et alios malefactores suspendendos et
custum quod ad hoc posueris per visum et testimonium legalium hominum
computabitur tibi ad scaccarium. Teste H. de Burgo Justiciario nostro
apud Sanctum Albanum xxij die Maii. Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, 1833”
(Records Commission, i. 419).