State Trials, Political and Social. Volume 1 (of 2)

THE REGICIDES

Before Charles ii. left Breda to return to England as King; he published a proclamation dated 4-14th April 1660, in which he promised among other things a general pardon for all crimes, to everybody who made submission to the new order of things within forty days, 'excepting only such persons as shall hereafter be excepted by Parliament.' Accordingly, on the 8th of July 1661, the matter was discussed in the Parliament which recalled the King, and a list of excepted persons was drawn up. The House of Lords, as was natural, showed a greater desire for severity than the House of Commons, which gave Charles an opportunity, of which he was not slow to avail himself, of appearing before the House of Lords as an advocate for leniency. The result was that the Act of Oblivion was passed by the newly elected Parliament on 11th July 1661. The Act, which deserves careful study for various reasons, begins by pardoning all crimes committed between 1st January 1637 and 24th January 1660. There then follow exceptions. These include murders not committed under the authority of the King or Parliament, double marriages, witchcraft, and 'any theft or stealing of any goods, or other felonies' committed since 4th March 1659. But the more important exceptions are contained in three sections, by one of which various persons are excluded from the benefit of the Act, while by the other two some of them are not to be executed without the authority of an Act of Parliament. It is obvious that, as is pointed out by Bridgman in Tichburne's trial, these sections did not affect the functions of the jury in the trials of any of the named persons. Marten, who was in the second category of exceptions, condescended to attempt to defend himself on the ground that his name was Harry Marten, and the name in the Act was Henry Martin; and Cook took a still more technical point of defence on the same subject. In the result the King's conduct in the matter seems generally to have been regarded as lenient, and indeed his character seems to be free from the reproach of cruelty or a desire for vengeance. It is interesting to observe that there was a question of including Milton in the list of excepted persons. He was not, however, so included, and as he would otherwise have been subjected to a long term of imprisonment, we must, if we agree with Lord Campbell in attributing to Hale any credit for the composition of The Pilgrim's Progress, consider that Charles missed a chance of contributing to the writing of Paradise Lost.

As a preliminary to the trial a meeting was held to settle certain points of law which it was foreseen would arise. This was attended by all the judges then in office, namely, Sir Orlando Bridgman, Chief-Baron of the Exchequer;[26] Justices Foster[27] and Hide of the Common Pleas;[28] Justice Mallet[29] of the King's Bench; together with Sir Geoffry Palmer,[30] the King's Attorney; Sir Heneage Finch,[31] the King's Solicitor; Sir Edward Turner, Attorney to the Duke of York; Mr. Wadham Windham, of Lincoln's Inn; and Mr. Kelyng,[32] the reporter. It was there resolved to try the prisoners at Newgate by commission of Gaol Delivery, rather than by a special commission of Oyer and Terminer, so as to proceed with the trial at once; that all the prisoners should be arraigned the first day; that the King's counsel might privately manage the evidence before the Grand Jury (the practice of allowing any advocates to appear before the Grand Jury has long fallen into disuse); that the murder of the King should be precisely laid in the indictment, and be made use of as one of the overt acts to prove the compassing of his death; that any act tending to the compassing of the King's death besides the one laid in the indictment might be given in evidence; that the two witnesses required in treason need not speak to the same overt act;[33] that the fact that a juror had already found another prisoner guilty on the same indictment was no good ground for a challenge; that the prisoners should not be tried in irons; that the murder of the King should be stated to have been committed by quidam ignotus, with a visor on his face;[34] that the compassing of the King's death should be laid to have been committed on the 29th Jan. 24 Car. I., and the murder itself on tricesimo mensis ejusdem Januarii, without naming any year of any king; and that the indictment should conclude 'contra pacem nuper domini regis coron' et dignitat' suas,' etc.; and other technical matters were settled in the same way. The indictment was in Latin, being preferred after Michaelmas, until which time English was allowed by the Convention which was sitting when the King was restored.

The trials began on the 9th of October 1660, at Hick's Hall in the County of Middlesex, when the Grand Jury were charged by the Lord Chief-Baron Bridgman. True bills were found against thirty-one persons,[35] a true bill being found against Hulet on the 12th.

On the next day Thomas Harrison[36] was put up to plead.

Clerk—Thomas Harrison, How sayest thou? Art thou Guilty of the treason whereof thou standest indicted, and art now arraigned? Or not Guilty?

Harrison—My Lords, have I liberty to speak?

Court—No more (at this time) than Guilty or Not Guilty. Mr. Harrison, you have heard the direction before. We can but give you the same rule. If you plead Guilty you shall be heard at large; if Not Guilty, you know what remains.

Harrison—Will you give me leave to give you my answer in my own words?

Lord Chief-Baron—There is no answer but what the law directs; it is the same with you as with all others, or as I would desire if I was in your condition. You must plead Not Guilty, or if you confess Guilty, there must be judgment on your confession.

Harrison—You express your rule very fair, as well to me as to this gentleman (pointing to sir H. Waller, who had just pleaded guilty); but I have something to say, which concerns your Lordships as well as myself.

Court—You must hold, and plead Guilty or Not Guilty.

Harrison—My Lord, I have been kept close prisoner near these three months, that nobody might have access to me. Do you call me to give you a legal answer, not knowing of my trial till nine of the clock last night, and brought away from the Tower to this place at six of the clock this morning?

Court—You must give your direct answer, Guilty, or Not Guilty. You cannot say it is sudden or unprovided. You spend your time in vain. You trouble the Court. You must plead Guilty, or Not Guilty. We must not suffer you to make discourses here. You must plead either Guilty or Not Guilty.

Clerk—Are you Guilty, or Not Guilty?

After objecting to plead in this way for a little more time, Harrison was at last persuaded to plead Not Guilty. He then objected to complete the usual formula by saying that he would be tried by God and his Country, saying that they were vain words; but eventually—

Harrison—I do offer myself to be tried in your own way by God and my Country.

Clerk—God send you a good deliverance.

On the next day, the 11th, at seven o'clock in the morning, Harrison's trial began by the calling of the jury, of whom Harrison challenged thirty-five, his maximum number.

The case was then opened by Finch, the Solicitor-General, who, after explaining the law of treason by quotations from the Bible and Coke, charged the prisoner more particularly with having brought the King up to London; with having signed the warrant constituting the Court which tried him; with having sat as a member of the Court; and with having signed the death-warrant.

All the witnesses were then sworn, six in all.

Masterson proved that he saw Harrison sitting 'in that which they called the High Court of Justice' on the 27th of January 1649, the day when the King was sentenced; and that when the sentence was read he, with others, stood up as assenting to it. Clark, Kirk, and Nutley also gave evidence to the same effect; the latter adding that some few days before the 20th there was a Committee in the Exchequer Chamber of which the prisoner was a member.

I do remember well it was in the evening; they were lighting of candles, they were somewhat private. This gentleman was there, I saw him; for through the kindness of Mr. Phelps, who was then Clerk to that Committee, I was admitted, pretending first to speak with the said Mr. Phelps, and that I had some business with him; and so (as I said before) I was admitted into the Committee Chamber. Being there I did observe some passages fall from the prisoner at the bar; the words were to this purpose; he was making a narrative of some discourse that passed between his late majesty and himself in coming between Windsor and London, or Hurst Castle, I know not well which. My Lord, that passage that I observed to fall from him in that discourse was this; he said that the King as he sat in the coach with him was importunate to know what they intended to do with him. The King asked, What do they intend to do with me; Whether to murder me or no? 'and I said to him, There was no such intent on as to kill him, we have no such thoughts.' But (said he) the Lord has reserved you for a public example of justice. There is one word more, my Lords, and that is this, which I heard from the prisoner at the bar. The reason and end of their meeting together at that Committee was concerning the charge. So much I observed. It was concerning the contracting of the impeachment. I observed that some found fault with the length of that as it was drawn. They were offering some reasons to contract it, and I heard this prisoner at the bar vent this expression; 'Gentlemen, it will be good for us to blacken him what we can; pray let us blacken him,' or words to that purpose. I am sure 'blacken' was his word.

Lord Newburgh,[37] when he was living at Bagshot, saw Harrison conducting the King in custody from Hurst Castle to London. The two warrants, one for the trial, the other for the execution of the King, were produced, and Harrison's signatures to them were proved to be in his handwriting. The Court pointed out that they were not produced as records, but as evidence of overt acts of constituting a compassing of the King's death on his part.

Harrison—I do not come to be denying anything that in my own judgment and conscience I have done or committed, but rather to be bringing it forth to the light.

Court—Sir, you must understand this by the way, this you must take along with you, that these are read not as anything of authority in themselves, or as used to any other purpose, but as evidence of the fact against you; take that along with you.

This concluded the evidence; and Windham summed up the case very shortly, concluding, 'I think a clearer evidence of a fact can never be given than is for these things,' [Here the spectators hummed.]

Lord Chief-Baron—Gentlemen, this humming is not at all becoming the gravity of this Court. Let there be free speaking by the prisoner and the Court Counsel. It is more fitting for a stage-play than for a Court of Justice.

Harrison—It is now time, my Lords, to offer what I have to say. Have these learned gentlemen offered what they have to say?

Counsel—We have no more till he hath given us occasion, not for evidence of the fact.

Harrison—My lords, the matter that hath been offered to you, as it was touched, was not a thing done in a corner. I believe the sound of it hath been in most nations. I believe the hearts of some have felt the terrors of that presence of God that was with his servants in those days (however it seemeth good to him to suffer this turn to come on us) and are witnesses that the things were not done in a corner. I have desired, as in the sight of him that searcheth all hearts, whilst this hath been done, to wait, and receive from him convictions upon my own conscience, though I have sought it with tears many a time, and prayers over and over, to that God to whom you and all nations are less than a drop of water in the bucket; and to this moment I have received rather assurance of it, and that the things that have been done as astonishing on the one hand, I do believe ere it be long it will be made known from Heaven, there was more from God than men are aware of. I do profess that I would not offer of myself the least injury to the poorest man or woman that goes upon the earth. That I have humbly to offer is this, to your Lordships; you know what a contest hath been in these nations for many years. Divers of those that sit upon the bench were formerly as active——[38]

Court—Pray, Mr. Harrison, do not thus reflect on the Court. This is not the business.

Harrison—I followed not my own judgment; I did what I did, as out of conscience to the Lord; for when I found those that were as the apple of mine eye to turn aside, I did loath them, and suffered imprisonment many years. Rather than to turn as many did, that did put their hands to this plough, I chose rather to be separated from wife and family than to have compliance with them, though it was said, 'Sit thou at my right hand,' and such kind expressions. Thus I have given a little poor testimony that I have not been doing things in a corner, or from myself. May be I might be a little mistaken; but I did it all according to the best of my understanding, desiring to make the revealed will of God in his Holy Scriptures as a guide to me. I humbly conceive that what was done, was done in the name of the Parliament of England, that what was done, was done by their power and authority; and I do humbly conceive it is my duty to offer unto you in the beginning that this Court, or any Court below the High Court of Parliament, hath no jurisdiction of their actions. Here are many learned in the law, and to shorten the work, I desire I may have the help of counsel learned in the laws, that may in this matter give me a little assistance to offer those grounds that the law of the land doth offer. I say, what was done, was done by the authority of the Parliament, which was then the Supreme Authority, and that those that have acted under them are not to be questioned by any power less than them. And for that I conceive there is much out of the laws to be shewed to you and many Precedents also in the case. Much is to be offered to you in that; according to the laws of the nations, that was a due Parliament. Those Commissions were issued forth, and what was done was done by their power; and whereas it hath been said we did assume and usurp an authority, I say this was done rather in the fear of the Lord.

Court—Away with him. Know where you are, Sir; you are in the assembly of Christians; will you make God the author of your treasons and murders? Take heed where you are. Christians must not hear this. We will allow you to say for your own defence what you can; and we have with a great deal of patience suffered you to sally out, wherein you have not gone about so much for extenuation of your crimes, as to justify them, to fall upon others, and to blaspheme God, and commit a new Treason: For your having of counsel, this is the reason for allowing of counsel: When a man would plead any thing, because he would plead it in formality, counsel is allowed. But you must first say in what the matter shall be, and then you shall have the Court's answer.

Lord Finch—Though my lords here have been pleased to give you a great latitute, this must not be suffered, that you should run into these damnable excursions, to make God the author of this damnable Treason committed.

Harrison repeats his two points; that what was done was done by a 'Parliament of England, by the Commons of England assembled in Parliament'; and was therefore not to be questioned by the present Court; and that what any did in obedience to a power which they could not disobey, they ought not to be punished for. Upon these two points he asked to be allowed the assistance of counsel. To this the Lord Chief-Baron replies that the body Harrison refers to was not a Parliament, that Harrison had made himself 'a solicitor in the business,' when he said, 'Come let us blacken him as much as we can'; and that 'neither both Houses of Parliament, if they had been there, not any single person, community, not the people collectively, or representatively, had any colour to have any coercive power over their King.' Annesley—who had, as he says, been one of the 'corrupt majority,' put out of the house at the time of Pride's Purge—and Hollis repeat the same thing. An argument then ensues between Harrison and the other members of the Court on the authority of Parliaments generally; at last—

Harrison—I would not willingly speak to offend any man, but I know God is no respecter of persons. His setting up his standard against the people——

Court—Truly, Mr. Harrison, this must not be suffered; this doth not at all belong to you.

Harrison—Under favour, this doth belong to me. I would have abhorred to have brought him to account, had not the blood of Englishmen that had been shed——

Counsel—Methinks he should be sent to Bedlam, till he comes to the gallows to render an account of this. This must not be suffered.

Solicitor-General—My Lords, I pray that the jury may go together upon the evidence.

Sir Edward Turner—My Lords, this man hath the plague all over him, it is a pity any should stand near him, for he will infect them. Let us say to him as they used to write over an house infected, 'The Lord have mercy upon him,' and so let the officer take him away.

The argument then continues a little longer, chiefly between Harrison and the Lord Chief-Baron; till—

Lord Chief-Baron—Mr. Harrison, you have appealed to our consciences. We shall do that, which, by the blessing of God, shall be just; for which we shall answer before the Tribunal of God. Pray take heed of an obdurate, hard heart and seared conscience.

Harrison—My lords, I have been kept six months a close prisoner, and could not prepare myself for this trial by counsel. I have got here some acts of parliament, of that House of Commons, which your Lordship will not own; and the proceedings of that house, whose authority I did own.

The Lord Chief-Baron then summed up shortly, and the jury brought in a verdict of Guilty, apparently without much hesitation. Sentence of dragging, hanging, and quartering was accordingly passed in the ordinary terms.

HUGH PETERS[39]

Hugh Peters was called upon to plead on the 9th of October 1660.

Clerk—Hugh Peters, hold up thy hand. How sayest thou? Art thou guilty of the treason whereof thou standest indicted; and for which thou standest arraigned? Or Not Guilty?

Hugh Peters—I would not for ten thousand worlds say I am Guilty. I am not Guilty.

Clerk—How will you be tried?

Hugh Peters—By the word of God [here the people laughed].

Court—You must say By God and the Country. Tell him, you that stand by him, what he should say, if he doth not know.

Clerk—How will you be tried?

Hugh Peters—By God and the country.

The trial took place on the 13th of October, and after the jury were sworn, without Peters making any challenges, the case was shortly opened by Sir Edward Young. He stated that he would prove that Peters was a chief conspirator with Cromwell at several times and several places compassing the King's death; that he preached many sermons to the soldiers urging the 'taking away the King,' comparing him to Barabbas; that he was instrumental in directing the making of the proclamation for the High Court of Justice; that when the King was executed, he was the person that urged the soldiers below the scaffold to cry for justice; and that on the day after the trial he commended it.

Dr. William Young was the first witness. He first made Peters' acquaintance about the time of the siege of Pembroke Castle, in 1648. Afterwards, in 1649, Peters went over to Ireland with Cromwell, and falling sick of the flux, returned to Milford and sent for the witness.

There I found him, grovelling upon the deck, and sick he was indeed; with much difficulty we got him on shore; within a very few days, to the best of my remembrance five days, I perfected his cure; we became very familiar; I observed in him that he had some secret thoughts that I could not well discover, neither well understand; whereupon I thought it might tend to my security that I should so much sympathize with him, to get within him to know his intentions. After some weeks we grew so familiar, that at last I found he began to enlarge his heart to me. Many times I should hear him rail most insufferably against the blood royal, not only against our martyred king, but against his off-spring; still as we continued our acquaintance, he became more and more open to me; so we would sit up discoursing till about twelve or one of the clock at night very often, about these unhappy wars late in England.

He said that he had been employed out of New England to stir up the civil war; that he had been sent by the Parliament to Ireland 'to receive further instructions to drive on the design to extirpate monarchy'; that he had spent a great deal of his money, but had never been repaid the £2000 or £3000 he had been promised for his journey; he used to vilify monarchy, 'jocundarily scoffing at it, and would ordinarily quibble in this manner, saying "this Commonwealth will never be at peace till 150 be put down." I asked him what this 150 was, he told me the three L's, and afterwards interpreted the meaning to be the Lords, the Levites, and the Lawyers; with that, said I, we shall be like the Switzers, Tinkers, and Traitors,' He had a commission from Cromwell to raise troops for Ireland, he issued two commissions to bring over two troops from Devon, and offered to make the witness a major or captain. Talking of the removal of the King from Holmby House, he said that the Parliament having then a design to secure himself and Cromwell, they

escaped out of London, and rode hard for it, and as we rode to Ware we made a halt, and advised how we should settle this kingdom in peace, and dispose of the King; the result was this, They should bring him to justice, try him for his life, and cut off his head; whether this was the expression of Cromwell I cannot tell; but to the utmost of my remembrance, and I am mistaken if it was not the advice of Mr. Peters to Cromwell; and I believe it, because his former relations of his instructions out of Ireland did tend to that effect.

Peters—My lord, I desire to speak a word [his voice being low, he was brought to the second bar]. I am the bolder to speak to your lordships at this time a word, and it is high time to satisfy my conscience; if these things were true, there is enough said to destroy me; I desire leave to tell you what offence I take at the witness, thus, my lord. This gentlemen I do know——

Counsel—What say you to him?

Peters—That which I have to say is this, that in his story he hath told that which is not true; but I will not find fault with him, because he was my host, I will not reflect and recriminate: I shall give your lordships in simplicity as much satisfaction myself as any witness; this I say to the man that speaks, and this is certain, I did spend some time at this gentleman's house, he is called there Dr. Young; and my trouble at this discourse is this, I do not know, my lord, that I found a more violent man for the parliament than himself; so far he undertook to be a spy on one side; this I find to be so, he will not deny it; he was very fierce in that way; I think words of such a man ought to be little attended to. The second is this, this gentleman is not a competent witness, and that upon a two-fold ground. First, because I know he is under a very great temptation and trouble in this very thing, and it is upon this account he was put out of his living in the country, and here he came to me to help him in again, and was very highly offended because I did not do it. Secondly, it is not that I would invalidate his witness, but give me leave to tell you, it is his way to snap and catch at every man, which is the complaint of the people in his own country. I know that same which is spoken is false; I speak it in the presence of God, I profess, I never had any near converse with Oliver Cromwell about such things; I speak this to the Jury, that they would have a care of the witness; I was in sickness then; those that have known me do know likewise that I have much weakness in my head when I am sick, and to take words that are spoken in a sick condition, he ought not to do it; for the words themselves I do here profess against them, for the generality of them; and that he hath been freer in my judgment in any communication in this way than I have been; it is marvellous, here I profess the things untruths; I call God and angels to witness they are not true. I will give you an account of my whole condition by-and-by, if I may be heard.

Court—You shall be heard at large; that which you have been heard now is concerning the competency or incompetency of the witness: the incompetency against him is this, that when you came thither none more violent for the parliament than himself, and that he was a great spy, and you say it was usual with him to take such courses; these are but words; if you have any witnesses we will hear them; the man may be traduced and slandered, and so all witnesses may be taken away. Mr. Peters, if you take this course, God knows when this business will end; if you have a mind take pen, ink, and paper, and take notes of the witnesses, and make exceptions to them one after another; but interrupting one, and so another, we shall never have done.

Young—I do recollect myself of some other conferences between us; as to my being malicious, I know he never did me any wrong, and therefore I cannot be malicious; and as for my reputation, having resided two years in London I can have certificates both from my country, and some of this city, to vindicate me in that particular; But, my lord, that which I would inform your lordship is this, he told me he took duke Hamilton a prisoner himself in his own chamber, seized on his goods, and took his George and blue ribbon off his shoulder, and the George he shewed me.

William Gunter was a drawer at the Star in Coleman Street. Oliver Cromwell and several of his party used to meet there in consultation; there were several meetings; he remembered one in particular when Peters was there; he came about four in the afternoon and stayed till ten or eleven at night; they were talking about the King after he was a prisoner, for they called him by the name of Charles Stuart; they were writing something, but the witness could not say what. He could not say whether Peters was there oftener than once, 'but once I am certain of it; this is the gentleman; for then he wore a great sword.'

Peters—I never wore a great sword in my life.

Starkey deposed that in the December before the King's death, and up to the 12th of the following January, the headquarters of the army were at Windsor, and General Ireton was quartered at his father's house. The Council of War was held there, and Cromwell, Ireton, Peters, Col. Rich, and another gentleman, whose name he forgot, would meet and consult there, and sit up till two or three in the morning very privately together. The witness was often in Ireton's company, and Peters would often come in to meals in the evening.

Mr. Ireton being civil in carriage, would usually entertain discourses with Mr. Peters, likewise would favor me sometimes with discourse; and in that discourse I did many times take occasion to assert the laws in point of the king; and discoursing about the king as being a capital instrument in the late inconveniences, as they called it, in the times of the war, Mr. Ireton would discourse this ordinarily; I was bold to tell them that the person of the king was solutus legibus; this gentleman the prisoner at the bar, told me it was an unequal law. I did observe Mr. Peters did bend his discourse, not by way of argument only, but in point of resolution of judgment, fully against the person and government of the king. I remember some of his expressions were these, That he was a tyrant, that he was a fool, that he was not fit to be a king, or bear that office; I have heard him say, that for the office itself (in those very words which shortly after came into print) that it was a dangerous, chargeable, and useless office. My lords, the constant discourse of this gentleman at that time was such as he did believe would never be called into question, so it was not a thing that a man was necessitated to observe by an accident, but it was their whole discourse. I will put you in mind of a particular passage. When the news came to Windsor that the king was in prison at the Isle of Wight, my father (whose house that was) was very much troubled at it; and being an ancient man, was not able to control his passions with reason, told my mother that they (meaning Mr. Ireton, etc.) should have no entertainment there, and took the key of the cellar and put it in his pocket; his passions being lessened, Mr. Ireton, his wife, and another officer being at supper, and afterwards my father said grace, and, as he usually did, though they were there, he said that usual and honest expression, praying for the king in these usual words, 'God save the king, prince, and realm'; sometimes they did laugh at it, but never did reflect upon him; but this night he made this expression, 'God save the king's most excellent majesty, and preserve him out of the hands of all his enemies.' Peters, who was then at the table, turns about to him, and said, 'Old gentleman, your idol will not stand long'; I do conceive he meant it of the king. For a matter of two months of the constant residence and being of the army there, I did observe that in the General Council there, and in this private cabal (after the business was broke out, and when the king was taken prisoner, and carried to Windsor), Mr. Peters was the constant man; and when the business broke out, I looked upon it in reason that Cromwell, Ireton, and this gentleman at the bar, and Rich, and that other gentleman, whose name I have forgot, that they were the persons that did the business. My lords, Mr. Peters he continued at Windsor: I remember very well that after the body of the army, the general, and the officers of the army, were gone to London, he continued at Windsor: I remember a passage of one Bacon, who was a sectary; Mr. Peters being in discourse of the king, Mr. Bacon took great distaste at Mr. Peters for some affront put upon the King; Mr. Peters falls upon him, and rails at him, and was ready to beat him; we understood it so, because he did tell him of his affronting the King.

Counsel—Mr. Peters, if you have any thing to ask this witness, you may.

Peters—I have many things to ask him. Did I ever lie there?

Starkey—No.

Peters—Did you see me there at three o'clock in the morning?

Starkey—I have seen you go up at ten o'clock at night to Mr. Ireton's chamber, and sometimes I understood you did not go away till four o'clock in the morning: I went to bed it is true, but I understood it so.

Thomas Walkely saw Cromwell, Goodwin, Peters, and others in the Painted Chamber at Westminster on the day after the proclamation for the trial of the King was made. Goodwin sat in the middle of the table and made a long speech or prayer, and then it was ordered that strangers should leave the room, and Walkely went out, and afterwards saw Peters leave the room with the others. When the King was brought to London as a prisoner, Walkely 'saw his majesty in his coach with six horses and Peters, like a bishop almoner, riding before the king triumphing.'

Proctor also saw the King driving into London with the prisoner riding before him, the King sitting alone in his coach. 'My Lord, I did put off my hat, and he was graciously pleased to put off his hat; the troopers seeing this, they threw me into the ditch, horse and all, where I stayed till they pass by, and was glad I escaped so.'

Hardwick heard the proclamation for the High Court of Justice made in Westminster Hall, and afterwards Peters came into Palace Yard and told the officers there that the proclamation must also be made in Cheapside and at the Old Exchange.

Holland Simpson saw the sitting of the High Court; he saw Peters there, but not as a judge.

There was one day in the hall colonel Stubbards, who was adjutant-general (he was a very busy man) and colonel Axtel; Mr. Peters going down the stairs, comes to him, and bids Stubbards to command the soldiers to cry out 'justice, justice, against the traitor at the bar.'

Counsel—Who did he mean?

Simpson—The King was at the bar at the same time; whereupon, my lord, the soldiers did cry out upon the same; and as the King was taken away to sir Robert Cotton's some of them spit in the King's face, but he took his handkerchief, wiped it off, and smiled.

Thomas Richardson and Sir Jeremy Whichcot spoke to casual expressions of Peters which showed approval of the King's trial and deposition.

Richard Nunnelly, sworn.

Counsel—Was Peters upon the Scaffold at the time of execution or before?

Nunnelly—On that unhappy day, 30th of Jan. 1649, this Hugh Peters came an hour before the king came to Whitehall; I came with a warrant of a £40 or £50,000 to Oliver Cromwell, being door-keeper to the Committee of the Army; Nunnelly, says Oliver Cromwell, will you go to Whitehall? Surely you will see the beheading of the king; and he let me into Whitehall; coming into the boarded gallery I met Hugh Peters, and he was in the gallery; and then I got with Hugh Peters into the Banqueting-House; being there, Hugh Peters met one Tench of Hounsditch, that was a joiner meeting him; he speaks to him, and whispers in his ear, and told him somewhat, I do not know what it was; but Tench presently went and knocked four staples upon the scaffold; I meeting Tench again, What art thou doing? said I. What, will you turn hangman? Says he, This day will be a happy day. Said I, Pray God send it be not a bloody day; upon that Hugh Peters went upon the scaffold just an hour before the king came, and then he went off again. I watched at the window when the king's head was cut off, and afterwards I saw the vizards going into a chamber there; about an hour afterwards (I staying there at the door) there comes Hugh Peters in his black cloak and broad hat out of that chamber (as I take it) with the hangman; I am sure I did see him go along with the hangman to take water; this is all I can remember, it being many years since.

Peters—I humbly beg I may be heard in this case; I have here a witness, and I desire he may be examined; it is noised I was upon the scaffold, I here call God to witness I was not out of my chamber that day; I was sick that day; I speak in the presence of the Lord.

Court—If your witness will stay he shall be heard; there are more witnesses to the same thing, and so he may speak to all together.

Dr. Mortimer, sworn.

Mortimer—Me lar, me ha serd de king, etc.

Court—We cannot understand a word.

Counsel—He is a Frenchman, my lord.

Court—Pray let there be an interpreter.

[One Mr. Young was sworn to interpret truly his evidence. But it being afterwards found difficult and troublesome, the Counsel waved his evidence, and prayed another witness might be called.]

Mortimer—Me Lar, me can peak Englis——

Counsel—No, no, pray sit down, we will examine other witnesses. Call Stephen Clough.

Stephen Clough heard there was to be a meeting of the Council of officers at Westminster, about three weeks or a month before the King's execution,

and I being willing (my Lord) to hear what their consultations were, I went thither, and was there as one of them (but I was not one); amongst the rest Hugh Peters was one; when the room was pretty full the door was shut. Mr. Peters was desired to call for a blessing upon their business; in his prayer he uttered these words, 'O Lord (said he) what a mercy it is to see this great city fall down before us! And what a stir there is to bring this great man to trial, without whose blood he will turn us all into blood if he reign again!'

Beaver, upon the day appointed for a fast for those that sat then as a parliament,

went to Westminster to find out some company to dine with me, and having walked about an hour in Westminster Hall, and finding none of my friends to dine with me, I went to that place called Heaven, and dined there.

After he had dined he went through St. Margaret's churchyard, and finding it all full of muskets and pikes, asked some soldiers what was their business there. They told him that Peters was preaching in the church, and 'I must needs have the curiosity to hear that man, having heard many stories of the manner of his preaching (God knows I did not do it out of any manner of devotion); I crowded near the pulpit, and came near to the speaker's pew.' He heard Peters preaching on the text about the Jews releasing Barabbas and crucifying Christ; interpreting Barabbas to mean the King, and Christ the Army.

Says he, and because that you should think, my lords and gentlemen, that it is a question, I tell you it is a question; I have been in the city which may very well be compared to Hierusalem in this conjuncture of time, and I profess these foolish citizens for a little trading and profit, they will have Christ (pointing to the redcoats on the pulpit stairs) crucified, and the great Barabbas at Westminster released.

He told the members that they were the Sanhedrim, and that it was they to whom the people looked for justice—

Do not prefer the great Barabbas, Murderer, Tyrant, and Traitor, before these poor hearts (pointing to the redcoats) and the army who are our saviours.

It was proved by the journal of the House of Commons that a fast had been ordered for the 20th of December 1648.

Chace had heard Peters preaching on the 21st of January; his text was, 'Bind your kings with chains, and your nobles with fetters of iron.' He maintained that the King was not above the law. It was said they had no power to behead the King; 'Turn to your bibles,' he answered, 'and you shall find it there, Whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; and I see neither King Charles, Prince Charles, nor prince Rupert, nor prince Maurice, nor any of that rabble excepted out of it.'

Peters—Ask him if he took notes.

Chace—No sir, but it being so memorable a sermon I took special notice of it; I came to my brother's house in Shoe lane, and told him; said I, Brother, I have been at Whitehall and have heard the most execrable business that ever was in the world by a minister of the Gospel, and told him the words, and I observed that Oliver Cromwell did laugh at that time when you were preaching.

Tongue, Bowdler, Rider, and Walker all gave similar evidence as to Peters' preaching.

Cornelius Glover was called by Peters, but was not sworn. He was Peters' servant at the time of the King's execution; on the morning of that day Peters was ill in his chamber.

I had a desire to go to see the meeting where they were at Whitehall; saith he, 'Thou seemest to have a great desire to go and look about thee, it is very sad, but if you will go you may.' I did go over the park.

He went about noon, the soldiers and people filled the place, and he went back in a quarter of an hour's time. When he got back, Peters was still in his chamber. He was melancholy sick, as he used to be.

Lord Chief-Baron—Did you desire to go, or did he send you?

Glover—I did desire to go, being newly come to London.

Peters was then called on to make his defence. He began by pointing out that he had nothing to do with the beginning of the war.

I lived fourteen years out of England, when I came over I found the wars begun; I began no war, my lord, nor have been the trumpeter; when I came out of the West Indies I fled from the war into Ireland, to the western parts there. I was neither at Edge-Hill nor Naseby; but my lord, after I came over there was war that the people were engaged in; I was not here in the beginning of it, but was a stranger to the carriage of it. When I came into the nation I looked after three things; One was that there might be sound Religion; the second was that Learning and Laws might be maintained; the third that the poor might be cared for; and I must confess I have spent most of my time in these things to this end and purpose.

He explains how he acted for these ends in Ireland, and how, being sent over to England, 'that we might have a little help in point of Excise and Customs,' he saw the state of the country, and

in some measure I did stir, but by strong importunities, the ministers of London deeper than I; I am very sorry to hear of my carriage towards the King; it is my great trouble; I beg pardon for my own folly and weakness; I thought God had a great controversy with the nation, and the Lord was displeased on all hands; that which some people took to, I did take unto; I went into the army; I saw at the beginning of it that corruptions grew among them.... I had neither malice nor mischief in my heart against the King; upon this I did engage so far, being invited; I went into the wars, and there I found very strange and several kinds of providences, as this day hath been seen; I do not deny but that I was active, but not to stir in a way that was not honourable. I had so much respect for his majesty, particularly at Windsor, that I propounded to his majesty my thoughts, three ways to preserve himself from danger, which were good as he was pleased to think though they did not succeed, and the work died; as for malice I had none in me; I have not persecuted with malice, I will only take off malice.

The Lord Chief-Baron reminded him that the business was a matter of fact, and shortly recapitulated the evidence against him. Consulting about the King's death; proposing or determining that he should die; making seditious speeches, in the pulpit or out of it, would all be overt acts proving treasonable intention. His conversations with Dr. Young at Milford, his meetings with Cromwell and others at the Star, his participation in the councils held at Starkey's house at Windsor, all proved the consulting and proposing. His presence at the meeting in the Painted Chamber; his riding in front of the King when he was brought to London (which Peters interrupted to explain that he did by the King's command that he might procure the Bishop of London to come to him); the part he took in ordering the reading the proclamation about the High Court, which Peters denied; his telling the soldiers to cry out Justice, Justice; his presence at the scaffold before the execution [Peters—'I do not profess to your lordship, before angels and men, that I did not stir out of my chamber that day.' Lord Chief-Baron—'Counsel doth not put reliance upon that because of what your witness saith, though his evidence is not satisfactory']; his prayers and his sermons all go to complete the case. When Peters objects that some of the witnesses to the sermons are but single witnesses, the judge expressly lays it down that the two witnesses required need not both speak to the same overt act.

The Solicitor then notices the main facts of the case in a still more abbreviated form, concluding:

The honour of the pulpit is to be vindicated; and the death of this man will preach much better than his life did; it may be a means to convert many a miserable person, whom the preaching of this person hath seduced; for many come here and say they did it 'in the fear of the Lord'; and now you see who taught them; and I hope you will make an example of this carnal prophet.

The jury after a little consultation found the prisoner Guilty; and he was forthwith sentenced to death in the usual terms.

WILLIAM HULET

William Hulet was arraigned on the 15th of October, and tried on the same day. He challenged no jurors, and refused pen and ink because he could not write; but as he had not well understood the indictment he desired it to be read over again, which was done.

Sir Edward Turner opened the case, alleging that Hulet was on the scaffold, in disguise, on the occasion of the execution, and suggesting that it was he who actually beheaded the King; a fact which he proposed to prove chiefly by Hulet's own admissions.

Gittens was the first witness. He stated that he and Hulet were both serjeants in the same regiment at the time of the execution. A day or two before the King came to the scaffold about thirty-eight of them were sworn to secrecy by Colonel Hewson, and they were all asked whether they would behead the King for a hundred pounds, and a promise of preferment in the army. They all refused. At the time of the execution it seems that part of the regiment was on guard in Scotland Yard, and part in the Banqueting Chamber and on the scaffold. The witness was with the former part, but managed to get near the scaffold before the execution actually happened. 'Hulet (as far as I can guess), when the King came on the scaffold for his execution, and said, Executioner, is the block fast? fell on his knees.'

Counsel—Who did?

Gittens—Hulet, to ask him forgiveness; by his speech I thought it was he. Captain Atkins said, who would not undertake to do this fact? I told him I would not do it for all the city of London; no, nor I neither for all the world, saith Atkins; you shall see Hulet quickly come to preferment; and presently after he was made captain-lieutenant.

Counsel—Was he with his regiment that day?

Gittens—We could not see him with the regiment all that day; he was never absent at any time before.

Counsel—Did you know his voice?

Gittens—Yes, sir. He had a pair of freeze trunk breeches, and a vizor, with a grey beard; and after that time col. Hewson called him 'father grey beard' and most of the army besides, he cannot deny it.

In cross-examination Gittens repeated that he knew Hulet by his voice, and that he was by Captain Webb at the door of the Banqueting House.

Stammers was afterwards in Hewson's troop when Hulet was captain-lieutenant, and marched at his orders to Luttrels-town; there Hulet questioned him as to his previous service, and asked whether he had ever served in the King's army: 'with that he walks about the room two or three turns; saith he, I was the man that beheaded King Charles, and for doing it I had an hundred pounds, saying I was a serjeant at that time.'

Cross-examined, he said that he had been in the troop about a fortnight; and that when he first saw Hulet he pretended that he was brother to one Chambers. Hulet said that his evidence did not agree with that which he had given in his examination at Dublin, and desired that the latter might be read; which was done, and it agreed with the testimony he had just given.

Toogood was in Dublin in 1650, about September; he had some business with Hewson, where he saw Hulet, and observed that he was very familiar.

I asked Hewson what he was, he told me he was his captain-lieutenant of horse; I desired to know where he had him? he told me he made him so from a serjeant, and a very mettled fellow he was; it was he that did the King's business for him upon the scaffold. In 1653 there was a disbanding of the army in Ireland; this gentleman was then continued captain-lieutenant in Pretty's regiment; I discoursed with Pretty concerning him, and one part of it, I remember, was about the King's death; and he did tell me that he was assured by col. Hewson that Hulet either cut off the King's head, or held it up, and said, 'Behold the head of a traitor.' Col. Pretty could not tell me which of the two it was; but I saw the person that did it, and methought he did resemble this person.

Twelve months afterwards he came to live near the prisoner in Ireland, and meeting him at the White Horse in Carlow, asked whether he was the man that cut off the King's head or not.

Saith he, Why do you ask me this question? I told him I had heard so by several, namely by Hewson and Pretty; upon that he said, 'Well, what I did, I will not be ashamed of; if it were to do again I would do it.' Once since that time, about half a year afterwards, I was in the same place, and there talking about the King's death, he was telling me it was true, he was one of the two persons that were disguised upon the scaffold. I desired to know what if the King had refused to submit to the block? saith he, there were staples placed about the scaffold, and I had that about me that would have compelled him, or words to that effect; other times I have heard him speak something to this ... I have observed in Ireland, that it hath been generally reported that he was either the man that cut off the King's head or he that held it up, as I said before, and I have heard them sometimes call him Grandsire Greybeard.

Walter Davis had two years before been drinking with Hulet in Dublin, and

said I to Hulet, I pray resolve me this one question; it is reported that you took up the King's head, and said, Behold the head of a traitor; Sir, said he, it is a question I never yet resolved any man, though often demanded; yet, saith he, whosoever said it, it matters not, I say it now; it was the head of a traitor.

Lieut.-Colonel Nelson had asked Colonel Axtell (who had just been tried and condemned) who were the two disguised persons on the scaffold.

He told me I knew the persons as well as himself; saith he, they have been on service with you many a time; pray, sir, said I, let me know their names? Truly, said he, we would not employ persons of low spirits that we did not know, and therefore we pitched upon two stout fellows. Who were those? said I. It was Walker and Hulet, they were both serjeants in Kent when you were there, and stout men. Who gave the blow? said I. Saith he, poor Walker, and Hulet took up the head; Pray, said I, what reward had they? I am not certain whether they had thirty pounds apiece or thirty pounds between them.

Col. Thompson and Benjamin Francis both saw the execution, and said that it was a man disguised in a light wig that cut off the King's head.

Hulet said he could bring thirty or forty witnesses to prove that some one else did the act, and others to prove that he was not there on that day; he also produced a paper of examinations taken before the Lord Mayor, being of Mary Brandon and others. He was reminded that he had been examined in the Tower, and admitted that he was then charged with cutting off the King's head. 'Then,' said the Chief-Baron, 'you had time to provide your witnesses,' to which Hulet replied that he had been a close prisoner since then. He further said that he had been a prisoner, together with six or eight others, on the day of the execution; they were imprisoned because they refused to be on the scaffold. Hulet wished to call Hacker, Huncks, and Phayre, but the Court pointed out that Hacker had already been tried for his life (and condemned), and that Phayre was a prisoner in the Tower. Huncks had been called as a witness against Axtell. Hulet then called a Sheriff's Officer, who said that he had been told by one of his fellow-officers

that he was in Rosemary Lane a little while after the execution of the King, drinking with the hangman [i.e. George Brandon], that he did urge him whether he did this fact; God forgive me, saith he, the hangman, I did it, and I had forty half-crowns for my pains.

Abraham Smith—My Lord, as soon as that fatal blow was given I was walking about Whitehall, down came a file of musketeers; the first word they said was, Where be the bargemen? Answer was made, Here are none; away they directed the hangman in my boat; going into the boat he gave one of the soldiers a half-crown. Said the soldiers—Waterman, away with him, be gone quickly; but I fearing this hangman had cut off the King's head, I trembled that he should come into my boat, but dared not examine him on shore for fear of the soldiers; so I launched out, and having got a little way in the water, said I, who the devil have I got in my boat? Says my fellow, says he, why? I directed my speech to him, saying, Are you the hangman that cut off the King's head? No, as I am a sinner to God, saith he, not I; he shook every joint of him; I knew not what to do; I rowed away a little further, and fell to a new examination of him, when I had got him a little further, Tell me true, said I, are you the hangman that cut off the King's head? I cannot carry you, said I; No, said he, I was fetched by a troop of horse, and I was kept a close prisoner at Whitehall, and truly I did not do it; I was kept a close prisoner all the while; but they had my instruments. I said I would sink the boat if he would not tell me true; but he denied it with several protestations.

William Cox—When my lord Capel, duke of Hamilton, and the Earl of Holland were beheaded in Palace Yard in Westminster,[40] my lord Capel asked the common hangman, saith he, Did you cut off my master's head? Yes, saith he. Where is the instrument that did it? He then brought the ax. This is the same ax. Are you sure? saith my lord. Yes, my lord, saith the hangman, I am very sure it is the same. My lord Capel took the ax, and kissed it, and gave him five pieces of gold. I heard him say, Sirrah, wert thou not afraid? Saith the hangman, they made me cut it off, and I had thirty pounds for my pains.

Richard Abell heard one Gregory confess that he cut off the King's head. The Lord Chief-Baron then asked Hulet whether he wished for any further time to examine into the truth of the matter; but on his saying that he needed a fortnight for the purpose the trial was proceeded with at once.

A Stranger—My Lord, I was with my master in the company of Brandon the hangman, and my master asked Brandon whether he cut off the King's head or no? He confessed in my presence that he did cut off the King's head.

The Lord Chief-Baron then summed up the case, briefly repeating the substance of the evidence. He pointed out that the evidence went two ways, meaning apparently that Hulet either cut off the King's head, or held it up after it was cut off, and whichever he did, the jury ought to find him Guilty. He concluded by telling them that they were not to consider what was said of the prisoner by another unless it was corroborated by what the prisoner said.

After a more than ordinary time of consideration the jury returned to their places, and found the prisoner Guilty.

Hulet was brought up for sentence on the 16th of October, and sentenced to death in the usual way, with other prisoners. At the same time he was informed that his execution would be delayed in order that the King's pleasure might be known. He was eventually reprieved.[41]

FOOTNOTES:

[26] Sir Orlando Bridgman (1606-1674) was the eldest son of the Bishop of Chester. He entered Queens College, Cambridge, in 1619; became a fellow of Magdalene in 1624, and was called to the bar in 1632. He became Chief-Justice of Chester in 1638, and Solicitor-General to the Prince of Wales in 1640. He sat in the Long Parliament as a Royalist, and in the Oxford Parliament in 1644. He was one of the King's Commissioners at the Uxbridge negotiations in 1644-45. He ceased appearing in court under the Commonwealth, but enjoyed a considerable practice as a conveyancer, at that period a very profitable branch of the profession. At the Restoration he was made a Serjeant, Chief-Baron of the Exchequer, and a Baronet. After this trial he became Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas. On the disgrace of Clarendon he became Lord Keeper in 1667, a position in which he did not add to his fame as a lawyer. According to North, he was both ignorant and weak; 'and what was worst of all, his family were very ill qualified for that place; his lady being a most violent intriguess in business, and his sons kept no good decorum whilst they practised under him.' He avoided the political intrigues of the time; he was kept in ignorance of the Treaty of Dover, and refused to let the Declaration of Indulgence pass the Great Seal in its original state in 1672. Finally, when Charles declared the Exchequer closed for twelve months he refused to grant an injunction to protect the bankers who were likely to be ruined. He was accordingly removed from office in November 1672, and was succeeded by Lord Shaftesbury.

[27] Sir Robert Foster (1589-1663), the youngest son of a judge of the Common Pleas, was called to the bar in 1610. He supported Charles i.'s most tyrannical proceedings, and became a Justice of the Common Pleas in 1640. He followed Charles to Oxford, and attempted to hold his court there. He was removed from his office by the Parliament, and practised as a conveyancer during the Commonwealth. He was at once restored to his office at the Restoration. After this trial, he was, in the dearth of good lawyers who were also Royalists, made Lord Chief-Justice. He presided at the trial of Sir Harry Vane the younger, who was convicted of treason in compassing the death of Charles ii., his real offence being the part he took against Strafford; and was instrumental in inducing the King to sign his death-warrant in breach of the Act of Indemnity. In other trials of political opponents he acquired the reputation of a partisan judge.

[28] Sir Robert Hide (1595-1665) was cousin to Lord Clarendon. He was called to the bar in 1617, and became Recorder of Salisbury in 1638. He sat as a Royalist in the Long Parliament, and joined the King at Oxford. He was committed to the Tower in 1645 and 1646, and deprived of his recordership. He was made a Justice of the Common Pleas in 1660, and Lord Chief-Justice on Foster's death, through his cousin's influence. He was celebrated for his trials of seditious printers, and died in court as he was about to begin the trial of one of them.

[29] Sir Thomas Mallet (1582-1665) came of a legal family, and was called to the bar in 1606. He sat in Charles i.'s first two parliaments, and was made a Justice of the King's Bench in 1641. He came into opposition to Parliament by opposing their measures in relation to the Book of Common Prayer and the Militia, and was twice imprisoned by them and fined. He was replaced on the Bench at the Restoration, at the age of seventy-eight, but retired in 1663.

[30] Sir Geoffrey Palmer (1598-1670) was called to the bar in 1623, sat in the Long Parliament, was one of the managers of Strafford's impeachment, but rallied to the King's side on the passing of the Act perpetuating Parliament in 1641. He voted against Hampden's motion for printing the remonstrance in November 1641, and was committed to the Tower. He withdrew from the House after the passing of the Militia Ordinance, and sat in the Parliament at Oxford. He was one of the King's representatives at the Uxbridge negotiations, 1644-45, and was committed to the Tower in 1655. He became Attorney-General at the Restoration, and so remained till his death.

[31] See vol. ii. p. 5.

[32] Sir John Kelyng was the son of a barrister, and was called to the bar in 1631-32. He practised for a short time in the oppressive Forest Courts, attempted to present some persons at the Hertford Quarter Sessions in 1642, for what he held to be unlawful drilling under the Militia Ordinance, and was in consequence committed to Windsor Castle till 1660. He was released at the Restoration, and was called upon to supply the place of the King's Serjeant, Glanville, at this trial. He was afterwards knighted, and entered Parliament, where he was employed in drafting the Act of Uniformity. As to his connection with the trial of the Bury St. Edmunds witches, see post, pp. 226, 229. He took a prominent part in Vane's trial, and was made a puisne judge in 1663. He was appointed to succeed Hyde as Lord Chief-Justice in 1667, after the post had been vacant seven months. He was said to owe his place to corrupt dealings with Clarendon, or to the favour of Lady Castlemaine, but this is doubted by Campbell, who otherwise takes a most unfavourable view of his career. His subsequent conduct on the bench was such that, though he never presided at any trials of great importance, a petition against him was considered in the House of Commons, and a Committee reported most unfavourably on his behaviour. He made his peace with the House, but sank into insignificance, and died in 1671, still in office.

[33] See vol. ii. pp. 35, 37.

[34] It does not appear whether any difference was made in Hulet's case.

[35] The Regicides actually tried were Sir Hardress Waller, Colonel Thomas Harrison, William Hevingham, Isaac Pennington, Henry Martin, Gilbert Millington, Robert Tichburne, Owen Roe, Robert Lilburne, Adrian Scroop, John Carew, John Jones, Thomas Scot, Gregory Clement, John Cook, George Fleetwood, Simon Meyn, James Temple, Peter Temple, Thomas Wait, Hugh Peters, Francis Hacker, Daniel Axtell, William Hulet, Henry Smith, Edmund Harvey, John Downes, Vincent Potter, and Augustin Garland. They were all convicted. Of these there were executed—Thomas Harrison, John Carew, John Cook, Thomas Scot, Hugh Peters, Gregory Clement, John Jones, Daniel Axtell, Francis Hacker, Adrian Scroop.

[36] Thomas Harrison (1606-1660) was born in Staffordshire of lowly origin. He is said to have enlisted in Essex's Life Guard, which was the corps used for the purpose of training officers for the Parliamentary Army, in 1642. In 1644 he was serving in Fleetwood's regiment in Manchester's army. He was present at the battles of Marston Moor and Naseby, and at the captures of Winchester, Basing House, and Oxford. He entered Parliament in 1646, and represented the Army in their quarrels with Parliament. He served with distinction in the second civil war, and was zealous in bringing the King to trial and condemning him to death. He conducted the pursuit of the Royalists after the battle of Worcester, and, continuing to represent the extreme military party, was a party to Pride's Purge. He was a prominent member of the Barebones Parliament, but after its extinction ceased to exercise any political influence. He refused to recognise the government in 1653, and was deprived of his commission. He was afterwards imprisoned on various occasions on suspicion of a connection with Anabaptist and other plots; but at the Restoration refused to pledge himself not to disturb the government or to save himself by flight. The Fifth-Monarchy men professed to look forward to his resurrection to judge his judges and to restore the Kingdom of Saints.

[37] Sir James Livingstone was descended from the Livingstones of Callendar. He became a Gentleman of the Bedchamber to Charles, and was made Viscount of Newburgh in 1647. The King was to have escaped from his house at Bagshot on the occasion referred to above, on one of his horses, reputed to be the fastest in England, but owing to the horse falling lame, and the strictness of the watch kept on the King, the scheme failed. After the King's execution he fled to the Hague, but returned to Scotland in 1650. He accompanied Charles ii. to England in 1651, and after the battle of Worcester fled to France. At the Restoration he was made Captain of the Guard and an earl. In 1666 he, with others, received a licence to dig coal in Windsor Forest. He died in 1670.

[38] The Court included Albemarle, Manchester, and Denzil Hollis.

[39] Hugh Peters (1598-1660) graduated at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1617-18. He was ordained in London, and at once made his mark as a preacher, but being suspected of heresy, went to Holland about 1629. There he inclined to Independency, and through the pressure put on the Dutch by the English government, found it advisable to sail for Boston, where he arrived in October 1635. There he took a prominent part in local affairs, upholding clerical influence against Vane. In 1641 Peters came to England to ask for assistance for the colony, and became Chaplain to the Forces in Ireland. Returning to England, he became famous as a military preacher, preaching exhortatory sermons before assaults on fortified places, and attracting adherents to the Parliamentary forces. He also acted as the confidential agent of Fairfax and Cromwell in dealing with their troops, and chronicled their victories. He was regarded with great aversion by the Presbyterians, and by the numerous persons of other sects to whom buffoonery in the pulpit was distasteful. He upheld the Army against the Parliament, and was credited with a share in drawing up the Army Remonstrance in 1648. He was in Ireland in 1649, and was present at the taking of Wexford. He afterwards continued to occupy an influential position in politics, and indulged in many unpolitical schemes, particularly the reformation of the law, of which he knew but little, and the improvement of religious teaching, both at home and in America. He maintained his influential position till the Restoration.

[40] In 1648-49, after the taking of Colchester in 1648.

[41] It seems now to be considered fairly certain that Richard Brandon was the man who actually cut off the King's head. He died the next June, after having executed Lord Capel and his companions in the rising which terminated in the siege of Colchester. It is the more curious that Hulet should have been tried for the offence, because Brandon certainly incurred the odium attaching to the act at the time of his death; and it seems that the fact was mentioned on an inscription on his grave. As far, however, as the evidence given at the trial is concerned, it seems possible that Hulet was the second masked figure on the scaffold. All that is known on the subject is set out in the Dictionary of National Biography, under the title 'Brandon.' See too a note by Mr. . G. Stephens in Notes and Queries, 5th series, vol. v. p. 177.

Clyx.com