Colonel Penruddock did not remember Barter telling him what he said he did, but Barter said he apprehended the two men to be rebels, and 'that Dunne told him as much.'

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—What do you say to that, Dunne? It seems you told Barter that you apprehended them to be rebels?

DUNNE—I apprehend them for rebels, my Lord?

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—No, no, you did not apprehend them for rebels, but you hid them for rebels. But did you say to Barter that you took them to be rebels?

DUNNE—I take them to be rebels!

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—You blockhead, I ask you, did you tell him so?

DUNNE—I tell Barter so?

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Ay, is not that a plain question?

DUNNE—I am quite cluttered out of my senses; I do not know that I say (A candle being still held nearer his nose).

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—But to tell the truth would rob thee of none of thy senses, if ever thou hadst any; but it should seem that neither thou, nor thy mistress the prisoner had any, for she knew nothing of it neither, though she had sent for them thither.

Colonel Penruddock continuing, said he had some difficulty in getting admittance to Lady Lisle's house; he did not see her till after he had brought out Hicks and Dunne; she denied that anybody else was there, but he searched and found Nelthorp.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—But she denied it [Nelthorp's being there] first it seems?

LISLE—My lord, I hope I shall not be condemned without being heard.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—No, God forbid, Mrs. Lisle. That was a sort of practice in your husband's time, you know very well what I mean; but God be thanked it is not so now; the king's courts of law never condemn without hearing.

Downing being called and sworn, deposed to finding Dunne and Hicks in the Malt-house, the former in a little hole 'where he had taken some stuff or other to cover him.'

Mrs. Carpenter, the bailiff's wife, spoke to serving the men who came on Tuesday with supper in the chamber where they lay, and to Mrs. Lisle's presence there. Carpenter spoke to Dunne's first arrival, when he asked for entertainment for Hicks and another whom he did not know.

After the Carpenters had finished it appeared that Dunne had given way.

MR. RUMSEY—Now, my lord, Dunne says he will tell all, whether it makes for him or against him.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Let him but tell the truth, and I shall be satisfied.

DUNNE—Sure my lord, I never entertained these men a night in my house in my life; but this Hicks sent that man to me to go to my lady Lisle's, to know whether she would please to entertain him; and when I came my lady asked me whether he had been in the army or no? I told her I could not tell, I did not know that he was. She then asked me if he had nobody else with him? I told her I believed there was. This is the very truth of it, my lord. I asked her might the men be entertained? She said they might. So when we came to my lady Lisle's on the Tuesday night, somebody took the two horses, I cannot tell who if I were to die; the two went in; and after I had set up my horse, I went in along with Carpenter up into the chamber to my lady, and to this Hicks and Nelthorp; and when I came there, I heard my lady bid them welcome to her house; and Mr. Carpenter or the maid, I cannot tell which, brought in the supper, and set it on the table.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—And didst thou eat or drink with them in the room or not?

DUNNE—My lord, I will tell everything that I know; I confess I did both eat and drink there in the room.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—I pity thee with all my soul and pray to God Almighty for thee, to forgive thee, and to the Blessed Jesus to mediate for thee; and I pray for thee with as much earnestness, as I would for my own soul; and I beg of thee once more, as thou regardest thy own eternal welfare, to tell all the truth.

DUNNE—My lord, I did never know these men were in the army when I carried the message to my lady Lisle's, nor never did entertain them in my house in my life time, so much as one night.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Prithee, I do not ask thee what thou didst not, but what thou didst?

DUNNE—My lord, I will tell all I know.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—What discourse had you that night at the table in the room?

DUNNE—I cannot tell what discourse truly, my lord, there was.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Was there nothing of coming beyond seas, who came from thence, and how they came? Come I would have it rather the effect of thy own ingenuity, than lead thee by any questions I can propound; come tell us what was the discourse?

DUNNE—I do not remember all the discourse.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Prithee let me ask thee one question, and answer me it fairly; didst thou hear Nelthorp's name named in the room?

DUNNE—My lord, I cannot tell whether he were called Nelthorp, but it was either Crofts or Nelthorp, I am sure one of them.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Prithee, be ingenious, and let us have the truth on it.

DUNNE—My lord, I am ingenious and will be so.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—I will assure you Nelthorp told me all the story before I came out of town.[59]

DUNNE—I think, my lord, he was called Nelthorp in the room, and there was some discourse about him.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Ay, there was unquestionably, and I know thou wert by, and that made me the more concerned to press upon thee the danger of forswearing thyself.

DUNNE—My lady asked Hicks who that gentleman was, and he said it was Nelthorp, as I remember.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Very well, and upon that discourse with Nelthorp, which I had in town, did I give particular direction, that the outlawry of Nelthorp should be brought down hither, for he told me particularly of all the passages and discourses of his being beyond sea: I would not mention any such thing as any piece of evidence to influence this case, but I could not but tremble to think, after what I knew, that any one should dare so much to prevaricate with God and man, as to tell such horrid lyes in the face of a Court.

DUNNE—What does your lordship ask me?

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Come I will ask thee a plain question; was there no discourse there about the battle, and of their being in the army?

DUNNE—There was some such discourse, my lord.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Ay, prithee now tell us what that discourse was.

DUNNE—My lord, I will tell you, when I have recollected it, if you will give me time till to-morrow morning.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Nay, but we cannot stay so long, our business must be dispatched now; but I would have all people consider, what a reason there is, that they should be pressed to join with me in hearty prayers to Almighty God, that this sin of lying and perjury may never be laid at thy door. What say'st thou? Prithee, tell us what the discourse was?

DUNNE—My lord, they did talk of fighting, but I cannot exactly tell what the discourse was.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—And thou saidst thou didst eat and drink with them in the same room?

DUNNE—I did so, my lord, I confess it.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—And it was not a little girl that lighted thee to bed, or conducted thee in?

DUNNE—It was not a little girl.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Who was it then?

DUNNE—It was Mr. Carpenter, my lord.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—And why didst thou tell us so many lyes then? Jesu God! that we should live to see any such creatures among mankind, nay, and among us too, to the shame and reproach be it spoken of our nation and religion: is this that that is called the Protestant religion, a thing so much boasted of, and pretended to? we have heard a great deal of clamour against Popery and dispensations; what dispensations, pray, does the Protestant religion give for such practices as these? I pity thee with all my soul, and pray for thee, but it cannot but make all mankind to tremble, and be filled with horror, that such a wretched creature should live upon the earth: Prithee be free, and tell us what discourse there was.

DUNNE—My lord, they did talk of fighting but I cannot remember what it was.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Did you lie with them?

DUNNE—No, my lord, I did not.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Well I see thou wilt answer nothing ingenuously, therefore I will trouble myself no more with thee: go on with your evidence, gentlemen.

MR. JENNINGS—My lord, we have done, we have no more witnesses.

Mrs. Lisle is then called upon for her defence, and proceeds to say that had she been tried in London Lady Abergavenny and other persons of quality could have testified with what detestation she had spoken of the rebellion, and that she had been in London till Monmouth was beheaded. She had denied Nelthorp's being in the house because of her fear of the soldiers,

who were very rude and violent and could not be restrained by their officers from robbery and plundering my house. And I beseech your lordship to make that construction of it; and I humbly beg of your lordship not to harbour an ill opinion of me, because of those false reports that go about of me relating to my carriage towards the old king, that I was any ways consenting to the death of King Charles I., for, my lord, that is as false as God is true; my lord, I was not out of my chambers all the day in which that king was beheaded, and I believe I shed more tears for him than any woman then living did; and this the late Countess of Monmouth, and my lady Marlborough, and my lord chancellor Hyde, if they were alive, and twenty persons of the most eminent quality could hear witness for me.

She did not know Nelthorp, and only took Hicks because he was a nonconformist minister, and there being warrants out against all such, she was willing to shelter him from them.

She then called Creed, who said that he heard Nelthorp say that Lady Lisle did not know of his coming, and did not know his name, and that he did not tell his name till he was taken.

Lady Lisle then concluded her defence by fresh protestations of her loyalty to the King.

But though I could not fight for him myself, my son did, he was actually in arms on the King's side in this business. I instructed him always in loyalty, and sent him thither; it was I that bred him up to fight for the King.

Jeffreys begins his summing up by reminding the jury of the terms of their oath and reminding them of their duty—

That not any thing can move you either to compassion of the prisoner on the one hand, or her allegations and protestations of innocence; nor, on the other hand, to be influenced by anything that comes from the court, or is insinuated by the learned counsel at the bar, but that you will entirely consider what evidence has been given to you, and being guided by that evidence alone, you that are judges of the fact will let us know the truth of that fact, by a sincere and upright verdict.

He goes on to dwell on the wickedness of Monmouth's rebellion, and the mercy of God as shown in the restoration of Charles II. and

the best of religions, the true Protestant reformed religion, the religion established by law, which now is, and I hope will ever remain established among us, as now professed and practised in the Church of England.

After dwelling on this and on the blessing of having asked so steadfast a supporter of the Church of England as James II., he proceeds to discuss the actual facts of the case.

This person, Mrs. Lisle, the prisoner at the bar, she is accused for receiving and harbouring this person: and gentlemen, I must tell you for law, of which we are the judges, and not you, That if any person be in actual rebellion against the King and another person (who really and actually was not in rebellion) does receive, harbour, comfort and conceal him that was such, a receiver is as much a traitor as he who indeed bore arms: We are bound by our oaths and consciences, to deliver and declare to you what is law; and you are bound by your oaths and consciences to deliver and declare to us, by your verdict, the truth of the fact.

Gentlemen, that he [Hicks] was there in rebellion, is undeniably and unquestionably proved: That there are sufficient testimonies to satisfy you that this woman did receive and harbour him, is that which is left to your consideration; and, for that the proofs lie thus: And truly I am sorry to have occasion for repeating the circumstances of the proof; I mean the great art that has been used to conceal it; how difficult a thing it was to come at it; what time has been spent in endeavouring to find out truth in a fellow, that in defiance of all admonition, threats and persuasion, would prevaricate and shuffle to conceal that truth; nay lie, and forswear himself to contradict it. But out of pure Christian charity, as I told him, so I tell you I do heartily pray, and all good Christians I hope will join with me in it, to the God of infinite mercy that He would have mercy upon his soul, upon which he hath contracted so great a guilt by the impudence of his behaviour and pertinacious obstinacy in those falsehoods which he hath made use of in this case.

Gentlemen, I would willingly forget all his prevarications, but I must take notice of them in short, to come to the truth. First he says, he came upon an errand from a man, he knows not whom, to my Lady Lisle's house; and thither he is brought by one Barter; and when he comes there he tells her, he comes in the name of one Hicks, who desired to be entertained there. Then she asks the question, whether Hicks had been in the army; and he told her he did not know; and he swears now he did not: But at last it came out that it was to entertain Hicks and another person; but it should seem that other persons were not named; and Barter tells you that Hicks and another person (who afterwards proved to be Nelthorp) are promised to be entertained, and ordered to come in the evening. But not to go backward and forward, as he has done in his evidence, denying what he afterwards acknowledged that he saw anybody besides a little girl; that he pulled down the hay out of the rack for his horse; that he eat anything but cake and cheese that he brought with him from home; that he was ever made to drink, or to eat or drink in the house, or ever meddled or made with any body in the house. At last we are told that Carpenter met with him; and came out with a lanthorn and candle, took care of his horse, carried him into the room where Hicks and Nelthorp were, and the prisoner at the bar, Mrs. Lisle; there they all supped together; there they fell into discourse; there Nelthorp's name was named, and they talked of being in the army, and of the fight; and so it is all come out, and makes a full and positive evidence.

But then suppose there was no more than the other evidence, and that the fellow remain in an hardhearted obstinacy, then you are to consider the circumstances even from his first evidence, that this was after the rebellion was all over; for it seems during the rebellion she was in London, and it was notoriously known that the King's forces were in pursuit of the rebels, and this without any positive proof would be in itself a sufficient testimony to convice any considerate person, that she was to conceal those she ought not to conceal; because she directed the particular time wherein they should come, and that was at night; and no prudent person would receive strangers in the night, and give such directions in such a season without some extraordinary ground for it. When they came there, she provided a supper for them; and you see what care is taken, that the woman only is permitted to bring that supper to the door, and the husband must set it on the table; nobody is permitted to attend there but he. Works of darkness always desire to be in the dark; works of rebellion and such like, are never done in the light.

But then comes that honest fellow Barter (I call him so because he appears so to be, and he ought to be remembered with a great remark for his honesty), he tells you, he conducted him to the house, and what discourse passed there in his hearing. The prisoner asked him what countryman he was, and whether he was a brick-maker, and promised him so many acres of land in Carolina. The fellow upon observation and consideration, found himself under a great load, could not eat or sleep quietly, as men that have honest minds are uneasy under such things; falshood and treason, and hypocrisy are a heavy load; and blessed be God, things were by this means discovered: for he goes and tells Col. Penruddock; and withal Dunne swears to Barter, it was the bravest job he had ever had in his life; whereas in the beginning of his story, he would have told you a strange story of a black beard and I do not know what, and that he got not one groat by it; that he gave the man 2s. 6d. out of his own pocket, and was so industrious as when he knew the way no farther, that he would hire one himself to shew him the way, and all for nothing but only for the kindness he had for a black beard.

Besides, gentlemen, I am sorry to remember something that dropped even from the gentlewoman herself; she pretends to religion and loyalty very much, how greatly she wept at the death of King Charles the Martyr, and owns her great obligations to the late King, and his royal brother; that she had not had a being, nor any thing to maintain it for twenty years last past but from their bounty, and yet no sooner is one in the grave, but she forgets all gratitude and entertains those that were rebels against his royal successor; I will not say what hand her husband had in the death of that blessed martyr, she has enough to answer for of her own guilt; and I must confess it ought not one way or other to make any ingredient into this case what she was in former times, and I told a relation of hers, a Mr. Tipping by name, that came to me, last night, to desire that she might not lie under some imputations that were gone abroad of her that she rejoiced at the death of King Charles I., nor that any false report of that nature might influence the Court or jury against her, that it should not;—be the thing true or false, it is of no weight one way or other in the trial of this case, nor is she to be accountable for it.

But I must remember you of one particular, that is plain upon this evidence, and is of very great moment in this case; that after all these private messages and directions given to come by night, and the kind reception they met with when they came, and after all this care to lodge them and feed them, when Col. Penruddock, after the discovery made by Barter, came to search her house, then she had nobody in it truly, which is an aggravation of the offence testified by col. Penruddock himself, whose father likewise was a martyr, and died for his fidelity to the crown; and who was the judge of that father we all very well know.[60]

God Almighty is a just God, and it may be worth considering (especially by her) how God has been pleased to make use of him as the instrument in this business; and she would do likewise well to consider the finger of God in working upon the heart of that man Barter, who was employed in all this affair, and that all the truth has been told by Nelthorp,[61] that blackest of villains Nelthorp, that would have murdered the King and his royal brother; that he was one of those barbarous, malicious assassinates in that black conspiracy, and outlawed, should be harboured, by one that pretends a love for the royal family, and entertained and discoursed with at night about being in the army; yet that he and that other villain Hicks, who pretends to religion, and to be a preacher of the gospel, but is found in rebellion, and in the company of traitors, should be denied the next morning.

I hope they themselves are all by this time satisfied truth will come out, and I hope you will not be deceived by any specious pretences. Our forefathers have been deluded, but the deception I hope is now at an end. And I must needs say if all these witnesses that have freely discovered their knowledge, joined to that truth which is at length drawn from that Dunne, be worthy of any credit, it is as plain a proof as can be given, and as evident as the sun at noon day.

Gentlemen, upon your consciences be it; the preservation of the government, the life of the King, the safety and honour of our religion, and the discharge of our consciences as loyal men, good Christians, and faithful subjects, are at stake; neither her age or her sex are to move you who have nothing else to consider but the evidence of the fact you are to try. I charge you therefore, as you will answer it at the bar of the last judgment, where you and we must all appear, deliver your verdict according to conscience and truth.

With that Great God the impartial judge there is no such thing as respect of persons, and in our discharge of our duty in courts of justice, he has enjoined us his creatures, that we must have no such thing as a friend in the administration of justice, all our friendship must be to truth, and our care to preserve that inviolate.

LISLE—My lord, if your lordship please——

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Mistress, you have had your turn, you cannot now be heard any more after the jury is charged.

MRS. LISLE—My lord, I did not know Nelthorp, I declare it, before he was taken.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—You are not indicted for Nelthorp, but we are not to enter into dialogues now, the jury must consider of it.

JURY-MAN—Pray my lord, some of us desire to know of your lordship in point of law, whether it be the same thing, and equally treason, in receiving him before he was convicted of treason, as if it had been after.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—It is all the same, of that certainly can be no doubt; for if in case this Hicks had been wounded in the rebels' army, and had come to her house and there been entertained but had died there of his wounds, and so could never have been convicted, she had been nevertheless a traitor.[62]

Then the jury withdrew, and staying out a while the Lord Jeffreys expressed a great deal of impatience, and said that he wondered in so plain a case they would go from the bar, and would have sent for them with an intimation, that if they did not come quickly, he would adjourn, and let them lie by it all night; but about after half-an-hour's stay, the Jury returned, and the foreman addressed himself to the Court thus:

FOREMAN—My lord, we have one thing to beg of your lordship some directions in, before we can give our verdict in this case; We have some doubt upon us whether there be sufficient proof that she knew Hicks to have been in the army.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—There is as full proof as proof can be; but you are judges of the proof, for my part I thought there was no difficulty in it.

FOREMAN—My lord, we are in some doubt of it.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—I cannot help your doubts, was there not proved a discourse of the battle and of the army at supper time?

FOREMAN—But my lord, we are not satisfied that she had notice that Hicks was in the army.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—I cannot tell what would satisfy you; Did she not enquire of Dunne, whether Hicks had been in the army? and when he told her he did not know, she did not say she would refuse him if he had been there, but ordered him to come by night, by which it is evident she suspected it, and when he and Nelthorp came, discoursed with them about the battle and the army. Come, come, gentlemen, it is a plain proof.

FOREMAN—My lord, we do not remember it was proved that she did ask any such question when they were there.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Sure you do not remember anything that has passed! Did not Dunne tell you there was such discourse, and she was by, and Nelthorp's name was named. But if there were no such proof the circumstances and management of the thing is as full of proof as can be; I wonder what it is you doubt of.

MRS. LISLE—My lord, I hope——

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—You must not speak now.

Then the jury laid their heads together for near a quarter of an hour, and at length agreed, and being called over, delivered in this verdict by the foreman.

CLERK OF ARRAIGNS—Alice Lisle, hold up thy hand. Gentlemen of the jury, look upon the prisoner, how say ye? Is she guilty of the treason whereof she stands indicted, or not guilty.

FOREMAN—Guilty.

CLERK OF ARRAIGNS—What goods or chattels, lands or tenements had she?

FOREMAN—None that we know of.

CLERK OF ARRAIGNS—Look to her, jailor, she is found guilty of high treason; and prepare yourself to die.

Then the verdict was recorded.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Gentlemen, I did not think I should have any occasion to speak after your verdict, but finding some hesitancy and doubt among you, I cannot but say I wonder it should come about; for I think in my conscience the evidence was as full, and plain as could be, and if I had been among you, and she had been my own mother, I should have found her guilty.

Then the Court adjourned till the next morning.

The next day Lady Lisle and other prisoners were brought up to receive sentence.

Jeffreys, after lamenting the condition of 'you Mrs. Lisle, a gentlewoman of quality and of fortune, so far stricken in years, one who all your life-time have been a great pretender to, and professor of, religion, and of that religion which bears a very good name, the Protestant religion,' goes on to point out that 'there is no religion whatsoever (except that hypocritical profession of theirs which deserves not the name of religion, I mean the canting, whining Presbyterian, phanatical profession) that gives the least countenance to rebellion or faction.' He cannot but deplore 'that in this little case so many perjuries should be added to the crime of treason, such as for my part I cannot but tremble to remember.' She should repent of her own false asseverations and protestations

that you upon your salvation should pretend ignorance in the business, when since that time, ever since last night, there has been but too much discovered how far you were concerned: no it is not unknown who were sent for upon the Monday night, in order to have that rebellious seditious fellow to preach to them, what directions were given to come through the orchard the back and private way, what orders were given for provision and how the horses were appointed to be disposed of.

After exhortations to all the prisoners to repent, the Court awards

that you Mrs. Lisle be conveyed from hence to the place from whence you came, and from thence you are to be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, where your body is to be burnt alive till you be dead. And may the Lord have mercy on your soul.

The rest of the prisoners then had the usual judgment as in cases of felony.

LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE—Look you, Mrs. Lisle, when I left his majesty he was pleased to remit the time of all executions to me; that whenever I found any obstinacy or impenitence I might order the executions with what speed I should think best; therefore Mr. Sheriff, take notice you are to prepare for this execution of this gentlewoman this afternoon. But on that, I give you, the prisoner, this intimation; we that are the judges shall stay in town an hour or two; you shall have pen, ink and paper, brought you, and if in the mean time you employ that pen, ink and paper, and this hour or two well (you understand what I mean) it may be you may hear further from us, in a deferring the execution.

On the intercession of 'some divines of the church of Winchester' execution was respited till 2nd of September; and her sentence was afterwards commuted to beheading. She was accordingly beheaded on the afternoon of the 2nd of September 1685 in the market-place of Winchester.

In 1689, on the petition of her daughters Mrs. Lloyd and Mrs. Askew, her attainder was annulled by Act of Parliament on the ground that the verdict was 'injuriously extorted and procured by the menaces and violences and other illegal practices of George Lord Jeffreys, baron of Wem, then Lord Chief-Justice of the King's Bench.'[63]

FOOTNOTES:

[53] George Jeffreys, Baron Jeffreys of Wem (1648-1689), was born, of good family, near Wrexham in Denbighshire. He was educated at Shrewsbury, St. Paul's, Westminster, and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was admitted in 1662. He first practised at the Old Bailey and the Middlesex Sessions, then held at Hicks's Hall. His learning in law was never extensive; but his natural abilities were very great, and, as far as one can judge from the reports, he practised cross-examination with much more real skill than most of his contemporaries. In fact, his cross-examinations from the bench, though scandalous and brutal to the last degree, seem to be the earliest instances we have of the art as now understood. He was appointed Common Serjeant in 1671, left the popular party and was made Solicitor-General to the Duke of York in 1677, and became Recorder of London in 1678. He did what he could to aid in the persecutions connected with the Popish Plot, and was made Chief-Justice of Chester in 1680. The House of Commons petitioned the King for his removal from office in the same year, for the part he had taken in opposing petitions for a Parliament; and he was reprimanded by the House and resigned his Recordership the same year, but was made Chairman of the Middlesex Sessions soon afterwards. He was the chief promoter of the Quo Warranto proceedings by which the City was deprived of its charter, and was engaged in the prosecution of Lord Russell. He was made Lord Chief-Justice in 1683. He presided at the trials of Algernon Sidney and Titus Oates. He was called to the House of Lords in 1685, and tried Richard Banks in the same year. On his return from the 'Bloody Assize' he was made Lord Chancellor. He suggested the revival of the Court of High Commission, and presided in it at the proceedings against Magdalen College. He advised the trial of the Seven Bishops, and narrowly missed being made Chancellor of the University of Oxford. On the flight of James II. he attempted to escape disguised as a sailor, but was seized in the Red Cow in Anchor and Hope Alley. He was removed to the Tower, where he died, and was buried in the next grave to Monmouth. The well-deserved detestation with which he was regarded makes it difficult to form any just estimate of his character. Where he had no temptation to do injustice he seems to have been a very good judge; but he had no hesitation in doing gross injustice by detestable methods, for wholly discreditable reasons. He is not seen quite at his worst in Alice Lisle's trial, because she was probably guilty and Dunne was a liar; nor is he seen at his best as a cross-examiner, because he had very good material to go on. He has been unfortunate in attracting the notice of popular writers such as Burnet, Campbell, and Macaulay, who have all found him a convenient subject for picturesque abuse; and a tendency to not too ingenious paradox diminishes the value of the work of a more recent biographer written from the opposite point of view.

[54] Appointed Attorney-General in 1689, and Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas in the same year. He was a prominent Whig, and at the time of this trial had appeared for the defence in several previous State Trials, among others that of Lord Russell, vol. ii. p. 6. He afterwards appeared for the defence in the case of the Seven Bishops, and was well known as an adherent of the Prince of Orange at the Revolution. He died in 1691.

[55] See his dying speech, State Trials, xi. 312, in which he makes no reference to Lady Lisle.

[56] This passage with several others proves that Jeffreys had got up the case beforehand pretty much as counsel would to-day. Cf. pp. 246, 259, 268, 273.

[57] Cf. p. 245.

[58] He was born in Denbighshire.

[59] Cf. p. 245.

[60] Ante, p. 239.

[61] Cf. ante, p. 245.

[62] Lady Lisle's attainder was afterwards reversed on the ground that this ruling is wrong; it does not represent the present law (see Stephen's Digest, art. 62), which, however, rests on a subsequent dictum of Hale's followed by Foster, due probably to his recollection of this case. Sir James Stephen suggests that as a matter of mere law Jeffreys may have been right (Hist. Crim. Law, vol. ii. p. 234); he also says: 'I think that this is another of the numerous instances in which there really was no definite law at all, and in which the fact that a particular course was taken by a cruel man for a bad purpose has been regarded as a proof that the course taken was illegal.'—(Ibid., vol. i. p. 413).

[63] Cf. with note, p. 270.



Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to Her Majesty at the Edinburgh University Press

* * * * *

TRANSCRIBERS' NOTES

Pages 11, 37: Inconsistent spelling of Gawdie/Gawdy as in original.

Pages 12, 25: Inconsistent hyphenation of Durham House/Durham-House as in original.

Pages 16, 153: Inconsistent spelling of musquets/muskets as in original.

Page 21: machiavelian standardised to Machiavelian (second occurrence).

Pages 30, 41: Inconsistent hyphenation of hearsay/hear-say as in original.

Page 42, footnote 17: Inconsistent spelling of Amias/Amyas as in original.

Pages 55, 97, 99, footnote 56: Inconsistent hyphenation of beforehand/ before-hand as in original.

Page 91: your's as in original.

Page 103: Repeated 'the' removed in 'Answer must be the the same'.

Page 127, footnote 30: Inconsistent spelling of Geoffry/Geoffrey as in original.

Pages 129, 159: Inconsistent spelling of visor/vizor as in original.

Page 135: Lord-Chief Baron standardised to Lord Chief-Baron.

Page 137: latitute as in original.

Page 142: Commonweath corrected to Commonwealth.

Page 152: waved as in original.

Pages 162, 204: Inconsistent hyphenation of apiece/a-piece as in original.

Page 164: Capell standardised to Capel (third occurrence).

Page 166: Reference to Mr. . G. Stephens as in original. It is unclear whether there should be another initial or the full-stop (period) should be removed.

Footnote 37: Livingtone standardised to Livingstone. Various sources give the name as Livingstone, Livingston or Levingston.

Page 197: 'More that that' as in original.

Page 206: Inconsistency between Sheriffs and Sheriff as in original. It is unclear whether this is an error on Col. Turner's part or in the printed text.

Page 215: Amy Durent as printed. It should perhaps read Amy Duny.

Page 227, footnote 52: Inconsistent spelling of Brown/Browne in footnote as in original.

Page 233: Inconsistent hyphenation of boat-man/boatman as in original.

Pages 243, 253: falshood as in original.

Pages 245, 249: Inconsistent spelling of sniveling/snivelling as in original.

Page 254: 'after all this pains' as in original.

Pages 255, 257: Inconsistent hyphenation of Malt House/malt-house/ Malt-house as in original.

Page 266: convice as in original.

Page 271: Jeffries standardised to Jeffreys.

THE END