The History of England, from the Accession of James II — Volume 2 — John Shaqi
The History of England, from the Accession of James II — Volume 2Macaulay, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Baron
History
The History of England, from the Accession of James II — Volume 2
Macaulay, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Baron
Great Britain -- History -- James II, 1685-1688; Great Britain -- History -- William and Mary, 1689-1702
intercession of the Judges, and vowed that, if the royal clemency
were extended to him, his whole life should be passed in evincing
his gratitude for such goodness. The Whigs were furious at his
pusillanimity, and loudly declared him to be far more deserving of blame
than Grey, who, even in turning King's evidence, had preserved a certain
decorum. Hampden's life was spared; but his family paid several thousand
pounds to the Chancellor. Some courtiers of less note succeeded in
extorting smaller sums. The unhappy man had spirit enough to feel keenly
the degradation to which he had stooped. He survived the day of his
ignominy several years. He lived to see his party triumphant, to be once
more an important member of it, to rise high in the state, and to make
his persecutors tremble in their turn. But his prosperity was embittered
by one insupportable recollection. He never regained his cheerfulness,
and at length died by his own hand. [39]
That Delamere, if he had needed the royal mercy, would have found it is
not very probable. It is certain that every advantage which the letter
of the law gave to the government was used against him without scruple
or shame. He was in a different situation from that in which Stamford
stood. The indictment against Stamford had been removed into the House
of Lords during the session of Parliament, and therefore could not be
prosecuted till the Parliament should reassemble. All the peers would
then have voices, and would be judges as well of law as of fact. But the
bill against Delamere was not found till after the prorogation. [40]
He was therefore within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Lord High
Steward. This court, to which belongs, during a recess of Parliament,
the cognizance of treasons and felonies committed by temporal peers, was
then so constituted that no prisoner charged with a political offence
could expect an impartial trial. The King named a Lord High Steward.
The Lord High Steward named, at his discretion, certain peers to sit
on their accused brother. The number to be summoned was indefinite. No
challenge was allowed. A simple majority, provided that it consisted of
twelve, was sufficient to convict. The High Steward was sole judge of
the law; and the Lords Triers formed merely a jury to pronounce on
the question of fact. Jeffreys was appointed High Steward. He selected
thirty Triers; and the selection was characteristic of the man and of
the times. All the thirty were in politics vehemently opposed to the
prisoner. Fifteen of them were colonels of regiments, and might be
removed from their lucrative commands at the pleasure of the King. Among
the remaining fifteen were the Lord Treasurer, the principal Secretary
of State, the Steward of the Household, the Comptroller of the
Household, the Captain of the Band of Gentlemen Pensioners, the Queen's
Chamberlain, and other persons who were bound by strong ties of interest
to the court. Nevertheless, Delamere had some great advantages over the
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account