The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part F.: From Charles II. to James II.
David Hume · en
From this imperfect sketch of the character and conduct of this singular
personage, it may easily be conceived how obnoxious he was become to the
court and ministry: what alone renders them blamable was, the illegal
method which they took for effecting their purpose against him. On
Sidney’s trial, they produced a great number of witnesses, who proved
the reality of a plot in general; and when the prisoner exclaimed, that
all these evidences said nothing of him, he was answered, that this
method of proceeding, however irregular, had been practised in the
prosecutions of the Popish conspirators; a topic more fit to condemn one
party than to justify the other. The only witness who deposed against
Sidney was Lord Howard; but as the law required two witnesses, a strange
expedient was fallen on to supply this deficiency. In ransacking the
prisoner’s closet, some discourses on government were found; in which he
had maintained principles, favorable indeed to liberty, but such as the
best and most dutiful subjects in all ages have been known to embrace;
the original contract, the source of power from a consent of the people,
the lawfulness of resisting tyrants, the preference of liberty to
the government of a single person. These papers were asserted to be
equivalent to a second witness, and even to many witnesses. The prisoner
replied, that there was no other reason for ascribing those papers to
him as the author, besides a similitude of hand; a proof which was never
admitted in criminal prosecutions: that allowing him to be the author,
he had composed them solely for his private amusement, and had never
published them to the world, or even communicated them to any single
person: that, when examined, they appeared by the color of the ink
to have been written many years before, and were in vain produced as
evidence of a present conspiracy against the government: and that where
the law positively requires two witnesses, one witness attended with
the most convincing circumstances, could never suffice; much less, when
supported by a circumstance so weak and precarious. All these arguments,
though urged by the prisoner with great courage and pregnancy of reason,
had no influence. The violent and inhuman Jefferies was now chief
justice; and by his direction a partial jury was easily prevailed on to
give verdict against Sidney. His execution followed a few days after: he
complained, and with reason, of the iniquity of the sentence; but he had
too much greatness of mind to deny those conspiracies with Monmouth and
Russel, in which he had been engaged. He rather gloried, that he now
suffered for that “good old cause,” in which, from his earliest youth,
he said he had enlisted himself.