The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part F.: From Charles II. to James II. — David Hume — John Shaqi
The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part F.: From Charles II. to James II.
David Hume · en
The execution of Sidney is regarded as one of the greatest blemishes of
the present reign. The evidence against him, it must be confessed, was
not legal; and the jury who condemned him were, for that reason, very
blamable. But that, after sentence passed by a court of judicature, the
king should interpose and pardon a man who, though otherwise possessed
of merit, was undoubtedly guilty, who had ever been a most inflexible
and most inveterate enemy to the royal family, and who lately had even
abused the king’s clemency, might be an act of heroic generosity, but
can never be regarded as a necessary and indispensable duty.
Howard was also the sole evidence against Hambden; and his testimony was
not supported by any material circumstance. The crown lawyers therefore
found it in vain to try the prisoner for treason: they laid the
indictment only for a misdemeanor, and obtained sentence against him.
The fine imposed was exorbitant; no less than forty thousand pounds.
Holloway, a merchant of Bristol, one of the conspirators, had fled to
the West Indies, and was now brought over. He had been outlawed; but the
year allowed him for surrendering himself was not expired. A trial was
therefore offered him but as he had at first confessed his being engaged
in a conspiracy for an insurrection, and even allowed that he had heard
some discourse of an assassination, though he had not approved of it, he
thought it more expedient to throw himself on the king’s mercy. He was
executed, persisting in the same confession.
Sir Thomas Armstrong, who had been seized in Holland, and sent over by
Chidley, the king’s minister, was precisely in the same situation with
Holloway: but the same favor, or rather justice, was refused him. The
lawyers pretended, that unless he had voluntarily surrendered himself
before the expiration of the time assigned, he could not claim the
privilege of a trial; not considering that the seizure of his person
ought in equity to be supposed the accident which prevented him. The
king bore a great enmity against this gentleman, by whom he believed the
duke of Monmouth to have been seduced from his duty; he also asserted,
that Armstrong had once promised Cromwell to assassinate him; though
it must be confessed, that the prisoner justified himself from this
imputation by very strong arguments. These were the reasons of that
injustice which was now done him. It was apprehended that sufficient
evidence of his guilt could not be produced; and that even the partial
juries which were now returned, and which allowed themselves to be
entirely directed by Jefferies and other violent judges, would not give
sentence against him.