a Papist. These were more than sufficient causes for devoting him to destruction: and an opportunity unhappily offered itself soon after the discovery of the Rye-House Plot, in June 1683. This plot is said to have been formed by the presbyterians of the republican party, and by some zealots of distinction in the church, who dreaded the Popish succession. The design was, to kill or to seize the King, as he passed through the enclosures of a farm called the Rye-House,' in his way from Newmarket to London, which he usually did to avoid the public road. A fire happening at Newmarket, the King (it is added) returned sooner to London than was expected, and before the assassins were prepared to carry their nefarious project into effect. A proclamation was issued on the twenty third of June, for apprehending Rumbold the owner of the farm, and several officers and gentlemen, who were represented as the principal conspirators; and on the twenty eighth Lord Howard of Escrick, a man of abandoned character, was accepted as crown-evidenceupon his engaging himself to criminate Lord Russell. The latter gentleman was, in consequence, instantly sent to the Tower. Soon afterward, the same noble scoundrel was induced to extend his accusation to Algernon Sidney, who was likewise taken into custody by a messenger, while one of the clerks of the Privy Council seized all his papers. But, for the reason above-assigned, Russell's trial was expedited without delay. On the thirteenth of July he was indicted at the Old Bailey, for having conspired to excite insurrection and rebellion in the kingdom; for having compassed and imagined the death of the King; and for having plotted with other traitors to seize his Majesty's guards, &c.' In the ferocious determination of the ministry to make sure of their victim, the most unjustifiable precipitation was resorted to. He desired to have 'his trial put off till the next day, as some material witnesses could not reach London till late at night; or at least that it might be adjourned till the afternoon:' but both these reasonable requests were denied. He challenged the foreman of the jury: in this, also, he was over-ruled. The sole evidences against him were Lord Howard and Colonel Rumsey, another pardoned conspirator; and the whole of their joint evidence only proved, that he had walked up and down in the house of one Shepherd, while some persons held a discourse about seizing the King's guards,' though it was not pretended that he either joined company with them or uttered a single word. On behalf of Lord Russell the Earl of Anglesey deposed, that about a week previously Lord Howard had declared to the Earl of Bedford in his hearing, that he knew nothing against his son, or any body else concerned in the plot.' This evidence Dr. Burnet corroborated by declaring, that Howard had been with him the night after the plot was discovered, and did then (as he had done before) with hands and eyes lifted up to heaven declare, he knew nothing of any plot, nor believed any, treating it with the most sovereign contempt.' Mr. Howard, a relation of the villainous accuser, related a conversation with him to the same purport, adding these remarkable words; "If my Lord Howard has the same soul on Monday that he had on Sunday, this cannot be true that he swears against my Lord Russell. I am very sorry to hear any man of my name guilty of these things. To every impartial person indeed it was evident, that Howard's testimony deserved not the least degree of credit. Yet a jury, packed for the purpose, brought in Russell guilty of high-treason: and though the most powerful interest was exerted to save him, it had no effect; as he could not be brought to make an open declaration in favour of the principle of non-resistance. This was what the court anxiously coveted from a man of his family, interest, and character; and would have purchased, even at the high price of foregoing the gratification of their devilish revenge. His firmness in refusing it, and life along with it, ranks him with the first of patriots. It was part of his political creed, that a free nation, like England, might defend their religion and liberty when invaded or taken from them, though under pretence of colour of law," and in support of this tenet he suffered death. He was beheaded on a scaffold erected for the purpose, in Lincoln's Inn Fields, on Saturday, July 21, 1683.* * "The very day on which Russell was executed, the University of Oxford passed their famous Decree, condemning formally, as impious and heretical propositions, every principle upon which the constitution of this or any other free country can maintain itself. Nor was this learned body satisfied with stigmatising such principles as contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to the Decrees of Councils, to the writings of Fathers, to the faith and profession of the Primitive Church, as a destruction to the kingly government, the safety of his Majesty's person, the public peace, the laws of nature, and bounds of human society: but after enumerating the several obnoxious propositions, among which was one, declaring all civil authority derived from the people; The general outcry against the jury, who upon such insufficient and corrupt evidence had condemned Lord Russell, made the court more wary in their proceedings against Algernon Sidney. His trial, therefore, was delayed till other measures, still more illegal, had been taken to secure his condemnation. At length, their scheme being ripe for execution, he was indicted for high-treason, and brought to trial in the Court of King's Bench before Chief Justice Jefferies, November 21, 1683. The three first witnesses against him another, asserting a mutual contract (tacit, or express) between the King and his subjects;' a third, maintaining 'the lawfulness of changing the succession to the crown'-with many others of the like nature-they solemnly decreed all and every of those propositions to be not only false and seditious, but impious! and that the books, which contained them, were fitted to lead to rebellion, murther of princes, and atheism itself!! Such are the absurdities, which men are not ashamed to utter, in order to cast odious imputations upon their adversaries; and such the manner in which churchmen will abuse, when it suits their policy, the holy name of that religion, whose first precept is to love one another,' for the purpose of teaching us to hate our neighbours with more than ordinary rancour. If Much Ado About Nothing' had been published in those days, the Town-Clerk's declaration, that "receiving a thousand ducats for accusing the Lady Hero wrongfully was flat burglary," might be supposed to be a satire upon this decree: yet Shakspeare, well as he knew human nature, not only as to it's general course but in all it's eccentric deviations, could never dream that in the persons of Dogberry, Verges, and their followers he was representing the ViceChancellors and Doctors of a learned University!" (Fox.) An article in Russell's indictment was, the attempting to seize and destroy the King's guards.' "The guards! What guards? "exclaims Sir Robert Atkins, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer; "What, or whom, does the law understand or allow to be the King's guards?" &c. &c. Parliamen, tary and Political Tracts.' See his were Robert West, Colonel Rumsey, and Mr. Keeling, whose evidence included only the reports of others. To the illegality of admitting the evidence of the latter Sidney objected, but in vain: the Judge took it down, and delivered it as part of the proofs against him, in summing up the evidence to the jury. Lord Howard then swore positively, that Sidney had been present at two meetings, where schemes were formed for exciting insurrections against the government; and that he had been concerned in sending one Aaron Smith into Scotland, to engage the disaffected in that country to join the mal-contents of the south.' In addition to these depositions, the Attorney General by a shameful finesse produced a passage from Sidney's manuscript Discourses on Government, as a proof of his design to persuade the people of England to set aside their Sovereign, whenever it should appear to them that he had violated his high trust. * * These, says the time-serving author of the True Account of the Horrid Conspiracy,' contained rank treason almost in every line maintaining That tyrants may be justly deposed by the people, and that the people are the only judges who are tyrants; and peculiarly concerning this nation asserting that the power, originally in the people of England, is delegated to the parliament. He, the King, is subject to the law of God, as he is a man; to the people that makes him a king, inasmuch as he is a king. The law sets a measure to that subjection. The parliament is judge of the particular cases thereupon arising: he must be content to submit his interest to theirs, since he is no more than any one of them in any other respect, than that he is by consent of all raised above any other. If he doth not like this condition, he may renounce the crown: but, if he receive it upon this condition (as all magistrates do the power they receive) and swear to perform it, he must expect the performance will be exacted, or revenge taken by those he hath betrayed.' |