were

ceeded), concealing themselves behind a window-curtain in an anteroom, and waiting till the King passed through, suddenly rushed forth, and threw themselves at his feet. Attempts were also made elsewhere upon feelings more ignoble than those of compassion; and the first Lord of the Treasury declared in the House of Commons, that 60,0007. had been offered to him if he would obtain the pardon of only one, Lord Derwentwater. Several of the staunchest Whigs in the House of Commons amongst others Sir Richard Steele, with his characteristic good nature inclined to mercy. But Walpole took the lead in urging measures of severity, and declared that he was "moved with "indignation to see that there should be such unworthy "members of this great body, who can, without blushing, "open their mouths in favour of rebels and parricides." When we consider how very greatly and undoubtedly Walpole was distinguished by personal lenity and forbearance during his long administration, his vehemence on this occasion may surely be alleged as no small proof of the real necessity for making some rigorous examples. He moved the adjournment of the House till the 1st of March, it being understood that the condemned Peers would be executed in the interval; but he prevailed only by a majority of seven, the numbers being 162 and 155.

In the House of Lords the friends of the unfortunate noblemen made a still more effectual stand. A debate having arisen on the presentation of their petition, one member of the Cabinet, the Earl of Nottingham, mindful of his former Tory principles and friendships, suddenly declared in their favour. His unexpected defection threw confusion and discord into the Ministerial ranks, the resistance of the Government was over-ruled, and an Address to the King for a reprieve to such of the condemned Lords as should deserve his mercy, was carried by a majority of five.*

Astonished and alarmed at this result, the Ministers met

* See some remarks on this Address in Mr. Hallam's account of Lord Danby's impeachment in 1679. Const. Hist. vol ii. p. 562.

1716.

EXECUTION OF LORD DERWENTWATER.

205

in Council the same evening. They drew up the King's answer to the Address, merely stating, "that on this and all "other occasions he would do what he thought most con"sistent with the dignity of his Crown and the safety of his "people." They determined, however, to comply with the declared wish of one branch of the legislature, so far as to respite, besides Lord Nairn, the Earl of Carnwath and Lord Widdrington; but, at the same time, to forestall any further pleas or intrigues in favour of the three remaining Peers, they despatched an order for their execution the next morning. A resolution was also taken to dismiss from office Lord Nottingham, his son Lord Finch, and his brother Lord Aylesford, as a mark of the Royal displeasure at the course which the former had so unexpectedly taken in debate. On this Walpole writes as follows to his brother: "You will be "surprised at the dismission of the family of the DISMALS; "but all the trouble we have had in favour of the condemned "Lords arose from that corner; and they had taken their "PLI to have no more to do with us; and so the shortest end "was thought the best. There are storms in the air, but I "doubt not they will all be blown over.'

-

In the night that intervened, one of the condemned Peers, Lord Nithisdale, had the good fortune to make his escape from the Tower in disguise. His wife, with an heroic courage inspired by tender affection, saved his life at the hazard of her own, sending him forth in her own dress, and remaining a sacrifice, if required, in his place.** Thus the number of noble victims was finally reduced to two; and early next morning, the 24th of February, Lords Derwentwater and Kenmure were brought to the scaffold, which had been erected on Tower Hill, and which was all covered with black, Derwentwater suffered first: he was observed to turn very pale as he ascended the fatal steps; but his voice was firm, and his demeanour steady and composed. He passed some *Coxe's Walpole, vol. ii. p. 51.

**Lady Nithisdale's own affecting narrative will be found in the Appendix. Her Lord's escape is overlooked by Coxe where he speaks of three Peers being actually beheaded. Memoirs of Walpole, vol. i. p. 73,

time in prayer; and then, by leave of the Sheriff, read a paper, drawn up in his own hand, declaring that he died a Roman Catholic that he deeply repented his plea of Guilty and expressions of contrition at his trial—and that he acknowledged no one but King James the Third for his rightful sovereign. He added: "I intended to wrong nobody, but "to serve my King and country, and that without self-in"terest, hoping, by the example I gave, to have induced "others to their duty; and God, who sees the secrets of my "heart, knows I speak truth... I am in perfect charity

"with all the world - I thank God for it even with those "of the present Government who are the most instrumental "in my death." He then turned to the block, and viewed it closely, and finding in it a rough place, that might hurt his neck, he bid the executioner chip it off. This being done, he prepared himself for the blow by taking off his coat and waistcoat, and laying down his head; and he told the executioner that the sign he should give him to do his office would be repeating for the third time, "Lord Jesus, receive my "soul!" At these words, accordingly, the executioner raised his axe, and severed the Earl's head at one blow. Thus died James Radcliffe, third and last Earl of Derwentwater, a gallant and unfortunate, however misguided and erring, young man, greatly beloved for his amiable qualities in private life, his frankness, his hospitality, his honour. His descendants are now extinct; but his brother, having married a Scottish peeress, was the ancestor of the late Earl of Newburgh. His princely domains in Northumberland and Cumberland are amongst the very few forfeitures of the Jacobites which have never been restored by the clemency of the House of Hanover*: they are settled upon Greenwich Hospital; but in 1832, a part of them was alienated to Mr. Marshall of Leeds.

The execution of Lord Kenmure, which immediately followed, did not much differ in its painful details. He was

* A clear rent-charge of 2500l. per. ann. out of these estates was, however, granted to the Newburgh family in 1788. See the Annual Register for that year, p. 139.

1716.

LORD WINTOUN'S TRIAL.

207

attended by his son, by some friends, and by two clergymen of the Church of England. Like Lord Derwentwater, he showed great courage and firmness; like him, he repented having pleaded Guilty at his trial, and offered up a prayer for the Pretender. He then knelt down at the block, and his head was struck off at two blows.

With respect to Lord Wintoun, his trial did not begin till the 15th of March. He was a man supposed to be in some degree of unsound mind, although, like most persons in that unhappy state, he showed abundance of cunning and dissimulation. His only object seemed to be delay, having retarded his trial by petitions for time, and other such devices; and when, at length, it came to be proved, on unquestionable evidence, that he had freely joined and acted with the rebels, he had little else to urge than that his most material witnesses had not yet arrived, and that the season was very bad for travelling! The High Steward, Lord Cowper, having over-ruled his objections with some harshness, "I hope," said Lord Wintoun, "you will do me "justice, and not make use of Cowper-law, as we used to "say in our country; hang a man first, and then judge him!" "He entreated to be heard by counsel, which was refused. "Since your Lordships will not allow my counsel, "I don't know nothing!" He was found Guilty, and sent back to the Tower, from whence he afterwards found means of making his escape.

The trials of inferior offenders came on before the ordinary tribunals. A great number were found guilty. Many were pardoned; several, amongst others Forster and Brigadier MacIntosh, broke from prison; and, on the whole, from the great number of convicts, only twenty-two were hanged in Lancashire, and four in London. Bills of attainder were passed without opposition against Lords Mar, Tullibardine, and many others, in their absence.

* Howell's State Trials, vol. xv. p. 847. and 892. The true old Scottish saying referred not to Cowper but Cupar, a town where little mercy was shown to Highland rovers. See, however, a different explanation in the Supplement of Dr. Jamieson (vol. i. p. 282.).

It may be doubted whether in these proceedings a tone of calmness and forbearance was in all cases sufficiently preserved by the Judges. Chief Baron Montagu rebuked a jury for acquitting some persons indicted of treason; and Lord Townshend's secretary, writing to Stanhope, complains of "the listlessness which reigns in all the courts of justice, "except two or three, where men of spirit preside."* Lord Chancellor Cowper, in passing sentence on the condemned Catholic Peers, could not refrain from inveighing against their religion, and advising them to choose other spiritual guides in their dying moments. Yet no one has ever ventured to assert that any of the condemnations were legally unjust, nor any of the victims innocent. The Tory writers, indeed, raised a loud cry of violence and excessive rigour in the Ministers: "they have dyed the Royal ermines with blood!" says Bolingbroke. But was not some expiation due to other blood-to the blood of those loyal and gallant soldiers who had fallen in conflict with the rebels to the blood still reeking from the field of Sheriffmuir and the streets of Preston? Was it not necessary to crush the growing spirit of Jacobitism by some few severe examples? Would it have been wise to tempt another rebellion, by leaving the last unpunished? Let us not be misled by that shallow humanity which can only reckon the number of punishments inflicted, and quite overlooks the number of crimes thus prevented which forgets that rigour to a few may sometimes be mercy to the many.

It has indeed been argued, and still more frequently assumed, that the rebellion of 1715, being founded on a conscientious opinion of hereditary right, and on a loyal attachment to the heir of the ancient Kings, was more excusable than ordinary treason. So far as regards the moral guilt of the insurgents, or their estimation with posterity, this argument I admit to be perfectly well founded. But surely no Government, providing for its own safety, could possibly admit such a principle for a single moment. On the *To Secretary Stanhope, Sept. 8. 1716. Coxe's Walpole.