On June 27 the fatal procession set out from Newgate. On this occasion “there was perhaps the greatest concourse of people ever drawn together by a like spectacle.” “Just before the parties were turned off Dr. Dodd whispered to the executioner. What he said cannot be known; but it was observed that the man had no sooner driven away the cart, than he ran immediately under the gibbet, and took hold of the doctor’s legs, as if to steady the body.” Another account says that the executioner, gained over by Dodd’s friends, had arranged the knot in a particular manner, and whispered to him as the cart drew off, “You must not move an inch!” When cut down the body was conveyed to the house of an undertaker in Goodge Street, where a hot bath was in readiness. Under the direction of Pott, a celebrated surgeon of the day, every effort was made to restore animation. But in vain. The crowd was so enormous that there had been great delay in the transport of the body, and this was fatal. Nevertheless, there were not wanting people who believed that Dodd had been resuscitated and carried abroad.
1779. April 19. The Rev. James Hackman executed at Tyburn for the murder of Miss Martha Ray.
As the spectators were leaving the performance of “Love in a Village” at Drury Lane, on the night of April 7, a gentleman, seeing Miss Ray, with whom he had some little acquaintance, in difficulty in getting to her coach, stept forward and offered his assistance. When close to the coach he heard the report of a pistol, and felt the lady fall. For a moment he thought that she had fallen in fright at the report, but on stooping down, to help her to rise, he found his hands covered with blood. With the aid of a light-boy, he got the lady into the Shakespeare tavern. She was dead. The murdered woman was Miss Martha Ray, the mistress of Lord Sandwich, First Lord of the Admiralty; her murderer the Rev. Mr. Hackman.
Hackman was born in 1752. He was apprenticed to a mercer, but, disliking the business, his friends bought for him a commission in a foot regiment. While with a recruiting party at Huntingdon, he was invited to the country house of Lord Sandwich, and fell violently in love with the Earl’s mistress. In 1776 he left the army, took orders, and in 1779 was presented to the living of Wiverton, in Norfolk. It is doubtful whether he ever officiated there. He had not been able to forget Martha Ray. He continued his attentions, and offered her marriage. On the fatal day, having written a letter to a friend, announcing his intention to destroy himself, he went to the theatre armed with two pistols. After discharging one at the lady, he shot himself and fell at the lady’s feet, beating his head with the butt-end of a pistol and calling on the bystanders to kill him. On his trial his only defence was that a momentary frenzy overcame him. The letter contained nothing to indicate an intention to kill Miss Ray. He was executed on April 19.
Boswell records a stormy discussion between Dr. Johnson and Mr. Beauclerk on the subject of the murder. Did the fact that Hackman carried two pistols indicate an intention to kill Miss Ray as well as himself? Johnson held that it did; Beauclerk maintained the contrary, citing the case of a man inordinately fond of muffins, which disagreed with him. Determined to enjoy a last repast, he ate his muffins and then shot himself. He had ready two pistols for the purpose. As too often happens, neither disputant could convince the other (ed. Hill, iii. 383-5).
Here is a portion of a Grub Street ballad on the tragedy:—
Martha Ray bore several children to the Earl. One of them, Basil Montagu, is in our days remembered, if at all, by a savage snarl of Carlyle at the man and his parentage (“Reminiscences,” i. 224), “considerably a humbug if you probed too strictly.” Basil has already been mentioned in this book as the founder of the Society for the Diffusion of Knowledge upon the Punishment of Death. By his numerous writings on this subject he did perhaps more than any other man to bring home to the public the frightful cruelty of our criminal law. He may at least be credited with sincerity in this matter. On one occasion, in 1801, he posted through the night to Huntingdon, arriving with a respite just in time to save the lives of two men.
Lord Sandwich gave to the world a thing and its name. He was an inveterate gambler, and, in order that he might continue this diversion uninterruptedly, he caused to be served to him thin slices of meat placed between bread. Hence the “sandwich,” known to all civilised men.
1779. August 25. Four malefactors were carried to Tyburn for execution, and had been tied up for near twenty minutes when a report was spread that a reprieve was come to Newgate for one of them. They were all untied and left in the cart while one of the sheriffs went to Lord Weymouth to learn the truth. No reprieve having been granted, the execution took place at near one o’clock.
1779. October 27. Isabella Condon, condemned for coining, was at Tyburn first strangled, and then burnt.
1780. April 12. A man was executed at Tyburn for robbing the house of Jeremiah Bentham. This was the father of Jeremy Bentham. One wonders whether this execution directed his thoughts to the question of capital punishment.
1781. July 27. Francis Henry de la Motte, executed at Tyburn for giving to the French Government information as to the movement of British ships. The sentence was in the usual form for high treason, that he should be hanged “but not till you are dead,” but he was allowed to hang for nearly an hour. The head was severed from the body, four incisions made in the body, and part of the entrails thrown into a fire. Then the body was delivered to an undertaker, and was buried in St. Pancras churchyard.
1783. August 29. William Wynne Ryland executed at Tyburn for forgery. Ryland was an engraver of repute in the manner of Bartolozzi. He is the subject of a careful study, perhaps too sympathetic, by Mr. Bleackley, in his “Some Distinguished Victims of the Scaffold,” 1905.
1783. November 7. On this day took place the last execution at Tyburn. The occasion requires us to give in full the account, not otherwise particularly interesting. It is quoted from the Gentleman’s Magazine:—
This morning was executed at Tyburn, John Austin, convicted the preceding Saturday of robbing John Spicer, and cutting and wounding him in a cruel manner. From Newgate to Tyburn he behaved with great composure. While the halter was tying, his whole frame appeared to be violently convulsed. The Ordinary having retired, he addressed himself to the populace: “Good people, I request your prayers for the salvation of my departing soul: let my example teach you to shun the bad ways I have followed: keep good company, and mind the word of God.” The cap being drawn over his face, he raised his hands and cried, “Lord have mercy on me: Jesus look down with pity on me: Christ have mercy on my poor soul!” and, while uttering these words, the cart was driven away. The noose of the halter having slipped to the back part of his neck, it was longer than usual before he was dead.
The transference of executions to Newgate involved the suppression of the processions which for six hundred years had been a feature of the city’s life. The change did not receive the approval of Dr. Johnson. “The age,” he said, “is running mad after innovation: all the business of the world is to be done in a new way: Tyburn itself is not safe from the fury of innovation!” It having been argued that this was an improvement—“No, Sir (said he eagerly), it is not an improvement: they object that the old method drew together a number of spectators. Sir, executions are intended to draw spectators. If they do not draw spectators, they don’t answer their purpose. The old method was most satisfactory to all parties: the public was gratified by a procession: the criminal was supported by it. Why is all this to be swept away?”
From the “moral lesson” point of view Dr. Johnson was quite right. But the procession was abolished simply because the best quarter of the town had extended to Tyburn.
On December 9, 1783, the first executions took place in front of Newgate prison, on the new gallows, with a “drop.” The illustration shows
THE DAWN OF THE NEW ERA.
THE NEW GALLOWS AT NEWGATE, 1783.
The ten persons seem to fill the stage, but it would be doing an injustice to the designer of this national monument to assume that he had not taken into account the possible demands of the State.
On February 2, 1785, twenty men swung in a batch in front of the debtors’ door. Of these, five—FIVE—were hanged for assaulting a man and robbing him of two glass drops, set in metal, value 3d.; a one-inch rule, value 2d.; two papers of nails, value 1d.; one knife, value 1d.; two shillings, and a counterfeit half-penny.
Tyburn gallows was in full vigour when the claims of a “genteel” neighbourhood demanded its abolition. In the last year of its existence one hundred and eight persons were condemned to death at the Old Bailey sessions—fifty-eight in a single sessions. Most of the condemned were reprieved: the crimes of these must have been light, for John Kelly was actually hanged for robbing another of sixpence-farthing.
Within view of the accursed spot Catholics have instituted an Oratory of the English Martyrs. It is well: the world cannot afford to forget the example of those who, whether at Tyburn or Smithfield, gladly faced the most horrible of deaths rather than be false to themselves.
But in honouring them, let us not forget the thousands of martyrs for whom no one has claimed the crown of martyrdom—the martyrs to ferocious laws, not seldom put in force against the innocent, the martyrs to cruel injustice, to iniquitous social conditions. Thousands have had the life choked out of them at Tyburn on whom pity might well have dropped a pardoning tear: to whom compassion might well have stretched out a helping hand.
If not a sparrow falls unheeded, these obscure martyrs may not have died in vain.
FOOTNOTES
[1] “My opinion is that we have gone too far in laying it [capital punishment] aside, and that it ought to be inflicted in many cases not at present capital. I think, for instance, that political offences should in some cases be punished with death. People should be made to understand that to attack the existing state of society is equivalent to risking their own lives” (“Hist. of the Criminal Law of England,” 1880, i. 478).
[2] Spelman, “Glossarium” (s.v. Furca) gives a notable instance of the drowning of a woman about A.D. 1200.
[3] Walsingham, Gesta Abbatum Monas. S. Albani, ed. Riley, i. 39-41.
[4] Chron. of the Reigns of Stephen, &c., ed. Howlett, ii. Preface p. 1.
[5] Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., ed. Luard, v. 56-60, 369. The “Statute of Winchester,” 13 Edward I. (1285), enacted that trees and brushwood should be cut down for 200 feet in width on either side of highways between market towns.
[6] “De Corona,” book iii. Second Treatise, chap. i.
[7] “Subito enim et sine certa causa, quasi lymphatico metu correpti, de villa in villam cum cornuum strepitu, quod Anglice Uthes dicitur, fere per totam Angliam deduxerunt” (“Hist. Coll. of Walter of Coventry,” ed. Stubbs, ii. 206).
[8] “Hist. of the Norman Conquest,” ii. 34.
[9] “De sorte qu’on a long-temps douté si un ecclésiastique pouvoit, sans hazard d’irrégularité, faire exercer Justice de sang en sa terre; estant chose étrange qu’on puisse commettre à autruy, ce qu’on ne peut faire soi-mesme” (Loyseau, Œuvres, ed. 1701, p. 4).
[10] Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 479.
[11] Chron. William of Malmesbury, ed. Stubbs, i. 171.
An interesting story is told of the rescue by a bishop of a man in the year 1184. One, Gilbert Plumpton, actually had the rope round his neck when the bishop passed by. He ordered the executioners to let the man down, alleging that the day was Sunday, and besides the feast of St. Mary Magdalene. But he had heard the people crying out that Plumpton was innocent, and he believed them. On threat of excommunication the executioners loosed the rope. The bishop prevailed with the king to spare Plumpton’s life. Plumpton remained in prison till the death of the king (Chron. Roger de Hoveden, ed. Stubbs, ii. 286).
[12] Annales de Waverleia (in Annales Monastici), ed. Luard, ii. 395. Waverley Abbey, which, by the way, has nothing to do with Scott’s “Waverley,” was founded in 1218, being the first Cistercian Abbey in England. The abbey is, of course, in ruins, but the abbat’s mill still exists, and the place retains more of the character of a monastery than any I have seen. Cobbett, who was born at Farnham, not far distant, speaks of the ruins, which probably inspired one of the best passages in his writing. (“Hist. of the Protestant Reformation,” pars. 184, 155.) In one of the abbey’s charters mention is made of the oak of Tilford as existing in the time of Stephen. It is to-day one of the sights of this part of Surrey.
[13] Rot. Hund., i. 407, 417, 418, 422, 425, 429; Plac. de Quo War., pp. 478, 480.
[14] Spelman, “Glossarium,” s.v. Trailbaston. Rot. Parl. i. 178, 218-9; ii. 174; iii. 24.
[15] Annals of Tewkesbury, in Annal. Monas., ed. Luard i. 511-6.
[16] Dugdale, Monast. Anglic., ed. in 8 vols., vi. 240.
[17] Annals of Dunstable, in Annal. Monast., ed. Luard, iii. 261.
[18] Rot. Parl., i. 45.
[19] Ducange, “Glossarium,” s.v. Furca.
[20] Loyseau, “Traité des Seigneuries,” ed. 1610, p. 46.
[21] Camden’s “Britannia,” ed. Gough, 1789, ii. 238.
[22] Thorpe, “Ancient Laws and Inst. of England,” fo. ed., p. 125.
[23] Chron. Roger de Hoveden, ed. Stubbs, iii. 36.
[24] Borough Customs (Selden Soc.), pp. 73, 74.
[25] Boys’ “Hist. of Sandwich,” p. 465.
[26] Liber Custumarum, ed. Riley. i. 150.
[27] Harrison, in Holinshed’s Chron. An instance is recorded in Machyn’s Diary: “1557. The vj day of Aprell was hangyd at the low-water marke at Wapyng be-yond santt Katheryns vij for robyng on the see,” p. 131. According to Hentzner, who visited England about 1598, 300 pirates were hanged yearly in London.
[28] Borough Customs (Selden Soc.), pp. 73, 74.
[29] Fortescue, “De Laudibus Legum Angliæ, with the Summs of Sir Ralph de Hengham.” Notes by Selden, 1741, p. 33, note.
[30] Borough Customs (Selden Soc.), pp. 73, 74.
[31] The Act making poisoning high treason was repealed by 1 Edward VI., c. 12, sec. 12, which made poisoning wilful murder, to be punished as murder. Harrison was therefore mistaken in writing of the punishment as if it still existed. Curiously enough Bacon, on the trial of the Earl of Somerset, eulogised Henry’s Act, without hinting at its repeal.
[32] “The Christian Prudence of this Customary Law” is defended in a little work, “Hallifax and its Gibbet-Law Placed in a True Light,” 1708, containing an illustration copied in Gough’s edition of Camden’s “Britannia,” and in the enlarged “Magna Britannia,” ed. 1731, vi. 384. In “Hallifax and its Gibbet-Law” it is stated, with every appearance of probability, that the custom goes back to a date before the Norman Conquest. It appears that the last persons executed were Abraham Wilkinson and Anthony Mitchell in 1650 for stealing 9 yards of cloth and two colts.
[33] Thorpe, “Anc. Laws and Inst. of England,” fo. ed., p. 252.
[34] Chron. Benedict of Peterborough, ed. Stubbs, i. 122-3.
[35] “Gleanings from Westminster Abbey” (Sir Gilbert Scott), 1863, pp. 282-90, where the original authorities are mentioned.
[36] Chrons. of the Reigns of Edward I. and Edward II., ed. Stubbs, i. 132.
[37] “Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey,” 1868, pp. 384-5.
[38] Chron. Walter of Coventry, ed. Stubbs, ii. 251-2; Gregory’s Chron. (Camden Socy.), p. 63; Chron. Grey Friars, in Mon. Francisc., ed. Howlett, ii. 146; Capgrave, ed. Hingeston, p. 151. Coggeshall, Chron. Angl., ed. Stevenson, p. 11.
[39] “Tractus” is the usual form; for the other forms see, for example, Chron. Angliæ, ed. Thompson, p. 2; Chron. Barth. Cotton, ed. Luard, pp. 132, 159, 164, 166.
[40] See illustration in Annals, under year 1242.
[41] Annals, under year 1196.
[42] “Et super corium bovinum tractus, ne concito moreretur” (Annales de Vigornia, in Annales Monastici, ed. Luard, iv. 523).
[43] “Liber Assisarum, Le Livre des Assises et Pleas del’ Corone,” &c. Sir Robert Brook, 1679. This sentence contains the first mention of the hurdle in this connection. In the Popish Plot sentences “sledge” and “hurdle” are used indifferently as names for the same thing.
[44] Chronicles: Waverley, ed. Luard, ii. 378; Flores Hist. ed. Luard, iii. 24-6; Osney (in Annales Monastici, ed. Luard, iv. 251); Cotton, ed. Luard, p. 148; an account unfavourable to the prior is found in Liber de Antiq. Leg., Riley’s translation, pp. 150-3.
[45] Matthew Paris, Chron. Majora, ed. Luard, iii. 497, 498.
[46] Chrons. Osney, Worcester, in Annales Monas. ed. Luard, iv. 294, 488. Between the executions for high treason of Prince David and Sir William Wallace, comes that, in 1295, of Sir Thomas de Turberville. His crime was undoubtedly high treason, but the punishment was abnormal; he was drawn to the gallows, and there hanged, no doubt alive, by a chain of iron. See Annals, under the year. A passage in “Fleta,” written about 1285, seems to indicate that at the time the character of the punishment was not rigorously fixed: “If he is found guilty, he shall undergo the last punishment (ultimum supplicium) with aggravation of the corporeal penalty” (book i., chap. xxi).
[47] “Primo per plateas Londoniæ ad caudas equinas tractus usque ad patibulum altissimum sibi fabricatum, quo laqueo suspensus, postea semivivus dimissus, deinde abscisis genitalibus et evisceratis intestinis ac in ignem crematis, demura absciso capite ac trunco in quatuor partes secto, caput palo super pontem Londoniæ affigitur; quadrifida vero membra ad partes Scotiæ sunt transmissa” (“Flores Hist.,” ed. Luard, iii. 124).
Another chronicler expressly states “ultimo decollatur,” and a third, “demum decollatus est.” Walsingham, Ypodigma, ed. Riley, p. 235; Chron. Rishanger, ed. Riley, pp. 225, 226.
[48] Hawkins (William), “A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown,” 1771, c. 48, p. 443. See for details, Sir William Stanford, “Les Plees del Coron.,” 1560, fol. 182, 182b. Sir Matthew Hale, “Hist. Placit. Coronæ,” i. 350-1. “Les Reports de Henry Rolle,” 1675, i. 185-7, containing a good example of law-French of the time of James I., the most exquisite jargon ever invented by man. Coke, “Institutes,” part iii., 1644, p. 210, where Coke gives scriptural authority for all the horrors of the sentence. In passing sentence on the Gunpowder Plot men Coke gave an elaborate justification of each part of the sentence (“State Trials,” ii. 184).
[49] “State Trials,” xviii. 350-1.
[50] Ellis, “Original Letters,” 1st series, ii. 261.
[51] “Constitut. Hist.,” ed. 1854, i. 148.
[52] “A Declaration of the favourable Dealing of her Majesties Commissioners appointed for the Examination of certaine Traytours, and of Tortures unjustly reported to be done upon them for Matters of Religion, 1583.” Reprinted in “Harleian Miscellanies,” iii. 565-8, and in “Somers’s Tracts,” i. 209-12. In the latter the tract is ascribed to Burghley. I think that the only non-official defence of torture published in England is contained in a pamphlet published in 1656, under the Commonwealth, by Sir R. Wiseman (the title belongs to the Restoration). He writes: “So that to bring men to the rack in such cases [where there was only one witness] for trials sake is not to be censured for cruelty.… This rigour of the Law (if it be any) is recompensed with advantage to the whole Commonwealth; for by the terror hereof it is free from the machinations of wicked and lewd men.” (“The Law of Laws,” 1656.) It was written when Cromwell’s power and life were the object of numerous plots, but there is nothing in the book to connect this defence of torture with current affairs. The last recorded case of torture in England, and the last that a careful inquirer could discover, was on May 21, 1640, Jardine, David, “A Reading on the Use of Torture in England,” 1837, pp. 57, 58, 108, 109.
[53] Ed. Oxford, 1865, i. 26-7.
[54] Book i. c. 34, § 33.
[55] Chron. Barth. Cotton, ed. Luard, p. 228.
[56] Chron. Year Books of Edward I., years 30-31, p. 499.
[57] Rymer, “Fœdera,” vi. 13.
[58] Year Book, 8 Henry IV., Michaelmas term.
[59] Holinshed, i. 185.
[60] Mr. John Mush’s Life of Margaret Clitherow, in “The Troubles of Our Catholic Forefathers,” by Father John Morris, 3rd series, 1877, p. 432.
[61] “The Unhappy Marksman,” in Thomasson Tracts, Brit. Mus. (E. 972), reprinted in “Harleian Mis.,” vol. iv.
[62] “Et sic nota que il ne dit co̅e Britton ad dit deuant, s. que ceo serra son diet ta̅que il voet doner direct respons, mes que ceo serra son diet tanqz il soit mort absolutement: sans ascun condition en le iudgement expresse ou implie, s. que a tel te̅ps que il voile responder, il serra release de son penance. Car tiel releas nad estre view a nul te̅ps. & ne serroit reason que per tiel repentance: le roy serroit tolle del forfaiture de les biens le felon, a quel il est intitle per le dit iugem̅t du pain fort et dure” (Fols. 150b, 151).
[63] See Annals, 1721, February 8th and December 22nd.
[64] A Report of Divers Cases, &c., collected by Sir John Kelyng Knight, ed. 1708, p. 27.
[65] See in Annals, under 1538, July, and 1556, July 2nd.
[66] “State Trials,” ii. 335.
[67] Blount, “Glossogr.,” 1656: “Deric … is with us abusively used for a Hang-man.”
[68] George Lord Carew, to Sir Thomas Roe, in “Cal. of State Papers,” Domestic series, 1611-8, p. 428.
[69] See in Annals, under 1649.
[70] Luttrell, i. 271.
[71] “Autobiography of Sir John Bramston” (Camden Society), p. 192.
[72] Gentleman’s Magazine, 1750, pp. 233, 425.
[73] Ibid., 1767, p. 276.
[74] Stow’s “Survey,” ed. Thoms, p. 161.
[75] Grey Friars’ Chron., ed. Howlett, pp. 199, 200.
[76] Ellis, “Original Letters,” 1824, ii. 298.
[77] Challoner’s “Memoirs of Missionary Priests,” 1842, pt. ii. p. 37.
[78] Laws of Alfred, in Thorpe’s “Anc. Laws and Inst. of England,” fo. ed., p. 42.
[79] Thorpe, p. 97.
[80] Laws of William the Conqueror, De Suppliciorum modo: “Interdicimus eciam ne quis occidatur vel suspendatur pro aliqua culpa, sed enerventur” (other texts have “eruantur”) “oculi, et abscindantur pedes, vel testiculi, vel manus, ita quod truncus remaneat vivus, in signum prodicionis et nequicie sue: secundum enim quantitatem delicti debet pena maleficis infligi. Ista precepta non sint violata super forisfacturam nostram plenam. Testibus, &c.” (Thorpe, “Ancient Laws and Institutes of England,” fol. ed., p. 213).
[81] Chron. Roger de Hoveden, ed. Stubbs, i. 165.
[82] Chron. Benedict of Peterborough, ed. Stubbs, ii. 59.
[83] “En France … nous voyons aujourd’huy, qu’il n’y a presque si petit Gentil-homme, qui ne prétend avoir en propriété la Justice de son village ou hameau; tel même qui n’a ni village, ni hameau, mais un moulin ou une basse court près sa maison, veut avoir Justice sur son meusnier, ou sur son fermier: tel encore qui n’a ni basse court ni moulin; mais le seul enclos de sa maison, veut avoir Justice sur sa femme et sur son valet: tel finalement qui n’a point de maison, prétend avoir Justice en l’air sur les oyseaux du Ciel disant en avoir eu autrefois.” Loyseau, Charles, “Discours de l’abus des Justices de Village,” p. 1 (in Œuvres).
[84] Stanley, “Hist. Mem. of Westminster Abbey,” ed. 1882, p. 354; Brayley, “Londiniana,” iv. 215; “Arch. Cantiana,” vii. 96, 97.
[85] Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 479.
[86] Maitland, “History of London,” ii. 1363; Parton, “Some Account of the Hospital and Parish of St. Giles,” p. 38.
[87] Thus Sir John Oldcastle was executed here in 1417, and those implicated in Babington’s conspiracy in 1586, but in each case there were special reasons for the selection of St. Giles’s.
[88] Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 479.
[89] Burnings in Smithfield for heresy took place in the following years: 1401, 1410, 1415, 1422, 1431, 1438, 1441, 1494, 1499. The writ in the first case is given in Rot. Parl., iii. 459: “Item, mesme ceste Mesquerdy, March 2, 1400-1, un Brief feust fait as Meir & Viscontz de Londres, par advis des Seigneurs Temporelx en Parlement, de faire execution de William Sautre, jadys Chapelein Heretic, dont le tenure s’ensuyte.” Then follows in Latin the text of the writ, Henry to the Mayor and Sheriffs of London. It recites that the Archbishop of Canterbury, with the consent and assent of the bishops and the whole of the clergy of the province assembled in his provincial council, condemned William for heresy, degraded him, and decreed that he be left to the secular court, and Holy Mother Church has no more to do in the premises. The writ orders that in some public and open place within the liberty of the said city they shall cause, for the reason set forth, Sawtre to be publicly, before the people, committed to the fire and to be burnt.
Smithfield, long established as a place of execution, was naturally selected by the civic authorities; hence the evil celebrity of Smithfield as the place of burning of heretics. The fires of Smithfield, associated in the popular mind with “bloody Mary,” were kindled long before her time, and continued long after her.
[90] “Henricus Dei gratia et cetera Vicecomiti Midilsex’ salutem. Precipimus tibi quod sine omni dilatione in loco ubi furche prius erecte fuerunt videlicet ad ulmellos fieri facias duos bonos gibettos de forti et optimo mæremio ad latrones et alios malefactores suspendendos et custum quod ad hoc posueris per visum et testimonium legalium hominum computabitur tibi ad scaccarium. Teste H. de Burgo Justiciario nostro apud Sanctum Albanum xxij die Maii. Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, 1833” (Records Commission, i. 419).
[91] Stow’s “Survey of London,” ed. Strype, book iii., p. 238; “Liber Custumarum,” ed. Riley, i. 147-51; Stow’s “Survey,” ed. Thoms, pp. 24, 25. By the last two “Humeaus” is correctly understood to mean “The Elms” of Smithfield, in the jurisdiction of the City of London.
[92] Chron. Avesbury, ed. Thompson, p. 285.
[93] Loyseau (Charles), “Traité des Seigneuries,” ed. 1601, p. 46; ed. 1704, p. 24.
[94] Smith (Thomas), “A Topographical and Historical Account of the Parish of St. Marylebone,” 1833, pp. 38, 39; Loftie (W.J.), “Hist. of London,” ii. 228-9.
[95] Matthew Paris, Chron. Majora, ed. Luard, iv. 196; Gregory’s Chron., p. 65.
[96] Chron. Murimuth, ed. Thompson, pp. 36, 43.
[97] “Mémoires d’un Protestant condamné aux Galères de France,” ed. 1881, p. 432.
[98] Maillard (Firmin), “Le Gibet de Montfaucon,” 1863, pp. 16 and 17, and frontispiece.
[99] Harleian Misc., iii. 100-8.
[100] Martin Marprelate, “Pappe with an Hatchet,” 1589.
[101] Shakespeare Socy., 1844, p. 73. This has been repeatedly quoted (following Cunningham) as from “Tarlton’s Jests,” published in 1611, twenty-one years later.
[102] Act. IV. sc. 3. The play is allotted to the period 1590-4.
[103] I am indebted to Mr. Herbert Sieveking for knowledge of this map. He has described it in an article which has not appeared at the time when this is written.
[104] In Mr. Croker’s translation we find the following: “It really requires the concurrent testimony of all writers to make us believe that the queen of England was forced by ‘those meddling priests’ to walk in penance to Tyburn, and there on her knees, under the gibbet, glorify the blessed martyrs of the Gunpowder Plot” (pp. 3, 4). The passage contains several inaccuracies. In the first place, the testimony of all writers was not concurrent, as is shown in the text; next, it was not charged that the Queen “glorified” the martyrs, but that she prayed for their souls; finally, “the blessed martyrs of the Gunpowder Plot” do not come into the story, as not one of them was executed at Tyburn.
There exists a rare print, often reproduced, of the supposed scene. It is of much later date and has no value whatever as evidence.
[105] In the Athenæum, August 17, 1907.
[106] In Annals under date.
[107] Ibid.
[108] Quoted by Mr. John W. Ford in the Athenæum, August 31, 1907.
[109] The testimony of maps is not wholly either in favour of a triangular gallows, or of the site as indicated by the maps of Mackay and Rocque. In a few the gallows is shown as consisting of three pieces. In one map such a gallows is shown at some distance to the west of Edgeware Road. But the maps are small and unimportant with one exception—John Seller’s map of the county of Middlesex, 1710 and 1742. In these the gallows of three pieces is placed just within the angle formed by the junction of the roads. But the evidence that at these dates, 1710-42, the gallows was triangular, and that it stood in the centre of the open space is too clear to be upset by the evidence of this map.
[110] Mr. Alfred Robbins, in Notes and Queries, November 9, 1907.
[111] Strype, writing in 1720 about Hanover Square then partly built, says: “And it is reported that the common Place of Execution of Malefactors at Tyburn, shall be appointed elsewhere, as somewhere near Kingsland; for the removing any Inconveniences or Annoyances, that might thereby be occasioned to that Square, or the Houses thereabouts.”
[112] Middlesex County Records, 4 vols., 1897-1902.
[113] Chrons. of Benedict of Peterborough, ed. Stubbs, i. 155, 56; Roger of Hoveden, ed. Stubbs, ii. 131.
Ordeal of water was of two kinds: In one the person undergoing the ordeal was thrown into deep water; if, without swimming, he floated, he was deemed guilty; if he sank, innocent. In this case the ordeal was probably of boiling water, in which the person plunged his arm into boiling water; the arm was bound up, and on its appearance after a certain time judgment was given.
[114] Chronicles: Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., ed. Luard, iii. 71-3; “Hist. Anglor.,” ed. Madden, ii., 251-2; “John of Oxenede,” ed. Ellis, 147; Chron. Dunstable (in Annales Monastici) ed. Luard, iii. 78-9.
Evidently, what was at first a riot had developed into a revolt, for “Montjoie!” was the cry of the French prince, Louis, who, brought over by the barons, had but recently given up his pretensions to the English crown. The alleged violation of the king’s oath afterwards furnished Louis with a pretext for refusing a restitution demanded by the English king.
“The Elms,” mentioned as the place of execution, was certainly The Elms of Tyburn, as shown by Sir J. H. Ramsay, in the Athenæum of September 7, 1907.
[115] Chron. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., ed. Luard, iii. 370. Tyburn is not mentioned as the place of execution.
[116] Chron. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., ed. Luard, iii. 543-5; “Flores Hist.,” ed. Luard, ii. 231. Tyburn is not expressly mentioned as the place of execution.
[117] Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., ed. Luard, iv. 193-6. Matthew of Westminster, “Flores Histor.,” ii. 253. The names of William’s captors, William Bardulf and Richard de Warenne, are given in “Liber de Antiquis Legibus,” Riley’s translation, p. 9.
The place of Marsh’s execution is not given in the great chronicles, but we are able to supply it from Gregory’s Chronicle (Camden Society, 1876): “Henry III., Anno xxv. Ande that yere dyde Saynt Roger, Byshoppe of London. And Wylliam Marche was drawe and hangyd at Tyburne,” p. 65. This may make us less doubtful in allotting to Tyburn executions the place of which is not specially mentioned.
[118] See “The Jews of Angevin England,” by Joseph Jacobs, pp. 19-21, 75.
[119] Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., ed. Luard, v. 516-9, 552. A full list of authorities is given by Mr. Albert M. Hyamson, “A History of the Jews in England,” (1908), p. 87.
[120] “Liber de Antiquis Legibus,” translated by H. T. Riley, 1863, pp. 104, 105. Tyburn is not mentioned as the place of execution.
[121] Annals of Dunstable, in Annales Monastici, ed. Luard, iii. 279. Tyburn is not expressly mentioned.
[122] Chronicles: Annals of Dunstable, in Annal. Monas., ed. Luard, iii. 314; Ann. de Wigornia, in Annal. Monas., iv. 489, 490; the French Chronicle of London, Riley’s translation, 248; Stow’s “Survey of London,” ed. Thoms, 96. (Stow gives the number hanged as sixteen.) Tyburn is not expressly mentioned.
[123] Chron. Bartholomew Cotton, ed. Luard, pp. 304-6. The passage in Norman French in the Chronicle is here given as translated by Mr. Riley in the French Chronicle of London, 1863, p. 295.
[124] Chron. Rishanger, ed. Riley, p. 194.
[125] The authorities for the trial, sentence, and execution of Wallace are the following:—
Chron. of the Reigns of Edward I. and Edward III., ed. Stubbs, i. 139.
Year Book of Edward III., years 11 and 12, 170-3.
Matthew of Westminster, “Flores Hist.,” ed. Luard, iii. 124.
Chron. Knighton, ed. Lumby i. 404.
Walsingham, “Ypodigma Neustriæ,” ed. Riley, p. 235.
Chron. of William Rishanger, ed. Riley, pp. 225-6.
Maitland Club, Chron. de Lanercost, p. 203; and Documents illustrative of Sir William Wallace.
[126] Annales Monastici, ed. Luard, iv. 294, 489. The treatment under Edward I. of “the Celtic fringe” was severe. We see here how Scotch and Welsh were dealt with. In Ireland, in 1301, it was accounted no offence to kill “a mere Irishman.”
[127] Matthew of Westminster, “Flores Hist.,” ed. Luard, iii. 134-5.
[128] Chrons. of the Reigns of Edward I. and Edward II., ed. Stubbs, i. 150, 255. Tyburn is not mentioned in either case.
[129] Stow, Annals, ed. Howes, 1615, pp. 229, 230. The editions of Stow’s Annals quoted throughout are this, and the continuation to 1631.
[130] Several Chronicles mention Tyburn in connection with the execution of Mortimer: “Drawn from the Tower to the Elms and there hanged with contumely,” Chron. of the Reigns of Edward I. and Edward II., ed. Stubbs, i. 352. “Drawn from the Tower of London to the gallows at the Elms, about a league outside the City of London, and there hanged,” Chron. Avesbury, ed. Thompson, p. 285. “Hangyd and drawne at Tyburn for tresoun,” Chron. Grey Friars, ed. Hewett, p. 152. “Hanged at the Elms on the common thieves’ gallows, where he hung two days,” Chron. Murimuth, ed. Thompson, p. 62. Murimuth was a canon of St. Paul’s in 1325; he died in 1347. In another text (Cotton MS. Nero D. x., in the British Museum) quoted in the Chronicle, it is said: “He was drawn by horses, on the common ox-hide, from the Tower of London to the Elms of Tybourne and there hanged.”
This last passage is interesting: the expression “the common ox-hide” indicates that the ox-hide was now regularly used in drawing.
The interesting indictment of Mortimer, in Norman French, is given in Chron. Knighton, ed. Lumby, i. 454-8.
[131] Chron. Murimuth, ed. Thompson, p. 171.
[132] Chron. Murimuth, ed. Thompson, p. 253; Rymer, “Fœdera,” v. 549-50.
[133] Walsingham, “Hist. Anglic.,” ed. Riley, i. 326; Chron. Angliæ ed. Thompson, p. 399. Tyburn is not expressly mentioned.
[134] Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 93.
[135] Stow, Annals, 303, 304; Chronicles of London, C. L. Kingsford, 1905, pp. 16, 17; Chron. Knighton, ii. p. 293; Walsingham, Hist. Ang., ii. 173-4.
[136] Chrons. of London, Kingsford, 1905, p. 55.
[137] Authorities: Chronicle of London (1827), p. 36; I. Julius B II. in Chronicles of London (C. L. Kingsford, 1905), pp. 62-3; Gregory’s Chron. (Camden Society, 1876), p. 102; Grey Friars Chron., ed. Howlett, p. 161; Chroniques de Waurin, ed. Hardy, vol. ii. pp. 41-3; Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits, &c., tome i, Paris, 1787. English translation, 1789.
[138] Hall’s Chronicle, ed. 1809, p. 26.
[139] Walsingham, “Hist. Anglic.,” ed. Riley, ii. 249.
[140] Stow, Annals, 330. Here again Gregory’s Chronicle supplies the place of execution—Tyburn (p. 104).
[141] Stow, Annals, p. 365; Hall’s Chronicle, ed. 1809, p. 128.
Stow evidently took his account of Mortimer from a chronicle which has been printed only quite lately in Chronicles of London. C. L. Kingsford, 1905, pp. 282-3, 341-2.
[142] Stow, Annals, ed. Howes, 1615, pp. 381-2.
The “Swan” in Thames Street became the “Old Swan” (it is so called in Braun and Hogenberg’s map), and still retains the name.
[143] Gregory’s Chron., p. 188. Stow adds, “but yᵉ yeoman of yᵉ crowne had their liuelode, and the hangman had their cloths, or wearing apparrell. The Pardon for liues was obtained through the earnest sute and labor of master Gilbert Worthington, then parson of S. Andrewes in Holborn a doctor of Diuinity a famous man and a greate preacher in those daies” (p. 386).
[144] Gregory’s Chronicle, pp. 234-5. Here again it is to the citizen of London that we owe this curious illustration of the life of the times.
[145] Gregory’s Chronicle (“Camden Soc.,” 1876), pp. 236-7. Lord Wenlock was killed in the battle of Tewkesbury.
[146] Smith, Sir Thomas, “De Republica Anglorum,” ed. 1583, pp. 83, 84.
[147] Lettres et Voyages, 1725-9, (Lausanne, 1903), p. 129.
[148] Wriothesley’s Chronicle (Camden Soc.), i. 17. Holinshed supplies the date, December 4, and gives the names as Sir Rees Griffin and John Hewes (iii. 928). Pennant, a Welshman, corrects these names to Sir Rhys ap Gryffydd, and John Hughes. He gives particulars of the family of Sir Rhys.
[149] This was the inner gate, still standing, of the London Charterhouse.
[150] Calendar of State Papers, Henry VIII., ed. Gairdner, xi. No. 780; xii. (1), No. 479.
[151] Chron. Jocelin of Brakelond (Camden Society), p. 28.
[152] As, for example: In 1175, William of Waterville, Abbat of Peterborough, designed to pledge with the Jews the arm of St. Oswald. The monks objecting, the abbat took with him ten armed knights, and forced his way into the cloisters and the church, inflicting mortal wounds on some monks and servants of the monastery who resisted him. For this he was deposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Chron. Benedict of Peterborough, ed. Stubbs, i. 106.
[153] Fortescue, “The Governance of England,” ed. Plummer, 1885, pp. 137-41.
[154] Latimer’s Seven Sermons, ed. Arber, pp. 40-1.
[155] A Godly Sermon, 1552. And again:—“It is myne owne; whoe shall warne me to do wyth myne owne as me selfe lysteth?” Select Works of Robert Crowley (E. Engl. Text Soc., 1872), p. 157.
[156] “Complaynt of Roderyck Mors,” (E. Engl. Text Soc., 1874), p. 9.
[157] Latimer’s Seven Sermons, pp. 121, 149.
[158] In “Who Killed Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey?” I have given a list of fifty-two of the captains of these hosts. Four thousand of the people are said to have been butchered in Devon, and five thousand in Norfolk.
[159] “English Gilds” (E. Eng. Text. Soc., 1870).
[160] Bernard Gilpin, op. cit.
[161] Statute 1 Edward VI. c. 3.
[162] “Rogeri Aschami Epistolarum libri quatuor, Oxoniæ,” 1703 p. 294. The date is about 1547. The comment is that of Mr Jamieson in Barclay’s “Ship of Fools.”
[163] “The Four Supplications” (E. Eng. Text Soc., 1871), p. 98.
[164] Ibid., pp. xvii-xviii.
[165] Ibid., p. 102. It is true that the “decay of husbandry” existed in a less intense form before the Dissolution. There were several Acts against pulling down “towns,” and for keeping up houses for husbandry, the first being 4 Henry VII. (1488-9), c. 19.
[166] Latimer’s, Seven Sermons, p. 120.
[167] Holinshed, i. 186.
[168] Opera Omnia, 1663, v. p., 508.
[169] Hist. MSS. Comm. Welsh MSS. of Lord Mostyn (1898) p. x.
[170] Wriothesley’s Chron. (Camden Society), pp. 63, 64.
[171] Hall, p. 827-8; Grey Friars Chron., p. 202; Wriothesley’s Chron. i., 101-2.
[172] Holinshed’s Chronicle iii. 954. Hall says that “greate moane was made for them al, but moste specially for Mantel, who was as wittie, and as towarde a gentleman, as any was in the realme, and a manne able to haue dooen good seruice” (p. 842).
[173] This gallows is shown in Braun & Hogenberg’s map of London (Athenæum, March 31, 1906: “A Neglected Map of London”).
[174] “I played the fool after my customable manner.”
[175] Rymer, “Fœdera,” xv. 181-3, 250-2. At this very time the reformers contended “that there is no church in earth that erreth not as well in faith as manners.” Strype, “Life of Cranmer,” p. 203.
[176] Fourth Sermon, 1549, ed. Arber, p. 116.
[177] Cal. State Papers, Domestic, 1547-80.
[178] This was the tract defending the manner in which torture had been used (see pp. 35 and note, 161-2). The treatise printed by Carter condemned Catholics for going to Protestant churches.
[179] This was also published in Latin and in Dutch. It is reprinted in the Harleian Mis., vol. iii. Throckmorton was put on the rack but made no admissions. Threatened again with the rack, he “voluntarily” made a confession which he afterwards withdrew. But this sufficed. The crime charged against him was “bringing in of Foreigners into England, and deposing the Queen” (Camden, in Kennett’s “Complete History,” ii. 497-8).
[180] This case brings to our notice a third pamphlet issued by the Government in defence of its proceedings. This was entitled, “The Execution of Justice in England, for Maintenance of publique and Christian Peace, against certeine Stirrers of Sedition, and Adherents to the Traytours and Enemies of the Realme, without any Persecution of them for Questions of Religion, as is falsely reported and published by the Fautors and Fosterers of their Treasons: xvii. December, 1583.” Reprinted in Harleian Mis., ii. 137-55, and in Somer’s Tracts, i. 189-208.
This also has been ascribed to Lord Burghley. It is a defence of the penal laws against Catholics. A recent Act, 23 Eliz. (1581) c. 1, made it high treason, punishable with drawing, hanging, and quartering, to convert any one to the Church of Rome, or to be converted.
It is proverbially dangerous to argue with the master of legions; it was equally dangerous to argue with the mistress of the rack, the gallows, and the ripping-knife. Alfield and Webley had circulated copies of an answer to “The Execution of Justice in England.” They experienced this “Justice” in consequence; were tortured in prison and afterwards hanged.
[181] For an account of Lopez see “A History of the Jews in England,” by Mr. Albert M. Hyamson, 1908, pp. 136-9.
[182] Camden’s “History of Q. Elizabeth,” in Kennett’s “History,” ii. 632. Lingard says: “No man who will read a report of his trial can entertain a doubt of his innocence.”
[183] 1618. March 1. Touching the News of the Time: Sir George Villiers, the new Favourite, tapers up apace, and grows strong at Court: His Predecessor the Earl of Somerset hath got a Lease of 90 years for his Life, and so hath his Articulate Lady, called so, for articling against the frigidity and impotence of her former Lord. She was afraid that Coke, the Lord Chief Justice (who had used such extraordinary art and industry in discovering all the circumstances of the poisoning of Overbury) would have made white Broth of them, but that the Prerogative kept them from the Pot: yet the Subservient Instruments, the lesser Flies could not break thorow, but lay entangled in the Cobweb; amongst others Mistress Turner, the first inventress of yellow Starch, was executed in a Cobweb Lawn Ruff of that colour at Tyburn, and with her I believe that yellow Starch, which so much disfigured our Nation, and rendered them so ridiculous and fantastic, will receive its Funeral. (Howell’s “Familiar Letters,” ed. Jacobs, 1890, p. 20).
[184] Journals of the House of Lords, iv. pp. 662, 723.
[185] A vivid picture of the tyrant in 1654 is drawn in a few words by a foreign ambassador. The Protector, he says, was living in fear with redoubled precautions, grudging to be approached by any sort of person (Gardiner, “Hist. of Commonwealth,” ii. p. 463, note). He had just issued a proclamation ordering a return to be made by all housekeepers of London, Westminster, and Southwark of persons lodging in their houses. This was followed by the arrest of more than 500 persons.
[186] Clarendon’s “Hist. of the Rebellion,” ed. 1888, v. 295-7.
[187] “Hist. MSS. Comm.,” Report v. pt. i. p. 174.
[188] “Journals of the House of Commons,” viii. 202.
[189] John Evelyn, “Diary,” ed. 1850, i. 345.
[190] Sir George Wharton, “Gesta Britannorum,” 1662.
[191] “Harleian Miscellany,” ii. 285-7.
[192] Neal’s “History of the Puritans,” iv. 317-9.
[193] Pepys’ “Diary,” ed. Wheatley, ii. 180-1.
[194] “State Trials,” vi. 67-120.
[195] “State Trials,” vi. ed., pp. 225-74.
[196] London Gazette, No. 259, May 7-11, 1668.
[197] Fuller particulars of the trials and executions are given in the author’s “Who Killed Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey?” 1905.
[198] This is, I think, the first case recorded in which a criminal was allowed to make the journey to Tyburn in a coach. It became a common practice: “Il y a des Gentlemen qui obtiennent la permission de faire ce voyage en carosse” (Henri Misson, “Mémoires,” &c., 1698, p. 24).
[199] Mr. Pike, however, in his “History of Crime in England,” contends that “it is not by any means certain that there was any serious legal objection to the punishment inflicted on Oates, except, perhaps, so far as it related to his canonical habits.” He thinks the sentence was justified by law and precedent (ii. 232-3).
[200] Hist. MSS. Comm., Manuscripts of the Marquess of Ormonde. New series, vol. iv., 1907.
[201] “A Short History of the Life of Major John Bernardi,” written by himself in Newgate, 1729.
[202] Clarendon’s “History of the Rebellion,” ed. Oxford, 1849, vi. 105.
[203] On few subjects has there been so profuse an expenditure of insincere writing as on this. Thus Hallam writes: “That writ [of habeas corpus] rendered more actively remedial by the Statute of Charles II., but founded upon the broad basis of Magna Carta, is the principal bulwark of English liberty; and if ever temporary circumstances, or the doubtful plea of political necessity, shall lead men to look on its denial with apathy, the most distinguishing characteristic of our constitution will be effaced” (Hist. of Mid. Ages, ch. viii., pt. ii.). Hallam was, of course, perfectly well acquainted with the facts of repeated suspension.
[204] It is said that in 1818 a “Tyburn ticket” was sold (as a curiosity) for £280.
[205] Turnpike levelling was made a capital offence by 8 Geo. II. (1735) c. 20.
[206] Hanging on the triangular gallows at Tyburn was effected by placing the sufferer, with the rope round his neck, on a cart. This being drawn from under him, he was left hanging. Elsewhere the usual way was to make the sufferer mount a ladder, which was turned, so leaving him suspended. When several persons were executed in this way, they were hanged, not simultaneously, but one after the other.
[207] 48ᵒ Regis Henrici Tertii.
Pardonatio concessa Ivettæ de Balsham eo quod suspense fuit pro quadam felonia ab hora nona die Lunæ usque ortum solis diei Martis sequent et tamen viva evasit, apud Cantuar 16ᵒ Augusti. Cal. Rot. Patentium (1802), p. 34.
[208] The punishment of the pillory for fraudulent bankruptcy was previously enacted by 1 James I. c. 15, s. 4.
[209] According to Monsieur César de Saussure, who was in England in 1726, the weight was increased every four hours (“Lettres et Voyages,” pp. 126-7).
[210] Villette, (“Annals of Newgate,” i. 16-24). An account of the origin and development of this practice has been given on pp. 36-43.
[211] Swift wrote some verses on Blueskin.
[212] “An Enquiry into the Causes of the frequent Executions at Tyburn,” 1725.
[213] Pope, in his “Dunciad” speaks of “—hymning Tyburn’s elegiac lines” (i. 41).
[214] In 1810 the Archbishop of Canterbury and six Bishops voted against Romilly’s Bill to abolish capital punishment for stealing privately in a shop to the value of five shillings (“Life of Romilly,” ii. 130).
[215] This is the Shoplifting Act. It is also frequently cited as 10 & 11 Will. III., c. 23.