ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Doom pronounced over the Dead Body of Francis Mowbray, a prisoner, who was killed in his attempt to escape from Edinburgh Castle.

1603 A Royal warrant was directed to Sir William Hart, and the other Judges of the Court of Justiciary, setting forth, in the usual bombast stile of treasonable indictments, that the deceased had been guilty of most high, horrible, and detestable points of treason:* that the same was verified by two or three witnesses; but that the deceased obstinately persisted to deny the charge: that he attempted to make his escape from Edinburgh Castle, which rendered his guilt the more manifest; and that, in the attempt, he had brought about his own miserable and shameful death. The warrant, therefore, required the Court to pronounce sentence on the deceased' Francis Mowbray, now presented on pannel,' (i. e. produced at the bar,) to be dismembered as a traitor; his body to be hanged on a gibbet, and afterwards quartered; his head and limbs stuck on conspicuous places in the city of Edinburgh; and his whole estate to be forfeited. The warrant is dated at Holyroodhouse. 31st January, 1603, and is subscribed James Rex, Montrose Cancellar, Marr, Herreis, Halyrudhouse. Doom was pronounced accordingly.

This, perhaps, exceeds every act of King James's tyranny. For, 1st, this sentence of forfeiture, pro

*Rec. of Just. ult. Jan. 1603.

nounced after death, was not adjudged by Parlia- 1603 ment, but by the Court of Justiciary, in consequence of a royal edict. 2d, No summons of treason was executed against the heirs of the deceased, nor any defender cited, unless the corpse, which was produced at the bar, can be called a defender. 3d, No specific charge was exhibited against the deceased; nor any thing but a general accusation of treason and laese-Majesty, which, in those days, was so far from conveying any precise and definite idea, that it might have been any thing which occurred to the whim of the King's Advocate, or that of his Royal Master. 4th, No proof was adduced in Court, no jury called, nor verdict returned, establishing the charge upon which the sentence of forfeiture was pronounced.

Nothing can impress us with a worse opinion of those times, than to behold the people stupid, yet whimsical, abject, yet insolent. When aroused by the clergy, on the score of speculative doctrines, or even forms of religion, they would break forth into the wildest outrages against their governors; yet they would remain supinely indifferent to the wanton invasion of the most established principles of law, and of the most sacred rights of mankind.

Trial of Mr. Andrew Crichton, for Declining the Authority of the King and Privy Council

1610 THE prisoner, who was brother to the Laird of Innernytie, was prosecuted at the instance of Sir Thomas Hamilton, his Majesty's Advocate, for treasonably declining the jurisdiction of the King and Privy Council. The indictment set forth, that the prisoner being brought before the Privy Council, 'to ⚫ be examined upon such matters concerning his Ma'jesty and the estates of this his kingdom, and required by their Lordships to give your oath to them, ' that you should faithfully and truly answer to them, and declare the verity of such things as should be ' demanded of you: Ye treasonably refused to acknowledge his Majesty, and the said Lords of his • most honourable Privy Council, to be your judges; but most treasonably declined their judgement.'

6

[ocr errors]

The act of Parliament, A. D. 1584, c. 129. confirming the authority of the King and Privy Council, in all cases, and over all persons, and annexing the pain of treason to the denial of the same, was then read over to the prisoner: but he persisted in declining the jurisdiction of the King and Privy Council, and judicially ratified his declinature.

The Court sentenced him to be taken to the Cross of Edinburgh, and to be hanged, his body to be dismembered as a traitor, and his whole estate to be

*Rec. of Just. 29th August, 1610.

forfeited. But, after remaining six months in pri- 1610 son, under sentence of death,* the King was pleased to change the sentence to perpetual banishment.

In reading the judicial proceeding of those wretched times, our surprise is divided between the mulish conceit of individuals in declining the royal authority, and the tyranny of government in the exercise of that authority. This mode of calling people before the Privy Council, and requiring them to make oath that they should answer every question which might be put to them, is as high a stretch of tyranny, as any tribunal on earth, I presume, ever attained. That no rude breath might pollute the Majesty of the Throne, a capital punishment had been annexed, even to the hearing of slanderous speeches against the King, without informing upon the authors; and the unsocial spirit of the reformed religion had guarded its monopoly of the mind, by annexing the like penalty to those who gave food or lodging to a Popish priest. To call then people before the Council, and oblige them to give an oath that they should answer every question which might be put to them, was laying them under the necessity of becoming public informers, in a case where the pain of death was annexed to the exercise of an act perhaps of hospitality or charity.

*Records of Just. 27th February, 1611.

It is strange that the true religion, which is the only direct road to salvation, will not content itself with the endless spiritual consequences it presents to mankind, but that it will also deal out fire and faggot, to those who are so far mistaken, as to pursue their course to heaven by any other road.

1615

I presume it must have been some motive of religion which induced the prisoner, Crichton, to decline the authority of the King and Privy Council. So nearly do extremes meet, that Black, the Presbyterian minister at St. Andrews, declined their authority in the year 1596, when cited before the Privy Council to answer for an offence which he had committed; and Ogilvie, the Jesuit, declined the same jurisdiction, A. D. 1615, when required to answer every interrogatory that might be put to him. Black received a censure, but Ogilvie was hanged.

John Fleming, for Slanderous Speeches against the
King.

THE prisoner was pursued at the instance of Sir
William Oliphant of Newtown, King's Advocate,
on account of treasonable, blasphemous, and damna-
'ble speeches, uttered by him to John Lauder, mi-
"nister at Cocksburnspath.' The prisoner most hum.
bly threw himself in his Majesty's will, i. e. submit-
ted to his Majesty's pleasure.t

The indictment set forth, that this Lauder, the minister, having reprehended and found fault with 'the said John Fleming, because his son repaired not 'to the communion; saying to the said John, that • albeit (although) he contemned the order and dis

* Spottiswood's Hist. p. 419. See the trial of Ogilvie infra. + Records of Justiciary, May 17, 1615.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »