Noble as the sentiments of this last address of a dying man must be allowed to be, it gave great offence to the Whigs and Hanoverians. An ultra among both those classes declared that ‘Lord Derwentwater’s speech and Colonel Oxburgh’s paper, both certainly came out of the same mint; for they were sent to the printer’s, both written in the same hand. So that we doubt not but that there is a common speech-maker for the party, and much good may do him with his office!’ In examining the two addresses, the ultra Whig says he is doing no wrong to the English peer or to the brave soldier, but that he is only dealing with a ‘cunning Jesuit.’ The examination of the document extends to more than five columns of a newspaper, and is in the fierce ultra-Protestant spirit of the times.
A HEAD ON TEMPLE BAR.
On the evening of this execution, a man was seen, with a small bundle under his arm, ascending a ladder, to the top of Temple Bar. Arrived there he took the white cloth from off that which he had carried in it, and then the men and boys gathered below saw that it was a human head. The man thrust it on to an upright iron rod, then descended to the cart which awaited him, and drove away towards Newgate. Next day, idlers were peering at the head through a glass, and pious ‘Romans’ secretly crossed themselves and prayed that Heaven would give rest to the soul of the colonel. ‘And may God damn those who put his head up yonder!’ cried a too zealous Jacobite, who got a month in the Compter for his outspokenness.
There was not a coffee-house in which Colonel Oxburgh’s paper was not discussed. In a Tory house in St. Paul’s Churchyard, one guest read the document aloud to the company, who listened with profound attention. When the reader came to the part in which the colonel said, that his life should have been granted to him as he surrendered at discretion, an old Tory remarked, ‘Had it happened in the good Queen’s time not a soul of ’em would have suffered!’ He then added with a sigh, ‘But God preserve the Church!’ A taciturn Whig guest who happened to be in the room, reported this incident to the papers, as illustrating the disloyal spirit of the ‘Jacks.’
MORE TRIALS.
The trials went on rapidly at the Marshalsea and in Westminster Hall. The day after Oxburgh was condemned, James Home, said to be a brother, but really a son of Earl Home, was tried with Mr. Farquharson. The evidence differed but little, yet the jury seeing that it might lead them to infer that Farquharson was more certainly forced into the rebel ranks than Home, found the latter guilty, and acquitted Farquharson. This Southwark jury accordingly began to be suspected of Jacobite proclivities by the Whigs, and their ripeness of judgment to be doubted by ‘my lords.’ In Westminster Hall, the jury went more in accordance with what were held to be loyal principles. Mr. Menzies was tried there on May 11th. It was shown that he was with the rebels, from Perth to Preston; but no overt act could be proved against him. Menzies, undoubtedly, tried to escape from the Jacobites who held him, and he was so holden probably, because he had openly spoken in favour of King George. He certainly never was in action. It was urged against him that he had not persisted in making attempts to escape; but, it was answered, that those who failed in such attempts were cruelly treated. The law was pressed more cruelly against him now. The judges ruled that his appearance among rebels, although he exercised no command, nor shared in any hostilities, was high treason. The obsequious jury found accordingly, and this poor gentleman was sentenced to death.
JACOBITE JURYMEN.
Jacobite construction of law and judicial leaning had its turn at the Marshalsea on the 12th. Two Douglases, with Maclean, Scrimshire, and Skeen, retracted the plea of ‘not guilty,’ which they had made when they were arraigned, and now pleaded ‘guilty,’ throwing themselves on the king’s mercy. It was beginning to be understood that such acknowledgment would save the lives of the less prominent Jacobites, though it might not win their liberty. Two others, Ferguson and Innes, stood stoutly to the plea which they had made on the day of their arraigning. They asserted, and their assertion was sustained by very good evidence, that their presence with the rebels was involuntary; their action, the result of force applied against them. The jury acquitted both gentlemen. Then arose a shout and a joyous disorder in court. Numerous Jacobite gentlemen eagerly pressed forward, some to shake hands with, others to embrace, the so-called unwilling friends of James III. The bench was naturally indignant with audience and jury. Two of the noisiest offenders were seized and brought up to suffer for their offences. One, a Lambeth tallow-chandler (waiting, it was said, on a summons to be a juryman), was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and a fine of 100l. The second offender, a looking-glass maker’s son, on London Bridge, was condemned to the same term of imprisonment and half the amount of fine.
TOWNELEY AND TILDESLEY.
On May 15th, two important trials attracted universal interest. The accused persons were gentlemen of great estate in Lancashire, namely, ‘Towneley of Towneley,’ and ‘Tildesley of the Lodge.’ The evidence was very damaging against both. On the king’s side it was proved that Towneley headed the troops called by his name, in a red waistcoat and with a blunderbuss. His butler, coachman, and postillions rode in that troop. He joined at Preston, of his own free will, and might have left it whenever he chose up to the time of its being invested. The badness of the cause of both prisoners was shown by an attempt made to bribe the king’s witnesses to get out of the way. There was also a Tildesley troop, and although Mr. Tildesley was never seen at the head of it, he was seen with his sword drawn, and it was certain that he dined in Preston with rebel officers, and drank rebel toasts.