I have made many diligent inquiries about Henry Rogers, and they have not gone to represent him as a bad man, but as one little in the habit of restraining his passions, of great bodily strength, and of what is termed a wilful disposition; and his prejudices were probably supported by an opinion, still prevalent among country people, that freehold lands, which have once descended to an heir cannot be alienated by any possessor without the concurrence of his heir.
The elder brother died, when a will was produced giving all the freehold property to his widow, whose maiden name was Millett. Henry Rogers averred, and possibly believed, that the will was spurious, and would be invalid at all events. Under that impression, and despising legal remedies, he waited for an opportunity when his sister-in-law was from home; he then turned some female servants out of the house, and took forcible possession. The widow of course appealed to the law, with the voice of the whole country, however, against her; and it is universally reported that Sir John St. Aubyn, the principal gentleman of the parish, would have supported Rogers in a legal proceeding. However that may be, he prepared for violence, and refused to yield up possession when judgment was given against him; so that the Sheriff was at last directed to eject him by force. But Rogers got several persons, ignorant and lawless as himself, to remain with him in the house, which had been barricaded and adapted for defence, and great numbers of people, partly from curiosity, but in part also to countenance his resistance, having assembled on the spot, the civil power was completely resisted, and two men killed by shots from the house; the Under Sheriff himself having narrowly escaped,—as he states in his evidence, rather ludicrously, that the discharge of a gun from the house burnt his wig and singed his face.
This happened on the 18th of June, 1734.
On the following day the Under Sheriff came back, assisted by some soldiers, who were fired on and one killed. They returned the fire, but without effect. And then, which would appear almost incredible, Rogers was allowed to remain in quiet possession, after these murders, till March of the following year, when he was again blockaded by soldiers; and the siege, I apprehend, continued for several days, with the loss of two more men, when at last cannon were brought from Pendennis Castle. On the night following their arrival, Rogers
contrived to effect an escape. He travelled on foot, and got as far as Salisbury, with the intention, as he stated, of making his case known to the King.
Whatever might have been the opinions of gentlemen, and educated persons, on the abstract merit of his case, it became impossible for them not to join in bringing to condign punishment one who had thus taken away the lives of innocent persons, and set at equal defiance the laws of God and man.
Sir John St. Aubyn now took an active part in endeavouring to secure the fugitive, and being through his marriage connected with the Herberts Earls of Pembroke, who resided in the neighbourhood of Salisbury, handbills descriptive of Rogers were circulated round that town. I have always heard that a postboy, driving homewards a return postchaise, was accosted by a stout man walking with a gun in his hand, requesting to be taken in. The boy drove him to the inn, where he procured a bed; but the circumstances and description had excited strong suspicion, and he was secured in his sleep.
The prisoner was of course removed to Cornwall. He was there convicted of murder, together with John Street, who seems to have been his principal partisan, and both made an atonement for their offences with their lives.
Through the favour of Lord Hardwicke, I have procured a copy of the evidence, and a portion of the charge given to the Grand Jury, in reference to those prisoners, by his Lordship’s grandfather, the justly-celebrated first Earl of Hardwicke and Lord Chancellor.
Launceston, Aug. 1, 1735.