Two singular and interesting circumstances occurred at this execution. The one was the attendance of a younger brother of Lieutenant Thomas Deacon’s, of the Manchester Regiment, and one of those who had obtained a reprieve. At his own request he was allowed to witness the execution of his brother in a coach under the charge of a guard. The other was one of a very affecting description. Hurried away by the impetuosity of youth, James Dawson, one of the sufferers, the son of a Lancashire gentleman, had abandoned his studies at St. John’s college, Cambridge, and had joined the Jacobite standard. He and a young lady of good family and handsome fortune were warmly attached to each other, and had Dawson been acquitted, or, after condemnation, found mercy, the day of his enlargement was to have been that of their marriage. When all hopes of mercy were extinguished, the young lady resolved to witness the execution of her lover, and so firm was her resolution, that no persuasions of her friends could induce her to abandon her determination. On the morning of the execution she accordingly followed the sledges to the place of execution in a hackney coach, accompanied by a gentleman nearly related to her, and one female friend. She got near enough to see the fire kindled which was to consume that heart she knew was so much devoted to her, and to observe the other appalling preparations without committing any of those extravagances her friends had apprehended. She had even the fortitude to restrain her feelings while the executioner was pulling the cap over the eyes of her lover; but when he was thrown off she in an agony of grief drew back her head into the coach, and, crying out, “My dear, I follow thee, I follow thee;—sweet Jesus, receive both our souls together!” fell upon the neck of her female companion, and instantly expired.[1283]
The principal witness against Townley, Deacon, Dawson, and others, was Samuel Maddock, an ensign in the same regiment, who, to save his own life, turned king’s evidence against his former comrades.[1284]
The individuals next proceeded against were persons of a higher grade. The Marquis of Tullibardine escaped the fate which awaited him, having died of a lingering indisposition in the Tower on the 9th of July; but on the 23d of that month the grand jury of the county of Surrey found bills for high treason against the Earls of Kilmarnock, and Cromarty, and Lord Balmerino. Lord-chancellor Hardwicke was appointed Lord High Steward for the trial of these peers. The indictments being certified, the house of lords fixed the 28th of July for the day of trial. Accordingly, on the day appointed the three lords proceeded from the Tower towards Westminster-hall, where the trial was conducted with great pomp and ceremony.
After the indictments had been read, the Earls of Kilmarnock and Cromarty pleaded “guilty,” and threw themselves entirely upon the king’s mercy. Before pleading to his indictment, Lord Balmerino stated that he was not at Carlisle at the time specified in the indictment, being eleven miles off when that city was taken, and he requested to know from his grace if it would avail him any thing to prove that fact. Lord Hardwicke said that such a circumstance might, or might not, be of use to him; but he informed him that it was contrary to form to permit him to put any questions before pleading to the indictment, by saying whether he was guilty or not guilty. His grace desiring his lordship to plead, the intrepid[1285] Balmerino apparently not understanding the meaning of that legal term, exclaimed, with great animation, “Plead! Why, I am pleading as fast as I can.” The lord-high-steward having explained the import of the phrase, the noble baron answered, “Not guilty.”
The trial then proceeded. Four witnesses were examined. One of them proved that he saw Lord Balmerino ride into Carlisle on a bay horse the day after it was taken by the Highlanders—that he saw him afterwards ride up to the market-place with his sword drawn at the head of his troop of horse, which was the second troop of Charles’s body guards, and was called Elphinstone’s horse. Another witness deponed that he saw his lordship ride into Manchester at the head of his troop, and that he was there when the young Chevalier was proclaimed regent. Two other witnesses proved that his lordship was called colonel of his troop, that he always acted in that station, gave orders on all occasions to his officers, and that he was in great favour with Prince Charles. The evidence on the part of the crown having been finished, the lord-high-steward asked the prisoner if he had any thing to offer in his defence, or meant to call any witnesses. His lordship replied that he had nothing to say, but to make an exception to the indictment which was incorrect in charging him with being at Carlisle at the time it was taken by the Highlanders. The peers then resolved to take the opinion of the judges upon the point, and these were unanimously of opinion, that, as an overt act of treason and other acts of treason had been proved beyond contradiction, there was no occasion to prove explicitly every thing that was laid in the indictment; and that, of course, the prisoner’s objection was not material. The peers then unanimously found Lord Balmerino guilty of high treason, after which, the other two lords were brought to the bar, and were informed by the lord-high-steward, that if either of them had any thing to move in arrest of judgment, they must come prepared on the Wednesday following at eleven o’clock, and state their objections, otherwise sentence of death would be awarded against them. The three lords were then carried back to the Tower in coaches, and the axe, which was in the coach with Lord Balmerino, had its edge pointed towards him.
The court accordingly met again on Wednesday the 30th of July, when the lord-high-steward addressed the prisoners; and beginning with Lord Kilmarnock, asked him if he had any thing to offer why judgment of death should not be passed against him. His lordship stated, that having, from a due sense of his folly, and the heinousness of his crimes, acknowledged his guilt, he meant to offer nothing in extenuation, but to throw himself entirely on the compassion of the court, that it might intercede with his majesty for his royal clemency. He then, in a somewhat humble speech, urged several reasons why he should be treated with clemency, expressing great contrition for having, somewhat against his own inclination, joined in the “unnatural scheme.” He concluded by stating, that if after what he had stated their lordships did not feel themselves called upon to employ their interest with his majesty for his royal clemency, that he would lay down his life with the utmost resignation, and that his last moments should “be employed in fervent prayer for the preservation of the illustrious house of Hanover, and the peace and prosperity of Great Britain.”
The Earl of Cromarty began a most humiliating but pathetic appeal, by declaring that he had been guilty of an offence which merited the highest indignation of his majesty, their lordships, and the public; and that it was from a conviction of his guilt that he had not presumed to trouble their lordships with any defence. “Nothing remains, my lords,” he continued, “but to throw myself, my life, and fortune, upon your lordships’ compassion; but of these, my lords, as to myself is the least part of my sufferings. I have involved an affectionate wife, with an unborn infant, as parties of my guilt, to share its penalties; I have involved my eldest son, whose infancy and regard for his parents hurried him down the stream of rebellion. I have involved also eight innocent children, who must feel their parent’s punishment before they know his guilt. Let them, my lords, be pledges to his majesty; let them be pledges to your lordships; let them be pledges to my country for mercy; let the silent eloquence of their grief and tears; let the powerful language of innocent nature supply my want of eloquence and persuasion; let me enjoy mercy, but no longer than I deserve it; and let me no longer enjoy life than I shall use it to deface the crime I have been guilty of. Whilst I thus intercede to his majesty through the mediation of your lordships for mercy, let my remorse for my guilt as a subject; let the sorrow of my heart as a husband; let the anguish of my mind as a father, speak the rest of my misery. As your lordships are men, feel as men; but may none of you ever suffer the smallest part of my anguish. But if after all, my lords, my safety shall be found inconsistent with that of the public, and nothing but my blood can atone for my unhappy crime; if the sacrifice of my life, my fortune and family, is judged indispensably necessary for stopping the loud demands for public justice; and if the bitter cup is not to pass from me, not mine, but thy will, O God, be done.”
When the lord-high-steward addressed Lord Balmerino, he produced a paper, and desired it might be read. His grace told his lordship that he was at liberty to read it if he pleased; but his lordship replied that his voice was too low, and that he could not read it so distinctly as he could wish. One of the clerks of parliament, by order of the lord-high-steward, then read the paper, which was to this effect:—That although his majesty had been empowered by an act of parliament, made the last session, to appoint the trials for high treason to take place in any county he should appoint; yet, as the alleged act of treason was stated to have been committed at Carlisle, and prior to the passing of the said act, he ought to have been indicted at Carlisle, and not in the county of Surrey, as the act could not have a retrospective effect. His lordship prayed the court to assign him counsel to argue the point. The peers, after consideration, agreed to his petition for counsel, and at his request assigned him Messrs. Wilbraham and Forrester, and adjourned the court to the 1st of August.
The three prisoners were again brought back from the Tower. On that day the lord-high-steward asked Lord Balmerino if he was then ready by his counsel to argue the point, which he proposed to the court on the previous day. His lordship answered, that as his counsel had advised him that there was nothing in the objection sufficient to found an arrest of judgment upon, he begged to withdraw the objection, and craved their lordships’ pardon for giving them so much trouble. The prisoners then all declaring that they submitted themselves to the court, Lord Hardwicke addressed them in a suitable speech, and concluded by pronouncing the following sentence:[1286]—“The judgment of the law is, and this high court doth award, that you, William, Earl of Kilmarnock; George, Earl of Cromarty; and Arthur Lord Balmerino, and every of you, return to the prison of the Tower from whence you came: from thence you must be drawn to the place of execution: when you come there, you must be hanged by the neck, but not till you are dead; for you must be cut down alive; then your bowels must be taken out and burnt before your faces; then your heads must be severed from your bodies; and your bodies must be divided each into four quarters; and these must be at the king’s disposal. And God Almighty be merciful to your souls.” Then the prisoners were removed from the bar, and after taking a cold collation which had been prepared for them, were carried back to the Tower in the same order and form as before.
The Earl of Kilmarnock immediately presented a petition to the king for mercy, and also another, a copy of the first, to the Prince of Wales, praying his royal highness’s intercession with his majesty in his behalf; and a third to the Duke of Cumberland for a similar purpose. In this last mentioned petition he asserted his innocence of charges which had been made against him, of having advised the putting to death of the prisoners taken by the Highland army before the battle of Culloden, and of advising or approving of an alleged order for giving no quarter to his majesty’s troops in that battle. In the petitions to the king and the Prince of Wales, the earl declared that he had surrendered himself at the battle of Culloden, at a time when he could have easily escaped; but he afterwards admitted that the statement was untrue, and that he was induced to make it from a strong desire for life; that he had no intention of surrendering; and that, with the view of facilitating his escape, he had gone towards the body of horse which made him prisoner, thinking that it was Fitz-James’s horse, with the design of mounting behind a dragoon. These petitions were entirely disregarded.