The preparations for his execution were somewhat the same as those in the cases of Kilmarnock and Balmerino. He was dressed in a suit of scarlet, faced with black velvet trimmed with gold, a gold-laced waistcoat, and wore a white feather in his hat. When he came upon the scaffold he took a tender farewell of his friends, and after spending about seven minutes in prayer on his knees, he rose, and pulling off his clothes, went forward to the block, on which he placed his head to try how it fitted. He then spoke to the executioner as if giving him directions, and kneeling down again, and fixing his head upon the block, in about two minutes he gave the signal to the executioner, who, as in the case of Balmerino, did not complete his work till he had given the third blow. The head was received in a scarlet cloth. Without the levity of Balmerino, Mr. Ratcliffe displayed the same manly fortitude and contempt of death exhibited by that unfortunate nobleman. He died, as he had lived, a Catholic; and so warmly was he attached to the faith of his ancestors, that when some zealous Protestant objected to him that some of the tenets of his religion were contrary to reason, he is said to have wished, that for every such tenet, the belief of which was required by the church, there were twenty, that he might have a larger field for exercising his faith.[1293] His body was delivered over to his friends, and interred by them, on the 11th of November, at St. Giles’s-in-the-fields, near the remains of his brother.
The last scene of this bloody tragedy ended with the trial and execution of the aged Lord Lovat, who had been confined in the Tower since the 15th of August. He was impeached by the House of Commons on the 11th of December, and was brought to the bar of the House of Peers on the 18th, when the articles of impeachment were read to him.[1294] At his own desire, four gentlemen were assigned him for counsel, and he was appointed to put in answers to the articles of impeachment on or before the 13th of January. The trial, which was appointed to take place on the 23d of February, was postponed to the 5th, and afterwards to the 9th of March, on which day it commenced. The articles of impeachment were in substance, that he had compassed and imagined the death of the king,—that he had corresponded with the Pretender, accepted a commission from him to be a lieutenant-general of his forces, and another to be general of the Highlanders, and that he had accepted a patent from the Pretender creating him Duke of Fraser,—that he had met with armed traitors, and had raised great numbers of armed men for the service of the Pretender and his son, and had traitorously levied a cruel and unnatural war against his majesty,—that he had sent a treasonable letter to the son of the Pretender when in arms within the kingdom,—that he had also sent treasonable letters to other persons, then openly in arms against the king,—that he had assisted the rebels in their traitorous designs, and had sent his eldest son, and many of his name, family, and dependents, to the assistance of the Pretender’s eldest son, and had given them instructions in the prosecution of the rebellion,—and finally, that he had traitorously, both in person and by letters, held correspondence with the eldest son of the Pretender, and with divers persons employed by him, and particularly with Murray of Broughton, the two Lochiels, John Roy Stewart, Dr. Cameron, and others. To all these charges Lord Lovat gave a pointed denial.
Simon, Lord Lovat.—(From Hogarth’s Picture.)
They were, however, fully established by the strongest proofs. The written evidence consisted of papers found in his lordship’s strong box, besides some letters which he had written to Prince Charles, the last of which having come into the hands of Murray of Broughton, in his capacity of secretary to the prince, were basely delivered up by him to save his own worthless life. Lord Lovat exerted all his ingenuity to evade the force of the evidence; but the proofs of his criminality were too clear to admit of any doubt. His lordship objected to the admissibility of Murray as a witness, on the ground that he was attainted by act of parliament made in the previous session, and that he had not surrendered himself in terms of the act. Having stated that he had several objections against the witness, one or two of which he considered essential, a discussion ensued as to whether all these objections should not at once be stated. As giving a fair sample of the manner in which the trial was conducted, the argument on both sides, on the point alluded to, is here given:—
“Mr. Attorney-General.—My lords, I observe that the noble lord at the bar said that he had several objections to the examining this witness, and that one or two of them were essential; but the noble lord has not mentioned more than one. I presume, my lords, it would be proper that he should name all his objections at once, that the managers may have an opportunity of answering them all, and receiving your lordships’ judgment upon the whole; therefore, if he has any other objections to offer, it would be proper he should mention them now to your lordships. Lord Lovat.—My lords, I submit it to your lordships that that is a very odd proposition. I give your lordships an essential one now, and when that is answered I have another. I am not to be directed by those who are my persecutors. Lord-High-Steward.—My Lord Lovat, you are not to be directed by your accusers, but by the lords who are your judges; and the course of proceeding in this and all other courts is, that a person, who objects to any witness, should name all his objections at the same time; and it is the more material in this court, as it tends to prevent the trouble of making several unnecessary adjournments. Lord L.—My lords, as this objection is very essential, I pray that it may be answered before I make another. Lord Talbot.—If this is a material objection to the witness, then there will be no occasion for any other; but if it is an immaterial one, then your lordships may go into any other; but the way proposed by the managers may be very detrimental to the unhappy person at the bar. Lord H. S.—Your lordships hear what is proposed; and the question is, whether the noble lord at the bar shall name all his objections now, or take them up one by one. Sir William Yonge, (one of the managers from the commons.)—My lords, I should hope that, in any course of proceeding, where objections of this kind are made, they should be made all together; for if they are made separate, we must consequently make distinct answers to them all, which may oblige your lordships to adjourn often to the chamber of parliament, which will create a great and unnecessary delay of time: and my lords, there can be no objection to his naming the whole at once, since they will all be distinctly considered by your lordships, and undoubtedly receive distinct answers. I therefore humbly insist, that he may be obliged to name all his objections at once. Mr. Noel, (another manager.)—My lords, what we are now upon is no point of law at all: it is simply, whether the noble lord at the bar as is usual should not name all his objections at once? When he does name them, then to such as are clear points of law he must be heard by his counsel; but at present, my lords, we are upon a question concerning the course of proceeding, whether he shall name them all at once, that they may be taken into consideration at the same time? My lords, one thing struck me in a very extraordinary manner:—It was said by the noble lord at the bar, that he was not to be directed by his persecutors. My lords, we are no persecutors; we persecute no man; we are intrusted by the commons, who carry on this prosecution against the noble lord at the bar for treason, and we prosecute for the preservation of the king’s government and the laws of the land. Lord L.—My lords, I said I was not to be directed by those who accused me. Your lordships cannot expect I can say what I have to offer in an eloquent manner. My lords, should the saving of a little time be a reason for taking away a person’s life? I hope these will not act like the parricides who took off the head of both kingdoms in a day by their prosecution. I am a peer of this land, and I think no excuse of saving time should be allowed as a reason to destroy me. Lord H. S.—My Lord Lovat, the lords will use all the deliberation, and give you all the time that is requisite for your defence; but I must beg your lordship will have so much consideration as to keep your temper, and not suffer yourself to be hurried into passion, for that may greatly prejudice you in making your defence. Your lordship will find the advantage in your defence by keeping your temper. Lord L.—I give your lordship my humble thanks: and since your lordships will not allow me counsel, I have spoke the little nonsense I had to say; but now your lordships shall hear me say nothing out of temper. Lord H. S.—My Lord Lovat, the question now is, whether you shall name all your objections at once? I must acquaint your lordship that that is the rule in the courts below, that if several objections are made to a witness, they are all named at once, in order to prevent unnecessary delays. Lord L.—My lords, to show how much I desire to save time, though, according to the course of nature, my time can be but short, I am so far from desiring to give your lordships trouble, or to prolong time, that I do insist upon this objection to the witness, and rely upon it as the only material objection.”[1295]
The managers having offered to prove, by the record of the court of King’s bench, that Mr. Murray had surrendered himself within the time prescribed, the question whether the record should be received in evidence, was argued at great length by the counsel for Lord Lovat, and the managers on the part of the prosecution. Having decided that the record might be read and given in evidence, Lord Lovat offered to falsify the record, by proving, in opposition to the averment therein contained, that Mr. Murray had not surrendered himself as required by the act of parliament. The court, however, decided that the record of the court of King’s bench, which was, nevertheless, literally untrue, could not be falsified by oral evidence.
Being called upon to make his defence on the sixth day of the trial, Lovat gave in a long paper, in which he commented with great severity upon the witnesses, whose testimony he maintained was not to be credited. He designated Secretary Murray as “the most abandoned of mankind, who, forgetting his allegiance to his king and country, had, according to his own confession, endeavoured to destroy both, like another Catiline, to patch up a broken fortune upon the ruin and distress of his native country. To-day stealing into France to enter into engagements upon the most sacred oath of fidelity; soon after, like a sanguinary monster, putting his hand and seal to a bloody proclamation, full of rewards for the apprehending of the sacred person of his majesty, and lest the cup of his iniquity had not been filled, to sum up all in one, impudently appearing at their lordships’ bar to betray those very secrets which he confessed he had drawn from the person he called his lord, his prince and master, under the strongest confidence.” “Thus far,” he concluded, “I thought it my duty, in vindication of myself, to trouble your lordships, and without further trespassing upon your patience, freely submit my life, my fortune, my honour, and what is dearest of all, my posterity, to your lordships.”[1296]
After the managers for the prosecution had addressed the court, Lord Lovat was withdrawn from the bar. The whole peers present—117 in number—unanimously found his lordship guilty. Lord Lovat was then called back to the bar, and informed by the lord-high-steward of the judgment of the court. Being brought up next day to receive his sentence, he addressed the court in a long speech, in which he gave a rambling recital of his services to the house of Hanover; and after receiving sentence, he implored their lordships and the managers of the commons to recommend him to the mercy of his majesty. Before leaving the bar, he said, “God bless you all, and I bid you an everlasting farewell. We shall not meet all in the same place again. I am sure of that.”