EXECUTIONS AND ESCAPES OF LEADERS.

383 Having vainly striven to move the king to receive her petition, she formed the resolution to attempt her lord's escape. Seeing no prospect of his pardon, on the night before the morning appointed for his execution, she went in a coach to the Tower, accompanied by a tall and slender lady of the name of Morgan, who, in addition to her own clothes, carried under her riding-hood a complete dress, fitted for a tall and stout lady named Mills, about the same size as the noble prisoner. Lady Nithisdale took in the slight Mrs. Morgan to her husband, and disrobed her of the clothes intended for the portly Mrs. Mills. Mrs. Morgan was then dismissed, and sliding out unnoticed, sent up-stairs the other lady, who was weeping, and covering her face with her handkerchief. The exchange of dress was soon effected by Mrs. Mills, who left her own clothes for the prisoner; and she took her departure with loud injunctions from lady Nithisdale to "dear Mrs. Catherine," who was no longer weeping, to send her ladyship' maid with a dress fitted for her to present a petition that night. The excellent manager then returned to her lord; whitened and rouged his face ; concealed his beard; put on an artificial head-dress, and led him out with his handkerchief to his eyes, the very Mrs. Mills who had come in weeping and covering her face. At the outer door was the tardy maid, who in reality was an affectionate friend of lady Nithisdale; and by her care was the fortunate prisoner conducted to a place of security. The anxious wife now returned to her husband's chamber; talked, as to her lord, somewhat loudly; imitated his voice; finally bade him good night, so that all might hear; and then went quietly away. It is difficult to understand this without being apprised that lady Nithisdale had previously. moved the compassion of the guards: had given them little presents; and was accustomed to pass to her husband without much notice. Having shared her husband's place of concealment in an obscure lodging for a day or two, the brave wife had the satisfaction of knowing that he got to Dover in the disguise of a footman to the Venetian ambassador, whose coach and six was going to meet his brother. Such details as these of the ingenuity which love may prompt in the hour of distress, are a welcome relief to the consideration of the severe course of penal infliction, which we should be scarcely justified in describing as political vengeance. The escapes of many of the prisoners-amongst whom was lord Winton immediately after his trial, Mr. Forster, and the old brigadier Mac Intosh-would lead to the belief that the government was not sorry that the stern necessity for the punishment of rebels taken in arms should be avoided by less direct modes than that of

the royal clemency. In this case, as in many others, a government has much to contend with in the passions and prejudices of individuals. It might have been thought that, after the lapse of ten years, the hatreds of clanship, and the thirst for the fall of political enemies might have been laid aside. The following record is not creditable to the character of the duke of Argyle. In the Diary of lord King, who was Lord Chancellor in 1725, is the following entry--“June 15, 1725. A regency, where, among other things, was read a petition of George lord Murray, setting forth that he was but eighteen years old when he went into the rebellion; that he stands indicted, but was never convicted nor attainted; praying the king's mercy: which being referred by the king to the regency for their opinions, we were all of opinion that there was nothing in law to stand in the way of the king's pardon, and that if he pleased he might do it. But it was desired that there might be a more explicit opinion, and what we should advise the king to do. I said I wished him pardoned, but I was unacquainted with the facts, and therefore could only say that if the king thought fit to pardon him, there was nothing in law to obstruct it; but to advise either one way or other I could not, because I was not sufficiently master of the facts. The archbishop would not advise anything in the case of blood. The duke of Argyle strongly against it, because this man's treason was attended with perfidy, in deserting the king's troops and running away to the rebels; and if this man were pardoned, others would immediately make the same application. Roxburgh, Walpole, a majority were for it; so a letter ordered to advise the king to pardon him.” *

The escapes, to which we have alluded, of some of the leaders in this rebellion, were very remarkable instances of boldness and perseverance. Mac Intosh, though advanced in years, on the day before his trial was to take place knocked down the keeper and turnkey of Newgate; fled into the London crowds; and reached a place of safety abroad. Forster, by the agency of his servant, got out of Newgate with the aid of a false key, and the master and the man had time to get off, having locked up the keeper in his own prison. Winton, whose adventurous life had given him some profitable experiences, having lived with a blacksmith in France, "was very curious," says Patten, "in working in several handicraft matters." He cut one of the iron bars of his window in the Tower with some small tool which he had concealed from his keepers. Some humbler instruments of the insurrection were less

Lord King's "Notes on Domestic and Foreign Affairs," appended to "Life of Locke," vol. ii.

FATE OF THE HUMBLER INSURGENTS.

385

fortunate. Many were tried at Liverpool who had been taken at Preston. Some were executed, and more banished to the plantations. A large number of Scotch prisoners had been sent for trial to Carlisle; but Scots of all parties contended that this proceeding was a breach of the judicial independence of Scotland. An Act had been passed by which the rebels might be tried in other English counties than those in which they were apprehended. The Scottish lawyers maintained that this Act did not apply to prisoners taken in Scotland. The trials at Carlisle went on. Some were condemned; others were released; but no capital punishment was inflicted. The English judges did not choose to incur the responsibility of the possible misconstruction of a Statute.

VOL. V.-25

CHAPTER XXI.

The Pretender in Paris.-He discards Bolingbroke.-The Septennial Act.—The ling leaves for Germany.-His foreign predilections.-Negotiations at Hanover for a French aliance.-The king's jealousy of the prince of Wales.-Lord Townshend dismissed from his office of Secretary of State.-Arrest of the Swedish ambassador.Schism in the ministry.-Stanhope prime minister.-Trial of the earl of Oxford.The Quadruple Alliance.-Open quarrel between the king and the prince of Wales. -Byng's destruction of the Spanish fleet.-Measures of toleration proposed by Stanhope.-Spanish expedition to Scotland.-Successes of France and England in Spain.-Alberoni disgraced.-Spain accedes to the Quadruple Alliance.-The Peerage Bill.

WITHIN a fortnight after the fugitive prince, who had slunk away at night from the brave mountaineers who would have fought for him to the last, had landed on the Continent, king George announced the fact to Parliament. Both Houses addressed the king, desiring that the most effectual means should be taken “towards preventing the Pretender from finding refuge or protection in any country in amity with your majesty." The 'retender himself took the most effectual means to quiet the alarm of the Whig politicians. On his arrival at St. Germains, incognito, he was met by Bolingbroke; received from his secretary the sound advice to hasten to his old residence at Bar-le-duc; promised Bolingbroke that he would immediately set out, embracing him at their parting; and, instead of taking a journey to find a safe asylum, before it was too late, lingered in Paris, and sent to Bolingbroke, by the hands of the duke of Ormond, a dismissal from his service. James at once fell into the hands of weak politicians and intriguing priests. He was politely refused admission to the territory of Lorraine; and he finally settled in the Papal States—a locality precisely calculated to render the Protestant feeling of Great Britain more acute. Bolingbroke never forgot the indignity he had received. He vowed that never more should his sword or his pen he employed for a Stuart; and he kept his word The character which he drew of James is marked by the intensity of his dislike: "He is naturally inclined to believe the worst, which I take to be a certain mark of a mean spirit and a wicked soul. . . . Prone to judge ill of all mankind he will rarely be seduced by his credulity; but I never knew a man so capable of being the bubble of his distrust and jealousy.”*

Letter to Sir W. Wyndham.

JAMES DISCARDS BOLINGBROKE.

387

The vindictive and intolerant spirit of the English legislature against Roman Catholics was again called into action by the Rebellion of 1715. A few days after the execution of lord Derwentwater, whose adherence to the old religion and the old dynasty cost him his life, and bereft his family of their fair pos sessions, a Bill was brought in by Mr. Lechmere, "to strengthen the Protestant interest in Great Britain by enforcing the laws now in being against Papists." One of its provisions was to punish Papists for enlisting in the service of the king. All such securities for the Protestant interest have happily yielded to the influence of time. One important Act of Parliament, which was mainly intended to avert the dangers which threatened the peaceful continuance of the Hanoverian succession, remains in force, after nearly a century and a half, when all such apprehensions have long since passed away. Amidst the vital changes in Parliamentary Representation which we have seen in our time, the Septennial Act of George I. has endured, and will probably continue to endure, without reference to the temporary objects of its original enactment. The Bill which provided that no Parliament should in future sit more than three years, upon which William III. exercised his Veto in 1693, was passed in the year following. Before the passing of this Triennial Act of the 6th of William and Mary, the duration of Parliament was only limited at the will of the reigning sovereign, or was determined by his death. The second Parliament of Charles II. sat for seventeen years. The preamble to the Septennial Act, after reciting the portion of the Statute of William and Mary regarding the duration of Parliament, says, "Whereas, it hath been found by experience, that the said clause hath proved very grievous and burdensome, by occasioning much greater and more continued expenses, in order to elections of members to serve in Parliament, and more violent and lasting heats and animosities among the subjects of this realm, than were ever known before the said clause was enacted; and the said provision, if it should continue, may probably, at this juncture, when a restless and Popish faction are designing and endeavouring to renew the rebellion within this kingdom, and an invasion from abroad, be destructive to the peace and security of the government." The Septennial Act was called by Dr. Priestley, “a direct usurpation of the rights of the people; for by the same authority that one Parliament prolonged their own power to seven years, they might have continued it to twice seven." Had the Parliament of George I. simply repealed the Triennial Act, they might have sat to the end of his reign without interruption except from the pleas