RUSSELL. 



induced him to take a mod decifive part in the attempt for the 

 exclufion of the duke of York. He went publicly to 

 Weftminfter-hall, and at the court of king's bench prefented 

 the duke as a recufant : this was in June 1680, and in the 

 following November, he carried up the Exclufion-bill to the 

 houfe of lords, at the head of 2CO members of the houfe of 

 commons. The lead which he took in this matter, as it 

 was highly difpleafing to the court, fo it carried a great in- 

 fluence with the public, he being a perfon of high reputa- 

 tion for integrity, a man of very great fortune, and wholly 

 dellitute of private ambition. The king diffolved the parlia- 

 ment, and feemed determined to govern without one. Ar- 

 bitrary principles were openly avowed by the friends of the 

 king, and the caufe of liberty, civil and religious, was brought 

 into the greateft hazard. 



This ft ate of affairs infpired defperate councils into forne 

 of the Whig leaders, and a confpiracy was formed for an in- 

 furrection, conducted by a council, confiding of the duke 

 of Monmouth, lords RufTell, Effex, and Howard, Alger- 

 non Sydney, and Hampden, who were to act in conceit with 

 the duke of Argyle, and the Scotch malcontents. Among 

 thefe leaders different defigns prevailed ; but it is admitted, 

 that the fubject of this article had no other views than to 

 procure the exclufion of the duke of York from the throne, 

 and a redrefs of grievances. While thefe fchemes were agi- 

 tating, a minor plot was laid by fome inferior conlpirators, 

 which confiftcd of a plan for afTaffmating the king on his 

 return from Newmarket, at a farm called the Rye-houfe, 

 and which has given name to this plot. Although it is 

 known that this confpiracy was entirely apart from the 

 fcheme of an infurrection, yet two of the perfons engaged 

 in the Rye-houfe plot had accefs to fome of the leaders in 

 the other plan, and the detection of the one plot, led to the 

 difcovery of the other, and orders were inltantly iffued for 

 the apprehenfion of thofe engaged in it. Lord William 

 RufTell was in confequence committed -to the Tower, and 

 after fome of the Rye-houfe confpirators had been condemned 

 and executed, and the nation was fully imprefled with horror 

 of a plot fuppofed to be connected throughout with a defign of 

 affafTination, he was brought to trial in July 1683. A jury 

 of zealous royalifts was packed for the purpofe of convicting 

 the prifoner : in the indictment, the noble lord was charged 

 with the treafonable purpofe of killing the king, which was 

 made an inference from his being engaged in a plan of infur- 

 rection. " On the whole," fays H time, " having defcribed 

 the nature of the evidence produced on the trial, it was un- 

 doubtedly proved, that the infurrection had been deliberated 

 on by the prifoner, and fully refolved ; the furprifal of the 

 guards deliberated on, but not fully refolved, and that an 

 affaifination had not been once mentioned or imagined by 

 him. So far the matter of fact feems certain : but ft ill, 

 with regard to the law, there remained a difficulty, and that 

 an important one. The Englifh laws of treafon, both in 

 the manner of defining that crime, and in the proof required, 

 are the mildeft and moft indulgent, and confequently the 

 molt equitable, that are any where to be found. The two 

 chief fpecies of treafon contained in the ftatute of Edw. III. 

 ire the compafling and intending of the king's death, 

 md the actually laying of war againft him ; and by the 

 law of Mary, the crime mutt be proved by the concurring 

 teftimony of two witneffes, to fome overt act, tending to 

 thefe purpofes. But the lawyers, partly defirous of 

 paying court to the fovereign, partly convinced of ill con- 

 sequences which might attend fuch narrow limitations, had 

 introduced a greater latitude, both in the proof and definition 

 of the crime. It was not required that tbe two witnefles 



fhould teftify the fame precife overt act. It was fuflicieut 

 that they both teftified fome overt act of the fame treafon ; 

 and ttiough this evafion may feem a fubtilty, it had long 

 prevailed in the courts of judicature, and had at laft been 

 folemnly fixed by parliament at the trial of lord Strafford. 

 The lawyers had ufed the fame freedom with the law of 

 Edward III. They had obferved, that, by that ftatute, if 

 a man fhould enter into a confpiracy for a rebellion, (hould 

 even fix a correfpondence with foreign powers for that pur- 

 pofe, fhould provide arms and money, yet, if he were de- 

 tected, and no rebellion enfued, he could not be tried for 

 treafon. To prevent this inconvenience, which it had been 

 better to remedy by a new law, they had commonly laid 

 their indictment for intending the death of the king, and 

 produced the intention of rebellion as a proof of that other 

 intention. But though this form of indictment and trial was 

 very frequent, and many perfons had been convicted and ex- 

 ecuted upon it, it was unqueftionably irregular, and plainly 

 confounded, by a fophifm, two fpecies of treafon, which 

 the ftatute not only had diftinguifhed, but meant accurately 

 to diftinguifh. What made this refinement more exception- 

 able was, that a hw had paffed foon after the Reftoration ; in 

 which the confulting or the intending of a rebellion was, 

 during Charles's life-time, declared treafon, and it was 

 required, that the profecution fhould be commenced 

 within fix months after the crime was committed. Lord 

 Ruffell's crime fell within the ftatute of Charles II., 

 but the facts fworn to by two witnefles, were beyond 

 the fix months required by law, and to the other facts 

 there was only a fingle witnefs, and he an accomplice. 

 Lord RufTell perceived this irregularity, and defired to have 

 the point argued by counfel. The chief juftice told him, 

 that could not be granted, unlefs he previoufly confeffed 

 the facts charged upon him." The artificial confounding 

 of two fpecies of treafon, though a practice fupported by 

 many precedents, is the chief, but not the only, hardfhip 

 of which the noble lord had to complain on his trial. His 

 defence was feeble, contenting himfelf with protefting that 

 he never had entertained any defign againft the life of the 

 king. The jury, after a very fhort deliberation, found the 

 prifoner guilty. Such a victim was too defirable to the 

 court, and too agreeable to the vindictive feelings of the 

 duke of York, for him to expect the royal mercy ; and 

 though his father, whofe only fon he now was, offered a 

 large fum, a hundred thoufand pounds, to the duchefs of 

 Portfinouth, for his life ; and his excellent wife, the daugh- 

 ter of a moft diftinguifhed royalift, implored forgivenefs in 

 the moft pathetic manner, his doom was irrevocable, and 

 he obtained the remiflion only of the moft ignominious part 

 of the fentence. After his fentence, he was attended by 

 Tillotfon and Burnet, who, though afterwards favourers 

 of the revolution, now urged upon the noble victim an ac- 

 quiefcence in the doctrine of non-refiftance. This point, 

 however, he was too firm and heneft to concede, though a 

 declaration to that purpofe offered the only chance of a 

 pardon. It was not quite creditable to the noblenefs of his 

 nature, that he (hould condefcend, even to fave his life, to 

 write a petitionary and rather humiliating letter to the duke 

 of York, promifing to forbear all future oppofition to him, 

 fhould his life be fpared. He alfo wrote a letter to the 

 king, which was not to be delivered to him till after his 

 death : this, though fubmiffive, was not at all abject. It 

 is almoft certain he inuft have taken thefe fteps in com- 

 pliance with the folicitations of his friends, rather than from 

 the defire of faving his own life ; for he refufed the generous 

 offer of lord Cavendifh to favour his efcape, by changing 

 4 clothe* 



