consideration, and give such redress as might be most for the honour of the king, the advantage of the people, and the peace of the church. When the cause was heard, the doctor's defence was read at length, and the various particulars contained in his charges were read out of his book. In answer to the first charge, viz. "That we do not read of greater persecution of God's people, in any nation professing the gospel, than in this our island, especially since the death of Queen Elizabeth;" he confessed the words, and said, "The thing is too true, by the prelates taking away the life and livelihood from many ministers and private men, many of whom have been pined to death in prison; and many have wandered up and down, their families being left desolate and helpless: and besides this, the blood of souls hath been endangered, by the removal of the faithful shepherds from their flocks.' This was a most cutting truth; at which Laud was so exceedingly enraged, that he desired the court to inflict the heaviest sentence that could be inflicted upon him. This they did to his lordship's fullest satisfaction. For Leighton was condemned to be degraded from his ministry, to have his ears cut, his nose slit, to be branded in the face, to stand in the pillory, to be whipped at a post, to pay ten thousand pounds, (though they knew he was not worth so much,) and to suffer perpetual imprisonment. The grateful sentence being passed against him, Laud pulled off his hat, and holding up his hands, GAVE THANKS TO GOD, WHO HAD GIVEN HIM THE VICTORY OVER HIS ENEMIES,* A certain knight having moved one of the lords relative to the dreadful nature of the censure, intimating that it opened a door to the prelates to inflict the most disgraceful punishments and tortures upon men of quality; that lord replied, that it was designed only for the terror of others, and that he would not have any one to think the sentence would ever be executed. This worthy lord, however, was greatly mistaken; for Laud and his adherents caused the dreadful sentence to be executed with the utmost rigour and severity. The ruling ecclesiastics proceeded with proper decorum, and a due observance of ecclesiastical order. Therefore, November 4th, he was degraded in the high commission; and on the 10th of the same month, being a star-chamber day, the barbarous sentence was to be executed; but the * Rushworth's Collec. vol. ii. p. 56, 57.-Ludlow's Letter, p. 22, 23. 21 VOL. II. preceding evening he made his escape out of the Fleet, where he had been kept a close prisoner. Information of his escape was no sooner announced to the lords of the council, than they caused the following hue and cry to be printed and published through the country: "A hue and cry against Dr. Leighton. "Whereas Alexander Leighton, a Scotchman born, "who was lately sentenced by the honourable court of star"chamber to pay a great fine to his majesty, and to undergo "corporal punishment, for writing, printing and publish"ing a very libellous and seditious book against the king " and his government, hath this eleventh day of November "escaped out of the prison of the Fleet, where he was a "prisoner. These are in his majesty's name to require and "command all justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffs, "bailiffs, customers, searchers, and officers of the ports, "and all others his majesty's loving subjects, to use all "diligence for the apprehending of the said Alexander "Leighton; and being apprehended, safely to keep him in "custody until his majesty shall receive notice thereof, " and shall give further direction concerning him. He is "a man of low stature, fair complexion; he hath a yellow"ish beard, a high forehead, and is between forty and fifty "years of age.' This hue and cry followed him into Bedfordshire, where he was apprehended, and brought again prisoner to the Fleet. Relative to Dr. Leighton's escape, and the execu tion of part of the sentence, Bishop Land made the following memorial in his diary: " November 4, Leighton was degraded in the high commission. November 9, he broke out of the Fleet; the warden says, he got or was helped over the wall;+ and professes he knew not this from Tuesday till Wednesday noon. He told it not me till Thursday night. Leighton was taken again in Bedfordshire, and within a fortnight brought back to the Fleet. November 26, part of his sentence was executed upon him at Westminster." Such was the particular memorial which this reverend prelate preserved of these sacred proceedings! * Rushworth's Collec. vol. ii. p. 57.-The account of the doctor's age is here certainly very incorrect. + Herein both the warden and the bishop were mistaken. His two friends, Mr. Levingston and Mr. Anderson, lent him their clothes, by which means he got out of prison in disguise. This, however, was no sooner found out than his two friends were prosecuted in the star-chamber; when they were fined each five hundred pounds, and committed to the Fleet during the king's pleasure.-Ibid. p. 58. Prynne's Breviate of Laud, p. 16.-Wharton's Laud, vol. i. p. 45.” The sentence, so grateful to the remembrance of Laud, was inflicted in the following most shocking and barbarous manner: he was carried to Westminster, where he had one of his ears cut off, then one side of his nose slit; he was branded on the cheek with a red-hot iron, with the letters S. S. for a sower of sedition; he was put in the pillory, and kept there nearly two hours in frost and snow; he was then tied to a post, whipped with a triple cord to that cruel degree, that every lash brought away the flesh; and he himself affirmed, ten years after, that he should feel it to his dying day. And after this shocking barbarity, he was not permitted to return to his quarters in the Fleet in a coach prepared for the purpose; but was compelled, in that lamentable condition and severe season, to go by water. On that day sevennight, his nose, ear, face, and back not being yet cured, he was taken to the pillory in Cheapside; when the other ear was cut off, the other side of his nose slit, and the other cheek branded; he was then set in the pillory, and whipped a second time. He was then carried back to the Fleet, where he was kept ten weeks in dirt and mire, not being sheltered from the rain and snow. He was shut up in close prison, and not suffered to breathe in the open air for ten or eleven years, until the meeting of the long parliament. And when he came forth from his long and miserable confinement, he could neither walk, see, nor hear. The sufferings of this learned divine greatly moved the compassion of the people; and, surely, the records of the inquisition can hardly furnish an example of similar barbarity. The long parliament having assembled, Dr. Leighton presented a petition, November 7, 1640, to the house of commons, complaining of the hard usage he had met with; which the house could not hear without several interruptions with floods of tears. The petition being read, an order passed the house, "That Dr. Leighton shall have liberty by the warrant of this house, to go abroad in safe custody, to prosecute his petition here exhibited; and that he be removed out of the common prison, where he now is, into some more convenient place, and have the liberty of the Fleet." A committee was at the same time appointed to take his case into mature consideration.+ *Rushworth's Collec. vol. ii. p. 58.-Ludlow's Letter, p. 24. A copy of this moving petition, the substance of which has been already given, is still preserved.—Essay on Charles I. p. 83-86. Rushworth's Collec, vol. v. p. 20. Through the innumerable complaints from all quarters, and a multitude of other concerns which came before the house and the committee, some time elapsed before the result of the examination of Dr. Leighton's case came forth. But, April 21, 1641, Mr. Rouse having delivered the report of the committee, the house came to the following resolutions: 1. "That the attaching, imprisoning, and detaining Dr. Leighton in prison, by warrant of the high commission, is illegal. 2. That the breaking up of Dr. Leighton's house, and taking away his papers by Edward Wright, then sheriff of London, and now lord mayor, is illegal. 3. "That the said Edward Wright ought to give reparations to Dr. Leighton, for his damages sustained by breaking open his house, and taking away his papers and other goods. 4. "That the Archbishop of Canterbury, then Bishop of London, ought to give satisfaction to Dr. Leighton, for his damages sustained by fifteen weeks imprisonment in Newgate, upon the said bishop's warrant. 5. "That the great fine of ten thousand pounds laid upon Dr. Leighton, by sentence of the star-chamber, is illegal. 6. That the sentence of the corporal punishment imposed upon Dr. Leighton; the whipping, branding, slitting the nose, cutting off his ears, setting in the pillory, and the execution thereof, and the imprisonment thereupon, are illegal. 7. "That Dr. Leighton ought to be freed from the great fine of ten thousand pounds, and from the sentence of perpetual imprisonment, and to have his bonds delivered to him, which he entered into for his true imprisonment. 8. "That Dr. Leighton ought to have good satisfaction and reparation for his great sufferings and damages sustained by the illegal sentence in the star-chamber." These were the resolutions of the house of commons, after a mature examination of his most affecting case. It is observed, that he was voted to receive six thousand pounds for damages, but, most probably, on account of the confusions of the times, it was never paid him. In the year 1642, Dr. Leighton, by the appointment of the house of commons, was made keeper of Lambeth-house, when Rushworth's Collec. vol. v. p. 228, 229.-Nalson's Collec. vol. i. p. 799,800. + Scots' Worthies, p. 141. turned into a prison; where, it is said, "he did to some purpose make reprisals for his damages, and with much rigour persecuted the purses of the loyal clergy and gentry." How far this may be correct we are unable to ascertain; but, supposing every word of it be true, it will never justify intolerance and persecution, either in himself or in his enemies. He was keeper of the above prison in the year 1643, but when he died we are not able to learn.+ JOHN SEDGWICK, B. D.-This person was the younger brother to Mr. Obadiah Sedgwick, another worthy puritan divine; born at Marlborough in Wiltshire, in the year 1601, and educated first at Queen's college, then at Magdalen-hall, Oxford; where he made uncommon application in the study of divinity. When he applied for the degree of bachelor of arts, it was at first denied him, says our author, "because that when he was to be admitted to the order of deacon, he did belie the university by using the title of B. A. before he was admitted to that degree.' If he acted thus, his conduct was base indeed. It is, however, added, that he afterwards begged pardon for what he had done, made a public submission before the venerable congregation of regents, and obtained that degree, as also the others. Leaving the university, he was beneficed in the city of London, and about the same time he became preacher at Chiswick in Middlesex, and was afterwards vicar of Langley in Essex. Wood mistakes him for his brother, when he observes that he was minister of Coggeshall in this county. Upon the commencement of the civil wars, he became chaplain to the Earl of Stamford's regiment;§. was appointed one of the sub-committee for raising money to carry on the war; and chosen rector of St. Alphage, near London-wall. He was an avowed enemy to prelacy and antinomianism. Wood says, "Though he had only one thumb, yet he would not have had one ear, had not his majesty bestowed two upon him; when, about the year 1633, they were sentenced to the pillory. Since which time he hath been so grateful a penitent, that in one day he was proved guilty of simony, sacrilege, and adultery." * Nalson's Collec. vol. i. p. 512. + Wharton's Troubles of Laud, vol. i. p. 198, 208. Sylvester's Life of Baxter, part i. p. 42. ་ |