[Footnote 2:  Carte’s Letters, ii. 126, 135.  Clar.  Papers, iii. 396.]

[Footnote 3:  Carte’s Letters, ii. 136-142, 145.  Clar.  Pap. iii. 401.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1658.  March 15.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1658.  April 14.]

and the preparations of the royalists to receive the exiled king, added to habitual indisposition, had soured and irritated the temper of Cromwell.  He saw that to bring to trial the men who had been his associates in the cause might prove a dangerous experiment; but there was nothing to deter him from wreaking his vengeance on the royalists, and convincing them of the danger of trespassing any more on his patience by their annual projects of insurrection.  In every county all who had been denounced, all who were even suspected, were put under arrest; a new high court of justice was established according to the act of 1656; and Sir Henry Slingsby, Dr. Hewet, and Mr. Mordaunt, were selected for the three first victims.  Slingsby, a Catholic gentleman and a prisoner at Hull, had endeavoured to corrupt the fidelity of the officers in the garrison; who, by direction of the governor, amused the credulity of the old man, till he had the imprudence to deliver[a] to them a commission from Charles Stuart.[1] Dr. Hewet was an episcopalian divine, permitted to preach at St. Gregory’s, and had long been one of the most active and useful of the royal agents in the vicinity of the capital.  Mordaunt, a younger brother of the earl of Peterborough, had also displayed his zeal for the king, by maintaining a constant correspondence with the marquess of Ormond, and distributing royal commissions to those who offered to raise men in favour of Charles.  Of the truth of the charges brought against them, there could be no doubt; and, aware of their danger, they strongly protested against the legality of the court, demanded a trial by jury, and appealed to Magna Charta and several acts of parliament.  Slingsby at last pleaded, and was condemned; Hewet, under the

[Footnote 1:  Thurloe, vi. 777, 780, 786, 870; vii. 46, 47, 98.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1658.  April 2.]

pretence that to plead was to betray the liberties of Englishmen, stood mute; and his silence, according to a recent act, was taken for a confession of guilt.  Mordaunt was more fortunate.  Stapeley, who, to save his own life, swore against him, proved an unwilling witness; and Mallory, who was to have supported the evidence of Stapeley, had four days before been bribed to abscond.  This deficiency was gladly laid hold of by the majority of the judges, who gave their opinion[a] that his guilt was not proved; and, for similar reasons, some days later acquitted two other conspirators, Sir Humphrey Bennet and Captain Woodcock.  The fact is, they were weary of an office which exposed them to the censure of the public; for the court was viewed with hatred by the people.  It abolished the trial by jury; it admitted no inquest or presentment