•WILLIAM AND MAEY.

69

did not know wliat his orders were, that he deserved praiseinstead of blame, and that his clemency had drawn on him theextreme displeasure of his master.*

Disease, assisted by strong drink and by misery, did itswork fast. The patient’s stomach rejected all nourishment,tie dwindled in a few weeks from a portly and even corpulentman to a skeleton. On the eighteenth of April he died, in theforty first year of his age. He had been Chief Justice of theKing’s Bench at thirty five, and Lord Chancellor at thirty seven.In the whole history of the English bar there is no other instanceof so rapid an elevation, or of so terrible a fall. The emaciatedcorpse was laid, with all privacy, next to the corpse of Monmouthin the chapel of the Tower.**

The fall of this man, once so great and so much dreaded,the horror with which he was regarded by all the respectable

* See the Life of Archbishop Sharp by his son. What passed betweenScott and Jeffreys was related by Scott to Sir Joseph Jekyl. See Tindal’sHistory; Echard, iii. 932. Echard’s informant, who is not named, but whoseems to have had good opportunities of knowing the truth, said thatJeffreys died, not, as the vulgar believed, of drink, but of the stone. Thedistinction seems to be of little importance. It is certain that Jeffreys wasgrossly intemperate; and his malady was oue which intemperance noto-riously tends to aggravate.

** See a Full and True Account of the Death of George Lord Jeffreys,licensed on the day of his death. The wretched Le Noble was never wearyof repeating that Jeffreys was poisoned by the usurper. I will give a shortpassage as a specimen of the calumnies of which William was the object.“Ilenvoya,” saysPasquin, “ce fin ragoUt de champignons au ChancelicrJeffreys, prisonnier dans la Tour, qui les trouva du meme goust, et dumeme assaisonnement que furent les derniers dont Agrippinc rcgala lebon-hommo Claudius son dpoux, et quo Neron appella depuis la viande desDicux.” Marforio asks: “Le Chancelicr est done mort dans la Tour?”Pasquin answers: u II estoit trop fidble h son Roi ldgitimc, et trop habiledans les loix du royaume, pour dchapper a l’Usurpateur qu’il ne vouloitpoint reconnoistre. Guillemot prit soin de fairc publier quo ce malheurcuxprisonnier estoit attaqutf d’une fibvre maligne: mais, h parler franehement,il vivroit peutestre encore, s’il n'avoit rien mangd que de la main de sesanciens cuisiniers.” — Le Festin de Guillemot, 1689. Dangeau (May 7.)mentions a report that Jeffreys had poisoned himself.

CIIAP

XIV.

1689.