william: akd mahy.

189

was that the public mind would be speedily quieted by an am-nesty. Few persons stood higher in the estimation of the Toryparty than Sir Robert Sawyer. He was a man of ample fortuneand aristocratical connections, of orthodox opinions and re-gular life, an able and experienced lawyer, a well read scholar,and, in spite of a little pomposity, a good speaker. He hadbeen Attorney General at the time of the detection of the RyeHouse Plot: he had been employed for the Crown in the prose-cutions which followed; and he had conducted those prosecu-tions with an eagerness which would, in our time, be calledcruelty by all parties, but which, in his own time, and to hisown party, seemed to be merely laudable zeal. His friendsindeed asserted that he was conscientious even to scrupulosityin matters of life and death:* but this is an eulogy whichpersons who bring the feelings of the nineteenth century to thestudy of the State Trials of the seventeenth century will havesome difficulty in understanding. The best excuse which canbe made for this part of his life is that the stain of innocentblood was common to him with almost all the eminent publicmen of those evil days. When we blame him for prosecu-ting Russell, we must not forget that Russell had prosecutedStafford.

Great as Sawyer’s offences were, he had made great atone-ment for them. He had stood up manfully against Popery anddespotism: he had, in the very presence chamber, positivelyrefused to draw warrants in contravention of Acts of Parlia-ment: he had resigned his lucrative office rather than appear inWestminster Hall as the champion of the dispensing power:he had been the leading counsel for the seven Bishops; and hehad, on the day of their trial, done his duty ably, honestly,and fearlessly. He was therefore a favourite with High Church-men, and might be thought to have fairly earned his pardon* Roger North’s Life of Guildford.

CHAP.

XV.

1690 .