226

HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

CHAP.

V.

1685 .

It was strongly suspected that he had been in constant com-munication with the government against which he was con-stantly plotting, that he had, while urging his associates toevery excess of rashness, sent to Whitehall just so much in-formation about their proceedings as might suffice to save hisown neck, and that therefore orders had been given to lethim escape.*

And now Jeffreys had done his work, and returned toclaim his reward. He arrived at Windsor from the West,leaving carnage, mourning, and terror behind him. Thehatred with which he was regarded by the people of Somer-setshire has no parallel in our history. It was not to bequenched by time or by political changes, was long trans-mitted from generation to generation, and raged fiercelyagainst his innocent progeny. When he had been many yearsdead, when his name and title were extinct, his granddaughterthe Countess ofPomfret, travelling along the western road,was insulted by the populace, and found that she could notsafely venture herself among the descendants of those whohad witnessed the Bloody Assizes.**

* Many writers have asserted, without the slightest foundation, thata pardon was granted to Ferguson by James. Some have been soabsurd as to cite this imaginary pardon, which, if it were real, wouldprove only that Ferguson was a court spy, in proof of the magnanimityand benignity of the prince who beheaded Alice Lisle and burnedElizabeth Gaunt. Ferguson was not only not specially pardoned, butwas excluded by name from the general pardon published in thefollowing spring. (London Gazette, March 15. 168{j.) If, as the pub-lic suspected, and as seems probable, indulgence was shown to him, itwas indulgence of which James was, not without reason, ashamed, andwhich was, as far as possible, kept secret. The reports which were cur-rent in London at the lime are mentioned in theObservator, Aug. 1. 1685.

Sir John Iteresby, who ought to have been well informed, positivelyaffirms that Ferguson was taken three days after the battle of Sedge-moor. But Sir John was certainly wrong as to the date, and maytherefore have been wrong as to the whole story. From the LondonGazette, and from Goodenough’s confession (Lansdowne MS. 1152.),it is clear that, a fortnight after the battle, Ferguson had not beencaught, and was supposed to be still lurking in England.

** Granger’s Biographical History “Jeffreys.”