Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/219

 192

as in that event the accountability for the act would undoubtedly have centred upon him. What he wanted was to secure a gen eral verdict of guilty by the jury, not only for its public effect, but for the advantage it would give him towards sustaining his rul ings upon the trial, upon a motion to arrest the judgment for error. Emot, who at once comprehended what was intended, and would probably be the result of the wily sugges tion of the Chief Justice that the prisoner could be relieved by a motion in arrest of judgment, broke out with the exclamation, "This is not fair to give the jury a handle to find the prisoner guilty, in expectation of relief by a motion in arrest of judgment, for they are both judges of the law and fact, as the case is now circumstanced. If they will enslave themselves and their posterity, and debar themselves of all access to their Prince, they are worse than negroes." Atwood, "This is not to be suffered to offer these things to the jury after they have received their charge. Therefore be silent"; and although he had previously told the jury that he could not, after having charged them, say anything to them further respect ing the evidence, he now, to overcome this sally on the part of Emot, addressed them again for the space of half an hour, aggra vating, in the language of the report, "the supposed crime." When he had got through, Emot again rose, but Atwood commanded him to be silent, and would allow nothing more to be said. He had accomplished what he thought necessary to counteract any impression that Emot's remarks may have made, and was successful, for the jury went out, and at three o'clock in the afternoon returned with a verdict of guilty. A motion was made in arrest of judg ment, which was elaborately argued, but every point taken was overruled. Bayard was then brought up for sentence. He was asked if he had anything to say why it should not be passed upon him. He an

swered that he had nothing more than what his counsel had offered, to which Atwood hypocritically responded, " I am sorry to find you so unrepentant of your crime, — so heinous and abominable in the sight of God and man. — I hope God may open your eyes that you may be convinced and repent of your crime," and then delivered this hor rible sentence of the law : — "That you be carried to the place from whence you came; that from thence you be drawn upon a hurdle to the place of execu tion; that there you be hanged by the neck, and being alive, you be cut down upon the earth (and that your bowels be taken out of your belly and your privy parts be cut off, and you being alive, that they be burnt before your face — and that your head be cut off), and that your body be divided into four quarters, and that your head and quar ters be placed where our Lord the King shall assign, — and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul." When it was delivered, Bayard asked if he might be allowed to answer what the Chief Justice had said preceding the sen tence. Atwood said No, and the scene ended with an exclamation on the part of Bayard that recalls Luther's final utter ance at the Diet of Worms : — " Then God's will be done." Hutchins was tried shortly afterwards, was convicted, and the same sentence was passed upon him. Upon Bayard's return to the prison, the sheriff told him that the two associate judges had refused to consent to the sen tence of death, unless the Lieutenant-Gov ernor would promise to grant a reprieve, if applied for, until the Queen's pleasure was known, and that upon that promise being given, they had united in the sentence. This was probably true, for whilst those who were clamorous for the conviction of Bayard may have felt a grim satisfaction at the prospect of his being hanged him self, as he had been instrumental in caus ing Leisler to be hanged, without the