them had begun to look with uneasiness on the King's proceedings,
and to doubt whether the case of Delamere might not soon be their
own.

Jeffreys conducted himself, as was his wont, insolently and
unjustly. He had indeed an old grudge to stimulate his zeal. He
had been Chief Justice of Chester when Delamere, then Mr. Booth,
represented that county in Parliament. Booth had bitterly
complained to the Commons that the dearest interests of his
constituents were intrusted to a drunken jackpudding.41 The
revengeful judge was now not ashamed to resort to artifices which
even in an advocate would have been culpable. He reminded the
Lords Triers, in very significant language, that Delamere had, in
Parliament, objected to the bill for attainting Monmouth, a fact
which was not, and could not be, in evidence. But it was not in
the power of Jeffreys to overawe a synod of peers as he had been
in the habit of overawing common juries. The evidence for the
crown would probably have been thought amply sufficient on the
Western Circuit or at the City Sessions, but could not for a
moment impose on such men as Rochester, Godolphin, and Churchill;
nor were they, with all their faults, depraved enough to condemn
a fellow creature to death against the plainest rules of justice.
Grey, Wade, and Goodenough were produced, but could only repeat
what they had heard said by Monmouth and by Wildman's emissaries.
The principal witness for the prosecution, a miscreant named
Saxton, who had been concerned in the rebellion, and was now
labouring to earn his pardon by swearing against all who were
obnoxious to the government, who proved by overwhelming evidence
to have told a series of falsehoods. All the Triers, from
Churchill who, as junior baron, spoke first, up to the Treasurer,