'A victim of judicial murder'

We back up in time in this post from the days of Lord Greystoke, moving to the 17th century. There we find a Sir John Lisle, also sometimes referred to as Lord John Lisle, though I could not find that he had any titles of nobility. Cromwell appointed Lisle to the House of Lords, which probably accounts for the use of the title

Lisle was a prominent person in his own right, and I will return to his story in another post. Suffice to say he was part of legal proceedings that led to the execution of King Charles I of England in 1649, an involvement that would lead to his violent death.

This time I want to look at his second wife, listed on my family tree as Lady Alice Beconsawe. Lady Alice also died a violent death, perhaps as much because she was married to Sir John as because of the charges laid against her. 

I'm relying for the post on the Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 33, published in 1893, once the standard reference for the lives of the famous and infamous in Great Britain, and available online. I understand this compilation is the forerunner of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

Lady Alice's entry in the DNB begins ominously: "Lisle, Alice (1614?-1685), victim of judicial murder ..."

What in the world could she have done? And what did the writer mean by judicial murder?

As I mentioned, hubby John was involved in the execution of a king, and after the king's death she visited an astrologer named William Lilly, according to his autobiography. Lilly claimed that her reaction to the news of the execution was that "her heart leaped within her to see the tyrant fall." 

But an accounting in State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes has her stating that she shed more tears for Charles "than any woman living ever did."

Fast forward to 1685, and James II is the monarch, succeeding his brother Charles II. As happens often in English history, Charles II had some "illegitimate" offspring, including James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, whom we'll refer to as Monmouth. 

Monmouth thought he had as much right to the throne as James did and capitalized on anti-Catholic sentiment -- James was Catholic -- to mount a rebellion to take the throne. Though Monmouth succeeded in rallying an army, his forces couldn't match the regular army, losing badly. Monmouth was beheaded as a traitor. Go figure.

A series of trials, known as the Bloody Assizes, took place to deal with the remnants of Monmouth's followers. Judge George Jeffrys (or Jeffries), 1st Baron Jeffrys, presided, and as you might guess from the "Bloody Assizes" sobriquet, the trials did not end well for the rebels.

Lady Alice lived at her family home in 1685 and was contacted by one of Monmouth's followers, a rather well known dissenting minister named John Hicks. who sought shelter at her home. Lady Alice sympathized with dissenters and granted his request. She later said at her trial that she had no idea Hicks had been involved in the rebellion.

When Hicks showed up, he brought a couple of men with him -- the man who had contacted her on Hicks behalf and another of Monmouth's supporters. She said she didn't know either of them. A neighbor knew who they were and contacted the military authorities, who showed up and arrested the lot of them, including Lady Alice.

The men were called to testify against Lady Alice at her trial, led by Jeffries. They all insisted she had no reason to suspect them of being revolutionaries, and the jury was inclined to believe them. They wanted to acquit, but Jeffries overruled them and bullied them into convicting Lady Alice of treason. Jeffries sentenced her to be burned alive.

Lady Lisle appealed to King James for a delay in carrying out the sentence and asked to be beheaded instead. James rejected the first request and granted the second. Just before her execution, she delivered a note to the sheriffs, again asserting her innocence.

A few years later, two of her daughters petitioned parliament, saying that "the verdict was injuriously extorted and procured by the menaces and violences and other illegal practices" of Jeffrys. Parliament passed a private act reversing the decision.

Some accounts of the trial suggest that Jeffrys behaved badly at the trial and rammed through the conviction, perhaps at the urging of the king, in revenge for Sir John's anti-monarchical activities during his life.

I'm going to pop back to Sharon's side of the family for a bit to see what nuggets may be mined there.

Picture: portrait of Lady Alice Lisle, from Family Search.