Remarks on the speeches of William Paul Clerk, and John Hall of Otterburn, Esq

In Short

This work is a vigorous, partisan rebuttal of the final speeches delivered by William Paul and John Hall, both executed for their roles in the 1715 Jacobite Rebellion. It presents the rebels’ dying statements alongside a point-by-point refutation, exposing the contradictions, falsehoods, and perceived political theater behind their claims to martyrdom. By dissecting their rhetoric, the text serves as a defense of the post-Revolution government and the established Church, cautioning readers against the influence of those who would undermine the constitutional order through religious and political deceit.

The Story

The narrative begins with the author’s firm assertion that the speeches of William Paul, a clergyman, and John Hall, an Esquire, are not the authentic expressions of dying men but calculated compositions from a single "Mint." These documents, the text argues, are designed to revitalize a failing faction by manufacturing a narrative of martyrdom. The author establishes the context of the 1715 Jacobite uprising, where the defeat at Preston led to the capture and eventual execution of these men at Tyburn in July 1716.

The argument proceeds through a rigorous examination of the rebels' claims. Regarding William Paul, the author highlights the irony of a man who served the Church of England while secretly harboring loyalty to the Pretender, calling his final renunciation of the "Revolution-Church" both hypocritical and logically unsound. The author systematically dismantles Paul’s grievances, including his charge that the current government is a "usurpation," by citing historical precedents, acts of Parliament, and the fundamental right of a nation to settle its own succession. Paul’s attempts to frame his execution as a religious sacrifice are dismissed as the "profane" posturing of a man who, until his final moments, had desperately begged the authorities for his life.

The focus then shifts to John Hall, whose speech is described as sharing a suspicious, "harmonious" uniformity with Paul’s. The author focuses on Hall’s specific, audacious falsehood: the claim that the rebels actually defeated the King’s troops at Preston. This, the author notes, is a transparent attempt to bolster the morale of a demoralized Jacobite base. Hall’s insistence on a "Divine Indefeasible Hereditary Right" for the Pretender is countered with a firm defense of constitutional law and the necessity of the Protestant succession.

Throughout the text, the author contrasts the rebels' public declarations of righteous defiance with private letters they wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Townshend. In these letters, Paul and Hall emerge as desperate supplicants, pleading for mercy and denying the very oaths of the Pretender they later publicly championed. The author uses these documents to reveal the rebels as "dissemblers" who lived and died in a state of contradiction. The arc concludes with the author's final, biting reflection that these speeches provide clear evidence that the Jacobite faction is unworthy of trust, whether in their public oaths while living or in their staged rhetoric upon the scaffold.

How It Unfolds

The charge of fabrication The author immediately challenges the authenticity of the rebels' speeches, claiming they share a common style designed to stir up the "unthinking populace." He argues that these men were not sincere martyrs but pawns of a larger political scheme.

The critique of the parson The analysis of William Paul focuses on his hypocritical use of religious rhetoric to justify political treason. The author points out that Paul preached under the authority of the government he was actively trying to overthrow, calling his final declarations "hateful prevarication."

The exposure of private pleas The author introduces private letters from both Paul and Hall to high-ranking officials to expose their hypocrisy. These documents confirm that the men had spent their final days begging for mercy and denying their treasonous activities, contradicting their public "martyrdom."

The dismantling of the squire’s claims John Hall’s speech is scrutinized for its specific, easily disprovable lies, particularly his claim that the rebels won the battle at Preston. The author uses this to show that the rebels prioritized political myth-making over the truth.

The closing indictment The author concludes that the entire episode serves as a warning against the "Jesuitical" methods of the Jacobite faction. He finishes by wishing for the end of such "incorrigible" rebellion to preserve the stability of the nation.

The People

William Paul is the central clerical figure who presents himself as a martyr for the "Nonjuring Church." He wants to be seen as a faithful servant of a divine cause, yet he is hindered by his own history of taking oaths to the government he later calls a "usurpation." He ends up exposed by his own letters, which reveal a man pleading for his life rather than embracing the sacrifice he publicly claims.

John Hall is the "Worshipful Justice" who aligns himself with Paul to challenge the legitimacy of the Crown. Driven by a belief in hereditary right, he seeks to frame his execution as a glorious sacrifice. However, his standing is undermined by his desperate, failed attempts to petition for pardons. He ends his life as a man caught in the gap between his public bravado and his private reality.

The Author acts as a rationalist, precise and unsparing, who views himself as a defender of the truth. He wants to strip away the emotional weight of "dying words" to reveal the political machinations underneath. He is hindered only by the stubbornness of the faction he opposes, yet he ends the work confident that he has exposed their "abominable" deceits to any "judicious man."

In Its Own Voice

There’s such an Uniformity in the Stile, Matter, and Way of Arguing, as sufficiently proves this; so that instead of being the Speeches of the deceas’d Rebels, they plainly appear to be the Composure of others.

The author asserts that the similarity between the rebels' speeches proves they were not original.

It has been the Practice, as well as the Principle of the Church of England since she became Protestant: For all the World knows, that in the beginning of the Reformation, under Henry VIII. she own’d the Power of Parliaments, in settling the Succession.

The author invokes history to argue that Parliament has always held the authority to determine who sits on the throne.

I humbly desire your Grace to consider your poor afflicted Servant, and take him from this nasty Prison.

The author quotes William Paul’s private letter to the Archbishop, intended to contrast with the defiance of his public speech.

What It's Really About

The central theme is the tension between historical truth and political narrative. The author argues that the Jacobite faction uses the "dying breath" of its members to create a mythology of martyrdom that masks the reality of treason. Beneath this, there is a fundamental argument about the nature of sovereignty: the text asserts that the legitimacy of the state rests on law and parliamentary consent, not on the "divine" claims of a claimant. Ultimately, it is a polemic against political perjury, condemning the practice of swearing oaths to a government while simultaneously working to dismantle it—a behavior the author views as a form of atheism that threatens the very foundation of the social contract.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of rhetoric, the Jacobite uprisings, or the intense political partisanship of the early 18th century will find this work fascinating. It is an unfiltered look at how political spin operated long before the digital age, demonstrating the ways in which historical figures were "branded" for their causes. The prose is sharp and unforgiving, offering a vivid, if polemical, window into the anxieties of a nation struggling with the definition of loyalty.

However, the reader should be prepared for the difficulties of the period's language and the density of its political, theological, and legal references. The author’s aggressive tone, which borders on the vitriolic, assumes a high level of familiarity with the debates of 1716. Those accustomed to modern, neutral reporting will find this text jarring; it is an unapologetic, deeply emotional argument written in the heat of a crisis. What remains is a portrait of how volatile the English identity was during the transition of the Hanoverian succession, and how the "performance" of death was used as the ultimate weapon in the struggle for the future of the state.