Изображения страниц

as shall not give obedience thereunto, be seized | mind you of it only to look upon the great ininto your majesty's hands for the relief of the strument of introducing Popery and arbitrary said nobility and gentry, who are, or shall be government. deprived of their estates there.-And we the rather make this our humble supplication, to your majesties, because we esteem ourselves obliged to afford them present relief and to represent the speedy recovery of that king-so proper. dom, of great importance to this in all respects, as your majesties, and the nation's true interest. And we do humbly beseech your majesties to take the duke of Ormond, and his great merits and sufferings into your particular and royal consideration, and that your majesties would be pleased also to consider of the rest of the nobility and gentry, already fled, and daily coming up from Ireland, that remain unprovided for.--And that your majestics favour and bounty to the said nobility and gentry may be distributed with the greater ease and advantage, we do humbly recommend to your majesties, that what you shall be graciously pleased to advance for their Serj. Wogan. You may exempt him, as you present supply, you will be pleased to order did persons in the former Act of Indemnity. the same to be paid into the Chamber of Lon-He has a son and a lady left, and there are setdon, or such other place as your majesties tlements upon them. For the man I cannot shall think convenient, with as much expedi- say any thing, but you may except him as fortion as the urgency of your affairs will admit; merly. to be thence paid out for them respectively, with as little charge and trouble of attendance as may be."

Mr. Sacheverell. I see some gentlemen in the house think nothing can be excepted, but what is at this time; but they may be in your Bill, and what exceptions else you please. I stand up, not out of respect to Jeffreys. Never let a minister of state leave to posterity what he has raised by his iniquity. It should be always to the use and benefit of the public, and his family be never the better for it; and when you come to the Indemnity, I shall move you to appropriate their estates to the public. He that will venture upon the life of his sovereign (which is the case)-If not, you will never discourage a man from being a rogue to his country. Let this, therefore, alone to the Bill of Attainder, and let it be forfeited to the public. I cannot let a man go away with an estate he has got with ruin to England. Sir W. Williams.

Further Debate on the Heads for the Bill of Indemnity.] Mr. Ettrick. The house seems inclinable for their convenience to go into the country. It has been proposed, for method, to go upon Heads, and to name persons obvious and notorious, on several heads. You have been told that it is necessary to go to the fountain and spring head.' In Ch. 2.'s time we were afraid of a Popish Successor; that was the spring; and lately we have had a Popish king. You have now a Protestant king, and I hope will destroy Popery and Rome. The prospect of the duke of York to be king put men upon a compliance with arbitrary government, and to close with Popery. That now ceases, and so I hope we need not go about to remove counsellors, pensioners, and officers. I thank God, there is no danger of the French king's influence; he has his hands full. Ireland and Scotland are not yet reduced. Under these considerations it is necessary that we unite all here, I hope, against the public enemy, the Papist; but I hear no talk of them, they wipe their mouths. But then, as Solomon says, 6 it is wisdom to pass by an offence.' Persons that have made an atonement by their present services, I hope you will bury all in oblivion. The Chancellor was the tool of Popery. I hear no mention made of lord Sunderland, though it be treason to reconcile to the Romish Church and hearing nothing of Popery, I re


See Appendix No. III. "The Earl of Sunderland made the step to Popery all of a sudden, without any previous instruction or conference. So that the change he made looked

Sir Robert Cotton. What does seem visible to us is the Judgment in the King's-bench in sir Edward Hales's Case. I would put the question upon these Judges. I think no way

Sir John Lowther. You are hardly ripe for that question yet; that Judgment has two parts; one was ecclesiastical, in the case of the Bishops; the other civil, in sir Edward's case. If you please, let all the Judges be named, and you will be ripe for that matter.

Mr. Machell. That is beginning at the wrong end: shall we let the Chancellor go off? pray begin with him.

Mr. Hawles. If a man were beyond sea, there is a proclamation to render himself by a day. Tis an irregular thing to say, that man that is dead should be excepted, when you may bring an attainder against him.

That was a wise law of Henry 8. to forfeit estates for treason: before that law, estates were not forfeitable. By the provision of that statute, the children were to lose their estate for the iniquity of their pa


Mr. Hawles. Now we are in the right way. 'Tis reasonable to declare that those men that have got honour by doing ill may be degraded. I would have them refund what they have got by the Charters of Corporations. I believe, if you will go this way, you will do right to the public. Those whom they have despoiled ought first to be restored. I would go first upon persons living, for I believe they have done us most injury.

too like a man, who, having no religion, took up one, rather to serve a turn, than that he was truly changed from one religion to another." Burnet.

Mr. Howe. If you go about to degrade those who have new honour, I know not how you will come by them: some have great estates and titles, and nobody knows why. And Bishops, nobody knows how they came to be so, or how they deserved it. Let us not, like Falstaff, fight with dead men let us punish the living; the dead will stay for us.

Sir John Lowther. I am very indifferent whether this be true or false, but what I look into is, who were most notorious, those who gave the Opinion in the King's-bench, and then sat in the ecclesiastical court, or those Bishops who sat-and all concerned in Magdalen College. You must exempt the most notorious out of the Indemnity, who persevered to the last.

Mr. Harbord. I have heard it said, that punishment is much better than laws, of which we have enough. Here are Papists now in town; they will not stir. 'Tis said by some, 'tis because of foreign alliances; but we must! think of home dangers, else they will affront you to your face. As for the Judges, it is said eleven consented. For present example, confine them to a little number. The head Justice was hanged at Tyburn in Rd. 2.'s time. wonder not they are so ill men, for no others would serve them. I move that two of them may be hanged at Westminster-hall gate.


Mr. Ettrick. Powell was not then a Justice of the King's-bench. The question is, whether he was there, and whether he gave any opinion? They were at lord chief justice Herbert's chamber, and Powell said, "It was a new thing, and he could not suddenly give his Judgment.' They would give judgment on Monday, and not upon surprize. Holloway resolved to vindicate himself in print, but as soon as he was removed into the King's-bench, and had an opportunity, he gave his Judgment; and Wright said, You always, brother, have been of that opinion.' Powell is a man of too much learning and honesty to be of that opinion.

Mr. Brewer. I believe, it is not for the honour of the house to proceed upon the Judges. Have you any witnesses out of the King's-bench, or any thing under their hands, any Judgment in Westminster-hall? Common fame is a good interpreter, but no good judge. I would proceed upon the Judges who gave judgment in the Dispensing Power.

Serj. Wogan. I was with that Judge (Holloway) who is said to have come over to the Opinion of the rest, on the Dispensing Power. He declared against it, and was going to print his Vindication, and denied that he gave any such opinion. I have known him these 25 years. I dissuaded him from printing, &c. for it would be looked upon as a libel, and he and his family be undone. But he declared he would take the first opportunity to do it, and immediately he did at the Trial of the Bishops. I do not know that he was ever of that opinion, but there were ten of the Judges of that opi


Sir Tho. Littleton. I would be tender in reflecting upon any man, but that judge sac two years and a half under that imputation of Opinion. Powell delivered his opinion for him, and to this day he never acknowledged it. He will take the sacrament upon it, that he never gave his opinion for it; he hath solemnly declared that he had his Quietus upon it, and offers it still. Streete, who gave his Opinion, did declare that Holloway had wrong done him.

the Common-Pleas. He had no opportunity then to contradict this, but did it at his first opportunity.

Sir Wm. Williams. Here was the case. The Opinion was delivered in the King's-Bench. Powell was not a judge of that court, but of

* See vol. i. p. 209.

Sir Tho. Littleton. I would know why, to this day, he would never say to his brother Holloway he had done him wrong.

Sir Robert Howard. I think we are not at all travelling towards the Indemnity. We are told hearsays of Powell and Holloway. Pray put the question upon those who gave the Opinion in sir Edw. IIales's Case. I cannot but be a little surprized when the use was for the king to dispense these laws, and by consequence all laws; and that in the case of the Bishops they should bind-I hope these extrajudiciary Opinions may be condemned. The fault was, saying what opinion they were of. If Holloway had been a judge for life, possibly he would not have been of that opinion. I hope this may be prevented for the future.

Mr. Howe. Which is the greater crime; they that went a fishing for a knave to do it, or the poor knave that did it? Was there no property in England till Magdalen College? Nor any liberty till the Bishops were sent to the Tower? It will be impossible to find them Rather adjourn the debate, or give a general Act of Oblivion to all, for the greatest part of England were criminal.



Mr. Hawles. I have heard that Judges patents were formerly, Quamdiu se bene gesserint,' and if you do not punish the 'Bene placito' men, you will confirin those of Quamdiu,' &c. to do as those before them. The

Mr. Haules. When a judge of a court delivers an Opinion of a judge absent, the next time he sits, if he does not disown it, he confirms the report. It is an usual thing to deliver an absent judge's Opinion, but very improper.last I have known when a judge has been misrepresented in his Judgment, he has denied it in


Grievance was that of Magdalen College, and those turned out, got by it. If I were to begin, I would at the first head; that is, the Oxford Parliament. We know that sir Edw. Hales's Case was a moot, a feigned case. Wright is dead, and Herbert fled; some were frighted, and some cared not what they did a rush; but the Attorney-General and SolicitorGeneral are men of estates; let us know who

was the attorney and solicitor-general then; let us know at that time who passed that patent, and then you have a criminal before you. Sir Joseph Tredenham. When you will exercise your justice, I would not do it till the greatest criminals are named. You have been told of taking away Charters of Corporations: consider what a great number will be involved on that head, and how safe the government will be when so many are unsafe under it. The Regulators, which happened after the surrenders, that comes under that Head. When offences come to be general, there is no way but to cover them all by a general act of parliament; for these reasons, when you look into the Revolution, all sorts of persons have contributed to it; and people will rather upon severity cover past faults with greater, than


may be of ill consequence. Those who acted in Westminster-Hall, were set on by greater persons, and those are fitter for our justice. Mercy becomes this house, and I never knew but persons must be eminently distinguished, and you will find some have their crimes alleviated, and so all are equally criminal; but if you cannot distinguish, and it is so general and epidemical, let us be impartial, and pardon all. Mr. Boscawen. If you do not condemn others, you condemn yourselves, and take all upon yourselves. I have met with an act of the Irish parliament, on the other side the water, that has attainted many. You ought to be careful, now the present government is called in question. If you pardon before and after, what will the world say? The Papists will be confirmed in all they have done. If you make a general sweep-stakes, you make all the world believe you are wrong.

Sir Robt. Howard. I have seen great revolutions (at least seemingly) in opinion, in this house. In your Vote some persons were to be excepted by name. I see some are inclined to a general Indemnity, and this is one revolution of opinion that has been here. As the nature of the thing stands, when I had seen an Act of Indemnity, I did suppose that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and those concerned in Charters, would have been named. If you would not have thought them crimes, you would sure have put a clause of indemnity for yourselves, and you were punishable, if you had not thought that you had not done very well. When you have enumerated all offences, to excuse yourselves, you must have excused yourselves.-And let all the world see they are not so great as you have believed themI am sure our judgments are shaken, and pray God send nothing else be shaken, amongst the people! They may say, the good house of commons have seen something too great, something too deep for them. Had this been said at first, it might have gone some way with me; but now you have gone thus far, and on the sudden changed your minds. You have excepted a lord that changed his religion (Sunderland,) and went an Embassy to Rome (Castlemain) and all that Jeffreys has done. The time of the day wastes, and, it seems, our thoughts waste, therefore I would adjourn the debate.


be reformed.

Sir John Lowther. In conversation, through frailty, we both give and take offence. No man here but may have his revenges, and some upon me: I am willing to forgive, I desire to be forgiven by all the world. We have got the government settled: I would punish for the future, and pardon all that is past.

Mr. Smith. I should heartily concur to the motion, if it would give content to the people. If we name not some persons, we must allow their offences. I speak for the justice of the nation. Those who have got estates by our misfortunes, will get into the government, and you go about to qualify them for it. I must say, if you respect not the king's Declaration, nor the justice of the nation, I cannot agree.

Mr. Hawles. I never heard of a general Act of Indemnity. Will you except robberies, murders, and let these men run away? If you go about to please those who have offended, you will anger twenty more that are injured; though I am not for blood. Was not the attainder of Cornish illegal, by the express evidence of Rumsey, who was not there, when he swore he was? And the whole Trial of lord Russel was illegal, and as bad; and col. Sidney's as bad as that. I have had no injury done to me, nor any of my relations have suffered; but if you do not justice to them without doors, we shall not sit long here.

Mr. Papillon. I think you have read but one Head, and then, certainly, it is very improper to go upon a general Indemnity. I am not for revenge, but to vindicate the nation. We are to vindicate the Protestant religion. The Papists would turn all upon you, and you have an opportunity to vindicate England. The parliament has been abused, and papers pinned at our backs, upon a dissolution; and now we are told, you do nothing to vindicate yourselves by punishing some offenders.' When you come to particular persons, let every man do what he pleases, but I see men justify what they have done. The Popish Plot was laid aside, and laid on the Protestants. Pray vindicate the justice of the nation.

Sir Robt. Cotton. If crimes have been epidemical, and you cannot distinguish men, it

[blocks in formation]

was the occasion of the great mischiefs that followed.

Mr. Hawles. The first question was, Whether you will name persons, and now I hear of a general Indemnity. When others break your laws, they may hope for indemnity for what they shall do for the future. I am not concerned with friendship, or anger, of any man, but I am not for crudelis clementia. Charles 1. had as learned lawyers as ever sat, and yet they did as irregular things. For the Ship-Money, had those Judges been punished, they durst not now have done it. The Case of Magdalen College is but a trifle to what they have done in other things.

that the laws may be suspended, I give my opinion against him. Are we to pass by all these, to be established in corporations, and capacitating these Judges to do the same thing again, the same crimes? The king has given his sanction. He is inclined to mercy; but for Fines, I would never forgive them; I would not except one Judge, but as they have of fended singly, as they merit, one by one. When the law has been perverted, and religion violated, I would never forgive them.

the Exceptions rea and because iniquity grows with times and ages, I would have some added.

Sir Henry Goodrick. I am unfortunate that it is my right to speak, and I cannot obtain your eye. I stand up only for the service of the house. When I considered the motion, the charity, the safety, when I considered the authority of so considerable a person as Lowther, so far from the intention of the inferences made, I ought to suspect no person, much less that honourable person. It was far from his intention to invade any thing by interfering. For these crimes I wish examples were made, and am so far from palliating them, that I would stamp a mark of your indignation upon those who advised king James. I confess, I am for a general Pardon; it has a charm in it to me. All England hopes for it, or else farewell all safety of liberty or religion! I do intend nothing to be pardoned of crimes since you sat. There spoke of an ambassador senting that the government would be destroyed in to Rome by king James; could Lowther, or I, Westminster-hall? We have had learned judges be thought to justify that, or to pardon the and ignorant, and yet all have conspired our Popish party, who have been the first spring ruin. Punishment is hard, and I am tender, and motion of all this? The Jesuits set on the yet if the government requires it, it is incumPapists, and I will go farther in this than your bent upon us. The government is executive Heads. I am still for a general Pardon, but in the king, when we are gone; he is a good still for Protestants only. I go not about to king, yet we may have one with corrupt pardon, nor justify, the Chancellor, who was Judges. Westminster-hall has been the unworse than a Papist, that professed himself a doing of us all, and those two things must rest Protestant, I beg persons may be excepted, upon them. We are told, the Jesuits have but very few; the king has recommended it to infused mischievous designs into the Papists; you; follow his steps, in his wisdom and cha- but it has been our misfortune, that Protesrity. There is not a spirit of revenge in Pro- tants have joined hand in hand against us. testants, like Papists. I move you for an In- Upon the whole, I would not adjourn the dedemnity, with all ordinary limitations and ex- bate; it is against the honour of the house to traordinary limitations-Papists excepted. do nothing before you rise. I would name them all four.

Sir Henry Capel. I do not think that Lowther has any intention to countenance blood, or the destruction of government; but a general Act of Indemnity surprizes me; and yet some persons should be under Exceptions. For two or three reigns have we not had warn


Sir Rd. Temple. The question this morning was about these four Judges, but the Exception was but to two of them. If I can be instrumental to serve the house, I would willingly. You say in your Vote, that some may be excepted from pardon,' but if you previously resolve how many for life, or other exception, this is your only method, to what degree for lives, or other disabilities of bearing office; propose some Resolution to limit this, so as not to give too much latitude, nor too great alarm.

Mr. Hampden, jun. I suppose this place gives liberty of speech; it is the honour of the house, and the liberty of the nation. Will you lay aside all these Heads at once, and sit all this while, and say that nothing shall be done upon them? Is not this to seem light and unadvised? I have expressed my tenderness; I have suffered, yet I can forget and forgive as much as may be, for the safety of the nation. Blood no mortal man can forgive; nobody but God can forgive; you only leave a latitude to judge whether it is wilful. I will wash my hands of the innocent blood that bas been shed in the nation. We take off Attainders from those that suffered by these ill men were they guilty or innocent? If guilty, you have done ill to pass it; if innocent, you cannot pass it by. If the nation will take that blood upon them-If I forgive this, God will not forgive The whole nation was of opinion, that the not punishing the baseness of Ship-Money VOL. V.



Sir John Lowther. I hope nobody thinks I would excuse shedding innocent blood; but I believe there is a sort of skill that, when a thing is not liked, it may be easily clogged with what was not intended. I would have

Sir Tho. Lee. You began with two of the Judges, and then you came to all; at last, to an universal proposition; but I suppose it was intended to all cominon crimes, as rapes, &c. usually excepted. But as to the universal offence of subverting the government, the consequence is, number enough is security enough. All these Judges will become practisers, and


their party will be their clients, and so get more money than they did before. I have heard of Persons, who for being of the king's Counsel have lost money by it. It would be a pretty sight for the bishop of Durham [lord Crewe to come to his diocese. When you have named a person, the law tells you his punishment. Here lies the difficulty with me, a necesssity that so many offenders should be at ease, and not necessary that a great many should be punished, though necessary that some should.' If limited to four or five, say those are the persons fit to be marked and punished. If it be a general Indemnity, with few to be excepted, it is the happiest question that ever was put.

Sir John Lowther. It has been moved with great caution. If you please to nominate a small number to be excepted, it is a prudent, good, and honest motion.

Sir Robert Howard. Of all the questions I have heard to-day, this last proposed is the strongest. It is impossible to lump this at a venture. So many for blood; how if you take too many! If you judge a man for estate, you are bound up, and I find you would not involve it. The most indeterminable thing in the world! Judge the man, and proportion his crimes. I do not speak to chill the charity of any body. The proper question is, Whether you will proceed upon the Judges of the King'sbench? King James has abdicated the crown, and if we lump them in, who have helped to lump him out, you say king William has done all the wrong, and they none.

Sir Ch. Raleigh. If this must pass off so, for God's sake let us send for king James again.

Exception was taken at Raleigh's words. Sir John Lowther. I cannot see how any such imputation can be upon what he has said. Sir Tho. Lee. You are right in order of explaining. I would not have words written down; it is a great injury to the gentleman if written down. I hope the gentleman will so explain himself, that it needs not.

Sir Ch. Raleigh. What I spoke was ironical only, if we proceed to punish the lesser, and let the greater pass.

Sir Robert Rich. I never apprehended the gentleman willing to bring in king James; but to pass by all bloodshed and violation of our laws, is the way to bring in king James.

Sir Walter Yonge. If you are sure there has been no innocent blood shed, I would not concern myself. This may perhaps fall upon few, whether five or seven, I care not how few, but blood has been spilt. I move for a general question for life; for some have been concerned out of the King's-bench as well as there.

Sir Robert Rich. I bear malice to no man, none of these offended me. The crime of dispensing with the law is great. Nothing washes away blood but blood; but when you have restored blood, I would have them excepted, as for life; the rest not excepted for life.

Mr. Ettrick. I see not that, by any law, you can take away a man's life; for blood, and for murder, you will except that, but else I cannot give my consent to take away life.

Sir Tho. Lee. I would have the long robe declare, Whether these offences extend to any man's life. Therefore I lay the consideration when the person you would except-If at the king's suit, he is answerable, the king may prosecute him, and he has not the Act of Indemnity to plead for him-If the crime is not so, you need not put in that word of Exception for Life.'

Sir Wm. Williams. There were Judges who did act, by virtue of that dispensation, as judges. For those to sit and try men for their lives, that were not judges, I should make no difficulty in them. Wright and Alibone are dead. It is a case worthy consideration, when


man has no power, and ceases to be a Judge. Let that be your rule, as to this Exception.

Mr. Hampden, sen. I speak to your question, not the debate. I am sorry the question is brought to this. I am not of opinion only to leave them out of the Indemnity, and as to Westminster-Hall, if they have art and cunning enough, they may escape. This is a crime the law does not suppose, and if you cannot use the legislative power to punish such offences, it is strange. Is it not treason to subvert the government as well as to clip a shilling? What government are we under? The law is on their side then, and there is no remedy for these offences; he must say Amen to what he is bidden to say is law; if you say, so many shall be excepted out of the Act, and reserve yourselves for penalties afterwards, I agree.

Sir Henry Capel. I think, what is said is of the last consequence. The statute 25 Edw. 3. names Treasons for Westminster-Hall to judge, and, at the same time, there is a declaratory clause for the parliament, in doubtful cases, to judge treason. Are there not offences that no denomination can be given to? To subvert the government, and subvert parliaments, by taking away the Charters of Corporations, is certainly the greatest of treasons. I take it for granted, that such offenders cannot be tried by the laws, as they stand, and must they not be punished? I hope that sort of doctrine will not be here. Such treasons are to be punished by parliament. I hope we shall never depart from that doctrine. I will not.

Major Wildman. I had not been called up

Sir John Thompson. I would ask one question, Is any man guilty of blood? And will you exempt them? Will you think it honour-now, if this doctrine did not only pardon what able to stand upon your Book, that you ex-is past, but endanger the government for the cept any man for blood; but let that take the future. It is of dangerous consequence, when last place? we took up arms, and we were involved in

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »