Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

This was the first cause; whatever they did to sacrifice lives, and for the times, was sanctified by this doctrine of non-resistance. The question is now, Whether you will do any thing to these people, or no? What think you the nation will say to all this? In the beginning of the Bill such a thunder, and so hard characters put upon men, and to close the Bill with nothing! And now to fix not only an obligation, but a character, that they are all fit for these employments! I have abhorred what was done in the late times, but rather than no mark of incapacity shall be put upon these men, I would part with the whole bill.

Sir Tho. Littleton. I would have this incapacity extend to none but such as forcibly delivered up the Charters, without consent of the majority.

[ocr errors]

back, and could do nothing, and the parlia-made way for those misfortunes that followed. ment leave it out, and pass the bill. It is not what the counsel at the bar agree, but what the parliament think fit, not because they agreed it, and no counsel at the bar can touch upon the power of this house. It is natural to make a slight amendment at the table. I will not say any thing to the method of bring ing in this proviso; the house did receive this, and voted it to stand part of the bill. I could wish the house had been fuller then, but the house may reject it now, and I hope they will. I doubt it is not capable of amendment. It t leaves men under the terror of the 500l. penalty, if they do not incapacitate themselves. It was a fault, but it was general. It is said, in the preamble of the bill, The design was to pack parliaments,' and it is said, This Clause is to incapacitate persons that they should not be guilty of the like again.' Most gentlemen are sensible that the multitude of surrenders were after the Quo Warrantos; upon this,' says the bill, there was a design to pack parliaments.' It was not this that put them upon taking away the penal laws and the Test; it required another regulation. It was after all the regulations, that these men stood in the gap. It puts corporations as they were in 1675. If these men be put out of the bill, you put out the men of estates, and the ancient corporations are put into the hands of men of little or no fortune, and some call them the mobile. There is a clause in the bill that declares all Surrenders void; where is the danger of these men doing the same thing again? The former are in their offices and employment again. Leave this clause out, and you put in the rich men of the Corporations, and if this stands part of the bill, you put those in of no estates, and that have given no testimony of their affections to the govern

ment.

[ocr errors]

Sir Robert Howard. Instead of punishing men that have done ill, we are here making eulogiums on them. I am not for the Church of England with that famous doctrine some maintain. In queen Elizabeth's time, when she protected those in arms in Holland for their religion, the Church of England contributed their opinion as well as their money, and thanked the queen when she acted according to the steps and method of Popery. Then the divine right of passive obedience without limitation-If ever so many tyrants were complicated in a king, he must be obeyed. It was then they began with Corporations; I say, these were given out for doctrines of the Church of England, and delivered over to the civil execution. This was setting up that false doctrine of the Church of England.

Sir Francis Winnington. To the orders of the house. This is foreign to the debate.

Sir Robert Howard. I arraign those that arraign the Church of England of such doctrines; these men prepared Corporations to deliver up their Charters. The false representations of the Church of England's doctrine

[ocr errors]

Sir Henry Capel. It is said, That something of fanaticism is in this bill, by taking away of that Clause of the unlawfulness of taking up arms, or resistance, &c.' I said then, If Marshal Turenne should come out of France to invade us, should we not resist him? Why did they not do their duty before the prince of Orange came over? Did these gentlemen ever think to find justices of peace, and judges, papists? Lewis xi had liberty to raise money till he called a parliament, and he never called one, and money has been arbitrarily raised without parliament in France ever since. You should have had parliaments, your bellies full, as Florence and Rome now have, the one to set the rates on chesnuts, and the other to regulate sick people.

Mr. Coningsby. Surrenderers were the scaffolds, and regulators were the builders; will you leave them out?-The Proviso was rejected, and the Bill passed.

|
Debate on sir Robert Sawyer's Prosecution of
sir Tho. Armstrong.] Jan. 18. Mr. Hawles. A
writ of error is a writ of right; and I am sorry it
was left out in the Bill of Rights. How scan-
dalous is it, when a man guilty of the murder
of sir Tho. Armstrong should be protected
within these walls! Warrants were directed
out of this house for attaching lord Stafford,
and he complained of it in the lords house as
a breach of privilege, but the lords would not
hinder the proceeding. They said, ' They had
no privilege in those cases.' If you say, You
cannot name a member without order at a
committee,' you must recommit this Bill for
repeal of sir Tho. Armstrong's Attainder, to
do right: I do not understand it to be satisfac-
tion for the estate of this person, but for the
blood of this person. I would have the money
for those that suffered, and those that suffered
not. Why is it enquired, what this gentleman
is worth? An Appeal may be brought by an
infant, and he had 1500l. for the blood of his
ancestor. In the case of Sacheverell and
Blackwell, a writ of error was brought, and
there was damage given for the blood of the
ancestor. They who destroy the king's sub-
jects, act against the king. He that preserves

most of his subjects does him most service. In his natural capacity, he may destroy whom he pleases; in his politic capacity, those who are most guilty ouly. Armstrong offered a plea, and it was not allowed, and you have voted it Wilful murder.' When the thing is so plain, (though I would not punish for mere error) and you have voted it Murder,' sure it must be in somebody. Armstrong did not murder himself, and afterwards quarter himself; indeed sir Edmundbury Godfrey hanged himself, and afterwards stabbed himself! Were the judges and prosecutors guilty? They were all guilty. I am not for rigour, though blood cries for blood. Let them that require satisfaction have the money, and let all be reported to you.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

instructions? Else your member must be heard at the bar. You are told, There can be no writ of error in criminal cases where the king is a party, but by a warrant from the king;' but I take the law to be quite otherwise. He goes farther, and tells you, When the party brought either error, or a plea, he ought to have a warrant from the king, &c.' I drew the plea, though I was told,It was a snare for me,' and your Vote calls it, Murder, &c.' so you have justified that matter. When the plea was tendered, did any body move, that the plea should not be received? This is the answer of the attorney-general; all is put upon the dead (lord chief-justice Jeffreys) and the dead must answer for the dead, and the dead bury the dead.' If they had executed the part of an executioner, they had done all-1 was asleep in the court. I heard not of it. Pray let us have it heard at the bar to-morrow.

that point.

Sir Robert Rich. Before you put any question, I move, that the Order by which your committee sat, may be read.-[It was read.]

Sir Robert Sawyer. Let all persons guilty suffer; but the question is, Whether I have been dealt withal by the committee as a member? When the Bill was committed, a charge was brought against me, That I had proceeded Sir Tho. Clarges. I would recommit the bill against sir T. Armstrong arbitrarily and ille- upon the point of satisfaction and reparation. gally. It was said, it was ever the duty of You are told,' A great part of the money (Arman attorney-general to grant a writ of error;' strong's) remains to his heirs, and settled before but it was never done in any book of law. the Attainder;' and if any satisfaction is to be Application must be made to the king by pe-paid by any of your members, recommit it upon tition, and he gives a warrant to the attorneygeneral to consent to it. The statute that gives the writ of error runs thus, Except in cases where the king is a party.' Ed. 3. The parties petitioned for error tam quam. It is a Mr. Smith. I move, to recommit the bill received opinion, that a writ of error lies not upon that point of reparation. I am satisfied in those cases. Before the statute of Hen. 8, that Armstrong suffered illegally, and I am wilthere was no writ of error but in the King's-ling there should be consideration had of his bench, and all was by petition to the king. I did forbear to attend the committee because I opposed the Bill; they have waved that clause, but I am not exempted; you may hear it at the bar, and I am not exempted from it. It is the duty of every attorney-general upon an outlawry brought, and of course it is his duty to pray judgment of the court; which asks what he has to say. If he produces a plea, | then the attorney replies. But that is an extraordinary thing to allege what Hawles says, &c. I desire there may be the strictest examination of my actions. No man can serve the crown, if he is an honest man, if he must be blamed for all the miscarriages of the Judges.

Mr. Hawles. Pray let it go back to the committee, with the directions of the house to find these men out, and spare me not if I be one. Upon the plea, the outlawry ought to be laid aside. It is the duty of the attorney to inform the court if running into an error.

Sir Wm. Williams. I shall speak to the recommitment. If you recommit this upon breach of privilege, for naming Sawyer at the committee, without acquainting the house, we go in a wheel; you only send it back to the committee to do nothing upon it. If it be your opinion, that is a breach of privilege upon Sawyer, he may be heard at the bar. It is fit that you put yourselves into some course. You cannot regularly send your member to a committee without instructions. Pray let us have plain dealing; will you recommit the bill with

family, which might have been proper in the Indemnity. I think it not reason that there should be reparation out of Sawyer's estate, nor is he concerned.

Sir John Lowther. As for reparation, it will be found a thing not precedented, and as for the writ of error, we are not clear in it, therefore I would have it committed again. Though several precedents have been quoted by Hawles, yet no precedents of parliament, but all of Westminster-hall; if those should be precedents, they may misguide Westminster-ball to do the same thing again. I would willingly have precedents of Bills of Repeal of Attainder signed by the king, and sent down from the lords. Lord Russel's was so. To take an estate, descended to the right heirs, to be forfeited, I never heard of that before. Should this make a difference with the lords, the bill is not worth that.

Sir John Guise. It surprizes me that the house is not of the same opinion they were formerly of. You may have a member in the case, and, it seems, to-day, a member is not to be named, but if a member comes in the same circumstances as others, did I think I sat in the house with a murderer, I would not sit till I bad thrown him out. I would recommit it upon the debate of the house. You ought to do justice to yourselves, that a man, guilty of murder, should not sit with you: let it be heard at the bar.

Mr. Hampden. I saw a learned plea drawn

in that business; but pray let not reflections
go amongst us upon the profession of the law.
Great persons are descended from the law, and
it is a very honourable profession. Our com-
mon law is founded upon reason. What law
may do in meum et tuum, and conscience is
very much enlarged.-Formerly, at least, what
a lawyer said, must be probable for his client,
but let it be how it will in this. But will you
allow a lawyer in point of argument betwixt
the crown and the subject? Is he not plainly
to say what the law is in that case? It is true,
in a doubtful case, the counsel ought not to do
it; but, as to restitution, suppose a man killed
a very poor man, do you think he owes nothing
to the wife and children? nothing to repara-
tion? If not, I have mistaken all the rules of
justice. I say this, because I see those things
have not their true value; they are under-va-member may justify himself.
lued; therefore I would lay it aside.

have made a special report. As to your mem-
ber, you cannot do yourselves, nor your mem-
ber, right, unless you give a day at the bar to
hear it and it is as necessary that the house
justify themselves in their Vote as your mem-
ber himself.

Sir W. Williams. I am for enlarging your instructions to the committee. I am for naming persons, but whatever persons come by description, within your Order, I would have examined, besides the three Judges; for I believe more were guilty than Burton and Graham. What was their crime? They went only from Whitehall to Newgate, and so to Westminster, like porters of the business; these are solicitors, these are attorneys, the prosecutors are the most guilty. Let the cominittee bave general instructions. Your committee will make no reflections, but according to the right and custom of parliament, and the laws of England. No cause can be just on both sides. As the law stands, the prisoner can have no counsel, and when he has none, he that does prosecute without law against him, is a betrayer of the law.

Lord Falkland. I crave leave to add one case to Williams's, that of the prosecution of the Bishops, wherein our laws and liberties were concerned, which he prosecuted.

Sir W. Williams. Where there was counsel on both sides, I might be counsel.

Sir Robert Cotton. What concerns your member, you ought to put to the question, Whether the committee shall have Instructions to enquire into that; and now you leave them to general enquiry!-[It was said privately, That all this fencing was not to save Sawyer, but Finch.]

Sir John Trevor. Armstrong was my particular friend, and I am willing to do any thing for the satisfaction of his family. What will you do with it at the committee? Specially examine it? If your member be injured at the committee, then is your proper time to hear him at the bar: as it is just that the family should have reparation for their loss, particularly made out. It is true, you cannot make particular satisfaction for blood, but for his estate, if you recommit to enquire specially, and let them make a special report, then your

Sir Henry Goodrick. I speak to your order; and what becomes of your committee's Report? I see, you cannot appoint a charge against your member, without a report, and the committee has given you none; therefore, I move, that if any charge arises at the committee, they may make a special report.

Mr. Hampden. When your member desires to be heard, I am ignorant why it should be denied. I must expect something singular, either that Armstrong was not murdered, or something to the ministerial matter, as he was a lawyer. Privately to give opinion that charters could not be delivered up without perjury, and yet to plead aud use all the eloquence against the thing! If the profession of the law gives a man authority to murder a man at this rate, it is the interest of all men to rise and exterminate that profession. I would know what Sawyer can say.

Mr. Dolben. I find there is great stress laid upon Sawyer's being heard at the bar; but I cannot see how it can be, before the committee have reported special matter against him, without accusation of himself. It is plain, that Sawyer did not prosecute the whole indictment. He was indicted in Middlesex. If he that demanded execution be to be prosecuted, he that did the execution may be prosecuted too.

Mr. Hampden. Whether you will go to a committee for examination, and whether you will hear it at the bar, how your member is Col. Birch. I am never more afraid of Mis- concerned, it is a question without a question. carriages than when it is our own concern. I Nobody will be willing to be judged at a comknow not what recommitment you mean, un-mittee of 7 or 8 persons in a chamber to exaless you tumble it to a committee to do nothing again. You named three or four, and your committee named a member, and you say, That is a fault.' This prosecution of Armstrong was more criminal in the solicitor and attorney general than in Burton and Graham to fetch and carry. But here is murder in the case, and you are going out of the way, unless you give leave, nay order, to read it at the bar. Solomon says, 'There is nothing new under the sun.' This may come again before you, for ought I know, therefore settle it now.

Mr. Boscawen. The committee ought to

mine a member; or, in general, when a member has been concerned, it was never done, but if that arise, let it be reported specially. It is strange a committee should examine a member whether guilty, or not guilty. If you command the committee, before the Bill comes to perfection, you may hear your member answer in his place, and appoint a day for it. You yourselves cannot impower a committee to examine a member; it is the privilege of the house, and the privilege of every person in it. If a member falls in collaterally, if ever they hear a member named, they stand up and go no far

ther, but report it to the house. If they have done irregularly, will you do so too? Let it be recommitted, and your member may answer in his place.

Jan. 20. Mr. Christie reported the Bill recommitted for annulling sir Thomas Armstrong's Attainder, with some Amendments; and specially reports the above Information against sir Robert Sawyer.

Sir Tho. Clarges. In punishing persons, you may do a precedent of dangerous consequence for the future; therefore I would have Burton and Graham heard.

Sir John Guise. You have referred this to a private committee, and now they bring the Report to the house; is there any Objection that the committee have not done their duty? You had it once before you, and referred it to a committee.

Sir Tho. Littleton. Burton and Graham never made any application to the house to be heard, but the committee, that had power to send for persons, papers, and records, never sent for these persons.

Sir Wm. Williams. All cannot be heard; some are dead, and they cannot be heard, and by that consequence you cannot charge their estates. The judges are charged with giving a corrupt and illegal judgment; if these persons did it corruptly and maliciously, and these persons are in the Bill, it came naturally before the committee. Such persons as could be heard, were heard. I would do justice justly. I would hear them at the bar; but with what justice can you then hear Jeffreys's and Alibone's executors afterwards?

Col. Austen. As to the justness of it, they were summoned by the committee, and will not appear, and now they would be heard in the house. If, when you committed this Bill, and the committee named persons, you thought it not in their power, and these people would not appear there, I hope you will not receive their petition in the house, I hope you will begin with the special matter reported.

nothing in the case but guilty, or not guilty." I would have it brought to issue. If you will hear it, I would have no denial, for your justice will be as well in administration as execution. But if they come to be heard without counsel, every man answers for himself. You have declared already how the law stands : let your summons be short and peremptory, to appear at their peril.

Mr. Garroway. There is no need of counsel to trouble you. If the Judges, &c. appear, what they can say will do them little good; they will be in your Act of Indemnity; therefore hear them to-morrow morning, before you go on the Bill of Indemnity.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Smith. I agree to what is proposed, but you are told, The dead cannot be heard for themselves.' They have left executors, and order them to appear then.

Mr. Hampden. It is an odd thing to think of pains and penalties (as is moved) before you have found persons. If that be done, do you not look upon them as criminals? Suppose you say, Burton and Graham, &c. shall never act as attorneys in Westminster-hall, nor in the ecclesiastical courts: Perhaps they are not guilty; therefore I think the Indemnity needs not stay for this. You need say no more, than that those who acted in Armstrong's prosecution shall make his family reparation, as well as to public justice.

Sir Wm. Whitlock. I do as much detest this murder of Armstrong, as any man, but I would give a reasonable time for hearing a man. Hearing a man suddenly is not hearing him. Pray let it be Saturday.

Sir Robert Rich. I am bound to believe, that every gentleman means cordially, and Í shall be one of those to wipe blood off from this house. I have no malice, nor any relation concerned. I believe, those men are satisfied that they cannot justify themselves, but will be trifling with you. If you will do justice to the fatherless, tell them so; next to that, tell them that their cause is not good. But what conseSir Christ. Musgrave. A petition is offered, quence is there in hearing them all in a day; I and you do not right unless you receive it. never knew men without a contrivance; they Armstrong was condemned without hearing, may have the gout, or be sick. I watched your and will you do the same thing again? If no-committee, and, according to order, your memthing will appear on your books which was ber, Sawyer, was named. Therefore pray go said in their defence, it is a dangerous prece- upon your member present. dent. Graham and Burton are in your custody; let us not go out of the common way of justice, but hear them.

Mr. Hampden. Some persons were prosecutors of Armstrong. I have observed, that all the arts of delay are used, and it is no strange thing for people to avoid punishment, and to take all legal advantages; but the question is, What you will do now in administration of your justice? One could not come, but Holloway and Wythens might, and now you are moved to hear them by counsel. I am of opinion they should be heard ore tenus; there is nothing to be heard upon the matter of fact. I think you will not hear them by counsel; they ought to answer for themselves. Ilcre is

Sir Wm. Williams. You have ordered the records of Armstrong's prosecution to be brought; pray let the officer be called in (sir S. Astrey,) to attend you, both with the records of the Outlawry, and the awards of execution. It may so fall out that matter of law may arise; therefore let it be indefinitely, not for bidding counsel.

Mr. Smith. The law says, A man shall not be executed in twelve months, &c.' and Armstrong appeared within that time; will you hear counsel as to that?

Ordered, "1. That sir R. Holloway, sir F. Wythens, the executors of the late lord Jeffreys, the executors of the late Mr. justice Walcott, Mr. R. Graham, and Mr. Philip Burton, do at

[merged small][ocr errors]

Then Mrs. Matthews, (sir Tho. Armstrong's daughter,) was called in, and asked, What she knew of the prosecution against her father; and, who were the prosecutors?'

[ocr errors]

Mrs. Matthews." The judges were Jeffreys, Wythens, Holloway, and Walcott; Sawyer, Burton, and Graham, prosecutors. I was with Sawyer for a writ of error: He said, Your father must die, he must die; he is an ill man.' My mother was ready to pay him all his due fees, but he said, He must die, he must die.' When my father was brought to the bar, the chief justice asked Sawyer What he had to say? Sawyer prayed an award of execution; which was done: My father desired that the statute of outlawries might be read. He said, "He thought it was plain that he was come in within a year, &c.' Said Sawyer, sir Thomas Armstrong will not find any thing in the statute to his purpose; Possibly he will say, he surrendered himself to your lordship, but, sir Thomas, you should have surrendered yourself before you went out of England; and he alleged Holloway's case. Said the chief justice, We have enough against him.' Said Sawyer, The king did indulge in Holloway's case, but Armstrong was active in the fire at Newmarket, and he has received dangerous letters,' whereas they were no more than a recommendation to the duke of Brandenbourg."

6

duty. She said, I told her Armstrong must die, and that he was an ill man.' I call God to witness, I said it not, nor used such language. I said, I had no power to give a writ of error; it must be obtained by petition to the king.' As for my management at the arraignment, it was according to my oath and duty to attend the court. Every tittle of what passed was printed in three days, and went all over England. It was not only lawful, but my duty, to put Armstrong upon trial, to hear what he could say to the record of the outlawry, and I prayed judgment: if he had nothing to say, it was my duty to pray execution; I went no farther, not a tittle in this business. Armstrong quoted such a statute, and it was read in court. Has he rendered himself to the chief-justice? 'No.' Armstrong said, I now render myself to your lordship.' This is the fact. I never argued to incline the court one way or another. The king indulged Holloway, but he had that against Armstrong that he could not allow it. It was my duty to demand judgment of the outlawry. The clerk of the crown will satisfy you fully. He withdrew.

Sir Robert Clayton. I observe, Sawyer, before he went out, excused himself by the forms of the court, That he asked for execution but once;' and that, after the statute was read, and Armstrong said, He surrendered himself,' he sat down and said no more. I take it not for his crime to do his duty, but he ought to have informed the king what was law; for asking the thing contrary to law, the crime was charged; he had direction from the king. I think he comes well off to make satisfaction to these poor creatures, his daughters.

Mr. Smith. Sawyer tells the king, Armstrong ought to have a trial;' but does it appear that he offered any thing before the court had declared? Unless there be farther matter than I see yet, I find him not criminal.

Sir Robert Sawyer. Be pleased to ask her, if, when she came to me for a writ of error, I told her, 'It was not in my power; she must petition the king? And whether I demanded execution till the court had declared their opi- Mr. Hawles. I did persuade Sawyer to give nion? and whether, after he said He had sur-these ladies some money, and prevent the matrendered himself,' I demanded execution?

[merged small][ocr errors]

Sir Robert Rich. You will hear those in the house, sure, as long as those out of the house. Before you debate your member must answer, and then withdraw. If by law, the member can justify himself; if the contrary, he may say something in mitigation. If the warrant of execution was signed by that demand, let him tell you whether it was by himself, or any body else.

Sir Robert Sawyer. I shall only observe, that the person who informs you of this, is single, and a person interested, when they might have produced multitudes of persons; and that will appear. I did no more than my

ter from coming here.

Sir Henry Goodrick. I hope Sawyer may come off; but for a member to make bargains in point of blood, is a strange thing, and ought to be taken notice of.

Sir John Guise. We are all about giving them something for the blood of their father, and it is no strange thing.

Mr. Hawles. I formerly cited the case of Blackwell and Sacheverell. Some say, I ercouraged this matter;' and I have had hard words given me for it. As for Burton and Graham, they only brought Armstrong up, &c. but for an attorney-general, when he has that office, how comes it to pass that he must leave all rules of common honesty? I wish this gertleman had been as nice in spilling blood, as we are in punishing it. This was error in fact, and when so, the attorney-general ought to consent to reversing the outlawry, or to the demurrer. The statute says that to him, "If he comes in in a year and a day.' The attorney-general ought to consider whether the fact

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »