causes. Your right in carrying up the moneybill he vigorously asserted: it is a justice you owe him, not to expose him to that tribunal, without evidence first heard. The evidence will all be exposed to your censure; therefore examine the grounds of the charge. I shall not speak to precedents of impeachments; but there is a considerable difference betwixt im

quiry you will find it Billa vera? If the last parliament had sat a week longer, I would not have been in his case for 24d. The money for building the ships, fenced with so many clauses in the act, &c. should not have been diverted. There is indemnity in the first act, but not in the last. The credit of Kingdon's negative evidence, I hope, will not be put in competition with two affirmatives. If Seymour be incli-peachments of treason, and misdemeanor. It nable to popery, he is ready to bring in arbitrary government. I am for impeaching him upon these articles.

Sir Leoline Jenkins. In this case, you are involved as prosecutors, and therefore I hope you will well consider of it. If you prosecute wrongfully, it will be very ill, and therefore a man should not mingle any of his own passion in the prosecution; it should be to no ill end, and there should be a moral assurance of the truth of the charge. I do not see that industry used yet, whether the charge be well grounded. One worthy member (Kingdon) speaks actuproprio facto; two members speak their thoughts by hearsay. If this business come before the Lords, it will be absolved in this condition, being positive proof from one, and only hearsay from two.

does not follow, because no treason is found by the Lords, that therefore no misdemeanor. Precedents are express in the case, as that of sir William Penn's impeachment; and you will hardly find one precedent of misdemeanor, that has gone in a contrary way, but has been examined at a committee. Where the matter charged and the proof was presented to the House at the same time, as in the case of lord Danby's letter to Mr. Montagu, there was no need of witnesses. And another reason is, where a gentleman undertakes to make the charge good upon his own knowledge; that is much different from the credit of others; that is not giving credit to your member, but to persons not known. I will not reflect on the credit of the proof undertaken by your members; but I must say, you heard, on the other side, the testimony of a member (Kingdon,) if not all the considerable circumstances, of his own knowledge. I am sorry to hear it objected against his testimony, that he is particeps criminis;" if so, I fear you will want most, if not all, your testimony against the five lords in the Tower; which is so far from inva

Mr. Evelyn. Falsity and truth are vastly different; but when falsity is in a fine dress, it makes a show. I was at first full of fear, lest the House should suffer in not making good the articles, and so might have a blot, and the gentleman a greater that brought in the articles. Considering the vast trouble the Plot has given the House, the quality of the conspi-lidating their testimony, that it confirms it. rators, and their number, and that the House should receive a blemish! Those without doors will think this a bold act, who are for impeachments. I conceive, your proper question is, "Whether this matter in the Articles be a proper ground to impeach Mr. Seymour, &c. ?" Sir Francis Russel. This is but in the nature of a presentment to a grand jury. To what intent should persons give the committee knowledge of the evidence? Let it be known upon the impeachment before the Lords. It is not only a distrust of your members, to refer the Articles to a committee to be proved, but it is needless, and against the method of parliament. You must carry it to another place, where you are to discover the evidence, and till then, the prisoner is not to know the evidence. But to refer it to a committee to hear the proof, is against all law and method.

Mr. Finch. If I was of opinion that the honour of the House was concerned in it, I should possibly be as eager as those gentlemen that move it, that this charge should go to the Lords, before it pass a committee here. It would be a great misfortune to the House, if, through this apprehension of partiality, the Lords should disappoint you: therefore I shall say something, before you put it to so great a hazard. It is injustice to the House, and your member, who has been a zealous assertor of the rights of the Commons in the matter of the Lords taking upon them to judge original

Not to accuse himself to excuse another. In the impeachment of lord Strafford, when sir William Pennyman was brought by my lord to show that his words had been otherwise than they were taken to be in the impeachment, viz. "That the king's little finger should be heavier than the loins of the law, &c." one of the managers of the impeachment told sir William, "He did ill discharge his duty to the Commons (being a member) to suffer the House to run upon such a mistake." Has not Seymour done your service worthily, and I hope you will as worthily consider it, in your manner of proceeding with him. That matter alledged against Seymour, "his dexterity when he cast his eye about in the long parliament to tell the House," is not in any one article. You may see, by his accounts, the money received and the money paid; and the navy-board must be his vouchers, and those he will produce. If Seymour must answer for the faults of all men, there is ground for impeachment. Therefore, upon the whole examination of this case, before it go to the Lords, no objection can be against commitment. I do conceive that the act of parliament for building the ships, &c. does impower those accounts to be taken by the House of Commons, in an express clause. I remember, in a dispute betwixt the Lords and Commons about the accounting, &c. the Lords are excluded, and you ought regularly to receive

that account in the House, and to let a com-
mittee examine it. If this be so, receive the
first motion of committing the Articles, and so
you may receive the accounts in the House.
Mr. Harbord. There is a reflection upon me,
of " dexterity, &c." It is a terrible expression,
to fright a gentleman from his public duty. I
will never decline my country's service, nor do
I covet Seymour's place, nor envy him; there-
fore I hope you will not suffer a man to be re-
flected on, that a thing is done with "dexte-
rity," when it is done with sincerity. You are
told by Seymour,
"That what he has done
was not without the approbation of the Com-
missioners of the navy.'
"
There was a great
struggle betwixt him and the Commissioners,
&c. The merchants, finding Seymour's credit
and power too big, fell upon the commissioners
of the navy. Seymour had instructions not to
pay any money without warrant from the
commissioners of the navy. The merchants
said, "That the commissioners had told them
they had ordered their money, but Seymour
was not ready to pay it." But the reason why
Seymour would not obey the commissioners
order, was, that he despised them, and came
not to them in some months. I have the
papers to prove Seymour's Answer, and the
commissioners Reply to it. (Then he spoke
of his refusing to sign a conveyance to lord
Danby of Lands from the king.) As to what
Finch said of "dexterity, &c." I never voted,
in any council, That the duke of York
should stay in England," when he was
deemed an enemy to the nation.

Mr. Finch. When Harbord replied, I did not
know the matter betwixt Seymour and the
navy-board. I do say, the navy-board orders
vouchers to Seymour's accounts, and the Ex-
chequer, if they find one, will not deny the
other. As for Harbord's being even with me
in the aspersion, "That I was one of those that
retained the duke in England," I can justify
myself to every member, and the most partial.
I was not for giving them this handle to sanc-
tify themselves to the people. I did think it
was necessary the duke should be absent, and
had security for it, in the opinion of the par-
liament, and I was satisfied. I never knew
that "
dexterity" was a crime, and am willing
to excuse Harbord from that matter.

if it had sat, (as some took care it should not, by dissolving it) by the person's evidence who was employed in the things themselves. They tell their story with coherence, and give reasons why they may be trusted. Some of this money was employed for the army, to keep it up. But others say, by circumstances, whe believe-You are told by Jenkins of "facto proprio, &c." I think, Kingdon is under suspicion of the same thing, and it is a natural suspicion of this gentleman to be accused for money, &c. And should not I think that if my neighbour's house were on fire, that my own was in danger? And that is Kingdon's case. It is natural for men to be advocates for faults, that they may be questioned for. I think, there is ground for impeachment, the fact being criminal, and will be proved. The thing itself makes the fact criminal, and you have no suspicion of the evidenceundertaken, because Kingdon speaks in his own case. It has been well objected, "That a great person that has great power can never be punished, if evidence be brought to the committee;" therefore 1 desire evidence may not be known, that art, force, or money can corrupt or terrify from giving their testimony. The committee of secrecy, the last parliament, was only called so; all they did was known publicly. I speak it of my own knowledge, and amongst knowing men; constantly, every night, lord Danby had intelligence of what was done. Finch tells you, "That by dexte rity many things were brought under the shelter of this article of the money, &c." And he took occasion to magnify Seymour, &c. If the witness against the lords, being particeps crimi nis, had gone about to excuse what the lords had done, he would be no competent evidence; but if Kingdon will accuse Seymour he is a competent evidence. To commit this charge, is to deaden the zeal of the House; Therefore put the question, "That there is matter of impeachment in these articles.

Mr. Hyde. I was present at the Impeachment of lord Clarendon. Yesterday, I heard a member say, "That in that impeachment, to every article a member did rise and say, "I will make that article good;" and for that reason, I am now against that way of proceeding; for afterwards one declared, he was unsatisCol. Titus. Whoever has the keeping of the fied in the article he undertook to prove; he unrighteous Mammon, can make friends. I owned he was abused by the evidence." It was know not well which way to give my opi- a hard case, the proceeding then, and I think it nion in this matter, when I consider how suc-will be so now, if he were the greatest enemy I cessful Addresses and Impeachments have been. had in the world; and therefore I am for comI never saw by addresses that we have removed mitment. ministers. Instead of blowing up our enemies, we blow up our own work backward. But how fruitless soever impeachments are, yet we must proceed, to satisfy the world. Two things induce men to believe the Impeachment; one, the probability of the thing, and next, the credibility of the testimony. If the thing be probable in itself, that such sums could be raised on the credit of a particular person-This -matter you had had before you the last parliament

Mr. Love, I shall speak only to the question. If I were convinced in the reason and equity of it, I should not be against commitment. I have refreshed my memory, since last night, out of my notes that I took in lord Clarendon's Im peachment. It was then said, "Now you have heard the articles read, for the honour of the House you are to know where and when the crimes were committed, and by whom they will be proved." Says Seymour himself, "That is

the way to invalidate all your testimony, by publishing the witnesses, who by corruption or menace may be taken off."

tion of the Articles be referred to a committee, it passed in the negative.

Mr. Harbord. I have seen no other precedent of commitment upon a charge of misdemeanors, but that of sir Giles Mompesson. The House did order his commitment to the serjeant. I desire the long robe may consider of it.

Sir Christ. Musgrave. Pray call for the Journal, and see the precedent of sir William Penn.

Mr. Trenchard. I desire you will keep strict-peached upon these Articles, and that a ComResolved, "That Mr. Seymour be imly to the question. In the case of lord Claren-mittee be appointed to prepare the said Imdon, the House had not so great inducement to peachment." impeach as now, because members did not undertake the proof of the charge then; they had only inducements to believe it. Money was lent by Seymour, and, consistent with truth, not lent to Kingdon. In an impeachment of treason we ought to be more tender, than in a charge barely of misdemeanors. When gentlemen do undertake the proofs of the charge, it is a disparagement to the members to refer it to a committee to examine evidence. You must not put discouragement upon your members, lest you lay out measures for the future. When the duke of Lauderdale was charged, soon after the parliament was prorogued, you found one of the witnesses bought off, and the other sent to the Tower. If the Lords find not the charge, the diminution is of their honour, not yours; and it is no more than a petty jury not finding the person guilty, when the grand jury has found the bill. Pray put the question, That there is a matter in the articles to impeach Seymour."

Sir Tho. Lee. I know not what the Lords will say concerning the Ship and the money in the charge; but when matters are reduced to particulars, you are obliged to consider the act of indemnity, whether the crime be pardoned by that act. You are bound to take notice of that act, where it is plainly expressed, "That no man shall be impleaded for what he has done, relating to the army, &c. by that act.'

Sir William Jones. In point of law, every hour detaining the goods purloined and embezzled is an offence, and the act, &c. does not pardon the goods, the indigo, &c. of which no account was made. Take it one way or another, the question is at an end.

Sir Thomas Lee. I desire only to know, whether a particular exception does not explain the

matter.

Sir Fr. Winnington. Look into that act of pardon which passed some time before the disbanding-act, and you will find abundance of exceptions in it for the benefit of great men. I should be very loth to put an article upon Seymour, that is already pardoned. Seymour did say, "Though haply he might be pardoned by the act, he would not shelter himself under it." But as to that particular relating to purloining the stores, or any corruption in his office, if, you but think that an argument probable to impeach, I love the gentleman so well that I would hardly advise him to plead it.

Colonel Birch. I will not take notice of pardons in gentlemens pockets, but that act of pardon spoken of. I said formerly, upon that act, "That it was only for the sake of some great persons." If lawyers say that Seymour is not pardoned as to the prizes, &c. by that act, put it to the question.

The question being put, That the considera

Mr. Garroway. We have not been frequently troubled with impeachments; but in the last parliament, the case of the impeachment of lord Mordaunt and sir William Penn was for misdemeanors. That of lord Clarendon was another case. In this you cannot extend the impeachment farther than the articles.

Sir Thomas Lee. Unless you will do, in this case, more than has been done in any, refer it to a committee. Consider the precedents of sir Giles Mompesson, &c. Because nobody would be security for his forth-coming, and he confessed the fact, he was imprisoned. Is there no difference betwixt misdemeanor and treason? But I will not enter into the debate, but desire to know the course of all parliaments relating to precedents. Let the fact be plainly before you and do what you will.

Sir Fr. Winnington. Be careful not to go from the rules of right. I appeal to you, if an information of misdemeanor be against a man in an inferior court, whether they do not imprison the party till they shall think fit to bail him? I believe there are several precedents of members complained of here, that have been committed. Sir John Bennet was taken into custody, in order to have an impeachment drawn against him. Seymour being committed to the serjeant, if he say, "I desire to be bailed," he ought to be in a court of record. But I take it, there is more value from an impeachment of the House of Commons that sounds, of grievance, &c. It is not the judg ment of the House that he should remain in custody, but for so small a time till the impeachment may be drawn up. Higher precedents than those of the long parliament must guide you; that so, if he stand committed till the impeachment be drawn up, he has no wrong done him.

Sir Chris. Musgrave. I cannot agree to refer this to a committee to examine Precedents, and in the mean time to commit him; which is first to commit him, and then to examine precedents of commitment. I would know by what rule you commit him to custody, if the crime be bailable. If he offer bail, the House of Commons cannot bail him. Let us that complain of arbitrary courts take care that we be not offenders ourselves. Being a member of this House, you cannot divest him of the pri

vilege he has out of the House. Pray walk in search for precedents of suspension from his wary steps in this matter. This manner of pro-attendance in parliament."" Ordered, That ceeding is not for your honour. he be suspended whilst the Impeachment is

Sir William Jones. In all our proceedings we depending." are as well to satisfy our own consciences as other mens. I am yet but young in parliament,

but what moves me is reason of law. If a man

be accused of crimes, there is not a necessity he should be in custody; it may be, in case there is danger of flight. If he be accused of capital crimes, the man may run away, and hazard his estate, to save his life. In some capital cases a man cannot be bailed; but in most cases bail may be taken. It is said, "he may go away if not imprisoned;" so far, it may be, we desire it; but the reason and practice of all other courts is against it. I desire only that your precedents may not outgo all other Courts of Justice.

Colonel Titus. If you do any thing, and have no precedent for it, Seymour will have all the reason to accuse you of injustice, and your own honour be exposed. To obviate both inconveniences, pray let precedents be searched.

Ordered; That, the searching for Precedents concerning the committing a Member to custody when impeached in parliament, be referred to the Committee appointed to draw the Impeachment.

December 17.

"Mr. Brunkard aot being to be found, for his contempt in the waving the Justice of the House,, Ordered, That he be expelled the

House."

Mr. Harbord. The precedents reported were such as the House ordered to be searched, which were none but commitments upon impeachments. Mompesson was committed to the serjeant, but he broke from that custody, and the Lords censured him; they degraded him from his knighthood, and fined him a sum of money. Bennet served for the university of Oxford, aud was judge of the prerogative court. He took great sums of money and bribes; he likewise was turned out of the House, but being sick and infirm, was permitted to stay at his own house. He was or dered to be conveyed to the Tower by the sheriff of London, or to take security from him cedents in the late long parliament. Penn for his appearance. There are two other preof taking prize-goods out of an East India was accused by the commissioners of accounts ship: he stood up to justify himself from the articles, and was suspended. Precedents of commitment were searched. Mompesson ran

Sir William Pulteney reports from the Com-away, &c. Bennet was not committed, &c. mittee to whom it was referred to prepare the Impeachment against Edward Seymour, esq. a member of this House; and to search precedents touching the Imprisoning of Members of this House, when impeached in parliament; That the committee had directed him to make a special report thereof: Which he read in his place; and afterwards, delivered the same in at the clerk's table: Where the same was read; and is as follows:

"The 18th and 19th king James, sir Giles Mompesson's case, who was committed by the House to the Serjeant's custody. He made his escape, and a proclamation was issued out from the king to apprehend him, (he reads the Proclamation) he being committed by order of the House, to be sent to the Tower.

Brunkard was accused for causing the duke's ship to strike sail, when the fleet was in pursuit of the Dutch. He did not attend the House, and was expelled, and articles were exhibited against him. As for the state of commitment in general, I find precedents anciently of commitment for crimes of much less nature, 19 king James: Mr. Shepherd said, “That as, for speaking scandalously of acts passed, the bill for the better keeping the Lord's day was rather like a gin against the papists, than against the Puritans." Whether he had an inclination to favour popery, I know not. He did not explain, in his place, to give satisfaction to the House, and was expelled. Sir Edmund Sawyer was the king's servant: he exacted double to the book of rates. Hervey and Dawes, farmers of the customs, were com

"Sir John Bennett's case, who was Judgemanded to come to Whitehall to discourse the of the prerogative court, in the 18th and 19th K. James: Resolved, That the sheriff of London do secure his person.

"Sir William Penn's and Mr. Brunkard's case, as in the Journal 1668: Penn's runs thus: "13 April, 1668, Ordered, That Penn do attend the 14th." And then there is a Narrative of Penn's embezzlement of Prize-Goods. "Ordered, That on Thursday next he make answer to his charge." The Committee was to acquaint Penn with this order, and Penn was to deliver his answer.

"A Letter from the commissioners of accounts was read, and the evidence was read; and the question was put, and an Impeachment was ordered to be drawn up against him, and to

matter. By the duke of Buckingham's favour, Sawyer came to the House, and there were arguments upon it. Sheldon was expelled the House, and was made not capable to serve in parliament. Dr. Parry, in queen Elizabeth, &c. For a hundred years last past, precedents are clear of commitment of persons impeached. Upon the whole matter, I move, "That you will commit Mr. Seymour to the serjeant,

Sir Joseph Tredenham. I did attend the committee that you ordered to search for precedents: the matter has been opened by Harbord; give me leave to express it more fully, and to have recourse to the paper in my hand to help my memory. The 18th king James, sir Edward Coke was chairman to the com

mittee of grievances. Mompesson was charged for the monopoly of licensing inns and alehouses, &c. He confessed his crime at the committee, and before the House; and the next day, upon the report, the House resolved to go up to the Lords to impeach him: then, and not till then, he was committed. He confessed the crime he was charged with, and for fear of flight he was committed. Sir Edward Coke delivered it as the opinion of the committee, "That, unless some persons would undertake for his forthcoming, he should be secured by the serjeant." After this vote for his commitment, the Commons addressed the Lords, and both the king, to issue out a proclamation to take him, being fled. Sir John Bennet's case was much the same, for exorbitances in a court of judicature. Sir Edward Sackville made the report, "That he had taken many bribes, and had committed extortions in his office." Bennet was not in the House; he was sick, and was heard by his counsel at the committee, and the House would not suffer them to be judged, till they were heard in their places. Bennet continued bis excuse of sickness, and his counsel being esked, "Whether he would confess, or deny, the charge," they said "Neither." Whereupon the House came to this resolution, "That Bennet is faulty ;" and so he was ordered into safe custody of the sheriffs, &c. to be committed to the Tower of London. The other precedents reported are foreign to this case before you. They were committed upon the notoriety of the thing, and suspicion of flight. Penn's was only suspension of the House, and Brunkard, for his flight, was expelled, and an impeachment voted against him; but nothing of commitment. As for Shepherd's case, 27 Elizabeth, I know not where Harbord finds it; it is not in any journal of that time. As for Sir William Pulteney. I observe that, upon Hall's case, no doubt but this House has commitments, &c. the person accused was power of judging their own members: it was either committed upon confession of the fact, for a book reflecting upon the proceedings of or flight. But it is moved, "That witnesses this House, and so judged, "upon the House be produced against Seymour." But if he itself." You are upon prosecuting Seymour should know before-hand what they can say in the Lords House, and so I suppose your against him, they may be corrupted, or mecommitment of him is in order to his custody, naced out of their evidence. But when you not his punishment. In cases of information, have given your judgment that you will imyou have not expelled a member without wit-peach a man, there is no precedent to be found nesses being heard. It has been moved, "That Mr. Seymour might be secured." I appeal to you whether an impeachment be not the severest charge? It has always been, that members of the House are free from arrests, unless in case of felony, treason, or breach of the peace. Have you a mind to think fit that Seymour be committed for an accusation that Westminster-Hall does bail? For liberty of a man's person is as essential here, as liberty of speech. In Hen. 6's time (it was an unfortunate age, I wish ours more fortunate) the duke of York then aiming at the crown, no one man stood so much in his way as Thorpe, Speaker of the Commons, who upon an execution arrested him. This parliament did what they could for the House of Lancaster, and

from thence came the civil wars, and so much blood; but the same parliament could never extirpate the House of York till they garbled it. If once you pass a resolution, "That an information upon a bare averinent must be necessarily followed with commitment," I would know, whether you garble not the House? But consider the consequence; no man's innocence can save him, if his testimony is not heard till his trial. I would know, whether the gentlemen, who would commit Seymour, think he cannot find security for his appearance? There is no likelihood that Seymour should shun his trial. I move, "That he may not be committed."

Mr. Harbord. The chairman was directed to report what he did, and no more, and the committee, if there be occasion, will justify it. I did not cite Hall's case, but the journals were brought to us, and none beyond 1640; some few notes the committee were forced to use, and those were brought by Mr. Petty, which we took to be authentic. If we had made no search but in the Journals, they were so imperfect, that we should have had no prece-. dents at all. Tredenham told you of the Speaker, Thorpe, arrested in Hen. 6's time, &c. I would preserve the privilege of your members, but I remember about ten years ago, there was a design to turn out eight or ten members who voted against the Court. I laid my hand to the work, and to prevent it, 1 searched the outlawry-office, and found 56 members outlawed, and Mr. Seymour sat many years in the chair outlawed. I pulled that out of my pocket, and saved those eight or ten by it that were designed to be turned out. I know not whether Seymour will run away. I have told you, that my opinion is, to secure him; do as you please.

that, when a judgment of impeachment has been found and carried up to the Lords, that you should say, your member is not in custody. It does tantamount prove a vindication. When the Commons came to the Lords House with the impeachment of Bennet and Mompesson, they had imprisoned them; and to produce proofs before that time may be dangerous, and of very ill consequence.

Sir Chris. Musgrave. There is a great deal of difference betwixt Mompesson's and Bennet's case and that of your member. To preserve your privileges, it is the best way to go by an cient precedents: Mompesson's witnesses were heard at the committee before he was charged. There is a great deal of difference betwixt a bare assertion against a man, and when you