can be recorded, than this act allows weeks, to opposed by Walpole, to disable Bolingbroke the lord impeached, for his returning before his from sitting in either House of Parliament, or attainder takes place.-Fran. Cestriens. (Gas- holding any office or place of trust or profit trell), Scarsdale, Willoughby_de Broke, under the king; which was rejected, the Yeas Compton, Foley, Jersey, Strafford, Abing- being 84, the Noes 154. The other upon the don, Bathurst, Ashburnham, Weston, Ma- question for the Bill's passing, the Yeas being sham, Lansdowne, Clarendon, Fr. Roffen. | 81, and the Noes 36. In the House of Lords (Atterbury.") (who required the pardon of Bolingbroke to be produced, and referred it to the judges); the three protests; one upon the question for its Bill was strongly opposed, and gave rise to commitment; one upon the question for its recommitment; and the third (upon May 24th) on the question for its passing. The last is as follows: This Bill, and that against the duke of Ormond, received the royal assent on August 20th. Some particulars respecting its progress, are noticed by Mr. Hatsell in the 4th volume of his Precedents, title Impeachment, chap. 3. "Dissentient, In 1723, Bolingbroke obtained from George the First a pardon, under the protection of 1. "Because the purport and intention of which he immediately returned to England, this Bill is to repeal several acts of parliament and upon his journey was at Calais at the same passed since his majesty's accession, whereby time with Atterbury, who was landed there all the estate and interest of the late lofd Bounder his sentence of banishment. The bishop lingbroke, in the lands mentioned in this Bill, exclaimed, “We are exchanged." It is said being forfeited to the crown for high treason, Bolingbroke expected that the new parliament were vested in trustees, and still remain approwould reverse his attainder. This expectation, priated for the use and benefit of the public; however, by the intervention, as has been re- the value of which lands amount, as we believe, ported, of Walpole,* was frustrated. However to several thousand pounds per annum; we on April 20, 1725, Bolingbroke presented to therefore think it unjust to all the subjects of the House of Commons a Petition, praying this kingdom, who have borne many heavy that leave might be given to bring in a Bill for taxes, occasioned, as we believe, in great meaenabling him and the heirs male of his body, sure, by the treasons committed, and the renotwithstanding his attainder, to take and en-bellion which was encouraged by this person, joy the settled estate of his family, and for to take from the public the benefit of his forenabling him to hold and enjoy personal estate feiture. or effects, and to invest the same in the purchase of any real or personal estate within the kingdom. To the presentation of this Petition, Walpole, chancellor of the exchequer, signified the king's consent. On the same day, upon the question for leave to bring in a Bill accordingly, the Yeas were 231, the Noes 113. The Bill was therefore brought in, but two divisions occurred upon it during its passage through the House of Commons, one upon a motion *Yet Walpole's son (Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors) says of Bolingbroke, "He wrote against the late king who had forgiven bim; against sir Robert Walpole who did forgive him; against the Pretender and the clergy, who never will forgive him." Upon which a critic of the Monthly Review observes, "That Bolingbroke wrote against the king, who had forgiven him, is certain; but that he wrote against sir Robert Walpole, who did forgive him, we cannot admit. He wrote against sir Robert, because he did not forgive him; and because he prevented his being restored to those honours, which he wished to recover. That sir Robert was implacable against him, appears from a speech, which he made in the House, and which he concluded with the following imprecation: May his attainder never be reversed, and may his crimes never be forgotten!" Monthly Rev. vol. 19, p. 567, as cited in a Note to Walpole's Catalogue, edition of 1806. See, too, Coxe's Memoirs of sir Robert Walpole, 2. "It appears from the Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the Commons against the late lord Bolingbroke, whereof he now stands attainted by act of parliament, that he stood charged with the commission of several treasons of the most flagrant and dangerous nature, committed by him whilst he was secretary of state to her late majesty queen Anne, for traitorously betraying her most secret councils to the king of France, then at war and in enmity with her majesty; and with other treasons tending to destroy the balance of Europe, and to raise the then exorbitant power of the French king, who not long before had publicly acknowledged the Pretender to be the lawful and rightful king of these realms. 3. "The treasons wherewith he was charged, we conceive, were fully confessed by his flight from the justice of parliament; but his guilt was afterwards, as we think, indisputably demonstrated by the new treasons he openly and avowedly committed against his present majesty; it being notorious, and it having been declared to the House on the debate of this Bill, that he did, soon after his flight, enter publicly into the councils and services of the Pretender, who was then fomenting and carrying on a rebellion within these kingdoms for the dethroning his majesty, into which rebellion many of his majesty's subjects, as well peers as commoners, were drawn, as we believe, by the example or influence of the late lord Bolingbroke; and for which treason many peers and commoners have been since attainted, and some of them executed, and their estates both real and personal become forfeited by their attainders, and as yet continue under those forfeitures. 4. "We have not been informed of any particular public services which this person hath performed to his majesty or this nation, since his commission of the many high and danger ous treasons before-mentioned, and in case he has done any, they must be of such a nature as ought, in our opinions, to be rewarded in another manner than is provided by this Bill, and for which, we think, the crown is otherwise sufficiently enabled; and the sincerity of his having quitted the interest of the Pretender may, in our opinions, be justly suspected, he never having, as appears to us, throughout the progress of this Bill in both Houses, once signified his sorrow for the treasons he had committed; and if he had really abandoned that interest, his private intelligences or services, with regard to the interest or councils of the Pretender, cannot reasonably be supposed, in our opinions, to be of great value. 5. "We think that no assurances which this person hath given, nor any services he can have performed since his commission of the treasons aforesaid, or any farther obligations he can enter into, can be a sufficient security to his majesty, or the kingdom, against his future insincerity, which may happen, he having already so often violated the most solemn assurances and obligations, and in defiance of them having openly attempted the dethroning of his majesty, and the destruction of the liberties of his country. 6. "We think the services he may have performed, if any, ought not to be rewarded either in the degree or the manner provided by this Bill, it having been found by experience, in cases of like nature, that the strongest assurances have afterwards proved deceitful; for which reason we conceive it to be unwise and dangerous to give such rewards as cannot be recalled, though the assurances should be broke; and we believe it to be the known policy and universal practice of wise governments to keep the persons, claiming merit from such services as the late lord Bolingbroke can possibly have performed since the commissions of his treasons, dependent on the government for the continuance of those rewards. 7. "The pardon of the late lord Bolingbroke, under the Great Seal, having been communicated to the House, and under considera tion on the debate of this Bill, we think, that this Bill ought not to pass, because it may hereafter be construed, in some degree, to confirm or countenance that pardon; and we are of opinion, that that pardon, though it may be legal as to the treasons committed by him since his attainder, yet so far as it may be construed, if that should be, to pardon or affect the act of attainder of the late lord Bolingbroke, or the impeachment of the Commons, on which that act is founded, it is a most dangerous violation of the ancient rights and freedom of the kingdom, and will defeat the whole use and effect of the impeachments by the Commons; which is, as we think, the chief institution, arising even from the constitution itself, for the preservation of the government, and for the attaining parliamentary justice; and tends, as we conceive, to render the rights and judica. ture of this House, on impeachments and bills of attainder, vain and useless; all which ancient rights of both Houses, and of the subjects of this nation, were saved to them by the Revolution, and were intended, as we conceive, to have been for ever preserved to them in their full extent, by the act passed in the reign of the late king William, of ever glorious memory, by which the crown of these realms is limited and settled on his present majesty and his issue, and in which act it stands declared, that no pardon under the Great Seal shall be pleadable to an impeachment of the Commous. 8. "We are of opinion, that the power of dispensing mercy is an ancient inherent right of the crown of these realms, and the exercise of it of great benefit to the people, when it is wisely and properly applied; but it being incumbent on us, in the vote we give for or against passing this Bill, to judge between the late lord Bolingbroke, and to consider the right and title he appears to us to have to the benefits of this Bill, and the concern, which, on the other side, the honour, interest and safety of the king and his royal family, and the whole kingdom, have, in our opinion, from the consequences of it, we think we cannot be justified in our own thoughts, with regard to the latter, or to our posterity, if we should consent that this Bill should pass.-(Signed) Bristol, Coventry, Onslow, Clinton, Lechmere." On the 31st of May, the Bill received the Royal Assent, but Bolingbroke never recovered bis Peerage. 453. Proceedings on an Impeachment and Act of Attainder, for High Treason, against JAMES Duke of ORMOND: 1 & 2 GEORGE I. A. D. 1715.* did, during the said war, falsely, maliciously, wickedly, and traitorously, aid, help, assist and adhere to, the said French king, against ber said late majesty; and, in execution of his said aiding, helping, assisting, and adhering, maliciously, falsely, and traitorously, contrary to the duty of his allegiance, and the laws and statutes of this realm, did, on or about the 26th day of May, 1712, send private intelligence and information to marshal Villars, then an enemy to her said late majesty, and general of the French king's army against her majesty and her allies, of a march the army of her said majesty and of her allies was then going to make, and of the design of the said army in making Aug. 5. Mr. Walpole, from the Committee of ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OF HIGH ARTICLE I. ARTICLE II. and to that end the said Henry St. John had given secret assurances to the French ministers, That her majesty's general in the Ne'therlands, though under the most solemn en "That whereas, in or about the month of May, 1712, a traitorous design was carried on between Henry St. John esquire, then one of her said late majesty's principal secretaries of state, and other evil-disposed persons, and the ministers of France, to defeat the just expectations of the great advantages over the common enemy her majesty and the nation had then reason to hope for, from the great superiority "That whereas James duke of Ormond, in of the confederate forces in the Netherlands; or about the month of April, 1712, being ap- to obtain which, very large sums of money had pointed general of the forces in the Nether-been cheerfully contributed by parliament: lands of her late majesty queen Anne, with orders to prosecute the war against France with all possible vigour, in conjunction with her said majesty's allies; and having, by her said majesty's directions, and in her name, given her said allies the most solemn assurances to that purpose, was thereupon admitted into the councils, and made privy to the most secret designs, of the generals of the confederate army against the common enemy, and of the measures they thought the most proper to carry on the war with success: and whereas, in the said year 1712, the said war was carried on between her said late majesty queen Anne and the said French king; and during all the said year the war did continue, and for all that time the said French king and his subjects were enemies of her late majesty, he the said James duke of Ormond, then general of her majesty's army, and a subject of her majesty, not considering the duty of his allegiance, but having with drawn his true and due obedience from her said late majesty, and affection from his country, gagements to act vigorously in concert with 'the allies, should not act against France;' and had also engaged the said duke of Ormond to concur in the said wicked purpose; which evil practices of the said Henry St. John and others, when they were first suspected, giving the greatest alarm to the ministers of the allies, the parliament, and to the whole kingdom, and being thereupon openly disavowed and denied by all the conspirators in the most public manner; he the said James duke of Ormond, in order to disguise and conceal from her said late majesty and the whole kingdom the said traitorous designs, then carrying on by the said Henry St. John and other false traitors to her majesty and their country, in aid and comfort of the French king, then in opeu war with, and an enemy of her said majesty, did, by his letter of the 25th of May, 1712, to the said Henry St. John, then her majesty's principal secretary of state, called his public letter, because prepared and intended to be read before her said majesty and her council, wickedly, falsely and treacherously, abuse and impose upon her said late majesty and her council, by affirming and declaring therein, That, if he found an op'portunity to bring the enemy to a battle, he ⚫should not decline it; although, by a private letter writ by the said James duke of Ormond, of the same date, and to the said Henry St. John, designed to be read by the said Henry St. John and the said conspirators only, he the said James duke of Ormond, did on the contrary, wickedly promise and engage, That he would not attack or molest the French army, or engage in any siege against France.' ARTICLE III. "That he the said James duke of Ormond, in or about the month of June, 1712, being at that time general of her majesty's forces against France, and a subject of her said majesty, not considering the duty of his allegiance, but having altogether withdrawn the cordial love and due obedience which every faithful subject owed to her said majesty, and devoting himself to the service of France, and designing to give aid and comfort to the French king and his subjects, then in open war with, and enemies to her said late majesty, in violation of the many treaties of alliance between Great Britain and several other princes and states, for carrying on the war against France, and of the said late queen's instructions to him, on or about the 7th of April, 1712, under the sign manual; in pursuance thereof, and of the solemn declarations he bad but lately before, by her said majesty's command, and in her name, made to the pensionary of Holland and the generals of the confederate army, to push on the war with all possible vigour; and also in open and manifest violation of the last orders sent to him in a letter from the said Henry St. John, on or about the 7th of June, 1713, whereby he the said James duke of Ormond was directed, 'To make no cessation of arms with the French, unless the articles demanded by her majesty, and expressly mentioned and set down in the said letter, as the conditions for the said cessation, should be complied with by France;' and whereby he the said James duke of Ormond was likewise further expressly directed and told, That in case the conditions therein mentioned were not complied with by France, that then he was entirely free from restraint, and at liberty to take all reasonable measures in his 'power, for annoying the enemy, and at full liberty of acting against France;' did, on or about the 25th of June, aforesaid, falsely, maliciously, wickedly, and traitorously, aid, help, assist, and adhere to the French king against her said late majesty, and then in open war with her majesty; and, in execution of his said aiding, helping, assisting, and adhering, and in pursuance of a wicked promise he had secretly made the same day to marshal Villars, general of the French army, to that purpose, maliciously, falsely, and traitorously, contrary to the duty of his allegiance and the laws and statutes of this realm, did advise, and endeavour to persuade, the generals of the confederate army against France, and the deputies VOL. XV. of the States General, to raise the siege of Quesnoy, a French town then besieged by them; and did then further, traitorously and wickedly, refuse to act any longer against France; and then also, traitorously and wickedly, told the said generals of the said confederate forces, and the said States' deputies, That he could no longer cover the siege of Quesnoy; but was obliged, by his instructions, to march off with the queen's troops, and those in her majesty's pay;' Whereas in truth, and the Commons expressly charge, that he the said James duke of Ormond did traitorously and wickedly make the said declaration, and refused to act against France, in manifest contradiction not only to his said original orders, but also of the said letter to him of the 7th of June from the said Henry St. John; since none of the articles demanded by her ma. jesty for a cessation of arms, and expressed in the said letter to be the conditions without which no cessation of arms was to be made, had been complied with by France. And, in further execution of his said traitorous designs, he the said James duke of Ormond, by a letter to the said marshal Villars on the 25th of June aforesaid, did traitorously and wickedly send intelligence to the said marshal Villars of the before-mentioned passages between him the said James duke of Ormond, and the generals of the confederate army and the States deputies, and how his propositions were received by them; and also of the disposition he observed in the foreign troops to adhere to the said confederates, in case of a separation by the troops of Great Britain. ARTICLE IV. "That be the said James duke of Ormond did not only wickedly and falsely affirm to the generals of the confederate army and the States' deputies, That his said refusal to act any longer against France, and to cover the siege of Quesnoy, was in pursuance of instructions he had received for that purpose; but also, to induce the said generals of the confederate army and the States' deputies to comply with his proposal to them to abandon the said siege; he the said James duke of Ormond did wickedly represent their compliance therein as the most effectual way to induce her said late ma jesty to take care of the said confederates' interest at the peace; whereby he the said James duke of Ormond did, in effect, threaten her said majesty's good friends and allies, That, unless they would dishonourably abandon an enterprise undertaken by common consent, and thereby gave a strong fortress and a numerous garrison of the enemy, they were not to expect that her majesty would take care of their interests at the general peace.' ARTICLE V. “That he the said James duke of Ormond having received a letter, dated on or about the 14th of July, 1712, from the said marshal Villars the French general, desiring ‹ To be in ST : 'formed what troops remained with the confederate army, or what troops and generals 'marched off from them with him the said 'duke and declaring at the same time, that 'the reason of that inquiry was in order to fall upon and attack the said confederate army;' he the said James duke of Ormond, on or about the 16th day of July 1712, did traitorously, and wickedly, contrary to the duty of a true and faithful subject, and contrary to his allegiance and the laws and statutes of this realm, aid, help, assist, and adhere to, the said French king and his subjects, against her said late majesty, and then in open war with, and enemies to, her said late majesty; and, in execution of bis said aiding, helping, assisting, and adhering, he the said James duke of Or mond on or about the said 16th day of July, 1712, did traitorously send secret intelligence to the said marshal Villars, the general of the French army, of the number of the troops that had left the said confederate army, and also of the march the said confederate army had that morning made. ARTICLE VI. of themselves, and of all the Commons of Great Britain, impeach the said James duke of Ormond of High Treason, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors in the said Articles contained: And the said Commons, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting, at any time hereafter, any other accusations or impeachments against the said James duke of Ormond; and also of replying to the Answers which the said James duke of Ormond shall make to the premises, or any of them, or to any impeachment or accusation that shall be by them exhibited, according to the course and proceedings of parliament; do pray, that the said James duke of Ormond be put to answer all and every the premises; and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments may be, upon them, and every of them, had and used, as shall be agreeable to law and justice: And they do further pray and demand, that the said James duke of Ormond may be sequestered from parliament, and forthwith committed to safe custody.” August 10. The Lords acquainted the Commons that diligent search and enquiry had been made after the duke of Ormond, but that he was not to be found, whereupon the Commons ordered in a Bill to summon him to render himself to justice by a day therein to be limited, or in default thereof, to attaint him of High Treason. On the next day, August 11th, Mr. Secre tary Stanhope presented such Bill, which on that day was read a first time: On the morrow a second time: On the next day was committed. On Monday the 15th, the Report was received, and on,Tuesday the 16th the Bill was read a third time; passed by a majority of 94 against 22, and sent to the Lords. "And whereas he the said James duke of Ormond had received advice that the States General, in or about the month of October, 1712, had formed a design to surprise and take the towns of Nieuport and Furnes, or one of them, then in the possession of the French king: that he the said James duke of Ormond, intending to strengthen the hands of the common enemy, by defeating the said enterprize, did, on or about the 21st day of October, 1712, in a letter to the said Henry St. John, then viscount Bolingbroke, wickedly and basely suggest to and advise her said late majesty to send secret intelligence of, and to betray, the said counse's and designs of her good and faith ful allies the States General, to the French king, then in the war with, and an enemy to, her majesty; and did further wickedly and shamefully suggest the means of putting the said treachery in execution, by giving private in-mond was presented to the House, praying (in On this day a Petition of the duchess of Ortelligence of the design to the said marshal consideration of the duke's being beyond sea, and of the difficulty and uncertainty of apthe time for his surrender should be enlarged prising him of the provisions of the Bill) that beyond the day fixed by the Bill, viz. the 10th of September. The Petition was ordered to lie on the table; and the Bill was forthwith committed, reported, read a third time, and passed. Villars. "All which Crimes and Misdemeanours were committed and done by him the said James duke of Ormond, against our late sovereign lady the queen, her crown and dignity, the peace and interest of this kingdom, and in breach of the several trusts reposed in him the said duke and he the said James duke of Ormond was general of her majesty's forces in the Netherlands, and one of her privy council, during the time that all and every the crimes before set forth were done and committed." To which the House agreed; and on the next day, the House agreed to the following additional clause: By the Lords, it was on that same day read a first time; on the 18th a second time. Against this Bill protested, without reasons, Geo. Bristol; and "For the reasons given well, Ireton, and Pride was read a first and seThe Bill for attainting Bradshaw, Cromcond time on the day of its presentation; upon the suggestion of Prynn," because the traitors "For which matters and things, the knights, heretofore read their act for the trial of the citizens, and burgesses, of the House of Com-king twice together." See 4 Hatsell's Premons, in parliament assembled, do, in the name cedents, p. 221, note. |