year was far advanced, he thought for his part that the best way to get rid of it, was to apply to the king, to desire him to insert a clause in the Act of Grace, that might determine it, and so al prosecution to cease upon it. He said also it was oppos'd by 3 or 4, but in the conclusion they came to a resolution of doing w't Bir. Stan' propos'd. He told me this with such assurance, that I am apt to believe it true, w'ch I need not tel y'u I am mighty glad off; and he desir'd y'u might have as early notice of it as possible, and y't he heard the Act wou'd come in on Saterday next."

The preceding paper, and that which is mentioned in a note to lord Oxford's Answer to the

Second Article of Charge preferred by the Commons, are the only two interesting memoranda relating to this prosecution, which the Duke of Portland has discovered among his

MSS.

I have not been able to discover any traditional or other corroboration, as to any of the particulars of the anecdote which I have cited from the Biographia. Mr. Coxe, in his Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, details some particulars of the proceedings against lord Oxford, but gives no intimation that he had ever heard or read of such a story.

During the prosecution of lord Oxford, the following Reports were made respecting pro ceedings in such cases:

May 25, 1717.

"The lord Trevor (according to order) reported from the Committee, appointed to search and report such precedents, as may the better enable this House to judge what may be proper to be done, on occasion of the petition of the earl of Oxford, and the Case of the said Earl, as it now stands before this House, That pursuant to the instruction given them, in the first place, to search for and report such precedents as relate to the continuance of impeachments from session to session, or from parliament to parliament, they had searched several precedents; and find,

"That on the 6th of December, 1660, an Impeachment against William Drake, citizen and merchant of Loudon, was brought from the Commons, and read; charging him with printing a seditious pamphlet: and he was ordered to be apprehended as a delinquent.

"December 12, 1660, he was brought to the bar; and confessed he wrote the book mentioned in the Articles.

"December 19, the said Impeachment considered; it was ordered and declared, That if this parliament be dissolved before this House have time to give judgment, the Attorney General should proceed against him at law, upon

the said offence.

"Jan. 3, 1666, Articles of Impeachment, of High Crimes, &c. were delivered at a Conference, against the lord viscount Mordaunt.

“Jan. 10, he was ordered to put in his An

swer,

"Jan. 17, he accordingly presented it. "Feb. 7, a Conference and Free Conference were had, concerning this Impeachment. "Feb. 8, 1666, the parliament was prorogued; and no further proceeding on that Impeachment after the prorogation.

“ April 24, 1668, Articles of Impeachment, for High Crimes, &c. against sir William Penn, were delivered by the Commons at a Conference.

"April 27, he was ordered to answer.

"April 29, he delivered his Answer at the bar; and a copy of it was sent to the Commous.

"After two adjournments, by his majesty's desire; the parliament was, on the first of March, 1668, prorogued, by commission, to the 19th of October following; and no more proceedings were had concerning the said Impeachment.

"Dec. 5, 1678, lord Arundel of Wardour, earl of Powis, lord Bellasis, lord Petre and lord viscount Stafford, were impeached of High Treason, &c.

"Dec. 23, earl of Danby was impeached of High Treason; and Articles were brought up. "Dec. 27, he was ordered to answer. "The parliament was dissolved by procla mation, dated 24th of January, 1678.

"March 6, 1678, a new parliament met. "13th of the same month, the parliament was prorogued to the 15th of that month.

"March 17, the House considering whether the last prorogation made a session, were of opinion, That it was a session in relation to the acts of judicature, but not as to the determining laws determinable upon the end of a session. And the same day it was referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider, Whether petitions of appeal, presented last parliament, be still in force to be proceeded on; and also to consider of the state of the impeachments brought up from the Commons' last parliament, and all the incidents relating thereto.

"March 18, report was made from the said Committee for Privileges, That upon perusal of the Journal of the 29th of March, 1673, they were of opinion, That in all cases of appeals and writs of error, they continue and were to be proceeded on in statu quo, as they stood at the dissolution of the last parliament, without beginning de novo; and also were of opinion, That the dissolution of the last parliament did not alter the state of the impeachments brought up by the Commons in that parliament.

"March 19, that Report was considered; and upon the question, was agreed to.

"March 20, 1678, the earl of Danby was ordered to answer; and divers further proceedings were had upon the said impeachments, in that and subsequent parliaments.

"Nov. 12, 1680, the Commons, by message, acquaint the Lords with their Resolution to proceed to the trial of the lords in the Tower, and forthwith to begin with viscount Stafford and to desire a day for his trial.

"Whereupon his trial was appointed on the 30th instant.

"Nov. 30, his lordship's trial began in Westminster-hall.

"December 4, the lord high steward gave the House an account, That after viscount Stafford had summed up his evidence, and the managers had replied, his lordship propounded several points in law, arising out of the matter of fact, to which he desired to be heard by his counsel; one of which points was,

in the King's-bench, to appear the first day of next parliament; which was that day. Accordingly they were called to the bar, and their appearances recorded; and they petitioned for relief.

"May 22, 1685, upon consideration of the cases of the earl of Powys, lord Arundel, lord Bellasis, and earl of Danby, contained in their Petitions, it was resolved, upon the question, That the Order of the 19th of March, 1678-9, should be annulled and reversed as to Im

to answer.

"December 23, he put in his Answer; and the same was read, while he was at the bar; and a copy of it to be sent to the Commons.

"January 3d following, which was the next day the House sat, be petitioned for a speedy trial. And a message was sent to the Commons, to give them notice of it; their lordships finding no issue joined by replication. And counsel were assigned him.

"January 8th, his trial was ordered to be on the 15th of the same January; and a message was sent to the Commons, to acquaint them with it, that they might reply if they thought fit. No further proceeding was had on that Impeachment.

7th of the same January, sir William Scroggs was impeached of High-Treason; and Articles of Impeachment were brought up. He was bailed; and ordered to answer the 14th of the same month.

"The said 7th of January, the earl of Tyrone was impeached of High Treason.

"January 10th 1680, the parliament was prorogued, and dissolved by proclamation the 18th of that month.

"March 21, 1680, a new parliament met. "24th of the same March, earl of Danby petitioned to be bailed: And the same day sir William Scroggs' Answer was read; as also his Petition, desiring a short day for the Commons to reply; copies of which Answer and Petition were sent to the Commons.

"No further proceedings were had against sir William Scroggs.

"March 26th, 1681, message from the Commons, That they, having formerly demanded judgment against the earl of Danby, desire now a day may be appointed to give it. "The said message was ordered to be considered on Monday next.

28th of the same month, the parliament was dissolved.

"May 19, 1685, the House was acquainted, That the lords committed to the Tower upon mpeachment had entered into recognizances, VOL. XV.

"May 25th, 1685, an order made, for the Attorney-General to have recourse to the indictments against the earl of Powys, lord Arundell, and lord Bellasis, in order to the entering a noli prosequi thereon, according to his majesty's warrant, and it was further ordered, that their bail should be discharged.

"June 1, 1685, upon motion on behalf of several peers, who were bail for the appearance of the earl of Powys, earl of Danby, lord Arundell, lord Bellasis, and earl of Tyrone in the kingdom of Ireland, the first day of this parliament, whose recognizances were entered into in the King's bench; it was ordered, that the said lords, as also all persons, peers or others, that were bailed for their appearance, should be discharged.

"October 26, 1688, the earl of Salisbury, and earl of Peterborough, were impeached of High Treason, in departing from their allegiance, and being reconciled to the church of Rome, by message from the Commons. And the earl of Peterborough, being, by the Black Rod, brought to the bar, was ordered to be committed to the Tower; and the earl of Salisbury, to be brought to the bar by the chief governor of the Tower, on Monday.

"October 28th, the earl of Salisbury accordingly was brought to the bar; and the said governor of the Tower was ordered to take him into his custody.

"27 January following, the parliament was prorogued; and dissolved by proclamation the 6th of February following.

"A new parliament met, 20th of March 1689. "April 5, 1690, an order was made, to take into consideration, whether impeachments con tinue from parliament to parliament, on the Wednesday following:

"8th and 10th of the same month, consideration of that matter was adjourned.

"July 7, 1690, the parliament was prorogued.

"October 2, 1690, the earl of Peterborough petitioned to be discharged, having been kept prisoner in the Tower for almost two years, notwithstanding a dissolution and several prorogations had intervened, as also an act of free and general pardon: Whereupon the judges, were ordered to attend, to give their opinions, whether he be pardoned by that act. The judges were also ordered to give their opinions, on the same matter, upon the earl of Salisbury's Petition, praying likewise to be discharged.

"6th of the same month, the judges, according to order, delivered their opinions, as follow; viz. That, if the said Earls crimes and offences were committed before the 13th of February, 1688, and not in Ireland nor beyond the seas, they were pardoned by the said act. And it was resolved that the said Earls should be admitted to to bail. And a committee was appointed to inspect and consider precedents, whether impeachments continue in statu quo from parliament to parliament. "October 7, the said Earls were both bailed at the bar.

"30th of the same October, report was made from the committee, appointed the 6th of the same October, of several precedents brought to their lordships by Mr. Petit from the Tower; and also that they had examined the Journals of this House, which reach from the 12th of Henry the 7th; and all the precedents of impeachments since that time were in a list now in the clerk's hands; among all which, none are found to continue from one parliament to another, except the lords who were lately so long in the Tower.

"After consideration of which Report, and reading the orders made the 19th of March 1678-9, and the 22d of May 1685, concerning impeachments; and long debate thereupon; it was resolved, that the earl of Salisbury and earl of Peterborough should be discharged from their bail; and accordingly they and their sureties were ordered to be discharged from their said recognizances.

"May 17, 1698, Peter Longueville was, amongst others, impeached of High Crimes, &c.; and Articles were brought up.

66

May 27, he put in his Answer and pleaded Not Guilty.

"June 28, the trial of Goudet and others, upon the Impeachments against them, was appointed on the 4th of July next.

"The same day, the said Goudet, Barrau, Seignoret, Baudowin, Santiny, Dibarce, and Pearse, relinquished their pleas, and pleaded Guilty; and the Black Rod ordered to take them into custody.

"June 30, Dumaistre put in his Answer, and pleaded Guilty; and the Black Rod ordered to take bim into custody.

"July 4, 1698, judgment was pronounced against the eight persons above-mentioned; and no further proceedings concerning Longueville.

"The next day the parliament was prorogued; and dissolved by proclamation, dated the 7th of July, 1698.

"The committee have also enquired of precedents of indictments against peers, which have been removed into the House of Lords by Certiorari, and the proceedings thereupon; and find, that, on the 19th of March 1677, the proceedings against the earl of Pembroke, upon an indictment, for the death of Nathaniel Cony, had before the commissioners of Oyer and Terminer at Hicks'-hall, upon which his lordship was found guilty of felony and murder, was brought into this House, in order to his

66

May 1, following, a message was sent to the Commons, to put them in mind of the said Impeachment; the Lords conceiving the session could not continue much longer.

"May 3, the parliament was prorogued; and dissolved by proclamation, dated the 11th of October 1695.

"June 24, 1701, the House of Commons having impeached the duke of Leeds on the 27th of April, 1695; and on the 29th of the same month exhibited Articles against him, to which he answered; but the Commons not prosecuting; the said Impeachment and Artides were ordered to be dismissed.

"Dec. 13, 1697, a writ of Certiorari was ordered, for removing the indictment found against the lord Mohun, concerning the death of William Hill.

“Jan. 10, 1697, resolved to proceed to his trial.

"July 4, 1698, the clerk of the crown read the indictment to his lordship; and he pleaded bis majesty's pardon: which was allowed by the House; and he was discharged.

"March 13, 1698, an indictment against the earl of Warwick, for the murder of Coote, was brought by Certiorari.

"March 25, 1699, lord Mohun allowed a copy of his indictment.

March 28, the earl of Warwick was tried, and found guilty of manslaughter. "March 29, the lord Mohun was tried, and found Not Guilty.

"May 4, 1699, the parliament was prorogued."

as may the better enable this House to judge what may be proper to be done on occasion of the Petition of the earl of Oxford, and the case of the said Earl as it now stands before this House, acquainted their lordships, "That the committee, pursuant to the instruction given them, to search and report such precedents as relate to the appointing a time of trial, had searched precedents accordingly; which he was ready to report, when the House will please to receive the same."

Ordered, That the said Report be now received.

Accordingly his lordship reported, "That the said committee find,

The question was put, "That it is the opinion of this House, that the impeachment exhibited by the Commons of Great Britain, against Robert earl of Oxford and earl Mortimer, for High Treason and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors, is determined by the intervening prorogation?"—It was resolved in the negative.

"Dissentient,

"1. Because there seems to be no difference in law between a prorogation and a dissolution of a parliament, which, in constant practice, have had the same effect, as to determination both of judicial and legislative proceedings; and consequently this vote may tend to weaken the Resolution of this House, May 22d, 1685, which was founded upon the law and practice of parliament in all ages, without one precedent to the contrary; except in the cases which happened after the order made the 19th of March, 1678, which was reversed and annulled in 1685; and in pursuance hereof the earl of Salisbury was discharged in 1690.

"2. Because this can never be extended to any but peers; for, by the statute 4 Edw. 3, no commoner can be impeached for any capital crime: And it is hard to conceive why the peers should be distinguished, and deprived of the benefit of all the laws of liberty to which the meanest commoner in Britain is entitled; and this seems the more extraordinary, because it is done unasked by the Commons, who, as it is conceived, never can ask it with any colour of law, precedent, reason, or justice.--Fr. Roffen. Abingdon, Dartmouth, Mansel, Hay, Foley, Nottingham, North and Grey, Bruce, Bathurst, Guilford." May 27, 1717.

The lord Trevor, from the committee ap. pointed to search and report such precedents,

uary, be appointed to hear the cause, upon the said Impeachment against his lordship."

"26th of the same January. Divers memthe bar, to manage the evidence against the said bers of the House of Commons were present at

lord viscount Mordaunt.

the Commons, That they were ready to make "6th of May 1679. Upon a Message from good the Articles of Impeachment for High Treason, against the earl of Powys, viscount Stafford, lord Petre, lord Arundell of Wardour, and the lord Bellasis; it was resolved, upon the question, That the said Lords should be brought to their trials on that day sevenuight.' this House was appointed, to meet with a com"11th of the same month. A committee of mittee of the Commons, to consider of proposi tions and circumstances, in reference to the trials of the Lords in the Tower.

That the committee of both Houses had met, "12th of the same May. Upon report, trial of the said five Lords was put off till furand made an entrance into their business; the

ther order.

from the committee of both Houses, it was re"16th of the same month. Upon a Report solved, upon the question, That Thursday then next, being the 22nd of that month, should be appointed to begin the trials of the said five lords. tion of the Report yesterday from the Com20th of the same May. Upon consideramittee of both Houses, Tuesday then next, being the 27th of the same month, was appointed for the trials of the said five lords.

"12th November, 1680. Upon a Message from the Commons, to desire a convenient day for the trial of the lord viscount Stafford; his trial was appointed on Tuesday the 30th of the same month. On which day his trial began.

"21st December following. Articles of Impeachment, for High Crimes, &c. were brought up against Mr. Seymour and read.

"23rd of the same December. He put in bis Answer.