Page images
PDF
EPUB

deposed, that in his own house in Burntisland, upon a Sunday in April last, he was sent for into the room where the prisoner, two English seamen, and William Tarbett were drinking. He heard Niven and the other Englishman speaking extravagant commonwealth language, and particularly concerning the duke of York. He could not be positive that the words were those charged in the indictment, viz. that he had come to make a party to introduce popery, but thinks they were to that purpose.

The Jury, by a plurality of voices, found the prisoner guilty of leasing making against the duke of York.

On the 4th of August, the court sentenced the prisoner to be hanged at the cross of Edinburgh on the 18th; but, on the 6th of that month, the court, in consequence of an act of privy council, proceeding upon a letter from the king, suspended the execution till his majesty's further pleasure should be declared; and it does not appear that the Sentence ever was executed.

275. Proceedings in Parliament against EDWARD SEYMOUR, esq. a Member of the House of Commons and Treasurer of the Navy, upon an Impeachment of High Crimes, Misdemeanors, and Offences: 32 CHARLES II. A. D. 1680. [Journals of both Houses; 8 Grey's Debates, 35; 4 Cobb. Parl. Hist. 1222.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Nov. 19, 1680.

mour has attempted this, or not. I hope you will think that none guilty of such crimes, but Mr. Vernon. "I HAVE Articles of Accusa-fear a parliament. One thing more; with what tion of crimes of a high nature against Mr. Sey-imperiousness did he put the Commons in conmour. I think he is not here. I shall under-tempt, and did talk of "Wind-guns!" I betake to prove them. I move that he may believe you will find matter against him, to send here to-morrow morning to answer, and his him to the Tower.. charge will be brought in. To charge him, and not present, I know not the method of parliament, but we have Articles ready.

Mr. Pilkington. I desire he may be here tomorrow to answer his charge.

Ordered, That Edward Seymour, esq., do attend the service of this House, in his place, to-morrow morning.

November 20.

Sir Gilbert Gerrard acquaints the House, That he had Articles of Impeachment of High Crimes, Misdemeanors, and Offences, against Edward Seymour esq., one of his majesty's most honourable Privy Council, Treasurer of the Navy, and a member of this House; and then proceeded as follows:

Mr. Seymour. In order to methods of parlia ment, the reading of the Articles must have the motion seconded, and I do second it, that the Articles may be read.

The Articles were then read, and are as follows:

ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT of High Crimes, Misdemeanors, and Offences, against EDWARD SEYMOUR, esq., one of his majesty's most honourable Privy Council, Treasurer of his majesty's Navy, and one of the members of the House of Commons now in Parliament assembled.

"1. That, whereas the sum of 584,9781. 2. 2d. was raised by an act of parliament, for the speedy building of 30 ships of war, and thereby appropriated to the said use, by which act it was particularly directed, "That the treasurer of the navy should keep all monies paid to him by virtue of the said act, distinct and apart from all other monies, and should issue and pay the same by warrant of the principal officers and commissioners of the navy, or any three or more of them ;" and mentioning and expressing, "That it is for the building, the guns, rigging, and other furnishing of the said

Whenever such Articles are brought to my hands, and I am satisfied with the proof of them, I take it to be my duty to exhibit them. I shall only say, I have known this gentleman a long while; his fortune was raised in this House, and how he comes now under suspicion of these Articles, he can best answer. This gentleman (if what fame says is true) has laboured with industry to prorogue or dissolve this parliament, which all think will ruin the king, religion, and all we have. I make this use of it, that the king knows whether Sey-thirty ships of war, and to no other use, intent,

* This Mr. Seymour, who succeeded to a baronetcy upon the death of his father in 1688, and is perhaps more known by the appellation of Sir Edward Seymour, had been thirteen years before this time very active in the prosecution of lord Clarendon (See the proceedings against the earl of Clarendon, vol. 6, p. 317, of this Collection 4 Cobb, Parl. Hist. 470 et

seq. and the Continuation of lord Clarendon's Life]. It is observable that Arlington [See his Case, ante, vol. 6, p. 1053] Seymour and Osborne [See the Cases of the earl of Danby and of the duke of Leeds, infra] who had all beet most eager and most bitter in the attack up Clarendon, all in their turns became the objects of similar attacks. In the Continuation of the

4

or purpose whatsoever;" he, the said Edward Seymour, on or about the year 1677, being then treasurer of the navy, did, contrary to the said act, and contrary to the duty of his said office, lend the sum of 90,000l. at 8 per cent.

[ocr errors]

parcel of the said sum, raised by the said act, being then in his hand, for and towards the support and continuance of the army then raised, after such time as, by an act of parliament, the said army ought to have been disbanded; those persons had before that time been impeached, if the chancellor's sole industry and interest had not diverted and prevented it.""

Life of lord Clarendon, contains a passage which is neither uninteresting in itself, nor unconnected with this observation:

"Before the meeting of the parliament, when it was well known that the combination was entered into by the lord Arlington and sir William Coventry against the chancellor, several members of the House informed him of what they did and what they said, and told him, That there was but one way to prevent the 'prejudice intended towards him, which was by falling first upon them; which they would cause to be done, if he would assist them with such information as it could not but be in his power to do. That he never said or did any thing in the most secret council, where they two were always present, and where there 'were freqent occasionsof mentioning the proceedings of both Houses, and the behaviour of several members in both, but those gentlemen declared the same, and all that he said or did, to those who would be most of fended and incensed by it, and who were like in some conjuncture to be able to do him most mischief: And by those ill arts they had irreconciled many persons to him. And that if he would now, without its being possible to be 'taken notice of, give them such information and light into the proceedings of those gen*tlemen, they would undertake to divert the 'storm that threatened him, and cause it to fall upon the others.' And this was with much earnestness pressed to him, not only before the meeting of the parliament, and when he was fully informed of the ill arts and ungentlemanly practice those two persons were engaged in to do him hurt, but after the House of Commons was incensed against him; with a full assurance," that they were much inclined to have accused the other two, if the least occasion was given for it."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

But the chancellor would not be prevailed with, saying, That no provocation or exam'ple should dispose him to do any thing that would not become him: That they were both *privy counsellors, and trusted by the king in his most weighty affairs; and if he discerned any thing amiss in them, he could inform the king of it. But the aspersing or accusing 'them any where else was not his part to do, nor could it be done by any without some reflection upon the king and duke, who would be much offended at it: And therefore he ad'vised them in no degree to make any such attempt on his behalf; but to leave him to the protection of his own innocence and of God's good pleasure, and those gentlemen to their own fate, which at some time would humble 'them. And it is known to many persons, and possibly to the king himself, for whose service Only that office was performed, that one or both

VOL. VIII.

See also lord Carnarvon's Speech cited in the case of lord Danby, infra.

Burnet says of him: "The ablest man of his party was Seymour, who was the first Speaker of the House of Commons that was not bred to the law. He was a man of great birth, being the elder branch of the Seymour family; and was a graceful man, bold and quick. But he had a sort of a pride so peculiar to himself, that I never saw any thing like it. He had neither shame nor decency with it. He was violent against the court, till he forced himself into good posts. He was the most assuming Speaker that ever sate in the chair. He knew the House, and every man in it so well, that by looking about he could tell the fate of any question. So, if any thing was put, when the court party was not well gathered together, he would have held the House from doing any thing, by a wilful mistaking or misstating the question. By that he gave time to those, who were appointed for that mercenary work, to go about and gather in all their party. And he would discern when they had got the majority. And then he would very fairly state the question, when he saw he was sure to carry it."

Afterwards, speaking of the parliament which met on March 6, 1679, he says: "Seymour had in the last session struck in with such heat against Popery that he was become popular upon it: so he managed the matter in this new parliament that though the Court named Meres yet he was chosen Speaker." This heat of his against Popery was probably one cause of the king's rejection of him as Speaker (See the account of the proceedings thereupon given in 4 Cobb. Parl. Hist. 1092 et seq.) but subsequently to that occurrence he had strenuously opposed the bill of exclusion, which probably was one cause of the hostility of the Commons against him on the occasion before us. Nevertheless we are informed by Burnet, (1 Own Times.) 496, that in the next year (1681) he liked the project of declaring the prince of Orange regent with whom the regal power should be lodged. When the prince of Orange had landed he joined him at Exeter, and was the proposer of the Association.' The Prince intrusted to his government Exeter (of which he was Recorder,) and Devonshire. Of the various subsequent changes and chances of his conduct and fortunes, Burnet mentions several particulars, but I doubt whether any of them are sufficiently uncommon in the history of political life to require distinct mention in this place.

The following may serve as specimens, and it is to be hoped, will satisfy the generality of readers:

K

whereby the said two several acts were eluded, and the said army was continued, and kept on foot, to the great disturbance, hazard, and danger of the peace and safety of this kingdom; and the nation was afterwards put to a

In relating the discovery of the corruptions of the old East India Company in the year 1695, the bishop tells us, "It was observed that some of the hottest sticklers against the company did insensibly, not only fall off from that heat, but turned to serve the company as much as they had at first endeavoured to destroy it. Seymour was among the chief of these, and it was said that he had 12,000 1. of their money under the colour of a bargain for their saltpetre."

that

Again in speaking of king William's fifth parliament which met for dispatch of business on the 10th of March 1701, Burnet says, "Upon the view of the House, it appeared very evidently, that the Tories were a great majority; yet they, to make the matter sure, resolved to clear the house of a great many, were engaged in another interest: Reports were brought to them of elections, that had been scandalously purchased, by some who were concerned in the new East India Company; instead of drinking and entertainments, by which elections were formerly managed, now a most scandalous practice was brought in of buying votes, with so little decency that the electors engaged themselves by subscription, to chuse a blank person, before they were trusted with the name of their candidate. The old East India Company had driven a course of corruption within doors with so little shame, that the new company intended to follow their example, but with this difference, that, whereas the former had bought the persons who were elected, they resolved to buy elections. Sir Edward Seymour, who had dealt in this corruption his whole life-time, and whom the old company was said to have bought before, at a very high price, brought before the House of Commons the discovery of some of the practices of the new company: The examining into these took up many days; in conclusion, the matter was so well proved, that several elections were declared void: and some of the persons so chosen, were for some time kept in prison; after that they were expelled the House. In these proceedings, great partiality appeared; for when in some cases, corruption was proved clearly against some of the Tory party, and but doubtfully against some of the contrary side, that, which was voted corruption in the latter, was called the giving alms in those of the former sort."

new charge of raising and paying the sum of 200,000/. for the disbanding of the said army. "2. That, whereas an act of parliament had passed for raising money by a poll, for enabling his majesty to enter into an actual war against sistency, disinterested patriotism, and numerous other virtues. Thus it is, as Mr. Burke says, "These gentle historians (your Garters and Norroys, and Clarencieux, and Rouge Dragons) recorders and blazoners of virtues and arins, dip their pens in nothing but the milk of human kindness. They seek no farther for merit than the preamble of a patent, or the inscrip|tion on a tomb. With them every man created a peer is first a hero ready made. They judge of every man's capacity for office by the offices he has filled; and the more offices, the more ability. Every general officer is with them a Marlborough, every statesman a Burleigh, every judge a Murray or a Yorke. They who alive were laughed at or pitied by all their acquaintance" [he might have added who were contemned or detested by all who had any knowledge of their characters] "make as good a figure as the best of them, in the pages of Gwillim, Edmonson and Collins." Letter to a Noble Lord, published in the year 1796.

I subjoin the following passage from Mr. Fox's History of the early part of the Reign of James the Second, because it exhibits a meritorious part of Seymour's conduct, and also because it throws light on the authenticity of two eminent writers of English history. In relating the transactions which occurred at the opening of the parliament in the year 1685, he says:

،، As the grant of revenue was unanimous, so there does not appear to have been any thing which can justly be stiled a debate upon it. though Hume employs several pages in giving the arguments which, he affirms, were actually made use of, and, as he gives us to understand in the House of Commons, for and against the question; arguments which, on both sides seem to imply a considerable love of freeden, and jealousy of royal power, and are not whol ly unmixed even with some sentiments disres pectful to the king. Now I cannot find, either from tradition, or from contemporary writer any ground to think, that either the reasons which Hume has adduced, or indeed any other, were urged in opposition to the gran: The only speech made upon the occasion seems to have been that of Mr. (afterwards s Edward,) Seymour, who though of the Tor party, a strenuous opposer of the Exclusi Bill, and in general, supposed to have been a approver, if not an adviser, of the tyrannic An anecdote of Seymour's modesty and re- measures of the late reign, has the merit gard to decency is to be found in a note to vol. having stood forward singly, to remind the 5. p. 1359, of this Collection, and more circum- House of what they owed to themselves an stantially in 5 Cobb. Parl. Hist. 412, 413. their constituents. He did not, however, d He lived till the year 1708, and being an ances-rectly oppose the grant, but stated, that th tor of dukes of Somerset his memory is honoured with a very encomiastic display by Collins of his incorruptible integrity, inflexible con

elections had been carried on under so muc court influence, and in other respects so illega ly, that it was the duty of the House first

the French king; and the money raised by virtue of the said act was thereby appropriated to the said use, and to the repayment of such persons as shall furnish his majesty with any sums of money, or any stores necessary for ascertain, who were the legal members, before they proceeded to other business of importance. After having pressed this point, he observed, that, if ever it were necessary to adopt such an order of proceeding, it was more peculiarly so now, when the laws and religion of the nation were in evident peril; that the aversion of the English people to popery, and their attachment to the laws, were such, as to secure these blessings from destruction by any other instrumentality than that of parliament itself, which, however, might be easily accomplished, if there were once a parliament intirely dependant upon the persons who might harbour such designs; that it was already rumoured that the Test and Habeas Corpus Acts, the two bulwarksf our religion and liberties, were to be repealed; that what he stated was so notorious as to need no proof. Having descanted with force and ability upon these, and other topics of a similar tendency, he urged his conclusion, that the question of royal revenue ought not to be the first business of the parliament. Barillon's Dispatches, June 2d, and 4th. Appendix. Burnet, 2. $22.] Whether, as Burnet thinks, because he was too proud to make any previous communication of his intentions, or that the strain of his argument was judged to be too bold for the times, this speech, whatever secret approbation it might excite, did not receive from any quarter either applause or support. Under these circumstances it was not thought necessary to answer him, and the grant was voted unanimously, without further discussion.

in

"As Barillon, in the relation of parliamentary proceedings, transmitted by him to his court, in which he appears at this time to have been very exact, gives the same description of Seymour's speech and its effects, with Burnet, there can be little doubt but their account is correct. It will be found as well in this, as in many other instances, that an unfortunate inattention, on the part of the reverend historian, to forms, has made his veracity unjustly called question. He speaks of Seymour's speech as if it had been a motion in the technical sense of the word, for enquiring into the elections, which had no effect. Now no traces remaining of such a motion, and on the other hand, the elections having been at a subsequent period inquired into, Ralph almost pronounces the whole account to be erroneous; whereas the only mistake consists in giving the name of motion to a saggestion, upon the question of a grant. It is whimsical enough, that it should be from the account of the French ambassador, that we are enabled to reconcile to the records, and to the forms of the English House of Commons, a relation made by a distinguished member of the English House of Lords. Sir John Reresby

the said service; and whereas certain Eastland merchants were desired by his majesty's officers to furnish and supply great quantities of stores for the navy, and, as an encouragement thereunto, were assured, that the sum of 40,000/, does indeed say, that among the gentlemen of the House of Commons whom he accidentally met, they in general seemed willing to settle a handsome revenue upon the king, and to give him money; but whether their grant should be permanent or only temporary, and to be renewed from time to time by parliament, that the nation might be often consulted, was the question. But besides the looseness of the expression, which may only mean that the point was questionable, it is to be observed, that he does not relate any of the arguments which were brought forward, even in the private conversations to which he refers; and when he afterwards gives an account of what passed in the House of Commons, (where he was present,) he does not hint at any debate having taken place, but rather implies the contrary.

"This misrepresentation of Mr. Hume's is of no small importance, inasmuch as, by intimating that such a question could be debated at all, and much more, that it was debated with the enlightened views, and bold topics of argument with which his genius has supplied him, he gives us a very false notion of the character of the parliament, and of the times which he is describing. It is not improbable, that if the arguments had been used, which this historian supposes, the utterer of them would have been expelled, or sent to the Tower; and it is cer- tain, that he would not have been heard with any degree of attention, or even patience."

It has been a fashion with some writers to

depreciate the veracity of Burnet. Sir John Dalrymple says, "it is a piece of justice I owe to historical truth, to say that I have never tried Burnet's facts by the tests of dates, and of original papers, without finding them wrong. For which reason, I have made little use of, them in these Memoirs, unless when I found them supported by other authorities. His book is the more reprehensible, because it is full of characters, and most of them are tinged with. the colours of his own weaknesses and passions: 1 Memoirs, 34. (As to the accuracy of sir John Dalrymple himself, see lord Holland's Address to the Reader prefixed to Mr. Fox's History of the early part of the reign of James the Second, the Notes to 4 Laing's Hist. of Scotland, and the Case of lord Russell, A. D. 1683, infra). And Dr. Johnson, in more than one passage of his works, gives countenance to the imputation. It may therefore not be improper to present some additional testimony to that already adduced by Mr. Fox in favour of the bishop. Harris, (2 Life of Charles 2, 9. Note (Y. Y.), after having by the evidence of a letter from the duchess of Cleveland, verified an

had furnished his majesty with flax, hemp, and other necessaries for the said service: of which said deceit and injustice the said merchants did complain in the last parliament.

parcel of the said monies raised by the said act, was at that time actually in the hands of the said Edward Seymour; which he did acknowledge so to be, and did promise that the said sum should be paid to the said merchants, in part of "3. That the said Edward Seymour, being satisfaction for the said stores, which they did treasurer of the navy, and then and still having furnish upon the credit of the same affirmation a salary of 3,000l. per annum clear for the same, and undertaking: He, the said Edward Sey-did, during the time he was Speaker of the late mour, did, on or about the year 1678, issue Long Parliament, receive, out of the monies out and pay the said sum to the victuallers of appropriated for secret service, the yearly sum the navy, by way of advance, and for provi- of 3,000l. over and above his said salary; which sions not then brought in, contrary to the true was constantly paid to him, as well during the intent and meaning of the said act; whereas the intervals as the sessions of parliament; and same, by the provision of the said act, ought to particularly during the prorogation of fifteen have been paid to the Eastland merchants, who months.

highly improbable incident related by Burnet, observes, "From this letter, we may judge of the goodness of Burnet's intelligence; and rectify an opinion, by too many entertained, that he was hasty and credulous, and a mere recorder of the tales and scandals of the times." Ralph unjustly accuses Burnet of inaccuracy respecting the Bill" For the Preservation of the Person and Government of his gracious Majesty King James the Second," and asserts, That unfortunately for us, or this right rev. author, there is not the least trace of any such bill [as Burnet had spoken of] to be found in any of the accounts of this 'parliament extant; and therefore we are under a necessity to suppose, that if any such ' clause was offered, it was by way of supplement to the bill for the preservation of his majesty's person and government, which, no doubt, was strict enough, and which passed the House of Commons while Monmouth was in arms, just before the adjournment, but 4 never reached the Lords.' 2. 911.

Upon which, Mr. Fox remarks, "Now the enactment to which the bishop alludes, was not, as Ralph supposes, a supplement to the bill for the preservation of his majesty's person, but made part of the very first clause of it; and the only inaccuracy, if indeed it deserves that name, of which Burnet is guilty, is that of calling the bill what it really was, a bill for Declaring Treasons, and not giving it its formal title of a Bill for the Preservation of his Majesty's Person, &c. The bill is fortunately preserved among the papers of the House of Commons, and as it is not, as far as I know, any where in print, I have subjoined it in my Appendix."

That careful, judicious, and sagacious historian, Mr. Laing, vol. 4, note 1, says,

"Burnet's veracity, at least in Scottish affairs, is attested throughout by his coincidence with Wodrow's History and original materials; an immense mass of MSS. in the Advocates' Library, which I have carefully inspected. The coincidence is the more remarkable, as Wodrow, who published in 1721, 1722, had never seen Burnet's History, published, the first volume in 1723, the second in 1734. In writing from memory, Burnet neither is, nor

“4. That, on or about the eighteenth year pretends to be, always correct in dates; and in his latter days he was undoubtedly credulous. But his narrative is neither to be rejected because the dates are displaced, nor are the glowing characters of nature to be discarded because they coincide not with the prejudices of party writers. If we compare his narrative and cha racters with those of Clarendon, and consider how superior they are to every cotemporary production, how frequently they have been silently transcribed by succeeding authors; (Hume himself, for instance, who blames them mest), and how imperfectly their loss would have been supplied by more recent memoirs, we shall discover the real value of Burnet as an historian."

See, too, as to the comparative accuracy of Burnet and Dalrymple, the Note to Mitchell's Case, ante, vol. 6, p. 1222. In that Note, by a slight error of the press, the reference to Dalrymple's Memoirs is printed p. 94, to ed. 1771, instead of p. 9, 4to ed. 1771. An instance of Burnet's want of exactness in his expressions which has been so injurious to his character for veracity, may be found in what he says (see vol. 6, of this Collection, pp. 1420, 1481) of "The Trial of Ireland and others." See the Trials of Ireland, Pickering, and Grove, vol. 7, p. 79; and of White alias Whitebread, and others, vol. 7, p. 311.

and Achitophel,' in which Dryden has ranked Seymour is the Amiel of the Absalom him very highly:

"Indulge one labour more, my weary muse,
For Amiel; who can Amiel's praise refuse?
Of ancient race by birth, but nobler yet
The Sanhedrim long time as chief he ruled,
In his own worth, and without title great.
Their reason guided, and their passion cool'di
So dextrous was he in the crown's defence,
So form'd to speak a loyal nation's sense,
That, as their band was Isr'el's tribes in small,
So fit was he to represent them all.
Now rasher charioteers the seat ascend,
Whose loose careers his steady skill commend
They, like the unequal ruler of the day,
Misguide the seasons and mistake the way.
While he, withdrawn at their mad labour smile
And safe enjoys the sabbath of his toils."

« PreviousContinue »