Page images


it is no reflection upon the House of Commons only a breach of the letter of the law, I would but on particular men who undertook them; not open my mouth, for every one offends: But but if the gentlemen undertake to prove the what became of your moncy, when the ships articles, and you do not impeach thereupon, should have been built within the time, and an this will be a great discouragement to call great army raised for an actual war with France, and men to account. Kingdon borders upon the you were told from the bar, " That a gentleman same offence with Mr. Seymour, if it be one, would rather be guilty of forty murders, than and so what he says is of no weight.

that it should not be a war ?” And, you know, Colonel Birch. I will begin where he ended. a letter was produced, “ That, about that time He tells me, “ I will look to my interest." I lord Danby was treating to make the king trisay, that Winnington pleaded for lord Mor- butary to the king of France, and, on that predaunt, and then you know where his interest tence, to keep off the parliament ;” and an

So he grounded that old maxim of mine. army was raised; for aught I know, to carry I think myself not well dealt withal, to tell me on the Plot. There is evidence enougb; but of my nibbling about money. I am auditor if you do not impeach Seymour give up all. of the excise, and can any man charge me

Mr. Ledeson Gower. I differ in the means, with ever taking six-pence bribe ? Lately I but not in the end ; when a member did stand was one appointed to disband the army, and I up and say, “ He will undertake to prove the meddled with no money but what I gave ac- charge," and yesterday another stood up count of ; because I am told of “ nibbling.” I (Kingdon) and told you, “ He believed the condid not say " that it was impossible to prove trary,” and another replied, “ Kingdon was these Articles,” but no man can but he that as criminal as Seymour." Keeping up the keeps the cash. If, after all this, this indivi. army was a great fault, after the act for disdual money was given for this use, &c. it is an banding it;

but in the act for disbanding it and Article to impeach upon; if not you cannot. paying it off, there is a clause of indemnity. The Debate was adjourned to the next day. Next it is said. “ If the Articles be referred to November 26.

committee to examine the proofs, witnesses

may be menaced and taken off.” But if so, Sir John Knight. I conceive that the House it might have been in the committee for the intended to proceed to such Articles as may Plot; Bedlow, Oates, Dugdale, &c. might be suitable to your honour, and that the ho have been taken off. One of the evidence is nour of the kingdom may not be laid level, and said to be a man worth 10,000l. I wonyour member acquitted. As for the first Ar- der, such a man should be bribed or menaced. ticle, “ that Mr. Seymour had directed the Be sure of the proof, else the honoor of the money you gave, for another use, &c." it is House is exposed. Is not all the evidence at very fit that he be called to an account for it. the bar against the Lords in the Tower known, If I stand up and say, “ I will make good an and printed? shall we be afraid to show our article,". consider how it will be made good. evidence against a Protestant, a man of family, Says Seymour, “ Not one penny has been di- and not afraid of evidence against papists?'l verted, but employed according to the act of am for committing it. parliament," and proffers to produce his ac- Lord Cavendish. You are moved, “That this counts. In the one way or the other, consider charge may be referred to a committee.” I think well what you do, lest, if he be impeached, tlte for no other reason but that the matter of the Lords find him not guilty. Therefore it is not prizes may be examined. Persons at a comenough that a gentleman rise and say, he will mitte may say things, and retract them again; make it good, but be sure of proof for your ho. but those against the five Lords in the Tower nour.

were past retracting ; they were all upon oath. Mr. Harbord. If you proceed by precedents, If that be so, committing the Articles is the I am sure you have many; but the question of way to have them fall to nothing. Without commitment of the articles was not first put. doubt, the Articles are criminal, and a breach of If you put the question, “ Whether there be two acts of parliament. A member has said

, ground of Impeachment upon these Articles,'' “ He knows, that part of that money was not those gentlemen left off

employed for building ships, and that money Sir Nicholas Carew. The question of com- kept up the army.” On the other side, a memmitment of the Articles arises from arguments ber spoke positively to one Article. If the hoof the honour of the House. But no man had nour of the House be concerned, it may be vin: been impeached in the long parliament, if that dicated; but I cannot imagine that the honour bad been an argument. If you put so great a of two members that asserted the Articles will discouragement upon members that bring in be exposed. I cannot suppose that. Tbe Arimpeachments against great men, what use are ticles are criminal, and undertaken to be proved : you of, unless to give money? We know the And there is ground to me sufficient, that condition of the nation ; if we go this way in the articles there is matter to impeach Seya to work, we give up all. You must mistrust the honour and wisdom of your members, that Mr. Dubois. There must go a great many they brought in this charge maliciously, if you blows to fell a great oak. Here are high crimes refer it to a committee, and rest not upon their charged upon Dir. Seymour, and offered to be undertaking to make it good. Were this charge proved. The issue is, Whether upon this en


El quiry you will find it Billa dera ? If the last causes. Your right in carrying up the money,

partament had sat a week longer, I would not bill he vigorously asserted : it is a justice you have been in his case for 2ļd. The money for owe him, not to expose him to that tribunal, building the ships, fenced with so many clauses without evidence first heard. The evidence in the act, &c. should not have been diverted. will all be exposed to your censure ; therefore There is indemnity in the first act, but not in examine the grounds of the charge. I shall the last. The credit of Kingdon's negative not speak to precedents of impeachments ; but evidence, I bope, will not be put in competition there is a considerable difference betwixt imwith two affirmatives. If Seymour be incli- peachments of treason, and misdemeano It nable to popery, he is ready to bring in arbi- does not follow, because no treason is found by trary government. I am for impeaching him the Lords, that therefore no misdemeanor, apon these articles.

Precedents are express in the case, as that of Sir Leoline Jenkins. In this case, you are

sir William Penn's impeachment; and you involved as prosecutors, and therefore I hope will hardly find one precedent of misdemeanor, you will well consider of it. If you prosecute that has gone in a contrary way, but has been wrongfully, it will be very ill, and therefore a examined at a committee. Where the matter una should not mingle any of his own passion charged and the proof was presented to the in the prosecution; it should be to no ill end, House at the same time, as in the case of lord and there should be a moral assurance of the Danby's letter to Mr. Montagu, there was no truth of the charge. I do not see that industry need of witnesses. And anothe reason is, used yet, whether the charge be well grounded. where a gentleman undertakes to make the One worthy member (Kingdon) speaks actu- charge good upon his own knowledge ; that is proprio facto ; two members speak their much different from the credit of others; that thoughts by hearsay. If this business come is not giving credit to your member, but to before the Lords, it will be absolved in this persons not known. I will not reflect on the condition, being positive proof from one, and credit of the proof undertaken by your memonly hearsay from two.

bers ; but I must say, you heard, on the ble. Eselyn. Falsity and truth are vastly other side, the testimony of a member (Kingdiferent ; but when falsity is in a fine dress, it don) if not all the considerable circumstances, makes a show. I was at first full of fear, lest of his own knowledge. I am sorry to hear it the House should suffer in not making good objected against his testimony, « that he is the articles, and so might have a blot, and the particeps criminis ;" if so, I fear you will want gentleman a greater that brought in the arti- most, if not all, your testimony against the five tes. Considering the vast trouble the Plot lords in the Tower ; which is so far from invahas given the House, the quality of the conspi- lidating their testimony, that it confirms it

. rators, and their number, and that the House Not to accuse himself to excuse another. should receive a blemish ! Those without doors the impeachment of lord Strafford, when sir will think this a bold act, who are for impeach- William Pennyman was brought by my lord to ments. I conceive, your proper question is, show that his words had been otherwise than Whether this matter in the Articles be a they were taken to be in the impeachment, proper ground to impeach Mr. Seymour, &c. ?” viz. “ That the king's little finger should be Sir Francis Russel. This

is but in the nature heavier than the loins of the law, &c." one of of a presentment to a grand jury. To what the managers of the impeachment told sir Wiljintent should persons give the committee liam, “ He did ill discharge his duty to the knowledge of the evidence ? Let it be known Commons (being a member) to suffer the upon the impeachment before the Lords. It is House to run upon such a mistake.” Has not hot only a distrust of your members, to refer Seymour done your service worthily, and I the Articles to 2 committee to be proved, but hope you will as worthily consider it, in your it is needless, and against the method of parliament . You must carry it to another place, alledged against Seymour,

manner of proceeding with him. That matter

“ his dexterity where you are to discover the evidence, and when he cast his eye about in the long parliatill then, the prisoner is not to know the evi- ment to tell the House," is not in any one dence

. But to refer it to a committee to hear article. You may see, by his accounts, the the proof, is against all law and method. money received and the money paid ; and the Mr. Finch. If I was of opinion that the navy-board must be his vouchers, and those he should possibly be as eager as those gentlemen the faults of all men, there is ground for imthat move it, that this charge should go to the peachment. Therefore, upon the whole exprould be a great misfortune to the House, if

, Lords, no objection can be against committhrough this apprehension of partiality, the ment. I do conceive that the act of parliaay something, before you put it to so great a those aceounts to be taken by the House of hazard. It is injustice to the House, and your Commons, in an express clause. I remember, member, who has been a zealous assertor of in a dispute betwixt the Lords

and Commons Lands taking upon them to judge original cluded, and you ought regularly to receive



[ocr errors]

that account in the House, and to let a com- | if it had sat, (as some took care it should not, mittee examine it. : If this be so, receive the by dissolving it) by the person's evidence who first motion of committing the Articles, and so was employed in the things themselves. you may receive the accounts in the House. They tell their story with coherence, and give

Mr. Harbord. There is a reflection upon me, reasons why they may be trusted. Some of of " dexterity, &c.” It is a terrible expression, this money was employed for the army, to to fright a gentleman from his public duty. I keep it up. But others say, by circumstances, will never decline my country's service, nor do whc believe-You are told by Jenkins of I covet Seymour's place, nor envy him; there- “ facto proprio, &c." I think, Kingdon is fore I hope you will not suffer a man to be re- under suspicion of the same thing, and it is a flected on, that a thing is done with “ dexte- natural suspicion of this gentleman to be acrity,” when it is done with sincerity. You are cused for money, &c. And should not I think told by Seymour, “That what he has done that if my neighbour's house were on fire, that was not without the approbation of the Com- my own was in danger ? And that is Kingmissioners of the navy.”

There was a great don's case. It is natural for men to be advostruggle betwixt bim and the Commissioners, cates for faults, that they may be questioned &c. The merchants, finding Seymour's credit for. I think, there is ground for impeachment, and power too big, fell upon the commissioners the fact being criminal

, and will be proved of the navy. Seymour had instructions not to The thing itself makes the fact criminal, and pay any money without warrant from the you have no suspicion of the evidenceuncommissioners of the navy. The merchants dertaken, because Kingdon speaks in his own said, “ That the commissioners had told them case. It has been well objected, “ That a they had ordered their money, but Seymour great person that has great power can never was not ready to pay it." But the reason why be punished, if evidence be brought to the comSeymour would not obey the commissioners mittee ;” therefore ) desire evidence may order, was, that he despised them, and came not be known, that art, force, or money can not to them in some months. I have the corrupt or terrily from giving their testimony. papers to prove Seymour's Answer, and the The committee of secrecy, the last parliament, commissioners Reply to it. (Then he spoke was only called so; all they did was known of his refusing to sign a conveyance to lord publicly. I speak it of my own knowledge, Danby of Lands from the king:) As to what and amongst knowing men; constantly, every Finch said of " dexterity, &c." I never voted, night, lord Danby had intelligence of what in any council, “ That the duke of York was done. Finch tells you, “ That by dexteshould stay in England,” when he was rity many things were brought under the sheldeemed an enemy to the nation.

ter of this article of the money, &c.” And he Mr. Finch. When Harbord replied, I did not took occasion to magnify Seymour, &c. If the know the matter betwixt Seymour and the witness against the lords, being particeps crini. navy-board. I do say, the navy-board orders nis, had gone about to excuse what the lords vouchers to Seymour's aceounts, and the Ex- had done, he would be no competent evidence; chequer, if they find one, will not deny the but if Kingdon will. accuse Seymour be is a other. As for Harbord's being even with me competent evidence. To commit this charge, in the aspersion, “ That I was one of those that is to deaden the zeal of the House ; Therefore retained the duke in England,” I can justify put the question, “ That there is matter of im. myself to every member, and the most partial. peachment in these articles. I was not for giving them this handle to sanc- Mr. Hyde. I was present at the Impeachtify themselves to the people. I did think it ment of lord Clarendon. Yesterday, I heard a was necessary the duke should be absent, and member say, “ That in that impeachment, to had security for it, in the opinion of the par- every article a member did rise and say, it I liament, and I was satisfied. I never knew will inake that article good;" and for that reathat “ dexterity” was a crime, and am willing son, I am now against that way of proceeding to excuse Harbord from that matter.

for afterwards one declared, “ he was unsatisCol. Tilus. Whoever has the keeping of the fied in the article he undertook to prove ; he unrighteous Mammon, can make friends. 1 owned he was abused by the evidence.” It waknow not well which way to give my opi- | a hard case, the proceeding then, and I think nion in this matter, when I consider how suc- will be so now, if he were the greatest enemy cessful Addresses and Impeachments have been. had in the world ; and therefore I am for com I never saw by addresses that we have removed mitment. ministers. Instead of blowing up our enemies,

Mr. Love. I shall speak only to the question we blow up our own work backward. But if I were convinced in the reason and equity how fruitless soever impeachments are, yet we it, I should not be against commitment.

I har must proceed, to satisfy the world. Two things refreshed my memory, since last night, outo induce men to believe the Impeachment ; one, my notes that I took in lord Clarendon's

In. the probability of the thing, and next, the cre- peachment. It was then said, “ Now yon has dibility of the testimony. If the thing be heard the articles read, for the honour of probable in itself, that such sums could be House you are to know where and when raised on the credit of a particular person—This crimes were committed, and by whom they s matter you had had before you the last parliament be proved.” Says Seymour himself, “That

of it.

the way to invalidate all your testimony, by tion of the Articles be referred to a committee, publishing the witnesses, who by corruption or it passed in the negative. menace may be taken off.”

Resolved, “ That Mr. Seymour be imMr. Trenchard. I desire you will keep strict- peached upon these Articles, and that a Comly 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

Mr. Harbord. I have seen no other preoehad only inducements to believe it. Money dent of commitment upon a charge of misdewas lent by Seymour, and, consistent with truth, meanors, but that of sir Giles Mompesson. nat lent to Kingdon. In an impeachment of The House did order his commitment to the treason we onght to be more tender, than in a serjeant. I desire the long robe may consider charge barely of misdemeanors. When gentiemen do undertake the proofs (of the charge,

Sir Christ. Musgrave. Pray call for the it is a disparagement to the members to refer it Journal, and see the precedent of sir William to a committee to examine evidence.

You Penn. must not put discouragement upon your mem

Mr. Garroway. We have not been frequently bers

, lest you lay out measures for the future. troubled with impeachments; but in the last When the duke of Lauderdale was charged, parliament, the case of the impeachment of soon after the parliament was prorogued, you lord Mordaunt and sir William Penn was for found one of the witnesses bought off, and the misdemeanors. That of lord Clarendon was other sent to the Tower. If the Lords find not another case. In this you cannot extend the the charge, the diminution is of their honour, impeachment tarther than the articles. not yours; and it is no more than a petty jury

Sir Thomas Lee. Unless you will do, in this not finding the person guilty, when the grand case, more than has been done in any, refer it jarg has found the bi]]. Pray put the question, to a committee. Consider the precedents of sir "That there is a matter in the articles to im- Giles Mompesson, &c. Because nobody would peach Seymour."

be security for his forth-coming, and he conSir Tho. Lee. I know not what the Lords will fessed the fact, he was imprisoned. Is there say emncerning the Ship and the money in the no difference

betwixt misdemeanor and treason ? charge ; but when matters are reduced to par- But I will not enter into the debate, but desire ticulars

, you are obliged to consider the act of to know the course of all parliaments relating indemnity, whether the crime be pardoned by to precedents. Let the fact be plainly before that act. You are bound to take notice of that and do what you act, where it is plainly expressed,

Sir Fr. Winnington. Be careful not to go man shall be impleaded for what he has done, from the rules of right. I appeal to you, if relating to the army, &c. by that act.'

an information of misdemeanor be against a Sir Williem Jones. In point of law, every man in an inferior court, whether they do not hour detaining the goods purloined and em- imprison the party till they shall think fit to bezzled is an offence, and the act, &c. does bail him ? I believe there are several precenot pardon the goods, the indigo, &c. of which dents of members complained of here, that no account was made. Take it one way or

Sir John Bennet was another, the question is at an end.

taken into custody, in order to have an impeachSir Thomas Lee. I desire only to know, whe- ment drawn against him. Seymour being comther a particular exception does not explain the mitted to the serjeant, if he say, “I desire to

be bailed,” he ought to be in a court of record. Sir Fr. Winnington. Look into that act of But I take it, there is more value from an impardon which passed some time before the dis- peachment of the House of Commons that banding-act, and you will find abundance of sounds, of grievànce, &c. It is not the judgexceptions in it for the benefit of great men. I ment of the House that he should remain in should be very loth to put an article upon Sey- custody, but for so small a time till the immour, that is already pardoned. Seymour did peachment may be drawn up. Higher precesay, “ Though haply he might be pardoned by dents than those of the long parliament' must

e act, he would not shelter himselt under it." guide you ; that so, if he stand committed till But as to that particular relating to purloining the impeachment be drawn up, he has no

wrong the stores, or any corruption in his office, if, done him. you but think that an argument probable to im

Sir Chris. Musgrave. I cannot agree to refer peach, I love the gentleman so well that I this to a committee to examine Precedents, and would hardly advise him to plead it.

in the mean time to commit him ; which is Colonel Birch. I will not take notice of par- first to commit him, and then to examine predons in gentlemens pockets, but that act of par- cedents of commitment. I would know hy dom spoken of. I said formerly, upon that act, what rule you commit him to custody, if the "That it was only for the sake of some great crime be bailable. If he offer bail, the House persons." I lawyers say that Seymour is not of Commons cannot bail him. Let us pandoned as to the prizes, &c. by that act, put complain of arbitrary courts take care that we

be not offenders ourselves. Being a member The question being put, That the considera- of this House, you cannot divest him of the pri



6. That no

have been committed.



it to the question.

December 17.

vilege he bas 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, his contempt in the waving the Justice of the

“ Mr. Brunkard not being to be found, for but

what moves me is reason of law. If a man House, Ordered, That he be expelled the be accused of crimes, there is not a necessity he

House." should be in custody ; it may be, in case there is danger of Alight. If he be accused of capital Mr. Harbord. The precedents reported were crimes, the man may run away, and hazard his such as the House ordered to be searched, estate, to save bis life. In some capital cases which were none but commitments upon ima man cannot be bailed; but in most cases bail peachments. Mompesson was committed to may be taken. It is said, “ he may go away the serjeant, but he broke from that custody, if not imprisoned ;" so far, it may be, we de- and the Lords censured him ; they degraded sire it; but the reason and practice of all other him from his knighthood, and fined him a sum courts is against it. I desire only that your of money. Bennet served for the university precedents may not outgo all other Courts of of Oxford, and was judge of the prerogative

Celonel Titus. If you do any thing, and have bribes; he likewise was turned out of the no precedent for it, Seymour will have all the House, but being sick and infirm, was perreason to accuse you of injustice, and your own mitted to stay at his own house. He was orhonour be exposed. To obviate both inconve- dered to be conveyed to the Tower by the niences, pray let precedents be searched. sheriff of London, or to take security from him Ordered ; That, the searching for Precedents cedents in the late long parliament. Penn

for his appearance. There are two other preconcerning the committing a Member to custody was accused by the commissioners of accounts when impeached in parliament, be referred to of taking prize-goods out of an East India the Committee appointed to draw the Im- ship : he stood up to justify himself from the peachment.

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 ship to strike sail, when the fleet was in pur.

Brunkard was accused for causing the duke's Impeachment against Edward Seymour, esq. suit of the Dutch. He did not attend the a member of this House ; and to search pre- House, and was expelled, and articles were excedents touching the Imprisoning of Members hibited against him. As for the state of .com. of this House, when impeached in parliament; mitment in general, I find precedents anciently That the committee had directed him to make of commitment for crimes of much less nature

, a special report thereof: Which be read in his place; and afterwards, delivered the same in as, for speaking scandalously of acts passed

, at the clerk's table : Where the same was read; the bill for the better keeping the Lord's day

19 king James : Mr. Shepherd said, “That and is as follows:

was rather like a gin against the papists, than “ The 18th and 19th king James, sir Giles against the Puritans.” Whether he had an inMompesson's case, who was committed by the clination to favour popery, I know not. He House to the Serjeant's custody. He made did not explain, ir, his place, to give satisfaction his escape, and a proclamation was issued out to the House, and was expelled. Sir Edmund from the king to apprehend him, (he reads the Sawyer was the king's servant: he exacted Proclamation) he being committed by order of double to the book of rates. Hervey and the House, to be sent to the Tower.

Dawes, farmers of the customs, were com. “Sir John Bennett's case, who was Judge manded to come to Whitehall to discourse the of the prerogative court, in the 18th and 19th matter. By the duke of Buckingham's favour, K. James: Resolved, That the sheriff of Lon Sawyer came to the House, and there were ar. don do secure his person.

guments upon it. Sheldon was expelled the “ Sir William Penn's and Mr. Brankard's House, and was made not capable to serve in case, as in the Journal 1668: Penn's runs thus: parliament. Dr. Parry, in queen Elizabeth,

13 April, 1668, Ordered, That Penn do at- &c. For a hundred years last past, precedents tend the 14th.” And then there is a Narrative are clear of commitment of persons impeached. of Penn's embezzlement of Prize-Goods. Upon the whole matter, I move, "That you “ Ordered, That on Thursday next he make will commit Mr. Seymour to the serjeant." answer to his charge.". The Committee was Sir Joseph Tredenham. I did attend the com. to acquaint Penn with this order, and Penn was mittee that you ordered to search for prece. to deliver his answer.

dents : the matter has been opened by Har" A Letter from the commissioners of ac- bord; give me leave to express it more fully; counts was read, and the evidence was read; and to have recourse to the paper in my band and the question was put, and an Impeachment to help my memory. The 18th king James, was ordered to be drawn up against him, and to sir Edward Coke was chairman to the com

« PreviousContinue »