mittee of grievances. Mompesson was charged for the monopoly of licensing inns and alehouses, &c. He confessed his crime at the committee, and before the House; and the next day, upon the report, the House resolved to go up to the Lords to impeach him : then, and not till then, he was committed. He confessed the crime he was charged with, and for fear of flight he was committed. Sir Edward Coke delivered it as the opinion of the committee, "That, unless some persons would undertake for his forthcoming, he should be secured by the serjeant." After this vote for his commitment, the Commons addressed the Lords, and both the king, to issue out a proclamation to take him, being fled. Sir John Bennet's case was much the same, for exorbitances in a court of judicature. Sir Edward Sackville made the report, "That he had taken many bribes, and had committed extortions in his office." Bennet was not in the House; he was sick, and was heard by his counsel at the committee, and the House would not suffer them to be judged, till they were heard in their places. Bennet continued his excuse of sickness, and his counsel being asked, "Whether he would confess, or deny, the charge," they said "Neither." Whereupon the House came to this resolution, "That Bennet is faulty ;" and so he was ordered into safe custody of the sheriffs, &c. to be committed to the Tower of London. The other precedents reported are foreign to this case before you. They were committed upon the notoriety of the thing, and suspicion of flight. Penn's was only suspension of the House, and Brunkard, for his flight, was expelled, and an impeachment voted against him; but nothing of commitment. As for Shepherd's case, 27 Elizabeth, I know not where Harbord finds it; it is not in any journal of that time. As for Hall's case, no doubt but this House has power of judging their own members: it was for a book reflecting upon the proceedings of this House, and so judged, " upon the House itself." You are upon prosecuting Seymour in the Lords House, and so I suppose your commitment of him is in order to his custody, not his punishment. In cases of information, you have not expelled a member without witnesses being heard. It has been moved, "That Mr. Seymour might be secured." I appeal to you whether an impeachment be not the severest charge? It has always been, that members of the House are free from arrests, unless in case of felony, treason, or breach of the peace. Have you a mind to think fit that Seymour be committed for an accusation that Westminster-Hall does bail? For liberty of a man's person is as essential here, as liberty of speech. In Hen. 6's time (it was an unfortunate age, I wish ours more fortunate) the duke of York then aiming at the crown, no one man stood so much in his way as Thorpe, Speaker of the Commons, who upon an execufior arrested him. This parliament did what they could for the House of Lancaster, and from thence came the civil wars, and so much blood; but the same parliament could never extirpate the House of York till they garbled it. If once you pass a resolution, "That an information upon a bare averment must be necessarily followed with commitment," I would know, whether you garble not the House? But consider the consequence; no man's innocence can save him, if his testimony is not heard till his trial. I would know, whether the gentlemen, who would commit Seymour, think he cannot find security for his appearance? There is no likelihood that Seymour should shun his trial. I move, "That he may not be committed." Mr. Harbord. The chairman was directed to report what he did, and no more, and the committee, if there be occasion, will justify it. I did not cite Hall's case, but the journals were brought to us, and none beyond 1640; some few notes the committee were forced to use, and those were brought by Mr. Petty, which we took to be authentic. If we had made no search but in the Journals, they were so imperfect, that we should have had no precedents at all. Tredenham told you of the Speaker, Thorpe, arrested in Hen. 6's time, &c. I would preserve the privilege of members, but I remember about ten years ago, there was a design to turn out eight or ten members who voted against the Court. I laid my hand to the work, and to prevent it, I searched the outlawry-office, and found 56 members outlawed, and Mr. Seymour sat many years in the chair outlawed. I pulled that out of my pocket, and saved those eight or ten by it that were designed to be turned out. I know not whether Seymour will run away. have told you, that my opinion is, to secure him; do as you please. your Sir William Pulleney. I observe that, upon commitments, &c. the person accused was either committed upon confession of the fact, or flight. But it is moved, "That witnesses be produced against Seymour." But if he should know before-hand what they can say against him, they may be corrupted, or menaced out of their evidence. But when you have given your judgment that you will impeach a man, there is no precedent to be found that, when a judgment of impeachment has been found and carried up to the Lords, that you should say, your member is not in custody. It does tantamount prove a vindication. When the Commons came to the Lords House with the impeachment of Bennet and Mompesson, they had imprisoned them; and to produce proofs before that time may be dangerous, and of very ill consequence. Sir Chris. Musgrave. There is a great deal of difference betwixt Mompesson's and Bennet's case and that of your member. To preserve your privileges, it is the best way to go by ancient precedents: Mompesson's witnesses were heard at the committee before he was charged. There is a great deal of difference betwixt a bare assertion against a man, and when you manded the said Articles to be read. are assured of evidence. One reason why (See p. The House being acquainted, "That Edward Seymour, esq. was attending at the door, to receive their lordships' pleasure;" he was called in; and being brought to the bar, and kneeling, the Lord Chancellor told him, ،، That there are Articles of Impeachment, for high Crimes and Misdemeanors, brought from the House of Commons against him, which he should hear read." Which being read; he desired he might have a copy of the Articles, and a short time given him to put in his Answer thereunto; which he is ready to do. Ordered, by the Lords spiritual and tempo. Mr. Garroway. Methinks you are irregular, and a little aforehand with it. You must vote, "That the Articles must go to the Lords ;"ral in parliament assembled, That Edward Seyelse Seymour will stand committed, and nothing mour, esq. may have a copy of the Articles of will appear against him. Sir John Bennet Impeachment brought up by the House of was bailed by the sheriff of London; and if Commons against him." so, Seymour may be bailed to be forth-coming, and there is no danger of his escape, in this case of misdemeanor; therefore put the question first for ingrossing his Articles. December 23. This day being appointed for Edward Seymour, esq. to put in his Answer to the Articles Commons against him; he was called for. And of Impeachment brought from the House of being at the bar, the Lord Chancellor asked him, If his Answer was ready ? He acknow Sir William Poulteney reports from the Committee appointed to put the Articles against Mr. Seymour into the form of an impeachment, That the said Committee had agreed upon a form: which he read in his place; and after-ledged it to be a high and great favour to him wards, delivered the same in at the clerk's table: where the same being twice read, was, upon the question, agreed to. Ordered, That the said Articles, so agreed upon, be ingrossed. "Ordered, "That Mr. Seymour be taken into custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House, for securing his forthcoming, to answer to the Impeachment of this House against him, until he shall have given sufficient security to this House, to answer to the said impeachment. Ordered, "That the Serjeant at Arms at tending this House, be impowered to receive security for the forth-coming of the said Mr. Seymour, to answer to the impeachment of this House." Then sir William Portman, Mr. Ash, and others, proffered their security, &c. Sir Thomas Lee. It is not an ordinary case for a member accused to have so many acquaintance to proffer security for him. You know therefore that you have made an offer to impower the serjeant to take his security.* HOUSE OF LORDS, December 21, 1680. A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by sir Gilbert Gerrard, knight, and others; who did, in the name of the Commons assembled in parliament, and in the name of all the Commons of England, impeach Edward Seymour, esq. for several high Crimes and Misdemeanors and Offences; and was commanded to exhibit Articles against him for the said high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The House com See the Case of Warren Hastings, A. D. 1788, in this Collection. | commanded to answer so soon as this day. He "The ANSWER of the right honourable EDWARD self all advantage of exception to the incertainty "The said Edward Seymour, saving to himall benefit which by the laws or statutes of this and insufficiency of the said Impeachment, and kingdom he may have for his defence against the matters therein charged, humbly answereth and saith, ، To the first Article : That this Respondent, being Treasurer of the Navy, did receive of the monies raised by the act of parliament mentioned in the said first Article, for building 30 ships, the sum of 493,241/. is. 10d and no more; all which this Respondent did apply to the uses mentioned in the said act, as by this Respondent's accounts, ready to be produced to this honourable House, doth more at large appear. And this Respondent saith, he did not lend 90,000l. or any other sum, parcel of the monies raised by the said act, to any person whatsoever. | this Respondent further saith, That, before the said Eastland merchants did bring this Respondent any bills signed by the commissioners of the navy to be paid, this Respondent had paid the said 40,000l. by virtue of several orders assigned upon him, to be paid for the uses, And according to the directions of the said act. To the third Article: This Respondent saith, That he was Speaker of the House of Commons before he was Treasurer of the Navy; and that, to support the dignity of the place of Speaker, his majesty was graciously pleased to grant unto this Respondent the yearly salary of 3,000; which, to avoid the charges and trouble of the Exchequer, was paid out of the monies directed for secret service; which this Respondent doth acknowledge was paid, as well during the times of prorogations, as during the umes of sessions. "To the fourth Article: This Respondent saith, That the matters therein charged are so general and uncertain, that this Respondent can make no particular answer to the same: but sure he is, that he did not act alone in any thing as a commissioner of the prizes, but jointly with others, according to his commission; and did never commit any such fraud and deceit, as in the said Article mentioned. "All which he humbly offers to the consideration of this honourable House. "EDWARD SEYMOUR." The Lord Chancellor asked him, "If this were the Answer he would abide by?" He said, 'It was;' and withdrew. Ordered, That a copy of this Answer be sent to the House of Commons. January 3, 1681. A Petition was presented to the House, from Edward Seymour, esq.; which was read, as followeth : "To the right honourable the Lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of Edward Seymour, esquire; "Sheweth; That whereas, for some time, he hath lain under the weight of an Impeachment from the House of Commons, of several high crimes and misdemeanors, to which he hath given an Answer to your lordships; and since he is in no manner guilty of the Articles he stands charged with, that his truth and innocence may be fully manifested, he humbly desires, your lordships will be pleased to ap point some speedy time for his trial and to assign him counsel learned in the law, to assist him in his defence. And your Petitioner (as in duty bound) shall ever pray, &c. EDW. SEYMOUR." Mr. Seymour being called in; he was asked, "What counsel he did desire?" And he named Mr. Pollexfen, Mr. Keck, and Mr. Thursby. A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by sir Miles Fleetwood and sir Adam Oateley: To acquaint them, that the Lords have received a Petition from Mr. Seymour, wherein he desires a day may be appointed for his speedy Trial; that their lordships, finding no issue joined by replication of the House of Commons, think fit to give them notice hereof. Ordered, That Mr. Pollexfen, Mr. Keck, and Mr. Thursby, be, and are hereby, at the desire of Edward Seymour, esq. assigned to be of counsel for him, in order to his defence upon his trial, upon the Impeachment of the House of Commons, whereby he is charged with high crimes, misdemeanors, and offences. HOUSE OF COMMONS, January 3, 1631. The Answer of Edward Seymour, esq. to the Articles of Impeachment exhibited against him by the Commons, assembled in parliament, was read. Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to prepare Evidence against Mr. Seymour, and manage the same at his Trial. They are to sit de die in diem: And are impowered to send for persons, papers, and records. HOUSE OF LORDS, January 8, 1681. Ordered, That Saturday the 15th day of this instant January is hereby appointed for the Trial of Edward Seymour, esq. upon the Articles brought up against him by the House of Commons, whereby he stands charged with several high crimes and misdemeanors. A Message was sent to the House of Comwin: To let them know, that this House have mons, by sir John Coel and sir Timothy Baldappointed the 15th day of this instant January, for the Trial of Edward Seymour, esq. upon the Articles brought up against him by the House of Commons this day sevennight; and that the Commons may reply, if they think fit. Two days after this the parliament was prorogued by his majesty to the 20th of January, and soon after was dissolved. 276. Proceedings against Lord Chief Justice SCROGGS before the Privy Council; and against the said Lord Chief Justice and other Judges in Parliament.* 32 CHARLES II. A. D. 1680. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL. ARTICLES OF HIGH MISDEMEANORS, humbly offered and presented to the consideration of his most sacred Majesty, and his most honourable Privy Council, against Sir WILLIAM SCROGGS, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench; exhibited by Dr. Oates, and Capt. Bedlow, 31 Car. 2. I. THAT the said Lord Chief Justice, contrary to his oath, the duty of his place, in con- | * Roger North, whose representations, however, are always to be received with caution, has interwoven his character of Scroggs, Jones and Weston into the account which he gives of these proceedings against them: "Mr. Justice Jones was a very reverend and learned judge, a gentleman, and impartial; but, being of Welsh extraction, was apt to warm, and, when much offended, often shewed his heats in a rubor of his countenance, set off by his grey hairs, but appeared in no other disorder; for he refrained himself in due bounds and temper, and seldom or never broke the laws tempt of the king, his crown and dignity, did set at liberty several persons accused upon oath before him of High Treason, without their being ever tried, or otherwise acquitted; az namely, the lord Brudenell, &c. II. That at the Trial of sir George Wakeman and others, [See vol. 7, p. 589, of this Collection], at the Sessions-house in the Old Bailey, for High Treason, the said Lord Chief Justice (according to the dignity of his place) managing the said trial, did brow-beat and King's Bench, for two or three matters that passed there while he sat as judge in that court. One was the refusing to present to the king a petition of the Grand Jury of Middlesex about sitting of the parliament. If that was a crime, it was a very slight one; nor do I think any man of law will say that the judges are bound to carry all the crudities of jury-men to the king, but are to use their discretion. Their address, of that sort, is no part of their office; nor do they, in any respect, represent the county; they are taken de Corpore Comi tatus,' and not pro, nor have any authority to الله of his gravity. There are, in the Report of bind the committee, certain relations tending to ac- matters, out of the crown law, they are as cuse divers of the judges; and we know how single persons and not a jury, nor is any magissuch matters came ready cooked and dressed trate, or other person, bound to go on their up by party men to serve turns, and are pre- errand. Another great sin of that court was sented, with the worst sides forwards, to an as- the discharging the Grand Jury three days besembly then willing to take every thing in the fore the end of the term, while they had worst sense, and who, from superficial colorus, divers bills before them to present; among conclude deep in substances; which matters, which was an indictment of recusancy against passing without hearing, but of one side only, the king's brother the Duke of York. This are not much to be regarded. Of this sort was discharge, they said, was precipitous and una story from Taunton Dean of the punishment usual, and done on purpose to stop that indictof one Dare, the very person that affronted the ment, which was an obstruction of the justice of king with a petition, as I touched before. [A peti- the nation. The jury here, it seems, were not tion from Taunton Dean was brought up by a man ignoramus, though from the same shop we whose sirname was Dare: He, with his fellows shall soon hear of a total obstruction of justice, waited upon the stairs of the House of Lords, and no crime at all to be found. But now, to and, as the king came down, put the roll into his examine this affair of the judges, first it is abhand; the king asked, How he dared do that? solutely in the judges discretion when to deSir, said he, my name is Dare. But he had termine a session, and when to detain or disbetter been asleep elsewhere; for he was af-charge Grand Juries; and de officio judicis terwards caught speaking seditious words, and non datur exceptio.' But what did it hinder? was punished by the judge of Assize; and an Indictment, that is the cause of the crown; the judge, who was then Mr. Justice Jones, and who else is concerned in it? But for what being pressed to intercede to the king for him, end? Not for any real effect, for such a bill answered, He knew no favour he deserved; may be Non Pros. or pardoned the next mowhich was afterwards put among the sins of ment. What then? To be a public affront to the judges, p. 543.] This judge, it seems, upon the king and his brother; and that if the king a legal conviction for seditious words spoken, had stopped such an Indictment, they might inflicted such punishment as he thought the have it to say, in order to rebellion, that there crime deserved; and, being pressed to inter-was no justice to be had against papists, and so cede with the king for his majesty's favour to him, answered he knew no favour he deserved. There was one of the sins of that judge. There was nothing more in particular; but he was taken in, with the other judges of the they must right themselves. Now was it not a very careful provision of the court, by using a discretion the law undoubtedly entrusts them with, to stop such an inconvenience, and so as as it went off silently and without noise? But curb Dr. Titus Oates and Mr. William Bedlow, two of the principal witnesses for the king in faction are the only masters of discretion, and will not allow the liberty of any to their superiors. "The next matter, which was highly aggravated against the judges of the King's Bench, as such an illegal invasion of property as had not been heard of since William the Conqueror, was a rule made by that court, that a certain book-Liber intitulatus, The Weekly Pacquet of Advice from Rome, non ulterius imprimatur.' The case of that book was this. The whole labour of the faction at that time was bent to make popery as odious and dreadful in the minds of the common people, as was possible; for then the inference of course was, All this you are to expect from the Duke of York, and that the king and the duke are all one, ergo, &c. Upon this design a weekly libel came forth entitled as above, which, under the mask of telling all the extravagant legends of popery in a buffoon style, continually reflected on the government of that time; and so that collection went on and was published in pieces, which the zealous gathered together most religiously, and now would exchange for any softer sort of paper; for nothing grows so insipid, as old state libels. The printer I think was one Langley Curtis, or one Janeway, and had been informed against, and, I think, convict and punished for some of them. But it was an abuse not easily corrected; for, the outward pretence being against popery, to be accused for that, was to be accused for taking the Protestant side against popery; and every week they varied, so that a conviction of one did not extend to the next, and no ordinary judicial order could reach it. Thus it was very hard to meet with this inconvenience, which may happen at any time, when popularity runs very hard against any government. At length the experiment of this rule was made, but, I think, it went no farther, nor was the printer taken up for any contempt of it; but it was enough; the rule itself was shewed, and, as I said, made a great noise. I do not remember much agitation about the reason upon which the court of "The case of Mr. Baron Weston was very King's-Bench took this authority of making a extraordinary indeed; he was a learned man, provisional order upon them; but it seems not only in the common law, wherein he had 2 grounded on that law which takes away the refined and speculative skill, but in the civil and Star-Chamber; for it is therein declared, or imperial law, as also in history and humanity the judges have resolved, that all jurisdiction in general. But, being insupportably tortured which the Star-Chamber might lawfully ex-with the gout, became of so touchy a temper, ercise, rested by law in the court of King's Beach. And it is well known that the StarChamber made provisionary orders, as well as punitive decrees, to obviate great offences; and that some, as Hales (in a posthumous piece) allows, though the originals are not extant, may be ingrafted into the usage of the common law; especially in matters of public nusances. Without doubt the point was controvertible; for it might be said on the other side, true, but then each court must follow the nature of their that case; and encourage the jury impannelled and sworn to try the malefactors, against the proceeding, viz. the King's Bench by indictment or information, having no ground by law or precedent to proceed for offences, extra to the court, otherwise. And when a book is convict of crine, it may be part of the judgment quod non ulterius imprimatur,' which will bind the person defendant. But how inept this method is to stop such a Protean mischief, after a little time, may become sensible. But admit it not to be a clear case on the court-side, there was ground enough for the court, as they say good judges do, to resolve it for their own jurisdiction; and errors in judgment of courts of justice are not criminal, but corrigible by superior authorities. Therefore, in quiet times, this question had been carried into the House of Lords by a petition of the printer, if he had thought himself grieved; and then there had been a due consideration of the law, and the king's counsel had been heard upon it, and the determination authentic, as upon a writ of error; or occasion might have been taken by a short clause in an act of parliament, to have declared the law one way or other. There should be always a distinction between corruption and error; the latter, if Westminster Hall may be heard in the case, is no crime, nor is it, with any aggravation, to be actionable at law. And, upon the reason of these instances, it seems that to proceed by impeachment, for error in judgment, as for crime, is contrary to the policy of the English constitution; in which the authority of courts of justice is sacred, and the exorbitances of them, when they happen, should be set right without exposing to contempt either the persons of judges, or the reverence due to their stations, lest what is got in the shire, is lost in the hundred. But it is seldom found that, when persons are fallen upon in an heat, as upon the vindicative turns of parties, any decorum is observed, or due steps taken; for they will always be too long or too short. Thus far concerning the King's Bench, as a court, and its legal jurisdiction; which, in this instance also (but in nothing more) touched Mr. Justice Jones. and susceptible of anger and passion, that any affected or unreasonable opposition to his opinion would inflame him so as to make him appear as if he were mad; but, when treated reasonably, no man ever was more a gentleman, obliging, condescensive, and communicative than he was. Therefore, while a practiser, he was observed always to succeed better in arguing solemnly, than in managing of evidence; for the adversary knew how to touch his pas sions, and make them disorder him, and then ́ |