CI. of a conviction, as Lord Delamere, when a member of the CHAP. House of Commons, had taken an active part in supporting the Exclusion Bill. Jeffreys did his best to gratify this wish. According to the habit he had lately acquired in the west, he at first tried to induce the noble prisoner to confess, in the hope of pardon "from the King's known clemency." "My Lord," said he, “if you are conscious to yourself that you are guilty of this heinous crime, give glory to God, make amends to his vicegerent the King, by a plain and full discovery of your guilt, and do not, by an obstinate persisting in the denial of it, provoke the just indignation of your Prince, who has made it appear to the world that his inclinations are rather to show mercy than inflict punishment." Lord Delamere, to ease his mind from the anxiety to know whether the man who so spoke was to pronounce upon his guilt or innocence, said, "I beg your Grace would please to satisfy me whether your Grace be one of my judges in concurrence with the rest of the Lords?"— L. H. Steward. "No, my Lord, I am Judge of the Court, but I am none of your triers."* A plea to the jurisdiction being put in, Lord Delamere requested his Grace to advise with the other Peers upon it, as it was a matter of privilege. L. H. Steward. "Good my Lord, I hope you that are a prisoner at the bar are not to give me direction who I should advise with, or how I should demean myself here." triers. This plea was properly overruled, and Not guilty pleaded, Address of Jeffreys to when his Grace, to prejudice the Peers-triers against the the Peersnoble prisoner as a notorious exclusionist, delivered an inflammatory address to them before any evidence was given,— thus beginning: "My Lords, I know you cannot but well remember what unjust and insolent attempts were made upon the rightful and unalterable succession to the imperial crown of these realms, under the pretence of that which has been so * When a Peer is tried in parliament before the House of Lords, the Lord High Steward votes like the rest of the Peers, who have all a right to be present; but if the trial be out of parliament, the Lord High Steward is only the Judge to give direction in point of law, and the verdict is by the Lords-triers specially summoned. CHAP. Acquittal of Lord Delamere. often found to be the occasion of rebellion, I mean the specious pretence of religion by the fierce, froward, and fanatical zeal of some members of the House of Commons in the last parliaments under the late King Charles II., of ever blessed memory; which by the wonderful providence of Almighty God not prevailing, the chief contrivers of that horrid villany consulted together how to gain that advantage upon the monarchy by open force which they could not obtain by a pretended course of law." To create a farther prejudice, poor Lord Howard was called to repeat once more his oft-told tale of the Ryehouse plot, with which it was not pretended that the prisoner had any connection. The charge in the indictment was only supported by one witness, who himself had been in the rebellion, and who swore that Lord Delamere, at a time and place which he specified, had sent a message by him to Monmouth, asking a supply of money to maintain 10,000, men to be levied in Cheshire against King James. An alibi was clearly proved. Yet his Grace summed up for a conviction, and was at great pains, "for the sake of the numerous and great auditory, that a mistake in point of law might not go unrectified, which seemed to be urged with some earnestness by the noble Lord at the bar, that there is a necessity there should be two positive witnesses to convict a man of treason.' To the honour of the peerage of England, there was an unanimous verdict of acquittal.* James himself even allowed this to be right, wreaking all his vengeance on the witness for not having given better evidence, and swearing that he would have him first convicted of perjury, and then hanged for treason. Jeffreys seems to have tried hard to behave with moderation on this trial; but his habitual arrogance from time to time broke out, and must have created a disgust among the Peers-triers very favourable to the prisoner. My Lords," said he, "I would always be very tender of the privilege of the Peers; but truly I apprehend, according to the best of my understanding, that this Court is held before me: it is my warrant that convenes the prisoner to this bar: it is my summons that brings the Peers together to try him; and so I take myself to be the Judge of the Court."† 11 St. Tr. 593. † Ib 592. CI. Jeffreys, still pretending to be a strong Protestant, eagerly CHAP. assisted the King in his mad attempt to open the Church and the universities to the intrusion of the Catholics. The Proceed case of College, fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford, having disobeyed the ings in the royal mandate to elect, as head of their College, Anthony Magdalen Farmer, who was not qualified by the statutes, and was a Aug. 1686, man of infamous character, and having chosen the pious and learned Hough, were summoned before the Court of Ecclesiastical Commission. Jeffreys observed that Dr. Fairfax, one of their number, had not signed the answer of the College to the charge of disregarding the King's recommendation. Fairfax asking leave to explain his reasons for declining to sign the answer, Jefferies thought that he was willing to conform, and exclaimed, “Ay, this looks like a man of sense, and a good subject. Let's hear what he will say." Fairfax. "I don't object to the answer, because it is the vindication of my College: I go further; and as, according to the rules of the Ecclesiastical Courts, a libel is given to the party that he may know the grounds of his accusation, I demand that libel; for I do not know otherwise wherefore I am called here, and besides this affair should be discussed in Westminster Hall."-Jeffreys. "You are a Doctor of Divinity, not of Law."- Fairfax. "By what authority do you sit here?" - Jeffreys. "Pray what commission have you to be so impudent in Court? This man ought to be kept in a dark room. Why do you suffer him without a guardian? Why did you not bring him to me? Pray let my officers seize him."* Three members of the Ecclesiastical Commission were sent Feb. 1688. to Oxford to represent that formidable body, and they annulled. the election of Hough, expelled the refractory Fellows, and made Magdalen College, for a time, a Popish establishment, -the Court in London, under the presidency of Jeffreys, confirming all their proceedings. pro Prosecu tion of the The Lord Chancellor next involved the King in the secution of the Seven Bishops, which, more than any other Seven act of misrule during his reign, led to his downfall.† On Bishops. * 11 St. Tr. 1143-1148. 12 St. Tr. 1. 26. n. In James's Memoirs, all the blame of this prosecution is thrown upon Jeffreys; but, it is more probable, that he only recklessly supported his master. CI. tion to the CHAP. the 25th of April, 1688, a new Declaration of Indulgence came out under the Great Seal; and, that it might be the more generally known and obeyed, an order was sent from the Council to all Bishops in England, enjoining that it should be read by the clergy in all churches and chapels Their peti- within their dioceses during divine service. A petition, signed by Sancroft, the Archbishop, and six other Prelates, was laid before the King, praying in respectful language that the clergy might be excused from reading the Declaration; not because they were wanting in duty to the Sovereign, or in tenderness to the dissenters, but because it was founded upon the dispensing power, which had often been declared illegal in parliament, and on that account they could not, in prudence, honour, or conscience, be such parties to it as the reading of it in the church would imply. King against reading the Declara tion of Indulgence. June, 1688. Bishops before the Council. Even the Earl of Sunderland and Father Peter represented to the King the danger of arraying the whole Church of England against the authority of the Crown, and advised him that the Bishops should merely be admonished to be more compliant. But with the concurrence of Jeffreys he resolved to visit them with condign punishment, and they were ordered to appear before the Council, with a view to obtain evidence against them, as the Petition had been The Seven privately presented to the King. When they entered the Council chamber, Jeffreys said to them, "Do you own the Petition?" After some hesitation, the Archbishop confessed that he wrote it, and the Bishops, that they signed it.—Jeffreys. “Did you publish it?" They, thinking he referred to the printing of it, of which the king had loudly complained, denied this very resolutely, but they admitted that they had delivered it to the King at Whitehall palace, in the county of Middlesex. This was considered enough to fix them with a publication, in point of law, of the supposed libel; and Jeffreys, after lecturing them on their disloyalty, required them to enter into a recognisance to appear before the Court of King's Bench, and answer the high misdemeanour * On their trial, they were, after all, about to be acquitted for want of evidence, when Lord Sunderland was sent for, and proved a statement which they had made to him that they were going into the King's closet to present the Petition. CI. A. D. 1688. of which they were guilty. They insisted, that, according to CHAP. the privileges of the House of Peers, of which they were members, they could not lawfully be committed, and were not bound to enter into the required recognisance. Jeffreys threatened, to commit them to the Tower as public delinquents. Archbishop. "We are ready to go whithersoever his Majesty may be pleased to send us. We hope the King of kings will be our protector and our judge. We fear nought from man; and, having acted according to law and our consciences, no punishment shall ever be able to shake our resolutions.” to the If this struggle could have been foreseen, even Jeffreys They are would have shrunk from the monstrous impolicy of sending committed these holy men to gaol, on what would be considered the Tower. charge of temperately exercising a constitutional right in defence of the Protestant faith, so dear to the great bulk of the nation; but he thought it was to late to resile. He, therefore, with his own hand, drew a warrant for their commitment, which he signed, and handed round the Board. It was signed by all the Councillors present, except Father Peter, whose signature the King excused, to avoid the awkward appearance of Protestant Bishops being sent to gaol by a Jesuit. It is not for me to relate the progress of these pious confessors to the Tower of London, or the interesting vicissitudes of their trial*; but there are some circumstances connected with their acquittal in which Jeffreys personally appears. June 29. Jeffreys jealous of Sir John Trevor and Sir William Seeing how he had acquired such immense favour, there were other lawyers who tried to undermine him by his own arts. One of the most formidable of these was Sir John Trevor, Master of the Rolls, who, some authors say, certainly would have got the Great Seal had James remained longer Williams. on the throne, but whom Jeffreys had hitherto kept down by reversing his decrees. The Chancellor's alarm was now excited by a report that Sir William Williams, (who, from being Speaker of the last Westminster parliament, and fined 10,000% on the prosecution of the Duke of York, was be |