Saturday, January 8.
[Debate on the Lords not committing Lord Chief Justice
Scroggs, &c.]
Sir William Jones.] The Charge against Lord Chief
Justice Scroggs is at Common-Law and Statute-Law
both—I take it to be Treason in one person, and not
in another, an inferior person—And in one in high Place,
where he does obstruct Justice, and change the Law,
is Treason at Common-Law. We all know the Plot
was carried on, and that is Treason—To defame the
Evidence, and hinder the suppression of the Plot, I say,
is Treason by the Statutes. I say not Scroggs is guilty; I
wish he were not. The Lords, as appears by their
Journals, have been pleased to read the Articles we sent
up against him, and without hearing us, have given
Judgment already. The Prayer of the Impeachment is,
"That the Lords would commit him." But instead of a
previous Question, they have bailed him; and likewise for
suspending him his Place, by their Books it appears they
would not put a Question. That is, "he shall continue in
his Place notwithstanding your Impeachment." In Lord
Danby's case, his Charge was not so plainly Treason as
these Articles are, and the Lords, upon your demand,
and upon Conference, declared, "That of Right he
ought to be committed." How it came to be good
Law in Lord Danby's case, and not in this, I am at a
stand. I would not have any difference with the Lords,
but, out of fear of that, I would not have our Privileges
torn from us; so that what was delivered in that Conference relating to Lord Danby, so pleasing to this House,
has been, in one instance, blemished by bailing Scroggs, and
in another, by not suspending him his Place. I would
appoint therefore a Committee to prepare the matter, that
by Monday morning you may be able to go to Conference
with the Lords about it.
Sir Thomas Lee.] This is not the first time this Question
has been in this House. In the case of Lord Clarendon's
Impeachment, the Lords would not commit him before
the Articles were brought up. The Lords refused it, the
Commons insisted upon it, and the consequence was,
Lord Clarendon ran away, made his escape, and, to salve
up all, the Lords sent down a Bill of Banishment. In the
case of Lord Danby, the Commons sent up Articles of
Impeachment, which were not so directly Treason within
the Statute, as the other, and after several Conferences,
an Expedient was found out; which was a Prorogation
of the Parliament. Now the Lords tell you, that one
Parliament will correct the errors of another; and tell
us, that the Commons have got a great point, that an
Impeachment shall continue, though the Parliament be
prorogued or dissolved—And if Scroggs's own modesty
make him not withdraw, they have made a resolution that
he must be continued (and some of the Lords differed at the
Conference about it, as you have heard.) Now it seems,
in this Parliament, the Lords go about to correct an error
they think they did in the other. I was loth, the other day,
to oppose the Articles passing, &c. But consider that, if
this man be little, and therefore you quit it, resolve never
to have Impeachment in Parliament more. The late
Duke of Buckingham, upon apprehension of his Charge,
dissolved two Parliaments, and consider what a condition
we were in whilst Lord Danby held the Staff. If we are
in such a condition with so little a man as Scroggs, and
have so much difficulty, and the Lords will not think it
Treason, unless immediately against the King, what condition shall we be in, if we have a Popish Successor, and
such Judges? I would appoint some Gentlemen to search
Precedents to offer the Lords at a Conference, with Reasons, &c.
Mr Powle.] Since this matter is brought into dispute,
I am the more glad that it is upon this person, with so
many Crimes upon him. It seems as if, right or wrong,
the Lords will have disputes with you. The consequence
every body sees. The Lords have acknowleged, that
they ought de jure to commit Lord Danby, &c. At the
beginning of the Long Parliament, twelve of the Bishops
made Protestation against the Proceedings of Parliament,
and this was then taken for High-Treason, and if my
Notes be true, upon general accusation, the Lords took
commiseration on them, and bailed them, and the Commons sent up word to the Lords, "That they were not
bailable but by their consent." This was February 16,
1641.
Sir Francis Winnington.] I concur with Powle, "That
the management of this business in the Lords House
relating to Scroggs looks like an industrious disposition to
break us." These Proceedings to me are wonderful. I
would not invade the Rights of the Lords in what they
do. They are now in their judicial capacity as a Court,
and not in their legislative, and so we may search the
Record, and take out Copies. The Fact has been stated,
and I have been industrious to enquire into the reason.
It is wonderful to all I speak with. It is said "Their reasons are, that this Charge is not Treason within the Statute, and so it is discretionary with them, and they may
alter their Order." But the Statute is out of their case.
We shall show them they are in the wrong, as well as in
Danby's case. But as for altering their Order, we have
as great right in the process and management of the Impeachment as in the Justice of it. The reason is, that
the person is only answerable for the Crimes, and I never
heard that the persons that are to judge became Bail for
the person to be tried (fn. 1) . We are like to have admirable determinations. Our inheritance is Right of Process of
the Law, as well as in the Judgment of the Law. For the
King to sequester him from his Place they would not address for it, but leave it to Scroggs's modesty whether he
would exercise it, or no; but the Lords will not commit
him. What makes me stand up is, that we should not now
make a doubt of what was always no doubt. Therefore
I would not search for Precedents, whether it be our
Right or no, but to strengthen the opinion of the World,
now the Nation is upon its last legs, that we may avoid
all cause of difference with the Lords; if it be possible,
that this thing may not receive the least doubt, nor the
least delay. It is strange that Lord Danby, who had so
mighty friends, and made so mighty a contest, and held
the White Staff against us, should be committed by the
Lords, and that such an inferior person as Scroggs should
be so supported, as if he must still hold his Place against
us. I would not search Precedents as a doubt, but to
strengthen our Right at a Conference.
Sir John Trevor.] I had occasion to look upon the
Precedent of 50 Edw. III, and it appears upon the Rolls,
that Lord Latimer, upon the Impeachment of the Commons, was committed to the Marshalsea, and he was bailed
by five Bishops, three Earls, fifteen Barons, and thirteen
Commons. Here appears a Right in the Commons to
his Bailment, because the thirteen Commons became his
Bail by consent of the House. 4 Rich. II, Lord Ferrers was bailed, but it is not certain whether the Commons bailed him, but the Commons always had a part in
consenting to it. But there is a difference when the
Charge is not from the Commons. In King James's
time, in the Impeachment against Lord Bacon and Sir
John Bennet, &c. there were never any Articles against
them from the Commons; but Complaint was made at
a Conference against them, and the Lords formed the
Articles; but when any Articles bordered upon Treason,
as these against Scroggs do, the Lords have always sequestered the Person.
[Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to inspect the Journals of this House, and of the House of Lords, and Precedents,
to justify and maintain, That the Lords ought to commit persons
to safe custody, when impeached for High-Treason by the Commons in Parliament.]
Monday, January 10.
Sir William Jones.] On Friday last, you made a good
Vote in relation to the Bankers lending Money upon any
part of the King's Revenue (fn. 2) . It is notoriously known,
that the Officers who manage the Customs, notwithstanding the Act prohibiting the importation of French Goods,
(and some of them are Members of Parliament) have let all
sorts of French wines come in, paying the duty of Spanish
wines; so that an Act made for so good a purpose is
broken by Members of your House. I would therefore
make a Vote, "That if, for the future, the Commissioners shall knowingly break that Law, they betray the
Rights and Liberties of the Nation, and are Pensioners to
the French King."
Sir Francis Winnington.] We know how much that
Act cost us; therefore I would set a brand upon them
that have broken it.
[A Vote passed accordingly.
Resolved, That whosoever advised his Majesty to prorogue this
Parliament, to any other purpose than in order to the passing of a
Bill for the Exclusion of James Duke of York, is a Betrayer of
the King, the Protestant Religion, and of the Kingdom of
England, a Promoter of the French interest, and a Pensioner to
France.
Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this House, That the City
of London was burnt, in the year 1666, by the Papists; designing
thereby to introduce arbitrary Power and Popery into this Kingdom.
Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this House, That James
Duke of Monmouth hath been removed from his Offices and
Commands by the influence of the Duke of York.
Ordered, That an humble Application be made to his Majesty,
from this House, to desire him to restore the said James Duke of
Monmouth to his said Offices and Commands.
Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this House, That the Prosecution of Protestant Dissenters upon the Penal Laws, is, at
this time, grievous to the Subject, a weakening of the Protestant Interest, an Encouragement to Popery, and dangerous to
the Peace of the Kingdom (fn. 3) .
The Parliament was then prorogued by his Majesty to January 20, and soon after was dissolved by Proclamation, and a new
Parliament was summoned to meet at Oxford
(fn. 4) , March 21.]