Serj. Wright. I ask you this, Had you a charge from her to keep this matter secret? Woodward. Yes; and that I would write the bond with my own hand. Serj. Wright. She giving you this charge, how came this matter to be known then? Woodward. Mr. Nicholas Baker came to me from sir Robert Clayton, and asked me, if I did not know the prisoner, and particularly about a bond; and whether I did not make one for her. It was not in my memory at first, till further discourse occasioned me to remember it; and I told him, that I did do some business for her. He told me sir Robert Clayton had some information given him, that there was such a bond drawn by me: then I told him, I did remember there was such a bond brought to me, and that I had made a bond for Mrs. Butler, and had taken a copy of the first bond, which I had by me; and also of the second bond, in which I had left out a material word in the obligation, and was fain to write it over again, and had the first draught by me till about a month before that time, when meeting with it among my papers, 1 threw it into the fire in my closet; but this copy did remain by me. Mr. Hall. You say this copy is all your Own hand-writing ?-Woodward. Yes, it is. Mr. Hall. Was it sealed or cancelled? Woodward. No; it was sealed, I am very positive. Mr. Hall. Are you positive the seal was on it at that time?-Woodward. Yes, Sir. Mr. Mallet. Did she tell you that bond was to be cancelled ? Woodward. She told me, she was to deliver up that bond to şir Robert Clayton; and that he would give her another instead of it. Mr. Mallet. Was the bond then delivered up, or no? Woodward. I cannot say she did. Mr. Cutts. Did you never hear any bill in Chancery? to what end was this bond delivered to you? For what reason? Woodward. I asked her why the bond was to be delivered up, and she told me, there was some uneasiness in the family, and my lady Clayton had got the air of it; and therefore, to satisfy her, there was a bill preferred against her in Chancery, and she was to put in her answer; and that he would give her another bond, and that was to be delivered up. Mr. Northey. We have other witnesses to prove the forging of it. Call Mr. Baker. (Who appeared and was sworn.) Serj. Wright. Mr. Baker, were you present when the prisoner Mrs. Butler was before my lord chief-justice concerning this bond? Look on that copy. Baker. I was present at my lord chiefjustice's chamber when the prisoner was brought before his lordship; and she did there acknowledge, that the bond, of which she was accused, she had ordered to be made. Serj. Wright. Was that the bond in question? Baker. Yes, she did confess she caused sir Robert Clayton's name to be set to it, and the witnesses names; and that it was done by one Mr. Lewkar, a scrivener in Bishopsgate street. Serj. Wright. She said so? Mr. Hall. Did she confess it? Where was it ? Baker. At my lord chief-justice's chamber; she confessed it was her own act; she caused it to be made, and directed the scrivener to set sir Robert Clayton's name, and the witnesses names to it. Mr. Mallet. Was there not at that time a discourse of a bond that she had on the late duke of Buckingham ? Baker. I cannot be positive in that; but this was the fact she was charged with; and she did confess that she caused it to be done, and that the persons as witnesses were innocent of it, and that she did direct Mr- Lewkar to set sir Robert Clayton's name to it. Mr. Hall. How do you know this is the very same bond? Baker. Mr. Woodward shewed me this very bond when I went to him from sir Robert Clayton, to know whether he was acquainted with the prisoner; who, after some discourse with him relating to this bond, very frankly and ingenuously told me the whole matter of fact, as he has done here. Mr. Mallet. But we ask you about her confession; did you shew her that copy? Did she confess that? L. C. J. Holt. What was the discourse of at that time? Baker. It was about the bond of 40,000%. with which she was charged before your lordship to have counterfeited. Mr. Northey. Did he give an account then. of this bond? Baker. Yes; Mr. Woodward produced this copy before my lord chief-justice, and she owned she had ordered Mr. Lewkar to make it, and to put sir Robert Clayton's name to it. Serj. Wright. Now, my lord, we will shew you, that she is going on still, and that very lately she has owned it, and that she is going about to make the bond of 50,000l. a very good bond. Mr. Mallet. When it is in question, you may then invalidate it. Serj. Wright. Mr. Woodward has told you he did make the bond of 54,000l. but, I think, we have no need of it. Mr. Hull. They have failed in the indictment, so that it cannot be supported by this bond; it should be laid especially, according to the condition of the bond to be paid; for it is a bond of 40,000l., to be paid by his heirs after his death 20,000l. Now the bond, whereof they produce a copy, is of other things. Mr. Northey. It is for the same. Mr. Mallet. It is laid in the indictment, to be paid by sir R. Clayton: in the bond it is said. it is not to be paid till after his death. 1 Serj. Wright. It is laid in the indictment, that the bond was of the penalty of 40,0007, | to be paid by sir R. Clayton, with condition thereto under-written, concerning, among other things, the payment of 20,000l. to the prisoner, after the death of sir Robert Clayton, by his executors. L. C. J. Holt. Let your exceptions proceed from the indictment; it is to be paid after the death of sir Robert by his executors. Serj. Wright. Have you any more to say for yourselves? Mr. Hall. We have a great many witnesses here to prove her reputation. It is a strange thing any one should go to forge a bond on such an eminent person.. L. C. J. Holt. It is strange indeed; but the question is, Whether it be true? Mr. Hall. Her confession is proved by Mr. Baker; but we have many witnesses as to her reputation. L. C. J. Holt. How long have you lived in Glover. Ten or eleven years. Glover. I knew her live in Devonshiresquare very reputably; I always thought so. Serj. Wright. Had she any estate of her own? Glover. I cannot say so certainly; it was thought so. She paid every body very punctually. Mr. Hall. Acquaint my lord how long you have known her, and whether you think she would be guilty of such a forgery? Glover. I have known her 14 or 15 years. I cannot believe she would. Mr. Montagu. Have you heard the evidence?-Glover. Yes. Glover. I cannot tell what to say to that. I suppose nobody would confess, if they were not. guilty. Serj. Wright. Do you know one Hebdon? Serj. Wright. He is a witness to the hond. Glover. I can give no account of that; but he has had a very honourable character. Mr. Montagu. What do you think of it then?-Glover. I know not what to think. Mr. Montagu. Do you think she would conMr. Mallet. This bond is not in the indict-fess herself guilty of a forgery, if she were not? ment. The bond of 40,000l. is several years. since. Now there are two bonds. Now that of 54,000l. is not in this indictment, and this of 40,000l. is several years since that it was shewn to him. It is strange he should be so very exact, and yet did not examine it. And probably he might mistake in the copy, and it may not be the very bond in the indictment. Now, as to Mr. Baker; it is true, we have a bond of 5,000l. from the duke of Buckingham, and we are suing sir R. Clayton for this money, and hope to have it, now after so many years. And sir R. Clayton did prefer a bill in Chancery against us, and we in answer did disclaim having any such bond. And now, when we are like to have a decree for this sumracter? against the trustee of the duke of Buckingham's estate, he comes and would take off our credit in this matter. We did, in the year 1695, disclaim any such bond. Mr. Northey. Then you do admit that she owned the bond. [Then her witnesses were called.] Mr. Mallet. Mr. Glover, do you know Mrs. Butler?-Glover. Yes. Mr. Mallet. Give an account of what you know as to her reputation. Glover. I have known her 15 or 16 years. L. C. J. Holt. Where do you live? LC. J. Holt. How do you live? Are you a house-keeper? Glover. I live privately at present. Mr. Northey. I do not intend to give any character of you, I do not use to give characters of my clients. [Mrs. Rodum called, and appeared.] Mr. Hall. How long have you known her? Mr. Hall. What do you know of her cha Rodum. I am the widow of one of them that killed one another by the Temple. I never knew of any bond, nor never heard her claim to any such bond. She lived in good reputation. She was in my house when my husband was killed. She lived in my house about a year; I never heard she made any such pretension. She lived honestly and decently. She owes me upwards of S001. L. C. J. Holt. For what? How came she to owe you 300l.? Rodum. I kept a shop in the Exchange, and my husband was a broker. She owed it me partly for goods out of my shop, and partly for goods out of Scotland. He was killed about half a year ago, and I have kept the shop still. About three or four months ago she left me, and I never heard of any bond. Serj. Wright. Did you never hear of a bill in Chancery against her?-Rodum. No, Sir. Mr. Mallet. Did you hear of any money that was due to her from the duke of Buckingbam ? Rodum. I was told she was suing sir Robert Clayton for money that was to be paid her on the duke of Buckingham's account, and upon the credit of that I trusted her. [Shaw called.] Mr. Hall. How long have you known Mrs Butler ?-Shaw. About sixteen years. Mr. Hall. Do you think she would forge a bond? Shaw. Indeed I cannot give an account of that. Mr. Hall. How has she behaved herself? Shaw. I never knew her guilty of any rude 'ness. Serj. Wright. Put up more witnesses if you have any. Mr. Hall. We have done. L. C. J. Holt. Mrs. Butler, will you say any thing for yourself? Mrs. Butler. I am altogether innocent in the matter, I never wronged sir Robert Clayton, nor any body else, in my life. L. C. J. Holt. Gentlemen of the jury, this Mrs. Butler, alias Strickland, stands indicted for forging a bond in the name of sir Robert Clayton, in the penalty of 40,000l. the condition for the payment of 20,000l. among other things, within six months after the death of sir R. Clayton. And also, that she did publish this bond as the true bond of sir R. Clayton. You have heard what evidence has been given, to prove her guilty of this forgery, and the publication of it. It seems, some time since, as is proved to you by Mr. Woodward, this gentlewoman came to him with this bond of 40,000l. And it was upon this account, as she said: To wit, sir R. Clayton having given her this bond, it had taken air, and was come to the lady Clayton's ear; which occasioned some difference between sir R. Clayton and his lady. She said, that this bond, by direction from sir Robert, was to be delivered up to him to be cancelled; and that sir R. Clayton had engaged to enter into a new bond in the penalty of 54,000l. for the payment of 26,000l. (there being at that time supposed an arrear of interest for 20,000l.) payable after sir Robert's death, and interest in the mean time. She delivered this bond to Mr. Woodward. He takes a copy of it, which is produced and read. And so, according to her direction, Mr. Woodward does draw another bond, with the penalty of 54,000l. and she then told Mr. Woodward sir Robert would seal this bond upon the delivery up of the bond of 40,000l. Mr. Woodward having considered, that it was an extraordinary sum for sir Robert to engage himself in, and he being a very considerable man, he advised lier to have this new bond well attested; and to be sure to get witnesses of unquestionable credit to see it executed. And thereupon he offered himself to go with her to sir Robert, to be a witness to this new bond. No, says she, sir Robert is not willing that this should be known; you are not a proper person to be a witness to it; therefore, says she, I will get some other witnesses to attest it. Whereupon he gives her this first bond of 40,000l. which she brought to him for the payment of 20,000l. and gave her also the draught of the new bond. He says, this bond that she brought to him was attested by four witnesses. Sir Robert, it seems, upon her answer in Chancery, uot imagining any thing of this, she having disclaimed in Chancery the having of any; some time after he had heard a report, as if she was setting up of a new bond, and that Mr. Woodward could give an account of it. Wherefore he sends Mr. Baker to Mr. Woodward, who gave him the same account that he has done here. Then sir Robert makes a complaint, and has her brought before me; and there was Mr. Woodward with this copy. And this was objected to her, as if she had forged this bond. And it seems, when she was there under examination, and is proved to you by Mr. Baker, she did plainly confess, that she had forged this bond of 40,000l. and that she had procured one Lewkar to do it for her, who set sir Robert's name to it; and said, that the witnesses, whose names were set to it, were innocent, and knew nothing of the matter. Now what is said for her on the other side? They bring some persons for her, that say they have known her. One, that says he belonged to Lincoln's-inn, and had been acquainted with her fourteen or fifteen years, and did look upon her as a civil woman; and for his part, he does not believe she would be guilty of such a forgery. Another, who is a woman, says she has known her some time, and she says, she has trusted her much, and did never hear her say any thing of this bond, but she behaved herself civilly, and she took her to be a very sober person. Another witness says, she looked on her to be a very honest person. This is the sum of the evidence. There is a very strong evidence to induce you to believe that she did forge the bond. Such a bond she had, that is plain. She does give no account what is become of it; and she does not shew any manner of pretence of having so much money from sir R. Clayton due to her; she does not make it appear, why sir Robert should give her a bond upon any account. Now, for any to say that they knew her, and they do not believe she would forge a bond, that is no evidence; nobody ought to believe ill of Mrs. Butler, or any one else, unless it be made to appear. But the question is not, what they do believe; but whether the matter be proved to you to your satisfaction that she has forged this bond? And if you are satisfied that she did forge it, you ought to find her guilty; and if you do not believe the evidence to be satisfactory, you ought to acquit her. [Then the Jury withdrew, and being return, ed, gave their verdict as follows:] Cl. of Arr. Are you agreed of your verdict? Cl. of Arr. Who shall say for you? How say ye? Is the prisoner at the bar guilty Cl. of Arr. Bring Mary Butler to the bar. of the forgery whereof she stands indicted, or not guilty? Foreman. Guilty. The Judgment which the court pronounced against her was, That she should pay a fine of 500l. to the king, and continue in prison till she paid it. 407. Proceedings in Parliament against THOMAS Duke of LEEDS, on an Impeachment of High Crimes and Misdemeanors: 7 WILLIAM III. A. D. 1695-1701.* April 27, 1695. stop any farther enquiry; and if it were made use of there, you may reasonably expect it was THE House of Commons having read a Re-made use of elsewhere: but that appeared to port from a Joint Committee of both Houses relating to the distribution of Money by the East India Company, the following Debate arose:† [B] stood up and said, Mr. Speaker, I conceive there is a necessity to search this matter to the bottom. The House has a thread in their hands, they ought to provide laws for the future to prevent the members of this House taking money. All imaginable endeavours have been used to stifle all discoveries. 10,000/. has been pretended to be given to the king. 50,000 offered to buy an act of parliament, or gain their charter. The facts prove themselves, and Mr. Bates appears an unfortunate person, whom the care of his friend, the duke of Leeds, and the sense of his oath, have caused to make such contradictions. I move that the House would put the matter in such a method as becomes their justice, and as the shortness of their time be so far from being a matter of reflection on the king, that sir Josiah Child often complained of it as a rudeness to his majesty, that what other kings had yearly as a present, they had was indeed, if not a matter of right, a matter of not offered to his majesty in three years: it custom.-Then a noble lord, who may be named for his honour upon this occasion, the 50,000l. was pressed upon him, did absolutely earl of Portland, he, when the great sum of refuse it, and told them he would for ever be such thing to him. I having thus mentioned their enemy and opposer if they offered any the innocent, must say somewhat of the guilty. A stop having been put, the duke of Leeds must be applied to; certainly there never was a more notorious bribery, and that in a person whom we might have expected to have been the greatness of his place, or of his former obfree from such a crime, whether if you respect ligation. It is fit to speak plainly on such occasions, the House ought to endeavour to re[D] Mr. Speaker, I do fully agree with the move such a person from the king's council worthy person near me, that there never were and presence. What security can the nation greater and more general instances of corrup-have, when we are bought and sold to one antion, and necessity of speedy remedy. That it other? We have seen our desigus defeated, is very fit this House should let the world see our attempts betrayed, and what wonder is it? that they are in earnest. I ask leave to put Can any man think it more strange that our you in mind, what practice and arts have been counsels should be sold abroad, than that charused to stifle and stop your discovery, so that ters should be sold at home? Certainly a man what you have is, as it were, by the utmost may reasonably believe, that he who will sell force and constraint. You cannot wonder at the subjects will sell the kingdom if he can have it, when you now find so great a man at the a sufficient bribe. What prince can be safe in bottom; but there is no person in a post so high such counsels which are given for private adthat this House cannot reach, no man's prac-vantage; several proposals for remedy may be tice or art so deep that this House cannot discover. Here have been all imaginary endeaYours used to obstruct this enquiry. First, his majesty's name was made use of at the committees, with hopes perhaps that that might will allow. * Sir Thomas Osborne, created baron of Kiveton and viscount Latimer, by king Charles 2, August 15, 1673, and earl of Danby, June 27, 1674, marquis of Carmarthen by king WilHam, April 20, 1689, and duke of Leeds, April 30, 1694. This is the third time that Articles of Impeachment had been exhibited in the House of Lords, against him. The first was in 1675, upon which the House resolved, “That there was not sufficient matter contained in them to impeach the Lord Treasurer;" the second was in 1678, see vol. 11, p. 599. From "A Collection of the Debates and Proceedings in Parliament, in 1694 and 1695, upon the Inquiry into the late Briberies and Corrupt Practices." here offered. One, that this house should address his Majesty to remove the duke of Leeds; but, with submission, an address is too mean, too low a thing for the House to do at this time, and upon such an occasion: I therefore move we may lodge an impeachment." That Thomas duke of Leeds, Lord President of his majesty's council, be impeached by this House." Or thus, "That Thomas duke of Leeds be impeached by this House of high crimes and misdemeanors; and particularly of Corruption in taking a bribe of 5,000 guineas to obtain a charter and regulation for the East India Company." [E] says, I wonder the gentleman who spoke last should say that which I hope he did not believe, That that lord should have sold our counsels to France. [D] rose again and said, It is with some uneasiness I stand up, but that gentleman forces me to it, for I do not take pleasure to rake in ą dungbill. I was far from saying any such thing, but argued only from possibility; that it was as reasonable to believe one as the other. That when honour and justice were not the rule of mens actions, there was nothing incredible that might be for their advantage. [F] seconds and agrees in the motion for an impeachment. [G] says, That God alone who can produce light out of darkness, can fully discover the dark practices in this affair. That such actings as these are a blemish, if not a scandal to the Revolution itself; I agree in the motion for an impeachment. [I] Demanded, by what law it is a crime to take money at court? [K] auswered, if there be not a law, it is time there should be a law to prevent it. [L] says, The law of God is against him, and broke by him. He took an oath as a privy-counsellor. Justice is not to be sold by the common law. But there are parliaments to punish such crimes, and it is hoped there will be still. [M] says, it seems doubtful whether there be matter in this Report for an impeachment; therefore before the House goes to an impeachment, they ought to put the question upon the Report, and see whether it be a crime. [N] objects, there is no law, so no transgression. Resolved, "That there does appear to this House, upon the Report from the Committee of both Houses appointed to examine the persons mentioned in the Report of sir Thomas Cook's account, That there is sufficient matter to impeach Thomas duke of Leeds, president of his majesty's most honourable privy-council, of high crimes and misdemeanors." Resolved, "That Thomas duke of Leeds, &c. be impeached of high crimes and misde meanors. Ordered, "That Mr. Comptroller do go up to the Lords, and, at their bar, in the name of the House of Commons, and all the Commons of England, impeach Thomas duke of Leeds of high Crimes and Misdemeanors; and acquaint them, That this House will in due time exhibit particular articles against him, and make good the same." THE DUKE'S Speech in the HOUSE OF LORDS. On the reading of the Report from the Lords' Committee, his grace expressed himself in this manner, viz. "That as he had formerly protested himself to be free in this matter; so he still denied, upon his faith and honour, that he was guilty of any such corruptions as were suggested against him, and that if the whole truth were laid open, it would tend to his honour and advantage. That he would be very free in telling their lordships now before hand, all, that passed, in which he was any ways concerned. And thereupon declared, that Mr. Bates introVOL. XIII. duced sir Basil Firebrace to him, and that he of THE DUKE'S SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COM MONS. The Duke had proceeded thus far in his Speech when he received private intimation, that the Commons were proceeding to impeach him: upon which he broke off somewhat abruptly; and immediately quitting the House of Peers, presented himself at the door of the other House; and by the means of one of the members, caused the House to be informed, that he desired to be heard; which being complied with, he was admitted, with the usual compliments of a chair, and leave to be covered; after accepting of which, he rose, and put4 M |