1679.

CHAP. ministers who were obnoxious to them. They were LXVII. therefore in no haste to relieve the King; and grew only the more assuming on account of his complaints and and uneasiness. Jealous, however, of the army, they granted the same sum of 206,000 pounds, which had been voted for disbanding it by the last parliament; though the vote, by reason of the subsequent prorogation and dissolution, joined to some scruples of the lords, had not been carried into an act. This money was appropriated by very strict clauses; but the commons insisted not, as formerly, upon its being paid into the chamber of London.

THE impeachment of the five popish lords in the Tower, with that of the Earl of Danby, was carried on with vigour. The power of this minister, and his credit with the King, rendered him extremely obnoxious to the popular leaders; and the commons hoped that, if he were pushed to extremity, he would be obliged, in order to justify his own conduct, to lay open the whole intrigue of the French alliance, which they suspected to contain a secret of the most dangerous nature. The King, on his part, apprehensive of the same consequences, and desirous to protect his minister, who was become criminal merely by obeying orders, employed his whole interest to support the validity of that pardon which had been granted him. The lords appointed a day for the examination of the question, and agreed to hear counsel on both sides: But the commons would not submit their pretensions to the discussion of argument and enquiry. They voted, that whoever should presume, without their leave, to maintain before the house of peers, the validity of Danby's pardon, should be accounted a betrayer of the liberties of the English commons. And they made a demand, that the bishops, whom they knew to be devoted to the court, should be removed, not only when the trial of the Earl should commence, but also when the validity of his pardon should be discussed.

1679.

THE bishops before the reformation had always CHAP. enjoyed a seat in parliament; but so far were they LXVII. anciently from regarding that dignity as a privilege, that they affected rather to form a separate order in the state, independent of the civil magistrate, and accountable only to the Pope and to their own order. By the constitutions, however, of Clarendon, enacted during the reign of Henry II. they were obliged to give their presence in parliament; but as the canon law prohibited them from assisting in capital trials, they were allowed in such cases the privilege of absenting themselves. A practice, which was at first voluntary, became afterwards a rule; and on the Earl of Strafford's trial, the bishops, who would gladly have attended, and who were no longer bound by the canon law, were yet obliged to withdraw. It had been usual for them to enter a protest, asserting their right to sit; and this protest, being considered as a mere form, was always admitted and disregarded. But here was started a new question of no small importance. The commons, who were now enabled, by the violence of the people and the necessities of the crown to make new acquisitions of powers and privileges, insisted that the bishops had no more title to vote in the question of the Earl's pardon than in the impeachment itself. The bishops asserted that the pardon was merely a preliminary; and that, neither by the canon law nor the practice of parliament, were they ever obliged, in capital cases, to withdraw till the very commencement of the trial itself. If their absence was considered as a privilege, which was its real origin, it depended on their own choice how far they would insist upon it. If regarded as a diminution of their right of peerage, such unfavourable customs ought never to be extended beyond the very circumstance established by them; and all arguments, from a pretended parity of reason, were in that case of little or no authority.

THE

1679.

CHAP. THE house of lords was so much influenced by LXVII. these reasons, that they admitted the bishops' right to vote, when the validity of the pardon should be examined. The commons insisted still on their withdrawing; and thus a quarrel being commenced between the two houses; the King, who expected nothing but fresh instances of violence from this parliament, began to entertain thoughts of laying hold of so favourable a pretence, and of finishing the session by a prorogation. While in this disposition he was alarmed with sudden intelligence, that the house of commons was preparing a remonstrance, in order to inflame the nation still farther upon the 27th May. favourite topics of the plot and of popery.

He

hastened therefore, to execute his intention, even without consulting his new council, by whose advice he had promised to regulate his whole conduct. And thus were disappointed all the projects of the malcontents, who were extremely enraged at this vigorous measure of the King's. Shaftesbury publicly threatened that he would have the head of whoever had advised it. The parliament was soon after dissolved without advice of council; and writs were issued for a new parliament. The King was willing to try every means which gave a prospect of more compliance in his subjects; and, in case of 10th July. failure, the blame, he hoped, would lie on those whose obstinacy forced him to extremities.

Prorogation and dissolution of the

parliament,

BUT, even during the recess of parliament, there was no interruption to the prosecution of the catholics accused of the plot: The King found him

self obliged to give way to this popular fury. Trial and Whitebread, provincial of the Jesuits, Fenwic, Gaexecution van, Turner, and Harcourt, all of them of the of the five same order, were first brought to their trial. Be

Jesuits,

sides Oates and Bedloe, Dugdale, a new witness, appeared against the prisoners. This man had been steward to Lord Aston, and, though poor, possessed a character somewhat more reputable than the other

two:

two: But his account of the intended massacres and CHA P. assassinations was equally monstrous and incredible. LXVII. He even asserted that 200,000 papists in England 1679. were ready to take arms. The prisoners proved, by sixteen witnesses from St. Omers, students, and most of them young men of family, that Oates was in that seminary at the time when he swore that he was in London: But as they were catholics, and disciples of the Jesuits, their testimony, both with the judges and jury, was totally disregarded. Even the reception which they met with in court was full of outrage and mockery. One of them saying that Oates always continued at St. Omers, if he could believe his senses; "You papists," said the chief justice," are taught not to believe your senses.' It must be confessed that Oates, in opposition to the students of St. Omers, found means to bring evidence of his having been at that time in London: But this evidence, though it had, at that time, the appearance of some solidity, was afterwards discovered, when Oates himself was tried for perjury, to be altogether deceitful. In order farther to discredit that witness, the Jesuits proved, by undoubted testimony, that he had perjured himself in father Ireland's trial, whom they shewed to have been in Staffordshire at the very time when Oates swore that he was committing treason in London. But all these pleas availed them nothing against the general prejudices. They received sentence of death; and were executed, persisting to their last breath in the most solemn, earnest, and deliberate, though disregarded protestations of their innocence.

horne.

THE next trial was that of Langhorne, an emi- and of nent lawyer, by whom all the concerns of the Je- Langsuits were managed. Oates and Bedloe swore, that all the papal commissions, by which the chief offices in England were filled with catholics, passed through his hands. When verdict was given against the prisoner,

II

1679.

CHAP. prisoner, the spectators expressed their savage joy LXVII. by loud acclamations. So high indeed had the popular rage mounted, that the witnesses for this unhappy man, on approaching the court, were almost torn in pieces by the rabble: One in particular was bruised to such a degree as to put his life in danger: And another, a woman, declared that, unless the court could afford her protection, she durst not give evidence: But as the judges could go no farther than promise to punish such as should do her any injury, the prisoner himself had the humanity to wave her testimony.

Wake

man ac

quitted, 18th July.

66

66

So far the informers had proceeded with success : Their accusation was hitherto equivalent to a sentence of death. The first check which they received was on the trial of Sir George Wakeman, the Queen's physician, whom they accused of an intention to poison the King. It was a strong circumstance in favour of Wakeman, that Oates, in his first information before the council, had accused him only upon hearsay; and when asked by the chancellor, whether he had any thing farther to charge him with? he added, "God forbid I should say any thing against Sir George: For I know nothing more against him." On the trial he gave positive evidence of the prisoner's guilt. There were many other circumstances which favoured Wakeman: But what chiefly contributed to his acquittal, was the connexion of his cause with that of the Queen, whom no one, even during the highest prejudices of the times, could sincerely believe guilty. The great importance of the trial made men recollect themselves, and recal that good sense and humanity which seemed, during some time, to have abandoned the nation. The chief justice himself, who had hitherto favoured the witnesses, exaggerated the plot, and railed against the prisoners, was observed to be considerably mollified, and to give a favourable charge to the jury.

Oates