Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	king_n	lord_n	treason_n	2,059	5	9.0913	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38261	The proceedings in the House of Commons, touching the impeachment of Edward, late Earl of Clarendon, Lord High-Chancellour of England, Anno 1667 with the many debates and speeches in the House, the impeachment exhibited against him, his petition in answer thereto : as also the several weighty arguments concerning the nature of treason, bribery, &c. by Serj. Maynard, Sir Ed. S., Sir T.L., Mr. Vaughan, Sir Rob. Howard, Mr. Hambden [sic], and other members of that Parliament : together with the articles of high-treason exhibited against the said Earl, by the Earl of Bristol in the House of Lords on the 10th of July, 1663 : with the opinion of all the learned judges therein.	England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.; Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of, 1609-1674.; Vaughan, John, Sir, 1603-1674.; Seymour, Edward, Sir, 1633-1708.; Littleton, Thomas, Sir, d. 1681.; Hampden, Richard, 1631-1695.; Maynard, John, Sir, 1602-1690.; Howard, Robert, Sir, 1626-1698.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Lords.	1700 (1700)	Wing E2683; ESTC R3660	65,855	176

a Member of this House and I assure you that if he shall be found Guilty no Man shall appear more against him than I if not I hope every one will be for him as much as I let every Man upon his Conscience think what of this Charge is true for I believe that if one Article be proved he will own himself Guilty of all Sir Hen. Fin. An Impeachment there must be if there be Cause such Accusations are not to be passed over in silence I believe not one truth in the Law more than this Proposition That there is no such thing as Treason by Common-Law or by Equity and we hold our Lives by that Law before the 25th of Ed. the 3d. a Man could scarce speak any think but it was Treason in Parliament or out but no Man ought to die as a Traitor who hath not literally offended that Law or some other made since There is indeed in that Law a Proviso about the Parliaments declaring what is Treason but note the danger of taking declaratory Powers which I fear hath brought us into a Reckoning of Blood which we have not yet paid for The Power of Parliaments is double Legislative which hath no bounds Declaratory by pronouncing Judgments And tho' I know not what the Legislative Power of a Parliament cannot do yet it is not in the power of the Parliament King Lords nor Commons to declare any thing to be Treason which is not in the Common-Law Felony before The Proviso in Strafford's Case was it's true made for Inferior Courts but I hope we shall not so proceed as must needs draw after it a Netrahatur in Exemplum and your own Act this Parliament shews That all done by Strafford a-part or together was not Treason And it behoves us to take heed we thwart not our own Argument For the manner then Consider how you should proceed if it were out of Parliament and how the bringing of it into the House alters it If it were out of Parliament without doubt the Accusation should be proved before hand and those who discover it are guilty of Felony This provides for the Subject that the Witnesses must be Two and for the King that none shall discover the Evidence But suppose the Charge be for Misdemeanours the Tryal then is not to be by the Lords but by the Commons for the Lords are his Peers only in Cases Capital How then doth the bringing it in to Parliament alter the Case If the Parliament set aside Laws in this Case we should be happy to see Law declaring what is the power of Parliaments There is no President produced which is singly of Weight to guide you therefore if you proceed let it be as near as possible by the good Old Laws Namely That there be an Accusation founded upon an Oath and the Evidence kept secret I propose that way for the very reason that others oppose it viz The Accusation goes over the Kingdom and it will bring dishonour to the House the King and the Earl For the Honour of the House it will be hard to say the Charge was brought in upon misinformation a Person accused for advising to bring in Arbitrary Government c. And for saying the King is not fit to Govern If this be true tho' it be not Treason in the formality of the Law it deserves no less Punishment then if it were but if not found Guilty Consider the Case If one say A killed a Man and it is not so must not he give reparation We have an accusation upon hear-say but if it be not made good the blackest Scandal which Hell can invent lies at our door Then Sir Tho. M rs moving to referr it to the Committee of Grievances Mr. Vaugh. You should have put the first Question before another had been moved the Earl of Middlesex Cranfield's Case will not hold paralel He was accused of Bribery which might be proved by their own Books but this is for Scandalizing the King c. And where shall the Committee of Grievances enquire about it you say let them hear the Persons But suppose they be of the Lords House Can you send for them Or if you do will they come and say it The matter of this Accusation is such that if it lies in the knowledge of a single Person if he delivers it extrajudicially which he doth if not upon Oath he may be undone by it and hazard his Person too At the Committee of Grievances the Persons must be known and what they can say and then we may conclude what will follow Besides their Quality may be such as they cannot be brought or their Discretion such as they will not answer Sir Rich. Temp. Tell but the Lords that a Man in publick place hath misbehaved himself and they will sentence him if he purge not himself Never yet were Witnesses examined before the Tryal in case of Treason or Felony for then if there be two Witnesses a way may be found by Poyson or some other way to take away one Serj. Mayn No Man can do what is Just but he must have what is true before him where Life is concern'd you ought to have a moral Certainty of the Thing and every one be able to say upon this proof in my Conscience This Man is guilty Common Fame is no ground to accuse a Man where matter of Fact is not clear to say an Evil is done therefore this Man hath done it is strange in Morality more in Logick Upon the whole Debate it was Voted That the Committee do reduce the Accusation to Heads and present them to this House November 6th 1667. Sir Tho. Litt. Reports that the Accusation was reduced to Heads which he read in his Place and afterwards delivered the same in at the Clerks Table which are as followeth ' viz. I. THAT the Earl of Clarendon hath designed a Standing Army to be raised and to govern the Kingdom thereby and advised the King to Dissolve this present Parliament to lay aside all Thoughts of Parliaments for the future to govern by a Military Power and to maintain the same by Free Quarter and Contribution II. That he hath in the hearing of the King's Subjects falsely and seditiously said That the King was in his heart a Papist or Popishly Affected or words to that effect III. That he hath received great Sums of Money for the procuring of the Canary Patent and other illegal Patents and granted illegal Injunctions to stop proceedings at Law against them and other illegal Patents formerly Granted IV. That he hath Advised and Procured diverse of His Majesty's Subjects to be Imprisoned against Law in remote Islands Garrisons and other Places thereby to prevent them from the Benefit of the Law and to produce Presidents for the Imprisoning any other of His Majesty's Subjects in like manner V. That he procured His Majesty's Customes to be Farmed at under Rates knowing the same and great pretended Debts to be paid by His Majesty

not say For Scarce any Man can tell what was Treason before 25 Ed. 3. was made to bring things to a Certainty and what was uncertain to them who made that Law can be certain to us now As the Judges can declare no other Treason so in your Declaratory Power neither can you declare Treason unless there be Resemblance to some other like Case The Advice said in the Article to be given the King cannot be within that Statute unless the Councellour must run the hazard of his Advice Mr. Vaugh. The greatest Declarations of Treasons which ever were equal not those 22 Rich. 2. in Nottingham Castle The Judges are called to deliver their Opinions upon their Faith and they declare the Acts to be Treason because Felony before and tho'some of them were hang'd for it yet the Parliament declared the same Thing Serj. Mayn Was what is mentioned Treason by the Common-Law tho' so said by the Lords And what was so declared was repealed H. 4. Sir Tho. Litt. Pray resolve whether it was Treason by Common-Law and if so when made so Some think not because they find not the Parliament declaring them Treasons as being so at Common-Law and that that Statute was made to bound them but that was only to bound Inferior Courts not themselves for the Parliament makes not a new Crime and then Condemns it but the Crime was before and the Parliament declares it Sir Ed. Thur. Hath the Parliament declaratory Power now Yes but it must be by King and Parliament so it was in the Case of the Genoua Ambassador The Judges would not conclude the Articles Treason nor would the Lords alone and if you come to an equal declarative Power with them you must examine Witnesses or go by a Bill Serj. Charl. The Question is Whether it be Treason by the Practice of England the Common-Law is the Custome of England and the usuage is grounded on Presidents I know not one President where Words or Intentions were Treason at Common-Law for they are not Treason where no Act follows Sir Rich. Temp. The Article is Treason by Common-Law and Judges have recourse to Glanvil c. Who say that giving Advice to overthrow the Realm is Treason by Common-Law Serj. Mayn The Question is whether he shall be Impeached of Treason upon this Article If you go to Treason at Common-Law before 25 Ed. 3. you fly out of sight for the word Seductio was soon after called Seditio Seducing but not said to what nor were those Authors ever reputed of Authority It 's true they are sometimes quoted for Ornament but not Argument and not one Case in one hundred of Glanvil is Law but when a Case comes that is the Sheet-Anchor of Life and Estate you should be wary for by Wit and Oratory That may be made Treason which is not and this which is a great Crime ought not because great to be made Treason Object But it will be said levying War against the Law is against the King and here was an intent to alter the Law Answ. True yet a design no levy War is not Treason within the Statute here is nothing of Act but Words to that end If a Councellor gives bad Advice it makes it not Treason but by a Bill it may be made what you please By that Statute of 25 Ed. 3. are more Treasons than are metnioned for it faith if any Case happen the Judges shall stay till the King and Parliament hath declared so that there is a Power but the Modus is the Question whether by Impeachment or Bill you may the latter not the former It was done but you have Repealed it and have said None of which pretended Crimes are Treason and what was pretended against him * Of Strafford That he had Traitorously Endeavoured which is worse than design'd to alter the Government c. Now where is the Difference Here is advice to Raise an Army there to use an Army Raised and these you have called pretended Crimes and no Treason which is not Comprechended by a Law but to Impeach as a Treason and yet the thing No Treason is strange In this House other then by Bill you have no Power you carry your Impeachment to the Lords and they may give Judgment without coming back to you declaring by Bill is by way of Judgment but as an Impeachment is only an Accusation So that whatsoever the Consequence is the Lords judge it and it never comes back to you and if you go by Bill you make it Treason ex post sacto Mr. Vang Concerning what you have declared about Straffords that this Case is if not less equal to it and you have declared that not one Charge aganst him is Treason is true thus far when that Act was made I repaired to it because there were some Things which should not have passed so if there had not been something to secure such Charges as these for there is no expression of any Particular Charge but that the Charge against the Earl of Strafford was not in the particular Treason and in the Ciose of the Bill it is said that the whole Proceeding shall be taken away and if so no Man should speak against the Particulars but look on it as Repealed Then this is said to be levying War and its true it must be Actual and so not within the Charge And the Charge against Spencer was for Councelling the King c and is called levying War against the Kingdom and the Judgment against him was but Banishment because the Sentence was mitigated at the instance of the King And for Councel tho' Councel is given but in Words yet Words are more than Councel and are an Action otherwise a Councellour is Sworn to nothing But it may be thought I have not dealt ingenuously with the House than which I abhor nothing more when the Case of Strafford was before the Lords I was of opinion the Parliament had no Declarative Power left because 1 Hen. 4. there was an abolishing of all declared Treason and that no Treason for the future should be so and then the Treason about the Genoua Ambassadour was gone and all declared Treasons were gone 1 Hen. 4. and no Statute hath recovered them and if all Actual Treasons were taken away 1 Hen. 4. or if not then 1 Ed. 6. then what doth the first of Q. M. do unless it take away all declaratory Treason Upon the whole the Question was whether to accuse of Treason upon the first Article Yeas 103. Noes 172. 275. November 11. The Second Article was read Mr. Pr n. Let the Act made by you about defending the King be Read because it limits Prosecution to a Time to see if this be within Time Mr. Vaugh. In Things wherein there is a publick Defaming the King it becomes no Man here to defend the Person accused if the Charge be not proved let the Party himself plead it you had that which induced you to Impeach him and have

Articles read and Voted Fifteenth Article read Lord Vaugh. I brought in this Article His Betraying the King's Councels was to the French King during the War and that in the secrecy of State which was the occasion of the late Mischiefs Sir Tho. Osb. That is direct adhering to the King's Enemies and so it is Treason Mr. Sollicit This must be Treason if you have any inducement to believe it Sir Rob. How I have heard it from an Eye-Witness who told it me and added that we are neither to be trusted nor dealt with who were so betrayed Serj. Mayn Betraying the King's Councel to his Enemies is doubtless Treason Corresponding is another Thing Betraying must be without the King's Knowledge otherwise it is but delivering the King's Words to his Enemies Sir Iohn Bramp Did this Information come from a Subject or from one of the King's Enemies Sir Rob. How I would not have brought you Information from one of the King's Enemies nor did I ever converse with them during the War Coll. Birch We cannot accuse of Treason except it be said Betraying the King's Councel or Corresponding with his Enemies Mr. Vaugh. You have declared that you have had inducement to Impeach and ought to put the Question whether on this Article he shall be Impeached of Treason Mr. Sollicit To betray the King's Councel taken generally is not Treason for it may be to the King's Friends but to his Enemies it is If the Article be so Lord Vaugh. Let it be put betraying His Majesty's secret Councels to his Enemies during the War Then the Question was put whether these New Words delivered by the said Lord Vaugh. should be added Carryed in the Affirmative Sir Iohn Holl. Was this Information given by an Enemy or by a Subject Mr. Vaugh. It must come from a Forreigner or you could not know it may not the King have from a Forreigner a discovery of Treason against him The end of questioning it must be to know the Man for it might as well be asked whether his Beard be red or black Sir Tho. M rs The words are discovered not betrayed and discovering may be with the King's consent Lord Vaugh. Add the word Betraying for so I meant it Serj. Mayn They who give the Information say not they had it from more than one Witness which Stat. Ed. 6. requires and only one of them Names the Earl of Clarendon Mr. Seym. This exception is proper to be made before the Judges Then the Question was put Whether to Impeach of Treason on this Article Yeas 161. Noes 89. 250. Sir Tho. Litt. That an Impeachment of Treason and other Crimes and Misdemeanours be carryed up to the Lords against him by Mr. Scym Serj. Mayn For Misdemeanour he may have Councel not for Treason Therefore so distinguish the Charge that he may have Councel Resolved That a Charge be carryed up Resolved That the Speaker and the whole House carry it Novvember 12. It being considered that if the Speaker go up with the Charge some dispute might arise about carrying the Mace and otherwise It was Resolved That Mr. Seym. carry it Accordingly he went where at the Bar of the Lords House the Lord-keeper Bridgman being come to the Bar to meet him he delivered himself to this purpose My Lords THE Commons Assembled in Parliment having been informed of several Traiterous Practices and other high Crimes and Misdemeanours commited by Edward Earl of Clarendon a Member of this Honourable House have Commanded me to Impeach him and I do accordingly Impeach him of High-Treason and other Crimes and Misdemeanours in the Name of the said Commons and of all the Commons of England And they have farther Commanded me to desire your Lordships to Sequester him from Parliament and to Commit him to safe Custody and in convenient time they will exhibit Articles against him November 15. The Lords sent down to desire a Conference in the Painted Chamber At which the Earl of Oxford delivered a Paper in writing without any Debate the Contents whereof were to this effect The Lords have not Committed the Earl of Clarendon becase the Accusation is only of Treason in general without charging any thing in particular Mr. Garra I had rather the House should loose the Punishment of this Man tho' a great Offender then that this House should loose its priviledge for if this House may at no time Impeach a Lord without giving in particular Articles it may fall out to be at a time as in the Duke of B s Case where a great Man by his Interest with the King procured the Dissolution of the Parliament and then the Accusation falls Mr. Vaugh. Either you can justifie your Proceedings so as to satisfie the Lords what you have done or you cannot you must name a Committee as well to consider what you are to do if your Reasons satisfie not as to draw those Reasons Mr. Sollicitor Without doubt this House was not mistaken in demanding that the Party accused for Treason should be committed That is that Treason is worthy of Commitment and you can but find Presidents that Persons have been accused of Treason and thereupon have been committed But the Case is this Treason is an Offence for which Bail cannot be taken the Lords tell you not they will or will not Commit But it is true Persons have been Committed for Treason and Persons accused of Treason Judges may Commit or not Consider this Law Let the Crime be what it will an Imprisoning till the Charge it given is but an Imprisoning to security not to Punishment otherwise the Law is not Just and if the Judges of the Kings-Bench have a Judgment of Discretion whether to Commit or not can we wonder that the Lords have not Imprisoned till they know the Article when they have Judgments of Discretion tho' they knew it You may find Presidents but it is not an Argument it must always be so But as the Judges have a Latitude much more then the Lords the Impeachment from the Commons of England is properly the King's Suit for there is no Treason but against him and if the Judges may Bail in that Case may not the Lords But you are not told he shall be Balied but they desire to know what his Crime is and then you shall know their Answer the Resolution seems reasonable having gone no farther I cannot except against it Sir Tho. Litt. The Long-Parliament had some good Presidents which we are not to cast away least we smart for it Resolved To Resume the Debate to Morrow Nov. 16. Mr. Vaugh. The Lords do not say Commitments should follow because Treason is Bailable by the Kings-Bench its true the Kings-Bench Bails for Treason but how If Persons be brought thither for Treason directly there is no Bail but when a Commitment is by the Councel Table for suspition of Treason then if the Matter fall not be to what was expected they give notice to take Bail else the great Article of the Great Charter

Mamely that Justice should not be delay'd nor denied would be to no purpose and in such a Case a Man may be in Prison for ever On the other side what is the Case of Committhing for Treason when a Person is Committed by the Councel-Table they say thay do no more but by special Command of the King and that is the ground of his Committing and were not this so what would follow Intelligence would be given of a Treason discovered wherein many might be concerned and if they who Commit should Commit with the Treason all the Complices would escape and therefore sometime they make it Treason General Then for the Case before you have gone up with a Charge of Treason generally which is to the Lords a Warrant sufficient for Commitment say they we will know the Particulars then will not the same inconveniencies follow if other Persons beconcerned and so the danger of all exposed upon the nicety If a Business comes before this House which concerns others and may prove Treason if we go to the Lords for we have not Jurisdiction except in Case of our Priviledges but yet are not ready to bring up Particulars and desire the Lords to apprehend such Persons would it be reasonable for them to refuse it there being no inconvenience like to follow the doing it much the not doing it I say not to Commit them and we not prosecute for that is delay of Justice Qu. But why do the Lords refuse Ans. Tho' I have great respect to the Lords yet to clear something in point of Priviledge the Lords have the same Priviledge with us in point of Speech their Members c. as they are essential to pass Laws but that great Priviledge which they often assumo as Peers is as the King is there present in the highest Court How then will it fall out in respect of this Priviledge If the King be there there be many Things which the Lords as Peers cannot pretend to for the King hath often sate there not only in passing Bills but in Judgment Had this Charge then come before the King there it had been reason if the King should have said I desire to know what this Treason is we must then have told it because he whom it concerned required it or if we desire Commitment he who could Release or Pardon him might say let him be Bailed The Lords indeed retain this Priviledge but it is in the King 's Right not as Peers Now we have carryed a Charge if the Lords Bail him I know not what would follow for no Example can be given of it and I think they will not do it if the King do not direct it On the other side I would be glad we might be no more troubled than is necessary because others are listening what we do and think there is nothing in the Case Therefore I am not for delay but satisfying others that what we have done is not barely for Imprisoning the Earl of Clarendon but for Justice and if you go this way give the Lords the Reasons why we sent the Charge as we did and yet keep up their Priviledges and declare so to them But than we must go up with more than that Head on which we Resolved to Impeach of Treason for your Articles must be so formed as to make it a Charge sit to be Answer'd for Time and Place and that Article hath something of that which must be penned so as to make it more certain for the Article goes but thus That there was Discovery and Betraying of the King's Councels to his Enemies and if you leave it there those who scruple doing any Thing because particular Treason is not mentioned will say you say he hath discovered and betrayed Councels to Enemies but as we trust you not what is Treason but we will know it so we know not whom you mean by Enemies for we may think them not so Therefore appoint a Committee to form Articles Mr. Solicit It is a great mistake to say That the Power of the Kings-Bench to take Bail for Treason is no other but what is asserted as if the Judges there had only Power from Magna Charta When a Man is Committed upon suspition of Treason and no Prosecution follows and the Party bringing his Habeas Corpus the Bench Bails him because he should not lie there eternally it is not to be said the Judges Bail for Treasons seeing no Crime is produced For when a Man hath been accused of Treason for Coining false Money and brought to the Bar the Judges have Bailed him not because they ought but from the discretionary Power wherewith the Law trusts them they may Bail if they will for no other Judicature but they can Bail in that Case for seeing Imprisonment before Tryal is only that the Prisoner may be forth-comming if they see there is no danger of escaping they may take Bail for he is a Prisoner when Bailed and the Bail is his Keeper but there are few Cases of this Kind wherein they will Bail they have a fundamental Power to do it placed in them to preserve the Rights of the Crown and the Lords will not think themselves less trusted with the Rights of the Crown then the Kings-Bench Yet tho' the Lords may Bail they will not exercise their discretion when there is a probable Truth in the Impeachment shall we then refuse this Intimation from the Lords Who saying because they have not a particular Article of Treason do not secure seem to imply that if they had they would tho' they might refuse The Right of Bailing comes not from an imaginary apprehension of the King 's sitting there tho some Kings have sate there in Judicature but from their Inherent Authority of being trusted with the Right of the Crown Let us do then what becomes us and not let the Impeachment miscarry upon a misunderstanding but draw up the Article But how is it possible to draw it as an Article which you expect he should be imprisoned upon For your Impeachment is in the Nature of an Indictment and must contain so much of Certainty as to put him to plead that so he may not Demur How may it then be Circumstantiated so as that he may put to plead if you do it according to 25 Ed 3. for discovering the Thing 's Secrets to his Enemies is within that Statute The first part of the Article is not pleadable for we must shew how he adhered to the King's Enemies and wemust add what the Councel was that he betrayed else he will deny to plead and say I can avoid it Therefore consider what kind of certainty this Article must have to make him plead for the other Articles it s enough to say them without proving Time or Place if the Facts were after the Act of Oblivion but in Treason the Matter must appear in the Indictment for he hath liberty not only to plead not Guilty but to avoid it Therefore prepare the

insist upon examining Witnesses first the Difficulties will be unanswerable for is it like that Men before they shall see you in earnest will have their Names produced against the Earl of Clarendon If this be your proceeding we must never expect to Impeach a great Man more If you think there is nothing in the Charge leave it but if you think 't is worth your while take heed of making such a dangerous President as by neglecting it to wound your Liberties but proceed in the usual way with a general Impeachment Serj. Mayn I stand not up to give Advice but to speak to matter of Fact in the business of Strafford and Canterbury I attended that business from the beginning Sir Iohn Clotworthy informed something against Strafford to be direct Treason that he had assumed an Arbitrary Power in Ireland and dispossessed one Savage by force of Arms and undertook to prove it Sir Henry Vane also told them that he had a Note taken out of his Fathers Cabinet containing the Advice which Strafford gave the King in that Case Namely the King wanting Money and the Question being how he should supply it he replyed That if the Parliament was refractory and would not you stand loosed and absolved from Rules of Government you have an Army in Ireland which you may employ to reduce them Then there was a Debate whether they should accuse him of Treason And Sir Edward Herbert the Attorney said if you are perswaded the Truth is as is pretended you may and so it was but when the close Committee had examined the business they moved the House that some Lawyers might be added to them and had they gone when they said they were ready they had not touched one Hair of Strafford's Head Then it was considered what was fit to be done To accuse him of Treason would be a dangerous President as if out of many other Crimes a Treason could be drawn thereupon it was Resolved not to demand Judgment from the Lords because some Articles were not Treason Then it was propounded not to State what his Offences were lest it should give advantage to inferior Courts so to proceed but said he deserved to be accused of Treason and in conclusion a Proviso was added not to make that Case a President For the Bishop of Canterbury the four Articles were general and he was long in Prison without any proceeding against him but after long time he demurr'd then new Articles were framed on which he dyed Mr. Iohn Vaugh. You have had a Charge opened of a strange Nature and I know not what part of it can be proved but the reputation of This House is at Stake and of the King too For where a Charge is brought in by some of your Members whereof one Article is That he should say such words of the King as by a Statue made by you is a Praemunire and to give Councel to levy War upon the Kingdom is it agreeable to our Duty to the King and Kingdom to let it die For the Person concerned I know not which way his Honour can be whole without his giving an Answer to his Charge for Mark the Consequence if the King should take him to favour again before clear'd will not the World say a Person is received to favour again who gave the King Councel against the Kingdom and traduc'd the King and how can he be whole in his Honour this way Obj. But it will be said we must have ground to put him to Answer Ans. Whether you have ground enough to prove I know not but you have ground enough to make him Answer to clear himself Suppose those two Articles had been Charged on a Member of this House what would it have become that Member to do Should he sit still and say I will make no Answer but see whether the House will make more proof If he should do so the not making an Answer is Reason enough to Charge him I can give you Instances of Persons charged in Parliament who tho' not nominated yet being as it were pointed at Petitioned that they might Answer and so would any Man but when this is bruited up and down will not the World say You never ask the party whether Guilty The Duke of Suffolk was Charged upon Common Fame and if that were a ground for a Charge then which I do not say it was so it is in this Case but he moved that he might be heard and tho' it was desired he might be Committed yet it was justly rejectly till he had Answered Then for the Nature of the Charge if it be true it is very High but whether it be Treason is another Matter it is brought to you under no Name when you make the Charge it becomes you to say what it is therefore Choose a Committee to reduce the Accusation into Heads and bring them to you without which you cannot right you selves nor him if Innocent For the way of it it cannot be thought fit to publish your Witnesses and the Matter before-hand if in private Causes the Defendant and Plaintiff should have a Publication before hand no Cause would be rightly Judged much less when you have Publication of all which concerns the One but nothing of the Other Again if a Witness be examined concerning Matters in his own Knowledg if he gives Evidence where he is not brought judicially to give it if he hath testified any Thing which brings him within the Statute of false News how can he avoid the Penalty For it s not enough for him to say he knows it but he must have others to justifie it As for the Persons who bring the Charge they are your own Members which the Writs return for honest and discreet Men and if you are satisfied of that how can you reject their Complaint tho' grounded upon Common Fame as all Accusations are seeing they tell you they can bring-Proof of what they say Then for Common Fame if a Man spends largely and hath no visible way to get an Estate no Man accuseth him to have gotten it unlawfully yet he may be put to clear himself from what Common Fame chargeth him with Upon suspicion of Felony I may bring a Man before a Magistrate to clear himself so in the Course of Indictments and Presentments a Charge is given of what Things are to be Presented then a Proclamation is made That if any one can give Evidence he may be Sworn but if no Evidence appear yet they may Indict Then it will be said the Oath is a Material Thing but we are proceeding without an Oath To this I Answer What this House shall Charge is of more Authority than the Oaths of ordinary Witnesses Peers tho' not upon Oath are supposed to do right so are we upon the Reputation of our Honesty and Discretion Mr. L. H. I am sensible the House may think me Partial but I shall endeavour to shew my self not so much a Son of the Earl of Clarendon as

and so seem to say fare him well Upon all which Motions Ordered That Sir Tho. Cliff Comptroler of the King's Household be sent to the King to desire the Ports may be stopped December 4 The Lord Fitzharding makes Report from the King that the Message for stopping the Ports being delivered him he had taken Care accordingly A Message from the Lords to desire a speedy Conference From which Mr. Solicitor Reports We attended the Lords at the Conference which was delivered by the Duke of Buck. who said to this purpose That the Lords had Commanded him to deliver to us that Scandalous and Seditious Paper sent from the Earl of Clarendon desiring us to present it to you and to desire you in convenient time to send it to them again for it had a Stile which they were in love with and desired to keep it Which said Paper was read and is as follows viz. TO THE Right HONOURABLE THE LORDS Spiritual and Temporal IN Parliament ASSEMBLED The humble Petition and Address of Edward Earl of Clarendon May it please Your Lordships I Cannot express the unsupportable Trouble and Grief of Mind I sustain under the Apprehension of being Misrepresented to Your Lordships and when I hear how much of Your Lordships time hath been spent upon the mention of me as it is attended with more publick Consequences and of the differences of Opinion which have already or may probably arise between Your Lordships and the Honourable House of Commons whereby the great and weighty affairs of the Kingdom may be obstructed in the time of so general a dissatisfaction I am very unfortunate to find my self to suffer so much under two very disadvantageous Reflections which are in no degree applicable to me The First from the greatness of my Estate and Fortune collected and made in so few Years which if it be proportionable to what is reported may very reasonably cause my Integrity to be suspected The Second That I have been the sole Manager and chief Minister in all the Transactions of State since the King's return into England to August last and therefore that all Miscarriages and Misfortunes ought to be imputed to me and my Councels Concerning my Estate Your Lordships will not believe that after Malice and Envy hath been so inquisitive and so sharp sighted I will offer any thing to Your Lordships but what is exactly true and I do assure Your Lordships in the first place That excepting from the King's Bounty I have never received nor taken one Penny but what was generally understood to be the just lawful Perquisites of my Office by the constant Practice of the best Times which I did in my own Iudgment conceive to be that of my Lord Coventry and my Lord Elsmore the Practice of which I constantly observed altho' the Office in both their Times was lawfully worth double to what it was to me and I believe now is That all the Courtesies and Favours which I have been able to obtain from the King for other Persons in Church or State or in Westminster-Hall have never been worth me Five Pounds So that Your Lordships may be confident I am as innocent from Corruption as from any disloyal Thought which after near Thirty Years Service of the Crown in some Difficulties and Distresses I did never expect would be objected to me in my Age. And I do assure Your Lordships and shall make it very Manifest That the several Sums of Money and some Parcels of Land which His Majesty hath Bountifully bestowed upon me since his return into England are worth more than all I have amounts unto so far I am from advancing my Estate by indirect means And tho' this Bounty of his hath very far exceeded my Merit or my expectation yet some others have been as fortunate at least in the same Bounty who had as small pretences to it and have no great Reason to envy my condition Concerning the other Imputation of the Credit and Power of being chief Minister and so causing all to be done that I had a mind to I have no more to say than that I had the good fortune to serve a Muster of a very great Iudgment and Vnderstanding and be always joyn'd with Persons of great Ability and Experience without whose Advice and Concurrence never any thing hath been done Before His Majesty's coming into England he was constantly attended by the then Marquess of Oumond the late Lord Culpeper and Mr. Secretary Nicholas who were equally trusted with my self and without whose Ioynt Advice and Concurrence when they were all present as some of them always were I never gave any Councel As soon as it pleased God to bring His Majesty into England he Established his Privy Council and shortly out of them he Choose a Number of Honourable Persons of great Reputation who for the most part are still alive as a Committee for Forreign Affairs and Consideration of such things as in the Nature of them required much Secrefie and with these Persons he vouchsafed to Ioyn me And I am confident this Committee never transacted any thing of Moment His Majesty being always present without presenting the same first to the Council-Board and I must appeal to them concerning my Carriage and whether we were not all of one Mind in Matters of Importance For more than two Years I never knew any Differences in the Councils or that there were any Complaints in the Kingdom which I wholly impute to His Majesty's great Wisdom and the intire Concurrence of his Councellours without the Vanity of assuming any thing to my self and therefore I hope I shall not be singly charged with any thing that hath since fal'n out amiss But from the time Mr. Secretary Nicholas was removed from his Place there were great Alterations and whosoever knew any thing of the Court and Councils know well how much my Credit hath since that time been diminished tho' His Majesty graciously vouchsafed still to here my Advice in most of his Affairs nor hath there been from that time to this above one or two Persons brought to the Council or preferr'd to any considerable Office in the Court who have been of my intimate Acquaintance or suspected to have any kindness for me and most of them most Notoriously known to have been very long my Enemies and of different Iudgment and Principles from me both in Church and State and have taken all opportunities to lessen my Credit with the King and with all other Persons by Mis-representing and Mis-reporting all that I said or did and perswading Men I have done them some prejudice with His Majesty or crossed them in some of their Pretensions Tho' His Majesty's Goodness and Iustice was such that it made little Impression upon him In my humble Opinion the great Misfortunes of the Kingdom have proceeded from the War to which it is Notoriously known that I was always most averse and may without vanity say I did not only foresee but declare the Mischiefs we

the Law of Parliaments the Lords pressed the Law of the Land by way of Negative as if the Law of the Land were otherwise but rather than that shall be any obstruction put it by Law Mr. Stew. Leave out the Words by Law for if a Man be secured it is Implyed by them who do Commit that it is according to Law Then it being Moved to draw both Votes in one Sir Tho. Litt. Tho' you should put both Votes into one It will not Answer your end for the Lords will not Concur with the first Part and yet may make use of what Part you grant of it that is the last and so have advantage against you but there is another Reason why you should forbear these Votes Namely Prudence The Earl of Clarendon being gone there is an expectation that a Bill should be prepared to do something farther wherein I hope both Houses will join if you send up this you will give disturbance to that Bill and if you should enter this in your Books in Order to send it up hereafter they will hear of it as done to make them swallow their former Resolves Therefore defer it for the present Mr. Trev. Consider whether the Matter hetwixt you and the Lords is not well as it is You have Voted That when a Man is generally Impeached he ought to be secured and that the Lords not having done it is an obstruction to Justice and what will it signifie to carry it to the Lords what hath since fal'n out justifies you and lays the disadvantage upon the Lords The World expects now what you will do farther and that must be by Concurring with the Lords Sir Tho. Cliff We all agree to these Votes in Order to justifie your Rights but what is the use of it You have already done it in your Books and you cannot expect the Lords should go so much against their own Votes this therefore will but widen the Gap it being telling them they must eat their words Sir Tho. Litt. Those who have had a hand in the charge against the Earl of Clarendon have been thought sometimes too Violent sometimes too Remiss as not able to make out the Charge But what I speak now is for your Honour which will be wrong'd in this Proceeding I am for bringing the Impeachment to something and therefore against these Votes Now you make a Declaration of your own Rights and Enter it upon your Books that not only the Vote may appear but the Ground of it but not to declare to the Lords which will beget an Answer and exasperate It is now unseasonable to make the Lords retract therefore lay it aside for tho' I am confident that Gentleman did it to no such end yet if I would Design any Thing to the Earl of Clarendon's advantage I could not take a better way than this Mr. Vaugh. This is but the affirming all which hath a been done already and I am for none of those who are contriving for any Thing out of the House Sir Will. Covent This Question is not now seasonable tho' it is a better expedient than the Declaration as Things now stand and considering what hath past I am apt to think the Lords may do it of their own accord and you would not willingly have a Negative to your Votes Therefore seeing your Votes may be of use hereafter put no Question at all but adjourn the Debate to a proper Season Mr. Vaugh. I am against the Adjourning of it and have given Testimony that I have done nothing to be thought to do that which is so much for the advantage of the Earl of Clarendon and shall take heed of doing any Thing hereafter to be so reflected on Sir Tho. Litt. I hope I avoided any such Reflection nor speak any Thing to such purpose I do not beleive nor ever did think any such Thing and hope that Gentleman himself believes that no Man in this House hath more Honour for him than I. Sir Iob Charle Let the World see that you do not intend to restrain your proceedings to the Earl of Clarendon but make it a general Care and therefore are concerned in Honour to put the Question Resolved upon the Question That the Question be put Resolved That both the Questions propounded by Mr. Vaugh. and put singly in the Affirmative be carryed up to the Lords December 13. A Bill was brought from the Lords to Banish the Earl of Clarendon and read After reading several Objections being made and it being Alledged that it was an abuse put upon the Commons by the Lords and that a Bill of Attainder being propounded after some Debate the House pass'd this Vote Resolved That this House taking notice of the flight of the Earl of Clarendon being under an Impeachment of High Treason by this House the King's Majesty be humbly desired to Issue out his Proclamation for Summoning the said Earl to appear by a Day and to apprehend him in Order to his Tryal Resolved To send to the Lords for their Concurrence to this Vote December 14. A Message from the Lords for a Conference at which they delivered two Reasons why they could not Concur 1. First for that they conceive a Proclamation in the way proposed would be ineffectual since it is not supaena Convictionis which cannot be till particulars in Order to Tryal be declared 2. That what the House of Commons hath proposed and do propose at present is intended in Order to a judicial way of Proceeding but since the Earl of Clarendon's Flight their Lordships upon Consideration of the whole State of Affairs and of the Kingdom have upon Grounds of Prudence and Iustice thought fit for securing of King and Kingdom to proceed in a Legislative way against the said Earl and haue to that end past and sent down to them a Bill of Banishment and Incapacity against him with which this Vote is inconsistent December 16. The said Reasons from the Lord being Reported and Considered and it being Moved that the House would declare themselve unsatisfied with them Sir Tho. Cliff I am against passing a Vote at present upon the Lords Reasons but read the Bill sent down from thence and Summons him by it to appear by a Day Mr. Trev. Some are against the Bill because it goes too far Condemning before Hearing others would have it to go farther Summons is in Order to Hearing Tryal and Judgment of those he hath made himself incapable by Flight and hath in his Paper told you That he will neither be heard nor tryed by you Tho' you expected to have him secured by a general Accusation yet you never expected Judgment upon it Then it is said This Banishment falls short of Treason but we are not to pass Sentence for Crimes but as a Council propound to the King what is necessary in this Case Then consider whether this Bill will Answer our Ends and if it doth delay will make it worse I think we should make it reach them