Friday, January 16.
Debate on Lord Arlington's Charge resumed.
Sir John Otway, Attorney of the Dutchy.] It is for the
honour of this House to acquit the innocent, as well as
condemn the guilty. He has heard nothing yesterday but
what is a ground to vote Lord Arlington innocent, and
Sir Nicholas Carew.] Some Gentlemen are so mistaken,
as you will see by and by—He wonders that the Duke of
Buckingham had the proof of common fame only against him—Lord Arlington has confessed enough to condemn him—He told you of a statue that might have been erected
for him, for maintaining the Triple League. Knows not
by whom, unless at Rome—He says he had a hand in the
Prorogation—The War and the Declaration, were only
to introduce a standing Army, without which, Popery
could not be secured—Arlington has told you he had a
hand in all these—It is fit he should fare no better than
others—Would have no root of the Cabal to grow;
every little weed will grow—Desires the same Question
with the Duke of Buckingham, and believes it will pass.
Sir Gilbert Gerrard.] Desires the Question may go farther than to the others. The articles will amount to more,
but would have him "removed from the King's presence."
Sir Charles Wheeler.] Says still, he must speak tenderly of Lord Arlington, for the reasons he told you, but
must go to the utmost of this matter—Would have the
same vote pass, as the others had before.
Mr Howe.] Knows no other reason for this Lord's
banishment, but for standing in the gap against all ill
Counsels, and for the Privilege of Parliament—This is a
malicious prosecution (explains himself)—Means not by
any man here, but abroad, by the Duke of Buckingham—Hopes we are not Prosecutors, but Judges.
Sir Charles Wheeler.] There is no prosecution but in
this House; if any be without doors, would have it named.
Sir Edmund Wyndham.] Howe took no rise from this
House, but from abroad.
Sir Thomas Meres.] What the Gentleman said, he said
negatively, "not here," but, affirmatively, "elsewhere"—He was yesterday of opinion that this Lord was innocent,
and, it seems, is to day of the same—Will not pretend to
give his opinion, but would be glad that Gentlemen of
the Long Robe would speak, and consider what you shall
do, if they declare it Treason; and that will be a guide
to what you do—The main of the charge is, "revealing
the King's secret Counsels to his Enemies," and "the
Sir Gilbert Gerrard.] Would have the sense of the
House, whether any confession of Lord Arlington's does
amount to a charge?
Colonel Robert Philips.] He says, "he was told that
the King had an inherent Right; he advised not the Declaration, nor was it his opinion."
Sir Gilbert Gerrard.] The Declaration giving leave to
the Papists to exercise their Religion, enemies to the
Protestant Religion; that gave the jealousy—The Attorney General (Finch) told you, "that neither he, nor
the Lord Keeper, nor the Judges, ever saw it before
it was published"—Desires the opinion of the House what
this amounts to?
Sir John Knight.] The common fame was, the King's
Counsels were divided—If the things alleged were done
before the general pardon, you have, by that Act, already
forgiven it—Says it, that you may see upon what account you now stand—The charge should be, the times
when the crimes were committed; if after the pardon,
then let the charge go on—Let these things be known.
Sir Thomas Lee.] This is a various Debate before
you; it is no less than High Treason; and yet Gentlemen
say, "they have no desire of blood, only desire to have
him removed from the King"—He wonders at it—Read the article, and if the Gentleman cannot make it
good that brought it in, let him look to it.
Sir John Morton.] We are far from the Question—Read the articles, and see who proves them.
Mr Garroway.] This article of High Treason the
House will never put by, and take no cognizance of—Would proceed, as in Lord Clarendon's case; let them
that brought it in, make it good, and then you discharge your duty, let the Act of Grace be what it will—If you come to prove the nature of the thing, consider then
how far it is proved—Here is the Duke of Buckingham's
Aye, and Lord Arlington's No—No man comes here to
question the Pardon-Act—The Question is, whether a
Cabal of seven, four, or five men, shall take all business
into their hands, in such a conjuncture, to advise war,
to the hazard of Religion, Laws, and all, and the King
too; and so many honourable persons about him not
employed, and they mislead the King—These are things
of a high nature, and now Arlington would have no hand
in them—But all of them were of a Cabal—Says not
but things may be privately discoursed preparatorily, but
the King is construed to act in Council, not in Cabal—Let the articles be read, and if Gentlemen will offer proof,
another way, to a person, where you may have him for
trial—(Removal is another thing) let any man fall as
gently as he will, but must discharge his duty.
Sir Charles Wheeler.] Must remember you of articles of
this nature in Lord Clarendon's case—A Gentleman said,
"I believe I can prove it; but if not, I can make it so
fairly out, that you shall see no malice in it;" not being
assured witnesses would stand to it—There was great
presumption for it, without malice—The House consented to it, in desiring this moderate vote of removal of
him to set forth only how unfit he is to be about the King.
Mr Powle.] We are not yet ripe for judgment—If
Arlington be guilty of the article of High Treason, it is
death; and corresponding with the King's enemies is so
too—As the article is presented, without mentioning any
time, so we know not whether it was done before, or since
the general pardon—All manner of Treasons are not pardoned by the Act of Grace, so that till examination of
witnesses we know not; therefore would have the Gentleman that brought in the article, put upon it—It is not
consistent with your justice to have one part of his censure
now, and another part another day. Would have it entire before you—If there be presumptions, then 'tis necessary to examine witnesses; we cannot answer passing it by
to the King, nor the nation; and he would have the
Long Robe give their opinion in it.
Sir Richard Temple.] To every article of Lord Clarendon's charge, there were two persons of the House to
make it good, or who could produce persons that would;
but not otherwise to engage the authority of this House—But it is not for the honour of this House, in so formal a charge as this, to withdraw all the articles to make
a dust, and no more—If the articles can be proved,
would go on with the proof; or if not, would have the
Gentleman that brought them in withdraw them.
Mr Garroway.] It is the Secretary's part to correspond
with the King's enemies for intelligence—Pray hear that
Mr Sacheverell.] Would have the addition to the article read, of "lending the King's stores to the French
navy, and leaving our's empty."
Mr Attorney North.] The last article is Treason,
"corresponding with the King's enemies"—Takes it for
Treason, with the greatest aggravation that can be, he
being Secretary of State.
Mr Wilde.] Would have information of this article
for the Earl's own sake, to acquit himself.
Colonel Strangways.] The last article being read and
declared Treason, he does not say that the Gentleman
that brought in it shall prove it himself, but would
know who can do it.
Sir Thomas Lee.] In Lord Clarendon's case, he that
brought in the article did say, "I undertake either to
prove this article, or inform you who will prove it."
Mr Boscawen.] Desires to know whether you have any
precedent for beginning at the latter end of a charge.
The Speaker.] Articles containing things of a different nature you proceed on as they are presented to
Sir Thomas Meres.] In Lord Clareudon's case, we
called them "inducements"—That was your term of art
then used—Has heard a Gentleman say, that he will prove
them; has heard another Gentleman say it, that will—Here is High Treason, but go head by head, if you
Sir William Lewis.] It is most regular and agreeable
to Order, that the persons that handed the charge to you
prove them, one by one.
Lord Cornbury.] Would have Sir Gilbert Gerrard asked,
whether Lord Arlington's Treason was done before the
Act of Grace, or no.
It was rejected.
Sir Robert Carr.] The charge in Lord Clarendon's case
was generally undertaken, and he would have something of
that nature done now—Though himself is related to him,
yet in God's name go on; and thinks Gerrard a man of
so much honour, that he will make them good, and hopes
there is no clause in this pardon to exempt this Lord.
Sir Thomas Lee.] Would have the articles of Treason
proceeded in; for the others are of another nature, and
you are to proceed in another way—"That he may be
sequestered from the King's presence," if proved.
Sir Charles Harbord.] All the other accusations are
drowned in this of Treason—There is an end of all the
rest, therefore begin with that first.
Mr Sawyer.] Is of opinion that the Act of Pardon
does not pardon the article of Treason—The person
ought to be secured, not to fly your justice, therefore
concurs with the first Motion.
Sir William Hickman.] If you go on to the articles of
High Treason, that drowns all the rest—If you go to
the Lords, if he be not pardoned in the Act of Grace,
he may have one in his pocket—But are you sure that the
King will pass the Bill? If he does pass it, it will be a
thing of time, and we sent into the country, and no
censure of misdemeanors—You may censure him, and
Sir Robert Holt.] Is not for losing time, but agrees
not with that Motion; but certainly one article is the
same with that of Lord Clarendon; and Mr Attorney
Finch then told you, "If it was not Treason, he would
advise you to make it so." If this be so, let it have its
reward—But if this article be undertaken to be proved,
why will you winnow a load of chaff for a handful of
wheat? Therefore would go on with the article of
Lord Cornbury.] Would not punish crimes pardoned—This Lord has a pardon as ample as any, "for
Treasons, &c. whatsoever, from the twenty-fourth of
Sir Richard Temple.] You can take notice of no man's
particular pardon, unless he pleads it, and you are to
bring him to the shame of pleading it, and no suggestions are fit grounds for you to pass by his charge—In
Lord Clarendon's case, after duly examining the articles,
"the Standing Army and free Quarter," you declared
no Treason, but " corresponding with the King's enemies," you did—If Gerrard has no ground for this article of Treason, he may withdraw it.
The Speaker.] Says, the accusation against the Duke
of Buckingham was Treason.
Mr Sacheverell.] No private pardon pleaded in this
House, to be found in your Books; and, if pleaded,
whether the pardon before indicted be good in Law, he
Mr Garroway.] No man offered then to make any of
the Duke's articles of Treason good, (if you would have
proceeded) but upon common fame.
The Speaker.] Doctor Williams would have proved it.
Mr Stockdale.] He did not impeach the Duke, though
he had articles, because you denied it, and some of them
he was ready to prove, though you contradicted it.
The Speaker.] 25 Edward III. No words Treason
only by an act of this King; all treasonable words are to
be informed in six months, and those words, before that
statute of Charles II. were not Treason.
Sir Thomas Meres.] Words were maliciously spoken by
the Duke, and two witnesses are to prove them; and
then you yourself told us, that Dr. Williams renounced
the hearing of them said by the Duke—He one witness, and therefore no Treason in the case.
Sir Charles Harbord.] To the same effect.
Sir Gilbert Gerrard.] The reason why naming persons
is excused; it may be a dangerous thing to persons, who
would give evidence, the Speaker not to name persons,
but inducements. He believes the charge will be proved—A person of quality undertakes for another that will
give evidence—This Lord is fit to be laid aside, for his
dangerous and notorious miscarriage in his intelligence
the first Dutch war.
Sir Robert Howard.] Matters not when it was, but
let Arlington plead the pardon—But we have no retreat
now, without exposing the honour of the House. Has as
much tenderness as generosity, and, as a private person,
will use it for this Lord, but not as a Member—Naming
any body will not cause taking him from the King, for
that way of proceeding will be greater terror than the
person you take away; and from the nature of the thing,
judge the hearsay—This is a heavy charge, and he that
brought it in, ought, as an Englishman, to have spoken
with the evidence—By this proceeding, we shall bring
up names under an heavy character; not usual here—Starting the name of a man here, to blow him up, is
as much beneath the judgment as dignity of the House—Moves for Gerrard to have time; if he be sufficiently satisfied with the person that proves it, he to stand up
and assure it—We are engaged, and must proceed
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Because the person is not
named that is to give evidence, hopes the Lord Arlington
is innocent; but for the King's sake, and your honour,
would have the thing come out—The King's person is in
danger, and the Government, by this article—The King
and you have nothing but Providence to rely upon for
safety, if this article be so; and rather charge him, than
let this article stand upon record—As dangerous a crime
as can be, the King to have a Secretary of State that has
betrayed him: For this Lord's Honour, and yours, proceed in it.
Mr Hopkins.] They have no evidence ripe, nor procured, to prove this charge; therefore moves that the
article of Treason may be withdrawn.
Sir Robert Holt.] Would have the person hanged,
drawn, and quartered, rather than the article should be
Sir Gilbert Gerrard.] Moves for time till to-morrow,
to give a positive account, and answer, whether he can
prove that article of Treason; and moves to adjourn the
House till ten of the clock to-morrow morning.
[It was adjourned accordingly.]
Occasionally, upon the Report of Mr Papillon's Case betwixt
him and Sir Edward Spragge [relating to a contested Election for
An old Pilot was pressed to go to sea for voting for Mr Papillon, who, by reason of his age and infirmities, had not been at
sea a long time before, and some others were turned out.
It was answered, "that all Pilots are sworn at the TrinityHouse, and are obliged, by their Place and Oath, to conduct the
King's and Merchants ships, and they have privileges and advantages by it."
Colonel John Stroude, Governor of Dover, made his apology
for some reflections upon him about using force in that Election,
and it was accepted.
[Resolved, That Sir Edward Spragge, lately deceased, was not
well elected; and that Mr Papillon is well elected for the port of
Saturday, January 17.
Sir Winston Churchill.] Did not say, the other day,
"That the Gentleman [Mr Howe] that informed you
about the Duke of Buckingham's taking off the King's
bridle, was not informed so," but "that that thing was
not true"—Hears it resented by your Member, and desires
to be justified.
Mr Howe.] Acknowledges himself misinformed.
Sir Edward Dering.] Sees you at leisure, and therefore makes bold to offer a Bill for the Repair of
Churches, and the more speedy Recovery of Small
He had leave to bring it in.
Colonel Birch.] Would have a Committee named to
The adjourned Debate concerning Lord Arlington was then
resumed. [Debate on the last Clause, of "traiterously corresponding with the King's enemies, and, contrary to the trust
reposed in him, giving intelligence to them."]
Sir Gilbert Gerrard.] Has no design against Lord Arlington, but to show you that the charge in that Article is
not a bare allegation; for there is a person at the door
that informed him of it: But finding his evidence not
ready, moves to withdraw the Article (fn. 1) .
Sir Charles Wheeler.] He has spoken with the Gentleman that informs it—As for his character, he was zealous
for the King's service in it, has been a Cavalier, and did
the bravest and boldest action perhaps in all the war—This for the reputation of the man; but, he being not
ready yet with his evidence, moves that the Article may
be withdrawn, and that you may go on with this Lord,
as you have done with the other two persons; and seconds
Gerrard to the same purpose.
Sir John Knight.] Such a treasonable action as this,
and the person at the door that can inform you of
it;—he thinks it not fit to withdraw the Article. Arlington being a principal Officer of State, and the thing
recorded upon your books, would have the person called in.
The Speaker.] Supposes you would have him called
in, to say what he can, upon the Article of treason against
Lord Arlington, of "traiterously corresponding with the
King's enemies, and betraying his secret counsels, contrary to the trust reposed in him."
Captain Paulden was called in, and said, "he acquainted Sir
Gilbert Gerrard with what he knew of it, and, in some time, he
considently believes he can do it more fully." He withdrew.
Sir Gilbert Gerrard.] This Gentleman is of unspotted
reputation, and what he had from him was his inducement to bring in the Article; but the proof is not yet
ready, so moves you to proceed to the next Article.
Sir Richard Temple.] Moves, to Orders! be first off
from this business, and adjourn the Debate till you be
ready for this Article.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] It concerns your honour, as
well as your justice, to proceed—It having gone without
doors, you have gone so far that you cannot retreat—You
must say, it is so, or not so; impeachment, or no punishment—The Witness is an honest man, and has served the
King well. Believes he has spoken his thoughts, and would
have him called in, to know what time he will take for
Sir Christopher Musgrave.] Has known the man abroad,
and he is of good reputation, and would have time given
Lord Cornbury.] Perhaps he may take three months
time—Will you stay so long, and not proceed?
[He was called in again.]
The Speaker.] Capt. Paulden, the House has heard a
good character of you, and expects no light information.
Capt. Paulden.] The Gentleman that should prove this
Article is expected every day from France. He was an
English Gentleman, and lately at Saumurs in France.
Sir Gilbert Gerrard.] Is so confident of this Gentleman's worth, that he has the same confidence of what he
says—He hears, that there have been attempts upon the
person of the Gentleman that is to come over.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] This is much worse now;
you cannot now well put it off—This is too black a
charge to be cast upon any man not to clear himself—Would have the Gentleman have time given him.
Sir Robert Holt.] It is before you, what time this Gentleman may come in. It is the custom of all Laws, either to
produce witnesses to prove the thing, or to clear the party—If this Article be proved, you will have occasion to use
your justice—Knows the reality of Gerrard—Witnesses
are expected, it may be, in a week, and would adjourn
the Debate to that time.
Sir Henry Goodrick.] Is but lately come into this House,
and therefore it may be thought a presumption in him to
say any thing—Moves "to present the thing to the
King, that he may advise with his Council about it, to
take what course he pleases," that we may discharge our
Mr Garroway.] Would have the King acquainted with
it, out of duty to him, for the care of his person, that he
may know what we are doing, (though not without your
leave.) In the mean while, that these Gentlemen may have
time given them to bring in the evidence (but to leave it
sine die.) Only for the present do your duty, and go on
with the rest of the charge.
Sir Nicholas Carew.] Seconds the motion "as our
duty to the King and our Country, to acquaint the King
with it, for the safety of his person;" and to go on with
the rest of the charge.
Sir Thomas Meres.] As for the Gentleman that brought
in the charge, he has produced another to undertake the
proof, and has gone off fair, and has fixed it upon this
Captain; has brought his inducement to the Bar—Would
give all help to Counsellors, and no discouragements to
them—He finds on the Journal entered, "Articles of
high misdemeanor, and others, on the brink of Treason;"
therefore would go on to proof, with condign punishment,
if not cleared.
Mr Boscawen.] Paulden tells you where the person to
accuse him is—You may go on with what is on your
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Here are Articles exhibited—Will you proceed one way upon one, and another upon
another? One Article, one head, "procuring Commissions to Papists as a favour to that Faction, and the other
Secretary not acquainted with it."
Sir Charles Wheeler.] Did never say he would "undertake to prove," but "lay before you his knowledge"—We
are debating this Earl "popishly affected"—Is just now
informed, that, in Herefordshire, a Priest was taken, saying Mass in his Robes, and by Law committed, and several letters came to Mr Scudamore signed Arlington, to
release him. The Justice answered, "he would not release
him against Law:" the Priest was sent for to London, and
never heard of more. The Member that told him is
Col. Rolle—Goes no farther than "popishly affected."
He has been asked without doors, what it is? Has answered, "one that is Papist or Protestant, as his ends
prompt him to it"—Thus, would say something to what
this Earl said here himself, viz. "promiscuously doing
kindness to men of merit, without any nice distinction
considering one or the other;" this is great ground to be
"popishly affected;" one part of the Article—"By
procuring Commissions to take in persons popishly affected, turned out of command by virtue of the late Act."
If the book in the Secretary's Office be sent for, you will
find the Commissions signed Arlington—He said, "he
did not remember above one;" that is an uncertain Answer; but said, "that he signed Col. Panton's Commission, in hopes that he would afterwards comply." That
is an instance out of his own mouth—Believes that there
were twelve Commissions signed for Irish Papists, even
after the Addresses and the Act against Popery.
Col. Rolle.] Saw such letters as are mentioned, which
desired complaint to be made of the thing, but saw not
Lord Arlington's letters; but the Gentleman is turned
out of Commission of the Peace, and is now Sheriff. His
name is Mr John Scudamore.
Sir Robert Carr.] Rolle tells you of letters—When you
come to examine the thing, you will find a great mistake—He has enquired into it, but not exactly—Remembers
that Lord Arlington did it not to the end alleged.
Mr Westsaling.] Such a person was taken in Herefordshire by Mr Scudamore, saying Mass; the information
was given in at the Sessions, and the man left in prison—Before the Assizes, an Order was sent, and the man gone.
Sir Robert Holt.] Would not proceed, till you have a
sight of that letter.
Sir Charles Wheeler.] The Article of "letting in Irish
into walled towns and Corporations, against Law." They
ought not, upon any interest or concern, to have done it—Produces a letter, signed "Arlington."
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Would know whether barely
signed "Arlington," or as by an Order of Council?
Sir Charles Wheeler.] He is not only a concurrent
Counsellor, but a Prime Minister of State—He did not
look into the book, but the person that got them could
not procure the Officer that keeps the books to countersign them—He has as much as he can get in the business.
Mr Garroway.] The books you cannot send for, but
you may send to see them—If things proceed clearly, you
may proceed by impeachment, or upon your own judgment, as before.
Sir Robert Carr.] If this was an Order of Council, then
it was not the Act of this Lord's.
Sir Richard Temple.] Desires, that after every head, that
any Gentleman may fully express himself, Questions may
be asked him.
Mr Powle.] If the person coming now upon his tryal
and the proof, has but inducements to charge him, it is
proper for Wheeler to go through his whole charge without interruption, and afterwards to inform ourselves upon
Lord Cornbury.] These misdemeanors are pardoned by
the Act of Grace—Your intention, he conceives, is "to
remove evil Counsellors from the King," and an Address
ordered—Supposes your intention is the same as in the
former Proceedings, because of the Act of Grace.
Mr Sacheverell.] Moves to go to the merits of the
cause, as in the method of the former persons; that if
the offences were done since the Act of Grace, they may
be "removed from the King's Person."
The Letter was read "about Papists, &c. in Ireland."
Sir Charles Wheeler.] You see, this letter is contrary to
Law, against all non obstante's—He lays it at this Lord's
door, let who will bring it off—That Irish Act for Papists not to inhabit Corporations, &c. was made upon as
great deliberation as possible, by the Councils of both
Article. "Violent Papists command English Subjects," &c.
Sir Charles Wheeler.] Several Captains, and Colonels,
that command in the Army abroad, are a great discouragement to the Protestants. Makes out Arlington's own
words of "making no nice distinction," &c. Col. Fitzgerald and Sir Edward Scott.
Article. "Openly lodged a Popish Priest, an Assister of the
Sir Charles Wheeler.] He confessed Father Patrick in
his house—Not a "Frequenter" of Mass,—he denies it,—but in common acceptation of the words it implies that he
does go to Mass—It is too much for a Protestant; it
comes not high enough to justify him. He should say,
"he abhors and detests the Church of Rome"—His procuring Pensions to Papists contrary to the late Act; cannot undertake to prove it, has only inducements—He is
tender of names, but Sir Edward Scott and Col. Grace,
these persons have Pensions.
Article. "Money charged upon the Revenue in Ireland, for
several Papists, as Fitzpatrick, &c. at a time when he was accused of High Treason by the Lord Lieutenant."
Sir Charles Wheeler.] This is matter of Record, and you
cannot pass it by. Lord Arlington did say, "Fitzpatrick
was accused of Piracy, and complaint made of it"—The
paper was thrown into the fire, but he continued to make
the grant for the money—If such a sum as 10,000 l. per
annum be granted to Papists in Ireland, it is a great blow
to the King's Quit Rents there—Very near the Revenue
of one whole County is run away with by one Papist; they
are reserved for a remembrance of what condition Papists
were who rebelled—Fitzpatrick had 500 l. per annum
Quit Rents, and Col. Grace had some: And, which confirms all, the Papists had never been awaked in these
things, but by the Declaration they are restored to liberty,
and Lord Arlington's Counsels were concurrent—It was
told Arlington, he says, that "it was the King's inherent
Right, but when informed that it was against Law,
he was against it." Here was great discontent, when that
Lord was in this House, about that business, and he went
out with thirty for the Proviso mentioned—It is much
against his nature and disposition to do this, but in duty to
God, the King, and People, and to secure Religion, he does
it, and hopes every body is so sensible of it, that nothing is
betwixt us and ruin but the spinning out the King's life
to an extraordinary length, which God grant!—Moves to
proceed with this Lord, as you have done with the others.
Sir Thomas Lee.] "That we should be remembered
how we give our Votes in Parliament," thinks himself
concerned—We ought not to remember what we speak,
nor how we vote here—Would not have Arlington's going out with thirty for the Proviso, spoken of here.
Mr Powle.] As to the point of Arlington's Vote, would
have it wholly laid aside. There may be ill instances
made of such things, and it may be thought fire raked up
in ashes, and it may flame out on occasion.
The Speaker.] You are not to take notice of any man,
or thing, done in this House.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Would have you proceed against the Lord, and the thing, and not have it slabbered
over, but is not for removing all Officers for some you
dislike—As for Wheeler's Assent and Consent, it is the first
time he understood affection and indifference to be the
same thing—He urged "that Lord Arlington made no nice
distinction of men," &c. He speaks not as to Religion; Is
not every Judge bound to do equally to Papist and Protestant, and cannot a Secretary deliver a Papist's Petition? But
let it be made out that because he is a Protestant, therefore
his Petition is not delivered, and a Catholic's is; charge
him with unlawful things to Catholics—(When he speaks
in this case for Lord Arlington, he speaks for himself) The
Irish letter, &c. was an Act of Council, and Lord Arlington was but one man in it—If Secretary Coventry be commanded to write a letter, he must write a letter, but Arlington tells you, "he was not at the Council then, and had
no share in it"—The Act says, "no Papist shall inherit,
&c. but by particular leave from the King"—The Lieutenant and Council are to consider what is convenient for
Corporations—What commission is granted is not from
the Secretary's but the Colonel's recommendation, who
comes to the King with it, and the King signs it, and the
Secretary allows it—He did not think Colonel Panton
at that time a Papist; but when the Test came, he was
no longer an Officer—There is no protestation in the
Privy Council, as in the Lords House; every man is
a concurrent Counsellor.—Would any man have told
you, that Secretary Coventry should have opposed the
business of tacking, or any other sea affair, that knows
not the name of one rope? But Lord Arlington taking
this to be the King's prerogative, he consented to it; but
being a man that does not understand the law, and Arlington not being a man of the law, but concurring with
men of the law, and the crime lying there, would have
a formal charge against him.
Sir Gilbert Gerrard.] The Lord Keeper never told
Arlington, that it was law, nor any Judges of the land, and
yet he was for it—Arlington has embezzled the treasure
of the nation, for his own private fortune—When the
business of Ireland was legally stated, he disturbed it by
Sir Thomas Meres.] A worthy Member, not willing
to make good that Article now, desires leave till Monday
Mr Garroway.] If Meres knows him, would have him
name him; but should you keep this still as a charge, it
is not fair.
Sir Gilbert Gerrard.] Says, the Gentleman is troubled
with swimmings in his head, and is not here now. It is
Sir Richard Wiseman.
Mr Harwood.] Believes, or at least hopes, that no Gentleman has ill intentions against Lord Arlington as such,
but only as dangerous to the kingdom.
Sir Thomas Lee.] We have been three days upon these
Articles. When shall we have an end? Monday is for
the business of pressing, which frights people, and there
Religion and Property are to be considered. Pray neglect
not these weighty things—Knows not what security we
have of the Gentleman's health on Monday, and would
Lord Cornbury.] Would not be thought to speak upon
particular animosity against Lord Arlington—But to
the vote of "removing Counsels and Counsellors,"
would go upon what Arlington said himself.
Sir Thomas Littleton interrupted him.] You have made
a vote to proceed in this Impeachment head by head,
and are not at liberty to proceed any other way.
Lord Cornbury.] Appeals, whether against Order—He
moved you only to proceed upon what Lord Arlington
said here himself, whom he thinks as guilty as either of
the other Lords.
Sir Richard Temple interrupted him to Order, in the
same manner as Sir Thomas Littleton had done.
Lord Cornbury.] You have not voted whether to proceed head by head, in the charge, or for what fell from
Lord Arlington here—We are not upon the Question, who
is fit for employment, but who unfit? Arlington is as
guilty as either of the other Lords, and to his dull understanding it is plain—He will speak to the Declaration,
but will not touch upon any thing already said—He
thinks, the Declaration gave great disturbance, and cause
of jealousies—Arlington said, "he was present at Debates,
but had not drawn it, but concurred in it, as a thing
prudent at that time to quiet the people, by reason of the
war. The legality of it was not his profession, but he was
induced to believe it the King's Prerogative by persons
upon whose credit he durst have ventured his life and
estate." Probably this Lord might be thus induced to
give the King that advice, but the King's learned Counsel knew nothing of it; but could not be of the opinion
of any Lawyer that gave him advice, contrary to (what
he could not but know) several Votes of this House,
and the King's Answer to our Address, and present with
the King—He must know it was not then legal, because
no Lawyer could say to the contrary—His opinion was
known to the Catholics (indecent for him to say much
more, out of respect) Why were so many Papist officers
employed? "He took no notice of their Religion, but
proceeded indifferently." It is to be wished he had done
so, but he did not—In the last Dutch war, there was an
Address to the King for removal of Papists from command, and these very men were then put into command.
This is matter of fact, and the honour of the kingdom is
concerned in it—Arlington said, that "the Papist officers
were far the more skilful men." Some did serve the King
very well, and others understood not their trade till they
had learned it abroad; and some young Gentlemen, that
had never served the King, being then not of age, were
lately perverted, and their friends Protestants—"The
letter to Ireland" told you, that when the King offers
any thing, the Secretary must sign; but observe, these
pensions were by the sollicitation of Colonel Talbot, and
though Arlington was then at his country house, yet
Talbot made his addresses to him, and perhaps upon
common fame— He was instrumental in protecting
Talbot, the pretended Archbishop of Dublin—Has been
told, that there was a time when a foreign Ambassador
has not been a domestic with a Secretary of State; believes he was not with the other Secretary—Thinks he has
not got so much as the charge is in England, but he tells
you nothing of his estate in Ireland, and another pension
during life, and ten thousand pounds out of Ireland, but
more in England. Great sums of money have been
charged for intelligence; since May last, one hundred
and fifty thousand pounds, and a pension of two thousand pounds per annum—Does think it just, if you think
the nation the worse; and upon these inducements, desires
the Question of "fit, or not fit, to be removed." He
thinks, from the notoriety of these reasons, he is "fit to
Sir Gilbert Gerrard.] Three millions of money have
passed through his hands upon record. He illegally and
causelessly imprisoned Mr. Charles Muddiford, and hopes
that a person better acquainted with the thing will inform
you of it.
Sir John Mallet.] He has heard of this case of Sir
Thomas Muddiford's, who was long in the Tower, and
did think to have presented it by way of Petition himself; but has had generous thoughts, not to add load, or
weight, of accusation, on a person that has so much
weight charged upon him already—In 1663, Sir Thomas
Muddiford was Governor of Jamaica, and did his duty
there; he improved trade ten times more considerably
than it was before, as will appear by the Island's Address
of thanks to the King—It was suggested to the King by
Lord Arlington, that he was not so useful, and he procured an order to place another in his stead; and his
son being a considerable man of trade, this young Gentleman was committed to the Tower, not for his own
crime, as appears by the Warrant, but his father's. They
seized all his papers and accounts, and he stood nine
months committed to the Tower, to his great disadvantage; but all was for inspection into his father's estate,
of which likewise he was to give an account; but whether by the Lieutenant of the Tower's favour, or how,
he was set at liberty, but remanded shortly after prisoner.
About that time, his father was brought over prisoner,
by a Lieutenant and two files of musqueteers, and so
sent to the Tower close prisoner, and had no opportunity
to speak with his son, where he lay a year. He told him
(Mallet) that he was advised to move for a habeas corpus,
but Mallet did not move, but a Serjeant at Law did,
Serjeant Hopkins. The alias Mallet moved for—Can, if
required, give a farther account of it in writing. The
Knight took a Spaniard, that was a pirate, and, by his
getting a vast estate, was, by means of the Spanish Ambassador, imprisoned—Several sollicitors proposed to Mallet, if Sir Thomas would give three thousand pounds, he
should be released.
Sir John Robinson, Lieutenant of the Tower.] Thinks
that the Warrant he received for the commitment of Mr.
Charles Muddiford, when he was committed to his custody,
was by the King's Warrant, and so was his father's, Sir
Thomas; but cannot charge his memory with it.
Mr Sacheverell.] Would know, whether he was restrained by a verbal order.
Sir John Robinson.] Mr Muddiford had leave from him
to go out of the Tower, but broke his word with him;
but upon his Friends advice came to him again.
Sir Thomas Lee.] Would have you order that these
Warrants of Commitment be brought you by the Lieutenant on Monday.
Sir John Robinson.] As to the person brought out of
Herefordshire (the Priest) he had no money to maintain him,
and he was discharged, but he knows not by whom.
Sir John Monson.] There are two others now in prison in the Tower, Mrs Dawson, and one Overvechell, a
Dutchman—Would know by whose Warrant committed?
Is told, by Lord Arlington's.
Sir John Robinson.] They stand committed by the
King's Warrant, and according to the tenure of that
Warrant he keeps them.
Lord Cornbury.] Moves that some of our Members
may search the Warrants.
Sir John Mallet.]—Warrants from the King to justify Lord Arlington!
Colonel Birch.] Would search this business to the bottom—He will advise and help you, and when he does
otherwise, would be told of it—Would see, by Sir John
Robinson's books, how these prisoners are entered, and
the Warrants of Commitment, (but wonders Robinson
remembers them not) with all the circumstances relating
Sir John Robinson.] Receives no Warrants without
entering them, and you shall see them when you please.
Mr Swynfin.] Never knew but that when any Member
assured you, that he would bring Papers and Warrants, he
was left to himself; and would have you do so now.
Mr Sacheverell.] It will be for the reputation of your
Member, if any indirect dealing should be upon him.
Sir Trevor Williams.] The letters were to advise Mr
Saudamore to bail the Priest, after he had committed him;
which he said he could not do by Law.
Ordered, That Col. Birch, Lord St. John, Sir John Coventry,
and Sir John Mallet, go with the Lieutenant of the Tower to inspect his Books of Commitments and make report.
[To proceed on Monday.]