BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES AGAINST THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER.

This pretended conspiracy, in all likelihood, extended no farther than the first rudiments of a design that was never digested into any regular form; otherwise the persons said to be concerned in it must have been infatuated to a degree of frenzy: for they were charged with having made application to the regent of France, who was well known to be intimately connected with the king of Great Britain. The house of commons, however, resolved, that it was a detestable and horrid conspiracy for raising a rebellion, seizing the Tower and the city of London, laying violent hands upon the persons of his most sacred majesty and the prince of Wales, in order to subvert our present happy establishment in church and state, by placing a popish pretender upon the throne: that it was formed and carried on by persons of figure and distinction, and their agents and instruments, in conjunction with traitors abroad. Bills were brought in and passed, for inflicting pains and penalties against John Plunket and George Kelly, who were by these acts to be kept in close custody during his majesty’s pleasure, in any prison in Great Britain; and that they should not attempt to escape on pain of death, to be inflicted upon them and their assistants. Mr. Yonge made a motion for a bill of the same nature against the bishop of Rochester. This was immediately brought into the house, though sir William Wyndham affirmed that there was no evidence against him but conjectures and hearsay. The bishop wrote a letter to the speaker, importing, that, though conscious of his own innocence, he should decline giving the house any trouble that day, contenting himself with the opportunity of making his defence before another, of which he had the honour to be a member. Counsel being heard for the bill, it was committed to a grand committee on the sixth day of April, when the majority of the tory members quitted the house. It was then moved, that the bishop should be deprived of his office and benefice, and banished the kingdom for ever. Mr. Lawson and Mr. Oglethorpe spoke in his favour.

1723

The bill being passed, and sent up to the lords, the bishop was brought to his trial before them on the ninth of May. Himself and his counsel having been heard, the lords proceeded to consider the articles of the bill. When they read it a third time, a motion was made to pass it, and then a long and warm debate ensued. Earl Paulet demonstrated the danger and injustice of swerving in such an extraordinary manner from the fixed rules of evidence. The duke of Wharton having summed up the depositions, and proved the insufficiency of them, concluded with saying, that, let the consequences be what they would, he hoped such a hellish stain would never sully the lustre and glory of that illustrious house, as to condemn a man without the least evidence. Lord Bathurst spoke against the bill with equal strength and eloquence. He said, if such extraordinary proceedings were countenanced, he saw nothing remaining for him and others to do, but to retire to their country houses, and there, if possible, quietly enjoy their estates within their own families, since the least correspondence, the least intercepted letter, might be made criminal. He observed, that cardinal Mazarin boasted, that if he had but two lines of any man’s writing, he could, by means of a few circumstances, attested by witnesses, deprive him of his life at his pleasure. Turning to the bench of bishops, who had been generally unfavourable to Dr. Atterbury, he said he could hardly account for the inveterate hatred and malice some persons bore the learned and ingenuous bishop of Rochester, unless they were intoxicated with the infatuation of some savage Indians, who believe they inherited not only the spoils, but even the abilities of any great enemy whom they had killed in battle. The bill was supported by the duke of Argyle, the earl of Seafield, and Lord Lechmere, which last was answered by earl Cowper. This nobleman observed, that the strongest argument urged in behalf of the bill was necessity; but that, for his part, he saw no necessity that could justify such unprecedented and such dangerous proceedings, as the conspiracy had above twelve months before been happily discovered, and the effects of it prevented: that, besides the intrinsic weight and strength of the government, the hands of those at the helm had been still further fortified by the suspension of the habeas-corpus act, and the additional troops which had been raised. He said the known rules of evidence, as laid down at first and established by the law of the land, were the birth-right of every subject in the nation, and ought to be constantly observed, not only in the inferior courts of judicature, but also in both houses of parliament, till altered by the legislature; that the admitting of the precarious and uncertain evidence of the clerks of the post-office, was a very dangerous precedent. In former times, said he, it was thought very grievous that in capital cases a man should be affected by similitude of hands; but here the case is much worse, since it is allowed that the clerks of the post-office should carry the similitude of hands four months in their minds. He applauded the bishop’s noble deportment in declining to answer before the house of commons, whose proceedings in this unprecedented manner, against a lord of parliament, was such an encroachment on the prerogative of the peerage, that if they submitted to it, by passing the bill, they might be termed the last of British peers, for giving up their ancient privileges. The other party were not so solicitous about answering reasons, as eager to put the question, when the bill passed, and a protest was entered. By this act the bishop was deprived of all offices, benefices, and dignities, and rendered incapable of enjoying any for the future: he was banished the realm, and subjected to the pains of death in case he should return, as were all persons who should correspond with him during his exile. Dr. Friend, the celebrated physician, who was a member of the house of commons, and had exerted himself strenuously in behalf of the bishop, was now taken into custody on suspicion of treasonable practices.