THE LORDS VINDICATE THEIR PRIVILEGES.

The king, in his speech to parliament, thanked them for their last supplies, congratulated them upon the victory obtained at sea, condoled them on the bad success of the campaign by land, magnified the power of France, represented the necessity of maintaining a great force to oppose it, and demanded subsidies equal to the occasion. He expressed his reluctance to load them with additional burdens, which he said could not be avoided, without exposing his kingdom to inevitable destruction. He desired their advice towards lessening the inconveniences of exporting money for the payment of the forces. He intimated a design of making a descent upon France; declared he had no aim but to make his subjects a happy people; and that he would again cheerfully expose his life for the welfare of the nation. The lords, after an adjournment of three days, began with great warmth to assert their privileges, which they conceived had been violated in the cases of the earl of Marlborough and the other noblemen who had been apprehended, committed to prison, and afterwards admitted to bail by the court of king’s-bench. These circumstances being fully discussed in a violent debate, the house ordered lord Lucas, constable of the Tower, to produce the warrants of commitment, and the clerk of the king’s-bench to deliver the affidavit of Aaron Smith, the court solicitor, upon which the lords had been remanded to prison. At the same time the whole affair was referred to a committee, empowered to send for persons, papers, and records. The judges were ordered to attend: Aaron Smith was examined touching the evidence against the committed lords. The committee reported their general resolution, which produced a vehement dispute. The opinion of the judges was unsatisfactory to both parties; the debate was referred to a committee of the whole house, in which it was resolved and declared, as the sense of that assembly, that in pursuance of the habeas-corpus act, it was the duty of the judges and gaol-delivery to discharge the prisoner on bail if committed for high treason, unless it be made appear, upon oath, that there are two witnesses against the said prisoner, who cannot be produced in that term, session, or general gaol-delivery. They likewise resolved it was the intention of the said statute, that in case there should be more than one prisoner to be bailed or remanded, there must be oath made that there are two witnesses against each prisoner, otherwise he cannot be remanded to prison. These resolutions were entered in the books as standing directions to all future-judges, yet not without great opposition from the court members. The next debate turned upon the manner in which the imprisoned lords should be set at liberty. The contest became so warm that the courtiers began to be afraid, and proposed an expedient which was put in practice. The house adjourned to the seventeenth day of the month, and at its next meeting was given to understand that the king had discharged the imprisoned noblemen. After another warm debate, a formal entry was made in the journals, importing, That the house being informed of his majesty’s having given directions for discharging the lords under bail in the king’s-bench, the debate about that matter ceased. The resentment of the peers being thus allayed, they proceeded to take his majesty’s speech into consideration.