London in the Jacobite times, Volume I

by Dr. Doran

An attempt was made, through Mr. Erasmus Lewis, of the Secretary of State’s office (a witness for the bishop), to get at one secret, the unveiling of which would have served Atterbury materially. Mr. Lewis was asked what he knew of the ability or habit of one Brocket, a clerk in that office, in counterfeiting the handwriting of other people? Two-thirds of the judicial assembly seem to have started with terror at the audacity of the question; and they speedily resolved that ‘it was not proper that Mr. Lewis should be examined on any thing relating to government, which came to his knowledge by being employed in the Secretary of State’s office.’ Notwithstanding this rebuke, Mr. Lewis did contrive to let it be known that Brocket was a clever imitator of handwriting; and it was proved that even from a broken seal of an opened letter an impression could be taken, from which a new seal could be engraved. Phipps, in his rejoinder to the prosecuting counsel, dwelt upon these points. Wynne then took up the theme, and pursued it for hours, ending his speech with this singular peroration: ‘I hope I may venture to affirm that there does not now remain the least suspicion of the charge brought against the bishop; not even the least suspicion of a suspicion of high treason; not the probability of a probability, nor the presumption of a presumption.’

ATTERBURY’S DEFENCE.

Undoubtedly the most sensational incident of the whole proceeding was when Atterbury rose on the 11th of May to speak in his own behalf. He kept his judges gravely intent for two hours. He introduced much matter that was little to the purpose, and all the rest was special pleading. He dared not—at least he did not—boldly assert, ‘I am guiltless!’ but he urged to this effect, ‘You cannot prove me guilty!’ One sample will be as good as the whole measure.—‘As to that part of the accusation where it is said the letter to “Jackson” was a letter to the Pretender, I have nothing to do with it. (!) He that writ that letter, when known, will best be able, and most concerned, to disprove it.’ The bishop added, and well might he add, ‘This objection carries a very odd sound,’ but he maintained that it rested on reasonable grounds. His reasoning often wandered from the mark, which does not surprise a reader who is now aware of the bishop’s guilt. At one moment he asserted there was no proof at all. At another, that there was only very weak proof—nothing but the hearsay of a hearsay. He alluded to his bodily infirmities; the insults he had received in the Tower; his Protestant orthodoxy; the calm, unplotting tenour of his life; and the probable ruin that revolution would bring down upon him as an ecclesiastic and a peer of Parliament. If his judges proved severe in their conclusions, he hoped mercy would be extended to him; but still, naked he came into the world, and so would go out of it; and whether the Lord gave or took away, blessed be the name of the Lord!’

REJOINDER FOR THE CROWN.

On the 12th, Reeves and Wreag tore all the bishop’s special pleading to tatters. The former insisted that every charge had been proved, and that the bishop’s exalted character and holy function only aggravated his detestable crime. As to the penalty named in the Bill, of the intolerable pressure of which Atterbury had complained, almost in tears, Wreag took up the complaint, and said, ‘I venture to affirm this is the mildest punishment that ever was inflicted for such an offence. His life is not touched, his liberty not properly affected. He is only expelled the society, whose government he disapproved, and has endeavoured to subvert; and is deprived of the public employment which that government had entrusted him with. The enjoyment of his life, his private estate, and his liberty, under any government that may be more agreeable, is allowed him.’

WIT OF LORD BATHURST.

The debate on the question whether the Bill should then be read a third time and passed took place on the 15th. Willis, Bishop of Salisbury, and Gastrell, Bishop of Chester, pressed hardly against their brother prelate. The Duke of Argyle, the Earls of Peterborough and Cholmondely, and Lord Findlater, were as hostile as those bishops. On the other side, Gibson, Bishop of London, spoke in behalf of Atterbury. Earl Poulett commented upon the extraordinary character of the proceedings, and the Duke of Wharton, Lords Bathurst, Cowper, Strafford, Trevor, and Gower, spoke vigorously against the Bill,—the first two especially distinguished themselves in this way. Lord Bathurst, with vigour equal to Wharton’s, put forth a vigorous wit of his own. In allusion to the hostility of some of the bishops to Atterbury, Lord Bathurst remarked, ‘I can hardly account for the inveterate hatred and malice which some persons bear the learned and ingenious Bishop of Rochester, unless it was that they were intoxicated with the infatuation of some of the wild Indians, who fondly believe that they inherit not only the spoils, but even the abilities of the great enemy whom they kill,’ Nevertheless, the Bill, by which the bishop was deprived of his estate and function, and was doomed to perpetual banishment, with death as the penalty of returning without leave, passed the House. Forty peers in all (nearly the whole of the minority) protested on various grounds,—irregularity, illegality, and of conclusions unwarranted by evidence.

NEWSPAPER COMMENTS.

Of the London street scenes enacted during the proceedings there is this record of two (towards the close of the trial), taken from the ‘Weekly Journal’ of May 18th:—‘The bishop was remanded to the Tower about five in the evening, attended not only by his Guards, but several Volunteers, both Whigs and Tories, between whom, near Temple Bar, there happened a small skirmish to the disadvantage of the latter; and yesterday his lordship was for the last time carried up to the House of Lords to hear the King’s Counsel’s reply to his lordship’s defence; and, being remanded about nine, considerable numbers of both parties above named met and engaged in a pitched battle, which lasted with great violence for some time, but ended at last in the utter Rout and Confusion of those who love the b——p so well that they would willingly introduce the Pope to defend and support him. That High Church is no more, and it is to be hoped it will be a warning to them how they attempt again to force Nature against Principle.’

ATTERBURY AND LAYER.