THE kingdom now resounded with the complaints of the papists and malcontents, who taxed the ministry with subornation of perjury in the case of the Lancashire gentlemen who had been persecuted for the conspiracy. One Lunt, an Irishman, had informed sir John Trench-ard, secretary of state, that he had been sent from Ireland with commissions from king James to divers gentlemen in Lancashire and Cheshire; that he had assisted in buying arms and enlisting men to serve that king in his projected invasion of England; that he had been twice despatched by those gentlemen to the court of St. Germain’s, assisted many Jacobites in repairing to France, helped to conceal others that came from that kingdom; and that all those persons told him they were furnished with money by sir John Friend, to defray the expense of their expeditions. His testimony was confirmed by other infamous emissaries, who received but too much countenance from the government. Blank warrants were issued, and filled up occasionally with such names as the informers suggested. These were delivered to Aaron Smith, solicitor to the treasury, who with messengers accompanied Lunt and his associates to Lancashire, under the protection of a party of Dutch horse-guards commanded by one captain Baker. They were empowered to break open houses, seize papers, and apprehend persons, according to their pleasure; and they committed many acts of violence and oppression. The persons against whom these measures were taken, being apprized of the impending danger, generally retired from their own habitations. Some, however, were taken and imprisoned; a few arms were secured; and in the house of Mr. Standish, at Standish-hall, they found the draft of a declaration to be published by king James at his landing. As this prosecution seemed calculated to revive the honour of a stale conspiracy, and the evidences were persons of abandoned characters, the friends of those who were persecuted found no great difficulty in rendering the scheme odious to the nation. They even employed the pen of Ferguson, who had been concerned in every plot that was hatched since the Rye-house conspiracy. This veteran, though appointed housekeeper to the excise-office, thought himself poorly recompensed for the part he had acted in the revolution, became dissatisfied, and upon this occasion published a letter to sir John Trenchard on the abuse of power. It was replete with the most bitter invectives against the ministry, and contained a great number of flagrant instances in which the court had countenanced the vilest corruption, perfidy, and oppression. This production was in every body’s hand, and had such an effect upon the people, that when the prisoners were brought to trial at Manchester, the populace would have put the witnesses to death had they not been prevented by the interposition of those who were friends of the accused persons, and had already taken effectual measures for their safety. Lunt’s chief associate in the mystery of information was one Taaffe, a wretch of the most profligate principles, who, finding himself disappointed in his hope of reward from the ministry, was privately gained over by the agents for the prisoners. Lunt, when desired in court to point out the persons whom he had accused, committed such a mistake as greatly invalidated his testimony; and Taaffe declared before the bench, that the pretended plot was no other than a contrivance between himself and Lunt in order to procure money from the government. The prisoners were immediately acquitted, and the ministry incurred a heavy load of popular odium, as the authors or abettors of knavish contrivances to insnare the innocent. The government, with a view to evince their abhorrence of such practices, ordered the witnesses to be prosecuted for a conspiracy against the lives and estates of the gentlemen who had been accused; and at last the affair was brought into the house of commons. The Jacobites triumphed in their victory. They even turned the battery of corruption upon the evidence for the crown, not without making a considerable impression. But the cause was now debated before judges who were not at all propitious to their views. The commons having set on foot an inquiry, and examined all the papers and circumstances relating to the pretended plot, resolved that there was sufficient ground for the prosecution and trials of the gentlemen at Manchester; and that there was a dangerous conspiracy against the king and government. They issued an order for taking Mr. Standish into custody; and the messenger reporting that he was not to be found, they presented an address to the king, desiring a proclamation might be published offering a reward for apprehending his person. The peers concurred with the commons in their sentiments of this affair; for complaints having been laid before their house also by the persons who thought themselves aggrieved, the question was put whether the government had cause to prosecute them, and carried in the affirmative, though a protest was entered against this vote by the earls of Rochester and Nottingham. Notwithstanding these decisions, the accused gentlemen prosecuted Lunt and two of his accomplices for perjury at the Lancaster assizes, and all three were found guilty. They were immediately indicted by the crown for a conspiracy against the lives and liberties of the persons they had accused. The intention of the ministry in laying this indictment was to seize the opportunity of punishing some of the witnesses for the gentlemen who had prevaricated in giving their testimony; but their design being discovered, the Lancashire men refused to produce their evidence against the informers; the prosecution dropped of consequence, and the prisoners were discharged.
WILLIAM, 1688—1701.
INQUIRY INTO THE ABUSES IN THE ARMY.
When the commons were employed in examining the state of the revenue, and taking measures for raising the necessary supplies, the inhabitants of Royston presented a petition, complaining that the officers and soldiers of the regiment belonging to colonel Hastings, which was quartered upon them, exacted subsistence-money, even on pain of military execution. The house was immediately kindled into a flame by this information. The officers and Pauncefort, agent for the regiment, were examined: then it was unanimously resolved that such a practice was arbitrary, illegal, and a violation of the rights and liberties of the subject. Upon further inquiry, Pauncefort and some other agents were committed to the custody of the sergeant, for having neglected to pay the subsistence money they had received for the officers and soldiers. He was afterwards sent to the Tower, together with Henry Guy, a member of the house and secretary to the treasury, the one for giving and the other for receiving a bribe to obtain the king’s bounty. Pauncefort’s brother was likewise committed for being concerned in the same commerce. Guy had been employed, together with Trevor the speaker, as the court-agent for securing a majority in the house of commons; for that reason he was obnoxious to the members in the opposition, who took this opportunity to brand him, and the courtiers could not with any decency screen him from their vengeance. The house having proceeded in this inquiry, drew up an address to the king, enumerating the abuses which had crept into the army, and demanding immediate redress. He promised to consider the remonstrance and redress the grievances of which they complained. Accordingly, he cashiered colonel Hastings; appointed a council of officers to sit weekly and examine all complaints against any officer and soldier; and published a declaration for the maintenance of strict discipline, and the due payment of quarters. Notwithstanding these concessions, the commons prosecuted their examinations: they committed Mr. James Craggs, one of the contractors for clothing the army, because he refused to answer upon oath to such questions as might be put to him by the commissioners of accounts. They brought in a bill for obliging him and Mr. Richard Harnage, the other contractor, together with the two Paunceforts, to discover how they had disposed of the sums paid into their hands on account of the army, and for punishing them in case they should persist in their refusal. At this period they received a petition against the commissioners for licensing hackney-coaches. Three of them, by means of an address to the king, were removed with disgrace for having acted arbitrarily, corruptly, and contrary to the trust reposed in them by act of parliament.
Those who encouraged this spirit of reformation, introduced another inquiry about the orphans’ bill, which was said to have passed into an act by virtue of undue influence. A committee being appointed to inspect the chamberlain’s books, discovered that bribes had been given to sir John Trevor, speaker of the house, and Mr. Hungerford, chairman of the grand committee. The first being voted guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, abdicated the chair, and Paul Foley was appointed speaker in his room. Then sir John and Hungerford were expelled the house: one Nois, a solicitor for the bill, was taken into custody because he had scandalized the commons, in pretending he was engaged to give great sums to several members, and denying this circumstance on his examination. The reformers in the house naturally concluded that the same arts had been practised in obtaining the new charter of the East India company, which had been granted so much against the sense of the nation. Their books were subjected to the same committee that carried on the former inquiry, and a surprising scene of venality and corruption was soon disclosed. It appeared that the company, in the course of the preceding year, had paid near ninety thousand rounds in secret services, and that sir Thomas Cooke, one of the directors, and a member of the house, had been the chief managers of this infamous commerce. Cooke, refusing to answer, was committed to the Tower, and a bill of pains and penalties brought in obliging him to discover how the sum mentioned in the report of the committee had been distributed. The bill was violently opposed in the upper house by the duke of Leeds, as being contrary to law and equity, and furnishing a precedent of a dangerous nature. Cooke, agreeably to his own petition, being brought to the bar of the house of lords, declared that he was ready and willing to make a full discovery, in case he might be favoured with an indemnifying vote to secure him against all actions and suits, except those of the East India company which he had never injured. The lords complied with his request and passed a bill for this purpose, to which the commons added a penal clause, and the former was laid aside.
EXAMINATION OF COOKE, ACTON, AND OTHERS.
When the king went to the house to give the royal assent to the money-bills, he endeavoured to discourage this inquiry by telling the parliament that the season of the year was far advanced, and the circumstances of affairs extremely pressing, he therefore desired they would despatch such business as they should think of most importance to the public, as he should put an end to the session in a few days. Notwithstanding this shameful interposition, both houses appointed a joint committee to lay open the complicated scheme of fraud and iniquity. Cooke, on his first examination, confessed that he had delivered tallies for ten thousand pounds to Francis Tyssen, deputy-governor, for the special service of the company; an equal sum to Richard Acton, for employing his interest in preventing a new settlement, and endeavouring to establish the old company; besides two thousand pounds by way of interest and as a further gratuity; a thousand guineas to colonel Fitzpatrick, five hundred to Charles Bates, and three hundred and ten to Mr. Molinenx, a merchant, for the same purpose; and he owned that sir Basil Firebrace had received forty thousand pounds on various pretences. He said he believed the ten thousand pounds paid to Tyssen had been delivered to the king by sir Josiah Child, as a customary present which former kings had received, and that the sums paid to Acton were distributed among some members of parliament. Firebrace being examined, affirmed that he had received the whole forty thousand pounds for his own use and benefit; but that Bates had received sums of money, which he understood were offered to some persons of the first quality. Acton declared that ten thousand pounds of the sum which he had received was distributed among persons who had interest with members of parliament, and that great part of the money passed through the hands of Craggs, who was acquainted with some colonels in the house and northern members. Bates owned he had received the money in consideration of using his interest with the duke of Leeds in favour of the company; that this nobleman knew of the gratuity; and that the sum was reckoned by his grace’s domestic, one Robart, a foreigner, who kept it in his possession until this inquiry was talked of, and then it was returned. In a word, it appeared by this man’s testimony, as well as by that of Firebrace on his second examination, that the duke of Leeds was not free from corruption, and that sir John Trevor was a hireling prostitute.