EARL OF ORFORD, &c, IMPEACHED.
Lord Somers, understanding that he was accused in the house of commons of having consented to the partition treaty, desired that he might be admitted and heard in his own defence. His request being granted, he told the house that when he received the king’s letter concerning the partition treaty, with an order to send over the necessary powers in the most secret manner, he thought it would have been taking too much upon him to put a stop to a treaty of such consequence when the life of the king of Spain was so precarious; for, had the king died before the treaty was finished, and he been blamed for delaying the necessary powers, he could not have justified his own conduct, since the king’s letter was really a warrant; that, nevertheless, he had written a letter to his majesty objecting to several particulars in the treaty, and proposing other articles which he thought were for the interest of his country; that he thought himself bound to put the great seal to the treaty when it was concluded; that, as a privy counsellor, he had offered his best advice, and as chancellor, executed his office according to his duty. After he had withdrawn, his justification gave rise to a long debate which ended in a resolution, carried by a majority of seven voices, That John lord Somers, by advising his majesty to conclude the treaty of partition, whereby large territories of the Spanish monarchy were to be delivered up to France, was guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor. Votes to the same effect were passed against Edward carl of Orford, and Charles lord Halifax; and all three were impeached at the bar of the upper house. But the commons knowing that those impeachments would produce nothing in the house of lords, where the opposite interest predominated, they resolved to proceed against the accused noblemen in a more expeditious and effectual way of branding their reputation. They voted and presented an address, to the king, desiring he would remove them from his councils and presence for ever, as advisers of a treaty so pernicious to the trade and welfare of England. They concluded by repeating their assurance that they would always stand by and support his majesty to the utmost of their power, against all his enemies both at home and abroad. The king, in his answer, artfully overlooked the first part of the remonstrance. He thanked them for their repeated assurances; and told them he would employ none in his service but such as should be thought most likely to improve that mutual trust and confidence between him and his people, which was so necessary at that conjuncture, both for their own security and the preservation of their allies.
DISPUTES BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
The lords, incensed at this step of the commons, which they considered as an insult upon their tribunal, and a violation of common justice, drew up and delivered a counter-address, humbly beseeching his majesty that he would not pass any censure upon the accused lords until they should be tried on the impeachments, and judgments be given according to the usage of parliament. The king was so perplexed by these opposite representations, that he knew not well what course to follow. He made no reply to the counter-address; but allowed the names of the impeached lords to remain in the council-books. The commons having carried their point, which was to stigmatize those noblemen and prevent their being employed for the future, suffered the impeachments to be neglected until they themselves moved for trial. On the fifth day of May the house of lords sent a message to the commons, importing, That no articles had as yet been exhibited against the noblemen whom they had impeached. The charge was immediately drawn up against the earl of Orford: him they accused of having received exorbitant grants from the crown; of having been concerned with Kidd the pirate; of having committed abuses in managing and victualling the fleet when it lay on the coast of Spain; and lastly, of having advised the partition treaty. The earl, in his own defence, declared that he had received no grant from the king except a very distant reversion, and a present of ten thousand pounds after he had defeated the French at La Hogue; that in Kidd’s affair he had acted legally, and with a good intention towards the public, though to his own loss; that his accounts with regard to the fleet which he commanded had been examined and passed; yet he was ready to waive the advantage, and justify himself in every particular; and he absolutely denied that he had given any advice concerning the treaty of partition. Lord Somers was accused of having set the seals to the powers, and afterwards to the treaties; of having accepted some grants; of having been an accomplice with Kidd; and of having some guilt of partial and dilatory proceedings in chancery. He answered every article in the charge; but no replication was made by the commons either to him or the earl of Orford. When the commons were stimulated by another message from the peers, relating to the impeachments of the earl of Portland and lord Halifax, they declined exhibiting articles against the former on pretence of respect for his majesty; but on the fourteenth of June, the charge against Halifax was sent up to the lords. He was taxed with possessing a grant in Ireland, without paying the produce of it according to the law lately enacted concerning those grants; with enjoying another grant out of the forest of Deane, to the waste of the timber and the prejudice of the navy; with having held places that were incompatible, by being at the same time commissioner of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer; and with having advised the two treaties of partition. He answered, that his grant in Ireland was of debts and sums of money, and within the act concerning confiscated estates; that all he had ever received from it did not exceed four hundred pounds, which, if he was bound to repay, a common action would lie against him; but every man was not to be impeached who did not discharge his debts at the very day of payment. He observed, that as his grant in the forest of Deane extended to weedings only, it could occasion no waste of timber nor prejudice to the navy; that the auditor’s place was held by another person, until he obtained the king’s leave to withdraw from the treasury; that he never saw the first treaty of partition, nor was his advice asked upon the subject; that he had never heard of the second but once before it was concluded; and then he spoke his sentiments freely on the subject. This answer, like the others, would have been neglected by the commons, whose aim was now to evade the trials, had not the lords pressed them by messages to expedite the articles. They even appointed a day for Orford’s trial, and signified their resolution to the commons. These desired that a committee of both houses should be named for settling preliminaries, one of which was, That the lord to be tried should not sit as a peer; and the other imported, That those lords impeached for the same matter should not vote in the trial of each other. They likewise desired that lord Somers should be first tried. The lords made no objection to this last demand; but they rejected the proposal of a committee consisting of both houses, alleging that the commons were parties, and had no title to sit in equality with the judges, or to settle matters relating to the trial; that this was a demand contrary to the principles of law and rules of justice, and never practised in any court or nation. The lords, indeed, had yielded to this expedient in the popish plot, because it was a case of treason, in which the king’s life and safety of the kingdom were concerned, while the people were jealous of the court, and the whole nation was in a ferment; but at present the times were quiet, and the charge amounted to nothing more than misdemeanors; therefore the lords could not assent to such a proposal as was derogatory from their jurisdiction. Neither would they agree to the preliminaries; but on the twelfth day of June resolved, That no peer impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors should, upon his trial, be without the bar; and that no peer impeached could be precluded from voting on any occasion except in his own trial. Divers messages passed between the two houses,—the commons still insisting upon a committee to settle preliminaries; at length the dispute was brought to a free conference.
THE IMPEACHED LORDS ACQUITTED.
Meanwhile the king, going to the house of peers, gave the royal assent to the bill of succession. In his speech he expressed his warm acknowledgments for their repeated assurances of supporting him in such alliances as should be most proper for the preservation of the liberty of Europe, and for the security of England and the states-general. He observed that the season of the year was advanced; that the posture of affairs absolutely required his presence abroad; and he recommended despatch of the public business, especially of those matters which were of the greatest importance. The commons thanked him in an address for having approved of their proceedings: they declared they would support him in such alliances as he should think fit to make in conjunction with the emperor and the states-general, for the peace of Europe, and reducing the exorbitant power of France. They then resumed their dispute with the upper house. In the free conference, lord Haversham happened to tax the commons with partiality, in impeaching some lords and screening others who were equally guilty of the same misdemeanors. Sir Christopher Musgrave and the managers for the commons immediately withdrew; this unguarded sally being reported to the house, they immediately resolved, That John lord Haversham had uttered most scandalous reproaches and false expressions, highly reflecting upon the honour and justice of the house of commons, tending to a breach in the good correspondence between the two houses, and to the interruption of the public justice of the nation; that the said lord Haversham should be charged before the lords for the said words; that the lords should be desired to proceed in justice against him, and to inflict upon him such punishment as so high an offence against the commons did deserve. The commons had now found a pretence to justify their delay; and declared they would not renew the conference until they should have received satisfaction. Lord Haversham offered to submit to a trial; but insisted on their first proving the words which he was said to have spoken. When this declaration was imparted to the commons, they said the lords ought to have censured him in a summary way, and still refused to renew the conference. The lords, on the other hand, came to a resolution, That there should not be a committee of both houses concerning the trial of the impeached lords. Then they resolved, That lord Somers should be tried at Westminster-hall on Tuesday the seventeenth day of June, and signified this resolution to the lower house; reminding them, at the same time, of the articles against the earl of Portland. The commons refused to appear, alleging they were the only judges, and that the evidence was not yet prepared. They sent up the reasons of their nonappearance to the house of lords, where they were supported by the new ministry and all the malcontents, and produced very warm debates. The majority carried their point piecemeal by dint of different votes, against which very severe protests were entered. On the day appointed for the trial, they sent a message to the commons that they were going to Westminster-hall. The other impeached lords asked leave, and were permitted to withdraw. The articles of impeachment against lord Somers, and his answers, being read in Westminster-hall, and the commons not appearing to prosecute, the lords adjourned to their own house, where they debated concerning the question that was to be put. This being settled, they returned to Westminster-hall; and the question being put, “That John lord Somers be acquitted of the articles of impeachment against him, exhibited by the house of commons, and all things therein contained; and, That the impeachment be dismissed,” it was carried by a majority of thirty-five. The commons, exasperated at these proceedings, resolved, That the lords had refused justice to the commons; that they had endeavoured to overturn the right of impeachment lodged in the commons by the ancient constitution of the kingdom; that all the ill consequences which might attend the delay of the supplies given for the preservation of the public peace, and the maintenance of the balance of Europe, would be owing to those who, to procure an indemnity for their own crimes, had used their utmost endeavours to make a breach between the two houses. The lords sent a message to the commons, giving them to understand that they had acquitted lord Somers and dismissed the impeachment, as nobody had appeared to support the articles; and that they had appointed next Monday for the trial of the earl of Orford. They resolved, That unless the charge against lord Haversham should be prosecuted by the commons before the end of the session, the lords would adjudge him innocent; that the resolutions of the commons on their late votes, contained most unjust reflections on the honour and justice of the peers; that they were contrived to cover their affected and unreasonable delays in prosecuting the impeached lords; that they manifestly tended to the destruction of the judicature of the lords; to the rendering trials on impeachments impracticable for the future, and to the subverting the constitution of the English government; that therefore, whatever ill consequence might arise from the so long deferring the supplies for this year’s service, wore to be attributed to the fatal counsel of the putting off the meeting of a parliament so long, and to the unnecessary delays of the house of commons. On the twenty-third day of June, the articles of impeachment against Edward earl of Orford were read in Westminster-hall; but the house of commons having previously ordered that none of the members should appear at this pretended trial, those articles were not supported, so that his lordship was acquitted and the impeachment dismissed. Next day the impeachments against the duke of Leeds, which had lain seven years neglected, together with those against the earl of Portland and lord Halifax as well as the charge against lord Haversham, were dismissed for want of prosecution. Each house ordered a narrative of these proceedings to be published; and their mutual animosity had proceeded to such a degree of rancour as seemed to preclude all possibility of reconciliation. The commons, in the whole course of this transaction, had certainly acted from motives of faction and revenge; for nothing could be more unjust, frivolous, and partial, than the charge exhibited in the articles of impeachment, their anticipating address to the king, and their affected delay in the prosecution. Their conduct on this occasion was so flagrant as to attract the notice of the common people, and inspire the generality of the nation with disgust. This the whigs did not fail to augment by the arts of calumny, and, in particular, by insinuating that the court of Versailles had found means to engage the majority of the commons in its interest.