which was occafioned by a time of great mifery; but that was not this Cafe; it was then a Civil War, brother was against brother. That Cafe is out of doors. It is faid, thefe Gentlemen may find remedy in Westminfter-Hall. If that was the Cafe, (as it is not) I think this Houfe has the liberty, in fuch a cafe of importance, to take notice of it. You have been told what was done in the time of Lord Shaftsbury, and in Mr Bethel's, but it was Lord Ruffel's Cafe then, and now it is time to make an example. Sir John Guife.] You are told, "We must be guided by the Indemnity in Charles II's time." I hope we shall ever be at liberty of judging whether things are well or ill done. There has been fomething faid by a Member that a little furprizes me, "That if you bring a Bill to do right in this Cafe, a Court may be erected to give damages out of one man's eftate to another." There are crimes that excell others; do you know any thing of a greater degree than this? Where was there more violation of the Laws, than in taking away Charters? And where more of Charters than London? If you will go upon Matters, and not Perfons, muft not this of Charters be one? There are mixed Cafes in these things upon the Public, and upon Perfons. This is an extraordinary Cafe, and there muft be fuch remedies applied, that no fuch thing fhall be dared to be attempted for the future. Mr Hawles.] I have fome reason to understand this Cafe. I had leave from this Houfe to attend the Lords in this Cafe, to reverse this judgment by Writ of Error. If the King muft give this damage, (at whofe fuit it was) you must give it him again. Will you make fatisfaction in the Bishops Cafe? I am for that too, to every Perfon concerned. There is no remedy but here, and I am for retaining the Bill. A Parliament was anciently called every year, or oftener. The Parliament then was a Court of Juftice, to relieve on extraordinary occafions. There were Juries over-awed by Judges; Bethel and Cornish took another courfe, to find honeft men; this was complained of, and they must have new Juries and Officers, and Lord Ruffel fuffered upon it. You have the Indemnity of Charles II mentioned-This is not a Bill of punishment, punishment, but a Bill of fatisfaction, to value wrongs they have done; and you may pardon them for the crimes. If you afk the value of the affection of father and children, they cannot tell what they are; go as far as you can, if these are faulty, and the Petitioners may come for fatisfaction. It is a reasonable Bill, and I hope you will accept it. Would you have a return to what you are delivered from? It is a juft Bill. Mr Hampden.] We have a great matter before us in Debate, because it is fo extraordinary. This matter, it is true, does relate to a common Indemnity; but, I think, it is not promoted by juftifying every thing that has been done, nor punishing, but to prevent, for the future, the fame thing again; and that, if there be not this Bill to deter men, they may fall into the fame offences. Some men call this "A punishment," and fome, “A reparation," but it is in a fenfe both. Some fatisfaction and reparation ought to be made these Perfons according to natural juftice, but it is one thing what a man in confcience ought to do, and what you compell him to do; it is one thing what a man in ftrict juftice is bound to-To make men pay a fum by fuch a Law, I cannot readily confent to it; I have heard nothing fully to fatisfy me. This, truly, is an injury done, and, in confcience, they are bound to make reparation. That of Armstrong was a juft judgment of reparation. Corruption is not taken in that limited fenfe of "Taking Money": Corruption is taking a place of 1500l. per ann.-In a common cafe, brave men, foldiers, condemn a man for delivering up a caftle, or fort, because he is afraid to keep it; and they fhould have known that before he undertook to keep it. There needs not Common-Law, nor Statute-Law, in the matter; it is against common fenfe-If you fay there is no other Law, you will quickly be diftinguished out of all your Liberties. I am of opinion, therefore, "That the Petition for leave to bring in a Bill to make reparation to my LordMayor, and the reft of the Petitioners, from Sir Peter Rich, and others, do lie upon the Table;" but not to go barely off fo, for they have done notoriously, and I cannot believe that men, able to make a common bargain, should give up their sense and reason in that manner. This was was not done only against the City of London, but against the whole Kingdom, and if you are not bound to give particular reparation to the Perfons injured, you are to the Public, and, in the mean time, to remove the Person, Sir Peter Rich, from your company. Sir Chriftopher Mufgrave.] When a Bill is brought in for fatisfaction of injury done, it is ftrange that a Gentleman fhould start another Queftion. If you talk of removing People, it is a strange thing. Keep us to a Question. This Petition fets out that the Petitioners can have no remedy in the Exchequer," and you are told of the prudence of it. Will it be an act of prudence to give reparation, when they may have it out of the Exchequer ? The Question is, Whether they fhall have a Bill, or not a Bill? The Petition was read, and Musgrave was mistaken in the con tents. Sir Robert Rich.] I fee nothing in the Petition as is alleged. I fee, Virtue is Virtue ftill, though it wants encouragement. It is plain, the Petitioners can have no remedy but here, but by an innuendo; therefore pray put the Question. Serjeant Maynard.] If thefe Gentlemen will thrust themfelves into the Office of Sheriffs, and have made returns, they have meddled with what they had nothing to doWhether rightfully Sheriffs, or de facto only, that alters the cafe. Whenever you will have justice against the King, you must go to the Exchequer for it-Never fo much injury, and no remedy there!-When they come there, the Barons are bound to give judgment in reftitution→ Their only way is to send out a Writ to the Tally-Office to pay the Money. Upon the whole matter, leave them to have their liberty to have an Action at Law. [The Queftion for bringing in a Bill to make reparation to the Lord Mayor, and the reft of the Petitioners, out of the Eftates of the Perfons mentioned in the Petition, was carried in the Negative, 169 to 152.] The Compiler was abfent the reft of the Seffion, [which ended January 27, when his Majefty, after paffing feveral Bills, pro Dr Tillotson, Dean of St Paul's, and Dr Scott, had been appointed to rogued preach before the Houfe on January 39. Sir Francis Wythens, Sir Ricbard Halloway, rogued the Parliament to April 2, 1690, but, on February 6, it was diffolved by Proclamation *.] Holloway, Mr Graham, and Mr Burton, were examined at the Bar on Jan. 25, touching the Profecution and Proceedings against Sir Thomas Armfirong; the Executors of the late Lord Jeffreys defired to be heard by their Counfel; and no Perfons appearing as the Executors of the late Juftice Walcott, the Houfe was informed that he died inteftate and infolvent. Whereupon the House proceeded to the Confiderations of the Amend. ments to the Bill for reverfing Sir Thomas Armstrong's Attainder, (reported the 20th,) and ordered the blanks to be filled up with "Sir Robert Saw yer," and "Five thousand pounds." See the Journal. *The King's defign of going to Ireland came to be seen by the preparations that were ordered: But a great Party was formed in both Houfes to oppofe it. Some did really apprehend, that the air of Ireland would be fatal to fo weak a constitution: And the Jacobites had no mind that King James thould be fo much preffed as he would probably be, if the King went against him in perfon. It was by concert propofed in both Houfes, on the fame day, to prepare an Addrefs to the King against this Voyage. So the King, to prevent that, came the next day, and prorogued the Parliament; and that was foon after followed by a Diffolution. Barnet END of VOL. IX. UNIV. OF MICHIGAN, FEB 20 1918 |