A. C. Priviledges of the Peers have been concern'd, the 1689. Lords Spiritual and Temporal did Declare and

Aajudge, That the Court of King's Bench in overMay 15. ruling the Earl of Devonfhire's Plea of Priviledge of Parliament, and forcing him to plead over in Chief, it being within the ufual time of Priviledge, did thereby commit a manifeft Breach of Priviledge; and that the Fine of 30000 1. impos'd by the Court of King's Bench upon the faid Earl, was exceffive and exorbitant and atJune 24. gainst Magna Charta, the Common Right of the SubJudgment ject, and the Law of the Land, and that no Peer of @gainA this Realm, at any time, ought to be committed for NonMr. Johnfon order Payment of a Fine to the King. About a Month after, Mr. Johnfon's Trial and Sufferings being reported to the Commons, the Houfe gave an Inftruction to the Committee appointed to draw the Bill for Reverfing the Judgment, to declare the Proceeding in the Ecclefiaftical Court against the faid Mr. Johnfon as to his Degradation, void; and Refolv'd, That he be recommended to His Majefty for Preferment.

ed to be reverfed.

Titus

to prove his Veraci

ty.

27.

The Famous Titus Oates took this favourable OpOates en portunity to juftifie his pretended Veracity in his deavours Informations relating to the Popish Plot;and ftirr'd fo much about Westminster and Whitehall, that Mr. Juftice Dolben having brought into the Houfe of Lords three Writs of Error between him and King Charles II. and the Duke of York, to which Oates's Council declared their Exceptions in Writing to * April the Lord Chief Juftice, their Lordfhips * order'd, that Sir Richard Holloway and Sir Francis Withens fhould attend their Houfe, and give their Reasons and Grounds for their Judgment against Titus Oates in the Court of King's Bench. Whilft this Business was depending, Oates printed a Paper which he +May 25. own'df before the Houfe of Lords, and wherein Oates's he alledg'd, "That in the Year 1678. he difcove"red a horrid Popish Confpiracy for the Deftru"ction of the late King Charles II. his prefent Ma"jefty, then Prince of Orange, and the Proteftant Religion, within thefe Kingdoms, and prov'd it "fo fully, that feveral Parliaments and Courts of "Juftice, before whom he gave his Teftimony, de"clar'd

Cafe.

"clar'd their Belief of it by publick Votes, and A. C. "the Condemnation of the feveral of the Confpi- 1689. "rators, accus'd not only by him, but by feveral "other Witneffes. That the Houfe of Lords be66 ing fenfible of the great Service of Oates, gave "him their Thanks in a moft publick manner, and "Addreffed to King Charles II. to Grant his Royal "Protection to the faid Oates, and give him a Sub"fiftance till the Parliament confider'd of a Re"ward fuitable to his great and publick Service to "the King and Kingdom. That the faid Oates dif"cover'd the Traiterous Confpiracy which Cole"man held with La Chaife, Confeffor to the French "King, which gave both Houfes of Parliament full "fatisfaction of the Popish Plot; and other Letters 66 were produc'd by a Perfon a Quality, by which "the Government was fatisfied of the Underhand "Dealing of a great Minifter of State, at that time, "in order to procure a Sum of Money to put off "the Parliament, all which did ftill juftifie the faid cc Oates, and did verifie the Truth of his Difcove

ry. That the Duke of York having a great in"fluence upon King Charles II. as alfo feveral o"thers of the Popish Party, did prevail upon him "to fuffer the faid Oates to be indicted of Perjury "in two feveral Indictments, fix or feven Years "after he had given his Teftimony concerning the Popish Plot, and brought the fame to Trial in

66

66

1685. in the Reign of King James II. with an "Addition of fome other Witneffes, but all Papifts, and brought up at St. Omers, excepting one, "who had likewife his Education at St. Omers, but was turned Proteftant, as he pretended, and was "made a Minister by the Bishop of St. Asaph. That "the Lord Chief Juftice Jeffreys Brow-beating "Oates's Witneffes, as feveral Peers could Tefti' fie, and appearing fo much Oates's Enemy, the "King's Council perverting the Teftimony, and "no Council daring to appear for Oates, he was "found Guilty of Perjury. That the aforefaid In"dictments he had remov'd into the Lords Houfe "by Writs of Error, and if their Lordships would "be pleas'd to Examine into the Merits of the "Caufe,

1689.

A. C. "Caufe, he would produce three Witneffes yet a"live, that would justifie his being in Town at the "time that St. Omers Witneffes Swore him out of "Town; that he could produce Mr. Jennifon, "who would prove that Ireland was in Town in August 1678. which contradicted the Staffordshire "Witnefles. That the Papifts themselves having juftified Oates's Teftimony, by their open and a"vow'd Violation of our Laws, Liberties and Religion, and executing these things in the Reign "of the late King, which he did discover them to "be contriving in the Reign of King Charles II. which was the Subftance of his Teftimony, he hop'd the Reputation of St. Omers Witneffes, who were brib'd with Places and Offices in the Arcc my, and Sums of Money, fhould not prevail with "the Houfe of Lords from fetting aside the Judgments brought before their Lordfhips. All which was humbly Offer'd to the Confideration of the Lords and Commons.

66

After a long Debate, the Question propounded was, Whether this Paper own'd by Titus Oates did contain Matter tending to the Breach of the Priviledge of this Houfe? Which being carried in the Affirmative, the Duke of Bolton,the Earls of Macclesfield and Stamford, and the Lords Cornwallis, Wharton, and Sidney, diffented from, and protefted against the faid Vote; Firft, "Because the Matter refol"ved to be a Breach of the Priviledge of that House, "was not plainly and diftinctly expreft in the faid "Vote; nor did it appear therein what particular "Priviledge of the Houfe of Peers was broken by

66

any Matter contain'd in that Paper; and there"fore this Vote could be of no ufe to fupport any "Priviledge of that Houfe, or prevent the Breach "of any of them for the Future. Secondly, Because "the faid Vote might tend to the Difunion of both "Houses, which might prove of dangerous Confequence to the King and Kingdom, they appre"hending the whole Drift of the faid Paper to be, to have Relief in a Legiflative way, and accord"ingly the Cafe and Prayer was directed to both "Houfes: And Thirdly, Because that Day being

66

ap

"

appointed by Order of that Houfe, to have the Opinion of the Judges on the Writ of Error in "the Cafe of the faid Oates, and the faid Judges attending accordingly, they did think it proper, that the Houfe would have heard their Opinion

66

and thereupon have according to usual Course of "Judicature in fuch Cafes) proceeded to Sentence "before the taking into Confideration the faid Pa

per, introduced but that Morning into the House. Yet notwithstanding this Proteftation, Oates was immediately, by their Lordships Order, committed to the Prifon of the King's Bench.

ઃઃ

A. C.

1689.

He had been but two Days in Prifon when he prefented a Petition to the Lords, fetting forth, That he ever was fo far from faying or doing any thing willingly, which the leaft interfered with the Rights and Privileges of that Honourable House, "that if any thing was Inferted in his Cafe, which "offended their Lordships, it proceeded from Ignorance or Inadvertency, and humbly begg'd their May 30° "Lordfhips Pardon. Upon this Oates was brought to the Bar to make his fubmiflion to the Houfe of Lords, but refufing to ftrike out the Title he had aflum'd in his Petition, of Doctor of Divinity, at which there were Exceptions taken, he was immediately remanded to the Cuftody of the Marshalfea of the King's Bench.

On the 31ft of May the Houfe of Lords having heard the Opinion of all the Judges concerning the Illegality of the two Judgments against Titus Oares, upon the point of Perjury, for which he had brought his Writs of Error the Houfe had this main Queftion propos'd; Whether to Reverfe the faid two Judgments. Which being Refolv'd in the Negative, and the faid Judgment confirm'd, Thirteen Lords enter'd their Diffents to it. First, Because the King's Bench being a Temporal Court made it part of their Judg 66 ment, that Titus Oates, being a Clerk, fhould for his Perjuries be divefted of his Canonical and Prieftly Habit which is a matter wholly out of their Power,belonging to the Ecclefiaftical Courts only. zdly. Becaufe the faid Judgments are Bar

<.

66

1689.

66

A. C. "barous, Inhumane and Unchriftian, and there is no Precedents to warrant the Punishments of 66 Whipping and committing to Prison for Life for "the Crime of Perjury, which yet were but part of "the Punishment inflicted upon him. 3dly. Because "the particular Matters upon which the Indict66 ments were found, where the Points objected against Oates's Testimony in feveral of the Tryals, "which were allow'd to be good and credible Wit"neffes, though teftified against him by most of the "fame Perfons who witneffed against him upon "these Indictments. 4thly. Becaufe this would be an Encouragement and an Allowance for giving "the like Cruel, Barbarous and Illegal Punishments "hereafter, unless thofe Judgments were Revers'd. Sthly. Becaufe Sir John Holt, Sir Henry Pollexfen, "the Lord Chief Juftices, Sir Robert Atkins, Chief "Baron, with fix Judges more, for thefe and ma

་་

66

many others Reafons did, before that Houfe, fo"lemnly deliver their Opinions, and unanimously "declare, That the faid Judgments were contrary (6 to Law and Ancient Practice, and therefore Er66 roneous, and ought to be Revers'd. And, Lastly, "because it was contrary to the Declaration of Rights on the 12th of February laft, wherein it "doth appear, That exceffive Bail ought not to be 66 requir'd, nor exceffive Fines impos'd, nor cruel and 66 unufual Punifoments inflicted. This Proteftation worked fo powerfully in the Houfe of Lords, that the following day, their Lordships, after hearing Council at the Bar, to argue the Errors affign'd by Oates, did Order and Adjudge that the Judgment given against the faid Oates fhould be Revers'd; and leave was given for the bringing in a Bill, for the fecuring Perfons hereafter from the Prejudice which might come from his Teftimony. But upon the Second reading of this Bill in the Upper House (which had alredy past the Lower) there were feveral Amendments made, and a Provifo inferted, whereby it was declar'd, That until the Matters for which Titus Oates was committed for Perjury were heard and determin'd in Parliament, that the faid Oates fhould not be receiv'd in any Court or Caufe whatsoever to be a Witness.