April 3. The Commons in a grand Committee considered of the Pains and Penalties to be inflicted on George Kelly, and after some debate, it was resolved, by 224 voices against 112, that his punishment should be the same as John Plunkett's.

The Bishop of Rochester declines making his Defence at the Bar of the House of Commons. April 4. The bishop of Rochester's trial being to come on that morning, his lordship sent a Letter to Mr. Speaker, which he desired might be communicated to the House; and accordingly, Mr. Speaker read the said Letter, containing in substance, "That his lordship, though conscious of his own innocence, did, on several accounts, decline giving that House any trouble that day, and contented himself with the opportunity, if the bill went on, of making his defence before another, of which he had the

honour to be a member.".

Notwithstanding this disappointment, the Commons proceeded in that affair, and the counsel for the bill being called in, and the bill read, the counsel opened the evidence, and produced a scheme, taken amongst Mr. Layer's papers, which was read; as were also several copies of letters stopped at the post-office. Then the counsel examined several witnesses, to make good the allegations of the bill; produced several papers taken at his lordship's houses at Westminster and Bromley; as also a packet taken on one of his lordship's servants at the Tower of London; and examined two witnesses; one to prove, that a letter and paper contained in the said packet were his lordship's hand-writing; and the other to prove, that a letter directed to Mr. Dubois, taken amongst his lordship's papers, at the deanry at Westminster, was scaled with the same seal that the letter taken on-his lordship's servant at the Tower, was sealed. Then the counsel summed up the evidence, and being withdrawn, the bill was committed to a grand committee

for the sixth instant.

April 5. The engrossed bill for punishing Plunket was read the third time; and the question being put, That the bill do pass, the same was strenuously opposed by sir William Wyndham, who was seconded by Mr. Shippen and Mr. Kettleby; but being answered by Mr. Robert Walpole and sir Joseph Jekyll, the question was carried in the affirmative by 250 voices against 72. Hereupon the said bill was ordered to be carried up to the Lords.

The Bishop of Rochester's Petition complaining of Violence being used in searching him in the Tower.] April 5. A Petition of Francis bishop of Rochester, prisoner in the Tower, was presented to the Lords and read, setting forth, "That on Thursday the 4th instant, about three o'clock in the afternoon, colonel Williamson, deputy-lieutenant of the Tower, attended by Mr. Serjeant, the gentlemanporter, and by two wardens, came up to the petitioner's room while he was at dinner, and having put his two servants under the custody

of warders below, told the petitioner he must search him; the petitioner asked him for his warrant; he answered, he had authority from the ministry, affirming it upon his salvation; but the petitioner refused to be searched till he shewed it; he then said he had a verbal order, but refused to say from whom; the petitioner told him, if it were verbal only, it did not appear to him, and he would not be searched; be endeavoured nevertheless to search the petitioner's pockets himself by force, but the him, and would not suffer him till he shewed his petitioner wrapped his morning-gown about warrant, which the petitioner demanded five or six times to no purpose; he then ordered the two warders attending him to come to the petitioner and do their duty, and one of them laid hands upon him, and began to use violence; and though the petitioner knocked and called often for his servants, colonel Williamson said they should not, nor were they permitted to come near him; upon this, the petitioner submitted, and they took every thing out of his pockets, and searched his bureau and desk, and also a paper in the petitioner's pocket, but that carried away with them two seals; they seized ing of his cause, which the petitioner thought being a letter to his solicitor about the managthey could have no pretence to seize while he it again from them and tore it, but they carried was under the protection of parliament, he took a part of it along with them; they searched also his two servants below, and took away a seal from one of them; and those two servants likewise demanded their warrant, but they had none to produce; the petitioner therefore, as a lord of parliament, though under confinement, humbly prays that their lordships would be pleased to take these matters into serious consideration, and grant him such relief and protection as their lordships shall judge proper against such unprecedented illegal and insolent usage."

"That

Debate on & Motion for the Deputy Lieutenant, &c. to attend.] And thereupon a motion was made, and the question was put, colonel Williamson, the deputy-lieutenant of the Tower of London, Mr. Serjeant, the gentleman-porter, the two warders who attended colonel Williamson yesterday in the apartment of the bishop of Rochester, prisoner in the Tower of London, and the two servants of the said bishop attending his lordship, do attend at the bar of this House immediately, to give an account of the matters mentioned in the said petition?"

The earls Cowper and Strafford, the lords LechProtest on their Attendance being refused.] mere and Bathurst, spoke for this motion; but were answered by the lords Townshend, Carteret, and Harcourt; and the question being put thereupon, it was carried in the negative by a majority of 56 voices against 24.

"Dissentient'

1. "Because the petitioner, as a lord of

parliament and member of this House, though no peer of this realm, hath an unquestionable right, under all circumstances, to the justice and protection of this House against any person whatsoever, who, during the sitting of Parliament, commits any act of violence to his person or property, which this House may adjudge to a breach of privilege; and therefore as we conceive, the facts alledged in the petition, if the same are true, and no account given of them by the persons concerned, to the satisfaction of this House, are an unwarrantable attempt upon a member of this House, we think, that in justice to the petitioner, and to the honour and privileges of this House, there ought to have been an immediate and impartial examination by this House of the persons concerned, we finding no instance on the journals of this House, where any member of the House hath complained, by petition or otherwise, of the least violence or injury to his person, during the time of privilege, wherein the House bath not ordered an examination of the facts so complained of.

2. "Because it appears to us, that the petitioner being under imprisonment, and a bill depending against him in the House of Commons, that House having allowed him the benefit of council and solicitors for making his defence, were proceeding against the petitioner on that bill, in all probability, at the very time the matters complained of were transacted; and as that bill may soon come under the consideration and judgment of this House, the seizing the petitioner's letter to his solicitor, or any thing which may concern his defence, we are of opinion, ought to have been examined into, it being, as we conceive, against the rules of natural justice, the laws of all nations, and the fundamental and known laws of this realm, that any papers or other things in the lawful possession of the person so accused, and which may relate to his defence, should be forcibly wrested from him; or that any person, and more especially a lord of parliament, being under imprisonment and accusation for high treason, should by terror or other violence, be, without just cause, in any degree disturbed in or disabled from making his defence.

3. "Because the refusing to enter into the examination of the matters complained of by the petition may, in our opinions, be construed to be a justification of the proceedings therein alledged, even though there was not a reasonable occasion for the same; and it being suggested in the petition, that the deputy-lieutenant of the Tower did affirm to the prisoner, upon his salvation, that he had a verbal order from the ministry, though he refused to say from whom, and not pretending that what he did was by his own authority, we are of opinion that it was of the greatest consequence to the honour of his Majesty's government, that this House should have examined into this proceeding; and the rather, because we conceive it to be of the highest importance to the free and impartial administration of justice, that this

Debate in the Commons concerning the Punishment of the Bishop of Rochester.] April 6. The Bill for punishing George Kelly alias Johnson, was read the third time, passed, and sent up to the Lords; and then the Commons went into a grand committee upon the Bill, For inflicting certain pains and penalties upon Francis lord bishop of Rochester.'

When it came to the filling up the blank for pains and penalties, the court-party moved, That he should be deprived of his office and benefice, banished the kingdom, be guilty of felony if he returned, and that it should not be in the king's power to pardon him without consent of Parliament; but without forfeiture of goods and chattels. Ilereupon

Mr. Lawson represented, That the evidence against the bishop being all either hearsay, or conjecture, and therefore not to be depended upon, he ought to have no punishment at all.

Mr. Oglethorpe was of the same opinion, but gave it another turn; he said, It was plain, the Pretender had none but a company of silly fellows about him; and it was to be feared, that if the bishop, who was allowed to be a man of great parts, should be banished, he might be solicited and tempted to go to Rome, and there be in a capacity to do more mischief by his advice, than if he was suffered to stay in England, under the watchful eye of those in

power.

But the question being put upon the first motion, it was carried without any division. April 9. The said Bill was read the third time, passed, and sent up to the Lords.

REPORT OF THE LORDS RELATING TO THE CONSPIRACY.] April 23. The duke of Dorset according to order reported from the Lords Committees to whom the Report and original Papers delivered by the House of Commons, at several Conferences, were referred; and who were empowered to examine Christopher Layer, and such other persons as they from time to time should think proper, and to whom several Informatious and Papers, laid before the House by his Majesty's command, relating to the Con spiracy mentioned in his Majesty's Speech, at the opening of this Parliament, to be carrying on against his person and government, were referred.

June, the day before he set sail from Cadiz; in which are these words: "I hope the

will sail to-morrow. Your not repeating orders and advice concerning the business in hand, gives me a thousand apprehensions. God send our bankers and the rest of our friends are safe, and stand their ground. I intend to embark myself on board the for fear my dear aunt should have any occasion for assistance: of whom I am so tender, that I would not, if possible, have the care of her put into any other hands." The Committee observe, That the same expression of " my aunt," is used in the letter to Dodsworth, with such circumstances as make it highly probable, that, in that letter, as well as this of Gallwey's, it denotes the late duke of Ormonde. They likewise observe, that the names of Manfield and Medley are used in Morgan's and Gallwey's letters in such a manner, as confirms those names to mean the late duke of Ormonde, agreeably to the explication given them in the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons.

Gallwey, in his letter of the 3rd of Nov. 1722, says, He has a couple of fine greyhounds, a dog, and a bitch, for Mrs. Freeman. The same dogs are mentioned in another letter, and in the depositions of two of the sailors, to have been a present from the late duke of Ormonde to the Pretender; which confirms the explication of the name of Freeman, mentioned in the said Report, to be true.

There was likewise seized on board the Revolution, a letter to Gallwey, signed, John Obrien; which appears to be in the same bandwriting with the letters signed Gerrard and M. Digby, taken among Mr. Dennis Kelly's papers; and confirms Gerrard to mean sir John Obrien, one of Dillon's secretaries, agreeable to the conjecture in the said Report.

Gallwey, in a letter dated from Alicant Bay, the 18th of September last, expresses his concern for Kelly's confinement; but hopes, That is the worst that can befal him. And a letter in Kelly's hand-writing, signed, Ja. Johnson, directed for Gardiner, but enclosing a note for twenty guineas payable to Gallwey, was found on board the Revolution; as also a direction, entered with Kelly's own hand, in a pocketbook supposed to belong to Morgan. Kelly, in his letter, acknowledges the receipt of one from sir John (which is probably their common correspondent sir John Obrien ;) and says, Their friends in Spain are well, as one of the family writes him word; which shews how extensive Kelly's correspondences were.

Gallwey, in a letter from Genoa, of the 3rd of November, 1722, (which appears to have been writ to one of the Pretender's family) says, He has acted for many months past under the direction of Medley (Ormonde), who, he ́makes no doubt, has mentioned him to Mr. Freeman (the Pretender:) Yet, in his letter to lord Carteret, after his ship was taken, he has the assurance to affirm, That he never saw the Iate duke of Ormonde since he left England;

nor ever corresponded, directly or indirectly, with him or the Pretender, or any of their adherents at home or abroad; but was always zealously well-affected to his present Majesty and our happy establishment.

Gustavus Bâhr, abovementioned, deposes, among other particulars, That he has been informed, the Pretender's agents had arms for 3,000 men, lodged at a house belonging to the late duke of Ormonde, near Morlaix, in Brittany: Which port, the Committee observe, was one of the usual stations of the Pretender's ships under Morgan; and it appears probable that these 3,000 arms made part of the 10,000 mentioned in O's letter to L, as provided by D-; who is supposed to be Dillon.

Robert Franklyn, second mate of the ship Revolution, deposes, That letters, directed to John or James Jacobs, at Genoa, were taken up at the post-house by Gallwey. The Committee observe, that Jones, in his letter to Chivers, mentions his having communicated the copies of Manfield's and Jacobs's letters. And Glascock, in his letter to George Kelly, of the 1st of May, says, He hopes money is sent to pay for the barrels, which Jacobs has at his disposal; in both which places, it is proba ble that Jacobs means Gallwey; and that barrels mean stands of arms, is confirmed by a letter of Morgan's; in which, speaking of that very ship that brought the arms abovementioned from Gottenburg and Hamburgh to Cadiz, he says, She had received orders for taking in nineteen barrels, with every thing necessary to make use of them; which last words seem to refer to the bayonets, flints, and powder.

The intelligence sent by Mr. Crawfurd, on the 27th of May, That Gordon of Boulogne was to have a ship ready to transport some of the chiefs of the conspiracy to England, is confirmed by the deposition of Roger Garth (already published) who declares, That the said Gordon (whom he had good reason to believe to be an agent of the Pretender's) did, some time last summer, endeavour to engage him to ply off of that station with his sloop, in order to carry over such persons as he'the said Gordon should recommend to him; promising him, that he should have employment enough."

The Lords' Committees conceive, that the several particulars above related will appear to the House very much to corroborate the ac counts received from abroad, of ships provided for transporting the late duke of Ormonde to England, with arms and officers, the beginning of last summer; and that they also confirm the decyphering of the letters, and explication of the names, contained in the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons.

The Lords' Committees, observing that some paragraphs of the letters referred to them were writ originally in cypher, thought it proper to call the decypherers before them, in order to their being satisfied of the truth of the decyphering. The account they received from those persons was, That they have long been