of this House be given, by the Lord Chancellor, to the said Lords Committees, for their having discharged the trust in them reposed, with great exactness, care, fidelity and candor. The Lord Chancellor's Speech on that occasion.] Thereupon the Lord Chancellor addressing himself to the Lords of the said Committee, gave them the thanks of the House in the following words : "" My Lords who were of the Conimittee, "I am commanded by the House to give your lordships the thanks of this House, by your having discharged the trust reposed in you, with great exactness, care, fidelity and candour. "My Lords; "The trust was as great as ever was reposed by this House in any of its members. The subject matter of your inquiry, a Conspiracy the most dangerous as well as detestable, big with mischiefs of all kinds, and destructive of every thing that is valuable amongst us; carried on and managed in a new devised method, with the utmost cunning as well as wickedness, and covered with all the disguises the most artful dexterity could contrive; and which therefore required the greatest penetration and skill to lay open. And the papers, some of them of such a nature, that it was thought fit to refer them to your lordships, locked up as they were, without reading them in the Ilouse. "My Lords; "Your lordships have fully answered the expectations the House entertained, when they pitched upon you for this trust. "Your application in going through so many papers of affected and studied obscurity; your candour and exactness in examining the persons concerned or any way capable of giving any satisfaction, and in representing what they said; the accuracy and judgment of your remarks; the light you have so happily given to several passages in the Report of the Committee of the Commons, which though in themselves just, were yet liable to cavils, by such as were loath to have the truth found out, give, I dare say, a sensible pleasure to every lord here, that has heard your Report read, and finds himself thereby enabled to form a judgment with so entire satisfaction to himself, concerning this abominable work of darkness, which the actors have endeavoured to surround with impenetrable obscurity. Proceedings in the Lords on the Bill against Plunket.] April 26. Mr. Plunket was brought to the bar of the House of Lords, where he had the assistance of a solicitor only, and objected to the second reading of the bill," For inflicting pains and penalties on him,' in that House, alledging, that he had never been heard against the said Bill in the House of Commons; but this objection was overruled, and the Lord Chancellor acquainted him, this was not the proper time to object to the bill. Then Mr. Reeves and Mr. Werge, were heard for the bill who opened the Evidence, and produced extracts of several original letters from abroad relating to the conspiracy, to prove the first part of the preamble of the Bill. Hereupon Mr. Plunket said, "That if this bill affected none but himself, he would be unconcerned about it, and give their lordships. no trouble, well knowing he was too inconsiderable to merit the attention of so noble an assembly, and being besides advanced in years, he little cared whether he was to pass the remainder of his days in the wide world, or in a prison: but that he opposed this bill for the good of the whole nation, whose liberties and properties would become precarious, if such an unprecedented bill, unsupported by any legal proof, should pass into a law: and as the peers. of the realm were no less concerned than the commoners in this extraordinary proceeding, he doubted not but their lordships would, with their usual wisdom and equity, maturely weigh the ill consequences of it; and in the first place, he begged their lordships to consider, whether extracts of intercepted letters, some of them from anonymous and unknown persons, should be admitted to he read as evidence." Mr. Plunket, and the counsel for the billbeing withdrawn, the lord Townshend opened the debate, and endeavoured to justify the Commons, proceeding in this extraordinary manner, and to shew that the conspiracy in general, and Plunket's share in it, in particular, were made out by as strong and as convincing proofs, as could be expected in a case of this nature, where the conspirators had used all sort of art and industry to conceal the true names of the persons concerned, in order to avoid the danger of legal conviction. His lordship was supported by the duke of Argyle, the earls of Peterborough and Coningsby, and lord Carteret; who were answered by the earls "This noble pleasure, of seeing the truth, Cowper, Strafford, and Anglesea, and the lords notwithstanding so many contrivances to hide Bathurst, Bingley, Trevor, and Lechmere; and it, and of being thereby enabled to come to after a debate that lasted till about three in the right resolutions in a matter of such importance, afternoon, it was moved, "That the opinion of has very naturally and agreeably broke out the judges be asked, whether extracts out of into so unanimous a resolution of returning the letters written by the King's Ministers abroad, thanks of this House to your lordships, to whom and others, to the Secretaries of State here, they so much owe it. And in obedience to attested by the Secretary of State, and exatheir commands, I do, with particular pleasure, mined by the Lords of the Committee, and give your lordships the thanks of this House, found to agree with the originals, (which orifor your having discharged the trust in your lord-ginals are yet extant, and remain in the hands ships reposed, with great exactness, care, fidelity, and candour." of the Secretaries of State, but contain particu lars which it is not consistent with the safety of the public to divulge, as hath been affirmed to this House by the two Secretaries of State ;) and which the lords committees offered to be produced, to prove the first part of the preamble of the bill; which recites a detestable conspiracy for the purposes in the bill, could be allowed to be read as evidence in the courts below, in any prosecution against Plunket.' And a question being stated thereupon and put, it was resolved in the negative; upon which the following lords entered their dissent, viz. Cardigan, Anglesea, Guilford, Scarsdale, Bruce, Craven, Aylesford, Gower, Lechmere, Uxbridge, Poulett, Litchfield, Fr. Cestriens', Brook, Exeter, Berkeley de Stratton, Bathurst, Foley, Compton, Weston, Willoughby de Broke, Dartmouth, Masham. Then a motion was made and the question put, Whether the said extracts should be read in proof of the allegations of the preamble of the said Bill? And it being resolved in the affirmative by a majority of 91 voices against 29, several lords entered their dissent, viz. Strafford, Scarsdale, Craven, Aylesford, Bruce, Cardigan, Uxbridge, Poulett, Lechmere, Fr. Cestriens', Berkeley de Stratton, Bathurst, Anglesey, Litchfield, Foley, Guilford, Weston, Gower, Compton, Brook, Masham, Dartmouth, Willoughby de Broke, Exeter. and desiring their lordships' judgment thereupon, he and the counsel were ordered to withdraw; and then it was proposed, that the examination of Philip Neynoe, since dead, be read in proof of the conspiracy in general? A question being stated thereupon, it was moved to add these words, viz. But not taken upon oath, nor signed by him. After a debate, the question being put, whether these words should be made part of the question? It was resolved in the negative, by 87 against 29. Then the question was put, Whether the examination of Philip Neynoe, since dead, should be read in proof of the conspiracy in general? Which, after a debate, that lasted till near seven in the evening, was carried in the affirmative; and thereupon the following lords entered their dissent, viz. Scarsdale, Gower, Anglesea, Cardigan, Strafford, Dartmouth, Aylesford, Brook, Foley, Bruce, Willoughby de Broke, Exeter, Litchfield, Weston, Poulett, Compton, Masham, Fran. Cestriens', Uxbridge, Craven. Then the counsel for the Bill produced seve ral evidences which were examined, and also copies of three letters stopt at the post-office. Then several witnesses were examined against the Bill; and Plunket and his solicitor were heard; which having lasted till eleven at night, the Lords adjourned to the next morning. Then Mr. Plunket and the counsel being called in, the latter proceeded to prove the Plunket's Defence.] April 27. The counconspiracy, in general; and for that purpose, sel for the Bill proceeded in their Evidence, caused several letters, and extracts out of and having summed it up, Mr. Plunket made letters received from abroad, to be read. In some observations thereupon, and begged leave the next place they offered to read Neynoe's to send for some witnesses, who were in prison examinations and confessions before a Com- for debt. His request was granted, and then mittee of the lords of the privy council, but the House adjourned during pleasure. Being Plunket opposed the reading of them, urging, about an hour after resumed, Mr. Plunket prothat the examinations of a dead man, neither duced several witnesses, in order, principally, signed nor sworn to by him, could not affect to invalidate the testimony of Matthew Plunhim, and therefore ought not to be admitted ket, a serjeant of invalids at Plymouth, whose to be read as evidence. The earl Cowper depositions bore hardest against him. Mr. thereupon desired that the House might be in- Plunket produced also a graver in order to formed what nature those examinations were prove, That a man's hand-writing might be so of? And whether they were signed, and taken nicely and perfectly counterfeited, as that not upon oath? To this last question the lord vis-only others, but even himself, might be deceived count Townshend answered in the negative, by it, and not distinguish it from the true and and then gave the House the reasons of that genuine hand: Hereby he endeavoured to disomission, and an account of the said Exami- credit and weaken the testimony of Mr. Ranations, viz. That Neynoe being, at first, dick, a German, formerly an under-secretary free and willing to confess what he knew of to count Gallas, who having been employed the conspiracy to the lords of the council, they by Mr. Plunket in translating into German only took the minutes of what he said in threesome letters which the said Plunket pretended different papers, which were each of them read twice to him, who owned every article of them to be true; That afterwards he, (the lord Townshend) delivered those, three papers to Mr. De la Faye, in order to his digesting them into one, which accordingly he did; That they designed to get this paper signed and sworn to by Neynoe, but that, in the mean time whether upon the dread of being sent to Newgate, unless he turned evidence, he endeavoured to make his escape, and was drowned. Plunket still insisting, that the said examination ought not to be admitted as evidence, to have intercepted at count Bothmar's, was perfectly acquainted with his hand, and thereupon deposed that Plunket's intercepted letter, of the 23rd of July, 1722, signed Jo. Rogers, was his hand-writing. The prisoner said little in his own defence, but complained, That while the Bill was depending in the House of Commons, he had no time to make his defence there. When he had done speaking, the counsel for the Bill answered all his objections, and endeavoured to shew them to be frivolous and ill-grounded. They said, they would produce witnesses of undoubted credit to support Matthew Plunket's reputation and evidence; That as to the counterfeiting a man's hand-writing, they did not deny the possibility of it, but that it did not from thence follow, that it had been done in the present case; That it was, at least, incumbent on the prisoner to prove the fact, which he had been so far from attempting to do, that on the contrary, while he was in custody, he had been extreme cautious to write any thing, for fear of furnishing the government with proofs against himself; That when the serjeant at arms attending the House of Commons, did, by their order, deliver to him a copy of the Bill against him, be, at the same time, caused pen, ink, and paper to be brought to him, letting him know, that he might apply either by petition to the House, or by letter to the Speaker, for counsel to assist him in his defence, but that he declined making use of the liberty allowed him to write, and even refused signing a letter which captain Laroon, who guarded him at sight, had offered to write for him; so that it was his own fault he did not make his defence before the Commons. All this was confirmed upon oath by captain Laroon, who gave the Lords a full account of the prisoner's behaviour during his confinement; and it is remarkable, that Plunket having endeavoured to puzzle the captain by some cross questions, he betrayed himself, owning, That the reason why he would not write any thing, was, because he had been told, that the government had several letters of his that were not yet printed, which they might compare with his hand-writing. The King's counsel produced several other witnesses to support their allegations, and having made an end of their evidence, they were ordered to withdraw. Then their lordships examined the prisoner for about a quarter of an hour; which done, in a Grand Committee, they went through the Bill to punish him; and put off the third reading of it to the 29th. judicature; which the Lords ought to be very jealous of doing, since the power of judicature is the greatest distinguishing power the Lords have; and there will be little reason to hope, that if bills of this nature are given way to by the Lords, the Commons will ever bring up impeachments, or make themselves accusers only, when they can act as judges. 3.This Bill, in our opinion, differs mate rially from the precedents cited for it; as to the case of sir John Fenwick, it is plain, by the preamble of that bill, that the ground most relied on to justify proceeding against him in that manner was, that there had been two legal witnesses proving the high treason against him, that a bill was found against him on their evidence, and several times appointed him for a legal trial thereon, in the ordinary course, which he procured to be put off, by undertak ing to discover, till one of the evidences withdrew; so that it was solely his fault, that he had not a legal trial by jury; all which cir cumstances not being in the present case, we take it, they are not at all to be compared to one another. 4. "As to the acts which passed to detain Counter and others concerned in the conspiracy to assassinate the late king William, of glorious memory, we conceive, those acts were not, in their nature, bills of attainder, as this is, but purely to enable the crown to keep them in prison, notwithstanding the laws of liberty; whereas this is a bill to inflict pains and penalties, and does import a conviction and sentence on the prisoner, not only to lose his liberty, but also his lands and tenements, goods and chattels, of which he having none, as we believe, we cannot apprehend why it was inserted, and this bill not drawn on the plan of Counter's, &c. unless it was to make a precedent for such forfeitures in cases of bills which may hereafter be brought to convict persons, who have great 5. "If there be a defect of legal evidence to The Bill against Plunket passed.] Accord-estates, upon evidence which does not come up to what the law in being requires. ingly on that day, the said Bill was read the third time, and, after debate, the question being put, whether the said Bill should pass, it was carried in the affirmative, by 87 voices against 34. Protest against passing it.] "Dissentient' 1. "Because bills of this nature, as we conceive, ought not to pass but in case of evident necessity, when the preservation of the state plainly requires it; which we take to be very far from the present case, the conspiracy having been detected so long since, and the person accused seeming to us very inconsiderable in all respects, and who, from the many gross untruths, it now appears, he has wrote to his correspondents abroad, must appear to have been an impostor and deceiver even to his own party. 2. "Proceedings of this kind, tending to convict and punish, are in their nature, though not form, judicial; and do let the Commons, in effect, into an equal share with the Lords in prove this man guilty of high treason, such defect always was; and we think if bills of this nature, brought to supply original defects in evidence, do receive countenance, they may become familiar, and then many an innocent person may be reached by them, since it is hard to distinguish, whether that defect proceeds from the cunning and artifice or from the innocence of the party. 6. "This proceeding by bill does not only, in our opinions, tend to lay aside the judicial power of the Lords, but even the use of juries; which distinguishes this nation from all its neighbours, and is of the highest value to all who rightly understand 'the security and other benefits arising from it; and whatever tends to alter or weaken that great privilege, we think, is an alteration of our constitution for the worse, though it be done by act of parliament, and if it may be supposed that any of our fundamental laws were set aside by act of parliament, the nation we apprehend would not be at all the more comforted from that consideration that the Parliament did it. 8. "We think it appears in all our history, that the passing bills of attainder, as this, we think, in its nature is (except as before is said, in cases of absolute and clear necessity) have proved so many blemishes to the reigns in which they passed; and therefore we thought it our duty in time, and before the passing this bill, as a precedent, to give our advice and votes against the passing it, being very unwilling that any thing should pass which, in our opinions, would in the least derogate from the glory of this reign. brought from the Tower, to the bar of the House of Lords, to make his defence against the Bill, To inflict pains and penalties upon him,' with the assistance of the council who. had been assigned him, to wit, sir Constantine Phips and counsellor Pratt. After the second reading of the bill, Mr. Reeves and Mr. Werge were heard to it, who opened the nature of the evidence they had to produce, to prove the conspiracy in general, and the prisoner's part in it, in particular Mr. Kelly's council raised several objections to both, and, in a special manner, strenuously opposed the reading Neynoe's examination, urging, that as it was neither taken upon oath, nor signed by him, it ought not to be admitted as evidence: But as this objection had already been in Plunket's, so was it easily over-ruled in the present case. 7. "It is the essence of natural justice, as we think, but it is most surely the law of the realm, that no person should be tried more than once for the same crime, or twice put in peril | of losing his life, liberty or estate; and though we acquiesce in the opinion of all the judges, that if this bill should pass into a law, Plunket cannot be again prosecuted for the crimes contained in the preamble of the bill, yet it is cer tain, that if a bill of this kind should happen to be rejected by either House of Parliament, or by the King, the person accused might be attacked again and again, in like manner, in any subsequent session of Parliament, or indicted for the same offence, notwithstanding that either House of Parliament should have found him innocent, and not passed the bill for that Hereupon several informations of Philip reason; and we conceive it a very great excep- Neynoe were read, importing in substance, tion to this course of proceeding, that a subject That George Kelly, who often went by the name may be condemned and punished, but not ac-of Johnson, frequently told him, that the bishop quitted by it. of Rochester held correspondence with the Pretender and his agents; That he (Kelly) was employed by the bishop in writing for him, and carrying on the said correspondence; That the Pretender relied more on the advices from the bishop, than from any other person; That the bishop went sometimes by the name of Jones, sometimes by that of Illington; That he had seen several cyphers in Kelly's hands, one in figures, another of fictitious names, for carrying on the correspondence with the Pretender's agents; That the informant (Neynoe) had been employed to draw up three several 9. "We apprehend it to be more for the in-memorials to the regent of France, to solicit terest and security of his Majesty's govern ment, that bills of this nature should not pass than that they should; since persons who think at all cannot but observe, that in this case some things have been received as evidence, which would not have been received in any court of judicature; that precedents of this kind are naturally growing (as, we think, this goes beyond any other which has happened since the Revolution) and if from such like observations they shall infer, as we cannot but do, that the lioerty and property of the subject becomes, by such examples, in any degree more precarious than they were before, it may cause an abatement of zeal for a government founded on the Revolution, which cannot, as we think, be compensated by any of the good consequences which are hoped for by those who approve this bill.- -(Signed,) Scarsdale, Willoughby de Broke, Poulett, Cowper, Bathurst, Gower, Anglesea, Guilford, Osborne, Trevor, Oxford and Mortimer, Weston, Hay, Masham, Brooke, Compton, Fran. Cestriens', Montjoy, Uxbridge, Bingley, Exeter, Strafford, Craven, Foley, Berkeley de Stratton, Aylesford, Bruce, Litchfield, Dartmouth, Ashburnhamn, Lechmere, Cardigan." Proceedings in the Lords on the Bill against Kelly April 30. Mr. George Kelly was him to send forces to the assistance of the conspirators; the last of which was in December, 1721, and contained a demand of 5,000 men to be sent to invade these kingdoms; and that the heads of these memorials were given him by Kelly, and one who went by the name of Watson, whom he took to be the late, earl Marishal; That in March following, Kelly brought him (Neynoe) the heads of a letter, to be drawn up with a design of its being intercepted by the government, in order to amuse them into a false security; That he drew the said letter in a paper writ column ways, aud that it was brought back to him, corrected, as he believed, by the bishop of Rochester; That Neynoe farther added, That Kelly assured him, the bishop got notice of his being to be taken up, some days before it happened; and that this notice was given the bishop by one of the Lords of the Council. The Council for the Bill urged, That they had evidence to produce to prove, That Neynoe was intimately acquainted with Kelly, and thereby had an opportunity of being informed by him; That the bishop of Rochester was also acquainted with Kelly, invited him to dine with him, and sent to inquire after his health; and that the several particulars contained in Neynoe's information, were corroborated and supported, in every material circumstance, by several concurrent proofs: To which purpose several witnesses were examined. Then the Counsel for the Bill offered to produce the intercepted letter from Mr. Kelly to Mr. Gordon, junior, banker at Bologne, dated April 20, 1722, with a packet inclosed, consisting of three letters, one to Chivers (gen. Dillon) signed T. Jones, another to Musgrave (earl of Marr) signed T. Illington, and a third to Mr. Jackson (the Pretender) signed 1378, dated April 20, part of each of them writ in cypher, and which appeared by the matter to be from the same person; and the letters to Musgrave and Jackson, being inclosed in that to Chivers, were supposed to have been dictated to Kelly by the bishop of Rochester. But the counsel for the prisoner strongly opposed the reading those letters as evidence, and several peers, particularly the lord Bingley, took great pains in examining the decypherers, Mr. Willes and Mr. Corbiere, as to the rules and certainty of their art. They both averred, That they had decyphered the letters in question, at a great distance one from the other, and without their communicating their keys to each other, or having any key communicated to them; and that the rules they went by were almost as certain and infallible as any used in mathematical demonstrations. But having, at the same time, owned, That in their several explications of what was writ in cypher, there had happened some small variations, such as the word care, and 'to provide,' in the one, and concern,' and to procure,' in the other; a debate arose upon the question, whether copies of letters intercepted at the post office, and decyphered, should be read as evidence: The same being carried in the affirmative, the council for the Bill proceeded in their evidence till about nine in the evening, when the House adjourned. May 1. The House being met, and Mr. Kelly brought to the bar, the counsel for the bill examined several other witnesses, and then summed up their evidence, which lasted till about four in the afternoon. After this sir Constantine Phips and counsellor Pratt made each a long pleading in their client's defence, and, in particular, shewed the danger of such an unprecedented way of proceeding, without full and legal proofs, in cases, where the lives, liberties, and properties of the subject, were concerned: After which they examined witnesses, to invalidate the evidence given for the bill, and in particular Neynoe's informations. Among the rest, Mr. Bingley, who was taken up at Deal with Neynoe, deposed, That Ney noe had several times owned to him, That in order to humour those in power, and to get money from them, he had told them several stories of a pretended conspiracy; That by this means, he got three or four hundred pounds from Mr. Walpole. And, that among other, drudgeries which Mr. Walpole required him to do, he prevailed with him to convey into one of Mr. Kelly's drawers a list of names of persons concerned in the Conspiracy; that the said list might be seized, when Kelly was apprehended. This being a charge of a very heinous nature upon a person of so distinguished a chaVOL. VIII. racter, it was thought proper, that Mr. Walpole should have an opportunity to clear himself; upon which that affair was farther adjourned to the next morning. May 2. The Commons, upon a message from the Lords, having given leave that Mr. Walpole might attend their lordships' House, to be examined as a witness, Mr. Walpole, upon oath, gave their lordships a full account of the whole matter: He said, That on Saturday the 28th of July 1722, he received a letter subscribed S. T. intimating, that if the person who wrote it received encouragement, he would make considerable discoveries, and if an advertisement acknowledging the receipt of this letter, and complying with the proposal, were inserted in the gazette, the writer would wait upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the name of Walton. That it being then too late to have an advertisement inserted in that day's gazette, the same was deferred till Tues day the last day of July. That the next day, Neynoe, according to his promise, waited upon him, Mr. Walpole, who finding him at first very willing and free to tell all he knew of the conspiracy, and to explain some fictitious names, made use of in the letters intercepted by the government, unknown to the said Neynoe, this deponent, (Mr. Walpole,) gave him, as an encouragement, first the sum of 2001. by the king's order, and afterwards, 150%. at three several times. To corroborate this deposition, Neynoe's letter, of the 28th of July, 1722, and the advertisement inserted in the London gazette, in conformity thereto, were produced, which fully destroyed Bingley's evidence: For as Kelly was taken up about the middle of May, and Mr. Walpole never saw Neynoe till the beginning of August, it was impossible for the latter to tamper with Neynoe to convey the list of the names, in question, into one of Mr. Kelly's drawers, when he should be apprehended. not dictated by the Bishop of Rochester to Motion to resolve, That certain Letters were Kelly. This point being over, the counsel for liberty to proceed to examine witnesses to the prisoner desired, That they might be at prove, by several circumstances, That the letters dated 20th April, 1722, given in evidence for the bill, were not dictated by the bishop of Rochester to the prisoner George with that desire, the same occasioned a very Kelly; but a motion being made for complying warm and long debate; and the question being put thereupon, it was carried in the negative by 82 voices against 47. Protest on its passing in the Negative.] "Dissentient' 1. "Because it was insisted on by the pri-, soner's counsel, that the proof desired was necessary to his defence, and if allowed to be made would contribute to satisfy the House of the prisoner's innocence of the crimes charged on him by the bill; for which reason alone, if there was no other, we think the witnesses R |