Serj. Wright. It is laid in the indictment, that the bond was of the penalty of 40,000l. to be paid by sir R. Clayton, with condition thereto under-written, concerning, among other things, the payment of 20,000l. to the prisoner, after the death of sir Robert Clayton, by his

executors.

L. C. J. Holt. Let your exceptions proceed from the indictinent; it is to be paid after the death of sir Robert by his executors.

Serj. Wright. Have you any more to say for yourselves?

Mr. Hall. We have a great many witnesses here to prove her reputation. It is a strange thing any one should go to forge a bond on such an eminent person.

L. C. J. Holt. It is strange indeed; but the question is, Whether it be true?

Mr. Hall. Her confession is proved by Mr. Baker; but we have many witnesses as to her reputation.

L. C. J. Holt. How long have you lived in Red-lion-street?

Glover. Ten or eleven years.

Mr. Mallet. How did she live?

Glover. I knew her live in Devonshiresquare very reputably; I always thought so. Serj. Wright. Had she any estate of her own?

Glover. I cannot say so certainly; it was thought so. She paid every body very punc tually.

Mr. Hall. Acquaint my lord how long you have known her, and whether you think she would be guilty of such a forgery?

Glover. I have known her br or 15 years. I cannot believe she would.

Mr. Montagu. Have you heard the evidence?-Glover. Yes.

Glover. I cannot tell what to say to that. I suppose nobody would confess, if they were not guilty.

Serj. Wright. Do you know one Hebdon?
Glover. I know Hebdon.

Serj. Wright. He is a witness to the hond.
Was he sir John Hebdon's son?

Glover. I can give no account of that; but he has had a very honourable character.

Mr. Montagu. What do you think of it then?-Glover. I know not what to think. Mr. Montagu. Do you think she would conMr. Mallet. This bond is not in the indict-fess herself guilty of a forgery, if she were not? ment. The bond of 40,000l. is several years since. Now there are two bonds. Now that of 54,000l. is not in this indictment, and this of 40,000l. is several years since that it was shewn to him. It is strange he should be so very exact, and yet did not examine it. And probably he might mistake in the copy, and it may not be the very bond in the indictment. Now, as to Mr. Baker; it is true, we have a bond of 5,000l. from the duke of Buckingham, and we are suing sir R. Clayton for this money, and hope to have it, now after so many years. And sir R. Clayton did prefer a bill in Chancery against us, and we in answer did disclaim having any such bond. And now, when we are like to have a decree for this sum against the trustee of the duke of Buckingham's estate, he comes and would take off our credit in this matter. We did, in the year 1695, disclaim any such bond.

Mr. Northey. Then you do admit that she owned the bond.

[Then her witnesses were called.] Mr. Mallet. Mr. Glover, do you know Mrs. Butler?-Glover. Yes.

Mr. Mallet. Give an account of what you know as to her reputation.

Glover. I have known her 15 or 16 years.
All that I know of her is fair and clear.

L. C. J. Holt. Where do you live?
Glover. In Red-lion-street.
L. C. J. Holt. What profession are you of?
Glover. I belonged to Lincoln's-inu.
L.C.J. Holt. A gentleman of Lincoln's-inn.
Glover. I was brought up at the university,
but have not resided there lately.

L. C. J. Holt. How do you live? Are you a house-keeper ?

Glover. I live privately at present.
L. C. J. Holt. Who knows you?
Glover. I cannot tell who knows me here.
I believe Mr. Northey does.

Mr. Northey. I do not intend to give any character of you, I do not use to give characters of my clients.

[Mrs. Rodum called, and appeared.]
Mr. Hall. Mrs. Rodum, do you know Mrs.
Butler?-Rodum. Yes.

Mr. Hall. How long have you known her!
Rodum. Five or six years.

Mr. Hall. What do you know of her character?

Rodum. I am the widow of one of them that killed one another by the Temple. I never knew of any bond, nor never heard her claim to any such bond. She lived in good reputation. She was in my house when my husband was killed. She lived in my house about a year; never heard she made any such pretension. She lived honestly and decently. She owes me upwards of 3001.

I

L.C. J. Holt. For what? How came she to owe you 3001.?

Rodum. I kept a shop in the Exchange, and my husband was a broker. She owed it me partly for goods out of my shop, and partly for goods out of Scotland. He was killed about half a year ago, and I have kept the shop still. About three or four months ago she left me, and I never heard of any bond.

Serj. Wright. Did you never hear of a bill in Chancery against her?-Rodum. No, Sir..

Mr. Mallet. Did you hear of any money that was due to her from the duke of Buckingbam?

Rodum. I was told she was suing sir Robert Clayton for money that was to be paid her on the duke of Buckingham's account, and upon the credit of that I trusted her. [Shaw called.]

Mr. Hall. How long have you known Mrs Butler ?-Shaw, About sixteen years.

Serj. Wright. Put up more witnesses if you have any.

Mr. Hall. We have done.

L. C. J. Holt. Mrs. Butler, will you say any thing for yourself?

Mrs. Butler. I am altogether innocent in the matter, I never wronged sir Robert Clayton, nor any body else, in my life.

L. C. J. Holt. Gentlemen of the jury, this Mrs. Butler, alias Strickland, stands indicted for forging a bond in the name of sir Robert Clayton, in the penalty of 40,000l. the condition for the payment of 20,000l. among other things, within six months after the death of sir R. Clayton. And also, that she did publish this bond as the true bond of sir R. Clayton. You have heard what evidence has been given, to prove her guilty of this forgery, and the publication of it.

disclaimed in Chancery the having of any; some time after he had heard a report, as if she was setting up of a new bond, and that Mr. Woodward could give an account of it. Wherefore he sends Mr. Baker to Mr. Woodward, who gave him the same account that he has done here. Then sir Robert makes a complaint, and has her brought before me; and there was Mr. Woodward with this copy. And this was objected to her, as if she had forged this bond. And it seems, when she was there under exa➡ mination, and is proved to you by Mr. Baker, she did plainly confess, that she had forged this bond of 40,000l. and that she had procured one Lewkar to do it for her, who set sir Robert's name to it; and said, that the witnesses, whose names were set to it, were innocent, and knew nothing of the matter.

ness says, she looked on her to be a very honest person. This is the sum of the evidence.

There is a very strong evidence to induce you to believe that she did forge the bond. Such a bond she had, that is plain. She does give no account what is become of it; and she does not shew any manner of pretence of having so much money from sir R. Clayton due to her; she does not make it appear, why sir Robert should give her a bond upon any account. Now, for any to say that they knew her, and they do not believe she would forge a bond, that is no evidence; nobody ought to believe ill of Mrs. Butler, or any one else, unless it be made to appear. But the question is not, what they do believe; but whether the matter be proved to you to your satisfaction that she has forged this bond? And if you are satisfied that she did forge it, you ought to find her guilty; and if you do not believe the evidence to be satisfactory, you ought to acquit her.

Now what is said for her on the other side? They bring some persons for her, that say they have known her. One, that says he belonged to Lincoln's-inn, and had been acquainted with her fourteen or fifteen years, and did look upon her as a civil woman; and for his part, he does not believe she would be It seems, some time since, as is proved to guilty of such a forgery. Another, who is a you by Mr. Woodward, this gentlewoman woman, says she has known her some time, came to him with this bond of 40,000l. And and she says, she has trusted her much, and it was upon this account, as she said: To wit, did never hear her say any thing of this bond, sir R. Clayton having given her this bond, it but she behaved herself civilly, and she took had taken air, and was come to the lady Clay-her to be a very sober person. Another wit ton's ear; which occasioned some difference between sir R. Clayton and his lady. She said, that this bond, by direction from sir Robert, was to be delivered up to him to be cancelled; and that sir R. Clayton had engaged to enter into a new bond in the penalty of 54,000l. for the payment of 26,000l. (there being at that time supposed an arrear of interest for 20,000l.) payable after sir Robert's death, and interest in the mean time. She delivered this bond to Mr. Woodward. He takes a copy of it, which is produced and read. And so, according to her direction, Mr. Woodward does draw another bond, with the penalty of 54,000l. and she then told Mr. Woodward sir Robert would seal this bond upon the delivery up of the bond of 40,000l. Mr. Woodward having considered, that it was an extraordinary sum for sir Robert to engage himself in, and he being a very considerable man, he advised her to have this new bond well attested; and to be sure to get witnesses of unquestionable credit to see it executed. And thereupon he offered himself to go with her to sir Robert, to be a witness to this new bond. No, says she, sir Robert is not willing that this should be known; you are not a proper person to be a witness to it; therefore, says she, I will get some other witnesses to attest it. Whereupon he gives her this first bond of 40,000 which she brought to him for the payment of 20,000l. and gave her also the draught of the new bond. He says, this bond that she brought to him was attested by four witnesses. Sir Robert, it seems, upon her answer in Chancery, not imagining any thing of this, she having

[Then the Jury withdrew, and being returned, gave their verdict as follows:]

Cl. of Arr. Are you agreed of your verdict?
Jury. Yes.

Cl. of Arr. Who shall say for you?
Jury. Foreman.

How say ye? Is the prisoner at the bar guilty
Cl. of Arr. Bring Mary Butler to the bar.
of the forgery whereof she stands indicted, or
not guilty? Foreman. Guilty.

The Judgment which the court pronounced against her was, That she should pay a fine of 500l. to the king, and continue in prison till she paid it.

407. Proceedings in Parliament against THOMAS Duke of LEEDS, on an Impeachment of High Crimes and Misdemeanors: 7 WILLIAM III. A. D. 1695-1701.*

April 27, 1695.

THE House of Commons having read a Report from a Joint Committee of both Houses relating to the distribution of Money by the East India Company, the following Debate arose:†

[B] stood up and said, Mr. Speaker, I conceive there is a necessity to search this matter to the bottom. The House has a thread in their hands, they ought to provide laws for the future to prevent the members of this House taking money. All imaginable endeavours have been used to stifle all discoveries. 10,000l. has been pretended to be given to the king. 50,000l. offered to buy an act of parliament, or gain their charter. The facts prove themselves, and Mr. Bates appears an unfortunate person, whom the care of his friend, the duke of Leeds, and the sense of his oath, have caused to make such contradictions. I move that the House would put the matter in such a method as becomes their justice, and as the shortness of their time

stop any farther enquiry; and if it were made use of there, you may reasonably expect it was made use of elsewhere: but that appeared to be so far from being a matter of reflection on the king, that sir Josiah Child often complained of it as a rudeness to his majesty, that what other kings had yearly as a present, they had not offered to his majesty in three years: it was indeed, if not a matter of right, a matter of named for his honour upon this occasion, the custom. Then a noble lord, who may be earl of Portland, he, when the great sum of 50,000l. was pressed upon him, did absolutely refuse it, and told them he would for ever be their enemy and opposer if they offered any the innocent, must say somewhat of the guilty. such thing to him. I having thus mentioned A stop having been put, the duke of Leeds must be applied to; certainly there never was a whom we might have expected to have been more notorious bribery, and that in a person free from such a crime, whether if you respect the greatness of his place, or of his former obligation. It is fit to speak plainly on such occasions, the House ought to endeavour to re[D] Mr. Speaker, I do fully agree with the move such a person from the king's council worthy person near me, that there never were and presence. What security can the nation greater and more general instances of corrup. have, when we are bought and sold to one antion, and necessity of speedy remedy. That it other? We have seen our designs defeated, is very fit this House should let the world see our attempts betrayed, and what wonder is it? that they are in earnest. I ask leave to put Can any inan think it more strange that our you in mind, what practice and arts have been counsels should be sold abroad, than that charused to stifle and stop your discovery, so that ters should be sold at home? Certainly a man what you have is, as it were, by the utmost may reasonably believe, that he who will sell force and constraint. You cannot wonder at the subjects will sell the kingdom if he can have it, when you now find so great a man at the a sufficient bribe. What prince can be safe in bottom; but there is no person in a post so high such counsels which are given for private adthat this House cannot reach, no man's prac-vantage; several proposals for remedy may be tice or art so deep that this House cannot discover. Here have been all imaginary endeavours used to obstruct this enquiry. First, his majesty's name was made use of at the committees, with hopes perhaps that that might

will allow.

*Sir Thomas Osborne, created baron of Kiveton and viscount Latimer, by king Charles 2, August 15, 1673, and earl of Danby, June 27, 1674, marquis of Carmarthen by king William, April 20, 1689, and duke of Leeds, April 30, 1694. This is the third time that Articles of Impeachment had been exhibited in the House of Lords, against him. The first was in 1675, upon which the House resolved, “That there was not sufficient matter contained in them to impeach the Lord Treasurer;" the second was in 1678, see vol. 11, p. 599.

From "A Collection of the Debates and Proceedings in Parliament, in 1694 and 1695, upon the Inquiry into the late Briberies and Corrupt Practices."

here offered. One, that this house should address his Majesty to remove the duke of Leeds; but, with submission, an address is too mean, too low a thing for the House to do at this time, and upon such an occasion: I therefore move we may lodge an impeachment. "That Thomas duke of Leeds, Lord President of his majesty's council, he impeached by this House." Or thus," That Thomas duke of Leeds be impeached by this House of high crimes and misdemeanors; and particularly of Corruption in taking a bribe of 5,000 guineas to obtain a charter and regulation for the East India Company."

last should say that which I hope he did not [E] says, I wonder the gentleman who spoke believe, That that lord should have sold our

counsels to France.

[D] rose again and said, It is with some uneasiness I stand up, but that gentleman forces me to it, for I do not take pleasure to rake in a

Ordered, "That Mr. Comptroller do go up to the Lords, and, at their bar, in the name of the House of Commons, and all the Commons of England, impeach Thomas duke of Leeds of high Crimes and Misdemeanors; and acquaint them, That this House will in due time exhibit particular articles against him, and make good the same."

THE DUKE'S SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

On the reading of the Report from the Lords' Committee, his grace expressed himself in this manner, viz.

The Duke had proceeded thus far in his Speech when he received private intimation, "That as he had formerly protested himself that the Commons were proceeding to impeach to be free in this matter; so he still denied, him: upon which he broke off somewhat upon his faith and honour, that he was guilty abruptly; and immediately quitting the House of any such corruptions as were suggested of Peers, presented himself at the door of the against him, and that if the whole truth were other House; and by the means of one of the laid open, it would tend to his honour and ad- members, caused the House to be informed, vantage. That he would be very free in tell- that he desired to be heard; which being coming their lordships now before hand, all that plied with, he was admitted, with the usual passed, in which he was any ways concerned. compliments of a chair, and leave to be coverAnd thereupon declared, that Mr, Bates intró-ed; after accepting of which, he rose, and putVOL. XIII.

ting off his hat, expressed himself to the fol- | be brought to a determination, and that I may lowing effect: have at least your speedy justice."

"Mr. Speaker, and gentlemen of the House. In the first place, I thank you heartily for this favour of hearing me. I had attended sooner, if I had had the least intimation what the House was upon. I wish the dispatch thereof had not been so quick. The occasion of my coming is from the two Votes, upon the Report from the Committee of both Houses; I did all I could to be informed of the particulars, but could not, nor have I any notes. I was earnest therein, finding myself concerned, and hearing of a report, a monstrous long report, to the end that I might not be under the displeasure of either or both Houses; it is a bold truth, but it is a truth; this House had not been sit ting but for me. I was formerly pursued by this House in two points, for being for the French interest and for popery; I had then, if I might have been heard, justified myself, as I hope I have since done, and shall by all the actions of my life. One Firebrace was in troduced to me by the means of Mr. Bates, whom I have long known, and if I am not much deceived in him, I cannot believe that gentleman would have transacted such a matter if put upon it. The evidence is but hearsay, and I hope you will not condemn on hearsay. I would not take up your time by entering into particulars; but there is a money-part, as well as a treaty-part; and as to the money part, much of it is false; what is true, I have made no secret. I can, and do say, that neither directly nor indirectly, upon my faith and honour, have I ever touched one penny of the money. I observe a great deal of pains has been taken to hook and draw men in this matter by a side-wind, and Firebrace thinks his merit will deserve 10,000 and 30,000l. This 5,000 guineas was no part of the 40,000l. The committee called in and examined several witnesses; but Firebrace, after his first hearing, desired to be called in again himself, contrary to all rules, which shews at least that he is a very willing witness. I have a thread which I hope to spin finer, and make it appear that this was a design laid against me, long before the naming of this committee; that warning was given me some time since, that this matter would be proved against me, and that Firebrace had been told, he should be excused if he would charge the duke: I ask no favour but your favourable justice. It will be a most unfortunate thing in point of time, to be under the displeasure of this House, or of the nation. I pray that no severe sense be put on what will bear a candid one, and that if it may be, the House would re-consider what is done, or at least preserve me from cruelty; and not let me lie on the rack and be blasted, until the parliament shall sit again. If you will proceed, I hope it will be speedily, for I had rather want council, want time, want any thing, than be under yours or the nation's displeasure. thank you again for this favour, and pray if you will not re-consider, that this matter may

withdrawn, Mr. Comptroller, attended by many This Speech being ended, and the duke members, went up to the House of Lords with the Impeachment; and the committee who were joined with the Lords, were ordered to prepare the Articles against the Lord Presi

dent.

Debate thereon.

The Commons taking the duke's Speech into consideration, a worthy member said,

[D] said, By this noble lord's Speech, the point is now, whether the House will arraign the committee of both Houses, or go on with their Impeachment. This noble lord, when he came to the matter, would not enter into particulars, but passed it over with excuse of wanting time. He makes no excuse as to the facts: his argument of a contrivance was, that the 5,000 guineas charged on him, was no part of the 40,000l. Firebrace was to account for. But this is an aggravation of the crime; for sir Thomas Cooke had a double account, one with, and one without the 5,000 guineas; and this is an indication, that if there was a contrivance, it was not by the committee, but with sir Tho. Cooke, to trifle the enquiry, and conceal the corruption. The speedy justice of the House is to be wished and desired. If there is such a contrivance, such a thread as is mentioned by this noble lord, it is not to be doubted but the House where he is impeached will clear him.

[T] moved, That a committee might be appointed to withdraw, to consider what was to be done, in order to gratify that lord by 'speedy justice. His friend Mr. Bates's tricking and contradicting himself, is more than the evidence of Firebrace. Who was his friend? Who was his servant? Those were questions not to be asked. M. Robart was a servant of my lord president's and is fled. Mr. Bates said, he kept the money in his house? What was be come of it? Sometimes he had spent it, sometimes it was in his closet. He did own the money was not in his house on Sunday, but on Tuesday morning, M. Robart brought it to him; but he would never declare from whence he brought it.

In the middle of these debates, a message was sent from the Lords, to acquaint the Commons, that it was the opinion of their lordships, that the discovery made by sir Thomas Cooke was not satisfactory, nor so full as to entitle him to the benefit of the act to indemnify him, and that their lordships desired the concurrence of the Commons. They thereupon passed a vote, as the Lords had done, and sent it up by the lord Coningsby.

April 29. The Lords acquainted the Commons that they had passed a bill entitled, ‹ An Act for imprisoning sir Thomas Cooke, sir Basil Firebrace, Charles Bates, esq. and James Craggs, and for restraining them from alienat