Canterburys Doom, Floating text 24 – Floating text 27
The Anſwer of the Archbiſhop of Cant. to the firſt and further Articles of the Houſe of Commons dilivered in the 22th. January, 1643.
The humble Anſwer of William Archbiſhop of Cant. to the firſt and farther Articles of Impeachment, brought up by the Honourable Houſe of Commons againſt him, and by Order of the right honourable the Lords in Parliament of the 16. of this Inſtant directed to be put in.
As to the 13. Article of the ſaid firſt Articles and the matters therein Charged, & allmatters or things in the ſame or any of the reſt of the ſaid Articles contained, which concern any Act of Hoſtility, whether between the King & his Subjects, or between Subject & Subject, or which may be conceived to ariſe upon the comming of any Engliſh Army againſt Scotland, or the comming of the Scotiſh Army into England or upon any Action, attempt, aſſiſtance, Councell or deviſe having relation thereunto, and falling out by the occaſion of the late troubles proceding the late Concluſion of the Treaty, and returne of the Scottiſh Army into Scotland, this Defendant ſaith, that it is enacted by an Act made during the ſitting of this preſent Parliament, that the ſame, and whatſoever hath enſued thereupon, whether treuching upon the Lawes, and Liberties of the Church and Kingdome, or upon his Majeſties Honour and Authority, in no time hereafter may be called in Queſtion, or reſented as a wrong, Nationall or Perſonall, and that no mention be made thereof in time comming, neither in Judgement nor out of Judgement, but that it be held and reputed as though never ſuch things had beene thought or wrought, as by the ſaid Act may more at large appeare, with this that this Defendant doth averre, that he is none of the perſons excepted by the ſaid Act; or the ſaid offences charged upon this Defendant any of the offences excepted by the ſaid Act.
And as to all the reſt of the ſaid firſt and further Articles, this Defendant, ſaving to himſelfe all advantages of exception to the ſaid Articles, humbly ſaith, he is not Guilty of all or any the matters by the ſaid Articles charged, in ſuch manner and forme us the ſame are by the ſaid Articles charged againſt him.
VV. Cant.
The ſame day I find this entry in the Commons Iournall; to wit, on the 22. Jan. 1643.
The Lords by Sir Robert Rich and Mr. Page, ſent downe the Anſwer of William Archbiſhop of Cant. to the firſt and further Articles of impeachment brought up by this Houſe againſt him, which was read and ordered to be referred to the Commitmittee appointed to manage the evidence againſt the Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury, and accordingly delivered to Serjeant Wilde.
After this the Houſe of Commons to expedite his Tryall on the 22. February 1643.
ORdered, that the Committee appointed to mannage the evidence at the Tryall of the Arch-biſhop of Canterbury, doe peremptorily meete this afternoone, at three of the Clocke in the Court of Wards, upon the diſtribution of the parts of the evidence.
The Commons and Lords being all ready for his Tryall, and having given him as much convenient time to prepare himſelfe and his witneſſes as he could deſire, to prevent all clamours of the Prelaticall and Canterburian party, began now to thinke of a peremptory day for his Tryall; and thereupon I finde this Order entred in the Commons Journall.
4. Marcii 1643.
A Meſſage to be ſent to the Lords, to deſire them to appoint a day for the Tryall of the Biſhop of Canterbury: Maſter Serjeant Wilde, went up to the Lords to appoint a day for the Tryall of the Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury: Serjeant Wilde brings anſwer, that the Lords have appointed to morrow ſenight for the tryall of the Archbiſhop of Canterbury.
For which purpoſe the Lords made this following Order.
Die Lunae 4. Marcii 1644.
Ordered, that the Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury ſhall appeare before their Lordſhips on Tueſday the 12th of this inſtant March at nine of the Clock in the morning, At which time this Houſe will proceed againſt the Arch-Biſhop, upon the firſt and further Articles of Impeachment brought up from the houſe of Commons againſt him, for high Treaſon, and high Crimes and miſdemeanours; whereof the ſaid Arch-Biſhop is hereby to take notice and provide himſelfe accordingly.
After this the Arch-Biſhop Petitioning the Commons Houſe, that Sir Henry Midmay a Member thereof might bee examined as a witneſſe for him at his tryall, this Order was thereupon conceived.
9. Marcii 1644.
The humble Petition of William Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury, deſiring that Sir Henry Mildmay may be examined as a witneſſe, in his buſineſſe, he being to come to his tryal on Tueſday next, was this day read, And it is Ordered according to his Petition, that he ſhall be examined as a witneſſe at the tryall of the ſaid Biſhop accordingly. It was likewiſe then ordered that diverſe Members of the Houſe of Commons ſhal be examined as witneſſes againſt him, And that the Lords be moved by Serjeant Wilde, that ſome Members and Attendants of the Lords Houſe be examined at the Arch-Biſhops Tryall. And that it be referred to the Committee of Sequeſtrations, to conſider of ſome convenient recompence, for ſuch Clerks, Sollicitors and others as have been or ſhall bee imployed in the transſcribing of breviats and other ſervices done by them to the Committee for the Biſhop of Canterbury his tryall.
On the 12. of March his Tryall, according to the former Order, was entred upon, of which I ſhall give you this ſummary account.
Never was there in any age ſuch a deliberate, ſolemne, patient, impartiall hearing of any caſe in the High Court of Parliament (nor in any Court of Juſtice elſe in our own or any other Kingdom whatſoever) as there was of this Archbiſhops; The firſt day of his Tryall began the twelfth of March, 1643. wherein the whole time was ſpent in reading the Articles of Impeachment, his anſwers to them, and introductory Speeches to the charge and evidence againſt him, made by Serjeant Wilde, and the Arch-biſhop himſelfe: The firſt part of the evidence upon the 1, 2, 3, 4. Originall, and 2, 3, 4, 10. Additionall Articles, was managed by Iohn Maynard Eſquire, one of the Commons Houſe, wherein foure whole dayes (namely March 13. 16. 18. Anno 1643. and March 28. 1644.) were ſpent; the forenoons of them in the evidence and proofs, the after-noons in the Arch-biſhops Anſwers, and Maſter Maynards replyes unto them. The ſecond part of the evidence, was proſecuted by Robert Nicholas Eſquire, a Member of the Houſe of Commons; which took up three whole dayes, viz. Aprill 16. and May 4. 16. morning and evening in proof of the fifth and ſixth Originall, and ninth Additionall Articles; and in the Anſwers and replyes upon them. The third part touching Religion, (contained in the 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Originall, and 6, and 7, Additionall Articles) was carried on and managed by Iohn Wilde Serjeant at Law, of the Commons Houſe, for 4 whole dayes, (to wit, May 20, 27. Iune 6. 11.) and then by reaſon of Mr. Serjeants ſickneſſe and infirmity, purſued by Maſter Nicholas 5 intire dayes more, (viz. Iune 17. 20, 27. Iuly 20, 24.) The fourth and laſt part of the evidence, (in proof of the 14 Originall and 1 and 10 Additionall Articles) was given in by Maſter Nicholas, on the 29 of Iuly, and concluded the ſame day. So as the very evidence it ſelf (which was excellently well preſſed by theſe learned Gentlemen) took up ſeventeen whole days, morning and evening: beſides 12 dayes attendance more, whereon other preſſing publike affaires enforced the Lords to adjorn the tryall, when both the Committee of Commons were ready with their witneſſes, and the Arch-biſhop preſent with his Councell, ready to receive his charge.
After all the evidence anſwers and replyes thereto fully given, the Arch-biſhop had liberty granted to make a Recapitulation of his whol defence before the Lords, which accordingly performed on the ſecond of September 1644. To which Samuel Brown Eſquire, a member of the Houſe of Commons, replyed, on the 11 of September, ſumming up the principall parts of the evidence given againſt him at the Lords Bar. On the 11 of Octob. 1644. the Arch-Biſhops Councell were heard at the Lords Bar, on this point of Law, to which they were formerly directed to ſpeak; Whether in all or any of the Articles charged againſt him, there were any Treaſon contained? Which Mr. Iohn Hern onelyonly argued as the mouth of the reſt of his Councell. Soon after the Commons having drawn an Ordnance of Attainder of high Treaſon againſt the Archbiſhop, upon the Evidence given in againſt him: on the ſecond of Novemb. following the Arch-biſhop (after its ſecond reading) was brought to the Commons Bar, where Mr. Sam. Brown in his preſence ſummed up the evidence given in againſt him before the Lords: to which the Archbiſhop by order gave his anſwer Vivâ voce at the Commons Bar, Nov. 11th: whereunto Mr Brown replyed, the 13th. of the ſame Novemb. after which the very ſame day the Ordinance for his attainder of High Treaſon paſſed the Commons Houſe, without any diſſenting voyce but one, and that not upon the matter of his charge High Treaſon, of which all Voted him guilty, but manner of proceeding onelyonly. This Ordinance being tranſmitted to the Houſe of Peeres, becauſe ſome of the Lords were not preſent at all the evidence given in againſt him during his long Tryall, thereupon Decemb. 4. 1644. they Ordered, That all Books, Writings, Docquets, and evidences concerning the Arch-biſhop of Canterbury his tryall before the Lords in Parliament, ſhould be brought in to the Clerk of the Parliament by 9 of the Clock in the morning, on Saturday next: which being done accordingly, the Lords among themſelves, ſeriouſly re-examined all the heads and principall parts of the evidence formerly urged againſt him at the Bar, debating, weighing, and then voting each particular as they went; after this moſt ſerious review, their Lordſhips upon moſt mature deliberation voted him guilty of all the Articles and matters of fact charged againſt him, and alſo that of High Treaſon to (notwithſtanding the argument of the Archbiſhops Councel) upon a conference with the Houſe of Commons, which ſatisfied them in the point of Law. Whereupon they paſſed the Ordinance for his Attainder of high Treaſon; by vertue whereof he was ſoon after executed, whereof more fully in its due place. Thus you have the ſumme of the Lords and Commons moſt deliberate, fair, moderate juſt, (though tedious) proceedings againſt this Arch-Traytor, (not to be preſidented in any preceding Age, nor fit to be imitated for the future in regard of length and expence of time) againſt which calumny and malice it ſelfe can take no juſt exceptions on his behalfe; the rather, becauſe himſelfe would have tried, condemned, executed above an hundred Paritans in halfe the time wherein he was but trying, without the leaſt mercy or moderation, had they beene brought before his Tribunall, for farre more pettie Treaſons then thoſe of which hee was attainted and voted guilty, upon moſt full and pregnant evidence. Having given the world this briefe account of the fairenes and deliberateneſſe of his Tryall ſo long delayed, partly by his own neglect in not pleading to his Articles of impeachment, and not once petitioning to be brought to Tryall during all the time of his reſtraine; partly by his owne forementioned Petitions to the Lords for longer time, when the Commons preſſed to expedite his hearing; partly by the death of Mr John Pym, and ſome other Members of the Commons Houſe, who were truſted to prepare and mannage the evidence againſt him, part whereof miſcarryed by their deceaſe; but principally by reaſon of the great intervening urgent affaires, diſtractions, and bloody Wars in the Kingdomes of Ireland and England, occaſioned by his Majeſties deſerting the Parliament, and this Arch-Prelates plots to ſet up Popery; not through any neglect or default in the Lords or Commons: We ſhall next endeavour to yeeld you a full, ſatisfactory, true account of the proceedings and evidence given in againſt him at his Tryall, which will really render him the Archeſt Traytor, the moſt peſtilent Malefactor in all kindes of Villany, Tyranny, Oppreſſion, Miſchiefe, that was ever arraigned, condemned in any Parliament; Pierce Graveſtons, Archbiſhop Arundles, Cardinall Wolſes, Empſons, Dudlies, and the Earle of Straffords Treaſons, Conſpiracies, Oppreſſions and grand Miſdemeanours, layd together, being far inferiour to his, both in he inouſneſſe, multiplicity, and variety, as ſhall be undeniably demonſtrated to all the world, by ſubſtantiall proofes.
On Thurſday the 12. of March, 1643. (the day deſigned for the comencement of this great Tryall) about three of the Clocke in the afternoon, the Arch-biſhop was brought Priſoner by the Lieutenant of the Tower of London, and Uſher of the blacke Rod, to the Bar in the Lords Houſe: where, after he had kneeled down on his knees for a litle ſpace, the Lord Gray of Warke, then Speaker of that honourable Houſe, commanded him to riſe up; which done, the Committee of the Houſe of Commons appointed to mannage the evidence at his Tryall demanded, that the ſeverall Articles of their Impeachment againſt him might be read: whereupon one of the Clerkes of the Lords Houſe, read both the Originall and Additionall Articles fore-mentioned; and after that his Anſwer, Plea, and Demurrer to them.
All which being read, the Archbiſhop then deſired the Lords, that the Houſe of Commons might give in all their Charge and Evidence to all the Articles againſt him together, before he ſhould be put to give his Anſwer to any particular Charge, becauſe he was ancient, his memory very ſhort, and the Articles Generall; and that he might anſwer all his Charge together, not each dayes Evidence by Peece-meale.
To which Maſter Maynard, in the behalfe of the Commons, anſwered: 1. That if the Archbiſhops memory were ſo bad as he pretended, it would be far worſe for him to charge it with anſwering many particulars and the whole evidence againſt him together, then to anſwer every particular Charge each day, as it ſhould be given in againſt him whiles it was freſh in memory. 2ly. That it might and would be a great inconvenience to have witneſſes croſſe-examined, upon other dayes then thoſe, whereon they gave in their teſtimony againſt the Priſoner. 3ly. That the Lords themſelves would finde it difficult to paſſe their judgements upon all the Charge together without hearing his punctuall anſwer to every particular proof as it ſhould be given in evidence, whiles it was freſh in their memories. 4ly. Becauſe elſe all the witneſſes, which were very many, muſt of neceſſity attend, and be kept in Town from the firſt to the laſt day of his Tryall; which would be a very great Charge and inconvenience. 5ly. In the Earle of Straffords caſe, this very Parliament, he was put to anſwer every day, to the particular Evidence given againſt him on the ſame day; Upon wch reaſons the Houſe of Peers ordered, that the Archbiſhop ſhould make his particular Anſwer to every particular Charge on the ſame day it was given in againſt him.
Then the Archbiſhop deſired, that the Houſe of Commons would ſever the Articles which were Treaſon, from thoſe other Articles which were matters of crime, and Miſdemeanour only, but not Treaſon; that ſo he might know which of them were Treaſon and which not.
To which Maſter Maynard anſwered, That this they might not doe, becauſe they were now onelyonly to try the matters of fact, not Lavv, and becauſe all the Articles taken together, not each or any particular Article by it ſelf made up the Treaſon, wherewith he was charged; to wit, his endeavours to ſubvert and deſtroy Religion, the fundamentall Lawes of the Land and government of the Realme, and to bring in Popery, and an arbitrary tyrannicall Government againſt Law.
After which Maſter Serjeant Wilde (by way of Introduction to the Archbiſhops charge) with abundance of elegancy and zeale, related the Heads of his Offences to the Houſe of Peeres in theſe enſuing ſtraines.