SO/
(SnrnpU Slam ^rljool Hibtatg
KF4960.S6T""""""'""-*"^
*iiinimmi?i']ln®''®"' '"iPeachments, with
3 1924 019 947 658
DATE
DUE
BHfKHr"
iTnK i"^
n995
!Wf
CAVLOftO
MtrNreo twu.s.A.
\1
Cornell University
Library
The original of this bool< is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019947658
A TREATISE
ON
Federal Impeachments
With an Appendix containing, inter alia, an abstract
of the Articles of Impeachment in all the Federal
Impeachments in this Country and
in England
BY
ALEX. SIMPSON, Jr., LL.D.
OF THE PHILADELPHIA BAR
I916
With the Compliments of
THE LAW ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA
/3<^¥'^^
r '*%s
PREFACE.
In the main the first sixty pages of this book were prepared
by the writer as a brief in connection with the Archbald Impeach-
ment Trial, without any idea that it would ever be published.
The first great question discussed therein, viz., Can a public
official be impeached for other than an indictable ofifence?, Was
not used at the trial because his colleagues and client deemed it
unwise to concede that for other than criminal "misdemeanors"
an impeachment would lie. That portion of the book which re-
lates to the impressions gathered at that trial, and to the remedies
which may be applied to avoid the unnecessary waste of time
therein experienced, was written after the writer was requested
to put the matter in form for publication. The book itself,
aside from the Appendix, was publistitd in the "University of
Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register" for
May and June, 191 6. With the Appendix it is now published at
the request of those who read those articles. The Appendix
contains the only complete list of the English Impeachment
Trials which has ever been published, so far as the writer is aware.
It was made complete through the courtesy of Cuthbert Headlam,
Esq., Secretary of the House of Lords, who sent to the writer
typewritten copies of the articles of impeachment in a number of
cases, as copied by or for him from the original records of that
House. To him the writer is deeply indebted ; as he is also to the
Hon. Hampton L. Carson for permission to use his magnificent
library of English Reports.
It has been said that the subject of impeachments is, one of
too little practical importance to justify its publication. Of
that each person will have to judge for himself. Perhaps to
some one it will give pleasure. Perhaps it may relieve some one
of a little labor in a future Federal Impeachment, if any there
be. In either event it will have fulfilled the law of service and
the writer will be content.
Alex. Simpson, Jr.
August, 191 6.
A Treatise
ON
Federal Impeachments.
The writers on the judicial history of England disagree as
to when the English impeachments began. Stephens in his "His-
tory of the Criminal Law of England" says ^ that the first case
was against David, the brother of Llewellyn in 1283. Pike in
his "Constitutional History of the House of Lords' ' says ^ that
it was against Richard Lyons, a merchant of London, in 1376.
Hallam in his "Constitutional History of England" ^ aijd Anson
in his "Law and Custom of the Constitution" * agree with Pike
that it was in 1376, but say that it was against Lord Latimer.
Perhaps each of these writers fixes too early a date, if the
present method of impeachment is meant, for it is reasonably
clear that there was no fixed or determinate method of procedure,
until after the passage of the statute of i Henry IV, c. 14, in
1399. Before that date the King sometimes made the complaint
in person or through his Attorney-General f sometimes it was
made by members of the House of Commons or House of
Lords;® and sometinies it was made by outside officials more or
less directly connected with the subject matter of the contro-
versy.'^ So also sometimes the trial was before the King alone;'
sometimes before the King and the House of Lords together;*
' Page 146. ° Page 205.
' Page 25s. ' Page 362.
'i Howells St. Tr. 54; 4 Ihid 83.
"2 Ibid 1268.
'4 Hatsell's Precedents, 67.
"I Howell's St. Tr. 40.
'i Howell's St. Tr. 126.'
(5)
6 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
sometimes knights, earls, barons, and other men of note, in-
cluding representatives of the boroughs and cities, decided the-
impeachment;^" and at least once a jury was called in to render
its decision. ^^
By the statute of 15 Edward III, c. 2, it is provided "that
no peer of the land, officer, nor other because of his office . . .
shall be brought in judgment . . . but by award of the said
peers in Parliament" and during that reign
"the most usual course seemed to have been ior the Commons to
present a memorial to the King in Parliament, stating "such offences
as they thought at the time peculiarly injurious to the public, and
praying that the delinquents (without naming them) might meet the
punishment of the law. After the petitioners had received encour-'
agement from the crown, they exhibited articles of impeachment,
specifying the particular culprits, and attended the prosecution
through the several stages, till, finally, on conviction they demanded
judgment."^^
iRichard II, however, determined to get, rid of the power
of Parliament in matters of impeachment, and to that end, in
1387,
"he proposed to the judges, among others, the following question:
'Since the kihg can, whenever he pleases, remove any of his judges
and officers, and justify or punish them for their offences, whether
the lords and commoners can, without the will of the king, impeach
in Parliament any of the said judges or officers for any of their
offences?', to which the answer was 'that they cannot; and if any
one should do so, he is to be punished as a traitor.' "^^
Parliament severely animadverted on that opinion the next
year, but a later and more subservient parliament confirmed it,
and matters remained in that shape until the king resigned Sep-
tember 30, 1399, and was succeeded by Henry IV, in the first
year of whose reign Parliament annulled the proceedings above
recited, by the statute of i Henry IV, c. 3, and a little later the
same year passed the statute of i Henry IV, c. 14, above referred
" I Stephens' History of the Criminal Law of England 146.
" Hale's Jurisdiction of Parliament 91.
" Woodeson's Lectures S98-S99.
"Ibid 600.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 7
to, which thereafter forbade "appeals" in Parliament and left
only impeachments to be tried therein." Shortly thereafter the
Lords refused to try impeachments unless they were instituted
by the Commons/" other complaints being relegated to the reg-
ular judicial officers or tribunals for their decision; and the
practice thus established continued until after the Federal Con-
vention met, in 1787, and the Constitution of the United States
promulgated by it was adopted.
That the practice in the English impeachments and the
abuses thereof were alike well known to the members of that
Convention appears from the reports of the debates therein.
Indeed the impeachment of Warren Hastings, in charge of
Burke, Sheridan, and Fox, was dragging its weary length along
during all that period, and the members of the Convention fre-
quently referred to it. Keeping those facts well in mind we can
best understand what was done by the Convention, and why they
did it.
When it got down to work on May 29, 1787, Edmund Ran-
dolph of Virginia, submitted "sundry propositions in writing",
and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, submitted the "draft
of a federal government"", both of which papers were referred to
the Committee of the Whole House.^®
Mr. Randolph's ninth resolution provided, inter alia:
"9. Resd. that a National Judiciary be established . . . that
the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunals shall be tb hear and deter-
mine in the first instance, and of the supreme tribunal to hear and
determine in the dernier resort, . . . impeachments of any
National officers, and questions which may involve the national
. peace and harmony."^'^
Mr. Pinckney's "draught" was lost, but thirty-two years
later he supplied what he believed to be a copy, though of even
that he was not certain, which provided, inter alia:
"Woodeson's Lectures 600.
"i Stephens 156.
"Farrand's "Records of the Federal Convention" Vol. i, p. 16.
"Ibid 21-22.
8 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
"That the President shall have power to grant pardons and
reprieves, except in impeachments."^'
"He shall be removed from his office on impeachment by the
House of Delegates and Conviction in the Supreme Court for Trea-
son, Bribery or Corruption."^'
"One of these courts shall be termed the Supreme Court, whose
Jurisdiction shall extend ... to the trial of impeachments of
Officers of the United States. ... In cases of impeachment
affecting Ambassadors and other public ministers the Jurisdiction
shall be original and, in all other cases appellate.
"All criminal offences (except in cases of impeachment) shall
be tried in the State where they shall be committed — the trial shall
be open and public, and be by jury."^°
Mr. Pinckney's "draught" does not seem to have been con-
sidered by the Committee of the Whole, which took up the Ran-
dolph resolutions seriatim.
When the length of the President's term (seven years) was
under consideration. Gunning Bedford, Jr., of Delaware, op-
posed it, because it would not be known whether the person
elected was capable. "An impeachment," he said, "would be na
cure for this evil, as an impeachment would reach misfeasance
only, not incapacity".^^ Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, was
in favor of adding a council to advise the President because
"their opinions may be recorded — they may be called to account
for their Opinions & impeached." Edmund Randolph of Vir-
ginia was of opinion that there should be more than one execu-
tive, for "if one he cannot be impeached until the expiration of
his office, or he will be dependent on the Legislature — such an
Unity would be against the fixed Genius of America".^^ John
Dickinson of Delaware, moved that the President "be remov-
able by the national legislature upon request by a majority of
the legislatures of the individual States" ^* and gave as his
reasons that "he did not like the plan of impeaching the Great
"Farrand; Vol. 3, p. 599. ^ Ibid 600.
"Ibid. ' "I Farrand 69.
•'Ibid 71. ^Ibid 78.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 9
Officers of State".^* The Convention voted down that resolu-
tion, and on motion of Hugh Williamson of North Carolina,
agreed that the President should be "removable on impeachment
and conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty".^^
On June 13, 1787, Mr. Randolph moved and the Conven-
tion adopted the following resolution:
"That the jurisdiction of the national Judiciary shall extend to
cases which respect the collection of the national revenue, impeach-
ments of any national officers, and questions which involve the
national peace and harmony."^^
All of Mr. Randolph's resolutions of May 29, 1787, having
been considered and acted upon, it was resolved "that the com-
mittee do report to the Convention their proceedings".^'^ In ad-
dition to the resolution above quoted in regard to the "jurisdic-
tion of the national Judiciary", which was the thirteenth of
the nineteen resolutions reported,^^ that report contained but
one other resolution regarding impeachment, viz., that proposed
by Mr. Williamson as above:
"9. Resolved, that a National Executive be instituted to consist
of a single person . . . to be removable on impeachment and
conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty."'''
On June 15, 1787, William Patterson of New Jersey, sub-
mitted a series of resolutions, which, with those of Mr. Ran-
dolph, were referred to a Committee of the Whole House.^° His
fifth resolution was:
"Resd. that a federal Judiciary be established to consist of a su-
preme Tribunal . . . that the Judiciary so established shall have
authority to hear and determine in the first instance on all impeach-
ments of federal officers."'^
In the course of the debate on the Patterson resolution,
Alexander Hamilton of New York, on June 18, 1787, presented
a "sketch" of his ideas of a proper government, including the
following :
«i Farrand 85. "Ibid 78,
"Ibid 223-224. "Ibid 238-239.
"Ibid 236. "Ibid 237.
"Ibid 241. "Ibid 244.
10 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
"IX. The Governour, Senators and all officers of the United
States to be liable to impeachment for mal- and corrupt conduct;
and upon conviction to be removed from office, and disqualified for
holding any place of trust or profit — all impeachments to be tried
by a Court to consist of the Chief or Judge of the Su-
perior Court of Law of each State, provided such judge shall hold
\as place during good behavior, and have a permanent salary." ^^
The Committee of the Whole disagreed with the Patterson
resolutions, never considered or acted on the Hamilton "sketch",
reafifirmed its action on the Randolph resolutions, and so re-
ported to the Convention on June 19, 1787.^^
On July i8> 1787, the Convention unanimously struck out
the words "impeachment of any national officers" from the thir-
teenth resolution relating to the "jurisdiction of the national
judiciary".** This was done because it was feared that the
judges might "be drawn into intrigues with the legislature and
an impartial trial would be frustrated".*^ On the same day the
resolution was amended so as to read:
"That the jurisdiction of the national judiciary shall extend to
cases arising under laws passed by the general Legislature, and to
such other questions as involve the National peace and harmony."^"
The next day, in a long speech, Gouveneur Morris urged
that the term of the President be made short, that he be eligible
for re-election, but not impeachable, but that the "great officers
of State" who composed his cabinet be impeachable.*'^
On July 20, 1787, the Convention considered and approved
the provision that the President was "to be removable on im-
peachment and conviction of mal-practice or neglect of
duty."
Farrand reports the proceedings as follows:*®
"Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Gouveneur Morris moved to strike
out this part of the resolution. Mr. P. observed (ought not to)
be impeachable whilst in office.
"Mr. Davie. If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will
spare no eflforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected. He
'^ I Farrand 292-293.
^Ibid 312.
"2 Farrand 39.
"Ibid ^.
'"2 Farrand 39.
"Ibid 53-54.
"Ibid 6^-69.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 11
considered this as an essential security for the good behavior of the
Executive.
"Mr. Wilson concurred in the necessity of making the Execu-
tive impeachable whilst in office.
"Mr. Govr. Morris. He can do no criminal act without coad-
jutors who may be punished; In case he should be re-elected,
that will be sufficient proof of his innocence. Besides who is to
impeach? Is the impeachment to suspend his functions? If it is
not, the mischief will go on. If it is, the impeachment will be
nearly equivalent to a displacement and will render the Executive
dependent on those who are to impeach.
"Colonel Mason. No point i6 of more importance 'than that
the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be
-above justice? Above all shall that man be above it, who can com-
mit the most extensive injustice? When great crimes were com-
mitted he was for punishing the principal as well as the coadjutors.
There had been much debate and difficulty as to the mode of choos-
ing the Executive. He approved of that which had been adopted
.at first, namely of referring the appointment to the National Legis-
lature. One objection against electors was the danger of their being
-corrupted by the candidates: and this furnished a peculiar reason
in favor of impeachments whilst in office. Shall the man who has
practiced corruption and by that means procured his appointment
in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating
his guilt?
"Doer. Franklin was for retaining the clause as favorable to
ihe Executive. History furnishes one example only of a first Magis-
trate being formally brought to public justice. Everybody cried
•out against this as unconstitutional. What was the practice before
this in cases where the Chief Magistrate rendered himself obnox-
ious? Why recourse was had to assassination in which he was not
only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his
character. It would be the best way therefore to provide in the
Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his
misconduct should deserve it and for his honorable acquittal when
he shoilld be unjustly accused.
"Mr. Govr. Morris admits corruption and some few other
offences to be such as ought to be impeachable; but thought the.
cases ought to be enumerated and defined.
"Mr. (Madison) thought it indispensable that some provision
should be made for defending the community against the incapacity,
negligence or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate. The limitation of
the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might
lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his ad-
ministration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might
betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive Mag-
istracy was very distinguishable, from that of the legislative or of
any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could
12 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an
assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging or be
bribed to betray their trust. Besides the restraints of their per-
sonal integrity and honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for
purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or
a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the re-
maining members would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the
body. In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be
administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was
more within the compass of probable events, and either of them
might be fatal to the Republic.
"Mr. Pinckney did not see the necessity of impeachments. He
was sure they ought not to issue from the Legislature who would
in that case hold them as a rod over the Executive and by that
means effectually destroy his independence. His revisionary power
in particular would be rendered altogether insignificant.
"Mr. Gerry urged the necessity of impeachments. A good
magistrate will not fear them. A. bad one ought to be kept inf ear
of them. He hoped the maxim would never be adopted here that
the Chief Magistrate could do (no) wrong.
"Mr. King expressed his apprehensions that an extreme cau-
tion in favor of liberty might enervate the Government we were
forming. He wished the House to recur to the primitive axiom
that the three great .departments of governments should be separate
and independent: That the Executive and Judiciary should be
so as well as the Legislative : That the Executive should be so equally
with the Judiciary. Would this be the case if the Executive should
be impeachable? It had been said that the Judiciary would be
impeachable. But it should have been remembered at the same time
that the Judiciary hold their places not for a limited time, but during
good behavior. It is necessary, therefore, that a forum should be
established for trying misbehavior. Was the Executive to hold his
place during good behavior ? The Executive was to hold his place for
a limited term like the members of the Legislature. Like them par-
ticularly ihe Senate whose members would continue in appointment
the same term of six years. He would periodically be tried*for his
behavior by his electors, who would continue or discontinue him
in X trust according to the manner in which he had discharged it.
Like them, therefore, he ought to be subject to no intermediate
trial, by impeachment. He ought not to be impeachable unless he
hold his office during good behavior, a tenure which would be most
agreeable to him ; provided an independent and effectual forum could
be devised. But under no circumstances ought he to be impeach-
able by the Legislature. This would be destructive to his inde-
pendence and of the principles of the Constitution. He relied on
the vigor of the Executive as a great security for the public liberties.
"Mr. Randolph. The propriety of impeachments was a favor-
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 13
ite principle with him. Guilt wherever found ought to be punished.
The Executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power;
particularly in time of war when the military force and in some
respects the public money will be in his hands. Should no regular
punishment be provided, it will be' irregularly inflicted by tumults
and insurrections. He is aware of the necessity of proceeding with
a cautious hand, and of excluding as much as possible the influence
of the Legislature from the business. He suggested for considera-
tion an idea which had fallen (from Colonel Hamilton) of com-
posing a forum out of the Judges belonging to the States : and even
of requiring some preliminary inquest whether just grounds of
impeachment existed.
"Doctor Franklin mentioned the case of the Prince of Orange
during the late war. An agreement was made between France and
Holland; by which their two fleets were to unite at a certain time
and place. The Dutch fleet did not appear. Everybody began to
wonder at it. At length it was suspected t|jat the statholder. was
at the bottom of the matter. This suspicion prevailed more and
more. Yet as he could not be impeached and no regular examina-
tion took place, he remained in his office, and strengthening his own
party, as the party opposed to him became formidable, he gave
bjrth to the most violent animosities and contentions. Had he been
impeachable, a regular and peaceable inquiry would have taken
place and he would if guilty have been duly punished, if innocent
restored to the confidence of the public.
"Mr. King remarked that the case of the statholder was not
applicable. He held his place for life, and was not periodically
elected. In the former case impeachments are proper to secure
good behavior. In the latter they are unnecessary; the periodical
responsibility to the electors being an equivalent security.
"Mr. Wilson observed that if the idea were to be pursued, the
Senators who are to hold their places during the same term with
the Executive, ought to be subject to impeachment and removal.
"Mr. Pinckney apprehended that some gentlemen reasoned on
a supposition that the Executive was to have powers which would
not be committed to him: (He presumed) that his powers would be
'SO circumscribed as to render impeachments unnecessary.
"Mr. Govr. Morris's opinion had been changed by the argu-
ments used in the discussion. He was now sensible of the
necessity of ^impeachments, if the Executive was to continue for
any time in office. Our Executive was not like a magistrate having
a life interest, much less like one having an hereditary interest in
his office? He may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his
trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to
the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in foreign pay without
being able to guard against it by displacing him. One would think
the King of England well secured against bribery. He has as it
were a fee simple in the whole Kingdom. Yet Charles II was
14 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
bribed by Louis XIV. The Executive ought therefore to be im-
peachable for treachery; corrupting his electors, and incapacity
were other causes of impeachment. For the latter he should be
punished not as a man, but as an officer, and punisFed only by
degradation from his office. This Magistrate is not the King but
the prime Minister. The people are the King. When we make
him amenable to justice, however, we should take care to provide
some mode that will not malce him dependent on the Legislature."
On July 23, 1787 "It was moved and seconded that the
proceedings of the Convention for the establishment of a na-
tional government, except that respects the Supreme Executive,
be referred to a Committee for the purpose of reporting a Con-
stitution conformably to the Proceedings aforesaid — which
passed unanimously in the afifirmative".^® This Committee known,
thereafter as the "Committee of Detail," consisted of John Rut-
ledge of South Carolina, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, Na-
thaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecti-
cut, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania.*" On the next day the
Committee of the Whole was discharged "from acting on the
propositions" of Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Patterson, which were
referred to the Committee of Detail.*^
On July 26, 1787, the Convention again approved -the pro-
vision that the President should "be removable on impeachment
and conviction of malpractice and neglect of duty".*^
The matters relative to the "Supreme Executive" were also
referred to the Committee of Detail on the same day.** That
Comftiittee reported a draft of a constitution August 6, 1787,
including the following:
"Art. IV, Sec. 6. The House of Representatives shall have
the sole power of impeachment." **
"Art. X, Sec. 2. . . . He (the President) shall have power
to grant reprieves and pardons; but his pardon shall not be plead-
able in bar of an impeachment. . . . He shall be removed frofti
his office on impeachment by the House of Representatives, and
conviction in the Supreme Court, of' treason, bribery or corrup-
tion.^"
" 2 Farrand 85. *" Ibid 97-
"76Jd 98. "Ibid 116.
''Ibid 117. "Ibid 178-179-
''Ibid 18S-186.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS IS
"Art. XI, Sec. 3. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall
extend ... to the trial of impeachments of Officers of the United
States. ... In cases of impeachment the jurisdiction shall be
original.*"
"Art XI, Sec. 4. The trial of all criminal offences (except in
cases of impeachment) shall be in- the State where they shall be
committed, and shall be by jury.*'
"Art XI, Sec. 5. Judgment, in cases of impeachment shall not
extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to
hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit, under the United
States.- But the party convicted shall, nevertheless be liable and
subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to
law.*»
"Art. XV. Any person charged with treason, felony or high
misdemeanor in any State, who shall flee from justice, and shall
be found in any other State shall, on demand of the Executive power
of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the
State having jurisdiction of the offence."**
The Convention agreed to Art. IV, Sec. 6 on August 9,,
1787,®° apparently without debate so far as the above clause is
concerned.
On August 20, 1787, various propositions were referred
to the Committee of Detail, among them the following:
"Each of the officers above mentioned [i. e. the President and
his Cabinet] shall be liable to impeachment and removal from office
for neglect of duty, malversation or corruption.
"That the Committee be directed to report ... a mode for
trying the supreme Judges in cases of impeachment. "°^
Two days later that Committee reported in favor of a Privy-
Council for the President, which included the cabinet officers,
but said nothing as to their impeachment, and also reported that
"the Judges of the Supreme Court shall be triable by the Senate^,
on impeachment by the House of Representatives". ^^
On August 25, 1787, the Convention, without debate, struck
out the words "but his pardon shall not be pleadable in bar of
an impeachment" in Art. X, Sec. 2, and inserted in lieu thereof
"except in cases of impeachment".^* On August 2y, 1787, con-
"2 Farrand 186. "Ibid 187.
'^Ibid 187. "Ibid 187-188.
'"Ibid 187-188. '^Ibid 337.
''Ibid 367. "Ibid4^^.
16 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
sideration of the last clause of Art. X, Sec. 2, and Art. XI, Sec.
3, was postponed,^* at the suggestion of Gouveneur Morris, be-
cause he thought the Supreme Court was not a proper tribunal
to try an impeachment of the President, especially if, as was then
being considered, the Chief Justice was to be a member of the
proposed Privy Council.*^ The next day Art. XI, Sec. 4, was
amended to read:
"The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachment) shall
be by jury— and such trial shall be held in the State where the said
crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed ^ithin
any State, then the trial shall be at such place or places as the
Legislature may direct. "°°
Art. XV being taken up, the words "high misdemeanor"
were struck out, and "other crimes" inserted, in order to com-
prehend all proper cases, it being doubtful whether "high mis-
demeanor" had not a technical meaning too limited.®''^ On
August 31, 1787, it was moved and seconded "to refer such
parts of the Constitution as have been postponed, and such parts
of reports as have not been acted on to a Committee of a Mem-
ber from each State", which passed in the affirmative and a Com-
mittee was appointed by ballot of the honorable Mr. Oilman, Mr.
King, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Brearly, Mr. G. Morris, Mr. Dickinson,
Mr. Carroll, Mr. Madison, Mr. Williamson, Mr. Butler,
and Mr. Baldwin.^* That committee was known as the Com-
mittee of Eleven, and reported on September 4, 1787:
"In the place of the 9th article, ist section to be inserted 'The
Senate of the- United States shall have power to try all impeach-
ments ; but no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of
two-thirds of the members present.' "°°
"Sec. 3. The Vice-President shall be ex officio, President of
the Senate, except when they sit to try the impeachment of the
President, in which case the Chief Justice shall preside."^"
"2 Farrand 422-423. " Ihid 427-
"• Ibid 43S. " Ibid 443-
"Ibid 473- "Ibid 493.
"Ibid. ■
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 17
"The latter part of the 2nd section, loth article to read as fol-
lows : 'He shall be removed from his office on impeachment by the
House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, for treason
or bribery, and in case of his removal as aforesaid, death, absence,
resignation or inability to discharge the powers or duties of his office
the Vice-President shall exercise those powers and duties until
another President be chosen, or until the inability of the President
be removed.' "*^
In debating the changes thus made, James Wilson of Penn-
sylvania said on September 6, 1787:
"In allowing them (the Senate) to make the Executive and
Judiciary appointments, to be the Court of impeachments, and to
make treaties which are to be laws of the land, the Legislative, Ex-
ecutive and Judiciary powers are all blended in one branch of the
Government. . . . According to the plan as it now stands, the
President will not be the man of the people as he ought to be, but
the Minion bf the Senate."^''
The Convention, however, approved the report of the com-
mittee in the respect referred to.
On September 8, 1787, the journal shows ®* that in the Con-
vention it was moved and seconded to insert the words "or other
high crimes and misdemeanors against the State" after the word
"bribery", which passed in the affirmative. It was moved to
strike out the words "by the Senate" after the word "convic-
tion' ', which passed in the negative. It was moved and seconded
to strike out the word "State" after the word "against" and to
insert the words "United States", which passed in the affirma-
tive unanimously. On the question to agree to the last clause
of the report it passed in the affirmative. It was moved
and seconded to add the following clause after the words
"United States" : "The Vice-President and other civil officers
of the United States shall be removed from office on impeach-
ment and conviction as aforesaid", which passed in the affirma-
tive unanimously.
In the place of the first section of the ninth article it was
moved to insert: "The Senate of the United States shall have
power to try all impeachments : but no person shall be convicted
"2 Farrand 495. "Ibid 522-523. ^
"Ibid 545-
, 18 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present:
and every Member shall be on oath", which passed in the affirma-
tive.«*
It was moved and seconded to appoint a committee of five
"to revise the style of and arrange the articles agreed to by the
House", which passed in the affirmative, and a committee was
appointed by ballot of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. G. Mor- '
ris, Mr. Madison, and Mr. King. That committee was entitled,
the "Committee of Style and Arrangement." Mr. Madison in
his report of the debate says:®^
"The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments;
against the President, for treason and bribery, was taken up.
"Colonel Mason. Why is the provision restrained to treason,
and briber)^ only ? Treason as defined in the Constitution .will not
reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty
of treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be trea-
son as above defined. ... As bills of attainder which have
saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more neces-
sary to extend: the power of impeachments. He moved to add
after 'bribery' 'or maladministration'. Mr. Berry seconded
him. ...
"Mr. Madison. So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure
during pleasure of the Senate.
"Mr. Govr. Morris. It will not be " put in force and can
do no harm. . . . An election of every four years will pre-
vent maladministration.
"Colonel Mason withdrew 'maladministration' and substituted'
'other high crimes and misdemeanors' (against the State).
"On the question thus altered:
"N. H. aye, Mas. aye, Ct. aye, (N. J. no.) Pa. no, Del. no,.
Md. aye, Va. aye, N. C. aye, S. C. aye, Del. aye (Ayes— 8; noes 3).
"Mr. Madison objected to a trial of the President by the Sen-
ate, especially as he was to be impeached by the other branch pf
the Legislature, and for any act which might be called a misde-
meanor. The President under these circumstances was made im-
properly dependent. He would prefer the Supreme Court for the
trial of impeachments, or rather a tribunal of which that should
form a part.
"Mr. Govr. Morris thought no other tribunal than the
Senate could be trusted. The Supreme Court were too few in
number and might be warped or corrupted. He was against a
dependence of the Executive on the Legislature, considering the
'2 Farrand 547. '^ lUd SS0-5S2.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 19
Legislative tyranny the great danger to be apprehended; but there
could be no danger that the Senate would say untruly on their
oaths that the President was guilty of crimes or facts, especially
as in four years he can be turned out. . . .
"Mr. Pinckney disapproved of making the Senate the Court
of Impeachments, as rendering the President too dependent on the
Legislature. If he opposes a favorite la^y, the two Houses will
combine against him, and under the influence of heat and faction
throw him out of office.
"Mr. Williamson thought there was more danger of too much
lenity than of too much rigour towards the President, considering
the number of cases in which the Senate was associated with the
President. . . .
"Mr. Sherman regarded the Supreme Court as improper to
try the President, because the judges would be appointed by him.
"On motion by Mr. Madison to strike out the word 'by the
Senate' after the word 'conviction':
"N. H. no, Mas. no, Ct. no, N. J. no. Pa. aye, Del. no, Md.
no, Va. aye, N. C. no, S. C. no, Geo. no (Ayes — 2; noes — 9).
"In the amendment of Colonel Mason just agreed to, the word
'State' after the words 'misdemeanors against' was struck out, and
the words 'United States' inserted (unanimously) in order to re-
move ambiguity. . . .
"On the question to agree to cla;use as amended: N. H. aye.
May. aye, (Cont. aye,) N. J. aye, Pa. no, (Del. aye,) Md. aye, Va.
aye, N. C. aye, S. C. aye, Geo. aye (Ayes — 10; noes — i).
"On motion, 'the Vice-President and other civil officers of the
United States shall be removed from office on impeachment and
conviction as aforesaid' was added to the clause on the subject of
impeachments."
The Committee of Style and Arrangement made its report
on September 12, 1787, which, so far as the present matter is
concerned, provided as follows:
"Art. I, Sec. 2. (d) The House of Representatives shall
choose their speaker and other officers ; and they shall have the sole
power of impeachment.^'
"Art. I, Sec. 3. (e) The Senate shall have the. sole power to
try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall
be on oath. When the President of the United States is tried, the
Chief Justice shall preside : And no person shall be convicted with-
out the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.
"(f) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend
further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold
'"' 2 Farrand 591.
20 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United
States: But the party ^ convicted shall nevertheless be liable and
subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according
to law."'
"Art. II, Sec. 2. The President . . . shall have power to
grant reprieves and- pardons for offences against the United States,
except in cases of impeachment."
"Art. II, Sec. 4. The President, Vice-President, and all civil
officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on im-
peachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors."®
"Art. Ill, Sec. i. The Judicial power of the United States
. . . shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior
courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
The judges both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their
offices during good behavior. . . .■"*
"Art. Ill, Sec. 2. . . . The trial of all crimes except in
cases of impeachment, shall be by jury ; and such trial shall be held
in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed.''^
"Art. Ill, Sec. 3. Treason against the United States, shall con-
sist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their ene-
mies, giving them aid and comfort." '^
On September 14, 1787, when that report was under con-
sideration Mr. Rutledge and Mr. Gouveneur Morris moved "that
persons impeached be suspended from their office until they be
tried and acquitted." Mr. Madison said the President was made
too dependent already on the Legislature, by power of one
branch to try him in consequence of *an impeachment by the
other. "This intermediate suspension", he said, "will put him
in the power of one branch only. They can at any moment, in
order to make way for the functions of another who will be more
favorable to their views, vote a temporary removal of the ex-
isting magistrate." Mr. King concurred in the opposition to
the amendment and the question to agree was lost.'^*
On the next day, September 15, 1787, the Constitution as
amended was agreed to by the Convention, and ordered to be
"2 Farrand 592. ' "Ibid 599-
"Ibid 600. "/fttd.
"/6td 601. "Ibid.
"Ibid 612-613.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 21
engrossed, all the states voting in favor thereof,''* and in its
engrossed form it was approved two days later. ''^ The only
changes from the foregoing were the addition of the words "or
affirmation", after the word "oath" in Art. I, Sec. 3, and the
exclusion of the word "only" from Art. Ill, Sec. 3.
The foregoing extracts from the resolutions and debates
of the Federal Convention cover, it is believed, all that is re-
ported therein relating strictly to impeachments, and all that
have any bearing on the subject in the Constitution as originally
adopted. The following, from among the amendments to the
Constitution, have, however, a bearing upon the matters herein-
after to be considered:
Sth Amendment. "... nor shall any person be subject
for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor
shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself."
6th Amendment. "In all criminal prosecutions the accused
shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation ; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."
lOth Amendment. "The powers riot delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are
reserved to the States respectively, or to. the people."
Under those constitutional provisions the first great question
which faces us is:
In What Capacity Does the Senate Sit Upon the Trial
OF AN Impeachment?
It would hardly seem that this could be an ope;n question,
01 worthy of much debate if it were, yet it has been considered
and acted upon in two of the impeachments in this country.
When Judge Chase was impeached, the Senate appointed
a committee to propose and report rules for the conduct of the
trial. In the Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, it is said :^
"2 Farrand633. " Ibid 643-644-647.
'Vol. I, p. 324-
22 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
"But the words in open Court, and this Court were in the
reported rules, and Mr. Giles moved to strike them out on the
ground that the Senate, sitting for the trial of an impeachment is
not a Court. . . . His motive for this antipathy to the term
Court is, that the Senate . . . may be absolved from all the
rules and principles which restrain and bind down courts of justice
to the practice of justice."
That motion was adopted. The motive thus attributed to Sen-
ator Giles is not that given by himself. His averred reason was
this :
"Impeachment is nothing more than an enquiry, by the two
Houses of Congress, whether the office of any public man might
not be better filled by another.^ . . . Impeachment was not a
criminal prosecution; it was no prosecution at all. ... A trial
and removal of a judge upon impeachment need not imply any crim-
inality or corruption in him." ^
The matter again came up during the impeachment of Pres-
ident Johnson. It is said in Hinds' Precedents of the House of
Representatives .•*
"In 1868, after mature consideration, the $ena.te decided that
it sat for impeachment trials as the Senate and not as a court.' . . .
An anxiety lest the Chief Justice might have a vote seems to have
led the Senate to drop the words 'High Court of Impeachment' from
its rules."
The rules as originally drafted for that trial were entitled,
"Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting
as a High Court of Impeachment," and in several places in the
body thereof the Senate is called a court. Senator Conkling,
though he had in fact helped draft those rules, moved to amend
by striking out the word "court," saying, inter alia:
"Why leave it there? If it is a court we do not destroy that
character by omitting these superfluities from our rules. If it is
not a court we do not clothe it with the ermine or the attributes of
a court by putting in the rules that it is so." °
■ And recognizing the fact that, in all prior impeachment trials, it
had been called the "high court" of impeachment" he argued
that those words "had been used rather by the Secretary
'Vol. I, p. 321. 'Ibid 322.
'Vol. 3, par. 20S7 (1907). '3 Hinds' Precedents 381.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 23
in recording the proceedings than by the Senate itself."® Sen-
ator Edmunds dissented from this view, and called attention to
the fact that on one occasion in the Blount Impeachment, the
Senate by formal resolution had called itself a "court of im-
peachment."''
Senator Conkling's motion was adopted by a vote of six-
teen to thirteen,* but it is not possible to state how many of the
sixteen so voted because they thought the words were super-
fluous, as Senator Conkling argued, how many so voted because
they agreed with Senator Morton, also a member of the commit-
tee which adopted and reported the rules with those words
in them, because their retention might "lead to consequences that
we do not desire, and to difficulties",* or how many so voted
because they did not consider that the Senate would be sitting
as a court.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, when the committee, of
which Senators Edmunds, Conkling, and Morton were mem-
bers, came to amend the rules, they left in Rule XXIV the
words "all process shall be served by the Sergeant-at-arms of
the Senate, unless otherwise ordered by the court,"^'^ and these
words appear in that rule to this day, as a mute admission that,
call it what you, will, the Senate is a "court" when sitting for
the trial of an impeachrnent.
Senator Edmunds might have gone much further than he
did, and probably would have done so had he had time to look
into the matter, for while it is true as stated by Senator Conkling
that the words "High Court of Impeachment" were frequently
the act of the secretary in recording the proceedings, yet those
words, or the wCrd "court" appear constantly elsewhere in the
proceedings. Even in so condensed a report as the "Extracts
from the Journal of the United States Senate in All Cases of
Impeachment Presented by the House of Representatives, 1798-
1906,"" similar words quite constantly appear.
•3 Hinds' Precedents 379 '^Wrf 381.
*Ibid 382. 'I^id 379.
""Ibid 440.
" 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, Document No. 876.
24 ' FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
Thus we find that Senator Tracy for the Senate Committee
on the Impeachment of J^idge Pickering, twice called it a "Court
of Impeachment,"^^ and in the summons to, the respondent, ap-
proved and issued by the Senate, it is four times so called.^*
So too in the impeachment of Judge Peck, Senator Tazewell
called the Senate a "Court of Impeachment" once and a "court"
twice." Senator Webster called it a "couft"^" and Senator Foot
called it a "High Court of Impeachment."^® So too in the im-
peachment of Judge Humphreys, Manager Bingham called the
Senate a "court,"^'' and Senator Foster twice called it "this high
court of impeachment."^*
So, too, the name would not down even in the arguments
made during the impeachment of President Johnson, any more
than it would in the rules, for we find Senator Howard, for the
Special Committee of the Senate, calling it a "High CoW of
Impeachment"^"; Senator Davis,^" and Senator Cameron^^ call-
ing it a "Court of Impeachment"; Senator Sumner, notwith-
standing his argument to the contrary, calling it a "court"^^ ; and
Senator Stewart calling it a "court for the trial of the impeach-
ment.""
In the impeachment of William W. Belknap, when party
feeling was not running high, the Senate is ten times called a
court or high court of impeachment,^* including therein the
formal replication filed by the House,*" and the formal rejoinder
filed by it,'*® and in resolution of Manager Lord,*®' and in an-
other offered by Senator Edmunds.*'
So also from "Proceedings in the Senate of the United
States in the Matter of the Impeachment of Charles Swayne."^*
we find that the Senate is called a "court" or -a "high court of
"Journal, etc.,
19.
2S.
"Ibid 23, 24.
"Ibid 62, 134,
141.
"Ibid 129-
"Ibid 132.
"Ibid 153-
"Ibid 151.
"Ibid 162.
"Ibid 19s.
''Ibid 300.
'Ibid 236.
"Ibid 288.
" Ibid 340, 342,
. 344
, 347.
379. 380, 385.
"Ibid 342.
"Ibid 347.
"Ibid 379-
"Ibid 380.
' s8th Congress, 3rd Session, Document No. 694.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 25
impeachment" twenty-one times ^® and a "court" sixty-four
times.^" Included among those who so ^oke of it are Senators
Bacon,3i Bailey,^^^ Fairbanks,'^ Foraker,^* Hopkins,^" Pettus,»«
and Spooner ; ^'' and Managers Clayton,^* DeArmand,^^ Olm-
sted,*" Palmer," Perkins,^? and Powers."
And finally in the report of "The proceedings of the Senate
and the House of Representatives on the Trial of the Impeach-
ment of Robert W. Archbald'' we find that the Senate is calkd
a "court" or "high court of impeachment," at least one hundred
and six times. Among those who so designated it are Senators
Bacon,** Bailey,*^ Clark of Wyoming,*** Cummins,*'' Gallinger,**
Lodge,*® Poindexter,^" Smith of Georgia,^* Smoot,^^ Suther-
land,"* and Works,®* and Managers Cla5i;on,''° Sterling,^^ and
Webb."
=» Proceedings, etc., 54, 55, S6, 126, 151. i93. 236, 281, 289, 322, 323, 334 371,
477, 607.
'"Ibid II, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, Si> 57. 60, 66, 67, 82, 91, 106, 114,
128, 178, 180, 188, 189, 192, 193, igs, 197, 200, 266, 281, 334, 442, 482, 640.
"Ibid 16, 17, 151 322.
"Ibid 24, 51, 91, 188, 192, 193, 195, 197.
""Ibid 54, 236, 289, 323, 477.
"Ibid 114, 334. "Ibid 197.
"Ibid 188. ""Ibid i^, 193, 482.,
"Ibid 281. "Ibida66.
''Ibid 180. "Ibid 62, 66, 67, 82.
''Ibid 106. "Ibid 300, 442, 640.
"Proceedings on the Impeachment of JntJge Ai:dibald, 2D, 42, 60, 72,
73, 94. 95. 128, 17s. 249, 291. 324. 388, 875, 1105, 1220.
"Ibid 17, 19.
"Ibid 18, 27, 38, 94, 95, 98, 128, 175, 231, 1048.
"Ibid 33-
"Ibid 34. 290. 291, 807, 1048, 1146. i2jg.
"Ibid 30, 31. 60, 72-
"Ibid 157.
"Ibid 291.
"Ibid 874.
"Ibid 15.
"Ibid 15, 16, 17, 30.
"Ibid 37, Go, 63, 64, 65, 68, ?2, 85, 88, 93, 04, 96, 100, lib, 129, 130, 153,
154, 272, 291.
"Ibid 150, 263, 711, 1386.
"Ibid 135.
26 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
It thus seems clear that neither the attempted formal ex-
clusion from the rules, nor a fear of "consequences," can remove
from the legal mind the legal concept that the Senate is sitting
as a court, whether or not it is called by that name. That concept
is the necessary consequence of our inheritance of impeachments
from England, and of the constitutional provisions above quoted.
In England the House of Lords in trying impeachment cases has
always been called the "High Court of Impeachment."^^ and it
is difficult to understand why, when we were inheriting the sys-
tem, we did not inherit in its essence the thing for which that
title stood."'
If we turn to the constitutional provisions we find jihat they
all bear out the idea that the proceeding is in its nature a judicial
one:
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.
"When the President of the United States is tried the Chief
Justice shall preside, and no person shall be convicted without the
concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.
"Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further
than to removal from office. . . .
"The President shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons
for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeach-
ment.
"The President . . . shall be removed from office on im-
peachment for, and conviction of, treason. . . .
"The trial of all crimfes, except in cases of impeachtnent, shall
be by jury. . . ."
"Trial," "conviction" "judgment," and their kindred terms, are
all appropriate to judicial proceedings, and are not appropriate
to anything else.
In this same connection much has been made at times of
the constitutional requirement of a new oath to be taken by the
Senators prior to an impeachment trial. Exactly what weight
should be given to that requirement is not clear ; but it may safely
be concluded therefrom and from analogy to other judicial
proceedings, that it was intended thereby to give greater solem-
nity to the trial, to impress upon the Senators their duty in the
"4 Blackstone's Commentaries 258.
" See 6 Am. Law Reg. (n. s.) 258-259.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 27
particular case, to show that the Senate is then sitting in a dif-
ferent capacity than ordinarily, and that it occupies an entirely
different situation than the House, which is prosecuting. It has
been claimed by some that this requirement shows that the
Senate is then sitting as a court, but it does not seem necessary
to enter further into that controversy.
So, too, the precedents in the Senate are all in accord with
the conclusion now asserted. In the Blount Impeachment the
respondent' was arrested and required to give bond,®" a course
constantly pursued under the English practice,®^ a practice with
which the King's Bench, in Lord Danby's case, decided they
could not interfere, so long as the parliament which impeached
the respondent had not been dissolved.®^
In the Swayne Impeachment the Senate by a vote of forty-
five to twenty-eight decided that the respondent's voluntary
statements, made before a Committee of the House of Represen-
tatives, could not be used against him on the trial of the impeach-
ment because of the Fifth Amendment above quoted, and of
' Section 859 of the Revised Statutes, which provides :
"No testimony given by a witness before either House, or
before a committee of either House of Congress, shall be used in
evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court, ex-
cept in a prosecution for perjury in giving such testimony." ^'
So, also, the House of Representatives in the proceedings
against George F. Seward, looking to his impeachment, ruled
that he could not be attached for contempt in declining to be
sworn, and to produce documentary evidence, because only of
the above quoted provision of the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself."®*
So, too, all the commentators on the Constitution, when
speaking of the Senate in trying impeachments, speak of it as
a "court." The references quoted in this article show that to be
•"3 Hinds' Precedents, Sec. 2296.
"6 Howell's State Trials 871.
®'Woodeson's Lectures 616, 617.
■^ Swajrne Impeachment Proceedings, 187-199.
"3 Hinds' Precedents, Sec. 1699.
28 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
SO, as to the writers quoted, and as to the others an examination
of the citations will prove it.
In antagonism to the views above expressed it has some-
times been argued that inasmuch as Art. Ill, Sec. i says that
"The judicial powers of the United States shall be vested in
one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress
may from time to time ordain and establish" that that is a con-
stitutional assertion that the Senate in trying impeachments does
not sit as a court. Perhaps it would be better to say that it shows
that the Senate, when trying impeachments, is not part of the
general "judicial powers of the United States," but is rather
part of the political powers thereof, and in that aspect it bears
upon the question, hereinafter to be considered, of the character
of the offences cognizable in impeachments. But whether or
not that be so, it is clear from the location of the section quoted,
as well as from its context, that it refers to the ordinary or usual
"judicial powers of the United States," and does not refer to
impeachment trials, any more than it does to courts-martial,
though both were and are well-known methods for the trial of
certain offences.
It may be said that the similarity of the proceedings to
those in a court, may account for the frequent use of that word
in the various impeachment trials; but if that be so it concedes
all that is valuable in the claim now made, for it is of no moment
whether the body which tries the impeachment is called a senate
or a court, if it has the attributes of and proceeds like a court.
In the one event, as in the other, the constitutional rights and
privileges of the respondent are protected, and that is all he
has any right to ask. Happily in this country, though it was
not infrequently otherwise before the House of Lords, no re-
spondent has ever been openly deprived of any of those rights
or privileges, not even President Johnson, though partisan feel-
ing reached its highest point at that time.
The Senate, then, being a court, or proceeding as if it were,
certain necessary consequences follow, which usually have been
recognized and accorded :
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 29
1st. The respondent is entitled "to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation" against him.^^
2nd. He is entitled "to have the assistance of counsel for
his defence.""®
3rd. He is entitled "to be confronted with the witnesses
against him."®^
4th. He is entitled "to have compulsory process for ob-
taining witnesses in his favor."®®
5th. He cannot "be compelled . . . to be a witness
against himself."®®
And to those constitutional privileges are to be added the
following which experience has demonstrated to be necessary for
the just trial of causes.
6th. The rules of evidence applicable to courts are adhered
to in these trials. It has been many times so held.''*'
7th. A reasonable doubt of the respondent's guilt must re-
sult in his acquittal. This also has been many times decided, in
addition to that which is herein elsewhere said upon this point.''^^
8th. The Senate must find an intent to do wrong. It is, of
course, admitted that a party will be presumed to intend the
natural and necessary results of his voluntary acts, but that is
a presumption only, and is not always inferable from the act
done.'^^ So ancient is this principle, and so universal is its appli-
cation, that it has long since ripened into'the maxim. Actus non
facit reum mens sit rea, and has come to be regarded as one of
the "fundamental legal principles" of our system of jurispru-
dence.''^ True, in many cases, the circumstances surrounding the
"Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.
"Ihid.
"Ibid.
"Ibid.
"Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
"3 Hinds' Precedents 537-643; Woodeson's Lectures, 611, 612.
"Nebraska v. Hastings, 37 Neb. 96 (1893) ; Alabama v. Tally 102 Ala.
25 (1893) ; Alabama v. Robinson, iii Ala. 482 (1895) ; 15 Am. & Eng. Ency.
of Law (2nd Ed.) 1070; Watson on the Constitution (1910) Vol. i, p. 214;
Impeachment of Judge Barnard, pp. 2070, 2071.
"Bishop's Criminal Law, Sec. 252. '
" Broom's Legal Maxims (8th American Ed.) 306-326.'
30 ' FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
performance of an act may be sufficient from which to infer the
intent; but, nevertheless, in every criminal proceeding, the in-
tent must be averred and proved to the satisfaction of both the
trier of the law ahd the trier of the facts.
Qth. And finally, recurring again to the Constitution, if
once acquitted in impeachment proceedings, he cannot "be sub-
ject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy."''*
The next great question is :
What Were the Offences Embraced Within the Lan-
guage "Treason^ Bribery or Other High Crimes and
Misdemeanors" ?
"Treason" is defined in the Constitution, and therefore, no
difficulty arises regarding it. "Bribery" is not so defined, yet
its signification is well known. Around the words "other high
crimes and misdemeanors" the war has been waged in nearly
every federal impeachment, and in numerous books and maga-
zine articles dealing with the subject of impeachment.
With arguments "equally emphatic and mutually irrecon-
cilable" some have asserted (a) that only those offences are im-
peachable which were indictable crimes at the time of the adop-
tion of the Constitution, when there was no common law of
the United States; while others have said (b) that every offence
which had or could have been the subject of impeachment in
England prior to the adoption of the Constitution, is still a
subject of impeachment here; and between them every possible
resting place has been preempted by other settlers. It is or ought
to be clear, however, that each of the extreme cases is erroneous,
and that both are founded on the same error. In its ultimate
analysis claim (b) like claim (a) makes this clause of the Con-
stitution a Procustean Bed, -its lerigth fixed on September 17,
1787. No reason is apparent, however, why this provision of
the Constitution should have been still-born, while the others
are pulsating with' a richer and better life than they possessed a
fcentury and a quarter ago. The fundamental error underlying
"Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 31
both claims is thg assertion that that which is intended to es-
tablish principles shall be treated as applicable only to facts ex-
isting at the time of their first statement. The inadequacy of
the Commerce Clause alone would long ago have destroyed the
Constitution had that intei'pretation been adopted, for railways,
railroads, steamboats, telegraph, telephone, and aerial navigation,
have each developed new situations not even thought of when
the Constitution was adopted. It is true the government is one
of limited powers, as the Tenth Amendment states, but within its
limited sphere it is none the less supreme as Article VI of the
Constitution says, and that sphere is large enough to embrace
within it ever)i;hing granted, or necessarily implied from the
language used, though discovered or developed after the Con-
stitution was adopted.
A frame of government, as a constitution is, is necessarily
adopted for the future, perhaps a remote future, and not for
the past, and those who ac^opt it cannot be presumed to have
thought it was to be applied only to the then existing conditions,
rather than to similar conditions certain to rise, for so to pre-
sume is to conclude that they deliberately planted in their own
offspring the seed of an early death. It is well said by Judge
Story in the great case of Martin v. Hunter's Lessees}
"The Constitution unavoidably deals in general language. It
did not suit the purpose of the people, in framing the great charter
of our liberties to provide for minute specifications of its powers,
or to declare the means by which those powers should be carried
into execution. It was foreseen that this would be a perilous and
difficult, if not an impracticable task. The instrument was not in-
tended to provide merely for the exigencies of a few years, but
was to endure through a long lapse of ages, the events of which
were locked up in the inscrutable purposes of Providence. It
could not be foreseen what new changes and modifications of power
might be indispensable to effectuate the general objects of the
charter; and restrictions and specifications which at the present,
might seem salutory, might, in the end, prove the overthrow of the
system ■ itself . Hence its powers are expressed in general terms,
leaving to the Legislature, from time to time, to adopt its own
means to effectuate legitimate objects, and to mold and model the
exercise of its powers, as its own wisdom and the public interests
shall require." i
*i Wheaton 326 (1816).
32 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
What then is the true meaning of "other high crimes and
misdemeanors" in Article II, Section 4? If, for the moment,
we consider that section by itself, disassociated from all other
clauses of the Constitution, and as having no historical meaning,
it will be plain that the word "misdemeanors" cannot properly
be limited to criminal misdemeanors. It is said in Holmes v.
Jennison et al.:^
"In expounding the Constitution of the United States, " every
word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is
evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily
used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken
place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the
correctness of this proposition, and have shown the high talent, the
caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it.
Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost delibera-
tion, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No
word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous
and unmeaning."
If the word "misdemeanors" refers only to criminal misde-
meanors, then it is a useless and unnecessary word, for it is em-
braced within the word "crimes" and the clause might as well
have read only "treason, bribery, or other high crimes."
That the word "crimes" ordinarily includes misdemeanors
is not doubtful. Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution says :
"A person charged in any State with treason, felony or other
crime, who shall flee from prison, and be found in another State,
shall on demand of the executive authority of the State from which
he fled be delivered up to be removed to the State having jurisdiction
of the crime."
In construing that section the Supreme Court of the United
States said in Kentucky v. Dennison:^
"The words 'treason, felony or other crime' in their plain and
obvious import, as well as in their legal and technical sense, em-
brace every act forbidden and made punishable by a law of the
State. The word 'crime' of itself includes every offence, from the
highest to the lowest in the grade of offences, and includes what
are called 'misdemeanors' as well as treason and felony."
And all the later decisions sustain that view.*
'14 Peters S7o (1840). "24 How. 66 (i860).
*Ex parte Reggels, 114 U. S. 642 (1885).
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 33
But we are not permitted wholly to eliminate the word "mis-
demeanors" unless compelled so to do, and we are not in the
present case, for the word has at least two meanings, one crim-
inal and the other social, and if interpreted in the latter sense,
as in England it often was, to cover offences not necessarily in-
dictable, then it and every other word in the sentence, is given
a meaning and use. Ascertained according to the principle last
above quoted, the word "crimes" was used to negative the
thought that the only criminal offences for which an impeach-
ment would lie were "treason" and "bribery"; and the word
"misdemeanors" was used to negative the thought that only
"crimes" were impeachable.
The argument thus made cannot properly be answered by
the maxims, noscitur a sociis and copulatio verborum acceptionem
in eodem sensu, as is often attempted to be done in interpreting
the meaning of the word "misdemeanors" in that section. It
is true that those maxims are often valuable aids to interpreta-
tion, but, after all, they are only aids in ascertaining the mean-
ing, and can have no application here, inasmuch as the words
"other high crimes" exhaust the possibility of everything which
"in eodem sensu" could be ejusdem generis with, "treason" and
"bribery"; and hence the word "misdemeanors" must be dis-
carded as useless, which is forbidden, or else it must be given
other than a criminal meaning, which is the claim now made.
If the language of the Constitution were "treason, bribery, or
other high felonies and misdemeanors," the requirement of crim-
inality as to "misdemeanors" would be clear under those maxims ;
but as it is, the conclusion is equally clear the other way.
Unless then some other provision of the Constitution limits
the meaning of the word "misdemeanors," or historically there
is something 'which gives to the clause "other high crimes and
misdemeanors," a technical meaning antagonistic to that which
it bears standing alone, its normal meaning, as above, must pre-
vail.
Arguments, of greater or less force, have been made from
this and other sections of the Constitution, claiming that a more
extended meaning must be given to it than that involving crim-
34 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
inality; but no argument has been presented that it is limited in
meaning by its context, except such as have been suggested
under Article II, Section 2, which provides :
"The President . . . shall have power to grant reprieves
and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases
of impeachment."
and under Article III, Section 2, which provides:
"The trkl of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall
be by jury. . . ."
But, properly considered, neither' of those provisions militate
against the view already expressed. The only inference that can
fairly be drawn from the use of the word "offences" in Article
II, Section 2, instead of the word "crimes," is that it was recog-
nized that there were "offences against the United States" which
were not crimes, and all those, including fines, penalties and for-
feitures, could be pardoned by the President;^ but for "offences"
resulting in a conviction upon impeachment, the President was
not to be permitted to pardon.
The use of the word "crimes" in Article III, Section .2, tells
for neither side of the controversy, for the reason that inasmuch
as the proceedings in impeachment are a trial, and that a "trial"
may be for a "crime," it was necessary therein to exclude "im-
peachments," in order 'to avoid the implication, which other-
wise might arise, that criminal impeachments should be tried by
a jury, a point made and overruled in the Blount Impeachment,
yet repeatedly insisted upon by Senator Tazewell, because of the
Sixth Amendment, and referred to also in a letter of President
Jefferson to James (afterwards President) Monroe.®
If viewed from the historical standpoint more can be said.
That we can and should so view it, is clear from the general
rule of construction relating to statutes, which is directly applied
to the Constitution in the case of Rhode Island v. Massachu-
setts:''
'Osborn v. U. S., 91. U. S. 474 (187S).
'Jeffersonian Cyclopedia 3864.
'12 Peters 658 (1838).
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS . 35
"In the construction of the Constitution we must look to the
history of the times, and examine the state of things existing when
it was framed and adopted, to ascertain the old law, the mischief,
and the remedy."
Thus considered it must be conceded that from an early date
the words "high crimes and misdemeanors" had been used in
connection with impeachments, and may be said to have acquired
thereby a technical meaning in regard thereto. It is a grave
question whether or not that fact in any way affects the matter,
unless the people who adopted the constitution should have so
, understood them, for "the words are to be taken in their natural
and obvious sense, and not in a sense unreasonably restricted
or enlarged,"® and it is the meaning of those who adopted the
Constitution not of those who framed it,^ that is the controlling
factor.io
But whether that be so or not the same result is reached.
In the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk et al.,^^ in 1388, and
nearly always since then, except when "treason" or "bribery
and corruption" were alleged, the technical words in connection
with impeachment charges have been "high crimes and misde-
meanors. " This will clearly appear from an examination of the
impeachment trials set forth at length in the Appendix hereto.
But that fact carries us but a short step forward. The question
really is : Were those technical words used to cover only criminal
offences? A very brief examination of the cases in the Appen-
dix will show that they were not. Of the seven articles of
impeachment against the Earl of Suffolk, but three can by any
method of interpretation be held to be criminal offences, and so
it appears throughout all those trials.
If we take only the cases in which "high crimes and misde-
meanors" are charged, we find that, so far as the records show, no
respondent was acquitted prior to the, adoption of our Constitu-
tion, because the offences named in the articles were not in-
' Martin v. Hunter's Lessees, i Wheaton 326 (1816) ; Gibbons v. Ogden,
9 Wheaton i (1829).
"Legal Tender Cases, 79 U. S. 6SS (1870).
"Sturges V. Croninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 (1819).
" I Howell's St. Trials 90.
36 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
dictable ; and in at least the following cases the respondents were
convicted, inter alia, of offences not indictable, viz. : Earl of Suf-
folk et al.,^^ Sir Giles Mompesson,^* Sir Francis Michell.i* Lord
Treasurer Middlesex,^^ George Benyon,^® Sir Richard Gurney,"
Earl of Northampton et al.,^^ Archbishop Laud," Henry Sache-
verell,^" and Earl of Macclesfield.^^ In addition thereto in a
large number of cases the Commons impteached for offences
not indictable, but the proceedings lapsed by the proroging or
dissolution of Parliament, or because deemed not important
enough to continue; or the respondents were acquitted because
of disputes between the two Houses of Parliament, or for reasons
in no way shown to be connected with the character of the of-
fence, so far as indictability is concerned. Perhaps no one has
summarized those impeachments better than has Judge Story
in his Commentaries on the Constitution.'^^
I "In examining the parliamentary history of impeachments, it
will be found that many offences, not easily definable by law, and
many of purely political character, have been deemed high crimes
and misdemeanors worthy of this extraordinary remedy. Thus,,
lord chancellors, and judges, and other magistrates, have not only
been impeached for bribery, and for acting grossly contrary to
the duties of their office, but for misleading their sovereign by un-
constitutional opinions, and for attempts to subvert the fundamental
laws and introduce arbitrary power. So, where the lord chancellor
has been thought to put the great seal to an ignominious treaty;
a lord admiral to have neglected the safeguard of the sea, an am-
bassador to have betrayed his trust; a privy counsellor to have
propounded, or supported pernicious and dishonorable measures;,
or a confidential adviser of his sovereign to have obtained exorbi-
tant grants, or incompatible employments; these have been all
deemed impeachable offences. Some of the offences, indeed, for
which persons were impeached in the early ages of British juris-
prudence, would now seem harsh and severe; but perhaps they
were rendered necessary by existing corruptions, and the import-
ance of suppressing a spirit of favoritism and court intrigue. Thus,
persons have been impeached for giving bad counsel to the king;
"i Howell's St. Trials 90. "2 Ibid 1120.
"2 Ibid 1 132. "2 Ibid 1 184.
"4 Ibid 141. "4 Ihid 159-
"4 Ibid 176. "4 Ibid 315.
" IS Ibid I " 16 Ibid 767.
^ZrA Ed., Sec. 800.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 37
advising a prejudicial peace; enticing the king to act against the
advice of parliament; purchasing offices; giving medicine to the
king without the advice of physicians; preventing other persons
from giving counsel to the king, except in their presence ; and prose-
cuting exorbitant personal grants from the king. But others, again,
were founded in the most salutJi&y^uWie justice ; such as impeach-
ment for malversations ai Cneglects in officej for encouraging
pirates; for official oppressions, extortions~and 3eceits ; and especi-
ally for putting good magistrates out of office and advancing bad."
A still more extensive catalogue is given by Judge Law-
rence in his article in the American Law Register,^^ which was
adopted by the Managers of the House, and submitted as their
brief, during the impeachment of President Johnson.^* And
it may not be inappropriate to quote what Lord Brougham said
of the trial of Queen Caroline :
"The House of Commons might impeach for whatever was
indictable, but they also might impeach in cases where no indictment
could be found. ...
"The learned attorney-general had held that no impeachment
could lie unless some law was violated; but the opinion was con-
trary to the doctrine laid down by the greatest writers on the law
of impeachment. Lord Coke did not so limit the power of parlia-
ment. He regarded this power as most extensive, and in describing
it quoted this remarkable expression: 'That it was so large and
capacious that he could not place bounds to it, either in space or
time.' In short, this maxim has been laid down as irrefragable,
that whatever mischief is done, and no remedy could otherwise be
obtained, it is competent for parliament to impeach."
But it is said we ought to take only "the reports of the well
considered cases of parliamentary impeachments, cases which
were controlled by the judgments instead of the passion^ of
men."^^ In one sense at least that is undoubtedly true, but who
is to decide which are the "well considered cases"? Human
nature is such that generally speaking those cases are "well con-
sidered" to each of us, which agree with our own views, and
those are ill considered which disagree therewith; and we are
all too prone to attribute to the "passions of men," or to their
prejudices or self-interest, "judgments" which do not please us.
"^6 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 641.
"Suppl. to Cong. Globe, 2nd Sess., 40th Congress, 41-51.
"^ House Journal, and Sess., 40th Congress 44, 53.
38 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
In matters, like the English impeachments, where there are
neither statutes nor written constitutions to control the question
under consideration, we are necessarily driven to determine what
is the weight of authority upon a given proposition, unless we
find the earlier cases overruled by the later ones, in which event
the latter would ordinarily control. That much is conceded by
Professor Dwight,^® but he asserts boldly :
"The decided weight of authority is that no impeachment will
lie except for a true crime, or, in other words, for a breach of the
common law, or statute, which, if committed within any county of
England, would be the subject of indictment or information."
It would be interesting to know what kind of scales were
used in determining that "decided weight of authority," for it
may safely be said that there is no authority whatsoever so
deciding, unless it be the case of Lord Melville, decided in 1806,
hereinafter to be more fully referred to. It is true that most of
the charges were of crimes, and this must always be so, so long
as impeachments are serious matters; but it ho more follows
therefrom that impeachments are limited to crimes, than it would
follow that the "decided weight of authority" is that tenants
cannot be legally excluded from their leaseholds except for non-
payment of rent, because usually they are excluded for that
reason.
It is also true that the respondents in a number of the cases
complained that they ought not to be impeached for the acts
complained of, inter alia, because they were not of sufficient mag-
nitude; but so far as ascertainable there was no allegation that
to be impeachable the act must be indictable. No writer on the
subject, no counsel defending an impeached person, has pointed
to any impeachment in which that, question was raised, unless
as stated, it is the case of Lord Viscount Melville in 1806.^''
In that case Lord Melville, who was Treasurer of the Navy,
was charged with wrongfully using, or permitting to be used,
public moneys. The evidence did not justify the charge that
any corrupt use 'thereof was made, but it did justify, or at least
"Trial by Impeachment, 6 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 257.
"29 Howell's St. Trials, 550.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 39
left in doubt, the question as to whether or not express authority
was given for the use actually made of it. Thereupon the Lords
submitted to the judges the following question:
"3. Whether it was lawful for the Treasurer of the Navy,
before the passing of the Act 25 Geo. 3rd, c. 31, and more especially
when by warrant from His Majesty, his salary as such treasurer
as aforesaid, was augmented in full satisfaction for all wages, fees,
and other profits, and emoluments, to apply any sum of money to
him for navy services, to any other use whatsoever, public or
private, without express authority for so doing; and whether such
application by such treasurer would have been a misdemeanor, or
punishable by information or indictment?"
The judges replied :
"It was not unlawful for the Treasurer of the Navy, be-
fore the Act 25 Geo. 3rd, c. 31, although after the warrant stated
in the question, to apply any sum of money imprested to him for
navy services, to other uses, public or private, without express au-
thority for so doing, so as to constitute a misdemeanor punishable
by information or indictment."
In other words, it was decided that prior to the passage of
the act referred to it was not unlawful for the treasurer to use
the public moneys "imprested to him for navy services," for
other public uses, "without express authority for so doing."
The question and answer referred to "public or private" uses,
but no one would pretend that the use of public moneys for
private purposes was not both unlawful and indictable.
The respondent was acquitted, but how many of the Lords
voted to acquit him because of the above answer, and how many
because his alleged offences were twenty-four years old at the
time of his trial, and how many for other reasons, does not ap- ,
pear. It is not to be wondered at that he was acquitted when it
is remembered that his impeachment was only carried in the
House of Commons by the deciding vote of the Speaker, the
members voting 216 for and 216 against, the younger Pitt, then
Prime Minister, doing all in his power to defeat the impeach-
ment,^* especially when the judges ruled that he had done noth-
ing unlawful, and had only followed the custom of prior treas-
urers. He has studied impeachments in vain who does not know
"30 Leisure Hour 666.
40 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
that an acquittal under such circumstances decides no legal prin-
ciple. Beyond that, however, the point here is that that record
does not disclose that the acquittal was because the offence
charged was not indictable, and hence it is not an authority for
the proposition that, under the English practice, impeachment
will not lie for other than indictable offences.
It is clear then that the true construction of Article II, Sec-
tion 4, standing alone, compels the conclusion that the word "mis-
demeanors" does not mean criminal misdemeanors only; that
there is nothing in the other provisions of the Constitution, nor
in the English practice, which otherwise limits that construc-
tion ; and hence it must be held to mean other than criminal mis-
demeanors.
But if the matter may be considered as doubtful, we are
entitled to ask what construction has been placed upon the words
"high crimes and misdemeanors" in this country, under the
rule well expressed in McPherson v. Blacker :^^
"The framers of the Constitution employed words in their
natural sense; and where they are plain and clear, resort to col-
lateral aids to interpretation is unnecessary and cannot be indulged
in to narrow or enlarge the text; but where there is ambiguity or
doubt, or where two views may well be entertained contemporane-
ous and subsequent practical construction are entitled to the great-
est weight."
So considered it will be found that the same conclusion is reached.
A rather full abstract of the articles in each case will be found
in the Appendix hereto, and they need be but briefly stated
herein.
In Blount's case it may be conceded that all the articles
charged a criminal offense, but the proceedings were dismissed
because he was not a "civil officer of the United States," and
hence not impeachable. Judge Pickering was impeached and
convicted for releasing a vessel without requiring a bond, for
refusing to hear witnesses in the case, for refusing to allow an
appeal from his judgment, and for intoxication and profanity
while on the Bench, none of which were indictable offences.
Judge Chase was impeached and acquitted for refusing to al-
"146 U. S. I (1854).
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 41
low counsel to argue questions of law to the jury, for over-
ruling the request of a juror that he be excused, for overruHng
an offer of proof because he" did not think it broad enough, for
<:ompelling counsel to submit certain questions to witnesses in
writing, for awarding a capias when he should only have awarded
a summons, for trying a case at too early a date, and for intem-
perately charging the grand jury in a quasi-political case, none
of which were indictable offences. Judge Peck was impeached
and acquitted for wrongfully punishing an attorney for con-
tempt, an unindictable offence. Judge Humphreys was impeached
and convicted of treason, of neglect of duty, of acting as a judge
of a court of the Confederate States, and while so acting, of
wrongfully arresting citizens. President Johnson was impeached
and acquitted for violating the Tenure of Office Act, in remov-
ing and conspiring with others to remove Stanton as Secretary
of War, in appointing General Thomas to that office, and con-
spiring with others to put him in possession thereof and exclude
Stanton therefrom, for thereby attempting unlawfully to con-
trol the property of the United States and disburse the funds
appropriated to the said department, for claiming the right to
give orders to subordinate military officers other than through
the general of the army, and for villi fying Congress and assert-
ing that it was a congress of but part of the United States. Sec-
retary Belknap was impeached for bribery. Judge Swa)Tie was
impeached and acquitted for wrongfully certifying to and re-
ceiving an excessive sum for travelling expenses, for
using provisions in and travelling on a parlor car in the pos-
session of a receiver of his appointment, without paying there-
for, for non-residence in the district in which he was serving, and
for wrongfully punishing two attorneys and another person for
contempt. Judge Archbald was tried and convicted on five of
thirteen articles, not one of which charged an indictable offence.
It will be noticed, therefore, that the House of Representa-
tives has asserted the right to impeach for other than indictable
offences in every impeachment, except those of Blount and Bel-
knap, wherein no such question arose. In the impeachpients of
Chase, Peck, Johnson, and Swayne a majority of the Senate,
42 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
though not two-thirds thereof, declared the respondents guilty
of offences not indictable. And in the Pickering, Humphreys
and Archbald cases more than two-thirds of the Senate convicted
the respondents and punished them for offences not indictable.
The only other possible "contemporaneous . . . con-
struction" would be the' language expressed by the framers of
the Constitution^ either 'during its framing or shortly thereafter,,
and the debates in the state conventions which adopted it.
While it is well recognized that the debates in the Convention are
not controlling, if for no other reason than because it is "We,
the people of the United States . . . (who) do ordain
and establish this Constitution," yet the courts constantly resort
to those debates at least for the purpose of having light thrown
upon the history of the times when the Constitution was adopted,
especially in view of the fact that the members of the Federal
Convention were the greatest public men of that day.
The debates on the subject in the Federal Convention have
hereinbefore been discussed. Nowhere therein, is it even sug-
gested that indictability has any connection with impeachability.
Gunning Bedford, Jr., states that "impeachments would reach
misfeasance only, not incapacity."^" Elbridge Gerry desired a
council to assist the President partly because they may be called
upon to account for their opinions and impeached."*^ The
Convention first voted that the President should be "removable
on impeachment and conviction of mal-practice or, neglect' of
duty."^^ Alexander Hamilton's "sketch" allowed "impeach-
ment for mal- and corrupt conduct."** Gouveneur Morris ad-
mitted that "corruption and some few other offences .
ought to be impeachable."** James Madison "thought it indis-
pensable that some provision should be made for defending the
Community agst the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the
chief magistrate."*® Gouveneur Morris said, "The Executive
" I Farrand's Records of Federal Convention l6.
"Ibid 71. ' ""Ibid 78.
"Ibid 292, 293. "2 Farrand 64, 69.
"Ibid.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 43
ought, therefore, to be impeachable for treachery. Corrupting
his electors and incapacity were other causes of impeachment."*®
The Committee of Eleven reported that impeachment should
be had fot "treason or bribery,"*'' and Colonel Mason moved to
add the words "or maladministration" after the word "bribery,"
because the words "treason or bribery" are inadequate. Mr.
Madison thought "maladministration" too vague, and then
"maladministration" was withdrawn and "other high crimes
and misdemeanors" substituted.**
' The only other place where like language was used was in
Article XV, reported by the Committee on Detail. It required
fugitives from justice, charged with "treason, felony or high
misdemeanor," to be returned to the State having jurisdiction
of the offence.*® The report of the debates says:
"The words 'high misdemeanor' were struck out, and "other
crime' inserted, in order to comprehend all proper cases; it being
doubtful whether 'high misdemeanor' had not a technical meaning
too limited." *»
The reason thus given seems a little odd, for one cannot
well see how "other crimes" with that context, in view of the
ejusdem generis rule of construction, could have a more extended
meaning than "high misdemeanor" unless the latter did not in-
clude crimes at all, which would be favorable to the argunjent
now being presented; but in no view of the matter is the change
favorable to the opposite view.
An examination into the debates in the various state con-
ventions which ratified the Constitution throws but little light
upon the subject. In most of them the subject of impeachment
was not debated at all, and, if referred to, it was but briefly
stated as part of the pending plan. As appears from the Fourth
Volume of Elliott's Debates, it was referred to at considerable
length in the North Carolina Convention, and somewhat also
in the South Carolina Convention. The latter debates give us
no light upon the pending question, and the former but little,
"°2 Farrand 64, 69. '' Ibid 495-
"Ibid SSO, SS2. "Ibid 187, 188.
"/6irf 443.
44 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
though it was sometimes said that the object of impeachment was
the removal :^rom office of incompetent or corrupt officials, for
•conduct which would not or could not be prosecuted in the ordi-
nary criminal tribunals. There was no argument over the matter,
however, the main dispute being over the question as to whether
or not the Senate would convict those to whose appointment it
had consented under the provisions of Article II, Section 2.
It is not without significance that in the many excellent and
•exhaustive briefs prepared by counsel for respondents in our
impeachment proceedings, some of which were tried while mem-
bers of the convention which framed the Constitution still lived,
there is no assertion that any member of that convention had
expressed the opinion that impeachment was only intended to
cover indictable offences. A somewhat careful independent ex-
amination fails to disclose any such statement, save as herein-
after set forth. Three of the most active and able members
of that convention have, however, expressed an antagonistic
view of that claim. Thus Hamilton said :*^
"A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an
object not more to be desired, than difficult to be obtained in a
government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are
those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men,
or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be de-
nominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immedi-
ately to the society itself."
Madison, in the debate in Congress on tl^e bill to establish a
Department of Foreign Affairs said :
"Perhaps the greatest danger ... of abuse in the execu-
tive power lies in the improper continuance of bad men in office.
But . . . if an unworthy man be continued in office by an un-
worthy President, the House of Representatives can impeach him,
and the Senate can rerflove him whether the President chooses or
not. The danger then consists merely in this: the President can
displace from office a man whose merits require that he should
continue in it. What will be the motives which the President can
put for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to
prevent it? In the first place he will be impeachable by the House
before the Senate for such an act of maladministration ; for I con-
"No. 6s, Federalist.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 45-
tend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject
him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust." *^
And James (afterwards Mr. Justice) Wilson, said:*^
"In the United States . . . impeachifiei\ts are confined to
political characters, to political crimes, and misdemeanors and to
poHtical punishments."
The only known instance to the contrary, if it can be said to-
be such, is that of Luther Martin, a member of the convention
from Maryland, who did not approve the Constitution, did not
sign it when engrossed, and became one of its strongest oppo-
nents, both before the people and in the Maryland Convention
which ratified it. He was one of the counsel for the respondent
in the impeachment of Judge, Chase, and therein, as such coun-
sel, very ably but unconvincingly maintained that impeachment
' would only lie for indictable offences.**
It may not be inappropriate to remark that in the impeach-
ment of William Blount (himself a member of the Federal Con-
vention) one of his counsel was Jared Ingersoll (also a mem-
ber thereof), but the question now under consideration was not
raised, argued or decided. So also in the impeachment of Judge
Chase, Senators Baldwin and Dayton had been members of the
Federal Convention, and the former voted guilty on articles
one, three and eight, which did not charge indictable offences.
The latter voted not guilty on all the articles. The reason for
the votes of either is not given in the record of the case.
It is of no small consequence, moreover, that no commen-'
tator upon the Constitution has said that impeachment was lim-
ited to indictable offences. A few state the question without
passing upon it. Thus, Mr. Justice Miller, in his lectures before
the students of the Law School of the National University
(1391), contents himself with saying*^ that "no satisfactory
definition has ever been given, or generally accepted, of the
phrase 'other high crimes and misdemeanors' " probably be-
*'4 Elliott's Debates 373.
"2 Wilson's Law Lectures 166.
"3 Hind's Precedents, 760 et seq.
"Page 214.
46 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
cause the subject was not one to be discussed at length in that
presence; and Meechem, in Thi haw of Public Offices and Of-
ficers (1890), states the differing views/® but does riot discuss
the matter for want* of space, and because only indirectly con-
nected with his subject. But it is believed that, without excep-
tion, all who do consider it assert that impeachment will lie for
offences not indictable.*'^
It is also of some importance that judicial opinion upon the
subject bears out the cbntention now being made. In Connecticut
the Superior Court is given jurisdiction of "all offences the pun-
ishment whereof is death, or confinement in Newgate, or inca-
pacity to hold office, and also of high crimes and misdemeanors."
In State v. Knapp*® the question which arose was whether or
not the offence charged was a high crime and misdemeanor, and
it was ruled :
"High crimes and misdemeanors are such immoral and un-
lawful acts as are nearly allied and equal in guilt to felony, yet
owing to some technical circumstances, did not fall within the
definition of felony."
Two other cases have a direct bearing upon the question at issue.
In State of Nevada v. Borowsky,^^ a public administrator was
indicted for the appropriation to his own use of funds of an
estate in his charge. The statute, upon which the indictment was
founded, provided:
"For any wilful misdemeanor in office, any public administrator
may be indicted, tried, and, if guilty, fined in any sum not exceed-
ing $2,000, and removed from office."
" Sec. 472-
"Without stopping to quote them reference may be made to
Story on the Constitution (3rd Ed.) Sees. 764, 796, 797, 799, 800 ; Rawle
on the Constitution (2nd Ed.) p. 273; Tucker on the Constitution (1899)
Vol. I, Sec. 2D0; Cooley's General Principles of Constitutional Law (1891)
pp. 165-166; Curtis' Constitutional History of the U. S. (1895) Vol. i, p. 4§2;
Pomeroy's Constitutional Law (9th Ed.) Sees. 721, 724, 725, 726; Black's
Hand Book of American Constitutional Law (3rd Ed.) pp. 137-138; Foster
on the Constitution, p. 582 et seq; Watson on the Constitution (1910) Vol. 2,
pp. 1027-1038; Willoughby on the Constitutional Law of the U. S. (1910)
Vol. 2, Sec. 652 ; Boutwell on the Constitution of the U. S. at the End of the
1st Century, Sec. 427.
*'6 Conn., 41S-417 (1827).'
"11 Nevada, 119 (1876).
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 47
The Court said:
"The fauh of this argument, {i. e., that no crime was alleged)
I think, consists in attributing to the word 'misdemeanor' as used
in the statute, its technical sense of a species of crime. It is evi-
dent, I think, that it is used in its more comprehensive sense of mis-
behavior, misconduct, violation of duty; for otherwise the word
'wilful', by which it is qualified, becomes entirely superfluous.
Every crime is necessarily wilful, but misconduct, or violation of
duty, is not. Taken in the latter sense, the word misdemeanor is
properly quaHfied by the word wilful; in the former signification,
the expression involves the worst sort of tautology. Besides in the
one case, the whole provision becomes utterly meaningless, while
in the other the construction is plain and sensible."
In State of Nebraska y. Hastings, ^° the respondent was im-
peached under the provision of Article V, Section 5 of the Con-
stitution of that state, which provided that all civil officers of
the state should be "liable to impeachment for any misdemeanor
in office." The Court said :
"It is sufficient for our purpose at present to say that we are
constrained to reject the views of Professor Dwight, Judge Curtis,
and other advocates of the doctrine that an impeachable misde-
meanor is necessarily an indictable offence, as too narrow, and
tending to defeat rather than promote the end for which an im-
peachment, as a remedy, was designed, and not in harmony with
the fundamental view of constitutional construction. On the other
hand the contention of counsel for the State,, that the term mis-
demeanor in office is not susceptible of a legal definition, but that
every such proceeding shall be determined upon the facts in the
particular case, is, to say the least, strikingly illogical."
After quoting from a number of authorities and text writers, the
Court proceeds :
"It may be safely asserted that where the act of official de-
linquency consists in the violation of some provision of the Con-
stitution or statute which is denounced as a crime or misdemeanor,
or where it is a mere neglect of duty wilfully done, with a corrupt
intention, or where the neghgence is so gross and the disregard
of duty so flagrant, as to warrant the inference that it was wilful
or corrupt, it is within the definition of a misdemeanor in office.
But where it consists of a mere error of judgment or omission of
duty without the element of fraud, and where the negligence is
attributable to a misconception of duty rather than a wilful disre-
gard thereof, it is not impeachable though it may be highly preju-
dicial to the interests of the State."
■'"'37 Neb. 96 (1893).
. 48 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
In presenting the views above expressed, most of the an-
tagonistic arguments have been incidentally considered. It re-
mains, however, to notice a few others.
(a) It is said that inasmuch as the lex parliamenti does not
furnish a definition for "other high crimes and misdemeanors,"
recourse must be had to the common law definition thereof, and
we are pointed to what Blackstone says :^^
"A crime or misdemeanor is an act committed or omitted in
violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it. This
general definition comprehends both crimes and misdemeanors,
which, properly speaking, are mefe synonymous terms, though in
common usage 'crimes' is made use of to denote such offences as are
of a deeper and more atrocious dye ; while smaller faults and omis-
sions of less cofisequence are comprised under the gentle name of
'misdemeandrs' only."
If "faults and omissions" are therein used with Blackstone's
customary accuracy of expression, then they do not refer to
"crimes" at all, and the quotation is not antagonistic to the pres-
ent contention. If not so used, then it must be said that Black-
stone had no better light upon this subject than we have, and the
statement quoted does not express the fact. It never was ac-
curate to state that "crimes and misdemeanors . . . prop-
erly speaking are (criminally speaking) mere synoynmous terms."
"Properly speaking" "crimes" embraces felonies as well as
"misdemeanors," especially in construing the Constitution of the
United States. ^^ Were it true that crimes and misdemeanors are
synonoymous terms, then the only impeachable felony would be
treason, for the clause would then cover only treason, bribeiry
and other high misdemeanors. But, as shown above, we canont
reject either "crimes" or "misdemeanors" as useless, and inter-
pret the clause as if it read "treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and crimes," or "treason, bribery or other high misde-
meanors and misdemeanors."
(b) It is contended by the anonymous writer of the brief
for the respondent in the impeachment of Charles Swayne^' that
"4 Black. Com. 5.
""Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 U. S. 66 (1861) ; Ex parte Reggel 114 U. S.
642 (188s).
" Senate Document No. 196, p. 373 et seq.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 49
inasmuch as the English practice m^ist be read into our Consti-
tution by reason of the generahty of the language used in Arti-
cle II, Section 4, now under cbnsideration ; and inasmuch as,
prior to the adoption of the Constitution, no judge had been
impeached in England except for misbehavior virtute officii; and
inasmuch as the status then became fixed in our Constitution and
could not thereafter be added to; that, therefore, no judge can
be impeached here except for like causes. But that conclusion
is clearly a non sequitur. Waiving all the other manifest defects
in the reasoning, and assuming the fact to be that no English
judge was ever impeached except for misbehavior in office, it
does not necessarily follow that, under the lex parliamenti, none
could have been. If the status was fixed, it was fixed not by
illustrations of the power, but by what the power in fact was.
Would it be contended that if no English judge had ever been
impeached, that none of ours could be? Moreover, the attempt
is to make judges impeachable for fewer offences than those for
which other "civil officers" are impeached, though the language
of Article II, Section 4, is general, and applies alike to them
and all other "civil officers" — an impossible construction.
(c) It is also said that it is absolutely necessary so to con-
strue the Constitution, for otherwise impeached officials would be
at the mercy of a temporary majority in Congress. But with or
without that definition they are at that mercy. True, many of
our impeachments have been decided by partisan votes, but that is
an indictment of the whole system, and not of this part of it
alone. It has often truly been said that the argument ah incon-
venienti is an unsafe one. It is certainly so here, for it simply
says: "I do not think the words have their natural meaning,
because to give them that meaning is to enable men to decide ac-
cording to their predilections" — a course they will pursue in any
event.
It seems clear, therefore, notwithstanding the interesting
arguments to the contrary, that the House in prosecuting and
the Senate in trying impeachments, are not limited to offences
which are indictable.
Hence we reach the next great question.
so FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
What Then Are the Offences Which May Result in
Impeachment ?
In answering this question it is not possible to prepare a
final list thereof, any more than it would be if it were to include
only statutory crimes, in view of the fact that each session of
Congress, and each session of every State Legislature, adds to the
number of crimes. It may be said in this, as in relation to every-
thing else human, "The times change and we change with them."
That which would be entirely justifiable at one time, in one
place and under one set of circumstances, might be unjustifiable
at another time, in another place, and under another set of cir-
cumstances. , The Constitution itself recognizes this fact when
it says: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not
be suspended except when in case of rebellion or invasion the
public safety may require it."^
But inter armes silent leges stands not alone. The standard
of conduct required of a public official in a highly civilized
community may be very diflferent from, that required of another
in a place peopled only by miners, cowboys, and the like. A
public officer, especially a judicial one, who, without cause, per-
sists in parading the streets and appearing in his office in grossly
fantastic costume, or who insults or abuses all those who have
public business to transact with him, might well be impeached
for a wilful disregard of those proprieties recognized by the
community in which the business of the office is transacted, and
necessary to be observed in order that the public may be properly
served.
So, also, the circumstances surrounding the particular in-
dividual may vary the standard of conduct. For instance, that
which was permitted of Judge Field during the time he was
under threat of death by Pavid S. Terry, woud not be permitted
of another under no such stress. One has only to read Cunning-
ham V. Neagle,^ to be satisfied of the necessity for that distinc-
tion.
'Art. I, Sec. 9.
"I3S U. S. 51 (1890).
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 51
But that impossibility does not permit of the conclusion thai;
there is no limitation to the offences for which impeachment will
lie. If that were so then the words "treason, bribery or other
high crimes and misdemeanors" would themselves be meaning-
less words, and that which was intended to be a measure for
preserving the government "pure and undefiled," might become
a means of oppression, and therefore of impurity and defilement
of that very government. As Judge Story well puts it in his
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:^
"The doctrine, indeed, would be truly alarming that the com-
mon law did not regulate, interpret, and control the powers and
duties of the court of impeachment. What, otherwise, would be-
come of the rules of evidence, the legal notions of crimes, and the
application of principles of public or municipal jurisprudence to
the charges against the accused ? It would be a most extraordinary
anomaly, that while every citizen of every state, originally com-
posing the Unipn, would be entitled to the common law, as his
birthright, and at once his protector and guide; as a citizen of the
Union, or an officer of the Union, he would be subjected to no
law, to no principles, to no rules of evidence. ... If the com-
mon law has no existence, as to the Union, as a rule or guide, the
whole proceedings are completely at the arbitrary pleasure of the
government and its functionaries in all its departments."
In defining the power it is clear that the offence must be
one of a serious character. The use of the word "high" im-
ports that. It is said by Bryce in The American Common-
wealth:*
"Impeachment ... is the heaviest artillery in the con-
gressional arsenal, but because it is so heavy it is unfit for ordinary
use. It is like a hundred ton gun which needs complex machinery
to bring it into position, an enormous charge of powder to fire it,
and a large mark to aim at. Or to vary the simile, impeachment
it what the physicians call a heroic medicine, an extreme remedy,
proper to be applied against an official guilty of political crimes,
but ill adapted for the punishment of small transgressions."
'3rd Ed., Sec. 798.
• ist Ed., p. 208.
52 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
A public ofificer may be criminally convicted of trespass,
though acting under a claim of right, or for excessively speeding
his automobile, yet neither, would justify impeachment. If, how-
ever, the conviction was followed by imprisonment, impeach-
ment might be well maintained, for the office would be brought
into contempt if a convict were allowed to administer it. It
may be said that, in that event, impeachment would depend on
the severity or lenity of a trial judge, and this would be so,
but for the office's sake, a man may be said to be guilty of a
"high misdemeanor" if he so acts as to be imprisoned. Surely
the whole matter can well be left to the sound judgment and dis-
cretion of the House and Senate, which doubtless would see that
spite and enmity did not result in conviction on impeachment.
For the same reason, while the misdemeanors for which
impeachment will lie are not necessarily indictable offences, yet
they must be of such a "high" character as might properly be
made criminal.^ That far, at least, the maxim noscitur a sociis
is applicable; for it is inconceivable that disconnected and un-
associated matters would, in the same sentence, be made subject
to the same criminal treatment, with possibly the same measure
of punishment in case of conviction. The human mind does not
travel, at one and the same time, along diverging lines, any
more than the human body does; and hence those who framed
and those who adopted the Constitution must alike have con-
strued this clause as dealing with subject matters of the same
generic kind.
Clearly also the offence must be one against the United
States. Article II, Section 2, implies that.
Clearly also the offence must be one in some way affecting
the administration of the office, from which it is sought to ex-
clude the offender. This does not necessarily mean that it must
have been an offence committed while performing the duties of
the office ; but' it does mean that the character of the offence, or
that which flows therefrom, must tend to bring the office, if the
"Foster on the Constitution, Sec. 93; "Law of Impeachment," 20 Case
and Comment, 454.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS S3
incumbent is continued therein, into ignominy and disgrace. It
will not do to say that a convicted wilful murderer could defend
himself from impeachment upon the ground that the murder was
not committed virtute officii. Nor, on the other hand, will it do
to say that an alleged offence justifies impeachment simply be-
cause the House and Senate is of opinion that the respondent
should have acted differently, if that which he did in no way
affects the administration of the office. It is highly improbable
that "treason" would be committed virtute officii, and bribery
may not be, yet both are impeachable whether so committed or
not. Hence the maxim noscitur a sociis would seem to exclude
that as a necessity in the cases of high crimes and misdemeanors.
In endeavoring to define this power, so as to give a working
and workable rule, as well as a guide to the "civil officers of the
United States" who may be impeached, as to the Senate, which
may try them if they overstep the bounds, one naturally turns
to the Constitution itself to see if there is anything therein which
will aid in the definition. In viewing the matter from that high
plane it must be admitted that the limits are negatively rather
than positively expressed. For instance, the First Amendment
would be construed to debar an impeachment on religious
grounds, or for freedom of speech or of printing, or for peace-
ably assembling to petition for redress of grievances; notwith-
standing the numerous instances of impeachment therefor in
England. But beyond these, and a few similar matters, the Con-
stitution does not aid the definition.
The assertion so frequently made, that in the case of judges.
Article III, Section i, which says that the judges "both of the
supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good
behavior," furnishes a guide, is necessarily a fallacious one for
three reasons :
( I ) It would exclude "good behavior" as a test in the case
of those officers, like the President and Vice-President, spe-
cifically named in the impeachment clause, because they hold for
a term and not simply "during good behavior." The words
"other high, crimes and misdemeanors" being applied in that
clause to both classes of officers alike, must be defined alike in
54 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
its application to both. If we assume that the standard of con-
duct would vary with the different offices, yet that would result
by reason of the character of the offices, and not by reason of
the fact that one class held "during good behavior," even though
it be said that the difiference in the term of office is a constitu-
tional recognition of a difference in the classes. Would any
one pretend that if, by constitutional amendment, the judges
would hold their offices for a term of years, that the character
of offences for which they could be impeached would thereby
be changed? Yet so it must be if the effect claimed must be
given to the words "during good behavior." It is not meant to
assert thereby that a lack of "good behavior" is not to be con-
sidered, whether in the case of a judicial or any other civil of-
ficer; but it is meant to say that the t&rva of the judge being
"during good behavior" only, is not the determinative factor in
considering what, as to him, constitutes an impeachable offence.
(2) It is only by reasoning in a circle, which always ends
nowhere, that even a specious character can be given to the
argument. Judges, like other civil officers, can only be im-
peached for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misde-
meanors." Their tenure of office is "during good behavior."
To say then, that "treason, bribery or other high crimes and
misdemeanors" is defined, quoad judges only, by "good behav-
ior," is only to say that a judge is entitled to retain his office
because of "good behavior," so long as he has not been impeached
and convicted of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and mis-
demeanors," for only by impeachment can he be removed; and
we are exactly where we started.
(3) The argument is historically inaccurate. Prior to 1700,
judges, like all other officials, were removable at the pleasure of
the king. By a statute passed in that year (13 William III, c. 2)
it is provided :
"Judges' commissions shall be made quamdiu se bene gesserint,
and their salaries ascertained and established ; but upon the address
of both houses of parliament it may be lawful to remove them."
Under that statute a judge was safe from removal by the king
alone, but his "good behavior" did not save his commission from
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 55
lapsing upon the death of the king; and it was not until the
passage of the statute of i George III, c. 23 (1760), that the
judges remained in office, despite the king's death. This statute
provided :
"The commissions of judges for the time being shall be, con-
tinue and remain, in full force, during their good behavior, not-
withstanding the demise of his Majesty (whom God long preserve)
or any of his heirs and successors ; any law, usage or practice to the
contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding."
The whole argument on this question may be stated syllogis-
tically. Either the word "misdemeanor" does or does not include
misbehavior. If it does, it needs not the aid of the "good be-
havior" provision. If it does not, then as impeachment only
lies for "misdemeanors," it is of no value.
Nor is the question as to the grounds for an impeachment
one entirely at large, as has sometimes been argued because of'
the use of the word "sole" in Article I, Section 2, which pro-
vides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole
power of impeachment," and in Article I, Section 3, which
provides that the Senate "shall have the sole power to try all
impeachments." Those words simply emphasize the fact that, as
to officers of the United States, those powers are exclusively in
the House and Senate. Opponents of the Constitution, when
it was before the various states for ratification, argued that they
might be held to exclude the right of impeachment in the states,
as against state officers, for offences against the states. The
friends of the Constitution as strenuously denied this, and ar-
gued, from the character of the government itself, as a feder-
ated government — the amendments not having then been adopted
— that only those powers vested in it which were granted ex-
pressly or by necessary implication, and hence, as the Constitu-
tion was intended to secure the United States as such, the lan-
guage used could not be held to refer to the states or state officers.
The answer was : But here it is expressly granted in the most
exclusive terms. The arguments thus made formed part of the
reasons for the immediate adoption of the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments to the Constitution.
56 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
The argument, upon which the claim is made that the
matter is in the sole discretion of the House and Senate, is
substantially as follows : Article II, Section 4, which says :
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the
United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misde-
meanors."
is only a designation of the minimum punishment which
shall be imposed in case of a conviction, in impeachment pro-
ceedings, of the particular officers named for the particular of-
fences named, and is not a designation either of who may be
impeached, or the offences for which they may be impeached;
and, hence, as the House has the sole power to impeach and
the Senate the sole power to try the impeachment, necessarily
those matters are in the "sole" discretion of those two bodies.
If this is so, then as the Constitution contains no other pro-
vision on the subject, every citizen is liable to impeachment, just
as in England. In that event trial by jury may be rightfully
abrogated, at the option of the House and Senate, in all cases
of crimes, charged against either a citizen or an official, and the
citizen is powerless, for the Constitution provides no means for
a review of a conviction by the Senate ; and the non-office hold-
ing citizen may be impeached for any imaginary offence, and
debarred, upon conviction, of ever thereafter holding office
under the United States. Were this so, it would be easy for the
House and Senate to prevent the inauguration of an antagonistic
President-elect. Happily, however, all the authorities, both in
and out of the Senate, disagree with that view, and it was ad-
mitted to be incorrect by the Managers of the House in the
Belknap Impeachment, and also in the Swayne Impeachment.^
In Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
States, it is said:'^
"From this clause it appears that the remedy by impeachment
is strictly confined to civil officers of the United States, including*
the President and Vice President. In this respect it differs mate-
's Hinds' Precedents, Sees. 2007, 2015.
'3rd Ed., Sec. 790.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 57
rially from the law and practice of Great Britain. In that kingdom
all the king's subjects, whether peers or commoners, are impeach-
able in parliam^ent, though it is asserted that commoners cannot
now be impeached for capital offences, but for misdemeanors only.
Such kinds of misdeeds, however, as peculiarly injure the common-
wealth by the abuse of high offices of trust, are the most proper,
and have been the most usual ground for this kind of prosecution
in parliament. There seems a peculiar propriety, in a republican
government at least, in confining the impeaching power to persons
holding office. In such a government all the citizens are equal
and ought to have the same security of a trial by jury for all
crimes and offences laid to their charge, when not holding any offi-
cial character. To subject them to impeachment would not only
be extremely oppressive and expensive, but would endanger their
lives and liberties, by exposing them against their wills to persecu-
tion for their conduct in exercising their political rights and privi-
leges." *
The same conclusion must necessarily be reached when the
Constitution is considered in the light of the Tenth Amend-
ment, which says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consti-
tution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius applied to
Article II, Section 4, necessarily excludes the claim that citizens
can be impeached, for impeachment is therein limited to civil
officers. Moreover, as only office-holders can be removed from
office, it necessarily follows that the provision applies to them
only. If this is not so, then the decision in the Blount Im-
peachment is iritorrect, whether it be treated as deciding that a
Senator is not within the category of "civil officers of the
United States," or as deciding that one not in office when the
proceedings began is not amenable to the action; for Howell's
State Trials are full of impeachments of members of the House
of Lords. So, too, the reasoning and conclusion in the Belknap
' The same thing is said in Rawie on the Constitution (2nd Ed.) p. 213 ;
Pomero/s Constitutional Law (9th Ed.) Sec. 716; Tucker on the Consti-
tution of the United States (1899) p. 414; Black's Hand Book of American
Constitutional Law (3rd Ed.) p. 137; Foster on the Constitution, Vol. i,
PP 566-570; Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives (1907)
Vol. 3, Sec. 2315. These authorities quote the Senatorial decisions on this
question, and preclude the necessity of repeating them here.
58 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
Impeachment is wrong, whether the majority or the minority
were correct on the question of his Habihty to impeachment, be-
cause of his successful "race with the law" in getting the Presi-
dent to accept his resignation a few hours before the House of
Representatives voted to impeach him. These considerations
justify Madison's criticism of that claim as made in the Blount
case as "the most extravagant novelty that has been broached."*
Many attempts have been made to define this power, quite
commonly by those who were trying to make the definition fit the
facts of a particular case, rather than to have it accord with
the constitutional provisions only.^" A notable exception to this,
however, though p&rt of the argument upon which his conclu-
sion is founded has hereinbefore been shown to be fallacious,
is what was said by Manager (afterwards President) Buchanan
in the Peck Impeachment:^^
"What is misbehavior in office? In answer to this, question
and without pretending to furnish a definition, I freely admit that
we are bound to prove that the respondent has violated the Con-
stitution, or some known law of the land. This, I think, is the
principle fairly to be deduced from all the arguments on the trial
of Judge Chase, and from the votes of the Senate on the Articles
of Impeachment against him, in opposition to the principle for
which his counsel in the first instance strenuously contended, that
in order to render an offence impeachable it must be indictable.
But this violation of law may consist in the abuse, as well as in the
usurpation of authority. The abuse of a power which has been
given may be as criminal as the usurpation of a power that has not
been granted."
Perhaps that statement should be broadened to include of-
fences of so weighty a character, and so injurious to the office,
that every official is bound to know that they are of the same
general character as crimes, and might well be made criminal
by statute ; but the terra incognita beyond, no one can properly
be asked to explore under the existing constitutional provisions,
if for no other reason than because it is a fixed and salutary
' 2 American Political and Social Science Review, 386.
" Suppl. to Cong. Globe, 2nd Sess. 40th Congress, pp. 50, 254; 3 Hinds'
Precedents, Sees. 2357, 2379; Story on the Constitution (3rd EdJ Sec. 764;
I Foster on the Constitution 591-598.
"3 Hinds' Precedents, Sec. 2381.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 59
'principle that penal provisions shall be so construed that the
persons to be affected by them may certainly know what things
they are forbidden to do. That rule, which Chief Justice Mar-
shall said, "is perhaps not much less old than construction it-
self,"^^ is of enduring importance, for it ever must be, in the
language of Coke, that "the known certaintie of the law is the
safetie of all," and if it be true that in this matter there is no
definiteness, then it is the only matter in Anglo-Saxon juris-
prudence in which a man may be punished for an offence the
nature of which it was not intended that he should know.
It is said that the learned Chairman of the Managers for
the House of Representatives in the Archbald Impeachment, said
that in convicting the respondent, the Senate had adopted "a
code of judicial ethics for the first time in American history."^*
If by that was meant that "for the first time in American his-
tory" a judge was successfully impeached for doing that which
was governed by no law except the universal law of good con-
duct, which every judge is supposed to know and give heed to, no
objection can be taken thereto. But if it was meant to say that
it was thereby determined that a judge can be impeached for a
mere breach of "a code of judicial ethics," then may we recall
that "it was long ago remarked by DeTocqueville that a decline
of public morals in the United States would probably be marked
by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crush-
ing political adversaries or ejecting them from office,"^* for
that unwritten "code" varies with the times and with the place,
and almost with the individual citizen.
Ex-President Taft, in an address before the American Bar
Association in 191 3, stated that the result of that trial was a
"liberal interpretation of the term 'high misdemeanor.' " He
said it was
"most useful in demonstrating to all incumbents of the federal
bench that they must be careful in their conduct outside of court
as well as in the court itself, and that they must not use the
■^U. S. V. Wiltberger, 5 Wheaton 76 (1820).
"Harper's Weekly, Feb. 15, 1913. P- 9-
"i Hare: Amer. Const. Law 211.
60 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
prestige of their official position, directly or indirectly, to secure
personal benefit." ^°
The objection to that statement is that so long as humanity
remains as it is, "the prestige of their official position" will
nearly always enure "directly or indirectly, to secure personal
benefit" to a judge, if he transacts any outside business, or even
makes investments or purchases. Moreover, as the Managers
of the House in that case repeatedly stated that they did not
challenge the Judge's ability, integrity, or impartiality,^^ per-
haps a better way of expressing the result of the trial would
be to say that it determined that a judge ought not only to be
impartial, but he ought so to demean himself, both in and out
of court, that litigants will have no reason to suspect his im-
partiality; and that repeatedly failing in that respect constitutes
a "high misdemeanor" in regard to his office. If such be con-
sidered the result of that case, every one must agree that it estab-
lished a much needed precedent.
The next great question is:
Can an Officer Be Impeached for Offences Committed
Before His Induction into Office?
Those who pin their faith to the argument that the "good
behavior" clause in the case of judges, determines the grounds
for their impeachment, must logically limit impeachments to a
date after that of the official's commission ; for by that argu-
ment the whole matter is one of implied contract, the officer
agreeing by the acceptance of a "good behavior" contract that
when he ceases to exercise "good'behavior" he may be ousted
by impeachment.
The matter is beset with difficulties however it is viewed, but
it would seem clear that if the offence is directly connected with
the attainment of the office he occupies when impeached, as a
violation of the Corrupt Practices Act in relation to his nomina-
tion or election, as was alleged in the Sulzer case, the impeach-
■"seth Annual Report Am. Bar Assn. 431.
"Archbald Impeachment, 888, 889, 892, 906, 91S.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 61
ment ought to prevail. So, too, if the ofifence was the subject
of consideration, and the facts in regard to it were substan-
tially known at the time of his election, or appointment and con-
firmation, it should not again be brought forward. It is within
the memory of all of us that a candidate for president was
charged with and admitted during the campaign the commission
by him of a grave moral ofifence in his early life, yet, because
during the years thereafter, he lived a life "void of offence
towards God and towards man," he was wisely elected by the
people, and became one of the best of our presidents.
In the Archbald impeachment the question was directly
raised, the respondent being charged with offences alleged to
have been committed while a District Judge, though at the
time of his impeachment he was a Circuit Judge assigned to
sit in the Commerce Court. He was acquitted on all such
charges, but some of the votes for acquittal were because the
offences were not deemed serious enough ; some because the Sen-
ators were not certain and did not feel it necessary to become
certain as to the proper decision of the legal question now being
considered, in view of the respondent's conviction on other arti-
cles ; and some because the Senators did not think he could prop-
erly be tried upon such charges. A number of Senators were
excused from voting on those articles. The matter cannot be
said, therefore, to have been decided in that case. Its import-
ance, and the possibilities rising out of it, was clearly pointed
out by Judge Archbald's counsel in their brief, when in speak-
ing of ex-President Taft, and of his manifold public activities,
they said •}
"The President of the United States at one time held the office
of Solicitor General ; at another time he was a Circuit Judge of the
United States; at another time he was Governor of the Philippine
Islands; at another time he was Secretary of War. Is it possible
that he can now be the subject of impeachment for any act com-
mitted by him at the time he held any one of those offices? If so,
he may be removed from his present office as President of the
United States by a majority of the House and two-thirds of the
Senate for alleged offences charged to have been committed while
he held any one of the other positions above mentiond."
'Archbald Impeachment, 1104.
62 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
And the further importance and possibilities thereof will appear |
from the statement that a House and Senate could, if there were t
an antagonistic two-thirds, pre-*-ent a president-elect from assum-
ing office, if he were'or ever had been a federal official.
In the state impeachments the decisions seenj all to be the
one way. Judge Barnard was convicted in New York of offences
committed during a prior term, 'after a learned argument citing
many precedents.^. So was Judge Hubbell in Wisconsin.^ And
a number of other instances were given by the Managers in the
Archbald case.
Where then should the line be drawn? The Constitution
does not draw it, unless it is drawn at the point that the offfence
must have been committed during the then existing term of
office, though it does not directly say so. As in all such mat-
ters much must be left to the sound judgment and discretion
of the representatives of the people, who presumably will do
what is right, moved thereto partially, as both branches of Con-
gress now are, by their direct responsibility to the people. It
would be strange indeed, in this day when all men are moving
to a higher goal, and when facts are spread nation-wide in a
fraction" of a day, if the people were to abandon all ideas of
right and justice, for prejudice or partisanship or both, and if
they do not two-thirds of their representatives never will. Re-
sponsibility must always be lodged somewhere, and federal re-
sponsibility must be lodged in federal officials. In the past but,
few, if any, errors have been made in impeachment proceed-
ings of which the respondents could justly complain, and it
becomes less likely every decade that such errors will be made
in- the future. In all human probability the line never will be
drawn at any other point than one where the offence is con-
nected with the office ; or is so near in point of time to the accept-
ance of the office, and it is found that the incumbent has shown
no "fruits meet for repentence;" that the public good — ^the
vital thing — requires the impeachment. If that be so, how-
" Impeachment of Geo. G. Barnard, 147-191.
" 16 Law Reporter 601-622.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS " 63
ever much the accused and his partisans and friends may com-
plain, the citizenship may look on with undisturbed serenity.*
This leads us to the last great question :
Can One Be Impeached After He Has Ceased to Be a
"Civil Officer of the United States"?
Judge Story was of opinion that this question should be
answered in the negative,^ but the question is by no means so
clear as he seems to think. In Blount's Impeachment the ques-
tion was raised but not decided, he having been expelled by the
Senate before impeachment, and the case being decided upon the
ground that a Senator is not "a civil officer of the United
States" within the impeachment clause, for the reason that by
Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution "each house shall be
the judge of the election, , return and qualification of its own
members."
In Belknap's Impeachment the question was raised and per-
haps decided, but so decided as not to be of value in future
cases, for a majority of the Senate, but less than two-thirds
thereof, held that his resignation and the acceptance thereof,
after the testimony on the question of his impeachment had
all been taken by a committee of the House of Representatives,
and but a few hours before the articles of impeachment were
actually adopted by the House, was inefficacious. More than
one-third of the Senate held, however, that he could not be
impeached even under such circumstances, and hence he was
acquitted: Whether even a majority would have held him
liable had he been out of office before the House began its in-
quiry, cannot be known. It should be clear, however, that a
*'race with the law," such as he made, ought not to be suc-
cessful; and as a practical question it ought to be equally clear
that if he is out of office before an investigation into his con-
duct is asked, and does not afterwards take office, that the pro-
*For a very full article, claiming that impeachment will only lie for
offences committed while in office, see 23 Yale Law Journal, 60-87.
* Story on the Constitution (3rd Ed.) Sec. 790.
64 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
ceedings should not be begun. In the cases of Lord Somers, the
Earl of Macclesfield, Warren Hastings, Lord Melville, and per-
haps in other English Impeachments, the respondents were out
of office before the impeachments were begun, but there there are
no constitutional provisions on the subject.
The constitutional provisions which are alleged to govern
the matter with us are Article I, Section 3, and Article II, Section
4. The first provides :
".' . . Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend
further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold
and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United
States. . . ."
And the latter states:
". . . The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of
the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors."
The argument seems to be :
(a) Inasmuch as removal from office is required in case
of conviction, and as one not holding office cannot be removed
from office, therefore one not holding office cannot be im-
peached.
(b) Those who can be impeached are "the President, Vice-
President and all civil officers," and ofie not holding office cannot
be placed in either class.
That argument, however, is illusory under both heads. Ar-
ticle I, Section 3, is simply a limitation upon the petialty. It is
not a designation of the time when an impeachment must be
begun. It might just as well be said that because a statute says
that punishment of a public official who violates the Corrupt
Practices Act shall not extend further than removal from office
and fine and imprisonment, that one who resigns his office
cannot be tried at all. So also Article II, Section 4, simply says
that the officials named "shall be removed" on conviction. It
does not say that if they are convicted they may not be other-
wise punished, or that by their act of resigning they may escape
all punishment. It might just as well be said that as Article II,
Section 4, says that they shall be removed upon conviction, that
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 65
that meant, as to the officers named, that they could not be dis-
qualified as to future office holding, notwithstanding the pro-
visions of Article I, Section 3. The two constitutional provi-
sions taken together simply mean that, if still holding office,
they must be removed upon conviction, and that the limit of
punishment beyond that is disqualification for the future. That
is the reasonable meaning of the words, and, as already pointed
out, that is the rule of construction for the Constitution.
The question is perilously near being simply a moot one.
With Congress having- more to do than time within which
properly to do it, it is not likely that' an ex-official will ever be
impeached, unless he later accepts a federal office; and it is not
likely that he will accept, or having accepted will retain such
office, if he knows that he will be impeached. Those who are
so much interested in the question as not to be satisfied with
the brief statement here made, will find that all that can profit-
ably be said on either side thereof, was said by the Managers
and counsel for respondents in Blount's and Belknap's cases.
It is thought that the questions so far considered are the
most important that arise in connection with the subject of this
discussion. Several others naturally suggest themselves, how-
ever, which may well be briefly adverted to.
What Rules Relating to Evidence and the Competency
OF Witnesses Are Applicable in Impeachment Trials?
Shall the rules of evidence be such as were in force when
the Constitution was adopted; or those in force in the District
of Columbia, where impeachment is tried; or those in force
where the acts complained of occurred ? And what ' shall be
done in that regard where the acts complained of occurred in
more than one jurisdiction? In view of the fact that the State
rules in which a federal district is, are applied in the federal
courts, those questions would seem to be quite difficult; and
they might be most important, for in some jurisdictions the
impeached person and his wife would be excluded from testify-
66 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
ing, as would also any person who might succeed the accused
in office if he were removed therefrom, as for instance, the Vice-
President, on an impeachment of the President. In practice,
however, they are not, for the Senate has invariably received
all the evidence which it deemed relevant, from any witness who
had personal knowledge of the facts, no matter by whom it was
to be proved, and left its weight to be determined upon final
consideration.
Effect of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution,
At one time it was very strongly urged that under the Sixth
Amendment an impeached person was entitled to a jury trial.
That view was urged by Senator Tazewell in the Blount case, —
though he did not vote on the question of dismissing the im-
peachment — and by correspondence and in his speeches. The
Amendment provides as follows:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
Senator Tazewell's contention, however, never was taken seri-
ously, for the reason that contemporary history shows that the
fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments were well known to have
been passed to meet complaints, made with great force while the
Constitution was under consideration by the various states, that
it nowhere provided for jury trials in the ordinary civil and
criminal suits, and that, therefore, the people would be worse
off in that regard than they were before they threw off the
yoke of Great Britain. Those complaints never dealt with im-
peachments any more than they did with martial law, and hence
the amendments were construed to effectuate the purpose in-
tended by them, and were not extended to proceedings never
intended to be reached thereby. In one sense impeachment is a
"criminal prosecution," but those words as used in the Sixth
Amendment evidently refer to ordinary crimes, as does the Fifth
Amendment.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 67
Attendance of Senators at the Trial.
Turning from the legal to the practical side of an im-
peachment trial, the thing that strikes a common law lawyer
most is the few Senators who in fact listen to the evidence.
During the Archbald Impeachment the membership of the Sen-
ate exceeded ninety, yet rarely over twenty members were pres-
ent. Perhaps a hundred times the members present were pri-
vately counted with the result stated. At times some Senator
would suggest the absence of a quorum, when the bells would
sound throughout the Senate wing of the Capitol, the Senators
would troop in and remain long enough to answer to their names,
the presiding officer would gravely announce: "On a call of
the roll of the Senate fifty-four Senators have responded to their
names. A quorum of the Senate is present,' ' and the trial would
proceed, though the merest glance around the chamber would
show that a quorum of the Senate was not present when the an-
nouncement was made. Perhaps the usual twenty or so were
at that time increased to thirty or thirty-five, the additional
number remaining for a few moments, and then returning from
whence they came, leaving the Senate as bare as it had been
before. While that result was, and in all such cases must be
regretted, yet it is not so much to be wondered at. Most of the
work of Congress must now be done by committees, and the
Senator who really attends to that work, and is present at the
important legislative sessions of the Senate, has all his official
time fully occupied. An impeachment trial encroaches very
much on that time, and for that reason probably is partly
neglected.
Yet certain Senators were always present, and always cour-
teous and considerate, however great the strain upon them and
however limited the time at their disposal. It would be discrim-
inatory to name those whom the writer can now recall ; but with-
out subjecting himself to that charge, he can say that the pi-e-
siding officer, Senator Bacon of Georgia, was always present,
and that it is a pleasure now to recall, as it was a pleasure then
to feel, that he courteously, conscientiously, and fairly ruled
every question he was called upon to decide.
68 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
Suggestions as to Methods of Obtaining Evidence.
Whether or not the present method of impeachment is con-
tinued, it is evident that radical changes ought to be made in
the matter of the production of the evidence. With Congress
now sitting a large part of the entire year, and with the rapidly
growing legislative business of the country, due time cannot be
given by the whole Senate to the hearing of the witnesses. In
the Archbald Impeachment portions of seven days were taken in
preliminary arrangements in the Senate, the trial consumed from
December 3rd to December 19th, 1912, inclusive, and from Jan-
uary 3rd to January 8th, 191 3, inclusive, and the decision was
rendered January 13th, 1913. The Senators could not afford
that time and properly attend to their other duties, and the re-
sult was, as heretofore stated, but few of the Senators really
heard the whole case.
Inasmuch as the method for obtaining the evidence and of
hearing the case, is in the exclusive control of the Senate, it is
evident that much of the difficulty may be remedied by appro-
priate rules of procedure. The rules in force at present were
adopted many years ago, the latest revision being at the time
of the impeachment of President Johnson. So great was the
necessity felt for amendment immediately succeeding the Arch-
bald Impeachment, that constitutional amendments were pro-
posed to remedy some of the difficulties again made plain in
that trial, as they had been made plain in all the later impeach-
ments. A constitutional amendment, however, is practically im-
possible of attainment.
But much can be done by a change of the rules. It has not
been unknown in the past to have the testimony taken before
other than the trying body. In Jefferson's Manual, in referring
to impeachments before the House of Lords, it is- said :^
"The practice is to swear the witnesses in open House, and then
examine them there; or a committee may be named who shall ex-
amine them in committee, either on interrogatories agreed on in
the House or Such as the committee in their discretion shall de-
mand."
An examination of the proceedings in Parliament not only bears
* Seld. Jur. 120, 123. '
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 69
out the foregoing statement, but shows also that the Lords at
times decided the case upon the testimony taken for the Com-
mons, or upon that testimony added to by other testimony taken
by the Lords.
If the plan of having a committee of the Senate take the
testimony were adopted, much time would be saved, except as
to the Senators who were members of the committee. But it
would not alone give all the relief desired, nor, in the opinion
of the writer, is it the best plan within the narrow limits in-
tended to be covered by it. An Act of Congress could be passed
which would provide that the testimony should be taken before
United States judges within a reasonable distance of the places
where the witnesses were, under such regulations as Congress
should prescribe, repi-esentatives of the House of Representa-
tives, and counsel for the accused, to examine and cross-examine
as in other trials, and such testimony to be available both in the
preliminary hearing before the House and in the trial before
the Senate. Thereby the United States would be saved great
expense, the witnesses great inconvenience, the accused great
loss, and the Senators much time. In the Swayne Impeachment
many of the witnesses were brought from Florida to Washing-
ton, and in the Archbald Impeachment they were brought from
the Middle District of Pennsylvania. A positive benefit grow-
ing out of the course of procedure suggested would be that the
rulings on the question of evidence would be more accurate
than they now are, for they would be decided by judges accus-
tomed to consider such matters, a point wherein the Law Lords
who ruled thereupon in English impeachments had a very de-
cided advantage over our Senators. It is true that there would be
a loss in that the Senators would not see the witnesses, as they
now may, but generally speaking do not, just as they would not
if the evidence were taken by a committee of the Senate; but
salus populi suprema lex.
Suggestions as to Changes in Procedure.
But even that change would not be adequate, nor by any
means all that could be obtained by an amendment of the rules.
In the Archbald Impeachment the evidence did not in any
70 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
degree controvert the answer of the defendant. In the view
which the Senate took of the matter, it could just as well have
been heard and decided upon the Articles of Impeachment and
the Answer thereto. Yet days were spent in proving only ad-
mitted facts. It may be said that if an impeachment is in its
nature criminal, and the rule that there can be no crime where
there was no intent to do wrong, is to be applied, that the Senate
cannot determine whether or not the intent exists if it is averred
in the Articles and denied in the Answer, unless evidence is
taken from which the intent can be found or negatived. It is
a little difficult to see how intent can be extracted from docu-
mentary proof, as usually it is, any more than from written
answers, unless the weight of the evidence contradicts the one
or the other. On the other hand, if the defendant is conclu-
sively presumed to intend the natural consequences of his own
acts, evidence will not be required in many cases; and in those
instances where the articles and answer leave that matter in doubt
evidence can be ordered. In those where no such doubt exists,
and they are the more numerous instances, it is a waste of time
to take evidence. Moreover, many of the facts now deemed
necessary to be proved have no bearing upon the question of
intent, as for instance, the status of the respondent, the result of
the alleged wrongdoing, etc., yet, under the present practice, they
must all be proved — a clear waste of time.
So, too, many of the articles could be decided without tak-
ing any evidence, and they may be, and in sorrie cases have been
sufficient to impeach and remove from office, yet, under the
present practice, the evidence must be heard as to all the articles
before a vote can be taken on any. Whatever else may be said
as to the impeachment of President Johnson, it was wise to
adjourn the Court of Impeachment sine die as soon as it was
demonstrated, by a vote on certain of the articles, that he could
not be successfully impeached upon any. A court might just
as well try a man for numerous murders, before executing him
for admitted or proven guilt as to one, as to follow the present
senatorial practice upon impeachments. Indeed, the Senate might
very well, upon a consideration of the articles and answer, hear
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 71
and decide one charge alone before taking up any other, when
that charge, if proven, would be sufficient to justify both re-
moval and disqualification for the future. In many instances
that would be fairer to the accused, who may be condemned on
one article because of evidence not fairly applicable thereto, and
not admitted because thereof. And it would leave him some-
thing to live on after his trial, instead of pushing him to the
edge of bankruptcy as now.
Enough has been said upon this point to satisfy the most
skeptical that modern methods call for a radical amendment of
the procedure in cases of impeachment. The length to which
this article* has gone suggests, however, that it would be wiser,
instead of going into greater details, to give in the Appendix the
suggested new rules. It is accordingly so done.
Is Impeachment an Adequate Remedy?
This is the really great and important question in all this
controversy. As a practical matter, while there are many thou-
sands of federal officers subject thereto, the cumbrous nature of
the remedy limits it to the great officers of state. The decision in
the Blount case resulted, and wisely so, in holding that Con-
gressmen are not subject thereto. The power of the President
to remove, and the great improbability that he will retain in
office those wholly unfitted to perform the duties thereof, has
resulted, with one exception, in the exclusion of his official family
from actual impeachment. Notwithstanding that fact, it would
be exceedingly unwise to relieve them from subjection thereto,
for it is quite within the realm of possibility that the day may
come when even a President will care less for the nation's good,
than he does for the fulfillment of his then present desires.
Happily none such has yet appeared.
Judging by the past, however, impeachment as a practical
remedy applies only to the judges. Of the previous impeach-
ments one was of a President, one was of a Senator, one was
of a Secretary of War, and the other six were of judges. Inas-
much as the Senate held in the Belknap case, and also, though
not so clearly, in the Archald case, that impeachments were in-
72 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
tended to reach only those then actually in office at the time of
impeachment, it is reasonably certain that in future impeach-
ments the cases of judges will be relatively more numerous than
as above, for all other offices have but a brief tenure.
It is also reasonably certain, though most of the federal
judges have been very satisfactory officials, that the public good
would have been better conserved if a much greater number
thereof had made way for others better qualified by learning, or
more fitted by temperament, to fill the office. The cumbersome,
expensive, and uncertain nature of the remedy by impeachment;
the dislike to put so serious a stigma upon a judge; the reason-
able certainty that other influences than either the public good
or the law of the land would operate to affect the decision; the
uncertainty of the offences which are impeachable offences; all
operate to prevent calling the judge to account in this way.
While it is important, never more so than now, that the
tenure of the judges should be stable, it is only so important
quoad the public because the public good requires it. The good
to the individual judge, while quite important to him person-
ally, becomes so to the public only because of and only so far
as it is bound up in the public good. The moment that stable
tenure is given more weight than the public* good required, that
moment it becomes a public injury. Every lawyer and many
laymen can recall instances of judges who by reason of lack
of learning or because of unjudicial temperament, for the public's
sake, should have been removed from office, but who had not
been guilty of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and mis-
demeanors," no matter how liberally you construe the "good
behavior" clause of their commissions. Out of this fact has
grown the clamor for the recall of judges, against which think-
ing lawyers ever have and ever should show an unyielding front.
The objection of incompetency and unbecoming conduct un-
happily found to exist in a few of the judges, is the substance
of the complaint against the judiciary, and like everything else
substantial it casts a shadow when the sun shines athwart it.
Let us be careful, now that the sun of public opinion is shining
athwart the judiciary, that in a vain endeavor to save the
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 73
shadow we do not endanger the substance. An independent
judiciary is indispensable; but that furnishes no reason fbr pre-
serving incompetent judges, whether they be mentally, morally,
or constitutionally unfit.
It is evident, however, that it would be unwise to submit
judges to impeachment and removal upon such uncertain charges
as would have to be made to cover the grounds above referred
to, because the very uncertainty of the definition of the offences
covered by the power of removal would be an invitation to view
the matter from the political rather than the public standpoint.
This thought points out one of the reasons strongly urged
against the power of impeachment as it now exists, a reason that
sometimes, but happily rarely, has found exemplification in the
trials heretofore held.
It is not to be lost sight of that the judicial department was
intended to be not only a co-ordinate but also an independent
branch of the government, as far removed as possible from the
control pf the other branches; and that impeachment of judicial
officers by Congress was only permitted because no other or
better way of protecting the public from the derelictions of their
judges had been devised. That method, however, at once pitch-
forks the accused judge into the political arena, and invites him
to seek favors from members of the House and Senate, when he
should, so far as possible, be removed from even the temptation
to ask favors from any one, and particularly from political public
officials. And it invites him also to seek the influence of the
Pfesident and other high officials of the executive department
upon Senators and Representatives, to avoid or restrain con-
templated action against him. Thi^ not only operates to de-
feat the intention of keeping the great departments separate and
distinct from each other, but it also tends to destroy the fearless-
ness and independence of the individual judge.
It is evident, therefore, that any plan for the removal of
incompetent judges which reduces to a minimum the influence of
the legislative and executive departments of the government upon
the judiciary, will be a benefit to the public, if it adequately
protects the public from the continuance in office of those who
74 FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
are unfitted therefor. Can such a plan be devised? And if so,
will it require a constitutional amendment to make it effective?
It is evident that if there is vested in some judicial tribunal
an effective supervision over the other federal judges, resulting in
the removal of the latter in case they do not properly fulfill their
duties, not only will there be a greater freedom in the judges, but
there will also be a judicial determination of the questions at
issue, and a greater benefit to the public because more unfit per-
sons can be removed than by the present system. The trial of
a District Judge by the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals,
preferably of another circuit, and of all other judges by the
Supreme Court itself, would furnish judicial tribunals to try all
but Supreme Court judges. It might be provided that the latter
should be tried by judges of the inferior courts, but this would
infringe upon the dignity of the Supreme Court, and would also
subject the trying judges to a stress because they were sitting
in judgment upon one who theretofore had and who thereafter
might sit in judgment upon them and their rulings. It would
seem better, therefore, that the remedy by impeachment should
remain as it is for the Supreme Court judges, a remedy which
will probably never again be applied to a member of that court.
The plan suggested, however, would reach nearly all the judges.
Can it be obtained without a constitutional amendment?
The tenure of the judges is "during good behavior."" Nowhere is
it stated what constitutes "good behavior," unless the impeach-
ment clause is to be read not only as defining those words, but
as supplying also an exclusive remedy in case of an alleged breach
of duty. Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution simply says :
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the
United States shall be removed from office, on impeachment for and
conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemean-
ors."
But there is no provision that that shall be the only method of
removal. Article III, Section i, says, inter alia:
"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall
hold their offices during good behavior." .
But it is nowhere said how that "good behavior" is to be ascer-
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 75
tained, and the tenure determined if it does not exist. Article I,
Section 8, says, inter alia:
"The congress shall have power ... to make all laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution
in the government of the United States, or in any department or
officer thereof."
It would seem that under the latter clause Congress would
have power to define what constitutes "good behavior," and to
provide a method for ascertaining whether or not the judges are
complying with the tenure under which they hold, and to cause
them to forfeit their offices if they are not, subject, of course,
to a review by the courts of the question as to whether or not
the definition wholly or partially is within the meaning of those
■words as used in the Constitution. By this method the
question becomes a judicial one, as it should be, and the accused
judge will be safeguarded in his right to hold his office exactly
as he is safeguarded in all the other rights vested in him by the
Constitution. That Congress has the power claimed was ex-
pressly asserted by Senator Catron in the Archbald Impeach-
ment.^
It may be said that the course suggested would result in
removing the judges still farther from contact with the people.
But this can hardly be so. They do not come into contact with
the people when they are impeached, and experience has shown
that the judiciary is less subject to improper influences than any
other branch of the government, whether by brother judges or
otherwise. It follows that both the public and the accused would
be better protected by the suggested than by the existing remedy.
There is no reason to suppose that the Supreme Court judges
would deal too leniently with derelict judges of the inferior
courts. On the contrary, that just pride which they have ever
had in maintaining the high standing of the judicial department
would operate to counteract any of the influences of association,
even if such there were. Moreover, there would be grounds for
' 2 Proceedings, etc., on the Trial and Impeachment of Robert W. Arch-
bald, i66i.
Id FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS
removal not now existing, and derelict judges have greater
spheres of influence with political officers than they have with
judicial.
It is not the writer's purpose to state all the things which
would constitute bad behavior, nor is it intended hereby to spec-
ify the best method for ascertaining the fact of bad behavior, or
of carrying into effect the judgment if and when ascertained.
It may not be inappropriate, however, to quote from an ad-
dress of Mr. Justice Samuel F. Miller before the New York State
Bar Association, where in discussing the subject of impeachment
he said :^
"It is not easy to suggest a better remedy. The tribunal would-
be rendered more efficient and more safe by a specific defintion of
the causes of removal. There are many matters which ought to
be causes of removal that are neither treason, bribery, nor high
crimes and misdemeanors. Physical infirmities for which a man is
not to blame, but which may wholly unfit him for judicial duty,
are of this class. Deafness, loss of sight, the decay of- the facul-
ties by reason of age, insanity, prostration by disease from which
there is ilo hope of recovery — these should all be reasons for re-
moval, rather than that the administration of justice should be ob-
structed or indefinitely suspended.
"So, also, there are offences against the law, or conduct, which
might be made so, that peculiarly unfit the man for the office of
judge. A vile and overbearing temper becomes sometimes, in one
long accustomed to the exercise of power, unendurable to those
who are subjected to its humors. But I think the experience of
observers will bear me out in saying, that habitual intoxication is
of all this class of disqualifications, the most frequent.
"Two things may be suggested as worthy of consideration in
any effort to amend the Constitution on tjbis subject, namely:
That the causes for which a judge may be removed from office
shall be described with the same precision as that which is used in
defining indictable offences. Second, that whatever may be the
nature of the court before which he is tried, the fact of his guilt
of the impeachable offence, or disqualification charged, should be
found by a jury or similar tribunal. It is, however, to be remem-
bered that a judge should, in the exercise of his functions, be
tramelled as little as possible by fear of consequences to himself,
and. in view of the resentments of disappointed suitors the pro-
vision for removal should not be made too easy."
'2nd Annual Report, p. 40.
FEDERAL IMPEACHMENTS 77
And it may not be unimportant to note that
"In England the Lord Chancellor, or the Chancellor of the
Duchy of Lancaster, within their several jurisdictions, have power
to remove any county judge for either 'inability or misbehavior.'
No farce of an impeachment is required or allowed. A great and
perhaps somewhat arbitrary power is entrusted to a great function-
ary, upon the faith of its judicious exercise, under the corrective
influence of public opinion, and the system has not been found un-
satisfactory."*
It may well be thought that vesting so much power in one
man, and the summary method provided, are alike too un-
democratic for our form of government; but it would not be
difficult to draft an act defining "good behavior" and providing
for a trial by or undef the control of the Supreme Court, by
which both of these objections would be obviated, and those
who had demonstrated their inability properly to perform the
duties of their offices could be removed therefrom though not
guilty of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misde-
meanors." "Good behavior" means good behavior in or as
affecting the office, and a course of conduct which brings the
office into disgrace or contempt is, therefore, a violation of the
good behavior tenure of the incumbent. An act such as sug-
gested would, therefore, tend to render the judiciary independ-
ent of the other great departments of the government, would
answer the arguments of those who contend that the judges
should be more responsible to the public will, and would greatly
strengthen the judicial system generally.
Alex. Simpson, Jr.
'6 Solicitor's Journal and Reporter, 804-805.
Appendix.
English Impeachment Trials.
In Sir James Fitzjames Stephens' "History of the Criminal
Law of England," page 159, he gives what purports to be a
complete list of the impeachment trials in that country. It is
alike incomplete and inaccurate; incomplete in that there are
mafiy more than those given by him; inaccurate in that a num-
ber are stated by him as impeachment tria,ls which were not in
fact so.
Some of the impeachments hereinafter abstracted, are not
impeachments in the modern understanding of that term; but
inasmuch as they are alleged to be impeachments by Stephens
and others, and illustrate some of the points made in the fore-
going paper, and are of great historical interest, they also are
abstracted.
It is not attempted herein to set forth the whole of the
articles of impeachment in the particular cases, but only to give
the material parts thereof, avoiding repetitions and omitting
the evidence often stated in the complete articles. Inasmuch
as treason is defined in the Constitution of the United States,
and bribery is a well known crime, not needing the English
Impeachment Trials to aid in understanding it, the articles of
impeachment, where those crimes only are charged, are not
hereip abstracted, though many of the impeachments for treason
are for matters which the wildest imagination would not now
consider treasonable. All the cases, however, are cited and the
result thereof stated.
IMPEACHMENT OF DAVID, THE BROTHER OF
LLEWELLYN, i Stephens' History of the Criminal Law of
England 146 (1283).
Charge : Treason.
The trial took place at Shrewsbury at a sort of parliament
which met September 30, 1283.
"The Sheriff of each county was to return two elected knights,
and the governing bodies of twenty cities and boroughs were to re-
turn two representatives for each. Eleven earls, ninety-nine barons,
and nineteen other men of note, judges, councillors, and constables
of castles, were summoned by special writ. At Shrewsbury ac-
cordingly David was tried, condemned, and executed; his judges
were a body chosen from the justices of the Curia Regis under
John de Vaux; the assembled baronage watched the trial as his
(81)
82 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
peers, and the commons must be supposed to have given a moral
weight to the proceedings."
IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS, EARL OF LANCAS-
TER ET AL., I Howell's State Trials 40 (1322).
Charge : Treason.
This impeachment, which included also the impeachment of
twelve barons, was tried before the king only. The defendants
were convicted and executed.
In 1327 the judgment against the Earl of Lancaster was
reversed in the first parliament of Edward 3rd.
IMPEACHMENT OF ROGER MORTIMER, EARL
OF MARCH, I Howell's State Trials 51; i Cobbett's Parlia-
mentary History of England 84 (1330).
Charge : "These are the Treasons, Felonies, and Mischiefs
done to our lord the king and his people by Roger Mortimer and
others of his company."
1st. "Whereas in the parliament holden at Westminster next
after the king's coronation, ' it was ordained that four bishops,
four earls and six barons should remain with the king to advise
him, and that four should still be with him, namely, one bishop,
one earl and two barons at least, and that no great business
should be done without their assent." Yet the defendant "not
having regard to the said assent usurped to himself royal power
and the government of the realm above the state of the king,
and put out and placed officers in the king's house and otherwise
throughout the kingdom . . . so as he was encompassed
by his enemies, that he could do nothing as he would but only
as a man under guard and restraint."
2nd. "Whereas the king's father was a Keriilworth by order
and assent of the peers of the land . . . the said Roger by
his usurped power, which he exercised over him at his pleasure,
ordered that he should be sent to Berkeley Castle, where, by
him and his confederates, he was traitorously, feloniously and
falsely murdered and killed."
3rd. "The said Roger, by his usurped royal power, forbad
by the king's writ under the great seal, that any should come
to the parliament at Salisbury with force and arms, under pain
of forfeiting whatever they had to the king ; yet thither he came
with others of his p'&rty with force of arms to the said parlia-
ment, contrary to the prohibition aforesaid, wherefore divers
peers of the land . . . knowing the manner of his com-
ing would not be there." Whereupon he "threatened them with
life and member, if any of them sJhould be so hardy as to speak
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 83
or do anything contrary to his pleasure in any point. And in
the same parliament, by the same usurped power, he caused the
king to make him Earl of March, and to give him and his heirs
several lands in disherison of the crown. And afterwards the
said Roger, and those of his party, led the king armed against
the . . . peers of the land . . . when they were going
to the parliament at Salisbury, so that . . . out of regard
to the king, they departed and went toward their own countries,
grieving that they could not speak with, or advise with their liege
lord as they ought to do."
4th. "The said Roger by the said usurped power, caused the
king to march forcibly against the . . . peers of the land^
who were appointed to be with the king, to advise him; and so
prosecuted them with force that they . . . submitted to
the king's grace saving to them life and member, and that they
might not be disinherited nor have too great a fine set upon
them; yet he caused them to be fined so grievously, that half
their lands, if sold outright, would only pay it; and others he
caused to be driven out of the nation, and their lands to be
seized, against the form of the Great Charter and law of the
land."
5th. That knowing the king's father was dead he "in deceiv-
able manner, informed the Earl of Kent that he was alive; where-
fore the earl being desirous to know whether it was so or not,
used all the good ways he could to discover the truth, and so
long, till the said Roger by his usurped royal power, caused
him to te apprehended in the parliament holden at Westminster
and so pursued him, as in that parliament he procured his death."
6th. "The said Roger by his usurped royal power, caused the
king^ to give to him and his children, and confederates, castles,
towns, manors and franchises in England, Ireland and Wales,
in decrease of the revenues of the crown."
7th. "The said Roger in deceivable manner caused the
knights of shires, at the parliament at Wincheste'r, to grant to
the king one man-at-arms out of every town in England . . .
to serve at their own cost, for a year in his war in Gascoigne,
which charge he contrived for the advantage of himself and
party, in destruction of the people."
8th. "The said Roger, by his usurped royal power, caused
summons to be sent to many great knights and others that they
should come to the king; . . . and when they came he
caused them to be charged to prepare themselves to go into
Gascoigne, or fine at his pleasure; which fines were for the bene-
fit of him and his party."
84 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
9th. "The said Roger falsely and maliciously made discord
between the king's father and his queen; and possessed her,
that if she went to him she would certainly be killed . . .
and by this way, and his other subtleties he so ordered it, that she
would not come to her liege lord and king, to the great dis-
honour of her son and self, and great damage to the whole
realm perchance in time to come, >vhich God forbid."
loth. "The said Roger by his said usurped royal power, had
caused to be taken for him and his party, the king's treasure, as
much as he pleased, without tale, in' money and jewels, in
destruction of the king, so that he had not wherewithal to pay
for his victuals."
nth. "The said Roger, by the said tjsurped power, caused to
be shared between him and his confederates the 20,000 marks,
which came out of Scotland, for the articles of peace, without
anything being received by the king."
1 2th. "The said Roger, by his above mentioned royal power,
received the king's duties and purveyance through the kingdom,
as if he had been king; and he and his party had with them
double the company of men and horse that were with the king,
in destruction of the people, not paying for their quarters any
more than they themselves pleased."
13th. "The said Roger, by his said royal power caused the
king to agree to the mounting of 200 Irish chevaliers, or horse,
being of those that killed the great men of Ireland and others,
who were in the king's faith ; whereas the king ought immediately
to have revenged their deaths, rather than pardoned them,
contrary to the statute and assent of parliament."
14th. "The said Roger contrived to have destroyed the king's
secret friends, in whom he had most confidence ; and he surmised
to the king, ' . . . that his said secret friends had excited
him to combine with his (the said Roger's) enemies beyond sea,
in destruction to the queen his mother, and of him the said
Roger; and this he affirmed so impudently to the king,' that he
could not be believed against what he had said."
"And for these things and many others not as yet fit to be
declared . . . the king charged the earls and barons, the
peers in the land, . . . to do right and true judgment upon
him for the crimes above written, as being notorious and known
to be true, to themselves, and all the people of the kingdom."
He was convicted by the lords without a hearing and was
condemned to be executed.
By act of Parliament of 28th Edward 3rd, the judgment
was. reversed as erroneous, and his grandchild Roger restored
to his title and estates.
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 85
IMPEACHMENT OF SIMON DE BERESFORD, i
Howell's State Trials 54 (1330).
Charge: Aiding in the treason of the Earl of March.
The charge was made by the king. The lords at first pro-
tested that they ought not to try him as he was not a peer, but
afterwards yielded the point, and he was convicted and executed.
IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS DE BARCLAY, LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
Hale's Jurisdiction of Parliament 91 (1350).
Charge: Treason.'
"He was tried by twelve knights and esquires of the county
of' Gloucester in pleno parliamento at the Lord's bar, and by
them he was acquitted; the only precedent that I ever saw of a
trial of a peer by other than his peers, and that by a jury appear-
ing at the Lord's bar in parliament."
IMPEACHMENT OF RICHARD LYONS ET AL., 4
Hatsell's Precedents 50 (1376).
Charge: "For certain misdemeanors in removing the
staple of wool and other merchandize from Calais; in lending
money to the king upon usurious contracts; and in bargaining
with the king's creditors to take off the sum due to them upon
a small advance; and for many other extortions, deceits and
oppressions, by the said Richard Lyons, as farmer of the sub-
sidies and customs."
He was convicted and "committed to prison, during the
king's pleasure, and adjudged to pay a fine, to be disfranchised
in the city of London, never to hold any ofl(ice under the king,
nor to approach his council or court."
IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM LORD LATIMER,
WILLIAM ELLIS ET AL,., 4 Hatsell's Precedents 51 (1376).
Charge: Divers deceits (not stated).
They were convicted, "committed to prison, and to pay a
fine at the King's pleasure" and upon application of the Commons
to the King, Lord Latimer was "ousted of all his offices, and be
never of the King's council."
IMPEACHMENT OF ALICE PERRERS, 4 Hatsell's
Precedents 67 (i377)-
Charge : "Alice Perrers, who had been mistress to the old
King, Edward III, was charged before the lords (by Sir Richard
Scroop, Steward of the King's Household) of having incurred
the penalties of forfeiture and banishment, inflicted by an ordi-
nance made in Parliament in the 50th. year of the late King,
86 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
against such women, and particularly against her the said Alice
Ferrers, as should, by way of maintenance, pursue matters and
suits in the King's Courts."
She was convicted and "banished out of the kingdom, and
her lands, chattels, tenements, and possessions seized and for-
feited to the king."
IMPEACHMENT OF JOHN DE GOMERIES AND
WILLIAM WESTON, Hale's Jurisdiction of Parliament 92
(1383)- '
Charge : Treason.
They were found guilty, but the record does not disclose the
sentence imposed.
IMPEACHMENT OF ALEXANDER NEVIL, ARCH-
BISHOP OF YORK; ROBERT VERE, DUKE OF IRE-
LAND; MICHAEL DE LA POLE, EARL OF SUFFOLK
AND CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND; ROBERT TRESIL-
lAN, LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND; AND
NICHOLAS BRAMBRE, SOMETIME MAYOR OF LON-
DON, AND OTHERS, i Howell's State Trials 89; i Cobb.
Pari. Hist. 188; i Emlyn's State Trials i; Salmon's Abridg-
ment of State Trials i (1386).
The Earl of Suffolk was dismissed from his Chancellorship,
and immediately afterwards was impeached by the Commons for
High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. "That the said Earl of Suffolk being Chancellor 'of
England . . . purchased of our lord the king lands, tene-
ments and rents to a great value ... at a much smaller
■ value than really they were worth by the year, in deceit of the
king."
2nd. That he promised in full parliament to assist in the
improvement of the realm "yet it was not done, and that by
default of him who was the principal officer or minister."
3rd. That when parliament granted a tax to be expended in
a sfiecific manner in guarding the sea "as it was ordered to have
been" yet it was not so expended "whereas many mischiefs have
already happened, and more are like to enure for the realm, and
all this by the default of the said Lord Chancellor."
4th. That he purchased a forfeited annual grant or "gift
of £50 per annum" payable "out of the Customs of Kingston upon
Hull . . . and prevailed with the king to confirm the said
purchase, whereas, the king ought to have had the whole profit."
5th. That he took to himself revenues which temporarily
should have gone to the king, and when the real owner claimed
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 87
them, "he could not obtain the same till he and two persons with
him became bound by recognizance ... to pay yearly to
the said Chancellor and his son John £ioo per annum for the
term of their two lives."
6th. That "there was made and sealed a charter of certain
franchises granted to the castle of Dover in disherison of the
crown and to the subversion of the pleas and courts of the king
and of his laws."
7th. That he failed to use a fund granted by parliament
for the relief of the city of Gaunt, so that "the said city of
Gaunt was lost, and also a thousand marks of the said money."
He was found guilty upon certain of the articles and was
fined, imprisoned, "and all his lands, which were of no small
revenue, confiscated."
Later on articles were presented against all of the defend-
ants charging them with treason, the 39 articles regarding which,
for reasons heretofore stated, are not herein abstracted. The
king preferred the charges (Stephens' History of the Criminal
Law of England, 153) :
"to the judges, Serjeants, and other sages of the law of the
realm (i. e., of the common law), and also to the sages of the civil
law, who were charged by the king to give their opinion to the
Lords of Parliament, to proceed duly in the cause of the said appeal.
The said judges, Serjeants, and sages of the common law and also
of the civil law took the matter into consideration, and avowed to
the Lords of Parliament that they had seen and heard the tenor of
the appeal, and that it was not made according to the requisitions of
either law. , Upon which the Lords of Parliament considered the
matter, and with the assent of the king, and by their common as-
sent, it was declared that in so high a crime as is alleged in this
appeal which touches the person of our lord the king and the state
of his whole realm, and which is said to be committed by peers of
the realm and others, the cause must not be decided elsewhere than
in Parliament, nor by any other law than the law and course of
Parliament and that it appertains to the Lords of Parliament and to
their franchise and liberty by the ancient custom of Parliament to
be judges in such cases, and to adjudge them with the king's as-
sent."
The respondents defaulted, and were held guilty of the ist,
2nd, nth, I2th, 15th, 17th, i8th, 29th, 30th, 31st, 32nd, 37th,
38th and 39th articles, each of which charged treason, "and that
they were also culpable of all the rest of the articles contained
in the said appeal not yet declared treason."
They were sentenced to be executed, and alf their property
forfeited to the king.
88 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
IMPEACHMENT OF THE JUDGES: ROBERT
BELKNAP, JOHN HOLT, ROGER FULTHROPE, WIL-,
LIAM BURLEIGH, JOHN CAREY AND JOHN LOCK-
TON, I Howell's State Trials 119 (1388).
Charge : Treason.
The allegation was that they answered certain questions
submitted to them as judges, wrongfully. They replied that
they did so, in fear of their lives, at the king's command.
They were convicted and sentenced to be executed, but the
sentence was commuted to banishment to Ireland.'
IMPEACHMENT OF JOHN BLAKE AND THOMAS
USKE, I Howell's State Trials 120 (1388).
Charge : Treason.
The allegation was that as counsel for the king they drew
up the questions referred to in the last preceding impeachment.
Each of them answered
"That he was retained of counsel for the king, by his com-
mand, and sworn to keep secret his advice, and whatever he did,
it was by the king's command, whom he ought to obey."
It was held that:
"Whereas they alleged for their excuse the king's command,
it made the crime the greater."
They were convicted, sentenced, executed, and their prop-
erty forfeited to the king.
IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS, BISHOP . OF CHI-
CHESTER, I Howell's State Trials 121 (1388).
Charge : Treason.
He was convicted and sentenced to be executed, but his
sentence was commuted to banishment to Cork, Ireland.
IMPEACHMENT OF SIMON DE BURLEIGH, JOHN
DE BEAUCHAMP, JAMES BAROVERSE, AND JOHN
SALISBURY, I Howell's State Trials 121 (1388).
Charge : Treason.
They were convicted and executed.
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR JOHN COBHAM, 4 Hatsell's
Precedents 58 (1397).
Charge: Crimes and Misdemeanors.
In "the issuing of a Commission, by virtue of which several
persons had been tried and executed."
He was convicted and sentenced "that he should be drawn,
hanged, beheaded and quartered; and that all his manors, lands,
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 89
tenements, &c., should be forfeited to the king." So far as his
life was concerned, he was reprieved on condition "that he
should remain in perpetual prison on the Isle of Jersey for his
IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS FITZ-ALAN, ARCH-
BISHOP OF CANTERBURY, i Howell's State Trials 124
(1397).
Charge : High Treason.
For advising the issuance of a commission "directed to
Thomas, Duke of Gloucester; Richard, Earl of Arundel, and
others in the loth of his majesty's reign, and made and pro-
cured himself as chief officer to be put into it, and have power
with the other commissioners to see it put in execution, which
commission was made in prejudice to the king, and openly
against his royalty, crown and dignity."
The king reported that the archbishop had confessed his
error, put himself upon the king's grace and was banished.
' IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS, DUKE OF GLOU-
CESTER; RICHARD, EARL OF ARUNDEL; THOMAS,
EARL OF WARWICK; THOMAS MORTIMER AND SIR
JOHN COBHAM, i Howell's State Trials 126; i Cobb. Pari.
Hist. 226 (1397).
Charge: High Treason.
The articles were by way of bill directed toi the king in par-
liament, charging that the respondents said to the king that he
would be in danger of his life unless he would consent to make
to them, and others whom they should name, a commission
whereby they might have the government in their own hands.
"The commons appeared before the king in parliament and
affirmed the said appeals to be all good and lawful."
The respondents were convicted, as well those dead as those
living. Some were executed, some had their estates forfeited,
and one was pardoned. *
IMPEACHMENT OF RICHARD II, i Howell's State
Trials 135; i Cobb. Pari. Hist. 254 (1399). '
Charge: No general words are used to designate the
charges.
Though called an impeachment by Cobbett. this was not one
in fact. The king having renounced the crown it was deemed by
Parliament t^iat
"it would be very expedient and profitable to the kingdom, for the
removing of all scruples, and taking away sinister suspicions, that
90 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
very many crimes and defects, by the said king about the ill-gov-
ernance of his kingdom very often committed, (should be) reduced
into writing by way of articles', by reason of which, as himself
affirmed in the Cession by him made, he was deservedly to be de-
posed, should be publicly read and declared to the people."
Thereupon 33 articles were read, and judgment was en-
tered
"that these causes of crimes and defaults were sufficient and notori-
ous to depose the said king; considering also his own confession of
Tiis insufficiency, and other things contained in his said renunciation
and cession,* openly delivered ; all the said states did unanimously
consent, that ex abundanti they should proceed unto a deposition
of the said king; for the greater security and tranquility of the
people, and benefit of the king."
He was thereupon formally deposed, and it was further
decided by the lords
"that it seemed advisable to them, that he should be put under
a safe and secret guard, and in such a place where no concourse of
people might resort to him; and that he be guarded by trusty and
sufficient persons, and that no person who had been familiar with
him, should be about his person, and that it should be done in the
most secret manner that can be devised."
In the House of Lords, the Bishop of Carlisle alone spoke
against that order. No one else spoke or voted against it.
IMPEACHMENT OF HENRY, BISHOP OF WIN-
CHESTER, I Cobb. Pari. Hist. 356 (1428).
Charge: No general words are used to designate the
charges.
This also was not an impeachment, though so called by
Cobbett. It consisted of six "Articles of Accusation" made
against the Bishop by the Duke of Gloucester, which were an-
swered by him, and
"the further examination of it was by the house devolved upon a
select number of lords, who having thoroughly examined all mat-
ters, acquitted the bishop and by, a formal award enjoined them to
be firm friends for the future; and by such inducements wrought
upon them, that they shook hands, which gave a mighty satisfac-
tion to all people, both of the clergy and laity. And the king, by
the advice of his council, made a magnificent feast at Whitsuntide,
to rejoice for this happy reconciliation."
IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM DE LA POLE,
DUKE OF SUFFOLK, i Howell's State Trials 272 (1450).
Charge: High Treason.
He admitted certain of the articles and denied others, and
threw himself upon the king's mercy, whereupon the king ban-
ished him from the realm for five years.
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 91
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR WILLIAM STANLEY, i
Howell's State Trials 277 (1494).
Charge: High Treason.
He was tried, convicted and executed.
IMPEACHMENT OF CARDINAL WOLSEY, i How-
ell's State Trials 367; i Cobb. Pari. Hist. 492 (1529).
Charge: High Treason.
The charges were prepared by a number of the Lords, sent
to the king, and then to the Commons, but the cardinal's secre-
tary, Cromwell, so well represented him at the bar of the Com--
mons that he was acquitted without trial.
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR THOMAS SEYMOUR,
LORD SEYMOUR OF SUDLEY AND LORD HIGH AD-
MIRAL OF ENGLAND, i Howell's State Trials 484; 7 Em-
lyn's State Trials i ; Salmqn's Abridgment of State Trials n
(1549)-
Charge: High Treason.
Formal articles were presented against him, but he was
never tried, because in the meantime he was attainted, convicted
and executed.
IMPEACHkENT OF LORD CHANCELLOR BACON,
2 Howell's State Trials 1088; i Cobb. Pari. Hist. 1239; i Em-
lyn's State Trials 375 ; Salmon's Abridgment of State Trials
73 (1620).
Charge: Bribery and Corruption.
There were 28 separate articles, each charging a different
bribery.
The Lord Chancellor replied :
"I do plainly and ingenuously confess that I am guilty of
corruption, and do renounce all defence, and put myself on the
grace and mercy of- your lordships."
He afterwards, upon being required so to do, answered
each article separately.
The judgment was that he be fined £40,000; imprisoned in
the Tower during the king's pleasure; perpetually incapacitated
from holding any office, place or employment in the state or
commonwealth ; and debarred from sitting in parliament or com-
ing within the verge of the court.
IMPEACHMENT OF THEOPHILUS FIELD, BISHOP
OF LLANDAFF, 2 Howell's State Trials 1088 (1620).
Charge : Bribery.
No formal articles were presented, but the Commons sent
92 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
to the Lords certain testimony taken by the Commons. The
Lords then examined one of the principal witnesses anew, and
his testimony being contradictory of that given to the Commons,
the Lords made report thereof to the Commons, which thanked
the Lords "for their, lordships' honorable and just proceedings
in the cause," and "thus ended the afifair."
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR GILES MOMPESSON, 2
Howell's State Trials 1120 (1620).
Charge: Being a Monopolist and Patentee.
He fled, and hence the details of his offences are not given
in the report, but they were evidently the same as the charges
against Sir Francis Michell, whose trial immediately follows
this.
He was found guilty, degraded from knighthood, outlawed,
declared incapable of testifying in court, excepted out of all
general pardons, liable to be imprisoned for life, forbidden to
approach within twelve miles of the courts of the king, the profits
of his lands forfeited to the king for life, and his goods and chat-
tels absolutely, fined f 10,000, disabled from holding office, and
declared to be forever an infamous person.
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR FRANCIS MICHELL, 2
Howell's State Trials 1132 (1621).
Charge: Being a Monopolist and Patentee.
1st. "That he received an annuity of f 100 per annum (to
be continued for five years) for executing the Commission con-
cerning Gold and Silver thread."
2nd. That "he and Henry Tweedy took upon them the exe-
cution of the first Commission touching Gold and Silver thread,
. . . and abused their power by committing divers to prison
before conviction, and by committing divers to prison for re-
fusal to enter into bond required by them; which was not then
warranted by the Commission."
3rd; "That, there being a second Commission, touching
Gold and Silver thread, . . .he alone committed divers to
prison; the authority being unto two."
4th. "That he erected an Office, kept- a Court, made Officers
and divers unwarrantable Orders, and exacted bonds for the
observance of the same."
5th. "That in the suit brought by Fowles, in the Star-cham-
ber, against Francis Lake and others, he took of Francis Lake
22 shilling pieces to compound the same."
He was found guilty, degraded from knighthood, impris-
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 9i
oned, during the king's pleasure, fined £1000 and disabled from
holding any ofHce under the king or for the commonwealth.
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR HENRY YELVERTON,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, 2 Howell's State Trials 11 36; i
Cobb. Pari. Hist. 1232 (1621).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. "That he committed divers persons for refusing to
enter into bonds to restrain their own trades, etc., before he had
any authority to require any such bonds."
2nd. "That he first signed and directed the warrants, dor-
mant, having no authority for the same, and yet containing many
unwarrantable clauses."
3rd. "That he advised the patent of Gold and Silver Thread
to be resumed into the king's hands, conceiving the same to be
a monopoly; and advised the patentees to proceed by contract
with the king." i
4th. "That he procured a proclamation to take bonds, and
signed a docquet, showing his advising with the Recorder of
London and the city thereupon, whereas the recorder ,was not
acquainted with it."
Sth. "That 3401 quo warranto's, to the vexation of the
people, were bought by him, touching the patent of Inns, and but
two came to trial."
6th. "That he commenced divers suits in the exchequer,
touching Gold and Silver Thread; but did not prosecute the
same."
Answers were filed which were adjudged scandalous by the
king. He was found guilty, and fined 10,000 marks, adjudged to
be imprisoned in the Tower during the king's pleasure, and di-
rected to acknowledge his fault and make submission to the
king at the bar of the Lords.
IMPEACHMENT OF THE BISHOP OF NORWICH,
I Cobb. Pari. Hist. 1478 (1624).
Charges: Misdemeanors in his Episcopal Office.
1st. "That he inhibited or disheartened preachers on the
Sabbath day in the forenoon."
2nd. "That images were set up in the churches, and one oi
the Holy Ghost fluttering over the font ; that a marble tomb was
pulled down, and images set up in its room, and the bishop
blessed them that did it."
3rd. "That he punished those who prayed not towards the
east."
94 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
4th. "That he punished a minister for catechizing his fam-
ily, and singing of psalms."
5th'. "That he' used extortion many ways."
6th. "That he did not enter institutions to the prejudice of
patrons."
Answers were filed.
"Immediately after which an Order is entered on the Lords
Journals, that in respect to the shortness of time and the multi-
plicity of business, now depending to be determined, the Complaint
"of the Commons, against the bishop of Norwich, shall be referred
to the High Commissioners, to be examined by them; and they to
make report to the house, and then the house will judge of it."
"But we hear no more of this, or the former affair, in the
journals or elsewhere."
IMPEACHMENT OF THE LORD TREASURER
MIDDLESEX, 2 Howell's State Trials 11 84; i Cobb. Pari.
Hist. 141 1 (1624).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
It is impossible to abstract the charges from the report, but
they may be said to be
1st. Bribery in a number of instances which were stated.
2nd. "He undertook the office of the Wardrobe . •. .
and obtained a certain assignment of £20,000 per annum or
thereabouts, which was duly paid unto him by way of impost.
Instead of doing service he . . . hath procured gifts and
discharges of great sums of money which he received for the
execution of that place and for the queen's funeral."
3rd. That he refused to pay to merchants importing sugar
"the imposts paid on importation; which is contrary to the di-
rection given by his majesty's letters patent."
4th. That he caused the surrender of a preceding lease, and
took a new lease "from the king unto Nicholas Harman and
Tho. Catchmay (two of his servants) unto his own use, at
£2000 per annum and lets the same unto the farmers at £6000
per annum."
5th. That though the composition for purveyance of groc-
ery had been compounded "the Lord Treasurer directed his ser-
vants to levy this composition; and although it was not due to
the king, nor any such composition entered in the computing
house, his lordship commanded their goods then in the ports to
be stayed, and not entered, till it was paid, or bonds given for it."
6th. Corruption in taking advantage of his office to pur-
chase large claims due to the king at an inadequate price and
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 95
then compound the payment of even that price, to the great loss
of the king, and to his own profit.
7th. That he allowed the Office of Ordnance to go unre-
paired, though money was appropriated for the purpose, and
allowed contracts for greatly needed powder to lapse for want of
payment.
8th. That he "hath committed unto his secretary a stamp of
his own name" so that the secretary can act for him, "and
that this stamp may be a ready way to make concealed Ward-
ships, and may take away mean processes due to the king, for
want of livery; and may antedate tenders, continuances and
petitions; by reason whereof the king may be prejudiced great
sums, by preferring one before another by Wardships."
He was found guilty, sentenced to lose all the offices which
he held, incapacitated from holding any office, place or employ-
ment in the state and commonwealth, imprisoned in the Tower
during the king's pleasure, fined £50,000, and forbidden to ever
sit in parliament or come within' the verge of the court.
IMPEACHMENTS OF THE DUKE OF BUCKING-
HAM, THE EARL OF BRISTOL AND LORD CONWAY, 2
Howell's State Trials 1268; 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 80 (1626).
"Whilst the House of Commons was busy in carrying on,
what is called in their Journals "The Cause of Causes" and
finishing their Articles against the Duke of Buckingham, de-
spite the king's "strong attachment to Buckingham," "the king
commanded his Attorney General to charge his lordship (the
Earl of Bristol) with High Treason and other great and
enormous Crimes, Offences and Contempts . . . against
our late Sovereign Lord King James, of Blessed memory, de-
ceased, and our Sovereign Lord the King's majesty, which now
is. This was done, the ARTICLES AGAINST THE EARL OF
BRISTOL being as follows :
1st. That the said Earl being trusted and employed by the
said late king as his ambassador to Ferdinando, then and now
emperor of Germany, to Philip 4, then and now king of Spain,
.~ ; . and having commission and particular and special"
direction to treat with the said emperor and the king of Spain
for the plenary restoring of such parts of the dominions, terri-
tories and possessions of the count Palatine of the Rhine . . .
which were then wrongfully, and in hostile manner taken, and
possessed with and by the crimes of the said emperor and king
of Spain ; . . . and also to treat with the said king of Spain,
for a Marriage to be had between the most high and excellent
96 ' ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
prince Charles, Prince of Wales, . . . and the most illus-
trious Donna Maria the Infanta of Spain, sister to the now
king of Spain; did . . . falsely, wilfully and traitorously
. . . inform, advise and assure the late king, that the said
emperor and king of Spain would really, fully and effectually
make restoration ... of the said dominions, territories
and possessions, . . . and that the king of Spain did really,
fully and effectually intend the said marriage, . . . whereas
they . . . intended, only by those Treaties to gain time and
to compass their own ends and purposes to the detriment of this
kingdom; all of which the said Earl of Bristol neither was nor
could be ignorant."
2nd. That knowing of the necessity for an early completion
of the treaties with Spain he "falsely, wilfully and traitorously
. . . continued those treaties upon generalities without effec-
tual pressing the said king of Spain unto particular conclusions
. . . to the high dishonor of his said late majesty, and to the
extreme danger and detriment of his majesty's person, his crown
and dominions, confederates and allies."
3rd. That he "did cunningly and traitorously strive to re-
tard the resolution of the said late king to declare himself an
enemy to the said king of Spain, ... to the extreme danger,
dishonor and detriment of this kingdom."
4th. That upon being "told that there was little probability
that these Treaties would or could have any good success, he, the
said earl, acknowledged as much," and said that he did not care
"for he would take care to have his Instructions perfect, and pur-
sue them punctually, and howsoever the business went he would
make his fortune thereby" and from the beginning "intended
not the service or honour of his late majesty, but his own currupt
and sinister ends and his own advancement."
5th. "That from the beginning he did . . . intend and,
resolve. That if the said Marriage . . . should by his minis-
try be effected, that thereby the Romish religion and professors
thereof should be advanced within this realm, and other his
majesty's realms and dominions, and the true religion and pro-
fessors thereof discouraged and discountenanced . . . and
to that end and purpose . . . often counselled and persuaded
his said late majesty to set at liberty the Jesuits and Priests of the
Romish religion . . . and to grant and allow unto the
Papists and Professors of the Romish religion free toleration, and
silencing of all laws made, and standing in force against them."
6th. That as a result of "the false Informations and Intelli-
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 97
gences of the said Earl of Bristol" the then prince did "undertake
in his own person his long and dangerous journey into Spain" in
the endeavor to conclude the treaties or learn the real facts; "and
did accordingly and speedily break them off. By which journey,
the person of the said prince, being then heir apparent to the
crown of the realm, and in his person the peace and safety of this
kingdom, did undergo such apparent and such inevitable danger,
as at the very remembrance thereof the hearts of all good sub-
jects do even tremble."
7th. That when the Prince arrived in Spain he "cunningly,
falsely and traitorously moved and persuaded the Prince, being
then in the power of a foreign king of the Romish religion, to
change his religion . . . whereas it had been the duty of a
faithful servant to God and his master ... to have pre-
vented so great an error, and to have persuaded him against it,
so as to have avoided the dangerous consequences thereof to the
true religion and to this state."
8th. To induce the Prince to change his religion while in
Spain "he traitorously used these words unto the said Prince.
'That the state of England did never any great thing but when
they were under the obedience of the Pope of Rome; and that it
was impossible they could do anything of note otherwise.' "
9th. That during the time of the Prince's being in Spain as
aforesaid, the prince consulting and advising with the said Earl
and others about a new offer made by the king of Spain touching
the Palatinate which was that the eldest son of the prince Palatine
should marry with the emperor's daughter, "but must be bred in
the emperor's court,, and the said Earl delivered his opinion that
the proposition was reasonable."
loth. That when the Prince "resolved to return from the
court of Spain ... he left the powers of the deposorios
with the said Earl of Bristol" with an "express direction not to ,
dispatch the deposorios, until a full conclusion were had of the
other Treaty of the Palatinate, with this of the marriage" yet
he made a "breach of his instructions ; and if the same had not
been prevented by his late majesty's vigilancy, it might have
turned to the infinite dishonour and prejudice of his majesty."
nth. "That he hath offended in a high and contemptuous
manner, in preferring a scandalous Petition to this honourable
house, to the dishonour of his majesty of blessed memory de-
ceased, and of his sacred majesty that now is, which are no 4r2.y
sufferable in a subject towards his sovereign ; and in one Article
of that Petition specially, wherein he gives his majesty the lie, in
98 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
denying and offering to falsify that relation which his majesty
affirmed, and thereunto added many things of his own remem-
brance to both houses of parliament."
THE EARL OF BRISTOL IN TURN IMPEACHED
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Charge: Divers Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I St. "That the Duke of Buckingham did secretly combine
and conspire ... to carry his majesty (then prince) into
Spain, to the end that he might be informed and instructed in the
Roman religion, and thereby have perverted the prince, and sub-
verted the true religion established in England; from which
misery this kingdom (next under God's mercy) hath, by the
wise, religious, and constant carriage of his majesty, been
almost miraculously delivered."
2nd. That such messages were "framed as might serve for
a ground to set on foot this conspiracy; the which was done
accordingly, and thereby the king and prince highly abused."
3rd. "That the said duke at his arrival in Spain nourished
the Spanish ministers, not only in the belief of his own being
popishly aifected; but did . . . from time to time give the
Spaniards hope of the prince's conversion ; the which conversion
he endeavored to procure by all means possible; and thereby
caused the Spanish ministers to propound far worse conditions
for religion than had been formerly . . . signed under
their majestys' hands."
4th. "That the Duke of Buckingham having several times
. . . moved and pressed his late majesty ... to write
a letter unto the pope" ; which the Earl of Bristol while in Eng-
land prevented, "yet not long after the earl was gone, he pro-
cured such a letter to be written from his late majesty unto the
pope, and to have him styled Sanctissime Pater."
' 5th. "That the pope being informed of the Duke of Buck-
ingham's inclination and intention in point of religion, sent tinto
the said duke a particular Bull in parchment, for to persuade
and encourage him in the perversion of his majesty, then
prince."
6th. "That the said duke's behavior in Spain was such,
that he thereby so incensed the king of Spain and his ministers,
as they wQuld admit of no reconciliation nor further dealings
with him; whereupon, the said duke, seeing that the match
would now be to his own disadvantage, he endeavoured to
break it; not for any service to the kingdom . . . but out
of his particular ends and his indignation."
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 99
7th. "That after that he intended to cross the marriage, he
put in practice divers undue courses . . . and thereby over-
threw his majesty's purposes, and advanced his own ends."
8th. "That the said duke, as he had with his skill and arti-
fices formerly abused their majesties; so, to the same end, he
afterwards abused both houses of parliament, by his sinister
relation of the carriage of affairs, as shall be made to appear
in almost every particular that he spake unto the said houses."
9th. "As for the scandal given by his personal behaviour,
as also the employing of his power with the king of Spain for the
procuring of favours and offices, which he bestowed upon base
and unworthy persons, for the recompense and hire of his lust;
these things, as neither fit for the Earl of Bristol to speak, nor
indeed for the house to hear, he leaveth to your lordships' wisdom
how far you will be pleased to have them examined."
loth. "That the said duke hath been,~in great part, the cause
of the ruin and misfortune of the prince Palatine, and his
estates, inasmuch as those affairs had relation unto this king-
dom."
nth. "That the Duke of Buckingham hath in his relation to
both houses of parliament wronged the Earl of Bristol in point
of his honour by many sinister aspersions which he hath laid
upon him, and in point of his liberty by many undue courses by
his power and practices."
1 2th. "That the Earl of Bristol did reveal unto his late
majesty both by word and letter in what sort the said duke had
dissevered him, and abused his trust;" who heard each party
against the other, "and not long after his blessed majesty sickened
and died, having been in the interim much vexed and pressed by
the said duke."
THE EARL OF BRISTOL ALSO IMPEACHED LORD
CONWAY.
Charge: No general words are used to designate the
charges.
I St. "That the Lord Conway is so great a servant of the
Duke of Buckingham that he is . . . unfit to be a judge in
anything that concerneth the dtfke or the earl."
2nd. "That the said Lord Conway professeth himself to be a
secretary of the Duke of Buckingham's creation, and so acknowl-
edgeth it under his own hand; and although he be the king's
secretary of state, and a privy counsellor, he usually beginneth
his letters to the duke 'Most gracious patron.' "
3rd. "That, as a secretary of the said duke's, the said Lord
100 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
Conway hath been made the instrument of keeping the Earl of
Bristol from the king's presence, and of imprisoning of him, by
warrants only under his own hand, for which he cannot (as the
earl conceiveth) produce any sufficient warrant."
4th. "That by the space of 12 months last past, the said
Lord Conway hath been the cause of the earl's restraint, only by
misinforming his majesty . . . and when it was made
apparent unto him that the said earl was restored to his liberty,
freely to follow his own affairs, by his late majesty of blessed
memory, he replied. That that liberty, given by his majesty, ex-
pired with the king's death."
5th. "That the Earl of Bristol's mother, lying sick, upon her
death bed, desired, for her comfort to see her son, and to give
him her last blessing" which the Lord Conway refused to permit,
"wherewith the earl acquainting the king by some of his bed-
chamber, his majesty was in a very great anger . . . and
thereupon sent him presently free leave; which the secretary
hearing of, sent likewise a letter of leave, but with divers clauses
and limitations, differing from the leave sent him from the king's
own mouth."
6th. "That having the businesses of the Earl of Bristol in
his hands ... he would never deliver any message to the
king from the said earl, without first acquainting the said duke,
and receivmg his directions ; and in a noble manner of f reeness,
stuck not to send -him word."
7th. "That the Earl of Bristol having received from the Lord
Conway twenty interrogatories, in his late majesty's name,
. . ■. and his majesty having been pleased to assure the said
earl, both by messages and letters, that upon satisfaction given
to himself and the commissioners by his answers, he would per-
sonally put an end to the Earl of Bristol's business ; the Earl of
Bristol having so fully answered as would admit of no reply,
. . . the said Lord Conway being the secretary in the com-
mission . . . perceiving that the Earl of Bristol was like to
be cleared, never moved for any further meeting; neither have
they ever been permitted to meet until this day, whereby the
troubles of the Earl of Bristol have been kept on foot until this
present, and the said earl's imprisonment hath been enlarged
twenty months."
8th. "That his majesty having directed the said interroga-
tories to be sent to the said earl within two or three days, the
said Lord Conway 'would never send the said questions; and at
last answered, That he had no more to do with the earl's busi-
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS'
9th. "That the Earl of Bristol being set free^ his^iate
majesty to come to London, to follow his own affairs as he
pleased, . . . -the Lord Conway sent a letter from his
majesty absolutely forbidding him going to parliament; and
therein likewise was inserted a clause, 'That the earl should remain
restrained as he was in the time of his late majesty', and so
thereby a colour of restraint, under his majesty's hand, was
gotten, which could never be procured in his late majesty's time;
whereby the Earl of Bristol hath been unduly restrained ever
since, without being able to procure any redress."
loth. "That the Lord Conway knowing that the Match for
the marrying of the king of Bohemia's eldest son with, the
emperor's daughter, and being bred in the emperor's court, was
allowed and propounded by his late majesty" yet the Lord Con-
way "hath suffered it to be charged as a crime against the earl
of Bristol . . . that he should consent to the breeding of the
young prince in the emperor's court."
nth. "That the Lord Conway hath been the cause of all
the Earl of Bristol's troubles, by his dubious and intrapping dis-
patches, and inferring. That the said earl hath failed in his direc-
tions, when it shall be made appear, that his dispatches contained
no such directions he hath alleged were given."
The king afterwards appeared in the House of Lords and
stated that so far as the Duke of Buckingham was concerned "I
myself can be a witness to clear him in every one of them" ; and
afterwards committed two of the managers of the House of Com-
mons to the Tower because of what they said in their speeches
against the duke. He also forbade the judges to give their
opinions on certain questions submitted to them in the Earl of
Bristol's case.
Notwithstanding the action of the king, the House of Com-
mons presented the following:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE
DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Charge: Misdemeanors, Misprisions, Offences and Crimes.
1st. That he "for his own profit and advantage procured and
engrossed into his own hands the said several offices, (appearing
in the duke's titles) both to the danger of the state, the prejudice
of that service which should have been performed in them, and
to the great discouragement of others."
2nd. That he paid to the "Earl of Nottingham, for the office
of great admiral of England and Ireland, and the principality of
Wales, and office of the general governor of the seas and ships,
102 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
to the intent that the said duke might obtain the said offices to his
own use, the sum of £3000 of the lawful money of England ; and
did also, about the same time, procure from the said king a
further reward for the surrender of the said office to the said earl
of an annuity of £1000 by the year, for and during the life of the
said earl; . . . and thereupon, and by reason of the
premises said offices were obtained hy the said duke for his life
. . . (which) offices highly touch and concern the administra-
tion and execution of justice, within the provision of the said laws
and statutes of this realm."
3rd. "That the said duke did likewise . . . give and
pay unto the right hon. Edward late Lord Zpuch, lord warden of
the cinque ports, and of the members thereof, and constable of the
castle of Dover, for the said offices, and for the surrender of the
said offices . . . the sum of £1000 of lawful money of Eng-
land ; and then also granted an annuity of £500 yearly to the said
Lord Zouch, for the life of the said Lord Zouch, to the intent that
he the said duke might thereby obtain the said offices to his own
use."
4th. "Whereas the said duke, by reason of his said offices
. . . ought at all times since the said offices obtained, to have
safely guarded, kept, and preserved the said seas and the dominion
of them ; and ought also whenever they wanted either men, ships,
munition, or other strength whatsoever, that might conduce to the
better safeguard of them, to have used, from time to time, his
utmost endeavour for the supply of such wants" yet he hath not
according to his said offices, "during the time aforesaid, safely
kept the said seas; insomuch, that by reason of his neglect and
default therein, not only the trade ari^d strength of this kingdom
of England hath been during the said time, much decayed; but
the same seas also have been, during the same time, ignominiously
infested by pirates and enemies, to the loss of both very many
ships and goods, and of many of the subjects of our sovereign
lord and king."
5th. That "a ship called the St. Peter of Newhaven," belong-
ing to "subjects of the king of France, being in perfect amity and
league with our sovereign lord the king," having been with its
cargo improperly taken by vessels sent out by the said duke, and
its cargo removed by him, and being thereafter released by the
king under his commission and decree "the said duke notwith-
standing the said order, commission and decree detained still to
his own use the gold, silver, pearls, emeralds, jewels, moneys and
commodities so taken out of the said ship . . _ . in public
violation and contempt of the laws and justice of this land."
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 103
6th. That the said duke, having, wrongfully seized several
ships and pinnaces, laden with goods and merchandize of very
great value, and belonging to the East India Company he "un-
justly did exact and extort from the said merchants the sum of
£10,000 . . . following the discharge of those ships, which
were not released by him, until they the said merchants did yield
to give him, the said duke, £10,000 for the said release."
7th. That as great admiral of England he wrongfully did
"procure one of the principal ships of his majesty's navy royal,
called the Vanguard, . . . and six other merchant' ships of
great burthen and value, belonging to several persons inhabiting
in London, the natural subjects of his majesty,, to be conveyed
over, with all their ordnance, munition, tackle and apparel into
the ports of the kingdom of France ; to the end that, being there,
they might the more easily be put into the hands of the French
king ... to the apparent weakening of the naval strength
of this kingdom, to the great loss and prejudice of the said mer-
chants, and against the liberty of those subjects of our sovereign
lord the king that are under the jurisdiction of the admiralty."
8th. "The said duke, contrary to the purpose of our sovereign
lord the king, and his majesty's known zeal for the maintenance
and advancement of the true religion established in the Church
of England . . . did procure the said ship royal, and com-
pel as aforesaid the six other ships to be delivered unto the said
French king ... to the end that the said ships might be
used and employed, by the said French king, in his intended war
against those of the said religion in the said town of Rochelle, and
elsewhere within the kingdom of France; and the said ships were,
and have been since, so used and employed by the said French
king."
9th. That the said duke for his own particular gain required
Lord Roberts, baron of Truro to "pay the sum of £10,000 to the
said duke, and to his own use ; for which said sum, the said duke
of the said late king, procured the title of Baron Roberts
of Truro to the said Lord Roberts. In which practice, as the said
Lord Roberts was wronged in this particular, so the example
thereof tendeth to the prejudice of the gentry, and dishonour of
the nobility of this kingdom."
loth. That he "did procure of the said king, the office of
high treasurer of England to the Lord Viscount Mandeville;
and as a reward for the said procurement of the same
grant he the said, duke did then receive to his own use, of and
from the said Lord Viscount Mandeville, the sum of £20,000
104 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
(and) . . . did procure of the late king of famous memory,
the office of master of the wards and liveries to and for Sir L.
Cranfield . . . and as a reward for the same procurement
he, the said duke, had, to his own use, . . . the sum of
£6000."
nth. "That he, the said duke, hath within the ten years last
past, procured divers Titles of Honour to his mother, brothers,
kindred and allies; . . . whereby the noble barons of Eng-
land, so well deserving in themselves, and in their ancestors, have
been much prejudiced, and the crown disabled to reward extraor-
dinary virtues in future times with honour."
I2th. That he did, ""for the support of the many places,
honours and dignities conferred on him, obtain a grant of divers
manors, parcel of the revenue of the crown, and of the duchy of
Lancaster, . . . and notwithstanding the great and inesti-
mable gain made by him, by the sale of offices, honours, and by
other suits by him obtained from his majesty . . . hath like-
wise, by his procurement and practice, received into his hands,
and disbursed to his own use exceeding great sums that were the
moneys of the late king, and the better to colour his doings in
that behalf, hath obtained several privy-seals . . . as if
those sums were directed for secret services concerning the state,
which were, notwithstanding, disposed of to his own use."
13th. That notwithstanding the directions of his late
majesty's physicians, and his duty to his late majesty, he "did,
nevertheless, and without any sufficient warrant in that behalf,
unduly cause and procure certain plaisters, and a certain drink
and potion to be provided for his said majesty, without the direc-
tion or privity of his said late majesty's physicians, not prepared
by any of his sworn apothecaries or surgeons, but compounded
of several ingredients to them unknown; . . . after which
said plaisters, and drink or potion, were taken and received by
his said majesty as aforesaid, great distempers and divers ill
symptoms appeared upon his said majesty, insomuch that the said
physicians finding his majesty the next morning much worse, in
the estate of his health, and holding consultation thereabout, did,
by joint consent, send to the said duke, praying him not to adven-
ture to minister to his majesty any more physic, without their
allowance and approbation . . . which said adventurous act
. . . is an offence and misdemeanor of so high a nature, as
may justly be called, and is by the said commons deemed to be,
an act of transcendent presumption, and of dangerous conse-
quence."
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 105
"The Commons, upon the imprisonment of their Members
. . . resolved to proceed in no other business, till they were
righted in their liberties."
"These Impeachments were put a stop to by the dissolution
of the parliament . . . exactly one week after the duke
had put in his answer."
"A third parliament (being called) the Commons soon di-
rected their attention to the Duke of Buckingham . . . par-
liament was prorogued, and the duke was killed by Felton, who
seems to have been stimulated to this act, by the Votes of the
House of Commons."
IMPEACHMENT OF THE JUDGES : JOHN BRAM-
STON, JOHN FINCH, HUMPHREY DAVENPORT, JOHN
DENHAM, RICHARD HUTTON, WILLIAM JONES,
GEORGE CROOKE, THOMAS TREVOR, GEORGE VER-
NON, ROBERT BERKLEY, FRANCIS CRAWLEY AND
RICHARD WESTON, 3 Howell's State Trials 1283; i Emlyn's
State Trials 709 (1637).
Charge: High Treason and other great Misdemeanors.
Articles against Judge Berkley.
1. "That the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of
the justices of the said court of King's Bench, hath traitorously
and wickedly endeavored to subvert the fundamental laws and
established government of the realm of England; and instead
thereof to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government
against law, which he hath declared by traitorous and wicked
words, opinions, judgments, practices and actions appearing in
the several Articles ensuing."
2. "Whereas by the statute made in the 25th year of the
reign of Henry 8, prices of victuals are appointed to be rated in
such manner, as in the said statute is declared ; but it is manifest
by the said statute, Corn is none of the victuals thereby intended ;
nevertheless some ill-affected persons endeavoring to bring a
charge upon the subjects contrary to law . . . and there-
upon great gain might be raised to his majesty by licences and
dispensations for selling Corn at other prices: and a command
from his majesty being procured to the Judges ... to
deliver their Opinions touching the question. Whether Corn was
such victuals as was intended to have the price rated within the
said statute; which said Opinipn was contrary to law, and to the
plain sense and meaning of the said statute, and contrary to his
own knowledge, and was given and delivered by him, with the
purpose and intention that the said unlawful charge might be
imposed upon the subject."
106 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
3. "That an information being preferred in the court of
Star Chamber by . . . his majesty's then Attorney General
against John Overman, and fifteen other soap makers, defend-
ants, charging them with several pretended offences . . .
touching the making and uttering Soap and using Ihe trade of
soap makers, and other offences in the said information men-
tioned; whereunto the defendants did plead and demur as to
part, and answer as to other parts of the said information
. . . the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of the
justices of the court of King's Bench . . . upon an order
of reference to him and others, by the said court of Star Cham-
ber, to consider the impertinency of said Answers, did certify
the said court of Star Chamber, That the whole Answers, except-
ing the four words and ten last lines, should be expunged ; leav-
ing thereby no more substance of the said Answers than the plea
of Not Guilty; And after, upon a reference to him and others
by order of the said court, of the impertinency of the Inter-
rogatories, he . . . certified, That nine and thirty of the
said Interrogatories, and the Depositions upon them taken, should
be suppressed . . . although the same did contain the de-
fendants' most material defence, . . . both of which said
certificates were contrary to law and justice, and contrary to his
the said Sir Robert Berkley's own knowledge; . . . and by
reason thereof the said ^ . . . defendants were sentenced in
the said court of Star Chamber to be committed prisoners to the
Fleet, and disabled from using their trade of soap makers
. . . and the said defendants, according to the said Sentence,
were imprisoned and deprived of their trade and livelihood."
4. "That he, the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of
the justices of King's Bench, and having taken an oath for the
due administration of justice, according to the laws and statutes
of this realm, to his majesty's liege people, on or about the last
of December subscribed an Opinion in haec verba: *I am of
opinion, that as where the benefit doth more particularly redound
to the good of the ports or maritime parts, (as in the case of
piracy or depredations upon the seas) there the charge hath been,
and may be lawfully imposed upon them, according to precedents
of former times ; so where the safety and good of the kingdom
in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, (of
which his majesty is the only judge) there the charge of the
defence ought to be borne by all the realm in general : this I hold
agreeable both to law and reason.' "
5. "That he, the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 107
;he justices of the court of King's Bench, subscribed an extra
judicial Opinion, in answer to questions in a letter from his ma-
jesty" in relation to the ship money against which Hampden
ief ended.
6. "That the^'said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of
:he justices of the court of King's Bench ... did deliver his
>pinion in the Exchequer Chamber against John Hampden, Esq.,
n the case of Ship-Money. That he, the said John Hampden,
apon the matter and substance of the case, was chargeable with
:he money then in question." .
7. "That he, the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of
;he justices of the court of King's Bench, and one of the justices
3f Assize for the county of York, did, at the assizes held at York
. . deliver his charge to the grand jury, 'That it was a law-
ful and inseparable flower of the crown for the king to command,
lot only the maritime counties, but also those that were inland,
to find ships for the defence of the kingdom.' And then likewise
falsely and maliciouslyafifirmed. That it was not his single Judg-
ment but also the judgment of his brethren. . . . And he,
the said Sir Robert Berkley, then also said, That in some cases
the Judges were above an act of parliament, which said false and
malicious words were uttered, as aforesaid, with intent and pur-
pose to countenance and maintain the said unjust opinions and
to terrify his said majesty's subjects that should refuse to pay
Ship-Money."
8. "That whereas Richard Chambers, merchant, having
commenced a suit for trespass, and false imprisonment, against
Sir Edw. Bromfield, knt., for imprisoning him, said Chambers,
for refusing to pay said Ship-Money, . . . said Sir Robert
Berkley, then being one of the justices of the court of King's
Bench . . . upon debate of the said case . . . said
openly in the court ; That there was a rule of law and a rule of
government' ; and that 'many things which might not be done by
the rule of law, might be done by the rule of government' : and
would not suffer the point of the legality of Ship-Money to be
argued by Chambers' counsel."
9. "That the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of the
justices of the court of King's Bench ... did revile and
threaten the grand jury ... for presenting the removal of
the communion table in All Saints Church in Hertford aforesaid,
out of the place where it anciently and usually stood, and setting
it altarways, against the laws of this realm . . . And he,
the said Sir Robert Berkley, compelled the foreman of the jury
to tell him who gave any such information, and thereby knowing
108 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
it to be one Henry Brown, one of the said grand jurors . . .
he, the said Sir Robert Berkley, told the said Brown, he should
therefore find sureties for his good behavior, . . . and
thereupon the said Brown offered a sufficient bail, but he, the
said Sir Robert Berkley, being incensed against him, refused the
said bail and committed the said Brown to prison, where he lay
in irons till the next morning ; and used to the said Brown, and
the rest of the jurors, many reviling and terrifying speeches.
. . . And whereas several indictments were preferred against
Matthew Brook, parson of Yarmouth, by John Ingram and John
Carter for refusing several times to administer the sacrament of
the Lord's supper . . . the said Sir Robert Berkley, then
being one of the judges of the Assize, proceeded then to the trial
on the said indictments ; . . . and the said Sir Robert Berk-
ley did then much discourage said Ingram's counsel and over-
rule the cause for matter of law, so as the jury never went from
the bar, but found for the said Brook: and the said Sir Robert
Berkley bound the said Ingram to the good behaviour for the
prosecuting the said indictments, and ordered him to pay costs
to the said Brook for wrongfully indicting him, . . . which
said proceedings . . . were contrary to law and justice and
to his own knowledge."
ID. "That the said Sir Robert Berkley, being one of the
justices of the court of King's Bench . . . deferred to dis-
charge or bail Alexander Jennings prisoner in the Fleet . . .
until he should bring a certi^cate that he had paid his assessments
for Ship-Money in the county of Bucks, but remitted him. And
in Michaelmas-term after .... refused to discharge or bail
him, but remitted him. And in the Easter-term ... a
fourth rule was made for the said Jennings to let his majesty's
attorney-general have notice thereof, and notice was given ac-
cordingly : and the said Jennings by another Habeas Corpus being
brought to the bar in Trinity-term after . . . was. again re-
mitted to prison. And he, the said Sir Robert Berkley, did
. . . defer to grant his majesty's writs of Habeas Corpus for
William Pargiter and Samuel Danvers, Esquires, prisoners in the
Gate-House and in the Fleet; and afterwards having granted the
said writ of Habeas Corpus . . . deferred to bail the said
Pargiter and Danvers, and . . . being desired to bail the
said Pargiter and Danvers, remitted them, where they remained
prisoners . . . although the said Jennings, Pargiter and
Danvers on all and every the said returns were clearly bailable by
law; . . . And he, the said Sir Robert Berkley, being one
of the justices of the court of King's Bench, denied to grant
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 109
lis majesty's writs of Habeas Corpus to very many others of his ,
majesty's subjects; and when he had granted the said writs' of
Habeas Corpus to very many others his majesty's subjects
. . remanded them, where they remained prisoners very
ong, and refusals and Relays to discharge prisoners, or to suffer
:hem to be bailed, ... are destructive to the fundamental
aws of this realm, and contrary to the former resolutions in par-
iament and to the Petition of Right."
II. "That whereas there was a cause depending . . .
jetween Samuel Booty, clerk, and Collard for 2 sh. in the pound,
for tithes for >rents of houses in Norwich, and the said Collard
noved . . . for a prohibition to stay proceedings . ...
md delivered into the said court of King's Bench his suggestions,
ihat the said cause . . . was only for tithes for rents of
louses in Norwich, which was determinable by the common law
3nly; yet the said Sir Robert Berkley, being one of the justices of
:he said court of King's Bench, and sitting in the said court, de-
ferred to grant a prohibition, . . . where the same by the
laws of this realm ought to have been granted, contrary to the
laws of this realm and his own knowledge."
Afterwards articles were exhibited against the other judges,
DUt the record does not show what was finally done with the im-
peachments.
IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS, EARL OF STRAF-
FORD, LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND, 3 Howell's
State Trials 1382; 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 737; i Emlyn's State
Trials 723: Salmon's Abridgment of State Trials 164 (1640).
Charge: High Treason.
He was convicted and executed.
IMPEACHMENT OF LORD KEEPER FINCH, 4
Howell's State Trials i ; 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 694 ; Salmoil's
A-bridgment of State Trials 160; 7 Emlyn's State Trials 309
(1640)..
Charge: High Treason.
Owing to the civil war and the continued absence of the
Lord Keeper, nothing further was ever done in the case, though
'he endured eight years' banishment, and Compositions amount-
ing to £7000."
IMPEACHMENT OF DR. JOHN COSIN, 4 Howell's
State Trials 22; 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 725 (1640).
Charge: That the respondent was a delinquent and en-
leavored to seduce divers citizens to popery.
110 , ' ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
1st. "That he was the first man that caused the communion
table in the church of Durham to be removed and set altar-
wise; in the erection and beautifying whereof he, being treas-
urer, expended £200."
2nd^ "That he used to officiate at the west side thereof,
turning his back to the people."
3rd. "That he used extraordinary bowing to it."
'4th. "That he compelled others to do it, using violence to
the persons of them that refused so to do."
5th. "That he converted divers prayers in the book of com-
mon prayer into hymns, to be sang to the choir, and played
with the organ, contrary to the ancient custom of that church."
6th. That in violation of custom and at his direction "they
sung an anthem in the choir" instead of a song at the end of
the sermon.
7th. "That the first Candlemas-day at night that he had
been in that church, he caused 300 wax candles to be set up, and
lighted in the, church at once, in honor of Our Lady, and placed
three score of them upon and about the altar."
8th, That he caused two seraphim which had been demol-
ished by virtue of a commission granted by Queen Elizabeth "to
be repaired and most gloriously painted."
9th. That while "unmarried he wore a cope of white satin,
never officiating in any other . . . which after marriage
he cast off, and never after wore."
loth. That he refused to cut the bread used in the sacra-
ment with any other than a knife belonging to the church
"thinking all others that were unconsecrated polluted."
nth. That in a sermon he stated "the reformers of this
church when they abolished the mass, took away all good order,
and instead of reformation, made it a deformation."
1 2th. That he nearly always called the ministers priests, and
the communion table the altar.
13th. That he bought from a convicted Jesuit and used
in the church a cope "having upon it the picture of the invisible
and incomprehensible Trinity."
14th. That he abandoned morning prayers at five o'clock
in the morning, and substituted singing and playing on the organ
and the reading of a few prayers.
15th. "That he framed a superstitious ceremony" by caus-
ing the altar boys to bow "towards the altar at their first entrance
. . . thrice before they lighted their tapers."
1 6th. "That he counselled' some young students of the uni-
versity to be imitators and practisers of his superstitious cere-
monies."
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 111
17th. "That he used upon communion days to make the
sign of the cross, with his finger, both upon the seats whereon
hey were to sit, and the cushions to kneel upon, using some
vords when he so did."
i8th. That when Dean Hunt directed a number of tapers
md Hghts to be pulled down, the respondent "came to the fellow
md there miscalled him in most uncivil manner, and began to
)eat him in the public view of the congregation, to the great
listurbance of the same."
19th. That he used "words derogating from the king's
)rerogative. The words were these: 'the king hath no more
)ower over the church than the boy that rubs my horses' heels.' "
20th. That upon being informed that a certain canon had
ipoken about what he was doing, he "sets both his hands upon
lim, calling him rogue and rascal and many other names."
2 1 St. That he tried to ensnare said canon into doing unlaw-
ul things so as to dismiss him from his place, and failing to
ind any cause so to do "he put him out by violence having no
(ther reasons why he did so, but because he had no good voice."
The' respondent was put upon bail for his appearance, but
vas never sent for again.
IMPEACHMENT OF BISHOP WREN, 4 Howell's
state Trials 28 (1640).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. That he raised the chancels of churches "some two,
ome three, some four steps, so that the communion table there
►laced altarwise might be the better seen of the people."
2nd. That he arranged the communion table "after the
lopish and idolatrous manner, so that the minister should stand
.nd officiate at the west end of the table with his back towards
he people."
3rd. That he arranged a separate entrance for the ministers,
nd punished the laymen who endeavored to enter that way.
4th. That he altered the pews in the churches so "that the
eople might kneel with their faces eastward, toward the com-
lunion table."
5th. That he enjoined every minister to read some part
f the morning prayer "at the said table as a part of the com-
lunion service."
6th. That he and his chaplains "did ever after the table
ras so set altarwise, use and perform such, so many, and so
requent bowings and adorations, examples, to draw others to
be like superstitious gestures, as have given great scandal and
ffence to the sound, sincere, and well affected Christians."
112 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
7th. That he "enjoined all the people to come up to the
rail and receive the holy communion, and there kneel, and do
reverence before the holy table placed altarwise, and gave di-
rections to the ministers not to administer the communion to
such people as should not come up, and do such reverence."
8th. That he refused to allow "sermons, on the Lord's Days
in the afternoon or on the week days at all, without his license
, . . and the more to hearten and confirm the people in
prophaning the Lord's day, he enjoined the ministers to read
publically in their churches, a book published touching sports on
the Lord's day, for not reading whereof some ministers were
by the command and direction of the said bishop, suspended."
9th. That in violation of the previous custom, he did "com-
mand and enjoin, that there should be no difference in ringing of
bells to church when there was a sermon and when there was
not."
loth. He forbad the preaching of preparatory sermons be-
fore communion.
nth. He "enjoined that no minister should use any prayer
before his sermon . . . and enjoined that no prayer should
be made in the pulpit for the sick, and that such as were prayed
for in the reading desk, should be prayed for only in the two
collects prescribed for the visitation of the sick in private
houses."
I2th. In the parish of Knatschal he did "enjoin the church
wardens there, that no prayer should be read in that church
until they had got a surplice."
I3tli. That he "excommunicated, suspended or deprived,
and otherwise censured and silenced" "sundry godly, painful
preaching ministers" for not observing his illegal innovations.
14th. That "he did unlawfully compel the inhabitants of
several parishes ,. . . to rail in their communion tables, to
remove the pews and seats, and to make other alterations in the
respective churches" at great expense.
15th. That he "molested, disquieted and vexed in their es-
tates and' consciences" certain persons who would not comply
with his unlawful innovations.
1 6th. That by his unlawful acts he forced "many of his
majesty's subjects to the number of 3O00" to leave the kingdom.
17th. That he untruthfully stated, publically and privately
that "that what he did in the same was by his majesty's com-
mand."
1 8th. That he "did in his own person use superstitious and
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 113
olatrous actions and gestures in the administration of the
ord's supper."
19th. That he "caused a crucifix, that, is to say the figure
: Christ upon the cross, to be engraven upon his episcopal seal,
;sides the arms of the See."
20th. "That he hath chosen and employed" only thosef
vhom he knew to be and stand afiFected to his innovated
•urses, and to Popish superstition."
2 1 St. That he admitted his own chaplains "into livings
hich became void within his own diocese" and forced the true
cumbents "to long and chargeable suits to evict such incumbents
id to recover their own right."
22nd. "That he and others in the year 1635 sold or granted
vay the profits of his primary visitation for £500 over and
)Ove the charges of the visitation."
23rd. That he compelled the church wardens "to have their
esentments written by clerks specially appointed by such as
mght the said visitation, to whom they paid excessive sums
: money for the same."
24th. That he wrongfully induced his majesty to require the
tizens of Norwich "to pay 2 sh. in the f in lieu of the tithes
houses within the several parishes of the said city."
25th. "That he assumed to himself an arbitrary power, to
mpel the respective parishioners in the said diocese, to pay
eat and excessive wages to parish clerks."
No further proceedings upon this impeachment appear to
,ve taken place after their presentation to the House of Lords.
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OF SIR FRANCIS
INDEBANK, SECRETARY OF STATE, 4 Howell's State
rials 41 ; 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 682 (1640).
Charge: No general words are used to designate the
arges.
1st. "Seventy-four Letters of Grace to Recusants, within
ese 4 years, signed by his own hand."
2nd. "Sixty-four Priests in the Gatehouse, within these 4
ars, discharged, for the most part, by him."
3rd. "Twenty-nine discharged by his verbal order."
4th. "A Warrant to protect one MuflEon, a condemned
■iest, and all the houses he frequented."
5th. "One committed by the king's own hand, and dis-
arged by him, without signification of the king's pleasure
jrein."
6th. "A Petition of St. Giles in the fields, near London, to
114 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
the king, of the Increase of Popery in their parish, wherein 21
persons were seduced and turned by two priests, the which
priests were both discharged by him."
He fled into France before the articles were presented,
and nothing further appears to have been done therewith.
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR GEORGE RATCLIFF, 4
Howell's State Trials 47; 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 698 (1640).
Charge : High Treason.
He was taken into custody and allowed counsel, but what
was further done in the matter does not appear.
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR RICHARD BOLTON, LORD
CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND; DR. JOHN BRAMHALL,
LORD BISHOP OF DERRY; SIR GERARD LOWTHER,
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COMMON PLEAS ; AND
SIR GEORGE RATCLIFF, 4 Howell's State Trials 51 (1641).
Charge: High Treason.
"What was the end of these prosecutions does not ap-
pear."
IMPEACHMENT OF DR. JOHN WILLIAMS, ARCH-
BISHOP OF YORK; DR. THOMAS MORETON, BISHOP
OF DURHAM; DR. ROBERT WRIGHT, BISHOP OF
COVENTRY AND LITCHFIELD; DR. JOSEPH HALL,
BISHOP OF NORWICH; DR. JOHN OWEN, BISHOP OF
ST. ASAPH; DR. ROBERT SKINNER, BISHOP OF OX-
FORD; DR. WILLIAM PIERS, BISHOP OF BATH AND
WELLS; DR. GEORGE COKE, BISHOP OF HEREFORD;
DR. MATTHEW WREN, BISHOP OF ELY; DR. GOD-
FREY GOODMAN, BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER; DR.
JOHN WARNER, BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH; AND
DR. MORGAN OWEN, BISHOP OF LLANDAFF, 4 How-
ell's State Trials 64; 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 861 (1641).
Charge : High Treason.
No articles of impeachment appear to have been presented
to the Lords, pending which, however, the defendants were im-
prisoned in the Tower for 18 weeks and were then released on
bail. Nothing further seems to have been done.
This most remarkable charge of "High Treason" is
founded solely on a petition presented by defendants to the
Lords, alleging that they were wrongfully excluded from the
House of Lords by a mob, and protesting that because thereof
"all laws, order, votes, resolutions and determinations" passed
during their exclusion, are "in themselves, null, and of none
effect."
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 115
IMPEACHMENT OF JOHN EGERTON, EARL OF
BRIDGEWATER ^ ( 1641 ) .
Charge: No general words are used to designate the
charges.
The House of Commons adopted the following resolutions
touching Sir John Corbett, one of its members:
"Resolved (i) That the Imposition of Thirty Pounds per an-
num, laid upon the Subjects of the County of Salop, for the Mus-
termaster's Fee, by the Earl of Bridgewater, Lord Lieutenant of
that County, is an illegal Charge, and against the Petition of Right ;
ind that it is high Presumption for a Subject to impose any Tax
apon the Subject; and that the taking of it is an Extortion, and
igainst the Right of the Subject; (2) That the Attachment from
:he Council-board, by which Sir John Corbett was committed, was
m illegal Warrant; (3) That Sir John Corbett ought to have
Reparation for his unjust Vexations and Imprisonment; (4) That
:he Earl of Bridgewater ought ^to make Reparation to Sir John
:orbett."
Those resolutions were transmitted to the House of Lords,
Lnd a conference, held between the two Houses, in which those
esolutions appear to have been treated as Articles of Impeach-
nent against the respondent.
A date was fixed for a hearing of the complaint, atjid sev-
ral orders made touching the matter, but it was never heard.
IMPEACHMENT OF DANIEL O'NEALE, 4 Hatsell's
'recedents 104, 399 (1641).
Charge: High Treason.
"No articles brought up. He was committed to the Gate-
ouse," and afterwards "he is removed from the Gatehouse to
le Tower."
IMPEACHMENT OF LORD KIMBOLTON; MR.
)ENZIL HOLLIS; SIR ARTHUR HAZELRIG, BART.;
IR. JOHN PYM; MR. JOHN HAMPDEN AND MR. WIL-
,1AM STRODE, 4 Howell's State Trials 83; 2 Cobb. Pari.
[ist. 1005 (1641).
Charge : High Treason.
The king, through his attorney general Sir Edward Her-
;rt, presented to the House of Lords articles of impeachment
! follows:
'For information regarding this Impeachment, I am indebted to Cuth-
rt Headlam, Esq., Secretary of the House of Lords. I have found no
port of it elsewhere than in a note to 14 How. St. Tr. 276; and in the
urnal of the House of Lords, Vol. IV, pages 382, 383, 407, 418; "and in the
.urnal of the House of Commons, Vol. XI, pages 167, 228.
116 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
I,. That they have traitorously endeavored to subvert the
fundamental Laws and Government of this kingdom, to deprive
the king of his regal power, and to place in the subjects an ar-
bitrary and tyrannical power, over the Lives, Liberties and Es-
tates of his majesty's liege subjects.
2. That they have traitorously endeavored, by many foul
aspersions upon his majesty and his government, to alienate the
affections of his people, and to make his majesty odious to
them.
3. That they have endeavored to draw his majesty's late
army to disobedience to his commands, and to side with them
in their traitorous designs.
4. That they have traitorously invited and encouraged a
foreign power to invade his majesty's kingdom of England.
5. That they have traitorously endeavored to subvert the
rights and very being of parliaments.'
6. That for the completing^f their traitorous designs, they
have endeavored, as far as in them lay, by force and terror, to
compel the parliament to join with them in their traitorous de-
signs; and, to that end, have actually raised and countenanced
tumults against the king and parliament.
7. That they have traitorously conspired to levy, and actu-
ally have levied, war against the king.
The king appeared in person in the House of Commons aind
demanded the arrest of the five members of that House who were
impeached, and asked the speaker whether they were in their
places. The speaker replied as follows: '
"May it please your majesty; I have neither eyes to see
nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the house is pleased
to direct me, whose servant I am here; and humbly beg your
majesty's pardon, that I cannot give any other answer than this
to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me."
The Commons appointed a committee to consider the mat-
ter, but refused to permit the arrest of the defendants, five of
whom were members of that House, because it would be a breach
of the privilege of parliament. The two Houses then by resolu-
tion petitioned his majesty "that those who informed him against
these members may come in five days' time to charge them, or
else that they may be cleared in such a way as the parliament shall
think fit."
The matter seems then to have been dropped by his maj-
esty. The House of Commons, however, impeached the at-
torney general who presented those charges, as appears by the
next impeachment herein.
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 117
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR EDWARD HERBERT, 4
lowell's State Trials 119; 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 1089 (1642).
Charge: High Crimes and ' Misdemeanors.
No formal articles of impeachment seem to have been pre-
ented in this case. Nevertheless he was heard and acquitted, a
esult so displeasing to the Commons, that the Lords reversed
bemselves and convicted him, and adjudged "that he should
e disabled from ever being a parliament man, incapable of any
lace of judicature, or other preferment than of attorney gen-
ral, which they could not deprive him of by reason of the for-
mer vote, and that he should be committed to the prison of the
i-leet."
IMPEACHMENT OF LORD DIGBY, 4 Howell's State
>ial5 134; 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 11 00 (1642).
Charge : High Treason.
Articles of impeachment were presented, but nothing fur-
her seems to have been done in the case.
IMPEACHMENT OF, GEORGE BENYON, 4 Howell's
State Trials 141 ; 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 1149 (1642).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. That respondent "did wickedly and maliciously con-
rive and frame a false, dangerous and seditious petition, for and
n the behalf of himself and divers other citizens, . . .
ontaining therein, divers false and seditious matters . . .
nd by false and sinister persuasions, solicitations and practices,
rocured divers citizens to subscribe their hands to the said peti-
ion.
2nd. That he did "falsely and maliciously give out and
tter divers bold, arrogant, false and scandalous speeches, in
erogation and contempt of the privileges of parliament."
He was convicted and sentenced to disfranchisement, in-
apability of holding office, imprisonment for two years and
ned £3000.
IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM SEYMOUR, MAR-
lUESS OF HERTFORD 2 (1642).
Charge: High Treason.
After the Articles of Impeachment were read in the House
f Lords, "a conference was demanded with the Commons as to
'For information regarding this Impeachment, I am indebted to Cuth-
irt Headlam, Esq., Secretary of the House of Lords. I have found no
■port of it elsewhere than in the Journal of the House oi Lords, Vol. V,
iges 286, 307, 360; and in the Journal of the House of Commons, Vol. II,
iges 69s, 719, 745, 769-
118 " ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
i
the best way of securing the attendance of the Marquess and
other dehnquerrts impeached by the Commons."
No further proceedings appear to have been taken.
IMPEACHMENT OF RICHARD SPENCERS (1642).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The Articles of Impeachment have not been printed and
cannot be found. The journals of the two Houses show, how-
ever, that they related to the Kentish Petition to Parliament,
and must have been similar to those against Sir Edward Bering
hereinafter set forth.
He was arrested, admitted to bail, rearrested and "re-
strained within the King's Garrison."
The case was never tried, but what was afterwards done
does not appear.
IMPEACHMENT OF JOHN WELD OR WYLDE,
HIGH SHERIFF OF SHROPSHIRE*^ (1642).
Charge : "Divers Great Misdemeanors and Malicious Car-
riages of the said Sheriff against the Parliament and against the
Peace of the County."
The Articles of Impeachment have not been printed and
cannot be found.
The case was not tried, probably because he was not sum-
moned. The last entry regarding it is the request of the Lords
"to have a Conference with the House of Commons, to advise with
them what course is fit to be taken for sending for those Delin-
quents that are impeached, and to bring them to-the Parliament to
receive their Trial, because, the Seal being with the King, Proclama-
tion Writs which are the legal Summons, are refused to be sealed."
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR EDWARD DERING, 4 How-
ell's State Trials 151:2 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 1188 (1642).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. That he "did wickedly and maliciously contrive and
frame certain dangerous and seditious Heads or Articles of a
petition to be presented to the parliament."
'For information regarding this Impeachment, I am indebted to Cuth-
bert Headlam, Esq., Secretary of the House of Lords. I have found no
report of it elsewhere than in the Journal of the House of Lords, Vol. V,
pages 59, 60, 62; Vol. VHI, page 289; Vol. XX, page 531; and in the Journal
of the House of Commons, Vol. II, pages 507, 557, 565, 700, 707.
* For information regarding this Impeachment, I am indebted to Cuth-
bert Headlam, Esq., Secretary of the House of Lords. I have found no
report of it elsewhere than in the Journal of the House of Lords, Vol. V,
pages 357, 360; and the Journal of the House of Commons, Vol. II pages
706, 763, 766, 768, 774-
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 119
2nd. That he did "wickedly and seditiously contrive and
rame a dangerous, scandalous and seditious petition, . . .
,nd by false and sinister suggestions, persuasions and solicita-
ions, caused the same to be voted and assented to in open court."
3rd. That he did "wickedly and seditiously publish the said
letition and caused . . . copies thereof to be dispersed
tiroughout the said county" of Kent.
4th. That he "did unlawfully, wickedly and maliciously
rocure many hands to the said petition; and did labour and
olicit divers of the inhabitants of the said county ... in
reat multitudes, to go along, with the said petition; intending
tiereby to have raised commotion and sedition amongst the
eople, ^nd to have awed the parliament."
Nothing further appears to have been done in this pro-
seding.
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR RICHARD GURNEY, 4
[owell's State Trials 159 (1642).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. As Lord Mayor of London, he did "proclaim and pub-
sh, or did cause and procure to be openly read and published
ithin the said City of London, and suburbs of the same, divers
legal proclamations, containing in them matters of dangerous
msequence, and contrary to the votes of both houses of parlia-
lent."
2nd. That he "did earnestly labour and endeavour to sup-
ress" the presentation of a certain petition to parliament and
iid threaten and menace the said petitioners, and imprisoned
ivers of them, contrary to the laws and statutes of this realm,
id contrary to the liberty of the subject."
3rd. That he contrived "to raise tumults and discords
ithin the said city and to make and increase the difference be-
?-een his majesty and the parliament" ; and he permitted divers
;rsons "to escape without due and deserved punishment."
4th. That when parliament directed "a great quantity of
ms and other ammunition should be laid into some store houses
ithin the said city for his majesty's service, ... he did,
a most obstinate and malicious manner, withstand, refuse or
dnsay the same, contrary to the order of both houses of par-
iment."
He was convicted and dismissed from his office, declared
capable of holding office in the City of London, or to bear
receive any further honour, and to be imprisoned in the Tower
London during the pleasure of the House of Lords.
120 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR THOMAS GARDINER, 4
Howell's State Trials 167 (1642). ,
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. That he did "wickedly advise, direct, and earnestly
press" the Lord Mayor, aldermen and councilman "to impose,
levy and take of the citizens and inhabitants, without their con-
sent, the illegal tax of ship money."
2nd. That he "did wickedly advise, and persuade the Lord
Mayor, aldermen and common council of London ... to
tax and levy on the said citizens and inhabitants without their
consent in parliament, a certain sum of money by way of loan
to furnish his majesty for his wars."
3rd. That he "did earnestly persuade and press the Lord
Mayor, aldermen and common council to impress, clothe and
conduct 200 men of the said citizens and inhabitants to serve
the king in his wars in the north, against his majesty's subjects
of Scotland."
4th. That knowing of the intention of certain citizens to
present a petition to his majesty, he "did reveal and disclose to
his majesty their counsel and intention of delivery of that peti-
tion and then told the persons appointed to deliver the same
petition, that his majesty would receive no petition from them."
5th. That he "laboured to hinder the calling of parliaments,
. . . and advised and persuaded the then Lord Mayor, al-
dermen and common council of London to lend the king £100,000
for his wars against his majesty's subjects of Scotland,"
6th. That he endeavoured "by threatening speeches to dis-
courage and terrify the petitioners from further proceeding in
their petition" to the Lords and Commons in parliament.
7th. That he "did most maliciously and wickedly advise
and direct the making and framing of two false and seditious
petitions, ... on .purpose to divert his majesty from as-
senting to the said ordinance and to wbrk a distraction in the
said city, and to bring the parliament, city and whole kingdom
into disorder and confusion."
Nothing further seems to have been done with this im-
peachment.
IMPEACHMENT OF HENRY HASTINGS, SIR
RICHARD HALFORD, SIR JOHN BALE, AND JOHN
PATE, ESQ., 4 Howell's State Trials 171 ; 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist.
1407 (1642).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 121
"Whereas . . . several warrants issued out, by order
>f both houses of parliament ... for the apprehending of
he said (respondents) ... for High Crimes and Misde-
neanors by them committed against the said houses of parlia-
nent, to answer the same before the said houses; they . . .
rell knowing the premises, and the said Richard Halford, Sir
ohn Bale and John Pate, being then, and yet, Justices of the
'eace of the said County, . . . wickedly and maliciously,
i^ithout warrant of law, did raise . . . forces of horse
,nd foot to the number of 300 persons, or thereabouts, . . .
nd many of them Papists, and them unlawfully assembled at
..oughborough in the said county of Leicester . . . being
rmed with swords and pikes; and with pistols, muskets and
arbines, ready charged with powder and bullets, and other habili-
tients of war, marched along in a warlike manner; with drums
leating, colours flying, and their matches lighted, to the great
error and , affrightment of his majesty's subjects, ... to
he intent to keep themselves from being arrested by the said
fficers of both houses of parliament; and in case they should
le arrested, then to rescue themselves by force. . . . That
ohn Chambers and James Stamford, being authorized there-
into . . . together with Archdale Palmer, Esq., then high
Jherifif of the said county of Leicester, and divers other persons
1 their aid and assistance, repaired to the said place to execute
he said warrants from both houses of parliament . . . and
ead them openly in the hearing of the said Henry Hastings,
tc, to yield obedience to the said warrants; which they refused
do ; but, instead thereof, they, and other their said adherents,
[id violently assault the said high sheriff. Chambers, and Stam-
ord, and rode upon them with their horses, ... to the
;reat danger of their lives: and the said Henry fastings, etc.,
\y force and arms, and in a warlike manner, at the time and
lace aforesaid, rescued themselves from the said officers and
heriflf, in contempt of justice, and to the high affront and scorn
■f parliament" . . .
"It does not appear that the Parties impeached ever put in an
Answer to these Articles, or that any further Proceedings were had
ipon them."
IMPEACHMENT OF LORD STRANGE, 4 Howell's
Itate Trials 173; 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 1466 (1642).
Charge: High Treason.
A single article of impeachment was presented, but noth-
ng further seems to have been done thereafter.
122 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
IMPEACHMENT OF JOHN BROCCAS, KEEPER OF
THE GATEHOUSE 3 (1642).
Charge: High Treason,, "for suffering Captain Legg, his
prisoner upon High Treason, to escape."
No articles of impeachment appear to have, been drawn,
but he pleaded not guilty, and was "committed close prisoner
to the Poultry Comptor."
He was in custody ten months and then admitted to bail.
No further mention is made of the case.
IMPEACHMENT OF THE NINE LORDS AT YORK,
VIZ., SPENCER, EARL OF NORTHAMPTON; WILLIAM,
EARL OF DEVONSHIRE; HENRY, EARL OF DOVER;
HENRY, EARL OF MONMOUTH; CHARLES, LORD
HOWARD OF CHARLTON; ROBERT, LORD RICH;
CHARLES, LORD GREY OF RUTHVEN; THOMAS,
LORD COVENTRY; AND ARTHUR, LORD CAPEL, 4
Howell's State Trials 176 (1642).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
No formal articles were presented, but the judgment of
the House of Lords shows that they were charged with disobedi-
ence to the orders of parliament, and with siding with the king
in his determination to make war on parliament.
They were sentenced to a refusal of the right to, sit or vote
in the present parliament, to be deprived of their privileges as
members of parliament, and to be imprisoned in the Tower dur-
ing the pleasure of the House of Lords.
IMPEACHMENT OF THE ARCHBISHOP LAUD, 4
Howell's State Trials 315 ; i Emlyn's State Trials 824; Salmon's
Abridgment of State Trials 198 (1642).
Charge: High Treason.
Fourteen specifications of the alleged treason were presented
to the Lords, most of which charged 'other things than treason
as at present understood, and subsequently further articles of
impeachment were presented against him for "High Treason and
divers High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
I. That he "traitorously and maliciously caused the said
parliament to be dissolved to the great grievance of his
majesty's subjects, and prejudice of this commonwealth."
"For information regarding this Impeachment, I am indebted to Cuth-
bert Headlam, Esq., Secretary of the House of Lords'. I have found no
report of it elsewhere than in the Journal of the House of Lords, Vol. V,
pages 392, 394, 576, 577; Vol. VI, pages 121, 131, 133, and the Journal of the
House of Commons, Vol. II, pages 798, 799.
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 123
2. That he "hath traitorously endeavoured to subvert the
undamental laws of this realm; and to. that end hath in like
lanner endeavoured to advance the power of the Council-Table,
nd Canons of the Church, and the king's prerogative, above the
iws and statutes of the realm."
3. That he hath "opposed and stopped the granting of his
lajesty's Writs of Prohibition, where the same ought to h,ave
een granted to stay proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court."
4. That he prevented the proper execution of judgment
gainst a certain person of bad life and conversation.
5. That "being then also a Privy-Counsellor to his
lajesty, he . . . caused Sir John Corbet of Stoke in the
ounty of Salop, baronet, then a justice of the peace of said
ounty, to be committed to the prison of the Fleet, where he
Dntinued prisoner for the space of half a year, or more, for
other cause, than for calling for the Petition of Right and
lusing it to, be read at the Sessions of the peace for that county,
pon a just and necessary occasion."
6. "That whereas divers gifts and dispositions of divers
jms of money were heretofore made by divers charitable and
^ll-disposed persons, ... he maliciously caused said gifts,
ioffments and conveyances made to the uses aforesaid to be
verthrown in his majesty'si Court of Exchequer, contrary to
LW, as things dangerous to the Church and State."
7. That he "hath wittingly and willingly received, har-
Dured and relieved divers Popish Priests and Jesuits, . . .
tid did also provide maintenance and entertainment for one
[onsieur S. Giles,, a Popish Priest, at Oxford, knowing him to
s a Popish Priest."
8. That he said " 'that there must be a blow given to the
hurch, such as had not yet been given, before it could be
rought to conformity,' declaring thereby his intention to be,
> shake and alter the true Protestant Religion established in the
hurch of England."
9. That he "caused a Synod or Convocation of the Clergy
> be held for the several provinces of Canterbury and York,
herein were made and established by his means and procurement
:vers Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical; contrary to the
ws of this realm, the right and privileges of parliament, the
Derty and property of the subject, tending also to sedition, and
t dangerous consequence."
10. That he "wickedly and maliciously advised his majesty
1 dissolve the said Parliament, and accordingly the same
as dissolved; and presently after the said Archbishop told his
ajesty 'That now he was absolved from all rules of govern-
124 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
ment, and left free to use of extraordinary Way's for his
Supply.' "
He was convicted, attainted and beheaded.
IMPEACHMENT OF HENRY GREY, EARL OF
STAMFORD, AND HIS SERVANTS, HENRY POLTON
AND MATTHEW PATSALL« (1645).
Charge: "Breach of the Privilege of this House (of Com-
mons) in assaulting Sir Arthur Haselrig, a member of this
House."
The single article of impeachment was as follows :
"The said Commons shew, that the said Earl of Stamford,
Henry Polton and Matthew Patsall, upon the twentieth day of
May, in the year of our Lord God One thousand Six hundred
and Forty-five, in the common Highway, leading from Perpoole
Lane to Clerkenwell in the County of Middlesex, without any
Injury, Offence or Provocation, to them given, and for Matters
and Things done in Parliament, did forcibly and unlawfully make
an assault upon Sir Arthur Haselrigg, Baronet, a Member of
the said House of Commons, then riding, in a peaceable Man-
ner, from the said House of Commons, unto his own Dwelling-
house in Islington, in the said County; and being then well
known by them the said Earl, Henry Polton, and Matthew Pat-
sall, to be a Member of the said House of Commons; and then
and there the said Earl, Henry Polton and Matthew Patsall, did
suddenly and unexpectedly, several times thrust and strike the
said Sir Arthur Heselrigg, with a drawn Sword, and other of-
fensive Instruments, against the publick Peace of this Kingdom;
to the high Breach of the privilege of the said House of Com-
mons, and to the great damage of the said Sir Arthur Hasel-
rigg-"
They answered that they were not guilty "in such manner
and form as the same are therein charged and alleged."
The two Houses got into a controversy because the Lords
decided that Polton might be examined as a witness "there being
nothing proved against him and Patsall for Matter of Fact."
Finally the Lords requested a conference with the Com-
mons, which was agreed to, but never held; and nothing fur-
ther seems to have been done,
'For information regarding this Impeachment, I am indebted to Cuth-
bert Headlam, Esq., Secretary of the House of Lords. I have found no
report of it elsewhere than in a note to 6 How, St. Tr. 797; and in the
Journal of the House of Lords, Vol. VII, pages 503, 614, 639, 643; Vol.
VIII, pages 4, 12, 60, 87; and the Journal of the House of Commons, Vol.
IV, pages 150, 152, 188.
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 125
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR JOHN GAYRE!, MAYOR
F THE CITY OF LONDON; THOMAS CULLAM,
LDERMAN AND ONE OF THE SHERIFFS' OF LON-
ON ; JAMES BUNCE, JOHN LANGHAM, AND THOMAS
DAMS, ALDERMAN OF LONDON, ET AL., 4 'Howell's
iate Trials 959; 3 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 877 (1647).
Charge : " High Treason.
After various proceedings were had, and before trial, by a
•rmal vote of the Commons and the Lords, it was determined
proceed no further against them and they should be dis-
larged. Accordingly they were discharged.
IMPEACHMENT OF DENZIL HOLLIS, ESQ.; SIR
HILIP STAPYLTON; SIR WILLIA]\^ LEWIS; SIR
DHN CLOTWORTHY; SIR WILLIAM WALLER; SIR
3HN MAYNARD; MAJOR GENERAL MASSEY; JOHN
LYNN, ESQ., RECORDER OF LONDON; WALTER
ONG, ESQ.; COL. EDWARD HARLEY, AND AN-
HONY NICOLL, ESQ., MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
OMMONS, 4 Howeirs State Trials 857; 3 Cobb. Pari. Hist.
54 (1647).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Though called an impeachment by Cobbett, this was in fact
complaint made to the House of Commons "in the name of
!s Excellency Sir Thomas Fairfax, and the Army under his com-
land." The Articles were 25 in number, and the eleven mem-
irs made answer thereto in and to the House of Commons,
/^hereupon July 20, 1647
"This day the 'commons gave leave to each of the 11 Mem-
jrs, accused by the Army, to follow his own occasions ; to as many
3 desired to go beyond the seas the Speaker was ordered to give
asses ; the time of the said leave not to exceed six months."
Nothing appears to have been done in the matter, so far as
Jates to ten of the members, but the next year the Commons sent
I the Lords, Articles in the
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR JOHN MAYNARD, 4
[owell's State Trials 914; 3 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 838 (1648).
Charge: High Treason and other High Crimes and Mis-
aneanors.
I St. "That the said Sir John Maynard hath maliciously and
aitorously endeavoured, combined and conspired to subvert
le freedom of parliament."
2nd. "That upon . . . divers days ... he hath
laliciously and traitorously, plotted and endeavoured to raise
tid levy war; and . . . hath maliciously and traitorously,
126 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
raised and levied war against the parliament, king and king-
dom."
3rd. "That ... a great company of Reformado
officers, soldiers, apprentices, and other dissolute and desperate
persons . . . did then and there, contrary to the honour and
freedom of parliament, threaten, and for divers hours, imprison
the said members so sitting in parliament ; . . . and did like-
wise, then and there, forcibly enter into the said houses of par-
liament, and forced the members of the said houses to pass such
votes as they, the said, tumultuous persons, then and there re-
Xjuired; and did then and there violently a.ssault the persons of
the Speakers and divers members of both houses then attending
on the parliament; and, by their violent menaces and assaults,
did force the said Speakers, and divers members, from their
attendance in parliament; . . . and did traitorously and
maliciously plot, contrive and order the raising of another Army
to embroil the kingdom in a new and bloody war ; and did, traitor-
ously and maliciously . . . order the levying, raising, list-
ing, arming and arraying several forces, both of horse and foot
for the maintenance of the said new and bloody war against the
king, parliament and kingdom." . . .
4th. "And in further pursuance of the said traitorous de-
signs and purposes, he the said John Maynard, knowing of the
said horrid force and violence, did (with others named) . . .
order, direct and cause to be raised 18 regiments ... to
be mustered, arrayed, armed and put into a warlike posture, in
the said war" . . .
5th. "That, ... he the said Sir John Ma3mard
. . . and others, in pursuance of his said traitorous plots and
contrivances, did traitorously order, command and appoint the
raising, seizing and listing of all horses, geldings, and mares
. . to be employed in the said new and bloody war" . . .
, 6th. "The said Sir John Maynard, with others . . . did
traitorously and command the officers of the Ordnance within the
Tower of London, to issue 400 barrels of powder, and 4000
muskets, and other arms, ammunition and provisions of war
. . . to be employed and used for the army and arraying of
the said Reformado officers and soldiers . . . and to be
employed for the destruction of said parliament's Army."
7th. "That ... in pursuance of their said traitorous
and malicious designs to embroil the kingdom in a new and
bloody war '. . . they did . . . cause a declaration
. . . reflecting on the authority and freedom of parliament
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 127
. . . to be published in all or most of the churches and
chapels within London and lines of communication."
He was arrested and committed to the Tower ; and upon re-
fusing to submit himself to a trial by the Lords, was fined £500,
and "committed to the Tower, there to be kept in safe custody
until the pleasure of the house further signified." The proceed-
ings against him were afterwards dropped, and he was restored
to his seat in the Commons.
IMPEACHMENT OF JAMES, EARL OF SUFFOLK;
FRANCIS, LORD WILLOUGHBY OF PARKHAM ; JOHN,
LORD HUNSDEN; WILLIAM, LORD MAY^ARD; THEO-
BALD, EARL OF LINCOLN; GEORGE, LORD BERKLEY,
AND JAMES, EARL OF MIDDLESEX, 4 Howell's State
Trials 984 (1647).
Charge : High Treason.
The Commons abandoned the proceedings and defendants
were "forthwith discharged from the restraint they laid under
on account of the said impeachment."
IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM DRAKE, 5 Howell's
State Trials 1364; 4 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 157 (1660).
Charge: "Printing and publishing a false, wicked, mali-
cious and seditious pamphlet."
"The said William Drake in contempt of his majesty's
:rown and dignity, and of the laws and government of this
kingdom, and out of a wicked and malicious intention to
scandalize and subvert the authority and being of this present
parliament, and to raise and stir up sedition and division in this
kingdom . . . hath lately . . . written, printed and
published in the name of one Thomas Phillips, gentleman, a
:ertain false, wicked, malicious, and seditious pamphlet intituled
The Long Parliament Revived.' ... In which said scan-
ialous and seditious pamphlet the said Drake" made many wicked
md untrue expressions alleged to be of the character aforesaid.
The defendant was apprehended and brought before the
Lords, "and he, confessing his fault, the Lords, in consideration
jf the shortness of time for proceeding further in this business,
eft him to be prosecuted in the King's Bench by the Attorney
general ; where what further was done with him we know not."
IMPEACHMENT OF EDWARD, EARL OF CLAREN-
DON, LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND, 6
aowell's State Trials 291; 4 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 276 ; "Salmon's
Abridgment of State Trials 302 (1663).
128 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
Charge: High Treason and other High Crimes and Mis-
demeanors.
i^ "That being in a place of highest trust and confidence
with his majesty and having arrogated a supreme direction in all
his majesty's affairs, both at home and abroad, hath wickedly
and maliciously, and with a traitorous intent to draw scandal and
contempt upon his majesty's person and to alienate from him the
affections of his subjects, abused the said trust," by acciising the
king of being inclined to popery, and of assisting the papists.
2. "That in pursuance of the same traitorous design, several
near friends and, known dependences of his said, aloud, that were
it not for my lord chancellor's standing in the gap, popery
would be introduced in this kingdom, or words to that effect."
3. "That in pursuance of the aforesaid traitorous design, he
has not only advised and persuaded the King to do such things
contrary to his own reason and resolutions as might confirm and
increase the scandal, . . . but more particularly to allow his
name to be used to the pope and several cardinals in the solicita-
tion of a cardinal's cap for the lord of Aubigny, one of his own
subjects, and great Almoner at present to his royal consort the
queen."
4. "That in pursuance of the same wicked and traitorous
design, he had recommended to be employed to the pope one of
his own domestics, . . . known to be trusted and employed
by him in dispatches and negotiations concerning affairs of great
concernment to the nation."
5. "That in pursuance of the said traitorous design he being
chief minister of state, did himself write ... to several
cardinals pressing them in the king's name to induce the pope to
confer a Cardinal's cap on the said Lord Aubigny, promising,
in case it should be attained, exemption to the Roman Catholics
of England from the penal laws in force against them."
6. "That in pursuance of the same traitorous design, he
has called unto him several priests and Jesuits, ... to give
their help for the obtaining from the pope the Cardinal's cap for
the lord Aubigny, as aforesaid, promising great favour to the
Papists here, in case it should be effected for him."
7. "That he hath promised to several papists he would do
his endeavour, and said, he hoped to, compass the taking away all
penal laws against them, which he did in pursuance of the
traitorous design aforesaid." ,
8. "That in pursuance of the same traitorous design being
entrusted with the treaty betwixt his majesty and his royal con-
sort the queen, he concluded it upon articles scandalous and
dangerous to the Protestant religion."
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 129
9. "That in pursuance of the same traitorous design, he con-
ded the same marriage, and brought the king and queen
;ether, without any settled agreement in what manner the
;s of marriage should be performed."
10. That "having thus traitorously endeavoured to alienate
: affections of his majesty's subjects from him upon the score
religion, he hath endeavoured to make use of all the malicious
ndals and jealousies which he and his emissaries had raised in
majesty's subjects, to raise from them unto himself the popu-
applause of being the zealous upholder of the Protestant
igion and a promoter of new severities against Papists."
The charges in this case were presented by the Earl of Bristol
i not by the House of Commons, and were referred by the
)use of Lords "to the Lord Chief Justice; who with all the
t of the judges are to consider whether the said Charge hath
;n brought in regularly and legally, and . . . whether
:re be any treason in it or no." The judges reported and the
rds dismissed the articles of impeachment, because they "can-
: by the laws^and statutes of this realm be originally exhibited
one peer against another unto the House of Lords, . . .
i if the matters alleged in the said charge were admitted to be
e, although alleged to be traitorously done, yet there is no
ason in it."
IMPEACHMENT OF JOHN, LORD VISCOUNT MOR-
i.UNT, 6 Howeirs State Trials 786; 4 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 348
566).
Chai"ge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1. That he prevented one William Tayleur, a faithful sub-
t of his majesty, from standing "for the election of one of
burgesses of the borough of Windsor, to serve in this present
liament," and did eject him from his residence, arrest and
cibly detain him, "refusing to accept £2000 bail then proffered
his enlargement."
2. That when he was told that said Tayleur "was the king's
vant, and had the king's Great Seal for his place as well as he,
said Lord Mordaunt, had for his," in high contempt for his
jesty's royal authority and Great Seal, replied : "He would dis-
e of the said Mr. Tayleur's places, break the Great Seal, and
tify what he had done."
3. That he "made sundry uncivil addresses to the daughter
the said William Tayleur, which she rejecting, and threaten-
to make the viscount's lady acquainted with them, the
130 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
said viscount swore, by a most dreadful oath and imprecation,
he would persecute her and her family to all eternity."
4. That " by order of the said Viscount Mordaunt, the said
William Tayleur was forcibly and illegally dispossessed, by
soldiers, of certain rooms in the Timber yard belonging to the
said Castle, without the walls thereof, claimed by the said Wil-
liam Tayleur as belonging to his office of paymaster and sur-
veyor of the said castle."
5. "That by a warrant, obtained from his majesty by untrue
suggestions and misinformations," he caused again the arrest
of the said Tayleur and "continued and illegally detained him
prisoner during the space of 20 weeks, and 5 thereof a close
prisoner, not permitting him to go to church though he desired
it, and locking him up every night, and refused to receive bail
for him."
6. "That the said Lord Mordaunt during the said William
Tayleur's imprisonment, illegally refused to return and obey an
Habeas Corpus brought by the said Mr. Tayleur for his enlarge-
ment . . . and continued the said Mr. Tayleur divers weeks
after a prisoner till set at liberty upon a Pluries Habeas Corpus,
by his majesty's Court of King's Bench."
7. That he threatened the said William Tayleur that "he
would imprison him again and again, and keep him prisoner as
long as he lived, and likewise turn him out of all his employ-
ments and offices, and dispose of them to others as he pleased,
by reason of which threats and menaces the said William Tayleur
was enforced to desert wife, family and employments, at the said
Borough of Windsor and to obscure himself elsewhere, till this
present session of parliament, to prevent future illegal imprison-
ments by the said viscount."
"But the whole of this dispute was put an end to by the
king's . . . proroguing the parliament."
IMPEACHMENT OF LORD CHIEF JUSTICE SIR
JOHN KEELING OR KELYNG, 4 Hatsell's Precedents 113
(1667).
Charge : Illegal and Arbitrary Proceedings in his Office.
He was heard in his defence, whereupon the Commons
resolved, "That they will proceed no further in the matter against
him."
IMPEACHMENT OF EDWARD HYDE, EARL OF
CLARENDON, 6 Howell's State Trials 291 ; 4 Cobb. Pari. Hist.
337 (1667).
Charge: High Treason.
The Lords refused to take him into custody
"because the House of Commons have 6nly accused him of treason
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 131
general; and have not assigned or specified any particular
ison.
The Commons insisted that a general charge of treason wa^
iicient. The Lords refused to recede. The Earl fled, and was
reupon banished by Act of Parliament. He died in France.
IMPEACHMENT OF PETER PETT, 6 Howell's State
als 866; 4 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 408 (i568).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1. "That the said Peter Pett, being one of the Commis-
lers of the Navy . . . and having received orders requir-
him, in pursuance of his trust, to bring and moor his majesty's
[), called the Royal Charles, and other ships, did contrary
his trust and orders, wilfully neglect and refuse so to do,
ereby the said ship . . . became lost, and made a prey
the enemy."
2. On being directed "to cause the ship to be immediately
ught up as high as he could, into a place of safety, he the
i Pett altogether neglected the doing thereof."
3. "That Captain Brooks . • . knowing (of the) ex-
ss orders to cause the said Royal Charles to be brought up"
pared so to do ; "and desired the said Pett to give him orders
so doing; which he refused so to do."
4. "That his royal highness having given orders to the said
;t to provide and make ready, thirty boats for the defence of
said river and navy ; he the said Peter Pett, contrary to his
3t, did not only himself misemploy some of the said boats,
the carrying away some of his own particular goods, but
fered the rest to be misemployed and diverted."
5. That being advised "that the Dutch were out, and (given)
cial charge to command all captains on land to their ships;
, . he the said Pett was so negligent therein, that out of
I persons or upwards, that were under his care and command,
. there were not above ten ready upon the invasion of
enemy."
6. "That the said Lord General having appointed soldiers
raise batteries for the defence of his majesty's navy royal,
, he the said Pett, to obstruct the service, refused to give
n the number of tools required for the use aforesaid; not-
hstanding he had a sufficient quantity in his majesty's stores."
7. "That the said Lord General . . . sent said orders
:he said Peter Pett to send, out of his majesty's yards, some
en planks for the platforms and batteries to oppose the enemy ;
the said Peter Pett sent only deal boards; which were very
judicial to the service, for that upon the discharge of the guns,
rarriap-es broke throueh the planks; notwithstanding that
132 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
there were in his majesty's yards there several oaken planks, fit
for their service."
"It does not appear that this matter proceeded further."
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR WILLIAM PENN, KNIGHT,
6 Howell's State Trials 869; 4 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 409 (1668).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1. That being Vice Admiral of his majesty's fleet, he "did
for his singular lucre, and with intent to share the same, con-
spire and advise with several persons, to open the holds" of cer-
tain of his majesty's "ships, divers and sundry times, before
judgment thereof first passed the admiralty, court, and from
thence to take out and embezzle great quantities of rich goods,
whereby his majesty was defrauded. to the value of £115,000
or thereabouts, besides great quantities of jewels and other rich
commodities, of which no certain estimate can be made."
2. That he conspired with certain people to break open and
take out of the ship Slothony, "several bales of silk, mace and
other goods to a great value, and carried. them away; and after-
wards, at several other times, caused the hatchways of said ship
to be broken open, after they were closed and sealed up ; at every
of which times he took and carried away great quantities of rich
goods."
3. That "he the said William Penn got a considerable part
of the said goods into his possession and converted them to his
own use (and later) did sell divers parcels of the said goods, and
further warranted the sale thereof."
4. That "the better to colour the said fraud and embezzle-
ment, orders were obtained from the Earl of Sandwich, . . .
for the taking and distributing of some of the said goods among
several officers, whereof the said Sir William Penn was one;
. . . although he the said Sir William Penn very well knew
that the said orders of him the said Earl of Sandwich were void,
. . . and afterward a warrant . . . was unduly pro-
cured from his majesty for distributing the said goods, whereas
in truth he the said Sir William Penn had before the said war-
rant of his majesty, possessed himself of divers of the said
goods, and sold and warranted the same."
Penn filed his answer, a copy thereof was sent to the House
of Commons, which referred the answer to a committee, but "it
does not appear that this committee made any report, or that this
matter proceeded further."
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 133
IMPEACHMENT OF THE EARL OF ORRERY, 6
jwell's State Trials 913 ; 4 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 434 '(1669).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
No formal articles appear in the report, but it said that they
iitained "in substance, raising of money by his own authority,
>n his majesty's subjects ; defrauding the king's subjects of their
ates. The money raised was for bribing hungry courtiers to
me to his ends, and if the king would not, he had 50,000
ords to compel him."
The earl filed an answer to the articles, which is set forth
the report.
The Commons then "resolved, 'that this accusation against
; Flarl of Orrery be left to be prosecuted at law.' "
IMPEACHMENT OF THE EARL OF ARLINGTON.
IINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE, 4 Hatsell's Pre-
ients 138; 4 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 650 (1673).
Charge: "Treasonable and other Crimes of High Mis-
tneanors."
Articles were prepared by the Commons but are not given
the report.
What was afterwards done does not appear, except that
;timony was taken by a committee of the House of Commons.
IMPEACHMENT OF HENRY BENNETT, EARL OF
iLINGTON, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE, 6
swell's State Trials 1053; 4 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 658 (1673).
Charge: "Treason and other High Crimes and Mis-
tneanors."
1st. "That thfe said earl hath been a constant, and most
bement promoter of Popery and Popish counsels, i. By pro-
ring commissions for all the Papists lately in command, and
10 made their applications to him, as a known favourer of tha,t
;tion. ... 2. By procuring his majesty's letter, com-
mding Irish Papists and rebels to be let into corporations, and
mitted into the commissions of the peace, and other offices of
1st military and civil, contrary to (law). . . . 3. By not
ly setting up and supporting the Papists there, but bringing the
(St violent and fiercest of them to command companies and
riments. . . . 4- By openly and avowedly entertaining
i lodging in his family a Popish priest. . . . 5. By prp-
■ing pensions, in other men's names, for Papist officers
6. By obtaining several grants of considerable sums
money, to be charged upon the revenue of Ireland, for the
134 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
most violent and pernicious Papists there. . . . 7- By pro-
curing his majesty to release several Irish Papists." . . .
2nd. "That the said earl hath been guilty of many and
undue practices to promote his own greatness ; and hath embezzled
and wasted the treasure of the nation, i. By procuring vast and
exorbitant grants for himself. . . . 2. By charging exces-
sive and almost incredible sums for false and deceitful intelli-
gence. 3. By procuring his majesty's hand for the giving away,
between his first entrance into his office, the value of 3 millions
of sterling money at the least. 4. That the said earl . . .
hath causelessly and illegatlly imprisoned many of his majesty's
subjegts. 5. That he did procure a principal peer of this realm
to be imprisoned, and to be proclaimed traitor, without any legal
proceed or trial; and did maliciously suborn false witness, with
money, to take away his life, upon pretence of treasonable
words."
3rd. "That the said .earl hath falsely and traitorously be-
trayed the great trust reposed in him, by his majesty, as counsel-
lor and principal Secretary of State, i . By entertaining a more
than usual intimacy with the French ambassador. . . .
2. By altering in private, and singly by himself, several solemn
determinations of his majesty's councils. 3. By procuring a
stranger to have the chief command of -the late raised army, for
invasion of Holland. ... 4. By advising his majesty to
admit of a squadron of French ships to be j dined with our Eng-
lish fleet. ... 5. Whereas the king was advised by several
of his council to press the French king to desist from making any
further progress in his conquest of the inland town of Holland
. . . his lordship gave the king counsel to desist. . . .
7. When the French ships were dispersed after the late fight at sea,
and had lost their anchors and cables ... he persuaded
his majesty to send them fourscore cables and anchors. . . .
8. He hath traitorously corresponded with the king's ene-
mies. . . ."
The earl was heard in person before the House of Commons,
whereupon the matter was "referred to a committee, and that
they report what matter is therein contained, and can be proved,
that is fit for an impeachment."
"Nothing further appears to have been done in this accusa-
tion."
IMPEACHMENT OF THE FIVE POPISH LORDS,
VIZ.: THE EARL OF POWIS, LORD VISCOUNT STAF-
FORD, LORD PETRE, LORD ARUNDEL OF WARDOUR,
AND LORD BELLASYSE, 7 Howell's State Trials 1218; 3
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 13S
nlyn's State Trials loi ; Salmon's Abridsrment of. State Trials
6 (1678).
Charge: High Treason.
This appears to be the first case in which the proper practice
the trial is set forth. Lord, Stafford was convicted and
ecuted. The impeachments as to the other four lords were
nulled and they and their bail discharged.
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR FRANCIS NORTH, CHIEF
ISTICE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 8
swell's State Trials 211 ; 4 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 115; 4 Hatselfs
ecedentsii5 (1680).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
It was alleged that he "was advising and assisting in the
iwing and passing of 'A Proclamation Against Tumultuous
titions.' " Evidence was taken before the Commons, which
:ided that there "is sufficient ground for this .House to proceed
on an impeachment against him," and the heads of an impeach-
;nt were ordered to be prepared. Later the committee having
charge the matter of the impeachment against him, Sir Thomas
nes, one of the justices of the .Court of King's Bench, and Sir
chard Weston, one of the barons of the Court of Exchequer,
re ordered to bring in such impeachments with all convenient
:ed.
What, if anything, was done thereafter, does not appear.
IMPEACHMENT OF RICHARD PORE, EARL OF
!'RONE, 4 Hatsell's Precedents, 118, 397 (1680).
Charge: High Treason.
"No articles brought up. The parliament prorogued two
fs after; so no further proceedings."
IMPEACHMENT OF EDWARD SEYMOUR, ESQ., A
2MBER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND TREAS-
lER OF THE NAVY, 8 Howell's State Trials 127; 4 Cobb,
rl. Hist. 1222 (1680).
Charge: High Crimes, Misdemeanors and Offences.
1st. "Thai whereas the sum of £584,978, 2s. 2d. was
sed by an act of parliament for the speedy building of .30 ships
war ... by which act it was particularly directed, 'That
treasurer of the navy should keep all moneys paid to him by
tue of said act, distinct and apart from all other moneys
. .' the said Edward Seymour . . . being then treas-
r of the navy, did, contrary to the said act, and contrary to
duty of his said office lend the sum of £90,000 at 8 per cent.,
136 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
parcel of the said sum, raised- by the said act, being then in his
hands, for and towards the support and continuance of the army
then raised, after such time as by an act of parliament the said
army ought to have been disbanded."
2nd. "That, whereas an act of parliament had passed for
raising money by a poll, for enabling his majesty to enter into
an actual war against the French king . . . and whereas
certain Eastland merchants were desired by his majesty's officers
to furnish and support great quantities of stores for the navy,
and, as an encouragement thereunto, were assured that the sum
of £40,060 parcel of the said moneys raised by the said act, was
at that time actually in the hands of the said Edward Seymour ;
which he did acknowledge so to be, and did promise that the
said sum should be paid to the said merchants, in part of satis-
faction for the said stores, which they did furnish upon the
credit of the same affirmation and undertaking: He, the said
Edward Seymour, did, . . . issue out and pay the said sum
to the victuallers of the navy, by way of advance, and for provi-
sions not then brought in, contrary to the true intent and mean-
ing of the said act."
3rd. "That the said Edward Seymour, being treasurer of
the navy and . . . Speaker of the late Long Parliament
(did) receive out of the moneys appropriated for secret service,
the yearly sum of £3000 over and above his . . . salary
which was constantly paid to him, as well during the intervals
as the sessions of parliament."
4th. That "during a war with the States-general of the
United Netherlands, he, the said Edward Seymour, being then
one of the commissioners for prize goods, did fraudulently, un-
lawfully, and in deceit of his majesty, unlade a certain prize ship,
taken from the subjects of the said states, without any order or
authority from the same; . . . and did afterwards sell the
same, pretending the same to have been only Muscovado Sugars,-
and did account with his majesty for the same as such; whereas,
in truth, the said .ship was laden with Cochineal and Indigo, rich
merchandizes of a great value."
Answers were duly filed and a date for trial fixed.
"Two days after this the parliament was prorogued by his
majesty to the 20th of January and soon after was dissolved."
IMPEACHMENT OF LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
SCROGGS AND OTHER JUDGES, 8 Howell's State Trials
163; 4 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 1274; 7 Emlyn's State Trials 470
(1680).
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 137
Charge: "High Treason and other great Crimes and Mis-
meanors."
1st. "That he the said WilHam Scroggs, then being Chief
istice of the Court of King's Bench, hath traitorously and
ickedly endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws, and the
tablished religion and government of this kingdom of England ;
id, instead thereof, to introduce Popery, and arbitrary and
rannical government against law."
2nd. That he "in pursuance of his said traitorous purposes,
d, together with the rest of the justices of the same court
. . in an arbitrary manner, discharge the Grand Jury
. . before they had made their presentments, or had found
ve'ral bills of indictment, which were then before them : . . .
r which sudden and illegal discharge of the said jury, the course
; justice was stopped maliciously and designedly; the present-
ents of many Papists, and other offenders, were obstructed;
id, in particular, a bill of indictment against James, Duke of
ork, for absenting himself from church, which was then before
em was prevented from being proceeded upop."
3rd. "That, whereas one Henry Carr had, for some time
;fore, published every week a certain book . . . wherein
e superstitions and cheats of the Church of Rome, were from
ne to time exposed; he the said Sir William Scroggs, then
bief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, together with the
her judges of the said court, before any legal conviction of the
id Carr of any crime, did ... in a most illegal and
•bitrary manner, make, and cause to be entered, a certain rule
• that court against the printing of the said book . . . and
d cause the said Carr, and divers printers and other persons
' be served with the same; which said rule and oth^r proceed-
gs, were most apparently contrary to all justice, in condemning
)t only what had been written without hearing the parties, but
so all that might for the future be written on that subject; a
anifest countenancing of Popery and discouragement of Prot-
tants, an open invasion upon the rights of the subject, and an
icroaching and assuming to themselves a legislative power and
ithority."
4th. "That he, the said Sir William Scroggs, since he was
ade Chief Justice of the King's Bench, hath, together with the
her judges of the said court, most notoriously departed from-
1 rules of justice and equality, in the imposition of fines upon
;rsons' convicted of misdemeanors in the said court . . .
It have been manifestly partial and favorable to Papists, aM\
arsons affected to, and promoting the Popish interest, in this
138 ENGLISH 'IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
time of imminent danger from them ; and at the same time have
most severely and grievously oppressed his majesty's Protestant
subjects; ... by which arbitrary, injurious and partial
proceedings, many of his' majesty's liege-people have been ruined,
and Popery countenanced under colour of justice; and all the
mischiefs and excesses of the court of Star Chamber, by act of
parliament suppressed, have been again, in direct opposition of
the said law, introduced."
Sth. "That he the said William Scroggs, for the further
accomplishing of hjs said traitorous and wicked purposes, and
designing to subject the persons, as well as the estates of his
majesty's liege people, to his lawless will and pleasure, hath fre-
quently refused to accept of bail, though the same were sufficient,
and legally tendered to him by many persons accused before him
only of such crimes for which by law bail ought to have been
taken, and divers of the said persons being only accused of
offences against himself; . . . which proceedings . . .
are a high breach of the liberty of the subject, destructive of the
fundamental laws of this realm, contrary to the Petition of
Right, and other statutes; and do manifestly tend to the intro-
ducing of arbitrary power."
6th. "That he . . . hath, since his being made Chief
Justice of the said court of JCing's Bench, in an arbitrary manner,
granted divers general warrants fo^r attaching the persons and
seizing the goods of his majesty's subjects, not named or de-
scribed particularly in the said warrants: By means whereof
many of his majesty's subjects have been v^xed, their houses
entered into,. and they themselves grievously oppressed, contrary
to law."
7th. "Whereas there hath been a horrid and damnable plot
contrived and carried on by the Papists, for the murdering the
king, the subversion of the laws and government of this kingdom,
and for the destruction of the Protestant religion; . . .
nevertheless, the said Sir William Scroggs did . . . openly
defame and scandalize several of the witnesses, who have proved
the said treasons, . . . and did endeavour to disparage their
evidence, and take ofif their credit; whereby, as much as in him
lay, he did traitorously and wickedly suppress and stifle the dis-
covery of the said Popish Plot."
Sth. That "the said Sir William Scroggs being advanced to
be Chief Justice ... by his frequent and notorious excesses
and debaucheries and his profane and atheistical discourses, doth
daily affront Almighty God, dishonour his majesty, give counte-
nance and encouragement to all manner of vice and wickedness,
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 139
,d bring the highest scandal on the public justice of the king- '
m."
An answer was filed, but the case vjras not tried, parliament
ing shortly afterwards dissolved,
IMPEACHMENT OF EDWARD FITZHARRIS, 8
owell's, State Trials 224; Salmon's Abridgment of State Trials
9 (1681).
Charge: High Treason.
No formal articles appear to have been filed against him,
It the House of Lords resolved that he "should be proceeded
ith according to the courts of common law and not by way of
ipeachment in parliament at this time."
Thereupon theHouse of Commons "resolved, that it is the
idoubted right of the Commons in parliament assembled, to
apeach before the Lords in Parliament, any peer or Commoner
>r treason or any other crimes or misdemeanors; and that the
ifusal of the Lords to proceed in parliament upon such Impeach-
ent is a denial of justice, and a violation of the constitution of
irliaments. ... '
"Resolved, that for any inferior court to proceed against
dward Fitzharris, or any other person lying under an impeach-
ent in parliament for the same crimes for which he or they
and impeached, is a high breach of the privilege of parlia-
ent."
"Immediately after these proceedings . . . the parlia-
lent was dissolved."
He was subsequently indicted for high treason, convicted
id executed.
IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS, EARL OF DANBY,
ND LORD HIGH TREASURER OF ENGLAND, 11
[owell's State Trials 600; 4 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 693; Salmon's
.bridgment of State Trials 330 (1678).
Charge : "High Treason and other High Crimes and Mis-
emeanors."
1. "That he hath traitorously encroached to himself Regal
ower, by treating in matters of peace and war with foreign
linisters and ambassadors, and giving instructions to his
lajesty's ambassadors abroad, without communicating the same
) the secretaries of state, and the rest of his majesty's council."
2. "That he hath traitorously endeavoured to subvert the
ticient and well established form of government in this kingdom,
id instead thereof to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical way
£ government."
140 ENGLISH IMPEACIfMENT TRIALS
3. "That he traitorously intending and designing to alienate
the hearts and affections of his majesty's good subjects from
his royal person and government, and to hinder the meetings of
parliaments, and to deprive his sacred majesty of their safe and
wholesome counsel, and thereby to alter the constitution of the
government of this kingdom, did propose and negotiate a peace
for the French king, upon terms disadvantageous to the interest
of his majesty and his kingdoms." ,
4. "That he is Popishly affected, and hath traitorously con-
cealed (after he had notice) the late horrid and bloody Plot and
conspiracy, contrived by the Papists against his majesty's person
and government."
5. "That he hath wasted the king's treasure, by issuing out
of his majesty's exchequer several branches of his revenue for
unnecessary pensions and secret services, to the value of £23 1 ,602
within two years; and that he hath wholly diverted out of the
known method and government of the exchequer, one whole
branch of his majesty's revenue to private uses, without any
account to be made of it to his majesty."
6. "That he hath by indirect means procured from his
majesty to himself divers considerable gifts and grants of inheri-
tance of the ancient revenue of the crown, even contrary to acts
of parliament."
He pleaded a pardon of the king, the efficacy of which the
Commons denied, and demanded that the Lords proceed to trial.
Knowing and hearing of that demand the king appeared in per-
son and prorogued and afterwards dissolved parliament.
The earl, however, remained in prison in the Tower, from
which he was released on Habeas Corpus by the Court of King's
Bench, upon entering bail in the sum of £40,000 upon condition
that he "appear in the House of Lords the next session of parlia-
ment and not depart without leave of that court."
The case, however, was never brought to trial.
IMPEACHMENT OF SIR ADAM BLAIR, CAPTAIN
HENRY VAUGHAN, CAPTAIN FREDERICK MOLE,
JOHN ELLIOTT, DOCTOR IN, PHYSIC, AND ROBERT
GRAY, DOCTOR IN PHYSIC, 12 Howell's State Trials 1208;
S Cobb. Pari. Hist. 360 (1689).
Charge: High Treason.
The defendants were not tried. Parliament was dissolveid,
and the question was left open for consideration "Whether Im-
peachments continued from Parliament to Parliament." In the
next session of parliament, the defendants "were, upon their own
petition, discharged from their bail."
. ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 141
IMPEACHMENT OF JAMES, EARL OF SALISBURY,
ND HENRY, EARL OF PETERSBOROUGH, 12 Howell's
ate Trials 1234 (1689).
.Charge: High Treason.
Parliament having been dissolved before the case was tried,
e defendants were admitted to bail, and the next parliament
scharged them from their bail, which ended the proceeding.
IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS, LORD CONINGSBY
ND SIR CHARLES PORTER, 12 Howell's State Trials
!8o; 5 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 816 (1693).
Charge: High Treason.
The House of Commons refused, by formal vote, to pro-
ed with the impeachment, which had been presented to it by
e Earl of Bellamont.
IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS, DUKE OF LEEDS, 13
owell's State Trials 1263; 5 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 937 (1695).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. That he did "corruptly and illegally treat, contract
id agree, with (certain) merchants or their agents, for 5500
lineas to procure (for them a) charter of , confirmation, and
so a charter of regulations, or to use his endeavours to obtain
e same."
2nd. "That in pursuance of said corrupt contract and agree-
ent (he) did . .' . receive or accept, from the said mer-
lants or their agents, certain notes or securities whereby he or
ey were empowered to receive said 5500 guineas upon the
issing of the said charters."
3rd. That 2500 guineas "part of the said 5500; and soon
ter the passing of the said charter of regulations, the further
im of 3000 guineas, other part of said 5560 guineas (were)
:tually received by the said duke of Leeds or by his agents or
rvants, with his privity and consent."
The duke answered the articles, and the matter was unacted
)on by the House of Commons during two parliaments, where-
)on the House of Lords ordered "That the said impeachment
id the articles exhibited against him, be dismissed."
IMPEACHMENT OF JOHN GOUDET, DAVID BAR-
AN PETER LONGUEVILLE, STEPHEN SEIGNORTT,
ENE BANDOVIN, NICOLAS SANTINI AND PEtER
IHARCE, MERCHANTS, AND JOHN PIERCE,
ENTLEMAN, 5 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 1175 (1698).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
142 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
1st. "That (they and others named) . . . not weigh-
ing or considering the protection and privileges they have enjoyed
under the government, nor any ways regarding the many good
and wholesome laws and statutes, made for encouraging the
manufactures, and preventing the exportation of the coin and
wool of this kingdom ; . . . but minding and intending, for
their own private lucre and advantage, to render all those good
and beneficial laws of no force and effect ; did associate, combine,
and confederate, with . . . divers other evil disposed per-
sons, to carry on a traffic with France, during . the late war ;
thereby to exhaust the treasure of this nation, to lessen the value
of the native commodities, and to destroy the manufactures
thereof, to the general detriment of this kingdom."
2nd. "That, to compass and effect these their pernicious
designs and intentions, they . . . did, during the said war,
set up, and carry on, a Correspondence with several persons in
France, and give intelligence to the enemy, of the state and con-
dition of this realm."
3rd. "That they . . . did, during the said war, import,
and cause to be imported, into this kingdom, several great quan-
tities of goods and commodities, of the growth, product, and
manufacture of France."
4th. "That they ... by the same vessels which im-
ported the said French goods, did export, and cause to be
exported, and carried into France, great quantities of the wool
grown in this kingdom."
5th. "That they . . . did privily convey, and cause to
be conveyed, from justice, divers criminals out of this kingdom."
6th. "Whereas . . . divers good and wholesome laws
have been made, that no person should presume to deal in black
alamodes or lustrings, not having the mark or seal on them, used
for foreign goods at the custom house, or the seal or mark used
by the lustring 'company ; . . . for the more easy vending
and uttering of the said alamodes and lustrings, which they had
so fraudulently imported from France, did make and counter-
feit, and cause to be made and counterfeited, divers seals and
marks used for foreign goods at the custom house ; and did affix
several of the said counterfeit seals and marks to divers pieces
of alamodes and lustrings, imported from France, as aforesaid."
Answers were filed, and afterwards "eight of them confessed
themselves guilty" and were fined f looo to £10,000 each, and it
was
"ordered that they should be imprisoned in Newgate, until they
had paid their respective fines."
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 143
Peter Longueville, the other defendant, is not mentioned in
; judgment or sentence.
(In 4 Haskell's Precedents 236, 256-260, this impeachment
spoken of as of William Goudet et al.)
IMPEACHMENT OF JOHN AURIOLL AND JOHN
JMAISTRE,^ (1698).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. "That the said John Dumaistre and John AurioU, not
ighing or considering the protection and privileges they have
joyed under this government, nor any ways regarding the many
od and wholesome laws and statutes made for encouraging the
mufactures, and preventing the exportation of the coin
d wool of this kingdom, and the holding Correspondence with
ance during the late war ; but minding and intending, for their
rn private lucre and advantage, to render all those good and
aeficial Laws of no Force and Effect; did . . . associate,
mbine, and confederate, with Stephen Seignoret, John Goudet,
rdinand Ravand, Peter Barrailleau, and divers other evil-
iposed Persons, to carry on a traffic with France during the
e war, thereby to exhaust the treasure of this Nation, to lessen
; Value of the native Commodities, and to destroy the Manu-
:tures thereof, to the general Detriment of the Kingdom."
2nd. "That, to compass and effect these their pernicious
:signs and Intentions, they the said John Dumaistre and John
u-ioU did, during the said war, set up and carry on a Corre-
jndence with several Persons in France."
3rd. "That they the said John Dumaistre and John AurioU
1 during the said war, import, and cause to be imported, into
s' Kingdom, several great Quantities of Goods and Commod-
es of the Growth, Product, and Manufacture of France."
AurioU went to Holland, Du Maistre was arrested, pleaded
ilty and was fined £1000,. and ordered to be imprisoned in
;wgate, until the fine was paid.
IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM, EARL OF PORT-
END, 14 Howell's State Trials 234; 5 Emlyn's State Trials
9; Salmon's Abridgment of State Trials 744 (1701).
Charge ; High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
He was formally impeached at the bar of the Lords on April
1 70 1, but no Articles of Impeachment having been presented
the Commons up to June 24, 1701, the Lords on that day
iered
'For informatioH regarding this Impeachment, I am indebted to Cuth-
t Headlam, Esq., Secretary of the House of Lords. I have found no
ort of it elsewhere than in a note in 14 How. St. Tr. 276, and in the
mals of the Lords and Commons.
144 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
"Th^t the Impeachment against William, Earl of Portland, shall
be,, and it is hereby dismissed, there being no Articles exhibited
against him."
IMPEACHMENT OF EDWARD, EARL OF OXFORD,
14 Howell's State Trials 241 ; 5 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 1257; 5 Emlyn's
State Trials 339; Salmon's Abridgment of State Trials 744
(1701).
Charge : High Crime.s and Misdemeanors.
1st. That "the said Earl being then of his majesty's most
honorable privy Council ... in violation of his duty and
trust, hath procured from his majesty one or more grant or
grants, of several manors, messuages, lands, tenements, and
hereditaments, within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, or
elsewhere within his majesty's dominions ... of a great
yearly value ... to his own use, the profits whereof he
now enjoys; whereby the standing revenues of the crown of
England, which ought to be applied to the service of the public,
are greatly diminished, and the people of England thereby
burdened with debts, and subjected to grievous taxes."
2nd. "That in breach of the trust reposed in him ., . .
the said Earl did receive great sums of the public money, issued
out to him for the service of the navy, which he hath converted
to his own private use."
3rd. That he "did receive from the said King (of Spain)
and others, considerable sums of money, ^nd great quantities of
wine, oil, and other provisions for the fleet to a very great value,
for all which he ought to have accounted ; but the said Earl did
convert the same to his own use."
4th. That he "hath clandestinely, contrary to the law of
nations, sold and disposed of several vessels, with their ladings
and cargo taken, under pretence of prize, by his majesty's ships
of war, without condemnation or judicial proceedings, and con-
verted the money to his own use."
5th. That he "did procure a commission for one William
Kidd, . . . known to be a person of ill fame and reputation,
ordered (him) to pursue the intended voyage, in which he did
commit divers piracies and depredations on the high seas, being
thereto encouraged through the hopes of being protected by the
high station and interest of the said Earl, in violation of the law
of nations, and the interruption and discouragement of the trade
of England."
6th. That when "the kingdom was under an apprehension
of an immediate invasion from France, . . . (he) did his
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 14S
lost endeavour to prejudice and weaken the navy royal of
gland."
7th. That "when ships, men and money were wanting to
ird the seas and protect our trade (he) did by misrepresenta-
is, and contrary to his bounden duty, . . . procure a
nt or order for his majesty's ship the Dolphin, then fitted out,
nned and equipped for the service of the public, to be employed
I private voyage and undertaking, for the advantage of him-
: and others concerned with him,"
8th. "That the said Earl during the time of his commanding
navy royal of England, did, through neglect and in contempt
orders, unnecessarily hazard and expose to imminent danger
said navy, and . . . having had many opportunities of
ing and destroying the ships belonging to the French king,
said Earl, contrary to advice, in disobedience to orders, and
neglect of his duty, did suffer and permit the said ships to
arn safe into their own harbours."
9th. That "the said Earl, well knowing our sovereign lord
king to have been engaged in several alliances . . . the
. and intention of all which . . . were to prevent the
wth of the power of the French king, and to secure England,
I the ancient allies of England, against the same ; did notwith-
iding, in concert with other false and evil counsellors, advise
said sovereign lord the king, in the year 1698, to enter into
; treaty for dividing the monarchy and dominions of Spain
ireby ... a large part of the said Spanish dominion
■e to be added to the crown of France."
(See second case hereafter for the result of this impeach-
It.)
IMPEACHMENT OF JOHN, LORD SOMERS, 14
well's State Trials 250; 5 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 1266; 5 Emlyn's
te Trials 339; Salmon's Abridgment of State Trials 744
•01).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. "That in 1698, a treaty was projected and contrived in
nee . . . for a partition of the Spanish Monarchy;
ireby many large territories, thereunto belonging, were to be
tted and delivered up to France : That the tenour and design
he said last mentioned treaty . . . was communicated to
said J6hn Lord Sommers, then one of the lord justices of
jland, lord chancellor of England, and one of his majesty's
it honourable privy council: That the said Lord Sommers,
I knowing the most apparent evil consequences, as well as the
146 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
injustices of the said partition," and that its consummation would
be in violation of other treaties made by England, "did advise
his majesty to enter into the said treaty and did so far encourage
and promote the same that the treaty was concluded and ratified
under the great seal of England, then in the custody of the said
Lord Sommers."
2nd. "That for the most effectual carrying on the said
treaty, one or more commission or commissions was or were
prepared, amended, enlarged or altered by the said Lord Som-
mers without any lawful warrant for his so doing ; . . . and
in violation of the great trusts reposed in him, . . . without
communicating the same to the rest of the then lord justices of
England, or advising in council with his majesty's privy council
thereupon, did presume to affix the great seal of England"
thereto.
3rd. "That the said Lord Sommers contrary to the duty of
his said office of lord chancellor, did affix the great seal of Eng-
land to the said commission qr commissions, not having received
any lawful warrant for that purpose."
4th. That he "contrary to the duty of his several offices,
affixed the great seal of England to the ratification of the said
treaty, . . . not having first communicated the same to the
rest of the then lords justices of England, or advised in council
with his majesty's privy council thereupon."
5th. That he concluded another treaty which was "evidently
destructive of the trade of this realm, dishonourable to his
majesty, highly injurious to the interest of the Protestant religion,
and manifestly tended to disturb the general peace of Europe, by
altering the balance of power therein, and strengthening France
against the good friends and ancieat allies of our. sovereign lord
the king."
6th. That he "did not enroll or enter of record or cause to
be enrolled or entered of record any of the said commissions or
ratifications . . . as by the duty of his place he shotild and
ought to have done."
7th. That "whilst this nation was engaged in a tedious and
most expensive war against the French king, . . . almost
exhausted with supplies and taxes for carfying on the same,
and under such heavy debts, as without the utmost frugality, or
laying insupportable taxes on the Commons of England, were
impossible to be satisfied, contrary to his said oath (he") did pass
many great unreasonable and exorbitant grants, under the great
seal of England, of divers manors, lordships, lands, tenements,
hereditaments, revenues and interests, belonging to the crown
of England, amounting to a most prodigious and excessive value."
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 147
8th. "That the said Lord Sommers, during the time of his
)eing lord keeper of the great seal and lord chancellor of Eng-
and, did not only receive and enjoy the fees, profits and per-
[uisites of or belonging to the great seal . . . but also
. . an annual pension or allowance from the crown of
;4000 and many other profits and advantages; notwithstanding
vhich, the said Lord Sommers begged and procured for his own
lenefit many great tmreasonable, and exorbitant grants of sev-
ral manors, lands, tenements, rents, hereditaments and revenues,
)elonging to the crown of England."
9th. That among others he did "procure a grant of . . .
ee-farm rents- for his own benefit, whilst he was lord chancellor
►f England, and one of his majesty's most honourable privy coun-
;il, whilst his majesty was engaged in the said war, and the
lation under such heavy debts as aforesaid."
loth. "That . . . there was not any sum of money
eally and hona fide paid as a consideration of the conveyance of
he said rents, . . . such contracts and payments of the
everal considerations, amounting in the whole to £33,600 were
olourably and fraudulently contrived and made by the direction
if the said Lord Sommers."
nth. He caused many "quit rents, copyhold rents" to be
onveyed to certain named persons, "to the great vexation and
oppression of many of his majesty's good subjects, and creating
tiany new and unreasonable charges on the revenues of the
rown."
1 2th. "That being then lord chancellor, and one of his
lajesty's most honourable privy council, in breach of his duty,
nd contrary to the laws and statutes of the realm (he) procured
ther rents . . . to be conveyed to Rd. Adny. and his heirs
. . in trust for the said Lord Sommers and his heirs."
13th. That while holding said offices he "procured a com-
lission to be granted unto one William Kidd, a person of ill fame
nd reputation, and since that time convicted of piracy, to appre-
end, and take into his custody, div*s persons therein named,
nd . . . procured a grant from his majesty, and the said
,ord Sommers passed the same, under the great seal of England"
f the ships and cargo taken by said Kidd to Samuel Newton and
thers, "in which grant, the name of said Samuel Newton was
'ard in trust, and for the only benefit and advantage of the
lid Lord Sommers."
14th. "That the said John Lord Sommers, ... by
jlour of his office, hath made divers arbitrary and illegal orders,
I subversion of the laws and statutes of this realm; arid hath,
148 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
of his own authority, reversed judgments given in the court of
Exchequer, and without calling before him the barons of the
Exchequer to hear their informations, and the causes of their
judgments, as the statute, in those cases, expressly directs; assum-
ing thereby to himself an arbitrary and illegal power."
( See next case for the result of this impeachment. )
IMPEACHMENT OF CHARLES, LORD HALIFAX, 14
Howell's State Trials 293; 5 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 1299; 5 Emlyn's
State Trials 339 (1701).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. That "being a member of the honourable House of
Commons, one of the lords of the treasury, chancellor of the
Exchequer, and one of his majesty's most honourable privy coun-
cil .. . (l^e) presumed to advise, pass, or direct the pass-
ing, a grant to Thomas Railton, Esq., in trust for himself, of
several debts, interest, sums of money, amounting in the whole
to the sum of £13,000 or thereabouts, due, owing, and which
ought to have accrued to his majesty, by reason of the attainders,
outlawries, or other forfeitures of the respective persons for
whom the same were entered on record, whereby he hath much
contributed to the contracting great debts upon the nation, heavy
taxes upon the people, hath reflected upon his majesty's honour,
and failed in the performance of his trust and duty."
2nd. That he "procured for Thomas Railton, Esq., in trust
for himself, a grant of several debts, by judgments and other-
wise, to several of the said forfeiting persons, amounting to the
sum of £13,000 or thereabouts, forfeited to his majesty by the
attainder, outlawries, or other forfeitures, of the respective
persons to whom such debts were originally due, and by notice
of the said grant, the said Lord Halifax actually received to his
own use the sum of f 1000 part" thereof which he should have
repaid to his "majesty's Exchequer in Ireland," but did not.
3rd. That "when the nation was engaged in a tedious and
expensive war against France, . . . and under such heavy
debts as, without laying unsupportable taxes on the people, were
impossible to be satisfied (he did) advise, procure and assent,
not only to the passing of divers grants to others in England and
Ireland, but did obtain and accept of several beneficial ones to
or in trust for himself."
4th. "Whereas ... it appears to have been the great
care of our ancestors, that the king's forests should be preserved,
and in particular the timber therein growing, for the building and
repairing the navy royal (nevertheless he did) procure from his
ENGLISH IMfdACHMENT TRIALS 149
najesty a grant to Henry Segar, gentleman, in trust for himself,
►f the sum of £14,000 of so much scrubbed beech, birch, holly,
lazle, thorns and orle, as should by sale raise the said sum of
;i4,ooo to be fallen in his majesty's forest of Dean, . . .
mder colour of which grant beech of a much greater value,
rreat numbers of sapling oaks, which might have been service-
Lble to the realm, and also many trees of well grown timber, fit
■or the present use of the navy, have been cut and fallen, and sold
md disposed of for the benefit of the said Lord Halifax."
5th. That he "did grant, or procure the granting to Chris-
opher Montagu, Esq., the brother of him the said Charles Lord
Halifax, and then one of the commissioners of the excise, the
said place and office of auditor of the receipts and writer of the
:allies ; which said grant was so made and procured by the said
Lord Halifax in trust, as to the profits thereof, for himself
. . very much to the great loss and prejudice of his majesty
md the public, by opening a way to all manner of corrupt practices
n the future rrianagement of the revenues."
6th. That he advised his majesty to enter into a treaty "for
I partition of the Spanish monarchy, whereby many large ter-
ritories . . . were to be allotted and delivered up to France,
n violation of existing treaties with other nations . . .
ivhich treaty was evidently destructive of the trade of this realm,
1 breach of the former treaty^ . . . dishonourable to his'
najesty, highly injurious to the interest of the Protestant religion,
md manifestly tended to disturb the general peace of Europe, by
iltering the balance of power therein, and strengthening France
igainst the good friends and ancient allies of our sovereign lord
[he king."
The several defendants answered the articles.
The Commons then requested the Lords to appoint a cdm-
cnittee to co-operate with a like committee of the Commons, "to
settle and adjust the necessary preliminaries to the trial; par-
ticularly, Whether the impeached lords should appear in their
trial at your lordship's bar as criminals? Whether being under
iccusations of the same crimes, they should sit as judges on each
Dther's trials for those crimes, or should vote on their own cases,
IS it is notorious they have been permitted by your lordships to
lo in many instances which might be given?"
The Lords refused the request and fixed a day for the trial.
The Commons, by formal resolution, refused to permit any
Df its members to appear at the trial.
The Lords then heard counsel for the defendants, and
acquitted them, and dismissed the impeachments.
ISO ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
IMPEACHMENT OF HENRY SACHEVERELL, D. D.,
IS Howell's State Trials i; 6 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 809; 5 Emlyn's
State Trials 641 ; Salmon's Abridgment of State Trials 816
(1710).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. "He the said Henry Sacheverell, in his said sermon
preached at St. Paul's, doth suggest and maintain, 'That the
necessary means used to bring about the said happy revolution,
were odious and unjustifiable: That his late majesty in his
Declaration, disclaimed the least imputation of resistance: And
that to impute resistance to the said revolution, is to cast black
and odious colours upon his late majesty and the said revolu-
tion.' "
2nd. That in said sermon he preached, "That the foresaid
Toleration granted by law is unreasonable, and the allowance of
it unwarrantable: And asserts, that he is a false brother with
relation to God, religion, or the church who defends Toleration
and Liberty of Conscience."
3rd. That in said sermon he "doth falsely and seditiously
suggest and assert, that the Church of England is in a condition
of great peril and adversity under her majesty's administration;
and in order to arraign and blacken the said vote or resolution
of both houses of parliament . . . doth suggest the Church
to be in Danger ; and as a parallel, mentions a vote, that the per-
son of King Charles I was voted to be out of danger, at the same
time that his murderers were conspiring his death; thereby
wickedly and maliciously insinuating that the members of both
houses, who passed the said vote, were then conspiring the ruin
of the church."
4th. That he, "in his said sermons and books, doth falsely
and maliciously suggest, that her majesty's administration, both
in ecclesiastical and civil affairs, tends to the destruction of the
constitution: . . . (and) persuades her majesty's subjects
to keep up a distinction of factions and parties; instils ground-
less jealousies, foments destructive divisions among them, and
excites and stirs them up to arms and violence."
He was convicted, enjoined from preaching during the term
of three years next ensuing, and his sermons were directed to
be publicly burnt by the common hangman.
IMPEACHMENT OF JAMES, EARL OF DERWENT-
WATER; WILLIAM, LORD WIDDRINGTON; WILLIAM,
EARL OF NITHISDALE; ROBERT, EARL OF CARN-
WATH, WILLIAM, VISCOUNT KENMURE, AND WIL-
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 151
JAM, LORD NAIRN, 15 Howell's State Trials 762; 7 Cobb,
'arl. Hist. 238 ; 6 Emlyn's State Trials i ; Salmon's Abridgment
f State Trials 861 (1716).
Charge: High Treason.
They were tried, convicted and executed.
IMPEACHMENT OF GEORGE, EARL OF WINTOUN,
5 Howell's State Trials 806; 6 Emlyn's State Trials 17; Sal-
ion's Abridgment of State Trials 862 (1716).
Charge: High Treason.
He was tried, convicted and executed.
IMPEACHMENT OF HENRY, VISCOUNT BOLING-
IROKE, 15 Howell's State Trials 994; 7 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 129
1715)-
Charge : "High Treason and other High Crimes and Mis-
emeanors."
1st. That in violation of existing treaties, he "entered into
most treacherous confederacy with the ministers and emissaries
f France, to frustrate the just hopes and expectations of her
lajesty and her people, by disuniting the confederacy (between
England, Germany and the United Provinces) at the most critical
mcture, when they were ready to reap the fruits of so many
■iumphs over the common enemy," by entering into a clandestine
eaty with France, without notice to the other members of the
jnfederacy, "in which the particular interests of Great Britain,
tid the common interest of Europe, were shamefully betrayed."
2nd. That notwithstanding the matters above stated, he
lid advise and procure the making a private and separate treaty
r convention on the subject of peace, between the said crowns
ithout any communication thereof to her majesty's allies; and
. . did afterwards . . . falsely and treacherously
Ivise her late majesty to sign powers to several persons, for
including on her -behalf, a pernicious and destructive treaty or
mvention, on the said subject of peace with France."
3rd. That notwithstanding the matters above stated, he
lid falsely, maliciously and traitorously disclose and communi-
ite her majesty's said instructions to her said ambassador; and
as privy to, and did advise, consent, or approve, that the same
lould be, and accordingly the same were, communicated and
sclosed to the said Sieur Mesnager, a subject of the said French
ng, and an enemy to her late majesty, . . . contrary to
e duty of his allegiance, and the laws and statutes of this
aim."
4th. That notwithstanding the matters above stated, he
lid falsely, wickedly and traitorously, aid, comfort, assist, and
152 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
adhere to, the said French king, against her said majesty; and
. . . did falsely, maliciously, and traitorously, communicate
and disclose her said majesty's then final instructions to her said
plenipotentiaries, relating to the said negotiations of peace; or
was privy to, and did advise and consent and approve that the
same should be, and accordingly the same were, communicated
and disclosed to Abbot Gaultier, an agent and emissary of the
said French king, and an enemy of her said majesty, . . .
contrary to the duty of his allegiance, and the laws and statutes
of this realm."
5th. That notwithstanding the matters above stated he "did
falsely, maliciously, wickedly and traitorously, aid, help, assist,
and adhere to, the said French king, then an enemy to her late
majesty, against her said majesty; and in execution and per-
formance of the said aiding, assisting and adhering, maliciously,
falsely and traitorously, did counsel arid advise the said enemy,
in what manner, and by what methods, the said important city of
Tournay, then in possession of the States General; might be
gained from them to the French king, . . . contrary to the
duty of his allegiance, and the laws and statutes of this realm."
6th. That notwithstanding the matters above stated, he
"did falsely, maliciously, wickedly and traitorously, aid, help,
assist, and adhere to the Duke of Anjou, then an enemy to her
said late majesty, against her said majesty, . . . against the
duty of his allegiance, and the laws and statutes of this realm."
This impeachment was not tried. The Viscount was
attainted and afterwards pardoned, but "never recovered his
peerage."
IMPEACHMENT OF JAMES, DUKE OF ORMOND,
15 Howell's State Trials 1007; 7 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 138 (1715).
Charge : "High Treason and other High Crimes and Mis-
demeanors."
1st. "Whereas James, Duke of Ormond . . . being
appointed general of the forces -in the Netherlands of her late
majesty Queen Anne, with orders to prosecute the war against
France with all possible vigour, in conjunction with her said
majesty's allies . . . having withdrawn his true and due
obedience from her late majesty, and afifection from his country,
did, during the said war, falsely, maliciously, wickedly and
traitorously aid, help, assist and adhere to the said French king
against her said late majesty, and . . . did send private
intelligence and inforfnation to Marshal Villars, then an enemy
to her said late majesty and general of the French king's army
. . . of a march the army of her late majesty and her allies
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 153
as then going to make, and of the design of the said army
I making that march."
2nd. That knowing of certain traitorous designs against her
lajesty "he, the said James, duke of Ormond, in order to dis-
uise and conceal from her said late majesty and the whole king-
om the said traitorous designs ... in aid and comfort
f the French king, then in open war with, and an enemy of
sr said majesty, did . . . wickedly, falsely and treach-
rously, abuse and impose upon her said late majesty and her
juncil, by affirming and declaring therein, 'That, if he found an
pportunity to bring the enemy to a battle, he should not decline
,' although by a private letter he . . . did on the con-
■ary wickedly promise and engage, 'That he would not attack or
lolest the French army, or engage in any siege against France.' "
3rd. That he . . . "being at that time general of her
lajesty's forces against France, and a subject of her majesty,
Dt considering the duty of his allegiance, but . . . devot-
ig himself to the service of France, and designing to give aid
id comfort to the, French king and his subjects, then in open
ar with and enemies to her late majesty, in violation of the
lany treaties of alliance between Great Britain and several other
rinces and states for carrying on the war against France
, . . in execution of his said aiding, helping, assisting, and
ihering, and in pursuance of a wicked promise he had secretly
lade the same day to Marshal Villars, general of the French
■my, to that purpose, maliciously, falsely and traitorously
. . did advise and endeavor to persuade the generals of the
)nfederate army against France, and the deputies of the States
eneral to raise the siege of Quesnoy, a French town then be-
eged by them ; and did then further, traitorously and wickedly,
;fuse to act any longer against France and then also trai-
Tously and wickedly told the said generals . . . 'That he
»uld no longer cover the siege of Quesnoy; but was obliged
r his instructions to march off with the queen's troops, and
ose in her majesty's pay.' "
4th. "That he the said James, Duke of Ormond, did not
ily wickedly and falsely so affirm . . . but. also, to induce
fi said generals of the confederate army and the States deputies
comply with his proposal to them to abEtndon the said siege;
. . did wickedly represent their compliance therein as the
ost effectual way to induce her said late majesty to takt care
■ the said confederates' interests at the peace; whereby he
. . did, in effect, threaten her said late majesty's good
lends and allies, 'That unless they would dishonorably abandon
154 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
an enterprise undertaken by common consent, and thereby save
a strong fortress and a numerous garrison of the enemy, they
were not to expect that her late majesty would take care of
their interests at the general peace.' "
5th. That on being requested by the said French general
"To be informed what troops remained with the confederate
army ... in order to fall upon and attack the said con-
federate army," he ". . . did traitorously, and wickedly, con-
trary to the duty of a true and faithful subject, and contrary
to his allegiance, and the laws and statutes of this realm, . . .
traitorously send secret intelligence to the said Marshal Villars,
the general of the French army, of the number of troops that
had left the said confederate army, and also of the march the
said confederate army had that morning made."
6th. "And whereas he . . . had formed a design to
surprise and take the towns of Nieuport and Furnes, or one of
them, then in the possession of the French king, . . . intend-
ing to strengthen the hands of the common enemy by defeating
the said enterprise, did . . . wickedly and basely suggest
to and advise her said late majesty to send secret intelligence of,
and to betray, the said counsels and designs of her good and
faithful allies, the States General, to the French King . . .
and did further wickedly and shamefully suggest the means of
putting the said treachery in execution, by giving private intel-
ligence of the design to the said Marshal Villars."
The duke could not be found, and thereupon he was at-
tainted. The rest of his life "was passed abroad in adherence to
the Pretender."
IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS, EARL OF STRAF-
FORD, 15 Howell's State Trials 1013; 7 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 144
(1715)-
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. That when England and other countries were at war
with France, and a "separate, dishonorable, and destructive
negotiation of peace was entered into, between the ministers of
Great Britain and France, without any communication thereof
to her majesty's allies, according to the several treaties; he the
said Earl did not orfly take upon himself, and presume from time
to time, to advise ^nd exhort that the same should be continued
and carried; but did likewise frequently concert private and
separate measures with the ministers of France, in order to im-
pose upon and deceive her majesty's good subjects and her al-
lies, and was instrumental in promoting the said separate negotia-
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS ISS
n, exclusive of all the allies, and to their manifest prejudice
1 detriment."
2nd. Though he knew that "the maintaining a perfect union
1 good correspondence between her late majesty and the il-
trious House of Hanover was of the utmost importance, for
;serving to these kingdoms the invaluable blessings of their
igious and civil liberties, by securing the succession to the
iwn, to a race of Protestant princes, ever renowned for their
3d justice and clemency, and thereby defeating the traitorous
;igns of the Pretender; . . . (he did by) divers false
iresentations and scurrilous reflections upon his present most
icious majesty, then elector of Hanover, endeavor to alienate
■ majesty's affections from his said electoral highness, and
:reate or widen fatal differences or misunderstandings between
m, . . . (whereby he did) not only prostitute and dis-
lor the high characters he was then invested with, but, as far
in him lay, did dissolve the mutual confidence and good under-
nding so necessary to be maintained between her said late
jesty and the illustrious House of Hanover, for the safety
i prosperity of Great Britain and the common liberty of
rope."
3rd. That notwithstanding the matters above stated he did,
ith other evil counsellors, privately, wickedly, and treacher-
ily concert and agree with the ministers of France, that (their)
. . proposals, so derogatory to the dignity of her majesty,
i dangerous to these kingdoms, should be the conditions upon
ich France would agree to treat of a peace with Great Britain
. . to the great dishonor of her majesty and these king-
ns, and to the apparent danger of the Protestant succession."
4th. That "in defiance of the many treaties between her
jesty and her allies, . . . and in contempt of the advice
i opinion of parliament, . . . and also in direct violation
her majesty's instructions, he . . . did not only pre-
ne to treat about the peace with the ministers of France, with-
; insisting, as he ought to have done, that Spain and the West
lies should not be allotted to the said House of Bourbon; but
0, when the ministers of his imperial majesty and of the king
Portugal, in conformity to the mutual obligations and treaties
ween her majesty and them and with each other, demanded
France, 'That Spain and the West Indies should be restored
the House of Austria' and requested him, the said Earl, 'to
n with them, to strengthen that demand,' did decline and re-
;e to do the same ; by which perfidious and unwarrantable prac-
;s . . . incurable jealousies and discords were created
ween her majesty and her allies."
156 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
5th. That when he was "informed of the reasonable prospect
which, by the blessing of God, the army of the confederates then
had, of gaining new conquests over the army of France ; in order
to disappoint the expectations of the allies, and to give success
to the secret and wicked negotiations then carrying on by himself
and other evil counsellors with the ministers of France ; . . .
did wickedly and treacherously suggest and advise, that a cessa-
tion of arms should be made with France, by her majesty, with-
out and even against the consent of her good allies and con-
federates, . . . did advise her late majesty ... to
cause a cessation to be made and proclaimed between her
majesty's and the French army . . . which were accordingly
done, ... by which wicked and perfidious counsels . . .
the progress of the victorious arms of the confederates was
stopped . . . and the French king made absolute master of
the negotiations of peace."
6th. That he "wickedly advised and procured the said fatal
cessation of arms, and likewise obtained for France the separa-
tion of the troops of Great Britain from the confederate army;
in further execution of his treacherous purposes, to advance and
promote the interests of France," and did also take such steps
that "Ghent and Briges were seized by the troops of Great Brit-
ain; whereby all ineans of communication between Holland and
the confederate army (was) entirely cut off."
An answer and then a replication was filed, but the journal
does not mention any further proceedings in the matter.
IMPEACHMENT OF ROBERT, EARL OF OXFORD,
AND EARL MORTIMER, 15 Howell's State Trials 1046;
7 Cobb. Pari. Hist. 74, 116; 6 Emlyn's State Trials 102; Sal-
mon's Abridgment of State Trials 866 (1717).
Charge : "High Treason and other High Crimes and Mis-
demeanors."
1st. "He the said Robert . . . having no regard to the
honor or safety of her late majesty or her kingdoms, or to the
many solemn engagements she was then under to the old and
faithful allies of this nation, or to the common liberties of Eu-
rope; but being devoted to the interest and service of the French
king, the common enemy; and being then lord high treasurer of
Great Britain, and one of her majesty's most honourable privy
council . . . (did) maliciously and wickedly form a most
treacherous and pernicious contrivance and confederacy with
other evil-disposed persons, then also of her majesty's privy
council, to set on foot a private, separate, dishonorable, and de-
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 157
:tive negotiation of peace between Great Britain and France,
out any communication thereof to her majesty's allies, ac-
ing to their several treaties."
2nd. That "he did advise and promote the making a private
separate treaty between the said crowns ; ... in which
ty the immediate interests even of Great Britain are given up
^'rance and the Duke of Anjou is admitted to be king of
in, . . . whereby he . . . did not only assume to
self royal power, in taking upon him to meet and treat with
enemy without any authority . . . but did what in him
to subvert the ancient and established constitution of the gov-
nent of these kingdoms by introducing illegal and dangerous
hods of transacting the most important offices of state."
3rd. That he "did, together with other evil disposed persons,
1 in high trust under her majesty, contrive and advise the
jaring and forming a set of general preliminaries, . . .
did, contrary to his duty and trust, impiously advise her
•ed majesty that the same should be, and accordingly they
e received by her majesty, and communicated to the ministers
;he allies then residing in England, as a ground of a general
otiation of peace; and as if the same were the only trans-
ons that had been on this subject between Great Britain and
nee."
4th. That he "did falsely and maliciously declare, or was
ry to advising and consenting, that it should be, and so it
i declared, in her majesty's name, that she had made no
irate treaty with France, nor would she ever make any before
had fully complied with all engagements with her allies."
5th. That when authorized by her majesty to treat for
ce, he had "privately and treacherously negotiated and agreed
h the ministers of France, that Spain and the West Indies
uld remain in a branch of the House of Bourbon; and had
vailed on her sacred majesty to be party to the said private
ity, wherein the same is necessarily implied."'
6th. That while proposals were pending "for the negotiating
eneral peace" between France and all the allies, "in defiance
the express instructions given to her said plenipotentiaries,"
"did with others, hjs accomplices, advise, concur, continue,
I promote a private, separate and unjustifiable negotiation of ■
ce with France, directly from England to France, without any
amunication thereof to the allies . . . whereby the good
;cts of the said general negotiations were entirely defeated."
7th. That "by the influence of his evil counsels her majesty
s prevailed on to accept and finally to conclude and ratify a
158 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
treaty of peace with France, wherein the said renunciation (of
the crown of Spain) is taken as a sufficient expedient to prevent
the mischiefs that threatened all Europe, in case the crowns of
France and Spain should be united upon the head of one and the
same person; although he . . . well knew, that a memorial
had been transmitted . . . whereby it was declared, that
the said renunciation would be null and invalid by the funda-
mental laws of France. ... By which false and treacher-
ous counsels, he the said Robert Earl of Oxford and Earl Mor-
timer did not only betray the interests of the common cause into
the hand of its most formidable enemy, but wilfully and mali-
ciously abused the power and influence which he had obtained
with her majesty."
" 8th. "That her late majesty, Queen Anne, having . . .
earnestly recommended from the throne, that provision might
be made for an early campaign, in order to carry on the war with
vigor, and as the best way to render the treaty of peace effectual ;
. . . he, the said Robert, Earl of Oxford, and Earl Mortimer
being truly informed of the sure project, which, by the blessing
of God, the army of the confederates then had, of gaining new
conquests over the army of France, and whereby they would
have been enabled to have forced terms of peace, safe, honorable
and lasting: ... he did advise and consent, that an order
should be sent, in her majesty's name, to the Duke of Ormond
in Flanders, to avoid engaging in any siege, or hazarding a
battle till further orders, . . . and did consent and advise
that orders should be sent to the Bishop of Bristol (Robinson),
one of her majesty's plenipotentiaries then at Utrecht, to take the
first solemn opportunity to declare to the Dutch ministers, that
her majesty looked on herself from their conduct to be then un-
der no obligation whatsoever to them. ... By which sev-
eral wicked and perfidious counsels, the French king (was) made
absolute master of the negotiations of peace, and the affairs of
Europe given into his hands."
9th. "That to impose upon the allies the fatal necessity of
submitting to the terms of France, and in order thereto to leave
the whole confederate army at the mercy of the common enemy,
he, the said Robert, Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, was
privy and consenting to a secret and separate concert with the
ministers of France, without the knowledge of the allies, for the
separating the troops in her majesty's pay from the rest of
the confederate army."
loth. "That in further execution of his pernicious designs
. . . he . . . did carry on and concert with the min-
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 159
:rs of France a private and separate negotiation for a general
pension by sea and land, between Great Britain and France;
I to that end among others, did advise her majesty to send
T Henry Viscount Bolingbroke, one of her principal secre-
ies of state, to the Court of France with powers to settle the
i suspension. In pursuance of which a destructive Treaty of
ipension was made in France . . . for four months
. . without the knowledge or any participation of the al-
I ith. That he did "falsely, maliciously, wickedly, and trai-
ously, aid, help and assist, and adhere to the French king, then
enemy to her late majesty; and in execution and performance
his aiding, assisting, and adhering, maliciously, falsely and
itorously did counsel and advise the said enemy, in what
nner and by what methods, the said important town and
tress of Tournay, then in the possession of the States-General,
2;ht be gained from them to the French king, contrary to
duty of his allegiance, and the laws and statutes of this
Im."
1 2th. That he did "falsely, maliciously, wickedly and trai-
ously, aid, help, agsist, and adhere to the said Duke of Anjou,
n an enemy to her said late rtiajesty; and in the execution
i performance of his said aiding, helping, assisting and adher-
■, and in confederacy and combination with the then enemies
her late majesty, and with divers other wicked and evil dis-
sed persons, did, at several times, in the years aforesaid, ad-
e and counsel with the enemies of her late majesty, and in
:h counselling and advising, did concert with them, and did
)mote the yielding and giving up Spain and the West Indies,
some part thereof, to the said Duke of Anjou, then in enmity
:h her majesty."
13th. That "having by his wicked artifices, engaged her
jesty in the said private treaty with France, without any secur-
for the commerce of Great Britain, he did artfully and cun-
[gly contrive with the ministers of France to keep in suspense
matters that concerned the commerce of Great Britain, until,
means of his wicked and pernicious coimsels aforementioned,
ince was become master of the negotiations, and the chief
/^antages for the commerce of Great Britain by that means re-
ining unsettled : and the ministers of France afterwards dis-
:ing the most essential articles which had been in agitation,
i particularly that fundamental principle of treating and be-
: treated as Gens Amicissima ... he, the said Robert
in defiance of the express provision of an act of parlia-
160 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
ment . . . did advise her majesty finally to agree with
France, that the subjects of France should have liberty of fish-
ing arid drying fish on Newfoundland: and did also advise her
majesty to make a cession to France of the Isle of Cape Breton,
with liberty to fortify the same . . . (which) terminated
at last in the sacrifice of the commerce of Great Britain to France
without the least advantage in trade procured for these king-
doms."
14th. That he "did, in concert with other evil and false
counsellors, even without any application from his royal high-
ness, the Duke of Savoy, and after the French king had, in the
course of the said private and separate negotiations, consented
that the kingdom of Sicily should remain to the House of Aus-
tria, form a project and design to dispose of the kingdom of
Sicily to the Duke of Savoy from the House of Austria. . . .
And afterwards by his privity and advice, her majesty was pre-
vailed on to assist his royal highness against the emperor then
in alliance with her majesty, with a part of her royal fleet at her
own expense, in order to put him in possession of the said king-
dom of Sicily."
iSth. That he misrepresented "the most essential parts of
the negotiations of peace, to obtain the sanction of parliament to
his traitorous proceedings, and thereby fatally to deceive her
majesty, her allies, her parliament, and her people."
1 6th. That "contrary to his duty and his oath, and in viola-
tion of the great trust reposed in him, and with an immediate
purpose to render ineffectual the many earnest representations
of her majesty's allies against the said negotiations of peace, as
well as to prevent the good effects of the said advice of the
House of Lords, ... he did advise her majesty to make
and create twelve peers of this realm, and lords of parliament,
and pursuant to his destructive counsels letters patent did forth-
with pass, and writs issued, whereby twelve peers were made
and created; and did likewise advise her majesty immediately to
call and summon them to parliament; which being done accord-
ingly, they took their seats in the House of Lords. . . .
Whereby the said Robert, Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer,
did most highly abuse the influence he then had with her majesty,
and prevailed on her to exercise in the most unprecedented
and dangerous manner that valuable and undoubted prerogative,
which the wisdom of the laws and constitution of this kingdom
hath entrusted with the crown for the rewarding signal virtue
and distinguished merit."
Later on additional articles were presented against the de-
fendant, as follows:
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 161
1st. That after "a dangerous and destructive expedition
been projected and set on foot, under pretence of making a
quest of the possessions of the French king in North America,
with a real design to promote his interests, by weakening
confederate army in Flanders, and dissipating the naval force
this kingdom, as well for the sake of the private gain of the
moters of the said expedition, he . . . (did) advise her
iesty to consent to the making an expedition for the conquer-
Canada . . . did further advise her majesty to give
ers for detaching several battalions of the forces, then in the
net of her majesty in conjunction with her allies in Flanders,
. to send the same with a large squadron of men of war on
said enterprise; . . . and he did most ungratefully and
ruptly employ his wicked arts, and the credit which he had
led by his many false and crafty insinuations and practices,
:eep the House of Commons from examining that affair."
2nd. That "making a most dishonorable and ungrateful use
the ready access he had to her late majesty (he) did advise
majesty to sign a warrant to himself, being then lord high
isurer of Great Britain, for the issuing and payment of the
1 of £13,000 to John Drummond, Esq., or his assigns, for
ti special services relating to the war, as her majesty had di-
;ed . . . and did sign a warrant for the payment of the
I £13,000 for such special services of the war, as her majesty
. directed; although no special services had been, or were at
time afterwards directed by her majesty, to which the said
leys were to be applied: (and) did afterwards fill up as-
iments of the said orders for £12,000,, part of the said £13,-
to himself, and the remaining part to such other persons as
bought fit . . . and did afterwards . . . dispose of
said orders and tallies to his own private use and advantage
. by which most vile and scandalous corruption he
. was guilty of . . . embezzlement of her treastire;
of great injustice and oppression of. other of her majesty's
jects."
3rd. That he prevailed on her majesty to send "Matthew
3r as her majesty's plenipotentiary to the French king, with
ructions to treat and conclude matters, of the highest im-
tance, relating to the general negotiations of peace; but the
e was a treacherous and wicked contrivance of him the said
)ert. Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, for the more eflfec-
ly carrying on and promoting his private, separate and dan-
>us practices with the ministers of France, and the enemies
ler majesty and her kingdoms; . . . ,and did most cor-
162 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
ruptly and scandalously combine with the said Matthew Prior
for the defrauding her majesty of very great sums, under the
color of his said employments in France."
4th. That he "by the means of the said Matthew Prior,
held a private and unlawful correspondence with the said con-
sort of the late King James the 2nd, then residing in France,
and being determined secretly to promote, as far as in him lay,
the interest of the Pretender, but yet contriving to avoid the
penalty of High Treason; . . . and being then lord high
treasurer of Great Britain, did give private instructions to the
said Arthur, to pay the sum of £1000 to the Abbot Gaultier, or to
his use; pursuant to which direction the said Arthur did pay
or cause to be paid the said sum of £1000 to the said Abbot
Gaultier, or for his use ; whereby the said Robert, Earl of Oxford
and Earl Mortimer, did most wickedly betray the honour of her
late majesty and the imperial crown of these realms."
5th. That he "did, together with other false and evil coun-
sellors, advise her majesty to receive and admit him (one Pat-
rick Lawless) as a minister from his said Catholic majesty ; and
the said Earl did presume frequently to meet, confer and negoti-
ate the most important matters of the nation with the said Lilesh,
alias Lawless, in the quality aforesaid. And the better to con-
ceal his said illegal and dangerous measures from her said
majesty, he, the said Robert, Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer,
was privy to, consenting, and advising that the said Lilesh, alias
Lawless, should be introduced to her said majesty and should
be received and treated by her minister, under the false and dis-
guised name of Don Carlo Moro."
6th. That he "was not only highly wanting in his duty to
her majesty, as a faithful minister, to have prevented the con-
clusion of the treaty of peace with Spain, till just and honourable
conditions were secured for the Catalans, but did falsely, malici-
ously, and treacherously, advise her majesty to conclude a peace
with the king of Spain, without any security for the ancient and
just rights, liberties and privileges of that brave, but unhappy
nation. . . . (Whereby) great numbers of the nobility of
Catalonia, who for their services in conjunction with her majesty
and her allies, had, in all honour, justice and conscience, the
highest claim to her majesty's protection, are now dispersed in
dungeons, throughout the Spanish dominions; and not only the
Catalan liberties extirpated, but by those wicked counsels of
him, the said Robert, Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, Cata-
lonia itself is almost become desolate."
The earl was tried and acquitted.
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 1
IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS, EARL OF MA(
:.ESFIELD, i6 Howell's State Trials 767; 8 Cobb. Pari. His
6; 6 Emlyn's State Trials 477; Salmon's Abridgment of Sta
•ials 884 (1725).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. That "whilst he continued Lord Chancellor of Gre
■itain, and before the admission of Richard Godfrey into tl
ice of one of the Masters of the Court of Chancery, he di^
colour of, his office of Lord Chancellor, illegally, corruptly ar
torsively insist upon, take and receive of and from the sa:
chard Godfrey, the sum of £840 or some other sum of mone
r the admitting him into such office of a Master of the Cou
Chancery."
2nd. That he 'Idid, by colour of his office of Lord Chancello
jgally, corruptly and extorsively insist upon, take and reqeii
_and from James Lightboun the sum of £6000 or some oth(
eat sum of money, in consideration of, and for the admittit
n into such office of one of the Masters of the Court c
lancery."
3rd. That "he did, by colour of his office, of Lord Chai
llor, illegally, corruptly and extorsively insist upon, take an
:eive, of and from John Borret the sum of £1575 or some othe
m of money, for the admitting him into such office of a Mast(
the said Court of Chancery."
4th. That he "did, by colour of his office of Lord Chancello
igally, corruptly and extorsively insist upon, take and recei^
and from Edward Conway the sum of £1500, or some oth(
m of money, for admitting of him into such office of a Mast(
the said Court of Chancery."
5th. That he "did, by colour of his office of Lord Chancello
:gally, corruptly and extorsively insist upon, take and receiv
and from William Kynaston, the sum of £1575, or son
ler sum of money, for the admitting him into such office c
faster of the said Court of Chancery."
6th. That he "did, by colour of his office of Lord Chancello
;gally, corruptly and extorsively insist upon, take and receive
and from Thomas Bennet the sum of £1575, or some oth(
n of money, for the admitting him into such office of a Ma:
of the Court of Chancery."
8th. That he "did, by colour of his office of Lord Chancello:
;gally, corruptly and extorsively insist upon, take and receivi
and from Mark Thurston, the sum of £5250, or some othe
n of money, in consideration of and for the admitting hii
o such office of a Master of the said Court of Chancery."
164 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
1 9th. That he "did illegally, corruptly and extorsively insist
upon, take and receive, of and from the said Thomas Bennett,
the sum of £105, or some other sum of money for and in con-
sideration of the permitting and accepting the surrender of his
said office, in order to ^nd for the obtaining and procuring a new
grant of said office to the said Hugh Hamersley."
loth. "That the said Thomas, Earl of Macclesfield, whilst
he continued Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, did illegally and
corruptly ordain, name and make divers other officers and min-
isters of his majesty, for gift and brocage, and did likewise
illegally and corruptly sell divers other offices, touching and con-
cerning the administration and execution of justice in the Court
of Chancery to several persons, for divers great sums of money."
nth. That "in order to advance and increase the illegal and
corrupt gain arising to himself from the sale and disposal of the
offices of Masters of the Court of Chancery, ... he did
falsely represent the said persons, so by him admitted to the
offices of Masters of the said Court of Chancery, as persons of
great fortunes, and in every respect qualified for the trust re-
posed in them, to the manifest deceit and injury of the suitors
of the said Court."
I2th. Although, he knew that "an unjust, and fraudulent
method was practiced in the Court of Chancery upon the sale
of the offices of Masters of the said Court, and upon the admis-
sions of new Masters, that the prices or sums of money agreed
to be paid for the purchase of the said offices, and for the ad-
missions thereinto, were satisfied and paid out of the moneys
and effects of the suitors of the Court deposited in the hands of
the respective Masters, surrendering their offices, or dying, yet
. . . he did not at any time, whilst he continued in the office
of Lord Chancellor, use or take, any measure to reform the said
abuse, or to prevent the same."
13th. "That Fleetwood Dormer, Esq., one of the Masters of
the Court of Chancery, having embezzled great part of the
money and effects belonging to the suitors of the said Court,"
and the defendant being applied to to secure his person "neg-
lected and declined either to secure the person of the said Fleet-
wood Dormer, and his estate and effects, or to make a proper
inquiry into the said deficiency; . . . and did endeavour, by
many indirect practices, to conceal from the suitors of the Court
the true state and condition of the said office, as well with re-
spect to the effects of the said Fleetwood Dormer, as to the debt
due from him to the suitors of the Court."
14th. "That the said Fleetwood Dormer, having towards
satisfaction of the suitors of the said Court, assigned to Henry
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 1
dwards, Esq., a debt of £24,046, 4s. or some other great sui
le from William Wilson, a banker, to the said Fleetwood Do
er, ... the said Thomas, Earl of Macclesfield, whil
; continued Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, ... did
1 unwarrantable, clandestine, and unusual manner, authori2
rect, and establish a precarious and trifling composition wi
le said William Wilson, upon the terms of the said Willia
/■ilson's paying the sum of £1463, 2s., id., and assigning f ic
X) ... in discharge of the said debt."
15th. That in order "to carry on his corrupt and unjt
arposes and to conceal the deficiency that was in the office 1
le said Fleetwood Dormer, he did' . . . order the sever
[asters of the said Court of Chancery to bring in their accouc
E the cash, effects, and securities in their hands belonging
le suitors of the Court, not with a design of examining the
xounts, or securing the estate and effects of the suitors, b
ith an intent to terrify the said Masters, and thereby obli;
lem to contribute great sums of money towards answering t
imands that should from time to time be made upon the sa
jfice, ... by which practices the said Earl, being th
ord Chancellor of England, by colour of his authority, did pe
lade and induce nine of the Masters of the said Court of Cha
;ry to pay £500 each for the purposes aforesaid, several
hom paid the same out of the money or effects of the suite
I their hands."
1 6th. That the Court of Chancery having directed "Hen
Edwards, Esq., one of the Masters of the said Court of Cha
;ry, who succeeded the said Fleetwood Dormer, Esq.," to p
lizabeth Chitty "the sum of f 1000, part of the sum of f io,oc
. . and the said Henry Edwards complaining to the sa
larl, that the making orders upon him to pay money which h
sen received by the said Fleetwood Dormer was a very gre
ardship upon him, . . . the said Earl of Macclesfidd, t
ig then Lord Chancellor, in further prosecution of his unji
ad corrupt purposes, did, by colour of his authority, endeavo
> prevail with the Masters of the said Court of Chancery,
lise the said sum of £1000 out of their effects, by represent!:
) them, that a discovery of the deficiency in the said offi
light occasion a parliamentary or public enquiry into the natt
id condition of their offices, and hazard the forfeiture of t
ime."
17th. That "in order to carry on his unjust designs
mcealing the said deficiency, and to prevent any public enqui
lat might arise from the just complaints of the suitors of t
166 ' ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
said Court (he), did, from time to time, in manifest and wilful
violation of the trust reposed in him, make orders on the said
Henry Edwards for payment of the money belonging to several
particular suitors, which had been lodged in the hands of the
said Fleetwood Dormer, in obedience to which orders several
sums were paid, without regard to, or consideration of, the pro-
portion which the rest of the suitors were entitled to out of the
effects of the said Fleetwood Dormer."
1 8th. "That the said Thomas, Earl of Macclesfield, notwith-
standing that he very well knew, and was informed that the
Masters of the said Court did, or that it was in their power, from
time to time, and at their pleasure to dispose of and employ the
money and effects belonging to the suitors of the said Court;
. . . and notwithstanding ... it was also further pro-
posed that the said Masters should give some reasonable security
to answer the balance of such cash as should from time to time,
be in their hands ; and notwithstanding the said Earl was credibly
informed, that the sufficiency of some other of the said Masters
was very much suspected, yet ... in order to induce per-
sons to give him, the said Earl, a greater price or reward for
their being admitted to the same, did not require or demand any
security whatsoever to be given by any of the said Masters,
upon their being admitted to their offices, or at any other time."
19th. That when his majesty directed "an enquiry to be
made into the accounts of the Masters of the said Court of Chan-
cery (he) . . . did represent to the said Masters, that it
would be for their honour and service, to appear able and suffi-
cient, and that, if they made a bold stand now, it might prevent
a parliamentary enquiry, or to that effect ; and did persuade sev-
eral of them to make false representations of their circumstances
to his majesty, by adding a subscription to their respective ac-
counts delivered to the said Earl, to be laid before his majesty."
20th. That he did "borrow and receive of some of the Mas-
ters of the said Court, several great sums of money belonging
to the suitors of the said Court, deposited in the hands of such
Masters, and did make use thereof for his own private service
and advantage."
2 1 St. That he excluded certain persons, duly approved for
the trust, they being receivers of the rents and profits of a cer-
tain infant's estate, "and did, by such orders, unduly and in-
juriously nominate and appoint Robert Doyley, Esq., a creature
and confidant of his own, and a person altogether unfit and un-
qualified for so great a trust, to be receiver of the rents and
profits of the said estate, and to have a salary for the same.
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 167
th a power to let sitch part of the said estate, as was or should
:ome untenanted ; . . . and the said Robert Doyley, after
was so. admitted into the said receivership, did for several
irs receive the rents and profits of the said infant's estate, to
; amount of about £10,000, and did embezzle and convert to
i own use great part thereof."
He was tried and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of
0,000, and to imprisonment in the Tower until the fine should
paid.
IMPEACHMENT OF SIMON ERASER, LORD
)VAT, 18 Howell's State Trials 529: 13 Cobb. Pari. Hist.
38 (1746).
Charge: High Treason.
He was tried, convicted and executed.
IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS, Works
Edmund Burke, Vol. 3, page 106 (Harper & Bros., 1786).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.*
1st. "That the Court of Directors of the East India Com-
ny . . . did positively and repeatedly direct their ser-
nts in Bengal not to engage in any offensive war whatsoever.
. . That Warren Hastings, then Governour of Fort Wil-
m, in Bengal, . . . did express to the court of directors
! approbation of the policy thereof ; . . . and did signify
the nabob of Oude the said orders, and his obligation to yield
nctual obedience thereto. . . . That the said Warren
istings in direct contradiction to the said orders . . . did
September, 1773, enter into a private engagement with the
6. nabob of Oude, who was the special object of the pro-
Mtion, to furnish him, for a stipulated sum of money to be
id to the East India Company, with a body of troops for the
dared purpose of 'thoroughly extirpating the nation of the
)hillas'. . . . That . . . the East India Company or
nr representatives, were not parties to that engagement.
. That ... he did not make or cause to be made, a
e inquiry into the validity of the sole pretext used by the said
bob; . . . that instead of such previous inquiry . . .
; said Warren Hastings did stimulate the ambition and feroc-
of the nabob of Oude to the full completion of the inhuman
d of the said unjustifiable enterprise. . . . That the ob-
' These articles cover 170 pages of double column brevier t3T)e and hence
I only be abstracted in the most general way. Probably nine-tenths of
articles are simply evidence relating to the charges.
168 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
jects avowed by the said Warren Hastings . . . are stated
by himself . . . that it would ease the company of a con-
siderable part of their military expense, and preserve their
troops from inaction and relaxation of discipline. . . .
That the said nabob of Oude did, in consequence of the said
agreement, and with the assistance of British troops . . .
unjustly enter into and invade the country of the Rohillas, and
did there make war in a barbarous and inhuman manner."
2nd. "That, in a solemn treaty of peace, concluded the i6th,
of August, 1765, between the East India Company and the late
nabob of Oude, Shuja ul Dowla . . . it is agreed 'That
the King Shaw Allum shall remain in full possession of Corah,
and such part of the province of Illiabad as he now possesses,'
and . . . the faith of the company was pledged to the said
king for the annual payment of twenty-six lacks of rupees, for
his support. . . . That, in the year 1772, the king Shaw
Allum, who had hitherto resided in Allahabad, trusting to en-
gagements which he had entered into with the Mahrattas,
quitted that place and removed to Delhi (where he was) . . .
compelled, while a prisoner in their hands, to grant sunnuds for
the surrender of Corah and Illiabad to them '. . . (where-
upon the company did) authorize the said Warren Hastings
to restore them to him, on condition that he should renounce his
claim to the annual tribute of twenty-six lacks of rupees . . .
that nevertheless in the treaty concluded by the said Warren
Hastings with Shuja ul Dowla ... . it is asserted that his
majesty (meaning the king Shaw Allum) . . . had thereby
forfeited his right to the said districts" and said Hastings sold
them to said Shuja ul Dowla.
3rd. "That the territory of Benares is a fruitful, and has
been, not long since, an orderly, well-cultivated and improved
province of great extent; and its capital 'city . , . may
rather be considered as the seat of the Hindu religion, than as
the capital of a province. . . . And these circumstances
. . . did, in a peculiar manner, require that the governour
general and council of Calcutta should conduct themselves with
regard to its rulers and inhabitants, when it became dependent
on the company, on the most distinguished principles of good
faith, equity, moderation and mildness. That the rajah Bul-
want Sing, late prince or zemindar of the province aforesaid
(who) was a great lord of the Mogul empire, dependent on the
same, through the vizier of the empire, the late Shuja ul Dowla,
nabob of Oude, . . . did attach hiiiiself to the cause of
the English company (which in consideration thereof did de-
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 169
re that) no breach of treaty will ever have our sanction,
at the rajah Bulwant Sing died . . . his son, Cheit
ig, succeeding to his rights and pretensions . . . (and
nng paid at the request of said company) near £200,000 as a
t to the said vizier . . . was solemnly invested with the
rernment in the city of Benares . . . and the govern-
nt was accordingly settled on the rajah and his posterity
. . and the grant and stipulation aforesaid was fui^ther
ifirmed by the said Shuja ul Dowla, under the company's
arantee, by the most solemn and awful form of oath known
the Mahomedan religion inserted in the body of the deed or
int. . . . That some time after (the company) did ob-
n the assignment of the sovereignty paramount of the said
vernment by treaty with the nabob of Oude. . . . That
; tribute transferred to the company by the treaty with the
bob of Oude being £250,000 a year sterling and upwards,
thout any deduction whatsoever, was paid monthly, with such
nctual exactness, as had no parallel in the company's deat-
hs. (Yet the company by the casting vote of the said Hast-
es did require) that the rajah of Benares should consent to
e establishment of three regular battalions of sepoys, to be
ised and maintained at his own expense ... estimated
being between fifty and sixty thousand pounds sterling.
. . The said rajah submitted . . . on the express con-
tion . . ' . that the exaction should continue but for one
:ar, and should not be drawn into precedent. . . . That
e said Hastings did cause the said sums of money to be rig-
ously exacted . . . although no such regular battalions
. were then raised, or any steps taken towards raising
em . . . and (did) demand . . . full payment in
lecie to be made to him within five days. . . . That the
,id demand was complied with. . . . (That the next year,
,id Hastings did make) a demand of the same nature, and on
ie very same pretence ... of three battalions to_ be
lised (threatening military measures if the same was not paid).
That the third year ... the same demand was, with
le same menaces renewed, and ... on some short delay
E payment of the third arbitrary and illegal demand (said
[astings) did presume, of his own authority, to impose a fine
r mulct of £10,000 on the said rajah. . . . That these
iolent and insulting measures failing to provoke the rajah, and
e having paid up the whole demand, the said Warren Hastings,
;ing resolved to drive him to extremities, did make the rajat
"sudden demand of f26o;ooo per annum (additional) . .
170 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
to provide a body of cavalry for the service of the Bengal gov-
ernment (and that and later demands not being promptly met,
the said Hastings) resolved to convert the fatdts committed by
the rajah into a public benefit, and (that he) would exact the
sum of £500,000 as a pimishment . . . and if the rajah
should absolutely refuse the demand, that he would deprive him
of his zemindary, or transfer the sovereignty thereof to the
nabob of Oude (that the results of these and other similar
things stated in the article were the arrest of the rajah, three
revolutions in the country, and great loss, whereby the said
Hastings) is guilty of an high crime and misdemeanor in the
destruction of the country aforesaid."
4th. "That the reigning nabob of Oude, commonly called
Asoph ul Dowla . . . did gradually become, in substance
and effect, as well as in general repute and estimation, a de-
pendent on, or vassal of the East India Company. . . . That
the prince aforesaid, or nabob of Oude, did . . -. suppli-
cate the said Warren Hastings to be relieved from a body of
troops, whose licentious behavior he complained of .
which request, by the said Warren Hastings, was refused in un-
becoming, offensive and insulting language. That the said nabob,
labouring under the aforesaid and other burdens . . . did
extort from his mother and grandmother . . . great sums of
money, amounting in the whole to £630,000 sterling. . . .
That on the demand of said nabob of Oude on his parents for
the last of said simis . . . they did positively refuse to pay
any part of the same . . . imtil he should agree to certain
terms to be stipulated in a regular treaty . . . and a treaty
was accordingly agreed to, executed by the nabob, and guar-
anteed by . . . the resident of Oude, under the authonty
and with the express consent of the said Warren Hastings and
the council general. . . . That the said Warren Hastings
having by appointment met the nabob of Oude . . . did
contrary to justice and equity, and the security of property, as
well as to public faith, . . . authorize the said nabob to
seize upon and confiscate to his own profit, the landed estates,
called jaghires, of his parents, kindred and principal nobility
. . . whose lands had been guaranteed to liiem by the com-
pany. . . That the said Warren Hastings, in order to
cover the violent and unjust proceedings aforesaid, did assert a
claim of right in the said nabob to all the possessions of his
said mother and grandmother, as belonging to him by the said
Mahomedan law, and . . . did cause to be taken . . .
several passionate, careless, irrelevant and irregular affidavits
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 171
. that the aged women before mentioned had formed,
:ngaged in, a plan for the deposition of their son and sov-
gn, and the utter extirpation of the EngHsh nation. . . .
.t the said Warren Hastings . . . did order him, the
. resident, to use the British troops under his direction for
purpose . . . until the begums (princesses) are at the
re mercy of the nabob. That in conformity to the said per-
»tory orders, a party of British and other troops . . .
; stormed the town and afterwards the castle . . . and
ipied all the outer inclosure of the palace of one of the prin-
ics, and blocked up the other. . . . That in consequence
these severities upon herself, and on those whom she most
irded and trusted, the mother of the said nabob did at length
sent to the delivering up of her treasures, and the same were
1 to the resident. . . . That bullion, jewels and goods to
amount of £500,000 and upwards, were actually received by
resident for the use of the company. . . . (Various
;r recited cruel steps were taken to extort more money, and)
said Warren Hastings was duly apprised of all the material
umstances . . . but did nothing to stop . . . them ;
on the contrary . . . (wrote that) I have a right to
Hire and insist on the complete execution of them. ...
lat in continuance of said cruelties the said princesses and
T attendants were kept without proper food, begging) most
:ously for liberty that they may earn their daily bread by
>rious servitude, or to be relieved from their misery by im-
iiate death. . . . That the said Warren Hastings
. being expressly ordered by the Court of Directors to re-
■e to them their estates . . . did contumaciously and
elly decline any compliance with the said orders, until his
rney to Lucknow, when he did (restore them), as he says
. but with the defalcation ... of a large portion
their respective shares . . . (and an inquiry being or-
ed) he, the said Hastings, in order to effectually stifle the said
niry, . . . (asserted that it) would be productive of
s greater than any which have already taken place, and which
e has almost obliterated."
5th. "That a prince called Ahmed Khan was of a family
Dngst the most distinguished of Hindostan, and of a nation
lous throughout the empire for its valor in acquiring, and
policy and prudence in well governing territories it did ac-
re, .. . Ahmed Khan toward the close of his life was
)o'ssessed of a large part of his dominions by the prevalence of
Mahratta power. . . . That the hardship of his case
172 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
being frequently reported to Warren Hastings, Esq., he did
suggest a doubt whether he ought to be still subject to tribute.
Then . . . as. a means of said relief did, with the consent
of the Board, order the native sequestrator to be removed and
an English resident and servant of the company to be appointed
in his room, declaring 'he understood a local interference to be
indispensably necessary.' . . . The said Warren Hastings
did nevertheless, in a certain paper purporting to be a treaty
made . . . with the nabob of Oude . . . consent to an
article therein that no English resident be appointed to Far-
ruckabad and that the person be recalled. . . . That on the
said Warren Hastings' representation of the transaction afore-
said to the Court of Directors, they did heavily and justly cen-
sure the said Warren Hastings for the same, recommending re-
lief to the suffering prince, but . . . immediately on the
removal of the British resident, the country of Farruckabad was
subjected to the discretion of a certain native manager of rev-
enue . . . who did impoverish and oppress the country, and
insult the prince and deprive him of all subsistence from his
own estates, taking from him even his gardens and the tombs
of his ancestors and the funds for maintaining the same. That
on complaint of those proceedings, the said Hastings did, of his
own authority and without communicating with his council, di-
rect the native collector aforesaid to be removed and the ter-
ritory of Farruckabad to be left to the sole management of its
natural prince. But in a short time the said Hastings, pretend-
ing to receive many complaints did . . . withdraw his pro-
tection and interference altogether, whereby . . . Farruck-
abad which was once a city of great opulence and trade is now
daily deserted by its inhabitants, its walls mouldering away,
without police protection, exposed to the depredations of a
banditti of two or three hundred robbers who night after night
enter it for plunder, murdering all who oppose them. . . .
And the said Hastings has directly made or authorized no less
than six revolutions in less than five years in the aforesaid har-
assed provin.ce (whereby), . . . the said Hastings is guilty
of high crimes and misdemeanors."
6th. "That the late nabob of Oude . . , and the
mother of the nabob, in order to quiet the country, and to satisfy
in some measure the principal and other inhabitants, did allow
and pay a certain pension to the said rajah . . . which pen-
sion on the general confiscation of jaghires (made at the in-
stigation of the said Warren Hastings) . . . was discon-
tinued and refused to be pai)d. That . . . the officer em-
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 173
ed to reduce those disordered parts of the province to sub-
ion, after several advantages gained over the raj'ah and his
;rents, did report the utter impossibility of bringing it to a
lanent settlement merely by forcible methods, and . . .
the allowing the said rajah a pension '. . . would be
nost certain method of obtaining a permanent peace . . .
:) the said Warren Hastings did wilfully and criminally omit
rder any relief to the said rajah in conformity to the general
e and wishes of the inhabitants (because of which) the said
h, honoured and respected by the, natives, was hunted down
at length killed in a thicket."
7th. "That the Court of Directors of the East India Com-
r had laid down the following fundamental rules for the,
luct of such of the company's business in Bengal as could
)erformed by contract . . . namely, that all contracts
lid be publicly advertised and the most reasonable proposal
pted. . . . That the said Warren Hastings in direct dis-
[ience of the said positive orders, and as the directors them-
es say, by deliberate breach of his duty, did . . . accept
proposals . . . for providing draught and carriage bul-
s and for victualling the Europeans, without advertising for
MDsals as he was expressly commanded to do. . . . That
Court of Directors of the East India Company, having care-
r considered the circumstances and tendency af this trans-
)n, condemned it in the strongest terms (notwithstanding
:h) the said Warren Hastings in defiance of orders which
directors say were plain and unequivocal, did . . .
lin) receive from George Templer a proposal essentially
:rent from the advertisement published by the Governour-
eral and council . . . and did accept thereof not only
lOut having recourse to the proper means for ascertaining
ther the said proposal was the lowest that could be offered,
with another actually before the Board nearly thirty per cent
:r than that made by the said George Templer, to whom the
Warren Hastings granted a contract (and did grant various
r contracts under like circumstances). . . . That with
same view, and on the same principles, it appears, that ex-
ive salaries and emoluments, at the East India Company's
■ge and expense, have been lavished by the. said Warren
tings to sundry individuals, contrary to the general prin-
's of his duty and in direct contradiction to the positive orders
he Court of Directors. . . . That these instances are
►fs of a criminal profusion to the India Company in the
Warren Hastings, under whose government, and by means
174 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
of whose special power, derived from the effect of his casting"
voice, all the said waste and profusion did take place."
8th. "That, before the appointment of the Governor-General
and council of Fort William by Act of Parliament, the allow-
ance made by the East India Company to the presidents in gen-
eral, and the said Warren Hastings particularly, was restrained
by a specific covenant and indenture, which he entered into with,
the company from accepting any gifts, rewards or gratuities
whatsoever. . . . That notwithstanding the covenants and
engagements above mentioned (various payments were made by
various persons to the said Warren Hastings whereby he) has
been guilty of gross evasions, and palpable prevarications and
deceit, as well as contumacy and disobedience to the lawful orders
of the Court of Directors, and thereby confirmed all the former
evidence of his having constantly used the influence of his sit-
uation for the most scandalous, illegal and corrupt purposes."
9th. "That Warren Hastings having . . . signified to
the Court of Directors his, desire to resign his office of governor-
general of Bengal, and requested their nomination of a suc-
cessor to the vacancy . . . and the Court of Directors . . .
did unanimously resolve to accept the same ; and did also, under
powers vested in the said court, . . . nominate and appoint
Edward Wheeler, Esq., to succeed to the office . . . which
nomination and appointment was afterwards in due form ap-
proved and confirmed by his majesty . . . the said Warren
Hastings did positively refuse to comply with the said requisition
(to deliver up the keys of Fort William and of the company's"
treasuries) . . . denying that his office was vacant, and de-
claring his resolution to assert and maintain his authority by every
legal means . . . the said refusal was prejudicial to the
officers and the servants of the company in India by shaking the
confidence to be placed in their agents by those persons with
whom it might be for their interest to negotiate on any matter of
importance and by thus subjecting the communications of persons
abroad with those at home to difficulties not known before."
loth. "That the said Warren Hastings . . . did grant
to the surgeon-general a contract for three years for defraying
every kind of hospital and medicine expense, not only in breach
of the general order of the Court of Directors with respect to the
duration of contracts, but in direct opposition to a particular
order of the Court of Directors of the 30th of March, 1714."
nth. "That the governor-general and council at Fort Wil-
liam did on the motion and recommendation of Warren Hastings,
Esq., enter into a contract . . . for the repairs of the pools
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 175
banks in the province of Burdwan for two years, and . . .
said Warren Hastings did further persuade the supreme coun-
to prolong the term of the above contract ... for the
:eof three years more, on the same conditions. . . . That
said contracts, both in the manner of their acceptance by the
reme council, without having previously advertised for pro-
als, and in the extent of their duration, were made in direct
ation of the special orders of the Court of Directors. . . .
It the grant of the foregoing contracts and the permission
irwards annexed to the second of said grants, became much
re reprehensible from the consideration of the circumstances
;he person to whom such a grant was made."
I2th. "That it appears that the opium produced in Bengal
. Bahar is a considerable and lucrative article in the export
ie of those provinces. . . . That in May, 1777, the said
rren Hastings granted to John Mackenzie a contract for the
vision of opium, to continue three years and without advertis-
for proposals. That this transaction was condemned by the
irt of Directors. . . . That about the end of the year 1 780
said Warren Hastings, in contradiction to the order above
itioned, did take away the sale of opium from the board of
le, though he disclaimed, at the same time, any intention of
•lying a censure on their management. . . . That in
rch, 1 78 1, said Warren Hastings did grant to Stephen SuUi-
. . . . a contract for the provision of opium, without
ertising for proposals, and without even receiving any written
posals from him. . . . That the said Sullivan . . .
> a stranger to the country and to all the local comtnerce
•eof, and therefore unqualified for the management of such a
cern, and . . . did, shortly after obtaining the same, as-
i it ... in consideration (of) . . . a great sum of
ley. . . . That the said Warren Hastings at the very
e when he engaged the company in the contract for en-
ssing the whole of the opium produced in Bengal and Bahar
IS engaged in a scheme for exporting opium to China, though
wing that that was forbidden by the Chinese government)-.
Lt every part of this transaction, from the monopoly with
ch it commenced, to the contraband dealing with which it
eluded, criminates the said Warren Hastings with wilful dis-
lience of orders and the continued breach of trust."
13th. "That in the month of February, 1781, Mr. Richard
;ph Sullivan, secretary of the select committee of Fort St.
irge, applied to them for leave to proceed to Calcutta on his
ate'aflfairs. That' being the confidential secretary . . .
176 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
and consequently possessed of all the facts and secrets of the
company ... he went privately into the service of the
nabob of Arcot and . . . undertook a commission from the
said nabob to the governor-general and council to negotiate with
them in favor of certain projects of the said nabob which had
been reprobated by the Company. That the said Sullivan was
soon after appointed back again by the said Warren Hastings to
the office of resident at the durbar of the said nabob of Arcot.
That it was a high crime and misdemeanor in the said Hastings
to encourage so dangerous an example in the Company's service."
14th. "That . . . the governor-general and council of
Fort William, at the special recommendation and request of
Warren Hastings, Esq., . . . did conclude a treaty of per-
petual friendship and alliance, offensive and defensive, with a
Hindoo prince called Ranna of Gohud, for the express purpose
of using the forces of the said ranna in opposition to the
Mahrattas. That, among other articles, it was stipulated with
the said ranna, by the said Warren Hastings, 'that whenever
peace should be concluded with the Company and the Mahratta
state, the maharajah should be included as a party in the treaty,
which should be made for that purpose, and his present posses-
sions, together with the fort of Gualior . . . should be guar-
anteed to him by such treaty. . ' " . . That in conformity to
the above mentioned treaty . . . the said ranna of Gohud
was expressly included. That notwithstanding the said express
provision and agreement, Madajee Scindia proceeded to attack
the forts and lay waste the territories of the said ranna . . .
in the course of which the ranna and his family were reduced to
extreme distress, and in the end he was deprived of his forts, and
the whole, not only of his acquired possessions, but of his original
dominions so specially guaranteed to him by the British govern-
ment. . . . That the said Warren Hastings was duly and
regularly informed of the progress of the war against the said
ranna, and of every event thereof; notwithstanding which he
not only neglected in any manner to interfere therein in favor of
the said ranna, or to use any endeavors to protest the infraction
of his treaty, but gave considerable countenance and encourage-
ment to Madajee Scindia in his violation of it. . . . That
the said Warren Hastings was highly culpable in abandoning
the said ranna to the fury of his enemies, thereby forfeiting the
honor, and injuring the credit of the British nation in India,
(and) ... in violation of the national faith and justice did
commit a gross and wilful breach of his duty and was thereby
guilty of an high crime and misdemeanor."
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 1
15th. "That the property of the lands in Bengal is, accor
g to the laws and customs of that country, an inheritable pro
ty, and that it is, with few exceptions, vested in certain nativ
lied zemindars, or landholders, under whom other native
lied talookdars and ryots, hold certain subordinate rights (
operty, or occupancy, in the said lands. . . . The sa
arren Hastings, nevertheless, in direct violation of tho
knowledged rights and principles, did universally let the lan(
Bengal in farm for five years, thereby destroying all tl
jhts of private property of the zemindars; thereby deliverir
e management of their estates to farmers, and transferring t
most arbitrary and unjust act of power the whole lande
operty of Bengal from the owners to strangers." Where!
d by other things stated great wrong was done to the people <
2 country and the East India Company itself deprived of larj
ifenue.
1 6th. "That the province of Oude and its dependencies wei
fore their connection with, and subordination to, the Con
ny, in a flourishing condition in regard to culture, commerc
d population, and their rulers and principal nobility maintaine
^mselves in a state of affluence and splendor; but very short!
ter the period aforesaid the prosperity both of the countr
d of its chiefs began sensibly and rapidly to decline . .
hough the rents were generally advanced and the countr
tevously oppressed in order to raise it. . . . That by tl
:aty of Fyzabad a regular brigade of the company's troops t
stationed in the dominions of the nabob of Oude was kept u
the expense of said nabob. . . . That the said nabob di
)resent . . . the distressed state of his revenues an
. his inability to maintain the said troops (and the diflE
ties relating to the said province having increased from tini
time, various means were suggested and carried out by th
d Hastings, for the benefit of himself and his appointees, a
which resulted badly, as he should have known they wouk
). That in the said deceits, prevarications, contradiction;
licious accusations, fraudulent concealments, and compelle
coveries, as well as in said secret, corrupt, and prodigal dis
;ition of the revenues of Oude, as well as in his breach c
th to the nabob ... the said Hastings is guilty of
•h offence and misdemeanor."
17th. "That it was the declared policy of the Company, o
acquisition of the duannee o^" Bengal, to continue the countr
rernment under the inspection of the resident at the nabob'
-bar, in the first' instance, and that of the president and th
178 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
council in the last. . . . That during the country govern-
ment, the principal active person in the administration of afifairs
. . . was Mahomed Reza Khan, who besides large landed
property, was possessed of offices, whose emoluments amounted
nearly if not altogether to £100,000 a year. That the company's
servants in the beginning were not conversant in the affairs of
the revenue, and . ' . . on that ground, as well as in regard
to the rank which Mahomed Reza Khan held in the cotmtry
and the confidence of the people in him . . . they deter-
mined to continue him in a share of the authority. . . .
Tha't the said Mahomed Reza Khan continued with the same
diligence, spirit, and fidelity, to execute the trust reposed in
him . . . (nevertheless) the said Warren Hastings lately
appointed to the presidency . . . did dispatch, by express
messengers, his orders ... to arrest in his capital, and at
his court, and without any previous notice given of any charge,
. . . the aforesaid Mahomed Reza Khan, and to bring him
to Calcutta. . . . That notwithstanding a total revolution in
the power, in part avowedly made for his destruction, the per-
sons appointed for his trial, did, on full inquiry, completely
acquit the said Mahomed Reza Khan of the criminal charges
against him, on account of which he had been so long persecuted
and confined. . . . That the council-general, established by
Act of Parliament in the year 1773, did restore the said
Mahomed Reza Khan with the consent and approbation of the
nabob, (but under a protest from the said Warren Hastings) to
his liberty and his offices . . . and the Court of Directors
did approve of the said appointment, and did assure the said
Mahomed Reza Khan of their favor and protection, as long as
his conduct should merit the same . . . and the said
Mahomed Reza Khan did continue to execute the same (offices
and duties) without any complaint whatsoever. . . . That
in March, 1778, the said Warren Hastings, under color, that the
nabob had completed his twentieth year, and had desired to be
in the entire and uncontrolled management of his own affairs,
(did) . . . remove the said Mahomed Reza Khan from all
his offices, and . . . notwithstanding his late pretended
opinion of the fitness and right of the nabob to the sole adminis-
tration of his own affairs, authoritatively forbid him from any
interference therein. . . . That the court of directors, on
receiving an account of the above arrangements . . . did,
in a clear, firm and decisive manner express their condemnation,
(and) ... did order and direct . . . that you forth-
with signify to the nabob . . . our pleasure that Mahomed
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS ' 179
:a Khan be immediately restored to his office of naib soubadar;
we further direct that Mahomed Reza Khan be again as-
sd of the contmuance of our favours, so long as a firm attach-
it to the mterests of the Company, and a proper discharge of
duties of his station shall render him worthy of our protec-
^•' • • • That the said Hastings ought to have yielded a
erful obedience thereto ... yet the said Hastings
. . did dissent from the same, and he did encourage the
i nabob (and others) ... to oppose himself and them-
res to the authority of the said Court of Directors; by which
"IS . . . the aforesaid corrupt system was continued;
homed Reza Khan was not restored to his office; and a lesson
3 taught to the natives of all ranks that ... the decided
hority of the Court of Directors were wholly nugatory to their
tection against the corrupt influence of their servants. That
said Warren Hastings on a reconciliation with Mr. Francis,
; of the council-general . . . did, of his own authority
1 that of the board, restore Mahomed Reza Khan to his
ces. That soon after the departure of the said Mr. Francis,
did again deprive the said Mahomed Reza Khan of his said
ces (and though directed by the company to account for
neys received, neglected so to do). . . . Accordingly, no
ition whatsoever has been received by the Court of Directors'
the said nabob's affairs ; nor aiiy account of the money monthly
d, except from public fame, which reports that his affairs are
great disorder, his servants unpaid, and many of them dis-
;sed, and all the Musselmen dependent on his family in a
te of indigence."
1 8th. "That Shah AUum, the prince commonly called the
;at Mogul . . . was in the possession of the ancient capi-
of Hindostan ; and though without any considerable territory,
I without a revenue sufficient to maintain a moderate state, he
still much respected and considered; and the custody of his
son is eagerly sought by many of the princes of India, on
ount of the use to be made of his title and authority ; and it
3 for the interest of the East India Company . . . that
should be treated with friendship, good faith, and respectful
^ntion. That Warren Hastings, in contradiction to this safe,
t and honorable policy, strongly prescribed and enforced by
orders of the Court of Directors, did . . . concur with
captain-general of the Mahratta state called Madajee Scindia,
hostile designs against the few remaining territories of that
le Mogul emperor, by virtue of whose grant the company
iially possess the government, and enjoy the revenues, of great
180 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
provinces. . . . That after having concurred in the manner
before mentioned, in the designs of the Mahrattas against the
Mogul . . . the said Warren Hastings' . , . did carry
on certain private and dangerous intrigties for various purposes,
particularly for making war in favor of the said king, against
some powers or princes not precisely described, but which, as
may be inferred from a subsequent correspondence, with certain
Mahomedan princes in the neighborhood of Delhi in amity with
the company, and some of them at that time in the actual service
and in the apparent confidence and favor of the said Mogul.
. . . That the said Hastings having early in the year 1784
procured to himself a deputation to act in the upper provinces,
the council being well aware of his disposition to engage in un-
warrantable designs against the neighboring states, did expressly
confine his powers to the circumstances of his actual residence
within the company's provinces; but it appears that ways were
found out by which he hoped to defeat the precautions of the
Board. . . . That the said Warren Hastings, still pursuing
his said evil designs, did apply to the council for discretionary
powers relative to the intrigues and factions in the Mogul's court,
giving assurances of his resolution not to proceed against their
sense ; but the said council . . . did refuse to grant the said
discretionary powers . . . observing 'that the company's
orders are positive against their interference in the objects of dis-
pute between the country powers.' That in order to subvert the
plain and natural interpretation given by the council to the
orders of the Court of Directors, and to justify his dangerous
intrigues, the said Warren Hastings . . . did, in a most in-
solent and contemptuous manner, endeavor to persuade them of
their ignorance of the true sense of their own orders, and to
limit their prohibition of interference with the disputes of the
country powers to such country powers as are permanent.
. . . That the said Hastings, further to persuade the court
of directors to involve themselves in the. affairs of the Mogul
. . . did write to them . . . 'that if it, (the Mogul's,
authority), is suffered to receive its final extinction, it is impossi-
ble to foresee what power may. arise out of its ruins, or what
events may be linked in the same chain of revolution with it;
but your interests may suffer by, it, your reputation certainly
will.' . . . That the other members of the council-general
having abundantly certified their averseness to his intrigues, and
even shown their apprehension of his going to the Mogul and
the Mahrattas for the purpose of carrying on the same, the said
Hastings was. driven headlong to acts which did much more
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 181
ly indicate the true purpose of his machinations; for he at
h recurred directly, and with little disguise, to the Mahrattas,
did open an intrigue with them. . . . That in further
ait of the same pernicious design, he, the said Warren Hast-
did enter into an agreement to withdraw a very great body
ritish troops out of the nabob's dominions ; asserting . . .
he did this not only avowedly to aggrandize the Mahratta
, and weaken the defence upon the frontier, but did as
7edly detain their captain-general in force on that very fron-
notwithstanding that he was well apprised that they had
jns against those dependent territories of Oude. . . .
: in consequence of all the before recited intrigues, the Mogul
:ror being in the hands of the Mahrattas . . . has
obliged to declare the head of the Mahratta state to be
•regent of the Mogul empire, an authority which supersedes
of vizier, and has thereby consolidated in the Mahratta
all the powers acknowledged to be of legal authority in
i; in consequence of which they have acquired, and have
illy already attempted to use, the said claims of general
riority against the company itself. . . . That in the
le of the letters, negotiations, proposals and projects of the
Warren Hastings, relative to the Mogul, he did appear to
ue but one object, namely, the aggrandizement of the lately
lie and always dangerous power of the Mahrattas; and did
ue the same by means wholly dishonorable to the British
acter for honour, justice, candour, plain dealing, moderation
humanity."
19th. "That Warren Hastings, Esq., was, during the whole
le year 1783, a servant of the East India Company, and was
id by the duties of that relation not only to yield obedience
le orders of the court of directors, but to give to the whole
leir service an example of submission, reverence and respect
eir authority ; . . . and to treat the said Court of Direc-
his lawful masters, with respect. That the said Warren
;ings did print and publish, or cause to be printed and pub-
d at Calcutta in Bengal, the narrative of his transactions
enares . . . in order to pre-occupy the judgment of the
mts in that settlement, and to gain from them a factious
tenance and support, previous to the judgment and opinion
he court of directors, his lawful superiors. . . . That
:he said Warren Hastings, among other insolent and con-
icious charges and aspersions on the court of directors, did
ess them in a printed letter ■. . . (in language ill be-
ng that of a servant of the company, and) did also presume
182 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
to censure and asperse the court of directors for the moderate
terms in which they had expressed their displeasure against him,
as putting him to the necessity of stating in hi-s defence a strong
accusation against himself. . . . That the said Hastings,
being well aware that his own declarations did contain the clear-
est condemnation of his own conduct fr6m his own pen, did, in
the said libel, attempt to overturn, frustrate, and render of
none effect, all the proofs to be given of prevarication, contradic-
tion, and opposition, of action to principle, which can be used
against men in public trust, and ... in order to draw the
lawful dependence of the servants of the company from the court
of directors to a factious dependence on himself, did, in the libel
aforesaid, treat the acts and appointments of their undoubted
authority, when exercised in opposition to his arbitrary will, as
ruinous to their affairs. . . . That further to emancipate
others than himself from due obedience to the court of directors,
he did, in the libel, aforesaid, enhance his services; which, with-
out specification or proof, he did suppose in the said libel to be
important and valuable, by representing them to be done under
their displeasure. . . . And the said Hastings, further to
render the authority of the said court perfectly contemptible,
doth, in a strain of exultation for his having escaped out of a
measure from which by his guilt he had involved the company
in a ruinous war, and out of which it had escaped by a sacrifice
of almost all the territories before acquired (from that enemy
which he had made) either by war, or former treaties, and by
the abandoning the company's allies to their mercy, attribute the
said supposed services to his acting in such a manner as had on
former occasions excited their displeasure. . . . That in
order further to excite the spirit of disobedience in the com-
pany's servants to the lawful authority set over them, he, the said
Warrfen Hastings, did treat contemptuously and ironically the
supppsed disposition of the company's servants to obey the orders
of the court of / directors, (and) . . . said Warren Hast-
ings did attempt to justify his publication of the said libellous let-
ter to and against the court of directors by asserting therein that
those resolutions (meaning the resolutions of the court of direc-
tors, relative to the rajah of Benares) 'were either published or
intended for publication' ; evidently proving, that he did take this
unwarrantable course without any sufficient assurance that the
ground and motive by him assigned had any existence."
20th. "That by an act passed in 1773, it was expressly
ordered and provided, 'that it should not be lawful for any presi-
dent and council at Madras, Bombay, or Bencoolen, for the time
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 183
ng, to make any orders for commencing. hostilities, or declar-
<; or makmg war against any Indian princes or power, or for
2[otiatmg or concluding any treaty of peace, or other treaty,
th any such Indian prince or powers, without the consent and
probation of the governor-general and council first had and
tained, except in such cases of imminent necessity as would
ider it dangerous to postpone said hostilities or treaties.'
. . That nevertheless the president and council of Bombay
i . . . without the consent and approbation of the governor-
aeral and council of Fort William, and in the midst of pro-
:ind peace, commence an unjust and unprovoked war against
: Mahratta government; did conclude a treaty with a certain
rson, a fugitive from that government, and prescribed by -it,
med Ragonaut Row or Ragoba; and djd, under various base
d treacherous pretences, invade and conquer the island of
Isette, belonging to the Mahratta government. That Warren
istings on the first advices received in Bengal of the above
.nsactions, did condemn the same in the strongest terms.
. . And the governor-general and council, in order to put a
ip to the said unjust hostilities, did appoint an ambassador to
t peshwa or chief of the Mahratta state, residing at Poona,
d the said ambassador did, after a long negotiation, conclude
definitive treaty of peace with the said peshwa on terms
jhly honorable and beneficial to the East India Company.
. . That it was the special duty of the said Warren Hast-
es, derived from a special trust reposed in him, and power
mmitted to him by act of parliament, to have restrained, as by
V he had authority to do, the subordinate presidency of Bom-
y, from entering into hostilities with the Mahrattas, or from
iking engagements, the manifest tendency of which was to
ter into those hostilities, and have put a stop to them if such
d been begun. . . . That the said Warren Hastings,
. . instead of fixing his attention to the preservation of
ice throughout India, as it was his duty to have done, did
itinue to abet, encourage, and support the dangerous proj-
;s of the presidency of Bombay, and did thereby manifest a
termined intention to disturb the peace of India, by the unfor-
late success of which intention, and by the continued efforts
the said Hastings, the greater part of India has' been for sev-
il years involved in a bloody and calamitous war. . . .
lat through the whole of these transactions the said Warren
istings has been guilty of continued falsehood, fraud, contra-
:tion, and duplicity, highly dishonorable to the character of
1 British nation; that in consequence of the unjust and ill-
184 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
concerted schemes of the said Hastings, the British arms, hereto-
fore respected in India, have suffered repeated disgraces, and
great calamities have thereby been wrought upon India ; and that
the said Warren Hastings, as well in exciting and promoting the
late unprovoked and unjust war against the Mahrattas, as in the
conduct thereof, has been guilty of sundry high crimes and mis-
demeanors. That by the definitive treaty of peace concluded
with the Mahrattas ... the Mahrattas gave up all right
and title to the island of Salsette, . . . did also give up to
the English company forever all right and title to their entire
shares of the city and purgunnah of Broach; did also give for-
ever to the English company a country of three lacks of rupees
revenue near to Broach ; and did also agree to pay to the com-
pany twelve lacks of rupees, in part of the expense of the English
army; and that the terms of the said treaty were honorable and
advantageous to the India Company. That Warren Hastings,
having broken the said treaty and forced the Mahrattas into
another war, by a repeated invasion of their country, and having
conducted that war in a manner hereinbefore described, did
. . . conclude another treaty of perpetual friendship and
alliance with the Mahrattas, and . . . did consent and
agree to other articles utterly dishonorable to the British name
and character, having sacrificed or abandoned every one of the
native princes, who, by his solicitations and promises had been
engaged to take part with us in the war. . . . That the
said Warren Hastings, having broken a solemn and honorable
treaty of peace by an unjust and unprovoked war; having neg-
lected to conclude that war when he might have done it without
loss of honor to the nation ; having plotted and contrived as far
as depended upon him, to engage the India Company in another
war, as soon as the former should be concluded; and having at
last put an end to the unjust war against the Mahrattas by a
most ignominious peace with them, in which he sacrificed objects
essential to the interests, and submitted to conditions utterly in-
compatible with the honor of this nation . . . has by these
several acts , been guilty of sundry high crimes and mis-
demeanors."
2ist. "That by an act of the 13th year of the present ma-
jesty . . . 'The governor-general and council are required
and directed to pay due obedience to all such orders as they shall
receive from the court of directors . . . and to correspond
from time to time, and constantly and diligently transmit to the
said court an exact particular of all advices or intelligence, and
of all transactions and matters whatsoever, that shall come to
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 185
knowledge, relating to the government, commerce, revenues,
iterests of the said united company.' That, in consequence
be above recited act, the court of directors ... did
;t, 'that the correspondence with the princes or country
;rs in India should be carried on through the governor-gen-
only' ; but that all letterjfe to be sent by him should be first
oved in council ; and that he should lay before the council, at
■ next meeting, all letters received by him in the course of
correspondence for their information. . . . That in de-
e to the said orders, .and in breach of the above recited act
arliament, said Warren Hastings had in sundry instances,
ealed from his council the correspondence carried on between
and the princes or country powers in India, and neglected to
nunicate the advices and intelligence he from time to time
ved. . . . That, moreover, the said Warren Hast-
. . . has withheld from the court of directors, upon
ry occasions, copies of the proceedings had, and the cor-
Dndence carried on by him in his official capacity, as governor-
ral, whereby the court of directors have been kept in ignor-
of matters which it highly imported them to know, and
affairs of the company have been exposed to much incon-
;nce and injury. That in all such concealments and acts done
irdered without the consent and authority of the supreme
icil, the said Warren Hastings has been guilty of high crimes
misdemeanors."
22nd. "That the nabob Fyzoola Khan, who now holds of the
:r the territory of Rampore, Shawabad, and certain other
icts dependent thereon^ in the country of the Rohillas, is the
ad son of a prince . . . some time sovereign of all that
of Rohilcund, which is particularly distinguished by the
Uation of the kutteehr. That . . . (being) then a pris-
of war . . . the nabob Fyzoola Khan was from neces-
compelled to waive his hereditary rights for the inconsider-
districts of Rampore and Shawabad, then estimated to pro-
from six to eight lacks of annual revenue. . . . That
reat was the confidence of the nabob Fyzoola Khan in the
humane, and liberal feelings of Englishmen, (that)
he declined the invitation of the Mogul to join the arms
is majesty and the Mahrattas, 'refused any connection with
?eiks,' and did even neglect to take the obvious precaution of
sing the Ganges . . • while the river was yet fordable,
ovement which would have enabled him certainly to baffle
jursuit. . . . That the commander-^in-chief . . .
ight nothing could be more honorable to this nation than
186 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
the support of so exalted a character' . . . urging to the
said Hastings sundry good and cogent arguments of policy and
prudence in favor of the said Nabob Fyzoola Khan. . . .
That in answer to said laudable wish of said commander-in-chief,
the said Warren Hastings preferring his own prohibited plans
of extended dominion (wrote) . . . 'With respect to
Fyzoola Khan he appears not to merit our consideration. The
petty sovereign of a country estimated at six or eight lacks
ought not for a moment to prove an impediment to any of our
measures or to affect the consistency of our conduct.' . . .
That notwithstanding the culpable and criminal reluctance of
the President Hastings ... a treaty of peace and friend-
ship between the Vizier Shuja ul Dowla and the Nabob Fyzoola
Khan was finally signed and sealed. . . . By the said treaty
the Nabob Fyzoola Khan was established in the quiet possession
of Rampore, ShaWabad, and some other districts dependent
thereon. . . . That during the life of the Vizier Shuja ul
■ Dowla, and for some time after his death, under his son and
successor Aseph ul Dowla, the Nabob Fyzoola Khan did remain
without disturbance or molestation, (and) . . . did princi-
pally apply himself to 'improve the state of the country ; and- did,
by his own prudence and attention, increase the revenues there-
of.' " That trouble having arisen with the said Aseph ul Dowla,
the said Fyzoola Khan did ask the company to "guarantee the
observance of the treaty existing between the vizier and Fyzoola
Khan . . . which proposition was resolved in the affirma-
tive. . . . That agreeably to the resolution of council here-
inbefore recited, the solicited guarantee . . . was trans-
mitted, together with the renewed treaty . . . and they
were . . . presented to the Nabob Fyzoola Khan, with a
solemnity not often parallelled. . . . That whether the guar-
antee aforesaid was or was not necessary; whether it created
a new obligation, or but more fully recognized an obligation
previously existing, the governor-general, Warren Hastings, by
the said guarantee did, in the most explicit manner, pledge and
commit the public faith of the company, and the nation . . .
more particularly binding the said Hastings personally to exact
the due observance of the said treaty, especially to protect the
Nabob Fyzoola !^han against any arbitrary construction, or un-
warranted requisition of the vizier. . . . That notwithstand-
ing his own private honor thus deeply engaged, notwithstanding
the public justice and generosity of the company and the nation
thus solemnly committed, disregarding the plain import and
positive terms of the guaranteed treaty, the governor-general.
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 187
irren Hastings, ... did recommend to the vizier 'to
uire from Fyzoola Khan the quota of troops stipulated by
aty to be furnished by the latter for his (the vizier's), service,
ng five thousand horse, though, as the vizier did not march
person he was not, under any construction of the treaty, en-
ed by stipulation to more than two or three thousand troops,'
rse and foot, 'according to the ability of Fyzoola Khan.'
. . That the vizier himself appears by no ineans to have
:n persuaded of his own right to five thousand horse under
: treaty. . . . That the vizier actually did make his^appli-
ion to Fyzoola Khan for the five thousand horse, not as for
aid, to which he had a just claim, but as for something over
1 above the obligation of the treaty. (Nevertheless the said
irren Hastings) in a style. unusually imperative, proceeded as
lows: 'Demand immediate delivery of three thousand cavalry;
i if he should evade or refuse compliance, that the deputies
ill deliver him a formal protest against him for breach of
aty,' (though) he, the said Hastings, well knew that a com-
ance therewith on the part of the Nabob Fyzoola Khan, was
erly impossible. . . . That the governor-general, Warren
LStings, . . . did enter into a treaty with the vizier at
unar . . . the third article (of which) is as follows,
lat as Fyzoola Khan has by his breach of treaty forfeited the
>tection of the English government, and causes by his con-
uance of his present independent state great alarm and detri-
nt to the nabob vizier, he be permitted, when the time shall
t, to resume his lands, and pay him in money, through the
ident, the amount stipulated by treaty, after deducting the
lount and charges of the troops he stands engaged to furnish
treaty.' . . . That it thus tends to hold out to India, and
the whole world, that the public principle of the British govern-
nt is a deliberate system of injustice, joined with falsehood;
impolicy, of bad faith, and treachery; and that the said article
therefore in the highest degree derogatory to the honor, and
urious to the interests, of the nation. . . . That after
ich negotiations the Nabob Fyzoola Khan ... did at
gth agree with Majoi- Palmer to give fifteen lacks or £150,000
1 upwards, by four installments, that he might be exempted
)m all future claims of military service. . . . That the
d Warren Hastings did now clearly and explicitly under-
nd the clauses of the treaty, 'that Fyzoola Khan should send
3 or three (and not five) thousand men, to attend in person in
e it was requisite.' That the said Warren Hastings did now
ifess, that the right of the vizier, under the treaty was at best
188 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
'but a precarious and unserviceable right; and that he thought
fifteen lacks or £150,000 and upwards an ample equivalent.'
. . . _And finally, that the said Hastings did give the follow-
ing description of the Nabob Fyzoola Khan : 'The rumors which
had been spread of his hostile designs against the vizier, were
totally groundless, and if he had been inclined, he had not the
means, to make himself formidable; on the contrary, being in the
decline of life and possessing a very fertile and prosperous jag-
hire, it is more natural to suppose that Fyzoola Khan wishes to
spend the remainder of his days in quietness, than that he is pre-
paring to embark in active and offensive scenes, which must end
in his own destruction.' Yet that, notwithstanding this virtual
and implied crimination in his whole conduct toward the Nabob
Fyzoola Khan, and after all the aforesaid acts systematically
prosecuted in open violation of a positive treaty against a prince,
who had a hereditary right to more than he actually possessed, for
whose protection the faith of the company and the nation was re-
peatedly pledged, and who had deserved and obtained the public
thanks of the British government, when, in allusion to certain of
the said acts, the court of directors had expressed to the said,
Hastings their wishes 'to be considered rather as the guardians
of the honor and property of the native powers, than as the in-
strument of oppression,' he, the said Hastings, in reply" to the
said directors, his masters, did conclude his official account of the
final settlement with Fyzoola Khan, with the following indecent,
because unjust, exultation: 'Such are the measures which we
shall ever wish to observe towards our allies or dependents upon
our frontiers.' "
This impeachment, which took nearly seven years to try, re-
sulted in the acquittal of the defendant.
IMPEACHMENT OF LORD VISCOUNT MELVILLE,,
29 Howell's State Trials 550 (1806).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
ist. That "whilst he held and enjoyed the said office of
treasurer of his majesty's navy, he . . . did take and re-
ceive from and out of the money imprested to him as treasurer of
his majesty's navy, from his majesty's Exchequer, the sum of
£10,000, or some other large sum or sums of money, and did
fraudulently and illegally convert and apply the same to his own
use, or to some other corrupt and illegal purposes."
2nd. That while such treasurer he did "connive at and per-
mit and suffer the said Alexander Trotter . . . illegally to^
draw, receive and take, from the governor and company of the
ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS m
ilk of England, for other purposes than for immediate appli-
ion for navy services, large sums of money, and ... die
inive at and permit and suffer the said Alexander Trotter tc
ce the last-mentioned sums of money, or a great part thereof
illegally drawn and received, and taken by him from the gov-
lor and company of the Bank of England as aforesaid, in th(
ids of Messieurs Thomas Coutts & Company, the privat(
ikers of the said Alexander Trotter, in his own name, anc
)ject to his sole control and disposition."
3rd. That while such treasurer he did "fraudulently anc
:gally permit and suffer the said Alexander Trotter to plac(
my of the said sums of money so drawn, received and takei
him from the governor and company of the Bank of Englanc
aforesaid, in the hands of Messieurs Coutts & Company, th(
vate bankers of the said Alexander Trotter, in his own nam(
d at his own disposal, and the said Alexander Trotter die
:reupon, with the privity, by the connivance, and with the per
ssion of the said Henry Lord Viscount Melville, apply and us(
; said last mentioned sums of money, or great part thereof, fo
rposes of private advantage or interest, profit and emolument.'
4th. That "the said Alexander Trotter, did, with the privity
by the connivance and permission of the said Henry Lord Vis
mt Melville, place sums of money, issued from his majesty'
cchequer unto the governor and company of the Bank of Eng
id, on account of the treasurer of his majesty's navy, . .
the hands of Mark Sprott, and other persons, and did appl;
d use the same for purposes of private advantage or interesi
ofit and emolument, or for purposes other than navy pur
ses."
5th. That, "he the said Henry Lord Viscount Melville dii
mdulently and illegally, for the purpose of advantage or inter
; to himself, or for acquiring or obtaining profit or emolumen
jrefrom, or for some other corrupt and illegal purposes, ani
r purposes other than navy services, take and receive from th
blic money ... the sum of £10,000 or some other larg
tn or sums of money, and did fraudulently and illegally con
rt and apply the same to his own use, or to some other corrup
d illegal purposes."
6th That for the purpose of "fraudulently concealing th
'gal use and application" of said money, he entered into a cor
pt agreement with the said Alexander Trotter, by which the
esolved and agreed mutually to cancel and destroy, all th
uchers and other memorandums and writings that at any tim
retofore might have existed, passed, or been interchanged be
190 ENGLISH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
tween them relative to the said accounts, and the different items
and articles which the said accounts were composed or consisted ;
and the said books of accounts, . . . vouchers, or other
memorandums and writings, . . . were burnt and destroyed,
. . . with a view to conceal and prevent the discovery of the
several advances of money made by the said Alexander Trotter
to the said Henry Lord Viscount Melville."
7th. That he "did obtain, and receive a sum of £22,000, or
some other large sum or sums of money advanced to him by the
said Alexander Trotter ; and for which it has been alleged by the
said Henry Lord Viscount Melville, that he was to pay interest ;
and for the purpose of more effectually concealing the said last-
mentioned advances of money, the said books of account,
vouchers, memorandums, and writings, were so as aforesaid burnt
and destroyed."
9th. That "the said Alexander Trotter would not have been
and was well known to the said Henry Lord 'Viscount Melville,
not to have been able to make such advances of money to the
said Henry Lord Viscount Melville as aforesaid, otherwise than
from and by means of the said sums of public money so drawn
by the said Alexander Trotter from the Bank of England, with
the privity, connivance," and permission of the said Henry Lord
Viscount Melville as aforesaid, and applied by the said Alexander
Trotter for purposes of private advantage, interest, profit and
emolument."
The defendant was tried and acquitted.
UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.
[MPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM BLOUNT, Wharton's
; Trials of the United States 200 (1797).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. "That whereas, the United States . . . were at
t with his Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain; and whereas
. his said Catholic Majesty and the King of Great Britain
at war with each other, yet the said William Blount
. then being a senator of the United States and wpll
^mg the premises, but disregarding the duties and obliga-
of his high station, and designing and intending to disturb
eace and tranquility of the United States, and to violate and
ige the neutrality thereof, did conspire and contrive to
e, promote and set on foot within the jurisdiction and terri-
of the United, States, and to conduct and carry on, from
:e, a military hostile expedition against the territories and
nions of his said Catholic Majesty in the Floridas and
siana, or a part thereof, for the purpose of wresting the
: from his Catholic Majesty and of conquering the same for
[^ing of Great Britain."
2nd. That in fuirtherance of his said purpose he "did con-
and contrive to excite the Creek and Cherokee nations of
ms, then inhabiting within the territorial boundary of the
ed States, to commence hostilities against the subjects and
jssions of his Catholic Majesty in the Floridas and Louis-
for the purpose of reducing the same to the dominion ol
Cing of Great Britain."
3rd. That further -"in the prosecution of Ws criminal de-
i and of his conspiracies aforesaid, and the more effectually
xomplish his intention of exciting the Creek and Cherokee
ms of Indians, to commence hostilities against the subjects
is said Catholic Majesty, he did further conspire and con-
to alienate and divert the confidence of the said Indian
s or nations from the said Benjamin Hawkins, the prin-
temporary agent aforesaid, and to diminish, impair and
oy the influence of the said Benjamin Hawkins with the
Indian tribes, and their friendly intercourse and understand-
vith him."
4th. That in further "prosecution of his criminal designs,
in furtherance of his conspiracies aforesaid, (he) did con-
and contrive to seduce the said James Carey from the duty
trust of his said appointments (as interpreter to said In-
3), and to engage the said James Carey to assist in the pro-
(191)
192 UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
motion and execution of his said criminal intentions and con-
spiracies aforesaid."
5th. That he "did further conspire and contrive to diminish
and impair the confidence of the said Cherokee nation in the gov-
ernment of the United States, and to create and foment discon-
tents and dissentions among the said Indians, toward the gov-
ernment of the United States in relation to the ascertainment and
marking of the boundary line" which "separate the lands and
possessions of the said Indians from the lands and possessions
of the United States and the citizens thereof."
After an elaborate argument, the proceedings were dis-
missed upon the ground that the defendant, though a senator
of the United States, was not a civil officer thereof, within the
meaning of the clause in the Constitution relating to impeach-
ments.
IMPEACHMENT OF JOHN PICKERING, Annals of
Congress, ist Session, 8th Congress, 319 (1804).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. "That whereas George Wentworth, surveyor of the
District of New Hampshire did, in the Port of Portsmouth
.. . . seize the ship called the Eliza, . . . together with
her furniture, tackle, and apparel, alleging that there had been
unladen from on board of said ship, contrary to law, sundry
^oods, wares, and merchandise of foreign growth and manu-
facture; . . . and whereas Thomas Chadbourne, a deputy
mar shall of said district, did, ... by virtue of an order of
the said John Pickering, judge of the District Court, of the said
District of New Hampshire, arrest and detain in custody, for
trial, before the said John Pickering, judge of the said district
court, the said ship called the Eliza, with her furniture, tackle
and apparel; . . . and whereas by an act of Congress
. V . . it is among other things provided, that ... 'if the
claimant shall with one or more sureties to be approved by the
court, execute a bond in the usual form to the United States,
for the payment of a sum equal to the sum of which the ship or
vessel, goods, wares, or merchandise were appraised . . .
and moreover produce a certificate from the collector of the dis-
trict wherein such trial is had, and of the naval officer thereof,
if any there be, that the duties . . . have been paid or
-secured, in like manner as if the goods, wares or merchandise,
ship or vessel, had been legally entered, the court shall, by rule
order such ship or vessel, goods, wares or merchandise to be de-
livered to the said claimant.' Yet the said John Pickering
UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS' 193
. with intent to evade the same, did order the said ship
ed the EHza, with her furniture, tackle and apparel, . . .
be delivered to a certain Eliphalet Ladd, who claimed the
le, without his ... producing any certificate from the
ector and naval officer of the said district . . . con-
~y to his trust and duty as judge of the said district court."
2nd. "That whereas, at a special district court of the
ited States, begun and held at Portsmouth ... by John
kering, judge of said court, the United States . . . hav-
libelled, propounded and given the said judge to understand
I be informed, that the said ship Eliza with her furniture,
kle and apparel, had been seized as aforesaid . . . and
'ing prayed in their said libel that the said ship, with her
niture, tackle and apparel, might, by the said court, be ad-
ged to be forfeited to the United States, and be disposed of
ording to law, and a certain Eliphalet Ladd . . . having
le into the said court, and having claimed said ship Eliza,
h her furniture, tackle and apparel; . . . the said John
kering, judge of the said district court, did proceed to the
ring and trial of the cause; . . . and whereas John S.
jrburne, attorney for the United States . . . did appear
the said district court, as his special duty it was by law, to
secute the said cause in behalf of the United States, and did
duce sundry witnesses to prove the facts' charged by the
ited States, . . . and did pray the said court that the
i witnesses might be sworn in behalf of the United States,
the said John Pickering, being then judge of the said district
rt, and then in court sitting, with intent to defeat the just
ms of the United States, did refuse to hear the testimony of
said witnesses, . . . and . . . did order and de-
i the said ship Eliza, with her furniture, tackle and apparel
56 restored to the said Eliphalet Ladd, the claimant, contrary
lis trust and duty, as judge of the said district court."
3rd. "That whereas . . . the said John S. Sherburne,
did, in the name and on behalf of the United States,
m an appeal from the said decree of the district court, to the
t circuit court, . . . , and did pray the said district court
illow the said appeal, . . . . yet the said John Pickering,
ge of the said district court, disregarding the authority of
laws, wickedly meaning and intending to injure the revenues
the United States, and thereby to impair their public credit,
absolutely and positively refuse to allow the said appeal,
contrary to his trust and duty as judge of the said dis-
t court."
194 UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
4th. "That whereas, for the due, faithful and impartial ad-
ministration of justice, temperance and sobriety are essential
qualities in the character of a judge, yet the said John Pickering,
being a man of loose morals and intemperate habits . . .
did appear upon the bench of the said court for the purpose of
administering justice, in a state of total intoxication . . .
and did then and there frequently, in a most profane and in-
decent manner, invoke the name of the Supreme Being, to the
evil example of all the good citizens of the United States, and
was then and there guilty of other high misdemeanors, dis-
graceful to his own character as a judge, and degrading to the
honor and dignity of the United States."
He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to "be removed from
the office of judge of the district court of the district of New
Hampshire."
IMPEACHMENT OF SAMUEL CHASE, 1 1 Law Trials
,5 (i8os).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. "That unmindful of the solemn duties of his office,
and contrary to the sacred obligation by which he stood bound
to discharge them 'faithfully and impartially, and without re-
spect to persons,' the said Samuel Chase, on the trial of John
Fries, charged with treason, . . . did, in his judicial ca-
pacity, conduct himself in a manner highly arbitrary, oppressive
and unjust, viz. :
( 1 ) In delivering an opinion, in writing, on the question of
law, on the construction of which the defence of the accused ma-
terially depended, tending to prejudice the minds of the jury
and . . . before counsel had been heard in his defence.
(2) In restricting the counsel for the said Fries from re-
curring to such English authorities as they believed apposite, or
from citing certain statutes of the United States which they
deemed illustrative.
(3) In debarring the prisoner from his constitutional privi-
lege of addressing the jury (through his counsel), on the law,
as well as on the facts."
2nd. "That, prompted by a similar spirit of persecution and
injustice, at a circuit court of the United States . . . before
which a certain James Thompson Callender was arraigned for a
libel on John Adams, then President of the United States, the
said Samuel Chase, with intent to oppress and procure the con-
viction of the said Callender, did overrule the objection of John
Basset, one of the jury, who wished to be excused from serving
on the said trial, "because he had made up his mind."
UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 195
3rd. "That with intent to .oppress and procure the convic-
of the prisoner, the evidence of John Taylor, a material
:ss on behalf of the aforesaid Callender, was not permitted
e said Samuel Chase to be given in, on pretence that the said
:ss could not prove the truth of the whole of one of the
jes, contained in the indictment, although the said charge
aced more than one fact."
4.th. "That the conduct of . the said Samuel Chase was
ed, during the whole of the said trial, by manifest injus-
partiality, and intemperance : viz. :
( 1 ) In compelling the prisoner's counsel to reduce to writ-
md submit to the inspection of the Court, for their admis-
or rejection, all questions which the said counsel meant to
>und to the above-named John Taylor, the witness.
(2) In refusing to postpone the trial, although an affidavit
regularly filed, stating the absence of material witnesses on
f of the accused.
(3) In the use of unusual, rude and contemptuous expres-
towards the prisoner's counsel; and in falsely insinuating
:hey wished to excite the public fears and indignation, and to
ice that insubordination to law, to which the conduct of
udge did, at the same time, manifestly tend.
(4) In repeated and vexatious interruptions of the said
5el . . . which, at length, induced them to abandon
case and their client, who was thereupon convicted and
;mned to fine and imprisonment.
(5) In an indecent solicitude . . . for the conviction
e accused, unbecoming even a public prosecutor,, but highly
aceful to the character of a judgej as it was subversive to
:e."
5th. In that in violation of the laws of Virginia he did
rd a capias against the body of the said James Thompson
nder, indicted for an offence not capital, whereupon the
Callender was arrested and committed to close custody"
id of proceeding by a summons, as by law provided.
5th. In that in violation of the law of Virginia which pro-
that "in cases not capital, the offender shall not be held
iswer any presentment of the grand jury until the court
succeeding that during which said presentment shall have
made, yet the said Samuel Chase, with intent to oppress and
ire the conviction of the said James Thonjpson Callender,
adjudge the said Callender to trial, during the
at which he, the said Callender, was presented and in-
1."
196 UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
7th. That in another case he "did descend from the dignity
of a judge and stoop to the level of an informer, by refusing to
discharge the grand jury, although entreated by several of the
said jury so to do ; and by . . . observing to the said grand
jury that he, the said Samuel Chase understood 'that a highly
seditious temper had manifested itself in the State of Delaware,
among a certain class of people, '. . . more especially in
the town of Wilmington, where lived a most seditious printer
. . . it becomes your duty, gentlemen, to enquire diligently
into this matter,' or words to that effect; and that with intention
to procure the prosecution of the printer in question, the said
Samuel Chase did, moreover, authoritatively enjoin on the Dis-
trict Attorney of the United States ... to find some pas-
sage which might furnish the ground work of the prosecution
against the printer of said paper."
8th. That in still another case he delivered to the "grand
jury an intemperate and inflammatory political harangue, with
intent to excite the fears and resentment of the said grand jury,
and the good people of Maryland against their State govern-
ment, and constitution, a conduct highly censurable in any, but
particularly indecent and unbecoming in a judge of the United
States: and moreover ... in a manner highly unwar-
rantable . . . delivered opinions, which even if a judicial
authority were competent to their expression, on a suitable occa-
sion and in a proper manner, were at that time and as delivered
by him, highly indecent, extra-judicial and tending to prostitute
the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the
low purpose of an electioneering partisan."
He was tried and acquitted.
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE JAMES H. PECK, lo
Law Trials 49 (1830).
Charge : High Misdemeanors in Office.
"That the said James H. Peck, judge of the District Court
of the United States for the District of Missouri . . . did
. . . render a final decree of the said court in favor of the
United States, and against the claim of the petitioners, in a cer-
tain matter or cause pending in the said court. . . . And
the said petitioners did . . . appeal against the United
States, from the judgment and decree so made and entered in the
said matter to the Supreme Court of the United States. . . .
And the said James H. Peck, after the said matter or cause had
been so duly appealed, . . . did cause to be published in
a certain public newspaper, printed at the City of St. Louis, called
UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 197
Missouri Republican,' prepared by the said James H. Peck,
jrting to be the opinion of the said James H. Peck, as
: of the said court, in the matter or cause aforesaid, and
jrting to set forth the reasons of the said James H. Peck,
ch judge, for the said decree; and that Luke Edward Law-
a citizen of the United States and an attorney and coun-
• in the said district court, and who had been of counsel
he said petitioners, did . . . cause to be pubHshed in a
in other newspaper, ... a certain article signed 'A
en,' and purporting to contain an exposition of certain er-
of doctrine and fact alleged to be contained in the opinior
le said James H. Peck. . . . And the said James H
, judge as aforesaid, unmindful of the solemn duties of hii
jn, and that he held the same by the Constitution of th<
ed States, during good behavior only, with intention wrong
and unjustly to oppress, imprison, and otherwise injure th(
Luke Edward Lawless, under color of law, did . .
rarily, oppressively, and unjustly, and under color and pre
; that the said Luke Edward Lawless was answerable t(
laid court for the said publication, signed 'A Citizen,' as foi
ntempt thereof, institute, in the said court, before him, th(
James H. Peck, judge as aforesaid, certain proceeding;
ist the said Luke Edward Lawless, in a summary way, b]
;hment, issued . . . against the person of the said Luk(
ard Lawless, touching the said pretended contempt, unde:
by virtue Of which said attachment the said Luke Ed ware
less was . . . arrested, imprisoned, and brought intc
t before the said judge, . . . who did afterwards, oi
same day, . . . unjustly, oppressively, and arbitrarily
r and adjudge that the said Luke Edward Lawless, for th
e aforesaid, should be committed to prison for a period o
.ours, and that he should be suspended from practice as ai
•ney or counsellor at law in the said District Court for th
)d of i8 calendar months from that day; and did then anc
i further cause the said unjust and oppressive sentence ti
irried into execution."
He was tried and acquitted.
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WEST H. HUM
:iEYS, Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 37th Congress
: 2277 (1862).
Charge : High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. "That regardless of his duties as a citizen of the Unitei
ss, and unmindful of the duties of his said office, . .
198 UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
the said West H. Humphreys . . . then being a citizen of ,
the United States, and owing allegiance thereto, and then and
there being judge of the District Court of the United States for
the several districts of said State (of Tennessee), ... at
a public meeting . . . held in the city of Nashville, and in
hearing of divers persons then and there present, did endeavor
by public speech to incite revolt and rebellion within said State
against the Constitution and Government of the United States,
and did then and there publicly declare that it was the right of
the people of said State, by an ordinance of secession, to absolve
themselves from all allegiance to the Government of the United
States, the Constitution and the laws thereof."
2nd. "That in further disregard of his duties as a citizen
of the United States, and unmindful of the solemn obligation of
his office as judge . . . with intent to abuse the high trust
reposed in him as such judge, and to subvert the lawful authority
and Government of the United States within said State, said
West H. Humphreys then being judge of the District Court of
the United States . . . did, together with other evil-minded
persons within said State, openly and unlawfully support, ad-
vocate, and agree to an act commonly called an ordinance of se-
cession, declaring the State of Tennessee independent of the
Government of the United States, and no longer within the
jurisdiction thereof."
3rd. "That . . . the said ' West H. Humphreys then
owing allegiance to the United States of America, and being
then district judge of the United States, as aforesaid, did then
and there, tp wit : within said State, unlawfully, and in conjunc-
tion with other persons, organize armed rebellion against the
United States, and levy war against them."
4th. "That . . . the said West H. Humphreys, then
being judge of the District Court of the United States, as afore-
said, and J. C. Ramsay, and Jefferson Davis, and others, did
unlawfully conspire together 'to oppose by force the authority
of the Government of the United States.' "
Sth. "That the said West H. Humphreys, with intent to
prevent the due administration of the laws of the United States,
. . . has in gross disregard of his duty as judge . . .
neglected and refused to hold the district court of the United
States, as by law he was required to do, within the several dis-
tricts of the State of Tennessee, ever since the first day of July,
A. D. 1861."
6th. "That the said West H. Humphreys . . . with in-
tent to subvert the authority of the United States . . . did
unlawfully act as judge of an illegally constituted tribunal
UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 199
within said State, called the District Court of the Confederate
States of America, and as judge of said tribunal, . . . then
and there assumed and exercised powers unlawful and unjust,
to wit; in causing one Perez Dickinson, a citizen of said State,
to be unlawfully arrested ^nd brought before him, . . . and
required him to swear allegiance to the pretended government of
the said Confederate States of America; and upon the refusal of
the said Dickinson so to do . . . did unlawfully, and with
the intent to oppress said Dickinson, require and receive of him
a bond, conditioned that while he should remain within said
State he would keep the pe&,ce, and as such judge of said illegal
tribunal, and without authority of law, said Humphreys then
and there decreed that said Dickinson should leave said State.
(2) In decreeing within said State, and as judge of said
illegal tribunal, the confiscation to the use of said Confederate
States of America of property of citizens of the United States,
and especially of property of one Andrew Johnson, and one John
Catron.
(3) In causing, as judge of said illegal tribunal, to be un-
lawfully arrested and imprisoned within said State citizens of
the United States because of their fidelity to their obligations
as said citizens of the United States."
7th. "That said West H. Humphreys, judge of the District
Court of the United States as aforesaid, assuming to act as judge
oi said tribunal known as the District Court of the Confederate
States of America . . . without lawful authority, and with
intent to injure one William G. Brownlow, a citizen of the
United States, caused said Brownlow to be unlawfully arrested
and imprisoned within said State."
He was tried, acquitted on the second specification of the
6th Article, and convicted on all other charges, and sentenced
to removal from office, and to be disqualified from thereafter
holding any office of honor, trust or profit under the United
States.
IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHN-
SON, Supplement to Congressional Globe; 2nd Session, 40th
°*^^i^?^That on" February 21, 1868, he did "unlawfully and in
violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States is-
sue an order in w'riting for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton
from the office of Secretary for the Department of War .
which order was unlawfully issued with mtent then and there
to violate" the Tenure of Office Act of March 2, 1867,
200 UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
"whereby said Andrew Johnson, i i ^ciident of the United States,
did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor
in office."
2hd. That on February 21, 1868, in violation of the Ten-
ure of Office Act he appointed Brevet Major General Lorenzo
Thomas to act as Secretary of War ad interim, "there being no
vacancy in said office of Secretary for the Department of War ;
whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor
in office."
3rd. That on February 21, 1868, he "did commit and was.
guilty of a high misdemeanor in office, in this, that without au-
thority of law, while the Senate of the United States was then
and there in session, he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be
Secretary for the Department of War ad interim, without the
advice and consent of the Senate, and with intent to violate the
Constitution of the United States, no vacancy having happened
in said office of Secretary for the Department of War during
the recess of the Senate, and no vacancy existing in said office
at the time."
4th. That on February 21, 1868, he "did unlawfully con-
spire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the
House of Representatives unknown, with intent by intimidation
and threats unlawfully to hinder and prevent Edwin M. Stanton,
then and there the Secretary for the Department of War, duly
appointed under the Jaws of the United States, from holding
said office . . . contrary to and in violation of the Con-
stitution and Tenure of Office Act, "whereby said Andrew John-
son, President of the United States, did then and there commit
and was guilty of a high crime in office."
5th. That on February 21, 1868, and on divers other days,
before March 2, 1868, he "did unlawfully conspire with Lorenzo
Thomas and other persons to the House of Representatives un-
known, to prevent and hinder the execution" of the Tenure of
Office Act "and in pursuance of said conspiracy did unlawfully
attempt to prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being
Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and com-
missioned under the laws of the United States, from holding said
office, whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a
high misdemeanor in office."
6th. That on February 21, 1868, he "did unlawfully con-
spire with one Lorenzo Thomas by force to' seize, take and pos-
sess the property of the United States in the Department of War^
UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 201
and then and there in -the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stan-
ton, Secretary for said Department, contrary to the provisions
of the 'Act to define and permit certain conspiracies,' approved
July 21, 1861," and the Tenure of Office Act, "whereby said
Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and
there commit a high crime in office."
7th. That on February 21, 1868, he "did unlawfully con-
spire with one Lorenzo Thomas, with intent unlawfully to seize,
take and possess the property of the United States in the Depart-
ment of War, in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton,
Secretary of said Department, with intent to violate and disre-
gard" the Tenure of Office Act "whereby said Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States did then and there commit a high
misdemeanor in office."
8th. That "with intent to unlawfully control the moneys
appropriated for the military service and for the Department of
War" on February 21, 1868, he did unlawfully and contrary to
the provisions of the Tenure of Office Act, "and in violation of
the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice
and consent of the Senate of the United States, and while the
Senate was then and there in session, there being no vacancy in
the office of Secretary for the Department of War . . .
then and there issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter
of authority in writing" appointing him Secretary of War ad
interim and directing him immediately to enter upon the duties
of that office, "whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a
high misdemeanor in office."
9th. That on February 22, 1868, "as Commander-in-Chief
of the Army of the United States, he did bring before himself
then and there William H. Emory, a Major General by brevet in
the Army of the United States, actually in command of the de-
partment of Washington," and instructed him that so much of the
Act of June 30, 1868, as provided that " 'all orders and instruc-
tions relating to military operations, issued by the President or
Secretary of War, shall be issued through the General of the
Army, and in case of his inability, through the next in rank,' was
unconstitutional and in contravention of the commission of said
Emory . . • with intent thereby to induce said Emory, in
his official capacity ... to violate the provisions of said
act, and to take, receive, act upon and obey such orders as he,
Andrew Johnson, might make and give, and which should not be
issued through the General of the Army ... and with the
further intent thereby to enable him, the said Andrew Johnson,
202 UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
to prevent the execution of" the Tenure of Office Act, "and to
unlawfully prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then being Secretary for
the Department of War, from holding said office and discharging
the duties thereof, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of
the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty
of a high misdemeanor in office."
loth. "That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United
States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignities
and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which
ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and
legislative branches of the Government of the United States,
designing and intending to set aside the rightful authority and
powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule,
hatred, contempt, and reproach the Congress of the United
States" by certain quoted speeches, "which said utterances,
declarations, threats and harangues, highly censurable in any,
are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate
of the United States, by means whereof said Andrew Johnson has
brought the high office of the President of the United States
into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandal of all
good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of, a
high misdemeanor in office."
nth. That on August i8, 1866, he did "by public speech,
declare and affirm in substance that the 29th Congress of the
United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized
by the Constitution to exercise legislative powers under the same,
but, on the contrary, was a Congress of only part of the States,
thereby denying and intending to deny that the legislation of said
Congress was valid or obligatory upon him . . . except in
so far as he saw fit to approve the same, and also thereby denying
and intending to deny the power of said 29th Congress to propose
amendments to the Constitution of the United States ; and in pur-
suance of said declaration ... he did unlawfully and in
disregard of the requirements of the Constitution, that he should
take care that the laws be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent
the execution" of the Tenure of Office Act "by unlawfully devis-
ing and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive means
by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith
resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Depart-
ment of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to
concur" in his suspension, "andalso by further unlawfully devis-
ing and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive, means
then and there to prevent the execution" of the Appropriation Act
UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 203
of March 2, 1867, and "prevent the execution of an act entitled
'An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel
States,' approved March 2, 1867; whereby the said Andrew John-
son, President of the United States, did then and there commit
and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office."
The President was acquitted on the nth, and on a later day
on the 2nd and 3rd Articles of Impeachment, whereupon the
Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment adjourned sine die,
without voting on the other articles.
IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM W., BELKNAP, Pro-
ceedings of the Senate sitting for the trial of William W. Bel-
knap, 9 (1876).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors in Office.
1st. "That William W. Belknap, while he was in office as
Secretary of War . . . had the power and authority
. . . to appoint a person to maintain a trading establishment
at Fort Sill, a military post of the United States ; . , . that
said Belknap, as Secretary of War as aforesaid, . . . prom-
ised to appoint one Caleb P. Marsh to maintain said trading
establishment at said military post ; . . . that the said Caleb
P. Marsh and one John S. Evans entered into an agreement"
(quoted at length in said article), and thereafter "said Belknap,
as Secretary of War as aforesaid, did, at the instance and request
of said Marsh . . . appoint John S. Evans to maintain said
trading establishment . . . and in consideration of said ap-
pointment . . . the said Belknap did . . . unlawfully
and corruptly receive from said Caleb B. Marsh the sum of
$1500, and that at divers times thereafter . . . at or about
the end of each three months during the term of one whole year
did unlawfully receive from said Caleb P. Marsh like
sums of $1500, in consideration of the appointment of John S.
Evans . . . and in consideration of his permitting said
Evans to continue to maintain the said trading establishment;
whereby the said William W. Belknap, who was then
Secretary of War as aforesaid, was guilty of high crimes and
misdemeanors in office."
2nd. "That said William W. Belknap, while he was m office
as Secretary of War ... did wilfully, corruptly and unlaw-
fully take and receive from one Caleb P. Marsh the sum of $1500
in consideration" and under the circumstances stated above,
and "did corruptly permit the said Evans to continue to maintain
the said trading establishment at said military post. And so the
said Belknap was thereby guilty whjle he was Secretary of War,
of a high misdemeanor in his said office.",
204 UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
3rd. "That said William W. Belknap was Secretary of War
. . . and had authority, under the laws of the United States,
to appoint a person to maintain a trading establishment at Fort
Sill ; . . . that he did . . . appoint one John S. Evans
to maintain said trading establishment at said military post (who)
has since . . . maintained a trading establishment at said
military post, and that said Evans ... in order to procure
said appointment and to be continued therein, agreed with one
Caleb P. Marsh that, in consideration that said Belknap would
appoint him, the said Evans, to maintain said trading establish-
ment at said military post, at the instance and request of said
Marsh, he, the said Evans,, would pay to him a large sum of
money quarterly in advance, from the date of his said appoint-
ment by said Belknap, to wit, $12,000 during the year immediately
following . . . and other large sums of itioney, quarterly,
during each year that he, the said Evans, should be permitted by
said Belknap to maintain said trading establishment at said post ;
that said Evans, did pay to said Marsh said sum of money
quarterly, and . . . said Marsh, upon the receipt of each ol
said payments, paid one-half thereof to him, the said Belknap.
Yet the said Belknap, well knowing these facts . . . did
unlawfully and corruptly continue said Evans in said position.
. . . Whereby the said William W. Belknap was, as Sec-
retary of War as aforesaid, guilty of high crimes and misde-
meanors in office."
4th. "That said William W. Belknap, while he was in office
and acting as Secretary of War, ... in the exercise of the
power and authority vested in him as Secretary of War . . .
did appoint one John S. Evans to maintain a trading establish-
ment at Fort Sill, . . . and he, the said Belknap, did receive
from one Caleb P. Marsh, large sums of money for and in con-
sideration of his having so appointed said John S. Evans to main-
tain said trading establishment . . . and for continuing him
therein, whereby he has been guilty of high crimes and misde-
meanors in said office." (Attached to this article are seventeen
different specifications of payment to Secretary Belknap. )
5th. "That one John S. Evans was . . . appointed by
the said Belknap to maintain a trading establishment at Fort Sill,
and said Belknap did, from that day continuously . . . per-
mit said Evans to maintain the same; and said Belknap was
induced to make said appointment by the influence and request of
one Caleb P. Marsh ; and said Evans paid to said Marsh, in con-
sideration of such influence and request, and in consideration that
he should thereby induce said Belknap to make said appointment,
UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 205
•divers large sums of money, amounting to about $12,000 a year
from the date of his appointment to the 25th day of March, 1872,
and about $6000 a year thereafter until the 2nd day of March,
1876, all which said Belknap well knew; yet said Belknap did, in
consideration that he would permit said Evans to continue to
maintain said trading establishment, and in order that said pay-
ments might continue to be made by said Evans to said Marsh as
aforesaid, corruptly received from said Marsh, either to his, the
said Belknap's own use or to be paid over to the wife of said Bel-
knap, divers large sums of money at various times, (specified),
all of which acts and doings were while the said Belknap was
Secretary of War as aforesaid, and were a high misdemeanor in
said oflfice."
He was acquitted upon the ground that he had resigned his
-office as Secretary of War, and his resignation had been accepted
by the President a couple of hours before the actual adoption of
the article^ of impeachment by the House.
IMPEACHMENT OF CHARLES SWAYNE (1905).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
1st. That as United States District Judge he falsely certified
that his travelling expenses were a round sum of $10 per day,
whereas, as he well knew, they were "a far less sum, whereby
he has been guilty of a high crime and misdehieanor in his said
office."
2nd. That on another occasion he made a like false certifi-
cate, and received the money thereon, "wherefore the said
Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, was and is guilty of a high
crime, to wit, the crime 'of obtaining money from the United
States by a false pretense and of a high misdemeanor in office."
3rd. That on another occasion he made a like false certificate,
and received the money there®n, "Wherefore the said Charles
Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved himself and was and is
guilty of a high crime, to wit, obtaining money from the United
States by a false pretense, and of a high misdemeanor in office."
4th. That as such judge he "did unlawfully appropriate to
his own use, without making compensation to the owner, a cer-
tain railroad car . . . for the purpose of transporting him-
self, his family and friends ... the said railroad company
being at the time in the possession of a receiver appointed by said
Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, on the petition of creditors."
That the party used the provisions in said car, "and the said
Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, allowed the credit claimed
by the said receivers for and on account of the said expenditure
206 UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
as a part of the necessary expenses of operating said road.
. . . Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid,
was and is guihy of an abuse of judicial power and of a high mis-
demeanor in office."
5th. That on another occasion he "did unlawfully appro-
priate to his own use" without compensation another car of the
same road " for the purpose of transporting himself, his family
and friends," used the provisions therein, and "allowed the credit
claimed by the said receiver for and on account of the said ex-
penditure as a part of the necessary expense of operating said
road . . . wherefore the said Charles Swayne^ judge as
aforesaid, was and is guilty of an abuse of judicial power and of
a high misdemeanor in office."
6th. That "being a district judge of the United States' for the
northern district of Florida," and Congress having so re-arranged
the Florida districts that his then residence ceased to be in said
northern district, "it became and was the duty of the said Charles
Swayne to change his residence and reside in the northern
district" as prescribed by Section 551 of the Revised Statutes,
yet he "did not acquire a residence and did not . . . reside
in said district . . . for a period of six years. Wherefore
the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, wilfully and know-
ingly violated the aforesaid law, and was and is guilty of a high
misdemeanor in office."
7th. That notwithstanding the facts and law last above set
forth, he resided elsewhere, though still acting as such judge, for
"a period of about nine years. Wherefore the said Charles
Swayne, judge as aforesaid, wilfully and knowingly violated the
aforesaid law, and was and is guilty of a high misdemeanor in
office."
8th. That "while in the exercise of his office as judge"
he "did maliciously and unlawfully adjudge guilty of a contempt
of court" and fine and imprisoji one "E. T. Davis, an attorney and
counselor at law, for an alleged contempt of the Circuit Court of
the United States. Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge as
aforesaid, misbehaved himself in his office as judge, and was and
is guilty of an abuse of power and of a high misdemeanor in
office."
9th. That "while in the exercise of his office as judge" he
"did knowingly and unlawfully adjudge guilty of a contempt of
court" and fine and imprison said E. T. Davis. "Whereupon the
said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved himself in
his office as judge, and was and is guilty of an abuse of judicial
power and of a high misdemeanor in office."
UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 207
loth. That "while in the exercise of his office as judge" he
"did maliciously and unlawfully adjudge guilty of a contempt of
court" and fine and imprison one "Simeon Belden, an attorney
and counselor at law, for an alleged contempt of the Circuit Court
of the United States. Wherefore the said Charles Swayne, judge
as aforesaid, misbehaved himself in his office as judge, and was .
and is guilty of an abuse of judicial power, and of a high mis-
demeanor in office."
nth. That "while in the exercise of his office as judge" he
"did knowingly and unlawfully adjudge guilty of a contempt of
court" and fine and imprison said Simeon Belden. "Wherefore
the said Charles Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved himself
in his office as judge, and was and is guilty of an abuse of judicial
power, and of a high misdemeanor in office."
I2th. That "while in the exercise of his office as judge" he
"did unlawfully and knowingly adjudge guilty of contempt and
did commit to prison . . . one W. C. O'Neal, for an alleged
contempt of the District Court of the United States for the
Northern District of Florida. Whereupon the said Charles
Swayne, judge as aforesaid, misbehaved himself in his office of
judge as aforesaid, and was and is guilty of an abuse of judicial
power, and of a high misdemeanor in office."
He was tried and acquitted.
IMPEACHMENT OF ROBERT W. ARCHBALD
(1912).
Charge: High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I St. That "being a United States circuit judge, and having
been duly designated as one of the judges of the United States
Commerce Court, and being then and there a judge of the said
court ... he entered into an agreement with one Edward
J. Williams ... to become partners in the purchase of a
certain culm dump, commonly known as the Katydid culm dump,
... for the purpose of disposing of said property at a profit.
That pursuant to said agreement he . . . did undertake
to induce and influence, and did induce and influence,
the oflficers of the said Hillside Coal and Iron Company, and of
the Erie Railroad Company, which owned all the stock of said
coal company, ... to sell the interest of the said Hillside
Coal and Iron Company in said ... dump for . .
$4';oo That' . • during the time the aforesaid negotia-
tions were in progress the said Erie Railroad Company was a
common carrier, engaged in interstate commerce aJid was a
litigant in certain suits . . . then pending m the United
States Commerce Court; and the said Robert W. Archbald judge
as aforesaid, well knowing these facts, wilfully, unlawfully and
208 UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
corruptly took advantage of his official position as such judge to
induce and influence the officials" of said companies to sell said
dump to him so that he could make a profit thereout, and "through
the influence exerted by reason of his position as such judge, wil-
fully, unlawfully and corruptly did induce" them to make the
sale. "Wherefore the said Robert W. Archbald was and is guilty
of misbehavior as such judge and of a high crime and misde-
meanor in office."
2nd. That the Mariain Coal Company which was "engaged
in the business of washing and shipping coal, . . . had filed
before the Interstate Commerce Commission a complaint against
the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company and
five other railroad companies as defendants, charging said defend-
ants with discrimination in rates and with excessive charges for
the transportation of coal shipped by said Marian Coal Company
over their respective lines of road ; that all of the said defendants
were carriers engaged in interstate commerce. That the deci-
sion of the said case by the Interstate Commerce Commission, at
the instance of either party .thereto, was subject to review by the
United States Commerce Court." That the stockholders of said
Marian Coal Company had "employed ... an attorney to
settle the case . . . and to sell to the Delaware, Lackawanna
& Western Railroad Company, 2/3 of the stock of the said
Marian Coal Company," which railroad "was a party litigant" in
a case then pending in the United States Commerce Court. "That
the said Robert W. Archbald, being judge as aforesaid and well
knowing these facts, did, then and there, engage for a considera-
tion to assist the said (attorney) ... to settle the afore-
said case" and to sell said stock, and in pursuance thereof did
undertake "to induce and influence the officers" of said railroad
company to agree thereto; "and the said Robert W. Archbald
thereby wilfully, unlawfully and corruptly did use his influence
as such judge in the attempt to settle said case and to sell said
stock. . . . Wherefore the said Robert W. Archbald was and
is guilty of misbehavior as such judge and of a high crime and
misdemeanor in office."
3rd. That being such judge, he "did secure from the Lehigh
Valley Coal Company, a corporation, which coal company was
then and there owned by the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company,
a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, and which rail-
road company was at that time, a party litigant in certain suits
then pending in the United States Commerce Court ... all
of which was well known to said Robert W. Archbald, an agree-
ment which permitted said Robert W. Archbald and his associates
to lease a culm dump, known as Packer No. 3, . . . which
UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 209
said culm dump the said Robert W. Archbald and his associates
agreed to operate and to ship the product of the same exclusively
over the Imes of the said Lehigh Valley Railroad Company; and
that the said Robert W. Archbald unlawfully and corruptly did
use his official position and influence as such judge to secure from
the said coal company the said agreement. Wherefore the said
Robert W. Archbald was and is guilty of misbehavior as such
judge and of a misdemeanor in such office."
4th. That the said Robert W. Archbald, "while holding the
, office of United States circuit judge and being a member of the
United States Conimerce Court, was and is guilty of gross and
improper conduct, and was and is guilty of a misdemeanor" in
that while a certain suit was pending between the Louisville and
Nashville Railroad Company and The Interstate Commerce Com-
mission, and after argument thereof, he "secretly, wrongfully
and unlawfully did write a letter to the attorney for said Louis-,
ville and Nashville Railroad Company, requesting said attorney
to see one of the witnesses who had testified in said suit on behalf
of said company, and get his explanation and interpretation of
certain testimony that the said witness had given in said suit, and
communicate the same to the said Robert W. Archbald, which
request was complied with by said attorney;" and later on he did
"as judge of said court, secretly, wrongfully and unlawfully"
again write and "request and solicit the said attorney for the said
railroad company, to make and deliver to the said Robert W.
Archbald a further argument in support of the contentions of
said attorney . . . which request was complied with by said
attorney, all of which on the part of said Robert W. Archbald
was done secretly, wrongfully and unlawfully, and which was
without the knowledge or consent of the said Interstate Commerce
Commission or its attorneys. Wherefore the said Robert W.
Archbald was and is guilty of misbehavior in office, and was and
it guilty of a misdemeanor."
5th. "That in the year 1904 (a third party) . . . pur-
chased a two-thirds interest in a lease on certain coal lands owned
by the Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company;" that
said company alleged "that the lease under which he claimed had
been forfeited ;" that he then offered "to relinquislj any claim that
he might have under the said lease provided that the . . .
company would give him an operating lease on what was known
as the Lincoln culm bank," which was declined in accordance with
the general policy of the said coal company; that after trying
through attorneys and friends to induce the company to recon-
sider its decision, he "called upon Robert W. Archbald" then and
210 UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
now such judge, "and asked him, the said Robert W. Archbald
to intercede in his behalf," and the latter "well knowing all the
aforesaid facts, did wrongfully attempt to use his influence as
such judge to aid and assist the said (third party) to secure"
said operating lease which the officials of said company "had
theretofore refused to grant, which said fact was also well known
to the said Robert W. Archbald. That the said Robert W. Arch-
bald, judge as aforesaid, shortly after the conclusion of his
attempted, negotiations . . . wilfully, unlawfully and cor-
ruptly did accept, as a gift, reward or present, from the said
(third party) tendered in consideration" of said favor and
others "a certain promissory note for $500 executed by the firm
. . . of which the said (third party) was a member. Where-
fore the said Robert W. Archbald was and is guilty of misbe-
havior as a judge and high crimes and misdemeanors in office."
6th. That while such judge, he "did unlawfully, improperly
and corruptly attempt to use his influence as such judge with the
Lehigh Valley Coal Company and the Lehigh Valley Railway
Company to induce the officers of said companies to purchase a
certain interest in a tract of coal land containing 800 acres, which
interest at said time belonged to certain persons known as the
Everhardt heirs. Wherefore the said Robert W. Archbald was
and is guilty of misbehavior in office, and was and is guilty of a
misdemeanor."
7th. That while there was pending in the United States
District Court, of which he was then judge, a suit between the
Pljrmouth Coal Company and the Equitable Fire and Marine
Insurance Company, which "coal company was principally owned
and entirely controlled by (another third party), which fact was
well known to said Robert W. Archbald . . . the said
Robert W. Archbald and the said (third party) wrongfully and
corruptly agreed together to purchase stock in a gold mining
scheme in Honduras, Central America, for the purpose of specula-
tion and profit; that in order to secure the money with which to
purchase said stock, the said (third party) executed his promis-
sory note in the sum of $2500 payable to Robert W. Archbald
and (a fourth party) which said note was endorsed then and
there by the said Robert W. Archbald ;" that after said suit was
decided in favor of said coal company, "the said (third party),
with the knowledge and consent of said Robert W. Archbald,
presented said note" to one of said (third party's) counsel "for
discount which was refused, and which was later discounted by a
bank and has never been paid. All of which acts on the part of
the said Robert W. Archbald were improper, unbecoming and
UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 211
constituted misbehavior in his said office as judge, and rendered
him guilty of a misdemeanor."
8th. That while he was a judge in said United States District
Court, there was pending a suit against the Marian Coal Com-
pany, "which action involved a large sum of money, and which
defendant coal company was principally owned and controlled by
one Christopher G. Boland and one William P. Boland, all of
which was well known to said Robert W. Archbald ;" that while
said suit was pending he "wrongfully agreed and consented" that
a note for $500 drawn by another third party "and endorsed by
the said Robert W. Archbald," "should be presented to the said
Christopher G. Boland and the said William P. Boland, or one of
them, for the purpose of having the said note discounted, cor-
ruptly intending that his name on said note would coerce and
induce the said Christopher G. Boland and the said William P.
Boland, or one of them, to discount the same because of the said
Robert W. Archbald's position as judge, and because the said
Bolands were at that time litigants in his said court. Wherefore
the said Robert W. Archbald was and is guilty of a gross mis-
conduct in his office as judge, and was and is guilty of a misde-
meanor in his said office as judge."
9th. That while such district judge he "did draw a note in
his own proper handwriting, payable to himself, in the sum of
$500, which said note was signed by one (the same third party)
. . . well knowing that his endorsement would not secure
money in the usual commercial channels, then and there wrong-
fully did permit the said (third party) to present said note for
discount . . . to an . . . attorney at law and practi-
tioner in said District Court . . ■ . and a short time prior
thereto a party defendant in said District Court presided over
by said Robert W. Archbald" whereby he "wrongfully and im-
properly used his influence as such judge to induce the said
(practitioner) to discount the same; that the said note was then
and there discounted by the said (practitioner) and the same has
never been paid, but is still due and owing. Wherefore the said
Robert W. Archbald was and is guilty of gross misconduct in his
said office, and was and is guilty of a misdemeanor in his said
office as judge."
loth. That while holding said office of district judge he
"wrongfully and unlawfully did accept and receive a large sum of
money . . . from (another third party) ... for the
purpose of defraying the expenses of a pleasure trip of the said
Robert W. Archbald to Europe; that the said (third party), at
the time of the giving of said money and the receipt thereof by
,212 UNITED STATES IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
the, said Robert W. Archbald, was a stockholder and officer in
various and divers interstate railway corporations . . . and
various other corporations engaged in the mining of coal and in
the development of agricultural and timber land in various parts
of the United States; that the acceptance by the said Robert W.
Archbald, while holding said office of United States district
judge, of said favors from an officer and official of the said cor-
porations, any of which in the due course of business was liable
to be interested in litigations pending in the said court, over which
he presided as such judge, was improper and had a tendency to
and did bring said office of district judge into disrepute. Where-
fore the said Robert W. Archbald was and is guilty of misbe-
havior in office, and was and is guilty of a misdemeanor."
nth. That while holding said office of district judge he did
"wrongfully and unlawfully accept and receive a sum of money
in excess of $500, which sum of money was contributed and given
to the said Robert W. Archbald by various attorneys who were
practitioners in the said court presided over by the said Robert
W. Archbald; that said money was raised by subscription and
solicitation from said attorneys by two of the officers of said
court . . . both . . . having been appointed to the said
positions by the said Robert W. Archbald, judge aforesaid.
Wherefore said Robert W. Archbald was and is guilty of misbe-
havior in office, and was and is guilty of a misdemeanor."
1 2th. That while acting as such district judge he appointed
"a general attorney for the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, a
corporation and common carrier doing a general railroad business
. . . as a jury commissioner in and for said judicial district
(who) ... by virtue of said appointment and with the
continued consent and approval of the said Robert W. Archbald,
held said office and performed all the duties pertaining thereto
during all the time the said Robert W. Archbald held said office
of United States district judge, and during all of said time the
said (appointee) continued to act as a general attorney for the
said Lehigh Valley Railroad Company; all of wliich was at all
times well known to the said Robert W. Archbald. Wherefore
the said Robert W. Archbald was and is guilty of misbehavior ia
office and was and is guilty of a misdemeanor."
13th. That while he "acted as such United States district
judge and judge of the United States Commerce Court he, the
said Robert W. Archbald, at divers times and places, has sought
wrongfully to obtain credit from and through certain persons
who were interested in a result of suits then pending and suits
that had been pending in the court over which he presided as
SUGGESTED SENATORIAL RULES OF PROCEDURE 213
judge (and) ... did undertake to carry on a general busi-
ness for speculation and profit in the purchase and sale of culm
dumps, coal lands and other properties, and for a valuable con-
sideration to compromise litigation pending before the Interstate
Commerce Commission, and in the furtherance of his effort to
cornpromise such litigation and of his speculation in coal prop-
erties, wilfully, unlawfully and corruptly did use his influence as
a judge of the said United States Commerce Court to induce the
officers of . . . railroad companies engaged in interstate
commerce ... to enter into various and divers contracts and
, agreements in which he was then and there, financially interested
with divers persons . . . without disclosing his said interest
therein on the face of the contract but which interest was well
known to the officers and agents of said railroad companies.
That the said Robert W. Archbald did not invest any money or
other thing of value in consideration of any interest acquired or
sought to be acquired (therein) . . . but used his influence
as such judge with the contracting parties thereto, and received
an interest ... in consideration of such influence in aiding
and assisting in securing same. That the said several railroad
companies were and are enga,ged in interstate commerce, and at
the time . . . had divers suits pending in the United States
Commerce Court, and that the conduct and efforts of the said
Robert W. Archbald in endeavoring to secure and in receiving
such contracts and agreements from said railroad companies was
continuous and persistent from the said 31st day of March, 191 1,
to about the 15th day of April, 1912. Wherefore the said Robert
W. Archbald was and is guilty of misbehavior as such judge and
of misdemeanors in office."
He was convicted on the ist, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 13th articles,
acquitted on the remainder, and sentenced to removal from office,
and to disqualification from holding any office of honor, trust or
profit under the United States.
SUGGESTED RULES OF PROCEDURE A'ND PRACTICE
FOR THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IN
IMPEACHMENT CASES.
I. Articles of impeachment prepared by the House of Rep-
resentatives may be presented by any member or members thereof,
deputed by it for that purpose, at any time the Senate is in legis-
lative session.
2. .Upon presentation of said articles, the Presiding Officer
shall forthwith issue a summons in the following form to the
person or persons accused therein :
214 SUGGESTED SENATORIAL RULES OF PROCEDURE
"The United States of America, ss. :
The Senate of the United States to greeting :
WJiereas the House of Representatives of the United States
of America, did, on the day of A. D , exhibit
to the Senate of the said United States articles of impeachment
against you, the said in the words and figures fol-
lowing :
(Here insert the articles.)
and demand that you the said should be put to answer
the accusations set forth in said articles, and that such proceed-
ings, examinations, trials and judgments might be had as are
agreeable to the Constitution and laws;
Now you, the said , are therefore hereby noti-
fied and required to cause an appearance to be entered for you,
and to fije your plea or answer to each and every of said articles,
with the clerk of the said Senate, within fifteen days after the
service hereof upon you, and then and thereafter to abide by,
obey and perform such orders, directions and judgments as shall
be made in said proceedings in accordance with said Constitution
and laws. .
In witness whereof the Presiding Officer of the said Senate
has hereunto set his hand, and affixed the seal of the said Senate,
this." day of , A. D , and of the Independence
of the United States
Presiding Officer of the Senate."
3. Said writ of summons shall be served by the Sergeant-at-
Arms of the Senate, or an assistant of his approved by the Pre-
siding Officer, by handing a true and attested copy thereof, and a
copy of the "Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Senate in
Impeachment Cases" to the respondent personally, if conveniently
to be found, if not, by leaving them at his usual place of abode, or,
if this also cannot conveniently be done, by leaving them at his
usual place of business with some adult person found thereat.
4. An appearance by the respondent, in person or by counsel
in the manner hereinafter set forth, shall in all respects be equiva-
lent to a service of the summons ; but where the summons has been
served, and no appearance has been entered, the person making
the service shall endorse upon the summons an affidavit of the
time, place and manner of service, and if it appears thereby that
the setvice has been duly made, the facts averred in said affidavit
shall be accepted as true.
5. If the summons cannot be served in the manner provided,
the person named in the precept to serve it shall forthwith report
SUGGESTED SENATORIAL RULES OF PROCEDURE 215
the facts to the Presiding Officer, and the Senate, from time to
time, will make such further orders for service, by publication
or otherwise, as to it shall seem best, and service thus made shall
be equivalent to personal service on the respondent.
6. The respondent may appear in person or by counsel, and
may, from time to time, select other or additional counsel to
represent him. All appearances shall be in writing, in the form
hereinafter set forth, shall be filed with the Secretary of the
Senate, and shall be acknowledged before said Secretary, or
before a judge of some court of the United States.
7. Appearances by the respondent personally shall be in the
following form:
"In the matter of the impeachment of by the
House of Representatives.
To the Senate of the United States :
I hereby acknowledge the receipt of a copy of the summons,
and 'Rules of Procedure and Practice of the Senate in Impeach-
ment Cases,' directed to be served upon me in the above proceed-
ing, and hereby enter my appearance in my own proper person.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this
day of A. D , and of the Independence of the
United States the
Respondent.
United States of America, ss. :
Before the undersigned a judge of (here state the title of the
court; or the secretary of the Senate of the United States, as the
case may be) personally appeared
and acknowledged the facts set forth in the foregoing appearance
to be true.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and the
seal of said court (or of said Senate, as the case may be) this
day of ........ A. D , and of the Independence
of the United States the "
8. Appearances of the respondent by counsel shall be in the
following form :
"In the matter of the impeachment of
by the House of Representatives.
To the Senate of the United States :
I hereby acknowledge the receipt of a copy of the summons
and 'Rules of Procedure and Practice of the Senate in Impeach-
ment Cases,' directed to be served upon me in the above pro-
ceeding, and hereby appoint (here name the counsel), as my
counsel in said proceeding.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this
216 SUGGESTED SENATORIAL RULES OP PROCEDURE
day of A. D , and of the Independence of the United
States the
Respondent."
(Here insert the same form of acknowledgment as when the
respondent appears personally, and continue.)
"To the Secretary of said Senate:
Enter our appearance for , the respondent
in the above proceeding.
Attorneys for said Respondent."
9. If the respondent desires to be heard in person or by
counsel, be must plead guilty to or answer each of the articles of
impeachment separately, but he may accompany his answer with
a motion to dismiss any or all the articles. The answer to each
article must be complete in and of itself, without reference to
the answer to any other article, and must be a concise statement
of the facts only, without any argument. The motion to dismiss
must also be complete in and of itself, must concisely state, the
reasons why the Senate should dismiss the article, and must
contain no argument. Answers must, be sworn to by the
respondent that the facts therein stated are true as he verily.
believes, and motions to dismiss that they are not interposed for
delay.
ID. Appearances and answers, with the accompanying mo-
tions to dismiss, if any, shall be filed in duplicate, and one copy
thereof shall be forthwith sent by the Secretary of the Senate to
the House of Representatives.
11. The House of Representatives may, within ten days
after the receipt of ia copy of the answer, if any, file their replica-
tion thereto, or they may reply to the answer to certain articles,
and move for judgment against the respondent on his answer to
other articles. Upon the hearing of such motions the facts
averred in the answer shall be taken as true, as shall also the
facts averred in the articles of impeachment except to the extent
they are denied or qualified by the answer.
12. Unless otherwise ordered, motions to dismiss, and
motions for judgment against the respondent upon his answers,
shall be argued and decided before further proceedings are had.
13. If a plea of "Guilty" is filed to any article, or if judg-
ment is fentered against the respondent on his answer to any
article, the Senate shall proceed at once to final judgment, unless
it is ordered that said judgment shall await the disposition of
the proceedings on any or all the other articles.
SUGGESTED SENATORIAL RULES OF PROCEDURE 217
14. If no answer or plea be filed to any article the Secretary-
shall file in the name of and for the respondent the plea of "Not
Guilty," and notify the House of Representatives accordingly ;
but the respondent shall not be heard in person or by counsel until
he does answer or pleads guilty.
15. Within ten days after the case is ready for trial the
Managers for the House of Representatives, and respondent or
his counsel, shall file with the Secretary of the Senate a list of
the witnessess each desires to call, together with the address of
each witness. Said lists may be added to from time to time.
16. When the President, Vice-President or a Justice of the
Supreme Court is impeached, the evidence shall be taken before
the Senate.
17. In all other cases the evidence shall be taken before
three of the Judges of the Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia, or three of the other judges of any court of the United
States, or part of the evidence may be taken before one set of
judges and part before the other or others. When sitting for
that purpose said court shall have all the implied and conferred
powers incident to courts of the United States in the trial of
other cases. The Managers of the House of Representatives and
respondent or his counsel, if he has answered the articles, shall
have the right to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, and
by leave of the court may produce other witnesses and such
documentary evidence as may be adjudged pertinent. After the
evidence is concluded the court receiving it shall certify it to the
Senate.
18. When the President or Acting President of the United
States is impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
the United States shall preside at all times during the considera-
tion and until the final disposition of the impeachment. In such
cases the Secretary of the Senate shall give the Chief Justice
notice of the time and place fixed for the consideration of the
articles of impeachment, with a request that he attend. In all
other cases of impeachment the Senate will from time to time
choose one of its members to act as its Presiding Officer until the
final disposition of the impeachment.
19. At the opening of each session of the Senate for the con-
sideration of the articles of impeachment, proclamation shall be
made in the following form :
"Hear ye ! Hear ye ! Hear ye ! The Senate is now open for
the consideration of the articles of impeachment by the House of
Representatives against and all persons
are commanded to keep silence on pain of punishment for con-
tempt of the authority and dignity of the Senate."
218 SUGGESTED SENATORIAL RULES OF PROCEDURE
20. At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the trial
of an impeachment the doors of the Senate shall be kept open,
except when it is deliberating preparatory to its final vote upon
the articles of impeachment, or when the Senate shall direct the
doors to be closed while deliberating upon any other matter.
21. Before any action is taken upon the articles of impeach-
ment the Senators shall be sworn in the following manner :
"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that in
all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of
, now pending, I will do
impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. So
help me God."
Each day thereafter, during the progress of the proceedings,
there shall be a call of the names of the Senators who have not
theretofore been sworn, and a like oath shall be administered to
such of them as shall then appear.
22. When the evidence is being taken by a Court all writs
and other process in relation thereto shall be issued by it as in
other cases tried in the courts of the United States. In all other
instances all writs and other process shall be issued in the names
of the Senate, and except as herein otherwise provided, shall be
signed by the Secretary of the Senate.
23. When the pleadings are completed the Senate may of its
own motion, fix the times and places where the evidence is to He
taken, or either side may, on three days' notice to the opposite
party, apply to the Senate to fix or change such times and places.
24. The subpoena to the witnesses shall be in the following
form:
"To greeting :
You and each of you are hereby commanded to appear before
the Senate of the United States (or the Court selected, naming
it) on the day of A. D , at the Senate Cham-
ber in the City of Washington (or court room, designating it),
then and there to testify in a cause which is pending before the
Stnate of the United States in which the House of Representa-
tives have impeached and you
are further commanded to bring with you the following (here
shall be filled in a statement of any books, papers or other docu-
ments required to be produced) .
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
the seal of the said Senate (or of said court) this day of
\. D , and of the Independence of the United
States the
Secretary of the Senate (or Clerk of said Court)."
SUGGESTED SENATORIAL RULES OF PROCEDURE 219
25. Subpoenas shall be served by any assistant of the Ser-
geant-at-Arms approved by the Presiding Officer of the Senate,
or by any United States Marshal authorized to serve process
issued by any Court of the United States, and may be served
upon the witnesses named therein wherever they may be found.
26. The person serving the subpoena shall endorse thereon
an affidavit of the time, place and manner of service, and shall
forthwith return the subpoena with the affidavit of service to the
Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, or the Clerk of said Court. If
it appears by said affidavit that the parties named were sub-
poenaed as required by law, the facts averred therein shall be
sufficient upon which to found an attachment for the arrest of the
person subpoenaed, if he shall fail to comply with the require-
ments thereof.
2y. The Secretary of the Senate shall make all necessary
.[(reparations in the Senate Chamber, for the accommodation of
the Managers of the House of Representatives, and of the
respondent and his counsel, and for the orderly conduct of the
proceedings.
28. Unless otherwise ordered, trials and arguments before
the Senate shall commence at 2 P. M. of each day and continue
until 6 P. M. thereof, day by day, Sundays and legal holidays
alone excepted. Trials and arguments before any court appointed
to "take the evidence shall be had at such times as the court shall
direct, but shall be expeditiously had, preference being given
thereto over all the other business of said courts.
29. The prosecution of the respondent shall be conducted by
the Managers of the House of Representatives, and the defense
thereof by the respondent and his counsel.
30. In cases tried before the Senate, on the first day of the
trial one Manager for the House of Representatives shall make a
concise statement of the facts which are admitted, and those
which the Managers expect to prove, to be followed immediately
by a concise statement for the respondent as to the facts which
he expects to prove. The opening statement of each side shall
not consume over two hours, and shall contain no argument as to
the law or facts of the case, but either party may then or there-
after file a brief of law, which shall h6 printed with and form part
of the proceedings.
31. In cases tried before the Senate, on the second day of
the trial the Managers of the House of Representatives shall
.proceed with their evidence, and shall continue with its production
until all their evidence in chief is concluded. Respondent shall
then proceed with his evidence and shall continue until its con-
220 SUGGESTED SENATORIAL RULES OF PROCEDURE
•
elusion. The Manager? of the House of Representatives may
then offer their rebuttal evidence, and the respondent his sur-
rebuttal until all the evidence is concluded. Nothing herein con-
tained, however, shall prevent the introduction of evidence out of
its ordinary place, if in the opinion of the Senate a sufficient
reason therefor is shown.
32. No evidence shall be produced for the purpose of prov- ,
ing any fact not denied or qualified by the answer of the
respondent, or relating solely to any article which has been dis-
missed, or upon which judgment has been entered against the
respondent on his answer thereto.
33. Witnesses shall be sworn in the following form :
"You do swear (or affirm, as the case may be),
that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between
the United States and shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God." Said
oath may be administered by the Presiding Officer, by any other
officer of the Senate, by a Judge or the Clerk of the Court, or by
any duly authorized person.
34. When the case is tried before the Senate, if a Senator
is called as a witness, he shall be sworn or affirmed, and give his
testimony standing in his place.
35. Witnesses shall be examined by one person on behalf
of the party producing them, and then cross-examined by one
person on the other side.
36. In cases tried before the Senate, all objections to
evidence, and all motions made by the parties during the trial
shall be addressed to the Presiding Officer, and if he, or any
Senator, shall require it, shall be reduced to writing, and read
at the Secretary's table. The Presiding Officer may, in the first
instance, decide all such matters, or he may, at his option, sub-
mit them to a vote of the Senate. If he decides them, his ruling
shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some member
thereof shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which
case they shall be submitted to the Senate for decision. In cases
tried before a court the judges thereof shall decide such matters
as in other cases.
37. All preliminary or iiiterlocutory questions, and all mo-
tions may be argued by not over two persons on each side,
the party moving or objecting having the opening and closing
of the argument. In such matters, except on motions to dismiss
and motions for judgment against the respondent on his answers,
not over one hour shall be taken on each side.
SUGGESTED SENATORIAL RULES OP PROCEDURE 221
38. While the Senate is in open session no member shall
debate or argue any matter whatsoever, or make any statement in
regard thereto. All rnotions (except motions to adjourn), all
orders asked for, and all questions to be propounded for a mem-
ber to a witness, shall be reduced to writing, and put by or for
the Presiding Officer.
39. The final argument on the merits may be made by not
over two persons on each side, and the argument shall be opened
and closed on the part of the Managers for the House of Repre-
sentatives.
40. When deliberating behind closed doors no member shall
speak more than once on any question, more than ten minutes on
any interlocutory matter, nor more than half an hour oh the
question of the guilt or innocence of the respondent.
41. The final votes upon motions to dismiss, upon motions
for judgment against the respondent upon his answers, and upon
the guilt or innocence of the respondent of the charges made in
the articles of impeachment, shall be taken by yeas and nays. All
other votes shall he taken without a division, unless the yeas and
nays be demanded by one-fifth of the members present, in which
event the vote shall be so taken.
42. A vote of two-thirds of the Senators present shall be
necessary to sustain a motion for judgment against the respondent
upon his answers, or to convict him on the final vote upon the
articles of impeachment; but a majority vote of the members
present shall be sufficient to dispose of any other matter. In all
cases a quorum of the Senate must be present and vote upon the
question to be decided.
43. The vote upon each motion to dismiss, upon each
motion for judgment against the respondent upon his answers,
and the final vote upon each article of impeachment, shall be taken
separately.
44. The form of the final vote taken upon the articles of
impeachment shall be as follows :
"Do you find the respondent guilty or
not guilty of treason (or bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor,
as the case may be), as charged in the article of impeach-
ment?"
45. If two-thirds of the members present do not vote
"guilty" as to the articles voted upon, the Presiding Officer shall
forthwith announce the fact, and a judgment of acquittal shall be
entered thereupon. If two-thirds of the members present vote
"guilty" as to any article voted upon, the Presiding Officer shall
forthwith announce that fact, and the Senate may proceed to
222 SUGGESTED SENATORIAL RUL&S OF PROCEDURE
pronounce judgment thereon, without voting upon any of the
other articles, or it may postpone pronouncing judgment until the
final vote on all the articles. If the respondent be found guilty a
certified copy of such judgment shall be deposited in the office
of the Secretary of State. -
46. The Presiding Officer shall have power, with the aid of
the Sergeant-at-Arms and such other assistance as either of them
may deem necessary, to enforce, execute and carry into effect all
the orders, mandates, judgments, rules and regulations of the
Senate, and, subject to an appeal to the Senate by any five mem-
bers thereof, to prescribe the punishment for contempt of and
disobedience to its authority, writs, process, orders, rules, regula-
tions, mandates and judgments.
47. The adjournment of the Senate sitting for the trial of an
impeachment shall not operate as an adjournment of the Senate,
but the Senate shall thereupon resume the consideration of its
legislative and executive business.
48. If the Senate shall at any time fail to sit for the con-
sideration of articles of impeachment, on the day or hour fixed
therefor, the Senate may, by an order to be adopted without
debate, fix a day and hour for resuming such consideration.
49. The Secretary of the Senate shall record the proceedings
in cases of impeachment as in the case of legislative proceedings,
and the same shall be reported and acted upon in the same manner
as such legislative proceedings.
50. All the foregoing rules for the conduct of the trial of an
impeachment, and all orders on that subject made by the Senate
during the trial, may be suspended or changed at any time by a
majority vote of the members present.
Index.
Index.
Page
Attendance of Senators at Trial 67
Constitutional Convention, Proceedings of, relative to Impeachment, 7
Constitution of United States, Provisions relating to Impeachments, 19
Court: Senate sits as a court on trial of impeachments 21
Constantly so called in reports of trials 24
Constitutional provisions bearing on the question 26
Judiciary Article of Constitution not antagonistic 28
Precedents on the Subject 27
Rights of Respondents in view therebf 29
Rules of Senate bearing on the question 22
High Crimes and Misdemeanors, not limited to criminal offences
(See also "Offences for which Impeachment will lie").
Conflicting views of interested parties 30
"Crimes" includes all criminal "misdemeanors," authorities
so holding 32
Debates in Federal Convention bearing on the question ... 42
English precedents on the question 35
Historical consideration of the question 34
Judicial opinions on the subject 46
Opinions of commentators on the Constitution 45
Opinions of members of Federal Convention 44
Practice in this country uniformly in favor of impeachments
for other than crimes 40
Impeachments in England.
Date impeachments began in England 5
When finally established in England 7
Who instituted impeachments in England 5
Who tried impeachments in England 5
Impeachment not an adequate remedy in the case of judicial officers, 71
Offences for which Impeachment will lie 50
Constitutional provisions on the subject 19
Definition of the offences 32
Ethical mistakes not of sufficient importance 59
"Good behavior" clause of commission does not affect the
question 53
Must affect administration of oiBce 52
Must be such as might properly be made criminal 52
Need not be offences virtute officii 52
Opinions of commentators on the Constitution 45
"Sole power" to impeach and try does not affect the ques-
tion SS
Vary with the time, place and circumstances SO
(225)
226 . , ~ INDEX
Page
Rules of Evidence and Competency of Witnesses,.at trial 65
Senate Suggested Rules of on Impeachment Trials 213
Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, effect of 66
Suggestions for better method of obtaining evidence 68
" conducting trial .' . . 69
Who may be impeached.
All officers of the United States then holding office 57
All officers of the United States whose terms are ended ... 63
Improbable any one not then in office ever will be 65
Private citizens not elected to or having held office may
not be 56
Resignation from office does not abate proceedings 63
Index to Appendix.
Abstract of American Im-
peachments.
Page
Archbald, Robert W 207
Belknap, William W 203
Blount, William 191
Chase, Samuel 194
Humphreys, West H 197
Johnson, Andrew 199
Peck; James H 196
Pickering, John 192
Swayne, Qiarles 205
Abstract of English Impeach-
ments.
' Adams, Thomas 125
Archbishop of Canterbury 89
Laud 122
of York 86, 114
Arlington, Earl of 133, 133
Arthur, Lord Capel 122
Arundel, Earl of 89
Aurioll, John 143
Bacon, Lord Chancellor 91
Bale, Sir John 120
Bandovin, Rene 141
Barclay, Thomas de 85
Baroverse, James 88
Barran, David 141
Beauchamp, John de 88
Belknap, Robert 88
Bellasyse, Lord 134
Bennett, Henry, Earl of Ar-
lington 133
Benyon, George 117
Beresford, Simon de 85
Berkley, Lord George 127
Robert 105
Bishop of Bath and Wells ... 114
" Chichester 88
" " Coventry and Litch-
field 114
" Durham 114
" Ely 114
" Gloucester 114
" Hereford 114
Llandafi 91, 114
" Norwich 93, 114
" Oxford 114
" Petersborough 114
St. Asaph 114
Winchester 90
Wren '• . . HI
it tt
It tt
I*age
Blair, Sir Adam 140
Blake, John 88
Bolingbroke, Henry, Viscount, 151
Bolton, Sir Richard 114
Brambre, Nicolas 86
Bramhall, Dr. John 114
Bramston, John 105
Bridgewater, Earl of 115
Bristol, Earl of 95
Broccas, John 122
Buckingham, Duke of 95
Bunce, James 125
Burleigh, Simon de 88
William 88
Canterbury, Archbishop of 89
Capel, Arthur, Lord 122
Carey, John 88
Carnwath, Robert, Earl of 150
Charles, Lord Grey of Ruthven, 122
" Lord Howard of Charl-
ton 122
Lord Halifax 148
Charlton, Lord Howard of 122
Chichester, Bishop of 88
Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl
of 127, 130
Clotworthy, Sir John 125
Cobham, Sir John 88, 89
Coke, Dr. George, Bishop of
Hereford 114
Coningsby, Thomas, Lord 141
Conway, Lord 95
Cosin, Dr. John 109
Coventry, Thomas, Lord 122
Crawley, Francis 105
Crooke, George 105
CuUam, Thomas 125
David, Brother of Llewellyn ... 81
Danby, Thomas, Earl of 13'^
Davenport, Humphrey 105
de Barclay, Thomas 85
de Beauchamp, John 88
de Beresford, Simon 85
de Burleigh, Simon 88
de Goraeris, John 86
de la Pole, Michael 86
" " William 90
Denham, John 105
Dering, Sir Edward 118
Derry, Lord Bishop of 114
Derwentwater, James, Earl of . . 150
Devonshire, William, Earl of . . . 122
Digby, Lord 117
Diharce, Peter 141
(227)
228
INDEX TO APPENDIX
Page
Dover, Henry, Earl of 122
Drake, William 127
Duke of Buckingham 95
" " Gloucester 89
" Ireland 86
" Leeds 141
" Ormond 152
" " Suffolk 90
du Maistre, John 143
Earl of Arlington 133, 133
" " Arundel 89
" Bridgewater 115
" Bristol 95
" Carnwath 150
" Clarendon 127, 130
" Danby 139
" Derwentwater 150
" Devonshire 122
" Dover 122
" Lancaster 82
" Lincoln 127
" Macclesfield 163
" March 82
" Middlesex 127
" Monmouth 122
Mortimer 156
of Nithisdale 150
" Northampton 122
" Orfora 144
" Orrery 133
" Oxford 144, 156
" Petersborough 141
" Portland 143
" Powis 134
" Salisbury 141
" Stamford 124
" Strafford 109, 154
" Suffolk 86, 127
" Tyrone 135
" Warwick ; 89
" Wintoun 151
Edward, Earl of Clareridon, 127, 130
Earl of Orford 144
Edward Hyde, Earl of Claren-
don 127
Egerton, John, Ear! of Bridge-
water ~ 115
Elliott, Dr. John 140
Ellis, William 85
England, Richard II, King of . . 89
Field, Theophilus 91
Finch, . John 105
Finch, Lord Keeper 109
Fitz-Alan, Thomas 89
Fitzharris, Edward 139
Francis, Lord Willoughby of
Parkham 127
Eraser, Simon, Lord Lovat 167
Fulthorpe, Roger 88
Page
Gardiner, Sir Thomas 120
Gayre, Sir John 125
George, Earl of Wintoun 151
George, Lord Berkley 127
Gloucester, Duke of 89
Glynn, John 125
Goodman, Dr. Godfrey, Bishop
of Gloucester 114
Gomeris, John de 86
Goudet, John 141
Grey, Dr. Robert 140
" Henry, Earl of Stamford, 124
Giirney, Sir Richard 119
Halford, Sir Richard 120
Halifax, Charles, Lord 148
Hall, Dr. Joseph, Bishop of Nor-
wich 114
Hampden, John 115
Harley, Col. Edward 125
Hastings, Henry 120
Warren 167
Hazelrig, Sir Arthur 115
Henry, Bishop of Winchester . . 90
" Earl of Dover 122
" " Monmouth 122
" " " Petersborough . . 141
" " Stamford 124
" Viscount Bolingbroke ... 151
Herbert, Sir Edward 117
Hertford, Marquess of 117
Hbllis, Denzil 115, 125
Holt, John 88
Hunsden, John, Lord . . ; 127
Hutton, Richard 105
Hyde, Edward, Earl of
Clarendon 130
Ireland, Duke of 86
James, Duke of Ormond 152
" Earl of Derwentwater . . 150
Middlesex 127
" " Salisbury 141
' Suffolk 127
John, Lord Hunsden 127
" Lord'Somers 145
" Lord Viscount Mordaunt, 129
Jones, William 105
Judges, Impeachment of the.. 88, 105
Keeling or Kelyng, Sir John . . . 130
Kenmure, William, Viscount ... 150'
Kimbolton, Lord 115
King of England, Richard II . . 89
Langhani, John 125
Lancaster, Earl of 82
Latimer, Lord 85
Laud, Archbishop 122
Leeds, Thomas, Duke of 141
Lewis, Sir William 125
Lincoln, Theobald, Earl of 127
Llandaff, Bishop of 91, 114
INDEX TO APPENDIX
229
Page
Llewellyn, David, Brother of . . 81
Lockton, John 88
Long, Walter 125
Longueville, Peter 141
Lord Bishop of Derry 114
" Chief Justice Scroggs 136
" Keeper Finch 109
" Arundel of Wardour .... 134
" Bellasyse 134
" Berkley 127
" Bishop of Derry 1 14
" Capel 122
" Coningsby 141
" Conway 95
" Coventry 122
" Digby 117
" Grey of Ruthven 122
" Halifax 148
" Howard of Charlton 122
" Hunsden 127
," Kimbelton 115
" Latimer 8b
" Lovat 167
" Maynard 127
" Nairn ISO
" Petre 134
" Rich 122
" Semour of Sudley 91
" Somers 145
StrELti&TC 121
" Viscount Meivilie'!!!!!!.'! 188
Mordaunt 129
Stafford 134
" Widdrington 150
" Willoughby of Parkham.. 127
Lovat, Simon Fraser, Lord 167
Lowther, Sir Gerard 114
Lyons, Richard 85
Macclesfield, Thomas, Earl of . . 163
March, Earl of 82
Marquess of Hertford 117
Massey, Major General 125
MajTiard, Sir John 125, 125
William, Lord 127
Melville, Lord Yiscount 188
Michell, Sir Francis 92
Middlesex, James, Earl of 127
" Lord Treasurer 94
Mole, Capt. Frederick 140
Mompesson, Sir Giles '92
Monmouth, Henry, Earl of 12?
Mordaunt, John, Lord Viscount, 122
Moreton, Dr. Thomas, Bishop of
Durham 114
Mortimer, Earl 156
Roger 82
Thomas 89
Nairn, William, Lord ISO
Nevil, Alexander : . 86
Page
Nicholl, Anthony 125
Nithisdale, William, Earl of ... . 150
North, Sir Francis 135
Northampton, Spencer, Earl of, 122
Norwich, Bishop of 93, 114
O'Neale, Daniel 115
Oxford, Edward, Earl of 144
Ormond, James, Duke of 152
Orrery, Earl of 133
Owen, Dr. John, Bishop of St.
Asaph 114
Owen, Dr. Morgan, Bishop of
Llandaff 114
Oxford, Robert, Earl of .... 144, ISb
Pate, John 120
Parkham, Francis, Lord Wil-
loughby of 127
Patsall, Matthew 124
Penn, Sir William 132
Perrers, Alice 85
Petersborough, Henry, Earl of.. 141
Petre, Lord 134
Pett, Peter 131
Pierce, John 141
Piers, Dr. William, Bishop of
Bath and Wells 114
Pole, Michael de la 86
Pole, William de la 90
Polton, Henry 124
Pore, Richard, Earl of Tyrone, 135
Porter, Sir Charles 141
Portland, William, Earl of . . . 143
Powis, Earl of 134
Pym, John .' 115
Ratcliff, Sir George 1 14
Rich, Robert, Lord 122
Richard, Earl of Arundel 89
Richard 11, King of England . . 89
Robert, Earl of Carnwath 150
" " Oxford 156
Lord Rich 122
Ruthven, Lord Grey of 122
Sacheverell, Dr. Henry 150
Santini, Nicolas 141
Salisbury, James, Earl of 141
John 88
Scroggs, Lord Chief Justice 136
Seignoret, Stephen 141
Seymour, Edward 135
Sir Thomas 91
" William, Marquess of
Hertford 117
Skinner, Dr. Robert, Bishop of
Oxford 114
Somers, John, Lord 145
Spencer, Earl of Northampton.. 122
Richard 118
Stafford, Lord Viscount 134
Stapylton, Sir Philip 125
230
IKDEX TO APPENDIX
Page
Stanley, Sir WUliam 91
Strange, Lord 121
Strafford, Earl of 109, 154
Strode, William 115
Suffolk, Duke of 90
Earl of 86, 127
Theobald, Earl of Lincoln 127
Thomas, Bishop of Chichester. . 88
" Duke of Gloucester ... 89
" " Leeds 141
Earl of Danby 139
" " " Lancaster- 82
" " Macclesfield .. 163
" " Strafford, 109, 154
" " Warwick .... 89
" Lord Coningsby 141
" " Coventry 122
Tresilian, Robert, Lord Chief
Justice 86
Trevor, Thomas 105
Tyrone, Richard Pore, Earl of, 135
Uske, Thomas 88
Vaughan, Capt. Henry 140
Vere, Robert 86
Vernon, George 105
Waller, Sir William 125
Wardour, Lord Arundel of . . 134
Warner, Dr. John, Bishop of
Petersborough 114
Page
Warwick, Earl of 89
Weston, Richard 105
William 86
Widdington, William. Lord .. 150
Weld or Wylde, John 118
William, Earl of Devonshire . . 122
" " Nithisdale ... ISO
" " Portland .... 143
" Lord Latimer 85
" " Maynard IZl
" Nairn 150
" Widdrington .. 150
" Viscount Kenmure.. 150
Williams, Dr. John, Arch-
bishop of York 114
Willoughby, Lord of Parkham, 12
Winchester, Bishop of 90
Windebank, Sir Francis 113
Wintoun, George, Earl of 151
Wolsey, Cardinal 91
Wren, Bishop Ill
" Dr. Matthew, Bishop of
Ely 114
Wright, Dr. Robert, Bishop of
Coventry and Litchfield .. 114
Yelverton, Sir Henry 93
York, Archbishop of 86
Date Due
NOV -^^Ti:
^
Library Bureau
jCal. No. 1137
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11