XII. 1723. respect to the head of these subalterns, the Bishop CHAP. of Rochester, a bill was brought in by Yonge (afterwards Sir William) enacting his banishment and deprivation, but without forfeiture of goods; that it should be felony to correspond with him without the King's licence; and that the King should have no power to pardon him without consent of Parliament. The Bishop, on receiving a copy of this bill, wrote to the Speaker, requesting to have Sir Constantine Phipps and Mr. Wynne as his counsel, and Mr. Morice as his solicitor, and that they might have free access to him in private. This was granted. He next applied to the Lords, stating that as, by a standing order of their House of January 20. 1673, no Lord might appear by counsel before the other House, he was at a loss how to act, and humbly requested their direction. The Lords determined that leave should be given him to be heard by counsel or otherwise, as he might think proper; but Atterbury, who had probably only taken these steps with the view of raising difficulties, or creating a grievance to complain of, wrote a letter to the Speaker, on the very day he was expected to make his defence, to the effect that he should decline giving that House any trouble, and content himself with the opportunity, if the bill went on, of making his defence before another House, of which he had the honour to be a member. Accordingly, the bill having passed the Com. XII. CHAP. mons without a division, the Bishop was brought to the bar of the House of Lords on the 6th of 1723. May. The evidence against him being first gone through, some was produced on his side. Amongst his witnesses were Erasmus Lewis, to prove, from his official experience, how easily hand-writing may be counterfeited; and Pope, to depose to the Bishop's domestic habits and literary employments. Pope had but few words to speak, and in those few we are told that he made several blunders. But those on whom Atterbury most relied were three persons who invalidated the confessions of Mr. Neynoe, as taken before his escape and death, and who alleged that Walpole had tampered with that witness. One of them (Mr. Skeene) stated that having asked Neynoe, whether, in real truth, he knew any thing of a plot, Neynoe answered, that he knew of two; one of Mr. Walpole's against some great men, the other of his own, which was only to get eighteen or twenty thousand pounds from Mr. Walpole! It should be observed, however, that of these three witnesses, one at least was of very suspicious character, having been convicted, whipt, and pilloried, at Dublin, for a treasonable libel. Their charges made it necessary for Walpole himself to appear as a witness, and disavow them. On this occasion, the Bishop used all his art to perplex the Minister and make him contradict himself, but did not succeed; greater trial of skill," observes Speaker Onslow, "than scarce ever happened between two such "combatants; the one fighting for his reputation, CHA P. "the other for his acquittal." * Whatever vindication there may be for Jacobite principles in general, it is shocking to find a clergyman, and a prelate, swear allegiance to the King whom he was plotting to dethrone, and solemnly protest his innocence while labouring under a consciousness of guilt. The Bishop's own defence, which was spoken on the 11th of May †, begins with a touching recital of the hardships he had suffered in captivity. "By which means,' he adds, "what little strength and use of my "limbs I had when committed, in August last, is "now so far impaired, that I am very unfit to appear before your Lordships on any occasion, especially when I am to make my defence against a bill of so extraordinary a nature.' Atterbury next enters into a masterly review, and, so far as was possible, refutation, of the evidence against him; and proceeds, in a high strain of eloquence, to ask what motives could have driven him into a conspiracy. "What could tempt me, * Atterbury always looked upon Walpole as the prime author of his ruin. The epitaph which he wrote for himself in his exile thus concludes: HOC FACINORIS CONSCIVIT, AGGRESSUS EST PERPETRAVIT ROBERTUS ISTE WALPOLE QUEM NULLA NESCIET POSTERITAS! See his Correspondence, vol. i. p. 302. + This Defence, as printed in the Parl. History, is mutilated and imperfect. But it is correctly given from an authentic MS. in Atterbury's Correspondence, vol. ii. pp. 105-180. XII. 1723. XII. 1723. CHAP. my Lords, thus to step out my way? Was it "ambition, and a desire of climbing into a higher "station in the Church? There is not a man of 66 my order further removed from views of this "kind than I am. Was money my aim? I 66 ... always despised it, too much, perhaps, considering the occasion I may now have for it. Out of "a poor bishoprick of 500l. a year, I did in eight "years' time lay out 2000l. upon the house and "the appurtenances; and because I knew the cir"cumstances in which my predecessor left his family, I took not one shilling for dilapidations; "and the rest of my income has all been spent as "that of a Bishop should be, in hospitality and charity. . . . . Was I influenced by any dislike of "the Established Religion, any secret inclination "towards Popery, a church of greater pomp and 66 power ? Malice has ventured even thus far to 66 asperse me. I have, my Lords, ever since I "knew what Popery was, disliked it; and the "better I knew it, the more I opposed it. . . . Thirty-seven years ago I wrote in defence of "Martin Luther. ... And whatever happens to me, I will suffer any thing, and would, by God's 66 66 ... ... grace, burn at the stake, rather than, in any "material point, depart from the Protestant Religion, as professed in the Church of England. . "Once more, can I be supposed to favour arbitrary power? The whole tenour of my life. speaks otherwise. I was always a friend to the liberty of the subject, and, to the best of my 66 XII. 66 power, a constant maintainer of it. I may have CHAP. "been mistaken, perhaps, in the measures I took "for its support at junctures when it was thought 1723. expedient for the state to seem to neglect public 66 liberty, in order, I suppose, to secure it. . . . ... "I am here, my Lords, and have been here, ex- Sign Manual!... The great man I mentioned "carried a great fortune with him into a foreign country he had the languages, and was well 66 66 acquainted abroad; he had spent the best part "of his years in exile, and was therefore every way qualified to support it. The reverse of all this " is my case. Indeed, I am like him in nothing "but his innocence and his punishment. It is in "no man's power to make us differ in the one,' "but it is in your Lordships' power to distinguish 66 us widely in the other, and I hope your Lordships "will do it. . . . Shall I, my Lords, be deprived of "all that is valuable to an Englishman (for, in the "circumstances to which I am to be reduced, life "itself is scarce valuable) by such an evidence as "this?-such an evidence as would not be ad |