asked her for some water and brandy, to re- | he would say nothing to him: the next day he lieve my lord Onslow under his misfortune; went again, and then he said, My lord Onslow and then she came to hear, that the gun that was the occasion of all his troubles. The third went off, instead of killing rabbits, went off day he went, and asked him, If he intended to against my lord Onslow. She says, she hath kill my lord Onslow? and he said, Yes, to be heard him say, he would kill my lord Onslow: sure? Where did you intend to hit bim? Says she says, he hath sometimes threatened to kill he, When I shoot at a rabbit, I always aim at his her, but yet did not do her any harm. They head. He went to him again, when he was in think this evidence so very material, that they the Marshalsea; and he was very ill; and be have produced two witnesses, that well you, asked for some white-wine for him, but he that they heard this Mary Swetman say the said, The white-wine was too sharp for his sto very same things to them, as she hath now mach: and then he called for some sack, which given in evidence. he had; and he held down his head, and seemed in a bad condition: that he pressed him to know who set him on work; and he said, If my lord will come here himself, let him; but let him not send any more of his fools after me. This gentleman says, he was his school fellow he was just of the same nature then; a rugged, dogged, humoursome fellow, hardly cared to talk or speak to any body; he is just the same now, though he hath had no conver sation with him since; but about two years ago, he saw him, and he had a fish in his hand to sell, and he asked to buy it, and offered him sixpence for it; No, says he, it is honestly worth a shilling, and a shilling I will have. This is mentioned, to shew that he was a man very sensible, made a very sensible answer: no man could make a properer answer than this man did. The next is Mr. Copeland: he says, he was with the prisoner in the Marshalsea, and then he asked him, What induced him to do so horrid a fact? He said, My lord Onslow had bewitched him; he asked him, If any body had put him upon it? At first he hesitated, but afterwards he said, Nobody. He was very confused, and he thought him mad. The next is Mr. Darby; he said, he often examined him, could get no answer from him, but said, My lord Onslow had bewitched him, and was a trouble to him. This is the evidence on behalf of the prisoner, to show that the prisoner is mad, and what he did, as such, is no crime; and therefore no great weight ought to be laid upon it. But by way of reply, they have read papers under his own hand. Mr. Barwell Smith, he was with him, and he hath proved them to be his hand. One paper is the state of his case, and the witness writ it; but he took it from his own mouth, which is the same as if he had writ it himself, and the prisoner signed it. It happened to be blotted; this is mentioned to show his sense, and that he was a man of distinction; says he, You have blotted it, it can't be read, it must be writ over again: the witness told him, No, it would do; Well, if it be so, I will be satisfied; and he desired the witness to pray my lord Onslow, that his irons might be taken off, for they were very grievous to him. The next paper is (here are three) a letter writ with his own hand; and here is another letter writ with his own hand: both sides agree, that the jury might have the papers to peruse. In this paper, he says, He was excited to this by and the resentment he expressed to my lord Onslow, proceeded from several persons persuading him, that my lord Onslow was the occasion of all his troubles, and several persons came here, and took the advantage of it, and told him, that he was the occasion of all his troubles: this he gives you as the occasion of his great resentment against my lord Onslow: this is as rational an account as any mortal man can give. Then there is this letter, there he writes to my lord Onslow; it is directed, To the reverend lord Onslow; but in the letter it is, Please your honour to take into your consideration, &c. and the other letter is much to the same purpose: these you will have along with you, Then you have Mr. Coe, and he went to him the day the fact was committed, and at that time This is the evidence on both sides. Now I have laid it before you; and you must consider of it: and the shooting my lord Onslow, which is the fact for which this prisoner is indicted, is proved beyond all manner of contradiction; but whether this shooting was malicious, that depends upon the sanity of the man. That he shot, and that wilfully [is proved]: but whe ther maliciously, that is the thing: that is the question; whether this man hath the use of his reason and sense? If he was under the visi tation of God, and could not distinguish be tween good and evil, and did not know what he did, though he committed the greatest offence, yet he could not be guilty of any offence against any law whatsoever; for guilt arises from the mind, and the wicked will and intention of the man. If a man be deprived of his reason, and consequently of his intention, he cannot be guilty; and if that be the case, though he had actually killed my lord Onslow, he is exempted from punishment: punishment is intended for example, and to deter other persons from wicked designs; but the punishment of a madman, a person that hath no design, can have no example. This is on one side. On the other side, we must be very cautious; it is not every frantic and idle humour of a man, that will exempt him from justice, and the punishment of the law. When a man is guilty of a great offence, it must be very plain and clear, before a man is allowed such an exemption; therefore it is not every kind of frantic bu mour or something unaccountable in a man's actions, that points him out to be such a mad man as is to be exempted from punishment: Then the Jury withdrew to consider of their verdict, and in a short time returned again. Cl. of the Arr. Gentlemen, answer to your names. Foreman. Here. And so the rest. Cl.of the Arr. Gentlemen, are you all agreed on your verdict?-Jury. Yes. Čl. of the Arr. Who shall say for you? Jury. Our Foreman. it must be a man that is totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and doth not know what he is doing, no more than an infant, than a brute, or a wild beast, such a one is never the object of punishment; therefore I must leave it to your cousideration, whether the condition this man was in, as it is represented to you on one side, or the other, doth shew a man, who knew what he was doing, and was able to distinguish whether he was doing good or evil, and understood what he did: and it is to be ob. served, they admit he was a lunatic, and not an ideot. A man that is an ideot, that is boru so, never recovers, but a lunatic may, and hath his intervals; and they admit he was a lunatic. You are to consider what he was at this day, when he committed this fact. There you have a great many circumstances about the buying the powder and the shot; his going backward and forward and if you believe he was sensible, and had the use of his reason, and understood what he did, then be is not within the exemptions of the law, but is as subject to punishment as any other person.* Gentlemen, I must leave it to you, * What kinds and degrees of privation or perversion of understanding should exempt a man from liability to legal punishment are questions of some nicety. They were considered in the case of lord Ferrers, A. D. 1760. (See in particular the very able speech of Mr. Yorke) and were admirably investigated and illustrated by the present lord Erskine, in his defence of Hadfield, A. D. 1800. See, too, the Case of Bellingham at the Old Bailey in this present month of May, 1812. It is very well known that a man afflicted by a high degree of perversion, nay of privation, of understanding, may yet be capable of associating, and may actually associate, in his mind, the ideas of offence and punishment, so that this association shall have a powerful influence upon his conduct. Thus in the places, where such pitiable patients are received, for the purposes of cure or of safe custody, severities are exercised upon Cl. of the Arr. Edward Arnold, hold up thy hand. (Which he did.) Look upon the pri soner, How say you, Is Edward Arnold Guilty of the felony whereof he stands indicted, or Not Guilty?-Foreman. Guilty. Cl. of the Arr. What goods or chattels, lands or tenements? Foreman. None, to our knowledge. Cl. of the Arr. Then hearken to your verdict, as the Court hath recorded it. You say Edward Arnold is Guilty of the felony whereof he stands indicted; and that he had not any goods or chattels, lands or tenements at the time of the felony committed, nor at any time since, to your knowledge; and so you say all. Whereupon, he received sentence of death; but at the intercession of the right honourable the lord Onslow, his execution was respited: and he continued a prisoner in the new gaol, Southwark, upwards of thirty years, and there died. them in the way of punishment, and are found to operate (not uniformly, nor indeed constantly neither does the dread of punishment operate uniformly or constantly upon that part of mankind, which is suffered to be at large) in preventing a repetition of offence by the sufferers, and the commission of offence by others, who have been witnesses of those sufferings. There are in the case of the Attorney General v. Parnther some good observations of lord Thurlow on the operation of mental derangement to incapacitate a party from doing acts binding on himself and others, 466. The Trial of THOMAS Earl of Macclesfield,* Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, before the House of Lords, for High Crimes and Misdemeanors in the Execution of his Office: 10 GEORGE I. A. D. 1725. THE FIRST DAY.-May 6. ABOUT eleven of the clock, the Lords being seated in their House, the Managers for the House of Commons being in the conveniencies made for them at their lordships' bar, Thomas earl of Macclesfield, having a stool placed for him within the bar, and his counsel, viz. Mr. Serjeant Probyn,f Doctor Sayer, Mr. Lingard, common serjeant of the city of London, Mr. Robins, and Mr. Strange,‡ standing near him at the bar, the serjeant at arms made proclamation as follows: Serj. at Arms. Oyez! Our sovereign lord the king strictly charges and commands all manner of persons to keep silence, upon pain of imprisonment. Then the serjeant at arms again made proclamation as follows: Serj. at Arms. Oyez! Whereas a charge of High Crimes and Misdemeanors has been exhibited by the House of Commons in the name of themselves, and of all the Commons of Great Britain, against Thomas earl of Macclesfield; all persons concerned are to take notice, that he now stands upon his trial, and they may come forth in order to make good the said charge. * Lord Macclesfield had in 1710 succeeded Holt as Chief Justice of the Queen's-bench, from which he was removed to the office of Lord Chancellor in 1718. He was one of the managers in the Trial of Sacheverell, as to which, see vol. 15, p. 1. Swift in his virulent party pamphlet, The Public Spirit of the Whigs," &c. imputed to lord Macclesfield, upon what foundation I know not, and probably Swift cares not, that he had often drunk the abdicated king's health upon his knees. After Swift's own conduct it required his shamelessness to apply a charge of political tergiversation to the reflection that "transition is natural and frequent." Then the clerk-assistant, by direction of the Lord Chief Justice King, Speaker of the House of Lords, read the Articles of Impeachment, the earl of Macclesfield's Answer, and the Replication of the House of Commons, as follows: ARTICLES EXHIBITED BY THE KNIGHTS, CITIZENS, Whereas the office of Lord Chancellor of Great Britain is an office of the highest dig. nity and trust, upon the impartial and uncor rupt execution whereof the honour of the crown, and the welfare of the subjects of this kingdom greatly depend: And whereas Thomas earl of Macclesfield, in or about the month of May, in the year of our Lord 1718, by the great grace and favour of his most excellent majesty, was constituted and appointed Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, and did thereupon take the usual oath for the due execution of that high office; whereby he did swear well and truly to serve our sovereign lord the king, and his people, poor and rich, after the laws and usages of this realm, and such other oaths as have been accustomed; and the said Earl continued in this great office until about the month of January, in the year of our Lord, 1724, and in right thereof was entrusted with the nomination and admission to the offices of Masters of the Court of Chancery, which Masters of the said Court are officers of great trust sworn to serve the king and his people, and associated to the Lord Chancellor for his assistance in the due administration and execution of justice in the said Court: and As to statesmen who, having been active in whereas his majesty, upon the said Earl's being the impeachment of others, were themselves af-appointed to the office of Lord Chancellor, did, terwards impeached, see a Note at the end of Gregg's Case, vol. 14, pp. 1894, 1395, 1396, and the duke of Wharton's speech in Atterbury's Case, p. 691, of this volume. For other proceedings relative to this Case which were had in parliament, see the Eighth Volume of the New Parliamentary History. + In 1726 a Justice of B. R.; in 1740 Chief Baron of Exchequer. of his grace and bounty, bestow upon the said Earl the sum of 14,000l. or some other great sum, and did likewise grant unto George Par ker, esq. now commonly called lord Parker, eldest son and heir apparent of the said Earl, yearly pension of 1,2001. payable out of his majesty's receipt of the Exchequer, during the joint lives of his majesty and the said lord Parker, determinable upon his majesty's mak In 1736 Solicitor General; in 1750 Mastering a grant to the said lord Parker, in posses of the Rolls. sion of the office of one of the tellers of his ma jesty's Exchequer, for the term of his natural life, which office being of the yearly value of 1,500l. or upwards, has been since granted by his majesty unto the said lord Parker for bis life, who in or about the month of July, in the year of our Lord 1719, was duly admitted to, and doth still enjoy the same; and the said Earl during the time of his continuing Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, did not only enjoy the usual salary, fees, and profits belonging to his office, of a very great annual value, but also did continue to receive an annual pension of 1,200l. which bis majesty in or about the month of June, in the year of our Lord 1716, had granted to him and his assigns, during his majesty's life; and did likewise receive from the crown a further annual allowance of 4,000l. and many other advantages: yet the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, not being satisfied with this large and ample revenue, nor regarding the obligation of his oath, or the duty of bis high and important office, but entertaining wicked and corrupt designs and views, to raise and procure to himself excessive and exorbitant gain and profit, by divers unjust and oppressive practices and methods herein after-mentioned, whilst he continued in the said office of Lord Chancellor, did illegally, corruptly, and extorsively take and receive to his own private use the following, or some other great sums of money.* ARTICLE I. That Richard Godfrey, esq. having con tracted with sir Thomas Gery, one of the Masters of the Court of Chancery, for the purchase and surrender of his office,+ at the price of 5,000l. or some other great sum of money; the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, whilst he contiuued Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, and before the admission of the said Richard Godfrey into the office of one of the Masters of the Court of Chancery, did, by colour of his office of Lord Chancellor, illegally, corruptly, and extorsively insist upon, take and receive of and from the said Richard Godfrey the sum of 8407. or some other sum of money, for the admitting him into such office of a Master of the Court of Chancery, and to the intent that the said Richard Godfrey should have, exercise and enjoy the same, which said * Concerning the sale of Offices, see Parl. Debates, May and June, 1809. In a debate upon the Bill "for enabling the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal, to execute the office of Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper," (stat. William and Mary, c. 21,) a clause was proposed to prohibit the sale of the places of Masters of Chancery, but it was rejected. See Lords' Journal, March 25, 1689. Collins explains a passage in Ambrose Phillips's Ode on the death of lord Cowper, by stating that he was the first Chancellor who refused the New-year's gifts, which the counsel had till his time presented to that high officer. VOL. XVI. office touches and concerns the administration and execution of justice in the said Court; and the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, being Lord Chancellor, in pursuance and execution of the said wicked and corrupt bargain, or in pursuance of some other bargain or agreement of the same infamous and corrupt nature, did admit and swear the said Richard Godfrey into the office of one of the Masters of the said Court of Chancery, upon the surrender of the said sir Thomas Gery, in breach and violation of his oath as Lord Chancellor, and of the great trust in him reposed, contrary to the duty of his office, and against the good and wholesome laws and statutes of this realm. ARTICLE II. That the office of one of the Masters of the said Court of Chancery becoming vacant by the death of Samuel Browning, esq. one of the late Masters of the said Court; the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, whilst he continued Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, and before the admission of James Lightboun, esq. into the said office of one of the Masters of the Court of Chancery, did, by colour of his office of Lord Chancellor, illegally, corruptly, and extorsively insist upon, take and receive of andl from the said James Lightboun the sum of 6,000l. or some other great sum of money, in consideration of, and for the admitting him into such office, and to the intent that the said James Lightboun should have, exercise and enjoy the same, which said office touches and concerns the administration and execution of justice in the said Court; and the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, being Lord Chancellor, in pursuance and execution of the said wicked and corrupt bargain, or in pursuance of some other bargain or agreement of the same infamous and corrupt nature, did admit and swear the said James Lightboun into the office of one of the Masters of the said Court of Chancery, in breach and violation of his oath as Lord Chancellor, and of the great trust in him reposed, contrary to the duty of his office, and against the good and wholesome laws and statutes of this realm. ARTICLE III. That John Borret, esq. having contracted with John Meller, esq. one of the Masters of the Court of Chancery, for the purchase and surrender of his said office, at the price of 9,000l., or some other great sum of money; the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, whilst he continued Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, and before the admission of the said John Borret, into the office of one of the Masters of the Court of Chancery, did, by colour of his office of Lord Chancellor, illegally, corruptly, and extorsively insist upon, take and receive of and from the said John Borret the sun of 1,575., or some other sum of money, for the admitting him into such office of a Master of the said Court of Chancery, and to the intent that the said Jolin Borret should have, exerSD cise and enjoy the same, which said office | touches and concerns the administration and execution of justice in the said Court; and the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, being Lord Chancellor, in pursuance and execution of the said wicked and corrupt bargain, or in pursuance of some other bargain or agreement of the same infamous and corrupt nature, did admit and swear the said John Borret into the office of one of the Masters of the said Court of Chancery, upon the surrender of the said John Meller, in breach and violation of his oath as Lord Chancellor, and of the great trust in him reposed, contrary to the duty of his office, and against the good and wholsome laws and statutes of this realm. ARTICLE IV. Kynaston, the sum of 1,575. or some other sum of money, for the admitting him into such office of a Master of the said Court of Chancery, and to the intent that the said William Kynaston should have, exercise, and enjoy the same, which said office touches and concerns the administration and execution of justice in the said Court; and the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, being Lord Chancellor, in pur. suance and execution of the said wicked and corrupt bargain, or in pursuance of some other bargain or agreement of the same infamous and corrupt nature, did admit and swear the said William Kynaston into the office of one of the Masters of the said Court of Chancery, upon the surrender of the said William Rogers, in breach and violation of his oath as Lord Chancellor, and of the great trust in him reposed, contrary to the duty of his office, and against the good and wholsome laws and statutes of this realm. ARTICLE VI. That Edward Conway, esq. having contract ed with John Orlebar, esq. one of the late Masters of the Court of Chancery, for the purchase and surrender of his said office, at the price of 6,000l., or some other great sum of money, the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, That Thomas Bennet, esq. having contractwhilst he continued Lord Chancellor of Greated with John Hiccocks, esq. one of the Masters Britain, and before the admission of the said Edward Conway into the office of one of the Masters of the Court of Chancery, did, by colour of his office of Lord Chancellor, illegally, corruptly, and extorsively insist upon, take, and receive of and from the said Edward Conway, the sum of 1,500l., or some other sum of money, for the admitting of him into such office of a Master of the said Court of Chancery, and to the intent that the said Edward Conway should have, exercise, and enjoy the same, which said office touches and concerns the administration and execution of justice in the said Court; and the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, being Lord Chancellor, in pursuance and execution of the said wicked and corrupt bargain, or in pursuance of some other bargain or agreement of the same infamous and corrupt nature, did admit and swear the said Edward Conway into the office of one of the Masters of the said Court of Chancery, upon the surrender of the said John Orlebar, in breach and violation of his oath as Lord Chancellor and of the great trust in him reposed, contrary to the duty of his office, and against the good and wholesome laws and statutes of this realm. ARTICLE V. That William Kynaston, esq. having contracted with William Rogers, esq. one of the Masters of the Court of Chancery, for the purchase and surrender of his said office, at the price of 6,000l., or some other great sum of money, the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, whilst be continued Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, and before the admission of the said William Kynaston into the office of one of the Masters of the Court of Chancery, did, by colour of his office of Lord Chancellor, illegally, corruptly, and extorsively insist upon, take, and receive of and from the said William of the Court of Chancery, for the purchase and surrender of his said office, at the price of 7,500l. or some other great sum of money, the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, whilst he continued Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, and before the admission of the said Thomas Bennet into the office of one of the Masters of the said Court of Chancery, did, by colour of his office of Lord Chancellor, illegally, corruptly, and extorsively insist upon, take and receive of and from the said Thomas Bennet, the sum of 1,575l. or some other sum of money, for the admitting him into such office of a Master of the said Court of Chancery, and to the intent that the said Thomas Bennet should have, exercise and enjoy the same, which said office touches and concerns the administration and execution of justice in the said Court; and the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, being Lord Chancellor, in pursuance and execution of the said wicked and corrupt bargain, or in pursu ance of some other bargain or agreement of the same infamous and corrupt nature, did admit and swear the said Thomas Bennet into the office of one of the Masters of the said Court of Chancery, upon the surrender of the said John Hiccocks, in breach and violation of his oath, as Lord Chancellor, and of the great trust in him reposed, contrary to the duty of his office, and against the good and wholesome laws and statutes of this realm. ARTICLE VII. That the office of one of the Masters of the said Court of Chancery, becoming vacant by the death of William Fellows, esq. one of the late Masters of the said Court, the said Thomas earl of Macclesfield, whilst be continued Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, and before the admission of Francis Elde, esq. into the said office of one of the Masters of the Court of Chan cery, did, by colour of his office of Lord Chan |