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; "a greater trial of skill," observes Speaker Onslow, "than scarce ever happened between two such 66 "combatants; the one fighting for his reputation, CHAP. "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, 66 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 (EPISCOPORUM PRÆCIPUE SUFFRAGIIS ADJUTUS) 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. CHAP. 1723. 66 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 my order further removed from views of this "kind than I am. . . . Was money my aim? I 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 power? Malice has ventured even thus far to 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 66 ... • grace, burn at the stake, rather than, in any "material point, depart from the Protestant Reli'gion, as professed in the Church of England. "Once more, can I be supposed to favour arbi'trary 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 66 66 XII. 1723. 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 "expedient for the state to seem to neglect public liberty, in order, I suppose, to secure it.... “I am here, my Lords, and have been here, expecting, for eight months, an immediate trial. "I have, my Lords, declined no impeachment — "no due course of law that might have been “taken. . . . The correspondence with the Earl of "Clarendon was made treason, but with me it is 'only felony; yet he was allowed an intercourse "with his children by the express words of the "Act: mine are not so much as to write, so "much as to send any message, to me, without a "Sign Manual!... The great man I mentioned "carried a great fortune with him into a foreign country he had the languages, and was well 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 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 CHAP. "mitted in any other cause, or any other court, XII. nor allowed, I verily believe, to condemn a Jew 1723. "in the Inquisition of Spain or Portugal ?" He thus concludes: "If, after all, it shall still "be thought by your Lordships that there is any "seeming strength in the proofs produced against "me; if by private persuasions of my guilt, "founded on unseen, unknown motives; if for any reasons or necessities of state, of which I "am no competent judge, your Lordships shall be "induced to proceed on this bill, God's will be "done! Naked came I out of my mother's womb, "and naked shall I return; and whether He gives or takes away, blessed be the name of the "Lord!" The Bishop having ended this most eloquent and affecting defence, and one of the counsel for the bill having replied, the Lords took their debate on the question, That this Bill do pass. The ablest speeches on the Bishop's side were the Duke of Wharton's* and Lord Cowper's; the latter not merely maintaining Atterbury's innocence, but inveighing against any parliamentary deprivation of a Bishop. "The "old champions of our Church," said he, "used to "argue very learnedly that to make or to degrade Bishops was not the business of the state; that "there is a spiritual relation between the Bishop "This speech," says Dr. King, "was heard with universal "admiration, and was, indeed, not unworthy of the oldest sena tor, or the most able and eloquent lawyer." (Anecdotes of his own Times, p. 35.) |