CHAPTER CI. CONTINUATION OF THE LIFE OF LORD CHANCELLOR JEFFREYS TILL THE new Lord Chancellor, having brought the Great Seal CHAP. CI. Sept. 29. 1685. Lord in Duke Street. parations Court of He took a large house in Duke Street, Westminster; and there fitted up a Court, which was afterwards consecrated as a place of public worship, and is now called "Duke Street lor's house Chapel." He had had only a very slender acquaintance with Chan- His precery proceedings, and he was by no means thoroughly grounded in common-law learning; but he now fell to the study of equity pleading and practice, and though exceedingly inferior to his two immediate predecessors in legal acquirements, his natural shrewdness was such, that, when entirely sober, he contrived to gloss over his ignorance of technicalities, and to arrive at a right decision. He was seldom led into temptation by the occurrence of cases in which the interests of political parties, or religious sects, Judge. were concerned; and, as an Equity Judge, the multitude rather regarded him with favour. His con duct as an Equity lation. He took his place in the Court of Chancery on the 23d of His instalOctober, the first day of Michaelmas term. I find no account of his procession from Duke Street to Westminster Hall; and I rather suspect that, on account of the offence he had given to so many persons by his brutal manners and his general unpopularity, it was not well attended. When he * Pennant, in his "London," speaking of Jeffreys's house, says, "It is easily known by a large flight of stone steps, which his royal master permitted to be made into the park adjacent, for the accommodation of his Lordship. These steps terminate above in a small court, on three sides of which stands the house. The cause room was afterwards converted into a place of worship called Duke Street Chapel, and is on the left. When Jeffreys found it inconvenient to sit at Westminster or Lincoln's Inn, he made use of this court." CHAP. took the oaths in the Court of Chancery, there were present "the Earl of Rochester, Lord Treasurer, the Earl of ClarenA. D. 1685. don, Lord Privy Seal, the Duke of Beaufort, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Sunderland, the Earl of Craven, the Earl of Burlington, Lord Fauconbridge, and several other persons of honour, who only stayed while he heard one motion, and then departed, leaving him sitting." His flatterers. His wicked a minister. The public and the profession were much shocked to see such a man at the head of the law; but as soon as he was installed in his office, there were plenty ready enough to gather round him, and, suppressing their real feelings, to load him with flattery and to solicit him for favours. Evelyn, who upon his appointment as Chief Justice, describes him as "most ignorant, but most daring," now assiduously cultivated his notice; and, having succeeded in getting an invitation to dine with him, thus speaks of him: "31st Oct. 1685. "I dined at our great Lord Chancellor Jeffreys, who used me with much respect. This was the late Chief Justice, who had newly been the western circuit to try the Monmouth conspirators, and had formerly done such severe justice amongst the obnoxious in Westminster Hall, for which his Majesty dignified him by creating him first a Baron, and now Lord Chancellor; is of an assured and undaunted spirit, and has served the Court interest on all hardiest occasions; is of nature civil, and a slave of the Court."† A slave of the Court he still continued, till the wicked conduct as and insane measures which he unscrupulously supported, proved the ruin of himself and his master. He who originated and commanded these incurred much less moral blame, as he was a sincere believer in the religion he wished to establish in the country; and it may be forgiven to a King to desire to extend his prerogative. Had he been resisted by a firm and virtuous minister, he might have continued to reign prosperously, and have transmitted his Crown to his posterity: * Cr. Off. Min. B. fol. 122. Mem. i. 617. "How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds, Makes deeds ill done. Hadst not thou been by, CHAP. CI. Oct. 1685. Alderman The very first measure which James proposed to his new Chancellor, literally, was the hanging of an alderman. He was still afraid of the mutinous spirit of the City, which, without Cornish. some fresh terrors, might again break out, although the charters were destroyed; and no sufficient atonement had yet been made for the hostility constantly manifested by the metropolis to the policy of his family for half a century. His Majesty proposed that Alderman Clayton, a very troublesome agitator, should be selected as the victim. The Chancellor agreed that "it was very fit an example should be made, as his Majesty had graciously proposed; but if it were the same thing to his Majesty, he would venture to suggest a different choice. Alderman Clayton was a bad subject, but Alderman Cornish was still more troublesome, and more dangerous." The King readily acquiesced, and Alderman Cornish was immediately brought to trial before a packed jury, and executed on a gibbet erected in Cheapside, on pretence that some years before he had been concerned in the Ryehouse plot.* The apologists of Jeffreys say (and as it is the only alleged instance of his gratitude I have met with, I have great pleasure in recording it) that he was induced to save Sir Robert Clayton from recollecting that this Alderman had been his pot companion, and had greatly assisted him in obtaining the office of Common Serjeant. † Plan of governing violation Monmouth's rebellion in England, and Argyle's in Scotland, being put down, and the City of London reduced to subjection, James expressed an opinion, in which the Chancellor of law. concurred, that there was no longer any occasion to disguise the plan of governing by military force and of violating at 11 St. Tr. 381-465. This iniquitous attainder was reversed by act of parliament, 1 W. & M. 1 Seward's Anecdotes, “Jeffries." However, the prosecution of Cornish excited such general horror, that even Sir John Trevor, the Master of the Rolls, vainly remonstrated against it, and told Jeffreys that if he pursued that unfortunate man to execution, it would be no better than murder."- Hardwicke's Tribes of Wales, 110. CI. Avowed in the CHAP. pleasure the solemn acts of the legislature. Parliament reassembled on the 9th of November, when Jeffreys took his A. D. 1685. seat on the Woolsack. The King alone (as had been concerted) addressed the two Houses, and plainly told them that King's he could rely upon "nothing but a good force of well disparliament. ciplined troops in constant pay," and that he was determined to employ "officers in the army, not qualified by the late tests, for their employments.' speech to Vote of ried in the Lords. 66 When the King had withdrawn, Lord Halifax rose, and said, sarcastically, They had now more reason than ever to give thanks to his Majesty, since he had dealt so plainly with them, and discovered what he would be at." This the Chancellor thought fit to take as a serious motion, thanks car- and immediately put the question, as proposed by a noble Lord, "that an humble address be presented to his Majesty to thank him for his gracious speech from the throne.” No one ventured to offer any remark, and it was immediately carried nemine dissentiente. The King returned a grave answer to the address, "That he was much satisfied to find their Lordships were so well pleased with what he said, and that he would never offer any thing to their House that he should not be convinced was for the true interest of the kingdom."† Attempt to have the King's But the Lords very soon discovered the false position in which they had placed themselves, and the Bishops were parspeech re- ticularly scandalised at the thought that they were supposed to have thanked the King for announcing a principle upon which Papists and Dissenters might be introduced into every civil office, and even into ecclesiastical benefices. considered. Accordingly, Compton, Bishop of London, moved "that a day might be appointed for taking his Majesty's speech into consideration," stating, "that he spoke the united sentiments of the Episcopal bench when he pronounced the test act the chief security of the established Church." This raised a very long and most animated debate, at which King James, to his great mortification, was present. Sunderland, and the popishly inclined ministers, objected to the regularity of the pro+ Ibid. 1367. * 4 Parl. Hist. 1369. CI. ceeding, urging that, having given thanks for the speech, CHAP. they must be taken to have already considered it, and precluded themselves from finding fault with any part of it. A. d. 1685. The Lords Halifax, Nottingham, and Mordaunt, on the other side, treated with scorn the notion that the constitution was to be sacrificed to a point of form, and, entering into the merits of the question, showed that if the power which the Sovereign now, for the first time, had openly claimed were conceded to him, the rights, privileges, and property of the nation lay at his mercy. At last the Lord Chancellor left the Woolsack, and not only bitterly attacked the regularity of the motion after an unanimous vote of thanks to the King for his speech, but gallantly insisted on the legality and expediency of the power of the Sovereign to dispense with laws for the safety and benefit of the state. No Lord Chancellor ever made such an unfortunate exhibition. He assumed the same arrogant and overbearing tone with which he had been accustomed from the bench to browbeat juries, counsel, witnesses, and prisoners, and he launched out into the most indecent personalities against his opponents. He was soon taught to know his place, and that frowns, noise, and menaces would not pass for arguments there. While he spoke he was heard with marked disgust by all parts of the House; when he sat down, being required to retract his words by those whom he had assailed, and finding all the sympathies of the House against him, he made to each of them an abject apology, “and he proved by his behaviour that insolence, when checked, naturally sinks into meanness and cowardice." The Lord lor's speech against this Chancel motion. Defeat of the govern The Ministerialists being afraid to divide the House, Monday following, the 23d of November, was fixed for taking ment. the King's speech into consideration. of parliament, But a similar disposition having been shown by the other Dissolution House, before that day parliament was prorogued, and no other national council met till the Convention Parliament after the landing of King William. † Nov. 20. 1685. * Hume, viii. 241. † 4 Parl. Hist. 1367-1387. |