The Popish Plot: A study in the history of the reign of Charles IIPollock, John
History
The Popish Plot: A study in the history of the reign of Charles II
Pollock, John
Popish Plot, 1678
thirteen articles against the Chief Justice before the privy council,
and Oates declared that “he believed he should be able to prove that
my Lord Chief Justice danced naked.” On January 21 Scroggs justified
himself in a set reply of great skill and wit, and the informers met
with a severe rebuff.[705] His other traducers were treated with no
greater courtesy. At the opening of the courts for the Michaelmas term
of 1679 Scroggs made an able speech of eloquence, distinction, and
almost sobriety, in which he grounded his belief in the Plot on the
correspondence of Coleman and Harcourt and vindicated the integrity of
the judicial honour; and on May 20, 1680 one Richard Radley was fined
£200 for saying that the Chief Justice had “received money enough from
Dr. Wakeman for his acquittal.”[706] In September 1679 he was received
with great favour at the court at Windsor and in December caused horrid
embarrassment to Lord Shaftesbury and several other Whig noblemen,
whom he met at dinner with the Lord Mayor, by proposing the health of
the Duke of York and justifying his own conduct on the bench.[707] In
January 1681 he was impeached by the Commons. When the articles of his
impeachment were brought up to the House of Lords he was treated, to
the indignation of the Whig party, with great consideration and favour;
but although the lords refused even to put the question “whether there
shall now be an address to the king to suspend Sir William Scroggs from
the execution of his place until his trial be over?” he was absent
from court at the beginning of the Hilary term, and did not take his
place upon the bench during the rest of the term.[708] Three days after
the opening of the Oxford parliament Scroggs put in his answer to the
impeachment. He denied the truth of the articles exhibited against
him severally, and insisted that the nature of the facts alleged in
them was not such as could legally be made the ground for a charge
of high treason. He prayed the king for a speedy trial.[709] Copies
of his answer and petition were sent to the House of Commons, but
before further proceedings could be taken Parliament was dissolved on
March 28, and the impeachment was blown to the winds in company with
other Whig measures of greater importance and still less good repute.
The Chief Justice was not left long in the enjoyment of his triumph.
In April 1681 Charles removed him from the bench and appointed Sir
Francis Pemberton to be Chief Justice in his place. The move was no
doubt directed by the approaching trial of Fitzharris. For this was
undertaken in the teeth of the bitter opposition of the Whig party, and
it was expedient that a man who was already odious to Shaftesbury’s
adherents should not endanger the success of the crown by his presence
on the bench on so important an occasion. The late Chief Justice was
compensated by an annual pension of £1500 and the appointment of his
son to be one of “his Majesty’s counsel learned in the law.”[710]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account