The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part F.: From Charles II. to James II.
David Hume · en
Great numbers of the abhorrers, from all parts of England, were seized
by order of the commons, and committed to custody. The liberty of the
subject, which had been so carefully guarded by the Great Charter,
and by the late law of habeas corpus, was every day violated by their
arbitrary and capricious commitments. The chief jealousy, it is true,
of the English constitution is naturally and justly directed against
the crown; nor indeed have the commons any other means of securing their
privileges than by commitments, which, as they cannot beforehand be
exactly determined by law, must always appear in some degree arbitrary.
Sensible of these reasons, the people had hitherto, without murmuring,
seen this discretionary power exercised by the house: but as it was
now carried to excess, and was abused to serve the purposes of faction,
great complaints against it were heard from all quarters. At last, the
vigor and courage of one Stowel of Exeter, an abhorrer, put an end to
the practice. He refused to obey the serjeant at arms, stood upon his
defence, and said that he knew of no law by which they pretended to
commit him. The house, finding it equally dangerous to proceed or to
recede, got off by an evasion: they inserted in their votes, that Stowel
was indisposed, and that a month’s time was allowed him for the recovery
of his health.
But the chief violence of the house of commons appeared in all their
transactions with regard to the plot, which they prosecuted with the
same zeal and the same credulity as their predecessors. They renewed the
former vote, which affirmed the reality of the horrid Popish plot;
and, in order the more to terrify the people, they even asserted that,
notwithstanding the discovery, the plot still subsisted. They expelled
Sir Robert Can and Sir Robert Yeomans, who had been complained of for
saying, that there was no Popish, but there was a Presbyterian plot. And
they greatly lamented the death of Bedloe, whom they called a material
witness, and on whose testimony they much depended. He had been seized
with a fever at Bristol; had sent for Chief Justice North; confirmed all
his former evidence, except that with regard to the duke and the queen;
and desired North to apply to the king for some money to relieve him
in his necessities. A few days after, he expired; and the whole party
triumphed extremely in these circumstances of his death: as if such
a testimony could be deemed the affirmation of a dying man; as if his
confession of perjury in some instances could assure his veracity in the
rest; and as if the perseverance of one profligate could outweigh the
last words of so many men, guilty of no crime but that of Popery.