22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Generally dismissed by historians as just an hysterical gesture by parliamentary whig leaders disappointed and angered over the failure of the second Exclusion Bill, the attempted impeachment in 1680–1 of Sir William Scroggs was in fact a complicated and important affair. Although a failure in legal terms (because King Charles dissolved two parliaments), it succeeded in political terms when the king dismissed Scroggs. A propaganda ploy to embarrass the duke of York and also the king of England, re-unite the whig party, and re-ignite anti-popery fervour to promote another try at Exclusion (contrary to recent revisionism), the proceedings provoked discussion of many central issues, but most importantly of the legislative authority of parliament, or control of the law; the affair provoked a ‘crisis of authority’. Print culture played an unprecedented role: four of the eight articles of impeachment against Scroggs were connected with the press. Press people, in effect, brought down a chief minister of the crown and severely embarrassed the government, an event of signal importance in the history of the press.
1 The attack on the judges was anticipated the week before, on 17 and 19 Nov.; on Scroggs as early as August 1679: Anchitell, Grey, Debates of the house of commons, from the year 1667 to the year 1694, 10 vols. (1763), VIII, 22, 35.Google Scholar
2 Journals of the house of commons, IX, 660. Hereafter C.J. Grey, , Debates, VIII, 52–60.Google Scholar
3 C.J., IX, 688, 689, 690. See Appendix 1 for the resolutions.
4 On 24 Nov. North was charged with drawing up the Proclamation against Petitioning. Grey, , Debates, VIII, 61–71Google Scholar. The Commons also attacked other officers of the crown, among them Sir Edward Seymour, the treasurer of the navy, Sir Lionel Jenkins, secretary of state, and Sir John Davys, a secretary in the Irish government. See Clayton, Roberts, The growth of responsible government in Stuart England (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 236, 238.Google Scholar
5 C.J., IX, 697–9.
6 C.J., IX, 700.
7 According to Roger North no articles were ‘ever prepared’. See Examen: or, an enquiry into the credit and veracity of a pretended complete history (1740), p. 568.Google Scholar
8 Journals of the house of lords, XIII, 738a–9a. Hereafter L.J. Narcissus, Luttrell, A brief historical relation of state affairs from September 1678 to April 1714, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1857), I, 62Google Scholar. Hereafter Brief relation. Dr Williams's Library, Roger Morrice, ‘Entr'ing book, being an historical register of occurrences from April, Anon, 1677 to April 1691’, 4 vols. 1, 291 reported that Scroggs stayed in the House during the entire debate. Hereafter DWL, Morrice, ‘Entr'ing book’.
9 DWL, Morrice, , ‘Entr'ing book’, I, 291.Google Scholar
10 Burnet, Bishop Gilbert, History of his own time: with notes by the earls of Dartmouth and Hardwicke, Speaker Onslow, and Dean Swift, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1833), II, 255, para. 484Google Scholar. Hereafter Burnet, H.O.T.
11 SirJohn, Bramston, Autobiography, ed. Lord, Braybrooke, Camden Society, XXXII (1845), 181Google Scholar. Luttrell, , Brief relation, I, 62Google Scholar. Scroggs asked his friend Christopher Hatton, Lord Hatton, for help. British Library, Add. MS 29, 565, fo. 108. Hereafter B.L. Bail came from Lord Hatton £5,000; the earl of Dorset and Middlesex £5,000; Scroggs put up £10,000.
12 J.L., XIII, 736a–8b, 739b. The other signators are listed therein.
13 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 289Google Scholar. Luttrell, , Brief relation, I, 62Google Scholar for bitter comment. SirWilliam, Holdsworth, A history of English law, 17 vols. (London, Methuen, 1903–1972), VI, 383.Google Scholar
14 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 285–9Google Scholar; p. 288 for quote.
15 Hatton correspondence, ed. Thompson, E. M., Camden, new series, 2 vols. (1878), I, 192.Google Scholar
16 Luttrell, , Brief relation, I, 64Google Scholar; DWL, Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, I, 295Google Scholar reported that Justice Jones (who was among the justices to be impeached) ‘dos [Scroggs's] business’.
17 L.J., XIII, 752a, 752b. House of Lords Record Office, House of Lords Papers, 23 Mar. 1680/81 to 26 May 1685, Nos. 400 and 400A.
18 DWL, Morrice, , ‘Entr'ing book’, I, 303.Google Scholar
19 His Majesties declaration to all his loving subjects, touching the causes & reasons that moved him to dissolve the two last parliaments. Published by His Majesties command (London, 1681)Google Scholar, Printed by the Assigns of John Bill, Thomas Newcomb, and Henry Hills, Printers to the Kings most Excellent Majesty, pp. 4, 7, 9, 10.
20 North, , Examen, p. 568.Google Scholar
21 Dictionary of national biography (hereafter D.N.B.); Luttrell, , Brief relation, I, 75Google Scholar. But, as early as July 1680 lack of confidence in Scroggs was expressed: Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eleventh report, the manuscripts of the house of lords 1678–1688, Appendix, Pt. 2 (1878), p. 156Google Scholar. Hereafter H.M.C. In August rumour had it that Scroggs would be dismissed: Calendar of state papers domestic series 1679–80, p. 597 [PRO, ADM 77, Greenwich Hospital newsletters, no. 62]. Hereafter C.S.P.D.
22 Luttrell, , Brief relation, I, 75.Google Scholar
23 Morrice, , ‘Entr'ing book’, I, 304Google Scholar; C.S.P.D., 1682, p. 584.
24 An elegy in commemoration of the Right Worshipful Sir William Scroggs, late lord chief justice of His Majesties court of Kings-Bench, who departed this life, the 25th of this instant October. 1683. Luttrell's date is 29 Oct. 1683.
25 Kenyon, J. P. attempted to rehabilitate Scroggs in ‘The acquittal of Sir George Wakeman’, The Historical Journal, XIV (1971), 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Schwoerer, Lois G., ‘William, Lord Russell, the making of a martyr, 1683–1983’, Journal of British Studies, XXIV (1985), 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Mark, Goldie, ‘Danby, the bishops and the whigs’, in The politics of religion in the Restoration, ed. Tim, Harris, Paul, Seaward and Mark, Goldie (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 80–1.Google Scholar
28 Mark, Knights, ‘Politics and opinion during the Exclusion crisis 1678–1681’ (Unpub. Oxford D.Phil., 1989), ch. 1.Google Scholar
29 The presence of whig party partisans and of Exclusion fervour challenges the thesis advanced by Jonathan, Scott, Algernon Sidney and the Restoration crisis, 1677–1683 (Cambridge, 1991), passim.Google Scholar
30 Tim, Harris, London crowds in the reign of Charles II: propaganda and politics from the Restoration until the Exclusion crisis (Cambridge, 1987)Google Scholar, ch. 6: ‘The tory response’.
31 Haley, K. H. D., The first earl of Shaftesbury (Oxford, 1968), pp. 593–4.Google Scholar
32 Jones, J. R., Country and court England 1658–1714 (London, 1978), p. 212.Google Scholar
33 Haley, , The first earl of Shaftesbury, p. 617.Google Scholar
34 Roberts, The growth of responsible government, passim. Janelle, Greenberg, ‘Our grand maxim of state, “the king can do no wrong”’, History of Political Thought, XIII (1991), 209–28.Google Scholar
35 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 58Google Scholar. But as one M.P. ruefully – and presciently – remarked such change will be a ‘work of time’. William, Cobbett (ed.), The parliamentary history of England. From the Norman conquest, in 1066, to the year 1803, 36 vols. (1806–1820), IV, 1226Google Scholar. Hereafter, Cobbett, P.H.
36 News of the appointment provoked pranksters to post papers about town saying that judgeships were up for sale and young lawyers might apply to the lord treasurer: H.M.C., , Seventh report, App. 1 (1879), p. 494.Google Scholar
37 For an account of the appointment to King's Bench, see Hatton correspondence, I, 163–4.
38 D.N.B. for the comment. In the speech Scroggs expressed abhorrence of corruption and popular favour, saying that he sought ‘Reputation and a Good Name’ by doing his ‘Duty’ and not otherwise. A speech made by Sir William Scrogg [sic],… at his admission to … the court ofcommon pleas (1676), pp. 5, 6, 7.Google Scholar
39 The lord chief justice Scroggs his speech to the lord chancellour (n.p., n.d. [1678]).
40 Burnet, HOT, 1733 edn, para. 448; [II, 190]. Also North, , Examen, p. 568.Google Scholar
41 The diary of Samuel Pepys, ed. Robert, Latham and William, Matthews, 11 vols. (London, 1974–1983), VIII, 22.Google Scholar
42 B.L., Add. MS 29565, fo. 108.
43 Edward, Foss, The judges of England, 9 vols. (London, 1864), VII, 167.Google Scholar
44 The house of commons 1660–1690, ed. Henning, Basil Duke, 3 vols., History of Parliament Trust (London, 1983), III, 745–8Google Scholar. Hereafter H.O.C.
45 Haley, , The first earl of Shaftesbury, pp. 615–16Google Scholar; John, Miller, Charles II (1991), p. 335 for the quotation.Google Scholar
46 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 210–11.Google Scholar
47 Ibid, VIII, 206–7.
48 D.N.B. Social condescension informs the incoherent remark that Scroggs could not ‘putt off that temper wch is inherent in that sort of men, I mean that of a butcher, from which he sprung’. Luttrell, , Brief relation, I, 74.Google Scholar
49 See Appendix II for data in support of these paragraphs. N.B. Cobbett, P.H., IV, 1227 probably errs in identifying Henry Sidney as speaking against the judges on 23 Nov.: see Henning, , ed., H.O.C., III, 434.Google Scholar
50 C.J., IX, 662.
51 See Henning, , ed., H.O.C., I, 26–7, 44–7Google Scholar for like data on the entire membership of the second Exclusion Parliament.
52 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 210.Google Scholar
53 ‘Several’ members of the Middlesex grand jury ‘and some other persons’, Richard Mayo (a student in Oxford) ‘and others’ were called before the Commons on 23 Nov.: Grey, , Debates, VIII, 53, 59Google Scholar; C.J., IX 661.
54 North, , Examan, p. 564.Google Scholar
55 ibid. p. 566.
56 C.J., IX, 692; Grey, , Debates, VIII, 210–11Google Scholar. The resolutions of the house of commons, for the impeachment of Sir William Scroggs knt. chief justice of the court of King's Bench;… upon the report of the committee of the Commons appointed to examine the proceedings of the judges in Westminster Hall… (23 Dec. 1680).
57 This information comes from David Hayton and Mark Knights.
58 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 210–11.Google Scholar
59 Pocock, J. G. A., The ancient constitution and the feudal law: a study of English historical thought in the seventeenth century, a reissue with a retrospect (Cambridge, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 237.Google Scholar
61 Conrad, Russell, ‘The theory of treason in the trial of Strafford’, English Historical Review, LXXX (1965), espec. pp. 34, 38 (for quotation), 39, 42.Google Scholar
62 An impartial account of the…trial…of Thomas late Earl of Strafford,… (London, 1679)Google Scholar; The tryal of Thomas Earl of Strafford,… impartially published, … by John Rushworth … (London, 1680)Google Scholar. Heylyn, P., Cyprinus Anglicus: or, the history of the life and death, of the most reverend and renowned prelate William by divine providence, lord archbishop of Canterbury … (London, 1671).Google Scholar
63 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 57, 58; cf. 59.Google Scholar
64 Holdsworth, , A history of English law, I, 377–8.Google Scholar
65 C.J., IX, 697–9; Grey, , Debates, VIII, 233–4Google Scholar. Cobbett does not notice the debate.
66 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 233.Google Scholar
67 Ibid, VIII, 242.
68 Ibid, VIII, 243, 250.
69 Tresilian was hanged in 1388 partly for his cruel treatment of persons involved in the Wat Tyler rebellion. D.N.B.
70 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 239.Google Scholar
71 Ibid, VIII, 244, 246, 247, 248.
72 Ibid, VIII, 241. Haley, , The first earl of Shaftesbury, pp. 509, 524, 526, 590Google Scholar. Also Goldie, , ‘Danby, the bishops and the whigs’, pp. 90–1.Google Scholar
73 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 250.Google Scholar
74 Roberts, , Growth of responsible government, p. 236 and n. 243.Google Scholar
75 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 246.Google Scholar
76 Ibid, VIII, 241.
77 Scott, , Algernon Sidney and the Restoration crisis, pp. 186–7.Google Scholar
78 Anon., A just and modest vindication of the proceedings of the two last parliaments (London, 1681 ?), pp. 10–11, 16.Google Scholar
79 Cobbett, , P.H., IV, 1228.Google Scholar
80 Haley, , The first earl of Shaftesbury, p. 591Google Scholar; Schwoerer, Lois G., Lady Rachel Russell, ‘One of the best of women’ (Baltimore, 1988), p. 93.Google Scholar
81 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 207.Google Scholar
82 Ibid, VIII, 53, 55; Cobbett, , P.H., IV, 1224Google Scholar; C.J., IX, 588.
83 Haley, , The first earl of Shaftesbury, pp. 579–80Google Scholar. An anonymous pamphlet demeaning York in twenty-one particulars had prepared the way. See also a paper signed by whig leaders entitled ‘Reasons whereupon’ York may be ‘suspected’ of popery: PRO 30/24/6 B. 420.
84 North, , Examen, p. 564.Google Scholar
85 Havighurst, A. F., ‘The judiciary and politics in the reign of Charles II’, The Law Quarterly Review, LXVI (1950), 238.Google Scholar
86 Haley, , First earl of Shaftesbury, p. 685.Google Scholar
87 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 207, 208Google Scholar. ‘It belonged to Jones to discharge the Grand Jury’, said Sir William Pulteney.
88 The defence was printed at the back of The lord chief justice Scroggs his speech in the Kings-Bench … occasion'd by the many libellous pamphlets which are publishl against law … together with what was declared … on the same occasion, … by Mr Justice Jones, and Mr Justice Dolbin. (23 Oct. 1679), pp. 7–8Google Scholar. Grey, , Debates, VIII, 207.Google Scholar
89 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 57.Google Scholar
90 Ibid, VIII, 59, 205.
91 Ibid, VIII, 55. Also North, , Examen, p. 564.Google Scholar
92 See Howell, Thomas B., ed., Cobbett's complete collection of state trials and proceedings for high treason and other crimes and misdemeanors from the earliest period to the year 1783, 34 vols. (1809–1828), VII, 1–510Google Scholar (Hereafter St. Tr.). The one acquittal was Samuel Atkind, on 8 Feb. 1679.
93 Quoted in D.N.B.
94 Possibly, Scroggs and the other justices were summoned to the privy council meeting to discuss the problem of the queen's involvement. Maybe Scroggs received some instruction from Sir Francis North, in a carriage on the way back to London from Hampton Court. See Havighurst, , ‘The judiciary and politics in the reign of Charles II’, p. 235 and n. 33Google Scholar; Kenyon, , ‘The acquittal of Sir George Wakeman’, p. 698.Google Scholar
95 Luttrell, , Brief relation, I, 18Google Scholar. It was said that the visit was a tactical move by catholics to ruin Scroggs; although pleased with his handling of the Wakeman trial, they could not forgive his treatment of catholics in previous trials. Burnet, HOT, par. 468 (II, 227–8).
96 But news of the verdict was first reported in the 22 Jul. 1679 issue of Benjamin Harris's new newspaper, Domestick intelligence, or news both from city and country gth July 1679 to 13 Jan. 1680. Published to present false reports (1679), No. 5. In the 8 Aug. issue Harris insinuated that the jury had been bribed. ibid. No. 10.
97 Henry, Care, Popish courant, in Weekly pacquet of advice from Rome, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 32.Google Scholar
98 The title of the tract was Some observations upon the late trials of Sir George Wakeman, … by Tom Ticklefoot, the labourer, late clerk to Justice Clodpate (1679). Reprinted in St. Tr., VII, 687–94. Clodpate was a caricature of Scroggs. That unflattering name also appears in a manuscript satire: B.L., Add. MS 34, 362, fo. 95b.
99 C.J., IX, 690.
100 Other printed tracts included: The tickler tickled: or The observator upon the late tryals of Sir George Wakeman, etc. observed: by Margery Mason spinster (1679). Justice in masquerade, a poem (n.d. [1680]). And The bellowings of a wild-bull: or, Scroggs's roaring lamentation for being impeached of high-treason (n.p., n.d. [1681]). Two unpublished lampoons, similar in nature, are in B.L., Add. MS 34362, fos. 95, 95b; a third is in the Pepys papers at Magdalene College, 2881/89.
101 On circuit in the fall of 1679 Scroggs suffered terrible indignities, incuding having a half-dead dog tossed into his carriage and his sleep disturbed as he was driven along by a man rapping on the top of his coach and calling out ‘A Wakeman, A Wakeman’. Luttrell, , Brief relation, I, 19–20Google Scholar. Memoirs of the Verney family during the seventeenth century compiled from the papers and illustrated by the portraits at Claydon House by Frances Parthenope Verney and Margaret M. Verney, 2nd edn (London, 2 vols., 1907), II, 321.Google Scholar
102 Stephens, Frederick George, Catalogue of political and personal satires preserved in the department of prints and drawings in the British Museum (Published for the Trustees of the British Museum by British Museum Publications Limited, 1878 edn), I, 1320–689, entries 1071–114.Google Scholar
103 See above, note 39.
104 Scroggs his speech in the Kings-Bench.
105 On 17 Oct. 1679 the privy council asked the judges to submit a ruling on 22 Oct. The justices did so on 27 Oct. PRO, PC 2/68, pp. 236, 256–7.
106 Phillip, Hamburger, ‘The development of the law of seditious libel and the control of the press’, Stanford Law Review, XXXVII (1985), 685Google Scholar. M.P.s heard that the judges had said censorship was illegal because the Printing Act had expired. For the limitations of Scandalum magnatum, see ibid. pp. 668–9.
107 Schwoerer, Lois G., ‘Liberty of the press and pubic opinion: 1660–1695’, in Liberty secured? Britain before and after 1688, ed. Jones, J. R. (Stanford, 1991), pp. 213–19.Google Scholar
108 pro, PC 2/68, pp. 179, 190, 203–4, 207, 212, 229, 231, 236, 242, 292, 294, 323, 359, 401, 478. A box bulging with tracts, including single sheet issues of Care's Weekly pacquet, is at PRO SP 20, Case G. For the legal advantages of pre-publication censorship and the alternatives, see Hamburger, , ‘The law of seditious libel’, pp. 662–80.Google Scholar
109 PRO, PC/28, pp. 256, 263 for the proclamation.
110 Harris, Domestic intelligence, no. 33, 28 Oct. 1679. Care, Weekly pacquet, No. 3, preface.
111 C.J., IX, 688–9.
112 Statutes of the realm, vol. V (1819), 31 Car. II, c.2.
113 The practick part of the law: shewing the office of an attorney, in the courts of Kings-Bench, common pleas, and pleas in the exchequer … (London, 1681 edn), pp. 54, 296–7, 336–53Google Scholar. Wrigley, E. A. and Schofield, R. S., The population history of England 1541–1871: a reconstruction (Cambridge, 1989), App. 9.Google Scholar
114 SirRichard, Bulstrode, Memoirs and reflections upon the reign and government of King Charles the 1st. and K. Charles the IId (London, 1721), p. 299.Google Scholar
115 PRO, PC 2/68, p. 369. The judges recommended using the statutes of Scandalum magnatum to restrain printing. Disgusted, the court instructed the clerk of the privy council not to enter that ruling in the official register. See Hamburger, , ‘The law of seditious libel’, pp. 668–9, 686.Google Scholar
116 Sir Francis Pemberton and Sir Robert Atkins were removed and William Dolben cooperated. PRO PC 2/68, p. 477 for the court's instructions to the Bench. Hamburger, , ‘The law of seditious libel’, pp. 686–7.Google Scholar
117 PRO PC 2/68, p. 496. The authority was not unlimited, but it gave the crown the power of pre-publication censorship over newsbooks: Hamburger, , ‘The law of seditious libel’, p. 687.Google Scholar
118 PRO, PC2/68, pp. 512–3 for the proclamation.
119 Roger, North, Examen, p. 565.Google Scholar
120 ibid.
121 Domestick intelligence, No. 65.
122 Care, Weekly pacquet, no. 3, preface.
123 St. Tr., 7: 1112–30; Folger Shakespeare Library (hereafter FSL), ‘The Newdigate newsletters, addressed to Sir Richard Newdigate, 1st Bart., and to 2nd Bart, 1673–1715,’ L.c. 998. Care, Weekly pacquet, no. 3, preface.
124 F.S.L., ‘Newdigate newsletters’, I Sept. 1679, L.c. 829, reporting the rumour.
125 Articles of high misdemeanours, humbly offered and presented to the consideration of his most sacred Majesty, and his most Honourable privy councel, against Sir William Scrogs [sic]… together with his Lordships answer thereunto (n.p., n.d. [1680]). This appeared in three editions, suggesting interest in and propaganda value of this episode.
126 Innocence unveil'd: or, a poem on the acquittal of the lord chief justice Scroggs (n.p., n.d. [post Jan. 1680]).
127 Bodl., MS Carte 39, Ormonde correspondence, p. 113. PRO, PC 2/58, pp. 355, 359; C.S.P.D., 1679–80, p. 376 [PRO, ADM 77, Greenwich Hospital newsletters, no. 42]. John, Warner, The history of English persecution of catholics and the presbyterian plot, ed. by Birrell, T. A., 2 vols. (Catholic Record Society, 1953–1954), I, 157 [318].Google Scholar
128 North, , Examen, p. 567–8Google Scholar; B.L., Add. MS 29549, fo. 74.
129 D.N.B.
130 Hatton correspondence, I, 220.
131 Haley, , The first earl of Shaftesbury, pp. 559–60Google Scholar. The fullest contemporary account is PRO, ADM 77, Greenwich Hospital newsletters, no. 39.
132 Haley, , The first earl of Shaftesbury, pp. 407–543.Google Scholar
133 B.L., Add. MS 28053, fo. 114. Tne paper is undated.
134 Haley, , The first earl of Shaftesbury, p. 543.Google Scholar
135 ibid. pp. 601–2.
136 LJ, VIII, 673; H.M.C., House of lords, eleventh report, Appendix, Part 2, pp. 197–8.Google Scholar
137 Grey, , Debates, VIII, 286–7.Google Scholar
138 C.J., IX, 687.
139 See above, note 29.
