■WILLIAM AND MAEY.

57

tlie chief orator on the other side; and to his pen we owea singularly lucid and interesting abstract of the debate.

The Lords frankly owned that the judgment of the Court ofKing’s Bench could not be defended. They knew it to be ille-gal , and had known it to be so even when they affirmed it. Butthey had acted for the best. They accused Oates of bringingan impudently false accusation against Queen Catharine: theymentioned other instances of his villany; and they askedwhether such a man ought still to be capable of giving testimonyin a court of justice. The only excuse which, in their opinion,could be made for him was, that he was insane; and in truth,the incredible insolence and absurdity of his behaviour when hewas last before them seemed to warrant the belief that his brainhad been turned, and that he was not to be trusted with thelives of other men. The Lords could not therefore degradethemselves by expressly rescinding what they had done; norcould they consent to pronounce the verdict corrupt on nobetter evidence than common report.

The reply was complete and triumphant. “ Oates is nowthe smallest part of the question. ITe has, Your Lordships say,falsely accused the Queen Dowager and other innocent persons.Be it so. This bill gives him no indemnity. We are quite will-ing that, if he is guilty, he shall be punished. But for him,and for all Englishmen, we demand that punishment shall beregulated by law, and not by the arbitrary discretion of any tri-bunal. We demand that, when a writ of error is before YourLordships, you shall give judgment on it according to theknown customs and statutes of the realm. We deny that youhave any right, on such occasions, to take into considerationthe moral character of a plaintiff or the political effect of a deci-sion. It is acknowledged by yourselves that ycra have, merelybecause you thought ill of this man, affirmed a judgment whichyou knew to be illegal. Against this assumption of arbitrary

chap.

XIV.

1GS9.