Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 43.djvu/286

 Quakers' Affirmation Bill against Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester, who ‘endeavoured to prove that Quakers were no Christians’ (Parl. Hist. vii. 942). In consequence of the absence of Macclesfield and of Sir Peter King, the deputy speaker, from the House of Lords on 3 Feb. 1722, Cowper moved that they should proceed to the election of a speaker ad interim. While the debate was proceeding Macclesfield arrived, and excused himself on the ground that he had been detained by the king at St. James's. This excuse Cowper and several other peers refused to accept. They were, however, beaten on a motion for adjournment, and had to content themselves with signing a lengthy protest, in which they declared that the house was ‘undoubtedly the greatest council in the kingdom, to which all other councils ought to give way, and not that to any other’ (ib. vii. 960–1). Macclesfield successfully opposed the motion that Atterbury should be forbidden to make any defence to the Bill of Pains and Penalties in the House of Commons (ib. viii. 210), and on 24 April 1723 he gave the thanks of the house to the committee of lords appointed to inquire into the Jacobite plot (ib. viii. 233). In November 1724 a committee of the privy council was appointed to inquire into the funds of the suitors in the hands of the masters in chancery. Their report showed not only that there were considerable defalcations in some of the masters' offices, but that there was a case of grave suspicion against the lord chancellor. Macclesfield consequently resigned the seals on 4 June 1725, though he still continued in favour at court (, Life of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, i. 73). On the 23rd of the same month a petition was presented to the House of Commons from the Earl of Oxford and Lord Morpeth as the guardians of Elizabeth, dowager duchess of Montrose, a lunatic, stating that large sums belonging to her estate in the possession of the court of chancery were unaccounted for, and praying for relief (Parl. Hist. viii. 414). On 9 Feb. copies of several reports and other papers relating to the masters in chancery were laid before the House of Commons by the king's command (ib. viii. 415). On 12 Feb. Sir George Oxenden [see under, 1651–1703], after referring at length to the ‘enormous abuses’ in the court of chancery, ‘chiefly occasioned by the magistrate who was at the head of that court, and whose duty consequently it was to prevent the same,’ moved Macclesfield's impeachment. The motion was opposed by Pulteney and Sir William Wyndham, and was carried by a majority of 107 votes. On the following day Macclesfield was impeached at the bar of the House of Lords (Journals of the House of Lords, xxii. 417). The trial commenced on 6 May 1725, and lasted thirteen days. It took place in the House of Lords, and was presided over by Lord-chief-justice King. The articles of impeachment, which were twenty-one in number, charged Macclesfield with selling masterships in chancery; with receiving bribes for agreeing to the sale and transfer of offices; with admitting to the office of master several persons ‘who were of small substance and ability, very unfit to be trusted with the great sums of money and other effects of the suitors;’ with suffering the fraudulent practice of masters paying for their places out of the money of the suitors; with endeavouring to conceal the delinquencies of one Fleetwood Dormer, an absconding master; with encouraging the masters to traffic with the money of the suitors; with making use of it himself ‘for his own private service and advantage;’ with persuading the masters ‘to make false representations of their circumstances’ at the inquiry; and with assuming ‘an unjust and unlimited power of dispensing with, suspending, and controlling the statutes of this realm.’ The principal managers for the commons were Sir George Oxenden, Sir Clement Wearg (the solicitor-general), Bubb Dodington, Serjeant Pengelly, Arthur Onslow, Sir John Rushout, and Lord Morpeth. Sir Philip Yorke (the attorney-general) was excused from taking any part in the proceedings owing to his many obligations to the accused. Macclesfield, who was defended by Serjeant Probyn, Dr. Sayer, and three other counsel, took an active part in the cross-examination of the witnesses. After his counsel had been heard he addressed the house on the whole case in a most masterly manner. He disclaimed all corruption, and relied upon law and usage, maintaining that the practice of taking money for the masterships had been ‘long practised without blame.’ After a minute analysis of the evidence he declared that he had not taken the advantage of his position for amassing wealth as he might have done, and concluded by saying ‘I submit my whole life and conduct to your lordships' judgment, and rely entirely upon your justice for my acquittal.’ On 25 May Macclesfield was found guilty by the unanimous voice of the ninety-three peers present. On the following day motions that he should be disqualified from holding any office in the state, and that he should ‘never sit in Parliament nor come within the verge of the Court,’ were negatived (ib. xxii. 556, 558). On the 27th he was sentenced to pay a fine of 30,000l. to the king (which was subse