Scott, and Erskine maintained that the dissolution had put an end to
the impeachment. The contrary doctrine was held by Mansfield, Camden,
Loughborough, and Grant. But among those statesmen who grounded their
arguments, not on precedents and technical analogies, but on deep and
broad constitutional principles, there was little difference of opinion.
Pitt and Grenville, as well as Burke and Fox, held that the impeachment
was still pending Both Houses by great majorities set aside the decision
of 1685, and pronounced the decision of 1679 to be in conformity with
the law of Parliament.

Of the national crimes which had been committed during the panic excited
by the fictions of Oates, the most signal had been the judicial murder
of Stafford. The sentence of that unhappy nobleman was now regarded
by all impartial persons as unjust. The principal witness for the
prosecution had been convicted of a series of foul perjuries. It was
the duty of the legislature, in such circumstances, to do justice to the
memory of a guiltless sufferer, and to efface an unmerited stain from a
name long illustrious in our annals. A bill for reversing the attainder
of Stafford was passed by the Upper House, in spite of the murmurs of a
few peers who were unwilling to admit that they had shed innocent blood.
The Commons read the bill twice without a division, and ordered it to
be committed. But, on the day appointed for the committee, arrived news
that a formidable rebellion had broken out in the West of England. It
was consequently necessary to postpone much important business. The
amends due to the memory of Stafford were deferred, as was supposed,
only for a short time. But the misgovernment of James in a few months
completely turned the tide of public feeling. During several generations
the Roman Catholics were in no condition to demand reparation for
injustice, and accounted themselves happy if they were permitted to live
unmolested in obscurity and silence. At length, in the reign of King
George the Fourth, more than a hundred and forty years after the day on
which the blood of Stafford was shed on Tower Hill, the tardy expiation
was accomplished. A law annulling the attainder and restoring the
injured family to its ancient dignities was presented to Parliament by
the ministers of the crown, was eagerly welcomed by public men of all
parties, and was passed without one dissentient voice. [318]

It is now necessary that I should trace the orig