Diary of Thomas Burton Esq: Volume 2, April 1657 - February 1658. Originally published by H Colburn, London, 1828.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Monday, June 1, 1657.
Mr. Burton (fn. 1) reported the Amendments to the Bill for the River Ouse, at York, which were twice read; and, upon the question, agreed.
Mr. Bampfield reported amendments to an explanatory Bill for Bristol, (fn. 2) which were agreed unto, and ordered to be ingrossed.
Lord Whitlock. I except against that clause, as to ministers or their agents entering into men's houses. It is not fit to have such a Bill read again in this House. This was more than was granted in the time of popery.
Another thing concerning distresses. Never any man heard of a distress for tithes. That clause in the Ordinance was excepted against from the beginning. As to the other clause, I would not have such a clause remain upon your books.
Sir William Strickland. This clause may be excepted time enough, at the second reading. I fear that there is a design in it, in bringing that disgrace and reproach upon tithes, to bring a disgrace on the Gospel. Some men will leap, over hedge or ditch, the whole Decalogue; and wholly scruple at that of tithes. They make no scruple at all to detain them. If there be a law for a little severity in that kind, there is need of it. The same levelling principle will lay waste properties and deny rents, upon the same accounts that they do tithes. I desire a second reading.
Ordered, that it be referred to the Irish Committee, and all that come to have voices, (fn. 3) and to bring it in on Saturday.
Mr. Fowell left the chair, and Mr. Bond was called to the chair. He pleaded his inability to sit; and, though he sat today, he would come here no more, he told us plainly; and that it was an ill requital to call him to the chair for moving what was for the service of the House. Some called on Captain Hatsel, but they could not agree.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and told us it was an ill requital to Mr. Bond for his moving for our service. He put the question for Captain Baynes to take the chair, and he took the chair accordingly.
Lord Whitlock and Mr. Speaker moved that a clause, touching a writ of delivery and colouring of aliens' goods may be brought in by the same Committee; for there is a difference of opinion about those writs. Some will have them but discretional.
The Master of the Rolls. I wonder to hear a writ of delivery disputed now. It has been these thirty years. This is the most material part of your Bill, and will obstruct its passing, and cause great debate. The goods were seized and proclaimed. If the party came, they were to be delivered. If the party appeared not, then the goods were forfeited. But that writ of delivery is an undoubted right.
Lord Whit lock. It is a great project now, to bring in prohibited goods, and appoint an agent of their own to go into the Downs and deliver them, and then pray a writ of delivery, and so the customs are lost, and whereas logwood is to be burnt if it come in upon the same account, yet it shall be delivered by that writ. This is a great abuse.
Mr. Lloyd. You are now making a law which is likely to be lasting, and a great many men's livelihoods depend upon it. It relates to an ordinance of the Long Parliament, and to confirm it at the lump is not regular. I move it be referred to a Sub-committee, to examine those Ordinances.