Thursday, November 4.
Mr Harbord reports, from [the Committee appointed to examine Lionel Anderson, a Priest convict, in] Newgate, That
Captain Richardson [the Keeper,] brought Father [Anderson,
alias] Monson, to the Committee, who owned his Petition to the
House, delivered the day before. We told him, if he would not
clearly and fully relate what he knew of the Plot, the House
would not intercede to the King for a reprieve for him from
execution. He said, "there had been so many Catholic Informers already, that what he could say might be nothing farther than had been already confessed." He made solemn protestations, "That he knew nothing of the Plot;" so we were
coming away. Then, being sensible of his danger, he pressed us to
hear what he could say, if the House would think him worthy,
upon the Report, to intercede for him. We, considering that
there was life in the case, were ready to take his consession rather
than deny it him. Some light he gave us in matters which lie heavy upon you. He said, "That about November, five years since,
Mr James Porter, in the Duke's name, told him, "He was a
schismatical Catholic, and had given distrubance to the Church."
He applied himself to Lord Mulgrave
(fn. 1) , who had orders from the
Duke of York to promise him to be one of the Priests to the Dutchess, when she came over. That he was told by Lord Mulgrave from the Duke at Whitehall, "That the Duke was angry
with him, in that he spoke against Miracles;" for which he was
excommunicated. A year after, Lord Mulgrave told him, "he
kept company with Father Welsh, and was schismatical, and was
devising new Oaths (of Allegiance)." I was commanded not to
name one man plain, A. B. "There is such a man," Anderson
said, "about the King's Bench, who, since he came to the King's
Bench, wondered to see him there, for by the Duke's interest he
was to be sent away to the Inquisition, for writing a Latin Letter
about giving Degrees to Father Vincent. One reason why he was
to be sent to Rome was for defending the Oath of Allegiance.
Two years since, the Bishop of Salmas desired the Duke he might
come to him; the Duke said, he would not speak to him then.
But afterwards the Duke told him, "He must be obedient to
his superiors, else he would do nothing." He said, that a Franciscan Friar, upon the same account, was slipped away into the
Inquisition. The Cardinal of Norfolk told him, he had sent two
or three away into the Inquisition in the same manner. He and
Father Welsh applied themselves to the Duke of Ormond, who
said, "If he and Welsh were sent away, they should all be served
in the same manner." He remembered that a Letter was written by one Edward Peters, which was made use of at the Tryals
by direction of Whitebread. Though Peters was a person proscribed, and twenty weeks in Newgate, yet by Habeas Corpus
he got bailed, and was at liberty.
Mr Hampden.] This Report perhaps may seem foreign
to the intent of Examination of the Plot. The man professed he did not know of the Plot, but he gave some circumstances of the Plot from the Jesuits. Perhaps he was
not taken into the inward part of the Plot, yet he might
make conjectures from Sir Edmundbury Godfrey's death,
whom all concluded to have been murdered, some thought
not by the Papists, but all concluded it done by the Jesuits. "They forbad Mrs Cellier, he said, coming to me, for
I deserved to be hanged: She took Dangerfield out of
Prison, to go about to Coffee-houses to persuade people
this was a Presbyterian Plot: The Narrative I wrote was
to distinguish myself from the Plotters." Monson signed
this his Confession voluntarily. He said "He had not
officiated, nor been at any Ambassador's, these five or six
years. If he should go into France or Spain, he is sure to
be put into the Inquisition for what he has done here,
and if the Plot had gone on, no doubt but the Inquision would have been set up here, and he had rather end
his days in a hole in Newgate, than be put into the Inquisition. If the King would give him leave, he would
go into Holland, and end his days there, and give security
never to return more into England again." I will not
propound any thing, but if you will address the King to
grant him a reprieve, I leave it to your consideration.
Sir John Trevor.] That Letter mentioned of Mr Peters
was for the consult of the Jesuits at the White Horse. If
there can be direct proof made of that Letter, it will be
a mighty Evidence of the Plot. It was about the consultation of the King's death. I would have that part
Sir Robert Clayton.] I will give you some light into
in Enquiry was made after Peters's being bailed.
The Keeper of Newgate owned that Letter. Anderson,
alias Monson, thought it a hard case that he should be
tryed and condemned, after he had owned himself to
be a Priest, and that he gave then an account to the
King, how that the King, upon all occasions, had always excepted Peter Welsh, and himself, out of the Proclamation.
Sir Nicholas Carew.] I think this man's case hard,
having written for the Oath of Allegiance. If he goes
over beyond sea, he will be put into the Inquisition; if
he stays here, he will be hanged. I would intercede to the
King for a reprieve for him.
Mr Garroway.] I confess, in some case, this man may be
useful. I do not know but in this man's examination
something may be of use. I would intercede to the King
for a reprieve for him, but I would not be too hasty for a
Mr Harbord.] If you do not something for this man,
it will look like drawing him to confession to make him
lose his life. This man stands in the Romish Church as a
Schismatic, and a Priest will not converse with him.
Doubtless, if the Parliament should be up, and the Protestant Religion not be settled, nor the King's Person secured, this man, if that should happen, will be hanged,
and the rest of the Priests and Jesuits reprieved. You see
that Witnesses have been discountenanced, and a sham
Plot invented. (I value no man's head, that stands betwixt us and safety.) I would have the World see, that
the Protestants of England are not persecutors of Christians, but that this man may have some encouragement.
Sir Gilbert Gerrard.] This man has made you a great,
confession, and it is plain that this man's case comes
within your favour, and I believe he has informed you
truly of things, as far as he knows. He expressed so much
of the Duke's zeal to the Romish Religion, that he may
come to be hanged with the rest.
Mr Powle.] I will say nothing to hinder your inclination to mercy, wherever you find cause to distinguish persons cases for your intercession. If persons must be taken
out of England, and put into the Inquisition, every man
may be in danger of it. If you please, while this matter
is warm, send to Monson. This A. B. he mentions else may
be sent away. Send to examine this unknown person.
Mr Hampden.] The Reporter knows his name very
well, and he may be sent for.
Sir Robert Clayton.] If you intend to have any fruit of
this matter of sending to the Inquisition, you may send to
examine A. B. and upon that Report I shall move you
to address for a reprieve.
Colonel Birch.] I would have this a complete Report,
which will not be till A. B. be examined. Your Report
was not complete in Coleman's examination, till you reexamined him.
The Committee was ordered to examine A. B. and concerning
Peters's Letter. Upon Debate, the Committee was impowered
to send for Persons, Papers, and Records.
Mr Hampden.] This Information about the Letter is
from Captain Richardson, "That Peters told him he had
written by Whitebread."
Lord Russel reads the Order "for bringing in the Bill to
disable James Duke of York from inheriting the Imperial
Crown of England, &c."] According to this Order, the
Committee have drawn a Bill, and have commanded me
to present it.
[The Bill was read the first time.]
Sir Leoline Jenkins
(fn. 2) .] I crave leave to speak against a
second reading of this Bill, till I am satisfied that it is for
the service of the Crown, and the safety of the Nation;
till I am satisfied of the Justice of it, whether it be na
tural to exclude the Duke, &c. before you hear him. I
would do in this, as one man would do by another. In
Reason we ought to do, as we would be done by. Popery is a crime, and punished by a Law already made;
but here is now a Law for this Prince alone to be excluded, &c. Consider whether it be just to make a new Law
for one person. Consider from what principle this Bill
does flow; whether it be not rank Popery. It hath been
disputable among some of the Schools, whether Dominion be founded in Grace, or no. None but Papists and
Anabaptists preach that notion. As to the principle of the
Duke's being a Papist, and therefore not fit to succeed to
the Crown, it is maintained by the Schools, Councils, and
Common Law, that a King may be deposed for Religion's sake. Consider the practice of the Papists by this
principle. Germany had six Emperors deposed for Religion—But to come nearer to our own times, Hen. IV. of
France was first King of Navarre, and then was declared by the Bull of Sixtus V. not only incapable of the
Kingdom of Navarre, but of succeeding to the Crown
of France. The Pope proceeded against Queen Elizabeth upon the account of Religion only. That I desire to
be considered, whether this Bill is not founded upon the
same principle and practice of the Papists. Farther, this
Bill, as it is drawn, does change the very essence and
being of the Monarchy. Consider whether you do not
reduce it to an Elective Monarchy. In the essence of the
Monarchy, the Duke is Heir to the Crown, and this Bill
is opposite to Primogeniture. We know the inconvenience of an Elective Monarchy by the disorders of Poland. Consider whether this Bill is consistent with the
Oath of Allegiance we have all taken—By the blessing of
God, the King has not his Crown by designation; he is
not an Elective Monarch. Not that I have sworn Allegiance to the Duke during the King's life: I have taken
that Oath in the sense of him that imposed it. I took it
ten, twenty years ago, and if I am asked what is meant
in that Oath by "Heirs and Successors?" I answer, the
next Heir to the Crown is the Duke, in case the King
have no children. If I am sworn to this Allegiance, whether can any intervenient Act annull it, and whether, under this obligation, any power on earth can absolve me
from it? I will not take upon me to dispute this Law
when it is made; but before it be made, I may dispute its
convenience. I believe it is not in the power of man
to absolve me from that Oath. When God gives us
a King in his wrath, it is not in our power to change
him; we cannot require any qualifications; we must take
him as he is. An infant, that knows not his right hand
from his left, by our Law is not to be set aside from the
Throne, but is as much King, as if a man at full years.
This Allegiance binds my faith nothing at all so long as
the King is alive, but my Oath binds me to his Successor.
Lately, in France, when Hen. IV. came to the Crown, a
Protestant, the far greater and most powerful part of
both the Court and Army did make it a question whether
they should submit to a heretic Prince: Some would
not at all oppose him; others would set up his old uncle,
the Cardinal of Bourbon, for King; another Party, a
squadron volante, would not acknowlege him till he turn
ed Papist; but the greater Party thought it their indispensible duty to obey him, and did so, because they should
be in less danger with a heretic Prince, than by a Civil
War if the thing was contended. It is a fundamental
maxim not to enter into an uncertain for a certain mischief, and upon these considerations, pray lay this Bill
Mr Montagu.] The other day, this worthy Member
told you of the Laws abroad in relation to Succession,
and now he says, "This is a Popish Bill." I observe, that
his knowlege of the Laws and Divinity abroad is more
than at home. If any man thinks that the Duke, &c.
is not in the Plot, nor a Papist, let him give his Vote
against the Bill: I am satisfied in both, and therefore do
desire the Bill may have a second reading. Till this Bill
be passed, the King is exposed to the malice of the Papists,
and importunities of sollicitations from the Duke's friends;
and I hope this Parliament will give as good testimony of
their duty for preservation of the King's Person, and the
Protestant Religion, as the last did. Saving the King
from the malice of Rome is as great service as bringing
him from Brussels. This Bill saves the King's Prerogative
and Religion, and two good things it saves besides, the
King's Life and his Authority; and I am for a second
Mr Hampden.] I apprehend, Jenkins's Reasons have
not that weight as he lays upon them. He tells us, "We
should do as we would be done by." But this Rule is to
be rightly understood; it must be by a regulated will.
No man but would be saved from death. A Malefactor
would. Surely in that case it cannot hold, "To do as we
would be done by." I am not of opinion that the Bill
should singly exclude the Duke, because he is a Papist,
but that with the consequences: Not so much as a Papist,
but because of the inseparable principles of that Religion,
in which it is impossible the Nation should be safe. It has
always been said by the Papists, "That this is a bloody
Law, to put men to death for Religion as we do." But
that is Popish, to say "It is for Religion." You have
always disowned it; it is for their consequential principles.
I do not think (as Jenkins said) that this Bill makes the
Kingdom Elective. I know not but in an Hereditary
Monarchy, if a Successor will destroy the Kingdom, he
may not be put by the Succession, but the Pope is your
King if you have a Popish Successor, and it is not far remote when a King is a Papist. What will become of you
when you have broken prison? Shall you fare any better
when the Inquisition is set up, that nothing but the blood
of so many Martyrs and Confessors at Newgate can else
be expiated? Do you think that will be forgotten then?
When Popery comes into England, it will come with advantage enough without all these provocations. Their
Religion is none but the pride of avaritious Churchmen.
Upon these considerations, I move for a second reading of
The Bill was ordered to be read a second time [on Saturday
[November 5, Powder Plot.]
Saturday, November 6.
On putting the Laws against the Papists in execution against
the Protestant Dessenters.
Sir Francis Winnington.] As soon as Lord Clifford
came into the Ministry, all forts of Protestants came
within the Statutes of Recusancy, and were convicted and
punished by those Statutes. In the County of Cambridge
three hundred and odd dissenting Protestants were convicted upon those Statutes, and one poor man was fined a
Mark as a Recusant. I have heard that an ancient Parliament-man, in the late Long Parliament, when the Act
of Conventicles passed, should say, "Why will you not put
the Papists into this new Law?" It was answered, "There
are old Laws in being for them already." So that the poor.
Protestant had both sorts of Laws against him, and but one
against the Papist. This is the great concern, for no
greater design can be for bringing in Popery than to divide Protestants. I have heard, that there was a literal
exposition lately by the Judges, in their Circuits, of the
Laws against Reccusancy, so that the Grand Juries have
not presented the Protestant Dissenters upon those Laws.
When Lord Clifford set up those Laws against Dissenters,
which were asleep before as to the Papists, it was the
great work of the King's-Bench to prosecute these Protestants, and they were put to great charge for Supersedcas's.
That these Laws were never intended to extend to the
Protestants, is clear; and we find in our Law-Books, that
when there hath been Error in the Judges Judgment, they
have come to Parliament for exposition of doubtful
Laws. The Judges are not bound by your Vote, not
does that suspend the Laws: But it may cause them to
be a little more easy. Therefore I would adjourn the Debate of that Vote now. But what we do, must either be
by a Declaration of the Law, if doubtful, or by a Vote,
for a present guide to the Judges in their Proceedings.
Mr Finch.] The Statute 3 James was not intended
against Protestants, but some have involved all that may
be. The intention of the Declaration was for Toleration.
As you have begun to separate Protestant from Papist, so
I move that you would do something for the ease of Protestant Dissenters. No Vote of yours is a Declaration of
the Law of England, but you give your opinion, which
is not a total suspension of the Law, but only to take off
the vigorous prosecution of it. Your old Vote, in the
Long Parliament, did recommend in particular to the care
of the Committee to make a distinction betwixt Papist
and Protestant, and a List was brought in from each
County of the most considerable Papists, and I do believe
those Lists are still extant, and the Attorney General
to enter a Noli prosequi upon all persons in that List.
Sir Henry Capel.] I think this Motion is better timed
than for a Bill. The present Question is only for a Vote;
we are now to enlarge the Church as far as we can,
and make the Pale of the Church as wide as we can; we
want help against the Papists. It is but lately that Lord
Clifford brought this prosecution upon them. Though
now he is dead, yet he will ever be remembered in the
House of Commons. We have felt it. I would only now
declare, "That the Law was not intended against Protestants, but Papists." The great Minister of State, Lord
Burleigh, wrote to Qu. Elizabeth, "To let the Dissenters
be tenderly used upon all occasions, that in any extremity
they might he ready to join with her against the common
enemy, the Papists." A Vote will show your sense for
the present, and will give the Judges light for the present, and I move for such a Vote.
Mr Hampden.] Say, if you please, by your Vote,
"That as to those Laws made against Popish Recusants,
it is your opinion that they are only made against Popish
Recusants, and ought not to be put in execution against
Protestant Dissenters, and that they were intended only
against Popish Recusants, and not Protestant Dissenters."
Mr Sacheverell.] There is a dangerous Law against
Protestants, the 35th of Elizabeth; Popish Recusants are
excepted out of it. The consequence of that Law is, that
the Papists need no other Law against Protestants. I am
a little afraid of it, I must confess. It has been said,
"That what you declare cannot expound the Law," and
if this Law be extensive to Protestants, your Vote will
do no good. I have seen, indeed, that your Vote about
the Chimney-Money, which was your Declaration of that
Law, did no good, for the Officers proceeded in it as
they did before. Therefore you must go farther than
Colonel Titus.] I suppose you intend not to declare
the Law by a Vote, but the House may declare an
Resolved, Nemine contradicente, That it is the Opinion of this
House, that the Acts of Parliament, made in the Reigns of Queen
Elizabeth and King James, against Popish Recusants, ought not
to be extended against Protestant Dissenters.
Mr Sacheverell.] This Question being over, we ought
to consider the Statute of the 35th of Elizabeth. There
is Abjuration and Felony in that Statute; every thing
but life against a Protestant Dissenter, nay, life too, in some
cases; and I am the rather for repealing it, because it
does not extend to Popish Recusants. I move, "that
that Statute may be repealed, that it may not be made
use of against Protestant Dissenters."
Mr Garroway.] The Motion is made, I believe, that
that Statute may not be made use of against Protestant
Dissenters, when you are sent home, and I desire it may
be read. Which was done accordingly.
Mr Sacheverell.] It is true, that the latter part of that
Act is but temporary, but by an Act of this King, it is
declared perpetually in force. I move therefore for a
Clause, in that which you intend for ease to Dissenting
Protestants, to repeal that Statute.
Sir Thomas Lee.] The grounds of our apprehension, if
we fail under a Popish Prince, are, that by this Statute
Protestants may be banished; but unless you take care
that the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo be not taken
away, you had as good banish a man, as let him lie perpetually in jail.
Mr Sacheverell.] Should you join this Writ with your
Bill you may have the Writ, it may be, and be put upon
some other way of punishment. Let it go alone in Instructions to your Committee. It may be, the Judges will
not put the other Laws in execution, but if they be forbidden those Laws, they may put this of the 35th of Elizabeth in execution to its height, and send Protestants out
of the Kingdom.
[Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to prepare and bring
in a Bill, for the repeal of all or any part of the Act of Parliament,
made in the 35th year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, Chap. 1.
printed in the Statute-Book of Pulton.]
Mr Jennison gave an account at the Bar of his knowlege of the
Plot, and Father Ireland, &c. See the printed Narrative.
The Bill to disable the Duke of York, &c. was read a second.
Sir Richard Temple.] It may be, you say farther than
you intend in this Bill. The Duke being disabled to inherit the Crown, by Act of Parliament, the Question is,
Whether any body can claim any inheritance by, from,
and under him? In the case of Lord Delawar, there was
such a Question in Parliament, That he should be disabled to claim or enjoy any Office, &c. during his Life (fn. 3) .
A Question then did arise, Whether it did not extend farther than to personal disability? I offer this to you, that
nothing in the Bill should alter your intent to a Protestant Successor.
Sir Leoline Jenkins.] I desire to be heard one word. I
will not enter upon the consequences of this Bill, nor
what I have spoken the last day. This Bill reflects upon
the Nation, as if, when the Duke came to the Crown,
there would be a change of Religion. I hope that five
hundred Members of Parliament will resolve not to
change Religion, though the Duke come to the Crown.
I hope that the Protestant Religion I was baptized in,
and have made profession of abroad, and in all places, I
shall die in. It has been observed, that no Nation is more
tenacious of their Religion than England. To suppose that Popery will come into England, is a dishonour to
England. By this Bill, the Blood Royal of England will be
disinherited. How will that stand with the Recognition,
where the Lords and Commons swore to King James, a
vow of obedience to his progeny for ever? And this Bill
removes the next Prince of the Blood from the Succession.
Is there any security that the present Prince may not be in
danger of removal, if this Bill should pass? The Indictment against Charles I. supposed a crime, that he raised
War against the people—The greatest dread of all is, the
Heir to the Crown being taken off by Law, and no Successor appointed; a cloud I cannot look through! If a
Pretender be set up for the Crown, who shall decide it?
This is of great dread to me. I would not commit the
Mr Booth.] I would not have spoken, but upon occasion given by Jenkins. Since you have thus far engaged, you had better never have meddled with it, than
now lay it aside, to discourage all the Protestants in England. I wish he would show us, that, in case the Duke
come to the Crown, we must not either fight or burn;
and, as the Law stands now, should the Duke come o
be King, whether it is not against us, and that we must
submit or resist, if we have not a Law for us? He puts
a strange case, that, if we exclude the Duke, we shall
in time come to question the Sovereign. Pray commit
Sir Henry Ford.] The King told us, in his Speech,
"That the eyes of all Europe were upon us." This Bill
is a thing of the greatest consequence. If you make a
Law, who shall not succeed to the Crown, the regular
way is next to declare who shall. I shall never think that
Dominion is founded in Grace, or Nature, but from a
power ordained you know by whom: By me Kings
reign. They say, no man is born with a Crown on his
head, or a saddle on his back. The end of this Bill is
great, and I hope you will come to it by lawful means. In
the case of Hen. VII, he was not only disabled to reign,
by Act of Parliament, as his Royal Highness is by this
Bill, but he was attainted of High Treason. It was then
the opinion of the Judges, that, without a Bill of Repeal
of the Attainder, the descent of the Crown upon him
purged away all. I am as fond, as any man, of the Protestant Religion; but I offer to your consideration, how
far the legality of this Bill will be.
Sir William Hickman.] Here is nothing in the Bill that
the Crown may devolve to the next Successor. Suppose
that two Protestants lay claim to the Crown; if they divide, they may let in Popery at the end of it. Princes
often leave those things doubtful, but Parliaments should
leave them plain. I would have it left to the next right
Heir in Succession.
Sir Nicholas Carew.] I would add a Clause to the Bill,
to exclude all other Popish Successors.
Sir Thomas Lee.] Perhaps there may rise a difficulty,
who is a Popish Successor? Who must judge that?
Mr Harbord.] I have a great mind that this Bill should
pass, and I approve of Gentlemens zeal for future security. I would have it provided in the Bill, "That no
King shall marry a Popish Queen," if we be so happy that
this Bill should pass. It is from thence all our miseries
come. I have been told, that we owe our misfortunes, of
the Duke's being perverted, to his mother; from her we
derive that wound. If this Bill should exclude the Duke's
children from the Crown, that are Protestant, I am
against it; it is unjust. I would not have them suffer for
their father's fault; though I hope the King may have
children, which will then put all out of dispute. Let not
the Bill be clogged, but commit it, to the end that the
King may be safe, and we. I would not clog this Bill. I
am sure we can never be safe in prospect of a Popish Successor.
Sir Christopher Musgrave.] Nothing is more natural,
than in this Bill to declare a Successor. When you take off
this Prince from the Succession, the danger is great, and
much more without this Clause of declaring a Successor.
I dread the thoughts of the late times, in taking arms for
the King against his authority. Therefore if we name
the Successor, we have the Law on our sides, and then
by no authority the Successor can take our lives, if the
King should die, and leave no children. Let that be
part of Instructions to the Committee, to name a Successor.
Colonel Birch.] I cannot agree to the Motion of naming a Successor to the Crown. Consider what we are doing; not only securing the Protestant Religion, but the
King's life, and, I hope, long life; and till this Bill pass,
it is the interest of every Papist to do, what I hope God
will never permit. I remember the Answer Queen Elizabeth gave the Parliament, when they pressed her to declare her Successor (fn. 4) ; a thing I would by no means have
done at this time. I would have the Bill stand upon its
own bottom, and I am not for giving this in Instructions
to the Committee.
Sir John Knight.] Will you deprive the King, by naming a Successor, as if you would suppose the King should
not have an Heir of his own?
Colonel Titus.] You have been regularly told, "That
you cannot name a Successor." And if you can, it is very
dangerous. Suppose the person you nominate may be a
Papist, or commit a crime whereby he may lose his head
(for he is still a Subject.) If you nominate a Successor now,
you will not make an Act for the Queen to live, or the
King not to marry again. There are so many inconveniences in it, that I would lay it aside.
Mr Garroway.] As the Bill goes now, there may be
danger that it will hinder your Bill, if there be not some
general expression that no Protestant Heir be excluded the
Succession. If we will not do something of that nature,
it looks like setting up a Commonwealth. That you may
arrive at your end, I would give the Committee such
Mr Finch.] I was surprized at the bringing in the Bill,
but much more that we should leave all things at uncertainty who shall succeed, &c. Nothing is more natural
than to expect some fruits from this Bill. As for what is
said, "That the Successor may turn Papist," that argument may hold the other way; the Duke may turn Protestant. "Possibly (says Titus) the person named may
lose his head for some crime, and that an Attainder is vacated by coming to the Crown." But we are not in that
case. Possibly the King may die before the Duke, and
if no Successor be named, there will be an undeniable interregnum. If I limit a portion to my daughter, with
condition that she shall marry with the consent of such a
person, yet, if it be not limited to another person over,
who shall have the portion in case of her failure? It is
void in Law. I think this is the same case. I hope the
King may have a son, and so possibly may the Duke. If
you do any thing, order it thus, "That in case the
King die before the Duke, such of the Duke's children shall succeed, as if the Duke were naturally dead.
Sir Robert Howard.] This is as dangerous a point as
can be moved, but the sense of the House in it will conclude every man's opinion. What is moved is of a strange
nature. To talk of the King's death is not usual in
Acts of Parliament. If you shall say, such an one shall
succeed the King, by name, it will be a fine invitation to
him to endeavour to succeed. This is not language to
be put into a Bill. It is the King's life we all depend
upon, and I hope this House will show the World how
little they are for a Commonwealth, and shame them
that have said to the contrary. But it is said, "In case
the King should die, the Nation must be upon some certainty who shall succeed."—How little does the Law
esteem remote contingencies that a common Recovery
cuts off! Many may object, that this will be a reflection on the Duke's children, if they are not mentioned in the Succession—But is it not as natural with a
saving to all Protestant Successors as well to be hereafter,
without ifs and ands, as in common savings of a private Bill? I think that a saving to all Protestant Successors will be sufficient.
[The Bill was ordered to be committed.
Resolved, Nemine contradicente, That it be an Instruction to
the Committee, that the Exclusion in the said Bill do extend
to the Person of the Duke of York only.]
Monday, November 8.
Sir Robert Clayton gave the House Information, That there
were some at the door, who could give an account of the scandalous deportment of one Mr Joseph Pagett, a Minister, in matters relating to the Votes of this House.
Mr Loe, an Evidence.] On Tuesday night last I was at a
Coffee-house in St Michael's Alley, when I had some acquaintance with me, where calling for the Votes of the House, they
found them thus abused, viz. The Vote of the Duke's being a
Papist, and the hopes of his coming such to the Crown, &c.
were underwritten "A damnable lie." The Vote of Defence
of the King's Person, &c. "viz. 1648." A Bill brought in to
disable the Duke to succeed, &c. "Voted like rogues."
Another Evidence.] I went to Edwin's Coffee-house in St
Michael's Alley. I saw the Votes, at another table in the room,
abused (as has been related.) I asked the woman, "Who had
abused the Votes?" Her husband answered, "Somebody has
played the rogue with them." Three at the other table were
gone, but sine said, "That a Minister called for Pen and Ink,
and wrote it."
Mr Loe again.] I saw the Minister write upon the Votes,
and cross them. I know not the Parson's name, but his brother has a living in Loicestershire, and his name is Joseph Pagett.
Sir Robert Clayton.] There are three or four other
Witnesses to testify this, but I would trouble the House
with no more.
Sir Nicholas Carew.] I hear that this man is Chaplain
to a Nobleman. Pray consider what you do.
Mr Vernon.] This person is Chaplain to Lord Ferrers.
The man has been bred up in his life and conversation
in good principles. He has been twice with me for Institution and Induction. He has spoken well of the
Right of the Subject, &c. and I do believe this will
prove a mistake.
Mr Harbord.] I would not have any misunderstanding betwixt the Lords and us, in relation to this man.
The Witnesses give no account that he is a Chaplain to
this Nobleman, only you have it from some Members.
If you send for him in custody, I should be glad to see
any Lord justify the man. My Principles are not to
advise any thing to create a breach, but I would gladly
see such a Nobleman. If you summon the man, it is
a Breach of Privilege, though not in custody. It is my
opinion that you stand to what you have done. It may
be, he will not own himself to be my Lord's Chaplain;
and I move to have him sent for in custody.
Colonel Birch.] I am far from thinking that any
Lord will protect such a criminal person as this, and will
not be as willing to prosecute him as you. In some signal way, both to the King and Kingdom, I would take
notice of this; and I would have the Serjeant bring him
in such a manner as is for your honour; therefore I
move, that he may be sent for in custody.
Which was ordered.
In a Grand Committee on the Bill to disable the Duke of
York, &c. [Sir William Pulteney in the Chair.]
The Preamble was postponed. To the next Paragraph,
Colonel Titus.] This matter before you is of great
concern, and will have need of all the assistance you can
give it. I move that the Gentlemen of the Long Robe
may be sent for, and that the Speaker take the Chair to
Which was done accordingly.
In a Grand Committee.
Lord Russel.] I find, in the Instructions from the
House to the Committee, "That this Bill is only to relate to the Person of the Duke of York; " and I have a
Proviso; if you please, I shall offer it, viz. "It is declared, that nothing in this Act shall tend to disable any
Person to succeed, &c. other than the Duke of York, in
case he shall survive the King, but that the Crown shall
descend to such Person, during the life of the Duke of
York, as should inherit the same, in case the Duke were
Mr Finch.] I would add one more Proviso. It is
said, "Nothing in this Act contained, &c." Something
may disable the Heirs of the Duke. I would have nothing of Attainder pleaded by any act of the Duke's.
The Proviso passed the Committee.
Mr Onslow.] I move for a second addition, "That
this Bill may be read twice a year, at the Quarter Sessions, and in the Churches, &c."
Colonel Titus.] It is regular to take Instructions in
this from the House: This Clause would be proper by
way of rider, and may be moved in the House.
Serjeant Stringer.] I move that you would add to the
Preamble, "That whereas it is notoriously known,
that the Duke being the Presumptive Heir to the
Sir Thomas Clarges.] This Motion is of great weight.
If the Duke of York be not the Presumptive Heir of the
Crown, there is no need of this Bill, for that aggravates
the offence, for the Presumptive Heir to conspire against
the King's life. If he be Presumptive Heir to the Crown,
it is fit so to express it.
The words "Presumptive Heir" were rejected by Vote.
Serjeant Rigby.] True Protestants will not go from
their Religion because of a Popish Prince, and therefore
I am against the Preamble of the Bill.
Lord Russel's Proviso was made part of the Bill.
Mr Bcoth.] I hope you will fill up the Blanks of the
Bill. I desire, "That the Bill may commence from the
fifth of November last."
Sir John Bowyer.] I desire it may commence from
the seventeenth of November, which was Queen Elizabeth's birth-day.
Mr Harbord.] All our Laws bear date from the first
day of the Session of Parliament, and that is a mistake
to allege the fifth of November, as a time passed. I love
not a sime to come in this Bill, for the Yatchs are not
yet come back from Scotland which attended the Duke
Mr Onslow's Proviso passed, viz. "That this be given in
charge every Quarter Sessions of the Peace, and to be read at
least twice a year, in all Churches and Chapels in the Kingdom
of England and Dominion of Wales."
One desired, "That the Town of Berwick upon Tweed might
be added, because he hath heard say, that the Duke is to be
crowned King at Berwick."
Colonel Birch, on moving for a penalty for the not doing it, said,] It is not to be supposed that any body dares
not do it, when the King and Parliament are both of opinion that it ought to be done.
It passed thus: "To be read in all Churches, Chapels,
Cathedrals, and Collegiate Churches, the 25th of December, being Christmas-day, and upon Easter-day, yearly."
[The Bill, with the Clauses and Amendments, was ordered to
Sir Robert Cann, on his Petition, was discharged from the