Wednesday, March 20.
A Bill, from the Lords, for the regulation of Tryals was read
the first time.
Sir Thomas Lee.] If I had not once seen a Bill of this
nature laid on the Table, and passed in an afternoon, I
should not be against letting it lie on the Table. Lord
Clarendon's Bill of Banishment was passed a Month after
the Impeachment, when it was thought most convenient
for him; which then I thought of dangerous consequence. 'Tis my opinion that this Bill be thrown out;
notwithstanding the good Clauses in it, it may be done
for me and my family. When Bills upon the first appearance are dangerous, they are usually thrown out
upon the first reading. I would have all things in this
Parliament of a piece. You thought good for the present emergency to part with the Habeas Corpus Act for
a time, but is this the way to secure the Government,
to give liberty to the Peers to conspire with James II?
I shall never think it for the Peace of the Government,
if you pass this Bill, to let the Peers do all they please
with impunity. The end and design of the Bill is, that
the Peers may have challenges, as the Commons have.
The Bill is of no use to you—For here is a number
of Peers of the last Parliament, or ought to be. Perhaps not above eighty temporal Lords, and sixty summoned; some may be sick, or have business, or may be
sollicited to be absent: If forty five appear, and twenty
are excepted against, there can be no Tryal. 'Twas
upon this argument before, when the Lords sent down
a Bill of this nature, "that unless the Lords were under the common safety of others, the King sitting in
their House, and hearing their Debates, they were in
danger"—Is this a time to have that Jealousy, now we
are under this happy change? Were it for nothing else,
pray let us not overturn the whole frame of the Government for the Lords sake. Every Clause, in the Bill,
relating to the Commons, is equally beneficial to the
Lords. "In Indictments for Treason, (the Bill tells us)
we shall have Counsel," and 'tis for able Juries; is it
not as well for the Lords as us? For they must be tried
in Appeals by common Juries. The Bill is abundantly
less beneficial to the Commons than the Lords. The
Crown you can oblige by intercourse of Aids, but there
is none betwixt the Lords and you. Great purchases
were made of these Honours. Notwithstanding the dangers the Lords apprehend, the Bill is of dangerous
consequence to the Commons, and for the Honour of
the House I would reject it.
Sir William Pulteney.] No man can deny but that
the Lords ought to have fair Tryals. Whenever the
Crown has a displeasure to a noble Peer, by practices
he may be drawn into Treason, and a High Steward
may be appointed, and seven of the summoned Lords
to try him may take away his life. Will you at this
time differ with the Lords? This is a time, when you
have a good King, to get good Laws. The Peers were
very instrumental in bringing about this good change,
and they desire only that their posterity may be in good
condition, and out of danger. Some Clauses relating
to the Commons are inestimable, as "that a Juryman
shall have 20 l. per ann. of freehold to try a Commoner;" and, "that Counsel shall be allowed in Treason, &c." Colonel Sidney had not lost his life, if he
had had Counsel allowed him. Had that been four
years ago, it might have saved the life of many a Person. I hope you will take care for the future against
the same danger. A Commoner may except peremptorily against thirty five Jurors—I would have a good
correspondence with the Lords.
Sir William Williams.] I have a great Honour for the
Peers, and as far as with Justice I will do it. This Bill
is not only dangerous to the Commons, but to the Crown
too. There is a little sprinkling of Holy Water in this
Bill. It provides (as the Bill is penned) "that all manner
of crimes may be tried by the Peers." Though the
Preamble of the Bill tells you of Tryals of "capital
Crimes," yet the body of the Bill is "all Tryals"—
(He was in that mistaken) All Peers are on their Honour; and you alter the very Constitution of the Kingdom. It may so fall out that the number of Peers cannot be had, that this Law requires, and so there may be
a failure of Justice. The whole design of the Bill is, that
there may be a number of Peers, that may judge against
Law and Right. But can you give any one instance, that
any Peer, in our memory, ever miscarried upon the ancient way of Tryal? If we had found any lamentable experience and example of this ancient way of Tryal—but there
being none, why should you alter the Law for a bare suspicion only? In James II's time, Lord Brandon was found
guilty by his fellow Commoners, and condemned (fn. 1) : Lord
(fn. 2) by his Peers was acquitted. What advantage do we get by this Bill? We would have fair and equal Tryal, and shall we, in prejudice of the Commons,
give this challenge away? 'Tis almost impossible to
have just Tryal this way. The Peers are most of a blood,
(the ancient Peers) and so a Commoner can have no
fair Tryal against a Peer, and they have already more
Privileges than the Commons. You, by this, advance
the Peerage against the common right of the Commons, and make it neither in the power of the King,
nor the Commons, to bring a Peer to Justice. The Commons are straitened, and the Crown is straitened. How
many men have been undone by Scandalum magnatum!
Commoners have had 20,000l. verdict against them;
and a Peer thinks himself dishonoured unless the Jury
gives what he demands. I would rather provide against
these things. If the Lords will set a Limitation to
Scandalum magnatum; (it may lie twenty years, and they
may bring it about) if the Lords will agree that no
Words shall be scandal, but where an action may be
brought by a Commoner against a Commoner—Suppose
a Commoner say, "He cares for a Peer no more than
a dog," though a Peer call me rogue and rascal—
Let the Lords frame a fair Bill, and we will pass it. If
they will have ceremony, we will compliment them,
and stand bare in their Lobby, and the Painted Chamber, at Conference; but matter of right we shall dispute. Pray lay aside the Bill. What relates to the Commons that are Grievances already, your Bill may do;
and they are put into this Bill for a handle.
Sir Robert Howard.] By the consequence of Williams's
discourse, he is for the Bill and against it. I think the
Bill is rather descending to us than taking from us.
That of Scandalum magnatum added to the Bill may be
of use. The Bill does us no hurt. Methinks Juries of
finding the Scandalum magnatum at excessive damage, and
fines with salvo contenemento, may be remedied, and I
am for the Bill.
Mr Hampden.] I am not for throwing out the Bill,
nor for a second reading of it. Let it lie upon the
Table. I hear an instance of passing Lord Clarendon's Bill
of Banishment, &c. The House was then very thin.
All Clarendon's Friends were for passing it—A Relation
of Clarendon's for no passing it was at a distance—I am
not for throwing it out, nor for a second reading, for I do
not know the parts of it. Let it be well considered.
If you cast out the Bill, you can receive no Bill of this
matter this Session. I would read it a second time in a
Mr Finch.] I am for letting the Bill lie upon the
Table, and so be read in a full House. The objection
for throwing it out is, because the Peers have an equal
benefit with the Commoners, which is no objection. The
Number objected of the Peers, "that they may be sollicited to stay away, &c." they may be so to appear too. I
would have it lie upon the Table, and have a second
reading that we may be fit to speak to it.
The Speaker.] To let the Bill lie upon the Table,
and order it no second reading, I never saw. The proper
Question is, "Whether you will read it a second time."
Sir Christopher Musgrave.] The natural Question is,
"Whether you will read it a second time." The reason why you let the Bill lie upon the Table, after you
have read it, is, you are masters of the parts of it.
In former Parliaments, we were well acquainted with
this Bill. I would have a Question that every body
may be gratified in. I would adjourn the Debate.
[The Debate was adjourned till Monday Fortnight.]
In a Grand Committee on the Revenue.
Sir William Williams.] I take the Revenue to be
1,580,000l; out of this certainly I deduct the HearthMoney, 200,000l: Your immediate Charge then is
the constant Charge of the Crown. If you give the
Crown too little, you may add at any time; if once you
give too much, you will never have it back again. Therefore I would declare the constant Charge of the Crown.
Mr Sacheverell.] I agree, that it is necessary to consider the constant Charge of the Crown in time of Peace.
By the Charge of the Navy and Army in King James's
time, we cannot make computation, nor from the calculation made from King Charles's, when the Expence
was extravagant—Rather then compute the moderate
Charge in King Charles's time. I would know whether, in the years 1673, 74, 75, 76, the Customs did
not arise to as much as in all the severe way of management? 'Tis necessary that you agree what the common
Expence of the Government is, under Heads, as it was
drawn up in the time of Sir William Coventry; the Pensions were never heard of till Mr Guy's time. Expences
are much lessened, and the Revenue advanced. Bating
the Navy and the Army, I would see if the constant
Charge is not above 400,000l. per ann.—As if 600,000l.
for an Army for ever—To find all the Navy out of repair, and cost as much as when in service, I cannot agree.
Because the Army and Navy cannot but be maintained,
therefore I am of opinion, that the Navy and Army are
not to be considered in the constant Charge. I doubt
not but we shall give what is necessary; but I would
consider the Navy and Army as an extraordinary Charge.
Mr Guy.] I hear my name mentioned upon the head
of great Sums, though under the denomination of Secret Service—The reason was, to ease the charge of the
Great Seal: But, be it what it will, I am ready to give
account, to a penny, of what I received.
Mr Garroway.] I am ready to serve you to come to
an end. I agree not to the Medium; but if you will come
to make a Revenue for the King, we cannot say the
Revenue will stand to 1000, or 10,000l. there being
several variations of the Customs in several Years. We
are now providing for a War, and something of the
Revenue may be applicable to it. I except not against
the accounts of the several particulars of the small
branches of the Revenue, but I hope the King will contribute to the War as well as we; it is for his safety.
Shall we be worse husbands now, than in the late Kings
reigns, in all the extravagances of expences? Compute
the necessary Charge of the Crown, and let the remainder be applied to the Charge of the War.
Col. Birch.] I would refer all the Charge of the Government, and that of the Houshold, to the Privy Council, except that of the Navy, the Family that rises and
falls upon occasion. This being presented to the House,
you will immediately see the Charge; else you will be
long in your Resolutions.
Mr Harbord.] Here have been several Motions. You
may be sure, that the Money you give will not be spent
in debauchery and lewdness, but employed as you would
have it. Either to make particular provision, &c. or in
gross, I am indifferent. In another thing, you must
give the King your helping hand, or else you do nothing: There is a farm given out of the Customs to the
Dutchess of Portsmouth's children, which is the farmage
of Coals, and that is in Papists hands.
Sir Henry Capel.] You are pretty near a Question.
The establishment of the Government is agreed on all
hands: There remains nothing but provision for the
Ordnance, Army, and Fleet. Though in Peace you'll
allow for a summer-guard, and in winter for the safety
of trade: The Plantations, Indies, (and they had more
men of war there than we here) these are to be considered, in time of Peace, as part of the Government in
Peace. I do not understand, that what is established
for the Fleet and Ordnance is for the sum total of the extraordinary Charge. The Question is only now, of
having an account brought you. You will have no
head of it of Secret Service to trouble you. There must
be an Establishment for the Queen, and Princess Anne,
who has deserved very well of the Nation.
Sir Thomas Clarges.] What Charge is for the Fleet in
time of Peace, must go into that in time of War. There
is a Charge of the Ordnance of 80,000 l. per ann. for
Yatchs and Ketches, &c. The fairest way will be, to
agree a certain sum for the Revenue, and not meddle
with the distribution of it, and so refer it to the King;
who, if it be too little, will inform you by his Ministers, if it be wanting, and you may supply it.
Sir Thomas Lee.] I know not how the condition of
the War may leave you. I love not to please myself
with the names of a Navy and Army—But not so properly till we see how things stand abroad; how Alliances are concluded: But I think the Debate leads you
to consider of Ireland, and to support the Charge of this
year's War, and to know what of the Revenue will do.
What the constancy of the Revenue must be, men are
tender, but will be willing to supply the present emergency.
Sir Christopher Musgrave.] 'Tis absolutely necessary,
when you consider the Revenue, that you consider the
summer and winter-guard, and likewise the Ordnance
and Garrisons; and all these must be in your eye. As
for the Expences of the Civil Government, you have as
much before you as is desired. You must likewise consider the Queen, and the Princess of Denmark; and when
that is done, I would not be pinching to support the
Government at ease. I know we are under great necessities for raising Money, and for the Charge of the
Ordnance, I can do it to a farthing. I believe England
can never be without some standing force. I deal plainly
Mr Sacheverell.] I would gladly settle the Revenue;
but I would know, when you have voted the Sum for
the Revenue, how you can deduct any thing. Therefore I would have had Particulars.
Col. Birch.] I never was so puzzled in a Question,
in my life, as in this. We are establishing a Revenue,
as in time of Peace; pray God we may see it! I understand the Debate to be this; they that know the
Revenue, to bring in what Particulars there are for the
Government. I really would vote 1,200,000 l; and I would
have the World know that the King has such a Revenue;
and the Privy Council will tell you what is for the
Civil Government; else it is in effect to settle a Revenue
of 400,000 l. per ann. only.
Resolved, Nem. con. That it is the opinion of this Committee,
that there be a Revenue of 1,200,000l. per ann. settled upon
their Majesties, for the constant necessary Charge of supporting
the Crown [in time of Peace.]
[Agreed to by the House.]
[March 20 (fn. 3) Omitted.]
Friday, March 21.
Mrs Fitzharris at the Bar.] When Mr Fitzharris brought
home the Libel, he showed it to me. I asked him the design of it. He told me, "The King had employed him to
write it, and to convey it into Protestants houses, and the
pockets of the leading men of the Houses of Lords and Commons, who opposed the Duke of York's and the King's interest;
as the Earls of Bodford, Essex, and Shaftesbury." The King
told her husband, "He would make him greater than the Duke
of Albemarle: He brought the King into the Throne, but Fitzharris would keep him in it."—The King said, "He should die,
if there were no more men in the world, for discovering the
contrivers of the design."——The King and the Dutchess of
Portsmouth prosecuted him.—I was paid 10l. a week, whilst I
was in the Messenger's hands: I know not who paid it, only a
man came and asked for Madam Fitzharris, and I received it about a fortnight betwixt my husband's condemnation and his
death. I was importuned to persuade him to lay the Libel to
the Protestants charge. I was persuaded by Mr Seymour and
Sir Lionel Jenkins. I was threatened by Mr Graham, because I
would say nothing against Stephen College. My husband desired me to do justice to those that were like to suffer in the
City.—I absented myself privately for three quarters of a year,
and hearing that Lord Arran was to go Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, I would have addressed myself to him, but Sir Edward Fitzharris told me, Lord Arran would not see me without the King's
leave. Sir Stephen Fox took my children from me, and kept
them, and paid me my Pension no more; and told me, I must
have my children sent me again. By Dr Hawkins's (fn. 4) importunity, my husband accused the two Sheriffs of London, and Sir
Robert Clayton, and he promised him he should have a Pardon.
Seymour and Jenkins promised me to speak to the King; but
they did it to get me away. When I came to the Tower, I
found Dr Hawkins with my husband, who told me, He was sure
he should have a Pardon. I said, "Pray let not the Doctor delude you."—The Doctor told him, "There was no way to be saved but by accusing Lord Shaftesbury, and the rest of the Lords,
if he would but say, that the Protestants employed him."—I
met Seymour and Jenkins, who bid me not be frighted at the
taking away my Pension; I should be allowed 3l. 10s. out of
my estate. I said, that would not maintain us.—Jenkins said,
"I was against the King's interest, and too violent a Protestant."
I replied, "I know nothing of the Protestants, and should be a
mad woman to say what I knew not."—I was brought sometimes to Jenkins's lodgings, sometimes to Seymour's, and they retired with me into a room. They first promised me my husband's life, and that he should have honour and money; and
what I would ask after my husband's death.
Sir Joseph Tredenham.] She says, she was sollicited
by persons, whom she has named. To accuse persons,
and to examine, are two things. I would know, whether against any particular persons?
Mr Whitaker, the Attorney, at the Bar.] After the Oxford
Parliament, that Fitzharris was to be tried, it was desired by
several persons, that he should not be tried in the King's-Bench,
but, as he was designed, by the Impeachment at Oxford. By
means of the Warder's wife, he sent me a sheet of paper of the
matters he could say, viz. "That he was employed by the
King, the Dutchess of Portsmouth, and Mrs Wall, to disperse
the Libel; and that he had 200l. paid him by the King, at the
Dutchess of Portsmouth's chamber." I did what I could to
hinder the Tryal. I drew him his Plea, "That he was the same
Fitzharris who was impeached in Parliament."—He was put upon
his Tryal: Some were excepted against, as not Freeholders, by
the King's Counsel; and some excepted against peremptorily.
What Fitzharris would have had, was to let the Jury know what
had been done with him. After the Lords Howard and Shaftesbury were committed, I was sent for by a Warrant from the
Secretary. I insisted upon the Rights of the City, and was some
time at my Lord Mayor's.—I prayed, that I might go to a common Prison, but I was sent to the Tower, and kept with bread
and water, till I paid 40s. a week to the Warder, and 65l. to
the Lieutenant. Afterwards I did petition the Commission of Oyer
and Terminer, and was delivered by Habeas Corpus; and I sued
Sir Lionel Jenkins for false imprisonment. During this, my wife
took care of my Papers.—I employed Sir Robert Killigrew to
procure Fitzharris's Pardon.—My wife delivered him the Papers,
who delivered them to the King, and the King was very joyful
that he had them.
Sir Robert Killegrew, at the Bar.] I had several Papers delivered me by Mr Whitaker. By command of the King, I made
twelve journeys betwixt London, Hampton-Court, and Windsor.—
I had hopes of getting Fitzharris's Pardon, if I got the Papers—
They were very reflective things—Lord Halifax, Jenkins, and
Lord Rochester, read the Papers, and would not trust me with
them. I sealed them up, when I delivered them to Lord Halifax, and they opened them, and sealed them with Lord Halifax's
Teal, at Whitehall. At the Secretary's Office, the Lords delivered them to me, and I to the King, to whom I gave them.
He told me, it was well done, and gave me his hand to kiss.
Mr White, a Messenger of the Council, at the Bar.] Mrs Fitzharris's maid, and three of her children, were kept at my house
three weeks. Mr Graham, Mr Burton, and another came to her.—
I heard she had 3l. a week. I had orders to keep her close prisoner to all but them. They came to her once a week. They
were with her above an hour in private. I was paid by the King.
Sir Lionel Jenkins was paid by the Treasury, for keeping her and
her children.—She had 40s. a week, when she was a week out
of my custody.—Mr Squibb paid the money, and I knew she
lived upon it.
Mr Whitaker.] The substance of his Papers was, "That he
was employed by the King, and the Dutchess of Portsmouth,
that those Libels should be put into the persons pockets mentioned." I remember one of the persons, Seymour. Mr Bethel,
possibly, can give you information. I believe the Papers were
Mrs Fitzharris.] Mr Graham complimented me first, "That
my lodgings were not good." I said, "They were good enough
for a Prisoner."—Then he told me, "I must prepare to go to
College's Tryal." I said, "I could not swear against people I
knew nothing of." He said, "I was against the King's interest." I was sent for, or sent to, every day, to persuade me,
that Protestants had employed my husband, and I should be taken
care of, and my children; and that the King would be a father
to my children, and a husband to myself.
Sir Robert Clayton.] I would have Mr Bethel called in.
Sir William Williams.] I would have him examined,
to what he knows in relation of Fitzharris, when he was
(fn. 5) , at the Bar.] I did attend Mr Fitzharris, at his
instance, in Newgate. He said, "The King would hang him,
because he knew more of the Popish Plot than any man." He
would not tell me Particulars, but "that he would inform the
Parliament, on whom he relied for his safety."
Mr Harbord.] I observe, that, in Lord Russel's Tryal,
they would not have Freeholders on the Jury, for fear
they should save him; and they would have Freeholders
on this man's Jury, that they might hang him.
The farther Examination was adjourned till Thursday.
Mr Howe.] Had I not apprehended it for the service
of the King and Kingdom, I would not trouble the
House upon the Declaration spread about against the
King and Queen for King James. A Gentleman is
ready to prove, that one said to him, "That King
William would abdicate the Government in six months
time, and that King James would be at Whitehall." One
Bowtell heard Captain Motley say it.
[Mr Bowtell was called in.]
Mr Bowtell.] I heard Captain Motley say, "That in three
weeks time King James would be possessed of Whitehall; and that
King William would abdicate in three months." He said it at a
Coffee-house in Buckingham-Court. The woman of the house
heard all the words. He is a disbanded Captain. I know not
what Religion he is of. He is there every day; and he swore,
"Damn him, he would break my head, if I did not believe him."
Sir John Guise.] This Motley was in a seditious Regiment, and commanded in the Tower when Lord Lucas took possession of it.
Ordered, That Captain Motley be sent for in Custody of the
In a Grand Committee on the Supply for Ireland.
[Mr Hampden in the Chair.]
Sir William Williams.] All are agreed for a Supply;
'tis before you, the Sum and the Time. I need not go
into topics of the necessity of it, as it has been done
already by Mr Eyre. You have had Computations;
and you may conjecture, probably, what will do. 'Tis
your present consideration, whether you will give an
Aid for six months, or twelve; which I see is no great
difference—All of us have confidence in the King, as
a good husband. I would vote the Sum for twelve
months. If the King can spare any of the Money, in
reducing it, or scattering it amongst them, [he will]—But
I would have it from three months to three months,
not exceeding 600,000l. We may add when we please.
Mr Hampden.] The Sum computed is 640,000l.
Sir Robert Howard.] I would not have you make
good husbandry, at the expence of our own hazard.
'Tis said, "You may raise it at so much a Quarter."
You must consider, you cannot raise this but by annual
things. There is 600,000l. for the Dutch. The next
you are to raise, must be so much a year for so many
years. Ireland is not able, in the least manner, to afford
subsistence. Those who are up, and assist you, must have
Pay from you. He that has done so much for us, will
not turn upon us, to take any thing from us unreasonably.
Mr Garroway.] I would know upon what we are to
lay the Money, before we think of the way of raising
it, lest we should have recourse to Land-Tax at last. I
move, to raise 310,000l. for six months, and so from
six months to six months.
Sir Christopher Musgrave.] Not one point of the Estimate is disputed; but some part of the Charge cannot
come in the rest of the six months; all the rest to be
deducted from the rest of the six months. But I am for
the Question of the whole Sum.
Mr Harbord.] This 300,000l. will not carry your
Forces into Ireland. Persons have been sent into the
North of Ireland, and there are not Oats for your horses,
only Grass; they must be had out of Cheshire, Wales, and
Lancashire—Money must be spent in Bread, Barley, and
Beef—What with the Levy-Money and Arms, you will
not have one shilling to keep them the rest of the time.
They have Commissions in Ireland for 30,000 men; and
as soon as the King shall land these men, all must be
supported at the King's charge. This way will be fatal
to the King and yourselves.
Mr Hampden, jun.] The charge of one year is partly
agreed upon; and I think it must be for a year, for
this reason: 'Tis more than an Irish War; I think 'tis a
French War. The French King has carried King James
into Ireland; and there is no way possible to bear that
great Force, but by securing Ireland. You must give
the King such a fund of Credit, as that foreign Protestants may come into Alliance with him. Always,
the computation of Germany is for a Year; if for half a
Year only, no body will ever join with you. If for common defence, do it for a Year, that they may join with
you. Therefore I move for 700,000l.
Sir Joseph Tredenham.] If you had a prospect to end
the War in a Year, I would give it for a Year. I fear
it will be a longer time; and, let it cost what it will
cost, and for as long a time as it will, it must be maintained. You are told of "Oats, and other things;"
but the allowance to the Soldiers is what they subsist
upon, and their Pay discharges that. To vote, "That
you will supply the War from time to time," gives it
the greatest reputation imaginable—And I would maintain this War with the greatest ease to the People, that
you may have their hands and their hearts to assist you.
I speak not this to stop your Forces—But there were
formerly Reimbursements out of confiscated Estates,
upon Money lent here, upon those that have brought us
into this necessity. For six months I would give fully;
but, I hope, that Nation may maintain the War after
Sir Robert Howard.] What Garroway said is rational.
We are all of a mind for the whole, but the difference
is the provision for six months, &c.—We are, in effect,
paying a Land-Tax to our advantage in the sale of
Corn—'Tis true, a great deal of Money is to be raised.
—The Motion of not exceeding 700,000l. does not
hinder you from the manner of raising it. The next
thing will be, the way of raising it.
Mr Hampden, jun.] I fear the War will not be thoroughly begun in six months. Do you think the French
King will lay aside his fundamental policy; to keep you
in continual work, as he does in all other places?
Col. Birch.] What Sum soever you put, is alike to
me. We are to confederate; and will that give your
Alliance any encouragement? Will this be an encouragement to your friends, (I know not how many they
are) to tell them but of six months provision for the
War? The business cannot be well begun in six months.
I am far from thinking that six months will make an
end. You have Ireland, and the French, upon you.
This will be an encouragement to your enemies.
Mr Garroway.] You have now a Land-Tax, and you
have not appropriated one penny to the use you intended it yet; and if you take not up Money upon Interest, I know not where you will have it. This is not
all the Charge; it will cost you more.
Mr Sacheverell.] I have attended the Debate as well
as I could. I take it, that the Gentleman that moved
for six months, would raise men, and send them into
Ireland; and, if there is farther occasion, would comply
with the same Sum to go on, because he thinks that
necessary at the first beginning of the War, but not
afterwards. Those who stand up for a Previous Question, I would know whether they are not against the
Supply—I think these men cannot be sent over till the
latter end of the year, and keep the sea in the mean
time. I would, therefore, vote the six months Supply, and the rest I shall do as I think fit.
[The House agreed to 750,000l. &c.]
[March 23 omitted.]