Tuesday, December 17.
[Mr Hampden reports several Amendments to the Bill for continuing the collecting the public Revenue for a Year.]
Sir William Pulteney.] The Matter before you is of great
importance. I cannot agree, &c. to the Amendment of
the Bill, not to be determined by the ordinary Rules of
Westminster-Hall, but by the Government. There is a
known Hereditary Revenue, and settled by Act of Parliament. When King James abdicated the Government,
there was a Cessure of the Revenue, and it abated; but
when you filled the Throne, such as had legal Grants, they
were not determined; I know not, whether they can receive
the Revenue, but it is all the reason in the world that the
Crown should have a certain subsistence by Revenue. I
think, such a thing as the Revenue is not to be taken from
the Crown by implication. If the Chimney-Money must
be gone by the Abdication, you needed not to have made
an Act to take it away. If you continue the words "and
no longer," I fear, they will not only affect the Crown,
but the Subjects too, that have had Grants.
Sir William Williams.] To stop the mouths of People,
we are providing Laws against ill men, and for ill times,
and therefore it was thought convenient to put in the words
"and no longer." As to the new Revenue, the Customs
and Excise, some part of the Revenue follows the Crown,
as the shadow the body; but to say, therefore, all the Revenue does so, is no consequence. Qualify that supposed
Hereditary Revenue from the other, and I agree to it.
Says Pulteney, "This may shake Grants;" but if they be
good Grants by Common- Law, or Statute-Law, it shakes
no more but what you would have shaken.
Mr Finch.] I rise up to acquaint you how I apprehended the Revenue to be in 1688. When you come to say,
"That the Revenue shall be collected for one year, and
no longer," you determine the Hereditary Revenue. I
think we have Declaration upon Declaration, and that Matter is pretty well at peace in you. If you put in the words
"For one year, and no longer," you determine it. In the
Chimney-Bill, if the Revenue had determined, you needed
not that Act. If the Court of Wards was an Hereditary
Revenue, then that granted in lieu of the Court of Wards,
must be an Hereditary Revenue. Thompson says, "No
man will say, the Court of Wards was part of the King's
Revenue;" but it is the King's Tenure, and he has the profit of the Lands and Wards. For taking away the Grants
upon the Revenue, he is taking away the Revenue wholly
to cure them.
Sir Thomas Lee.] That which is granted for the preservation and good of the People, that ceases. I would willingly have the Long Robe inform us, whether those Grants
for King Charles II's, and King James's life, continue for
the King's life? I would have the Long-Robe distinguish.
If each of them subsist, this Act is wholly unnecessary.
As to what Finch says of the Chimney-Money, why did
the Parliament, 3 Charles I, mention "Quartering of foldiers," in the Petition of Right? I would make use of
this Debate. If any of them be out, all are out. The
Court of Wards, which was exchanged, was ancient in the
Crown, but I question whether the Crown had a right to
dispose of Wardships before they fall.
Mr Finch.] In the Petition of Right, one part is declaring an old Law, and another is making a new. The King
grants a Wardship cum acciderit, and that answers Lee.
Sir George Treby.] To these words "No longer." The
operation of these two words is to take away all the Inheritance of the Crown. To answer Lee's Question, the King
might release the Tenures of Inheritance of profit, that he had
by the Tenure, as he did Wardships to the Town of Yarmouth.
If the King can grant this, he may grant what is in lieu of
it. In the former Bill, which is the pattern of this, there
was some scruple made, whether they could safely collect
it, (as if it was a new thing that Kings have abdicated, and
given up their Crown before death.) All the nicety was
upon collecting the Customs and Excise "during King
James's life." Some were for the political life, others for
the natural; this had some doubt for the sake of the Officers, and therefore the Act was entitled, "For the better
collecting the Public Revenue." It was said, and with
great approbation, "We have Judges for life, and salaries, &c. how could that be, if it was not supposed the
Revenue was not hereditary?" You go on, and say,
"The King had not only delivered you from Popery and
Slavery, but you yielded to give the King Thanks, for re
leasing the Chimney-Money." The appropriating some
of the Revenue to pay King Charles II's servants, and the
Money to the States-General, by it you suppose the subsisting of the Revenue, and you applied it to these uses.
All Prerogatives and Advantages whatsoever follow the
Crown, and if they have the Crown, they have all that belong to the Crown. I think it strange, when a Bill
is brought in to satisfy a doubt, when, indeed, there was
none; but to grant a Revenue, and charge it when you
have done—will you determine the whole Revenue without
hearing Counsel for the King?
Sir William Williams.] Certainly some part of the Revenue is not alienable, and, no doubt, on the other side, the
King may extinguish his Wardships, by a Release; but,
whether the King may alien his Inheritance of Wardships,
is another subject: I doubt it much.
Sir John Trevor.] The Exception is a good Exception,
and I must apply something to the one and to the other.
I do agree, that "No longer" extends to all the Revenue;
that part hereditary and temporary too: I hope you will
not apply the same words to both. Under favour, this is
a new Government: I will not deny my opinion: It was so
in all broken times. In Edward II's time, &c. Edward III
took all the Revenue, being in possession of the Crown.
Henry IV and Edward IV took it; and the Revenue continues when the Crown is upon any man's head. The opinion has been in Westminster-Hall, "That the Revenue
continues," and the Customs were paid after the death of
Charles II. Unless you put the words "No longer," in
negative words, and let it go so.
Mr Sollicitor Somers.] If Trevor's doctrine be true,
we do grant this away for ever, by the words of the
Act. In the Customs, the Grant lasts for life, and no
longer, and no doubt of it. Now, for the Revenue granted
for King James's life, whether it lasts longer than his Reign?
The Revenue of the Crown of England is granted as in the
King's Politic Capacity as to an Incorporation. This will
be of so terrible a consequence, that, I hope, you will leave
out the words "No longer."
Sir John Trevor.] I did not broach that doctrine. I use
not to broach doctrines. I said, "That it was the opinion in Westminster-Hall, in King James's time;" and, "that
unless you put negative words in the Grant—it was subsisting." If the words were necessary then, they are as necessary now—The Revenue was collected in King James's
time, and after Charles II's time.
Mr Garroway.] I think Trevor in the right. There was
a Grant of the Customs of the Currants in King Charles I's
time; several were imprisoned for not paying the duties,
though granted for years only. The Expedient may be in
the end of the Bill, viz. "That this shall last for one year,
and no longer," and so leave it as you found it, and you'll
do no hurt.
[The Amendments were rejected.]
On the Clause for saving Princess Anne's Patent, or Grant, &c.
Mr Boscawen.] I have as high an esteem for the Prince
and Princess of Denmark, as any man; and I would be
understood not to speak with reflection. For the first part
of the Clause, the Committee had no power to confirm the
Patent. To confirm this, implies a diffidence in the King
and Queen. If the Hereditary Revenue be not fallen, it is
still in being.
Mr Hampden.] Your Instruction to the Committee was
nothing but "To provide a Pension for Princess Anne for
a whole year;" and this Clause is not brought in according to that Instruction.
Sir Henry Capel.] I hear there is a Patent for this Pension, but to take notice of it here, is an extraordinary thing,
and the improperest thing to be joined with this Bill; it is
joining brass to clay, and not justisiable in the nature of it.
There is an expression in the Paper, which is an interdictive
to the second Clause of the Bill: What authority that honourable Lord (Cornbury) has to bring it in, I know not;
but I am sure he ought to have good Warrants. If your
hands are tied up to such a Clause, where is the Money to
be received? In the Excise-Office? I do not know more
Exchequers than one. Have a care; by the course of the
Government of the Exchequer, any man may know what
the receipts are, and see how Money goes out; at the Excise-Office they will not show their books. This may be
a countenance to other Grants of King James, which, I
hope, you will not allow. Upon the whole, I think it
much better to say this aside wholly. I would do that
which should express respect and bounty, but this is not a
proper time. In this great Revolution, this Prince and
Princess were great instruments in delivering us from Popery and Slavery. 'Tis true, we are delivered from Popery and Slavery here, but there is another Kingdom that
lies under it: Now every body, the very farmer, retrenches
in his family, and trade is grown low, but when it is a proper time, no man shall be more ready to increase the Princess's Revenue, than myself; but I do say, there may be a
time when the hearts of People will go more with such a
thing, and, I believe, it will be more acceptable to this
Prince and Princess. This is very surprizing: As to our Constitution of the Exchequer, I would have it be more consonant to the Government, that there may be no gift of Money here but to the Crown. Let the Preamble mention all
respect imaginable, that the Arrears may be paid, and
address the King for a Revenue for the Prince and Princess,
for this year, such as the King shall judge necessary, this
exigency of Affairs of the Kingdom considered; and hereafter it may be thought of; and, in the mean time, address
to the King to this purpose.
Mr Foley.] I think here are two Exceptions not to be
answered. The first is, I think this Clause was not brought
in according to Order. This Clause confirms the Letters
Patent to the Princess, and the Heirs of her body, and that
is against the Order, the Bill being but temporary. Next,
I hope, though the merits of this Princess be great, yet that
you will not break Orders of Parliament, when the Letters
Patent were never read, which, by this Clause, you confirm, whether good, or no, and you know nothing that is
contained in them.
Sir Thomas Clarges.] There is little difference betwixt
this Grand Committee and the House, only that in this the
Speaker is not in the Chair. Your Order is, "To provide
for the Prince and Princess for one whole year," and the
Patents are confirmed but for a year, and no more. I
take it, this Patent was possessed and legally invested in her.
But "that, without reading the Patents, you cannot confirm them," that is a mistake. In the Parliament of Henry
VIII and Edward VI, where Letters Patent were granted
from such and such a Prince to such a time, it is impossible
they should be all read. By the Statute for Confirmation
of all Cathedrals, and Colleges, from Henry III's time to
Henry VIII, they were all confirmed. It is said, "That
now it is not a seasonable time;" but is it not seasonable
that the Prince, and Princess, and the Duke of Gloucester,
should have meat, drink, and cloaths? This Revenue is
not very extraordinary, considering their quality. We are
not to say here, "That the King was not consulted in this."
I hope it will never be admitted, that we should take Instructions from the King to pass Bills here. There was
24,000 l. a year charged on the Post-Office for the Duke
of York, in lieu of the Charge upon the Excise, and the
Exchequer never took see of it. I think this is so just and
so honourable to their merits, who forsook all their pomp,
father, and mother, for our Laws and Liberties, with their
lives too, in this Revolution, that I would agree to the Clause.
Mr Hampden.] I think this very hard, to pay this
70,000 l. this year: In the state you are in, it is a very
great hardship to the King and Kingdom. I shall deal as
generously in the Offices I am in, as any man that would
be in Office. I meddle not with this Patent; I think it a
good Patent, but not regular to confirm it here. You
charge this Branch of the Revenue with this; will you say
the King shall receive for his Civil List the other Part?
The Queen then has not received this 70,000 l. If it be
looked into, you shall see what is done. You have granted
two shillings per pound, &c. and the King has liberty, by
that Act, to take up 300,000 l. He has but betwixt this
and Saturday next to take it up, and I guess very largely
if there be 100,000 l. and that is to pay Ireland, and Holland, and the Army here. How much will be left of your
two shillings per pound? The Excise that goes out, suppose 14,000 l. per week, that must go towards paying this.
The Customs are 200,000 l. per ann. less this year than formerly, and here is all to maintain what I have told you.
This is a melancholy prospect. I move, to have the Letters Patent recited, and this Clause recommitted, and so
much as they have by the Patent to be received, and no
Mr Ettrick.] I know not that the Methods of the Exchequer are more broken by this, than by Privy-Seals; but
the most weighty Objection is, want of Money. As for
Capel's joining "brass with clay," I am sorry Capel's opinion is, that no part of it is hereditary; we should have
gone a little farther, had it not been for the necessity, viz.
the whole Revenue that was formerly the Duke of York's.
Col. Birch.] My affections at that time did, in a great
measure, captivate my reason. Since that, we have had
time to sleep, and my affections stand as high as ever they
did. As to this Patent, the Question is, Whether this Debate, as the Case stands, is seasonable? I cannot but admire at my own weakness when they all agree (and something gives them cause that I do not see.) I would do no
no prejudice to this Patent, but I would augment the
Princess's Revenue; but can any body say, this is seasonable? Now our condition is low, will this turn to sense,
to be so lavish to throw away 40,000 l. per ann. when
the King wants for his and our protection? Is this like
to create a good understanding with the King? Give me
leave to go a little farther: I would lay aside the whole
Clause, and represent to the King the condition of the
Princess. The Dutchess of Cleveland had a Pension on the
Excise; I told her, "It could not be, for it was contrary
to Law, and she must go to the Exchequer." I never made
up any Account from the Excise but to the Exchequer,
neither can I. Our necessities are beyond expression. I
cannot answer it, but to lay aside this Clause, and go to
the King, &c.
Sir Robert Cotton.] This Debate is, as if 20 or 30,000 l.
would save, or lose, the Kingdom. The Duke of Schomberg was taken notice of in particular, and had 20,000 l.
paid him, for his great generosity in coming over. King
James withdrew the Princess's Exhibition for some time, and
now it would be hard to lessen it.
Mr Hampden, jun.] For want of union in Royal Families, ill men have made use of it, and have either ruined,
or given a great shake to them. There was a good understanding betwixt Lewis XIII, and his brother, the Duke
of Orleans, who had a great Appanage: One Abbot Rivier was about the Duke of Orleans; what use made they
of this? It proved the effusion of a great deal of blood
in France. This King of France (a great Politician) never
gave his brother such a Revenue, but a dependent Revenue, and he has lived well and easily with him, but dependent upon him. I know no other way, but to compare
the past with the present. We know how in England the
Contest was kept up between the Houses of York and
Lancaster—The Princess has contributed very much to this
Revolution; therefore I would put no difference in the
Royal Family. There was a Motion, "That the Queen
might have 100,000l. per ann. distinct from the King;"
but the Queen was willing to be without it. This Queen's
Revenue is anticipated, and yet she sits still without this.
The Duke of Schomberg had a considerable sum given him,
and do you think that the King and the Queen will not
have more affection for their sister, than for Duke Schomberg? I would lay aside the Clause.
Mr Sollicitor Somers.] The Proviso is of two parts;
one to confirm Letters Patent, and the other for an
additional Revenue for the Princess. It is said, "It
was never the intention of the House that the Letters Patent should be declared good, and, therefore, not to be
considered." If they were not referred to the Committee, no notice can be taken of them. I have heard of an
attaint, and men never answered to it, condemned unheard, and so of Patents: I have heard the Patents read,
and, I believe, if they had been settled in the name of another man, they would have been much more for their
advantage and satisfaction. Therefore that is one reason
why I would not read them. It has been said, "We are
not to ask the King's mind what to do here;" but if any
man take upon him to say, "It is the King's mind," we
ought to enquire whether it be true. We have Messages
from the King on other occasions, and why not on this?
In the Case of the Duke of York's Grant, &c. there was
a Contract brought into the House betwixt the King and
the Duke. No man can more honour the Prince and
Princess, or is more highly sensible of her quitting her
King, and Father, than I, when I consider she had heard
so much of Divine Right from the Clergy. Granting a
Revenue, by Act of Parliament, to a Subject, is always dangerous in this House. Though that of the King and the
Duke was a Contract expressly recited, "Such Letters Patent as the King should hereafter grant;" yet it gave
power in the Act, to the King, to make that Settlement;
and, I hope, it will be always done with the same security
to the King, and satisfaction to the People. Here is a necessity of providing for the Royal Family. The Crown
has always taken care of the several branches of it, by Offices, &c. and nothing can make all the Royal Branches
depend upon the Royal Family more. The King must
retrench, and so large a proportion to one of the Royal
Family! I hope the Princess may have many Dukes, a
large and a numerous issue, and that a Revenue may be
provided for them; but for so large a Revenue to be
granted now, by the Precedent of the Duke of York, is
of dangerous consequence, and was the beginning of our
miseries that we afterwards felt.
Sir Edward Seymour.] I wonder now, and it is matter
of surprize to me, not to agree with the Committee. The
objection is, the irregularity of the Proviso; I say, it is
regular, and, if it was otherwise, it is irregular. How
can we provide for the Princess, and leave the Patent doubtful? It is objected, "It was never known that a Patent
was confirmed, and never read;" it was offered to be read,
and now made use of as if he had an Act of Parliament
for it, and it tumbled down the stairs. If you will lay
the Act of Parliament, in the Excise, a good payment, without the Exchequer, it is good, and they dare not deny the
payment. Having gone thus far, I have one Argument,
that if those who have done and suffered so much for the
Protestant Religion, shall not have marks of your Favour,
I hope they shall of your Justice.
Mr Hampden, jun.] I think, Seymour has spent so much
time in the West, (He had been long absent) and as Speaker
of the House, that he has not had time to read History.
Sir Edward Seymour.] At least, I hope to make better
use of what I have read than that Gentleman.
Mr Finch.] If the Duke of York, the Heir presumptive
of the Crown, engaged in an interest against the Kingdom,
should have such a Grant; sure that has greater force when
Persons support your Laws and Liberties. Which way
should this Proviso have been brought in? Will you include or exclude these Patents? If you exclude the Patent,
you must mention the Patent. It was said, "If they are
not good, you ought to make them good by Law;" and
I desire this Law may do it. It is said to be "of dangerous consequence to provide for the King's children;" if
the Parliament will not, and the King cannot, how shall
they be provided for?
Mr Hawles.] When Charles V, in his Will, gave great
portions to his Children, Cardinal Guimeni said, "If you
provide thus, your son may set up for himself."
Mr Godolphin.] I am for agreeing to the Proviso. It is
said, "This is not agreeable to your Order." By Rule,
when you grant Money you are to go into a Committee of
the whole House; and that is an Objection against the
whole Bill. The Method proposed the last Session was
part of the Revenue for life, and part for years: I am
sorry that was not then complied with, which will be
looked on oddly abroad by your Allies; will they be with
you for your Revenue for a year, and no longer? The
greatest part of disturbance is usually for persons not at
their ease: Let the Princess be at ease. I believe, the
King will not give so great a sum as this, but at the recommendation of this House.
Mr Attorney Treby.] I would leave this to farther consideration, and recommit it. I find Gentlemen, in the fashion, making consession of their Faith.
When the Rights of Monarchy are invaded, and the Rights
of the People, I think not fit for this company—If I call
the Princess's virtues Apostolical, I am not amiss. She
left her Father, her beloved Mother, and dear half-Brother, for the Protestant Religion. This may tend to lay
a foundation of distrust between the King and the Princess, and then that shakes what we must all be safe in.
Under colour of a year's Revenue, by this you bring in
a Clause of Perpetuity. I think the Patent not invalidated
by leaving out this Clause.
Mr Comptroller Wharton.] "What is orderly is not against the Order of the House, but the Orders of the
Court!" (Said by Lord Falkland) I was never ordered by
the Court, and never will be.
Lord Falkland.] I did not say, "Any body was ordered
by the Court," but "If as agreeable to the Orders of the
House, as to the Orders of the Court, you had not had
this Debate." I meant the Order of "the Exchequer-Court:" I never followed the Orders of the Court in King
James's time) nor gave my consent to bring a Person into
that Parliament, though I was promised I should be a Peer
Mr Godolphin.] 'Tis slyly insinuated by Treby, as if I
was one for taking away Charters: But to condemn a Person whom the Parliament have voted innocent!——
Mr Attorney Treby.] I was so far from having him in my
thoughts, that I heard him not. As to Lord Russel, if
my Lord was here, he would declare I had Lord Russel's
Case; and I had Lord Russel's Case, and his Counsel's consent for what I did.
Mr Garroway.] If it were possible, I would have no
Question. The King will hear what we do. I fear, a
Question may make divisions. Hereafter, the King will
take care of the Princess, and pray adjourn the Debate.
[The Bill was recommitted on the above Clause, 190 to 127.]
Wednesday, December 18.
In a Grand Committee. On the recommitment of the Bill for
Col. Birch.] I conceive you have Order to debate, or
lay aside, the whole Clause relating to the Princess. I
think it is far better to debate the whole Clause; it will
prevent loss of time and misunderstanding—There may be
honour to the Princess, and no benefit. Let Gentlemen
consider the scope of the Debate yesterday, viz. "That it
may be with honour to the King, and a noble subsistence
for the Princess." I would rather lay it aside, or make an
humble Address to the King, that her Arrears may be paid,
and a continuation of her Pension.
Sir Christopher Musgrave.] I think, Birch has misled
you; to debate it Paragraph by Paragraph, is the usual method: Two have relation to one another, the others are
distinct, and have none. Debates move regular if they
are kept to the strict Proposition: For that which relates to
other Patents, it does not strengthen them, but rather
weakens them, this Patent being directly named, and no
more confirmed. In private Bills, you admit of saving
Rights, and much more should in this.
Sir William Leveson Gower.] I move, that you will
confirm the Patent, in consideration of the Treaty between
the two Crowns of England and Denmark, for provision
of younger children. Here is but 30,000l. per ann. on
this consideration. The Duke of Schomberg is General,
and General of the Ordnance, the best places in England:
I grudge them not the Duke; but shall we not confirm,
now-we have 10,000 Danes sent over to fight for us? I
would know whether it was agreed, that this Patent should
be confirmed by Act of Parliament? I suppose, when the
Articles of Marriage were made, they intended to rely
upon the King and the Patent; and, I think, it is as much
reason now to do it, and they may have as good effect of
it. It cannot be supposed but that the Princess may have
better effect of this Patent, now she is of the same Religion with her Sister, than when she was of a different Religion from her Father. When you settle the King's Revenue, it will be the proper consideration, that she have
subsistence for a Year—I desire that it may run plain, free,
and clear, that it may last no longer than that term; it is
in proportion, what you intend for either King or Queen.
I move, "That you will order the Committee to draw up a
Clause, or by Address to the King, that this Allowance
to the Princess may be free and clear, in such proportion, as large as it can go, for this Year, the condition of
the Kingdom considered."
Sir Christopher Musgrave.] I am not for putting the Patent in better condition than it was before, nor worse: If is
be the same as it was before, I am not against it.
Mr Garroway.] I am one of those that would have the
Patent no better, and no worse. I desire only a saving the
Patent, and I shall offer some words to it, viz. "That the
Patent remain in as full force as it was before, notwithstanding this Act."
Sir Thomas Clarges.] Since the Treasury may be streightened by this Proviso, as it is apprehended, I do not believe
this Revenue was in the Crown in 1688; and, since it is
said not to be in the Treaty, I hope they may provide for
themselves by Proviso, as in private Acts. These are Letters Patent upon valuable considerations. I know, a Clause
in an Act of Parliament may take away the benefit of
any Great Seal—These Patents are said to be "a Perpetuity," and, I think, this Clause offered is a reasonable
Clause. Though the King has taken great care of the
Princess, yet others have not; she has not yet had Michaelmas quarter; and now it is within ten days of Christmas.
Mr Sacheverell.] I am surprized at what I heard this
morning. Here are words offered neither to confirm nor
Invalidate the Patent. It is said by another, "He would
confirm the Patent," but that is more than you intend;
therefore it is necessary to know the next Clause, what
this is, that Gentlemen talk of a saving. If there be a good
Title to these Patents, I cannot agree to confirming them,
and there is no need of that nor the other. Let us know
whether we shall confirm, or not confirm them.
Sir Henry Goodricke.] I am against the salvo of Marriageconsideration, but if to be left in the state you found it
in, what is the meaning of the saving? There is something in the grass. There are certain Persons put in Trustees for this Patent, that are under illegal capacities, not
qualified by the Test. There is one that is abroad (Lord
Sunderland) especially; will you put them in a capacity
of this Trust? I am not willing they should be taken notice of. I discover more; if this Contract of Marriage
be allowed by you, every Prince that treats Marriage with
you, will have it, as at Paris, registered in the Court of
Parliament. By this, you will put the Crown upon hardships.
Mr Finch.] I perceive, it is every body's opinion to do
no advantage nor disadvantage to the Patents. All men
are of opinion that this Clause will do no hurt. If any of
these Trustees are in an incapacity, the others being not,
you confirm such only as are capable by Law. If Trustees are attainted, it voids their Trust, but it invalidates not
Sir William Williams.] I am clearly for saving the Right
of the Patents, and let them stand or fall upon their own
bottom. There may be a jealousy, but, I suppose, the
design is, that the collection of the Revenue shall not hinder the Patent from its vigour and strength. I would
postpone this Clause.
Sir Thomas Lee.] According to the true Rules of Order, you are out of the way. I take it, when it is recommitted, it is as when first brought to the Committee.
After all of it is gone over, Gentlemen may present a
Sir Christopher Musgrave.] I think you have nothing
committed to you but the Clause. I move, to have it
Sir Thomas Lee.] I will only justify point of Order.
Why was it recommitted? It was, because it went farther
than the House ordered.
Sir William Williams.] The Clause provides more for
the Princess, than the King; therefore I would lay it aside.
Sir William Leveson Gower.] I offer these words to the
Clause, "That, whereas the Prince and Princess have
been highly instrumental in this happy Revolution, the sum
of * * * * be given them, &c."
Sir Thomas Lee.] I think an Address to the King as
strong as any thing you have had proposed, but to enact
this Clause, is not leaving it to the King; he must do it, or
part with the Bill. In the case of the Duke of York, that
was mentioned, the Commons did not grant it to him, but
desired the King to confirm such Letters Patent. Pray
look over that Grant, and make it so, as that the King
makes the Grant.
Mr Garroway.] I would have the Clause run in this Bill,
"That the King would order so much Money as we shall
name in this House;" such a Clause, I think, as obligatory as an enacting Clause. Again, I would name a sum
that the Prince and Princess may have so much for this
Year, that the King be enabled to appoint that sum you
shall name, by quarterly payments.
Mr Comptroller Wharton.] I am sorry for the Debates
and heats yesterday; I feared an ill consequence, but, I
hope, there will be none to-day. As for the Motion I
made, I had not been at the Court of Exchequer, nor the
Court at Kensington, for it, but I heard the King say, "He
would be content that the Prince and Princess should have
an allowance for their subsistence:" And I move for an
Address accordingly. I have no Orders to propose it, but,
as from myself, I move, "That they may have the addition of 20,000l. per ann."
Resolved, That an humble Address be made to his Majesty, that
he will be pleased to make a Provision for the Prince and Princess
Anne of Denmark, of 50,000l. [in the whole, for the year,]
beginning at Christmas next. [Agreed to by the House.]
December 19, and 20, Omitted.]
Saturday, December 21.
On the State of the Nation.
[Mr Hampden reports, from the Committee, the following Address, which he read in his Place; and afterwards delivered the
same in at the Clerk's Table:
"We your Majesty's most dutiful Subjects, the Commons, in
Parliament assembled, having seriously taken into our consideration
the State of the Nation, and being deeply sensible of the ill conduct
of public Affairs, and the unhappy success of them, as well in reference to Ireland, as to your Majesty's Armies and Fleet, do
think ourselves obliged, in duty to your Majesty, and in discharge
of the Trust reposed in us by those we represent, most humbly to
lay before your Majesty the (inexpressible) wrong that hath been
done to your Majesty, and your People, and the present imminent
danger of this Kingdom, and of all your Majesty's Protestant Subjects, from the want of ability or integrity in those who have had
the direction of the said Affairs, and by whose Advice not only the
reducing of Ireland has been obstructed, but the Treasure of this
Kingdom wasted, and the lives of many brave Soldiers, and able
Seamen, lost, without any such such suitable Effect as might reasonably have been expected.
"We cannot but reflect, with the utmost grief, upon the neglect of relieving Ireland, during the first months of your Majesty's
Administration, when your Majesty's Ministers did not use such
effectual means as were apparently necessary to have prevented a
War in the said Kingdom: And, when the Earl of Tyrconnd had
levied Forces to oppress and destroy your Majesty's Protestant Subjects, neither Men, Money, nor Arms, were, for a long time,
sent to enable them to defend themselves and their Country; insomuch, that, without mentioning other Particulars, several thousands
of them perished miserably in the Town of Londonderry, for want
of timely succour (fn. 1) : And when, after many neglects and delays,
an Army was appointed for Ireland, necessary Provisions were wanting, and Matters so ordered, that the Endeavours of your Parliament, and the Supplies granted for that Service, proved ineffectual;
at the same time that many such experienced Officers, as were known
to be Enemies to your Majesty and your Government, were suffered to go beyond the Seas, where they entered into the late King
James's Service, and have, since that time, been his chief Instruments for carrying on the War in Ireland.
"The Miscarriages in reference to the Fleet, have been as destructive to your Majesty's and your People's Interest, as those in the
Army; many of your Majesty's Subjects having been ruined, and
others greatly damaged in their Estates, by the want of Station-Ships
and Convoys; and some Sea-Officers, whose duty it was to have
convoyed the Ships of English Subjects, exacted Money from Merchants, and unnecessarily pressed their Men (fn. 2) ; by which means,
Trade was discouraged, your Majesty's Customs diminished, and
many of your loyal Subjects impoverished: Your Majesty's Fleet
was also served with unwholesome and corrupted Provisions (fn. 3) , which
caused the death of many of your best Seamen, and has deterred
many others from the Service.
"It will be too tedious to multiply instances of Miscarriages and
ill conduct in your Majesty's Affairs, through the ill Advice of
those who have undertaken the Management of them, to which the
Success, in all Points, has been answerable.
"Our remedy, under God, consists in your Majesty's Wisdom,
and Affection to your People; which, we doubt not, will incline
your Majesty to hearken to the Advice of us, your dutiful Commons, who do most humbly beseech your Majesty to take the abovesaid Matters into your Consideration; and, in your great Wisdom,
to examine into, and find out, the Authors of Miscarriages, and to
appoint Affairs to be managed by Persons unsuspected, and more to
the Safety of your Majesty, and the Satisfaction of your Subjects."]
Mr Howe.] I find we are in many streights, and this
Address is to remove suspected Persons. I have not seen
much success from Addresses this Session, especially when
we addressed to know who recommended Shales
(fn. 4) , and the
King "cannot possibly give you an Answer." This must be
answered with another Question; Who they are you suspect? Partly on one side, and partly on another, and a
moderate party suspects them both. If you would remove
all the fat and the lean, all fair and brown, then I shall
know who you mean. All that were for King James, and
all that are for himself, that those should be forced out and
removed—Pray let the Address lie upon the table till it
falls under the table; it is the best use you can make of it.
Serjeant Maynard.] The Prince of Orange's coming in
was a miracle, and that those that helped him in were not
destroyed. The Address about Shales came to nothing,
and, as for the Money you have given, I know not what is
become of it. When Henry IV came in, upon Richard II's
Abdication, a Parliament was in being, but the Writ fell
upon it; but that Parliament sat, and Laws were executed that they made, and are Laws to this day. The Commons addressed, "That his Confessor might be removed
quite from him;" the Lords joined with them. The King
answered, "He knew no fault by him, but since the Commons did suspect him, no man should abide in his House
to the displeasure of his Commons." There were two
Popes at one time, and Europe was divided upon it; the
Commons made a Request to the King to acknowlege the
Anti-Pope. Now I have told you this, make what use of
it you please.
Sir Thomas Lee.] About a week since, you ordered this
Address (fn. 5) , and the House was extraordinarily unanimous
in so great a thing; but it seems to me now that there are
more doubts in it than did arise at first. All this will require some consideration who you shall fasten upon; else,
you will alarm the Nation at the same time. If you change
your minds in this Address, it will look like coldness; if
the business of the day be retarded, you will hinder that
great Affair. I move, "That you will adjourn this till after
Mr Hawles.] Some Charters were granted by the late
King—Some were very ill Trustees in the management of
the Revenue; if you continue them still, you ought to see
first who the Persons are. We have had no effects, this
Parliament, of our Addresses but one, and that was against
(fn. 6) . Many Preferments have been to Bishopricks;
Mr Johnson has not been preferred. If you go on, on a general Address, I doubt you will have the same success. It
was said by an old Gentleman, "It was one of the best
Acts one of the present Ministers ever did, to endeavour
a reconciliation between King James and the Prince of Orange;" I think, those that did it ought to have no Preferment; and you have some in Westminster-Hall, where honest men ought to be. I would not have ill men either in
Westminster-Hall, or Whitehall. Do you think fit that Mr
Blaithwaite should be in office to govern all the Army?
If there had been a reconciliation betwixt King James and
the Prince of Orange, what would have become of the
People? They had been in worse condition than before, and
the end of that would have been a Common-wealth. The
very Papers in Col. Sidney's closet, tending to that, judged
him guilty of Treason. The People will find a Head, or
make a Head. I am sure it is very natural, that those
Gentlemen so employed did what they could to obstruct
the Bill of Exclusion; not a man of them can draw ten
men after them. When the Prince of Orange came in, by
the good will of the People, they were for a Regency, and
that is a Common-wealth. I am for removing those, for,
I am sure, they are for a Common-wealth.
Mr Foley.] The Address, by your Vote, is to be considered to-day, and last night the Votes went all over the
Nation, and shall we now put this off? I see no reason
for it; the sooner it is done, the People will be better satisfied. Pray go on with it.
Mr Hampden, jun.] Though it has been moved to put
this Address under the table, (by Howe) I know not the
reason of it; it is incomprehensible to me: I would know
the meaning of it.
Sir Richard Temple.] I fear, that, by this Address, you
will make reflections on the Government; you cannot
cure it, now you have read it. Go to the Order of the
Day, and read it when the House is full.
Sir William Leveson Gower.] If this be pursuant to your
Order, we reflect on ourselves not to proceed: Read the
Address, Paragraph by Paragraph: But let not such a reflection lie upon us, to let such a thing lie still; and now
to go upon another thing.
[Resolved, That the Address be read a second time, Paragraph
The first Paragraph was read.
Sir John Guise.] Now we are going to press hard upon
all the Counties of England, they should be satisfied that
you put their Money into hands unsuspected. If the Address be not full enough to your opinion, recommit it.
Serjeant Wogan.] I cannot call this an Address; it is a
Libel, in some part of it: Pray recommit it.
Sir Robert Rich.] I think, the Gentleman calls it "a Libel." The Commons now sit "On the State of the Nation," and a Member calls it "a Libel!" I move, That
the standing Orders of the House, in such cases, may be
Sir William Williams.] I am sure, freedom of Debate is
the life of this House. I must agree, that, if an Act, or
Vote, of the House be called "a Libel," it is a great offence; but when things are in fieri, (a doing,) Gentlemen
may use sharp arguments in that case.
Serjeant Wogan proffering to speak,
Col. Birch.] Pray keep to Order. If the words be agreed by the House, then you hear him, but not till then.
Mr Smith.] I will not justify the words, but I would not
be too severe upon the Gentleman. I remember several expressions this Session: I desire the Gentleman may explain
Sir John Guise.] If Wogan cannot find wherein the Order of the House is transgressed by the Committee that
drew the Address, it is a reflection upon the whole House.
When within doors this is called "a Libel," what will it
be called without doors? I think there is so much weight
in the Address, that it is, whether you will continue King
William, or call in King James. I would not have it
slight or light, but it cannot be valued without doors—
I would have Wogan ask the Pardon of the House in his
Serjeant Wogan.] I humbly ask Pardon of the House if
I gave offence.—And so this went off.
Mr Foley.] I wonder, Gentlemen are for recommitting
this Address, and yet find no fault with it. What has
your Committee to do to draw an Address without your
Sir William Williams.] The Exception to it is, "That
it is not home enough:" I take it, it agrees with every particular of the Debate. I took it for the sense of the House,
that the Committee should name no Persons. If your
Committee had prepared you such an Address, it had been
Mr Howe.] I told you before, "That the King would
make no Answer to your former Address." I suspect a
sort of men about the King and Queen that are not sit to
be employed, who were for taking away the Test, and the
Penal Laws, and for the Dispensing Power, and taking away Charters. They cannot be suspected to be for King
William, for they have acted as if for King James. If
these men are fit to be entrusted, say so; but if the King
please to enquire, and turn them out, that is fit to be Instructions to the Committee.
Mr Hawles.] I reflect upon nobody in the House; but,
if it be your opinion not to continue those about the King,
that had a hand in Murders, say so. If they have given
Money for their Places, let them be rejected.
In the first Paragraph, the word "inexpressible" was rejected.
On the next, "Direction of Affairs, &c."
Mr Hampden, jun.] Lowther said, "There was good
Counsel, but ill Administration." Was the King counselled to send men and provisions into Ireland timely? If
so, then there was some counter-counsel.
Sir Richard Temple.] To what purpose should you put
the King to examine it, when you have determined it already? To lay such a Charge is not a necessary direction
to the Committee. Possibly, great Miscarriages have been,
but such as could not be avoided. Here you assert
"Want of integrity and ability;" you settle the matter of
fact, without making any enquiry.
Mr Foley.] When the Prince of Orange came to the Administration of the Government, there was great store of
ammunition and provision that came from Holland; and
ships at Plymouth were ready, but nothing must be done;
so they suffered the poor people there to be lost, and, notwithstanding, all the Addresses, you had a Report that the
provisions were bad, and, therefore, fit to be sold. I think
the King has those about him that betray both King and
People, and shall nobody be to blame? Lay the Miscarriages before the King, and he can tell who were forward,
and who were backward, in his service: And I think the
Committee has done well.
Resolved, That the Address be recommitted, upon the Debate of
the House, to the same Committee.
[December 23 The King passed three Bills, in the House of Lords,
and the Commons afterwards adjourned for a week]
[Monday, December 30.
The Speaker reports, That he had attended his Majesty with the
Address relating to the Prince and Princess Anne of Denmark; and
that his Majesty was pleased to return this Answer:
"Whatsoever comes from the House of Commons is so agreeable
to me, and particularly this Address, that I shall do what you desire
December 31, January 2, 3 (fn. 7) , 4, 7, 8, and 9, Omitted.]