Debates in 1673
March (12th-15th)

Sponsor

History of Parliament Trust

Publication

Author

Anchitell Grey

Year published

1769

Pages

97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115

Citation Show another format:

'Debates in 1673: March (12th-15th)', Grey's Debates of the House of Commons: volume 2 (1769), pp. 97-115. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40961 Date accessed: 22 August 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Wednesday, March 12.

[The ingrossed Bill to prevent the growth of Popery, was read the third time.]

Mr Harwood.] Tenders a Proviso "for renouncing the doctrine of Transubstantiation, for a farther Test to persons bearing office."

Mr Secretary Coventry.] After Consubstantiation, now Transubstantiation. Will you not have God there? Will you exclude him?

Sir John Birkenhead.] In Queen Mary's time, persons were never put to swear it. Though there are distinctions of realiter, et verè, et corporaliter, would not have a scholastical oath—We say God is there, and the difference is de modo—Great charge on the Synod of Dort, who would impose swearing controversial points—As the words are now penned, people are put to swear they know not what; and for the dangerousness thereof, would lay it aside.

Mr Harwood.] Has discoursed this point with able men. Doubts not, but they must make more of the bread and wine in the Sacrament, than bread and wine; what by Faith is one thing, and this tends no farther.

Colonel Titus.] Thinks the thing of dangerous consequence—If this Proviso is to make a Test, you have your end. They hold, that, after Consecration, the elements are turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ; but we hold, that, after Consecration, nothing remains but bread and wine; and he would have the Proviso no more.

Sir Thomas Higgins.] If you intend it as a Test, no Papist, after taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, but will swallow this. Why do not you put renouncing all the rest of the Romish points?

Sir William Coventry.] Higgins says, "the Test is unnecessary, because evaded." Has studied Controversy little—If he errs in the matter, asks pardon—Thinks a farther Test requisite. The Sacrament they will take, and the Oath of Allegiance, but not that of Supremacy; certain Bulls forbidding them, and the Pope may dispense with his own Bulls. This doctrine of Transubstantiation is part of their Faith, and the Pope cannot dispense with it; therefore there is need of a farther Test, and this the Pope cannot take away—It would be ill resented abroad to refuse a better and farther Test than the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, and he would have this received.

Mr Vaughan.] The Church of England holds, that our Saviour spoke the words, This is my Body, figuratively —No remembrance but of things absent—The Church of Rome says, we hold Christ is mystically there; they, that Christ is as much present then, as when crucified. Cannot but hold, that Christ was but once crucified—[He reads the passage in the Common Prayer Book, of incorporal presence.]

Sir Thomas Clarges.] Is afraid of this Proviso—Swearing doctrinal points will give offence to the Lutherans—The Papists say, Christ is really there after Consecration; and therefore adoration. The Lutherans believe Transubstantiation, but only at the instant when delivered, and communicated—You are told, "It is matter of Faith, and the Pope cannot dispense." If the Pope can dispense with one thing, he may do it with another. He never heard the Oath of Supremacy dispensed with—In the troops, some few years since here, few soldiers would take the Oaths of Supremacy; they would rather lose their places —In the late times there was an Oath like this Test, which many that now go to Mass would take.

Mr Sollicitor North.] Would have no swearing—He was for the Covenant Test, as a seditious thing; but as this is no way tending to it, but only as to doctrinal points, is against such an Oath.

Mr. Waller.] The word, "merely bread and wine," in the Proviso, he excepts against—Believes the doctrine of the Sacraments well expressed in the thirty-nine Articles—The thing is of great consequence, and no Clergy here present; we believe the very body, and therefore the word "merely" is not reconcilable—Would have the subscription in the very words of the Articles, which will take off the objection of swearing scholastically.

Sir Robert Holt.] Pope Pius V offered a dispensation to the Emperor Maximilian, as well as to Queen Elizabeth; you are to renounce all the Articles of the Council of Trent, as well as this—Thinks the thing secure enough by the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, but if you will go farther, would have the Bishops consulted with.

Earl of Ancram.] The Lutherans opinion, as Clarges said, is not Transubstantiation; the Papists say, one body goeth, and another cometh in the place—Consubstantiation, which the Lutherans hold, is grammatically "with it," and not "changed into it."

Sir Richard Temple.] If we so scruple the wording it here, it will be much more [scrupled] in the nation—In Henry VIIIth's time, the five Articles were to be subscribed, under the penalty of treason—Knows not that the Pope ever gave indulgence for taking the Oath of Supremacy, but believes he grants absolution after the thing is done—Besides this Test, would make subscribing the thirty-six Articles, but pray leave these Oaths of Abjuration in matters so mystical.

Sir Eliab Harvey.] Observes one thing in this Ease—We have been told, we have no Test upon the Papists; if there be none for the Papists, this is none for the Protestants, in the Bill of Ease.

Sir John Duncombe.] Fears it will have this effect, that some will let Religion and all go, if preferment lies in the way, and so it will make men Atheists.

Sir John Birkenhead.] Did ever any Church impose swearing doctrinal points?—No Church, either Greek or Latin, ever did it; never was such an Oath before.

Colonel Strangways.] Though great disputes are between us and the Papists, yet all Protestants hold against it—If once we deny our senses, we lose our senses; for every new shift of the Pope, would have another shift from us —You are now making distinction betwixt Protestant and Papist—A criterion you must have; the Pope will never dispense with doctrinal points; with human Laws of the Church he can—Thinks that this Test will puzzle all Priests and Jesuits.

[The Bill with the Amendments passed; the title was, "An Act for preventing dangers that may happen by Popish Recusants."]

Thursday, March 13.

Some Amendments and Provisos to the Bill for giving Ease to Protestant Dissenters, reported by Mr. Powle.

In the Preamble, the Committee added, "Whereas the said Statutes cannot be suspended but by Act of Parliament."

Mr Attorney Finch.] The Preamble does but explain the subsequent matter—The sense of the House is included in your vote, and therefore the Preamble useless—Why in the Preamble we should put persons upon declaring the faith, that all of your communion do assent to all the doctrines, knows not—Would have it altered to, "Whereas divers persons are Dissenters."

Sir Thomas Meres.] Professes much for the Church of England, but if we were all of a bottom, we should be much better—The Church was very well in 1642; and would revive it to the state it was then in; and the Clause is for taking away the subscription of the Covenant.

Mr Secretary Coventry.] You have no leave to bring in any thing to repeal a Law already made, without leave asked.

Sir Robert Carr.] Wonders you will entertain a thing burnt by the common Hangman—This will not ruin your Church; but, by the use formerly made of it, you may be in rebellion, and would never enlarge the Church by pulling down the pale of Government.

Sir Thomas Lee.] The business of the Bill is matter of Ease; and this Proviso reaching to nothing but your Bill, you may receive it—The Bill is a Repeal in point of Law, and this Clause is regularly brought in.

Sir William Coventry.] Speaks to the order of the thing only—It has been well said, that the whole Bill is repealing a Law, and so it was left at large to the Committee to repeal—Why may not this Clause be now brought in? Can the Committee of the whole House have power of debating this Proviso, and not the House? Otherwise, instead of making the Committee subservient to the House, you make the House subservient to the Committee—Again, consider the point urged by the Speaker—Do you apprehend that the House refers any thing to the Committee of the whole House, exclusive to its own power?—Though he subscribes much to the Speaker's knowledge, as to the Orders of the House, yet in this he differs from him.

Mr Secretary Coventry.] At the same time the Proviso is put, would have the Covenant read, that we may know what the Covenant is that we leave out.

Sir Robert Carr.] Seconds it, and has the Covenant ready in his hand.

Sir William Coventry.] It might as well have been said, when you repealed the Act concerning Madder, That was a breach of order as well as this; the natures are not different at all.

Mr Attorney Finch.] This Proviso repeals the first chapter of Magna Charta; the first Article of the Covenant does it—Now you are coming to release all the Corporations from their oaths, to indulge these Gentlemen. This will give them a reputation abroad. These proceedings will give honour to the Covenant—But consider the Honour of this House; how often you have burnt it, and how many thousands are perjured by it.

Sir Charles Harbord.] Had he taken the Covenant, he would have been very tender; the not taking it has cost him some thousand pounds; there are many good things in it.

Sir Adam Browne.] They showed no conscience in taking it, and as little in keeping it—Wonders to hear it so countenanced here.

Debate about the reading the Covenant.

Sir Thomas Lee.] Would not have it read, for fear he should learn ill by it, having heard so much of it.

Colonel Strangways.] Agrees with Gentlemen here, for the desert of the Covenant to be burnt by the common Hangman—The Declaration gave indulgence to all these persons—In all rebellions, when you come to a pacification, you do not reproach people—When the King came into England, how many true sens of the Church had we! We had them only in private Conventicles. They were all quiet, before this Declaration stirred them up—When you said, "penal Laws could not be suspended but by Act of Parliament," what would have become of them, if the Act of Indemnity had been voided?—You have greater Dissenters than these, the Papists—Rebus sic stantibus, this is a necessary Proviso, and should be part of the Bill.

Sir Thomas Meres.] Prudence, but nothing of his love to the Covenant, made him bring this Proviso in; the best service we can do is utterly to damn this thing, that no remembrance or sentiment of it may remain—Union is his end in it, and could say much how unreasonable this is to impose upon men—Hopes for a good effect of it—It is point of prudence we differ in; and did he not think it prudential, would never move it.

Mr Powle.] Thinks it not prudent to keep the subscription of renouncing the obligation of the Covenant within this Bill—Supposes that no man would give occasion to a minister to come into the Church, without studying this obligation of the Covenant, as no conscientious man will come in without doing it: It is but a few years, and the Test in the Act of Uniformity will be expired; not above eight or nine years in being; it is a very small circuit—We take not away marks of disgrace upon it; it remains upon the body of your Laws as before—Therefore now to unite against the common enemy is very seasonable.

Mr Secretary Coventry.] It looks unreasonable to have a Law one way, and a Law another way—As for the Gentleman that would have the Church as in 1642, he is not for that, because it may come to the condition of 1643— (Then he reads the Clause in the Covenant against Prelacy.) Can this House forget their own honour? This is not for the common men, it is for their Ministers. Will you take in men to govern the Church, that have sworn the destruction of it? Doctor Burgess took the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, and yet took the Covenant. Will you deliver up your state and blood that our ancestors have lost their lives for? If I countenance another man's sin, I make it my own—Shall the Parliament actually give away their own reputation but to colour other men's? You do the most dangerous thing to admit this, to gratify a few men, that ever was in Parliament.

Sir Robert Howard.] It is not a prudent part to do a great thing with small consideration—They that were best pleased with the King, when they were worst pleased with others, show no great mark of kindness to him; but speaks it without reflection on any—This is letting people come in, upon a bare supposition they will come in; though you alter Laws, it is only for peace and trade—In this you will not know whom you gratify, and as you do it to some, you grieve many more.

Sir Thomas Littleton.] The way the Proviso runs seems harsh—You were told that the number of years was almost expired, and now, if you will determine it, to shorten the time, and no more, is for it; but there was no Test altered in the time of the late King, nor would have any now—Moves it, to the intent that the Gentlemen may have their minds softened in the business, for the present, reserving what he has farther to say till the next reading.

Sir William Coventry.] Thinks it a weak thing in any man to refuse this renunciation—And now only the state of the business is, Whether in prudence we should not bear with the follies of these men; though they were much the cause of the deluge of our miseries, yet they were the earliest repenters—Though their folly is above their honour in renouncing the obligation of the Covenant, yet, for union sake, as the case stands, would approve of those steps that may hit your end—Would amend it, to make it more decent for your purpose—Hopes that Gentlemen will not find fault with what he proposes to mend it—Would have words to this effect, "That renouncing the obligation to the Covenant being now in the Act of Uniformity for a few years to come, may be left out." The continuing it in will perpetuate the memory of what you would have forgotten—This may prevent persons studying this obligation for the future.

Mr Cheney.] Doubts not but we have persons amongst us sufficient to be employed in the Ministry, without the helps either of the Papists or Dissenters—Moves that the Proviso may not be part of the Bill—The Universities are sufficient to fill your Church, without their helps.

Mr Attorney Finch.] By this Proviso, instead of burying the Covenant, you are setting up a pillar of honour to it, by making it considered; and all this to gain some few, and your Church at ease without them, and you must part with the cross and the surplice; and when they have gained this point of you, they may gain ten more, and will be never contented—Is it either convenient or prudent? You deliver up yourselves to them, to save yourselves from a foreign nation.

Mr Vaughan.] We would take in persons capable of reconciliation with the Church; the Papists never are.

Mr Secretary Coventry.] Is as true a Churchman as any, though not so good and pious—Should he be a parishioner to one of these men, he could never receive the blood of his Saviour from his hands, that, by holding the Covenant obligatory, was guilty of his Sovereign's blood: To bring twenty in, to throw a thousand out, by the scandal; Gentlemen, that could not endure the Covenant, and might not be permitted the Common Prayer in their houses—By the severity of these men, they made way for the Secular Priests—Is it a great thing to ask a Minister, to renounce a traiterous oath, a villainous oath? Shame is to be nourished, when repentance is the result of it—Is the Church of England going to scramble for its government, that the Papist or Covenanter may get it? It will be like an army, that has lost its General, that falls to plunder and disorder.

Sir Thomas Lee.] It has been said, "Shall not a person renounce being a rogue? "Possibly they will be as willing to renounce that infamy, as you to have them—A person at the door (whom he knew not) asked him, "What do you about the Covenant?" Says he, "that point in it, of him, or any other, being obliged by it, did startle him to renounce, altho' he had never taken it; and yet, upon this Test, he must be obliged to study the Controversy, and to satisfy his conscience," it being an universal proposition—These Covenanters have paid so dear for it, that they will not think it much reputation to own it—Now, if such persons there are, they cannot be meant by our Debate.

Mr Swynfin.] When a Proviso is in paper, if any amendment be offered to a Proviso, by orders, the alteration is very fair to be offered; especially when the alteration is as now, it will shorten the Debate, viz. reducing the Church to the Test of 1639—In an ingrossed Proviso in parchment, very different.

Sir William Coventry.] If any man would chuse a point to express himself upon rhetorically, he has much advantage that speaks against the Covenant; none but fools indeed would scruple the renouncing—The last Question shows, you have an inclination to do something—Though we all abhor the Covenant, yet moves to commit the Proviso to be amended.

Sir Thomas Meres.] His opinion in this thing is for unity—Whatever others think, it matters not; what we agree is best—If you will have words as ill as may be for the Covenant, is for it, and to graft what words you will upon the Proviso—Every ingenuous man ought to like truth, wherever he finds it—But would have this Proviso to strengthen us against the common enemy, the Papist—Knows that they will agree against the common enemy—No age can take care but for it self.

Sir Philip Warwick.] Prossers this Proviso, "Provided that the renunciation of the detestable Oath, called the solemn League and Covenant, shall not from henceforth be renounced but by such as have taken it, nor by them, but for themselves, and no others."

Sir Thomas Littleton.] You must prove that a man has taken the Covenant, and the Parson must prove he has not taken it; the first is hard to do; the second, a negative, not to be done—It is a Proviso of great consequence, and should have a formal commitment.

Sir William Coventry.] Had rather give them all encouragement to come in, but if not, some—Let us not keep them from the knowledge of their repentance—It is twenty years ago since the Covenant was imposed, and now out of date—Would have a few words to collect our senses—It may be easily rectified.

Colonel Birch.] Were ever men so instrumental to bring in the King, as these half dozen, or half a score men, talked of?—Repentance they showed sufficiently for what they had done, by some losing their lives, and many hazarding their lives, for the King's Restoration—Consider whether this be a time to put a new brand upon these people, after the Act of Oblivion, and their services considered—Whilst you have done these things, the nation has been poor, mean, and decayed—It is according to the Declaration at Breda, and he would have no more Tests put upon them than in 1639.

Mr Secretary Coventry.] Birch's argument is, "It is only for the sake of these nine men," and these nine men are dead; have lost their lives—You must repeal your Law for these nine men—Would have the rest obey you.

Colonel Birch.] These men lost their lives when the engagement came to destroy the Covenant—He can tell nine, or nine score more of them, if he pleases.

Mr Swynfin.] Could he see that one person would be in ease by this Proviso, would consent to it.

The Proviso passed to this effect:

"Provided always, That the renunciation of the detestable Oath, commonly called, The solemn League and Covenant, be offered to none but such who have taken it, and that such subscribe for themselves, and not others, any thing in the Act of Uniformity, or any other Act to the contrary."

[March 14, omitted.]

Saturday, March 15.

Sir John Holland.] Moves in Mr Jay's case, Member for Norwich, taken in execution, and imprisoned for a debt of the King's.

The Speaker.] If a Member is taken in execution, you may discharge him—But the Law provides, that as a Member shall be discharged from imprisonment, so he, after his Privilege ceases, shall be as before the execution, without prejudice to the party—Statute of King James.

Mr Attorney Finch.] Before that Law, it was breach of Privilege; but if let out by Privilege, a Question whether he might be taken again upon the same execution?—If it be in the King's case, the King will show as much favour to the Privilege of this House as possible.

Sir Thomas Lee.] Would have the case committed, that you may be informed how Privilege stands, in case of the King's suit.

Sir John Birkenhead.] Would not have it referred—14 Elizabeth, Fitzherbert's case; all the famous Lawyers were then in the House; he had Privilege in execution of three thousand five hundred pounds, at the King's suit—Judged then no Privilege against the Crown, for all Privilege comes from the Crown—Mr Harman's case, and Sir John Prettyman's case.

Mr Powle.] Is as much against extending Privilege, and encroaching upon Royal Prerogative, as any man—Would have both stated—Privilege is never denied a Member but for treason, felony, or breach of the peace; but where a civil action is prosecuted, there is as much Privilege, he conceives, against the King, as against any other person—It was never the Question in Fitzherbert's case, "whether it was at the King's suit, or any other man's;" but the case was, the person was taken in execution before the sitting of the Parliament.

Earl of Ancram.] In Sir Edward Turner, the Speaker's time, at the suit of Sir Edmund Sawyer, his tenants were served with declarations, and he complained against him, though the thing was compromised.

Says the Speaker, "The King by one writ calls a Member to Westminster-Hall, and by another to Parliament," though in the King's case, it was judged breach of Privilege. (The thing was no farther proceeded in.)

Debate on ingrossing the Bill for the Supply.

Mr Secretary Coventry.] Hears that the Dutch call in their privateers, and will be speedily out—Remember Chatham business—Whenever the King neglects execution of the Laws, he fails of his duty; and when you neglect to supply him, you do not your duty; the King has done his part to the full—Moves for a shorter day, for reading the ingrossed Bill.

Captain Legge (fn. 1) .] Gives an account of many men deserting his ship, (the Royal Catherine) upon the rumour that the Parliament would give the King no money.

Sir Thomas Meres.] There was such a time as seamens deserting us, (within a fortnight) and then there was reason for it; but now, blessed be God! the reason is removed—The motion is good, in relation to the King's affairs—Remembers with what unanimous consent the money was given, intended for his best service; and remembers then who moved for it—The Bill may have its due execution, within its time, if delayed a little—As to the affairs of this House, businesses cannot go fairly up to the Lords House, now upon our hands—As to the Lords, he denies not but things do yet go fairly on—Would not have this Bill sent up to hinder them, to make a parenthesis in business there to interrupt them; he offers the Lords leisure, but imposes nothing on them —If any man would have the Money Bill pass in the Lords House the next week, concludes that the rest of the Bills cannot go with this.

Sir Thomas Osborne.] Is sorry to hear a day named so far off—You hear the approach of the Holland fleet, and is sorry to have occasion so often to tell you of the backwardness of ours—The argument for the Commissioners meeting in April, some time after that mentioned in the Bill; and yet timely to execute the Act, is not the same thing; for it will, by being in the Lords House, give credit to the Commissioners of the Navy and Ordnance, which yet it cannot have—As to the other arguments, it is confessed, an issue we may desire from the Lords; but that may be remedied, the present necessity cannot—We shall meet again, and then would not be thought one of the obstructers of this Bill of Popery—The one may be repaired, the other cannot, which makes him for it.

Mr Vaughan.] The giving this Bill so speedily out of our hands may call us a kind and bountiful Parliament, but never a wise one—The not passing the other Bill will expose us to right of conquest again: A greater matter than any thing else—When the King has hearts, he has purses also, and can never want seamen—There is that scatters and yet increases; and there is that with-holdeth more than is meet, and it tendeth to poverty.

Sir Robert Howard, to Mr Vaughan's Dilemma.] After Chatham business, the King had a greater opportutunity to impose than he has now—It looks hard, that after the King has granted so much, you should be jealous—The King has not left any thing to do to us; and must we stop Supply, because other persons (the Lords) have not done what you would have them?—This Bill cannot be ingrossed suddenly—It would look ugly in any man to do it—No man can write the Bill fairly till Tuesday—Hopes the thing will be as full of good intentions as ever; but that those intentions, with delay, will be defeated.

Mr Garroway.] Hopes in time we shall have an answer from the King, as to the impositions; and possibly some persons, that advised that with the Declaration, may have apprehensions upon them—He forgives them, and prays God that he would—Hopes for a general pardon, that they may have the benefit of it.

Mr Powle.] Conceives it the right of Parliament not to enter into Debates, so much as of Supply, till redress of grievances; and it seems a tacit obligation upon the King, to redress the grievances, because it smooths the way the better for money—No man can think that we have no more grievances than already complained of—Would not delay the Bill till all the grievances be redressed, but would till they are stated to the King—Sees, by authority, a printed paper of imposition on commodities, not imposed by Act of Parliament—It is said, "that, by stopping the Bill, we shall put a violence on the Lords;" but we put none upon them: If this issue with them answers not our ends, we may think of something else—All arguments he hears spoken of, for the hastening this Bill, are the tragical fates of necessity; but still asks, Who occasioned this necessity? when it might have been prevented by the Parliament's being called in October last; and thinks them guilty of a great crime that were the authors of the advice of prolonging it till now; and hopes to have that, and some other grievances, redressed—Your Clerk, he hears, sat up all night to ingross part of the Money Bill, and it cannot be retarded by a few days.

Mr Thomas.] We have exposed the person of the King, by answering our grievances of Popery; and thinks the King not safe without removing some persons; and names Lord Arundel of Wardour, Colonel Richard Talbot, and Father Patrick.

Sir John Duncombe.] Is much surprized at the Motions he has heard to day; very unreasonable, and untimely brought forth—No Prince ever made such an answer as the King has made; he has done what lies in him—Is sorry to see still new clouds rise—Nothing is gone from you yet, but the Bill of Popery, and the first moment read in the House of Lords, and they are now sitting upon it—Why is this? He never heard a Question, that after this Bill is perfected, it should not be ingrossed—Your fears are taken away; if ingrossed, you may stop it still—Is ashamed to tell you of the lowness of the Exchequer (fn. 2) ; but those arguments are stopped by money—Appeals to Gentlemen concerned in the Revenue and Navy-office, if things are not at a stop for want of money—The thing is not graceful, it has not a good countenance; it is so methodical, so easy and decent, the Question for ingrossing, that he wonders any man can press against it—No man can take any thing from us—The Bill, after being ingrossed, may lie upon the table, and you may call for it as you shall see occasion.

Colonel Strangways.] Consider the nature of the thing; we owe the removal of our jealousies to the King, who has graciously done it—Was it not a great point, the redressing our Laws, when attempted to be destroyed at one blow? Every man knows, that these Money Bills are ingrossed to your hands—When we follow the steps of our ancestors, we shall do as wise things as they did—"Let the Bill be ingrossed, and lie upon your table," say some; but what calling will there be for it then?—Fears nothing but surprizes—Would not force the Lords, but would have them pressed by some arguments we use here—Is for Friday.

Sir Thomas Lee.] If one great and extraordinary grievance be, and that redressed, shall that be an argument for the King to redress us no more? When no more grievances are mentioned, it will be thought we have no more: Not to mention other things, besides that of Ireland, the great growth of Popery, and our neighbour's house on fire—Hopes that persons concerned will acquaint you with it farther—He loves his ease in the country, and would be there, but would not have the King ignorant of many things: With that of the Order of Council imposing a rate upon coals: Hopes, in due time, to have a redress of these things and others.

Colonel Birch.] Is far from thinking that the King has the least jealousy of the Money Bill, but that we intend his honour and safety—Any thing of great or rich he has came from us; when we could not tell who was Master when we came hither, thanks God we know now, and hopes no more clouds will be stirring—Impositions against Law, the people pressed, and that of Ireland, and should be loth that if any thing farther should be offered of grievances, any man should say, Why have you left these things unrepresented, and the King so gracious, in granting what you have asked? Bills are much more slippery in parchment than in paper—What he moves, is for the King's honour and safety—Was the enemy here now, would say nothing of it; but why were we not here in October last? No man can say there has been the least backwardness in this Parliament—Would have the Paper Bill lie on the table till Friday next.

Sir Trevor Williams.] What he has heard makes his heart bleed; and therefore moves for Monday, to consider redress of Grievances.

Sir Edward Dering.] We all tend to the same end, and let us go the same way—After Friday but a few days to Easter—The Bill of Supply will take up a whole day reading, and some unforeseen delays may stop it; therefore moves for Friday.

Sir William Coventry.] The Clerk is ingrossing the Bill without order; and you were told another shrewd thing, that a great deal of the Bill was slipped in the ingrossing —Would not have any thing doubted hereafter; you are Judges of it here, and others, when you have done —Would have what is written already, cancelled, and not brought to you.

Mr Waller.] Ingrossing without order! It may be copied in parchment for some Gentleman's use, as well as in paper, sometimes we were in such great haste, that the Act of Oblivion, in its confirmation, was not read at all—When a Question has been of not putting the Question now, has known that Question never put at all—If that Question should be now, no man can speak to the ingrossing the Bill afterwards—Are not necessity and speed acknowledged by the House? Are not our grievances redressed, and have not our forefathers taken care to keep Papists out of authority, and we greater?—In the late times, this House had a passionate suspicion, and we would have removed Papists, and it was afterwards, by that passion, done much worse—"Never was doubt of a Bill once voted but passed," it is said; but we may remember, but last Session, that a dispute with the Lords about heightening and lowering rates, damned our Bill of foreign commodities (fn. 3) ; our Votes since have lost their credit—Is against Popery, and we have both leges et mores against them, Law and inclination of the people against them—Will you neither trust them, the King, nor God, but trust an enemy in retarding this Bill? Would you have them come out to sea, before our Act comes out in print?—If you find not a way, there will be viam inveniam out faciam—Necessity stamps all things with a face of justice—Would have Friday ordered for ingrossing the Bill.

Sir Thomas Littleton.] Sir Henry Vane was the first that ever proposed putting a Question, "Whether the Question should be now put (fn. 4) ," and since, it has been always the forerunner of putting the thing in Question quite out; therefore would not have that Question put now.

Sir William Coventry.] There is great difference between, "whether the Question shall be put," and "now put." It is no new thing to put that Question in point of adjournment; and if it passed in the negative, it never was, but that the House was afterwards adjourned.

Mr Garroway.] It is certainly agreed by us all, that that Question of the Bill shall be put; though the Question of the day be as is proposed.

Mr Secretary Coventry.] Can any man tell that the Hollanders are not strong enough to come out, or that they, by their Confederates, may not invade us? An enemy that can invade us and will not, no man can say—When you shall give it, and the enemy come and gather it, you will put the King upon his necessity—The shewbread was eaten by David; it was not forbid, but told us for precedent.

Colonel Strangways.] Is sorry to hear of these necessities —Bring us the men that have been the occasion of these necessities, and he will tell you what to say to them—He that does the necessity is not the judge of it—Was not salus populi periclitatur the occasion the ship-money was called for? Knows not what belongs to these little bye tricks—Great necessity is to be argued in the Lords House, not here—Those arguments, if used, let them be there; let us hear no more of these arguments; and let us not be reproached with these arguments of necessity, that were not the occasion of it, but [let them] be laid on persons that occasioned it.

Mr Garroway.] If those Gentlemen will join issue on the argument of necessity, let the causers of it be accountable for it.

Mr Secretary Coventry.] Is not afraid of our's, nor any man's hearing what counsel he gave the King—Desires that whoever is faulty, be it any man, he may answer it—When a man has been debauched by another, and falls into a distemper, your first business is to cure the man, and then blame him that debauched him—If there be such men, that have been the occasion of this advice, let them answer it.

Sir Thomas Meres.] This thing of "necessity" was an ill argument at first, and would not have Waller (who proffered to speak again) speak twice to it, to inflame it more.

The Speaker.] No man can find any precedent of Sir Henry Vane's Question—By that Question we can never come to an end of any business—The Question in being may be the next day put, and so you usher in an impossibility of bringing things to a period.

Sir Robert Howard.] This Question is like the image of the inventor, a perpetual disturbance.

Mr Garroway.] If you can find out an expedient, that may carry off the heat, is for it—If you adjourn the Debate to Thursday, there is no heat in it.

Colonel Titus.] Some Gentlemen believe the Bill already ingrossed; if so, it is more haste than could be wished—The desire of some is to get a competent time to get grievances redressed; others, that the necessity of the King and kingdom require a dispatch—A competent time is agreed on both sides; he thinks Friday so; and then to bring in our grievances remaining—He hopes this may give satisfaction.

Sir Thomas Osborne.] Would know the cause why the rest of our grievances are not alleged—As for the Declaration and Religion, he appeals, whether, when there was a stop of the Money Bill, those two things were not the cause then—All that the King could do, he has done —Does believe that by Friday we shall have an Answer from the Lords—It is necessary, either in this House or out of it, for subjects to give the King time, and a right representation of things—Should be sorry that any of the Privy Counsellors endeavours should be so blasted in this House, that they do not their part, till the King give you farther cause to apprehend so—There needs no jealousy on our parts now—How shall we have assurance, that the King has satisfaction in our intentions? Why should not the marks from this House be undeniable? If this be your case, then to put a Question that has dangerous construction in it—Is not for putting it.

Mr Vaughan.] The King has no fault, the Law says he has none, and hopes that none say so in this House—Grievances have come before Supply, in right course of Parliament; if now they come after, it is an example of great affection, and in few Parliaments—If we are content to part with that right, and [let it] be for the present overlooked, hopes it shall not for the future be urged as a precedent.

Ordered, That the Money Bill be ingrossed, and brought in on Friday.

Footnotes

1 Created Lord Dartmouth in 1682. He was afterwards Master of the Horse to King James II, Governor of the Tewer, &c. and at the time of the Revolution, he was Admiral and Commander in Chief of the English fleet, which was detained in the Thames by the same wind that brought the Prince of Orange over. In 1691, he was committed to the Tower, where he died of an apoplexy, three months after Burnet says, "He was one of the worthiest men of King James's Court. He loved him, and had been long in his service and in his confidence: But he was much against all the conduct of his affairs; yet he resolved to stick to him, at all hazards." The present Earl of Dartmouth is his great grandson.
2 He was at this time Chancellor of the Exchequer.
3 See Vol. I.
4 Now usually called "The previous Question."