Tuesday, February 5.
[The Clerk of the Peace for the County of Middlesex, according
to the Order of the House (See p. 47.) delivered in the Conviction
of Sir Solomon Swale for Popish Recusancy; and a Petition of
Sir Solomon Swale being tendered, he was ordered to attend the
House, on the 19th (fn. 1) . Journal of the Day.]
In a Grand Committee. [On the Supply.]
Sir Thomas Littleton.] 'Tis the first time an Aid has
been called for "to support Alliances, &c." when the
Treaty is so shut up from us. Should we not apply ourselves to the King for some farther light in
this matter, that we may satisfy ourselves, and do our
duty, too, to his Majesty? There seems to be a necessity
to do so, we have been so unanimous in the last Address for it. Therefore I move that you would appoint
a Committee to search for precedents, that we may do
nothing which may misbecome us in this business.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Why should we demand farther what is already told us? You desire a Treaty and
Alliances, and the King has told you he has performed
that Treaty. You are only now to consider the charge
the King must be at for the performance of it.
Mr Pepys.] I hope I am prepared to inform you of
those measures requisite, as to the number of ships the
King has named, which are ninety. The rates are
Mr Mallet.] Interrupts him to Order, and would have
the King's Speech read.
Mr Sacheverell.] I am one of those that are of opinion
that there needs no Supply, because 'tis only for the
preservation of Flanders. I would not give money for
that barely; and I would know whether the Alliances
be worth any thing, before we consider whether we
shall give Supply, or no.
Sir Thomas Clarges.] You must consider things according to Order, as the House has directed the Debate "to
support Alliances." If they be one sort of Alliances
we must give more, if another sort less. This of ninety
ships is more than will sustain all the War, if it were
upon us alone; we have 800,000 l. a year from the
Customs granted towards the ordinary charge of the
fleet, and we have fifty ships already, and we must compare our strength to give with our duty.
Mr Garroway.] I thought what is moved was the
sense of the House. 'Tis yet no new matter, we are
still in the dark, and I will not give my consent to I
know not what. I hope Gentlemen have better considered. We have no measures to go by, and for ought
I see, there is yet nothing worth a Supply.
Sir John Ernly.] The King has told you "he has
made an Alliance with Holland, (according as you desired it) for the preservation of the Netherlands." I am
sorry that when the King has made Alliances accordingly,
men say they will rather give money against it. Col.
Morgan sends word he expects to be attacked at Jersey
by the French, and desires Horse and Foot for his recruit.
Mr Garroway.] Now we have got farther than "Flanders." Ernly tells you, the League is for "the Netherlands." If you come to consider of a Supply you
are told, "if there be a War"—But if certainly a War,
I would come presently to it; and if it be Peace, then
there is nothing to know but the charge of that—And
to express our duty in the Expence of the War. When
this is made clear, I am as ready as any to give; but
till then I am of the same mind I was of before.
Sir Thomas Lee.] I would have us all reminded of our
words, and I would have the Address of May last read,
to see what performance has been made of that, to
ground our Debate upon.
Mr Powle.] I am of the same opinion with Lee. We
will not fail on our parts in the least particular, but I
would see upon what terms we have promised to aid the
King, and I desire the Address may be read, &c.
Mr Secretary Williamson.] It has been moved to
make the Question, "whether the King shall have a
Supply to support the Alliances, &c." I am persuaded,
that he that spoke most against it will not give his negative to it, when the Question shall be put. God give
the Success to it all that honest hearts wish! and pray
put that Question.
Col. Birch] Those Gentlemen that desire to be better informed of the Alliances, have not had the advantage of Gentlemen who belong to the Court, to know
these things. When we are better informed of them,
I would freely give. If you set down your business
upon such grounds, as that those scruples may be removed, indeed we shall do strangely. It is prayed, and
'tis most natural, that our Address may be read. 'Tis
told us, "Did you not promise the King to support him,
in these Alliances, and will you not perform it?" These
are high charges—If this Aid seems forced, 'twill not be
carried on with that greatness this great thing ought to
be carried on. Pray read our Address, and that paragraph in the King's Speech relating to that Address.
Sir Henry Capel.] I would have no negative in this
matter. 'Tis so reasonable a motion, as never was denied,
for us to see our promises to the King. You are a great
body and must go by steps, and I move that the Addresses may be read.
Sir John Ernly.] If you will read the Addresses, rather
for reply than supply, I am against reading them. I
move that the Question may be now put, whether you
will grant the King a Supply for supporting the Alliances
he has entered into. Pray stick to your Order, and let
that Question be put.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Now we debate concerning
reading our Addresses, and the King's Answer to them. If
it be for no other reason but to show you are obliged by
it, and where not, I am not against it.
The Speaker.] I am one of those who think time
is too precious to be spent by debating. If any thing
arises out of the Debate that may refer to the Address,
seeing it pressed, I desire it may be read.
The Address and Answer were read.
Sir Thomas Littleton.] The principal thing I observe
is, that this refers to other Treaties, and imparting them
in Parliament, and thereby explains our meaning; which
is, War with the French King, joining with Holland,
keeping up the Triple League, reducing things to the
Pyrenean Treaty, &c. which is a declaration to us of all
particulars relating to it, bating secrets not to be revealed.
If there be modern examples that do justify imparting
Leagues, in Parliament, &c. why can they not be
Mr Secretary Coventry.] If it be dangerous for you
to omit doing what you have formerly done, so it is for
the King to do what he has never done before, to endanger his Prerogative, as he tells you in his Speech.
Mr Sacheverell.] Coventry has made his observation,
and I'll make mine. If you cannot find that in the
King's Speech, I hope he'll tell me where it is. If there
be no Alliances by virtue of those Addresses, 'tis no
wonder that we enquire after them. We are told,
"They are for the preservation of the Netherlands."
Flanders is but a single province—I would have
showed me any clause in the League "for preservation
of the Netherlands, and against the growth and power
of the French King."
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Flanders is but a province,
but where one calls the Duke of Villa Hermosa "Governor of the Netherlands," five hundred call him "Governor of Flanders." This is as if we should do any
thing for preservation of England, and leave out Berwick upon Tweed. As far as I can judge, the King shows
you that it is for preservation of the Netherlands—For
the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle 300,000 l.
Mr Garroway.] I shall answer one part of Coventry's
discourse. If there was Peace to-morrow, what will
be the consequence? Will this do it? When the Confederation ceases, is there any thing to keep [the King of]
France from falling upon us with his army? He is
grown the common Enemy of the World—And I would
have Coventry show us what provision is made for our
safety. What has been said, I think not satisfactory;
and I desire to know something farther.
Mr Secretary Coventry] Every body is left with men
after a War, and it is not to be helped. There must
be time to dispose of them. But if you have no such
Alliance, and the King is mistaken in his Parliament,
and they stand not by him, you are alone then; and
then 130 sail of ships, and the French army, may put you
in a fright.
Mr Garroway.] Spain may like the conditions you have
made so ill, that he may leave you and Holland alone
to bear the brunt. If provision of so much a month be
according to the nature of the Treaty, or a sum in
gross, then the Treaty must inform you of your method
for the Aid.
Mr Powle.] If the officers of the King and the Government did always look after the safety of the nation,
before it be known to the generality of the people, the
danger would be nipped in the bud; but if forborne, and
not foreseen, and the people call out for Alliances, and
none are made, &c. I would have precedents shown
whenever the people gave money before such Alliances
Lord Cavendish.] I hear nothing objected against
showing us these Alliances, but the word "Prerogative."
I am sorry that word is so abused, as to be thrown into
our Debate, to hinder any thing for the safety and honour of the nation. "Prerogative" protects us, but
those abuse it, who speak of it, without telling us how
'tis our safety. I am for it, as it is by law, but not for
"Prerogative" to be swayed by ill Councils. I am
not for the Ministers having money to employ it, either
for a short War, or no War. Let us be showed that
a War is intended in earnest. I am sorry I cannot suspect the contrary. Till that be plain, I cannot give
money. Till it be showed us, I cannot give a penny.
Sir Robert Howard. I know that Kings have communicated Treaties to their Parliaments ('twas done in
Henry V.'s glorious reign) and Parliaments have refused
to meddle with them. Precedents abound on all sides.
The King says, " 'Tis now a War, and leagues offensive and defensive are made with Holland." If a
traveller has lost his way, or be led out of his way, will
he never resolve to stir more? Will he sit down here, and
perish? You may easily imagine the consequence of that.
'Tis impossible to satisfy the nation, if we defer doing
something, because all is not showed us that is done,
Here is but one argument left, "This money may be
ill used, and not applied to the use you intend it." Suppose a sum be given, and employed as ill as mankind
can imagine—And should a Peace be made less than you
desire, and the thing passed with all the trust and expectation of a Parliament, the prudence of the House
may be so in appropriating it to the use you intend it,
that you may not be deceived, and you will find satisfaction in so much already performed, as to double the
sum—The Hollanders else will see they are forsaken, and
will make Peace, as ill as can be imagined by man for
us, and so we [shall be] put upon extremities. Let the
quantum be appropriated, and there is no danger.
Sir Tho. Meres.] 'Tis not according to usage of Parliament to grant Supply before Alliances are declared in
Parliament. 'Twas not intended by our Address, to
have them signified in general terms; this is plain by
all the discourse at that time. 'Twas then said, "That
Holland made figuratively the seventh part of the whole
Treaty;" but I will not take any single man's word for
it. The project we are upon is a Peace as good as that
of Aix la Chapelle. The King says, "He has made an
Alliance with the States of the United Provinces." But,
in matter of fact, is the Peace so good as that of Aix
la Chapelle? We must be governed by the opinion of
the House, and not by the saying of one man. "Forward" in our Address is "imparting such Alliances, &c."
which means more than barely telling us such a one. By
"imparting," we must see it. "This Alliance is for
our good (it has been said) or not." Let us see it,
whether it be so good as that of Aix la Chapelle—And
that is against another Vote of the House directly—That
of the Pyrenean Treaty will do us good, and less than
that will do us none. This Treaty, now on foot, is
much less than the Pyrenean Treaty, and has not the
House declared that that will do you no good? Either the
House did not understand what they addressed for, or
you now go against the understanding of the House,
I would therefore have a Question to this purpose,
"That the House be moved to desire the King to impart the Alliances to us that he has entered into." And
if we go the way now propounded, we may make England unanimous; if not, mankind cannot be led hoodwinked with a napkin—And if we are over numbered
in the Vote, that number will not go away with the Vote,
which satisfied the whole nation. I think this project of
the Peace we hear of, is not so good as that of Aix la
Chapelle; and I would see a reason to make it good
here. I demand the Question of going to the King for
farther light, and of right I ought to ask it.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Let the Gentleman that spoke
last, make it appear how bad the Treaty is. How can
he do it? He knows it not.
Sir Thomas Meres.] If any thing more of this Treaty
be to be seen, I would have it produced. Till I see new
matter, more than the French giving up a few towns,
as talked of, I must be of the same mind. You all
agreed to the Address, nemine contradicente; and think
now, whether this is consonant to the wisdom of this
House, to carry men on, after an unanimous Vote, to
we know not what. That project of the giving up a
few towns to the Spaniards was confuted, when you
made the Address to the King, out of reason and prudence. Show us some new thing in this Treaty, and
then out-reason us as far as we did out-reason the project
of the Treaty, by the Address.
Mr Williams.] If you proceed without farther light
into Treaties, in doing this you establish the Prerogative
by the Commons of England. The Question is, how
far our Addresses have been pursued. We would not
be driven into money, but by fair day-light. We desire to be satisfied in this matter of the league offensive
and defensive, &c. I wish the Gentlemen that know,
would declare whether really we shall have a War, or
no, categorically; and then you may declare your mind.
For my part, I cannot believe this to be a War. The
repeated Counsels we have given, are the safe Counsels of the nation. The King, in his Speech, is of the
same opinion with us, and still here are the same Counsels continued about him. Are we the great Council
of England? Have we advised lowering of France, and
a War with him? And have preparations been made pursuant thereunto? And now, when we desire to see what is
done, we are answered; "you must not see nor hear the
Treaties, nor what is done." That is, we have eyes,
and ears, and we must not use them. No doubt but
we have been in some Confederacy, and have been mediators. In reason we ought, and may have, satisfaction
in these things, and till that be done, I am not for Supply. My jealousy is, that showing the Treaty here will
be only for our money; and my fear is, that by giving
our money we shall have arbitrary power set up. By
comparing things with things, in this very time, I
fear it. For when we made these Addresses, we had
no effectual answer. In the manner of Adjournment of
the House, never was a thing more arbitrary. The King,
in his Speech, tells us, "That we may adjourn our
selves," and one Gentleman (the Speaker) will not suffer
us—And if we suffer it to be so, it will go about the
Kingdom, that 'tis the first House of Commons that
ever suffered it—And then 'twill fall upon the people.
You were of opinion that you ought to have satisfaction
in the ends of these leagues. By Law of Parliament, this
Paper we are debating is not a Message, 'tis but a
Writing from the King; and such Writings are not obligatory, and persuading; they are not binding—And
God forbid they should! If a Message should sway us
merely by being a message, the King (by that consequence) must bear the blame of all the Council that advises him to it. In short, whensoever Kings have called
for Supply to support Treaties, they have always communicated those Treaties. "The Prerogative to be
imposed upon in showing them" is not the punctilio,
but the fear of showing them. If that be established upon
us, I fear that more than the money. I would plainly
know, whether it must be War, or Peace. Till then,
I can give no vote for money.
Mr Sollicitor Winnington.] This matter we are debating upon is of the highest concernment that ever
came here. All of us join hearts and hands together
to suppress the growth of the French King; and we
differ about mediums. There is jealousy of the Alliances, that they are not for that end; not being known
by us, nor signified in Parliament, &c. Williams has
given you reasons for his jealousy, and asks, "What
has been done since the House met?" And expands his
hands, and says nothing at all. But I can tell you what
[has been done;] as great an action as can be done;
the marriage of the Prince of Orange to the Lady
Mary—And there has been as speedy a progress in building ships and of fitting out the navy, as the shortness
of the time would permit. I would have no man's
passion transported here, but let us be unanimous.
Williams tells you of "arbitrary Power." — Does he
mean France? Can any man believe that the King will
comply with those Counsels that would set up France,
to make the King of England as little as one of us?
'Tis plain in the King's Speech, that his Adversary is
France, and that he would balance Europe. Is it rational to believe that there will be such a War, or Alliances, as will make our King small and France great?
All our Addresses are, when Alliances are declared in
Parliament, and now the King signifies, "That he has
made a league offensive and defensive with the States
General". If particulars should be told here, it would
not be long before it be in the Councils of France. Therefore particulars are dangerous to be told here. Such
as Privilege is for this House, the same is for the Prerogative, and I would have those Gentlemen show you
by Precedents (which are never to be found) that, when
the King has shown Treaties to the House, in the generals, the House ever called for particulars. I never
found that it was contended that we ought to know all
particulars, when the King has showed us generals. If
we contend for part, the whole may be lost. Therefore I propose this, with all submission, that we are disputing mediums, and reason tells you 'tis for the common safety what the King has done, and yet it tends
to the same end you desired. I hope you will believe
Mr Pepys.] Has the Treasurer and the Lords of the
Admiralty slept all this time, and done nothing? (As
Williams seems to suggest.) The Lords of the Admiralty are industrious, and with such fruits as England
never saw yet. [Time was] when there was a noise
that the ships were rotten like rats. We are in another
condition now. If this House [had been] full of Gold
then to have given towards the Navy, 'twas not in your
Power to have done any thing. 'Twas not Col. Birch's
"Cudgel" that he told you of (fn. 2) , would have done it
then—But now the King has made great advance. Some
of your ships (that you gave money for at your last
meeting) are ready, and will be floating this summer.
Ninety sail of ships may be floating this summer, by
your concurrence for Supply, and God's blessing. But
I hear "the fears of arbitrary Government" urged as
a jealousy, and that the Gentleman is afraid of; but who
does most to set up arbitrary Government? They that
depress what ways may most keep out the danger from
France, or they that promote them? The best expression
of the divinity (fn. 3) of a Prince, is to take good Counsel; the
King has taken it, and executed it, and it stays with
you to enable the King to go through with it. The
King has made an Alliance as great as with all the
world besides. The King has done it, and with great
success, and it remains with you to support him in it.
Sir Thomas Lee.] I know not whether it be the effects of good Counsel to let so many great men this
summer go into the French service. 'Tis told you by
Pepys, "that great things have been done in the Navy."
But I think the Victualler of the Navy is asleep in
our Country, for beef was never cheaper. How comes
it to pass, that arbitrary Power must lie at the door
of this House still, when we were adjourned to May,
and this House might have met sooner, and prevented
these delays? After the gift of some money several times,
and when this 240,000 l. per mensem was given for ships,
and now according to the words of the King's Speech,
ninety ships for this War, &c. when that is given,
and this Peace made that we hear of, if we must keep
all these men in arms, that the King mentions, (40,000
men) to be as strong as the King of France with men
and ships, this gives occasion of jealousy. If we are
not obliged to keep them up in time of Peace, no man
is more ready than myself to give money. This confirms my fears, that England is more in danger, that
a force must be kept in England, than the danger from
the French King, &c.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Those "great men" spoken
of "gone into France," are gone only to fetch back
their regiments out of France, according to the capitulation when they carried them thither. If you call
that "arbitrary Power," for the King to take money
when the Parliament gives it him, I know not what that
means. Land forces must be kept up for recruiting the
army as it diminishes in Flanders, or you are lost.
Sir Thomas Lee.] It was no wilful mistake of mine.
I mean not that noble Lord, Lord Douglas (whose regiment is in France) who went over the other day; but
those that went over in the summer Campaign. The
keeping up of an army after the Chatham business was apprehended to be a standing army, and you addressed for
disbanding it. So we apprehend it may be now—These are my fears.
Mr Pepys.] I challenge any man alive, and his books
to help him, to show me that in any January there were
ever more stores in the victualling house than now.
Sir George Downing.] Pray take not that Authority
upon you, in the Committee, that the House has not
given you. Where's your Authority? Who bid you
meddle with the Speaker's adjourning the House, &c.
and these things that have been discoursed of "Prerogative?"
Lord Cavendish takes him down to Orders of the
House. Some Gentlemen think the scruples have been
made about the Speaker's adjourning the House, and
Prerogative, very reasonable scruples. When there is an
aversion shown to resolve scruples, it makes our scruples
the greater. As for this offensive and defensive League,
that we are told of, we might as well have gone into a
Committee at first as now, and now if we have no satisfaction given us in this League, we have as little reason to give money now as then. The proper Question
is, whether there be a League offensive and defensive
Sir George Downing.] I was taken down to Order,
and I expected the Chair would have taken down Lord
Cavendish to Order, for ending with a motion. When
the House had referred it to a Committee to consider
of Supply, 'twas never known that the Committee
went back with a negative. Here is a jealousy as if the
King had pawned the nation to the Hollanders, and a
Treaty that England is bound to make it good. 'Tis a
great thing insisted on not to show the Treaty—Let
any man show what right the Commons have to demand a fight of it from the King. The Commons have
been showed Treaties, and have advised the King upon
them; but not at their demand, as a right from the
Commons. If it be their right, I will give no money
till that is done. Is it then convenient to be showed
us? He that says 'tis convenient, must have seen the
Treaty, and no man can say so I must think it not
convenient when the King does not show it us. The
King is our life, and the breath of our nostrils. I can
never expect unanimity in the nation, when the House
of Commons are not unanimous, now when the prayers
and tears of the nation are for it—But I will give money
blindfold to the King on this occasion, wherein lies his
trust, and we have not a right to demand a sight of
these Treaties. Suppose the King should grant you a
sight of them, and have all his Counsels discovered—I think the King has gone fairly and overtly with us—But will you give no money without the sine qua non,
sine qua non? (twice)
Sir Thomas Littleton.] I did not expect from the
Chairman that the Question should be altered that was
first moved, and was the ground of the Debate. The
natural Question, is, Whether we should do any thing
in order to support this Treaty of a League offensive and
defensive. A Question was asked by one, "Whether
this League was for a War against the French King?"
'Twas answered, "That this League was a taking him
by the beard." But the Gentleman said not whom by
the beard, not the French King. We hear a noise about
a project of Peace, and therefore I would not lose a
moment's time. This puts me in mind of the character of Bethlehem Gabor, an enemy to the House of Austria,
who made a great deal of noise about him, but did him
no hurt We make a great noise, and do the French
little hurt, by this Treaty. The Question proposed
is natural to the Debate, for 'twas moved, upon the
Debate, that something might be previous for our satisfaction, that a Committee might draw an Address,
(I mean it tenderly) to the King, to give us farther light
into this matter. For, whenever an Aid is desired for
a foreign War, it may be more largely imparted to us;
and I hope if we make such an Address, the King will
not answer us as we have been answered here—This is
an instance which cannot be in all particulars—Idem per
idem. As if, in a Bill of Popery, it be only enacted,
"Popery shall be suppressed." I would have application made to the King, to acquaint him "that, in money demanded for support of Treaties, more particulars
of the Treaty have been imparted than now are."
Mr Garroway.] Bate me grains of allowance, and
I will offer you my thoughts. If you will put the Question
"for a Supply for the King, for the charge he has
been at towards making this Alliance, and by this earnest,
to give his Majesty farther assistance, for support of
it," that I offer, if you will not insist on the Question
to see the Treaties.
Mr Waller.] I see, as far as I understand, that this
will be the Question, "Whether we shall give the King
Supply, or no, to maintain the Treaty, &c." And 'tis
not only my Vote that we should do it, but my reason.
This No will be the fatallest that was ever given in
Parliament. A No, here, would make the Alliances
to no purpose. In our Address to the King we desire
the Pyrenean Treaty, &c. and I wish it too, but 'tis
more desirable than hopeful. No man of honour can
ask a thing of a man, not in his power to do. I have
served long in Parliament (fifty years,) and all these
things are to follow the rule of the Government. 'Tis
true that the persons in the light are not informed by
those in the dark. So that it comes to that at last, whether we have reason to supply the King for these Treaties, or no. There was no War, at the time that we
gave the King money for his fleet, and now the Alliance is desired, to know what that fleet was for. This
went a great way with me. The King tells you, "he
has made a match for his Niece with the Prince of
Orange;" and says the King, "I have entered into
an Alliance before I know whether I shall have your
help, or no, to support it." The King relies upon us before hand, and now in Peace and War we must rely
upon the King—In all my reading I could never find,
but they that were superior at sea, make any conqueror
weary of the War, in this part of the World. We were
superior both to Spain and France, and made them weary
of War with us. It is asked by some, "What shall be
done with the money if we have no War?" (The rest the
Compiler could not hear.)
Mr Papillon.] The Question is, Whether we shall
give the King Supply, without naming Alliances. If
the Prince of Orange take the power of Holland upon
him, (I suppose it only) shall we be obliged to maintain
that Alliance? So that the doubt lies, whether we shall
grant a Supply to maintain these Alliances; and some
others would know the Alliances better. We have had
a Peace hitherto to aggrandize the King of France, rather
than to lessen him. 800,000 l. France gains upon us in
Trade every year. The King has been the greatest friend
to Trade that ever was, but his Ministers have not done
their part, and France has made their War with our
money; and now on a sudden, we must have War with
France, and no stop of that inundation of money thither.
I would know whether by this Peace, (we here talk of)
that be stopped. If there be nothing in this Alliance to
prevent this, or the greatness of France; if I am left
thus in the dark, I cannot give my Vote in this case.
I move therefore to address the King, to know "Whether these Alliances have been made pursuant to our
Mr William Harbord.] A negative in this matter would
be of fatal consequence; I think as fatal as an affirmative.
If we give more than the nation can bear, I would consult my conscience first. Suppose we gave an affirmative that we will supply the King to support the Alliances he has entered into; and a great sum be demanded
of us, and after that misemployed by the Ministers,
and a Peace be made; will it not be the most fatal
thing in the world for the King to lose the affections of
his people, though he gain that of foreigners? Suppose
the Article of the League shall be to secure a proportion of Flanders in the Spaniards hands, and it may be
the French will consent to it, will you send thirty thousand
men to support such a League? I will suppose that 'tis
the interest of mankind to keep this business dark, and
of the Statesmen to make the better bargain for our interest. Suppose your quota so much, &c. To the end
we may be unanimous and the Question penned so, I
will never be against a Supply. But I will never trust
a great sum of money in the Ministers hands, till the
King has need of it.
Mr Sacheverell.] I would have the Gentleman put the
Question, as it is penned. Then 'tis they that enforce
us upon a Negative—Since that hardship is put upon
us, to give money without seeing the Alliances, we must
be put upon some other course; and must have the
previous Question; and, therefore, I would be unwilling to give a Negative, that we may come entirely up
to the money, and give no Negative.
Col. Birch.] Those that remove all doubts do most
effectually towards the end you aim at, because they desire
the means to attain that end. I cannot but much wonder, that, when no Gentleman has yet said, he has more
satisfaction concerning the Alliances than he had some
days ago, we now should be so forward to give money to
support them. As for Ships, Horse, Foot and Dragoons
for a War with France, that is another thing; but for
Alliances, I believe one is made, but when I hear nothing
of it, but in the Amsterdam Gazette, I wonder at it!
Is it an Alliance against any attack of France upon us?
If any person of honour (foreign Ministers know it)
will say, "That this Alliance is against the growing
power of the French King, if he shall attack the United
Provinces," 'twill go a great way with me. I hope,
before this business is over, we shall convince the world
that our Father (the King) is angry with his children without cause. Foreign Ministers know this Treaty; and
Downing tells us, "England is pawned for it." I
would know how long "England has been pawned."
If it be only for a general Peace, I am afraid of it.
The restoring of Towns is a great thing for the States
of Holland, but not for us. If the League be offensive
and defensive, against him that attacks each of us, or
both of us, surely this may be easily told us, and I desire
no more. If this be thus, 'twill be a great step to
our unity, for if this be not one, it cannot be carried on. I
would have the word "present" out of the Question, and
would have it, "To support Alliances for suppreising
the Growth and Power of the French King."
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Is this an ingenuous way of
proceeding? You tell the King, if he will do those things
in your Paper, you will aid him, &c. And he tells you,
"they are done." Says one Gentleman, "This Treaty is
to set the Prince of Orange up absolute in Holland."
That is as remote as to say, "The King of France will
deliver up his Kingdom to Spain to be absolute."
Mr Secretary Williamson.] The Treaty cannot be supposed to lessen the power of the French, if it be not
offensive. Holland and England are to be common defences to each other, when the Peace is made.
Sir Thomas Littleton.] The delivery of Towns is a security for the Peace; but a few Towns will do little good.
I would know how many Towns are to be delivered up
by the French; and what this Treaty will be to that of
Aix la Chapelle, that kept Burgundy to the Spaniards,
and the vicinity of these Towns cut off from France,
which that Treaty utterly cut off. The Treaty went
hard with the Spaniard, but he did take it, because no
body was in arms at that time for him. The Treaty of
Aix la Chapelle was infinitely better than this Treaty,
as much as we understand of it. I would then have the
Question, "for supporting these Alliances, as far as they
are consistent with our Address."
Sir Thomas Lee.] The main Question ought first to
be stated to your content, and not till then. Must there
be any substractions, or additions, when that is done,
Mr Boscawen.] The Addition is to the Question stated,
which is orderly, viz. "In pursuance of Alliances;"
and you ought to put the Question, whether that Addition shall be, or no.
It passed in the Negative.
The Speaker.] I believe Sacheverell has as little reason
for this his accusation of the Ministers, &c. as he had
for another (meaning his Articles against the Speaker.
(See p. 5.) The rest the Compiler could not hear.)
Col. Birch.] I will endeavour to be one to make us
all of a piece. It was said, that the Alliances are not
only for such a League, as that the French King shall not
offend his neighbours; but that we should assist one
another, and that this should be the handle to bring in
all the Treaties, is not intended—Unless this be done,
we cannot come to a clear understanding of the thing.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] I fear, when the Question
is over with the Addition, we shall enter into a long
Debate, whether the Treaty be so, or not.
The Speaker.] When you shall find that Additions
are only for delay, you are not to put a particular Addition till you have determined the general Question.
Sir Thomas Meres.] If that practice be followed, you
will destroy all methods of Parliament. You may as
well put this Question, whether there shall be any
more Debate. It is far from me to encourage any thing
impertinent to breach of such a general Question—You
will else destroy all method of Parliament. Therefore
I would have the Addition put to the Question.
Mr Garroway.] 'Tis a strange thing, when a general
Question shall be put, whether an Addition to a Question, it should be denied—There is an end of all Debates.
Mr Sacheverell.] If Alliances be general in the Question,
it may be to Denmark, Sweden, and France too, if it
be not distinguished; and so [we may] be engaged to
support them in the way that your inclination is not
Mr Secretary Coventry.] You went yesterday to the
House to enlarge your Order, and 'twas done; and now
you will enlarge it here, without recourse thither—Therefore I desire fair play.
Sir John Ernly.] These jealousies of Peace, I am sure,
will make a danger of no War. Put the first Question,
whether we shall give the King Supply, or no, to support the Treaties, &c. Then, with all my heart, I am
for an Addition of the words, &c.
Mr Secretary Williamson.] I fear this Addition moved
for, if it be passed by the House, may induce that
fatal thing of pressing to see the Alliances. Therefore
I would not agree with the Committee.
Mr Powle.] If this Treaty appear not to be to suppress the growth of France, we cannot be willing to
Resolved, That the House doth agree with the Committee,
that a Supply be given to his Majesty for the Support of his
present Alliances made with the States General of the United
Provinces, for the preservation of the Spanish Netherlands, and
lessening the power of France.