Debate on the Supply.] Nov. 7. The house went into a grand committee on the Supply. Sir Tho. Lee. It may happen, I think, that a Protestant who would make himself grateful to king James, has done more mischief in promoting the Popish Interest than Papists. Perhaps it will come so hard upon those in Corporations, that it may undo them who have little, and cannot speak for themselves; but how will you distinguish it? Those who had no Offices of Profit, and will now take the Test, I would have them excused, but such as refuse now should pay double. Sir Edward Seymour. I do not understand the reason of that distinction of 'then' and now.' The thing they stood upon was not matter of conscience, which is the same now as it was then. Because they carried on the Suspending Power, that has brought us into all this misfortune; I am not for distinction. Sir Edw. Seymour. The question is, Whether persons liable to the 500l. Forfeiture shall be charged towards the raising the Money that you have agreed? I suppose no man but believes, that, before you raise this sum, there will be a great many hardships somewhere. You will not make price of their folly. You know what attempts have been made against our religion and laws; this penalty is no more than what they are liable to already. Nothing can be of greater consideration of justice than to make this a fund. To pay 100,000l. a month-a man may live to be mistaken. The prince of Orange's Army, and the other Forces Sir John Thompson. I wonder the gentleman in the West country, have eaten up all the cau remember some and forget others. He fodder of the last year, and you will have an speaks of the Dispensing Power: I think ill account of that country if a hard winter. I they were as great enemies to the government will with chearfulness support the government, who ruined us on the Prerogative side.-He but it is reasonable that we pay not the price was taken down to Order. of other mens follies, while they pay not a farthing to the public charge. As for that law of the Test, the wit of man could not have found out a greater preservative against Popery, and will you let go that impudent action of taking offices without the Test, &c.? Have they deserved this? Were they put in for preservers of your liberties? They may pretend to be defenders of your faith too. You are not at the last end of your tether. I think it reasonable that you should raise these 500l. Forfeitures to be applied to the public. Mr. Hawles. I am no friend to Popery; and I do not regard whether papist, or fanatic, break your laws: I would have the laws run upon them. But the proper question is, Whether the 500l. Forfeiture will yield what you think? If you run upon every man, I am sure you will never raise it, unless as in the Act of Conventicles, he that is, pays for him that is not, responsible. You must make a new law for persons not qualified, and who have got nothing by their offices. end, by the intemperate use of spirituous liquors. Mr. Tindal adds concerning him, on the credit of sir Joseph Jekyll, late master of the rolls, who had it from the mouth of Dr. Scott himself, That while he (Jeffreys) continued a prisoner, he was visited by Dr. John Scott, the celebrated author of the Christian Life; and being urged by him to improve his present situation by a serious review of his past life, he expressed great concern upon the occasion; but with regard to one part of his conduct, which had exposed him to most censure, his behaviour in the West after the defeat of the duke of Monmouth, he declared, that how cruel soever his proceedings might be thought, they had by no means come up to the severity which king James expected from him, his majesty being extremely displeased with him on that account."" Ralph. ceive men. Mr. Sacheverell. I cannot agree to dethe king, by getting nothing by poor You will punish them that did it, to save themselves from ruin. The Papists had another end in it. I do know persons that did come in at that time, that wish as well to the Church of England as any men, who would rather run the penalty than let the Corporation be ruined, and Corporations had been ruined that gave not up their Charters. I can go up to those that made no profit of it, and can freely come in. I mean not, by this, to excuse justices of peace, nor deputy-lieutenants, but poor men in corporations. Sir Edward Seymour. I am sorry Thompson did not go on; but I call to his memory or any man's, to charge me with doing any thing against the interest of the nation, or for any foreign interest. Sir William Pulteney. They were to be prosecuted within six months, who acted in Commissions without taking the Test, and there have been pardons already passed. Mr. Brewer. Whoever transgressed against this law must be fools or knaves; therefore put the question as first moved. Sir John Guise. For ought I see, we need not have put it so far as king James. If the prosecution must be within six months, I would willingly see that. Mr. Sacheverell. If you would put it by a sum, let it be by a quantum of value upon the poor men. I do not except men of authority, as justices of the peace, and deputy-lieutenants, but poor men of corporations. I know not one justice not worth 100. per ann. nor deputy-lieutenant. I know no way but to state it by the sum; put it upon men of 100l. per ann. or money in value to it. Mr. Garroway. It is a hard matter to word this question, but I would put in privy-counsellors, sheriffs, mayors, deputy-lieutenants, and justices, and all offices of profit.' Sir John Guise. There is one you will hardly come at, Charles Frines, recorder of Gloucester. Pray remember his Charge in print. If you go by offices of Profit, that may do. Col. Birch. Do not forget them. I was most afraid of governors of castles, and those in the army; they were most dangerous. Resolved, 1. "That it is the opinion of this committee, That toward the raising the Supply to be given to their majesties, for reducing of Ireland, and prosecution of the War against France, there be a review of the Poll-Bill: and that the house be moved, that a bill be brought in for that purpose. 2. That, in❘ the same bill, there be a tax of 20s. laid upon every shop-Leeper, tradesman, and artificer, worth 3001. clear personal estate. 3. That, towards the raising the said Supply, there be a Tax of 100,000l. laid upon the Jews: and that the house be moved, that a bill be brought in for that purpose." Nov. 8. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, That, towards the raising the Supply to be given to their majesties, the pecuniary Penalties incurred by all privy-counsellors, lord lieutenants, deputy lieutenants, militia officers, justices of peace of counties and cities, mayors, bailiffs of corporations, sheriffs, recorders, town-clerks, and also by other persons who have accepted or exercised any Office or Place of Profit, either military or civil, other than such as are now officers in their majesties armies or fleet, contrary to an Act of the 25th Ch. 2. intituled, An Act for preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants,' be speedily levied and applied to that purpose and that a Bill be brought in to that effect.-All which was agreed to by the house. Nov. 9. The house went into a grand committee, on the Supply. Col. Birch. I have seen an Irish Rebellion before this, in 1640. The Rebellion in Ireland was then quelled out of Irish money and Irish estates. What was then done was by a Bill for Subscription at Guild-hall for so many acres of land on the rebels estates, and other great persons. There was then 370,000l. raised upon it. When Charles 2. came in, a Committee of Claims was made. But if the estates of those in arms against the king and kingdom were offered to sale, I think they would raise some money. This I submit to your wisdom. It makes so many friends to the government, and it is their interest. Your enemies, by this, will see you are in good earnest, and that they are no friends to you, nor you to them. Sir Tho. Clarges. In 1641 an Act passed for Proposals in such a province, and so much was given for so many acres. I am for a Committee to receive Proposals, before you make At that time, an Act; it is too early for that. in 1641, we were possessed of Dublin, and other places, and I think, if we do any thing, a Committee should view the foriner Act. Mr. Hawles. I know no estate yet for- feited in Ireland. In Charles 1st's time, they attainted the persons before they forfeited their estates. Mr. Garroway. You have passed some votes which will not give satisfaction, to come up to your present necessity to raise two millions, by the several projects; we must go really to the thing, and resolve that the land must bear some. I care not which way, so it be done better or worse; therefore say what proportion the land must bear. I propose, that you will raise a certain sum upon the land 1,400,000l. by a pound rate, monthly assessment, and debate that. Mr. Godolphin. You are not yet ripe for this question of laying 1,400,000l. upon land, but you may be presently; the returns being about making in the exchequer of the 12d. in the pound. By that you will know exactly what to do, when you see the duplicates. I believe you must lay 2s, in the pound for one year. "That it is the opinion of this Resolved, committee, 1. That the house be moved to appoint a Committee to receive and consider of Proposals for advancing Money upon the security of Estates forfeited by occasion of the present Rebellion in Ireland. 2. That, towards the raising the Supply, &c. a sum not exceeding 1,400,000l. be charged upon land. 3. That the sum charged upon land be raised by way of a pound rate. pound rate be 2s. in the pound for one year, &c. as also a farther charge of 2s. in the pound upon all such persons as shall refuse to take the Oaths which are appointed instead of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy."--Which being reported, were agreed to by the house. 4. That the said Debate on the State of Ireland.] Nov. 11. Sir Tho. Clarges. If the English army had intercepted king James, we might have had Dublin and Drogheda before they had it. I move, That some persons of trust may be employed to inspect the Army. Mr. Garroway. I move to send into Ireland some persons, not upon recommendation, but persons of integrity, to inspect the Army. I would not have spoken now, but that the Fleet and Army are so out of order, that I know not what they are, nor where. I would have also a true State of the Army in England. I would know what we have to trust to, Mr. Papillon. I move, That you will enquire what Wines and Brandies have been taken as prize, and judged by the Commissioners, that it may be sent into Ireland for relief of the Army there. Sir John Guise. I know not whether the Army ought to be refreshed with that which ought to have been thrown upon the ground. Perhaps there may be some running contrivances to elude your act, but you may, if you please, have benefit by this; perhaps your Army would buy it. I shall not be satisfied to elude your law, but if it be distributed among the regiments that the common soldiers may have the benefit of it, and none else, I am for it. 2 E Mr. Garroway. I desire that some of these gentlemen that tell us of this Wine and Brandy, would acquaint you how they came by it, whether by prize from us, or the Dutch? I can give no vote, till I know how they came by it. Ordered, "That the commissioners of the customs, and the commissioners of the prizeoffice, do, upon Wednesday next, bring in an Account, what French wines and brandies, and other French goods, have been taken as Prizes, or have been seized upon by the officers of the custom-house; and where they are, and when taken, and by whom." Mr. Sacheverell. I like the motion well, to inspect the Army in Ireland, which, I hear, is so low that I am ashamed to name them. Notwithstanding the accounts of 36,000, I believe they are not 14,000 men, and we pay for $6,000. I would have nothing wanting of our duty, and to take care that other persons do theirs, to do what we would all carry on, the reducing of Ireland. As for the Fleet, if we have such another summer, it will be in vain for us to be here. I move, That the king would send such persons to inspect the Army and the Fleet, as he does confide in. Mr. Ettrick. Several of your members are in Ireland, men of quality. I move, that they may come over and give you account. Col. Austen. If you have members there independent on all commands, I am for it, but I would understand the members there. If no more than common fame represents, you had as good have none. Sir John Guise. I doubt not but it is absolutely necessary for your service to know the numbers of your forces in Ireland, the Army here, and the Fleet. I hope you will have a good account, as far as relates to England and the fleet, but you have an army in Flanders; that in Ireland is wholly in Mr. Harbord's, and that in Flanders in lord Churchill's, inspection, &c. As for a committee, it is impossible they should give you account, unless some such way be taken. Sir Tho. Lee. The debate now stands, that the Army of Ireland is disproportionable to what you pay; it is proposed to see the musters sent up to the king. For the present, the king is a stranger to England; it is a wonder he knows so much already. It is for the king's service that you make him this Representation; by it he may know what otherwise he could not. He must see with other mens eyes. I see no doubt but the king will appoint commissioners; therefore put it off your hands. Mr. Smith. I would have persons inspect the Army, that have no interest of command in it; they must incur the ill thoughts of the rest, and I think them not safe in their lives by their fellow-officers. Resolved, "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, &c. that he will 1 please to appoint some fit persons to go over into Ireland, to take an Account of the number of the Army there, and the State and Condition of it." Case of Lord Griffin.] The lord Griffin having been often required by letters and otherwise to attend the house of lords, and still refusing to appear, their lordships desired the king, by an Address, to summon him by his royal proclamation to render himself, (at such a day as his majesty should appoint) to their house, if then actually sitting, or to one of the secretaries of state. His lordship being accordingly summoned, surrendered himself to the lord Nottingham, and on the 19th of October, having made his appearance before the house of lords, the Speaker told him, That he knew what he had to do before his sitting in that house; whereupon his lordship desired time to consider of taking the Oaths, he not being prepared for it: which was readily granted. The same day the parliament was prorogued, a Packet was intercepted, which plainly discovered how little the lord Griffin was inclined to own the present government. This discovery happened in the following manner. His lordship having caused a large tin bottle to be made with a double bottom, ordered his cook to go to a pewterer's at an unseasonable hour of the night, to get the false bottom soldered: the pewterer finding a Packet between the two bottoms of the bottle, began to suspect something; and the cook not giving him a satisfactory answer about its contents, he made bold to open it. The superscription of several letters directed to king James, the duke of Berwick, &c. justified the pewterer's suspicion, who immediately seized the lord Griffin's cook, and carried him to one of the secretaries of state; but he being gone to bed, and his scrvants refusing to admit the pewterer to their master's presence, the lord Griffin, who by this time began to apprehend what had befallen his messenger, took this opportunity to make his escape. Besides the Letters, there was found an Account of some private Resolutions of the Council, and an exact List of all the land and sea forces of England; whereupon the lord Griffin's house and papers were searched, his lady committed to the Tower, several suspected persons arrested, and the Custom-house officers ordered to stop all unknown persons, that offered to cross the seas without passes. Upon which his lordship, having absconded himself some few days, and finding it difficult to go out of the kingdom, surrendered himself to the earl of Shrewsbury, secretary of state, who having examined him, committed him to the custody of a messenger, from whence he was sent into the Tower. Thereupon the commons appointed a committee to enquire how the lord Griffin came to know a Resolution, which the king had communicated to four per sons only; and the lords addressed his maj. to let him understand that the said lord being one of their members, they were consequently his proper judges. The king having left the cognizance of this affair to the peers, they began to examine the Papers intercepted in the pewter bottle, which were the only evidence against the lord Griffin; and because some few days before it had been resolved in that house, that colonel Algernon Sidney was unjustly condemned, nothing but writings, found in his closet, having been produced against him, the earl of Rochester argued from a parity of reason, in favour of the lord Griffin; who after several warm debates was set at liberty upon sufficient bail *. Debate thereon.] Mr. Sucheverell. This is a precedent that is very new. I never saw any of the like nature before. It lays a hard charge on you, as if your members never mentioned this evidence to you. The naming these gentlemen in the Message, and such other members as can inform the lords, &c. !'-To grant an unlimited power of we know not whom, is not parliamentary. Sir Tho. Lee. I think, the thing is quite new, or out of my memory. I would rather take a day's time to consider of precedents. I cannot agree that it is an original thing (as said) but things of this nature are nice between both houses. Mr. Boscawen. There was a member examined about lord Essex. He asked your leave, when called upon by the lords; and now it is much more reasonable that you should give leave. Petition of the Lord Viscount Preston.] While the lord Griffin's affair was depending, the lord Preston, viscount of Scotland, having presented to the house of lords a patent from king James, dated from Versailles the 21st of January, whereby he was created baron of England, their lordships voted him guilty of high-treason; but however, they thought fit to refer the examination of that matter to the Judges, their assistants. My lord Preston pretended, that the patent being dated one day before the meeting of the Convocation, which had voted the Throne vacant, it ought there- Sir John Trevor. This is a matter of great fore to be valid to which it was answered, importance. I would not deny the lords any That the Vacancy was supposed to begin from thing in which they have a judicial power; if the moment king James left the kingdom, you can give them any assistance, in that you whereby he abdicated the government. The may. Enquire into lord Strafford's Case, and next day the Judges brought in the lord Pres- you will find that sir Henry Vane, a member, ton guilty of a high misdemeanour, for which was examined by the lords; and some memhe was committed to the Tower. Not long bers now in lord Stafford's Case; but it was after, his lordship acknowledged, and begged when the commons were prosecutors. As for pardon for his fault, by a Petition to the lords, proceeding by Bills of Attainder, there are but which was rejected upon his subscribing him-few precedents, but what have begun here, but self, viscount Preston, without expressing of what kingdom; the next day he presented another, wherein he stiled himself viscount of Scotland; and moreover, it being alledged in his behalf, that by accepting a patent from king James, he never meant an affront to king William, but only to secure his own person from imprisonment, (being at that time prosecuted at law by the lord Montagu for a considerable sum of money) he was released from his confinement, without giving bail.* Mr. Trenchard and Mr. Hampden sent for by the Lords, touching the Murder of the Lord Russel, &c.] Nov. 13. The lords sent down the following Message to the commons :-" Mr. Speaker, we are commanded by the lords to acquaint this honourable house with this Message, That a Committee being appointed to examine, who were the Advisers and Prosecutors of the Murders of the lord Russel, col. Sidney, sir Tho. Armstrong, Mr. Cornish, and others; and, who were the Advisers of issuing out of Writs of Quo Warranto's against Corporations; and, who were the Regulators; and also, who were the public Asserters of the Dispensing Power; that this house be desired, that Mr. Serjeant Trenchard, and John Hampden, esq.t and such other members of this house, as can inform the lords of the said committee, about those matters, may have leave to appear, when desired, to declare their knowledge therein." those by the king's Attorney General, by the king. I would not have you give up your privilege; but I would give the lords satisfaction, and answer them by messengers of your own, and adjourn the debate till to-morrow. Sir Joseph Tredenham. I would willingly comply with the lords. I hear only of the precedent of the last session; and before you confirm that precedent, by adding another to it, I would consider. Sir John Guise. I know my own ignorauce in methods of parliament; but all desire to clear up the dust in this case. Rather than delay it, refer it to a committee, to see the manner of proceeding of the house, and inspect your Books, and we commend it to their dispatch. Mr. Ch. Montagu. I am so far from hindering the information of the house, that I could wish we had begun the enquiry here. I believe the committee of the lords meet not till Friday, and you may consider of it. Sir Robert Cotton. I desire to see a full prosecution of this business. Never were men so illegally prosecuted and executed. But you have had no precedents of this nature, but the sending for sir Christ. Musgrave, and he was named by the lords; and so far I would agree with the lords, to the persons they name; but, as for the other part of the Message, That persons at their lordships pleasure may be sent for,' there is no instance of precedents; and mouth and lord Russell in the Plot of 1683. Mr. Hampden had been tried and fined 40,0007. * See vol. ii. p. 744. seeing you have none, for the honour of the house you ought to consult methods of parliament, and to answer it to those that shall come after us. I move for a Committee. Sir Tho. Littleton. I would not delay it so long as referring it to a committee. The former part of the lords request seems reasonable, and is far from claiming a jurisdiction; but, as for the other part, to examine whom they shall see cause, of your members, I am utterly against that jurisdiction. Mr. Hampden. You are rationally moved, by Littleton, to send no Answer at al! to the latter part of the Message. Sir Tho. Clurges. I have a great difficulty upon me in this, concerning the lords jurisdiction. By the Statute of Hen. 4, There shall be no more Appeals of Treason of lords against one another in parliament.' But, admitting the lords had jurisdiction of themselves, they have none upon commoners, but, if this may tend to the accusation of commoners, it is against the right of the commons; but if they say it is against such a peer, and such, but to have your members neither to know, whether it is against a commoner, or a peer, I am against it. Sir Edw. Seymour. I came in late, but 1 collect from the debate, that the lords desire Trenchard and Hampden to attend the lords, and give evidence of the authors of the murders of lord Russel, &c. the advisers of the Quo Warranto's and Regulators of Corporations and any other member to attend their lordships, when desired. I think this of that importance to the constitution of parliament, that you cannot find one instance of that kind. When an accusation has been from the commons, then you have permitted your members to give evidence to the lords, but upon an original cause from the lords.-If you examine upon the legislative, you are upon equal footing with the lords; but will you submit and subject yourselves a degree lower, having no precedents to warrant your proceedings? I hope you will be tender how you admit it. Mr. Hawles. 'Tis said, There is no precedent of this Message from the lords; and, indeed, there is no precedent of what has been done lately in the abominable Trials. It is certain that a member may accuse a lord, and certainly there is no manner of mischief in this, but to do a great deal of good. Sir Tho. Lee. I desire gentlemen would think how little things draw great consequences; if gentlemen see what they are about to do, perhaps they will not do it. I think I have read, or heard, that, in former times, the lords sent to the commons to persuade them to the necessity of giving Money; the commons would not confer with the lords about it. You may remember Skinner's case.* The lords tell you, now, they are doing a thing that is the greatest matter in question, whether they can do it; and when you make yourselves * See vol. iv. p. 422. a party, and consent to it, I know not how far it will go. It will be, or not be, as the lords shall think fit. In Fitzharris's Case, at Oxford, the lords would not accept your Impeachment.t I would keep gentlemen on the ancient foundation. This case is an enquiry into matters criminal. I know the consequence of the Quo Warranto's against Corporations, and no man is so brutish as not to abhor the murders of lord Russell, &c. but if the lords take upon them to make enquiry into that which you have power to do, and ought to do, they may, perhaps, bring a commoner summarily to be tried at their bar. Mr. Hawles. Appeals were taken away by the statute Henry 4. of one lord against another in parliament, for Treason; but still there are for murder and felony. Appeals for treasons are always in parliament, and are to be tried by battail. If a man was antiquated, above sixty years of age, he was not bound to battail, nor a woman. But there is no colour that that statute took away Impeachments in parliament. I would have these persons, desired by the lords, have leave to go. Sir Henry Capel. I know, whenever Privilege comes in debate, that it is a very tender and nice thing, but I hope it shall ever be for the preservation, and not destruction, of the government. I would not carry privilege to that excess to prevent common justice, that it may be obstructed. In this case, where you have reserved Attainder of these persons, I hope no Privilege will take place. I think this is no original cause from the lords. I think the peers, as part of the legislature, have power to enquire into these things, as well as the commons. Here have been charters and mens lives taken away, and ill returns of members designed, and your laws destroyed thereby, and no remedy. It is said, There is no precedent for this, &c.' but there is a precedent the last session: sir Christ. Musgrave, and sir Philip Howard, attended the lords, to give evidence in the case of lord Essex. As for a committee to consider this, it is a delay to the enquiry, and we ought to show our readiness to the lords in it. Sir John Trevor. I would know the date of the Message; if it bears date now, it is a small delay for a committee to consider it till to-morrow morning. Is it not better to allow the small delay till to-morrow, than to divide the house upon it? And the Yeas must go out. Sir Robert Howard. It has been said by some, We must agree to all the Message, or none.' Skinner's case was most foreign to this, for that was point of property, which might have had remedy in Westminster-Hall, and was an original cause from the lords. Can this be a prejudice to you? But this will be a deep one; when you will do nothing yourselves in it, and hinder the lords from doing it. You have heard a great deal of this matter, † See vol. iv. p. 1332. |