as if the case of the kingdom was like the gentleman that rode over Rochester-bridge upon a single plank, and was so struck with astonishment afterwards, that he fell down dead-We have gone over a precipice, and we ought to walk warily. He was called to order, by Sir Tho. Lee. It is proper to debate now the time of reading of the bill, but not the words of the bill. Mr. Godolphin. I desire leave to bring in that rider mentioned by Lee. The Speaker. Leave to bring in a rider' I never heard of before. Every one is at liberty to do it without leave. Sir John Lowther. I own myself convinced that the bill ought to be read to-day; and as for the expedient, if you give time for a rider, you will have all the ill consequences that can be, as if the king had another title by conquest. This cause is no more than what was done the last parliament, and has destroyed all supposition by conquest. Sir Tho. Lee. As I told you before, I am always for preserving order. Neither now, nor to-morrow, ought to be the question, but whether you will read it, or not. [He mistook.] I am sorry that any thing I said, by reason of arguing, should be taken for a motion. I thought I spoke plainly to orders and methods. What I did say, was, That it is in every gentleman's power to offer you a rider, if he pleases.' Mine was only an argument, what any gentleman might offer you. 6 The Bill was read a third time, and passed, the question for committing it being carried in the negative.* "On the very day that the Bill passed the lords, it was sent down to the commons, and on the morrow it was taken into consideration by that house. Great and long debates were expected. But to the wonder of all people,' says our lord of Salisbury, it passed in two days, without any debate or opposition.' His lordship adds,The truth was, the tories had resolved to commit the bill, and, in order to that, some trifling exceptions were made to some words, that might want correction: for bills are not committed, unless some amendments are offered: and when it was committed, it was then resolved to oppose it. But one of them discovered this too early; for he questioned the legality of the Convention, since it was not summoned by writ: Somers, then solicitor general, answered this with great spirit. He said, if that was not a legal parliament, they who were then met, and who had taken the oaths enacted by that parliament were guilty of high treason: The laws repealed by it were still in force; so they must presently return to king Janes: All the Money levied, collected and paid, by virtue of the acts of that parliament, made every one that was concerned in it highly criminal. This he spoke with much zeal, and such an ascendancy of authority, that none were prepared to answer it. So the Bill passed without any more opposition. This was a great Debate on the Sheriffs of London being called in.] April 17. The house was informed, that the Sheriffs of the city of London attended at the door, to present a Petition to the house. Col. Birch. I move that they may be called in; it is a respect that was never denied to the city of London, which has been so useful to the government. Sir Edw. Seymour. According to usage of parliament, they ought not to be called in. Have they not their representatives here? If it be a private business, you ought not. Mr. Sacheverell, I am not of opinion that there are any such practices in the city as geutlemen talk of. Though I like not very well the change that has been lately made there in the Militia, nor the Bill to vacate the Judgment against their Charter. I will never be for them that would not stand with them for justifying their liberties. You do the corporation no good by reversal of their judgments. Instead of relieving them, you put them in a worse state than before their charters. I am for giving them their just rights, and no more. Sir John Lowther. The debate is wholly irregular. To talk of Bills not brought in-I never heard that a Petition was delivered to the house, but was first opened, to see whether it was fit for you to receive; for sometimes you have rejected petitions. The last time you refused one from the city of London, because it was not opened. This is a matter that may create heats by dividing us, of the most dangerous consequence. In all companies, they talk of our divisions, that they will ruin us. If it be as people talk, it is a Petition for a bill to establish their own rights. No act enjoins the mayor and aldermen to petition, and nobody' else. Consider the consequence of such a petition to the nation. Who shall you gratify by this but your enemies? Pray go to the order of the day. Sir Henry Capel. A bill has been prepared, and read, about their privileges, and they may take notice of it. If the change of the lieutenancy in the city has been a misfortune, this is the place for it to be heard in, composed, and reconciled. I will not interfere in the order of the day, but beg all encourage ment possible to the city. We know not where to have the Money, but in the compass of the city of London; therefore, pray, put no discouragement upon them, but call them in. Sir Tho. Clarges. It is proper, now the Petition is opened, to consider whether you will receive it, or no? Pray let me put you in mind how you are used in this matter. The moservice done, in a very critical time, and contributed not a little to raise Somers's character.' It farther appears, by the Journals, that a motion was actually made for committing the Bill, which was over-ruled without a division: whence it follows, that the Tories were divided among themselves upon this subject; for, as they were the majority, had they been unanimous, they might have rejected it at the first reading." Ralph. tion is, to restore the city to its ancient liberties, but you order a Bill to vacate the Judgment, and it is ordered to be read a second time. When you were at your devotions (the Fast-Day) no day would serve their turn for a Common Council, but that day. You were told of a great change in the city Militia; but I think, the king could not go with any security out of London, without that change of the lieutenancy. I remember, and sadly, what they did in Charles 1st's time, and the consequences. I am loth to give the Petition the naine it deserves, and I would not have it read. Sir Tho. Lee. I am one of those who were always of opinion, that just so much is due to London, and no more, as to every little corporation in England; That they have a right to petition, either by themselves, or their members, at this house; and we cannot deny them, if they come in that due measure, and decency, as they ought. If the matter be what they ought not to petition, they are in your hands. I know nothing of the alterations in London; but I take it for very fortunate, that the Judges have their places now Quamdiu se bene gesserint; I should be afraid else the old ones would come in. I hope those who are the advisers of the king's change of the officers will take care, if this change be not good, that it shall be altered; if those judges should come into their places that have done ill. If the county of Buckingham should send a Petition, I hope you will receive it. Mr. Harcourt. It seems that this Petition is framed rather at a cabal, than from the city; and not only brought in by the sheriffs, but against the very act of the members of the house. may be done on that day as well as others. When you have occasion to use those gentlemen of the city, do not anger them. (Some laughed.) I cast my eye upon those that carry their pleasure of ridiculousness upon me, which I despise. Pray consider, whether you will not have occasion for money. Mr. Coningsby. That question puts me upon another; whether those gentlemen will lend? I hope there are no murderers in the lieutenancy of London; and I hope those that will not qualify themselves, will be turned out. The Petition was then opened by Sir Robert Clayton. (But he had not the Petition in his hand; which was against order.) I am not versed in the laws, but I know none That my lord mayor and the aldermen should bring the Petition themselves to the parlia ment.' They ought to be delivered by members of the house. Every member here serves for all England. Sir Edmund Jennings. I know none put in nor out of the lieutenancy, but, I believe, on good consideration. The Gazettes were stuffed with Addresses to king James, to stand by him in the Dispensing Power with lives and fortunes: Quakers, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, and other sects; they either stood by king James, or assisted him. If they did it, or did not assist the present king, what security can the government have from them, that either opposed this king, or forsook king James? They are fit to be put out not only of civil but military employment. The king did not understand the constitution of the government, when he came in; but, since, he knows who are fit to be employed, and that these men put in are fit. The question being put, That the Sheriffs of the city of London he called in, it passed in the negative, 215 to 166. Debate on the Bill for reversing the Judgment against the City of London.] April 22. The Bill for reversing the Judgment, in a Quo Warranto, against the City of London, was read a second time. Sir Robert Howard. I shall not enter upon complimenting the city, nor upon particular respects, but your duty in respect of yourselves. I know not how the Common Council is become a cabal now; it was a good cabal, when the king desired 100,000l. and they sent him 200,000l. I have a respect for those put in, and for those put out; but you must not be led on thus: since some of Mr. Cornish's and Sir Robert Clayton. I am of opinion, with lord Russel's jury, murderers, had the power those that think this to be of great concern to of the sword in their hands; those put out, I be settled, in order to that, to lay our hands and believe, are remote from a commonwealth-heads to work. I would obviate all scandal To refuse this Petition is one of the sharpest things that ever was. Was not Oxford Petition, between the first and second reading of a Bill, read! This would be a favour to encourage the city to assist; and these very people are not so inconsiderable a cabal, if it be one. If a member be so affixed to a town, or a place, what does he here, if he be not for the public? Pray be pleased to admit the Petition; if it be 'not fit for you, throw it out. Nobody knows yet what it is; and it will be strange to receive Oxford Petition, and throw out this. Sir John Parsons. I will not call it a cabal; but several aldermen were not called to the common-council, and particularly I was one. Col. Austen. I tell you why I would not be too strict in observing days. Deeds of charity laid on the city of London, by this Petition, that you have rejected, as not well obtained. The common-council ordered a Bill to be proposed to present to the house; they did this on Tuesday in the afternoon. They summoned a council, by which a committee was empowered to draw a Petition to present to the house. As to summoning the council, the lord mayor assures the house they had due summons. Sir John Parsons told you, he had no summons:' another, Mr. Perry, tells you of a nephew of his that had no summons. Parsons orders all his summonses to be left at a goldsmith's, and his summons was left accordingly; and the officer made oath that Parsons never called for it. The wards were summoned by printed tickets, and there are witnesses at the Debate on the King's Change of the Licutenancy of London.*] April 24. Sir Tho. Clarges. By this example of the change of the lieutenancy of London, the king has a great care of us; and I hope he will do the same all England over; and I move you to thank him. door, to prove a regular summons to every man. Mr. Papillon. The Bill is so far from the title, that it is against the thing. There were great endeavours to take away all the privileges of the city soldiers were drawn up in Guildhall. This was before the Judgment upon the Quo Warranto. As this Bill is penned, you confirm all that was done before, instead of restoring the privileges. I move that you will enquire into what ancient privileges the city had before by the Judgment and Quo Warranto they were taken away. Sir John Guise. I would know, whether you do not confirm that election of sheriffs, by which they lost all their liberties? Will you confirm all these actions? You are told, 'This was a cabal that framed the Petition;' but we do not find but that they had legal summons. They desire one thing, and you do another; They desire to be heard by counsel to the Bill; and that is made a ridiculous thing. You deny nobody counsel to be heard in the like case. I am not against the commitment of the Bill; but a great many things are to be thought of; and I hope you will take such consideration and steps, as wise men ought to think of, and not lay imputations upon people of a commonwealth. Those who spread such reports betwixt the king and his people, are criminal. Mr. Papillon. I must not jest with myself, though I am a citizen, but I know not who these persons are that you thank him for. I know not the names of a fourth, or a half of them; they may be obnoxious to the church of Eugland, and the government. Such a motion as this, after two o'clock, is not for your Mr. Campion. I am for the church of England-men to be employed in this lieutenancy. I know not whether it be true or no, but I have heard, that several of them would not take the oaths to the government. I would know what this lieutenancy is, before I give my consent to thank the king. Mr. Finch. I think the gentleman mistakes the motion; for the Address to the king is for those in the licutenancy; and those that would not take the oaths, are not by law of the lieutenancy. Sir Robert Clayton. I should be glad to understand the question, and the reason of it, (and so gives an account of the Change of the Lieutenancy in the last Cominission.) But it is worth your examination, neither the ablest nor best men are added. I would examine, whether these persons are worth the favour of this Address to the king. You will find, that many have had a hand in the worst things. I am for cementing, not for dividing. Divisions and "The Corporation Bill did so highly provoke all those whom it was to have disgraced, that the Tories were by far the greatest number in the new parliament. One thing was a part of the bargain that the Tories had made, that the lieutenancy of London should be changed. For upon the king's coming to the crown he had given a commission, out of which they were all excluded; which was such a morti Sir Tho. Vernon. There is one thing to be provided for, that all freemen may be confirm-fication to them, that they said, they could not ed, livery-men paid, some 20, some 251. for it. That that may be confirmed, I would have part of the instructions to the committee. Mr. Foley. I suppose it is not the design of the house to restore those to their places, who have lost them because they would not swear to the government: that is not for the king's interest, nor the city's. It is intimated, that this bill will restore sir Dudley North and sir Peter Rich to be sheriffs. I know not how the house will come up to that, I think Rich has lost his alderman's place; and, notwithstanding disability of places, by this bill they are restored. I would have them restored to the rights they had before the Judgment against the Charter. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a committee of the whole house; and that Counsel be heard upon the said Bill, to such points as the house shall direct. live in the city with credit, unless some of them were again brought into that commission. The king recommended it to the bishop of London to prepare a list of those who were known to be churchmen, but of the more moderate and of such as were liable to no just exceptions; that the two parties in the city might be kept in balance. The bishop brought in a List of the most violent Tories in the city, who had been engaged in some of the worst things that passed at the end of king Charles's reign. A committee of council was appointed to examine the List, but it was so named that they approved of it. This was done to the great grief of the Whigs, who said, That the king was now putting himself in his enemies hand, and that the arms of the city were now put into a set of officers, who, if there was a possibility of doing it without hazard, would certainly use them for king James." Burnet. · parties never did good, nor ever will, of any church or party whatsoever. If you will give liberty to enquire further into the lieutenancy, I believe you will not pass this vote. move me, Sir John Lowther. I am for this, because it will take away our divisions. If the king reI am so conscious to my own abilities, that I shall agree that I am justly renov ed; and if they have not given satisfaction to the government, I hope they will comply for the future. We have had talk of ill management of Addresses for removal of persons, and catechising the king. I hope that is gone. I hope he will have success and encouragement in the farther methods he shall please to use, and take away all dangerous and factious people, to the full satisfaction of the government. If there are such inen, they are fit for removal, and I hope they will be turned out; and that it will extend to both sides, one as well as the other, and take away all divisions for the future. Mr. Foley. I am afraid we are under a mistake in this. Some said, they were Church of England-wen, and some not. I have seen a List, and I must observe many in the lieutenancy that have had their hands in blood several times over. 'Tis not for the service of the nation to condemn a man upon one witness, and one that contradicted himself. Some are there, who went to congratulate king James after his return, and the landing of the prince of Orange. I know not why you will take so much notice as to give the king Thanks for these men. They have chosen one for colonel, who would not qualify himself to be an alderman, and has appeared, by force, to controul elections in the city. I believe, when you examine, many things will be proved upon these persons; and, I hope, when the house has a full information of these things, they will not think it for the interest of the king and kingdom, that these men should be continued. Sir Samuel Dashwood. I find, great stress is laid upon one particular, of persons unqualified. The matter of fact is this: sir James Smith happened to be in the country; and I have heard bim solemnly declare, That he never heard of that act.' Though the court of aldermen did not admit him, yet they admitted another under the same circumstances. Sir Tho. Allen omitted it solely upon ignorance of the act. I know many, of great reputation and honour, of the city, (if I may call it so) and their loyalty did manifestly appear by the great sums they sent the king. Be they Churchmen, or not, this particular person is as honest to the king's interest as any man in the lieutenancy. Sir Robert Howard. I am of his mind. I would not shut a man out of the government, that is willing to come in, both clergy and others: I am so far from taking advantage of omissions, that I would restore all. To the honour of the privy-council, it was said once, That you were beholden to the lower end of the table for taking away the Chimney-money.' I had no share in that advice; it was from the king.-But, for an Address to thank the king in general, there I must say a word. I speak under the shelter of an act of parliament-To ingross Thanks for such men, for actions you have marked and judged criminal! If you go on the method of thanks for the men of the Church of England, I am for that; but, for men that have committed murders (the king not knowing it); and you thank alderman Cornish's and lord Russel's Jury-King James took down Cornish's rotten quarters, set up there by as rotten a power-Pray let this be examined. Let us not ask the king for that, but for the Church of England-For acts, that we ourselves have condemned, that an act of parliament has condemned, and all mankind! Mr. Finch. Most gentlemen mean the same thing, in this debate; It is not, that the house will thank the king for 20 or 40 people, but for those who, by their principles and practice, are for the Church of England. I would have a question that will thus take the sense of all men, I would have the king thanked, For the great care he has taken of the Church of England, in the alteration he has made in the Militia of London.' Col. Birch. I did never think, after the experience I have had, ever to have heard this, and that we are all agreed to serve the king and kingdom, In the parliament of 1660, none abroad durst look the king in the face, when the king said, Let this be called the healing and blessed parliament.' Not long after this, one sort of people, who acted in a corner (I know who they were) made men criminated in most corners of the kingdom; this brought us into a low condition. We were taught that prayers and tears would cure us; but they brought Declarations and the government to tyranny. Pray let this Address alone, till we have beaten our enemies. I protest, if I would give advice from the other side of the water, it should be this; for gentlemen to give Thanks for they know not what. Let us see these gentlemen (we thank for) who they are first. I know what they are that stuck to the king, from Dan to Beersheba. To put the king into other hands, I am not for it. Examine who these are, and do not give Thanks hand over head for these men. Sir Henry Capel. If I am not for the Church of England, I have much forgot whom I am descended from, that suffered for that church in the Palace-yard *. Is it a reasonable thing that the whole body of the parliament should address the king, &c. without satisfaction? Suppose you make this Address, and you find those put in are not of the Church of England, and have been of the bloody juries? When you address the king, do you not take every part of his Speech into consideration, before you draw up your Address? I never saw the List of this lieutenancy, but I have heard an ill character of some of them. I have seen the Church of England set forwards and backwards, * Lord Capel, his father. by lord Clifford, who did head the Declaration; | men? But, as to thanking the king for any geand here we are set one against another, and neral kindness done to the Church of England, all for the interest of the Papists. We cannot I am for it. justify ourselves to our country, in this Declaration, if any of these things alledged happen. Another parliament will find fault with this Address, as not consistent with reason. Unless there be some other design in it, I move, that a committee may make a fair report of these persons in the Lieutenancy, that we may be all unanimous. Sir Christ. Musgrave. All unanimously agree for Thanks to the king, for his encouragement of the Church of England. Plainly, that is the sole bottom of his security, to establish the crown, to countenance it, and shall not this house take notice of it? It has given great satisfaction, in the country, that the king has made this alteration; and shall not the king know of it? I hope those of the council will advise the king of the sense of so considerable a part of the nation. What do the Dissenters terminate in, but a commonwealth? 6 Sir John Lowther. I would neither take notice of these mens merits nor crimes. But the interest is changed; and their morals are good, whatever their principles are. If you stay till all are of a mind, you will never have alterations; but if things are comparatively better, 'tis that which we give thanks for. Sir Henry Capel. It seems to me, that every one is zealous for the Church of England well established for this particular place, for London only. The executive part is always in the crown; to put out, and put in, as it pleases: therefore it will be more safe, and more for the honour of the Church, and this house, that there be no negative for the whole kingdom. For the king's care of the Church of England, carry it as far as you will. Let the question be general, and leave out the Lieutenancy of London.' Sir Tho. Littleton. It is strange to return Thanks to the king for this alteration, before we know whether it be an alteration or no. We are told, That the Dissenters are left in the lieutenancy.' I am one of those that would" not make the king a king of a party. The misunderstanding in the nation, is not from Church of England-men and Dissenters, but betwixt Church-men and Church-men, that would ingross the name of Church-men, to bring in tyranny, and persecute all Protestant churches abroad. Those that are for having the king universal king of all his people, will support him in any trial; and I doubt that trial is nearer than we are aware of. The house is not yet so much satisfied as to know the names of this Lieutenancy of London. I am not for the question, till we know what we are doing. Sir Edw. Seymour. I made you the motion that occasioned this debate. I hope now I shall propose something to all your satisfactions. I would address the king, with Thanks for his care of the Church of England, expressed in the alteration of the Lieutenancy of England.' Col. Birch. In all these debates, something starts of use to the king and kingdom. I know not who is for king James, or who for king William. It grieved my heart to see a thousand at church last Sunday, and not forty at the Sacrament. He that is unworthy of the one, I think, is unfit for the other: it is a fund of confidence upon one another. Let us abjure him on the other side of the water; and, instead of this endless, sleeveless Address, draw up that abjuration. Resolved, "That the humble Thanks of this house be presented to his majesty, for the great care he has expressed of the Church of England, in the late Alterations he has made in the Lieutenancy of the city of London." The words, in the Lieutenancy of the city of London," were retained, 185 to 136. Debate on the Abjuration Bill.] Mr. Harbord. Pray let us not lose our question, ‹ That they that will not make renunciation of king James's title, shall not have the benefit of the Habeas Corpus act, nor be capable to bear any office.' We have been told of Overloading the cart;' (by Birch) but I had rather have nothing in the cart, than leave the main load behind. And 1 move, that the word Ecclesiastical Offices' may be put into the question. Sir John Lowther. 'Tis absolutely necessary, that this motion of the Habeas Corpus be put into the Bill of Abjuration. I know that designs are carried on, to the destruction of the government: therefore I would have it part of the instructions to the committee. Sir Tho. Clarges. The Habeas Corpus act went backward and forward; and we had 16 years time to get it; and now to make a law to be deprived of that law! Make what penalties you will; but, in one act to repeal another, I know not where the consequence may rest. I value liberty more than life, or estate: that's my passive obedience; I cannot consent to it. Mr. Wharton. We differ only about words. I say, 'Imprison,' as serjeant Wogan says, 'without bail or mainprize,' or to be deprived of the Habeas Corpus act, is the same thing. Sir Tho. Lee. I am as fond of the Habeas Sir Henry Goodrick. I approve much what Corpus act as any body. The bill against fohas been moved, that the Address be in gene-reign imprisonment was lost once, in the lords ral. I hope we shall avoid going from one ex-house, by one vote. It was, when the liberty treme to another. of the subject was inconsistent with what was Col. Austen. I believe the Church of Eng-to be then done. But this is only instruction to land all very good men; and those tools, or that made themselves so, who congratulated king James's return to Whiteball, and wept for joy, will you thank the king in general for these VOL. V. a committee, for direction to draw a Bill, I do it now, upon this particular occasion, now the king goes away, for the security of the government. But for those that will give no security, 2 Q |