Изображения страниц

mittee, That the lords spiritual and temporal, of Holland is, they are at war with the greatest and-commons, now sitting at Westminster, are power in the world. I would know the conthe two houses of parliament." Which Reso-dition of our Alliance with them; perhaps we lution was agreed to by the house. shall enlarge it. I would not be hood-winked. I would fully know it, and I hope we shall give sound and good advice. Though Holland has done great things for us, and though Holland is first in the king's Speech, I believe it an inadvertency. Ireland goes nearest us, and is of the greatest consideration. I would know the condition of Ireland; which is not to be done without a clear representation of it exposed to us, and I care not how soon it may be. I fear to-morrow will be too soon, the king being at Hampton Court.

Debate on the King's Speech.] Feb. 25. The commons went into a Grand Committee on the king's Speech.

Sir Thomas Clarges. We have great obligation to Holland; but I believe in ten days time we shall have an Account. The condition

Peterborough, (these were five of the seven hishops sent to the Tower by king James) Lloyd of Norwich, Thomas of Worcester, and Frampton of Glocester. Sancroft had been archbishop ever since the year 1676. He was Mr. Hampden. I was not at the first part a man of solemn deportment, and considerably of the debate, but it seems to tend to the king's learned. He lived abstracted from company, Speech, which declares his desire that you and was fixed in the old maxims of high loy- would consider of Alliances abroad, and of alty. He was named in the Ecclesiastical Ireland, which relates not only to our being, Commission by king James, but would never but our well being. It is said by Clarges, he go to that court, nor declare against it, though would have an explanation of the king's he thought it illegal. He joined in the Peti- Speech.' The king is not in town; but what tion against reading king James's Declaration use of it, if he were in town? You have his for Liberty of Conscience. He met the privy-Speech, but if you would have particulars day counsellors at Guildhall, and invited the Prince after day, you will have no use of it; but wheof Orange to take the government upon him, ther will the state of affairs bear your partibut refused to go with the rest of the bishops cular consideration? I am not moving for to welcome him to St. James's, though he had Money, but whether you will have a long series once agreed to it. When the Convention met of affairs, now every body expects its action. the 29th of January, he came not to take his Your friends are afraid, and your enemies place among them. He resolved neither to laugh at delay. But if any man moves for act for nor against king James's interest, Aid, then, by order, you must appoint a day which was thought very unbecoming in one of to consider of it. I wish with all my heart the his high station. For since he believed, as house would consider of an Aid to the king, afterwards appeared, that the nation was run- and I hope it will be for the honour of the ning into treason, rebellion and perjury, it was king, and the nation, as much as can be, and strange to see him, who was at the head of the I move you will consider it to-morrow. Church, sit silent all the while, and not so much as declare his opinion by speaking, voting, or protesting. But he was a poor spirited and fearful man, and acted a mean part in the whole affair of the Revolution. He went on afterwards in the same unactive state, still refusing the Oaths, but neither acting nor speaking, except in great confidence, to any against their taking them. Thomas and Lake, who both died soon after, like the archbishop, never came to the house of lords. When the other five withdrew from the parliament, that they might recommend themselves by a show of moderation, some of them moved for a Bill of Toleration, and another of Comprehension, whereby all moderate Presbyterians might be reconciled to the Church of England, and admitted to ecclesiastical benefices. These bills were drawn and offered by the earl of Nottingham, for which he received the thanks of the house. From this time may be dated the rise of the Non-jurors, who, rejecting the notion of a king de jure and a king de facto, as well as all other distinctions, and limitations, strictly adhered to the principle of the divine right of kings, and were the authors of all the plots and conspiracies against the new settlement, which they refused to acknowledge." Tindal.

Sir Tho. Clarges. There is nothing yet before you to answer that motion. I am as forward as any body to aid the king, but we are not proper for that till the State of the Revenue be brought in and exposed to you, which may do sufficiently. The long robe are of opinion, that the king is invested with it, and in possession of it, and holds it jure coronæ. I know in last king James's time, the first thing spoken of in parliament was Aids, though I know heretofore Aids used to be the last. I hope we shall not be told we want affections to the king, but I would go by the steps our ancestors have trod in. I would know what the Revenue is, and then the uses to put it to. Ireland will cost so much, and Holland so many men and ships; when the Charge is before you, we shall know our measures, and till it is clear to us that there is an use of Aid, it is not at all proper to consider it; therefore I move to adjourn this to Wednesday.

Mr. Pilkington. I move that, without delay, we may speedily fall on consideration of the king's Speech, suitable to what the parliament is called together for.

Mr. Howe. I am well pleased we should consider the relief of Ireland, but our affairs at home fright us more than those abroad; the old Army is rather grown worse than mended.

I have a letter from my corporation (Ciren- |
cester) that the soldiers quartered there, will
not let the people make bonfires at proclaim-
ing the king, and they are not checked by their
officers. If you give pay to the officers, it is not
convenient the soldiers should have pay to cut
our throats. Let the Army be in the hands
of those the king may trust, and then give
Money. The letter acquaints me, with all the
terror that can be expressed, that the soldiers
are so insolent there, that, contrary to the in-
terest of the king and queen, they proclaim
king James. It is time to prevent these inso-
lences. They drank king William's and queen
Mary's Damnation. I believe the justices will
not redress this. The Clergy are got into ca-
bals, and they would not appear at the Pro-
clamation. I believe the black coats, and the
red coats, to be the grievances of the nation.
I would willingly satisfy the poor people I re-

Sir Wm. Williams. If you will consider the king's Speech, you have fair room to debate on Aid, and, what belongs to it, the quantity and consideration of the Revenue. War and peace we meddle not with; we are only to supply it. How far the Revenue was settled on the late king, whether all or part vested in him by law, is it to be considered. If there be a defect, it may be supplied by act of parliament; it is not fit to leave these things in the dark. When that is done you may consider of Aids, without going upon it hastily. But to say, that time will not stay for it. I am as much for haste as any body, but to justify myself to my country, we cannot come at this matter without knowing whether you will continue the Revenue, or reverse all the last parliament did. I am for supporting the king, both at home and abroad, in what fairly may be done, and all these things come naturally out for the king and country.

Resolved, "That the house will to-morrow morning resolve itself into a Grand Committee to consider the king's Speech."

remember it was moved by good Church of England men.

Sir Henry Capel. What belongs to the Oaths to the king and queen, &c. I would have in one act. I think it is well moved about the Corporation Oaths. I am glad to see men tender in oaths; the fewer in the government the better. The design formerly here was to bring the government into as few bands as they could, and to bring in Popery at the bottom of all. I would have no more oaths than are necessary to support the government. The Corporation Oath was to establish arbitrary power by law. The Revenue of corporations has been ill managed. I move that there may be leave to bring in such a bill. As for what relates to the Sacrament, every body knows my education has been for the Church of England, and I will live and die with it, but I would have the receiving the Sacrament, to qualify for those offices, cease. It was pressed at here by men of great abilities, and good churchmen were against it. Such use was made of it that people could not sell ale without it, and that holy thing was profaned. The Test will do very well without it, and I would have it removed.




Sir Tho. Clarges. If the Oath be taken away in the Corporation Act, that it is not lawful to resist the king,' it implies you may resist him. As for the Sacrament, &c. if you take away the whole act, take away that; I think that unreasonable. The public profession of the Church of England enjoins, that the Sacrament be received at least once a year.' There is no example in the whole world where any are in office, and not of the public profession of the religion of that country. Men cannot be surprized, nor will there be any profaning the Sacrament, being obliged to receive it but once a year. I am not for taking away the whole Oath, but for having it explained.— Leave was given to bring in such a Bill.

Debate on the King's Revenue.] Feb. 26. The house went into a grand committee on the King's Speech.

Mr. Eyre. That we may be able to come to some resolution, I desire we may go on with the king's Speech, paragraph by paragraph.

Debate on taking away the old Oaths of Allegiance, &c.] Leave was asked to bring in a Bill for taking away the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and to insert others, &c. Mr. Sacheverell. I agree to the motion for this bill, to take away the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and in their stead to insert Oaths to this king and queen. And I would have the other Oaths in the Act for regulating Corporations taken away. You have the same power to alter those as you have these.

Lord Falkland. We ought to take that first on which all the rest is founded. That upon settlements at home is the foundation of all the rest. Whatever is done in relation to Ireland, and abroad, Money must be thought of, and I propose that for consideration.

Sir Tho. Clarges. That is irregular, for it is not referred to you by the house to consider of, and therefore out of course, and Money is a tender matter. As I understand, the Speech

Sir Rob. Howard. I would not charge this bill with too many things; it will be long before you have the effect of it. The University, the Judges, and all other officers, require speedy dispatch, and in time that Act of Cor-points directly to the matter of Settlement, porations may be taken away at one blow. and the condition of Allies abroad and Holland That act had as much intrinsic iniquity as any [and so reads it], so the king here advises a act whatsoever. I would have an act to take good Settlement. And it seems to me this away any obligation to take the Sacrament good Settlement is to change this Convention upon accepting any office; it is a profaning into a Parliament; so had not the wisdom the Sacrament, When that act passed here, I of this house turned this Convention into


a Parliament, you would have advised the grant, &c.' and next, it shall be received by king speedily to have called one; and as the the king for life;' with reference to the former king leaves it to your wisdom to consider what Acts. Now, whether this be in the king, &c. acts to propose, so now 'tis a proper time for a If I make a lease to the king for life, as long Settlement of your chief errand; therefore I as he lives amongst men, 'tis a good lease, if a would consider what foundation that may sub-man enters into religion, or be attainted of treason-Suppose the king granted a Pension, or charged it, &c. for his life-If civilly dead, this never qualifies the first grant for natural life. Then next, whither must the Revenue go? Shall it go from the succession? Then this being granted to succession, it follows, the crown must have it, for maintenance of the state and government of the kingdom. - This is the reason I give my opinion upon.

sist upon; they are there but in the nature of projections. I shall not direct, but I think the purport of the king's Speech is to consider a Settlement most for the king's advantage and our good. And therefore I move it.

The Speaker resumed the Chair, upon occasion of some strangers being in the Gallery, and left it again *.

Mr. Garroway. We are invited by the king's Speech to make out a Settlement to se- Sir Wm. Pulteney. Under favour, I think cure ourselves, &c. We heard yesterday from estates given to James 2 are expired and dethe gentlemen of the long robe, that the reve-termined; he having abdicated the governnue is not ceased by the demise of the king-ment, and thereby the throne become vacant. If provision be not made against the disorder Whatever relates to James 2 is determined. of the soldiers, 'tis not safe for us to sit here- I agree, if i be a lease for life of king James 2, How you will go about that I see not, till you it is not determined by his abdication, and know whether the Revenue be really settled that grant does not determine the grant over in the crown; and then you will know what to to another, if granted to a person for life, and trust to. If there be a doubt upon it, we must he be attainted, or civiliter mortuus. But our go some other way; but if you declare the case stands on another bottomn, on a construcRevenue settled, it may end all discourses. tion by act of parliament, which says, It shall be collected and paid, to the king during his life.' 'Tis our security, as well as support of the crown, to have the Revenue in our dispos al; though I am not against granting it, yet I would have it from 3 years to 3 years, to secure us a parliament. At least it is a doubtful case. But king James has abdicated, and is no king, and there is an interregnum. How we can count this man alive, I know not. I am for settling it as you shall think fit.


Sir Wm. Williams. You are told of the long robe's discourses of the Revenue; if any doubt or question be put upon it, clear it. The measure of the matter before you must be the Revenuc certain upon the crown, and you may measure by it. I take it from the acts of the last parliament, (made in great haste) which are very doubtful to me, and I would be cleared, and come speedily to a resolution, if it be a good Revenue, for the use of the prince: if not, declare it so.

Serjeant Holt. It is not the question concerning the expedience or convenience, but how this matter stands in point of law? Upon reading the Act, it carries a plain construction expressly; for king James 2 had it for life, and that king James is now living, which the house has declared, and that he has abdicated, &c. If that had not been, the Throne had not been vacant; and if king James be alive, the Revenue continues; and who must take it? The king takes it in his political capacity, which is not dead but remains. If king James be still alive, I see no reason that the Revenue is determined. If it be given to king James, 'tis a fee simple; if to his heirs and successors, 'tis otherwise; his natural and political capacity, his heirs and successors. Suppose tenant for life be attainted, the king has it for life of the person attainted, and his successor has it. Besides, not only his political capacity remains, but his trust for guarding the seas, and he is a person that can answer the end of the trust. I hope you will not say the king is dead as to the vacancy of the Throne, and alive as to the Revenue.

Sir Tho. Clarges. I was with an honourable person discoursing of the Revenue, that I was not free to grant it for life. Learned men are of opinion, that all of the Revenue granted for life of the late king is to the benefit of this king jure corona. If it be so, I shall acquiesce in it, that the king may have it with honour for the support of the government.

Mr. Pollexfen. What opinion I was then of, I am now, and am ready to tell my reasons. If the Revenue goes not with the crown, where is it? Where the crown is gone, the Revenue is gone. It always goes where the public capacity goes: I never knew the contrary. But the Revenue' (it may be said) is granted to the king for life.' I would have the words of that Act read, [which was read] I will take it in the several parts of it: It does give and


"The house being informed, that there were in the Gallery, while the committee of the whole house was sitting, several persons that were not members of the house; Ordered, That the serjeant at arms, attending this house, do, from time to time, take into his custody any stranger, or strangers, that he shall see, or be informed to be in the house, or Gallery, while the house, or any committee of the whole house, is sitting." Journals.

Mr. Peyton Ventris *. I should be loth the king's Revenue should depend upon doubt Revenue given to the king is to his successors,

* Soon after made a Judge.

where the act runs, The king shall be paid it; and only to the present king devoted;' it belongs not to his successors.

Sir Rob. Sawyer. There are three sorts of Revenue, some for life, and some for successors, &c. The only question is that for life, and admitted in his political capacity; but with limitation for his natural life, 'tis not so long as he shall continue king, but for his natural life. Tis argued that any grant to the king in his political capacity is now determined, that carries a trust with it.' Other gentlemen say this is but in the nature of an ordinary conveyance.' Now, who shall have this estate? If a man enters into Religion, it does not determine the estate, but the heir shall enter. If it be granted to the king in his political capacity, it goes with the king in present. Tis most plain the trust is for the public. I take the law to be, that those grants are construed in the common course of law.

Sir John Guise. What is given to the king, I conceive, is not as he is king, but for support of the nation, to take care of it. If so given, then 'tis not the king's going away who was to receive it, 'tis not come to be nothing, but is fallen upon the lords and commons-And no more is conveyed than granted; therefore I would declare it in the king.

live, it should return to the people, they would say no. In those three sorts of Revenue it is expressed in the same words as this, for Life-His majesty for life. Is that for eight years determined? No. Which implies that it will go to his successor, notwithstanding his demise or abdication. It is as reasonable to construe this so too, and expound one part by another. Had it not beeu for this unfortunate change for James 2, (which I speak of with melancholy thoughts) you yourselves in effect have declared your mind as to this Revenue. When you desired the Prince of Orange to take upon him the administration of the government, you remember that gentleman who said, 'we were no Parliament,' said we wanted only a Declaration of it, but had not formality.' When the Prince of Orange was happily arrived, and the lords and commons were suminoned, they advised the prince to take the administration of affairs upon him, civil and military, and the public Revenue. He put out a Declaration of the great disorder in collecting the Customs, and appointed Officers to receive and collect the same till the 22d of January, the time the Convention was to meet. Then you addressed him with Thanks for accepting the government, and desired him to continue the receiving the Revenue, &c. Which could have no other interpretation than what Revenue was then in

Lord Falkland. Being settled on king James for life, you cannot do it for king Wil-being; and it is strange it should not be conliam, during king James's life. You have de- tinued, and nothing of consent in parliament. clared the Throne vacant, and after it was so Till king, lords, and commons are actually for some days. If the Revenue did cease joined to the king, it is no parliament. If so, when the Throne was vacant, I know not how you declare William has done what James it can be revived but by act of parliament. I did, and what you thought a Grievance. No would not have the Revenue doubtful, but man but concludes the uncertainty of the Reclear it by act of parliament. venue to the king for another man's life; and I need not labour the matter.

Sir Tho. Clarges. I do not labour this, but I offer only, that, if there be any doubt, you will put it past doubt.

Sir George Treby. The long robe were pointed at even now, and I will deliver my opinion freely. I think it is mighty plain that this Crown is an hereditary crown. Richard 2 abdicated, and there was a vacancy. When the king dies, nolens volens, the crown descends to his successor; but when he abdicates the crown, the disposing of it comes to the lords and commons, and must be so accepted by the king. Lord Falkland is above the study of the law, but if he was conversant, he would know that if a Revenue is granted to John-a-Styles for life, though the king dies, if John-a-Styles is alive, that lease is not void. I have spoken of this variously, and was not determined in my thoughts till this morning, but now am of epinion that it rests in the life of king James 2. From the opinion of the last parliament, and this too, the Revenue is of inheritance of years and life. That upon which the question arises is that of the Customs, and half the Excise, given to the king, and limited to his life, in his corporeal capacity. What is meant by the king's Life? I think, not his reign, for it might have been as well expressed his reign, and as well now; but I think it is intended, during his natural life. If all the parliament were asked, when that grant passed, if they intended, that, as long as king James should

Mr. Howe. One would have the Revenue during king James's life, and another during king William's; but I would make no such leases, but from time to time by parliament. I hope Westminster-Hall shall never decide our purses, what we are to give. I think king James did abdicate the Revenue; nay, that he did forfeit it to somebody's hands, and if we could give it, nemo dat quod non habet,' That the Crown is forfeited, and that the lords and commons offered it as a present to king William, and that they have a right to offer this Revenue as a present to him, is my opinion.

Mr. Godolphin. I am willing to divide with both opinions. I believe, that parliament that gave this Revenue, intended not to give it to king William; for there were no thoughts then of king James's abdication. If any doubt be in the house, it is in your power to put it out of doubt.

Sir Jonathan Jennings. It is highly necessary to come to an end of this debate. There have been many cases put, and hope some come up to our case. We are told, some of

[blocks in formation]

Sir Rd. Temple. You have had a long debate, and it is hard to know what to advise you in this case. You have heard the gentlemen of the long robe, who tell you the Revenue is still in being, and applicable to king William; but you must still declare it in king William by act of parliament;' meaning, should you do it by Vote alone, it will not be so satisfactory. The reasons offered do not take away all doubt. It is said, 'the Revenue is granted to the late king, but with limitations, for life: I would know, whether his natural capacity, or political? His political capacity ceases, and you have impowered the Prince of Orange to reign; but where was it during the Vacancy, when one of the capacities is gone? I would have it explained. This being the case, king William will hold it upon mighty uncertainties, if during the life of king James: therefore, I would have a Bill brought in, to declare the Revenue as you shall think fit.

Col. Birch. It is very convenient that this matter be cleared. I perceive this is a doubt amongst learned gentlemen. I cannot think that this being given for king James's life, is intended longer than his reign, when he does not protect and defend you. Could it be intended, if you give it king William for life, if he cannot reign over us? No doubt it is a Revenue which fell into the same power and authority that the government fell into, which was lords and commons. Though king William be sufficiently indemnified by act of parliament, &c. and though you did think fit to give the kingship out of yourselves, you will bear me witness, I was one of the forwardest to part with it; and so I would do with the Revenue. But our greatest misery was, our giving it to king James for life, and not from three years to three years, and so you might have often kissed his hands here. I do not believe that king William would have it longer perhaps persons would make it their interest to keep us asunder, but such a grant will keep us together.

Sir George Treby. This gentleman has commended us of the long robe for our learning. But as for his reason, 'that he has had kingship in him, and knows king William's mind;' he is too hard a match for me to deal with him. He says, the Revenue was to king James no

longer than he should protect us, but given to king William because he does protect us.' But what if he subvert ?-We should then give to one to redeem us.

Col. Birch. If king William should destroy the laws, foundations, and liberties, I doubt not but you will do with him as you did with king James. As to my knowing king William's mind, if it is his mind to have some for life, then, by chance, it is beyond the intention of this house.


Mr. Finch. The Revenue, without all manner of objection, is better for the nation than disputable, and that there should be a Revenue necessary to support the crown and you. The law allows no distinction of capacities in the king, as his political and natural capacity. It is an old mistake, as old as Edward 2's time; and you know what use the Spencers made of it: they ought not to be separated by law. It is said, in the act, during the king's life, which God long preserve;' as if to preserve his reign, and not his life. It is said, 'You have desired the king to collect the Revenue, till it shall be farther settled.' You will find, all along, the Revenue collected in the name of king James, collected and administered in his name: I think that no argument, to continue longer that political capacity. To give the king, for the safety and protection of the kingdom, in his political capacity, then you give to all the succession in political capacity. It is most proper to give such a Re nue; and I move, to give the king a Revenue to support

the crown.

Mr. Somers. This case of the Revenue is of great consequence, and certainly it is manifestly a doubt. But I cannot agree that the natural and political capacity, &c. are not distinguished; because our laws do distinguish them. But I think an act of parliament much expounds them, when a Revenue is granted for the king's life. For increasing the king's Revenue, when you limit it, it is for life, and can be intended no longer than in the preamble of the act, which intends it for his reign; therefore settle it in the most solemn and perfect way. With a common person it ends with life; but a demise and abdication of the crown do extinguish his title to it. Settle it as you please.

Sir Rob. Howard. As it has been moved by the learned person, let us go upon certainty. You have said, that king James has abdicated the government, and you have disposed of the crown; I cannot apprehend how he abdicated the Crown, and not the Revenue. I deal freely with you; tallies are struck in king James's name, but I have prepared an instrument to the contrary. If you are not in a condition to dispose of the Revenue, how came it into your hands to dispose of the Crown? I think both are inseparable. Suppose he that has the crown retire into a monastery, and is incapable to govern, and a Revenue is given him for life, is his not the case of a private man? He is no longer a king. It

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »