: is not a sufficient reason against the tendering | them by persons appointed by the king in council; because the officers and judges of the court may be so appointed, by virtue of the clause offered by the lords; or if it be not clearly enough expressed, it may be inserted more explicitly. To the fourth the Clergy will be required to take the Oaths by such Order in Council as is proposed by the lords, and their not appearing, when so summoned, will amount to a refusal; or if it should not, the lords would agree to any such addition as would make it so. To the other Reasons: the Clergy and the members of the University were not distinguished from the Laity, because, upon all promotions to any degree or preferment, they will be, equally with others, obliged to take the Oaths; and even those that are already in such stations, will be obliged to take the Oaths when required by order in council: and it seems to conduce more to the settlement and safety of the government, that the king should be impowered to put the fidelity of the Clergy to a trial immediately, than to leave any who are ill-affected to the government so much time as to the 1st of August, to be all that while undermining it.-The Clergy are obliged, by the Prayers which they must read, in the daily service, to make such express and solemn declarations of their fidelity to the king and queen by name, that the putting them to take the Oaths is not so necessary to the public safety as in other persons, who are not bound to make such frequent declarations of their fidelity. In so critical a time as the present is, it is not to be doubted, but upon any case of apprehending their ill-affections to the government, the tendering the Oaths, by order of council, will not only take off all imputation of hardship from his majesty, but justify, and even require a more rigorous way of proceeding against those that shall give any cause of offence :-Since, during queen Elizabeth's long and glorious reign, in which she had both the pretended title of the queen of Scots, and the deposing power assumed by the Pope, to apprehend, this was found to be the safest way for the public quiet; and the ill-effects of leaving the tendering the Oaths to the queen's discretion not having appeared in all that time of so much danger, and so many conspiracies against her person, the following a pattern taken from the best part of our history seems more suitable to the present times, than the falling on other methods; which the lords think a sufficient Answer to the last Reason given by the house of commons." Debate on the above Answer.] Sir Henry Goodrick. I see it evidently here, by the lords Paper, that a Dispensing power is asserted; a power in the king and council to exempt a part of the people from their allegiance; no doubt, any thing shall be granted, if you will give this power of dispensing with this law. What have these men done to merit this exemption? If your Clergy had not curates, and if there were no pluralities; if obliged to VOL. V. keep conformable curate, the curate will pray for king William, but the parson is gone, and you cannot punish him; and there is your dispensing power. Consider the difference of times; in queen Elizabeth's time, there was but just a new settlement of the Protestant Religion; half her kingdom then were Papists; things (God be thauked!) are now so changed that we are entirely Protestants, if we can keep ourselves so. All this is no more than granting a power to the king and council, to dispense with all the statutes. ** Mr. Howe. I have heard nothing to the contrary from the lords Answer; and I think that all are obliged to take the Oaths. I believe this power is asked by the lords, without consent of the king. The council is not infal lible, nor, I believe, ever will, unless you put a penalty upon the council for not executing this law. They agree to the necessity of the Oaths; yet, it seems, they give a Reason why not; as if prayers for the king and queen, in the Litany, was as much as taking the Oath of Allegiance. They pray for all Christian kings and queens.' I cannot, with a safe conscience, pray for king James; and if they will pray for them that they owe no allegiance to, I desire not their prayers. That of a shorter day, I believe, is a Reason out of the strong box. The precedent of queen Eliz. is not for us to follow. They who will side with those who will not pay Allegiance to king William, will not stick to promote the title of king James. We have reports of conspiracies, and they are from those that are enemies; and those that will not swear, will help to bring in king James. Sir Rob. Howard. The lords sent a Bill first. Be pleased to observe one thing; the lords sent down great instructions in it, and one thing of extraordinary use. Those that take not these Oaths, are underminers of the government; and then, by their Amendments of our Bill, to countenance the not taking them, is to me a contradiction. A penalty on the king, for not tendering the Oaths, would be too high a thing for us to impose; but to put the king to believe he has some that are not good subjects, (as the lords put the king upon that opinion) and that, upon their leaders scruple, they are not free to the allegiance, is a kind of sermon from them against the allegiance, and a doctrine practised by us. They are underminers of the Allegiance, that make it less sure to oblige them. An Oath (which they scruple) is an end of all controversy; this is as if some would be in that controversy, and not take the oath. The instance the lords give of queen Eliz. is a very wild precedent. The lords have given you no manner of Reason why you should comply with their Amendments. If we Col. Birch. I believe there is more in these reasons, that we see not, than we see. are not exceedingly well armed for a Conference, which will go about the nation, we shall be injured. The Lords' Answer was disagreed to, and a free Conference was desired. Debate thereon at a second Free Conference.] only in answer to Treby, there is no other meAt the free Conference: The earl of Notting-thod left to oblige them to take the Oaths ham managed for the lords. sooner than this proposed by the lords, before the 1st of August. I differ from Treby about the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy; they that would deny queen Elizabeth's supremacy, did assert the powers of deposing and excommunicating her to be exercised as much as the Pope could do; and the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were as necessary to be taken then, as this is now. And therefore the lords take so good a pattern now, as that, which was so successful and happy then. Sir George Treby. The difference of the house of commons, &c. is great; but not so great, when the matter is understood. The commons tender an Amendment, requiring the Bishops to take the Oaths, &c. Your lordships, instead of that Clause, appoint the Oaths to be taken before persons, by order of the council; to which the commons cannot agree, and have sent to your lordships for this Conference, to make their Reasons more intelligible. Your lordships admit the Oaths to be taken, &c. and sooner than the time, &c. No question is, or can be, but our allegiance is due to the king and queen. At the last great free Conference, your lordships alleged, the throne was filled, and no Allegiance. But the throne being now filled, we have now to think how to oblige those persons, by sacred ties, to the king and queen. It falls out, that the persons chiefly concerned in this are the Clergy. The strength of all government is unity and uniformity in Allegiance; and be is no farther a subject but as he owes allegiance to his prince. The wis dom of the common law requires carly allegiance in court-leets. Afterwards, when affections were alienated from the prince to foreign powers, there was something to strengthen that by a statute. This allegiance has been oppugned by some persons, and we hope it will be confirmed by your lordships concurrence. We follow all the methods of that statute. Your lordships answer, It is better the Oaths be tendered openly than privately.' To which we answer, That the Judges cannot, by order of council, authorise giving the oaths by authority of Council judicially. Your lordships say, the not taking them, within the time limited, shall amount to a refusal.' Whether a man have reasonable cause to be absent, is a matter of contest. To the other Amendments: the commons desire present Security for the government; a present security is necessary against undermining the government; and if the Oaths are to be administered by order of council, persons may conceal themselves. If the time limited be too short, the commons will close with your lordships for longer. Your lordships say, If the person be thought illaffected, the Oath may be tendered sooner;' but those ill-affected persons may be infecting the rest and the council ought to secure al men from malevolence of the crown. We answer to that of the statute of queen Eliz.; what your lordships refer to is the Oath of Supremacy. There was a distinction between those that owned the Supremacy, and those that did not; and that can be no parallel to our case. To live religiously and happily, is well; but we must first live. This Oath is our being, Earl of Nottingham. We agree the necessity of all duty and allegiance, by all persons, to be paid to the king, the difference is in a very narrow compass; we only differ in the method. I shall not repeat the lords Reasons, : Sir George Treby. The comparison was made only in respect of the places they should forfeit. I did say, yet the judges could not do it judicially,' which makes it part of the authority of the judges; they must give the Oath privately; not as judges, but as persons nominated, by the king in an afternoon, or in any other place than the Court. Sir Wm. Williams. The Question will be no more than, whether the Oaths shall be administered in public, or in private. In Court it will be a Record; it rests from whence this distinction must proceed. The conscientious men, in this case, are the dangerous men ; these bands are but the tools which are set on work, and there are no means to discover these but by oaths. There is more reasou to impose them on the Clergy than on other men, because they have a greater tenderness in taking them, from some secret reason. The Oaths, in queen Elizabeth's time, were more to distinguish Protestant from Papist; that law was made for the illness of those times. If in king James's time there had been one method for the commons, and another for the Clergy, there were some ground for this now; but there was one method for both then; one form both for Allegiance and Supremacy, of the same nature. I agree, your lordships method is the soonest way, but it is more certain and plain when it is known. It looks to us, as if there was a little tenderness to the bishops, and as if a power in the king to order the taking or not taking the Oaths. I deny not but a parliament may do any thing; but this looks like a case of binding the Laity one way, and the Clergy another. * "I was the chief Manager of the Debate in favour of the Clergy, both in the house of lords, and at the Conferences with the commons, But seeing it could not be carried, I acquiesced the more easily; because, though in the beginning of these debates I was assured, that those who seemed resolved not to take the Oaths, yet prayed for the king in their chapels; yet I found afterward this was not true, for they named no king nor queen, and so it was easy to guess whom they meant by such an indefinite designation. I also heard many things that made me conclude they were endeavouring to raise all the opposition to the government possible." Burnet. whole danger of the government may lie upon this. If some say the king is an usurper, he is within the Statute of Treason. All the Clergy, in the Common Prayer, pray for king Wm. and queen Mary. In the Communion service there is a protestation of fidelity; if they omit that prayer, they are punishable; by the Act of Uniformity they are tied to it. Can it be imagined, that the clergy will so solemnly pray thus, and not obey the king and queen? This is more than an Oath, which is but one single act; this is done every day; they themselves pronounce the words in the Sacrament service. As for the objection of taking it in open court, a few words may provide against that. The Act of Supremacy was in Hen, 8th's time. The first invention of it was not in queen Elizabeth's, but qualifying it for sir Tho. More, and bishop Fisher. Then they fell under that Oath upon refusal. Though some of the Church of Rome have renounced the conspiracy of Mary queen of Scots against queen Eliz. We never should extend that power, when we consider, that men have speculations they cannot be rid of. This proceeds from such a supposition that may be speedily punished in attempting to overthrow the government. Now, whether you will not leave this to the king? And there is no reason to suspect the crown in its own safety. The eyes of all England are upon this matter. The lords are of opinion they have made so much a better security to the government than what you have made, that they hope you will agree with them. mended the Bill as to the case of Offices, as you have done in that of the Clergy, the commons might have less objected. The great thing insisted on is queen Eliz.'s time-The Clergy upon refusal of the Oaths, &c. were deprived immediately. The commons have rather followed the precedent of king James's time. It may fall out, that persons may be surprized, and it will be a great hardship that the Oath should be tendered to some, and not all, and no suspicion on particular persons. Were more noble prelates in here with your lordships, we should have less suspicion of any apprehending allegiance to king James. The height of danger to the kingdom is in the highest sta tion to the kingdom. Earl of Pembroke. The sense of the giver is no more than obedience according to law. Why may it not be expected, obedience according to law?' And they take it in the giver's sense, and leave it to the king. Mr. Somers. Since all loyalty ought to be without distinction, if you will make that law effectual, those who execute it themselves are the most effectual; they are obliged in interest to take it, or forfeit all. But if left to others to tender it, many ways may be found to evade it, instead of having this law take its full effect. It concerns the government to know who the persons are, that doubt the owning the govern ment. This Oath was so framed by your lordships with that great moderation, wherein there is nothing but plain promise of obedience. Bishop of London, (Dr. Compton.f) The * Soon after sent Ambassador to the States General, colonel of marines, first lord of the admiralty, and in 1691 appointed lord privy seal: he was first plenipotentiary at the Treaty of Ryswick in 1697, in 1700, lord president of the council, and in 1701, lord high admiral. By queen Anne he was continued at the head of the privy council, and was appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland in 1707, and lord high admiral in 1708, which he resigned two years after. This noble earl made that adinirable collection of ancient Marbles, &c. now preserved at Wilton, and died in 1732. Sir Henry Goodrick. Since this makes a distinction to a few, it will be so much discouragement to this law that it may weaken it. There are a sort of men that either will not pray for king Wm. and queen Mary, or talk so in common conversation, that their parishes apprehend something ill for the government lies hid in it. Discrimination in our Church is highly pernicious. Now when we comprehend Dissenters, and we leave so great latitude to the great lights, the bishops, it may prove fatal. It is said, the Clergy acknowledge the king and queen, &c. in the Common Prayer.' I answer, if it was not already scrupled--so few Dissenters from us-Therefore I hope you will not encourage them against the lords and commons of England. In queen Eliz.'s time, the nation was half Protestants and half Papists, and a prospect of a Popish Successor in Mary queen of Scots. This will do no good unless to coutribute to farther difference. Your lordships may well accept this difference the commons have made-Papists, for the most part, will take the Oaths of Allegiance, but not of Su-pended from his episcopal function for not suspremacy. Shall it be said that any of our great bishops make use of arguments of the Papists? In ancient times, there were such accounts of the bishops foreign allegiance, that there is a vast apprehension of such a precedent tye to king James, as the court of Rome had formerly on the bishops. I hope you will make this refusal præmunire in the Clergy. Sir Tho. Lee. If your lordships had so + Uncle to the then earl of Northampton, and first a cornet in the horse-guards, but afterwards taking orders, was successively master of St. Cross, canon of Christ-Church, bishop of Oxford in 1674, and of London in 1675: on king James's accession he was dismissed from the Council-Board for having opposed his measures, and in 1686, he was sus pending Dr, Sharp. On the prince of Orange's landing, he escorted the princess Anne to Nottingham, and afterwards voted for the Vacancy of the Throne, &c. In 1691, he attended king William to the Congress at the Hague, and died in 1713, aged 81. As to his character, he was peculiarly styled the Protestant Bishop,' for the stand he made against Popery both in the reign of Ch. 2 and James 2. question seems, why it should not be in the power of the king, for the quiet of the government, to tender these Oaths, &c. Forcing these Oaths will rather disturb men's passions, and make men's minds more uneasy. Sir H. Goodrick. We find this is only a promissory Oath, and in the same form as that of Allegiance was formerly. Bishop of Salisbury. This makes no discrimination of persons designed. It is a notion in the world, that there is a great difference betwixt subjecting to a government, and solemnly recognizing a government, the design being only to secure the government from danger. Earl of Pembroke. Nothing is so hard to judge of as conscience, why he can do it, or not do it. The clergy are men of conscience, and have suffered, and persons may follow their example; and you would not willingly see them starve. They are put under the power and care of the king, and do not turn them begging, for their consciences, by deprivation. Sir Tho. Lee. The king has opportunity to take care of the clergy; but exempting them will be an encouragement to the lay-men. There is no way to bring all England of a mind, but this. Sir Hen. Goodrick. The commons propose nothing but what was in the 7th of king James. Seeing your lordships will exempt the clergy from the laity, it deserves farther consideration in the house of commons. Earl of Nottingham. It is not now, that the lords make distinction of persons. The lords, in queen Eliz.'s time, were exempted, &c. so considerable it was, for the quiet of the nation, from the formality of the Oath they scrupled. If it be left to the king, the danger is not so great as represented. Debate on rewarding the Duke of Schomberg.] April 24. Sir Rob. Howard. The duke of Schomberg, one of the greatest captains in the world, under his majesty, the then prince of Orange, has had his estate and pensions all seized in France, and he has waved all things in this world to serve you and his religion. He has been solicited by the duke of Brandenbourg, and the emperor, to be their general. He has quitted all, to serve this king and kingdom; hither he comes, and the king is not in a condition to reward him, otherwise than with the honour of Knight of the Garter. The king's condition is not equal to his desires to reward him. There cannot be a greater misfortune than to lose so great a captain. I hope the house will do something for his fortune, as the king has done for his honour. Mr. Hampden. I think this motion is of consequence, and no good Englishman can let it fall. The merits of this great person in the world are well known by the respect of princes to him. If there be occasion, his service may be of great use, being the greatest captain in Europe. Therefore I wish you would propose something the king may do for him. You cannot give it to him, but you may present the king with it, and desire his majesty to dispose of it to him. Mr. Garroway. I have as high esteem for marshal Schomberg, as any body. Though we have no present use of him, yet we may have. But how to raise Money upon the people, and have that immediately given to marshal Schomberg, I know not that precedent. When we raise Money for the Navy we may represent his merits to the king in that Bill, and make him such a present as may encourage him to be farther serviceable to the nation. Sir John Guise. I doubt not but if you declare those who assist king James, rebels and traitors, that the king, out of their estates, will give a reward to marshal Schomberg for his service. Sir Tho. Clarges. I have as great a sense of this man's service to the nation as any in the house, or any where else. I hope we shall not intend to present this man to the king to be considered by him, but what shall be thought of or advised to enable the king to gratify this honourable person. No man is against it, but, as you have been told, there will be forfeitures of such as have violated the rights of the people, and are in actual rebellion. When you take the Indemnity into consideration, you will do it. The king's brother, the duke of York, had an estate given him out of the confiscations of the miscreants who were attainted; and I hope the king will give him some reward out of the estates of those who are in rebellion against the government. Mr. Harbord. The king told me, 'That he had told marshal Schomberg, that he being not in ability to gratify him, he would recommend him to the consideration of this house;' and I doubt not, on Monday, you will find out some way to do it. It is not fit the nation should bear the burden, when these men have been the occasion of your misfortunes. We shall not be welcome into the country, if we raise no money upon these estates. Sir Tho. Lee. I would not trouble you now, were I not afraid of precedents. You are told by Harbord, that the king has had marshal Schomberg under his consideration.' I am surprized that the motion was not earlier. I remember, when there were great commendations of general Monk here, for what he had done, then the methods were, the king gave him rewards and lands, and the parliament confirmed them afterwards. I would have it from the hand it ought, and I hope the crown will be maintained always in that plenty as to be able to do it. It will be best for the marshal, and best for you. Mr. Garroway. It has been moved that this acknowledgment may be given marshal Schomberg out of the estates of offenders, &c. I move you, that the king may be addressed to issue out his proclamation, that they appear by a day, or else they shall stand outlawed; and their estates seized as confiscate to the king. Sir Christ. Musgrave. When gentlemen seem to be of opinion that no question should be stated till gentlemen have an inclination to state it, it ought not to be. I have a great honour for marshal Schomberg, but you are out of the way, if you put a question, that we shall take upon us to recompence him for his service; that is a prerogative only of the king. We are only to enable the king to gratify such persons, and I move you for the order of the day. The debate was adjourned to the 13th. Address of the Commons for a War with France.] April 24. The following Address was agreed to by the commons, and ordered to be presented to his majesty by the whole house: "We your majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the commons, &c. most humbly lay Sir Henry Goodrick. This house is possessed before your maj. our earnest desire, that your of the great merit of this gentleman, as all the maj. will be pleased to take into your serious Protestants of Europe are; but to lay this de- consideration the destructive methods taken of bate aside now, I am against it. They did late years by the French king, against the give great gratuities to generals in former times, trade, quiet, and interest of this your kingdom, when we had no king in Israel; but we cannot and particularly the present invasion of the usurp that prerogative: therefore for the pre-kingdom of Ireland, and supporting your masent I would have it on your books to acknow-jesty's rebellious subjects there; not doubting ledge this gentleman's great service to the king, and to enable the king to settle a grateful acknowledgment on this great man. in the least, but that through your majesty's wisdom, the alliances already made, with such as may hereafter be concluded on this occasion Mr. Hampden, juu. I hope you will not go by your majesty, may be effectual to reduce off from this motion without leaving something the French king to such a condition, that it on your books. Ireland is not to be reduced may not be in his power hereafter to violate without a general; and this is the greatest ge- the peace of Christendom, nor prejudice the neral in Europe: he is used to conquer king- trade and prosperity of this your majesty's dons. Portugal by him was restored to the kingdom. To this end we most humbly beright owner. You will use him for Ireland.seech your majesty to rest assured upon this Pray put not this debate off without having something upon your books. Sir Rd. Temple. I find, all resolve to return him thanks for the great services he has done the king and the nation, and that you will recommend him to the king. Therefore pray put the question. Sir Tho. Clarges. I fear, this may be of dangerous consequence, to put ourselves in competition with the king in giving rewards to persons. I remember but one precedent, and that was in the brother of a king, the duke of York. It is dangerous to be on your books. Sir Tho. Littleton. Now this has been a debate, to let it fall may be of dangerous consequence. If we recominend him to the king, we may enable the king to gratify him. If we let it fall now, it will be very scandalous upon us. Sir Henry Capel. It will be of dangerous consequence for this house to gratify particular persons. Sir George Booth had a vote of 10,000l. given him. The times indeed were "The king of Portugal sent count Schomberg to oppose the Spaniards; and though the count de Villa Flor bad the title of general, he owed the preservation of his crown entirely to the former. This great captain obtained several victories over the Castilians; and it may be said, that he had less difficulty to conquer them than to overcome the obstinacy of the Portuguese general, who, being envious of his glory, traversed every design which he thought would augment it. But Schomberg had the confidence of the court, and of the troops, who followed cheerfully a commander always attended by victory." Vertot's Revolutions of Portugal. our solemn and hearty promise and engagement, That when your maj. shall think it to enter into a War against the French king, we will give your maj. such assistance in a parliamentary way, as may enable your majesty (under the protection and blessing God Almighty has ever afforded you) to support and go through the same."t The same day, the lords by message signified they had several treasonable Letters under consideration, which had been transmitted by This great general, soon after this debate, went over to Ireland, at the head of an army of 10,000 men, and the next year fell triumphantly at the Battle of the Boyne. "It was his peculiar merit," says an excellent writer," to have been more than once employed in the defence of nations in danger of losing those liberties they had with difficulty retrieved; and to have completed that character by dying at last, full of years and multiplied honours, in the same employment, on behalf of these Protestant kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland." Hughes's Preface to the Translation of Vertot's Revolutions of Portugal. Burnet says, "That the parliament gave the duke 100,000l. for his services." This, however, was never paid, but in lieu of it 5000l. a year was settled on him and his heirs. + Oldmixon says, "That sir Tho. Clarges seconded this motion;" and another member spoke thus; "Mr. Speaker; I bear all the respect that I owe to crowned Heads, but I cannot help saying, that it is of absolute necessity to declare War with the most Christian Turk, who ravages all Christendom, and makes war more barbarously than the Turks themselves." |