Изображения страниц

but could obtain no answer; which was confirmed by one Mr. Slater. That during his second confinement, no body was permitted to see him for several weeks, and it was with great difficulty his wife at last procured leave, on the hard condition of being confined with him which she consented to, till an indisposition obliged her to solicit a release; which was confirmed by one Mr. Slaughter. That while the said Prideaux was kept thus closely confined in the Tower, all the prisoners and condemned persons in the West, (on account of Monmouth's Invasion,) were tampered with by the agents of lord Jeffreys, with threats and promises of life, to be his accusers, as was witnessed by Mr. C. Speke before his execution; as likewise to Mr. Wm. Thompson of London, haberdasher, Mr. Joseph Standerwich, sergemaker, and Mr. Samuel Key, clothier, both of Ilminster. That the said Prideaux could never to this day discover of what he was accused. That the said Prideaux, his wife, lady Tooker his sister, and Mr. Bulstrode, one of the gentlemen ushers, having applied to several persons of quality to solicit the king in his behalf, were one and all informed by the said persons of quality, (of whom the earl of Tyrconnel is mentioned by name) That nothing was to be done; For that the king had given the prisoner to the lord-chancellor, (Jeffreys.)' That Mrs. Prideaux then saw the necessity of applying to the said lord-chancellor, and accordingly did by the interposition of one Mr. Jenkins and one Mr. Jennings, the last of which undertook to procure his pardon for 10,000l. which being demurred to on account of the extravagance of the sum, the demand was next raised to 15,000l. and insisted upon, on pain of his being left out of the general pardon: that thereupon by the friendship of sir Robert Dashwood the said sum was raised, and, with the abatement of 240l. for prompt payment of 2,400l. part of the said 15,000l. was paid to sir Robert Clayton, on account of lord Jeffreys, who, likewise, acknowledged the same; and that since the payment of the said sum, lord Jeffreys has made a purchase of two estates of the duke of Albemarle's, for which he paid about 34,000l."


gate, and she herself committed by the court of King's-bench, for crying out, when sentence was given, that her father was to be murdered."

Resolved, "That the Award of Execution by the court of King's-bench, against sir T. Armstrong, was a high Violation of Justice, and against the express laws of the land. And that a Bill be brought in to reverse the Attainder of the said sir T. Armstrong."

Resolutions for raising the Navy Supply.] April 30. The commons resolved. 1. "That towards the raising 700,000l. for the Navy, a Tax be laid upon all ground rents for new Buildings, upon new foundations, within the bills of mortality, since March 25, 1660, except such as are within the Walls of London. 2. That Provision be made in such Bill against the increase of new buildings. 3. That towards the said 700,0007. an additional Excise be laid upon Beer, Ale, and other Liquors, except Coffee, Chocolate, Tea, spirituous Liquors, and low Wines, for three years, from June 24 1689, according to the rates in the Act of 29 Car. II. for an additional Excise. 4. That a Bill be brought in for applying to the public use all such pecuniary Forfeitures as have been incurred for accepting and exercising any office, or employ, contrary to the act of the 25th of Car. 2. for preventing Dangers from Popish Recusants: and that such persons, who have so acted, may not be employed for the future. (To this an Instruction was added, for a Clause to comprehend all Forfeitures on Informations then depending) And that a committee be appointed to receive Proposals for raising Money upon security of lands forfeitable in Ireland, for the present Rebellion."

[ocr errors]


Remarkable Case of Edmund Prideaux, esq.] May 1. Mr. Gwyn reported to the commons, the Case of Edmund Prideaux, esq. which in substance was as follows: "That the said Ed. Prideaux, esq. was seized at his own house, (Ford-Abbey in Devonshire) June 19, 1685, by one of the late king's messengers in virtue of a warrant signed by the earl of Sunderland, secretary of state, on suspicion of Treason, and brought to London, where he continued a prisoner at the said messenger's house, till discharged by Habeas Corpus July 14, on giving security for his appearance the next term. evidence of which, the original warrant signed by lord Sunderland was produced. And Saywell, the said messenger, confessed the execution. The warrant was dated June 13, and the duke of Monmouth landed at Lyme the 11th. That the said Prideaux several times desired to be heard before the Council, but was constantly refused, which was confirmed by Saywell and a kinsman of the said Prideaux's, who was likewise bail for him, together with one Mr. Craig, in the sum of 25007. each, Mr. Prideaux himself being answerable for his own appearance, in the penalty of 5000l. That the said Prideaux being committed a second time (to the Tower) his wife petitioned the king that he might be examined,

Ordered, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill, to charge the said two Estates purchased by the late lord Jeffreys, with the re-payment of the sum of 15,000l. and interest, which was by him extorted from Ed. Prideaux, esq.”

A Bill from the Lords rejected.] May 4. An engrossed Bill from the lords, making and declaring it to be Treason to keep any intelligence, or maintain any correspondence with the late king James, being read a second time, a motion was made to commit it, but overruled; and then it was rejected without a division.

The King thanks the Commons for their Address for a War with France.] May 7. Mr. Hampden signified, That his majesty had been pleased to command him to acquaint the house, that he will presently issue forth a


Declaration of War against France, and that
he is encouraged thereto by the assurance
this house hath given him of their assistance;
and that his majesty was graciously pleased to
command him to return his Thanks to the
house for it.

point before you, and nicety in the thing. I
offer it, that both may come to the table at the
same time, and there underwrite, That they
will not prosecute the quarrel any farther.'


[blocks in formation]

Mr. Harbord. The gentleman (Mr. Bertie) is of too much honour to engage one that has not the use of either of his hands. If I have been ill-used, I cannot pass my word not to proceed farther, without satisfaction; therefore, pray consider with yourselves what you have to do. It is a hard thing for me to acknowledge I have received an injury, and require no reparation for it.

Sir Wm. Williams. If Mr. Harbord said, 'There were Pensioners in the Long Parliament,' your Books say so, and any man may.

Sir Christ. Musgrave. I am sorry for the occasion of this debate. As Harbord is a man of honour, so he has expressed great honour relating to the other gentleman. But we ought to declare what was the occasion of the misunderstanding; and, I hope, these honourable persons will declare they will proceed no far


The Speaker, The two gentlemen say nothing; you must lay the commands of the house upon them to declare.

Mr. Harbord. I do not conceive myself injured at all.

Mr. Leveson Gower. I think these gentlemen both men of honour. It is out of their power to proceed any farther. The house will take care they shall not do it. Therefore they may declare.

Mr. Bertie. If Harbord will say he intended no personal reflection upon me, I will be satisfied.

Mr. Bertie. I apprehended Harbord reAccted upon me as a Pensioner. I thought I was reflected upon about the election at Westbury.

Mr. Hampden, sen. I heard the words of Pensioner-Parliament.' I remember, sir Stephen Fox had questions put to him upon very member of the house about receiving Pensions. †

Mr. Garroway. The whole thing these gentlemen stand upon is a punctilio, who shall stand up first and declare. I would write both their names, and put them in a hat, and let them draw out who shall declare. Sir Christ. Musgrave. This is a tender

*Brother to the earl of Lindsey. † See vol. iv. p. 1141.

Col. Mildmay. Punctilio of honour is a great point; but it is the general opinion of the house, that no words were spoken of particular reflection by Harbord, but generally as the parliament-men were called over. So many judgments having passed, methinks these gentlemen should be more free, without putting the house or themselves to farther trouble. If not you may make use of your authority.

Mr. Colt. The depth of the matter lies upon what will be discoursed without doors; therefore I am for your members coming to the table, as has been moved.

Mr. Hampden, sen. I think, it is equal for both their honours. I apprehend, Mr. Speaker, that it is your part to make an Order,That being informed of some angry words betwixt these gentlemen, upon which a quarrel may ensue, they be taken into custody.' This is your duty that no mischief may ensue.

The Speaker. It is no dishonour to put these persons under restraint, for it is your work and order; and then friends may interpose.

Mr. Harbord. Do you think imprisoning me would frighten me to petition for release? I do not think myself injured, and can it be thought a man of my age would quarrel when I am not injured? If you do commit me, what will become of the king's business?

Mr. Herbert. I would have you very careful what sort of question you put. One declares, he does not think himself injured:' he has done it. All know there were Pensions, and if Bertie had thought himself injured, he should have complained. I would have them both stand up, and declare, as has been moved.


Lord Norrcys. I remember the case of Westbury. I have heard Bertie say, If Harbord will declare he meant not him he is satisfied.'

Mr. Harbord. I have heard it said, as if the thing seems too nice; it is not that at all. I could tell tales, if I were provoked, on the other side.

Sir Henry Capel. I am concerned for both these honourable gentlemen; one has been my friend these many years, the other is related to me; but it is the house must be judge of one and the other. As for that of Pensions, it has been universally spoken of, and will be

* Eldest son of the first earl of Abingdon ; to which title he succeeded, on his father's death, in 1699. In queen Anne's reign, he was constable of the Tower, and had other high employments, as he had also in the reign of king George I. He died without issue in 1743.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]


still, that the government may not be under any corruptions whatsoever. First, Harbord says, he is not injured; therefore, if Bertie will say, he apprehends himself not reflected on. Or rather that the house vote there is no injury done

and a warlike people, as the English are, monarchy is a government fit for that part of the world; the experiment of a Commonwealth will be impracticable. This bill leaves the descent of the Succession to the common law, and no otherwise; let them be what they will, Protestants must be in the Succession; and so they will, without this Proviso.

Mr. Harbord. To put an end to this, write down what I should say, and I will say it, and obey you.

Mr. Hales. In this bill, you have not thought fit to go farther than the present king, &c. and in no Acts of Succession farther than the issue of persons in being: but if you take the word hereafter' not to preclude any Protestant that has right to inherit, it will comprehend the prince of Wales, if he turn Protestant, and he may challenge the crown again. The words are exclusive to Papists already, and there is no reason to clog the Act with this Proviso: therefore I would reject it.

Mr. Ettrick. I have seen the Proviso, and I believe there is no design in it of favouring the prince of Wales. If the throne be vacant, this goes to take away the rightful succession of other princes, and is an abdication to the whole frame of the government. If there be no heirs of those in the entail, you have left the government to the people. You have great reason to countenance all vindication of yourselves from a Commonwealth; and therefore I think the Proviso fit to be received.

Sir Christ. Musgrave. As to the arguments of the word hereafter' if subject to such interpretation, you would do well to amend it with the word hereafter.' I would have no doubt to affect the limitations of the Succession in the bill.

Mr. Hampden, sen. I never heard of this Proviso before. As it is penned, no gentleman can be for it; and, when it is mended, nobody can tell whither it will extend. You have already the Bill to establish the Government, and all people submitted to it, and you sit here by it; and now you are going over again to what you did so many months ago. You have pro vided against all Popish successors, and now you are going about to do it a-new. I do bclieve, this comes from the agency of some foreign minister; and do this now in a new bill, and then you must let the king, the queen, and princess Anne be heard. Why was not this spoken of sooner, in all this time? And now to enter into such a matter of state, now to bring in this, to put a doubt upon all you have done already! I am against it.

Mr. Godolphin. I hear it said, 'possibly this Proviso comes from the agency of some foreign minister.' I would have it known, I never took measures from any foreign or domestic minister. It looks, by the Proclamation, as if dominion was founded in grace[and reads the Proclamation.] Here is no notice taken of the right of the princess of Orange's title, but of her merit only. That *"Whose zeal for the Protestant Religion will, no doubt, bring a blessing along with her upon this nation." See the Proclamation.

The Speaker proposed these words to be spoken by the two gentlemen, viz. I do promise, upon my word and honour, not to prosecute any quarrel, upon this occasion;' which was accordingly done.

The Bill of Rights and Succession sent up to the Lords.] May 8. A Bill for establishing the Articles presented by the Lords and Commons to their Majesties, and for settling the Crown, was read the third time.

Mr. Godolphin. After the limitation, in the first place, upon the king, queen and her heirs, and princess Anne, &c. when this limitation is spent, where will you go next? Where shall the crown devolve, all these dying without issue? Therefore I humbly offer this Proviso: Provided always, and be it hereby declared, That nothing in this Act is intended to be drawn into example, or consequence, hereafter, to prejudice the right of any Protestant prince, or princess, in their hereditary Succession to the imperial crown of these


Mr. Garroway. You are upon a high point. I do believe, this Proviso was brought in by this gentleman with a good intention: but, whether it be full enough not to break into the limitation of the Act? It is more expressive than the word hereafter.' I would not leave any loop-hole in the Bill, for any to come to the crown that you intend not. God knows how soon any body may die; therefore I would not leave it at large. Those who expect a Common-wealth in England, by failure of those you have named, I would disappoint them all. But if there be any umbrage, that the thing is not full, I would have it so, and shall agree to it.

Mr. Attorney Treby. This Proviso does not well agree with the Bill. He that spoke for retaining the proviso, says, He respects nobody by it in particular in the Bill, but to clear the matter of the Succession hereafter.' Therefore I think the Proviso is useless. Nothing, it is true, is appointed in the bill, farther than the entail upon the persons named; and I suppose (as the law does) that those you have named shall have issue; but if they have not, the common law provides for it, which is, the right heirs of the royal family: but when you say, a Protestant prince, &c.' it seems to exclude the right heirs that are not; and to say, as in the Proviso tendered, 'This shall not be drawn into example;' it is only a caution and admonition, that this flattering Proviso will not bind up their power. Rather than have a hand in any thing of a Republic, I would have lost my hand. Where there is a great territory,

the monarchy might be looked upon as hereditary, and not elective, was my motive to bring in the Proviso.

reign minister,' or that I manage a stratagem from France.' Turn me out of the house, if that be proved. This Proviso was suggested to me by no man.

Sir T. Clarges. I conceive, the inducement to bring in this Proviso, is, because the limitation of the succession is very loose. There is no certainty of the life of any man; and I would not have the kingdom fall into a Commonwealth; which it may, if the limitation, &c. goes no farther. I heard a gentleman say, We did not wisely, not to keep things in our hands when we had them.' This is one reason, why I would have the words added that are moved: Instead of hereafter,' say' after the limitations herein mentioned.'

Sir H. Goodrick. When I hear this fatal rencounter we have had with France, and then these reflections here, and that we may go into the country,-these expressions are made here, with a supposition that we have no liberty of speech; but this, said at this time, when the French are upon us, and who have had too much influence here; and we are told of 1641! After the admonition of the Speaker, nothing but the Vacancy of the Throne, and the not vacancy, occasions this business; and are we returning to vacant,' or not vacant,' upon our Petition of Right? And whoever speaks against it, doubts the government. The common law leaves all to the right of the succession, and there let us leave it.

Mr. Sacheverell. If there be any other person to be put into the limitation of the succession, pray let us know him, and not put this in general.


Col. Herbert. I saw a letter of a sister of prince Rupert's, wherein she was complaining of great hardship done her children, that they were not regarded in the entail of the crown; therefore I move, that they may be mentioned. Sir H. Capel. By what has fallen from the gentleman, you see, foreign ministers have been doing in this matter; but you have it answered already, That the heirs at common law are asserted to succeed, for default of those in the entail.' I have heard it talked, as if king William was king by Divine Right, and Dominion founded in Grace; then you had best put the question, Whether the king be king, or not? Is not the clause in the Proviso, of not drawing it into example,' arraigning all you have done already? In the Long Parliament, when the court was carrying on their great designs of Popery and arbitrary government, gentlemen that opposed it were called Commonwealth's-men; and we are told of the Rebellion-and 1641-and cutting off the king's head,' and all this for opposing the court's designs, when they were about to destroy our religion and liberties. It can never be a Commonwealth. When the Succession in Ilen. 8.'s time was turned this way and that way, it was put into the king's power to settle the Succession by his will: and where were the thoughts of a Commonwealth then? The first part of the Proviso is a reflection upon you for omitting it before; and the second there is no need of, or whether the prince of Wales comes in by it. Either a foreign minister is in it, or a stratagem from France; and I would throw it out.

Sir Christ. Musgrave. I know not why we are told of ‘France, and foreign ministers.' If we have not liberty to speak, let us go home. I know not what thoughts other gentlemen have of the prince of Wales; I have none: but I know we have had a Commonwealth, and a Rebellion in 1641 also. If the thing be capable of amendment, it ought to be retained; and it is the right of every gentleman to bring in a Proviso,

Mr. Godolphin. I defy any man to prove any such thing as corresponding with a fo

Lord Falkland. I disapprove of the Proviso, as it is brought in; but it may be mended, so as to justify your proceedings abroad. It is said abroad, you have settled the Government upon the king and queen; it is true, they have no children, and the princess of Denmark none that have lived, though married a great while; so there are but three lives for it; if it should happen that these should die without issue, where is the hurt of this proviso? fortify the proviso against the tale of the prince of Wales. You have Protestant princes abroad, and the more you settle this, the more you protect them.


Mr. Hawles. Now I understand, by mending the proviso with the word hereafter,' I am more against it than I was at first. There has been talk of government founded in grace,' but much more mischief if founded in right. This questions the whole government. There is not one word in the Act that can prejudice any foreign successor; but this, by a side-wind to come in, makes me suspect it. When the City-Charter was questioned, the king's counsel against it said, 'It was a Commonwealth in a Commonwealth; therefore I am not for this proviso thus introduced,

Mr. Somers. I think there is no hurt in wholly leaving out this proviso. In the case of Hen. 4th, it was a solemn Judgment, that the throne was vacant, and then it was settled on the king's sons, and no farther by name; for it would come into its own channel by succession of descent. In the Life of Henry 7th, lord Bacon reckons it as one of the wisest actions of his reign, that he limited the crown no farther, but left it to descend. Let us tread in the steps of our ancestors; you have declared the Vacancy of the Throne; but to do this now, would bring a suspicion upon what you have done: make your succession so founded on grace, that none but protestants succeed. This strikes at the whole foundation of what you have done. Therefore lay it aside.

Mr. Paul Foley. This proviso is of too great importance to be brought in by a rider. It is not fit, on the sudden, to take any farther

prospect of the limitation of the succession by a rider, but refer it to a farther consideration.

The Proviso was then rejected; after which an ingrossed Clause was offered as a rider, to be made part of the Bill, and was twice read; and is as followeth: "That, from and after this present session of parliament, no dispensation, by Non obstante, of or to any statute, or any part thereof, shall allowed; but that the same shall be held void, and of no effect; except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute. Provided, that no charter, or grant, or pardon, before the 1st of June, 1689, shall be any ways impeached, or invalidated, by this act; but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law, and no other, than as if this act had never been made.”—To this the house agreed. The Bill was then passed, and ordered to the lords.

12d. in the Pound Land Tax granted.] May 10. The house in a committee on the Supply, Resolved, "That a Subsidy be granted their majesties of 12d. the pound for one year, upon all lands and houses, &c. according to the true intrinsic value; as likewise on all personal estates, household goods and stock excepted; and also upon offices and employments, those of the Army and Navy excepted:" and a bill was ordered accordingly.

The Petition of G. Speke, esq.] The same day, George Speke, esq. presented a Petition to the house, complaining of certain arbitrary prosecutions against him, by Mr. Burton and Mr. Graham, on pretence of Treason, by which means a Verdict was obtained against him, and a Fine set upon him of 2000 marks; that afterwards, by indirect means, a Bill of High-Treason was found against his wife, and that he was obliged to compound the matter at the expence of 5000l. and praying relief. Upon which a Committee was appointed to examine the matter of fact, and report the same to the house.

Sir H. Monson and lord Fanshaw expelled, for refusing to take the Oaths.] May 13. The house was informed that sir Henry Monson, member for Lincoln, attended according to Order.*

Mr. Garroway. Before you call him in, pray make some Order how to hear him, whe ther in his place and what punishment you will inflict upon his refusal of the Oaths.


Sir T. Clarges. If he will not take the Oaths, he cannot be a member, and ought not to have a place here.

Sir John Thompson. I hope you will be as tender to your members, as the lords are to theirs. If he has not sat, I know not how he is culpable. The Bishops have three months

time to consider, &c. and I hope you will give him that indulgence.

Notice had been taken, two days before, that sir Henry Monson and lord visc. Fanshaw, though they were resident in or about the city of London, had absented themselves from the service of the house, ever since the Oaths were enjoined to be taken; and they were therefore summoned to attend this day. See the Journal.

Sir T. Littleton. We are no court of justice, but we may dispose of our own members: but if he refuses the Oaths, you may send out a new writ to chuse one in his place.

Sir T. Lee. If your members refuse to take the Oaths, their place is void; but, as for giv ing him time to consider it, it appears not yet that he refuses them. I believe, in some time, you will see the government will be obeyed; and in a few months you may see how the parliament will deal with such as are not of the same allegiance. Therefore I would give him time.

The Speaker. You cannot hear him in his place, neither is it proper that he answers at the bar, being yet no criminal; therefore let him come up to the table, to be tendered the Oaths there.

Sir Henry Monson was then called in, and the Speaker thus spoke to him: "The house having taken notice that you have staid a great while about the town, and have not tendered yourself to take the Oaths of Allegiance, and the Test, as you ought to have done, hath summoned you to take them."

Sir Henry Monson. I am sorry I cannot comply with taking the oaths, to qualify myself to sit in the house, for particular reasons, such as no way tend to the disturbance of the government; and I do submit myself to the pleasure of the house. He then withdrew.

Mr. Arnold. He knows that the refusal of the Oaths is a crime at common-law, and by statutc-law. I would have him made an example.

Mr. Edw. Montagu. I know him to be an honest gentleman, and as well inclined to the government as any man. In Cha. 2.'s time, he voted for the Bill of Exclusion, and deported himself very well. What his particular reasons are for not taking the Oaths, I know not.

Mr. Pelham. I believe, as has been moved, you cannot regularly commit him, and if any man have a title to your favour, he may. No man went better in the former parliaments; and I beg that no farther mark of your displeasure be upon him, than to dismiss him from your service.

Sir Tho. Clarges. I never knew an honester man; both the son, and the father, true public-spirited men. I have sat long in parliament with them. You know what the statute directs in this case of refusing the Oaths therefore I would not enlarge your jurisdiction farther than sending a new writ to chuse another member in his place.


Mr. Leveson Gower. I have sat in several parliaments with this gentleman, but I did not expect this from him. I would have him sent for in again, and a little time given him to consider.

Resolved, "That sir Henry Monson be discharged from being a Member of the house.” Lord Fanshaw then came up to the table in the same manner.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »