minster-Hall, or Whitehall. Do you think fit | but I would not be too severe upon the gentlethat Mr. Blaithwaite should be in office to go- man. I remember several expressions this vern all the Army? If there had been a re- session I desire the gentleman may explain conciliation betwixt king James and the prince himself. of Orange, what would have become of the people? They had been in worse condition than before, and the end of that would have been a common-wealth. The very papers in col. Sidney's closet, tending to that, judged him guilty of Treason. The people will find a head, or make a head. I am sure it is very natural, that those gentlemen so employed did what they could to obstruct the Bill of Exclusion; not a man of them can draw ten men after them. When the prince of Orange came in, by the good will of the people, they were for a regency, and that is a common-wealth. I am for removing those, for, I am sure, they are for a common-wealth.

Mr. Foley. The Address, by your vote, is to be considered to-day, and last night the votes went all over the nation, and shall we now put this off? I see no reason for it; the sooner it is done, the people will be better satisfied. Pray go on with it.

Mr. Hampden, jun. Though it has been moved to put this Address under the table, I know not the reason of it: it is incomprehensible to me: I would know the meaning of it.

Sir Rd. Temple. I fear, that, by this Address, you will make reflections on the government; you cannot cure it, now you have read it. Go to the order of the day, and read it when the house is full.

Sir Wm. Lev. Gower. If this be pursuant to your order, we reflect on ourselves not to proceed read the Address, paragraph by paragraph: But let not such a reflection lie upon us, to let such a thing lie still and now to go upon another thing.

:

Resolved, That the Address be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph. The first paragraph was read.

Sir John Guise. Now we are going to press hard upon all the counties of England, they should be satisfied that you put their Money into hands unsuspected. If the Address be not full enough to your opinion, recommit it.

|

Sir John Guise. If Wogan cannot find wherein the order of the house is transgressed by the committee that drew the Address, it is a reflection upon the whole house. When within doors this is called a libel,' what will it be called without doors? I think there is so much weight in the Address, that it is, whether you will continue king William, or call in king James. I would not have it slight or light, but it cannot be valued without doors. I would have Wogan ask the pardon of the house in bis place.

Serjeant Wogan. I humbly ask pardon of the house if I gave offence.--And so this went off.

Mr. Foley. I wonder gentlemen are for recommitting this Address, and yet find no fault with it. What has your committee to do to draw an Address without your instructions?

Sir Wm. Williams. The exception to it is, That it is not home enough:' I take it, it agrees with every particular of the debate. I took it for the sense of the house, that the cominittee should name no persons. If your committee had prepared you such an Address, it had been justly exceptionable.

Mr. Howe. I told you before, 'That the king would make no Answer to your former Address.' I suspect a sort of men about the king and queen that are not fit to be employed, who were for taking away the Test, and the Penal Laws, and for the Dispensing Power, and taking away Charters. They cannot be suspected to be for king William, for they have acted is if for king James. If these men are fit to be entrusted, say so; but if the king please to enquire, and turn them out, that is fit to be instructions to the committee.

Mr. Hawles. I reflect upon nobody in the house; but, if it be your opinion not to continue those about the king, that had a hand in murders, say so. If they have given money for their places, let them be rejected.

In the first Paragraph, the word inexpresSerjeant Wogan. I cannot call this an Ad-sible' was rejected. On the next,' Direction dress; it is a libel, in some part of it: pray recommit it.

Sir Robert Rich. I think, the gentleman calls it a Libel.' The commons now sit on the State of the Nation,' and a member calls it a Libel!' I move, that the standing orders of the house, in such cases, may be read.

Sir Wm. Williams. I am sure, freedom of debate is the life of this house. I must agree, that, if an act, or vote, of the house be called a libel,' it is a great offence: but when things are in fieri, (a doing) gentlemen may use sharp arguments in that case.

Serjeant Wogan proffering to speak,

Col. Birch. Pray keep to order. If the words be agreed by the house, then you hear him, but not till then.

Mr. Smith. I will not justify the words,

of Affairs, &c.'

Mr. Hampden. jun. Lowther said, 'There was good counsel, but ill administration.' Was the king counselled to send men and provisions into Ireland timely? If so, then there was some counter-counsel.

Sir Rd. Temple. To what purpose should you put the king to examine it, when you have determined it already? To lay such a charge is not a necessary direction to the committee. Possibly, great miscarriages have been, but such as could not be avoided. Here you assert Want of integrity and ability; you settle the matter of fact, without making any enquiry.

Mr. Foley. When the prince of Orange came to the administration of the government, there was great store of ammunition and pro

another Sheriff for Yorkshire, in the room of sir J. Jennings.

Jan. 9. Mr. Cholmondeley, a member, was

vision that came from Holland; and ships at Plymouth were ready, but nothing must be done; so they suffered the poor people there to be lost, and, notwithstanding, all the Ad-ordered to be committed to the Tower, for a dresses, you had a Report that the provisions contempt, in refusing to take the Oaths. were bad, and, therefore, fit to be sold. I think the king has those about him that betray both king and people, and shall nobody be to blame? Lay the miscarriages before the king, and he can tell who were forward, and who were backward, in his service and I think the Committee has done well.

Resolved, That the Address be recommitted, upon the debate of the house, to the same Committee *.

Dec. 23. Resolved, That the house be called over to morrow fortnight: and that all such members as shall not appear, without a reasonable excuse, to the satisfaction of the house, shall have their names printed, to the end the nation may know, who do attend, and who do neglect their duty.

Dec. 30. The Speaker reported, That he had attended his majesty with the Address relating to the prince and princess Anne of Denmark; and that his majesty was pleased to return this Answer: "Gentlemen, Whatever comes from the house of commous is so agreeable to me, and particularly this Address, that I shall do what you desire of me."+

Jan. 3, 1689-90. Resolved, That the farther sum of one shilling in the pound, for one year, be laid on all persons and estates, charged by the two shilling-Act.

Jan. 7. Upon a Call of the house, sir Jonathan Jennings being absent, and information being given, That he was lately made high-sheriff of Yorkshire, a debate arose, and it was Resolved, nem. con. That the nominating any member of this house, to the king, to be HighSheriff, is a breach of the privileges of this house; and that an Address be made to his majesty, that he will be pleased to constitute

* "Mr. Hampden's Address was thought by some too long, by others too short; Mr. Hampden the father spoke against it, as entering too far into the detail of Miscarriages and Misfortunes, which too many of that assembly did not care to hear enumerated, not in hopes of having, but for fear things should, be amended." Oldmixon.

Debate on the Corporation Bill.] Jan. 10. An ingrossed Bill for restoring of Corporations was read the third time.

་

Mr. Sacheverell. That this Bill is very necessary, no man but thinks. Surrenders of Charters are crimes notorious, but all are not equally guilty of it. I tendered one Clause the other day, That those that did it wilfully, maliciously, or for their own lucre, ought to have a mark set upon them,' but not to extend to all persons alike. When I drew the clause, I considered the times and circumstances they were done in; those that did it either to serve ends of their own, or those of the wicked times; I looked little farther, seeing Loudon did defer their cause as far as they could some men, through fear, surrendered what they could not withstand; therefore, to be liable to that small punishment, the house put out the word majority,' and made it general. I thought it too large; I have considered it since, that going so large is too far. My opinion is, to look back only on then who came voluntarily, without consent of the majority, and ought to have marks; and, after the City-Charter was taken away, it might induce the majority to surrender. I could be content to excuse those from this disability. I cannot suppose they did it maliciously: therefore, as a friend to the Bill, I proffer a Clause, " For incapacitating, for seven years, all such as had any ways acted in the surrender of Charters of Corporations, from bearing any office in the said corporations."

"

"In this situation of affairs, the Whigs discovered that the Tories were treating with the court about the dissolution of the parliament. Though the commons had granted the supplies that were demanded for the reduction of Ireland, and for the quota to which the king was obliged by his alliances, yet the remoteness of the funds making it necessary to offer great premiums to those who advanced the money upon a security that was thought so hazardous, since few believed the government would last so long, the Supplies, though seem+"In December a question was put in the ingly great, brought not in the half of what house of commons, Whether a person having they were estimated at. This the Tories pera place at court, or any dependance on the ceived, and seeing the Whigs grow sullen, and king, should be a member of that house?' The that they would make no advance of money, they debate was warm and obstinate; for, as it applied to the court, and promised great adalways happens on such occasions, the disgust-vances of money if the parliament might be dised and disappointed joined with the enemies of the government, to keep others out of places, since they themselves could not get into them. The question was however carried for the place-men, and this reason given, because otherwise the fittest persons for public employments would remain excluded, and be debarred the opportunity of serving either the king or the country." Tindal.

solved, and a new one summoned. Upon this the commons prepared a bill, “for restoring Corporations to their antient rights and privileges," by which they hoped to have made sure of all future parliaments; for in it was inserted the following Clause, "That every mayor, recorder, sheriff, common council-man, town-clerk, magistrate, or officer, who did take upon him to consent to, or join in the surrender of any

Sir Tho. Clarges. I am against this Clause. | Corporations be put into the hands of good This bill comes with a good prospect; in a and moderate men, I would not have it regreat measure, it is a good bill; but this clausejected. is destructive to the peace and quiet of the kingdom; instead of reconciliation, it lays the foundation of perpetual division. I think it will become the wisdom of this house to make this a Bill of peace and quietness. In Hackwell's Book, I find, Where proviso and clauses are contrary to the matter of a Bill, and altered, as in a Bill of Clothing, the house disliked a clause, and threw it out. Upon these grounds and considerations, considering the fatality of it, if some expedients prevent it not, I desire the clause may not be read, but rejected.

fond of falling upon Addressers and Abhorrers. This is not the way to make friends for the king nor the government. You have several precedents (though one cannot speak against the body of the bill) yet if a clause be not according to the intention of the bill, it may be thrown out; and I would reject this.

Mr. Hampden. I have heard of one parliament that has arraigned another, but never heard of one parliament that has complained of itself to its own face. Your bill says, All such and such shall be restored, except such and such;' and it is no contradiction certainly. Do you intend to restore all those to act the same thing again? You are told, It may be taken care of in the bill of pains and penalties;' but will you restore them to Corporations that have betrayed them, and let them do it again? The proviso cannot be rejected. Now you are told of precedents; if they are examined, they are not to this point. I do not remember a whole clause cut off in a whole Bill. What you have to mend in an ingrossed bill must be mended at the table. It is a strange sort of mending a garment to cut off a sleeve. It is said, This may be reserved for the bill of pains and penalties,' and there will be none. Pray pass the bill.

Serjeant Maynard. I have heard that to-day which makes my ears to tingle. The case is, here is a bill brought in to restore Corporations, and it is moved, to cast out this proviso. It has been committed, and ordered to be ingrossed, and a gentleman comes and prays that it may be thrown out; certainly he is but a young parliament-man. To move to cast out the whole clause, you put it on an everlasting debate; if there be no penalties, you had better like what king Charles and king James did. If those Surrenders stand, they may make what parliament they will at court; and, formerly, he that should have named such a thing, should not have come to the bar, but gone to the Tower. Why may they not as well move to cast out another and another clause, till they have left none in the bill?

Sir Henry Goodrick. You are told of making ears tingle,' and of the court making a parliament;' and by another, to justify all the villainies, &c.' It is a bill not good in itself to let in all mankind into Corpo- | rations; fanatics, &c. If all these must be left out of Corporations, whom avarice, force, and easiness have induced to surrender their Charters, if all these must be left out, whom will you leave to act; whom will you leave to chuse parliament-men? None. Harmony must save us; when this is a bill of heat, a bill of attainder, where will this end? No man knows. Till you let us debate freely in this house, I desire to withdraw from my attendance. I would have Yonge explain, or be called to the bar.

diately. The house has been divided since, and it is against all order.

6

Sir Tho. Clarges. Yonge is a young gentleman, and, I believe, what he reflected on me was passion; and I would desire you to pass it by. I have been told by Hampden, That I talked like a young parliament-man;' I could wish he could make his words good. I wonder at this from a gentleman conversant in records, for Hampden to say, 'It has not been done in his time,' when it has been done. In great emergencies it may be done. We sat from nine till four in the morning about Skinner's Case, and I remember what Mr. Vaughan said, That precedents cited without records were so many nothings." I have not yet spoken to this Clause. What I said was only as to precedents. I know a corporation of 600l. per ann. advised by this lord chief justice to surrender, or else, if judged against them, the lands would go to the next heir of the granter, &c. Hundreds of innocent persons would have been involved. In the third session of the first parliament of king James 1, p. 64, &c. you will find the precedent I spoke of. I will make this use of it; if it appears that a whole proviso is taken out of a bill, it may be done again.

Sir Wm. Williams. The motion made is for rejecting the whole clause. It is one thing to reject, and another to correct a clause, to be mended by the clerk at the table. But if the whole clause ought to be recommitted, you consider whether any thing be good in it before you wholly reject it. This clause is an exception of some before 1685, and not to be restored. Do you restore them to their franchises? What are these franchises? Will you restore these men, who have been the worst of men, and betrayed their trust, into the plight of an innocent man, and restore them to their places again? Is there not a middle way? I agree to the wilful and malicious man-Will you put it again into the power of the greater? I would make them the lesser men, and take off the greater. By this day's work the world will see we are a divided people. This proviso sets only a mark upon such men. In some Corporations, of 600, who had a right to give consent to a surrender, not above 34 were for it; and they prevailed: and how came this about? This was a packed Common-Council by lord Jeffreys. There are 500 still in being at Chester against the surrender, but because a few in corporations are concerned, must you let the whole be lost for the sake of a few? Can we forget the law for regulating corporations? Can any thing be said for this, that cannot for that? Because dissenters, in the first regulation, were put out, and the church of England came in, can any man argue for that act of parliament that does not argue for this proviso? That act did good in Charles 1's time, and this may do good in king William's to put out those that would go back again. I would recommit the proviso.

The Clerk read some precedents of 1607.