commons, at a Conference, for not agreeing with the lords in adding, by an Amendment, commissioners of their own house to the LandTax Bill:*" That the Right of granting Supplies to the crown is in the commons alone, as an essential part of the constitution; and the limitation of such grants, as to the matter, manner, measure, and time, is only in them; which is so well known to be fundamentally settled in thein, that to give Reasons for it, has been esteemed by our ancestors, to be a weakening of that Right; and the Clause sent down by your lordships, added to this Bill, is a manifest invasion thereof." The lords having made a report thereof to their house, the consideration of that matter was adjourned till the next day, when their lordships, after a long debate, resolved to recede from the said Clause, which was carried by so great a majority, that the house did not divide upon it. After this the house appointed a committee to draw up Reasons for their quitting this Clause, to be communicated to the commons the next day, to this effect, That their lordships did for the present depart from this point purely in consideration of the pressing exigency of affairs, being otherwise of opinion, that of right they might have insisted upon it. The ili humour, it seems, which thus shewed itself in the house of lords, was chiefly managed by the marquis of Halifax and the earl of Mulgrave. They had drawn in the earl of Shrewsbury, who was very ill pleased with the credit that some had with the king, and lived in a particular friendship with the earl of Marlborough, whom he thought was both ungratefully and unjustly persecuted. Those lords had all king James's friends, ready to assist them in every thing that could embroil matA great many Whigs, who were discontented and jealous of the ministry, joined with them; but they knew that all their murmurings would signify little, unless they could stop a Money-bill. Wherefore, as it was settled in the house of commons as a maxim, that the lords could not make any alterations in Money-bills, they put their strength to carry a Clause in the land-tax-bill, that the peers should tax themselves. And though, in the way in which the clause was drawn up, it could not be defended, yet they did all that was possible to put a stop to the Bill, and with unusual vehemence pressed for a delay, till a committee should be appointed to examine precedents. This the earl of Mulgrave pressed for many ters. By this Proviso, added by the lords, all the peers were to be rated for their offices and personal estates, by 26 of their own house, therein named, or any five of them, and not otherwise; and were not to be subjected to the imprisonment of their persons; and the several rates and taxes to which the peers, by virtue of that Act, were liable, were to be eceived and paid into the Exchequer, by a collector to be nominated by themselves. See the Journal, hours, with great force of argument and eloquence. He insisted much upon the dignity of peerage; and made this which was now proposed to be so essential a part of that dignity, that he endeavoured to convince the lords, that, if they yielded to it, they divested them selves of their true greatness, and nothing would remain, but the name and shadow of a peer, which was but a pageant. But, after all the force of his rhetoric, the lords considered the safety of the nation, more than the shadow of a privilege, and so dropped their clause *. Complaint against a Book entitled “ King William and Queen Mary Conquerors."] Jan. 21. A complaint was made to the commons of a printed Pamphlet, lately published with license, and said to be written by Charles Blount, esq. entitled "King William and Queen Mary Conquerors," as containing assertions of dangerous consequence to their majesties, to the liberties of the subject, and to the peace of the kingdom. The house therefore, upon exa mination of the matter, ordered, the next day, the said Pamphlet to be burnt by the hand of the common hangman, and that his majesty be desired to remove Mr. Edmund Bohun, the Licenser, from his employment, for having allowed the same to be printed. It was at the same time suggested, that Dr. Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, was the inventor of the notion of their majesties being Conquerors, which he had first of all published in his Pastoral Letter. This occasioned a debate of several hours, but at last it was carried by 162 against 155, "That the said Pastoral Letter should be burnt by the common hangman."-There was likewise complaint made by one of the members, of a book written on the same subject, by Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of St. Asaph, intitled "A discourse of God's ways of disposing of Kingdoms;" but that motion fell. The lords likewise took into consideration the Book intitled "King William and Queer Mary Conquerors," and ordered it to be burnt the next morning in the Old Palace-Yard in Westminster, and afterwards passed this vote: "That the assertion of king William's and queen Mary's being king and queen by con quest was highly injurious to their majesties, and inconsistent with the principles, on which this Government is founded, and tending to the subversion of the rights of the people;" This Vote they resolved to communicate to the commons at a conference the next morning, and to desire their concurrence thereunto; which was given by the latter with the remarkable addition of some words, viz. injurious to their majesties rightful title to the crown of this realm.' An in Debate in the Commons, on the Bill for frequent Parliaments †.] Jan. 28. grossed Bill, from the lords, " For the fre quent calling and meeting of Parliaments," was read the first time. The Bill, first set forth,That a Parliament shall be holden once every year: next, that a new one shall be cailed every three years, after the dissolution of the former parliament: And, lastly, that a period shall be put to the present Parliament in January next.' Mr. Goldwell. I can never give my consent to the Bill. It is calculated for some particular purpose. I desire you would consider, and reflect, upon what offence we have given the lords, that it should be put upon us to dissolve ourselves. Consider, whether it was not the asserting ours, and the rights of our ancestors, by the Bill of Rights? Whether they are not offended at the Supply we have given for our necessary support and being? The lords have more justly incurred our displeasure, by assuming the judicature of Westminster-Hall. The dissolution of this present parliament is, to revive animosities in new elections, and punish the king, by making it not his grace to call a parliament; but to put it into the lord-lieutenants to pack a parliament. The lords assume much in dissolving the commons; a preroga tive only of the king! It is ill timed, as well as ill designed. Sir Charles Sedley*. That the bill passed the lords unanimously, ought to be no argument for us to pass it; for were any thing proposed to their diminution, it would find as easy a passage in this house: How fond were we of taking away their Scandalum Magnatum? I remember we lost a very good bill by attempting, and they by refusing it; but they would not then, nor do they now, offer up any thing of their own for the public benefit; there is not one word concerns themselves in this popular bill. We have sate too long; we must never hereafter sit above three years: they would ease the people, but it must be all at the expence of the house of commons, not a privilege of their own must be shaken. It is urged, we are the people's ambassadors, or attorneys, as others say; and they ought to have a power to change us, if they find we act contrary to the nature of the trust reposed in us, or are corrupted to a court-interest, that they are any ways dissatisfied with our prudence or integrity; and therefore be it enacted, a new Parliament shall be chosen every three years. Truly I cannot see any security for the people against an ill parliament in this Act; for a corrupt house of commons may undo the nation in three years, as well as in thirty for admit any one parliament to be so far corrupted, as to pass laws to the injury of liberty or property, they can never be repealed but by the Act of the king and lords; who, when once they have thought it their interest to procure such laws, will never consent to the repeal of them: for though the house of commons will be new every three years, the king and the house of lords will be still the same in interest, if not personally: So that one ill parliament, though * Sedley's Works, vol. ii. but of three years continuance, may prove a disease incurable. But men will say, it is better the people should chuse a new parliament every three years, than that the same representatives should be continued upon them at the king's pleasure, how negligently, how imprudently, how dissatisfactorily soever they perform their duty in the house. This is not to be answered: But we ought to have so much esteem for our prince, as not to think he will long continue such a parliament upon us, and to give him a little latitude in the calling and dissolving part; so as not to tie him strictly to the letter of those laws, which, as I told you before, never were observed by any of his predecessors, nor rigorously insisted upon by any of ours. When he shall have made a considerable transgression, it were then time enough to enter our complaint: But, say some gentlemen, on the other side, good laws are never to be obtained, but in the reign of a good king; therefore this is the time to press for so good a law as this is, that may keep an ill-disposed prince in order. Truly I do not see it provides against any thing, but that an ill prince shall not enslave us by one continued long parliament; but he may do it by a triennial one, whenever he and they can agree about it; nor call these parliaments, but when the king has business for them, and has also a strong presumption, they will comply for the adjourning, proroguing, and dissolving such parliaments as he dislikes. Thus all will be in his power, though this act pass; and even triennial parliaments cannot give us a certain remedy, in case of any invasion upon our liberty and property; for it is the king that must appoint time and place. Though the house of lords and commons are essential parts of the English government, yet in this politic existence they depend upon the will and pleasure of our kings. The people of Eugland are the same, their reasons of chusing the same, and I question not but they will send us the same men, or the same sort of men again. Mr. Speaker, I can by no means approve of this bill at this time: But my main exception lies against the clause which requires the dissolution of this present parliament, by an act of the legislative power. Never was there any such invasion upon the prerogative of a king, never such an indignity offered to an house of commons in being. The next house may take other measures than we have done, and then what is got by a new parliament? If they take others, you know not what disorders may follow. Sir Joseph Tredenham. I am for rejection of the bill. We ought to be tender of the king's prerogative, and the calling and dissolving parliaments, the chiefest flower of the crown. It is not reasonable to receive such a proposal from the lords. The commons have been and ought to be ever jealous of what hath come from the lords, and have very good reason; the lords having passed their judgments on this present parliament; though they have protracted the time of execution till January. I conclude, that we ought to vindicate the pre- | sonable. As to the first, I take the lords to be rogative, and ourselves. Sir Edward Seymour. I waited for reasons for the Bill, but find one. Nobody doubts, but that holding of frequent Parliaments is good; but the ball is not for that intent. It is a law already t at a parliament be every three years; so that the whole intent of this is the dissolving this parlament. By this Bill you will take off the dependency of the people on the crown, and set up the lords, that have no right, and turn the commons out of doors. Is it reasonable that the lord-, who only represent themselves, should turn you out, that represent the people? Whenever the lords set up a right of their own, certainly some great end is to be suspected; since this bill is against the crown and the commons. Mr. Finch. I am against the bill. The lords may begin and send down any bill, not relating to money, but I confess, this cannot be very acceptable, for the dissolving this house. Whatever has been said for the bill, it is not such a bill as is law already. By a law in Edw. 3's time, "That parliaments be annual, and oftener, if need be," they are expounded to be annual, as well as oftener; and the law also for Triennial Parliaments hath been expound ed, that parliaments shall be, not that new ones should be; and the best exposition of the law is the use and practice of it. The bill takes away the great prerogative of dissolving parliaments. That the proceedings of whole parliaments have been vacated, because they have been against the prerogative. The bill supposeth kingly government opposite to the people. Though the Pension-Parliament, as it was called, sat long, yet I desire gentlemen to shew me what right that Pension-Parliament gave up? Sir John Lowther. By this, the lords are doing a thing that strikes at your very constitution. Their rights of sitting are certain. Considering what we have done, it is to our disadvantage to be represented to the lords as fit to be dissolved; as if there were some secret reason for the same. It is enough to bring those we represent out of conceit with us, whose purses we have disposed of. If the lords house was to be regulated in their sitting, it would be much more reasonable to accept this bill. Sir Richard Temple. I have ever been for Triennial Parliaments; yet this bill is the most dangerous thing that ever hath been in the house; since this is provided for before by other laws, this is designed for something else, plainly to end this house. It is directly against the king's prerogative of dissolution; and I doubt that new elections may set the nation in a ferment, in a time of war; and I doubt this is the design. For the Bill. Mr. Pelham. I am sorry to see gentlemen offended at a bill of so good a title and intent. The objections have been three against it; 1. That it comes from the lords. 2. That it will hazard the government. 3. That it is unsea concerned to do some such thing, because they rejected a bill from this house much to this purpose. As to the second, nothing of this kind can hazard the government, from the people of England. A present member of this house, a member also of the Pensioner-Parliament, told me, 'That he, by order, paid Pensions to 30 members of that house.' The like, by long sitting, may be done again. As to the third, the bill can never be more seasonable than when we give so much Money. Mr. Hopkins. Our ancestors always aimed at this, as appears by several ancient laws to this purpose. The like was well enough offered at in the last ill times. When men continue here long, they alter. They come up hither free-men, but are here made bond-men. If to be elected be an honour, let neighbours share ; if a burden, so likewise. Mr. Hutchinson. I hope the lords sent down this bill on no ill reasons; and I think that we, by negligence, and late attendance, seem weary of our own sitting. Mr. Herbert*. I am not of opinion that it intrenches on the king's prerogative, or people. The lords may as well send bills to us, as we to them. The last Clause, upon commitment, may be mended. As to determining this present parliament, I had rather have a Standing Army, than a Standing Parliament. Mr. Bowyer, of Southwark. The two greatest mischiefs to this kingdom are, either to have no parliaments, or to have long parliaments. Both were experienced in king Charles 1's time. We had also the experiment of an ill Long Parliament in king Charles 2's time. If the late king James had not revoked the writs for calling a parliament, which he had issued out, he might have been here still [at which all laughed.] This present parliament is esteemed a well-officered parliament; and I doubt it will be so more and more every day than other. The Bill of Rights would have frequent parliaments, in the plural number: such a Bill will make men not spend money to be elected. Mr. Harley arraigned the lords for sending down this bill; touched on their extravagant assuming of judicatory power; and then said, The Bill is a plausible panegyrick on this parliament, for its funeral oration; yet, notwithstanding, I am for the bill. Such remedies, to obtain good things, must be obtained in good princes reigns. Annual parliaments have been enacted by several statutes. When one is grown a little old another hath been made. It is no intrenching on the prerogative, but is for the honour of the king. He hath said, in * A hearty promoter of the Revolution; going over to Holland to offer his assistance to the prince of Orange some time before. And, in consideration of those services, he was created lord Herbert of Cherbury, in 1694. In 1705, he was appointed one of the Lords of Trade, and died in 1708. his Declarations, That he will put us in such a way, that we need not fear being under arbitrary power, by yielding any thing to make us easy and happy. Our honour is concerned for this bill; considering what we have done, we should let others come in, that they may find, that Money is not here to be gotten. A standing parliament can never be a true representative; men are much altered after being some time here, and are not the same men as sent up. The lords sent you a Bill in Hen. 8's time, for settling their Precedency, and you have sent Bills to them concerning your Privileges. | in defect of parliaments, turned prerogative into arbitrary power. In the Pensioner-Parliament of king Charles 2, made so by long continuance, a Bill against France could never pass, and it was against building of Ships. This parliament is already so well-officered, that much enquiry is, how many things come to pass. There is as much right to the people to have frequent parliaments, as to have parliaments; because they cannot recall and revoke their members, when elected. The lords may send down bills relating to the good government of the people, but not for Money. The lords accepted from us a Bill to disable the Popish Lords: short and frequent parliaments would cure the great evils and oppressions of privilege. There is no pressure on the prerogative, because the thing used to be so, and, by law, should ever have been. The people's rights will hereby be settled, which as king Charles 1. said, best supported the prerogative.' Sir Tho. Clarges. I should be unworthy to sit here, if I did not give testimony to this bill. It is the best bill that ever came into this house since 25 Edw. 3, of Treasons, &c. I would never countenance any encroachment of the lords; but I take it to be none; and I cannot refuse to speak in behalf of the bill; we should otherwise go into the country with discredit. I Sir Christ. Musgrave. Since, formerly, laws am not against my neighbours coming here, to made to this purposc have been evaded, it is see what we have done. We should do well to fit now that such laws should be explained imitate the Long Parliament in Charles 1's better. I have ever found long parliaments time, which, by their Self-Denying Ordinance, ungrateful to the people. As to the objection, kept up their credit longer than otherwise could‘That, being in a War, new elections will give have been, and would otherwise have fallen In the Bill of Rights, the Clause of Triennial Parliaments is the chief good thing we can do for ourselves. † The language of the Bill is the same with the ancient former laws for annual parliaments. The Long Parliament was ever esteemed a Grievance by me. sooner. Mr. Foley. I take it, that the bill is not against the prerogative; for a present law is for a Triennial parliament. We may send any bill to the lords about their members, and they also to us; only no bill for Money is to be sent to us. It is necessary for us to have frequent parliaments, and to take care also that parliaments be not corrupted, which frequent and fresh are less subject to. Some deficiency is in the bill, but all may be amended at commitment; for something now ought to be to prevent Corruption. disturbance,' I answer, that, by that reason, you must sit during the war. The reason, to perpetuate ourselves, is of no great benefit; but on the other side, let your neighbours come in, and those we represent be at liberty to be served better. I think that long sitting of parliaments is not for the king's interest. This parliament hath either had adjournments, or short prorogations, by which means, by reason of privilege, the people cannot have their rights. By this, we shall show that we are not lovers of ourselves. Capt. Mordaunt answered an objection made, That by change from the Convention to this parliament, there were not above fifty different,' by saying, That he wished that the opinions of the Convention and this parliament had been the same.' Colonel Granville. Whereas we are told, Mr. Freke, jun. only made this short obser- |‹ That this Bill seemed to be founded upon a vation: From this house, a bill moved to the disaffection towards this king, and also to lords, against the Popish lords, and was re-kingly government,' I think this bill takes care ceived. Sir Tho. Littleton. To receive the bill is essential to the peace of both houses. It is not usual to reject a bill at first reading. Such a rejection would be construed, that the house could not endure to be dissolved. To begin a new bill here touched on by some, would provoke the lords. You amend all faults yourselves. Though there be law for Triennial parliaments already, yet plainly no effect hath been. The Clause of Dissolution of the present Parliament may be left out. If gentlemen oppose the bill for that reason, yet let us have the bill for the benefit of posterity. Sir Francis Winnington. The great men that were for Prerogative in Charles 1's time, * See vol. iii. p. 355, † See p. 483. of our ancient constitution, and doth not innovate. When parliaments sit long, many will spend money to come in. The lords have done no other good things this parliament. This makes some atonement for casting out the former bill (the self-denying Bill.) I hope gentlemen will not be against looking their country in the face when here discharged. Lord Coningsby. I am not afraid to have the parliament dissolved, but would not have it from the lords. If the lords will make themselves temporary, I will consent to do it here in this house.-The Bill was ordered to be read a second time, 210 to 132. Trial of Lord Mohun.] Jan. 31. The lords sat in Westminster-ball upon the Trial of the lord Mohun, for the Murder of Mr. William Mountfort the player,* the lord president being lord high steward; and after examination of the witnesses, which lasted till five in the afternoon, their lordships withdrew to their own - house, and, after some debate, adjourned the court till the next morning, and set a fine of 1007. each upon the lord Faulconberg, lord Newport, lord Lovelace, and lord Leigh, for going away before the house was adjourned; which they excused the next day on account of their being faint and quite spent with so long an attendance. Feb. 1. The lords met again in their own house, and continued together till seven at night without going down to the court in Westminster-hall, spending the whole day in stating and debating several points of law, without taking any resolution thereupon, further than that it was resolved, That every peer might ask the Judges in open court what question he pleased as to points of law; and then they adjourned till the 3rd. Feb. 3. The lords met in their own house, and debated about the questions to be asked of the Judges; and about four in the afternoon went down into Westminster-hall, where several questions were asked the Judges in presence of lord Mohun the prisoner; after which their lordships returned to their own house, to debate thereupon; and about nine adjourned the court till the next morning, when 14 of them found the prisoner Guilty, and 69 acquitted him.t this house, yet never could observe any great change of proceeding, till the whole nation was alarmed at the duke of York's declaring himself a Papist, the discovery of the Popish Plot, and king Charles the 2nd's being suspected for that religion: then there was a change indeed; but I hope we have no calamities of that magnitude now to provide against: our king is in our interest abroad; he is an utter enemy to France; he is a good Protestant: we are ready with our purses to support him in the defence of our liberty, religion and property; we are honest in the main, and I cannot see the nation can be in better hands; however, let us be extinguished in the usual way of parliament, and not pull on ourselves a violent, and, I think, an ignominious death, by an act of the legislative power for our extinction. The long parliament could not be dissolved but by act of parliament; for they had obtained an act for their continuance, which could not be annulled but by an act for their dissolution; and therefore they were of necessity so dealt with.-To conclude, sir, for these and many other reasons given me by gentlemen, who spoke before me, I am against this bill at this time. It is said other gentlemen have a right and a just expectation of sitting in this house in their turns, as well as we that are now here, which this bill will put them in possession of; but that argument supposes this parliament will be continued for ever, if this house of commons be not extinguished by this law at this time, which I can no ways admit of: we are all for frequent parliaments, as well those against the bill, as those who are for it; but some of us had rather obtain it from some ordinary act of the king's prerogative, or such occasions, than extort them by a written law which may be of too stiff a temper to bend or comply with such emergencies of state, as may perhaps make the continuance of the same parliament a session longer than the law allows very advantageous, if not altogether necessary. I should have liked this bill better if it had begun in our own house; then it had been a self-denying bill indeed; but now it looks like "In the beginning of Feb. 1692-3, the a surprise upon us from the lords, and brings lord Mohun was indicted for the Murder of us under this dilemma, that if we pass it, we William Mountfort the player, who, for his throw ourselves immediately out of this house; good action on the stage and good-nature in if we reject this seeming popular bill, we hazard life, was a great favourite of the town. our elections into the next parliament; for we rakish officer had made lewd addresses to Mrs. are told by such as would have it pass, that the Bracegirdle, the famous actress, which she re- gentlemen who are against this new choice of turning with disdain, the man resolved to get the people, cannot expect to be elected by his will of her by force. Mountfort coming them into the next parliament: thus we are from her lodgings, having seen her safe home, to overlook all considerations of state and was attacked by this officer and basely mur-public concernment, and pass this bill in order dered. The lord Mohun, being present when to gratify our corporations, that they may the murder was committed, was apprehended, imprisoned in the Tower, brought to his trial for it before his peers in Westminster-hall, the marquis of Carmarthen being constituted lord high-steward. After a trial of several days he was acquitted." Tindal. Debate on the Bill for frequent Parliaments.] Feb. 9. The Bill for frequent calling and meeting of Parliaments was read the second tine. Against the Commitment. Sir Charles Sedley. The long parliament of 1640 was declared extinguished by act of parliament, but all the world saw what they attempted, and what they executed and I hope we shall never pass an act that may couple us in history with that sort of men. Mr. Speaker, I have seen several parliaments in *See State Trials, A. D. 1692-3. # Sent to Mr. Grey by Mr. Wilmot. Sedley's Works, vol. 2. : A chuse us again. Truly, sir, for my part, I renounce those partial measures, and if I can not be chosen upon the account of general ser vice to the nation, I will never creep into the favour of any sort of men, and vote against my judgment. Mr. Dolben. The lords have taken upon them too much, to dissolve the commons; they |