the Brest fleet, and Toulon squadron; whether Sir Edw. Seymour. I make no doubt but their Orders were to annoy the enemy,' if they met with no opposition but wind and weather. But as to the Victuals, when setting out the fleet, I called for an Account; and the victuals were said to be for four months; but now it is explained,' that a third part was in specie, a third part in credit, and a third part in money.' As long as this is so, it is impossible to say what provisions were on board. If they went off from the coast, at sea they could neither have victuals for money. Therefore have the Commissioners of the Navy before you and know what was on board in specie. What I mean is, the columns of Indenture between purser and victualler. If so, then the victual in specie is only for five weeks. 6 Sir John Lowther. See the Account of the Victuallers, and the Survey taken on board: then you will see, by comparing, to make a judgment. I agree with Wharton, that there are several other things as material;' but as for this question, you are not ripe, by any means, for it; you have not the matter before you, the gentlemen have better information than myself, that are ready for this question about victualling. The Admirals deny the matter of fact, and that is not yet rectified. The Speaker. The objection against the question is, That there is not yet given in what Victuals they had in specie.' What Beer they had at Torbay you have not. The question is, Whether they had sufficient Beer to convoy Rooke out of danger?' Mr. Boyle.* You have not yet Evidence to give a Vote upon; and therefore put the previous question.-To proceed on Monday. * "Youngest son of lord Clifford, and grandson to the first earl of Burlington. He was naturally endowed with great prudence and a winning address, and distinguished himself so much in parliament, that he was made chancellor of the exchequer by king William, and He was much in favour with that prince. continued in that post til! 1707, when queen Anne appointed him one of her secretaries of state. On the accession of George 1, in 1714, he was created lord Carleton, and was soon after made lord president of the council. died unmarried in 1724." Budgell's Memoirs of the Boyles. VOL. V. He Nov. 27. The Commissioners of the Navy being called in, said, 'The Fleet had forty-six days Beer.' Mr. Howe. I would not give my vote, like the Admirals, that go to sea with oracular Instructions. Mr. Comptroller Wharton. Whether the admirals had Beer enough to go to sea, to carry the Smyrna Fleet out of danger? Whether they had provision enough to keep out to sea, to convoy the Smyrna Fleet out of danger? Whether they obeyed their Orders like wise men, and honest men, to leave the Turkey Fleet before they were out of danger? is your question. Mr. Finch. Is this a proper question, aud fit to be put? If they had no orders, and knew not where the French fleet were, it is not the question. The meaning of the question is, having 39 days provision, to convoy them out of danger of the Brest-fleet. But they were not out of danger of the Toulon squadron. Had they provision sufficient to convoy them from the Brest-fleet, and Toulon squadron ? So this question supposes they had orders, and that they knew the French fleet was in LagosBay. Mr. Solicitor Trevor. One excuse of the Consider Admirals, is, they wanted Victuals. what the Admirals have for their justification! The want of Victuals. This question will justify the victuallers, but not condemn the admirals. But when this question is over, then it is a proper time to enquire, whether that proportion was sufficient. Mr. Montagu. When you adjourned the debate, it was because you had not the whole matter before you. If this question before you be not proper, no question can be proper. When you find they had sufficient Provision, &c. the next is, what order? They had sufficent Provision to prevent France from over-heading us again, and they might have done it. Lagos is a great and deep bay, and they might have preserved the Smyrna fleet from danger; and the whole fleet too. Lord Falkland. There is more concern in the question than the Admirals. If they had not provision sufficient, the fault is somewhere; if they had not Orders somewhere else. Rooke's fleet fell into the French hands 11 days after the Admirals left the Fleet. Sir Robert Rich. The most eminent merchants never feared the Toulon squadron, Rooke had strength enough to fight the Toulon squadron. Most of the opinion of the merchants was, that the count D'Estrees was as much afraid of Rooke, as Rooke of him. Sir Wm. Whitlock. I wonder the Admiralty should not give directions to convoy them out of danger of the Toulon squadron, as well as of the Brest; they, it seems, thought as much of the one as the other. Resolved, on a division, 188 to 152, "That there was sufficient Beer on board the main Fleet, when sir George Rooke separated, to have convoyed sir George Rooke's squadron, and 3 E the Merchant-Ships, out of danger of the Brest Acet. *" Debate on the Bill for more frequent Parliaments] Nov. 23. An ingrossed Bill for more frequent Elections of Parliament, (brought in by Mr. Brockman) was read the third time. Sir John Lowther. Declare the matter of the king's negative voice, and let the word holden' stand. Mr. Harley. I am for the word Parliament holden,' because you are possessed of it; and it is not for the interest of England to part with a word, in so many laws made use of. words, because we had them 3 or 400 years ago, and are never the better for them. Is the prerogative of the crown less than in Edw. 2's time? At that time all the laws of a parliament were but one law, in Items. In those times the king took one and rejected another, and so the Judges were in doubt, what passed for a law, and what not. Some laws that passed are not in the Roll. Will you put in a word that may be doubtful, when there is no need of it? I know not what improvement may be made, in time to come, of a word doubtful. may Sir Charles Porter. I think it absolutely Sir Robert Rich. A doubt arises from them necessary that this be put to some certainty; against the word, that the king's Prerogative of else parliaments would be in power to sit as dissolving Parliaments is taken away; but if it long as they please, and the king not have be only meant and intended that a parliament power to prorogue nor adjourn them. If you must be every year, if others intend something | pass this Clause without a plain explanation, it else, let them say so. be of ill consequence. I would so explain it, that it may not be a question hereafter. Sometimes the crown, and sometimes the commons, differ in expressions of words, and this is a word that may be fundamental. I move that this may be explained, so that what you intend may not encroach upon the prerogative of the king. Lord Falkland. This Bill is of great consequence; the intent of it is good, and to have frequent sessions of parliaments, and a new parliament. I am for the intent of the Clause. Instead of the word holden,' I move, that it may be a parliament to meet once a year, at least. Mr. Montague. To the word, 'declare.' If it be the intention for annual sessions, give me leave to offer my opinion why I am against it. Though those acts mentioned do enjoin it, yet there have been no complaints for not calling parliaments so frequently. In James 1's time, when the commons did assert all their rights and liberties, they make no mention of these laws. But the constitution of the nation was quite otherwise then, for the parliament judged causes, and made explanations of laws, upon the desire of the judges, which now they do in Westminster-Hall: But to determine to meet actually, whether there be occasion, or not, I think not proper. Sir Christ. Musgrave. You have no Clause before you, only the word, declare:' that word is only moved. I see no reason of the difficulty why you should not insert the word 'declare.' Is it not always meant, you have a right when you declare? It was a right the subjects had to frequent parliaments; and if you now enact, and not declare, I fear your right commences from that time only. Mr. Palmes. Frequent Parliaments, and the Dissolution of this, was the thing I aimed at before, and so I do now. The Clause was rejected 129 to 89. And the Bill was rejected 146 to 136. Debate on the King's Speech.] Mr. Hampden. You have considered the Fleet, and another part of the king's Speech, very material, viz. the Land Forces, is behind. Unless you grant a Supply, I know not how you can support the government, the Treasury is so low. Nothing at all has yet been said of it. It is so necessary to have a consideration of it, that I move, That you would grant the king a Sup Mr. Harley. I keep strictly to the word declare.' You have been told that no complaints have been made, that those have not been annual sessions; but there were complaints for want of parliaments, and so enacted 50 Edw. 3, That there should be annual parliaments. There was an act already, and it should be observed.' The bishop of St. Asaph opened the parliament from the king-ply for the land forces. That there were not frequent parliaments, but as for that of king James 1, they tell the king, that if kings were immortal, they had no need of such laws,' but they proceeded farther; they know not what kings may come, therefore to provide against oppressions.' + The Prerogative always increases. but the Liberties of the People are at a stand. Sir Edw. Seymour. I could wish our condition such, that we might support the government, without parliament. I would willingly bate my share in parliament to have a share in that condition. I am not very fond of these The words," and the Toulon squadron," were rejected, 191 to 165. + See vol. 1, p.1361. Earl of Ranelagh. I second the motion. I must tell you, the army is in very ill condition. In their quarters in Flanders they have no money, and no credit. Sir Tho. Clarges. A supply is moved for, but I cannot allow we have an army in Flanders; you have no obligation to have an army in Flanders. Vast sums have gone thither, which can never return; besides our loss at sea. If the privy council advises not the king, we must do it. Had we attended the sea, the French could have done little in Flanders. It goes to my heart that the king of England should be at the head of a Confederate Army. * One of the lords justices, and lord chancellor, of Ireland. I hope that, when it comes to be debated, you will think the army is for defence of the kingdoin. We had no assistance in conquering Ireland from the Confederates; we needed them not. The year's expence of Cromwell's Ariny was but 600,000l. If we come to that pass that our army cannot preserve us, we shall | be a despised people. By the fundamental | law of England, no Englishman can be forced out of England, without his own consent. Men have been found sent to the Tower, that would not go beyond sea, and if well proved you might impeach the lieutenant of the Tower. In 1672, France took three of their provincesThe duke of Brandenbourg sent then 30,000 men, and now but 6000. They took the three provinces again, and made a good peace for themselves. The Hollanders rather get than lose by this war. They provide for our army, and their own too-butter, cheese, &c. If two millions go out of your main stock, what will become of you? Let us not talk of giving money, and not know where to raise it, to the derision of all the world. Sir Edw. Seymour. Time is too precious to delay. I wonder what Clarges understands the parliament should make exceptions to. What these Land-Forces are, and how to employ them to another purpose--I move, that a supply may be granted for the Land-Forces. If you Col. Cornwall. I ask pardon if I do not very well understand the question. mean to supply the Army as the fleet, I can come up to it. I desire they may have 3 or 400,000l. for prosent supply. The Speaker. You cannot go into that motion without going into a grand committee. Sir Christ. Musgrave. You can only make a motion, and then consider whether you will go into a committee of the whole house. Sir Tho. Clarges. Seymour said, I spoke little to the purpose.' I am so used to reflections that I take little notice of them. When lord Ranelagh brought up the Forces to be 60,000 men, I thought it my duty not to let that go so. I observe that, when the Apostles spoke the truth of the Word, it was opposed by the Silversmiths that made the shrines, for Diana's temple. Earl of Ranelagh. ~ Though he makes that comparison, I am sorry for reflections. As for the 60,000, I said nothing of 60,000 men. You voted 54,000 last session. I said, the forces in Flanders are in a starvaing condition for the present.' What is proper to be done now, is only, That a motion being made, &c. this house will consider of that motion. Debate on the Miscarriages resumed.] Nov. 29. John Rutter was called in. The Speaker. This house has been informed that you can give account of the Brest Fleet, &c. Rutter. "I have given my Narrative upon oath made to the council. When I was before admiral Killegrew, taken as a prize, for taking in currants from Nantz, without orders, I said, I had done nothing but what I had orders for the 7th of May.' In the morning I discovered six of the French fleet, at anchor, and heard a gun to give signal. I was carried before the admirals, and gave account of 15 sail of French, and four more sail. I saw that nobody took notice of what I said. He took my pass from betwixt his fingers, and bid me withdraw. Killegrew was hot upon me about my loading. Shovel did ask me something, what it was I cannot say; I believe something of what I did see, and discover. He took my pass, and so I did withdraw. Capt. Kerr was by, at some part of it, but his business was to get me as a prize, which would be worth 2000l. to him. He said nothing, but that I must deliver my loading to the prize-office.' Capt. Kerr met me on the deck, when I did withdraw; only his lieutenant came on board my ship. I am not able to say what passed from Kerr, but being distracted about my prize, I cannot remember. I met some coming out of the channel, I suppose the Smyrna fleet. I told it my ship's company. I am not able to say whether I did discourse of it to capt. Barker, captain of the St. Vincent fire-ship, but I supposed I might say something to him. It was spoken often amongst my ship's company. They might have some prizes coming out of Dunkirk. I observed some ships coming out of Brest, just as the sun came from the horizon. I had 11 sailors in my ship. I had two more that were sick in the cabbins. I told my ship's company, who were most sick and dying, I would make all the haste I could to Conquest-Road. I met with a privateer, a tier of six guns and 10 patteraroes. The lieutenant told me he was chased the day before, and if they had followed, he must have been taken. I never related any thing to capt. Kerr, that the Brest fleet was salied up. I came ashore at Portsmouth the 14th of May. I came not up hither in three weeks. As soon as I came up, I went to the prize-office about my cargo of three or four ton of currants taken from me. I was in the prize-office, with Mr. Parkhurst, and told him, in the garden, the same I have done here. Major Churchill was concerned in the cargo, and one Mr. Alston. I was at Portsmouth some days after I landed. Mr. Alston can give account of the time. I did sign my exanination before the council. No person whatever has been with me to make good this examination." Mr. Parkhurst. "There was a sale of these currants on the 14th. Hearing what he had said of the French fleet, I was willing to hear him, and he gave us this relation, as you have heard. All his men were sick, but three, and he had not men to sail his ship. He got one." Rutter. "I told capt. Kerr, 'That somė ships were stirring, and if I did not make sail, I must bury my sick men.' I suppose then the French fleet were out, and I told my mate, Castle. They came out of Nantz river on the 6th, and I saw this on the 7th. All my company, but two and a boy, were buried at Nantz. Capt. Kerr would have pressed my men; but I had none, but my two prisoners that 1 brought from Nautz, and two men and a boy. The rest were all sick. My ship was 120 tons." The Speaker. Why did not you discover this intelligence to others besides Mr. Parkhurst, and major Churchill? · Rutter. "I do not remember. I have been a seaman these 30 years, born in the Isle of Thanet, by the North Foreland. I have been master, and mate, 20 years and upwards; have been eight years employed by sir Wm. Scawen, and alderman Lucy, and others. I have traded in the French trade 21 years and upwards. I have served 20 years apprentice to a fisherman, and have my neighbours ready to give account of my conversation. Several neighbours and merchants can testify of me. I saw 15 sail, and four more coming out of Brest to windward, before the wind, almost together."-He withdrew. Sir Wm. Scawen. I have known Rutter these eight years, and he has always served me very honestly, and has the same repute upon the Exchange. Serjeant Thurban. I have known this Rutter these 19 years. He lives in Rainsgate within the jurisdiction of my borough. I have had no dealing with the man, but I always have heard a good character of him. I have heard this from his neighbours, and all give credit to his information. Sir Samuel Barnardiston. I enquired after him on the Exchange, and have not heard a better character of any man. Col. Lee. I know not whether his character will answer your expectation of gentlemen. Upon the Revolution he behaved himself bravely. He applied himself to his owners to be a privateer, who could never get any account from him, and so were not willing to let him be a privateer.` Sir John Fleete. I have no particular acquaintance with the man, but I have heard of him, to be an honest man, by all that have dealt with hin. Mr. Machell. I will tell you a fault that perhaps this man cannot get off from, viz. that he took lord Peterborough prisoner. Mr. Howe. I shall only make this observation, that I have known many pass for very honest gentlemen, and, in this corrupt town, five or six years ago, they have proved otherwise. I reflect not upon the man, but let every one judge. Daniel Castle. "I was Rutter's mate. Under St. Matthew's point, the 7th of May, Rutter said, He saw some ships at anchor, and some under sail, and heard a gun for more ships.' Rutter ordered to loose the main-sail, and steer, for fear of being stopped. I saw the ships, when I was with Rutter on the deck. Hearing the guns fired, we made all the sail we could. We took them to be part of the French fleet. I heard 25 guns fired, as more came out. The two prisoners that were aboard us, saw it. They assisted us in bringing home our ship, and a carpenter, a prisoner; the rest of the ship's crew were sick and weak in the cabins. We took them to be a squadron of the main fleet. I did not acquaint any person with what I saw, but believe my captain did on board the Lenox, and the flag. I remember captain Kerr came on board our ship, but I was not well when he came on board. There was such a discourse in France that their ships were unrigged. But they were pressing men. The Lenox took us as prize, and carried us to Portsmouth. A French privateer, off from the Lizard, told us he had been chased, and that either his mast, or yard, was broken, but I heard nothing of the reason why the Lenox did not take him. I was carried on board the Lenox, and the two prisoners. I was never examined, nor ever acquainted any with what I saw, nor had any discourse. I came ashore on May 14. I was three days on board the Lenox. I discoursed with no man there, and came to London. Our ship was 100 and odd tons; we had eight or nine men to sail her." "Rutter Major Churchill, of Portsmouth. has been employed by me to carry French and English prisoners. I asked him what was the news?' He told me, the Brest squadron was out five were at anchor, and four more were coming out.' He said, He was carried on board the admirals, and gave them account of it.' He told this to me, and 20 more, at Portsmouth. I believe it ten days after his coming, and soon after the lords of the council went away, I did tell this to abundance of friends, and relations, I had in town. Rutter told it, I believe, 20 times, in company of captain Barker, and Mr. Alston. I have known Rutter above nine months. He observed, That 15 more French ships were coming out, and by firing their guns he believed they might be 40 sail coming out.' This discourse he had in my compting-house, when he came from Portsmouth, as I was writing, I heard him speak it upon the Exchange. About the 7th of May he saw them come out of Brest. He never made but one voyage for me before. He performed his voyage very well. A broker brought him to me at first; he was of good credit, and employed by merchants, owners of ships, for several years. He was on board the Britannia at Spithead, and acquainted the Admirals with all this matter that he has said; the admirals took little notice of what he said, only sir Cloudesly Shovel asked him several questions, and was very inquisitive where the French fleet was; and he told him all this matter." Sir Francis Child. Rutter did say, 'That admiral Killegrew turned from him, and took little notice of what he said; the rest of the admirals were in the room, and he addressed himself to sir Cloudesly Shovel for his pass. Rutter. "In Nantz, they asked me, where the Turkey fleet was? I told them, they were ready to set sail, with 80 men of war.' They laughed me to scorn, and said, they knew better.' There was a discourse at St. Malo's of laying up the fleet, but nothing at Nantz. I never said a word that the Brest fleet was unrigged. There was much pressing before I came away, sending to Brest with all expedition. Capt. Barker's boat brought me on board the Britannia, with only the boat's crew, and the coxswain. I went immediately to the Admiral's cabbin-door. I waited there a quarter of an hour. Some gentlemen were standing at the cabbin-window, but said nothing. I expected to have been asked several questions, but I heard none." Sir John Lowther. Now Rutter tells you, he was asked no questions, nor gave any account of the French fleet, but they told him of his being called in question, if the parliament had sat, for carrying French goods. Mr. Foley. It is time to make an end of this matter; and I know not how, unless you call in the Admirals, Carr, and Rutter, and his mate, and confront them all together. The three Admirals and captain Kerr were then severally called in and confronted with Rutter. The Admirals were afterwards called in, and heard; and then withdrew. And the question being put, "That it does appear to this house, that the Admirals, that commanded the Fleet the last summer, had, on the 11th day of May last, Information that part of the Brest fleet was going out to sea;" it passed in the Negative, 170 to 161. Debate on a Bill touching free and impartial Proceedings in Parliament.] Dec. 4. An ingrossed Bill, touching free and impartial Proceedings in Parliament, was read the third time. Sir Edw. Seymour. I would not, by any ways and means, disgrace that body of men from whom must arise our security. The late Long Parliament did stand against popery and the French interest. To say those laws were passed by corrupt men, that the house was filled with! Next, in this Bill, no person to be chosen a member is capable of an Office. The question was formerly, What will you do for the man that the king delights to honour?' And now, What disgrace will you put upon him? I think this a great reflection on the country, and will you establish these reflections? There are other ways than Places to corrupt men, which may be turned into Pensions. And by this Bill you establish nothing but reflections on your country. Mr. Harley. I can hear no argument against the Bill. It is objected, That this bill will put a reflection on the worthy members that have Offices; but you have taken care of those that are to come hereafter, but not those in present. As for former parliaments, it is best to pass them over in silence. And as for the king's honouring men,' no doubt but the king will honour them who best deserve it. If the people make choice of one in office, they are not deceived, but if they accept of an office, it voids their place. People may be deceived it their choice. In the first of king James 1, the Chancellor, studious of the good of the kingdom, sent down to the house of commons a list of the Members in Office, and they were turned out of the house, and new writs were sent out, and new members chosen, that might attend the business they were chosen for.-The Bill was then passed. Debate on the Estimates for the Year 1694.] Dec. 5. The earl of Ranelagh, by his majesty's order, laid before the house the State of the War, in relation to the Land Forces, for the year 1694, amounting in the whole to 93,635 men, and 2,881,194/. 16s. 3d. annual charge. Sir Tho. Clarges. The forces given in are 93,000, in the whole. It was never known that an army of near 100,000 was raised. The king is a gracious prince, but consider what a precedent you make! this is a good king, but other princes may say, ' The like has been done,' and so we may be slaves for ever. Parliaments have been always careful of making precedents. I move, That the lords of the council may sign. this List,' that we may know whether this be | Dutch, or English counsel. I would know who must answer this? but I will dare say, that no Treaty obliges us to one man. But if this must go, whither will this obligation go? the last year, you called for Treaties, and you had but one offensive treaty with the States produced, signed by lord Nottingham, &c. I would sce those signed, and not prostitute the people of England. If we shall be slaves, it is no matter who we are slaves to. If you agree to this number, I cannot tell how to help it; but I move, That the Lords of the Council may sign this List.' Sir Christ. Musgrave. No wonder we are surprized at this number, when we have nothing before us, but just reading the Papers. Because we gave last time without seeing the Treaties, now they bring us the like again. If there be any such Treaties with the allies, in God's name, let us see them. These are no more than if so much money was demanded of us. Let us make an humble Address to the king, to lay these Alliances before us, and then we shall be able to judge what proportions come to us. One would think that this was Dutch Counsel; else we should never be put to contribute at this rate, to ruin England to preserve Flanders. I know no consideration for this but our labour for our pains. I would address the king, &c. Sir Francis Winnington. I am much surprized at this Estimate, and to observe that the more we give, the less success we have. I have heard from Mr. Vaughan, in this house, What sig that no sum of Money was to be asked here, but the cause was laid before us.' nify all our laws, if we have no estates? the nation is not at its ease, so as to give such sums. We are told that still there is a vast debt behind; but there are vast Pensions and Gifts. Every man ought to know the reason of this. If this vast number will ruin England, we must not support Holland. I would have the Alliances produced. Sir John Thompson. I would defend the Con |