Wednesday, December 1.
The Earl of Orrery, in his seat near the Bar, answers his
charge. Because of his indisposition of the Gout (fn. 1) , Sir Robert
Howard asked leave that he might sit, which was granted.
Earl of Orrery.] Acknowleges, with all humbleness, the
justice and favour of the House, in having the ten Articles
sent him. The Articles bring no less than his life and
estate, and, what should be more than both, his loyalty,
in question; but he has innocence, without which he
durst not appear before the House. He should be un
worthy to serve his country in this place, should he
fly your justice. In some places the Articles are dark,
and in some places intricate and immethodical. If, by
reason of some months sickness, and a spirit wounded
with such a charge, he misexpress himself, he hopes he
shall be pardoned.
Article I. He thinks rather a narrative than a charge.
The charge says not that those he corresponded with were
traytors or rebels. It is no crime to hold correspondence
with the Militia, for if they had power to do ill, they
had power to keep from ill; they were the interest the
King took care of. Should he say, "England lies a bleeding, now London is burning," these were words to stir up
compassion rather than rebellion. They (the Petitioners)
accuse him of no bad intention in what he did, and no
ill consequence followed upon it.
To Article II. "That he gained to his own use great
sums of money, to raise up sedition, and told the Purchasers, that unless money was raised to feed the hungry
Courtiers, nothing would be done; and levied 13,750l.
to obtain his ends by corrupt means, which moneys were
converted to his own use:"
Answers, It is not his custom to use uncivil language
to any, much less to a Courtier. The King will find
those who exhibited the Articles more apt to rebell than
the Irish interest. There were voluntary subscriptions of
one penny per acre towards the charge of getting an Act
of settlement. Is it a likely thing that he should put
them into rebellion, and not head them; cheat them of
their money, and think to have an interest in them? If
this Article were true, he was fitter to be sent to Bedlam
than to answer it here—He protests he lost 300l. by that
business—Desires that he who received the money, may
certify what he received. It is as ordinary to take subscriptions of this nature, as for the Fens—This has been these
nine years, and no complaint made—Denies the Black
List—It is strange that 700l. raised voluntarily in 1661,
should beget a rebellion in 1663—Another penny per
acre was raised by Act of Parliament—It is not likely
he should refuse what is given him by Act of Parliament.
To Article III. "Imprisoning of people for bringing
Answers, If any were punished it was for some insolence done, not for bringing Certioraris. Denies letters
for non-appearance. He has granted many Petitions—
Denies incroaching upon any man's freehold, unless in
forcible detainers. His Court of Precedency never meddles with it; but they have power to quiet possessions,
after three years quiet possession. Fitzgerald
(fn. 2) was a person who forfeited his estate by rebellion. There was a
letter from a High Sheriff, directed to the Lord President of Munster, and, in his absence, to the Vice-President, complaining of Fitzgerald's forcible detaining a
castle, and resisting the Sheriff's power; defying his
power in open words, as if running into rebellion. The
Lord Chief Justice of Ireland said to him, "he was
obliged to assist the Sheriff, and his forces to be subservient to the Sheriff," and this in a time when we feared
invasion from the French, and a strong place, and the best
port in Ireland. Never heard complaint against any man,
nor ever hindered due prosecution of Law.
To Article IV. The Article before was of protecting
English, now of an Irish murderer (fn. 3) , "that he should get
him bailed, and so he escapes." If the Justice, upon
his letter, do bail a man not bailable by Law, it was his
fault; he knows not for what the man was committed.
To Article V (fn. 4) . Has witness to clear this. Sir John
Broderick and Sir Richard Osborne will prove the action
to be voluntary; that land in his possession, and had set
it for 99 years. [They were granted him by the King, as
Rebels lands, and the title was afterwards confirmed by
To Article VI (fn. 5) . Denies any trust from either soldiers or
adventurers, but as a friend to both, and a Privy-Counsellor of England and Ireland.
To Article VII (fn. 6) . Denies any creatures of his own to
have taken to farm the King's revenue. The revenue is
openly set at the Council-board in Ireland—Never saw the
Lord Lieutenant, nor any Counsellor, refuse the larger
offer. Only the Excise beginning in 1663 and ending
1664, it was not valued at above 20,000l. But the Aldermen of Dublin proffered, if he would take it, they would
give 30,000l. rent, and if they might take it, they would
secure the rent to Lord Kingston and him. The Article mentions not in what kingdom. It is obscure, as if
it meant more than it does express. By this they got
but 150l. apiece. They had a warrant after a full hearing to set it for 36,000l. and they gave 39,000l.
To Article VIII (fn. 7) . Answers, He paid arrears to the army,
according to the King's Declaration at Breda—Knows
not to have done it either to those out of the army, or
to such as opposed the King's Restoration—Only one
gentleman of quality turned out of the army, for being
an Anabaptist, a little before the King's Restoration.
This was the man that came eightscore miles to discover
the plot at Dublin, to whom he gave 100l. which he
looked upon with contempt, and protested he would never serve any farther, if rewards were offered him—
Denies the "employing the Halberdiers that were the
guard at the King's murder." He turned out a nephew
of his own, who had married a daughter of one of the
To Article IX (fn. 8) . Denies the selling of a foot of land to
any Irish rebels—Denies the buying of any lands of any
Irish Papist, except 15 acres near Dublin, for which he
paid 400l. for the convenience of his horses; had the
seller of it been judged nocent, he had lost his title—
One acre of land in Limerick is valued at eight in Kerry,
and his lot happened to be in Kerry, and so his troop
after that rate were satisfied in Kerry, according to the
claim; but they have lost both their time and money,
for want of due claim by the Act.
To Article X. and last
(fn. 9) . This Article, if true, would strike
him dumb with its weight. The charge is general, and
he denies it. All these look rather like aspersions than
accusations, and so this general Article he must answer
generally, No. He, being one of the Council, advises
one way for the farming of the King's rents; another,
another way. He had nothing to do with what the King
would do in mercy; they are only to do what law enjoins
them. It is not crime, but difference of opinion, he is
charged with. The great point is of "compelling the King
with 50,000 swords;" had it entered into his heart, he
durst not have appeared here; and he wishes those 50,000
swords in his heart, if he said the words—Hopes that his
Judges will consider the accusers, and the accused. At
least it is not a probable thing he should utter such words
in 1659; they had then such tumblings and tossings as
were in England. He had then sent a letter to his brother, Lord Shannon, then with the King, viz. "That
if your Majesty will be pleased to transport yourself into
Ireland, to your Protestant subjects, we will receive you,
and do our best to restore you to the rest of your dominions." This was as early as any. If doubted, the
King will clear it. If this be true, and whilst uncompelled by necessity, and out of choice and duty, is it likely
that when the King was actually restored he should say
these words? Fitter for Bedlam, if ever he said them,
than to be here, and is it likely that in six or seven years
he should put nothing in action? 50,000 swords must
surely be meant English. He has done several services since
the words, but no overt act since the saying them. That a
man, at the head of an army seven years, should not do
some overt act is strange. That these words should lie
seven years concealed is a misprision of Treason.—Not
accused of any overt act, since only men say it. What
he can say in point of Law will be ridiculous; yet though
the words that were asserted, the Judges declared formerly
not Treason, yet he trusts more in the judgment of the
House. "Concealing his Majesty's affairs, and advancing
his private fortune," are generals—Humbly desires no
more to be done for him than your justice will put you
upon; and so beseeches God to direct the House, and
withdraws (fn. 10) .
Sir William Lewis.] Moves to have it remitted to the
Sir Thomas Clifford.] Would not have the sword of
this House of Impeachments be blunted upon offences of
this Nature—Stars, in their courses, do not amaze us;
but Comets give us apprehensions.—Would have impeachments of this nature upon great and considerable
Serjeant Maynard.] Considering the time, and the
thing, if ever it was, and the Petitioners must go into
Ireland for their witnesses, and this noble Lord's reputation suffer in the mean time, would have it referred to
the Law (in Lord Strafford's case.) One of the King's
Counsel once under the gallery, he remembers, desired,
in another case, this might be the question, If any man
in his conscience thinks this to be Treason, let him say,
Mr Sollicitor Finch.] Little foundation in Lord Orrery's Answer made, to build upon. We may say by
his Answer, that the greatest part is not probable, and
some things impossible to be true. He affirms words
may be Treason, or not, according to circumstance; and
in a case of blood infinitely to be considered before acted
—To say, "I will kill the King," ever was Treason. By
a Statute of Henry VIII. it was felony to scatter papers
that such and such a man has spoken Treason. The
words to be Treason must be within such a time; for the
words should be after the Settlement in Ireland; and
what need "compelling," when the thing is done, and all
the acts concomitant and subsequent have been for quiet
and settlement? Let every man lay his hand upon his heart
—But if these words tended to kill the King, it is a Treason. "Would be compelled," an indication of fear; "should"
is much different. It is an accusation to this House, and
from this House; will you imprison upon out-doors accusation? You may have the House, at this rate, garbled when you please—Would have the accusations transmitted to the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, where the offences charged were done, and so represent it to the King.
[The question being propounded, That a day be appointed
for the accusers to produce witnesses to make good the charge,
the previous question for putting it was carried, 116 to 114.
After which the main question passed in the Negative, 121 to
Resolved, That this [Accusation against the Earl of Orrery]
be left to the Law, to be prosecuted in the King's Bench
(fn. 11) .
Thursday, December 2.
A Message from the King, by Mr Secretary Trevor, to let
the House know, that the King has removed Sir John Griffith
from his government of the Block-houses at Gravesend.
The complaint against him was for demanding of money of
vessels that went up and down the river, contrary to Law; and
for imprisoning persons refusing, and shooting at their vessels, if
they came not to pay the pretended duty. [This had been voted
a Grievance, and a high extortion, three days before.]
Mr Seymour.] Moved that his Majesty might be desired to show grace and favour to Sir John Griffith.
Mr Waller.] Thought it a presumption to do it, his
Majesty being the fountain of grace and favour.
Sir William Lowther.] Called it child's play, to go forward and backward—He is against it.
The thanks of the House were voted to his Majesty, [for his
gracious Message to this House in the matter relating to Sir John
In a Grand Committee on the Supply.
Mr Spry.] Moves to have it laid upon Wine and
Brandy, being of most general consumption—Would
have the trade of Wine free, without Licences; and to
be raised at the Custom-house, and so it will reach all,
as well what the Merchant spends in his own house, as
[Resolved, That the Aid to his Majesty shall be raised by an
imposition on Wine, and other foreign liquors, and on French
Friday, December 3.
[Consideration of the Report from the Commissioners of Accounts resumed.]
Eighth Observation against Sir George Carteret.] "Several Moneys allowed for cloaths, which were not paid."
This Observation (say the Commissioners) is the least in
value, but shows want of care in examining the sea-books.
Wade has had a private trade with the slop-sellers, wherein
he has cozened the King of 25,000l. but this will be most
properly charged upon the Commissioners of the Navy.
Mr Ayliffe, Counsel.] This Article is so inconsiderable
that it requires not much invention in Law; for de minimis non curat lex. But hopes he shall not offend in confessing some things, and palliating the rest. Either the
ticket was not marked, and then his client not to blame
that he did not deduct it; as to this money, if he had
notice to forbear, he must pay it to the King.
Lord Brereton.] The Commissioners have not "swept
dust into corners," as alleged by the Counsel, but have
made all corners clear. The expression "of sweeping dust,"
&c. was excepted against, and a reprimand was given to
[Sir George Carteret was voted not guilty of a Misdemeanor
within the eighth Observation, 110 to 70.]
On the division of the House upon this Article, some of the
Members coming in after the first Negative, were commanded
Ninth Observation.] "Moneys in his Hands, and the
Navy unpaid, when the fleet lay for want of pay, as in
Chatham business—190,000l. as appears by Sir Robert Vyner's books, and by Alderman Blackwell's books 50,000l.
and upwards. His Royal Highness, foreseeing this, had
utterly forbid it."
Mr Ayliffe reads the Observation.] Great sums of moneys appear upon cash-books, when the seamen sold their
tickets for want of pay (charged upon the King's account.) Sums of money, if intended current money of
the Exchequer, and not current money of England;
tallies and paper-money is so there, and the King's coin
lodged there. In tallies he had in his hands, great sums,
but not in any other sense. In strict Merchants words,
there are no cash-books; but ours are Exchequer-books,
which comprehend the orders and tallies, as well as ready
money. That the soldiers had not money is a thing to
be lamented, and not to be helped, having nothing but
cash of tally, and cash of order, but no cash of ready
money. No Treasurer is accountable to an Audit, but
for what moneys he receives; as to bonds and bills, unless
he has received moneys upon them, he is answerable
only for the bonds, &c. The 200,000l. was not received at the time it was promised to be lent; not lent
till a month after, and so the Treasury was fed by them
with parcels, instead of the whole sum, by reason of the
disorder the fire made, and the Goldsmiths being called
upon by private persons for their own.—In all the books of
1638, 1639, and 1640, moneys were accounted for in
the preceding year, which were not paid till the subsequent year.
Lord Brereton.] The Goldsmiths say positively that
Sir George Carteret might have had the moneys, if he
had them not. Mr Meynell said, that from the time Sir
George Carteret borrowed the money, he might have had
it, and it was his own fault he had it not.
Sir Robert Howard.] If the money was received, why
not put to account? If it lay in the Goldsmiths hands,
why not interest abated?
[Sir George Carteret was voted guilty of a Misdemeanor within
the ninth and tenth Observations.]
[To proceed on Wednesday the 8th.]
Saturday, December 4.
[The business of Skinner again debated. Of this Debate
there is no mention in the Journal, all the proceedings being
erazed. It was occasioned by the Lords having levied a fine on
Sir Samuel Barnardiston.]
Sir Robert Howard.] Is ready to prove, that a Lord,
or Lords, did pay the money, and not Sir Samuel Barnardiston. By this precedent we are at mercy; bills are
excluded us; but if all remedies fail, moves for a conference, if it may be done. Supposes that the Lords
have a mind to bury all differences, and if resolved, that
an obliteration may be in both our books, and in the
Exchequer. If this be a dishonour to the Lords, and
they scruple our return to our former Privileges, then we
that are hurt must cry out; then, he believes, we must
come to Declaration. The people, seeing a printed
book against us, will conclude themselves at the Lords
mercy, for life and fortune; but would have all imaginable ways attempted first, before we come to Declaration.
Mr Mallet.] Moves an inspection into the Exchequer,
to enquire into the manner of the payment of this fine
of Sir Samuel Barnardiston.
Mr Sollicitor Finch.] The papers upon our Journal are
as full as any Manifesto can be—No precedents of the
Lords can bind the Commons—If we have no Liberties
but what the Lords will allow, surely they are but small—
We are at an end of all legislative remedies; the best of
our hopes is a moral convenience and security, though
not a mathematical one—By conference would not argue
our Liberties, but to vacate the record, for we never had
such an occasion. The fine was paid, it seems, by an
old gentleman in the Exchequer, Pro fine per magnates
imposito. This ought to be vacated by the Barons of
the Exchequer; but it is too hard to put that upon them
which is, we find, too hard for ourselves. Would then
have such a remedy as the Lords can give us, and, it may
be, they will give us that in honour, which we cannot in
justice extort from them. Would have no Petition read,
where the right of any Commoner shall be invaded.
Would not have one estate complain to the King against
the other; nor would have the Commons appeal to the
people by remonstrance. But we confess, and allow them
all rights of nobility; that is, subject, and not governing
nobility; when they shall find such an application, does
not doubt but the Lords will do it thus; and he hopes
it may have success; believes it, and advises it.
Sir Richard Temple.] Our right is established, but we
know not how to come by it; if we must make it matter
of request, would have it done by way of the King,
then the Lords; because we cannot make it our right,
must we petition for it? The consequence of this precedent will be worse than all the rest; it is a yielding that
we have no right, and is a subjecting of us to be a "lower
House" indeed. Moves that we may be as strong in the
precedents as the Lords. We can begin a Bill to take
away the King's Prerogative; cannot we reach the Lords
by way of Bill to regulate their Judicature? Would
have reasons why we reject the Lords Bill entered into
the Journal. Says, we may demand a conference upon
the subject-matter of their Bill (which was disliked, and
changes his word into) our Bill; rather thinks the razure
on all parts is reasonable. Prays that, in full Parliament, the King may call his learned Counsel, the Judges,
and rectify this, and would have such a clause put into
the Money Bill, and doubts not but it may do the business.
Sir Thomas Lee.] Doubts not but a conference will be
denied, because it was in Lord Mordaunt's case.
Mr Waller.] Would be loth to take away the Lords
Judicature, because they have protected the Commons
once in their Liberties. If the Lords stop the Money
Bill, it will be ad captandum populum. We would give
away the people's money, and they would not. It is
unjust to the King, for we have said we will plainly give
it; unjust to the people, we give 400,000l. for that
which is the people's already. Would go by way of
conference. In Lord Mordaunt's case we had a conference, but it was, why they would not give us a conference, which was not matter of Judicature, but matter
of Honour; he remembers then a Bishop, with a great
Journal under his arm; he thought it had been St. Augustine. He has seen a Lord, and an Earl (Middlesex)
at the Bar. The King says, Nulli negabimus; but they
go higher, and deny us. But would have a conference.
Sir Thomas Meres.] The people will be glad that any
thing in the Bill may hinder money. A subject-matter must
be resolved; but whether upon the Lords, or ours, all
one; but never heard a conference on Bills thrown out;
Bills thrown out are dead and perished. Would have it
on the proceedings of both Houses.
Mr Waller, farther explains himself.] Solomon says of
the ways of Wisdom, that all her ways are pleasantness,
and all her paths are peace. Would not have downward
remedies, by way of protestation; would move upwards,
to the Lords.
Sir William Lewis.] This Debate is like original sin;
we need not so much trouble ourselves how we came into
it, as how to get out of it. Moves that the Lords may
be moved about this record of Barnardiston.
Mr Coleman.] We are in a regular way, when the legislative calls the judicial to account. Thinks we are
against ourselves in having their Journal razed; but thinks
our Journal affords as good authority in Law as the
Lords. Suppose that all Journals were razed, yet some
speeches and books are printed, in which the fact is mistaken; so that these books will remain to your prejudice,
and razures of your arguments, which is unequal. If
then we can procure that no farther proceedings be, and
that the record of Barnardiston may be razed (which must
be by authority of Parliament,) hopes it may satisfy
us. If not, why we may not apply ourselves to the King,
he knows not; to him we owe allegiance, to the Lords
Sir Edward Thurland.] 4 Edward III. Persons taken
by writ from the Lords—The King's Council never granted any. 10 Richard II. the famous Law of Præmunire—
Magna Charta, confirmed 40 times. What a consequence
will it be, when we shall begin nothing but money business here! The Exchequer record will be an inference
upon the matter of the Bill at the conference.
Mr Steward.] The Bill is gone, and so the subjectmatter with it. If the record be a feigned thing (as is
alleged) it is a Præmunire to both King, Lords, and
Commons, and should be enquired into. It is a judgment between party and party, and what have you a precedent for in it, that the King should supersede a judgment between party and party, and so it may futurely
fall upon any Commoner.
Colonel Birch.] All men will agree, that we cannot
stand still. By the former ways, the Lords took away
our estates; by their last Bill, our lives too. He is for
no middle ways; must we go such ways as if we could
not have remedy? To raze the record, would be the
way to make Barnardiston be put in prison again. Would
try some ways, but beg last.
Sir Charles Harbord.] If we cannot go to the King,
God help us, and the King too! They can cite no clear
case in it, whenever their jurisdiction was pleaded to.
Would have conference upon the subject-matter, merely,
of the jurisdiction they claim.
Sir Robert Howard.] Would have the conference general, without the word "jurisdiction."
Ordered, That a conference be desired.
[It appears, by the Journal, that a Committee was ordered
to examine the Journal, and to report to the House any omission, or mistake.]
Monday, December 6.
[A Report was made from the Commissioners of the new duties on Wine.]
From Michaelmas 1668 to Michaelmas 1669, of all sorts of
Wines, 38,340 ton of Wine, at 16 and 24l. per ton.
Mr Love.] The cheat in collecting the duty is in a sort
of people called Satyrs, who have a way they call running, that is, by taking cellars near the Vintners, slip
these Wines into their cellars privately by night.
Mr Garroway.] 342,000l. was raised in one entire
year; and, adding the odd quarter, it may be worth
350,000l. the Wine only.
[To proceed on the 9th.]
Tuesday, December 7.
[A Report was made of the state of the case, as to the Election
for Bridgwater, between Sir Francis Rolle and Mr. Palmer.]
Sir Walter Yonge.] The Mayor of Bridgwater has a
preponderating voice, viz. when the voices are equal, the
Mayor has a casting voice. The Election of London is
not by the popularity, because they chuse their Representatives for every Ward, who are the Common-Councilmen, and they chuse the Parliament-men, with the Court
of Aldermen. The popular Election else would be monstrous. It is the same in other cities and corporations,
where the Wards chuse the Council-men, and not the
Sir Richard Temple.] There would be no Elections at
all, if, upon an equality of voices, there was no preponderating voice. If a Borough consists of twelve,
how can you have an Election, if numbers be equal?
The Mayor must have two voices, or none at all—But
it is wholly against the Law. The Mayor, like our
Speaker, should reserve his voice till it comes to casting.
Mr Swynfin.] Excommunication takes away no man's
voice in Elections. In a writ, it may abate the writ, if
pleaded; but it is not void ipso facto, only voidable.
[Mr Palmer was voted duly elected, 167 to 80.]
Sir Robert Howard.] Reports from the Committee,
Reasons to be delivered at the Conference with the Lords,
on Skinner's Business
(fn. 12) .
These following heads the Committee desired might be reduced into votes. They received, upon debate, some alterations,
but were not fitted for the Conference, by reason of the suddenness of the prorogation.
1. That it is an inherent right of every Commoner of
England, to prepare and present Petitions to the House
in case of Grievance, and of the House of Commons to
2. That it is the undoubted Right and Privilege of
the House of Commons, to adjudge and determine,
touching the nature and matter of such Petitions, how
far they are fit, and unfit, to be received.
3. That no Court whatsoever has power to judge or
censure any Petition, prepared for and presented to the
House of Commons, [and received by them,] unless transmitted from thence, or the matter complained of by them.
4. Whereas a Petition, by the Governor and Company of Merchants trading to the East Indies, was presented to the House of Commons by Sir Samuel Barnardiston, and others, complaining of Grievances therein,
which the Lords [have] censured as a scandalous paper,
or libel; the said censure and proceeding of the Lords
against [the said] Sir Samuel Barnardiston, are contrary to,
and in subversion of, the Rights and Privileges of the
House of Commons, and the Liberties of the Commons
5. That the continuance, upon record, of the judgment given by the Lords, and complained of by the
House of Commons, in the last Session of this Parliament, in the case of Thomas Skinner, and the East India
Company, is prejudicial to the Rights of the Commoners of England.
Wednesday, December 8.
[This Debate was on the resumed consideration of the Report
made by Sir Robert Howard, and is also erazed, but was as follows. The first and second votes were agreed to, with some
amendments. On the question for agreeing to the third vote,
Yeas 109, Noes 73. Then the fourth and fifth votes were agreed
to; and a Committee was appointed to prepare reasons and arguments to justify the propositions.]
Sir Robert Howard.] If our own Bill had passed, yet
there was no remedy expressed in it for our Privilege of
receiving Petitions of Grievances.
Sir Thomas Lee.] If it be not our Right to receive Petitions of Grievances, and judge them, we shall be of
little more use than to sit, and part with our money.
Mr Coleman says,] That in the Lords Journal, they
find the words preparing, contriving, libelling, and petitioning. Prepare is too large a word for us to put in; a
word that would punish the Counsel, or writer of the
Sir Thomas Lee.] If we have not the power of judging, we have not in effect the power of actual petitioning.
Colonel Birch.] Those of the East India Company were
punished for contriving the Petition, and therefore necessary that the word stand in the vote.
The Speaker.] In Stroude's case there is preparing as
well as presenting a Bill, which we have voted a general
case. [See p. 37.]
Mr Sollicitor Finch.] Thinks the word too general;
but our inherent right in Petitions is and will be eternally
true—Would have added, "is against the Privilege of
the House of Commons."
Thursday, December 9.
[In a grand Committee on the Supply.]
[Debate on the Report from the Commissioners of the Wine
Mr Garroway.] 12l. per ton Spanish wines, and 8l.
per ton French wines, laid at the Custom-house, will raise
700,000l. without Brandy. All people generally take
an advantage in their practice from our Acts, as Attorneys and Excisemen; so that we make Acts for their fallacious benefits. Half the value mentioned will come
to 150,000l. exclusive of Brandy.
Sir Thomas Clifford.] The Custom-house cannot bear
half that value.
Sir Thomas Lee.] Seconds Garroway.
Sir John Duncombe.] The money cannot be paid at the
Custom-house in seven years, the way proposed. The
objections return from whence they came, and there is
an end of them. There will be cheats in all ways, go
which way you will, and many were foreseen.
Sir Nicholas Carew.] Moves that the Speaker may take
the Chair, by reason of the thinness of the Committee,
and that the House may adjourn.
Sir Thomas Meres.] He is no friend either to King or
people, that makes the people pay much, and the King
receive little. Though we put votes backwards and forwards in little things, it is not to be endured in point of
Colonel Sandys.] Would have French and Spanish Wine
equally taxed; the French taking away our ready money.
Sir George Downing.] The great part of our ready
money goes for canvasses. In this case here is no demonstration, as one and two make three; you must have
accounts from persons experienced—Would have 5l. for
French Wine per ton, and 7l. for Spanish.
[To proceed on the 11th.]
Friday, December 10.
[Debate on the charge against Lord Orrery.]
Sir Robert Carr.] Moves that witnesses may be sent
for by order, there being, he hears, strict proceedings
against persons who come over out of Ireland, without
leave, by loss of command—Would not have the business
lie at our doors.
Colonel Sandys.] The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is
so strict upon our Members, that, if they come over to
do their duty here, others must be put into their commands—Moves that some directions may be given to
prosecute Lord Orrery; for his being quit of his charge
will be the greatest honour that ever came to him.
Mr Wild said,] That when Sir John Morley was accused
of High Treason, he was to answer it at the Bar, and it
was referred to the Law, but no particular direction given
Sir Thomas Meres.] The Lawyers, unâ voce, said, That
the charge was Treason; but that question was not in
Lord Orrery, who was used very civilly; but would not
have us lose our justice in our civility.
Colonel Birch.] Would not have the thing reached
into but in a straight line.
No vote passed in the business.
[The Journal says, That it was resolved to address the King,
that witnesses may have liberty to come over from Ireland
(fn. 13) .]
[Consideration of the Report from the Commissioners of Accounts resumed.]
Judgment on Sir George Carteret. [The question, to proceed
now in the Debate of this matter, was carried, 120 to 90.]
Sir John Birkenhead.] Knows no precedent for dismembering any man, unless for an offence within these walls.
Mr Harwood.] Monopolists were expelled, in the Long
Parliament, for offences without doors.
Mr Love.] The consequence of his negligence and ignorance is such, that the King may have the ill effects
when he shall set out his fleet again. Persons that serve
for stores, that must lose 20 per cent. will cozen the King
in price or quantity. The eyes of all the nation are upon
us this day—Moves for "suspension."
Sir Thomas Clifford.] Thinks it proper that Mr Love's
charge should have been given when Sir George Carteret
was in the House. He engaged his own credit to set
out the fleet when the King was at Salisbury; he had it
from the King's own mouth.
Sir Thomas Lee.] Knows not whether he had that credit before the Dutch war.
Sir Jonathan Trelawney, reads out of the Journal, touching Suspension,] "A Committee ordered to search into precedents, which still are unknown, no report being made"
—It was in Penn's case.
Sir John Northcote.] 3 Car. Sir John Milton and
Sir Giles Mompesson, were heard before any sentence against
Mr George.] Remembers no such thing as "suspension."
But, by general order, they who had to do with the
soap-boiling monopoly, were to withdraw; and they did
so, and new members were chosen in their stead.
Sir Henry Herbert.] By "suspension," it is in the power of
the House to receive the Member again or not. Sir Henry
Mildmay was suspended, and in the factious times was
called back again. No man was higher in Monopolies
than he; when factions, and arms, appeared against the
King, he and some others were called in again. Another
gentleman, who was for the King, was expelled—Never
remembers the suspension of any man, but for things
arising out of the House. "Observation" is no judgment
upon any man, no more than a man is innocent for a
Mr Seymour.] Judicature, as to expulsion, is yours;
his non-attendance is a great neglect, and looks as if he
had nothing farther to say. "Suspension" is but an order
of the House, which lasts no longer than the Session.
Sir Job Charlton.] At this rate, a man may be punished for adultery, or any other crime, here (reflective.)
—Questions whether judicially, without impeachment,
you can proceed to suspension.
Sir Charles Harbord.] Culpa in non faciendo & in ignorando officium, is not a ground for suspension.
Sir Thomas Oshorne.] Moves to have him sent for in,
he being in the Painted Chamber; the business having
been brought in after twelve of the clock, against order,
he took his liberty in not attending.
Mr Waller.] Questions whether the man be fit to be
made a precedent. In Lord Strafford's case it was said,
"Hares and wolves are differently to be dealt withall."
He knew the man beyond sea, and he had the honour to
hold the last sword for the King. He held out his castle
to the last, and made his terms honourably. The man
that took him said, he had orders to hang him, if he did
not yield. He was imprisoned at Paris in the Bastile,
the only Englishman imprisoned in France for the King.
Is this the man fit to make a precedent of? He has had
fair warning to run these two years; he has staid all
this while—Thinks him not such a monster as to be
made a precedent of.
Sir Robert Howard.] Will not make comparisons betwixt imprisonment here, and beyond sea. If the crimes
committed be "monstrous," it is reasonable the precedent
should be so. If this, of tickets, was not a monopoly,
knows not what was. The nation takes the proceedings
of the Commissioners for a judgment, which is more
than you have to ground an impeachment upon. By
what you have heard, thinks you cannot do less than suspend him.
Mr Swynfin.] Dislikes both the arguments for and
against him—Would proceed according to Parliamentary
rules. It comes not before us originally, but by Report
from the Commissioners; so then we are to do no more
than what has been done before us, we having only the
credit of these Observations, which is improper for us
to judge him upon, because others have judged him.
Nay, if the Observation be granted, it may not be a
crime, viz. "Money in his hand"—Generally; no
particular sums named. He provokes you to prove any
buying of tickets, opposed it, and [was] no monopoliser
[Suspension was voted, but carried by a few voices, 100 to 97.]
Saturday, December 11.
[Thanks were voted to his Majesty for his ordering witnesses
to have Liberty to come over from Ireland.]
[The House was then prorogued to Feb. 14, 1669-70.
February 14. The House met (fn. 14) , but no Debate is taken notice of till]