Monday, January 9.
[The House being called over, according to former order,
upon calling the name of Sir John Coventry, information being
given of an assault made upon him, on the same night of that
day the House did rise before Christmas, by a number of about
fifteen persons armed, horse and foot, who did assassinate and
wound the said Sir John Coventry; and that he continues still so
ill of his wounds, that he is not in a condition to attend;
Resolved, That the matter of breach of Privilege committed,
and assault made, upon Sir John Coventry, a Member of this
House, be taken into consideration the first business to-morrow
morning. Journal of the Day.]
Thursday, January 10.
On the Assault, &c. on Sir John Coventry.
Sir Thomas Clarges, one of the Justices of the Peace
who took the examination of the business, gave a narrative
to the House thereof.
Sir Edmund Wyndham, Knight-Marshal.] Desires to
know whether you will proceed in it here, now it is prosecuted at Law; and how far your proceedings may hinder the legal prosecution.
Sir John Hotham.] Questions whether the King himself, and we, shall not be under proscriptions, as in Sylla
and Marius's time—Moves that we may right ourselves in
this business, which deserves our vengeance.
Earl of Ancram
(fn. 1) .] Knows not how we can have
greater vengeance than the Law can inflict—If any of
these be hanged by Law, you have justice sufficient.
Sir Robert Holt.] Agrees not with Lord Ancram—
It is the greatest breach that ever was since the first constitution of Parliaments—In Charles the first's time remembers what noise the business of the five Members
made—His Majesty has a place here when he commands
or does justice—If these persons are of his guards, they
that will not fear God, will never honour the King—
Guards have been the betrayers of the empire; the Prætorians did it—Thinks the King should have his guards;
and amongst them are many worthy persons—Would
have his Majesty moved to inspect his guards—Lords
noses are as ours are, unless they be of steel—It concerns
the Lords as well as us, as in Lord Ormond's case—This
wounds all the Commons of England—In a plot, you had
a Committee of Lords and Commons, and they sat all
Christmas—We may do so too—We know not what a
Petty Jury may do in it—That will not right our Privilege—You cannot, Mr Speaker, at this rate, go home
with your mace.
Sir John Monson.] Has been lately in the country,
and never saw a greater concern for a business—They
fear we shall come under the government of France, to
be governed by an army—Moves for a Bill for these
sixteen that assaulted one man, to render themselves by a
day, or be banished for ever.
Mr Hale.] Notice has been taken of this horrid fact
here, but was not at the relation of it, but hears it in
every street—If a man must thus be assaulted by ruffianly fellows, we must go to bed by sun-set, like the birds—
The danger of post facto is not in this business—Would
have them hanged, if they could be caught—Seconds
the motion of Monson.
Sir Robert Howard.] He that likes this fact would do
it; he that extenuates it, would be persuaded to do it—
If any condition be to be pitied, it is the (fn. 2) gentlemen
that did capitulate the business—Is sorry any English gentleman should wear a sword to do such a business.—Is
persuaded that no gentleman in England but desires their
room more than their company—The guards were fairly
delivered to justice—In all companies there may be ill
men, as well as in the guards—You may extend your
enquiry to those whom the Law cannot meet with.
Mr Garroway.] Would have something added—He
would pity the gentlemen accessaries who were under
command (fn. 3) .—In this Bill of yours would have a gate
opened for safety for these gentlemen now committed—
If they should declare their knowledge of the whole matter, they should plead this Bill for their pardon—But
will you pardon men who shall persist in a concealing?
—Would have them pardoned, if they will give an account to the Lord Chief Justice of the thing, provided
they were not actors in the assassination.
Sir Robert Atkins.] 'Till you can discover names, it
will be too soon to bring in a Bill—Would have you
know upon what colour these persons did this assassination upon your Member—Would have your Member
heard himself; or, if he be not able, would have some
persons sent to him; and you may do more or less, according to the aggravations—Would not have any matter proceeded in till this business be over.
Sir William Coventry.] Has asked Sir John Coventry if
he could recollect what moved this misfortune upon him,
but he remembers nothing they said that might point
out the cause (fn. 4) —Knows nothing that may come of it, but
delay, by farther speaking with him, it being felony, and
all involved—It was a great good fortune to have any
by-standers; and without some such expedient as Garroway proposed, you cannot possibly find out more.
Mr Henry Coventry.] He is bound in point of modesty
not to say much; but his relation prompts him to say
somewhat—Seconds the motion for a Bill.
Sir Rich. Temple.] In Chedder's case, a Bill was brought
in for the person that beat him on the highway, and a day
was set for his appearance—Cannot see how these persons
can be witnesses, when attainted.
(fn. 5) .] Looks upon these persons as capable of being witnesses, being not yet attainted; the
Bill being found only by the Grand Jury.
Sir Nicholas Carew.] Would have something added
for the security of your Members for the future—And
not to proceed in any other business 'till this Bill be finished—His reason is, that we may have freedom of
speech 'till this Bill be done—Without a better guard
than Coventry had, he cannot speak freely to any thing
else—Perhaps this may be a new way of frightening
people, that they may be alarmed and afraid—Hopes
you will add more "to maim," and let some general
Law be included in this particular occasion, for our safety
for the future.
Sir Fr. Goodrick.]. To kill a Judge in the execution
of his office is Treason—That of killing a Privy-Counsellor, is repealed—Stroude's case is a general Law—If the
Judges shall not take notice in their Courts of any thing
said here, you will not suffer twelve red coats to do it—
There is as much due to you as to the judges—Would
have it Treason and Felony for the time to come.
Mr Jones.] It is the way to make your money come
in the better, to punish this horrid un-English act, when
there is a sense in the minds of the people of this horrid
abuse; that by Privilege of Parliament being broken,
the people are wounded—His soul trembles at the sad
consequences—It is a greater thing than he has ever seen
here—It concerns the person, justice, and honour of the
King, Council, and House of Commons—Great sums
have been given, and great sums must be given; [there
are] many malecontents—Every ill humour goes to the
place hurt—The people say, that the House has met these
several years for nothing but to give money; and raising money to that high degree as we have done, they
may be displeased—Moves that by this Act they may
right themselves. By this precedent, upon some of the
guards, would have the world know you are in earnest
—Would have been silent, but the weight of the matter charms him—And that the King's business may not
wait, would be at this, day and night; and proceed no
farther in any business, till this be over.
Sir Job Charlton.] What has been done for the people
these nine years? When this is over, he will give his vote
for money as soon as any man.
Sir Richard Temple.] If he was jealous that all the
Money-Bills should pass before this Bill, would have this
precede; but this may go with them.
Mr Garroway.] Those Bills are so many snares, and
sacrifice us to the fury of the people—Suspects we shall
have nothing, when this of money is passed, and therefore presses it.
Sir John Duncombe.] Whilst we are angry at this Bill,
why should we hurt ourselves? Knows not what effect
the hastening of the Bill may have, but the obstruction
of the King's business—If the Bill was ready, would
have it read now—Read it twice in a day; make what
haste you will; consents to it.
Sir Winston Churchill.] Not to be for this Bill, would
be to upbraid the House—Those persons who sit quiet
in their Sovereign's blood, wonder this thing should be
so pressed—It seems to him a cutting the King over the
face. The Words gave offence. Explains himself, that
he said it by way of Simile—Not only our own affairs,
but of Christendom, are upon their crisis; and the King
put into a capacity to defend the Kingdom—Moves that
we may de die in diem proceed on this Bill, which will
certainly have a preference to the other—Would have
these two Bills go simul & semel.
Sir Thomas Meres.] The Bill doubtless has been in our
thoughts ever since the fact was done—It will take up
no time, and it is so far from prejudicing the King's affairs, that it will advance them—Wherever your Members are intimidated, your Laws may be questioned—
The Lords are included in your Privileges—They have
adjourned several weeks, we would have but three days
for this Bill—If we lose this question, we lose all, and
begs your leave we may be gone.
Sir Robert Howard.] With what boldness can any man
speak here, that must be pulled by the ears at night
for what he says? The people say in the country, that
unless you right yourselves in this business, your money
is not given, but taken away.
Mr Seymour.] Has found none that speak with the indignation the thing deserves.—But because injury has
been done us abroad, therefore must we hurt ourselves?
—Hire some persons to assault some Members of this
House, and Supply may be hindered at any time—Suppose this Bill do not pass, must no other business be
proceeded upon?—Desires other business may not stand
Sir John Ernly.] Nothing will make the people give
more chearfully than doing ourselves right in this business; and would sit morning and afternoon till it be
Mr Cheney.] Wonders that a thing of common justice,
as this is, should be so obstructed—There was some suspension of justice—The Lord Chief Justice was spoke with,
and the Secretaries, before justice was done; and some
by that means escaped—Necessity of the nation is at our
doors, to take off that arbitrary power upon us.
Mr Secretary Trevor.] Concurs heartily with what has
been done this day; but this deferring will be thought
a jealousy, where he hopes there is none.
Mr Waller.] Has seen a stop in all business till Members have been vindicated, and released out of prison—
Has seen the Petition of Right passed before Supply, but
no vote passed in it—Should it be said that the Supply
depends upon passing another Bill not in the power of
us?—When the Greeks and Romans had slaves disfigured
and marked, it was a dishonour to the master; but that a
free man, an Ambassador of the people, should be thus
marked, is much more horrible. These actions have sometimes wrought reformation; sometimes good effects, and
sometimes ill, as the Government is affected—We got
the Petition of Right by discreet handling the business—
The business of the five Members was so ill handled,
that great disorder happened—God brings light out of
darkness—Must give his No to this question.
Mr Attorney Finch.] The security of your satisfaction
is not the question; what then should be the reason of
this addition? He thinks you are satisfying the nation
in our resentment—This satisfaction is a higher satisfaction than ever was known—11 Henry IV. "Any man
assaulting a Member going or coming to Parliament, if
he render not himself to the King's Bench in such a time,
they would proceed to fine; and if he do come, and be
found guilty by inquest, by examination, or otherwise,
he shall pay his double damages found by the inquest,
or be taxed by the discretion of the Judges, and make
fine and ransom at the King's will."—Chedder's servant
beaten was in Henry IV's time—Lord Cromwell, 28 Hen.
VI. was assaulted in the Palace-yard; the offender imprisoned in the Tower for a year—We go about to do
more than ever was, or attempted to be, done before—
We put, by this vote, a stand to the Government—No
man can think this question can pass, and all other things
stand still—Why you should, for an imaginary opinion
of the people, set a stop to all things, knows not.
Mr Vaughan.] Persons argue for giving the King
money, and yet would hinder it—You must, in nature,
have a father, before you can have a son—If we act not
with the same liberty and freedom as our ancestors, we
trust as a person would an arbitrator that his adversary
has a power upon—The people will tell us that we serve
the King, not by Law, but contrary to Law—That spoken
of by Mr Attorney, had its remedy in Westminster-hall.
Colonel Titus.] This has been a thing without precedent, and hopes you will prevent it for the future from
being so—Would not have you revenged upon yourselves. Whatever urgent accidents shall happen, not to
be relieved untill this Bill pass!—That no man in a ship
must pull a rope, or stop a leak, 'till a Council be
called, is the same case.
Mr Henry Coventry.] Should be an unnatural man to
his relation, and undutiful to the House, if he did not
resent this; and would rather have all his wounds than
hinder the prosecution—It is objected, "that men may put
clogs into a Bill that it shall not pass, and by consequence
all business stand;" which he cannot well answer—Would
have it that this Bill shall have a preference to all other
Bills; and, when it is ready, be read before all Bills
—Would not have the nation believe that any persons
that have a share in the Government do in any wise countenance this business.
Colonel Birch.] Thinks you cannot do too much in
this business—For the same reasons that many are against
it, he is for it—Nothing can be a greater mischief than a
division upon this question; and he looks upon these Bills
of Supply to have their fate accordingly—Cannot believe
that any in the Government had a share in this business,
because they would have timed it better—Would have
the people think you act freely, and speak freely—On
my word, they think not so now—Will say nothing of
the nature of the thing—Former precedents will not reach
us—We must have the people have a good opinion of
us (I would they had!)—If this Bill pass not, we know
how to make it (with respect spoken)—The other Bills
will pass this.
Sir Thomas Lee.] The Peers may be as slow in banishing Commoners, as we were [in banishing] Lord Clarendon
—The Lords may remember the Bill of their Privileges
for Tryal sent you down (See p. 189.)—Would have it
pass before the thing be forgotten.
Sir Charles Harbord.] It was never before heard of,
that no Bill shall pass before this has passed the Lords.
Mr Swynfin.] Generous things are regular, so must
our votes be—Would not give the Lords advantage against us—It was never said nor meant, that there should
be a cessation of business 'till a Bill had passed the
Lords—It is an imposing upon the Lords—If the Lords
send you Bills, you may stop them till the Bill be passed
—Would go no higher than this House in the question.
Resolved, That a Bill be brought in for banishment of Sir
Thomas Sandys, Charles Obrian, Esq; Simon Parry and Miles
Reeves, actors in assaulting and wounding Sir John Coventry,
if they do not render themselves to justice by a day; and that
no other business be proceeded in, whilst the Bill is passing.
[Jan. 11. The Bill was read the first time.
Jan. 12. It was read the second time.
Ordered, That it be referred to the Committee formerly appointed to bring in the Bill for the banishing Sir Thomas Sandys,
and others, &c. to prepare and bring in a Clause against to-morrow morning, for preventing mischiefs of the like nature for the
Friday, January 13.
In a Grand Committee on the Bill to prevent malicious maiming and wounding (fn. 6) . Mr Coleman in the Chair.
Mr Attorney Finch.] It is against the thing to make it
felony—That former Law of Henry IV (fn. 7) gave such a
terror that the thing was never done since—Laws that
look like the products and effects of passion, may not
meet with the same passion at the Lords—Why not forfeiture of goods, and imprisonment for life?—Sir Henry
Spelman tells us of the penalty of cutting off hands and
legs, leaving nothing but a living trunk; lex justior nulla, &c.—The first fate of that Law was upon him that
Mr Vaughan.] The Statute of Queen Mary says, "She
holds herself safer in the hearts of her subjects than in
the severity of Law"—Would have distinction of offences;
a hurt a Surgeon may cure, dismembering he cannot.—
You ought to adapt it to this particular case, which gives
the occasion of it.
Sir Tho. Lce.] Would not have it go less than to an abjuration of the realm—Would have the penalty changed,
but the thing continued—Were you a perpetual Legislature, it were another case—Would have those preserved
that sent us hither, that we represent—Agrees to abjuration.
Sir William Coventry.] If foreigners shall do it by being hired, what is the penalty for them to be abjured the
realm?—We are now more acquainted with them, than
when the former Statute was made.
Sir Robert Howard.] You will set up men to swear
premeditation, and make felony, for every disturbance
in the street—The reason of the thing is only applicable
to your Member; and he would fix it there.
Sir Richard Temple.] If you apply a less penalty than
felony to this case, it will not reach—It is felony now,
but by Clergy, which is much more than abjuring—They
are burnt in the hand, and forfeit their goods—Would
have it thus put in, "by surprize, and at unawares;"
by day these things are not so commonly done.
Mr Secretary Trevor.] What consideration this will
have abroad, he always reflects—The Parliament upon
this occasion makes a general Law upon particular occasions, but knows no reason why it should be for people in
general—As Parliament-men are now liable to greater
hardships than formerly, so would have distinction—
When Prorogation comes, we are as other men, and lie
under hardships for what we say here—Soldiers of fortune
may live in another country as well as here—Would not
have it banishment.
Sir Thomas Clarges.] Few were saved in Henry IV's
time by Clergy, for few could read; so it was severer
Mr Serjeant Maynard.] You have precedents of a
special occasion for a general Law, as Chedder's case
—Thinks that proper and prudent; and has no inconvenience against making it death—Would have it
more than abjuration, because to aliens, and such as desire to be abroad—But he must approve; and if he return, felony—Would have it perpetual banishment, but
Sir William Coventry.] For the case of a Parliamentman, thinks abjuration proper, but for all people would
have it felony.
Mr Serjeant Maynard.] Clergy is now a matter of nothing; Clergy at Common Law was not an absolution from
the offence; he then had a writ declared of restoration
upon his purgation.
Sir Thomas Clifford.] Much more to be said in the
Bill of Lord Clarendon than this, in point of pardon—
The second precedent entails things upon you—Would
not have the people out of power of pardon—It is the
first time you have totally put a thing out of the King's
Sir Robert Holt.] Several crimes as this, of robbing
and murder, the King cannot pardon, only respite execution—If they come by a day, would not have power
of pardon taken away.
Sir Nicholas Carew.] If the action be without precedent, why should not the prosecution?—This was done
by the guards; if they should be pardoned, knows not
what they may do to the King, and moves it for his Majesty's ease and advantage.
Colonel Kirby.] A greater offence than this we petitioned the King to pardon, which was his father's
Sir Thomas Meres.] This House twice petitioned for
execution, and it rested with the Lords; therefore that
is a mistake.
Mr Attorney Finch.] Objects against the Bill, that you
convict them by the Bill—Would have it thus, "in
"which assault a supposed robbery was done, which they
are not yet convicted of"—The things may have been
lost—As for pardoning, it is the same thing to pardon and not to execute, which is never done, unless
the King's Attorney sends the warrant, and that he will
not do without command—This clause is a jealousy, and
without effect of our ends—It is an indecent thing to shut
up mercy—He who advised the Emperor to shut up the
Sanctuary, fled to the horns of the Altar, and could not
lay hold of it.
Sir William Coventry.] Would not have the nature of
the fact otherwise than it is—"Lost," instead of "robbed"—He will have no other thoughts than what the
House has of it—What fell from Mr Attorney, is a reason for confirmation of the clause—He is never desirous
of any man's blood; and if you continue this clause, it
will reach the end of the Member injured, without blood
—Let every man consult his heart, whether his blood
would not be higher than any philosophy can conquer;
for it may put your Member upon unchristianly revenge;
and appeals to any gentleman what he would do, if he
should see such a person walk the streets that had so injured him—Whatever we do here is Petition; and it is
a greater thing to petition to pardon than not to pardon;
for the safety of all Englishmen lies in doing of justice—
It is no new thing to find pardons interceding for persons—51 Edward III. the Speaker had order to move
the Lords for Peirce, &c. It is not new for you, in case of
an honourable Member.—In Lord St. John's case, you
went yourself with the House, in a body, to ask his pardon—For desire against pardon, 21 Edward III. No. 53.
—Murders, &c. were frequent, by reason of pardon.
It was answered.] The King will advise with his Couneil what shall be granted for the honour and profit of his
people, and would consider what were fit to stand good,
ex post facto.—13 Edward III. that no pardons be granted, but in Parliament, demanded for the preservation of
the peace—No pardon to any impeached—Juries may
be malicious, and so it would be a hard case to tie up
the King—Generally a particular fact, as this slight, tells
you who is guilty—In Chedder's case, "Please your Majesty
to grant remedy, that if any person kill any, or maim
severe punishments, &c. "—They petition to make crimes
greater than they were by Law, and petition they should
have no pardon; here are precedents, some in general, some
in particular, and precedents a great way beyond it; and
in this you have extended a great deal of mercy—If
they that do not reveal shall be as capable of pardon as
they that do, what good will that clause do? You will
have no fruit of it—He seeks only for security for the
time to come, and on no particular account at all.
Mr Coleman.] It is said, "you convict them before tryal."
Answers—The Preamble does say, that a robbery was
done, and some body did take away goods, but not who,
naming none.—There is, in plain English, nothing in the
Bill without it; it is to shut the back door—They are
indicted; they have but two things to do; to be outlawed if they come not, and by that they are ipso facto
to be attainted; the other is, to come in and be tryed—
You banish them, and if they return, you give them a
Privilege the Law does not; for process of outlawry
cannot go, and you disponse with it, therefore some would
have banishment out of the Bill—Would rather have it,
"if they come not, to be attainted." Lord Clarendon's Bill
makes a crime he shall not be capable of pardon for; this
does not—He has more manners than to say what the
Prerogative cannot do, but this disables the person from
receiving that pardon—It is not expressly to be taken away,
but you may disable persons from receiving it, and take
away the capacities of those unworthy men to receive it.
Sir Thomas Clifford.] His objection is not taken as he
made it—Did say, "that the Bill for Ld Clarendon's banishment did not incapacitate him for pardon, if tryed"—Coventry's precedents were before Henry the fifth's time.
He has read them, and been told, that before Henry the
fifth's time, the King put the sceptre upon one clause of
a Bill that he approved of, and left out another. Now
the King passes all, or passes none—These ancient precedents have not the force that is urged by Coventry
—Moderate it so, that you tie no shackles on his Majesty.
Mr Coleman.] This Prerogative was too big for him,
and therefore he made the nice discinction—2 and 3 Edw.
IV. "Where the interest of a person, by lease or copyhold,
has not been found in inquisitions or offices for the
King, the interest shall be saved, though they be not
found by office"—Statute of offices, "that no non obstante
should be of any validity from the Crown"—Putting the
person out of capacity of receiving pardon, is the Bill
Mr Vaughan.] Coleman's proposition is very sound.
It is not the same thing, "the person shall not be capable, &c."—If a man give lands to a man and his heirs,
without power of alienation, it is void; but that he
shall not alienate to such a particular person, is good
—Our King, that has pardoned Treason, may pardon
this, a smaller offence, by the usual way of sollicitation,
Dr Arras made an extravagant motion for a Bill to be
brought in, to punish any man that should speak any reflective
thing on the King. By some he was called to the Bar; but
his explanation and excuse were admitted of. He said, He
was the only Physician of the House, and, humanum est
errare;—he hoped he should be pardoned.
Sir Thomas Clifford.] Your chair has not been infallible. Do you know what Martin said, the impunity
whereof was a great cause of what followed; and if the
majority will not punish seditious expressions, thinks such
a Bill for the honour of the House.
Sir Thomas Lee.] Would not have that pass for doctrine, that, because once the majority of the Commons
have rebelled, hereafter they will do so; and if that
be taken for granted, we pass a high reflection on ourselves.
Mr Henry Coventry.] There was a violence; and should
only the person that takes the money, and not they
that stand armed to assist the other, be guilty, it would be
Mr Vaughan.] Sandys consented to the assassination,
but not to the robbery; it is alterius generis. But here
every one is principal, though of one kind, and they
present when another thing is committed—Lord Dacre's
case, when his men went a deer-stealing.
Sir Robert Howard.] Here is more in the case; for
these persons were present, and might have prevented;
if you will have all accessaries incapable of pardon, it
will reach many. If he had struck only, and not taken
Mr Attorney Finch.] The fear that there should be a
general pardon from the King, which you cannot mend,
nor add exceptions to, is objected. Answers, he hopes
to see such a pardon, but is in no prospect of such a pardon; and this jealousy may hinder such an intention—
This is grafting one jealousy upon another. This is primœ inventionis, ingeniously rolled in gentlemens thoughts;
and if ever any such thing was done, will sit down.
Sir Robert Howard.] The King may pardon all but
such as actually wounded, maimed, struck, or took away
—He would have him named, if he does get his pardon,
that mankind may know.
Sir Thomas Meres.] Is it imaginable that such persons,
so infamous, should hinder an Act of Grace?—Would
have added "unless such persons shall be particularly
named in the Act."
Sir John Duncombe.] Is not for that Clause—Knows
not but he himself may want an Act of Grace as much
as any man; and knows not whether this Clause may
not stop it—Does not remember, in an Act of this nature
before, any such thing was mentioned.
Mr Cheney.] Is persuaded, that if such an Act be intended, these words will not hinder it; and therefore
would have the persons named.
Sir Charles Harbord.] Stratford and Mompesson were
named, and expressly exempted, in a general pardon.
Sir William Coventry.] Some by name, some by description, not capable of pardon—Some are ipso facto
pardoned by the Act, and capacitated to be pardoned by
the Great Seal.
Mr Milward.] Would not, to remedy a single person,
insnare all the Commons of England—" Wound, maim,
or bruise," it may be done by mistake—Upon a bare
Proclamation, if the person appeared not, a Member
should have judgment and double damages—This our
ancestors thought a fair distinction of a Parliament-man,
from another man—Chedder's case.
Sir Thomas Higgins.] It was never death to strike a
Senator of Rome, nor now to strike a Senator of Venice,
out of the Senate.—Would not have us take more upon
us than our ancestors did.
Sir Richard Temple.] The two particular cases beget a
general law of double damages. Would you have any
man for double damages venture to beat a Member of
Parliament?—Would have a general Law, to prevent
making more for the future—The Law implies malice,
when there is no act of provocation.
Mr Vaughan.] Is against making a bare trespass felony
—Would have it farther considered.
Sir Robert Carr.] Would have the Law secure those
we represent, as well as ourselves; therefore would have
another Bill brought in.
Sir Thomas Lee.] Times and manners are altered, and
men are—Time was, when none should go armed in
Parliament-time. What penalty have you now more
for a Member than another person? We come to provide for the Commons of England, as well as for a particular Member—We are, upon occasion of speaking,
exposed to that [which] other men are not.
Colonel Stroude.] We shall, by this, give other provocation, and they not dare to provoke us.
Sir John Birkenhead.] Swinnerton quarrelled with Ipstock, and killed him; it was but as killing another man
—Parliament-men will be afraid of one another—Riding
armed, forbidden in three several Parliaments, "within the
liberties of Westminster, unless his Majesty's officers," an
integral part in that Proclamation.
Mr Henry Coventry.] Would not only have it felony
upon the Member, but upon any man—If he may not
have a Privilege against bastinadoes, cares not for having
it against hurts—Would have it against cudgels as well
Mr Vaughan.] We have Privileges that other persons have not, from arrests—Why should we not have it
in other things?
Colonel Birch.] If we have a greater guard than other
men, we shall be less regarded—Desires we should be no
more distinguished than other men—But to have our
noses cut, should be deferred—Is against it—If we were a
people that went not to plays nor taverns, another thing;
but at this rate, no man will play with us.
Sir Job Charlton.] It is not felony if he "wounds" a man
that is Chancellor, or Judge, executing his office; "killing" is Treason—This making it felony upon one of the
House is unreasonable, that it should be more than upon
those that represent his Majesty's person.
Sir Adam Brown.] Would have care taken to prevent
combinations—Would not have the clause disjoined from
the Bill, which occasioned the penning of the Bill.
Sir Thomas Clifford.] Is for the clause of a general assassinating; and it is not proper to make ourselves, who
are not Judges born, as the Lords are—We are five hundred to-day, and five hundred new men a month hence
—There can be no notoriety to the people—Would have
some gentlemen accommodate this to the Bill.
[The Bill, with the Amendments, was ordered to be ingrossed.]
Saturday, January 14.
[Resolved, That the Bill do pass, and that the title be, "An
Act to prevent malicious maiming and wounding."]
Monday, January 16.
In a Grand Committee on the Supply. [The Subsidy Bill
was read the second time.]
Sir Thomas Meres.] Would propose a new way for
raising money; to wit, money at interest.
Mr Henry Coventry.] Unless you would tax the Kingdom of Heaven, knows not what you would tax farther upon earth—Would you give the King a Platonic
tax? Knows not else what Meres means by finding out
another way, all [other] ways being spoken against.
Mr Coleman.] Moves to have minimum quod sit put
Mr Gould.] Whatever money is owing by the tradesman,
or any man, is so much the less in his estate; so you will
subject the business to uncertainty, and put persons to remove their money into other countries.
Colonel Birch.] Few but have money owing them,
and not owing at interest, but lent friendly—Would have
it "for which he doth or ought to pay interest."
Sir Robert Howard.] A man may find a way to have
no interest for his money, nor ought to have, and so
void the tax.
Mr Boscawen.] Would encourage, if any, those that
let money go from hand to hand in trade.
Mr Vaughan.] Nothing can be worse than to make a
Law to pick our pockets, or to declare our poverty, to
make us contemned both by our friends and enemies.
Sir Richard Temple.] You will make a noise, and entangle your Commissioners, in charging money not at
interest—My servant comes to bring me rent, and I must
be charged for it.
Colonel Titus.] The punishment of the Law precedes
the promulgation, in punishing the Bankers; and why
you should discriminate these, when they have been useful for gentlemen to place their money, knows no reason
Sir John Duncombe.] You once thought the Bankers
useful, for you gave 300,000l. to pay them interest.
Mr Attorney Finch.] You are saving all the money in
the Bankers hand, and I must pay for it that own it—
Their credit now cannot raise 10,000l.
Mr Garroway.] Is glad to hear that the vote has had
so good an effect—Let the Banker discharge the 15s.
upon him that lends it—No gentleman can get money in
the country, and this will make money come again
into the country.
Mr Henry Coventry.] Thinks it not reasonable to make
a Law after the fact is done—The nature of Bankers is
not as other bonds; this to be paid at three or fourteen
days; let him owe it, and not have it five days in his keeping, to be taxed for a year—Nothing more unreasonable.
No definition for a Banker in Law—What is "acquiring the name of Bankers?" (as expressed in the Bill)
The malice of neighbours, it may be, has given it them
—This will violate that justice as much as any thing.
Mr Boscawen.] To call this "punishment"—It is as
much upon our lands—Shall stock in trade pay, and
not the profit the Banker has merely from the money
going through his hand?—He has no design of breaking
them; but would have them pay for what they have
profit out of the money proportionably.
Sir Richard Temple.] The Banker pays 15s. and so
must the owner of the money—Would have 10s. for the
Banker, and 5s. for the gentleman that lends—They who
receive not above 6l. per cent. let not them be charged.
Sir George Downing.] Would have no Banker but the
Government—In Holland, not one Banker—If the Banker
pays 15s. for all that he has, and not be deducted for
what he owes! leaves it to you.
Mr Veughan.] Would have a Banker described, before
you tax him.
Sir William Coventry.] No fraud like Banking; but
whilst you think to destroy them, you are repairing them
—The Bankers are failing—If the Bankers be now
broken, you go about to set them up—Suppose a Banker
wants 100,000l. The Act says "money shall pay 10 per
cent."—A Banker, by giving 15, shall have 100,000l.
and he that lends it shall be concealed; the Banker shall
excuse the person, the business being private.
Mr Garroway.] Coventry is mistaken—It is ten times
as much, and he would have it made 30, to prevent that
Mr Secretary Trevor.] You, by this clause, take away
all consideration of what the Banker owes.
Mr Jolliffe.] Would charge these people, but in intelligible terms—Knows Scriveners and Goldsmiths that
lend—It is said in the paragraph "great sums;" knows
not what great sums are meant—Supposes you mean such
as lend the King at 10 per cent.—In war, a million is
no great sum.
Mr Attorney Finch.] If this clause be left out, it may
have the effect you desire by it—The gentleman that
lends shall have more than from the Banker—You do
legitimate the art by Act of Parliament only—Can an
action be good in Law "against John Blackwell, Banker?"
—For the future, you are competently secure.
Sir John Ernly.] Mr Attorney said yesterday, "he
could not leave out the clause;" and now he argues against
the clause—However black before he made them, he makes
them as white now—Would take them signally down;
for they have taken away 20s. from every 100l. a year.
Sir Thomas Littleton.] Cannot commend these Bankers,
more than those who learn young gentlemen to take up
money, and so ruin their estates—Would have it made
dangerous to lend these Bankers—There is money in their
hands, and it is easily known whose it is—You see that
private men are fonder of putting their moneys to the
Bankers than to the Exchequer.
Sir Thomas Clifford.] These men have been useful;
they have been necessary evils—The Lords of the Treasury found all the branches of the revenue anticipated—
15 per cent. was the cheapest he could get upon anticipations—Now, whether to take up at 10 gratuity per cent.
or buy wares at 40 per cent.—The Bankers are entirely
broke; he thinks they cannot borrow 10,000l.—You may
have "money" at the Bankers at three days notice; in
the Exchequer, "in its orders"—Is persuaded 10 per cent. has lessened the lands; but did he foresee any return of
these Bankers, would yet make the charge higher.
Sir Thomas Meres.] The Bankers were the cause of
the anticipations—Is of opinion that the Bankers are
down in reputation; because that this Bill was till yesterday at four o'clock, and they will give 100,000l. to leave
out this clause—If we pay 5s. they may justly pay a noble—Whoever receives 10 per cent. of the King is a reaching them, and a description of them.
Mr Garroway.] In your Wine-Act was a retrospect,
as well as in Lord Strafford's case, as Higgins says; but
hopes we shall have no more—Is not this an enacting
them for ever?—Hopes that if hereafter the Parliament
takes them banking, we shall ruin them—Would have
it now done, or you never will hereafter—Would not
have the world take notice that you approve of them, by
throwing out this clause.
[The Subsidy Bill was ordered to be committed, 170 to 109.]
[Jan. 17, omitted.]