Wednesday, March 12.
[The ingrossed Bill to prevent the growth of Popery, was read
the third time.]
Mr Harwood.] Tenders a Proviso "for renouncing the
doctrine of Transubstantiation, for a farther Test to persons bearing office."
Mr Secretary Coventry.] After Consubstantiation, now
Transubstantiation. Will you not have God there? Will
you exclude him?
Sir John Birkenhead.] In Queen Mary's time, persons
were never put to swear it. Though there are distinctions
of realiter, et verè, et corporaliter, would not have a
scholastical oath—We say God is there, and the difference is de modo—Great charge on the Synod of Dort,
who would impose swearing controversial points—As the
words are now penned, people are put to swear they know
not what; and for the dangerousness thereof, would lay
Mr Harwood.] Has discoursed this point with able
men. Doubts not, but they must make more of the
bread and wine in the Sacrament, than bread and wine;
what by Faith is one thing, and this tends no farther.
Colonel Titus.] Thinks the thing of dangerous consequence—If this Proviso is to make a Test, you have
your end. They hold, that, after Consecration, the elements are turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ;
but we hold, that, after Consecration, nothing remains
but bread and wine; and he would have the Proviso no
Sir Thomas Higgins.] If you intend it as a Test, no
Papist, after taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, but will swallow this. Why do not you put renouncing all the rest of the Romish points?
Sir William Coventry.] Higgins says, "the Test is unnecessary, because evaded." Has studied Controversy little—If he errs in the matter, asks pardon—Thinks a farther
Test requisite. The Sacrament they will take, and the
Oath of Allegiance, but not that of Supremacy; certain
Bulls forbidding them, and the Pope may dispense with
his own Bulls. This doctrine of Transubstantiation is
part of their Faith, and the Pope cannot dispense with
it; therefore there is need of a farther Test, and this
the Pope cannot take away—It would be ill resented
abroad to refuse a better and farther Test than the Oath of
Allegiance and Supremacy, and he would have this received.
Mr Vaughan.] The Church of England holds, that our
Saviour spoke the words, This is my Body, figuratively
—No remembrance but of things absent—The Church
of Rome says, we hold Christ is mystically there; they,
that Christ is as much present then, as when crucified.
Cannot but hold, that Christ was but once crucified—[He reads the passage in the Common Prayer Book, of incorporal presence.]
Sir Thomas Clarges.] Is afraid of this Proviso—Swearing
doctrinal points will give offence to the Lutherans—The
Papists say, Christ is really there after Consecration;
and therefore adoration. The Lutherans believe Transubstantiation, but only at the instant when delivered, and
communicated—You are told, "It is matter of Faith,
and the Pope cannot dispense." If the Pope can dispense
with one thing, he may do it with another. He never heard
the Oath of Supremacy dispensed with—In the troops,
some few years since here, few soldiers would take the
Oaths of Supremacy; they would rather lose their places
—In the late times there was an Oath like this Test, which
many that now go to Mass would take.
Mr Sollicitor North.] Would have no swearing—He
was for the Covenant Test, as a seditious thing; but as
this is no way tending to it, but only as to doctrinal
points, is against such an Oath.
Mr. Waller.] The word, "merely bread and wine,"
in the Proviso, he excepts against—Believes the doctrine
of the Sacraments well expressed in the thirty-nine Articles—The thing is of great consequence, and no Clergy
here present; we believe the very body, and therefore the
word "merely" is not reconcilable—Would have the subscription in the very words of the Articles, which will
take off the objection of swearing scholastically.
Sir Robert Holt.] Pope Pius V offered a dispensation
to the Emperor Maximilian, as well as to Queen Elizabeth; you are to renounce all the Articles of the Council
of Trent, as well as this—Thinks the thing secure enough
by the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, but if you
will go farther, would have the Bishops consulted with.
Earl of Ancram.] The Lutherans opinion, as Clarges
said, is not Transubstantiation; the Papists say, one body
goeth, and another cometh in the place—Consubstantiation, which the Lutherans hold, is grammatically "with
it," and not "changed into it."
Sir Richard Temple.] If we so scruple the wording it
here, it will be much more [scrupled] in the nation—In
Henry VIIIth's time, the five Articles were to be subscribed, under the penalty of treason—Knows not that
the Pope ever gave indulgence for taking the Oath of
Supremacy, but believes he grants absolution after the
thing is done—Besides this Test, would make subscribing
the thirty-six Articles, but pray leave these Oaths of
Abjuration in matters so mystical.
Sir Eliab Harvey.] Observes one thing in this Ease—We have been told, we have no Test upon the Papists;
if there be none for the Papists, this is none for the Protestants, in the Bill of Ease.
Sir John Duncombe.] Fears it will have this effect, that
some will let Religion and all go, if preferment lies in
the way, and so it will make men Atheists.
Sir John Birkenhead.] Did ever any Church impose
swearing doctrinal points?—No Church, either Greek or
Latin, ever did it; never was such an Oath before.
Colonel Strangways.] Though great disputes are between
us and the Papists, yet all Protestants hold against it—If once we deny our senses, we lose our senses; for every
new shift of the Pope, would have another shift from us
—You are now making distinction betwixt Protestant
and Papist—A criterion you must have; the Pope will
never dispense with doctrinal points; with human Laws
of the Church he can—Thinks that this Test will puzzle
all Priests and Jesuits.
[The Bill with the Amendments passed; the title was, "An
Act for preventing dangers that may happen by Popish Recusants."]
Thursday, March 13.
Some Amendments and Provisos to the Bill for giving Ease to
Protestant Dissenters, reported by Mr. Powle.
In the Preamble, the Committee added, "Whereas the said
Statutes cannot be suspended but by Act of Parliament."
Mr Attorney Finch.] The Preamble does but explain
the subsequent matter—The sense of the House is included
in your vote, and therefore the Preamble useless—Why
in the Preamble we should put persons upon declaring
the faith, that all of your communion do assent to all the
doctrines, knows not—Would have it altered to, "Whereas divers persons are Dissenters."
Sir Thomas Meres.] Professes much for the Church of
England, but if we were all of a bottom, we should
be much better—The Church was very well in 1642;
and would revive it to the state it was then in; and the
Clause is for taking away the subscription of the Covenant.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] You have no leave to bring
in any thing to repeal a Law already made, without leave
Sir Robert Carr.] Wonders you will entertain a thing
burnt by the common Hangman—This will not ruin
your Church; but, by the use formerly made of it, you
may be in rebellion, and would never enlarge the Church
by pulling down the pale of Government.
Sir Thomas Lee.] The business of the Bill is matter of
Ease; and this Proviso reaching to nothing but your Bill,
you may receive it—The Bill is a Repeal in point of
Law, and this Clause is regularly brought in.
Sir William Coventry.] Speaks to the order of the thing
only—It has been well said, that the whole Bill is repealing a Law, and so it was left at large to the Committee
to repeal—Why may not this Clause be now brought in?
Can the Committee of the whole House have power of
debating this Proviso, and not the House? Otherwise,
instead of making the Committee subservient to the
House, you make the House subservient to the Committee—Again, consider the point urged by the Speaker—Do you apprehend that the House refers any thing to the
Committee of the whole House, exclusive to its own
power?—Though he subscribes much to the Speaker's
knowledge, as to the Orders of the House, yet in this
he differs from him.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] At the same time the Proviso
is put, would have the Covenant read, that we may
know what the Covenant is that we leave out.
Sir Robert Carr.] Seconds it, and has the Covenant
ready in his hand.
Sir William Coventry.] It might as well have been said,
when you repealed the Act concerning Madder, That
was a breach of order as well as this; the natures are not
different at all.
Mr Attorney Finch.] This Proviso repeals the first
chapter of Magna Charta; the first Article of the Covenant does it—Now you are coming to release all the
Corporations from their oaths, to indulge these Gentlemen.
This will give them a reputation abroad. These proceedings will give honour to the Covenant—But consider
the Honour of this House; how often you have burnt
it, and how many thousands are perjured by it.
Sir Charles Harbord.] Had he taken the Covenant, he
would have been very tender; the not taking it has
cost him some thousand pounds; there are many good
things in it.
Sir Adam Browne.] They showed no conscience in
taking it, and as little in keeping it—Wonders to hear
it so countenanced here.
Debate about the reading the Covenant.
Sir Thomas Lee.] Would not have it read, for fear he
should learn ill by it, having heard so much of it.
Colonel Strangways.] Agrees with Gentlemen here, for
the desert of the Covenant to be burnt by the common
Hangman—The Declaration gave indulgence to all these
persons—In all rebellions, when you come to a pacification, you do not reproach people—When the King
came into England, how many true sens of the Church
had we! We had them only in private Conventicles.
They were all quiet, before this Declaration stirred them
up—When you said, "penal Laws could not be suspended but by Act of Parliament," what would have
become of them, if the Act of Indemnity had been
voided?—You have greater Dissenters than these, the
Papists—Rebus sic stantibus, this is a necessary Proviso, and should be part of the Bill.
Sir Thomas Meres.] Prudence, but nothing of his love
to the Covenant, made him bring this Proviso in; the best
service we can do is utterly to damn this thing, that no
remembrance or sentiment of it may remain—Union is
his end in it, and could say much how unreasonable this
is to impose upon men—Hopes for a good effect of it—It is point of prudence we differ in; and did he not think
it prudential, would never move it.
Mr Powle.] Thinks it not prudent to keep the subscription of renouncing the obligation of the Covenant
within this Bill—Supposes that no man would give occasion to a minister to come into the Church, without studying this obligation of the Covenant, as no conscientious man will come in without doing it: It is but a few
years, and the Test in the Act of Uniformity will be expired; not above eight or nine years in being; it is a very
small circuit—We take not away marks of disgrace upon
it; it remains upon the body of your Laws as before—Therefore now to unite against the common enemy is very
Mr Secretary Coventry.] It looks unreasonable to have
a Law one way, and a Law another way—As for the Gentleman that would have the Church as in 1642, he is not
for that, because it may come to the condition of 1643—
(Then he reads the Clause in the Covenant against Prelacy.)
Can this House forget their own honour? This is not
for the common men, it is for their Ministers. Will
you take in men to govern the Church, that have sworn
the destruction of it? Doctor Burgess took the Oath of
Allegiance and Supremacy, and yet took the Covenant.
Will you deliver up your state and blood that our ancestors have lost their lives for? If I countenance another
man's sin, I make it my own—Shall the Parliament
actually give away their own reputation but to colour
other men's? You do the most dangerous thing to admit
this, to gratify a few men, that ever was in Parliament.
Sir Robert Howard.] It is not a prudent part to do a
great thing with small consideration—They that were
best pleased with the King, when they were worst pleased
with others, show no great mark of kindness to him; but
speaks it without reflection on any—This is letting people come in, upon a bare supposition they will come in;
though you alter Laws, it is only for peace and trade—In
this you will not know whom you gratify, and as you
do it to some, you grieve many more.
Sir Thomas Littleton.] The way the Proviso runs seems
harsh—You were told that the number of years was almost
expired, and now, if you will determine it, to shorten
the time, and no more, is for it; but there was no Test
altered in the time of the late King, nor would have
any now—Moves it, to the intent that the Gentlemen may
have their minds softened in the business, for the present,
reserving what he has farther to say till the next reading.
Sir William Coventry.] Thinks it a weak thing in any
man to refuse this renunciation—And now only the state
of the business is, Whether in prudence we should not
bear with the follies of these men; though they were
much the cause of the deluge of our miseries, yet they
were the earliest repenters—Though their folly is above
their honour in renouncing the obligation of the Covenant, yet, for union sake, as the case stands, would approve of those steps that may hit your end—Would amend
it, to make it more decent for your purpose—Hopes
that Gentlemen will not find fault with what he proposes
to mend it—Would have words to this effect, "That
renouncing the obligation to the Covenant being now in
the Act of Uniformity for a few years to come, may be
left out." The continuing it in will perpetuate the memory of what you would have forgotten—This may
prevent persons studying this obligation for the future.
Mr Cheney.] Doubts not but we have persons amongst
us sufficient to be employed in the Ministry, without
the helps either of the Papists or Dissenters—Moves that
the Proviso may not be part of the Bill—The Universities
are sufficient to fill your Church, without their helps.
Mr Attorney Finch.] By this Proviso, instead of burying the Covenant, you are setting up a pillar of honour
to it, by making it considered; and all this to gain some
few, and your Church at ease without them, and you
must part with the cross and the surplice; and when they
have gained this point of you, they may gain ten more,
and will be never contented—Is it either convenient or prudent? You deliver up yourselves to them, to save yourselves from a foreign nation.
Mr Vaughan.] We would take in persons capable of
reconciliation with the Church; the Papists never are.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Is as true a Churchman as
any, though not so good and pious—Should he be a parishioner to one of these men, he could never receive the
blood of his Saviour from his hands, that, by holding
the Covenant obligatory, was guilty of his Sovereign's
blood: To bring twenty in, to throw a thousand out, by
the scandal; Gentlemen, that could not endure the Covenant, and might not be permitted the Common Prayer
in their houses—By the severity of these men, they made
way for the Secular Priests—Is it a great thing to ask a
Minister, to renounce a traiterous oath, a villainous oath? Shame is to be nourished, when repentance is
the result of it—Is the Church of England going to
scramble for its government, that the Papist or Covenanter may get it? It will be like an army, that has lost its
General, that falls to plunder and disorder.
Sir Thomas Lee.] It has been said, "Shall not a person
renounce being a rogue? "Possibly they will be as willing
to renounce that infamy, as you to have them—A person at the door (whom he knew not) asked him, "What
do you about the Covenant?" Says he, "that point in it,
of him, or any other, being obliged by it, did startle
him to renounce, altho' he had never taken it; and yet,
upon this Test, he must be obliged to study the Controversy, and to satisfy his conscience," it being an universal
proposition—These Covenanters have paid so dear for it,
that they will not think it much reputation to own it—Now, if such persons there are, they cannot be meant by
Mr Swynfin.] When a Proviso is in paper, if any
amendment be offered to a Proviso, by orders, the alteration is very fair to be offered; especially when the alteration
is as now, it will shorten the Debate, viz. reducing the
Church to the Test of 1639—In an ingrossed Proviso in
parchment, very different.
Sir William Coventry.] If any man would chuse a point
to express himself upon rhetorically, he has much advantage that speaks against the Covenant; none but fools
indeed would scruple the renouncing—The last Question
shows, you have an inclination to do something—Though
we all abhor the Covenant, yet moves to commit the Proviso to be amended.
Sir Thomas Meres.] His opinion in this thing is for
unity—Whatever others think, it matters not; what we
agree is best—If you will have words as ill as may be
for the Covenant, is for it, and to graft what words you
will upon the Proviso—Every ingenuous man ought to
like truth, wherever he finds it—But would have this
Proviso to strengthen us against the common enemy, the
Papist—Knows that they will agree against the common
enemy—No age can take care but for it self.
Sir Philip Warwick.] Prossers this Proviso, "Provided
that the renunciation of the detestable Oath, called the
solemn League and Covenant, shall not from henceforth
be renounced but by such as have taken it, nor by them,
but for themselves, and no others."
Sir Thomas Littleton.] You must prove that a man
has taken the Covenant, and the Parson must prove he
has not taken it; the first is hard to do; the second, a negative, not to be done—It is a Proviso of great consequence, and should have a formal commitment.
Sir William Coventry.] Had rather give them all encouragement to come in, but if not, some—Let us not
keep them from the knowledge of their repentance—It is
twenty years ago since the Covenant was imposed, and
now out of date—Would have a few words to collect our
senses—It may be easily rectified.
Colonel Birch.] Were ever men so instrumental to
bring in the King, as these half dozen, or half a score
men, talked of?—Repentance they showed sufficiently for
what they had done, by some losing their lives, and many
hazarding their lives, for the King's Restoration—Consider whether this be a time to put a new brand upon
these people, after the Act of Oblivion, and their services
considered—Whilst you have done these things, the nation has been poor, mean, and decayed—It is according
to the Declaration at Breda, and he would have no more
Tests put upon them than in 1639.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Birch's argument is, "It is
only for the sake of these nine men," and these nine men are
dead; have lost their lives—You must repeal your Law
for these nine men—Would have the rest obey you.
Colonel Birch.] These men lost their lives when the
engagement came to destroy the Covenant—He can tell
nine, or nine score more of them, if he pleases.
Mr Swynfin.] Could he see that one person would be
in ease by this Proviso, would consent to it.
The Proviso passed to this effect:
"Provided always, That the renunciation of the detestable
Oath, commonly called, The solemn League and Covenant, be
offered to none but such who have taken it, and that such subscribe for themselves, and not others, any thing in the Act of
Uniformity, or any other Act to the contrary."
[March 14, omitted.]
Saturday, March 15.
Sir John Holland.] Moves in Mr Jay's case, Member
for Norwich, taken in execution, and imprisoned for a
debt of the King's.
The Speaker.] If a Member is taken in execution, you may discharge him—But the Law provides,
that as a Member shall be discharged from imprisonment, so he, after his Privilege ceases, shall be as before the execution, without prejudice to the party—Statute
of King James.
Mr Attorney Finch.] Before that Law, it was breach
of Privilege; but if let out by Privilege, a Question
whether he might be taken again upon the same execution?—If it be in the King's case, the King will show
as much favour to the Privilege of this House as possible.
Sir Thomas Lee.] Would have the case committed, that
you may be informed how Privilege stands, in case of the
Sir John Birkenhead.] Would not have it referred—14 Elizabeth, Fitzherbert's case; all the famous Lawyers
were then in the House; he had Privilege in execution of
three thousand five hundred pounds, at the King's suit—Judged then no Privilege against the Crown, for all Privilege comes from the Crown—Mr Harman's case, and Sir
John Prettyman's case.
Mr Powle.] Is as much against extending Privilege,
and encroaching upon Royal Prerogative, as any man—Would have both stated—Privilege is never denied a Member but for treason, felony, or breach of the peace; but
where a civil action is prosecuted, there is as much Privilege, he conceives, against the King, as against any other
person—It was never the Question in Fitzherbert's case,
"whether it was at the King's suit, or any other man's;"
but the case was, the person was taken in execution before
the sitting of the Parliament.
Earl of Ancram.] In Sir Edward Turner, the Speaker's
time, at the suit of Sir Edmund Sawyer, his tenants were
served with declarations, and he complained against him,
though the thing was compromised.
Says the Speaker, "The King by one writ calls a Member
to Westminster-Hall, and by another to Parliament," though in
the King's case, it was judged breach of Privilege. (The thing
was no farther proceeded in.)
Debate on ingrossing the Bill for the Supply.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Hears that the Dutch call in their
privateers, and will be speedily out—Remember Chatham
business—Whenever the King neglects execution of the
Laws, he fails of his duty; and when you neglect to supply him, you do not your duty; the King has done his
part to the full—Moves for a shorter day, for reading
the ingrossed Bill.
(fn. 1) .] Gives an account of many men
deserting his ship, (the Royal Catherine) upon the rumour
that the Parliament would give the King no money.
Sir Thomas Meres.] There was such a time as seamens
deserting us, (within a fortnight) and then there was
reason for it; but now, blessed be God! the reason is removed—The motion is good, in relation to the King's
affairs—Remembers with what unanimous consent the
money was given, intended for his best service; and remembers then who moved for it—The Bill may have its
due execution, within its time, if delayed a little—As to
the affairs of this House, businesses cannot go fairly up to
the Lords House, now upon our hands—As to the
Lords, he denies not but things do yet go fairly on—Would not have this Bill sent up to hinder them, to
make a parenthesis in business there to interrupt them;
he offers the Lords leisure, but imposes nothing on them
—If any man would have the Money Bill pass in the
Lords House the next week, concludes that the rest of
the Bills cannot go with this.
Sir Thomas Osborne.] Is sorry to hear a day named so
far off—You hear the approach of the Holland fleet, and
is sorry to have occasion so often to tell you of the backwardness of ours—The argument for the Commissioners
meeting in April, some time after that mentioned in
the Bill; and yet timely to execute the Act, is not the
same thing; for it will, by being in the Lords House,
give credit to the Commissioners of the Navy and Ordnance, which yet it cannot have—As to the other arguments,
it is confessed, an issue we may desire from the Lords;
but that may be remedied, the present necessity cannot—We shall meet again, and then would not be thought
one of the obstructers of this Bill of Popery—The one
may be repaired, the other cannot, which makes him
Mr Vaughan.] The giving this Bill so speedily out of
our hands may call us a kind and bountiful Parliament, but never a wise one—The not passing the other
Bill will expose us to right of conquest again: A
greater matter than any thing else—When the King has
hearts, he has purses also, and can never want seamen—There is that scatters and yet increases; and there is that
with-holdeth more than is meet, and it tendeth to poverty.
Sir Robert Howard, to Mr Vaughan's Dilemma.] After
Chatham business, the King had a greater opportutunity to impose than he has now—It looks hard, that
after the King has granted so much, you should be jealous—The King has not left any thing to do to us; and
must we stop Supply, because other persons (the Lords)
have not done what you would have them?—This Bill
cannot be ingrossed suddenly—It would look ugly in any
man to do it—No man can write the Bill fairly till
Tuesday—Hopes the thing will be as full of good intentions as ever; but that those intentions, with delay, will
Mr Garroway.] Hopes in time we shall have an answer from the King, as to the impositions; and possibly
some persons, that advised that with the Declaration,
may have apprehensions upon them—He forgives them,
and prays God that he would—Hopes for a general pardon, that they may have the benefit of it.
Mr Powle.] Conceives it the right of Parliament not
to enter into Debates, so much as of Supply, till redress
of grievances; and it seems a tacit obligation upon
the King, to redress the grievances, because it smooths
the way the better for money—No man can think that
we have no more grievances than already complained of—Would not delay the Bill till all the grievances be redressed, but would till they are stated to the King—Sees,
by authority, a printed paper of imposition on commodities, not imposed by Act of Parliament—It is said,
"that, by stopping the Bill, we shall put a violence on
the Lords;" but we put none upon them: If this issue
with them answers not our ends, we may think of
something else—All arguments he hears spoken of, for the
hastening this Bill, are the tragical fates of necessity;
but still asks, Who occasioned this necessity? when it
might have been prevented by the Parliament's being
called in October last; and thinks them guilty of a great
crime that were the authors of the advice of prolonging
it till now; and hopes to have that, and some other
grievances, redressed—Your Clerk, he hears, sat up all
night to ingross part of the Money Bill, and it cannot
be retarded by a few days.
Mr Thomas.] We have exposed the person of the
King, by answering our grievances of Popery; and
thinks the King not safe without removing some persons;
and names Lord Arundel of Wardour, Colonel Richard
Talbot, and Father Patrick.
Sir John Duncombe.] Is much surprized at the Motions
he has heard to day; very unreasonable, and untimely
brought forth—No Prince ever made such an answer as
the King has made; he has done what lies in him—Is
sorry to see still new clouds rise—Nothing is gone from
you yet, but the Bill of Popery, and the first moment read in the House of Lords, and they are now sitting
upon it—Why is this? He never heard a Question, that
after this Bill is perfected, it should not be ingrossed—Your
fears are taken away; if ingrossed, you may stop it still—Is ashamed to tell you of the lowness of the Exchequer (fn. 2) ;
but those arguments are stopped by money—Appeals to
Gentlemen concerned in the Revenue and Navy-office, if
things are not at a stop for want of money—The thing is
not graceful, it has not a good countenance; it is so
methodical, so easy and decent, the Question for ingrossing, that he wonders any man can press against it—No man can take any thing from us—The Bill, after
being ingrossed, may lie upon the table, and you may
call for it as you shall see occasion.
Colonel Strangways.] Consider the nature of the thing;
we owe the removal of our jealousies to the King, who
has graciously done it—Was it not a great point, the
redressing our Laws, when attempted to be destroyed at
one blow? Every man knows, that these Money Bills
are ingrossed to your hands—When we follow the steps
of our ancestors, we shall do as wise things as they did—"Let the Bill be ingrossed, and lie upon your table," say
some; but what calling will there be for it then?—Fears
nothing but surprizes—Would not force the Lords, but
would have them pressed by some arguments we use
here—Is for Friday.
Sir Thomas Lee.] If one great and extraordinary grievance be, and that redressed, shall that be an argument
for the King to redress us no more? When no more
grievances are mentioned, it will be thought we have no
more: Not to mention other things, besides that of Ireland, the great growth of Popery, and our neighbour's
house on fire—Hopes that persons concerned will acquaint you with it farther—He loves his ease in the
country, and would be there, but would not have the
King ignorant of many things: With that of the Order
of Council imposing a rate upon coals: Hopes, in due
time, to have a redress of these things and others.
Colonel Birch.] Is far from thinking that the King has
the least jealousy of the Money Bill, but that we intend his
honour and safety—Any thing of great or rich he has
came from us; when we could not tell who was Master
when we came hither, thanks God we know now, and
hopes no more clouds will be stirring—Impositions against Law, the people pressed, and that of Ireland,
and should be loth that if any thing farther should be offered of grievances, any man should say, Why have you
left these things unrepresented, and the King so gracious,
in granting what you have asked? Bills are much more
slippery in parchment than in paper—What he moves, is
for the King's honour and safety—Was the enemy here
now, would say nothing of it; but why were we not here
in October last? No man can say there has been the least
backwardness in this Parliament—Would have the Paper
Bill lie on the table till Friday next.
Sir Trevor Williams.] What he has heard makes his
heart bleed; and therefore moves for Monday, to consider redress of Grievances.
Sir Edward Dering.] We all tend to the same end,
and let us go the same way—After Friday but a few days
to Easter—The Bill of Supply will take up a whole day
reading, and some unforeseen delays may stop it; therefore moves for Friday.
Sir William Coventry.] The Clerk is ingrossing the Bill
without order; and you were told another shrewd thing,
that a great deal of the Bill was slipped in the ingrossing
—Would not have any thing doubted hereafter; you
are Judges of it here, and others, when you have done
—Would have what is written already, cancelled, and
not brought to you.
Mr Waller.] Ingrossing without order! It may be copied in parchment for some Gentleman's use, as well as
in paper, sometimes we were in such great haste, that
the Act of Oblivion, in its confirmation, was not read at
all—When a Question has been of not putting the Question now, has known that Question never put at all—If
that Question should be now, no man can speak to the
ingrossing the Bill afterwards—Are not necessity and speed
acknowledged by the House? Are not our grievances redressed, and have not our forefathers taken care to keep
Papists out of authority, and we greater?—In the late
times, this House had a passionate suspicion, and we
would have removed Papists, and it was afterwards, by
that passion, done much worse—"Never was doubt of a
Bill once voted but passed," it is said; but we may remember, but last Session, that a dispute with the Lords about
heightening and lowering rates, damned our Bill of foreign commodities (fn. 3) ; our Votes since have lost their credit—Is against Popery, and we have both leges et mores
against them, Law and inclination of the people against
them—Will you neither trust them, the King, nor God,
but trust an enemy in retarding this Bill? Would you
have them come out to sea, before our Act comes out in
print?—If you find not a way, there will be viam inveniam out faciam—Necessity stamps all things with a face
of justice—Would have Friday ordered for ingrossing the
Sir Thomas Littleton.] Sir Henry Vane was the first that
ever proposed putting a Question, "Whether the Question
should be now put (fn. 4) ," and since, it has been always the
forerunner of putting the thing in Question quite out;
therefore would not have that Question put now.
Sir William Coventry.] There is great difference between, "whether the Question shall be put," and "now
put." It is no new thing to put that Question in point
of adjournment; and if it passed in the negative, it
never was, but that the House was afterwards adjourned.
Mr Garroway.] It is certainly agreed by us all, that
that Question of the Bill shall be put; though the Question of the day be as is proposed.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Can any man tell that the
Hollanders are not strong enough to come out, or that
they, by their Confederates, may not invade us? An
enemy that can invade us and will not, no man can say—When you shall give it, and the enemy come and gather
it, you will put the King upon his necessity—The shewbread was eaten by David; it was not forbid, but told us
Colonel Strangways.] Is sorry to hear of these necessities
—Bring us the men that have been the occasion of these
necessities, and he will tell you what to say to them—He
that does the necessity is not the judge of it—Was not
salus populi periclitatur the occasion the ship-money was
called for? Knows not what belongs to these little bye
tricks—Great necessity is to be argued in the Lords
House, not here—Those arguments, if used, let them be
there; let us hear no more of these arguments; and let
us not be reproached with these arguments of necessity,
that were not the occasion of it, but [let them] be laid
on persons that occasioned it.
Mr Garroway.] If those Gentlemen will join issue on
the argument of necessity, let the causers of it be accountable for it.
Mr Secretary Coventry.] Is not afraid of our's, nor any
man's hearing what counsel he gave the King—Desires
that whoever is faulty, be it any man, he may answer it—When a man has been debauched by another, and falls
into a distemper, your first business is to cure the man,
and then blame him that debauched him—If there be
such men, that have been the occasion of this advice,
let them answer it.
Sir Thomas Meres.] This thing of "necessity" was an
ill argument at first, and would not have Waller (who
proffered to speak again) speak twice to it, to inflame it
The Speaker.] No man can find any precedent of Sir
Henry Vane's Question—By that Question we can never
come to an end of any business—The Question in being
may be the next day put, and so you usher in an impossibility of bringing things to a period.
Sir Robert Howard.] This Question is like the image
of the inventor, a perpetual disturbance.
Mr Garroway.] If you can find out an expedient, that
may carry off the heat, is for it—If you adjourn the Debate to Thursday, there is no heat in it.
Colonel Titus.] Some Gentlemen believe the Bill already ingrossed; if so, it is more haste than could be
wished—The desire of some is to get a competent time
to get grievances redressed; others, that the necessity of
the King and kingdom require a dispatch—A competent
time is agreed on both sides; he thinks Friday so; and then
to bring in our grievances remaining—He hopes this may
Sir Thomas Osborne.] Would know the cause why the
rest of our grievances are not alleged—As for the Declaration and Religion, he appeals, whether, when there
was a stop of the Money Bill, those two things were not
the cause then—All that the King could do, he has done
—Does believe that by Friday we shall have an Answer
from the Lords—It is necessary, either in this House or
out of it, for subjects to give the King time, and a right
representation of things—Should be sorry that any of the
Privy Counsellors endeavours should be so blasted in this
House, that they do not their part, till the King give
you farther cause to apprehend so—There needs no jealousy on our parts now—How shall we have assurance,
that the King has satisfaction in our intentions? Why
should not the marks from this House be undeniable?
If this be your case, then to put a Question that has
dangerous construction in it—Is not for putting it.
Mr Vaughan.] The King has no fault, the Law says
he has none, and hopes that none say so in this House—Grievances have come before Supply, in right course of
Parliament; if now they come after, it is an example of
great affection, and in few Parliaments—If we are content to part with that right, and [let it] be for the present
overlooked, hopes it shall not for the future be urged
as a precedent.
Ordered, That the Money Bill be ingrossed, and brought in on