The 26th of October.

Mr. Speaker,

SIR, seeing by God's Providence, and His Majesties Favour, we are here assembled, to consult and advise a­bout the great Affairs of the King­dom, I humbly conceive it will become us to be­gin first with that which is of most consequence to our King and Country, and to take into consi­deration how to save the main, before we spend any time about particulars. Sir, I am of opini­on that the Life of our King, the Safety of our Country and Protestant Religion, are in great [Page 2] danger from Popery, and that either this Parlia­ment must suppress the Power and Growth of Po­pery, or else that Popery will soon destroy not only Parliaments, but all that is near and dear to us. And therefore I humbly move, That we may resolve to take into our Consideration in the first place, How to suppress Popery, and prevent a Popish Successor; without which all our endea­vours about other matters will not signifie any thing, and therefore this justly challengeth the precedency.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I stand up to second that Motion, and to give some Reasons, with your permission, why I agree in it, not doubting but other persons will be of the same Opinion, if they have the same sentiments what influence the Popish Party have had in the management of most of our Af­fairs both at home and abroad for many years last past: And how that Party hath increased and been incouraged, Sir, I remember that after his Majesties happy Restoration, it was thought convenient that an Act of Ʋniformity should pass as the best Law that could be invented to secure the Church from the danger of Popery and Fana­ticism, and accordingly it did pass in the year 1662, but in the year 1663 some that then ma­naged the great Affairs of State, or at least had great interest with his Majesty, were of another opinion: For they had prevailed with him to grant a Toleration and Indulgence, and to make a Declaration to that purpose. The Parliament assembling soon after, thought it very strange, that in one year an Act of Ʋniformity should be the best way to preserve the Church, and that [Page 3] in the next year a Toleration and Indulgence; therefore after a serious debate about it, in Fe­bruary 1603, they made an Address to his Maje­sty, humbly representing how it would reflect upon the Wisdom of that Parliament, to have such an alteration made so soon, and that such Proceedings for ought they could foresee would end in Popery. Upon which his Majesty, out of his great goodness, stopt the issuing out of the said Toleration, hearkning rather to the advice of his Parliament than to any private Counsellours. Sir, I cannot inform you who it was that gave that Advice to his Majesty, nor certainly affirm they were Popishly affected, but if I may take the liberty to judge of a tree by its Fruit, I have some reason to think so; because I find by Cole­man's Letters, and other Discoveries, that a To­leration and Indulgenee should be one of the great Engines they intended to use for the establishing of Popery in this Nation. But the project thus failing at this time, they were forced to wait with patience until they could have another opportunity; employing in the mean time their diabolical Counsels in weakning the Protestant Interest (in order to a general destruction of it) by ingaging us in a War with Holland. In which the French acted the same part in the be­half of the Dutch, as they did afterwards in our behalf against them, 1672, very fairly looking on both times, while we poor Protestants with great fury destroyed one the other. But this was not so strange nor so plain as the dividing of our Fleet under the Command of Prince Rupert and General Monk, and the design of destroying them as well as their Ships, and the rest of our [Page 4] Navy Royal at Chattam. And as they thus act­ed their part at Sea, so they did not forget to do their best ashoar; in April 1666 some per­sons that were then hanged, fairly confest they had been treated with, and had treated with o­thers, to burn the City of London in September following, of which Confession we then took as little notice as we have of other Discoveries against Papists since; however accordingly in September, thirteen thousand Houses of the City of London were burnt. And those that were ta­ken in carrying on that Work, generously dischar­ged without any Tryal; and one Papist that confest, that himself and others did set the City on fire, was in great haste hanged, and so the business was husht up, as compleatly as the late great Plot is like to be now, branding Hubert, that then made that confession, with Madness; as now these last Witnesses with Perjury, Sodomy, and what not. However these businesses were not so carried, but his Majesty discerned some of the Intrigues of them, which made him al­ter his Councils, and contrary to the Endea­vours of that Party enter into new Alliances, by making up that excellent League, usually call­ed the Tripple League. Which put a stop to these mens Designs as to Affairs abroad, but not to their Designs here at home. For having ob­tained the Oxford Act, and some others against the Dissenters, great endeavours were used to have them executed severely, in expectation that the Dissenters would so be made weary of li­ving quietly under them, and in the end be glad of a Toleration; but the Dissenters deceived them, and submitted to the Laws, insomuch that in [Page 5] 1670 to 1671 there was hardly a Conventicle to be heard of in England. And might never have been more, if that Party had not been a­fraid of a great disappointment thereby, where­fore to revive our Divisions, and to bring in (as they hoped) their own Religion, they im­ployed all their force again to get a Toleration. I say they did it, because it cannot be imagin'd it could be from any Protestant Interest, both Church-men and Dissenters Publickly declaring their detestation of it. And in 1672 it was obtained, Printed, and Published. After we had, in order to the carrying it on, broke that never to be forgotten Tripple League, sacrificed our Honour to the French, not only by making a strong Alliance with them, but by seizing the Dutch Smyrna Fleet, and then afterwards pro­claiming War with them. Which War was continued in order to ruine us both; for the French proved but lookers on at Sea (as they had done when ingaged with the Dutch in 1665.) though great Conquerours at Land, especially of the Protestants in Germany and Holland. And as this Toleration was accompanied with these great alterations in Affairs abroad, so it was backt, 1. With a great Minister of State at the Helm at home, who was so confident of the re-fixing Po­pery here, that he could not forbear to declare himself to be of that Religion, I mean my Lord Treasurer Clifford; as also, 2. With a great Army at Black-Heath ready upon all Occasions; and, 3. With the greatest violation on the Pro­perty of the Subject, that ever hapned in this Nation, the seizing of One Million and half, or thereabout, in the Exchequer. All which indeed [Page 6] made our condition desperate, and as many thought past retrieve. But, Mr. Speaker, here again the Goodness and Wisdom of his Majesty saved us, refusing to follow such pernicious Counsels; upon which Clifford not only lost his place, but his life too, breaking his heart (as is by most believed) to see himself so disappoint­ed in this great Design. And here as we can never too much detest my Lord Clifford, and such others, who contrived our ruine, so we can ne­ver sufficiently admire his Majesties Royal Care in working out our security, by refusing to fol­low any Advice that tended to those ends. And therefore to the great disappointment of that Party, at the Request of the House of Com­mons at their next Meeting, He recalled the said Toleration, disbanded the Army, and in con­venient time made a Peace with Holland. But though this Party were thus defeated of their Design, yet not so discouraged as to give it over. They changed their Measures, but not their Principles, and although they desisted from further aiming at a Toleration, yet they no ways neglected pursuing a Reformation, but in order thereto prosecuted a Correspondence formerly begun for that purpose with the French King, and by promising him conside­rable Supplies to carry on the War he was then engaged in, secured themselves as they thought of his assistance for setling of Popery here. Accordingly it is not unknown, what a Party of Men, and what quantity of Amunition and o­ther Necessaries for War, were sent to the French King, during the War he was then en­gaged in, and then it was done contrary to the [Page 7] advice of the Parliament, and the Solicitations of most of the Princes of Europe, and true In­terest of England, to the astonishment of all good men; especially because it was contrary to his Majesties own Proclamation, and when the French had declared they made that War for Religion, endeavouring to force the Dutch to allow of Po­pish Churches. However such was the strength of this Party, that this Assistance was continu­ed until the French King was willing to make a Peace, and then who more instrumental than our Ministers to effect it. Several Embassadors, and Plenipotentiaries too, being sent as well to the Court of Spain, as Germany and Holland for that purpose. And at last, the Dutch being weary, and consumed with the War, they were perswaded to be willing of a Peace, and accor­dingly the 10th. of January 1677, entered into a Treaty with us for a general peace to be ac­complished by such ways and means as are there­in prescribed. Which League was kept private for some time, and instead of any Discovery thereof, about the end of February following (the Parliament being then soon after to As­semble) a great noise was made of entring into a war with France, it being concluded that nothing like that would incline the Par­liament to give money, nor the People freely to part with it, because it was the only way to extinguish those fears they lay under, by rea­son of the growing greatness of France. At the meeting of the Parliament, the Project was set on foot with all the art and industry imagi­nable, and so far were the major part of the Members perswaded of the reality thereof, [Page 8] that they were inclinable to give a great sum of money for the carrying on of the War; but while they were in Consultation about it, the League formerly mention'd, agreed at the Hague, was unluckily made (in some measure) publick, and occasion'd a great jealousie of the reality of the pretended War. And the greater, be­cause upon an inquiry, they could not find there were any Alliances made to that purpose. And yet notwithstanding this, and the great endea­vours of some worthy Members of that Par­liament (now of this,) an Army of thirty thousand men was raised, and a Tax of above 1200000 pound was given. And then, instead of a War, a general Peace according to that Trea­ty agreed with Holland, was presently made. By which that Party thought they had secured not on­ly the power of France, but the men and money here raised at home, to be made serviceable for their ends; there wanting nothing but a Popish King to perfect all these Designs. For which we have great reason to believe they had made all necessary preparation, as well by imploying men and money to find out wicked Instruments to take away the King's Life, as by providing one Claypool to be a Sacrifice, to make an attonement for the Act, and to cast the wickedness thereof on the Phanaticks. To which purpose the said Claypool was really imprison'd some time before in the Tower, upon the Evi­dence of two Witnesses, that he should say, that he and two hundred more had ingaged to kill the King the next time he went to New-Market. For which in all probability he had as really been hanged, if the breaking out of the Plot [Page 9] had not prevented their designs. Then was Claypool the next Term after publickly cleared at the King's Bench-Bar, the Witnesses appear­ing no more against him. Thus were we a­gain reduced to a miserable condition, but it pleased God by the Discovery of the Plot by Dr. Oates once more to save us; whose Evi­dence (he being but one Witness) they thought at first to have out-braved, but some of them being so infatuated as to kill Justice Godfrey, and Cole­man so unfortunate as to leave some of his im­portant Papers in his House, notwithstanding the time he had to convey them away, it wrought so great a fermentation in the People, as that there was no remedy, but that the further pur­suit of the Plot must be again laid aside, and a fair face put upon things. And so accordingly there was for a few Months, but how after Wakeman's Tryal things turn'd again, what en­deavours have been since used to ridicule the Plot, to disparage the old Witnesses, to discourage new ones, to set up Presbyterian Plots, and to increase our Divisions, I suppose, must be fresh in every Man's memory here, and therefore I shall not of­fer to trouble you therewith.

But, Sir, I cannot conclude without begging your patience, while I observe how things have been carried on in Scotland and Ireland, answera­ble to what was done here.

In Ireland the Papists are at least five to one in number for the Protestants, and may probably derive from their Cradle an inclination to mas­sacre them again; at least the Protestants have no Security, but by having the Militia Arms, and the command of Towns and Forts in their hands. [Page 10] But about the same time or a little before that the Tolleration came out here in 1672, an Or­der went from hence, which after a long Pre­amble of the Loyalty and affection of the Pa­pists to his Majesty, required the Lord Lieute­nant and Council to dispence with the Papists wear­ing of Arms, and living in Corporations, and a great many other things in their favour; of which they have made such use, as that the Plot there was in as good readiness as that here; but how carried on, and how endeavours were there al­so used to stifle it, will appear, when your lei­sure may permit you to examine those Witnes­ses.

In Scotland, the Government is quite alter'd, the use of Parliaments in a manner abolished, and the Power of that Government lodged in a Com­missioner and Council, a standing Army of Twen­ty two thousand men setled, all endeavours used to divide the Protestant Interest, and to incourage the Papists. By which we may conclude, that the same interest hath had a great hand in the ma­nagement of affairs there also.

And, Sir, may we not as well believe, that the World was at first made of Atoms, or by chance, without the help of an Omnipotent hand, as that these affairs in this our little World have been thus carried on, so many years toge­ther, so contrary to our true interest, without some great Original Cause, by which the Popish interest hath so far got the ascendant of the Pro­testant interest, that notwithstanding all his Majesties endeavours, things have been strange­ly over-ruled in favour of that Party; how and which way, his Majesties Declaration made [Page 11] in April 1679, is to me a great Manifestation.

Sir, I hope the weight of the Matter I have discourst on, will plead my pardon with the House for having troubled you so long, I submit what I have said to your judgment, humbly desi­ring a favourable construction; and although I have said some things that are very strange, and other things grounded only on Conjectures, yet I believe that no man will have just reason to doubt the probability of the truth, if they will but consider, what a potent Friend the Papists have had of James Duke of York; and how im­boldened by the hopes of having him for King. And as it is not to be doubted but that they have had his Assistance, so they have had the French Am­bassadors too, who by his frequency at the Pa­lace, hath seemed rather one of the Family and King's Household, than a Foreign Ambassador, and by his egress and regress to and from his Majesty, rather a prime Minister of State of this Kingdom than a Councellor to another Prince. And the truth of all hath been so confirm'd by Coleman's Letters, making the Duke's interest, the French interest, and the Papists interest, so much one, and by the many Witnesses that have come in about the Plot, that I think we may ra­ther be at a loss for our Remedy, than in doubt of our Disease. And therefore though I know the difficulties I may bring my self under, by having thus laid open some mens Designs, yet seeing my King and Country have called me to this Service, I am resolved that as my Father lost his Life for King Charles the First, so I will not be afraid to adventure mine for King Charles the Second, and that makes me expose my self in his Service in this place.

Sir, I think (seeing things are thus) with­out neglecting our Duty to our King and Country, nay to our God too, we cannot defer endeavouring the securing of the King's Person, and Protestant Religion, by all lawful means whatsoever; and therefore I second the Moti­on that was made, That we may in the first place take into our Consideration, how to suppress Popery, and prevent a Popish Successour; that so we may never return again to Superstition, I­dolatry, and Slavery, but may always preserve that pure Religion, to be the Religion of this Nation, for which so many of our Fore-fathers have suffer'd Martyrdom, I mean the Prote­stant Religion, as long as the Sun and Moon endures.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, the Popish Party have not only had a great influence on the management of our Affairs, both Foreign and Domestick, while they could do it under a disguise, but notwith­standing the discovery of their whole Plot, have ever since gone on triumphant, as if they were not afraid of any opposition that can be made a­gainst them. Although the most part of Do­ctor Oates his Discovery was no news to most Men; and the great Correspondence which Coleman had held with Foreign parts, had been generally observed for some years; yet what difficulties were there raised against believing of Oates his Testimony, and against apprehending of Coleman's Person, and seizing of his Papers, by which he had opportunity to carry away the most part, and by that means prevented a great deal of Evidence, which we should otherwise [Page 13] have had against that Party; though by chance he left enough to hang himself. And as their Power, or the Respect which was born them, appeared in this; so their great Confidence in the never to be forgotten Death of Sir Ed­mondbury Godfrey, which doubtless they accom­plished, as to conceal Evidence, so to intimidate Justices and others, from doing their duty, with great assurance, that those who did it should never have been brought to Justice. And I must confess, we took a strange unheard of way, either to do that, or prevent the going on of the Plot: For in October after the Plot broke out, no less than Fifty seven Commissions were discover'd for raising of Souldiers, granted to several Popish Recusants, with Warrants to Muster without taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, or Test; Counter-Signed by the then Secretary of State. Of which the Parliament take­ing notice, they were soon after dissolved in the midst of the Examination of the Plot. And the next that was called, though compos'd of true English Gentlemen, as soon as they fell severe upon Popery, had no better Success; certain­ly, Sir, not by the prevalency or Advice of any true English Protestants; and who then may be presumed to have given such Advice, I leave to your judgment. These two Parliaments being thus Dissolved, a third was Summoned, but was not permitted to sit, but on the contrary, put off by several Prorogations. At which the People being discontented, their Fears and Jealousies arising from the Papists increasing, from which they knew they could not be effectually secured but by a Parliament; several Counties and Ci­ties [Page 14] joyned in Petitioning his Majesty for a Par­liament. But it being foreseen that every thing that tended to make way for the meeting of Par­liaments, was dangerous, such was the influ­ence of that Party, as that they obtained a Pro­clamation, penned I think by Coleman himself, or by some body that had no more love for the Pro­testant Religion than he, forbidding Petitioning as Seditious and Tumultuous. And that no­thing should be wanting to shew their power, at length by the endeavours of some great men, some credulous and ambitious men were drawn in to be Abhorrers. Good God! where were these Mens Sences, that in a time when the Na­tion was in such imminent danger, there should be any good Protestant that should abhor Petiti­oning for a Parliament? But I hope this House will have a time to speak with those Gentlemen, and Mark them with the Brand they deserve. And now that it may be found that there were a good easie sort of credulous people that might be wrought upon, it was thought high time to have a Counter Plot, that might swallow up that of the Papists, and restore them to their former Credit. How far this was carried on by good men and bad, I am loath to particularise; but I cannot but observe, that Dangerfield had more Mo­ney and Encouragement given him while he was carrying on of that Plot, than I could ever hear he hath had since the discovery of it. But though it be not strange, that the Papists should be so wicked, as to contrive such a design, for the cast­ing of the Plot upon the Protestants, though with the loss of so many honest mens lives, as was in­tended; yet it is strange to see how willing many [Page 15] Protestants, especially of those who have reason to think themselves of the best sort, were to believe it, and how little pleased with Dangerfield, for the great service he did in discovering that wicked Plot. So powerful and so lucky are the Popish Party, in infusing of animosities amongst us, tend­ing to divide us, and so willing are we to enter­tain them to our destruction. And as the Po­pish Party have been very industrious in the contriving of Reports and Plots to remove the ill Reports they lie under, and have had a great influence in managing of Parliamentary Affairs, so we may presume they have of late had in the dispensing of Justice, as may appear by consi­dering what hath been done by our Judges of late.

At Wakeman's Tryal, those Persons who at for­mer Tryals had been treated with that respect that is due to the King's Evidence, and whose Cre­dit and Reputation had stood clear without excep­tion in all other Tryals, were now not only browbeaten, but their Evidence represented to the Jury, as doubtful, and not to be depended on, and so at all other Tryals of Papists from that time forward. By which many of the greatest Of­fenders were quitted and cleared as to the Plot, and those that were brought for defaming the King's Evidence, and suborning Witnesses, in order thereto, very kindly treated, and discharged with easie Sentences, especially if Papists; but if Protestants, though only for Printing or Ven­ding some Unlicensed Book, were imprison'd and largely fined. But I beg leave to particula­rise in the case of one Care, who was indicted for Printing a weekly Intelligence▪ called, The Packet of Advice from Rome, or, The History of Popery. This [Page 16] man had a strange knack of writing extraordi­nary well upon that Subject, and the Paper was by most Persons thought not only very ingenious, but also very useful at this time for the infor­mation of the people, because it laid open very intelligibly, the Errours and Cheats of that Church. However upon an Information given to the Court of Kings-Bench against this Care, this Rule was made,

I think it amounts to little less than a total prohibition of Printing any thing against Po­pery.

The true English Protestants being thus prevented of having Parliaments to redress their grievan­ces, and secure them against the fears of Popery, as also of Petitioning for Parliaments, or writing for the Protestant Religion, they had recourse to their old way of presenting Grievances by Juries. But advice being given that some great Papists were concern'd in the Presentment, parti­cularly the Duke of York, the Jury was dismist in an extrajudicial manner, and so no remedy in the world allowed for poor Protestants What an Unhappy Star were we born under, that things should be thus carried against us, in the whole course of our Government, whilst we have a wise Protestant King over us? What may not be expected under a Popish King, if it should be our misfortune to have any? And therefore [Page 17] I think, Sir, we ought to endeavour to prevent it, by consulting in the first place how to suppress Popery, and prevent a Popish Successor, which is my humble Motion.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, you have heard what an influence the Popish Party hath had in the management of all our Affairs of greatest importance, almost ever since his Majesties happy Restauration, how the making of Peace, or War, and foreign Alliances, hath been overruled by that Party, to the great danger of the Nation, and Protestant Religion both at home and abroad. Insomuch as it may be justly feared, that there is a general design to root out that Religion from the face of the Earth, which may not be difficult to be done, if by establishing Popery here, assistance to the Protestants abroad may be prevented, or by destroying the Protestants abroad (which are so many bulwarks to us) we should be left to resist alone. You have also heard how that Party hath influenced the Resolutions made touching Parliaments and Affairs here at home. The truth is, Sir, that Interest is crept into our Court, and hath a great power in our Councils, it is crept in­to our Courts of Justice, and hath a great Command in our Army, our Navy, our Forts, and our Castles, and into all places upon which our security de­pends. And it is impossible it should be other­wise, as long as we have a Popish Successor, and that party the hopes of a Popish King. And I hum­bly conceive, that it is very obvions, that as long as that Party hath such a power, not only our Religion, but the life of his Majesty and the whole Government is in danger. And therefore I [Page 18] think we cannot better comply with our duty to our King and Country, than in resolving to use our utmost endeavours to extirpate Popery, and prevent a Popish Successor, and therefore I would desire you would be pleased to put the Question.

The 27th of October. 1680.

Mr. Speaker,

SIR, yesterday you made a Resolve, Declaring what you intended to do in reference to Popery, by which you may conclude, you have made many enemies at Court, or of such as usually frequent it. And it may justly be expected, that they will rather use their endeavours to destroy you than permit you to destroy them. And if we may take our measures from the Power they have discovered, in the dissolution of the last Parliaments, and many Prorogations of this, in a time when there was never more need for the Sitting of Parliaments, because of the great danger that did arise from that party, we may conclude, it may be possible for them to do the like again. Therefore that we may not be wanting in doing what we can, in order to create in his Majesty a good Opi­nion of this House, let us make an humble Ad­dress to his Majesty, to assure him of our Loy­alty, [Page 19] and readiness to stand by him with our lives and fortunes. And that when his Maje­sty shall be pleased to grant us such Bills, as are absolutely necessary for the security of the Pro­testant Religion, we will be ready to supply him with what Money his occasions may require, for the support of his Government, and the Protestant Religion both at home and abroad.

Sir, I do not move this without some reason, I am jealous that those which are for the Popish Interest, do endeavour to represent this Parlia­ment to his Majesty Phanatical and Seditious, that we will do nothing but arraign his Government, wound his Ministers, destroy his Brother, and endanger his Royal Person, and that no sup­plies can be expected from us. Which false suggestions of that wicked Party, we may do well to prevent. And therefore, I humbly move you, that a Committee may be appointed to draw up some such. Address, upon the debate of the House.

Mr. Speaker,

I crave leave to mind you of a great Infringment which hath been made of the Liberty of the Subject, since the last Session of Parliament. Sir, many good Protestants thinking it very strange, that two Parliaments should be Dissolved, without doing any thing ma­terial against Popery, and a third so often Pro­rogued in a time of such imminent danger; and foreseeing the Ruine such delays might bring up­on them, Resolved to Petition his Majesty, and accordingly in several Counties and Corporati­ons, Petitions, humbly praying his Majesty to let the Parliament Sit, were drawn up, and Sign­ed by many Thousands of his Majesties good Subjects, in a peaceable and quiet way, and delivered to his Majesty by no greater number of Persons than is allowed. But although this was conformable to Law, and the duty of good Subjects, considering what danger his Majesties Person and the Protestant Religion was in, yet it was traduced to his Majesty as Seditious and Tumultuous, and forbidden by a Proclamation, and great affronts and discouragements given to such, as either promoted or delivered the said [Page 21] Petitions, and at last several Persons in many places were set up to declare at the Assizes, and other publick places, an Abhorrency and Dete­station of such Petitioning.

Sir, I humbly conceive the Subjects of England have an undoubted right to Petition his Maje­sty for the Sitting of Parliaments, and redressing of Griveances; and that considering the Cir­cumstances we are under, we have no reason to lose it. If it should be our unhappiness to have a Popish King, may he not be surrounded with Popish Councellors, so as that poor Prote­stant Subjects may be debarred of all other ways whatsoever of making known our Complaints to him, and must we lose this too? Sir, I think it so necessary, and material a Priviledge of the Subject, as that we ought without loss of time to assert our Rights to it, and therefore I hum­bly move you to make some Vote to that pur­pose.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am not only of opinion with that worthy Member that spoke last, as to mak­ing a Vote for asserting the Right of the Sub­ject to Petition their Prince, but also for cha­stising of those who have been so wicked and abominable, as to traduce it and abhor it. And to that purpose, I think, Sir, it will be conve­nient that we find out who advised or drew that Proclamation against it, and examin how a Pe­tition that was made in Berk-shire, was order'd to be taken off the File at a quarter Sessions, if wor­thy to be so called, there being but four Justi­ces of the Peace, and two of them such obscure Persons as I cannot get their Names. And al­so [Page 22] make some inspection into those Addresses that have been made against Petitioning, and by whom contrived, signed, or delivered. But this must be a work of time; for the present I humbly move you to pass one Vote to assert the right of the Subject to Petition the King, another of Censure on those persons that have traduced it, and to appoint a Commitee for your further proceeding herein.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am very glad these Votes have past so Unanimously, for Popery and Arbitrary Government, can never be set up in this Nation, if we could be sure of frequent Parliaments. And therefore the asserting of the Right of the Subject in any thing which tends to that, may be of great use to this Nation. But, Sir, seeing you have taken this business into your consi­deration, I think, we may do well to go a lit­tle [Page 23] further with it even at this time. I am in­formed some Members of the House are Guil­ty of having acted contrary to these Votes, and I am of opinion, that as they were not willing that we should sit here, so that we should be as willing not to have them sit amongst us. For if it were a great crime in others, much more in those that were chosen to assert the Rights and Liberties of the People. It is very unlikely, that Men of such Principles, should make good Parliament-Men, and I think it will very well consist with the Justice of the House to begin with a Reformation amongst our selves, and therefore I humbly move we may first proceed against such.

The Second of November.

SIR Francis Winnington made a Report of what was found in the Lords Journal rela­ting to the horrid Popish Plot.

Mr. Treby reports what by order of the se­cret Committee he reported to the last Parlia­ment, relating to the Popish Plot.

After some Debates thereupon,

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I have observed from the Reports that have been read, and all the Evidence that I have heard about the Popish Plot, that it hath its Original, as you have Voted, from James Duke of York, and it is not probable in my opini­on, that the Popish Interest can ever decline, as long as there is a Popish Successour, and they have such hopes of his coming to the Crown; and therefore I humbly intreat you that a Committee be appointed to draw up a Bill to disable James Duke of York, from Inheriting the Imperial Crown of this Realm.

Sir, If we consider the train of ill Con­sequences, that attend the having of a Popish Suc­cessour, and the certain miseries that must fall on this Nation, if ever we should have a Popish King; and how impossible the one, or improbable that the other can be prevented, but by disin­heriting the Duke of York: I think that as we [Page 25] cannot disagree, as to the sadness of our con­dition, so it will be hard to find out any other way to secure us; and therefore I second the motion that was made by that worthy Member, that a Comittee be appointed to bring in a Bill to disinherit James Duke of York.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I think we shall do ill to be meal­mouthed, when our throats are in such danger; therefore I will not be afraid to speak out, when speaking plain English is necessary to save our King and Country. Have we not heard, and is it not apparently true; that Peace, and War, Foreign Alliances, Meetings, Dissoluti­ons, and Prorogations of Parliaments, Tryals at Westminster-Hall, Resolutions in Council, and other things of importance, have been in­fluenced by a Popish Party, or Interest; and can we, Sir, imagin that these great things should be done by a less man, than James Duke of York? Hath not the examination of the Plot, in which the King's Life and all our safeties is so much concern'd, been kept off to admiration, and the Witnesses discouraged even to despair? Have not Counter-Plots been set up, and carried on with a strong hand, and false Witnesses in abun­dance to destroy the true ones? From what Cause can such strange unheard of Effects pro­ceed; but from the Power and influence of a Popish Successour? And we have no great rea­son to admire at it, if we consider how usual it is for Polititians, to be given to flattery, and to be led by ambition, and how natural it is for Courtiers and great Ministers of State to worship the rising Sun. And, Sir, is it not easie to [Page 26] foresee, what great miseries may come to this Kingdom by such kind of managements; can any man imagin, that as long as there is a Po­pish Successour, there will not be a Popish Interest, and that by his assistance it shall not be strong enough to contest with the Protestant Interest. Or rather have we not seen it for many years already; and how can it be otherways, as long as no Office small or great is disposed of without his approbation; no, not so much as preferment in our Protestant Church. And I think unless you can destroy that in which the Interest cen­ters, you will never destroy the Interest it self.

Sir, I have no ill will for the Duke's Person, but rather a great veneration as he is descended from our past, and as Brother to our present King. But I think it ought not to stand in competiti­on with my Duty to my King and Country; which can never be safe as long as this Interest is so predominate. And I think there is no o­ther way to suppress it, but by going to the roots first; and therefore I agree in the Motion that hath been made for appointing a Committee to bring in a Bill to disinherit James Duke of York.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I agree with those worthy Mem­bers, that have spoke to this present business, that Popery hath for a long time had a great Influence in the management of our Affairs; and that the Protestant Religion and Government of the Nation, is much in danger thereby. But I hope that the prudence of this House may find out some Expedient to secure the Nation, more likely to be brought to perfection, than this of the Exclusion Bill. We all know, that [Page 27] his Majesty in his Speech at the opening of the Session, and formerly hath declared, that he will consent to any thing you shall offer for the security of the Protestant Religion; pro­vided it consist with preserving the Succession in the due Legal course of Descent. As his Ma­jesty is Gracious to us, so I know, we are all willing to carry our selves with all respects and duty to him; he offers you to consent to all other ways you can propose, but seems re­solved not to consent to this way you are now upon. For my part, Sir, I am more afraid of an Army without a General, than of a Gene­ral without an Army; and therefore, I think, that if, instead of ordering a Committee to bring in a Bill for disinheriting of the Duke, you bring in a Bill for banishing all the Pa­pists out of this Nation, and other Bills for having of frequent Parliaments, and to se­cure good Judges, and Justices, that so the Laws you have already, as well as what more you may make, may be duly executed, it may do as well, and be more likely to have good success. And therefore I would humbly move you, that we may try these other ways, and not offer to put this hardship upon his Majesty, seeing he hath declared against this Bill, lest by dis­pleasing his Majesty, we should interrupt all o­ther Affairs, which at this time may be very unfortunate to this Nation, and our Neigh­bours too. The Eyes of Christendom are up­on the Success of this Meeting, and the Peace, Quietness, and Honour of the Nation much depends thereon; and therefore, if the going on with this Bill should occasion a Breach (which [Page 28] for several reasons I am much afraid of) it may prove one of the greatest misfortunes that could befall us. Sir, moderation in all things, will always become this House, but especially in a business of so high a Nature. The Duke hath not yet been either heard or found Guil­ty, how can we then answer the passing of so severe a Sentence; we ought to be very careful in a business of this Nature, that we do nothing but that we may be able to answer to the whole World. And therefore, Sir, I think that seeing his Majesty hath declared, that he will not agree with us in this Bill, and other Bills may be as effectu­al; I would humbly move you to think of some other way, and for that purpose to appoint a day to have it debated in a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I cannot agree with that worthy Member that spoke last, and yet I have for­merly given some proof that I have been for Moderation, and (God willing) shall always be for it, when it may do good. In the two last Parliaments I did so argue for moderation, that many of my Friends told me that I had deserted the true Interest of my King and Coun­try; but as the Loyalty which I pretend to de­rive from my Birth, made me slight such sur­mises, so it shall always preponderate with me in all my Actions. Sir, I am of opinion that this is a case, in which there is no room for moderation, if by moderation be meant the mak­ing of any other Law for the Security of our Religion. Because according to the best judg­ment I can make upon a full consideration of [Page 29] the matter, all other Bills that can be desired, without this Bill, will not prove effectual; but will leave us in that unhappy condition, of contest­ing with the influence of a Popish Successor during this King's life, and with the Power of a Popish King hereafter. Of what danger this may be to his Majesties Person at present, and ths Prote­stant Religion for the future, I leave to every one to judge. It hath been said, that take away the Army, and you need not fear the General; but I say, that a General that hath the Power of a King, will never want an Army. And our condition is so bad, that I am afraid we shall not be safe, without being free of the General and Army too; which I think, Sir, as the case stands, we ought in prudence to do, or else I am a­fraid, we shall give but a bad account to our Coun­try, of having done any thing to the purpose for the securing of our Religion. And therefore I am of opinion, you are under a necessity of having this Bill brought in.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I observe that the Arguments that have been offer'd against the bringing in of this Bill, are grounded on his Majesties Speech, and on a supposition that other Bills may be as suf­ficient for our security, and more facilly obtain­ed, seeing his Majesty hath so often declared that he will not consent to altering the Succes­sion from its Legal course of Descent. Sir, the King calleth his Parliament to give him advice, and they cannot therein be restrain'd, but may give any advice which they think may be ne­cessary for the security of his Person and Go­vernment. And it hath oftentimes hapned [Page 30] that Parliaments before now have many times offer'd such advice to the Kings of this Nation as have not been grateful to them at first, and yet after mature deliberation, hath been well re­sented, and found absolutely necessary. When Clif­ford, or who else it was, had persuaded his Majesty to grant a Toleration in 1672. and to tell the Parliament in his Speech then made to them, that he would stand by it, and make it good, yet that House of Commons finding it of dan­gerous Consequence, and humbly offering such their advice to his Majesty, he was pleased not­withstanding the said Speech, to cancel the said Toleration. And if he had not, (as we are in a bad case now) so we might have been in a worse then. For ought I know, if that House of Commons had been so great Courtiers, as not to have concerned themselves in that Tolera­tion because of his Majesties Speech, the Nation might have been ruin'd by Papists before this. And I think, we are now under as great danger, and I hope, we shall not be less coura­gious, nor true hearted. If a Man were sick of a Plurisie, and nothing could save his Life but Bleeding, would it not be strange if his Physi­cian, after having pretended that he is hearty for his cure, should allow him all other Reme­medies but Bleeding. Nothing like this can be presumed of his Majesty, of whose Wisdom and Goodness we have had so great Experience. And as to the second Branch of the Supposi­tion, that other Laws may secure us as well, I have not heard any Arguments offer'd to make it good, and I must confess, I cannot appre­hend there can be any. I am sure the Expe­rience [Page 31] of former times, shews us the contrary. It is plain from them, that Popish Princes have not thought themselves bound by any Laws against the interest of that Church, and our forefathers have found to their sorrow, that the Strength of our Laws were not sufficient to defend them against Popish Ty­rannies. For no Prince of that Religion, ever yet thought himself bound to keep faith with Hereticks. After Queen Mary had seriously Pledged her Royal Word to the Suffolk men, to allow them their Religion, by which they be­came the greatest instruments of putting the Crown on her head, did she not in return put the Crown of Martyrdom on theirs. All other Laws that you can propose in this Case must be ground­ed on some trust or fidelity that must be repo­sed in that party, for which no Argument can be given, but that they never kept any Faith with Hereticks, and therefore that we may do well to try what they will do. This I might prove by a sad melancholly account of the Massacres at Pied­mont, Paris, and Ireland, but I suppose the Histo­ry of them is well known to every one here, and therefore I will not trouble you there­with.

We are advised to be moderate, and I think we ought to be so, but I do not take moderati­on, to be a prudent Virtue in all cases that may happen. If I were fighting to save my Life, and the lives of my Wife and Children, should I do it moderately? If I were riding on a Road to save my Throat from Thieves, and I should be advised to ride, moderately lest I spoil'd my Horse, would not such advice seem strange at such a time? and so certainly would it be, if I [Page 32] were in a Ship (which may well be compared to a Common-wealth,) and it were sinking, would not the advice to pump moderately for fear of a Feaver seem strange? But, Sir, I admire, seeing moderation is so much talked of, of late, and so much recommended, Why there cannot be other Objects found out, on whom to place it, as well as on the Papists. I know not why it should not be as agreeable to Christian Charity, and more for the Protestant Interest at this time, because it may tend to Ʋnion, to place it on the Protestant Dissenters, seeing we agree with most of them in points of Faith, and only differ about a few Cere­monies. The moderatest and meekest man that ever was, seeing an Egyptian strugling with an Israelite, he Slew the Egyptian, but at another time seeing an Israelite strugling with an Israelite, it is recorded in holy Writ, he parted them, say­ing they were Brethren. Of late many are at work to perswade us, that the Church hath no Weapons but prayers and tears, this is a notion come up amongst us since the breaking up of the Plot, and as far as I can observe, is only to hold good a­gainst Popery, for against Protestant Dissenters we have always had and can still find other Weapons. Sir, I will not trouble you farther, but conclude with my Motion for bringing in of the Bill.

H. made a Speech reflecting on the Duke and Lord Clarendon for making up the Match for the King, as if they did it because they foresaw that the Queen would have no Children, and particularly on the Duke for the loss of my Lord Sandwich, for clear­ing of persons taken in the fire of London, the death of Sir Edmondbury Godfry, &c.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am sorry to see a matter of so great importance, managed in this House with so much bitterness on the one hand, and with so much jesting and mirth on the other; I think it a serious thing we are about, and that more Gravity would very well become not only this House, but the Subject of the Debate also. It is to me very unpleasant to hear a Prince that hath so well deserved of this Nation, by Fighting our Battels, and so often appearing for us in War, so upbraided. I am apt to think he was far from being of opinion the Queen would have no Children, and that he scorned any of those other Actions that have been laid to his Charge, and therefore to hear such things said is a great provocation. But being I know where I am, I will lay my Hand upon my Mouth. But I hope you will pardon me, if to comply with the obligation of Nature, I declare my self much concern'd to see the ashes of my dear Father thus raked out of the Dust, and to hear his Me­mory blasted by an Affirmation which cannot be proved. Because I am confident he was not Guil­ty. He and his Family suffer'd enough by his mis­fortunes, occasion'd by dark Interests and In­trigues of State. Many think he was severely chastised while living; I am sorry to see that some others cannot spare him though dead. But for my comfort, I have heard that he was a good Protestant, a good Chancellor, and that we have had worse Ministers of State since. But I will not trouble you further, but apply my self to the Business under Debate. Sir, I am of opinion that the bringing in of this Bill will be [Page 34] a great hindrance to the business of the Nation, and not attain your end. And also I am con­cern'd for the Justice of the House, for though the Duke deserve great mortifications, because he hath given so great a suspition of his being inclined to that Religion, and I believe doth not expect to come now to the Crown, on such Terms as formerly, but with such limitations as may secure the Protestant Religion; yet I think it very hard for this House, to offer at so great a Condemnation without hearing the Person concern'd, or having had any preceeding Process. For my own part, I make it a great question, whether it would be binding to him, or a great many other Loyal Persons of this Nation, and if not, it may occasion hereafter a Civil War. And without any just fear, or cause; for the King may very well out-live the Duke, and then all that we are about, would be unnecessary; and why should we, to prevent that which may never happen, attempt to do that, which we can never answer, either to our King or Country. I cannot apprehend that our case is so desperate, but that we may secure our selves some other way, without overturning Foundations. I cannot fear a General without an Army. By ridding our selves of all other Papists we may be safe, making such other Laws to bind the Duke as may be necessary by the Name of James Duke of York; which, & the small Revenues which belong to the Crown, with­out the assistance of Parliaments, with such other Laws as may be contrived, I humbly conceive may be sufficient for our security, and there­fore it ought to be considered in a Committee [Page 35] of the whole House, that such as are for these Expedients, may have more freedom of debate.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I must beg your leave to speak a­gain, according to the orders of the House, be­ing effected on. I can assure you, Sir, that what I have said upon this Subject, is so far from proceeding from a merry jolly humour, that it is rather from as great sorrow as ever my heart endured, being very sensible what dangers we have undergone, and what miseries we may here­after suffer by means of the Duke's being of this Religion. I hope, Sir, that offences that proceed from Natural Infirmities, will always find a favourable construction in this House. If that Honouable Member that spoke last, had but considered that all men have not that good fortune to be born with such a grave, majestick, sober aspect, as that, let them say what they will, it looks serious and weighty, he would not have been offended at my Discourse; but, Sir, for the satisfaction of the House that I am not in jest in this Business, I do declare that I should be very sorry to be thus jested with my self.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, the question that ariseth from this Debate, is whether we had best proceed by an Extremity, or by Expedients. For I look on this Bill to be of the highest Nature that ever was proposed in a House of Commons, and the greatest Extremity imaginable, which I humbly conceive we ought not proceed to, un­til we have made some Tryal of Expedients, which will be very useful. For it will give a [Page 36] great satisfaction, not only to his Majesty but to all other Persons in general that are against this Bill, by which the World will see that we were very cautious, how we offer'd at such an ex­tremity, and that we did not do it until we had found all other ways and means whatsoever in­sufficient. I must confess, Sir, I think such a Bill would be against Law and Conscience, and that nothing less than an Army will be necessary to support it, and therefore I humbly move you, that we may debate this business in a Commit­tee.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I admire to hear that Honourable Member make a doubt as to the Legallity of this Bill; certainly, Sir, our Legislative Power is un­bounded, and we may offer to the Lords and so to his Majesty, what Bills we think good. And it can as little be doubted, that the Legislative Power of the Nation, King, Lords, and Com­mons, should Want a Law to make Laws; or that any Laws should be against what Laws they make. Otherways they cannot be Legally opposed. And as I think it cannot be against Law, so neither against Conscience, unless it could be made out that we ought in Conscience to bring in Popery. I should be very glad to hear any arguments to make good what hath been offer'd about Ex­pedients, but I am afraid when they come to be examin'd to the bottom, they will be found ve­ry insufficient, and that we may as well think of catching a Lyon with a Mouse-trap, as to secure our selves against Popery by any Laws without the Exclusion Bill. Have we not to do with a sort of people, that cannot be bound by any Law [Page 37] or Contract whatsoever? much less can their words or promises be depended on; are they not under all the Obligations that can be offer'd from the Temptations of this life, as of that to come, not to keep Faith with Hereticks, but to break it when it may tend to the promo­ting of the Catholick Cause? And if Laws cannot bind other Persons, much less will it Princes that are of the Catholick Religion? Did they ever keep any League or Contract that was made with Protestants, longer than was necessary in order to cut their Throats? What use did the Papists make in Ireland of the Favours granted them by King Charles the First, did they not make use of it to the Destructi­on of the Protestants, by rising up in Rebel­lion and Massacring 100000. Sir, I see things go hard against Popery, I know not what to say to it, but I am afraid that if we should be so infatuated, as to let it creep on more and more upon us, and at last let it ascend the Throne again, that we shall soon have the same mise­rable fortune our forefathers had in Queen Mary's Days; and be burnt in Smith-field for our indis­cretion.

Sir, we are upon a business of as great impor­tance as ever was debated within these Walls, for either we must suppress Popery, or be sup­prest by it. For although that Interest do not look so big, as that of the Protestants, yet I plainly see that it hath wrought like a Mole under ground for a long time, and that it hath eaten into our Bowels, and will soon come to the vital Parts of the Protestant Religion, and dostroy it too, if great care be not taken, [Page 38] and that speedily. I hear some say, that our cares are needless at this time, because the King may out-live the Duke, which is as much as to say, there is no need of Laws against Popery, until we see whether we shall have occasion to make use of them or no. But they do not tell us, how we should be sure then to obtain them. I must confess, such arguments are so far from weighing with me, as that they increase my fears, because it discovers a strange easie, careless, in­different humour amongst us Protestants. Must our Lives, Liberties, and Religion depend upon may-bees? I hope it is not come to that yet, I am sure, it will not consist with the Prudence of this Assembly to leave it so, but rather to endeavour to settle this matter upon such a Foundation, as may (with as much probability as humane things are capable of) secure us. I am of opinion that such an Engine may be con­trived as should give such a whirle to the Po­pish Interest, as that it should never rise up a­gainst us again, I know of no diffiiculty but the same which hapned to Archimedes, where to fix it. And I am not altogether at a loss for that neither, for so long as we have a good King, I will not despair. And, Sir, I cannot fear any of those things that are objected against this Bill, that it is against Law, and therefore will occa­sion a Civil War; for my part, I will never fear a Civil War in favour of Idolatry, especially when we have gotten a Law on our side to defend our Reli­gion. Therefore I move you that the Bill may be brought in.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I have read in Scripture of one man [Page 39] dying for a Nation, but never of three▪ Nations dying for one man; which is like to be our case. There hath been already so much said on this matter, and the reasons that have been given for the bringing in of the Bill are so plain, that I should not have troubled you to have said any thing about it, but that I knew not how to have answered it to that great City for which I serve, not to have appeared in this business, in which the Protestant Religion is so much concern'd. But, Sir, being I am up, I will beg leave to ac­quaint you, that I have been lately in company with a great many Persons, where I have heard the Duke cryed up, and the King so slighted, that I must confess they made me afraid, they had thoughts of acting over here what was lately done in Portugal. Believe it, Sir, many are ve­ry industrious to make an Interest for the Duke; if we should not use our endeavours to keep up the King's Interest, and that of the Prote­stant Religion, I am afraid they will be in­couraged to embroile us in blood before we are aware of it. I have no patience to think of sit­ting still, while my Throat is a cutting, and therefore I pray, Sir, let us endeavour to have Laws that may enable us to defend our selves. And I know not, how we can have any that are like to prove effectual, without this for exclu­ding James Duke of York; and therefore I humb­ly move it may be brought in.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I have by many years experience observed, that it is very agreeable to the Cu­stom, Prudence, and Justice of this House, to debate all things very well before a queston is [Page 40] put, but especially of great importance. It hath formerly been thought a great thing, and hard to be born by some Princes, that any thing re­lating to the Prerogative of the Crown, should be debated any where but in their Privy Coun­cil, and I have observed that former Parlia­ments have done it with a great deal of tender­ness. And if so, well may a Bill that tends to the alteration of the Succession pretend to the right of having a full and fair Debate, which I hope, this Solemn Assembly will not deny▪ Many being to take their Resolutions from it in as great a point as ever was debated in a House of Commons, for which we shall be answerable to our own Consciences, as well as to our King and Country. It is these great Considerations make me trouble you at this time, otherwise I might happily have been silent, because I am one of those that have been shot at by Wind-Guns, which have prejudiced my Reputation, and therefore until I should have had an opportuni­ty to vindicate my self, and to shew that I am an Enemy both to Popery and Arbitrary Govern­ment; I was more inclined to have been silent, and should not have troubled you, if the Na­ture of this Business had not laid on me a more than ordinary Compulsion. I do not doubt but every one that Sits here, is willing to take no­tice of what Arguments may be offer'd pro or con, it being the only way to pass a Right Judgment in this matter, which is very neces­sary, because what Resolution you may take upon this Debate, will be examin'd not only within his Majesties Dominions, but by most Prin­ces and Polititians in Europe. And therefore [Page 41] that you ground your Resolution on such solid Reason, that may endure the Test of a Plenary Examination, will be very necessary for the se­curing the Credit of this House, of which I know you are very tender.

Sir, I must confess I am very much against the bringing in of this Bill, for I think it a very un­fortunate thing, that whereas his Majesty hath prohibited but one thing only, that we should so soon fall upon it. I do not see there is any cause, why we should fear Popery so much, as to make us run into such an extream. We are assured there can be no danger during his Ma­jesties Life, so upon an impartial examina­tion, we shall find there can be no great reason to fear it after his Death, though the Duke should out-live and succeed him, and be of that Religion. Have we not had great expe­rience of his love for this Nation, hath he not always squared his actions by the exactest rules of Justice and Moderation? Is there not a possibility of being of the Church, and not of the Court of Rome? hath he not bred up his Children in the Protestant Religion; and shew­ed a great respect for all Persons of that pro­fession? would it not be a dangerous thing for him (I mean in point of Interest) to offer at any such alteration of the Religion establisht by Law? can any Man imagin that it can be at­tempted without great hazard of utterly de­stroying both himself and his Family? And can so indiscreet an attempt be expected from a Prince, so abounding in Prudence and Wisdom? But though we should resolve to have no mode­ration in our proceedings against Papists, yet [Page 42] I hope we shall have some for our selves. It cannot be imagined that such a Law will bind all here in England, any in Scotland, and it is disputed whether it will be binding in Ireland, so that in probability it will not only divide us a­mongst our selves, but the three Kingdoms one from the other, and occasion a miserable Civil War. For it cannot be imagined, that the Duke will submit to it. And to disinherit him for his Religion, is not only to act accor­ding to the Popish Principles, but to give cause for a War with all the Catholick Princes in Europe; and that must occasion a standing Ar­my, from whom there will be more danger of Popery and Arbitrary Government, than from a Popish Successor, or a Popish King. Sir, it is very agreeable to the weight of the Matter and the usual proceedings of this House, that this business should be fully debated, and therefore I humbly move you it may be in a Committee.

Sir R. G. made a long Discourse, shewing the Dangers and Miseries of a Civil War, by a large account of those between York and Lancaster. That this Bill if it should pass would lay a foun­dation for such another. That it would not be binding either to Scotland or Ireland, and so consequently occasion a Division between the three Kingdoms, which had formerly been the occasion of Wars and Miseries, as well as our own Divisions amongst our selves. Then gave an Historical account, to make out how fatal Divisions had proved to other Nations, and in­stanced in Theodosius, and others. That he thought it absolutely necessary, if this Bill must be [Page 43] brought in, to prevent a Civil War, that the Successour should be named, which would need a great deal of consideration; and if to debate business of smaller importance, it is usual for the House to resolve it self into a Committee, how could it be answered that it should not be done in a business of so great importance, that so Expe­dients might be offered and debated with more freedom and satisfaction than it was possible they could be in the House.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am of opinion that Expedi­ents in Politicks are like Mountebank-tricks in Phy­sick; as the one does seldom good to Bodies Natural, so not the other to Bodies Politick. Government is a weighty thing, and cannot be supported nor preserved but by such Pillars as have neither flaws nor cracks, and placed on a sure Foundation. And I am afraid that all Ex­pedients will be found to have far different Qualifications. I cannot foresee how the ex­cluding of one Person who hath a right to the Succession depending upon Contingencies, upon such an account as this is, should occasion a Civil War, but rather do think there is a great deal more danger, not only of a Civil War, but of our Religion and Liberty too, if we should not do it, and so have a Popish King. For I do believe that such a King would soon have a Popish Council. For if there be eleven to seven now for the interest of a Popish Successour, what may you not expect when you have a Popish King? And should you not then soon have Popish Judges, Justices, Deputy-Lieutenants, Commanders at Sea and Land, nay, and Popish Bishops too. For [Page 44] if there be none put into any of these places now, that are for acting against a Popish Successour, well may we expect that none shall be put in then, but what are for a Popish King. And therefore I am astonisht to hear any Man that pretends to be a Protestant, argue, that in such a Case we need not fear Popery; for it is indeed to argue for Popery, and must proceed from an opinion that the Protestant Interest is very low, and not able to bear up longer against Popery, or else that Protestants are very credulous and inconsiderate, and may be brought to destroy themselves with their own hands. Must our Religion and Liber­ty have no Security but what depends on the Vertues and goodness of a Prince, who will be in subjection to the Pope, and probably influenced by none but Jesuits and such Creatures? will it seem strange that such a Prince should compose his Privy Council of Persons inclined to that Religion, or that he should employ any others as Judges, Justices, Sheriffs, or Commanders in any place of Trust either at Land or Sea? And can we think that by the many endeavours which will be used, that the Common People will not be debauched, and either be misled, or made indifferent in a little while? Is it not in the power of the King to nominate his Counsellors, Judges, Sheriffs, Commanders at Sea and Land, and can it be imagined that he will not take care to nominate such as shall be for his turn? Cer­tainly, Sir, no man can imagin that the Prote­stant Religion can long be preserved under such a King, but such as cannot or will not see at a distance what a change such a Scheme of Go­vernment will soon produce, and how likely it [Page 45] is that it will be set up and practised, if ever we should have a Popish King. And as I do think that our Religion can never be secured without this Bill, so I do not fear that it will occasion any Civil War, or any Division between this King­dom, Scotland or Ireland; but rather I believe it will be a means to reconcile the Protestant In­terest, and to settle the Government upon such a Bottom as will prove invincible. In Scotland the major part of the People hate Popery as well as we, and so do the Protestants in Ireland; and therefore certainly it will be their Interest to join with us against a Common Enemy, and not to divide. And whereas it hath been suggested, that this Bill will ingage us in a War against all Catholick Princes, I look upon it as a Bugbear, and do believe that we shall gain many Friends by being setled as we may by having this Bill, be­cause then we may be formidable to our Enemies, and serviceable to our Allyes, but never without it. And, Sir, this is not to disinherit a man for his Re­ligion, but because he hath rendred himself unca­pable to govern us, according to our Laws, which whether it proceed from his Religion, or any thing else, is all one to us. His being uncapable is the ground for our Proceedings, having no other way to preserve our selves. Upon the whole matter I do conclude, that a Popish King and a Protestant Religion are irreconcileable, and have no reason to fear a Civil War, so long as we have a Law for our defence, and a Protestant King to head us, which we cannot expect with­out passing some such Bill as this under debate. And therefore I humbly move you it may be brought in.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the business you are deba­ting is of so high a nature, that I cannot tell how to speak to it without fear and trembling. To go about to alter the Succession of the Crown, must be of great concernment to all English men, and therefore ought to be considered with a great deal of deliberation, for which the Justice, Prudence, and Usage of this House calls a­loud, there never having been any business de­bated in this House, in which so much care was required. Sir, I am unsatisfied with my self, how we can in Justice pass any such Bill as is proposed. For I never heard of any Law, which made an Opinion in Religion a Cause to be dis­possest of right; in former times it was not so, though there were Princes and Emperors that were Apostates. And Queen Elizabeth would not allow of putting any such thing in practice, but rather chose to proceed against Mary Queen of Scots according to the settled Laws of the Na­tion. This Nation hath been so unfortunate as to cut off one King already, let us have a care how we cut off the right of another There is a possibility that the Duke may return to the Protestant Religion, let us not exclude him from such temptations as may be convenient to reduce him. But whatever should be your resolution at last, I humbly conceive there can be no reason given, why a business of this weight should not be debated in a Committee, before you Vote the bringing in of the Bill, that so the Validity of such other Expedients as may be proposed, may be examin'd, and the reasons for and against this Bill be digested as they ought to be. How shall we otherwise answer it to his Majesty, who hath [Page 47] offered you every thing but this? If there were a motion made for a Bill to give Money, would it not probably be debated in a Committee; by this Bill we are going to give away the right of a Crown, which I take to be more than Money, and therefore I humbly move you that it may be further debated in a Committee.

Mr. Speaker,

Have not the Papists always proceeded against the Protestants with a barbarity sur­mounting the worst of Heathens, and must we be so mighty careful how we proceed to hin­der them from ruling over us, as that we must stumble at every Straw, and be afraid of every Bush. A man that is in a House that is on Fire, will leap out at a Window rather than be burnt. I do admire how any person, that doth know with what Treachery and Inhumanity the Papists behaved themselves in the Massacres of Piedmont, Paris, and Ireland, their Cruelties in Queen Marys days, lately on Sir Edmondbury Godfrey, and what they had designed against the King, and all of us, can offer any thing to delay, much more to hinder, what is so precisely ne­cessary for the good of the King and Kingdom; especially seeing in this we shall do nothing, but what may be justified by many Laws and Presi­dents: And if there were none, of which I know there are a great many that are liable to no objection, yet I take it, That the Law of Na­ture, and self▪preservation would afford us sufficient Arguments. I think the Sun is not more visible at noon-day, than that the Papists have a design to extirpate our Religion, and that they have done great things in order thereto, even now [Page 48] while we live under the Government of a Pro­testant King, by some invisible Power that hath strangely acted its part in favour of that Inte­rest, in all our Councils and Resolutions in Af­fairs of greatest Importance; and it is as plain that this is so, because there is a Popish Successor, and that their Interest will never decline as long as there is such a Successor, and the hopes of a Popish King. And now that by the watchful Providence of God, these things have been made so plain to us, is it not strange that any Man should go about to perswade us to be so neglect­ful and inconsiderate, as to sit still and look on, while the Papists are putting their Chains about our Arms, and Ropes about our Necks, which must be the consequence of permitting a Popish King to ascend the Throne, against which there can be no Law to secure us but this. In Edward the Sixth, and Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth's days, was not the Religion of the Prince the Religion of the Nation? did not most of the Pri­vy Counsellors and great Ministers of State, and some Bishops too, change with the times? Is it not customary for great Men to insinuate and flat­ter their Princes, by being of their Religion? On what must we ground our hopes of Securi­ty, in such a Case? On nothing, Sir, but on a Civil War, which such a Prince must certainly occasion. But I do not fear it from this Bill, but rather think it the only way to prevent it, not doubting but that there will be People enough that will give obedience to it, sufficient to execute the Law on such as may be refractory, if any, which can only be Papists and such as may be Popishly af­fected. The objections as to a Civil War, and [Page 49] disobedience to this Law, may as well be made against any other severe Law that we may at­tempt to make against Papists; and must we there­fore let them all alone? I hope we shall not be so inconsiderate, but as we have discovered that their Weapons are near our Throats, so that we shall not acquiesce in any thing less than what may secure us, that so if possible, we may not fall into the hands of such a bloody merciless peo­ple, which must infallibly be the consequence of having a Popish King.

And, Sir, as we have much to say for the ha­ving of this Bill, so for not having our time lost by going into a Committee at this time about it. When the Bill is brought in, there will be time enough to hear of other Expedients, if any Member will then offer any, of which they will now have time to consider, that so they may be offered particularly, and not only in general. For it doth not consist with the gravity of the House, that they should be put out of their Method they are most inclined to, without good cause. I am afraid there can be no Expedients offered in this case, that can be sufficient, unless such as may shake the Throne as to all future Kings. And I hope we shall be cautious how we enter into any such Debate; for if you should, you may be sure your Enemies will take advantage there­of. And therefore I am rather for the Bill.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, have not Popish Kings, as well in other Countries as here, always brought in a Popish Religion? and have we any reason to suppose the like will not happen here, if ever we should have a King of that Religion? Have [Page 50] we not undeniable proof, that the great thing de­signed, by endeavouring at a Popish King, is the rooting out of Heresie out of these three Nations and is not Rome and France ingaged to give their assistance therein, as well as great parties at home, not only of profest Papists, but of some who profess themselves Protestants, but are so but in Masquerade? And do they not say that they have so clenched and rivetted their Interest, as that God nor Man cannot prevent their accom­plishing their design? And shall we be so indis­creet as to let it creep on thus upon us, and not endeavourte remedy our selves? Let it be never said of this House of Commons, that they were so stupified or negligent of their duty to their Country, or so indifferent in their Religion, or Preservation of their Liberties, as to forget so great a concern. If when we have done what we can, we should be conquer'd by force, or decei­ved by such little arts and tricks as may be used, a patient Submission to Gods Providence must follow. But to be the occasion of our own destruction, by being supine and inconsi­derate, will never be answered to Posterity.

The 6th. of November, 1680.

A Bill to disable James Duke of York to In­herit the Imperial Crown of England and Ireland, was read a second time.

Sir R. T. Made several objections against the Tenour of the Bill, as not answering the in­tention of the House, shewing how, (if not al­tered) it would occasion an interregnum, and that the Clause for limitting the Exclusion to the Person of the Duke only, was not well drawn.

Mr. Speaker,

In my humble opinion, the Body and whole Tenour of this Bill carrieth with it a great reflection on the whole English Nation. For to suppose that one person is able to turn us about to Popery, is to suppose that we are either very imprudent, or irresolute, or that we have no great love, but are rather very indifferent in our Religion. And if we may thus disin­herit the presumptive Heir, not only the Royal [Page 57] Family, but the whole Nation, will be subject by such a president to many inconveniences. For by the same reasons the like may be done hereafter upon any other pretence. For, Sir, though we know that this House is composed of Persons that have a great veneration for the Royal Family, yet we know not what may happen hereafter; but if some such Bill as this must pass, I humbly conceive there is a great necessity of naming a Successor, and not leave that in dispute, least an interregnum or Civil War happen thereupon.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, because I am of opinion that no­thing can at this time be so prejudicial to the Protestant Interest, as to be at a stand, or go backward with this Bill, therefore I should be sorry to see that we should enter upon any De­bate of clogging it with any thing that may oc­casion any delay. There may be more difficul­ty in agreeing about the Proviso's and Decla­rations that will be necessary in naming a Suc­cessour, than to agree about the Bill it self. And we cannot make the Law plainer than it is in that case. We intend by this Bill nothing but an Exclusion of James Duke of York, as the only expedient that can help us in the Exigency the Nation lies under, and it being intended on­ly as an Expedient in reference to him only, and that the Bill shall have nothing in it that can re­late to or prejudice the next of Kin, I do not see how there ariseth from that any difficulty more than there was before as to the Succession. And therefore, Sir, let us not confound the Bill with needless Additions. I confess, Sir, I [Page 58] am one of those that am in pain until this Bill be past. For the King hath his Breath in his no­strils as well as other men, and although we have all much reason to pray for his long life▪ so to fear it too: And nothing can tend so much to the securing of his life, as the passing of this Bill; nor outs after his. For how shall we be able to defend our selves against Popery without it? Therefore I humbly move you that we may not spend our time about any such Ad­ditions, but commit the Bill.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I have already given you many Reasons against the Bill it self, but more do of­fer from the wording of it; the Excluding the Duke will not give a Right to the next Heir to take possession of the Crown while the Duke is living, and therefore unless you name a Succes­sour, it will either prove ineffectual, or cause a great disturbance in the Nation by an Inter­regnum. And, Sir, as this part of the Bill is too weak, so the other is too strong: For as it is now penn'd, it may probably Exclude all the Duke's Children, at leastwise leave it so, as that it may prove a great Question, which I suppose you do not intend. Then he stated several Ca­ses in Law, to prove what he had said; and concluded that it was in order to have it further considered at a Committee.

Mr. Speaker.

Sir, I do not see how you can name a Suc­cessour, unless you can in the same Act prohibit the Queen from having of Children, the King from marrying again, the Duke from having of Sons, which would not be more preposte­rous, [Page 59] than the many Proviso's which otherwise the Act would require to secure such Issue their Right, which wouid probably make the Reme­dy worse than the Disease. And I think, Sir, that in a case of this importance you will be care­ful how you make Laws that shall be liable to so many difficulties and disputes. And therefore you had better rely on the old Laws you have, than make new ones to perplex the Case. And I do not see how the excluding of the Duke only, can any way infect the Right which his Children may have to the Succession. And therefore I think there is no need of naming a Successour, but let the Bill be committed, and to a Commit­tee of the whole House, and there it may be fur­ther debated if necessary.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I tremble to to hear so much dis­course about the King's death, and naming him a Successour, certainly the like was never known in any former Age, but rather it was looked on as so dangerous a thing to be discoursed of, as that none durst attempt it, whatever the oc­casion were. Queen Elizabeth concluded, that the naming of a Successour to the Crown, would be digging of a Grave for her; and therefore I hope we shall never go so far as to put it into an Act. I am for shewing a great respect for the Duke and his Children, but I think we are first bound in Duty to the King, and therefore ought first to shew our Respects to him. Some persons, in my poor opinion, have shewed so much zeal for the Duke's Interest, that I am afraid they have forgot their Allegiance to the King. Can he ever be safe, as long as it is the interest of eve­ry [Page 60] Papist in England to kill him? which it will be, as long as there is hopes of a Papist to suc­ceed to the Throne. And therefore I think we cannot answer the permitting of any delay in an Affair of so great importance, and I hum­bly move you that the Bill may be committed, and that all may have Liberty to be concerned therein, in a Committee of the whole House.

The 8th of November.

THE House then resolved into a Commit­tee of the whole House, to proceed in the Consideration of the Bill, to disable James Duke of York to inherit the Imperial Crowns of England and Ireland, and the Dominions and Territories thereto belonging; and after many Debates about several Amendments, and Clau­ses to be added, the Bill was agreed, and re­ported to the House.

The Ninth of November, 1680.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, this Petition branches it self first against the Bill that is here afoot, for wearing of Woolen; secondly, against the Importation of Foreign Silks from France; and thirdly, against the East-India Company. As to the two first Particulars, I shall desire leave to speak my mind, when the Business comes to be debated in the Committee to which you may think good to re­fer it: but as to the third Branch, against the East-India Company, I desire to be heard a little at this time: For, Sir, it will be in vain for you to spend your time in endeavouring to raise the price of Wool, or to advantage the Trade of the Nation any way, unless you do in the first place make some Regulation for the East-India Trade. For not only the Silk Weavers, but most of the other Trades of this Nation, are prejudiced by the Consumption of Goods manufactured in the East-India, and brought hither: For a great ma­ny of them are not only spent here instead of our own Manufacturies, but abroad in other Parts to which we send them. They do us the same prejudice, which must in the end be the de­struction of our Manufactury Trade both at home and abroad, if not looked after; and the more likely, because the People in the India are [Page 62] such Slaves as to work for less than a Penny a day, whereas ours here will not work under a Shil­ling: and they have all Materials also very rea­sonable, and are thereby enabled to make their Goods so cheap, as it will be impossible for our People here to contend with them. And there­fore, because the said Trade hath abundantly in­creased of late years, that we may not enrich the Indians, and impoverish our own People, I hum­bly move you that this Petition may be referred to some Committee that may take particular care of it.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, The Navigation to the East-India being by the Industry of long Experience of our Sea-men rendred as safe and secure as to any Country adjacent, and the Trade increased to a great proportion, by such a dangerous way as the Exportation of our Bullion, and Importation of abundance of Manufactured Goods, and su­perfluous Commodities, and carried on by a few Men Incorporated, who have made it their Busi­ness, by all ways immaginable, to secure the Ad­vantages thereof to themselves and their Poste­rities, not permitting the People in general to come in for any share; I humbly conceive it may not be unseasonable to give you a short Scheme of that Trade, and to make some Remarks as well on the Trade, as present Management there­of; it being setled in a Company, by vertue of a Charter granted 1657. and confirm'd by His Majesty soon after His Restauration.

Sir, It is well known what Advantage re­dounds to this Nation by the Consumption of our Manufactures abroad and at home, and how [Page 63] our Forefathers have always discouraged such Trades as tended to the hinderance thereof. By the best Computation that can be made, we now spend in this Kingdom per Annum to the Value of 2 to 300000 l. worth of Goods manufactu­red in the East-India: What part thereof are spent instead of our Stuff, Serges, Cheyneys, and other Goods, I leave to every Mans Judgment, that hath observed how their Persian Silks, Ben­galls, Printed and Painted Callicoes, and other sorts, are used for Beds, Hanging of Rooms, and Vestments of all sorts. And these Goods from the India do not only hinder the Expence of our Wollen Goods, by serving instead of them here, but also by hindring the Consumption of them in other Parts too, to which we export them, and by obstructing the Expence of Linen and Silks, which we formerly purchased from our Neighbour-Nations in return of our Manu­factures. For when that mutual Conveniency of taking of their Goods in return of ours failed, it is found by experience that our Trade in our Manufactures is failed also: And, Sir, this is not only at present a great but a growing hinde­rance to the Expence of our Woollen Goods; for, as it hath been observed to you, being the Indians do work for less than a Peny a day, and are not without Materials at cheap Rates, we may rather tremble to think, than easily calcu­late, what this Trade may in time amount to; and may conclude, That it must certainly end in employing and enriching the People in the India, and impoverishing of our own.

But, Sir, this is not all: This Trade is car­ried on by the Exportation of 5 or 600000 l. per [Page 64] Annum in Bullion, which is so useful a Commo­dity, as ought not to be exported in so great a Quantity, especially seeing the Exportation thereof for this Trade hath increased in some years from 200000 l. per Annum to 600000 l. per Annum: For it may increase to Millions, to the discouragement of the exportation of the Pro­ducts of our Country, upon which the Mainte­nance of our Poor, and Rent of Land depends. Whereas by the exportation of so much Bul­lion, no immediate Advantage redounds to the Nation: and though it is usually affirm'd, That the Trade brings back to the Nation as much Money as it exports, yet upon an inquiry it will be found a mistake. And I think every Nation, but especially this, (which is so well stored with other Commodities for Trade) ought to be ve­ry jealous of a Trade carried on by the Expor­tation of their Gold and Silver, and to be very careful how to allow it, it being dangerous to make that, which is the Standard of Trade, Merchandise it self.

And as these Objections arise against the Trade it self, so there are others against the present management, of which the People do complain as a great Grievance; and I humbly conceive, not without good cause. For the equal distribution of Liberties and Priviledges among the People, which is one of the Excel­lencies of the Government, is by this Company highly infringed, a very few of the People be­ing permitted to have any share in this Trade, though it be now increased to near one quarter-part of the Trade of the Nation; the Company finding it more for their particular advantage [Page 65] to take up from 6 to 700000 l. on a Common Seal, to carry on their Trade, than to enlarge their Stock; there by reaping to themselves not onely the Gains which they make on their own Money, but of the Treasure of the Nation, al­lowing to them that lend, 4 or 5 per Cent. and dividing amongst themselves what they please, which now within these last. 12 or 15 Months hath been 90 per Cent. And upon an exact in­quiry it will be found, that this Stock is so in­grossed, that about ten or twelve Men have the absolute management, and that about forty di­vide the major part of the Gains, which this last year hath been to some one Man 20, to others 10000. l. a piece. So that here is the certain ef­fect of a Monopoly, to enrich some few, and impoverish many.

It's true, there is such a thing as buying and selling of some small Shares in the Stock some­times, if any Man will give 300 l. in Money for 100. l. Stock; but this amounts to no more than the exchanging the interest of John Doe for Tho. Rowe, and can be no ways serviceable to bring [...]n more Stock or People into the Trade, and therefore not to satisfie the Complaint of the Nation.

Sir, That you may the better apprehend how unreasonable it is that this Great Trade should be thus confin'd to the advantage of so few Per­sons, exclusive to all others, under the Penalty of Mulcts, Fines, Seisures, and other extraordi­nary Proceedings, I beseech you, Sir, to cast your thoughts on this great Body here by you, and the rest of the Corporations of this Nation, who most live by Trade, and consider how many thou­sands, [Page 66] if not Millions, there are, whose Lot Pro­vidence hath cast on Trade for their Liveli­hoods; and then, I am apt to believe, it will ap­pear very strange that so great a Trade should be so limited. If three such Charters more should be granted, what should the major part of the People do for Maintenance? Sir, the Birth-right of every Englishman is always tenderly conside­red in this Place: By this Company the Birth-right of many thousands is prejudiced, and may well deserve a serious consideration; and there­fore, and because this Company, by having the command of the Treasure of the Nation, cannot be controlled by any less Power than that of a House of Commons, this Business comes, as I humbly conceive, naturally before you.

But, Sir, there is one thing more in the Ma­nagement of this Trade worthy your Considera­tion; The great danger which may result, as well to Private Persons as to the Publick, by taking up such an immense Treasure on a Common Seal. Sir, we all know what hapned some years since by the Bankers taking up such great Sums on their Private Seal, how it proved a temptation for the committing of a great Violation on the Subjects Property, which in all probability pre­ceding Parliaments would have prevented, if they had foreseen; though I hope there is no danger that the like will ever be done again; yet, Sir, you may do well to secure it, either by making some Vote, if not a Law, to prevent it. And I am the more forward to move you herein, because I have heard, since I had the Honour to sit within these Wall, that in the late Long Par­liament there were Members who by Voting for [Page 67] Money, got shares to themselves. I have a good opinion of these Gentlemen that at present have the management of the Trade, but if a few such persons as I have mention'd should succeed them, with the same priviledge that these have, of taking up what Money they please on a Common Seal, to what danger might the Treasure of this Nation be reduced, and how might it not be disposed of, by Di­vidents, Loans or otherwaies. The taking up of so vast a Treasure on a Common Seal, must be attended with great danger, and therefore as well for that as for the other reasons alledg­ed, I hope you will take this Affair into your speedy consideration, that so some Remedies may be applyed hereto.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, by the accompt which hath been given you of the East-India Trade, I doubt not but you are sensible, how that it will in time Ruin a great part of the Trade of our Manu­factures, if not prevented. The East-India Com­pany have been very industrious to promote their own Trade, but therein have given a great blow to the Trade of the Nation. The Indians knew little of dying Goods, or ordering them so, as to be fit for our European-Markets, un­til the Company sent from hence English-men to teach them, which I am afraid this Nation will have cause to Repent hereafter. For the cheap­ness of Wages and Materials in the Indies, must enable the Indians to afford their Manu­factured Goods cheaper than any we can make here, and therefore it is probable the Trade will increase prodigeously, which may be a [Page 68] good motive for you to take into your considera­tion that part of it, in which the consumption of our Manufactures is concern'd. They have alrea­dy spoil'd the Italian and Flanders Trade, with their Silks, and Callicoes, now they will endea­vour to spoil the Turk's Trade by bringing abundance of raw Silk from the Indies. So that e're long we shall have no need of having Silk from Turkey, and if not, I am sure we shall not be able to send any Cloaths or other Goods there. And it cannot be expected, that the Indians should grow weary, of exchanging their Manufactu­red Goods for our Gold and Silver, nor the Company of the great gains they make by their Trade, and therefore unless prevented by your care, the Trade will go on to your prejudice, the Company having been industrious to secure themselves against all other attempts, by New-years-Gifts, imploying of some mens Money, at Interest, and getting others into the Company, and then chusing them of the Committee, though they understand no more of the Trade, than I do of Physick; also Naming of Ships by great mens Names is made use of for the said purpose, and Oaths which they impose on all Persons they imploy in any business of impor­tance, so that there is no ordinary way left to reach them. Therefore, Sir, I hope you will refer the business to some Committee that may make you a speedy Report.

The 10th of November, 1680.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I look on all his Majesties Speech­es to Parliaments, and Messages to this House, to be Acts of State, and the results of serious Councils, and therefore the more deserving our consideration, but also I think we may in some respects look on them as we do on Letters Patents or other Grants in the King's Name, if in them there be any thing against Law, the Lawyer or Officer that drew them is answerable for it. So if his Speeches be the product of Coun­cil, if there be any mistake in them, it must be [Page 70] imputed to the Council, and we may and ought to conclude the King, never said it, for he can do no wrong. I cannot, Sir, but much admire what neglect of ours, as to Popery and the Plot, hath occasion'd this Message. Hath not most of our time been spent about Examination of Witnes­ses about the Plot, and in making inspections into the Proceedings of the last Parliaments as to their Transactions about it, that so we may proceed upon such grounds as we ought? Hath there any day past, in which we have not done something as to the Plot and Popery, besides what we have done about the Duke's Bill? which alone is a sufficient proof of our endeavours to Dis­cover the Plot and Popery, because it plainly appears that all the Plot centers in him, and that we can never prevent Popery, but by preventing that Power to Rule, which is derived from a Popish Successour, and the having of a Popish King. It is true, we have spent some time also, in asserting the right of the people to Petition the King for Parlia­ments, or other Grievances; but I do not take that to be so remote to this affair; for can the Plot ever be searched to the bottom, or Po­pery prevented, as our case stands, but by Par­liaments, and seeing there were so many Proro­gations of this Parliament, when there were occasions so urgent for their sitting, in order to search the Plot to the bottom, and to make Laws against Popery, have we not great reason to be­lieve that it was from that Party, that such strange endeavours were used to prevent the meeting of Parliaments, from whom they know that nothing but Ruine can attend them? Do we not see by Coleman's Letters, what contri­vances [Page 71] they always had for to manage the Meeting, Sittings, Prorogations and Disso­lutions of Parliaments; and why should we not believe they excercise the same arts still, seeing it is plain that the Dossolutions of the last▪ two Parliaments, and many Prorogations of this, did not proceed from any Protestant In­terest, and therefore well may we conclude from whom. And for the same reason that they fear Parliaments, have not the people reason to be fond of them, being the only le­gal way to redress Grievances? And could we have answered the neglecting of the Asserting our Rights in that particular? Sir, I think that next to the Duke's Bill, the Asserting of the peo­ples Right to Petition, is the most necessary Affair we could have spent our time about, in order to have the Plot Examined to the bottom, by conveying to his Majesty the desires of his people, for to have Parliaments sit in order thereto. And therefore I am Jealous that the advice given for this Message doth proceed ra­ther from a fear that we are doing too much, than from our doing too little against Pope­ry. However, Sir, seeing the Message comes in his Majesties Name, let us according to our duty give all the compliance we can to it, and therefore I humbly move you, that a Message be sent to the Lords to desire them to appoint a day for the Tryal of William Viscount Stafford.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I cannot but observe, that his Majesty in his Speech made to us at the open­ing of this Session, recommended to us the Exami­nation of the Plot, and the making Laws for [Page 72] the security of the Protestant Religion, which is not yet above Twenty daies agoe. And therefore it is very Strange in my opinion, that we should so soon receive another Massage to the same purpose, especially considering how we have spent our time ever since our meet­ing, in that which we have reason to think tends as much to the preventing of Popery, as any thing we could invent. The truth is, Sir, I am fully persuaded, that the advice for this Message, proceeds from the same men that advi­sed the Dissolution of the two last Parliaments, and the many Prorogations of this; for though it may look like a Contradiction, that going fast▪ or going slow should tend to one and the same end▪ yet it doth so in this case; for by the Disso­lutions of those Parliaments, and many Proroga­tions of this, time was gotten for the disheartning of some Witnesses, and tampering with others, and the death of the most Material one, and now by pressing upon this Parliament to make great haste, other Witnesses may be prevented from coming in, for which his Majesty hath declared he will give two Months time by his Pro­clamation. So that it plainly appears, that the further Examination of the Plot must be prevent­ed some way, if they can do it, and that rather than fail, your endeavours to go to the bottom of the Plot, shall be turned upon you, and made use of to their advantage. It is strange, that now Fourteen daies should seem too much to have the Exa­mination of the Plot neglected (supposing it had been so) and the Fourteen Months last, or rather two [Page 73] Years, not thought so. Sir, we are under great difficulties, and therefore we must be careful what we do. By the Contents of this Message, we may plainly see, that our Enemies are at work to represent our Proceedings ill to the King, that so if possible there may be some plausible pre­tence found out that may serve to gull the People if they should procure a Dissolution. But I hope his Majesty will not hearken to such advice; in order to prevent it, let us, until we have an opportunity to express our duty to him by acti­ons, do it by words, to satisfie him that we have spent most of our time in Examining the Plot, and in contriving how to se [...]re his Person and Government against the dangers arising from Popery, and to assure him, that we will lose no time till we have done what lies in our power in order thereto; and that we may withal give some further instance of our endeavours, let us Vote that we will immediately proceed to the Tryal of my Lord Viscount Stafford.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am well content to understand that part of the Speech, which recommonds to us a speedy Examination of the Plot, to proceed from his Majesties Goodness, on a supposition that he is now more sensible than ever, of the danger his Person and Government is in by Papists. And I hope it is from that, and not from any other reason that he hath been pleased to send us this Message so soon after his Speech, notwith­standing our endeavours as to the Plot and Po­pery. But, Sir, what I am most concerned at, is the latter part of the Speech, that about the Suc­cession, for it looks like the difficulty that was [Page 74] put upon the Israelites, of making Brick without Straw. For seeing all the discoveries about the Plot make it clearly out, that it all Centers in the Duke of York, and that all their hopes is derived from a Po­pish Successor, and Expectation of a Popish King, how can we do any thing that can be effectual in pur­suance of the first part of that proposition, without contradicting the latter, it being impossible to secure the Protestant Religion under such limitations. How­ever, Sir, I hope that none of these things will put the House out of that temper and moderati­on which becomes this place, for I hope that at last his Majesty will either convince us or be advised by us, that so we may come to a fair understanding, and this Session have a happy con­clusion. Let us be careful not to give our Ene­mies any just advantage to misrepresent us. And then I hope, all will do well at last, maugre all the endeavours of our back-friends. That we do Vote that we will proceed to Tryal of some of the Lords, and appoint a Committee to draw up an Address in Answer to this Message, upon the debate of the House, is, I conceive, what is necessary at this time.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, his Majesties Message is a tacit re­prehension of this House, for not having done their duty as to the Plot and Popery. And as well by this Message, as by his Speech at the opening of the Session he doth now seem much concerned, that the examination of the Plot, and the securing of the Nation against the danger of Popery hath been so long defer'd; for my part, I think he hath a great deal of reason for what he saith, and I am glad to hear it. For I [Page 75] hope he is now truly sensible what strange ad­vice he followed in Dissolving the last Parlia­ments, and so often proroguing this, and that he will now permit Parliaments to sit, until they have done their duty in that particular. But, Sir, though his Majesty may now be very sensible of the miscarriages there have been in the manage­ment of this business already, yet I think we may not do amiss (seeing his Majesty hath given us this occasion) to particularize to him, how the Examination of the Plot, and the securing us against Popery hath been prevented. Sir, was not the late long Parliament after the Plot broke out, in a fair way to have tryed the Lords, and to have Examined the Plot to the bottom, and did not the Dissolution of them frustrate all their proceedings? Did not the next Parliament fall upon the same Subject, and were they not advanced very far towards it, and did not the Prorogation and Dissolution come, and make all void? Hath this Parliament, though called to meet the 17th. of October was 12 Months, ever sate till now, & have they not ever since their meeting im­ployed most of their time about the Plot and Po­pery, & can there lie any just complaints against us? The truth is, Sir, it is plain to me, that if this Message proceeds from his Majesties own judg­ment, as I hope it doth (for how can it be presum'd that his Majesty should not see how we proceed against the Plot and Popery▪ as well as every body else) or if it proceed from such Council, as do re­ally intend we should do something against Pope­ry, then we may be permitted to sit until we have done something for the security of our Religion, and good of our Country; but on the other side, [Page 76] if this Message do proceed from the same Counsel that advised the Dissolutions of the last Parlia­ments, and many Prorogations of this, then we may take it as a clear discovery that there are persons at Work to represent us ill to the King, and to find some pretence for our Dissolutions, as may pass with the People, and such I take to be Enemies both to the King and Kingdom, and there­fore hope you will take a time to find them out, and proceed against them as they deserve. In the mean time, I second the motion that hath been made, for a Committee to draw up an An­swer to this Address, and for making a Vote in order to Try my Lord Stafford.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, Though I know that we are under an Obligation from Duty to make a good Construction of all His Majesties Speeches and Messages to this House, yet because they gene­rally do proceed from some Advice and Coun­sel taken on such Occasions, therefore I think we may without offence, when any thing is irrecon­cileable in them, attribute it to the Ministers; though all that which is good, and agreeable to that Wisdom and Prudence which is inherent in His Majesty, ought to be attributed to himself; and, as the Case stands with us, I think only from Him can it proceed. What is said in this Mes­sage, that neither His Majesty nor the People can be satisfied, unless we expedite such matters as relate to the Plot, I believe it proceeds from His Majesties own Genius, it being so agreeable to that Love which he hath always profess'd for the Protestant Religion; but that tacit Imputation, That we have neglected the Examination of the [Page 77] Plot, and Proceedings against Popery, appears to me like a kind of Infatuation in those Mini­sters that advised it. For, Sir, is there any thing more obvious, than that this Parliament have spent most of their time in Matters relating to the Plot and Popery, and to make such Laws as may prevent the coming in of Popery upon us? And did not both the last Parliaments do the same, from the time the Plot broke out? And if I may take the Liberty to Prophesie, I am apt to think, that the next, and the next, will proceed in the same steps, until such Laws be made as are pre­cisely necessary▪ for the hindering of Popery from coming in upon us: And I pray God it may not be a cause why we shall have no Parlia­ments to sit and act for a while. But, Sir, as this is plain, so to our grief it is, that there are those about the King, in great Power, that are against the Examination of the Plot to the bottom, or making Laws against Popery. Hath not this appeared by the great Endeavours that have been used to stifle the Plot, the menacing and discouraging of the true Witnesses, and setting up and encouraging of false ones? I mean, by the great Power that accompanied those Endea­vours; but above all, by the great Authority and Interest which that Party have shewed in the Dis­solution of the last two Parliaments, (though as to the first I heartily forgive them) and the many Prorogations of this. And must they now, after they have stopp'd or smother'd all Proceedings that tended to destroy Popery for above Two years, find fault that we have not brought all to perfection in Two weeks? Sir, this looks like such a profound piece of Policy, as that of Killing Justice God­frey. [Page 78] But I am not sorry that their Politicks run so low. Such a Pretence as this can onely pass with Persons that have a mind to be deceived. I will never doubt the Prudence of the major part of the Nation in this particular, who know that the Non-prosecution of the Plot is the great Grievance which the Nation groans under; and the making of such Laws as may secure us against Popery, the greatest reason they have so longed for a Parliament, and adventured so much as some did in petitioning for one. And, Sir, I think, that accordingly this House have not been wanting to do their Duty therein; and therefore do believe, that such Representations to His Ma­jesty are made by such as aim at the destruction of Parliaments and bringing in of Popery. But the better to prevent their taking any such Ad­vantage for the future, I could wish that we may not spend more Mornings about Irish Cattel, nor East-India Trade, until the Business of the Plot and Popery be more off our Hand. But in or­der to satisfie His Majesty of our Obedience to His Commands, I agree both for the Committee, and Tryal of Lord Stafford.

The Eleventh of November, 1680.

SIr William Jones reports from the Committee appointed to draw up an Address to His Majesty, upon the Debate of the House, in An­swer to His Majesties Gracious Message; which he read in his Place, and afterwards delivered the same at the Clerks Table; where being read a­gain, was upon the Question agreed to by the House.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I hope this Address will satisfie his Majesty that this House hath not been neg­ligent in the prosecution of the Plot and Po­pery, and that it will create in his Majesty a good opinion of our proceedings, that so we may not meet with any interruption in the per­fecting of those Bills which are necessary for the good of the King and Kingdom, and may have the Glory of having been instrumental in accomplishing that security which the Nation so much desires in point of Religion, and in making his Majesties Government not only more easie to him, but so formidable as that he may become a terror to his Enemies, and in a capacity to give Assistance to his Friends both at home and abroad; and if possible so reconcile all divisions as that there may be no distinction but of Papists and Protestants, nor of that neither, if there could be a way found out to prevent it. For I know this House wants nothing but opportunity to express their Loyal­ty to the King, and love to the Protestant Re­ligion and their Country; but I am afraid that all our endeavours will prove ineffectual, un­less [Page 83] we can remove from his Majesty all Coun­cellors that advise him, in favour of the Popish Interest, and such as influence him in favour of that Party. I do not mean little ones, but such as by experience we had found, have in the time of our greatest danger exercised a kind of uncontroulable Power. The Witnesses which you have heard this day at the Bar, as to the wicked Plot of the Papists in Ireland, and in what a dangerous Condition the poor Pro­testants are there, how exceeded in Numbers by their Enemies, and deserted by their Friends, added to the Evidence we have of the Plot in England, hath given to me a new prospect of the deplorable condition we are in, and therefore, although it be a little late in the day seeing here is a full House, and of such Persons as I believe will never think any thing too much, that is so necessary for the good of their King and Country. I hope you will not think it unsea­sonable, that I should now move you, that the ingrossed Bill, for disinheriting James Duke of York be read.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, this great business cannot be too well considered, before you come to a final Resolution therein, I will not now offer you any prudential arguments against this Bill, be­cause I did offer several at the last reading; but Sir, I would desire you to consider, that this Prince is Brother to our present King, and Son to our late pious King Charles the First; for whose memory this Nation hath a great venera­tion, that this Prince is enricht with Excellent Endownments, which he hath imployed in the Service of this Nation, by fighting our Battels and defending us from the oppression of our Ene­mies, and is only Guilty of this one Crime which I hope upon a mature deliberation will not deserve so great a condemnation. Sir, I know it is usual for this House to proceed in Affairs of less importance, with all the Calmness, Justice, and Prudence that can be imagin'd; and therefore I hope you will be careful how you deviate from those Measures, in a business of this Nature. I would once more remember you, that there are Laws already for the pu­nishment of the Crimes he is accused of, and therefore humbly conceive you ought not to [Page 88] chastise him, by making a new Law, especially with that severity which is by this Bill now in­tended, before any hearing.

Sir, for my part I have taken the Oath of Al­legiance, and think my self thereby bound to him as Heir, until it please God that his Majesty have Children. I know of no Power on Earth, that can dispence with my Oath, and therefore I cannot (so much as by being silent) give my consent to this Bill, lest I therein wrong my Conscience, seeing I have the Honour to be a Member of this House.

I do not doubt but most here have a great esteem for the Church of England, as Members thereof: I could wish they would consider what a great blow this Bill will give to our Religion, and to our Church. To disinherit a Prince, for no other Cause, but for being of a different Opi­nion in some Points of Faith, is, I think, quite contrary to the Principles of the Religion we profess, and also to the established Laws of this Land. And if such an Act, when made, should be of any validity, I do conclude, that you will thereby change the Constitution of this Monar­chy, and make it in a manner Elective; and therefore I humbly move you that the Bill may be thrown out.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I desire leave to offer some Ob­jections, which, in my opinion, do justly arise against this Bill. I think there ought to be a Proviso, That if the Duke should turn Protestant, that then the Bill should be void, and he not exclu­ded from his Right; that so we may not leave him without some temptation to return to the Pro­testant [Page 89] Religion. And, Sir, I think there ought to be a Proviso, That in case the Duke should have a Son, after either of his Daughters (if it should be their fortune) have ascended the Throne, for the reserving of him a Right. For, there is a possibility, that, if the Duke should out­live the King, he may have a Son, after that his Daughters, by vertue of this Act, may have taken the Crown. I suppose, that as there is no intent to chastise the Daughters for the Fa­thers sake, so not the Son; and therefore I hum­bly move you, that some Proviso may be added, to secure him his Right, if any such thing should happen.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, The Honourable Member that spoke before made large Encomiums on the Duke, ex­tolling his Endownments, and Services to the Na­tion. For my part, I think, that the better qua­lified he is, the greater is our Danger. But as to what he said, of having fought our Battels, and done great things for the Nation, I think he hath not done fairly by the House; for he should also have told us, how the Triple League was broke, and my Lord of Sandwich lost his Life; how he changed his Religion, and hath ever since encouraged Popery, and assisted that Interest; how the City of London was burnt, and the Actors dis­charged; how the Discovery of the Popish Plot was prevented as much as it could be, and the Presbyterian one encouraged; that so we might have all afore us.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, Although it hath been said, That no good Protestant can speak against this Bill; yet, Sir, I cannot forbear to offer some Objecti­ons against it. I do not know that any of the King's Murderers were condemn'd without being heard; and must we deal thus with the Brother of our King? It is such a severe way of Pro­ceeding, that I think we cannot answer it to the World; and therefore it would consist much better with the Justice of the House to Impeach him, and Try him, in a Formal way, and then cut off his Head, if he deserve it. I will not offer to dispute the Power of Parliaments; but I question whether this Law, if made, would be good in it self. Some Laws have a Natural Weakness with them; I think that by which the old Long Parliament carried on their Rebellion, was judged afterward void in Law, because there was a Power given, which could not be taken from the Crown. For ought I know, when you have made this Law, it may have the same Flaw in it: If not, I am confident there are a Loyal Party, which will never obey, but will think themselves bound by their Oath of Allegi­ance and Duty to pay Obedience to the Duke, if ever he should come to be King, which must occasion a Civil War. And, Sir, I do not find that the Proviso that was ordered to be added for the Security of the Duke's Children, is made strong enough to secure them, according to the Debate of the House, it being liable to many Objections, and the more, because the Words Presumptive Heir of the Crown are industriously left out, though much insisted on when debated [Page 91] here in the House. Upon the whole matter, my humble Motion is, that the Bill may be thrown out.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am very unfit to speak in this place, being a Member but of yesterday; but I will rather adventure to draw a Censure on my self, than be wanting to serve my Country (see­ing they have called me hither) in Business of so great importance, I think as great as ever was debated in a House of Commons. I can truly affirm, that I have a great respect for the Duke of York; and therefore, as well as for the preservation of the Protestant Religion, I am for this Bill. For, I take it for granted, That it is impossible that a Papist should come to the Pos­session and quiet Enjoyment of this Crown, without wading through a Sea of Blood, and occasioning such a War as may, for ought I know, shake the Monar­chical Government of this Nation, and thereby not only endanger himself, but his Children too. For no man can foresee what may be the end of such a War, nor what Miseries it may bring on the Nation: But, in all probability, it may prove the deepest Tragedy that ever was acted on this great Theatre. For, it cannot be imagin'd, that the great Body of Protestants which are in this Nation will tamely submit to the Popish Yoak, which they will in time see must be the consequence of sub­mitting to a Popish King, without some strugling. And Wars begun upon the score of Religion are generally attended with more fatal and bloody Consequents than other Wars; and this may exceed all others that ever yet were made. And I see no way to prevent it, but by passing [Page 92] this Bill, which, so long as it excludes onely him, and secures the Crown to his Children, is, I think, (as the case stands) the greatest Kind­ness we can do him.

Sir, I do much admire to hear some Honoura­ble and Learned Members say, That this Bill is against Natural Justice, because it condemns a Man before he is heard; and that it is too severe a Condemnation; that it is against the Oath of Allegiance, and Principles of our Religion; that it will be a scandal to our Church, to ex­clude a Man of his Right for his Opinion in Re­ligion; that it is a Law that will be void in it self, and that there are a Loyal Party will never obey it; that it will make the Crown Elective, and occasion a Civil War; and that the Proviso as to the Dukes Children is not strong enough, because the Word Presumptive Heir is left out.

Sir, The first Objection I think is a great mi­stake; for this Bill is not intended as a Condem­nation to the Duke, but a Security to our selves; and is so far from being against Natural Justice, that the Passing of it is agreeable to the very Foundation not onely of Natural Justice, but Natural Religion too, the Safety of the King and Kingdom depending thereon, which according to the Rules of Justice and Religion we are bound to use our endeavour to pre­serve, before any one Mans Interest. That about the Oath of Allegiance, I do a little admire at; for, it is the first time I ever heard that Oath pleaded in favour of Popery. I have often times had occasion to scan the meaning of that Oath, but never found it extended to the Successor du­ring the Kings Life, and therefore no need of any Dispensation in that point. And I cannot under­stand [Page 93] how it can be any scandal as to our Church or Religion, if by Church be meant our Protestant Church. Can our Church or Church-men be scandalized, because we endeavour to secure our selves against Popery by all lawful Means? I ra­ther think the very Supposition a high Reflection on our Church-men, as rendring them willing to let in Popery, which I am confident they are not. As to what is said, That the Law will be void in it self, and that there will be a Loyal Party that will never obey it, and that it will occasion a Civil War; I must confess these are strange Arguments to me: For, to doubt that the Legislative Power of the Nation, King, Lords, and Commons, cannot make Laws that shall bind any, or all the Subjects of this Nation, is to suppose there is such a Weakness in the Government, as must infallibly occasion its Ruine. And therefore I am of opini­on, that what Laws you make in this case, will carry as much Right and Strength with them, not only now, but after the Kings death, as any Law whatsoever. And how then can there be a Loyal Party that will not acquiesce therein, unless the Word Loyal have some other Signifi­cation than I know of? I take it to be a Di­stinction that can onely be given to such as obey Laws; and I think we need not doubt, but if once this Law were pass'd, there would be Prote­stants enough, whose Interest it would be to defend it, that would compel an Obedience to it. And we have much more reason to fear a Civil War without it, than with it; For, if we can get this Bill, we may be thereby so united, and enabled to defend our selves, as that the Popish Party may never have the Confidence to attempt us; but without it we shall not [Page 94] be in any capacity to defend our selves, which above all things may encourage a Civil War. As to the Proviso for securing the Right of the Duke's Children, if it be not strong enough, I am rea­dy to give my Vote it should be stronger; but I take it to be a full and comprehensive as can be made; at least, I take the leaving out the Words Presumptive Heir to the Crown, to be no Objection against it: For, there is no such Word in our Law-Books, nor no such Term in treating of the Succession; and therefore I hope you will be careful how you make a President in that Case.

And, Sir, as I do not find there is any weight in the Arguments that have been made against this Bill, so I think that if the pre­servation of our King, our Government, our Lives and our Religion, be things of moment, that there is much to be said for it. For al▪ though the malignity of men, cannot deface his Majesties goodness, yet by assisting the Po­pish faction, they have spoilt the beautiful face of the best Government in the World; by breaking that good Correspondence that there ought to be between the King and his People, by dividing us in points of Religion, and by being the cause of just jealousies and fear. By which his Majesty is reduced to great difficul­ties and trouble, in the administration of his Regal authority, and the Credit Peace and Tranquility of the Nation almost irrecover­ably lost. As to all which, the art of Man cannot find out any remedy as long as there is a Popish Successor, and the fears of a Po­pish King, and therefore I humbly move you this Bill may pass.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, the Arguments that have been used against this Bill, may be very excellent to lull us into a fatal security, by possessing us with opinions that there is no need of taking so much care about Popery, or that we ought not to oppose it, or that it will be to no purpose, because we have no power to hinder it. But I do not see what weight they have in them, grounded on any other consideration, to hinder the passing of this Bill. Rather for the same reason, that such Argu­ments, as these, are here offered against this Bill, and such endeavours used abroad to re­concile the People to have a berter opinion of Popery than formerly, I think we ought to be the more zealous for this Bill, because nothing can give a greater encouragement and assistance to Popery than the growth of such opinions, nor prevent their design who are industrious to in­fuse them, than the passing of this Bill. Who­ever will consider how this Monarchy hath declined in grandeur honour and reputation a­broad, by the destruction of our Navy in 1666. and the little appearance we have ever since made of being able to be formidable at Sea, but above all, our Ministers double dealing in the making of alliances, or performing of them, (in order to keep up our interest with France) How from being Umpire to all this part of the World, according to that advantage which we have by our Situation, we are become the despicablest Nation in Europe. How the Go­vernment is weakned at home not only by fears and jealousies, but by the debaucheries and devisions which have been promoted amongst [Page 96] our people; how narrowly we escaped ruine when the City of London was Burnt, as well as when the Toleration came out, and the Army was at Black-heath, as lately by the hor­rid Plot if it had not been discovered; how there his nothing stands between us and death, but the Kings life; and how all these dangers past and present, do arise from Popery; and how impossible it is, it should be otherwise as long as there is a Popish Successor: may justly admire there should be any arguments offered in this place to lessen our care for preventing the growth and power of Popery. I cannot tell how these learned Members un­derstand natural Justice, but I am of that Opini­on, That self preservation, and the preservation of our Religion, and life of our King by all lawful ways, is very agreeable to natural Justice. And I do admire to hear such a construction made of the Oath of Allegiance, that it binds all persons to the next Heir as well as to the King. For it is a most dangerous Maxim, and may be of ill consequence, if ever the next Heir of the Crown should make a Rebellion, for he may thereby challenge Allegiance from the People as well as the King, which may be of pernici­ous consequence. And I do not see wherein our Church or Religion can be scandalized by this Bill. For we do not Disinherit this Prince for his Religion, but to save our own, and to prevent the manifest ruine of the Nation. And therefore I think it is a kindness to the Church above all Acts whatsoever; because the only way to preserve it, I mean the Protestant Church. And those objections that have been [Page 97] made against the lawfulness and validity of this Act, do not weigh with me, but notwith­standing what hath been said, do believe it will be as good in law, if once it be past, and will be as well observed too as any Act what­soever. The King hath his Right from God, and as Supreme is accountable to none, his person sacred, and by our Laws can do no wrong. If we should give all these qualifi­cations to a Successour, as hath been in some measure insinuated, it would make a strange confusion in the Government. Life it self, to which a Man hath as much Right, as any Successor can pretend to have to the Crown, is taken away upon some forfeitures for the publick good. And as there may be a forfei­ture of Life so there may be a forfeiture of a Right to the Succession. And to doubt that there is not an unlimited uncontrollable power resi­ding somewhere in all Governments, to re­medy the exigences that may happen, is to suppose there is such weakness in this or any other Government, as that it must fall when a powerful faction shall endeavour it. In this Nation, this Power, is in the King, Lords, and Commons, and I hope they will make use of it to preserve the Government upon this occasion. And I do not doubt, but if the Bill pass, all will obey it heartily that wish well to the Protestant Religion. I am afraid some Ministers of State place their safety in Com­mon ruine, or otherwise the setling of this affair, would not have been so long delayed and opposed as it hath been. Hath there not been contrived and practised, and is there not [Page 98] still threatned the greatest and certainest ruine to this Nation, by this business of the Duke, that ever was yet projected, and must we be more stupifyed than our Ancestors? Doth not the Act of the Thirteenth of Queen Elizabeth make it Treason, for any man to say, that the Par­liament cannot alter the Succession? And in Henry the Eighth's time, was not the right of Succession changed and rechanged by Act of Parliament? He then instanced several presi­dents, how the Succession had been setled and altered by Acts of Parliament, since William the Conquerour's time, and concluded with a motion, for the passing of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, It is my misfortune to lie un­der the disreputation of being a Papist, but have now an Opportunity of shewing my self o­therwise, in declaring that I am against this Bill, for I think there is none but Papists that are of Opinion, that a man may be disinherited for his Religion. I have also an opportunity to shew my duty to my Master, in declaring that those reproaches which have been cast upon him, are in my opinion very unjust, because I believe he abhors the thoughts of doing those Actions that have been imputed to him, and therefore do think it very hard, that because he may differ with us in points of Religion, that there­fore his reputation should thus be called in question in this House. Sir, I cannot enter into a dispute with that worthy Member that spoke last, as to the presidents he hath men­tioned, because I know he is very learned in the Law, and the understanding of such things [Page 99] belongs more particularly to such as have had that education; but I humbly offer it to the consi­deration of the House, whether or no, if our English Histories be true, most of those prece­dents were not accompanied with bloud and misery? And I am of opinion, that if this disin­heriting Bill should pass, it will not have bet­ter success. I cannot doubt but that this House is for keeping up the Monarchical Government of this Nation, we all know how the balance hath been altered by Henry the 7th's lessening the Peers, and Henry the 8th's destroying the Church, and by the Sale of the Crown-Lands. I pray Sir, let us have a care, how we give a greater blow than all this, by making the Crown Ele­ctive. The King lost his Father by one Rebel­lion. I know this House would not willingly be the cause of losing his Brother by another, which I am afraid this Bill, if it should pass, will occasion hereafter, especially if we name no Successour, for which I am the more sorry be­cause I do not know for whom to draw my Sword.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I do observe, and am glad to see it, that all that have spoken in this business pro or con, seem to agree, that we ought to do all we can to preserve the present Government, and prevent a Civil War, but we differ about the way; some think that this Bill is the only way, and others are of a contrary opinion, I cannot tell for what good reason. For there being nothing intended by this Bill, but the Exclusion of the Duke only, in order to prevent the great dan­gers we lie under by reason of his great influ­ence [Page 100] at Court at present, and those we fear, if ever a Popish King should ascend the Throne. There being nothing in the Bill that tends any ways to prejudice the next Heir, it cannot in my poor opinion weaken, much less tend to alter the present Government, or be any prejudice to the Royal Family, more than in the Exclusion of this one Person intended by the Bill. From whom there can be no fear of a Civil War un­less we should imagine that the people of this Nation, when they have a Law, upon the ob­servation and execution whereof, their Lives, Liberties and Religion depend, they should be so great Brutes as not to value themselves there­on, but rather imbrace a blind superstitious Re­ligion, and submit to all the Slavery imaginable. We may as well think that after the King's de­cease, the people will be willing to submit to the Government and pretended Authority of the Pope himself, though they should be never so well able to defend themselves. The worthy Mem­ber that spoke last, did in a manner affirm, that all the Precedents that have been mention'd as to the setling of the Succession of the Crown by Act of Parliament, have been accompani­ed with Bloud. If he would but take the pains to peruse the Histories of England, I think he—would be of another opinion. But I am sure, none ever equalized the short Reign of Queen Mary. The Barbarities which were exercised in her Reign, by Fire and Faggot, may be put into the balance with all the incon­veniencies that ever happened by any Exclusion-Act. But Sir, if it had been so, which I utter­ly deny, it would not have signified much as to [Page 101] our case, for in those days matter of Right was always so confounded (I mean as to the under­standing of the people) by the many Arguments that were imposed on them by each Party, that neither point of Right, nor any consideration as to any thing of Interest, came fairly before them. Whether A. or B. should be King, was their only question, without being loaden with any difficulties, as to which the Common and Major part of the people in those days might probably be very indifferent. And yet, Sir, up­on a full Examination, it will be found that most of those Acts of Parliament touching the Succession, had the effect they were designed for, and did serve as Expedients, to prevent those miseries, which were feared and were the occasion of them. But, Sir, the case will be now much otherways, if ever you should be so unfortunate, as that the Duke should out live the King, and you should come to try the strength of this Exclusion-Bill: For the question in this Case will not be only whether A. which is Ex­cluded, or B. which is the next Heir shall accor­ding to this Act be King, but whether it shall be a Papist, or a Protestant. Upon which it will plainly appear, the safety of their Estates, Lives and Religion doth depend. Sir, I have heard and read of strange things done by Popish Mira­cles, and I must confess, Sir, I have seen much of it, even amongst many, that pretend to be good Pro­testants, since the Plot broke out, I mean as to their believing any thing against Popery. If some such Omnipotent Power, should hereafter over-rule in such a conjunction, haply this Bill if it should pass into an Act, may be slighted and neglect­ed, [Page 102] but otherways I humbly conceive it cannot be presumed, that the Protestants should omit to make use of it to save themselves from Po­pery and Slavery; which would be the conse­quence thereof; and thereby not only prevent a Civil War, but support the Government e­stablisht in the right Line. The truth is, Sir, the most material Observation that I can make of the Arguments against this Bill, is, that it is thought too good for us, and that it may probably be effectual for the securing of the Protestant Religion. And I am afraid, Sir, that this is the fatal Consideration, that hath prevailed with some to advise the King not to grant it. If we consider how all other Laws which have been hitherto made against the Duke have been defeated, we may with some reason fear the like success of all others that shall be made, unless you can do something that may tend to changing of the Interest, which can never be done without this Bill. We have a great many old Laws against Papists, but I did never hear that any thing was done by virtue of them that ever prejudiced the Duke; it was once attempted by a presentment made by a Grand Jury. The success was, that a known material Law of the Land must be broken by an extrajudicial discharge of the Jury, rather than the Law against him should have any Ef­fect. There was a Law not long since made, obliging all Persons that held or executed any Office, to take the Transubstantiation Test; it is true, the Duke was so brave Spirited as not to dissemble and take the Test, though haply was earnestly prest with a dispensation. Yet hath not that Law had any effect in favour of [Page 103] the Protestant Religion, for though the Duke hath not since acted in his Offices by himself, he put in, as his Deputies, Persons of so much Gratitude as have in all things followed his di­rections. So that as to himself, the Act hath not proved of any force. There was another Act lately made which was intended chiefly against him; I mean that of Excluding Papists from sitting in either House, there he got himself fairly excepted by name. Now we would secure our Religion by another Bill against him. I find it meets with opposition here, what it may meet with elsewhere I cannot tell. But if such be his Power under a Protestant King, what may we not justly fear if he should come to be King him­self? I think nothing less than Popery, Misery and Slavery, from which we can never be saved but by having this Bill, and therefore I humbly move you that this Bill may pass.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I will not say that Acts of Parlia­ment cannot dispose of the Succession, because it was made Treason by a Statute in the 13th. of Elizabeth, which I do not remember was ever repealed. But I will deny that the Kings of Eng­land Rule by virtue of any Statute-Law, as was suggested, for their Right is by so ancient a proscription as that it may justly be said to be from God alone, and that no Power on Earth ought to dispute it. And I am of opinion, that the Succession of the Crown is inseparably an­nexed to proximity of Bloud, and therefore am not yet altered in my opinion that, if this Hill should pass into a Law, it would be of it self invalid. Which with what hath been already [Page 104] said, that we cannot in Justice answer the in­flicting of this severe Condemnation without hearing the Party concern'd; and the improba­bility of ever attaining this Bill, doth very much weigh with me for my Opinion against this Bill. But, Sir, I think there are many doubts arise from the penning of the Bill, if the Prin­cess of Orange should come to the Crown du­ring the Duke's life, and the Duke should af­terwards have a Son, must that Son lose his Right for ever? I see no provision made by this Act to save his Right, and may not that occasion as great a Civil War, between his Generation, and the Princess's Children as ever happen'd between York and Lancaster; and, Sir, I am still unsatisfied, as to that proviso about the Duke's Children, that it is not made as it ought to be, and I am afraid that in the whole matter we are gratifying France and the Papists too, by lay­ing a stumbling block of Division even amongst Protestants themselves, and giving so great an oc­casion for a Civil War; which I hope you will endeavour to prevent, by throwing out this Bill.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I have hearkened to the objections that have been made against this Bill, which have not convinc'd me, that we want either a just cause or legal Power for the making of this Bill. If the Popish Interest be grown too strong for the Protestant, then any of these Arguments may serve, for force and Power will supply the defect of them. Otherways I think they have been so ful­ly answered, as that there is no need more should be said about this matter; but I am sorry to see that the Protestant Religion and our Lives and [Page 105] Liberties must have nothing to depend on, but the continuance of the King's Life, and the good Nature of the Popish Party afterward. And this after such demonstration as we have of the Interest of that Party in France, Scotland and Ireland, as well as here; and after a full detection of the growth of that Interest by means of the Duke's, and of the endeavours that are used to possess the Protestants with several Opinions that will tend very much to the strengthning of it, and a clear Discovery that the Plot in favour of Popery goeth on as much as ever. It hath created in me an opinion, that Popery is too strong to be subdued by Laws, and that after this King's Life, the Pro­testant Religion must either be overcome by Popery, or defend it self by the Sword. At least I believe, that this is the Design of some men now a­bout the King, but I hope he will at last hear­ken to the advice of his Parliament, and pre­vent the Nation from falling into so miserable a condition: the objection made about the Duke's Son, if he should have any, after either of his Daughters have taken possession of the Government, may in some measure be made against the course of Succession observed in all Kingdoms; if a King die leaving a Queen, the next Heir is presently proclaimed, to pre­vent an interregnum, though there be a possibi­lity of the Queen's being with Child, to whom the Right should in the first place belong. If any such should be born, such a setlement as is designed by this Bill, may destroy the French and Popish Interest, but can never be a grati­fication to them; our Ancestors upon many [Page 106] occasions setled and changed the Succession: Of which he gave many Instances, and concluded for the Bill.

The 17th. of November, 1680.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am very sorry that the Busi­ness of Supply for Tangler is now moved, be­cause I take it to be a Place of great Importance, and that as well for the Honour of the Nation, as Benefit of Trade, it ought to be preserv'd. But, Sir; we have now things of greater impor­tance to look after, of so pressing a nature, and of so dangerous consequence if delay'd, that we cannot answer either to our King or our Coun­try the preferring this before it. It is a Duty incumbent on us, to secure things at home, on which our All depends, before we enter into an Expence of Time about securing things abroad. If an Enemy were but coming to invade us, it might be pro­per [Page 107] to Fortifie Dover-Castle, Ply­mouth, or any of our Port-Towns: But if an Enemy were actually Landed, it would be more proper to strengthen London, or other Inland Cities or Towns. I am afraid, Sir, this is too much our Case; I am afraid we have got an Enemy within our Bowels, and a great one too, and that it is high time to make preparation to oppose him. We have been already careless and inconsiderate too long; and shall we now go about Tangier, instead of continuing our endea­vours about that? Tangier may be of great Im­portance to Trade, but, I am afraid, hath not been so managed, as to be any Security to the Protestant Religion. The Portugneses, when they delivered it up, did covenant to have one Popish Church remain there, for the convenien­cy of some Priests and Friars, and others of that Nation, that were permitted to stay there; but it was then agreed, That their Mortality should not be supplied, that so after the decease of those persons, the said Popish Church might be demolished, or converted to a Protestant Use. But I am well inform'd, that it hath been other­wise managed, and that the Papists there are now more than ever. And was not my Lord Bellasis, now a Prisoner in the Tower for the Plot, Governour of Tangier? and I think some others of that Religion; if not, I am sure the Souldiers and their Commanders are most of that Religion: Which makes me conclude, it is a kind of Nursery for Popish Souldiers, and haply, for that reason, as much as for the advantage of Trade, may the Advices given his Majesty in refe­rence to Tangier proceed. But, Sir, there is ano­ther [Page 108] Consideration, which will make the Debate of Tangier improper at this time; It must end in Money, and not a little Sum neither, enough to raise an Army; which although in time I doubt not but this House will be willing to ad­vance, as far as His Majesty's Occasions shall require; yet, I think, Sir, we are not ready for it as yet. We must be better satisfied into whose hands it will go, whether to such Persons as are for the Popish Interest, or Protestant; that so we may not be afraid, that instead of going to the support of Tangier, it should be employed to the destruction of the Protestant Religion: When these things have been looked into, and secured, then it will be time to take care of Tan­gier, and of all other His Majesty's Dominions. In the mean time, our Duty binds us to give His Majesty all the satisfaction we can, as to our Proceedings; and therefore I humbly move you, that a Committee may be appointed to draw up an Address for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, Every one that knows how advan­tageously Tangier is situated to command the greatest Thorow-fare of Commerce in the World, and how by the advance of the Mold it is like to prove an excellent Receptacle for our Merchant Ships, to further and secure them in their Trading Voyages into the Streights, and for our Men of War, when they may be employed in those Parts, to check or oppose the Turks or other Enemies; how advantageous it is for carrying on a Trade with Spain in cases of extremity; and what hopes we have of opening a Trade into Barbary that way: I say, every one [Page 109] that will consider these things, will, I suppose, have reason to conclude, that it is a Place of great Importance, and not to be slighted. And I cannot believe that it is any Nursery for Po­pish Souldiers, as hath been argued; for it is well known under what a Regulation our Soul­diers are, not only here in England, but in Ireland too, of taking such Oaths and Tests as secures them to be Protestants. And therefore I am confident they were not Papists when they went hence, or from Ireland; and I have not heard there is any such Conversion made among them there, nor do believe there are so many Instruments there for that Work. If this Busi­ness come before you unseasonably at this time, it is because the Necessity of the Affair requires haste: For, either this House must speedily give some Assistance for Tangier, or else it will be lost. For the Moors are come down with such a mighty Army, and His Majesty hath been at so great an Expence already, that He is not able of himself to do more to oppose them. And this sudden Danger could not by any means have been foreseen; for the Motions of the Moors with their Armies are not like those of Europe, but more quick and sudden, and their Designs and Consultations out of the reach of any Discovery by Intelligence, before put in execu­tion. This Notice is more seasonable now, than it would have been after the Place had been lost, which, I am afraid, will be the next News, if something be not done by this House to relieve it. And therefore I humbly move you to think of some effectual way to relieve it for the present, and secure it for the future against the like Attempts.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, among the rest of the Regiments that have been sent to Tangier, I think there is my Lord of Dumb [...]ton's, haply that air might have changed them, but I am sure they were lookt up­on as rank Papists all the while they were here, and I believe in Ireland too. I have heard that one Argument that was lately given elsewhere against a Bill which we pass'd in this House, was that the Duke had all the Papists in En­gland ready for his assistance, that his particu­lar friends had the command of all the places of strength in this Nation, that he had an Ar­my of Twenty two Thousand men in Scotland at his Command, that in Ireland the Papists were six to one for the Protestants, and that most of the Princes of Christendom were Combined for his assistance; add to this, that the Govern­ment of Tangier is also at his Command, and I think we shall have no great reason to give Money as yet; I am very well satisfied, Sir, that we ought and must put a trust in the King, an Argument much used in former Par­liaments, I do admire hath been so long for­gotten in this. I am sensible too that this Na­tion cannot be happy, unless there be such an understanding between the King and his Peo­ple, as that Money may be given. But, Sir, if the things I have repeated be true, as I am afraid they are, how shall we be sure that what Money we give, shall ever go to the King? May it not be intercepted by the mighty power, we have been Speaking off? May it not be a great temptation for carrying on the Plot, especially as to that part of it that refers to his sacred [Page 111] life? If there were no other reason to be given but this, why we cannot at this time give Money, I think it enough; for there is a perfect contradiction between the King's Interest, and the Duke's Interest; and until we see about the King persons less in­gaged for the Duke's Interest, we cannot An­swer the giving of Money; and I humbly move you, that the Committee may make this consideration part of their Address.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, my Lord Bellasis hath not only been Governour of Tangier, but of Hull too, and what a place that is to be intrusted with a Papist, I refer to your consideration. And he was not only always in Places of great Trust, but in so great a Power, that none of the Laws of this Land could ever reach him. Only upon breaking out of the Plot, he was Committed to the Tower, But now that he is there, he hath so much Power, (he or his Friends for him) as that he hath all the liberty he can there desire; and farther, proceedings against him are kept off by Prorogations and Dissolu­tions of Parliaments. By which the Evidence of the most material Witnesses as to the Plot is lost, and great endeavours have not been wanting to corrupt or defame the rest. By which it is plain, though he be in the Tower, yet his Interest is not much abated, insomuch as many believe that the Dukes Interest, and Popery, is in a great measure carried on, upon consultations held with him and some of the rest in the Tower. At least this is certain, that they know all secrets of State assoon as any persons without. And therefore I think we [Page 112] are not yet ripe to give Money for Tangier. And, Sir, I am of opinion that Tangier is a Nursery for Popish Souldiers; amongst the rest, I think Capt. Tom. is there who was to have headed the Apprentices Mutiny in London; and if I be not misinformed a Capt. too for that intended emi­nent service. When we are assured that we shall have a good Protestant Governour and Garrison in Tangier, then I shall heartily give my Vote for Money for it, but I am afraid that will ne­ver be, until we are sure of a good Prote­stant Successour at home. Sir, I see that new dangers start up daily, and that the Popish In­terest is strong enough to bid defiance to the Protestants, the power and merits of the Duke being magnified frequently above the King's. How to prevent the growth of it I do not know; all that we can do at this time is, to appoint a Committee to draw up an Address (as hath been moved) to represent things fairly to the King; and pray, Sir, let it be drawn with that duty and humility as becomes Subjects, but with that truth and plainness as becomes a true English House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker.

Sir, I am very sensible of the Dan­ger of Popery, and I am sorry to see that our Danger is now greater, than it was seven days ago, seeing we are not like to have those Laws to secure us, which we hoped for; and therefore I am not for entring into any debate about Money. But, Sir, seeing that Tangier is a place of so great importance, and in so great distress, and seeing his Majesty hath so heartily and earnestly recommended it to the [Page 113] care of this House, as well by this Message as by his Speech at the opening of this Parliament. I humbly conceive you will do well to order, that a true account be brought in of the state of Tangier, that so it may be in a readiness to be considered at a more leisure time, when you have found out, and are assured that you shall have some expedients to secure you against Popery, that may satisfie this House instead of the Exclusion-Bill. Some such order may satis­fie the World, that we were making all the haste we could to supply it, that so the loss of it (in case it should so happen) may not be im­puted to this House. And I make no doubt but there may be some way found out, so to lodge and appropriate the Money, as that it may be secure for that use; and therefore I humbly move you that you would order, that an ac­compt of the State and Condition of Tangier may be brought in.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I could wish our fears and jea­lousies were either so inconsiderable or so well over, as that we were ripe to consider the state of Tangier, and into whose hands to lodge Money for it. But if our Bill be miscarried, and the power and strength of the Duke's Party be as I have heard, I think we ought in the first place to consider, whether we have any thing to give or no. And if we find we have not, or that it is in great jeopardy, I think we ought first to secure that a little better, before we treat of se­curing Tangier. I confess the Arguments that I hear have been used elsewhere against our Bill, have a little startled me. For now I see why [Page 114] all the Laws made against the Duke have proved ineffectual; and that, notwithstanding all the Endeavours of Parliament, he hath had the Ad­ministration of all Affairs, not only in England and Scotland, but I think in Ireland too (if we believe the Irish Witnesses,) even since the break­ing out of the Plot: Even because the Duke and the Popish Interest are, I am afraid, strong e­nough for the King and the Protestant Interest. And if so, I think we may take it for granted, that we have not any thing of our own; for I conclude, if Popery come in, not only the Church-Lands, but all the Lands we have, will be little enough for them; for they will never want a good, holy, sanctified, religious Pretence to take them from us: Rather than fail, I doubt not but that they will be able convincingly to make out, that we are Bastards, or that they have a Right Jure divino; to which there can be no opposition.

Sir, I think we cannot answer to God nor Man the giving of Money, until there be a great Reformation all over the Nation, as to Persons in Trust and Command. Not but that there are very worthy Men in several Places; but I am afraid, no where, without being over­power'd by such who are for the Dukes Interest: And, for my part, I desire to speak plain, I cannot make any distinction between the Duke's Inte­rest and the Popish Interest. If there be any Body that can split that Hair, I wish he would do the House that service; for I take it to be a ma­terial Point, and fit to be agreed some way. And if it be so, Sir, can we give Money, as long as there are eleven to seven in some places cer­tainly [Page 115] known, and all in others, and in Places of great importance too?

Sir, I am very sensible that this Session can ne­ver be successful, nor the Nation happy, unless we come to have so fair an understanding with His Majesty, as that we may freely give Him Money; which, seeing it cannot be done with any security to the King or His Government, as long as the great Affairs of this Nation are thus influenced, that there may be no just cause of having any imputation lie at our door, I agree in the motions that have been made for an Ad­dress, and desire it may be drawn very full and plain.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am much afraid of Tangier, but more of a Popish Successour. By the one we may lose something of Trade; but by the other, our Religion, and all we have, stand in danger. And therefore until we are secur'd as to that, for my own part, I do not think my self concern'd in any thing else. Sir, for these two years last past there hath been talk of Expedients to secure us against Popery; I believe it was only to quiet our Thoughts, while Popery steals on upon us. For we are so far from having any Expedients brought to perfection, to secure us against Po­pery, that all Endeavours go on as much as ever to bring in Popery: Parliaments kept off; the Witnesses, as to the Plots, both English and Irish, abused, and consumed; the Church-men set up to labour for a Prosecution of the Dis­senters, in order to divide yet more the Prote­stant Interest; and false Witnesses, in favour of Popery, countenanced and encouraged.

Sir, These are strange Expedients against Po­pery; I begin to be perswaded that our case is very desperate, and that the Popish Party them­selves cannot contrive any thing for us that will look like an Expedient: For, I make no doubt, but the whole Cabal of Jesuits have been at work about it, and that they would have spawn'd something, if it had been possible, before now. But I believe it is found to be very difficult to find out any thing that will look like an Expe­dient, and yet not prove so: And therefore now they are plainly carrying on those things that must be prosecuted in order to establish Popery, in case the expectation of Expedients should not longer lull the People asleep: The ridiculing of the Plot, the Divisions between our Church-men and Dissenters, and the danger or inconsistency of Parliaments with a Monar­chical Government. Which things will deserve a longer Debate, when you shall think good to appoint a Day for them. But, in the mean time, we cannot give Money, without endangering the Religion and Government of the Nation. But that we may always shew to his Majesty's Messa­ges, that Respect which is due to them, and, if possible, satisfie him, that our Resolutions are grounded on true Reason, let a Committee be appointed to draw up an Address, upon the Debate of the House.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I think that no body should move you to take the State of Tangier into your Con­sideration at this time, without an Apology: For, if we should be perswaded thereto, we may be reflected on, as Nero was, for being playing on [Page 117] his Fiddle when Rome was on fire. When we are in such danger to have our Throats cut from within, to what purpose will it be to spend our time about securing things abroad; especially when we plainly see, it cannot be effected by any Supplies, without encreasing our Fears and Dangers of our Destruction? Is not all England in danger to be lost? Let us secure the Ship before we dispose of the Cabbins. When we are secure against a Popish Successor, and the fear of having a Popish King, then it will be time to think of Tangier: For, as the Power of a Popish Successor hath lately appear'd, in the Opposition made to our Bill, so, I make no doubt but it will appear in the Management of our Money too, if we should give any: When the Stomach is clean, what Food a Man takes turns to Nutriment, and preserves the Life and Strength of the Body; but when the Stomach is foul, Food turns to Humour and Destruction: Sir, so it is with the Body Politick; When the King shall be pleased to remove from him such as give him ill Advice, and are against the Prote­stant Interest, that so we may have reason to presume that the Money will be employed for our good, then I hope we shall be ready to shew our Duty, in giving as much Money as His Occasions shall require; otherwise I am afraid we may be served as we have been formerly. I remember when 1100000 l. was given for Build­ing of Ships, and not one Ship built; and above Two Millions given to support the Triple League, and then it was presently employed for the breaking of it; when 1200000 l. was given for an Actual War with France, when at the same time we were under all [Page 118] the Obligations for Peace, and so continued. Sir, these are such material Memento's as we ought never to forget, until we have more cause to look forwards, and not backwards; which I pray God we may have very speedily, and then I shall be ready to join in giving of Money, and be very well content to forget all that is past. But as yet I think our Condition is not so hap­py, but rather fear the Management of our Af­fairs is very much out of order: For though we had never more Treasurers, yet never less Money; never more Admirals, yet never a worse Fleet; and though never more Counsellours, yet never less Safety. Of which I hope His Majesty is, or will be sen­sible. For, it cannot be imagined, that seeing he hath so much care for Tangier, he should want any for the Nation. That we may do our Duty, in giving Him the best Advice we can, let us give him the Grounds and Reasons of our Proceedings, by an Address, as hath been moved.

Mr. Speaker,

If ever there should happen in this Nation any such Change, as that I should not have liberty to live a Protestant, I am resolved to die one; and therefore would not willingly have the Hands of our Enemies strengthned, as I sup­pose they would be, if we should give Money while we are sure it must go to the hands of the Duke's Creatrues. Doth not the Duke's Interest endanger the King's Life? and are not our Lives and Fortunes in danger to be swallowed up by his Power? and shall we yet make him stronger, by putting Money into their hands? No, Sir, they are too strong already; but whenever His [Page 119] Majesty shall be pleased to free us of the danger of a Popish Successor, and remove from his Coun­cil and places of Trust, all those that are for his Interest, (because there can be no distinction made between the Duke's Interest and Popish,) then, Sir, I will conclude, that what Money we shall give, will be disposed off according to his Majesty's own Royal pleasure, and for the true Protestant Interest. And I shall be ready to give all I have in the World, if his Majesty should have occasion for it; but in the mean time I pray Sir, let us not endeavour to destroy our selves by our own hands. If we may not be so happy as to better the condition of the Nation, I pray Sir, let us not make it worse. And until the King shall be pleased to give us incouragement to express our Duty and Loyalty to him by giv­ing him Money, let us do it by making an Ad­dress.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I have reason to have some know­ledge of Tangier, having been there my self, and convers'd all my life time with Persons that have gone up and down the Streights and been there many times, but I cannot agree with those wor­thy Members that make it a place of so great importance. That we shall ever thereby open a Trade with the Moors is a mere Chimera; they will not have any Trade with us. All the hopes we can have of any advantage from it, is from the Mold, if it should be finished. But I am afraid we have seen the best of it, and that it will hardly ever be brought to more perfecti­on than it is. But Sir, if it should, in a time of peace with Spain, it will be of little use to us; [Page 120] for the Bay of Cadiz is upon several accompts so much more convenient for Ships to stop at, that it will always be preferred. For they will not only have a safe riding, but the Merchants Ships great advantages, made by Fraight or Sales of Goods, which generally happens in that Port, and of good Company, whether go­ing up or down the Streights. Our Men of War do not there want Conveniencies to Careen, or other necessaries, and will be then more ready to do the Nation service, by convoying Ships, than at Tangier, as also to carry on the money Trade. But it is true that in a time of a War with Spain, it would be very serviceable to us. But if it must cost 100000. l. per annum, and if a War with Spain be not like to happen one year in twenty, I am of opinion that the certain charge will amount to more than the uncertain inconveniency, and therefore that we need not be so extremely concern'd for it.

Mr. Speaker.

Sir, I should not have concern'd my self in this debate, but that I differ from that worthy Member that spoke last. For I think it would be a great blow not only to the Honour, but to the Trade of the Nation, if Tangier should be lost. For it will always be serviceable, as well for our Men of War to resort to for Pro­visions, and to be clean'd, in order to check the rapine of the Turks, or oppose other Enemies, as for the protection of our Merchant-men. In time of Peace with Spain, it will (if we have E­nemies) be better have two Ports than one; in time of War with Spain, much better have this than none. And even in the time of Peace, it must [Page 121] be serviceable upon many occasions, because of its Situation on the Barbary side as I take it, and Cadiz on the Christian Shore, and both near the Streights-Mouth, the greatest passage for Ships in the World. And by parting with it, we may not only be prejudiced for want of the conveniency of it, but by the great inconvenien­cies that may arise, by falling into the hands of the French, Turks, Moors, or Spaniards. And therefore I think the charge of maintaining it, must not be considered in this case, and it is not so much, but that if we could once fall into the way of sending good Governors there, that would mind the promoting of Trade, haply the gains that might be levied thereon, would in some time prove sufficient to maintain the Garrison. And if we should now part with it, we should lose the two Millions we have laid out on the Mold, which I think may also be worth our consideration. Sir, I do well remember what a cry there was in this Nation, upon the delivery up of Dunkirk to the French; I believe if Tangier should be delivered up there would be more, and I think not without cause too. For I am afraid, that whenever we may have a War with France, we shall find that he hath already too ma­ny locks upon us in the Streights, seeing he is so formidable at Sea. And I think if it were for no o­ther reason but to secure the place out of his hands we ought to keep the possession of this place.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, by the discourse which the worthy Member made which spoke last, I hope you are fully satisfied that Tangier is a place of great importance, and you may conclude that his Ma­jesty [Page 122] is clearly of that opinion, or else it is not likely that after he had recommended it to you in his Speech, he would now so soon have mind­ed you of it again by his Message. And being so, I hope this House will not have the loss of it lie at their Doors, which I take for granted, will be the Fate thereof, if some Supply be not given for its support speedily. For his Ma­jesty's Revenue will not bear the advancing of more Money towards it, the great supplies late­ly sent, having been very chargeable; and yet there must be an additional Supply, and that a considerable one too ere long, to make up the Garrison four thousand men, or else the Govern­our Writes he cannot be in a posture to defend the Town, the Army of the Moors is so Potent.

Sir, I have heard the many Reasons that have been given, why Money cannot be at present advanced, I cannot say without being much concerned to hear the Ministers so Ar­raigned, and I think without cause; For I be­lieve there are none about his Majesty but what are very good Protestants, and willing to do all they can for that Interest: Which I hope upon a further consideration, will not be found to be in such apparent danger. But if there be any thing amiss (which in the management of so great Affairs, under such difficulties as the Na­tion hath lately strugled under) may possibly be, I am confident the loss of Tangier will no way remedy it; but on the contrary, the giving of Money for the support of Tangier, being his Majesty doth so earnestly desire it, is, I think the only way for this House to gain a good Opinion with his Majesty, and to obtain what [Page 123] they desire; and therefore I hope you will take it into your consideration.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, My apprehensions as to the State of the Nation, and danger of Popery, are no way abated by what this Honourable Member hath said, and therefore I think the business of Tangier looks too little for this Days debate. Especially if we consider how the Bill upon which all our hopes were grounded as to the security of our Religion hath been used by the Lords, thrown out, without so much as a conference, whereas they do not usually do so, with Bills that relate to some little trade. It is strange that after they have so often declared the danger of Popery, and a Popish Plot, they will neither receive any remedy from us, nor propose any to us. But rather on the contrary be so industrious to blast all our endeavours that tend that way; well may we be afraid of our Religion, if the Fathers of the Church will join, in being against the only means that can save it. These are fresh instances of the mighty power, and influence of a Popish Successor; what may we expect from them if we should have a Popish King? I think, Sir, if there were no other reason, it is enough to make us cautious how we give Money; and take such notice of in our Address as may be convenient.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, This debate hath more of weight in it, than the business of Tangier, I [Page 124] think. As affairs now stand, the most part of Chri­stendom is concerned in it, I am sure all the Pro­testants. And therefore I hope your patience will hold out, to have the whole Circumstances of it fairly Examined: For the Arguments that have been offered in the consideration of this Mes­sage, have inlarged the debate further than was at first intended, and have brought the whole State of the Nation in some measure be­fore you, instead of that one particular busi­ness of Tangier; so that now what Resolve you make will be a Discovery of your Inclinations, not only as to what you intend to do as to a supply for Tangier, but as to giving Money for Alliances and all other occasions, upon which result the good or bad success of this Parliament doth depend. As to Tangier, I do agree with that worthy Member that spoke be­fore, (though many are of a different Opinion) that it is not of any great use to us upon the account of any advantage we shall make by it. But however I think it is very well worth our keep­ing; because of the disadvantages we should re­ceive by it, if it should fall into the hands ei­ther of the Turk or Spaniard, but especially the French; who will not only be thereby en­abled to fetter us, as to our Trade in the Levant, but to curb also all other Nations whatsoever; and be such an addition to the too great Power he hath acquired, both by Sea and Land already, that I am of Opinion we ought to be very cautious how we weaken the Security we now have that it shall not fall into his hands. But if the Mold and the Town could be blown in­to the Air, or otherwise reduced into its first [Page 125] Chaos, I think, considering the charge it will cost keeping, England would not be much the worse for it; but to move you to consider any thing about that, at this time, cannot be pro­per, because the Moors have so besieged it, that the first thing that must be done, whether in order to keep it or destroy it, is, to beat them off, by some speedy Supplies which must be presently sent, or else the Town according to the best Information come from thence, is like to be lost. And, Sir, I think this single con­sideration may be perswasive to move you to give some such Supply as may be precisely ne­cessary for the defence and protection of this Place. A small Sum of Money, in compari­son of what this House hath formerly given, may be sufficient to satisfie his Majesty's ex­pectation, and secure the Place too. But I must confess, Sir, it is not the consideration of Tan­gier that makes me press you to it; but the deplorable Estate of the Protestants abroad. Sir, I have had the honour to serve his Majesty in some publick Imployments, and by that means may be a little more sensible of the State of Affairs in reference to our Neighbours, than others may be, having not only had the advantage of Information, but was under a neces­sity of using my best endeavours to get a true accompt of them. Sir, I am confident the Eyes of all Europe are upon this Parliament, and not only the Protestants abroad, but many Catholick Countries (who stand in fear of the Power of France) do think themselves as much concerned in the Success of this Parliament, as this House, and will be as much perplexed to hear any ill news there­of. [Page 126] This, Sir, as well as the necessities of our Affairs at home, make me trouble you at this time, to desire you to be careful what you do, that we may not occasion in his Majesty any dislike to this House. Whatever you do as to the business of Money for Tangier, I pray, Sir, let there be no notice taken in your Address, of the Lords having cast out your Bill, for we have no reason to think the King was any ways concern'd therein. To throw out a Bill of so great importance, without a conference, was in my humble opinion very strange, and contrary to the usual proceedings of that House. But pray, Sir, let it lie at their Doors that did it, for the King could not be concern'd in a Parliamentary way. For by this means we may obviate all misunderstandings with his Ma­jesty about this Affair, and I hope, create in him a good opinion of this House, upon which the welfare not only of this Nation but of Europe doth much depend.

Sir, His Majesty in his Message puts you in mind of giving advice as well as Money, I think if we make that expression, the ground of our Address, we may Naturally graft very good things thereon, especially what may conduce to the preservation of a fair Correspondence. Sir, Though a King alone cannot save a Kingdom, yet a King alone can do very much to Ruin it; and though Parliaments alone cannot save this Kingdom, yet Parliaments alone may do much to Ruin it. And therefore we cannot be too circumspect in what we do. It is our Fortune to sit here in a Critical time, when not only the Affairs of this Nation, but the Protestant Religion abroad [Page 127] need our continuance, and for the same reason we may justly fear that there are those who en­deavour to contrive the putting off this Par­liament. I pray, Sir, let us not give them any advantage, and then I doubt not but his Ma­jesty's care and goodness, will at last overcome all difficulties, and bring this Session to a happy Conclusion.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I think his Majesty may easily send succour to Tangier without any great charge. Here are three or four Regiments of Souldiers about this Town which do rather hurt than good to the Nation, and therefore may very well be spared, and then that Money which pays them now here, may pay them there, and so I sup­pose there will be no need of Money, save only for their Transportation.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, This business hath been so long and fairly debated, as that I think it is high time you should come to a question, and put the business off your hands. I hope there will be great care taken in drawing this Address, that so our Enemies may not have any ground to represent us as a stubborn Parliament, that have no intention to give Money upon any Terms whatsoever. I think Sir, we may be plain with his Majesty, and give him as full as­surance as ever any House of Commons did, that when we have those things granted, which are unavoidably necessary for the preservation of our Religion, that we will freely and heartily give Money for the supply of his occasions, and I cannot but hope, that such fair proceed­ings [Page 128] will occasion a happy Issue to this Parlia­ment. For it cannot be doubted, but that the King is very sensible, That he owes more to his people in general, than to any one man, be he Bro­ther or any other Relation, and that he cannot with­out much trouble to himself, because of his Coro­nation-Oath, longer permit that our Laws and Re­ligion should be in such imminent danger. And there­fore I hope that we shall not only have a fair Correspondency continued, but also a gracious compliance in what we have desired for the ef­fectual security of our Religion, and therefore would desire you to put the question for a Com­mittee.

November 13. 1680.

Mr. Speaker,

SIR, The preservation of the Govern­ment in general, as well as our par­ticular safeties, have a dependance upon the mat­ter that is now before you, in which there are so many Miscarriages so complicated, as there ari­seth some difficulty how to Examine them. I cannot but observe, how the Proclamation is here again mentioned; by which you may conclude, there lieth a great weight on the peoples right to Petition by means thereof, and that the best way to remove it, is to find out the Advisers and Con­trivers of that Proclamation, in order to proceed against them according to their deserts. Without which, what you have done in asserting the Right of Petitioning, will remain with some doubt; and those that advised the proclaiming to the people, that it is Seditious to Petition the King, without that chastisement they deserve. And therefore I humbly conceive, you will do well to consider of it as soon as you can. It is no strange, that the Proclamation should be made use of with Country-Gentlemen, to get Abhorrers to Petitioning, seeing the Judges themselves have made use of it to that purpose. They should have known, that though a Proclamation might be of great use, to intimate the observation of a Law, yet that it had never been used [Page 146] instead of a Law. But yet I do not admire so much at this, as I do at the Discharge of the Grand-Jury, before they had finished their Presentments. It tends so much to the Subversion of the establisht Laws of this Land, that I dare pronounce, that all the Laws you have already, and all that you can make, will sig­nifie nothing against any great man, unless you can re­medy it for the future. I observe, there were two Reasons why this Grand-Jury were so extrajudici­ally discharged; one because they would otherwise have presented the Duke of York for a Papist; the other, because they presented a Petition to be deli­vered to the King for the Sitting of the Parliament, which they said it was not their business to deliver. Though I cannot but observe, how upon other oc­casions they did receive Petitions, and delivered them to the King; and all the difference was, that the Petitions so delivered, were against sittings of Par­liaments. The truth is, I cannot much condemn them for it; for if they were guilty of such Crimes as the Witnesses have this day given you informa­tion of, I think they had no reason to further Pe­titions for the sitting of a Parliament. But, Sir, this business will need a further Information, and therefore I humbly pray it may be referred to a Committee.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I think we are come to the old times again, When the Judges pretended they had a rule of Government, as well as a rule of Law; and that they have acted accordingly. If they did ne­ver read Magna Charta, I think they are not fit to be Judges; if they have read Magna Charta, and do thus so contrary, they deserve a severe chastise­ment. To Discharge Grand-Juries of purpose to [Page 147] disappoint them of making their Presentments, is to deprive the Subject of the greatest benefit and security the Law hath provided for them. If the Judges instead of acting by Law, shall be acted by their Anbition, and endeavour to get promotions rather by worshipping the rising Sun, than by doing Justice, this Nation will soon be reduced to a miserable condi­tion. Suppose that after the Discharge of this Grand-Jury, some person had offered to present some Murther, Treason, or other Capital Crime, for want of the Grand-Jury, there would have been a failure of Justice. As faults committed by Judges are of more dangerous consequence than others to the Publick; so there do not want Presi­dents of severer Chastisements for them than for others. I humbly Move you first to pass a Vote upon this business of Discharging Grand-Juries, and then to appoint a Committee to examine the Miscarriages of the Judges in Westminster-hall, and to Report the same with all speed to you.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, As it hath been observed that this bu­siness hath some reference to the Proclamation, so I believe there is something of the Plot in it too. And therefore I think if this Plot do not go on, it will have the worst luck that ever Plot had; seeing the Judges, as well as most other persons in pub­lick places, have given it as much assistance as they well could. But whereas some have spoken ill of these Judges, I desire to speak well of them in one thing: I am confident they have herein shew­ed themselves grateful to their Benefactors; for I do believe that some of them were preferr'd to their places of purpose, because they should do what they have done. Laws of themselves are [Page 148] but dead Letters: unless you can secure the execu­tion as well of those you have already, as of those you are now making, we shall spend our time to little purpose. Therefore I second the Motion that hath been made for a Vote, to declare the sense of the House as to the Discharging of Grand-Juries, and for referring the farther Examination to a Committee.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, The business of this Debate, is a great instance of our sick and languishing condition. As our Ships, Forts and Castles are for securing us from the danger of our Enemies from abroad, so our Laws from our Enemies at home; and if committed to such persons as will turn their strength upon us, are equally dangerous. Sir, We all know how the Government of Scotland hath been quite altered since His Majesty's Restauration, by some Laws made there; pray let us have a care that ours be not altered by the Corrupt Proceedings of Judges, lest we be reduced to the same weak condition of defending our selves against Popery and Arbitrary Government here, that they are there. If Judges can thus pre­vent the Penalties of the Law, by discharging Grand-Juries before they have made their Present­ments, and can make Laws by their Rules of Court▪ I think the Government may soon be sub­verted; and therefore that it is high time for this House to speak with those Gentlemen. In former times several Judges have been Impeached, and Hanged too, for less Crimes than these; and the reason was, because they had broke the King's Oath as well as their own. If what hath been said of some of these Judges be fully proved, they shall not want my Vote to inflict on them the same Chastisement. [Page 149] The truth is, Sir, I know not how the ill conse­quences we justly fear from Judges, can be prevent­ed, as long as they are made durante beneplacito, and have such dependancies as they have. But this must be a work of time. In order to remedy our present grievances, let us pass a Vote upon this business of Discharging Grand-Juries, and that it may be penn'd as the case deserves, if you please, let it be drawn up by a Committee that may with­draw for that purpose; and let there be also one appointed to Examine the Miscarriage of the Judges.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I would beg leave to observe to you, because I think it may be necessary to be conside­red by your Committee, what an opinion was given not long since by some of these Judges a­bout Printing; which was, that Printing of News might be prohibited by Law, and accordingly a Proclamation issued out. I will not take on me to censure the Opinion as Illegal, but leave it to your further consideration. But I remember there was a Consultation held by the Judges a little before, and they gave their Opinion, that they knew not of any way to prevent Printing by Law, because the Act for that purpose was expired. Ʋpon which some Judges were put out, and new ones put in, and then this other Opi­nion was given. These things are worthy of a se­rious Examination. For if Treasurers may raise Money by shutting up the Exchequer, borrowing of the Bankers, or Retrenchments, and the Judges make new Laws by an ill Construction, or an ill Execution of old ones; I conclude, That Parlia­ments will soon be found useless, and the Liberty of the people an inconvenience to the Government. [Page 150] And therefore I think, Sir, you have been well Moved to endeavour to pass your censure on some of these Illegal proceedings by a Vote, and to re­ferr the farther consideration to a Committee.

December 15. 1680.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I would willingly Move you to ap­point a day to consider of His Majesty's Speech now made to both Houses, because it is according [Page 152] to the usual Methods of Parliament; and I should be sorry to see this House shew less respect to His Majesty's Speeches, than former have done. But upon hearing it now Read, I do conclude, that it will be to little purpose to appoint a day for the consideration of it, because every Paragraph of it tends to Money, unless that about securing Religi­on, if it may be so understood, notwithstanding the Reservation in it about the Succession. We have already endeavoured by several Addresses we have made, to assure His Majesty of our Loyalty and readiness to promote whatever may tend to his Happiness and Greatness; and that when we are secured of our Religion, we will readily give Money: we can do no more than confirm the same, after we have considered this Speech. We having not yet had any incouragement to give Money, we have made several Addresses for relief of some Grievances the people lie under, but hath any one of them been granted? We have finished one Bill a­gainst Popery, but what success hath it had else­where? thrown out as hastily rs if it had carried a fire-ball with it. And yet now it seems there is nothing to be done but giving of Money; as if all our complaints were granted, the Protestant Reli­gion secured, and nothing wanting to satisfie the people. Sir, I think the complaints of the Nati­on, as to the danger of Popery, are so great, and so reasonably grounded, as that it cannot be expect­ed they should longer be satisfied with words or pretences, because we have met with many disap­pointments, especially after giving of Money. And therefore considering the desperate case we are in, it will not be convenient we should go that way now, but keep our Money until we have got [Page 153] Laws. Which, I think, is the best service we can do those who sent us here, as the case stands. For these reasons, I think, we had best adjourn the Considerations of this Speech to some other time.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, we have been long jealous that there are people that endeavour to create a Misunder­standing between His Majesty and this House; which it is our business to prevent. If there be a difference between two men, and the one will not hear what the other offers, but be utterly against all Proposals, it would be hard to reconcile two such persons, Treaties and Debates being a proper way to come to a fair understanding. It is true, most of the Paragraphs of his Majesty's Speech are Memento's about Money; but in the Conclusion he is pleased to tell you, That he desires to know how far he shall be assisted by us, and what it is that we desire from him. Sir, I think this is a fair step towards coming to a right understanding; for I am apt to believe, that if the King knew how reasonable the things are that we desire of him, and how ready we are to give him all the assistance he can desire for the support of the Go­vernment, that we should not long continue under these misunderstandings; and therefore I humbly move you to appoint a day to consider his Maje­sty's Speech.

Sir, when I consider the Immunities and Advantages we enjoy by the excellent composure of our Government both in Church and State, how the King as Sovereign, enjoys all the Prero­gative that can be necessary to make him either great or happy, and the People all the Liberty and Priviledge that can be pretended for their encou­ragement to be industrious, and for securing to themselves and Posterities the enjoyment of what they get by their industry. How the Doctrine of the Church is void of Idolatrous, superstitious O­pinions, and the Government of Tyranny or ab­solute Dominion; I cannot but admire that there should be any body amongst our selves that should aim at any alteration, and be the occasion of this days Debate. But, Sir, it is too evident that such there are, and that they have made a great advance to effect there design, by many contrivances which they have pursued for a long course of years, ac­cording to the Results and Consultations held by Jesuits for that purpose: But above all, by con­verting to their Religion James Duke of York, the presumptive Heir of the Crown, and by engaging him to espouse their interest with that zeal and fervency which usually attends new Converts; especially when so great a glory is proposed as the rooting out of a pestilent Heresie out of three Nations, and the saving of so many Souls as would depend thereon. The sad effect of this Conversion we have felt for many years, it having had the same operations in our Body Politick, as some sorts of [Page 155] lingring Poison hath in Bodies Natural; made us sick and consumptive, by infecting and corrupting all the food and Physick which hath been applied in order to reduce us to Popery and slavery, worse than death it self. From this fatal act the declination of the Grandeur of this Monarchy may be dated▪ and to the consequences thereof its absolute ru­ine (if not timely prevented) will be hereafter attributed. This being our case, I could not but admire to see this House so long a-coming to consi­der this weighty point; insomuch, that I began to perswade my self, that either our dangers were not so great as our discourses upon some other oc­casions had represented them, or that we were not in good earnest to endeavour any redress. It is true, when we consider what ill fortune we have had with our Bill lately sent up to the House of Lords, in having it thrown out in such a heat without so much as a Conference, (though when­ever they shall consider of it in cool bloud, they will find there can be no other way to secure the Protestant Religion) we may with some reason be discouraged. But I hope, Sir, that seeing our Country have thought us worthy to be their Re­presentatives, we shall not be so easily daunted in what so nearly concerns them, but be as indefati­gable in finding out ways for our preservation, as our Enemies are to find out means for our destru­ction; hoping we shall not meet always so bad success in the House of Lords: For though the too much kindness of some men who pretended to be for the Bill, but underhand made a party against it, did this time operate as fatally as Enmity disguised in Friendship useth to do, yet I hope that in another occasion we may have better success; not doubt­ing [Page 156] but a great many Lords, when they are per­swaded that they shall not be able to find out any other way (as I hear they begin to dispair they shall) to secure the Protestant Religion, that they will join with us in the same, or some other Bill to the same purpose: Especially my good Lords the Bishops, who cannot be presumed to have made peace with Rome, but to be ready to die for the Protestant Religion, and therefore doubtless will not long stick at joining in a Bill to save it. But seeing that according to the course of Parliaments we are not like to bring this to a trial for a long time, I am of opinion we had best try something else; and although I know not what other Act can be made to serve instead of that, but will ei­ther prove too weak or too strong; yet seeing we are put upon it, we must try, that so we may not be represented as stubborn. And therefore I humbly move you that a Bill may be brought in for the Association of all his Majesty's Protestant Sub­jects.

Sir, Great things are expected from this days Debate, and we could not well have entred into it sooner; it now comes more seasonable than it would have done before, because of the oppor­tunities we have had to feel the Pulse of affairs, since the beginning of the Session, and the time we have spent in asserting the right of Petitioning, by which the essence of Parliaments, and the foun­dation of the Peoples Liberties were struck at. And the trial of my Lord Stafford, and the Disin­heriting-Bill could not possibly have been avoided. And as our labour hath not been lost in all, so I hope that at last we shall have some benefit of that spent about the Succession-Bill. For as it was said [Page 157] at the passing of the Bill, that there were a Loyal party that would never acquiesce in it; so I do be­lieve there is a true Protestant-party that will ne­ver acquiesce in any thing less than what may be sufficient for the security of their Religion, which I am apt to believe will end in that Bill. But in the mean time, that we may shew that we are not humorists, let us try what strength we can muster up to oppose these great Enemies by some other Laws; as when a House is on fire we make use of Buckets and Tubs for casting of water, until the great Engines can be got. But I would move you to be cautious what you do, for I am afraid that the design of putting you upon finding out Expedients is not in order to have any thing done that may be effectual against Popery, but in or­der to have you offer at something that may pur­chase a disrepute on the House, and give your E­nemies an advantage to pursue their designs of breaking us, by alleading that you aim at Laws that will overturn the Government. For my part, I am fully perswaded that this is the design of those that have put the King so often to declare a­gainst altering the Succession, and to recommend o­ther ways; and that offer at what you will, if it be any thing that is like to prove strong enough to secure us against Popery, that you will see the House put off before it come to any perfection, and that in time it will be made use of to arraign the Proceedings of Parliament, and to perswade the people that this House did attempt to alter the Government by such and such Bills, and so by degrees possess the people that Parliaments are ei­ther dangerous, or inconsistent with the Government; that if possible they may be well content to be [Page 158] without them. Sir, I am afraid that the Popish party are more serious in this design than we are aware of; and that next to the great endeavours they have used for many years to keep up our di­visions in points of Religion, the next great Ar­tifice which they depend on, is the infusing into the people the dislikes of Parliaments: for they well know that Popery can never be established in this Nation as long as Parliaments are permitted to sit and act. Therefore, though I know it is be­low a House of Commons to mind every little dis­course, yet I think if we conclude that this pow­erful party amongst their many designs have this for one, that we ought to countermine it as much as we can. We cannot well comprehend what a Bill of Association will be before it be drawn up, nor what difficulties may be found in the contriving of it; and therefore I think no great Debate will be necessary about it before such a Bill be brought in. And I believe it will be found more likely to be serviceable in case the Papists be banished; and therefore I conceive a Bill for Banishment of all the Considerable Papists out of England may be very necessary. And if at the same time that we en­deavour to secure our selves against Popery, we do not also do something to prevent Arbitrary Power, it will be to little purpose; for the one will be sure to give a hand to bring in the other; and I think nothing can prevent that, or rather both, better than frequent Parliaments. And therefore I humbly move you that a Bill for securing fre­quent Parliaments may be taken into your conside­ration.

Sir, I think you are well advised that the way to secure our selves effectually against Po­pery, [Page 159] is to secure our selves also against Arbitrary Government, and that the having of frequent Par­liaments is the best way to secure both; and there­fore, Sir, I think you may do well to move the House that a Committee be appointed to inspect what old Laws there are for enforcing the sitting of frequent Parliaments, that if they should be found deficient, some new Laws may be made for that purpose. I do agree that a Bill for Bani­shing out of England the most Considerable Papists may do well; but I hope, Sir, that if you banish the Men, you will banish some Women too; for I do believe that some of that Sex have been great Instruments in bringing about our ruine: and if in time you would consider how to prevent the Royall Families marrying Popish Women, it would be of great security for hereafter. For I am of opinion that the late Queen-Mother's Zeal for her Religion, was not only a great occasion (amongst many o­thers) of the miseries that befel us in 41. but the great Cause of all our Miseries now, by perver­ting the Duke from his Religion, as is reported, and may reasonably be believed, if we conclude that she had that motherly care for the salvation of her Children as other Mothers usually have; for ac­cording to her Opinion, it was not to be obtained out of the pale of that Church; And no man can doubt but that the Protestant Interest hath been much prejudiced by his Majesty's marrying a Princess of that Religion: For we have plainly seen, since the discovery of the Plot, how some of the most material Jesuits and Popish Instruments have sheltered themselves under her Royal protection, and how they have helpt to carry on the Plot, by being so impudent as to pretend they had her [Page 160] patronage, and by abusing her Authority; but more especially by the Duke's marrying the Princess of Modena, because of her near relation to the Popes and Cardinals. All which was plainly fore­seen by that Parliament which met a little before that Marriage, in 1673. and therefore they made an Address to his Majesty, representing the said ill consequences, desiring him not to permit it, because it would tend to the destruction of the Protestant Religion. But their endeavours were defeated by that party, as we may guess, seeing we find so much use of her name in Coleman's Letters; for well might they who have over-ruled in so many great affairs as hath been instanced in this House, have an influence also in this, that so that party might not want so useful an Instrument in so great a station: and so the Parliaments Address mis­carried; but that they had either a good Judg­ment, or prophetick Spirit, I hope will never mis­carry, but remain upon Record. And unless you do believe that these Ladies are less compassionate than others usually are, how can it be otherwise, their Principles considered? But, Sir, I will not trouble you farther about it, but suppose it may be worth your consideration in due time. In the in­terim, I agree for the Bill of Banishment and Associa­tion too.

Sir, It is not to be doubted but that Popery and Arbitrary Government are so near of Kin as cannot be separated, and therefore if we de­stroy the one, we need not fear the destruction of the other. Before our late miserable Wars, Popery was more in Masquerade, and Arbitrary Power in the Loans, Monopolies, and Ship-money, more visible: now Popery is more visible, excepting in the busi­ness [Page 161] of Exchequer, which amounting to above one Million of Money, we may not admire we have not heard of more great things of that kind, since especially, being we know how averse the King is to hearken to such advice, but our fears of Popery are the stronger because of the Popish Suc­cessour, and therefore I cannot but commend the policy of those who are tender in using Arbitrury proceedings at this time, lest the Fears and Jealou­sies that might arise from both together should prove intolerable.

I must confess, Sir, I am at a great loss what to offer to your consideration in this matter, for our danger is not only from the strength of the Popish party, but from the weakness of the Protestants by reason of the animosities which they sow a­mongst us, not only in points of Religion, but of Interest too. For of late they have not been con­tent with carrying on the design of dividing the Church-men and Fanaticks, but by arraigning the last Parliament as omnipotent and dangerous for going about to disinherit the Duke. They endea­vour to divide the people in their opinions as to Parliaments, and to render them incompatible with the Government, that so if possible they may keep the Protestant Interest divided, and work them to destroy themselves, by engaging party a­gainst party, in hopes at last to have but one party to deal with, and to have an opportunity of gaining the weakest to their side by assurances of Liberty of Con­science, or otherways, which must certainly be the consequence of such a contest. And although I am very unwilling to detract from the merits of our Church-men, for whom I have a great vene­ration, yet I cannot but observe how that ever [Page 162] since the Tryal of Wakeman was over, but more about the time of the Presbyterian-plot, how they preached up (especially in publick Assemblies) the danger of Fanaticks to be more than of Papists, and that to disinherit the Duke was against the Law of God. Which said Opinions, if they should be imbibed by the people, what will your Association-bill si­gnifie, or any other Law you can make against Po­pery? Sir, I do not mention these things to you without a great deal of regret; for I am well known to be a true friend of the Church, and have (when I was thought worthy to be in Commis­sion) exprest my self a severe Enemy to Fanati­cism. But however, I cannot but observe this strange contradiction of pretending to keep out Popery, and yet at the same time to endeavour to divide the Protestant Interest, and to reserve a right to make a Papist King. I must confess I am more distracted from the ill consequences I fear from such contrivances as these, than from the strength of the Papists themselves. They will certainly go on with their Interest, as long as they are secure of such Auxiliaries. These things must be consider­ed in the drawing of your Bill, that so the reme­dy you propose may be proportionable to your di­sease. For an Act of Association may be several ways evaded by such opinions as these, if they should grow amongst the people, and it will be an irrepairable blow to the Protestant Interest to accept of such an Expedient, if it should prove ineffectual. And therefore it ought to be so drawn, as may provide for all the contrivances of that party: For, Sir, I cannot imagine that ever Popery will attempt to come into this Nation bare-faced, but do expect that the design will always be carried on as [Page 163] hitherto under some disguise, either by a toleration in favour of tender Consciences, or in the name of Church­men, or a Loyal party, for the defence of the Church or Government, which some Presbyterian-plot would much conduce, and be an excellent pretence for rising of an Army, and apprehending or disarming of such persons as are most likely to oppose that Interest. I must confess, Sir, I have not very well digested what I have said to you on this Subject; but unless you can change the Interest at Court, and remove those Counsellors that are so much for the Duke, I think you may justly fear all these Stratagems, and that it will be impossible to contrive any Association-Bill that can provide against them. And there­fore, that we may not spend our time in vain, I would humbly move you, Sir, to go on with the Bill of Banishment, which is most likely to do you some service. At least, by it we shall see, whe­ther any thing will be granted against Papists or no: For this purpose it will be necessary, that the House be moved, that the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, he commanded to bring in a List of all the most considerable Papists in England, in or­der to banish the most notorious.

Sir, I retain a good opinion of an Asso­ciation-bill, notwithstanding what hath been said as to the weakness it may receive from our unhappy Divisions in points of Religion and In­terest, too much promoted by some of our Clergy. For, Sir, when I consider how the Laudean princi­ples, as to raising of Money without Parliaments in the late times, infected most of our Clergy, so as that they not only preached up the Kings absolute Authority over mens Properties, but branded with the title of Rebels, and condemned to Hell those that offered to [Page 164] argue against it: I do conclude, that it is usual for one or two Bishops, to give measures or directions to the rest of the Bishops, and they to the Clergy of their several Diocesses: And that therefore the Clergy de­rive the Politicks generally from one or two Bishops in some great station. Yet, Sir, when I remember how after some little time many of the Clergy fell off, and would not follow such instructions; and how the people soon excused themselves from following their advice in such Politicks, and would not free­ly pay illegal Taxes, notwithstanding all their en­deavours. I am apt to think, Sir, that as the peo­ple were not long then mislead, so as to submit to lose their property, so they will not now, to any thing that shall tend to the losing of their Religi­on and property both. They will soon discover what is their interest, and how true interest will not lye. I have often told you within these walls, they will soon apprehend that Popery will bring in Slavery, and reduce them not only to an Ido­latrous, Superstitious Religion, but to wear Wood­den-shoes like the French, and to eat Herbs like the Spaniard, because they will soon know that they shall not be long Masters of any thing they have: And however they may be perswaded for a while, I am confident they will at last consult how to save their Bacon. They will discern that the Cler­gy may be good Divines, but not so good Politi­cians; and that there may be some difference in point of Interest between them and the Clergy, because Cler­gy-men may be in a possibility of being advanced by Popery if they submit; but the Laity under a proba­bility of losing all notwithstanding all Submissions. Sir, I do not trouble you with this Discourse out of a fear that our Clergy will not shew themselves [Page 165] good Protestants, for I have that veneration for them, and opinion of them, as to believe, that many of the Bishops, and Clery too, would as soon die for the Protestant Religion as any persons in the Nation. But I am jealous, that there is some over-awing Power got in amongst them, something an­swerable to that of a Popish Successor in the State; by whose means those Bills were so easily past in the late long Parliament, under a pretence that they were for the preservation of the Protestant Religion, which the Commons then sound, and any person that will now peruse them may find, would infallibly have brought in Popery. And, how since the Plot, the danger of Fanaticks is cried up more than that of the Papists; and how tender they are in the point of a Popish Successor, or joining in any thing against him. But though these things make me jealous, there is some body that misleads them now in matters relating to Popery, as former­ly in things relating to Property, yet I am of opi­nion that they will ere long see, that to stand up for the Interest of a Popish Successor; to have a Popish King, to weaken the Protestant Interest, and speak ill of Parliaments, is not the right way to preserve the Protestant Religion; but a plain con­tradiction, and an invention of Jesuits. And there­fore, Sir, I am for going on with the Association-Bill; for I will never doubt, that the true Interest of the Nation, in so great a concern as this, will long be baffled by such projectors. And therefore it is my desire; that the House may be moved to ap­point a Committee to draw up a Bill for that pur­pose.

Sir, I think you have been well mo­ved, as well for the Association-Bill as the Bani­shing [Page 166] Bill. By the one, you will send your Ene­mies out of the Country; by the other, be in a good condition to keep them out, which may go a great way to secure us.

Sir J. H. and Mr. L. G. for the Bani­shing Bill.

Sir, I am not against any of these Bills, because they may be all convenient for the present occasion: but if any man think that these Bills will do without the Succession-Bill, I believe they will find themselves mistaken. For these Bills will signifie nothing, unless you can remove your Popish Successor, and your Popish Interest. These Bills will not reach your Papists in Masquerade, who will certainly continue as long as there is a Popish Suc­cessor, and make your Banishing-Bill, and Associa­tion-Bill too, as ineffectual as white paper. Let such as I could name to you, have the command of the Sea-ports, (as I suppose they will, without my naming them) and in the Lieutenancy and Commission of the Peace, and when the present heat is over, let the Papists come back when they will, they will have no cause to doubt having a kind reception. For you must not expect to have plain rustick Country Gentlemen in such Commands, but well-bred Courtiers, and some good easie eredu­lous Gentlemen, that will soon be perswaded there is no danger in Popery; and then of what use will your Banishing or Association-bill be? As long as the Duke hath so many friends at Court, (between whose Interest and Popery I cannot hear there is any distinction) I think no Laws that we can make against Popery will do us any good, be­cause all the Laws we have already have done us none. For the same arts and power that hath hitherto [Page 167] defeated all your other Laws, will also defeat what you are now about. And therefore, Sir, I am of opinion we are not now acting like the true Physi­cians of the Nation, but like Mountebanks. For the most we shall be able to do this way, is to patch and plaster up our sores, and have them hereaf­ter break out incurable upon us. But if you are resolved to go on with these Bills that have been proposed, I will not offer to oppose the sense of the Committee, but would move you, (that we may not forget, or lose in the Crowd, that which at last, I believe, must be pursued, if ever you will do any thing for your Religion) that in the first place you pass a Vote, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that as long as the Papists have any hopes of the Duke of York's succeeding the King, that the King's person, the Protestant Religion, and the Lives and Liberties of the People are in apparent dan­ger.

Sir, I have read that a great Minister of State of Spain, gave this short advice to a friend of his that was coming Embassador into England; that he should not always aim at the best. I think it may be convenient for us to follow that advice; for if we should not have something for our secu­rity, before we get the best, I am afraid it may hap­pen to us, as it did to a man whose House was be­set with Thieves, he was so long arming his ser­vants, and appointing them their distinct quarters, that the Thieves broke in, and caught them all unprovided. I pray God it may not be our case; though I am very sensible that none of these Bills can effectually do our business; for nothing can secure us against this party but being free of their Principles as well as of their Persons; which I con­clude [Page 168] will always remain in some persons amongst us, notwithstanding your banishing of Papists, as long as there is a Popish Successor. For I remem­ber what a great man of Swedeland told me, that all the Laws they could make, had never any effect a­gainst them, until they not only banished them out of their Country, but secured the Government in the hand of Princes of their own Religion; And I am afraid, that nothing less than the same way will ever do our business here. For it is not so much the number of the Papists, as their Principles, and the danger of their getting the Government into their hands, which we know they have been long aiming at, that may justly be feared, in which I am perswaded they will be so restless, as that we shall never be secure against them, unless we can banish their Principles from Court, as well as the Peo­ple out of the Country.

Sir, what my good friend that spoke last hath said, that we should get something, and not lose all by aiming so earnestly at the best, is very well, if we were like to get any thing instead of it, that shall have the appearance of being ser­viceable in this case: But I have seen old Parlia­ment-men mistaken sometimes, and I am afraid than he will sooner see this Parliament dissolved; that any thing granted that shall be material a­gainst Popery. And that the mentioning of these Bills shall afterwards arise in Judgment against you; however, I think we must adventure. What this Association-bill may be, I cannot tell until it be drawn; but I see no opposition made to any of those Bills that have been proposed; and I believe there is much business yet behind for this day, and that you will do well to husband your time, [Page 169] and put this business out of your hands by putting the questions.

Sir, you have been very well moved for the bringing in of such Bills as may tend as much to the security of the Protestant Religion as any that can be offered. That of Banishment will cer­tainly go a great way to destroy, not only their Power, but their Interest and Principles too, and be a great disheartning to their party abroad. That Interest will not then have so many Engines to work with here, as now they have. And the Bill of Association will be necessary, that we may have a Law to defend our selves. The Associa­tion made in Queen Elizabeth's time, will be a good Precident to draw it up by. And seeing there is no opposition, I move you to put the Que­stion.

Sir, By offering at the Exclusion Pill, we may conclude we have offended the Duke of York; by this Bill for Banishment, all the rest of the con­siderable Papists in England. As we have made many Enemies so it will be convenient that we should endea­vour to get some Law to defend our selves against their Implacable Designs. For which a Bill for an Asso­ciation of all His Majesty's Protestant Subjects may do well; and therefore I pray that we may Move the House to have it brought in.

Sir, as we are sick of complicated Diseases, [Page 170] though all have their original from one cause, see­ing we cannot be permitted to cure that cause, we must think of many Remedies to cure the many Evils that sprout from it. The Banishing of the Papists alone will do it. And I am not willing to pass any judgment on the Association-Bill before I see it. But, Sir, what fruit can you expect from your Laws, unless you can secure good Judges in Westminster-hall, and good Men in Commission in all other places. Is there at this time a Judge, a Depu­ty Lieutenant, or a Justice of Peace in Commission, that you can expect shall act against the Duke of York. Or if any such be in, are they for more than a co­lour? Are they not over-power'd by such as are for the Dukes Interest? If this do not make all your Laws invalid, by not executing them; is there not an Army of about Ten thousand men under the name of Guards, and may not more be raised, and what then will your Laws signifie. Have we not already had some experience of this, when the To­leration came out in 1672. when there was that Army at Black-heath, and Clifford had the manage­ment of the great affairs of State? If the King had not then hearkened to the Advice of his Parlia­ment, what would all the Laws that were then in force against Papists have signified. And may you not see the same again, if you do not take some care to prevent it. What great difference between Clifford and some of our present great Ministers, on­ly that he had that weakness to declare himself to be a Papist, and these the discretion to keep the knowledge of their Religion to themselves. But we see they manage things as much in favour of Popery, as ever Clif­ford did. Did not that Toleration, that Army, and that minister of state, repeal all your Laws as effectu­ally, [Page 171] as if they had never been made? When I con­sider how the Tripple-League was broke, after we had made Laws for the keeping it, by giving near Three Millions; how the Peace was made up at Nimeguen, after we had made an Act for an actual War with France, and given above a Million for entring into it. I will never believe that any Law will be observed, make what you will, unless there be those about the King that may be for the keeping of it; o­therwise you shall have such Judges, Justices, De­puty-Lieutenants, and other Commissionated Offi­cers, as will repeal your Laws at pleasure. And therefore I could wish you would consider well, how you possess those that sent you here, with an opini­on that they may depend upon such Laws as these. And at the same time, Sir, that you are consulting the destruction of the Papists, I think, you may do well to endeavour the preservation of the Protestants. Is this a time for the Church-men and Dissenters to quar­rel? It is like two Men riding upon a Road, a High-way-man coming to Rob them, instead of uniting to defend themselves, they quarrel and dis­arm one the other, and so were both Robbed. I pray God this do not prove at last our case. For as that project of the Papists hath since Wakeman's Tryal, had strange success in dividing us, so no doubt but will at last come to Dis-arming us too; and how that will facilitate their conquest, may be easily calculated? Is this a time to weaken the Protestant Interest, by tearing us in pieces by the execution of acts made against Papists? That man that can believe, that that is the way to preserve the Protestant Religion, or Protestant-Church, is fit to believe that St. Denys walkt many miles with his head under his arm, or any other Popish Miracle [Page 172] whatsoever. And therefore I think you will do well to hasten the Bill for Ʋniting of the Protestant Dissenters, that we may bring into the Church as many of them as is possible, and not longer be so infatuated to gratifie the Papists in that particular, by doing their business in destroying one another; but prevent them if possible by Union, which will tend more to prevent Popery, than all the Bills that have been proposed.

Sir, I have read in Scripture, What King going to wake War against another, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty. I take the denial of the Bill of Exclusion, to be a plain demonstration, that the Popish party should not be de­prived of a right to govern us; and it is not to be doubted, that having that right, they will be sure to make use of all the power they can to back it with. That we may be the better able to judge whether we can fortifie our selves sufficiently against such a right, and the power that will natu­rally follow it. I pray, Sir, let us follow our Sa­viours Advice, and consult, whether with ten thou­sand we can meet twenty thousand.

When I consider how the Tripple-League was broke, and how all Alliances and Transactions re­lating to Peace and War have been since managed in favour of the French Interest, contrary to the true Interest of England, and the pressing importu­nities of Foreign Nations, as well as our own, I think we cannot but conclude, that the Dukes Interest, the French Interest, and Popish Interest is all one. And that the Duke's or Popish Interest, have some great dependance on the French King, for his assistance in the settling of Popery here. And no man can [Page 173] dout this, but he that will not believe Coleman's Letters, or that there was a peace made at Nimme­gen, in order to put him in the better condition. If the Jesuits do manage all the affairs of Europe, as is said, it may be justly feared, that the French King will improve this agreement so, as to get Flanders, if not Holland too, before he perform his promise of giving them the expected assistance, which be­ing it will conduce to the destroying of the Pro­testants abroad, as well as here, we may justly fear the Jesuits will never obstruct.

Besides, the dependance which the Papists may have of assistance from this mighty Monarch; in Ireland they are five to one for the Protestants, and amount to many hundred thousands, full of bloody revenge derived from their Ancestors, wanting nothing but Arms (which they may have from France in a night) to be enabled to Massacre all the Protestants in Ireland, and to be ready to be trans­ported hither. How the Plot has been carried on there in order to it; how endeavours have been there used to stiffle and Counterplot it; who Com­mands all the English Coast opposite to Ireland, we know; and how our Forts and Castles are provi­ded, the Examination of the Governour of Cheap­stow-Castle may inform you.

And that there may not want a strength to compel us on every side, is not the Government of Scot­land quite altered, by some Acts made within these few years? is it not become very near Arbitrary, Parliaments in a manner laid aside, and the power invested in a Privy-Council? And is there not a standing Army of Twenty two thousand men, set­led by Act of Parliament, with a Declaration, that they shall be ready to come into England upon any [Page 174] occasion. And is not the Duke now there, mana­ging the Government of that Kingdom, and Ar­my too, by putting in his own Creatures into the Council and into the Command of the Army, and using all other ways imaginable to improve his in­terest there.

And may we not conclude, that in England there may be one hundred thousand Papists fighting men, and that Portsmouth, Plimouth, Sheerness, Tilbury-Fort, and Hull, and all other places of impor­tance, shall, when that Interest shall think it con­venient, be in the hands of persons they may con­fide in, as well as the command of the Militia and Fleet.

And what now, Sir, can any man say is wanting to enable this Party to make a great contest with us, but a Popish King to head them? And doth any thing stand in their way for that, but His Majesty's Life? And is it not strange, that though we see this never so plain, that there is no remedy for poor Protestants? Can it be imagined, that if this par­ty should once have a King on their side, endowed with a valorous Spirit, and vowed revenge, spur­ed on with a fiery zeal, to get not only Three Crowns on Earth, but the Crown of Glory in Heaven, by rooting out a pestilent Heresie out of three Nations, that they will neglect so great an opportunity for the establishing of Popery here? And will not the Divisions they carry on amongst us, as to Church-men and Fanaticks, Plot or no Plot, be very useful to them, but especially their arraignments of Parliaments, and all that speak against Popery, as Forty-one-men, and Enemies to the Government, occasion a great weakness on our side? I think, Sir, all this put together, makes a great [Page 175] strength for that party, enough to bring us into misery, whatever the issue may be. I would now, Sir, give you some account how the Protestants may be able in such a case to defend themselves; but, I protest, Sir, I know not what defence they will be able to make legally. It is true, Sir, as long as our good King lives, we may live in quiet; but things being thus, are not the Papists under great temptations to go on with their old damnable design, or set up a new one for the destruction of the King. And if it should so happen, either by their wicked counsels, or naturally, I think there is no way left us to oppose this party, but by a Rebellion, and therefore I think we may conclude, that our Lives, Liberties, and Religion, are to deter­mine with the King's life.

I confess, Sir, this is a melancholy Discourse, but I am afraid too true; and that the more you con­sider of it, the more reason you will have to be­lieve, that there is such a Net spread to catch poor Protestants, as cannot fail to do it effectually, when­ever the Jesuits shall be pleased to draw it. And our condition looks the more dismal, because though King, Lords, and Commons have so of­ten declared that there hath been a damnable, ex­ecrable, devilish, hellish, abominable Plot carried on by the Papists, yet that all remedies against the like for the future must be denied us; I mean such as can signifie any thing, and we must now again be exposed, as we were before the Plot broke out, to all their barbarities, having only weakened that party by executing about twenty old men; but strengthned them much more by having discoura­ged all Witnesses from ever revealing more of their Plots, and by the discoveries they have made [Page 176] of the strength of their party, in the stiffling of this Plot. And yet all will not open the eyes of some Protestants, that so if possible we might be so happy as to lay our divisions aside and join a­gainst the common Enemy, without which we must certainly be ruin'd.

And if this be our case, and there be nothing wanting but a Popish King to compleat our mise­ry, and the art of man cannot find out any way to secure us against a Popish King without the Ex­clusion-Bill; is it not strange it should be rejected in the House of Lords? I cannot believe that the Fathers of the Church should join in that which must infallibly give opportunity for the tearing out of the Bowels of their Mother, and destroying her for ever. If so, well may we lie down and cry, We have no body to help us, but only thee O God.

Sir, I have troubled you too long, but I hope what I have said, may be of some use to you in resolving about these Bills that are proposed, though I think they will all come short of our case. Seeing you have Voted a Bill for the Bani­shing of the Papists, I think you may do well to try what a Bill of Association may amount to: But I agree with the opinion of those worthy Members that have told you, that these things are put upon you, that you may give occasion to those that wish ill to Parliaments, to argue thereby for your Dissolution; and afterwards to perswade the People that you went about to dissolve the foundation of the Government. And therefore I do not expect any good effect of these Bills.

Sir, by the serious discourse which that worthy Member hath made of the sadness [Page 177] and in security of our condition we may plainly see, how by the interest of the Duke of York, there is a great power combined against us, and that our condition is irrecoverable, if he should come to be King. And therefore, Sir, I desire you would put the question, upon a motion that was made a little while since, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that as long as the Papists have any hopes of the Duke's succeeding to the Govern­ment of this Nation, that the King's Person, nor the Protestant Religion, nor the Government of this Nation cannot be secure.

Sir, I am of opinion the Popish Plot go­eth on as much as ever, and the Papists are so proud of it, as they cannot forbear bragging of their hopes to see better days speedily. I think, Sir, seeing we are not like for one while to have the Exclusion-Bill, we shall appear neglectful of our duty, if we do not try what security can be contrived by an Association-Bill. And therefore I humbly pray that the House may be moved to ap­point a Committee to draw up and bring in a Bill for Associating all his Majesty's Protestant Sub­jects.

Sir, The reason why we are now in [Page 178] this debate, is because a Negative is past on our Bill for excluding to Duke of York. It is strange, seeing the danger of the Protestant Religion is so great, (if there be any intent to save it) that the only Bill which could serve for that end should be thought too much. I am of opinion, that no other Bills can do us any service at all; for it will be pretended they are all void, because made a­gainst the Right and Prerogative of your lawful King, without this Exclusion-Bill. Yet seeing his Majesty hath so often in his Speeches recom­mended the security of the Protestant Religion by other ways, I think it is our duty to try what o­ther Laws can be made, though it be only to give the King and the world satisfaction, and to enable us the better to judge whether such Speeches proceed from his Majesty's goodness, or from evil Coun­sel. I must confess, Sir, I am afraid, seeing the Duke of York's interest is now as great at Court as ever, and that there are so many of the Privy-Counsellors for him, as well as most others in places of Trust and Command, that they that ad­vise the King to put in that limitation in all His Speeches, do know that without that Law there can be none made that can prejudice the Duke's Interest, and so consequently not save the Protestant Religion, and therefore they advise it. For how can we rea­sonably presume otherways, seeing his Interest is so fixt as it is, and the Wheel within the Wheel con­tinues, which hath been so often complained of. When I ponderate on the good things his Maje­sty always doth, when he is pleased to exclude the corrupt Politicks, and advice of others, I cannot but lament afresh our great Misfortune in having a Popish Successor, that should be able to create such [Page 179] an Interest, as to hinder us from the good effect thereof. His Majesty did once declare, how sensi­ble he was of the inconvenience of being advised by private Cabals, and seemed resolved to dismiss them, and from that time forward to advise with his Privy-Council, and in cases extraordinary with the great Council the Parliament. How he came to vary from that resolution I do not know; but I am afraid we shall not see any alteration in favour of the Protestant interest, until we see some change in that particular. For though the Duke's friends may do very well to preserve the Duke's interest, which upon all accounts is Popery, yet, I think, they are very inconsistent with the preservation of the Protestant Interest: And therefore until some alte­ration in Council, as Parliaments have laboured in vain against Popery these two years, so I am afraid we shall now. However, Sir, I am not a­gainst trying what strength you can make of an Association-Bill; but I am afraid, that without the Exclusion-Bill, you will find your work endless; and that one Bill will occasion another, and all prove to little purpose without it, and that you will but give your Enemies a handle to represent you amiss and get nothing.

Sir, The many discourses you have heard this day touching the strength of the Popish In­terest at home, and how combined with foreign power, doth not so much startle me, as to see, that all the strength upon which the Protestant party must depend for security, is put into the hands of persons which are for the Duke's interest, which we have rea­son to understand to be the same with Popery; not a person being imployed in any place of Command or Trust, that ever declared against that interest. [Page 180] If I be mistaken in what I say, I desire to be cor­rected; I speak according to the best information I could have, and I believe all here know, what an exact scrutiny there hath been often made in all Countries and Corporations, for the finding out of men that way inclined, or otherways so quali­fied, as are not fit to make any opposition to the de­signs carried on by the Popish party. And if by chance any is put in, not fettered either by opi­nion or interest to that party, upon the first ap­pearance he is presently discharged, as if he were a Traitor to his Country. And now after a long interval of Parliaments, and more and more dis­coveries of the reality and danger of the Popish Plot, not only here, but in Ireland, and of the ma­ny contrivances of that party to stifle new Evi­dence, and to corrupt and discourage the old, of the certain ruine of the Protestant Religion from a Popish Successor and Popish King, what remedies are we like to obtain this Session? I am afraid very few or none: for I must confess, I am still of opinion, there can be none without the Exclusion-bill, which the Lords have thrown out without so much as a Conference, and therefore I am afraid, that what the Witnesses have said, they were told by several Jesuits is true; That Popery was so clen­ched and rivetted, that it did not lie in the power of God nor man to prevent the setling of it in this Na­tion. And if we consider what an interest that Party hath now at present, and how things are prepared to afford them a greater assistance here­after; how a Popish King, as well as our Divisions and Animosities will contribute to it, though I hope God will make them Lyars, yet I conclude, they have a great deal of reason to be very con­sident. [Page 181] And I see not how we can help our selves, seeing there are so many Ministers of State about the King, who are as a Partition-wall between him and his People. I find in Coke's Reports, that when the Nation was in apparent danger, the Peo­ple might go directly to the King with their Grie­vances, and make their Complaints and Petitions known. I think we may do well to consult this Text, and see if we can find out any better way than what we have tryed already, to convey our humble Supplications to his Royal Person. In the mean time I think you had not best to go off from the Bill of Association; for which we have a Presi­dent in Queen Elizabeth's time, first made by the Gentry, and afterwards confirm'd by Act of Parlia­ment.

Sir, I would not discourage you from go­ing on with these Bills; but I am afraid they will fall far short of the power and strength that will be necessary to root out an Interest that hath been a­bove one hundred years rivetting it self by all arts and ways imaginable, and hath now fixt it self so near the Throne. I must confess, I am afraid we are at labour in vain, and that this Interest hath so clench'd it self (as the Jesuits term it) that it will break not only this Parliament, but many more, if not all Parliaments, and the Protestant Religion too. It is too weighty to be removed, or perver­ted, by such little Bills as these: No, Sir, you will find, that nothing less than a firm Ʋnion amongst all the Protestants in this Nation, can be sufficient to give any check to this Interest. As long as there are a­mongst us so many persons as know not rightly how to apply the dangers of the Church and State, nor the miseries of Forty One, but will be lead by [Page 182] Popish Projectors; I am afraid such Bills as these will not do our business: Because they will not de­stroy that footing which they have at Court, nor strengthen the Protestant Interest, which must have its original from Union. It is strange, that none but those who are for the Duke's interest, should be the only persons thought sit to be in places of trust! It is so strange a way to preserve the Protestant Church and Religion, that it raiseth with me a doubt, whe­ther any such thing be designed. Such persons may be proper to manage Affairs in favour of the Po­pish interest; but it is to be admired, that they, and they only, should be thought fit to be intru­sted with the Protestant interest. I think it as hard for them to do it, as to serve two Masters. It is not usual in other Countries to retain their Ene­mies in the Government, nor such as are Friends to their Enemies; and it is strange that we, of all other Nations, should fall into this piece of Policy▪ But, Sir, for these reasons you may conclude, that unless what Laws you make, be strong and well penn'd, they will signifie nothing against so power­ful a Party as you have to do with.

Sir, Though it plainly appear by what hath been said upon this Debate, that the Protestant Religion is in a dangerous condition, yet when I consider how strangely God's providence hath hi­therto helpt us, and defeated all the wicked Stra­tagems of this Party; I cannot dispair. Notwith­standing the breaking of the Triple League, the Dutch War 1672. and the Assistance given the French, the Protestants abroad are not all destroy­ed: Neither by their firing of London, endeavours to corrupt Parliaments, and contrivances against the King's life, have they yet destroyed all at home. [Page 183] And as I doubt not but the King is willing to se­cure the Protestant Religion to us and our Poste­rities, so I hope he will hearken to us, and grant such Laws as may be necessary for the securing of it, he being most concerned therein. And there­fore I hope, that at last he will concurr in such Laws as we shall propose for that end, or contrive bet­ter.

Sir, there hath been so much said al­ready upon the Subject-matter of this Debate, that I shall have little occasion to trouble you long. The worthy Member that spoke a while since, hath shewed you from whence our fears of Popery arise, from the dependance they have of assistance from France, Ireland and Scotland in case there should be a Popish King, besides the Party they have here, and the advantage they will have by the Government, which is already secured for that Interest; and of it self would be sufficient to con­test with the Protestant interest, who in such a case would have no King to head them, no per­sons in any place of Trust to execute any Laws in their behalf, nor no legal power to defend them­selves. And therefore, seeing there is a Negative pass'd upon the Bill, we had contrived to secure us from these great dangers, I think, Sir, we may do well to try if we can get any thing else. But I am perswaded if this Association-bill be made as it should be, that we shall have no better success with it than we had with the Exclusion-bill: For I am afraid, that though we are permitted to bran­dish our Weapons, yet that we shall not be allowed to wound Popery; but rather do believe, that they which advised the throwing out of that Bill, will also do the same by this, or dissolve the House [Page 184] before it come to perfection: For this Bill must be much stronger than that in Queen▪ Elizabeth's days; that was for an Association only after her death, but I cannot tell if such a Bill will secure us now, the circumstances we are under being ve­ry different. In Queen Elizabeth's days the Privy-Councellors were all for the Queen's Interest, and none for the Successors; now most of the Privy-Councellors are for the Successors, and few for the King's. Then the Ministers unanimously agreed to keep out Popery, now we have too much reason to fear, there are many that are for bringing it in. In those days they all agreed to keep the Popish Suc­cessor in Scotland, now the Major part agree to keep the Successor here; all which must be considered in drawing up of the Bill.

December 17. 1680.

THE House resolved into a Committee, fur­ther to consider of ways and means to secure the Kingdom against Popery and Arbitrary Go­vernment; and after several Debates, how inef­fectual all Laws would prove without having good Judges, Justices, and others in Commission that will execute them, and how frequent Parliaments would conduce to have Laws put duly in execu­tion.

Mr. Speaker,

SIR, The Veneration that is due to all His Majesty's Speeches, doth require that we should seriously Debate them before we give any Answer to them; but the circumstances we are under at this time, challenge a more than ordinary [Page 186] Consultation. For by the tenor of the Speech, I conclude, That the Success of this Parliament de­pends upon our Answer to it, and consequently the safety of the Protestant Religion, both at home and abroad. And therefore I think my self very unable to advise in this matter, and should not have attempted it, but that you have encouraged me by your leave to speak first. So that if I offer any thing amiss, those that come after will have opportunities to correct me. I would begin with the latter end of the Speech first, because that part of it is most likely to beget a fair understanding be­tween His Majesty and this House. But I cannot but observe what great care is here again take of preserving the Succession in the right Line, as in all other His Majesty's Speeches ever since the Plot broke out. I think more could not be done, though it were in behalf of the King's Son, and a Protestant too. That limitation, and His Majesty's offers of securing the Protestant Religion, (if by Suc­cession in the right Line may be meant the Duke) upon many Debates in this Douse is found irrecon­cileable, and therefore must be imputed to those that have advised His Majesty thereto. To pre­serve the right of Succession in the Duke, is to pre­serve something or nothing. The something must be no less than the Crown, in case of His Majesty's death, and so consequently the interest of the Po­pish party, who after one hundred years ende­vours to have a Prince of their Religion, the in­defatigable industry of the Jesuits to obtain it, and the loss of so much Bloud spent therein, will, be­sides their principles and inclinations, lay on them great obligations to make use of the opportunity to establish their Religion again in this Nation. So [Page 187] that I must confess, these reservations looks to me like a perfect design to save the whole party, accompanied with a power and pretence sufficient to enable them to accomplish their end. For to this, the saving the Duke's right doth amount, and consequently the destruction of the Protestant Religion. Which cannot be imagined to proceed from His Majesty. In former times the interest of no one man could ever bear up against the interest of the Nation, now it seems, that the Religion, Lives and Liberties of all the people of this Nation; nay, I may say, all the Protestants of the Three Nations must all be lost, rather than one man be dispossest of his right, though by his own Act hath made himself incapable the injoy it. Certainly there must be more intended by this, than the saving of one man, it must be the sa­ving of a party. And therefore, Sir, I am afraid we are but where we were two years ago. For it is plain to me, that there is a certain fatal Scheme which hath been exactly pursued these twenty years, in order to destroy the Protestant In­terest, and hath had a strange secret operation in the management of all our affairs. And although now and then some accidents have happned, that have occasioned some alteration for a time, as by His Majesty's recalling the Toleration, some Trans­actions of Parliaments, the breaking out of the Plot, and His Majesty's Toleration of his Council, 1679. Yet I observe that after a little while there is no change in the main, all returns to the old Scheme, as if there were a certain infallible ba­lance that did preponderate. We have had so much experience of His Majesty's goodness and in­clinations, that we cannot but conclude, that there is still some such thing, as a wheel within a wheel, [Page 188] whether Jesuits, (for 'tis like them) or who I can­not tell, nor how the Government is influenced, that the Protestants should not be able to obtain any thing for their security. But we may guess and justly fear, that it will never be otherways, as long as there is a Popish Successor. The truth is, we have a hard task to serve our King and Coun­try, in such a time as this is. We may expose our selves to the rage of a powerful party, but I am afraid, get little to secure our selves against their revenge. We are under the same inequality as fair gamesters, that meet with those that use false Dice, and are like to have the same ill luck at last, unless His Majesty should be pleased to consider, who stands up most for his Government, and who plays fairest, and accordingly, change his Coun­cils. The first three Paragraphs of the Speech are about Alliances, the fourth about Tangier, the fifth about securing the Succession, the sixth to know what we desire, and what we will do.

Sir, I take no delight in looking backward, but without doing it at this time, I am afraid we shall not mend, as we go forward. It is not to be doubt­ed, but that as well for the security of the Nation, at home, as of Flanders against the power of France and the Protestant Religion abroad, we are under a necessity to make Alliances, and that they cannot be made nor supported without Money. But did we not give above Two Millions for the preservati­on of the Tripple-League, and was it not by the power of the French and Popish Party imployed to break it? Did we not a little while since give a­bout a Million and half for an actual French War, and was there not presently a general Peace made? Do not all Foreign Nations complain, that not­withstanding [Page 189] all our Treaties, Pretences, and De­clarations, we have been only true to France? And what reason have we now to imagine, that if we should give Money for Leagues, that it would be imployed otherwise than formerly? Is not the same Scheme of Government pursued still? is not the French Ambassador, and the French Women too, as great at Court as ever? and have not the Dukes Creatures the management of all affairs? and if the Duke's interest, the French interest, and the Popish interest be all one, can you imagine, that your Mo­ney shall be imployed to make any Alliances that shall be for the advantage of the Protestant Reli­gion. No, Sir, though His Majesty so intend it, yet the wheel within a wheel, which hath managed all other alliances hitherto, will also manage these, and have the disposal of your Money too, and pervert it to our destruction. And until things settle here at home, on a true Protestant bottom, it cannot be imagined, that any Foreign Prince will depend on us, or make Alliances with us. And therefore, as well for that, as because our Money may not probably be disposed of for any good end, it is in vain to Treat of either Alliances or Money. For until the in­terest be chang'd at Court, that so there may be a better understanding between the King and his peo­ple, it cannot produce any thing for our advantage,

As to Tangier, and the Succession, there hath been so much said already, when those points were de­bated, that I will not trouble you with more at this time.

But I beg leave to add something about the lat­ter part of the Speech, which doth a little com­fort me, bcause I hope we may graft such an Answer thereupon, as may beget a right under­standing [Page 190] with His Majesty. I know this House is constituted of persons much different from that of the Long Parliament, because of the many Pensi­oners that were in it, and that we need not now be afraid to talk of Money. I believe we all know, that without giving Money this Session, the Nation can never be happy, nor His Majesty's Go­vernment so formidable as it ought to be. And therefore I would humbly move you to appoint a Committee, to draw up an Address to assure His Majesty, that when His Majesty shall be pleased to grant us such Laws, as are necessary for the securi­ty of our Religion, which may be particularized in the Address; that we will be ready to give him what Money his occasions may require, not only for the support of Tangier, and Alliances, but to enable him to have a good Fleet at Sea, for the en­couraging of Seamen, and security of Trade, and preservation of his Dominions; that so we may shew we are ready to express our duty, as well by our acts as words.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, Being it is so apparent that all our fears of Popery arise from, and center in the Duke of York; and that it is impossible the affairs of this Nation should ever settle on a good Protestant bot­tom, as long as there is a Popish Successor, which cannot be prevented but by the Succession-Bill. That there may be no ill construction made of our de­sires, I would humbly Move you to offer to supply the King, with what Money he may need for the support of Tangier and Alliances, upon his grant­ing of the Succession-Bill only, that so His Majesty may have no reason to be diffident of us; not doubting, but that if we can once but lay a foun­dation [Page 191] for a good Correspondence, that His Maje­sty will take so much content in it, beyond what he doth now enjoy, that to preserve it, he will after­wards grant us what more Bills may be farther ne­cessary for the security of the Protestant Religion. And therefore I am not for clogging this Address with any request for any thing more, than that one Bill.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, We have hitherto had so little success in our endeavours, that we may justly sus­pect, we are permitted to sit here, rather to destroy our selves, than to save our Country. It is a matter of admiration to me, that those who have so often ad­vised His Majesty, to put this and the former Par­liaments upon finding out Expedients, for securing the Protestant Religion, without altering the Succes­sion, should all this while find out none themselves, but still continue advising the King to put that upon us, which after many Debates is found to be im­possible. And that the King should always have at his elbow, persons ready to remember him constant­ly to make this limitation, which in all appea­rance must tend to the final destruction of the Pro­testant Religion. And that there should be no bo­dy there, to mind him of proposing some Expedi­ents to prevent it, only in general words, of which no use can be made. According to the opinion of Three successive Parliaments, the limitation in fa­vour of the Popish Interest, is plain, intelligible, and practicable. I hope His Majesty against the next occasion, will require them that have so ad­vise him, to make the Expedients, and other ways to secure the Protestant Religion, as plain and practicable; that so we may see if the security of [Page 192] the Protestant Religion be designed in good earnest by such advisers, which I cannot believe; because what they propose, is, in my opinion, a contradicti­on in it self. Without the Exclusion-Bill, there can be no Expedient, but what will leave us in that miserable condition, of having first or last a contest with our lawful King. And there can be no such thing as setting up a power to oppose him, but by putting a kind of Supreme Authority in the Parliament, with a power to oppose, as well by making War as Laws, which might prove the destruction of the Monarchical Government. The said trust or power (without the Exclusion Bill) being not to be reposed in the next Heir, or any single person, least he should die before he come to have the power in him, or utterly refuse to act if he should live to have a right by virtue of such a settlement, to administer the Government. In such a case there would be no lawful power lodg­ed any where else, to oppose such a King, and there must not be an inter Regnum. By this short account you may see, what difficulties all Expedients will be liable to, and may conclude, that those that advise the King to make this limitation, do intend it as an Expedient to make the endeavours of Parlia­ments ineffectual, and to bring in Popery. And if you had offered at such Expedients as I have men­tioned, as the last House of Commons was Ar­raigned for Omnipotent and Arbitrary, so would this with some worse Character; as having at­tempted to destroy the Monarchical Government, that if possible the King and people might be put out of love with Parliaments. But, Sir, though it is plain, that things are thus out of order, yet let us not be wanting in our duty, but give such an [Page 193] Answer to his Majesty, as may if possible, create in him a good opinion of this House, and satisfie him of the necessity of the Bill of Exclusion, and that all other Acts of Grace will but serve to fatten us for the slaughter of our Enemies. The last part of this Speech, I believe, is his Majesty's own; he seems willing to know what you expect from him, and what you will do for him, which I think is a fair proposition to come to an understanding. And although it be not good Manners to offer to make a bargain with his Majesty; but as in bargains there is a quid and pro quo, so in this. And I think we need not fear talking of Money in this House, being all seem resolved to give it freely, if we can be secured of our Religion, but not otherways. And therefore I humbly conceive, you may ac­cordingly express your selves plain in your Ad­dress.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, If you do not represent all your Grievances in this Address, as the condition of your giving Money, whatever you shall offer at after­wards, will be lookt as clamarous and out of order. And therefore I would advise you, not to omit any one Grievance you expect any remedy in. And I am for enumerating all your Grievances in the Address, which have been lately Debated. And I do admire no body takes notice of the standing Army, which if not reduced to such a number as may be convenient for Guards, and so limited, that they may not be increased, unless in case of a Re­bellion or an Invasion, all your Laws may signifie nothing. And I am not satisfied in the making of such general offers of Money. For if you do, you will hear in time, that the Fleet needs one Million, [Page 194] Alliances as much more, and Tangier (though I think not worth keeping) little less. A demand of three Millions, grounded on your general pro­mise, would perplex the House how to come off with that reputation, which a House of Commons ought to preserve with the King. I know not how such a promise may be turn'd upon you, and therefore I am either for demanding more, or pro­mising less.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am very willing to have this Parliament broken; yet I cannot agree, that to prevent it, we should offer so much, and demand so little as hath been mentioned. Have we not sate two days in a Committee, to examine the dan­gerous estate of the Kingdom, and ordered se­veral good Bills to be brought in thereupon, for the securing us against Popery and Arbitrary pow­er; and shall we now the next day lay all those Bills aside, and be content with the Exclusion-bill only, which I think will be worth nothing, un­less you can get more? And therefore, though to obtain them you spoke plain English, and men­tioned what summ you intend to give, I think you will be saffer to offer Money in general words, with­out declaring what, or enumerating your Bills.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I cannot agree with this worthy Member, for it would take up some days Debates, to agree what sum is necessary to supply his Maje­sties occasions, and what sum to express. And it may be to no purpose, as the case stands with us, unless we were sure his Majesty would find out some way to bring the Exclusion-Bill about again; then indeed we might come to particulars. In the [Page 195] mean time, a promise in general words may be sufficient, and save the House a great deal of time. And for my part, I am not for enumerating ma­ny Bills, but should be content to give Money up­on having the Exclusion Bill only, which being so precisely necessary for the preservation of our Re­ligion, all the World will justifie us in the demand­ing it, before we part with Money and therefore I desire the Committee may draw up the Address accordingly.

December 20. 1680.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I have hearkened with all the attenti­on I could to this Address, and do agree with the first part of it. The Dangers and Inconveniencies arising from a Popish Successour, are very obvious; and that there will be no Peace nor Tranquillity in this Nation for this present, as long as there is a Popish Successour, and that our Religion will be lost, if there should be a Popish King, I am afraid is too true: But yet I must crave leave to dissent from the opinion of those worthy Members that have drawn it, as to the other parts thereof. I think it [Page 202] is not convenient at this time, to press so hard for the Exclusion Bill, because we know we cannot have it without a Prorogation; which for my part I fear at this time, as much as I do a Popish Succes­sour, for I do believe, if it should happen, that you will sooner see the Duke at White-Hall, than this Assembly met together again between these Walls. And therefore am not willing to give the Popish party such an advantage to procure our Dissolution, lest they should lay hold of it, as I believe they would; by which the Protestant Interest both a­brord and at home, will be ruin'd. And as I can­not agree in this, so neither in pressing the Associa­tion Bill: for being it hath not yet been brought into the House, we do not well know what will be the purport of it. And it is not proper, that we should ask of the King we know not what; nor expect that he should grant us what he can know nothing of. And truly, Sir, I think that these things about the Judges, Deputy-Lieutetants, and Justices of the Peace, are minute things to be insi­sted on at this time, compared with others which might be demanded. Queen Elizabeth's Counsel­lors never thought her safe, until the Popish Successor was inclosed in a Tower; and I am afraid that you will never be safe, until you take some such course that may bring things to an issue. When you have done that, and banished all the considerable Papists out of England, I think we shall not be in so apparent danger, as we know are. And seeing this may pro­bably be granted, and the other Bills not, I humbly move you to recommit the Address that it may be better considered. I know not how this may agree with the sense of the House, but I shall always crave leave to speak in this place according to my Con­science, [Page 203] that so I may have peace within me; but readily submit to better judgments.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am very glad that worthy Mem­ber agrees in the apprehensions of the dangers ari­sing from a Popish Successor, and in the necessity of the Bill of Exclusion, and am very sorry, I can­not agree with him in the rest of his Discourse. I cannot imagine, without a high reflection upon his Majesty, that if he should be persuaded to prorogue the House for two or three days, in order to pass the Exclusion Bill, that he should instead of per­mitting us to meet again, dissolve the Parliament; which is quite contrary to it. I fear a proroga­tion, without being intended for this; but if once we could prevail with His Majesty to do it for this end, I should not doubt the desired Effect. And in pressing the Association Bill, we shail not press the King to grant us we know not what: The word Association may very well be understood, and the ends of it are declared to be for the security of His Majesty's person, and the Protestant Religion. And if when drawn, it should be directed to other ends, I suppose this House will take care to mend it; if not, the King's promise can bind no farther than to pass a Bill for those ends. But I do much ad­mire to hear, that the having of good Judges, Ju­stices, and Commanders at Sea and Land, is a tri­vial thing: for I think that all other things you desire without it, would signifie nothing. As long as the Laws and Militia of the Nation is in the hands of persons not well-affected to the Protestant Interest, I am afraid we shall have no security a­gainst Popery. As to the new way that hath been proposed of bringing matters relating to the Popish [Page 204] Successor, to such an issue, as that he may be se­cured, as in Queen Elizabeth's time. If he had been sensible that there are none in Office but what are for his interest, he would first have agreed to have endeavour'd to have got such changed, before he would have proposed that way. And it would be necessary that we should also have such Privy-Councellors as Queen Elizabeth had, and not Eleven to Seven for the Popish Successor. And therefore seeing these Proposals have no more appearance of being for your service, I see no reason you have to be diverted from the way you were going: And therefore I humbly move to agree with your Com­mittee.

December 21. 1680.

Mr. Speaker,

SIr, It is not to be doubted but that the hap­piness of this Nation and safety of our Re­ligion doth depend very much upon preserving the well-constituted Government of the Church, and that the Government in the State will not long stand if that be pull'd down, to which, I am afraid, this Bill will contribute very much. Sir, it is well known, how notwithstanding all the endeavours of His Majesty, as well in Parliament as other­wise, all the Acts that are in force against Dissen­ters, all the endeavours of the Fathers of the Church, there are a sort of men, and great num­bers too, who will neither be advised nor over­ruled, but under the pretence of Conscience break violently through all Laws whatsoever, to the great disturbance both of Church and State. And if you should give them more Liberty, you will encourage them to go on with more boldness; and therefore I think it will be more convenient to have a Law for forcing the Dissenters to yield to the Church, and not to force the Church to yield to them; And I think we are going quite the wrong way to do the Nation good. And therefore I am against this Bill.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I would not open my mouth in favour [Page 206] of this Bill if I thought it would any ways pre­judice the Church or Church-Government; but I believe it may have a quite contrary Effect, and tend more for the preservation and safety of the Church and Church-Government, than any Bill whatsoever that could be contrived. We have a Church Government setled by Law, to which the Major part of the people, like good Christians and Loyal Subjects, give obedience; but it is our mis­fortune that there are in the Nation a great many which will not submit to this Government, which may be divided under three Heads. 1. The Pa­pists, who differ from us in points of Faith, and will not give any▪ obeysance but to the Church of Rome. 2. Independants, Presbyterians, and some others, who agree in points of Faith, and differ only in some points of Doctrine and Ceremo­nies. 3. Quakers, who disagree not only in points of Doctrine and Ceremonies, but in points of Faith, and are a head-strong sort of unreasona­ble people, that will not submit to any Laws made about Religion, but to give obedience to the Civil Magistrate upon all other occasions. The Church of England Men, are not only the greatest num­ber, but have the Government of their side. What Laws to make that may tend most to the preser­ving of it is your business. It is in danger from the Papists on the one hand, and the rest of the Protestant-dissenters on the other, who in some measure agree in their enmity and disrespect to the Church, and therefore the more care ought to be taken for its preservation.

Having thus, Sir, discovered the danger of the Church in general, it will be necessary, in order to find out a remedy, to discourse a little of the [Page 207] Strength and Interest of each party in particu­lar.

Sir, the Papists are not the greatest number, but yet in my opinion, upon several considerations, are most to be feared, because of their desperate prin­ciples which make them bold and indefatigable, and the assistance they may have from Rome, France, and Ireland; but above all, from the great share they have in the management of the Government, by the means of a Popish Successor, and the fear of their getting the Government into their hands hereafter, by having a Popish King. Which of it self hath been sufficient in former times to change the Religion of this Nation, and may justly be feared, may have the same effect again, unless the Protestants be well united. The Presby­terians, Independants, and all other Dissenters, may be more in number than the Papists, and may be willing enough to have the Church-Government altered, if not destroyed; yet being they cannot have any succour from abroad, nor from the Go­vernment here at home, I cannot see any great danger of them. For it is not probable that they shall ever have a King of their opinion, nor a Parliament, by the discovery they made of their strength in the last Elections. For according to the best calculation I can make, they could not bring in above one in twenty. And therefore, because they have not such bloody desperate prin­ciples as the Papists, and because we agree in points of Faith, and so no such great danger from them as from the Papists, I think we have rea­son to conclude, That the Church is most in dan­ger from the Papists, and that therefore we ought to take care of them in the first place; and we [Page 208] cannot do that by any way more likely to prove effectual, than by some such Bill as this. Because if it should have the effect designed of bringing in many of the Dissenters into the Church, it would disappoint them of the great hopes they have grounded on our Divisions, and make the Church stronger, not only to oppose the Papists, but such Fanaticks as may not come in. And if we should be so unfortunate as that this Bill should not have this success, I do not understand it will any way weaken the Church-Government. And therefore I am for this Bill.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, this Bill is intended for the preserva­tion of the Church, and I am of opinion, is the best Bill that can be made in order thereto, our circumstances considered. But I know not what effect it may have, because you are to deal with a stubborn sort of people, who in many things pre­ferr their humour before reason, or their own safe­ty, or the publick good. But, Sir, I think this is a very good time to try whether they will be won by the Cords of Love or no, and the Bill will be very agreeable to that Christian Charity which our Church professes; and I hope that in a time of so imminent danger as we are in, of a common Enemy, they will consider their own safety, and the safety of the Protestant Religion, and not longer keep afoot the unhappy Divisions that are amongst us, on which the Papists ground their hopes. But rather seeing the Church doth so far condescend as to dispense with the Surplice, and those other things which they scruple at, that they will sub­mit to the rest that is enjoined by Law, that so we may unite against the common Enemy. But [Page 209] If this Bill should not have this desired effect, but on the contrary, notwithstanding this condescen­tion, they should continue their Animosities and disobedience to the Church, I think still the Church will gain very much hereby, and leave that party without excuse, and be a just cause for the making of more coerceive Laws. So that upon all accounts you have been well moved for the passing of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I very much admire to hear it alledged, that this Bill will tend to the advantage of the Church; For how can the pulling down of the Pales, and weakning the Laws against its Ene­mies, be a way to preserve it? I am of another opinion, and do think this Bill may not onely oc­casion a great weakness, but give, I fear, a mortal Wound to the Church. Is it not much more rea­sonable, that the Dissenters should submit to the Church, than the Church to the Dissenters? And I am afraid, if once the Government should be­gin to yield to them, it will be as in 41. nothing will serve but an utter subversion; the having of one thing, will give occasion for demanding more; and will be impossible to give them any satisfa­ction, without laying all open, and running into confusion. It is our misery that the Church is in so much danger of Popery; pray, Sir, let us have a care how we Increase her danger from Fanaticks. Instead of this Bill, I humbly conceive, that Laws to force the execution of such Laws as are in being against the Dissenters, and what more may be necessary to compel an entire obedience (see­ing the experience we have already had of this other way hath not proved effectual) may more [Page 210] contribute to the strengthening of the Church, and prevention of Popery.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, as well Church-men as Dissenters, do all know we have a dangerous common Enemy that is got within our bowels, and wants nothing but a King to their minds to have the strength of the Nation, as well Civil as Military, at their Com­mand, and so consequently a sufficient power to destroy the Protestant Religion, if not prevented by a timely Union of the Protestant Interest. The question that may properly arise at this time is, whether the putting of the Laws we already have in execution, and making more against Dissenters, in order to bring them into the Church by force, or the making of this Law to bring them in by fair means, be the most likely way to unite us, that so we may be in a better condition to oppose the common Enemy. It is obvious to me, that the making of new Laws, or execution of the old at this time, is the ready way to ruine us; and what the Papists do certainly desire and aim at above all things whatsoever. For if it should be put in practice, the effect would be this; It would be the occasion of throwing off the further prose­cution of the Plot and Popery, and in a little time occasion, not onely more heats and animosities, but such a revengeful implacable Spirit amongst us, as would prove irreconcilable, and give opportu­nity for the Popish Interest to joyn, with either party, or at least ways abet and assist them un­derhand, so that they shall easily be provoked to destroy one the other. But if this should not hap­pen, what real Love, Friendship, or Obedience can the Church expect from such persons, as by [Page 211] the execution of such Laws may be forced to come to Church? How can they be depended on, or the Church be strengthened by them? You may prevent their Conventicles, and force them either to come to Church or pay Fines, or be Impriso­ned; but you cannot expect that their Opinions or Affections should be altered by such Proceedings, with­out which the Chorch can never be the stronger. It must be a work of time to reconcile the Divisions that are amongst us, and may be a great and ne­cessary employment for many Parliaments here­after, when the common Enemy doth not give such a just occasion of distraction, and for em­ploying all your thoughts and care about him when they may have more leisure, because their dangers may not be so imminent. But to go about it at this time by any such Laws, is the ready way to weaken the Protestant Interest, and bring ruine upon us. But suppose we would follow this advice, and make new Laws, and require a severe execution of the old, how can you imagine that as long as the Popish Interest is so prevalent, the execution of such Laws shall be continued longer than may be subservent to the interest of that par­ty? Have we not had a sad experience of this? Hath the Oxford-Act, or that of the 35 of Queen Elizabeth, or any other against the Dissenters, been executed in favour of the Church? Are not the Dissenters as many, if not more, now than ever? And is not experience in all affairs the best Ma­ster? And is there any thing more visible, than that these Laws have been made use of to serve the Popish Interest, or as Engines rather for the affairs of the State than Church: when in the Year 1670 by the severe execution of these Laws [Page 212] all Meetings in Conventicles were prevented, and many Dissenters came to Church, did not the Toleration happen thereupon? and was not the execution of the Laws put afoot, as may be pre­sumed, by that great Papist Clifford, who had then the greatest share (under his Majesty) in the Administration of the Government? If the exe­cution of these Laws against Dissenters had been for the advantage of the Church, why was there then granted a Toleration? And if the Tolera­tion had been intended for the advantage of the Protestant Religion, why were not the Church­men, nor Dissenters of any kind, pleased with it? And if the Oxford-Act, and other Laws against Dissenters, were projected in favour of the Prote­stant Religion, it was strange that they were so much promoted (as many Members now here who did serve in those Parliaments do remember) by Sir Tho. Clifford, Sir Solomon Swale, and Sir Roger Strickland, who have since all appeared to be Papists. Sir, we have been strangely led by the Popish In­terest for many years already; I pray, Sir, let us not now at last do like Narcissus, to be so much in love with a Shadow, as to fall into a Gulph and drown our selves. Sir, I am afraid the Name of Church hath been strangely made use of to bring in Popery. I hope we shall endeavour to preserve, not onely the Name, but the Substance, I mean the Pro­testant Religion, otherwise we may come off no better than the Dog in Aesop's Fables with his Shoulder of Mutton. I hope that what I have said, will not represent me as an Enemy to the Church, or Church▪Government; I am sure, I am not conscious to my self, that I ever entertained a thought against the preservation of either. All [Page 213] what I have said, doth proceed from an apprehen­sion that our Church men of late have been out of the right way to preserve either our Religion or our Church; Because the courses which they take must (though I am far from suspecting they design it) give a great assistance to Popery. I remember that after the Plot broke out, there was for a little while a kind of a reconciliation amongst Prote­stants, and an united opposition made to the com­mon Enemy, and how then the Popish Interest gave way, we may all remember; but this was too much in favour of the Protestant Religion to hold long. Within a few Months the fire broke out again, and the Pulpits and the Press, instead of being em­ployed against the Common Enemy, were reduced to their old way, of carrying on the divisions amongst Protestants: And how the Popish Interest have since gone on triumphant again all here, I suppose, may know. Sir, the Church hath two strong Ene­mies, the Papists and Fanaticks. We are already engaged in a sharp contest with the Papists, and find they are strong enough for us; Why must we now also enter into a fresh engagement with the Fanaticks, especially when we may be sure thereby to strengthen our Enemies, and weaken our selves? Such advice cannot proceed from such as are friends to the Protestant Church: If we should make new Laws against Dissenters, as hath been moved, and enforce the execution of the old ones, as long as we have a Popish Successor, can any man imagine, that the execution of them will be longer kept afoot, than will consist with the Popish Interest? Sir, our Church and Religion will be lost, if Union be not improved amongst Protestants, and I think no Bill can promote it like [Page 214] this. And therefore I am for the passing of this Bill.

December 23. 1680.

• 1. Whether the King, being neither Judg nor Party, can order the Execution?
• 2. Whether the Lords can award the Execution?
• 3. Whether the King can dispence with any part of the Execution?
• 4. If the King can dispence with some part of the Execution, why not with all?

Mr. Speaker,

SIR, Death is the end of the Law in Criminal matters, the other parti­culars of the Sentence are but Ceremonies, used ad terrorem. I never read of any Peer that was quartered, tho many have been condemned for Treason, and some in Parliament. The Lady Jane Gray, and many other women, have been condemned for Treason, and in that case are al­ways condemned to be Burnt; but however, are usually, if persons of Honour, Beheaded. Where­fore [Page 215] it is probable, that the Royal Power hath al­ways dispenced with such Sentences formerly; and if so, this House lieth not under any obligation to offer at any opposition, nor concern themselves herein, especially at this time, when such a dispute may end in preventing the Execution of the said Lord Stafford. And therefore I humbly conceive you may do well to give your consent, that the said Writ be executed according to its tenour.

December 30. 1680.

Mr. Speaker,

SIR, the Priviledges of both Houses of Parliament are concern'd in this business, and in that the very being of Parliaments; and therefore we must be very careful what we do in it. I have perused the Habeas Corpus Bill, and do find, that there is not any thing in it that doth reach, or can be intended to reach to any Comit­ment made by either House of Parliament during Session. The preamble of the Act, and all the parts of it do confine the extent of the Act to Cases bailable; and directs such courses for the ex­ecution of the Act▪ as cannot be understood should relate to any Commitment made by either House. This House is a Court of it self, and part of the Highest Court in the Nation, Superiour to those in Westminster-hall; and what Laws this House joyns in making, are to bind inferiour Courts, but can­not be understood to bind themselves as a Court; that would prove not onely dangerous, but destru­ctive to the Dignity of Parliaments, and level them with the Courts in Westminster-Hall. Great care [Page 217] ought to be taken how you allow of restraints and Limitations to the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament, being so great a part of the Legislative power of the Nation, lest thereby you should by degrees render them useless. A Commitment of this House is always in nature of a Judgment; and the Act is only for Cases bailable, which Commitments upon Judgments are not, at least Commitments by this House were never yet allow'd to be bailable. And I suppose you will never grant them so to be. Can it be imagined that this House, who present all the Commons of England, should not be intrusted with as much power for the preservation of their con­stitution upon which the support of the Govern­ment so much depends, as ordinary Courts and Officers are intrusted with, which are only de­signed for the welfare of particular persons? I am of opinion, that, no Act can deprive this House of that power, which they have always exercised, of committing persons without Bail, unless in express words it be so declared: Nor of discharging upon Bail after committed. The same reasons which may be given for discharging such as are not committed for breach of Privilege, if it be grounded on the Act for the Habeas Corpus, will hold as strong for the discharging of persons committed for the breach of Privilege; and so consequently deprive this House of all its power & dig­nity, and make it insignificant. This is so plain & ob­vious, that all Judges ought to know it; and I think it below you to make any Resolve therein, but rather leave the Judges to do otherways at their peril, and let the Debate fall without any Question.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, the last House of Commons being sensible how narrowly this Nation escaped being [Page 218] ruin'd by a sort of Monsters called Pensioners, which sate in the late Long Parliament, had entred into a Consideration how to prevent the like from co­ming into future Parliaments; and in order there­to resolved, that they would severely chastise some of those that had been guilty, and make the best Laws they could to prevent the like for future: And for that purpose a Committee was appointed of which Mr. Serjeant Gregory, now Judge Gregory, was Chairman; by which, many Papers relating to that affair, came to his hands. Sir, I think it a business of so great importance, that it ought never to be forgotten, nor the prosecution of it deferred. I have often heard, that England can never be de­stroyed but by its self: To have such Parliaments, was the most likely way that ever yet was inven­ted. I remember a great Lawyer said in this House when it was debated in the last Parliament, That it was treason, and he gave many learned Arguments to make it out. Whether it be so or no, I will not now offer to debate; but I think that for those that are the Legislators of the Nation to take Bribes, to undermine the Laws and Govern­ment of this Nation, that they ought to be chastised as Traytors. It was my fortune to sit here a little while in the Long Parliament; I did observe that all those that had Pensions, and most of those that had Offices, Voted all of a side, as they were directed by some great Officer, as exactly as if their business in this House had been to preserve their Pensions and Offices, and not to make Laws for the good of them that sent them here. How such persons could any way be useful for the support of the Government, by preserving a fair understanding between the King and his People, but on the contrary how dan­gerous [Page 219] to bring in Arbitrary power and Popery. I leave to every mans judgment. They were so far from being the true Representatives of the People, that they were a distinct middle Interest between the King and the People; and their chief business was to serve the end of some great Minister of State, tho never so opposite to the true Interest of the Nation. Sir, this business ought never to fall, tho there should be never so many Prorogations and Dissolutions of Parliaments, before any thing be done in it; I think it is the Interest of the Na­tion, that it should be prosecuted from Parliament to Parlament, as if there were an Impeachment in against them. And therefore, Sir, I would humbly move you to send some Members of this House to Judg Gregory, for the Papers he hath taken in his custody relating to this affair, that so you may in conve­nient time proceed further herein, as you shall think good. And Sir, being there is a report that some of this House have now made a Bargain at Court for great Offices in order to vitiate and corrupt their Votes in this House; which tho but a project to cast a reflection on such Members, how­ever to satisfie the world, I pray, Sir, let there be a Vote past, That no Member of this House shall accept of any Offite under the Crown, during such time as he continues a Member of this House.

Mr. Speaker.

Sir, I am so over-loaden with Melancholy, as that I can hardly speak in this matter: For I have received so many Compliments as to my be­ing constituted a great Minister of State, that I begun to flatter myself, as others flattered me, that I were really so. But now I do discover, that I have been but in a kind of a dream; and to fear [Page 220] that I shall never in reality have any such Office. But whatever Vote you make to punish us Offi­cers, I pray, Sir, let it not be so severe as that it may prejudice the publick. Suppose his Maje­sty should have occasion to send some persons to Nimmeguen for Plenipotentiaries, and there should not be any men in England fit for it, but some that should be Members of this House, would you have the publick affairs of the Nati­on injured, rather than such Members should accept of such an Employment? Or suppose some Invasion should happen, and there were no couragious expert Admirals to be had, but such as were Members of this House, should they not accept thereof because of your Vote? To prevent these inconveniencies, and to leave us all some hopes, I pray, Sir, add to your Votes, Not without leave of the House.

After some fur­ther Debate,

January 5. 1681.

Mr. Speaker,

SIR, in my opinion the matter con­tained in the last seven Articles, doth not answer the first Article, nor the Title: for therein you accuse Sir William Scroggs in general words of High-Treason, the highest of Crimes; and when you come to particulars, you instance the dismissing of Grand-Juries, prohibiting prin­ting of Pamphlets, inequality in levying of Fines, and the like. Sir, I would not be understood to be an Advoeate for the Lord Chief Justice Scroggs; but I hope that as long as I sit here, you will al­ways give me leave to be an Advocate for this House; which I cannot more signally demonstrate than by offering my opinion against every thing which I think will reflect upon the Justice or Pru­dence of the House, or prove any hindrance to the finishing of those great Affairs you have under De­bate.

Sir, I am of opinion, that tho all these things contained in these Articles should be fully proved, they will not amount to Treason; and altho it be true that you do but impeach, and that the Lords are to judg, yet it is not agreeable to the Justice of this House, that the Articles should be for Trea­son, unless you are wel satisfied that you can make [Page 222] out that the matter contain'd in the Articles is so: Which I very much doubt; and therefore I am of opinion, that the Articles ought only to be for high Crimes and Misdemeanors; which I am the more forward to press you earnestly to, because I am afraid if these Articles should go for High Trea­son, it may occasion some dispute with the Lords, who haply, if they do not conclude that the mat­ter contain'd in the Articles amounts to Treason, will not commit him, notwithstanding their Order made in the Earl of Danby's Case: And that may occasion such misunderstandings, as may hinder all other business. And also if you send it up for High-Treason, it may occasion another Dispute with the Bishops, whether they shall withdraw or no, when the Case comes to be tryed. Upon the whole matter, I think it will be much safer that you make the Impeachment for high Crimes and Misdemeanors only.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir my obligation to serve my Country, calls on me to give you my opinion in this matter, and not any kindness to my Lord Chief Justice: for I can safely declare, that I do not think him fit for that eminent place now, because indeed I never thought he was fit: So that what I shall say, pro­ceeds from my kindness to the Publick, and parti­cular obligations to this House. I think we ought to be cautious how we increase Laws to take away our lives; our Forefathers were very careful in it, as may appear by the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. which was made to prevent the Judges from taking on them any power to declare any thing Treason but what was exprest within that Statute; reserving all obvious Crimes of that nature to the Judgment [Page 223] of the Nation in Parliament, who no doubt may declare other things Treason which are not with­in that Statute. But 'tis a Question with me, whe­ther it can be done any other way than by Bill, that so it may be an Act of King, Lords, and Commons and not of the House of Lords only, the Commons onely prosecutors, and the King not concern'd. That the Lords alone are proper Judges in many Cases, when persons are prosecuted upon some known Law, is not to be doubted; but I much question, if they ought to be so in Cases of declara­tive Treason, though upon an Impeachment from the House of Commons: For that were to allow the Lords alone a power of making a Law in the Ca­ses of the highest nature, even of Life and Death. Sir, our Forefathers thought not good to intrust their Lives nor Liberties with any one Estate a­lone, they thought with a multitude of Counsellors there was most safety; and therefore I hope we shall be very cautious how we make a president in the Case. And I am the more earnest in moving you herein, because I am very confident that no president can be offer'd to make good, that there was everanything declar'd Treason in Parliament which was not Felony by some express known Law before. And I hope we shall be so careful of our selves & our Posterity, as not to go about to make a breach upon the Constitution of the Govern­ment in this particular, but rather make the Im­peachment only for high Crimes and Misdemenors.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I cannot agree with that honou­rable Member that spoke last, as to his notion that the Parlament cannot declare any thing to be Treason, which was not before Felony by some [Page 224] known Law; the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. leaves the power at large to Parliaments without any such restriction. And I am of opinion, that any thing that tends to the Destruction or Alteration of the Government, hath always been, and ought to be declared in Parliament, Treason, if brought there to be judged. The Parliament doth not in this make new Crimes, and then condemn them; but only declares that to be a Crime which was so before, and wanted nothing but Condemnation▪ And it may consist with the prudence of this House, as well to be careful how to weaken those Laws and Customs which tend so much to the preservation of the Government, as how to increase any that may tend to the destruction of any one man, by multiplying Presidents for chastizing of Treason; the Crimes for which Tresilian and the rest at that time were impeached, were not Felony by any known Law, and yet they were condemned in Parliament Empson and Dudley were accused in general, for endeavouring to subvert the Go­vernment▪ which being in general words, was not Felony by any known Law, yet the Judges having recourse to Parliament, they were con­demned. The Articles against Finch, Berkley, and the rest, were all for High Treason, and the mat­ter contained in their Articles amounted to no more than what is now contained in this. And there is so little weight in the Cases that have been offered against this, that, I think, they are offered rather for ornament than argument. The Chancel­lor is the keeper of the Kings Conscience, and the Judges of his Coronation Oath. As they are in great Places, & have a great Power, so they ought to be the more careful how they behave themselves. And as they [Page 225] have greater Incouragements, so to be subject to more severe Chastisements than others, the pub­lick being more concerned in their actions; and therfore the custom of Parliaments hath made that Treason in them which is not so in other persons. The words of Judges and Privy-Councellors in some cases are Overt-Acts of themselves. I think it will become the wisdom of the Nation, to make all the desence and provision they can, against the corrupt doings of men in such places. And I do not see what danger can arise to our Posterities by such proceedings. Is it not with the Parliament we intrust this power? Who can imagine that a Parliament can ever be so constituted, as not to be carefully concern'd in their proceedings as to Life and Death; and only concern themselves there­in, when some extraordinary exigences in which the Government is much concerned requires it? What man would desire to live after he was thought worthy of death by such an Assembly? And notwithstanding what hath been said to ex­tenuate the Crimes mentioned in these Articles, I think, the Order that was made in the Kings Bench about Printing, by the Judges, was taking on them a legislative power, which hath formerly been judged Treason; And I think we live now in as dange­rous times as ever, and under as great a necessity to have a care of the mischiefs that may happen to the Nation by ill Judges as ever▪ And I see no reason to doubt our being able to make good these Arti­cles; and therefore I pray that the Articles may be ingrossed as they are.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I agree that it will become this House very well, to be very cautious how they make pre­sidents [Page 226] in cases of Treason, which are the Sheet-Anchors of Life and Death; as also how to wea­ken Parliamentary Proceedings, that are necessary to preserve the Government, And I hope that nothing but the true merits of the Cause will lead us in a matter of so great importance, and neither Wit nor Oratory, nor any forced explanation of the Laws; I see it agreed by all, that Parliaments have a Power of declaring Treason. The Question is, which is most customary and securest, to have it done by Bill, that so Kings, Lords, and Com­mons may joyn therein; or whether by an Im­peachment from the Commons, the Lords being only the Judges; or whether any thing ought or can be declared Treason by Parliament, which was not Felony by some known Law before.

Sir, I am of opinion that it is safest and most agreeable to the policy of this Government, that the declaring of any thing Treason in Parliament should be by Bill, that King, Lords, and Commons may joyn therein, that so such a precious thing as the life of the subject should have the greatest se­curity imaginable. However it is not to be doubt­ed, but it hath been practised otherways, and that many persons have been Condemned in Par­liament upon Impeachments from the Commons for facts which were not Treason by any known Law. And the reason may be, thereby to prevent the dan­gers that might arise from some Ministers of State growing so great with the King, as that they should be able to secure him from ever giving his consent to a Bill. In such a case, by giving ill Counsel and other se­cret courses, (happily as far as treason, yet not known by any Law) they would be secure from punishment, if this way of proceeding against [Page 227] such a person where the Kings concurrence is not necessary, were not allowed of. And the preser­ving of this right, is so far from being contrary to the wisdom of our Ancestors, that it is very a­greeable to all their proceeding in the constitution of this Government, in order to ballance it the better, and preserve it against the designs of great ill men. And as to the other Objection, whether the Parliament can declare any thing Treason that was not Felony before by some known Law? I am quite of another opinion, and do believe the practice hath been otherways; the Judges in Rich. the 2d's time were condemned for giving extrajudicial Opinions, which, I think, was not Felony by any Statute-law. A Knight of Cheshire was condemn'd in Parliament, for conspiring the death of the King's Unkle. An Earl of Nor­thumberland, for giving Liveries to so many per­sons as were judged a little Army. And many other cases which I have read of, in which per­sons have been condemn'd in Parliament, when their Crimes were not Felony by any known Law. But I do not take any delight in ripping up old Statutes or Presidents about Treasons. I am sor­ry the misfortunes of our times should make it now necessary. But if the Parliament, as I con­clude, have often declared such things as these Treason, and the Commons have impeached per­sons guilty of such Crimes, for High Treason, I see no just objection why these Articles should not go up as they are drawn: For notwithstanding what hath been said to mitigate the crimes con­tained in these Articles, I am of opinion that the Order made in the Kings Bench about Printing, their Warrants for seizing of Books, their dismissing [Page 228] of Grand-Juries, doth tend to the subversion of the Government, and hath been and ever ought to be, in Judges, judged Treason. And therefore, that it can­not consist with the prudence of this House, nor the security of the Nation, that this person should be impeached of less than High-treason. And therefore I move you, that the Articles may be engrost.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, we are not going about to declare any thing Treason, but to offer our Articles, and leave it to the Lords; therefore most of these Argu­ments would be more proper there; for we only Impeach, they are to be the Judges, whether the matter be Treason or no. It is true, we ought to be cautious what we do in it, because it is not proper that this House should impeach a man for Treason, without having good grounds for it. But is not the Order about Printing a kind of an act of State, to serve instead of a Law? Is not the use of Grand-Juries a very essential part of this Go­vernment? And is not the dismissing of them, as this Judge did, a way to render them useless? Are not his Warrants to seize Books and Papers Arbitrary? and doth not all tend to the subversion of the Go­vernment? And what better grounds should we have for our proceedings? I think the Articles are well drawn, and ought to be ingrossed as they are.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I cannot admit that Parliaments by Impeachments before the Lords, can make any thing Treason, but only such matters as were Treason by Common-law, before the Statute of Edward the Third. And, I think, we ought to [Page 229] be so cautious of our Posterities, as not to press for such Presidents, lest you put into the hands of the Lords a Power, for which we may have cause to repent hereafter, but never get back again: For the Lords do not use to part with those Powers they once get. There are Presidents by which it appears, that the Lords have attempted to make declarative Treasons alone, without any Impeachment from the Commons. Have a care how you give them encouragement to proceed therein; better to keep to the other way of ma­king no declarative Treasons but by Bill.

January 6. 1681.

Mr. Speaker,

SIr, the Evidence which you have heard at the Bar, and the report which hath been read, as to the Popish-plot in Ireland, is not only a plain discovery of the dangerous and de­plorable condition of the Protestants in Ireland, but a great confirmation of what Dr. Oates and the rest of the Witnesses have said as to the Plot here. So that now no man can have any excuse for not believing it, but such as are mislead by others who know it too well, because they are in it. I cannot but observe what a coherence and a­greement there is in the carrying on of these two [Page 231] Plots. Fitz-Gerard tells you, that in 1662. se­veral Officers were sent into France to get mony for carrying on of the Plot. And was it not in 1662. that we begun here with the Toleration, which gave the first appearance of Popery to the Parliament? In 1672. we broke the Triple-League, and entred into a strange correspondence with France; then they actually listed and armed a great number of Souldiers, which were first to go into France, and then to come back to carry on the Plot. In 75, and 76, all the Clergy in Ireland, said the Duke of York should be King in 78. And Fitz-Gerrard deposeth, that he then told the same to several persons, as had since proved it before Sir John Davis Secretary of State in Ireland. And doth it not appear by the Witnesses here, that they intended about that time to cut off the King? It appears, that they intended to Massacre most of the Protestants, and to conquer others; and that this they hoped to do by assistance expected from France, of Men and Arms, assoon as that King should be disengaged of the War he was engaged in with the Consederates. And doth not this a­gree not only with Dr. Oates his Discovery, but Prance's too? And did we not, after we had assisted the French with about 12000 men, most Irish, and helped them in the carrying on of that War, send Plenipotentiaries to Nimeguen, in or­der to make up a general Peace, that so he might be at leisure about that time that the said party expected his assistance, and that the Clergy had told Fitz-Gerard, that the Duke should be King? Upon the Discovery of the English-Plot, the King, Lords, and Commons, declared it a horrid, dam­nable, execrable Plot: now upon the discovery [Page 232] of this Irish-Plot, the Lords Spiritual and Tempo­ral have declared the same of it. But to what purpose I know not, unless it be to discover the strength of the Popish party in that, after you know, your danger and have declared it in Parlia­ment, yet that their Interest is strong enough to baffle ours, and to prevent all manner of remedies or future security; nay, and to make you eat your own Declarations up again, and be asham'd (if possible) that ever you made such. This hath been the effect of the Declarations so often made in Parliament as to the English Plot: And I am a­fraid, that this Declaration that hath been read, is all that will be done for the security of the Protestants in Ireland. For notwithstanding all these Disco­veries, which are the greatest that ever were, in a case of so great a Conspiracy, such is their influ­ence and authority, that they have not only sa­ved their own party from being any way weak­ned, (unless by those few that have been hanged) but have gained a great number of the Protestants to joyn and contribute as much to the carrying on of their design, as they can desire. The truth is, Sir, England can never be destroyed, but by it self; and the Papists well know this must be done by divi­ding us. If ever there were a Popish Miracle, it is in this, that seeing the Knife is so near our Throats, they should be able so to infatuate us, that instead of making any preparation to prevent them we court all manner of Divisions & Animosities amongst our selves, and cherish every project of that party that tends to our Ruin, with as much earnestness as if it tended to our safety. But though this Witchcraft of theirs hath had a strange power with people without doors yet I hope it will ne­ver [Page 233] have any operation here to prevent us from doing our endeavours. And therefore seeing by this discovery we find again that all the Plot cen­ters in the D. of York, let us, after we have agreed to what the Lords have sent down, make a De­claration to this purpose: That the Duke of York's being a Papist, and the expectation which that Party bave of his coming such to the Crown, hath given the greatest encouragement to the Popish Plot in Ireland, as well as here.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, as the Irish Plot doth agree with the English Plot in several circumstances before it broke out, so afterwards in the prosecution of it. Were not the Witnesses insaminated and discoura­ged, or their Evidence consumed or turn'd into Ridicule? and was not the same done here? Were not some of them, to prevent their Evidence, shipt off, and never heard of more; and others strange­ly tormented? and doth not that in some measure answer with the death of Sir Edmund-bury God­frey? Did not Sir John Davis, and others in great Offices there, do all that they could to stifle the discovery of the Plot? and have not many of our Ministers done the same here? Were there not strange endevaours used to put off the Tryals of such as were accused about the Plot, or to quit them when they came to a Tryal? and have not the same endeavours been used here as to the Lords in the Tower, and the Tryal of Wakeman, and many others? and after all these Discoveries, what have we done, or what are we doing to se­cure our selves against this Party? Truly, Sir, I know not of any thing. But on the other hand can tell you, that great things are doing to carry on [Page 234] the Plot. I see that in order to discover the mighty power of that Party, two Parliaments have alrea­dy been dissolved without doing any thing against Popery: and I am afraid, that this will have no better success. And in the intervals of Parliaments, I observe, That all heads are at work to perswade the people out of all the particulars of the Plot, and allows them only a general notion, that the Papists would bring in their Religion if they could, but withal en­deavour to perswade them that it is impossible: That so they need not be afraid of it; and that the fears and jealousies of Popery are created by ill men, that have a design upon the Government, or Fa­naticks that have a design upon the Church, and that all will end in Forty One. I observe also, that the Witnesses that have come in to discover the Plot, are more and more defamed and discou­raged; and all others in favour of Popery, very much cherisht: And will not such proceedings and such opinions as these, if well infused into the people, be serviceable to that party, not only by dividing thereby the Protestant Interest, but by securing to themselves this party so mis-led, to give them assistance in the disguise they will assume, until they have conquer'd any party that may oppose them, and be able to stand upon their own bot­tom? And may they not go a great way to mis­lead a great many credulous persons, especially if Parliaments be kept off, and the Press and the Pulpit too (though I hope better) should be directed that way? And as these Opinions will give a great encouragement and strengthning to that party for the carrying on of their Plot, and for all manner of new contrivances, so will the entertainment the Discoverers of the last Plot have met with, se­cure [Page 235] the Papists of ever having more Discoveries made of what they are transacting. And will not the course that is taken of putting into all Offices either of trust or profit, no persons but such who they find will thus be mis-led either by their Am­bition, because they see it is the only way to prefer­ment; or because they have not understanding to see these Designs at a distance, be a great help to them also? I think, Sir, the carrying on of these things thus by such great Authority, after the discovery of such a Plot, and the contrary endea­vours of three Parliaments, are great things to en­courage the going on of the Plot, after they have first reduced the state of Popery to the same con­dition it was in before the Plot broke out; that so it may creep on upon us again, as they shall think may be most for their advantage. And al­though I will not undertake to fathom the depth of Divine Providence, yet I am afraid, if we should grow careless to secure our selves after such su­pernatural helps, we may therein provoke God Almighty to be angry with us. And because a­mongst the inventions that are afoot, there is much noise made about the Town of Forty One, I cannot but observe, that there is something in the Evidence of the Irish Plot that agrees with Forty One. Then there was a great Massacre in Ire­land, as now intended: I have some reason to remem­ber, with sorrow and indignation, the miseries of For­ty One; but I am afraid the discourse of those times, is in this conjunction made use of to bring on the like miseries again upon us, and not in order to prevent them; because I find that those that talk most of preventing the Effect, carry on the Cause as much as they can; which to me is a contradiction. I am [Page 236] of opinion, that the endeavours that were used be­fore Forty One, to possess the people against Parlia­ments, and of the Kings Power to raise Money without Parliaments, was the great cause of our Miseries in Forty One. And I know no good reason why we should not suspect those who carry on the same designs now (tho with some little Variation) should not endeavour to bring about some Alteration in the Government again as well as those, that shew it in nothing but opposing of Popery; tho the great power that party have in representing matters, have made it to be dangerous to the State. But I see we are like to have little Assistance to prevent the carrying on of these designs in these shapes; they must have their course. I do agree that we may do well to add to this Resolution of the Lords, That the Duke's being a Papist, and their hopes of his coming such to the Crown, hath given the greatest hopes and encouragement to the Popish Plot in Ireland, as well as in this Kingdom. And if the Lords Spiri­tual and Temporal should agree to it, I hope we may in time do something against Popery: For it would be very hard, if after they have agreed in the Cause, they should deny to joyn with us in the Remedy. And seeing the Bishops have agreed there is a Popish Plot in Ireland, I hope the Clergy will believe there hath been one in England, and consider the danger of a Popish Successor and Popish King, and Preach and Pray against it: And then I shall conclude they are in good earnest against Popery, and that we should soon be able to Van­quish this common Enemy. And then I think it would be the Interest of the Nation to settle mat­ters relating to the Church, not only so as to stand against all Opposers, but to be more beauti­ful and triumphant than ever.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, Solomon saith, There is no new thing under the Sun; but whoever will but consider what great Endeavours have been used to stifle these Plots, and how few to prevent the like for the future, or the danger arising from them, must conclude, that the like was never done in such a case before. All the Plots center in the Duke: What is done with him? He is sent into Scotland to make an interest there, that so the Government of that Kingdom with an Army of 22000 Men already settled, and what more may be got, may be as ready at his command as the strength of this Nation is here. A strange way of weakning an Enemy! And doth the Duke's Interest go back­ward here in his absence? No, all those about the King are of his placing: And tho we think him in Scotland, yet he is here too, as if there were Tran­substantiation in the case. I do not understand how the great noise of Forty One that is now made, can tend to the securing us against Popery; but the fear of that (which I am sure I have a great deal of reason to remember) may several ways be used for the bringing in of Popery; and I have the more reason to fear so, because I am informed that the Justice of Peace who hath writ▪ so many Books to fill the Peoples heads with Notions about For­ty One, is now fled, because of Evidence given before the Lords, of his being a Papist. I wish we could do something against the common Enemy, whose Power is so great as bids defiance to us; and then I shall be ready to contribute my poor Endea­vours as earnestly against Forty One men, if they be not so high as the Moon: for I must confess, as yet I cannot find them out here below. And if [Page 238] these Churchmen would but joyn with us in ridding us of Popery, I would also joyn in preventing their fears of Fanaticks. Sir, I think you have a very good Motion made for a good Addition to the Lords Vote, as to the Duke of York's being the cause of the Irish Plot also: I pray let it be added, that so we may see whether the Bishops will do any thing against the Duke or no; for if they should, happi­ly the Clergy may come in time to consider the danger of a Popish Successor, and Popish King, and preach and pray against it, as much as against Fanaticks. If not, and the Doctrine be true which I have often heard, that there is no distinction between the Duke's Interest and Popish Interest, I am afraid we are in a bad condition.

A Motion being made and seconded, for the impeaching of the Earl of Tyrone.

January 7. 1681.

Mr. Speaker.

Sir, his Majesty is pleased to say in his [Page 240] Message, That he is confirm'd in his Opinion against the Exclusion-bill, by the Judgment of the House of Lords; and that he is sorry to see that this House hath such an opinion of it, as to conclude all other ways and means insufficient. He is also pleased to say, that we have no reason to doubt his Concurrence in any other means that shall tend to the preservation of the Protestant Religion, when presented him in a Parliamentary Way; which I do not doubt but he will comply with, whenever he shall be pleased to follow the Dictates of his own Judgment. But so long as there are so many persons about him, who have publickly de­clared for the Duke's Interest, we have good reason to doubt, that we shall hardly obtain any thing for the security of the Protestant Religion. We well know how many in the House of Lords came to their Honours, and by whose Interest; and it is not strange, that those that are as Servants shou'd obey their Master; but it is strange, that those who have prevailed with the King to reject this Bill, if Pro­testants, should be so unconcern'd in the welfare of the Protestant Religion, as not to offer what Expedi­ents they have to secure it any other way; especially seeing the last Parliament as well as this, found it a Task too hard for them. But to reject the Bill which we propose, and to offer no other to serve instead thereof, though they have had two years time for consideration, is to me a plain demon­stration, that nothing must be had against Popery. That these difficulties should be put upon us, and our Dangers thus prolonged in favour of the Duke, after such full Evidence that the Plot centers all in him, and that the original of our Miseries is from him, when the immediate safety of the King [Page 241] and our Lives and Religion is concern'd on the o­ther hand; is a plain discovery of the great Power of the Popish Interest, and of the low ebb of the Protestants; and that it is impossible that any thing can be granted us in favour of the Protestant Reli­gion, as long as those that are so much for the Dukes interest, are about the King. And therefore seeing we are not like to do any thing by Bill, that those that sent us here may see we have done what we can, let us make such Votes as may be serviceable to our Country, viz. 1. That the Kings Person nor Protestant Religion, cannot be secured any way, without the Exclusion-Bill. 2. That we can give no Money, without endangering the Kings Person and Protestant Religion, until we have that Bill. And, 3. That being supplies for all publick Money ought to come from this House, there being no other way to supply the King with the love of his People as well as with Money, let us pass a Vote to prevent Anticipations on the Revenue, and o­ther Supplies. And because I believe things are come to a point, and that there are them that have ad­vised the Dissolution of this Parliament, and the Nation can never be happy as long as we have such Councellors, let us, while we may, pass our Cen­sures on such Persons; for only God knows when we shall be permitted to Sit here again.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, the truth is, we committed a great Error in the beginning of this Session; when we went about to look into the Popish Plot, we went into the Tower, whereas we should have gone to the Court; for it is plain, that the Duke's Friends which are there, do still carry on the Plot against the Protestant Religion, as much as ever the Lord Bellasis, Powis, or any of those Lords in the Tower [Page 242] did. And we may reasonably conclude by the lit­tle success we have had against Popery this Session, that until we can remove that Interest from about the King, we take pains to no purpose.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am ready to agree in those Votes that were moved: For it appears plain to me, that we are not like to have any Laws against Popery; for the truth is, the Popish interest is too strong for us. If there were any intent that we should have the Protestant Religion secured any other way, it is strange that those who advise the King to oppose our way, should not at the same time prevail with him to propose his. I am afraid that this Advice proceeds from those that think the King nor Kingdom is not in danger of Popery, because they are of opinion, that Popery cannot hurt the King nor Kingdom; for o­therwise they might plainly see it is like to have a Contest with us; and that it would be convenient it should be prevented, and be induced thereby to of­fer some Expedient, if there be any. And as we may conclude our selves an unhappy People upon these accounts, so also in that the House of Lords, after they had spent so much time about Expedients, and found them insufficient, that they should afterwards reject this Bill, without any further care how to preserve the Protestant Religion; at least, not by sending any thing to this House, tho we have heard from them of Mr. Seymor's Articles, and some tri­vial matters. And also in that some worthy Mem­bers, who have the honour to serve in great places about his Majesty, and have opposed this Bill, see­ing this House in this great Dilemma, should not offer to do the Nation and this House that kindness as to oppose them. If there be any such worthy [Page 243] Member that have any such Expedient, I hope he will stand up, and then I will presently set down.

The truth is, Sir, every day doth more and more discover our danger, and demonstrate, that this of Expedients is put upon us, in hopes that we should have offered at some Bill; of which, advantage might be taken to represent us as Persons not well-affected to the Government; that so, if possible, even the People, as well as the King, might be brought out of love with Parliaments. I do re­member, that after the great Endeavours which some Ministers of State have used to bribe the late Long Parliament, and had come so near a perfecti­on, as that the Nation was in a manner saved but by two or three Votes, their Dissolution was much admired at; and it was most mens business to cast about to find out the reason of it: Amongst other things, it was concluded, That if the Popish interest had any hand in it (as believed) that it was out of hopes, that they should thereby have opportunity to make the King out of love with all Parliaments, and so occasion some difference between him and his People. The little success which the last Par­liament had, the improbability of this, and the Stumbling-blocks that are laid for the next, make me afraid, that the Long Parliament was dissolved for this reason: I have heard that the Jesuits have at this time a great stroke in the management of all the Affairs of Europe, and that it is by their ad­vice and assistance, that the King of France goeth on so triumphantly, because they design to make him Universal Monarch, and that in order thereto, [Page 244] are true to him, tho false to all the World besides. How far we have contributed already to the King of France his Greatness, and how this breaking off Parliaments, and keeping this Nation in this un­settled Condition, may conduce to his taking of Flanders and Holland, and his other designs, all here may judg: And how it agrees with the Re­port of the Jesuits having the management of all the Affairs of Europe: And how this can be pre­vented without the Exclusion-Bill, is a Paradox to me. For I do still conclude, that so long as there is a Popish Successor, there will be a Popish Interest, and that as long as there is a Popish Interest and Fears of a Popish King, the Nation will be divided, and there will be constant Fears and Jealousies not only here at home, but with our Allies abroad; which will frustrate all Endeavours to oppose the French designs, because there can be no confidence between the King and his People. And this makes me conclude, we are under great Difficulties; if we give Money, we have reason to fear it may be employed to our Destruction; if we do not, if Flan­ders or Holland should be lost, great endeavours will be used to lay it at our doors, tho we have given such hearty Assurances to his Majesty of our readiness to supply him with Money for the support of it. And how we should extricate our selves out of these Difficulties, I know not.

Sir, I have troubled you the longer, and with the more earnestness, because I am doubtful whether I may ever have another opportunity to speak in this place. Things are so out of Order, and such prevalent Endeavours are used to unsettle them more, that I am afraid, not only of our Religion, but of the very Government and being of the Eng­lish [Page 245] Nation: For if these things should occasion blood, while the French is so powerful, he may easily have the casting voice; and without that, only God knows what may be the end of such confusions as some men endeavour to occasion. All projects of setling the affairs of this Nation without Parliaments have hitherto proved unsuc­cessful, and been attended with ill consequences. I have a great deal of reason to be sensible of the miseries of 41. and therefore am sorry to see such dis­solutions of Parliaments without success. I am a­fraid there are Projectors again afoot that are for altering the Government, as to the use of Parlia­ments: I judg so by their proceedings, because I am of opinion, that Popery must destroy the use of Parliaments, before it can be setled in this Nation. Seeing we are not like to have any Acts pass this Session that may do the Nation any good, I think you have been well moved to do what service you can by your Votes.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, it is not only very strange, but, if I be not mistaken, contrary to the custom of Parlia­ments, that after the Lords have past a Negative upon a Bill, that we should still press for it, and de­clare our selves resolved not to be satisfied with­out it, though it be well known that the King doth also intend to pass his Negative upon it; and that it cannot be had this Session, unless his Majesty be pleased to prorogue the House of purpose to give an opportunity to go on with it again, which is very unlikely, if the contents of his Speeches and Messages be considered, seeing the Lords have confirmed him in his opinion of it. And there­fore I should think it were much better to follow [Page 246] his Majesties directions in his Message, and try some other way, which would be a great confirmation of our readiness to obey his Majesty, in following his advice, which, I believe, is the best way to pre­vent any further disagreement, that so this Parlia­ment may have a happy conclusion.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am fully perswaded, that we can­not be secure neither of our Religion nor Peace and Quietness, without this Bill; yet seeing we are not like to have it at this time, I am for going on with those other Bills that are afoot, that we may try if we can get them. Seeing we cannot do all the good we would, let us endeavour to do all the good we can. But I am ready to agree in the Vote that was proposed, That it is the opini­on of this House, that neither the Kings person nor Protestant Religion can be secured any other way; provided it be not intended to bind the House from trying what may be done by other Laws, lest advantage should be taken thereof to break this Parliament, which I tremble to think of, be­cause it will be attended with a great ruin to our affairs both abroad and at home.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, being the house is inclinable to hear of Expedients, I will crave leave to offer you one. In case the Duke should outlive the King, I think if by an Act of Parliament the Prince of Orange were appointed to administer the Govern­ment jointly with him, with such powers and limitations as might be thought convenient upon a serious Debate, it might give great satisfa­ction, and probably secure the Protestant Reli­gion.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, you have had several Propositions made you, and the way to come to some speedy resolution, is not to debate too many together, but to keep close to that to which most have spo­ken; which, if I be not mistaken, is that which relates to the Duke's Bill, which some have oppo­sed, because of the difficulties arising from the Bill, and would rather have you go into a Committee and treat of Expedients. But I think it below the gravity of the House to be put out of their method, unless some Expedients were proposed. But notwithstanding all the provocations that have been given, we cannot hear of any Expedi­ents, only one which hardly deserves any further consideration in a Committee; because Crowned Heads nor Lovers, do not willingly allow of Rivals, but will be uneasie until they be rid of them. And I am afraid all other Expedients will be liable to as strong Objections; and that therefore it is that they are not proposed, though they have been so often discoursed of. If any person would offer any that had any appearance of giving satitfaction, I should be ready to give my voice for going into a Committee to debate them. But I know not why the House should lose that time, without some Expedient be first offered. If there could be any Expedient found out, which were likely, really, and effe­ctually to prejudice the Duke's Interest, why should not the same Argument arise against them as against the Exclusion-Bill? Why would not any such Bill be also against natural Justice, the Oath of Alle­giance, a severe Condemnation, and not good in Law, but liable to occasion a civil War? For I am apt to think this great contest is not all a­bout [Page 248] an empty Name; and if not, then the same Arguments will hold against any other Bill that will be sufficient to keep him from the Govern­ment, if some such Bill or Bills could be contri­ved, as against the Bill of Exclusion; But the truth is, there can be no other Bill that can serve us in this case because all other Bills will leave us in that miserable condition of opposing our lawful King, and [...]ll opposition in such a case would be li­able to be construed a Rebellion. All other Bills in this case would be no more for the security of our Religion, than a great many Leases, Releases and o­ther Writings, are in many cases of Estates, with­out Fines and Recoveries. However, I am against the Vote that was proposed, That the Duke's being a Papist hath rendred him uncapable of the Crown; for that were to take on us a Legislative power; but let your Question be, that it is the opinion of this House, that the Kings Person, nor Protestant Religion, can­not be secure without that Bill. That so the proceed­ings of the House may be justified in demanding that Bill hereafter, though we should in the mean time go on with any other Bills.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I shall not trouble you with any Ar­gument, whether the Protestant Religion can be preserved under a Popish King, or whether an Act of Exclusion will be a good Act or no or whether the Exclusion-bill alone, if it should be granted, would be sufficient, or what others we should need; but the Question is at present. Whether, see­ing we cannot have this Bill we shall not aim at something else, that so, if possible, we may pre­vent the breaking up of this Parliament, without any effect, as to the great things they were sum­moned [Page 249] for, on which I cannot reflect without be­ing much concerned; and I am afraid, that it will be the consequence of persisting for this Bill. I cannot be perswaded, notwithstanding all that hath been said, but that there are other Bills that may attain our end, or at least do us some good. And we have no certain demonstration that this Bill, if we should obtain it, will infallibly do what is desired. The Acts made in Queen Elizabeth's days▪ did not suppress that party totally: though the Queen of Scots was cut off, yet that interest continued, and even to this day remains, and so it may probably though we should get this Bill; and therefore why should we stand so much in our own light, as not to take what we can get. The Bill of Banishment may be of great use, and some Bills to limit the power of such a Prince, by put­ting the power into Parliaments and Privy▪ coun­cellors; why should we lose all by being so eager for that we are never like to get? And therefore, I humbly conceive we may do better to go on with such other Bills as may be thought conveni­ent, and not struggle nor persist for the obtaining of this.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I am not for adventuring my life up­on Rhetorick, which is all I can find there is in the discourses that are made for Expedients. We all know, that a little thing altered the Government in France, and reduced the people of that King­dom to Slavery: Pray let us have a care that, for want of a little short Act, we be not reduced to Slavery and Popery too. Will not all the Expe­dients that have been talked of, or can be imagi­ned, leave us to contest with our lawful Prince; and [Page 250] that assistance which he is well assured of, not only from the Papists here, but in Ireland, and from France, and Scotland, I am afraid enough to make it a measuring cast. And is the Protestant Interest so low, that tho our dangers be so great, that instead of a Sword to defend our selves, we must be content with a Sheath? I am not for cheat­ing those that sent me here. I think it much more for the Interest of the Nation, that we should have no Laws, than such as will but trepan us, by fail­ing us like rotten Crutches when we have occa­sion to depend on them. I had rather lose my Life and my Religion, because I were not able to defend it, than be fool'd out of it by depending on such Laws. I take it for granted, that seeing the Exclusion-Bill is thought too much for us, and such great endeavours are used to preserve the strength and interest of that Party, that we must either submit, or defend our Religion by a sharp contest, and therefore I hope we shall not depend on Laws that will tend to weaken us. I am confident, that if some Ministers of State did not stand as Clouds between the King and us, we should have redress. For how can it consist with his goodness or Corona­tion-Oath, that for the interest of one man, the Bo­dies and Souls of the rest of his Subjects should be in such danger of perishing, as they are in case of his Death, if a Popish King should succeed, and such Popish Councellors, Judges, Justices, and Bi­shops too, as we had in Queen Mary's days? For it cannot be doubted; but that those that will be so Loyal as to bring him in, will be so Loyal, as it will be called, to obey him in all things which may be for his interest. And the same Argument which Queen Mary used, will supply the defect of all [Page 251] Laws, That the Execution of all Ecclesiastical Laws may be suspended by force, but could never be repealed by the power of Parliaments; and therefore com­manded, that notwithstanding all Laws to the con­trary, they should be executed as in the beginning of her Father's Reign. The great endeavours that are used to ridicule the Plot, arraign Parliaments, and divide the Protestant Interest, is a full confir­mation to me, that the Plot goeth on as much as ever. And how can it be otherways, unless we can get the King of our side, that so he may be more for us than he is for the Duke, without which, it is impossible that the Protestant Interest can stand long? In order to do something, I am ready to agree in the Votes that have been made.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, it is clear to me, that all Expedients without this Bill, cannot signify any thing for our defence against Popery. All our difficulty will be, to satisfy his Majesty, that nothing else can save his people from the Popish Bondage. And if we could do that, I do not doubt but he will rather pass the Bill, than let Three Nations perish. The King doth now rely on the judgment of the Lords in the matter, yet happily will find upon an In­formation, that he hath no good ground so to do. For, I believe, if he would ask the Lords why they were of that opinion, many of them would tell him, because he was of that opinion, and because they were awed by his presence. And seeing the Lords are changed from the time of the throwing out of that Bill, from 33 to 55; so they may probably change more against the Bill comes to them again. And I am confident will do so when they have consulted their Interest, and have found that all other ways [Page 252] to secure the Protestant Religion, are either im­possible or impracticable. At least, I am confident they will not throw it out again, without a Con­ference. And it is my opinion, there wants nothing but a Conference to have an agreement with the Lords; in the mean time, that they may have oc­casion to consider better of it, let us by a Vote declare our resolution to stick to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, by the Debate which you have had about Expedients, it plainly appears, that the Popish Interest is so well fixt, that we are not like to obtain any thing against it, that will do us any good. And it is not strange, that it should meet with great opposition. For we may reasonably con­clude, that those who had the power to instill those principles into the Royal Family, have not been negligent to improve their Interest, to secure those advantages they have long hop'd for, and expe­cted, from such a Proselite. And therefore those Arguments which some worthy Members have u­sed, as to the improbability that ever a Popish King should attempt to change our Religion, as not con­sisting with his Interest, are to me very preposte­rous, and a great demonstration of the influence of that party, in being able to broach such Opini­ons as are so useful to bring in that Religion. For my part, I am of a different judgment, and do be­lieve, that a Popish Head on a Protestant Body, would be such a Monster in nature, as would neither be fit to preserve, or be preserved; and that therefore it would as naturally follow, as night follows day, that either the Head would change the Body, or the Body the Head. Have we not already had sufficient experience, what a miserable thing it is for a King [Page 253] to be jealous of his people, or the people of their Prince. Can it be imagined that there can be a Popish King in this Nation, without occasioning a constant noise of Plots and Popery, and that such reports grounded on the King's inclinations, will not occasion such a fermentation in the people, as will end in misery? Or if it should prove otherways, that by such arts as may probably then be set on foot, the people should be lulled into a security? Can we think that the Papists who have been so many ages at work for the opportunity, should not take ad­vantage of that security to fetter us with their Popish Bondage? We may as well think that they will all then turn Protestants, or be true to the Protestant Interest. No, Sir, their great design of having a Popish Successor, was in order to bring in Popery. And we may conclude, they will heartily and earnestly pursue it, when ever they shall have a Popish King. And therefore I think it will never become the prudence of this House to desist from endeavouring to get the Exclusion Bill, which is the only remedy that can be in this case, that we may have a right to defend our selves and our Religion against a Popish Successor, without which this Nation will be in time ruin'd. And therefore I humbly move you, that we pass those Votes that have been proposed.

Mr: Speaker,

Sir, I have considered this Message with that duty and respect I ought; it doth so agree with all others which His Majesty has been pleased to send to this Parliament, that I do believe that all proceed from the same Council, and that our en­deavours to prevail with his Majesty in that parti­cular of changing Councils, hath hitherto had no [Page 254] effect. The King is pleased to say, that he is con­firmed in his opinion as to the Bill by the House of Lords having rejected it; I admire how the King should know it in a Parliamentary way, so as to in­timate so much to this House. Probably he might be present, as he hath generally been, ever since my Lord Clifford had so great a share in the manage­ment of the affairs of this Kingdom. And how things have gone there since, we all know. I do not doubt but his Majesty takes that unparralleld trouble of attending there daily, chiefly for the good of the Protestant Religion; but I cannot but observe that it hath had little success. For things however have gone with so much difficulty against the Popish party, that it may be a question whether his Roy­al presence, or the influence of a Popish Successor were strongest. The Bill for Papists taking the Test, though accompanied with a great sum of Money, past with much difficulty, and so that for excluding the Lords, and not without an exception as to his Royal Highness: And therefore we have no great reason to admire that this about the succession should be thrown out: And how can we expect it should be otherwise, as long as so many which set there, are in the possession of great places by the Duke's means, and so many others which would come into great places, but cannot be had but by his means? And how all this together makes an Interest, may easily be imagined. Sir, I do not mention these things without regret, for I know my distance, and have a great veneration for the Nobility of this Land; and I know the Lords have their freedom of Voting, and that there are many sit in the Lords House, who have all the qualifica­tions necessary for that great Station. But to see [Page 255] a Bill of this importance treated so contrary to the usual course of Parliaments, it is necessary that we should a little consider what may be the cause, in order to regulate our proceedings for future: For if nothing must go in that House against the Duke, I think the Protestant Religion is like to have little security from Acts. If the Duke had ever consul­ted the Books writ by his Grandfather or Father, or their Declarations in matters of Religion, he would never have brought these difficulties upon his King and Country. It is strange he should aim to get Heaven, by proceedings so contrary to what his Fa­ther attested with his blood. But though he have neglected to consult his interest, I hope we shall not neglect to consult ours in pursuing this Bill, seeing there is no other Remedy: Though I am afraid it is a great work, and may break many Parliaments, because it is so like to destroy all the Papists hopes of establishing their Religion. However, I will not fear but God granting the King life, it may be obtained at last; unless the project now afoot, of representing Parliaments as dangerous and useless, should prevent the meeting of any more: For even the old band of Pensioners could slip their Collars, when Popery came bare-faced before them. It is not to be admired, that seeing the Jesuits have been a hun­dred years at work to rivet their interest, by get­ting a Prince of their Religion, they should strug­gle hard to preserve it, that so they may have those blessed effects they expect from it, which the Suc­cession bill only can prevent. But it is strange, that after such discoveries of the Plot here, and in Ireland, and the certainty of our irrecoverable dan­ger upon the Kings death, that so many Protestants should be deluded by that party▪ and rather be led [Page 256] by artificial falshoods to their own destruction, than by naked truth to joyn in that which only can save them. For Protestants to ridicule the Plot, and disparage the Witnesses, though their Evidence is so confirm'd, that a man may as well believe that Bread may be made Flesh by Transubstantia­tion, as that the danger of our Religion is not true; is as strange, as to believe, that let the Papists carry on what Plots they will for future, there will be e­vermore any Discoveries made, But if there should, I am sure the Witnesses will deserve the censure of being mad (as was past on him that owned the burning of London) considering how those have been rewarded. It is plain to me, that as the King was under great difficulties arising from the Solli­citations and Advices of private Cabals, when he put out his Declaration in April 1679▪ that so he is now, and that will never be otherwise, un­til he take up the same resolution again of follow­ing the advice of his Privy-Council, and great Council the Parliament: Till when, I expect no alteration in our affairs. The King being a Prote­stant, must be for the Protestant interest; the Duke being a Papist, as much for the Papist interest. How can it be imagined, that there can be any U­nion in our Councils, as long as the interest of the Councellors are so opposite? or that any thing should pass in favour of the Protestant Religion, as long as the major part are for the Duke's interest? Such a contradiction hath for many years had strange effects already, and must have worse, until all the Kings Council be such as can be free to joyn in setling the affairs of the Nation upon the old Protestant foundation; which will never be, until we have this Exclusion-bill. And therefore I think [Page 257] you are well moved to signifie so much by a Vote. And I am glad to see so many Lords Sons joyn therein: for I hope it may be a means to get a fair understanding with the House of Lords either now or hereafter.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I have hearkned with great atten­tion to the Debates you have had about this mat­ter; and it is plain to me, that there can be no such thing as Demonstration in this case, because this Exclusion Act, if obtained, may be liable to many Objections, and probably not secure us. Why then should we be so bent upon it, seeing the great difficulties of obtaining it are so visible? For my part, I think if it should pass, it would be void of it self, and be of no force at all: for which reason, and because we are not like to get it, it is strange to me that no Arguments will prevail to aim at some other thing, that so we may get some­thing; which must be better than to have this Par­liament be broken for want of our taking what we may get. For supposing the worst, that we should not get any thing that should be sufficient to pre­vent the Duke's coming to the Crown, yet we may get such Laws as may be sufficient to secure our Religion, though he should come to it. And would it not be much better to spend our time in making Laws which may tend to that purpose, which we have reason to believe will be granted, than to spend our time in pursuing that we are not like to get? Some good Laws added to what we have, and the number of people which we have in this Nation, Protestants, would in my opinion be an impregnable fence against Popery. And it is no such strange thing to have a Prince of one Religion, [Page 258] and People of another. The late Duke of Hanover was a Papist, yet lived in peace with his People, though Lutherans. The King of France, notwith­standing his Greatness, permits a great proportion of his people to be Hugonots, and lives in peace with them. And seeing there is a great probabi­lity that we may do so too, and that we may have what Laws we will to secure our Religion to us in such a case, why should we engage our selves far­ther for the getting of an Act which the King and Lords have both declared against, and will never be consented to by the King, as we may reasonably believe, because he hath often declared, that he thinks it an unlawful Act, and that it is against his Conscience.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, the great Character this Honourable Member bears, the great Employments he hath been in under his Majesty abroad, as well as his Education in the Laws of this Nation, do justly challenge that what he saith should be well weigh­ed and considered before any man should offer to contradict it▪ He is pleased to say, that this Act would be unlawful and invalid, if it should be ob­tained: And therefore, because we are not like to obtain it, and because the Duke of Hanover, tho' a Papist, lived in peace with Lutherans, and the King of France with Hugonots, that we had better spend our time in contriving Laws for the security of our Religion, if a Papist should come to the Crown, which we may get; and not in contri­ving Laws to keep him from the Crown, which we are not like to have If this be not in plain Eng­lish the [...]ense of his Discourse, I am willing to be corrected. But, Sir, if it be, I do admire upon [Page 259] what foundation the first Arguments is grounded; I mean, those relating to the unlawfulness and in­validity of the Exclusion bill. Was there ever any Government in this World, that had not an unli­mitted Power lodg'd somewhere? or can it be possible that any Government should stand, with­out such a Power? And why such a Power should not be allowed here, which is so essential for the support of the Government, I think can only be in order (if I may say it without reflection) to have this Government fall; and I am afraid even at this time, by this very business we are now de­bating. For it must be the consequence of deny­ing that the Legislative Power of the Nation, King, Lords, and Commons, are not able to make Laws to prevent it. But as this Opinion is strange, so are the Politicks drawn from the Duke of Hanover, and King of France, to induce us to be willing to have a Popish King come to reign over us; when neither of the said Examples came home to our case: but if they should, why must we be so willing to have a Popish King come to govern us, as that we should be rather led by Examples fetch'd so far from abroad, than by the miserable Examples we had here in Queen Mary's days; and by the unde­niable Arguments and Reasons that have been of­fered to make out, that a Popish King will endea­vour to bring in a Popish Religion? And notwith­standing the Example brought from France, I am afraid the French King is bound to assist the Duke's Interest therein; or otherwise it may be said of us, what the Devil could not say of Job, That we have serv'd him for nought, contrary to the true Interest of England, these many years. But by these Argu­ments, and all the King's Speeches and Messages, I [Page 260] plainly see, that this Honourable Member is in the right in one thing; That we struggle in vain to get any Act that shall signifie any thing to prevent the Duke's coming to the Crown: but that if you will aim at Laws to secure your Religion after his coming to the Crown, you may probably obtain them. If this be not plainly said, I think it is plainly inferr'd; for are not all his Majesty's Spee­ches and Messages with an absolute prohibition as to any thing against the Succession? and I suppose will be as much understood against your Association bill, or any other that tends to that purpose: And you may be sure, that when you come with any such, if so contrived as to signifie any thing, that the same opposition shall be made to them as to the Exclusion-bill. For it is plain to me, that the King's offering to concur in any Laws you shall propose for the securing of your Religion, compa­red with the other Limitations, can only be so un­derstood; which is a fair denial of all Laws against Popery, at least those that advise it, I believe do so in­tend it: For all Laws against Popery, if once you have a Popish King, will signifie nothing; the strongest that can be made, would easily be defea­ted, so as to be of no use to us. Suppose we should propose a Law to put a great Power in Parliaments, I mean, in both Houses, that so we may have the Lords Spiritual, and Jure Divino of our side; yet it is to me very plain, that a Popish King would be able either to prevent the meeting of such Parlia­ments, or by awing or influencing them when met, or by setting up a stronger Power than the Parliament, or a better Jure Divino, by means of the Popish Clergy, than ours, easily make all such Acts signifie nothing. I have heard, that a wise [Page 261] King hath oftentimes made wise Councellors, and that wise Councellors sometimes make wise Kings; but it must be when their interest may bind them to take their advice; which in this case would happen otherwise: for the Parliaments in such a case, must have some such Power reposed in them as would render them suspitious of being Compe­titors for the Soveraignty; and that would make the Prince justly jealous of them, and soon end in such a breach as would endanger the Government. Or to prevent this, the power must be settled so strong in the Parliament, as to over-ballance the Kings; which ought not to be, because it would endanger Monarchy. If a man were desperately Sick of some Disease only curable by one Remedy, and that should be denied him, What should he do, but send for his Confessor, and prepare for Death? And so I think must we. And yet I can­not admire at this Message of his Majesties, but ra­ther considering whose advice he takes, should have admired if he had sent any other. I hope we shall be as wise as the Frogs, who when Jupiter gave them a Stork for their King, did not appear well pleased therewith; to accept of Expedients to secure the Protestant Religion, after such a King hath mounted the Throne, would be as strange as if there were a Lyon in the Lobby, and we should vote, That we would rather secure our selves by letting him in and chaining him, than by keeping him out. This Nation hath formerly had some repute for wisdom and prudence, and have done much, as well in making of good Laws, as in keeping them. Pray, Sir, let us not at one Blow, or by one Omis­sion, destroy all those Laws which our Forefathers obtained with so much industry: I hope the King [Page 262] will in time see who are his best Councellors, we that aim at the Preservation of the present Govern­ment in Church and State, or those private Cabals which aim at Alterations; and that he will hearken to us ere long: That so he may live with more content and Glory, and his People, without such Fears and Jealousies as now disturb them. Which cannot be, without the Exclusion-Bill; and there­fore I agree in the Votes that have been moved.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, I cannot but observe, that most of the Arguments used against this Bill, are the same which Coleman made the grounds of his Declara­tion, that so, if possible, he might have prepossest the People against the fear of Popery or Popish Successor. First, he saith, That the pretences which that Parliament made of the Protestant Re­ligion being in danger of Popery, was without cause, because there was no disturbance given by any of that Community. Secondly, That the Par­liaments bold Endeavours to have restrained the Succession of the Crown to certain Qualifications, would have made the Crown Elective. Thirdly, That therein they would have out-done the Popish Doctrince, that Heresy incapacitates Kings to reign, which was a new way of securing Religion by de­stroying it. Fourthly, That the good Church of England had taught their People to be obedient to their Prince, let his Religion or Deportment be what it will. Also I find, that the same Endea­vours which are now used to foment Fears and Jea­lousies in the People, as to Forty One, the danger of the Church and Government, and of Parliaments, are but copied out of that Declaration. He there de­clares, That the Parliament was dissolved because [Page 263] they had designs to blemish the good Protestant Church, and to prevent the sowing mischievous Tares in the wholsome Field of the Church of Eng­land, and to preserve the unspotted Spouse of our blessed Saviour from the ill effect of some designs that were like to be introduced by Parliament. I will not make any Annotations upon this which I have repeated, but by it I conclude, that the Papists are very willing we should imbibe these Opinions, and that therefore they may probably conduce to the carrying on of their designs. I could wish his Majesty would order that Declaration to be read in Churches once a year, that so all the People, but especially the Clergy, may know what excellent pretences the Pa­pists can make of taking care of the Protestant Church, and how vigilant they are for that end, especially to pre­vent that it may not be injured by the Parliament, nor by altering the Succession. The Declaration is to be a great Confirmation of what hath been said of the influence of that party in the management of Af­fairs; for it is not likely that Coleman would have drawn it, but that he knew how to have juggled it into the Council, as if it had been drawn by some good Protestant, that so it might have been made publick, if that Parliament had been then dissol­ved.

But, Sir, tho by God's Providence we have had all these Discoveries, yet I see no probability of obtaining any security against this party. I am of Opinion with that worthy Member that spoke last, that the King's Speeches and Messages, are plain against making of any Laws to prevent the Duke's coming to the Crown, and can only be understood in favour of Laws that may tend to securing the Protestant Religion under a Popish [Page 264] King: Which, I think, none can do, unless such Laws as will endanger Monarchy it self; which will not be fit for this House to propose, or the King to grant. For without securing the Militia, and Commands of Fleets and Armies, the nominati­on of Privy-Councellors, great Officers of State, Judges, Justices, Sheriffs, as well as the nominati­on of Bishops, and preferments of the Clergy, in the power of some Society of men, it will be im­possible to secure our Religion against that omni­potency which accompanies a Crown, if the Prince that wears it be resolved to assist this powerful Faction. Therefore, Sir, we must either give up our Religion as lost, or obtain this Bill in order to it. I am for the Vote that hath been propo­sed.

Mr. Speaker,

Sir, it is impossible we should remove the imminent dangers impendent on this Nation, unless we can prevail with the King to forbear ta­king advice with private Cabals, but instead there­of to be advised by his Privy Council, and Par­liaments. This indeed is the great dispute that is now afoot; and unless we can prevail herein, all that we are about signifies nothing. And there­fore, I think, we may do well to be plain in this with the King; and as we must not be afraid of giving him such advice as is for his advantage, so neither of giving him assurances of our readiness to supply him with Money, and what else he may need, that so he may know we are as willing to trust him, as we are desirous he would be to trust us. For unless there be a mutual Confidence created between the King and his People, that so they may freely, heartily, and without any suspi­tion [Page 265] trust one the other, it is impossible that this Nation can ever be happy, but must either lan­guish, as if it were in a Consumption, or strike into a Fever. The King being a Protestant, and for the Protestant Religion; the Duke being a Pa­pist, and for the Popish Religion, are Interests ir­reconcilable, and have already given a great deal of care and trouble to the King. And, I am a­fraid, that those who promote the Duke's Interest, are more for the advantage of a Popish Successor than of the present Protestant King. Which mis­chiefs can never be removed as long as there is such a Successor. And therefore I am for the Votes that have been proposed.

After this, several persons being named for gi­ving ill advice to his Majesty, and Motions secon­ded with Arguments, that Addresses might be made, grounded on Common Fame, for their removal. The House entred into a long Debate, touching the meaning of Common Fame, the u­sage, custome, and consequences of such Addres­ses in reference to the Government; and it did appear, that it was an ancient Right and constant Practice of the Commons assembled in Parlia­ment, to make Addresses to the King, grounded on Common Fame, or moral certainty, for re­moval of such Councellors or Officers, as they thought were pernicious to the Government. And that it was the only way to reach great Ministers of State that gave evil counsel, and to secure the Government against the dangers arising from such, who would otherways, by giving advice to the King in private, be secure against all manner of proceedings against them, and so the Government might be ruin'd without any remedy; that there was now as great occasion, as ever in former times, of making use of this only remedy, the influence of Popish Councils having reduced the Nation, not only to the mercy of the Popish party at home, but of a Foreign Nation; the dangers whereof could never be prevented, but by establishing such a mutual confidence between the King and his People, as might give encouragement for the raising of a considerable sum of money to be em­ployed for that end; which was never like to be done, until there were about the King's person, and in places of trust and power, persons more inclined to the interest of the King and Protestant Religion, and less to that of the Duke and Popery. [Page 267] Because the same jealousies which this Parliament had, (unless the cause were removed) would pro­bably be also an impediment with the next; that there could be no security; it would be employed for that end, as long as the Duke's party were so powerful: And that the giving of money as long as things stand thus, would be a great encourage­ment to that party to go on with their Plot against the King's life. But this Debate being after Can­dle-light, could not be taken: The result was, that several Addresses were voted against George Earl of Hallifax, Laurence Hide, Esq; Henry Marquess of Worcester, Henry Earl of Clarendon, and Lewis Earl of Feversham.

After which, the House entred into a Debate of the great Charge the Kingdom was at, by Interest and Advance-money paid to Goldsmiths and o­thers. And after many Arguments, making out that by Parliaments the King might be supplied, as well with the love of his People, as with Mo­ney for the necessary support of the Government, and other occasions. And that this Parliament had by several Addresses offered themselves ready to do it, upon passing such Bills as were precisely necessary for the security of the Protestant Reli­gion; and that all other ways of supplying the King's occasions, but what were granted in Par­liament, did not only tend to the keeping off Parliaments, and to the exhausting of the pub­lick Treasure, by contracting Debts, but were of dangerous consequence to the King and King­dom, because the Government might be under­mined thereby.

Prorogued the 10th of January, and Dis­solved by Proclamation the 18th of Ja­nuary, 1681.

Thursday, March 24. 1680.

MR. Speaker, What I am about to Move, concerns us all. The last Parliament when you was moved to Print your Votes, it was for the Security of the Na­tion, and you found it so. It prevented ill Representations of us to the World, by false [Page 290] Copies of our Votes, and none doubted your Ho­nour in the care of it▪ And I am confident that this House will be no more ashamed of their Actions than the last was. Printing our Votes will be for the Honour of the King, and the safety of the Nation. I am confident if it had been necessary, you would have had Petitions from the Parts I come from, that your Actions might be made publick. As I came hither, every body almost that I met upon the Road, cryed, God bless you in what you are going about. I Move therefore, that your Votes may be ordered forthwith to be Printed, with the rest of your Proceedings; and I shall only add, that your self has done so well in taking that care upon you the last Parliament, that the House will desire you to continue them in the same Method.

That which put me upon Moving the Printing your Votes the last Parliament, was false Copies that went about in former Par­liaments, of the Votes and Transactions of the House. Let men think what they please, the weight of England is the People; and the more they know, the heavier will it be; and I could wish some would be so wise as to con­sider that this weight hath sunk ill Ministers of State (almost) in all Ages; and I do not in the least doubt but it will do so to those who are the Enemies of our Religion and Liberties. And the World will find the honest Commons of England will sink Popery at last, therefore I second the Motion.

I beg pardon if I consent not to the Motion of Printing the Votes, &c. consider [Page 291] the Gravity of this Assembly. There is no great Assembly in Christendom does it. 'Tis against the gravity of this Assembly, and 'tis a sort of Appeal to the People. 'Tis against your gravity, and I am against it.

If you had been a Privy-Council, then 'twere fit what you do should be kept secret. Your Journal Books are open, and Copies of your Votes in every Coffee-House; and if you Print them not, half Votes will be dispersed to your prejudice. This Printing, &c. is like plain English-men, who are not asham'd of what they do; and the people whom you re­present, will have a true account of what you do; you may prevent the publishing what parts of the Transactions you please, and print the rest.

I find that those who write our Votes and Transactions, and send them all England over, are favoured; and I believe no Gentle­man in the House will be against Printing them but the Secretary. I hope you will not have reason to be asham'd of what you do, therefore I am for Printing, &c.

By experience we have found, that when former Parliaments have been Prorogued or Dissolved, they have been sent away with a Declaration against their proceedings. If our Actions be naught, let the World judge of them; if they be good, let them have their vertue. 'Tis fit that all Christendom should have notice of what you do, and Posterity what you have done, and I hope they will do as you do, therefore I am for Printing, &c.

What has been said by the Secre­tary is a single Opinion, (for he says, that [Page 300] Printing the Votes is an Appeal to the People) I hope the House will take notice, that Print­ing the Votes is not against Law. But pray who sent us hither? The Privy-Council is con­stituted by the King, but the House of Com­mons is by the choice of the People. I think it not natural nor rational, that the People who sent us hither, should not be informed of our Actions. In the Long Parliament it was a Trade amongst Clerks to write the Votes and disperse them, and were questioned for it there; but 'twas then said by a Learned Gen­tleman, that 'twas no Offence to inform the People of the Votes of Parliament, the Journal Books being open, and the People ought to have notice of them. The Long Parliament were wise in their Generation, to conceal ma­ny things they did from the People, and yet the Clerk was sent away, (who dispersed the Votes) and had nothing done to him. The Popish Party dread nothing more than Printing what you do, and I dread a man in the Secre­taries post, and such an Accusation as was up­on him in the last Parliament, that he should hold such a Position, that Printing the Votes is an Appeal to the People. Vide the Printed Vote of this day.

I think the Motion is to enquire after the slipping of that Act the last Parliament, and not presenting it for the Royal Assent. For my own part, I look upon it as a breach of the constitution of the Government. We are told [Page 301] that we are Republicans, and would change the Government; but such as are about to do so, 'tis a natural fear in them to be thought so, and they will cast it upon others. In a crowd 'tis frequent for Pickpockets to cry out, Gen­tlemen, have a care of your Pockets, that they may more securely do it themselves, and have the less suspicion upon them. I will not offer this great thing to the consideration to day, but move you to Adjourn it till to morrow.

I shall humbly put in this word. I doubt this matter will be too big to be debated to day; 'tis of great importance, and will not be forgotten; be pleased to Adjourn the De­bate, &c.

I humbly Move, that for the pre­servation of the Protestant Religion, and the Kings Person, a Bill be brought in to prevent a Popish Successor, and in particular against James Duke of York, the same Bill which past the last Parliament.

You are upon rising, and I shall not detain you long. I must give my Negative to this Motion, and my reason why I do so, is, because the King hath declared in his Speech, that as to the point of altering the Succession, he cannot depart from what he has so often declared. The King has given his Vote against it, and therefore I must do so too.

The Duke of York is in Scotland, and I hope the King will come up to what he has said in his Speech. My Liberty and Property is dear to me, and I'le support the King's Pre­rogative too; and I hope we shall remove those people, Briars and Thorns who scratch you in [Page 294] your Intentions against Popery; which I see we cannot prevent without this Bill to Exclude the D. &c. And therefore I am for it.

I am heartily glad to find that the Zeal of the House still continues for the pre­servation of the Protestant Religion. My O­pinion is, that we cannot preserve the Prote­stant Religion with a Popish Successour to the Crown, no more than Water can be kept cold in the hot Pot; but I would do it in all the de­cent ways to come at it. The King recom­mends to you in his Speech, to look back to what he formerly said as to the Succession, &c. If there be no other way to prevent Popery, but a Bill to exclude the D. &c. from the Suc­cession, &c. my Opinion is, That 'twill be more decent to our Prince, and better for those who sent us hither, that before the Bill be brought in, to give it the honour of a day, to consider of Expedients to save Religion un­der a Popish Successour; for that I shall expect from some Honourable Person: but if none come, then you may proceed to this Bill with more honour. Therefore I move to appoint a day to consider of it.

I should not have troubled you, but from what was spoke last. By all means just and lawful, we are to secure our Religion and Properties: We see the great attempts made upon us from Rome, and we must do something for our farther security. I will not speak of the former Bill of Excluding the D. &c. nor of the King's Speech, that gives you latitude for Expedients; and I would not of­fer any, if I thought they would not do as well [Page 295] as that Bill, which is but an Expedient. But be­cause the King has declared against that Bill, and invited you to Expedients, I would not put that Bill any more to the hazard of rejection, but think of some Expedients.

I can see no Expedient to save Re­ligion and preserve the King's person, but the Bill to Exclude the D. &c. All Gentle­men I believe would be willing as to the Man­ner and save the Matter: But when our Prince is incompassed (all) with the D's Creatures, the D's safety is because of their dependencies: The danger is not from Popery, but from the K's being encompassed with the D's Creatures. I would proceed in this matter with all decen­cy; and since a day is moved for, pray let's have time to consider.

You are invited by the K's gra­cious Motion to consider how to preserve Re­ligion, &c. I desire we may not now put a Question for bringing in a Bill to seclude the D. &c. else properly we cannot consider any Expedients for preservation of Religion.

The consideration of the preservation of the Protestant Religion, is of that weight, that though we have shew'd our Zeal to it, yet I would not run upon a thing of this great nature, without consideration. They who advised the K's Speech, must answer for it. The words of the Speech are, If any other way can be found out, &c. Vide I think those about the King have done enough to ruin Him and Us: But I would have the K. see we are so far from putting him upon that stress, that we would help him out. I think that Speech the [Page 304] King read to us, to have nothing of the King's in it; He is a better man, and a better Prote­stant, than to do it of Himself: Therefore I would not put on a Resolution as flat and as short as that is in the K's Speech. The King has gone as far as this Resolution in his Speech comes to, in his Declaration about Dissenters formerly; and yet from the Reasons from Hence, he was perswaded to revoke it. If persons have been so prevalent as to put the King upon this Speech, let me see those per­sons so forward to bring the King into a thing to help him out; if they do not, I hope the King will lay the blame at their doors, and not at ours. If they could have told us what Expedients were necessary, they would have put them into the King's Speech, and the Re­solution-part of not altering the Succession would have been left out. A little considera­tion in this great matter, can do us no hurt, and will satisfie the People without doors: But if they about the King can find out no Ex­pedient, I hope he will lay them aside, and take their counsel no more. Put not off this Consideration farther than Saturday; and if they can find us out an Expedient betwixt this and then, 'tis very well.

I have always observed, that the most deliberate Proceedings have had the best suc­cess here, and the best reputation abroad. I am as willing as any man to come to this mo­ved for, but with deliberate steps. For my share, though I hear of Expedients abroad, yet I cannot conceive that a Title or Name can destroy the nature of Expedients. But the [Page 305] King in his Speech has held you out a Handle (Vide) And I would not give those about the King occasion to say, that this House is running into a Breach with him. I would pay the King all the respect in the world, and you cannot avoid setting apart a time to consider Expedients; and I would not mix any thing with the Debate that day. I think to morrow is too soon to debate it: I shall propose Satur­day for that Consideration; and then let us do what's fit in so weighty a matter.

This is a matter of great weight, and I would adjourn it to to-morrow. For the reason of proposing Expedients, I do not move to adjourn for that; for 'tis as little reason to me to expect any, as 'twas the last Parliament. That Parliament gave Reasons why no Expe­dients could be of any effect, but this Bill of Exclusion; and that Parliament saw enough of Expedients. There are a great many talk­ed of abroad in the streets, and won't you hear Expedients? What can a man say less with any modesty? But no man can say but we are in danger of losing our Religion, if the D. should come to the Crown. But the Que­stion before you is, Whether you'l put off this Debate? Therefore I move that the House will take into Debate the security of the Protestant Religion to morrow.

All that I shall propose is, That you would so word the Question as to have no diminution to the Motion made for the Bill, &c. upon your Books, nor prejudice, nor reflexion. When this Bill past the last Parlia­ment, it was Nemine Contradicente; and most [Page 298] of this Parliament were of the last. For Ex­pedients, 'tis a word mightily used and talked of, and willingly embraced; but none have been proposed. Let this matter be reas­sumed on Saturday morning, and so taken into consideration to secure the Protestant Religi­on; and not to let appear upon your Books any thing relating to Expedients or preventing a Popish Successour.

I was much surprized at the King's Speech, considering your weighty Reasons for the Bill, &c. the last Parliament; and that the Lords found out no Expedients for preservati­on of Religion, and yet threw out the Bill. But that the King may see that what we do, is out of real sense of the danger we are in from a Popish Successour, and not in cotradi­ction to him; and when nothing is found out to save us, we may justifie our selves in what we do. I am for adjourning the Debate. Vote, vide the Print.

Friday, March 25. 1681.

WHen there has been a general Cor­ruption, and all have not done their duty, you should distinguish and give thanks to them that have; and formerly you have done to Officers for doing their duty in suppression of Popery, when through the cor­ruption of the times some have not done their duty. Nothing is more Parliamentary than to [Page 299] return Thanks to those who have freely and without expence chosen you Members; and I desire that the Members so elected may be or­dered to send their Thanks to those who chose them. Vide the Vote in the print.

This matter deserves material consideration, whether in respect of the loss of the Bill, or the shaking of the very Consti­tution of Parliament. The Bill that is lost is of great moment, and of great service to the Country, and perhaps to their lives in the time of a Popish Successour. Those men that hin­dred the passing that Bill, had a prospect of that; and if it be sent up again, we are like to meet with great opposition. But be the Bill what it will, the President is of the highest consequence: The King has his Negative to all Bills; but I never knew that the Clerk of the Parliament had a Negative, if he laid it aside or not. But consider, if we send up many good Bills, if this be not searched into, we may be deprived of them. No man that knows Law or History, but can tell that to Bills Grateful and Popular the K. gives his consent to them—But if this way be found out, that Bills should be thrown by, it may be hereafter said, they were forgot and laid by, and so we shall never know whether the K. would pass them or no. If this be suffered, 'tis in vain to spend time here; and 'twill be a great matter to find time to redress it. I Move therefore, that a Message be sent to the Lords for a Confe­rence, [Page 308] that some way may be found out to give us satisfaction in this great matter.

I do concur with the Gentleman spoke last, that Parliaments are Prorogued and Dissolved by the King; and now here is a new way found out to frustrate Bills. The King cannot take one part of a Bill, and reject ano­ther, but gives a direct answer to the whole. But to avoid that, this Bill was never present­ed to the King, a thing never done before. I desire we may send to the Lords for a Confe­rence, to represent this Innovation, and that a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons for the Managers.

I was a friend to this Bill, and I agree in all things concerning the weight of it. The laying this Bill aside, is such a Breach of the Constitution of Parliament, that 'tis in vain to pass any Bill if this Miscarriage be not searched into. By the Constitution of Parlia­ments, all Bills but Money▪Bills, after they are past both Houses, are deposited in the Lords hands; and 'tis below you to look after the Clerks for this Bill. If the Lords give you no answer for the loss of this Bill, that is satisfa­ctory; I would then send to them to know a Reason why the Bill was not tendered to His Majesty with the other Bills.

I would have you search the Lords Journals, and if you find no account of the Bill there, then 'twill be time for us to go to the Lords to require satisfaction.

I have not much to offer you, but I fully concur in the weight and consequence of this matter, and you are to take all the care [Page 309] you can to secure it for the future. Never any thing of this nature was done before, but the Bill for observation of the Lords day in the late long Parliament. 'Twas left upon the Table at a Conference, and stolen away. But 'tis not proper (I conceive) to take notice of this in a Message to the Lords, because the mis­carriage of this Bill was in another Parliament. The matter must go upon a desire of a Confe­rence with the Lords, concerning the Rights and Priviledges of both Houses of Parlia­ment; and then you may appoint a Committee to inform you of the progress of this matter.

I think the passing over the inquiry after the loss of the Bill of the Sabbath, in the late long Parliament, was the great occasion of the loss of this. Consider how many inter­ruptions Parliaments have had of late in the greatest business, by Prorogations and Dissolu­tions; and another way to gratifie your Ene­mies, is to stifle your Laws, when they have a mind the People should have no benefit of them, though they have passed both Houses. Therefore I move, &c. ut ante.

I differ only as to the words. I agree to a Conference, but no more to be said, than to know what's become of the Bill; for the Lords are the Depositors of all Bills but Mo­ney. Without any other words, I would send to the Lords for a Conference to know what's become of the Bill. I know but of three Ne­gatives, but by this proceeding here is a fourth Negative, which may destroy the Government.

'Tis the best way in this matter to ob­observe old Methods; and the best Method to [Page 302] know the Lords minds, is by Conference. I re­member in the late long Parliament, the Lords sent to us for a Conference, and at it told, the Roof of our House was falling on our heads; but they sent us not a Message of the danger we were in by the falling of the Roof, but de­sired a Conference about a matter of great con­sequence. Therefore I would now send to the Lords for a Conference of matters relating to the Nation.

I would say this, We desire a Confe­rence with the Lords concerning the Constitu­tion of Parliaments in matters relating to pas­sing of Bills. Vide Printed Vote.

This is a thing of as high weight as we can confer upon. Therefore I would not do less than in a thing of lesser moment. Let a Committee meet, and then agree of the sub­ject-matter; till then you know not what to say at the Conference; and 'twill be M [...] at the soonest before you can do it. I shall of­fer another thing at the Conference; I would offer the Lords the consequence of this wa [...] proceeding, and to desire the Lords to p [...] the thing into a way of Examination, that the Com­plices may be sit for punishment: And at the same Conference, would desire a Committee of both Houses to consider where the Miscar­riage lay.

I humbly Move Fitzharris's Exami­nation may be printed, for the World to see the Devillish Conspiracies of the Papists.

I like the Motion for Printing; no­thing is in this Paper but what's fit to be prin­ted. It fully makes out those Informations you have had before. And because we all know that since my Lord Stafford's Tryal people have been prevailed upon to believe the Plot not true, and this confirms Oats and Bedloes Informations, I would have them Printed, but not the Libel­lous Paper which reflects upon the King.

I will not trouble you but with that part I had in this affair. The Paper was read over to the King by Sir Will. Waller. Therefore according to the King's Command; I issued out a Warrant for apprehending Fitzharris, and Sir W. Waller was to take care of the execution of the Warrant.

This is a matter of great Impor­tance, and we ought to acquit our selves in it like wise men. We that come out of the Coun­trey hear, that that Treasonable Paper which has been read by Sir W. Waller, was to have been sent to many Gentlemen, they to have been seized thereupon, as Traytors in the Conspira­cy; it may be this and was that new Plot. All we have is at the stake, therefore how long or short our sitting is like to be here (the Trooper Harrison said there would be other Guards at Oxford) let not our courage lessen. This be­ing our case, let us go to the bottom of this business of Fitzharris. Therefore I Move, he may be sent for and Impeached. We know by experience, when once an Accusation is in Parliament on Record, and in the greatest Court of the Kingdom made known, Male­factors have not been cleared, and you have [Page 312] had Justice; therefore I would have care taken that this Man be Impeached of High Treason, and it may be he will relent and tell you all.

When Fitzharris's Examination was taken at Newgate, he asked whether he had said enough to save his life. I told him, I thought he had not dealt ingenuously, unless he would tell what Counsel he had for Draw­ing and Modelling the Paper; and I bid him be ingenuous in the whole matter, and I would come and take his farther Examination. But the next day after he promised this, he was re­moved out of our reach into the Tower. Im­peachment Ordered, vide in the Print.

The sending me, upon this Message, &c. reflects upon the King my Master; and do what you will with me I will not go. Many called, To the Bar, to the Bar.

I would not have said one word, but that the very Being of Parliament is in the case. 'Tis to no end to sit here any longer if this be suffered. There can be no ground, rea­son, or thought, to bring the King in question, or reflection upon him in this Impeachment, or on the Secretary. But for him to say, do what you will with me, I will not go with the Im­peachment, is what I never heard said in Par­liament before. Let the words fell from him be written down before he explain them, ac­cording to the Order of the House.

I never heard such words before, that the whole House of Commons should re­flect upon the King, and that he will not obey [Page 313] your Order; let the words be written down.

The House will be contemptible to the extreamest degree if this be suffered. Such a thing as never was in Parliament before, that the whole House should reflect on the King, and for him to say, do what you will, I will not go. Moves ut ante.

I said no such thing that the House reflected on the King, but that I take it as a reflection upon the King my Master.

His words were, This had not been put upon me, but for the Character I bear.

I say this is put upon me, to my ap­prehension, for the Character I bear, and do what you will with me, I will not go.

I am sorry to see any Member be­have himself at this rate. This Deportment confirms me in the opinion of the design of some men, to suppress the Honour of this House. There has been a Book written, (which I hope in time will be inquired after) That the House of Commons sprang first out of Rebellion in H. 3. time. This goes on this day in the same me­thod. Let a man be of what Quality he will, if he be too big to be your Member, he is not to be chosen. To scorn the Commands of the House, and to be too big to be a Messenger of the House of Commons! Secretaries are sent of Messages every day, and is he too big a Messenger to accuse a person of the Popish Plot? His words seem to import, as if the King [Page 314] would not have the prosecution of the Plot. If this be so, sit no longer here, but go home. His Character is great, and he may be privy to things hid from us, by this extraordinary car­riage. Are we come to that pass, to be dealt withal, as none of our Predecessors ever were? If my Brother or Son dealt with the House thus, I would call him to account. For ought I see, he provokes the House more by his Ex­planation, therefore pray go on.

I am as ready, and think my self as much obliged to obey the Commands of the House, as any man here. The Office I have excludes me not from it; but the thing I stand upon is, that the Motion was carried on in Ri­dicule. I have an Honour for this, and ever had for all Houses of Commons; but in this Message I must and will be excused.

Ridicule is not a word proper for a House of Commons; and what is appointed by this House, is done with all gravity, espe­cially where the life of a man is concerned. We are in an unfortunate Age, now things come to more light than before, that it should be said that Impeachments strike at the King, that the Dukes Bill, &c. is aimed at the King; I am sorry to here it said here, as well as in other places. This Employment he is put up­on, is for the Kings Service, and he tells you it reflects upon the King. All is renversed, if what the Commons do, must be as if it refle­cted upon the King. I have all imaginable re­spect to the King: but, Sir, we are in a Ship, and we have to do with the Master, and he with us. If this Gentleman would make any [Page 215] sort of excuse, I would willingly accept it; but he has not taken off his Crime, but rather ag­gravated it. If he have nothing farther to say, he must withdraw, and then you'l have a Mo­tion made for the Honour of the House.

I know no other difference in any person here; if the Secretary said, I thought it reflected on the King, a man may be mista­ken in his thoughts; and in case it be so, he would suffer any thing under that reflection. He said it was his thoughts, that the carrying the Message was a reflection upon the King, and in that case would suffer any thing rather than a reflection upon the King and his Cha­racter.

'Tis an ill thing to stumble at the entrance; I hope the Secretary intended no dis-service to the House, but on a mistake: I did apprehend it, and some others, that it was in jest. But in jest or earnest, one ought to obey the Commands of the House; but every man cannot subdue his own Heart. But I would know upon farther consideration, whe­ther the Secretary will undertake this Service or no. I am the worst Advocate in the World for any obstinate person. But I humbly offer, whether the Gentleman will serve you or no before he withdraw.

Since the House is so favourable as to hear me, I shall only say, that I did appre­hend sending me with the Message to the Lords, was a reflection upon the King; if I did appre­hend [Page 316] it a reflection upon my Master, I could not but resent it. I am heartily sorry I have incurred the displeasure of the House, and I hope they will pardon the freedom of the ex­pression. I apprehended it a reflection upon the King, and no other consideration whatso­ever induced me to say the words.

I look upon this has come from the Secretary, as so great a Reflection upon the House, that he ought to come to the Bar upon his knees, and ask pardon of the House.

We are all subject to Infirmities; see­ing that the thing is so, the Secretary could not apprehend any reflection on the King by send­ing him with the Message, but he might appre­hend it on himself; it was a little smilingly moved▪ but since he has explained himself, I would have this, &c. past by, as I would on the like occasion desire for my self.

The Gentlemans fault is a great one, but that after he has begg'd the pardon of the House, I am willing to pass it over. Though it be a great fault, yet 'tis too little to give oc­casion of a Breach at this time.

I am ready to obey the Order of the House, and I am sorry my words gave offence.

We ought all to give God thanks for this Discovery of Fitzharris, next to the first Discovery of the Plot. It is a great service to the Nation, and 'tis not the first that Sir W. Wal­ler has done. If ever the thanks of the House was deserved, it is for this Discovery; and I move Sir W. Waller may have the thanks of the House. Ordered, vide the Print.

Saturday, March 26. 1681.

I Confess I have been full of expecta­tion of some Expedient to secure the Life of the King, and the Protestant Religi­on, without the Bill for Excluding the Duke, &c. My expectation is from those who oppo­sed the Expedient of the Bill, (for I can call it no otherwise) I have in my weak judgment weighed all Expedients I have heard of, and they seem all to me to be a breach of the Con­stitution of the Government, and to throw us into disorder and confusion. I have heard that it has been an ancient usage that Members have consulted their Cities, Burroughs, and Coun­ties in any thing of weight, as well as giving Money, before they resolved it. The practice was good, and I wish it were continued; and we can discharge our Trust no better, than in observing the direction of those who sent us hither. I received an Address from the City of London (having the Honour to be one of their Representatives) in the matter of this Bill of Excluding the Duke, &c. I heartily wish some Expedient may be found out to save our Religion without it. But I must pursue my Trust, therefore I move a Bill may be brought in to Exclude all Popish Successors, and in par­ticular James Duke of York.

I have the same Obligation upon me as the worthy person that spoke last, from the County I have the honour to serve for. I have [Page 318] been long of Opinion, that nothing but this Bill can secure us from Popery. In the long Par­liament, 'twas said, that the Duke was a Papist; and the danger of his Power will be more now, and every day informs us of the sad consequen­ces of it. I should be glad if any thing but this Bill could secure us. I know nothing else can, therefore I humbly Move for it, &c.

The security of the Protestant Religion, and the preservation of the Kings Person, is of so great weight, that we should not have staid to this day to Exclude the Duke; but I am sor­ry to hear that Language, that because the King has said in his Speech, he will stick to his for­mer Resolution in not altering the Succession, &c. and proposes a kind of Expedient, &c. but in this we are not used as an English Parlia­ment, but a French, to be told what we are to do, and what not; 'tis the greatest Arbitrary Power in England to cow a Parliament, which may be was in design to bring us hither; but be we called to York, or any part of England, I believe we shall be the same men we are here, and were at Westminster. My Lord Danby Dis­solved the long Parliament, and said, he had spoiled the old Rooks, and had took away their false Dice; and then started in the new Ministers, and they shuffle and cut again, and Dissolve Parliaments, till they can get one for their turn. I have heard much weight laid up­on Disinheriting the Duke; sure no Father would scruple to Disinherit a Son, or a Bro­ther, nor turn away Servants that would ruine him. If Bishops and Counsellors would speak plain, they cannot answer deferring our security [Page 319] so long. But neither the Ministers of the Go­spel have endeavoured the preservation of our Religion, nor the Ministers of State the Go­vernment, both acting against Religion and Safety of the King's Person: And I have no expectation of our safety, but the Bill to ex­clude the Duke; and therefore I move for it, &c.

If this Debate must be proceeded in with the Regularity and Circumspection it ought to be, you have transgressed the Order of the day already. Several Gentlemen tell us, that there is no Expedient, but none tell us what is. All men believe the Religion of the Duke is as fatal a thing to the Nation as can be, should he come to be King; and what do they deserve that perverted the Duke? But let us consider what depends upon this House, and let us proceed like men. If we are of opinion, that Exclusion of the Duke is the best way to preserve Religion, this House cannot do it a­lone; if we cannot have that best way, we are guilty to our Country, if we take none. If a man be sick, and so ordered that nothing must be taken but by direction of three Phy­sitians, and two are for giving him the Jesuits Powder, and one against it, and he thinks he does the duty of his profession; but they all three not agreeing it, must the Patient take nothing? And we are but one part of the Le­gislative power. But for Expedients, I remem­ber in the Dutch War, the House went into a grand Committe, to consider Expedients for raising Money, to save Land-Tax. A man whoever he be, that proposes an Expedient, [Page 320] will desire leave to make good that Expedient, and must speak it may be often to it; but if it prove to be none, that man will be tramp­led upon. A Committee of the whole House will be most proper for this purpose. If there be a dispute which question shall take place, if the first be denyed, the other may take its place; but not one to exclude all the rest, as this Bill will do. Let it be Exclusion or Limi­tation, or what it will, your order is general, to find out means against Popery, and preser­vation of the Kings Life. When men press on so fast, they may come late into their Inn by tyring their Horses. Let a grand Committee try Expedients, else 'tis not consultare but dice­re. I am of a contrary opinion of having this great matter Debated in the House, and for the reason I have told you; and if Gentle­men you will do reasonably, a grand Com­mittee is your way to proceed in.

You have had Motions proposed for Expedients, but there is not a word of Expe­dients in the Order, and that answers it. (The Order was read.) Those who were here present when the Order was made, have left it free for a Bill, or any other thing; and therefore they are not tyed to have Bills, or offer Expedients against Bills. To the simile of the three Phy­sicians, that two could do nothing without the third, though one was for one thing, and an­other for another; if the case be such, that the two in the judgment of the third, did offer no­thing to the sick man but what was Mortal, he ventures upon his own Disreputation to joyn with them. However, the three Physiti­ans [Page 321] do not agree; we never yet saw any thing from the Lords in answer to this Bill; all Expe­dients have hitherto been to increase our fears of the King, and to hasten our undoing; and when all was at stake, to have Parliaments Dissolved, that was an ill Expedient. Those who were near the King, and altered their own judgments, and are come over to this Bill, &c. they are all put away, and those about the King now are for Expedients. The Council of the Jesuits, they have their end, by disappointing the Kingdom, and by raising the Fears of the People, either to take up with a false Security, as good as none, and so to im­pose Popery upon them that way; or to bring the Kingdom into disorder When Religion, and Laws, and all are at the dispose of a Po­pish Successor, the Kingdom will be in great disorder, that the Protestants will not be able to enjoy them quietly; the Papists have no su­rer way to effect their end. For the House to go into a Grand Committee, 'tis a Motion of great weight. If you deny it, it looks as if you would precipitate and deny free Debate: If you accept it, you will lie under the Incon­veniency of Delay; and who knows how long we have to sit? If we were sure of our time, to sit two or three Months, I would be willing to go into a Grand Committee. But as to the ill umbrage of refusing a Committee, 'tis not like other Cases. I would have an Instance, if ever in a thing of this weight, the House went into a Grand Committee. This Matter of Excluding the Duke, has been depending two Parliaments, and any other way for our [Page 322] Security would have been accepted. Nothing else could be found out the last Parliament, the whole Kingdom was satisfied with nothing else. And now what reason is there to go in­to a Grand Committe, for a thing so often de­bated to the bottom? No man can deny, but a Grand Committee is proper, when something of an Expedient is offer'd; but to offer it generally, is as if the thing was never consulted nor debated before. I never saw any Expedi­ent but this Bill, nor any Reason offer'd against the Bill, but set it aside, and think of Expedi­ents. Therefore pray proceed according to the Order.

If any Gentleman have Expedients, I desire he would propose them; if they be of any weight, they will deserve well of the House; if it seems to them they will give us security, I would be glad to hear them.

When the Motion was first made for going into a Grand Committee to hear Expedients, &c. I did then second it, for this Reason; because of the Honour of the Place I serve in. I did understand by the King's Speech, there was Expedients. I am unwilling to determine the sense of any man, who am of the weakest: But a Motion was firsted and seconded for a Committee of the whole House, and when this is done, I shall offer something.

I must speak again that Question of a Grand Committee, pray keep to the Order of the Day. Expedients that have been moved for already, as the Jesuits Powder for an A­gue, &c. but our Disease is a Plurisie, and we must let Blood. Let us go to what will do our [Page 323] Business, and it may be we must have other Expedients to fortifie the Bill. I would have the House rightly understand, that those who are against going into a Grand Committee, are for excluding the Duke from the Successi­on; and those who are for a Grand Commit­tee, are for him to succeed; and put the Que­stion if you please.

To exclude the Duke from the Succession, &c. that is a good Expedient to prevent Popery; pray let that, or others that shall be presented, be considered.

If there be but one Expedient offer'd, I do not think that Ground sufficient to go into a Grand Committee to consider it; but possi­bly there may be several. This Bill is agreed to be an Expedient; and I have known, that in a business of less weight than this, you have gone into a Committee, &c. If an Expedient must be offered in the House, you cannot but allow Gentlemen to make Replies in a fair Debate, or answer Objections. And if you in the House will depart from that Form, the House or Committee are equal to me. But our Debate is broke; one Gentleman said, he would be content with a Committee, if not intended for delay. I do not doubt but this day will have its full effect. When 'twas moved on Thursday last, for this day to take into con­sideration the Preservation of Religion, without naming Bill or Expedients, it gave a great Credit to your Work. I would have no dis­couragements upon People that have Expedi­ents, by not going into a Grand Committee.

We are perplexed in having several Questions on foot. I shall put you in mind, that this Bill now proposed, is no new nor strange thing. Our business, I suppose, is to find out Expedients to preserve the Protestant Religion, and the King's Person; here is a way has past two Parliaments already; a way no reasonable Objection has ever been made against it; and a way rejected by the Lords in gross, without offering any other. But I doubt, if other Expedients be tried, if they prove false, we shall endanger the Protestant Religion. Some have said, that Gentlemen ap­prehend they have Expedients; why then may they not be propounded, that the House may judge whether 'twill be worth going into a Grand Committee to consider them? But if Gentlemen will have it their own way, or not at all, I'll tell you how this looks, as if they were something one way, and nothing ano­ther: but he does not discharge his Duty to his Country, that does so; therefore if Gentlemen have any Expedients, pray let them offer them.

If the House be of a mind to en­ter into a Grand Committee, I shall offer my little Mite, as 'tis every Mans duty to offer Ex­pedients that has any. I doubt not but other men have, and better than me; but if we go not into a Grand Committee, I shall offer what I have. I do apprehend by the Bill proposed, that 'tis a Bar to the Succession of the Duke, and places the Succession in the next Heir. I shall propose, if you please, not the Name of King, but the Power, as a Regency, in the next Heir: tis no new thing in Spain [Page 325] and France, and (God knows) we have seen it done in our Kingdom. If the Administration be placed safe in the Person, that may have no power to resign to the Duke, and may have full Power and Authority at the Death of the King to call that Parliament which sate last, who shall have time to sit to confirm this by Act of Parliament. I hope this may be done, and may be done safely, if you can contrive such a way.

As I understand, 'tis propos'd, that the Government shall be in Regency during the Dukes Life. I would be satisfied, if the Duke will not submit to that, whether those that fight against it are not Traytors in Law.

I think this you are upon a Mat­ter of great weight; some Expedient has been offered you; I believe as yet but a crude one, and I cannot imagine will ever be an effectual one. He that moved it, tells you, he hopes, when drawn into better form, it may do what you desire. It excludes the Duke, and in his place, the next in the Succession shall have the Regency in him.—But our last Act left it in the Law. Consider what is a Regency; I never heard of it, but of a Prince in possessi­on, in Minority, or Lunacy; and it has gene­nerally been very unfortunate. But to talk of a Regency in futuro, in condition and limita­tion of time, I never heard of. This Expedi­ent does not answer the King's Speech, nor your former Bill; they make the King but a Shadow, and they divide Person from Power, our Law will not endure it. The Person di­vided from the Power, both will be courted; [Page 326] and who that next Heir will be, we know not. The King leads you to consider Expedients, but such as will consist with the safety and dig­nity of Monarchy. This must be two Kings at the same time, one by Law, and another by Right. Portugal gives us some instance of Re­gency, where the King was put into Prison for Miscarriages in the Government, and his next Heir made Regent; but there is a vast diffe­rence in these two Cases. The King of Portu­gal was set aside for personal Miscarriages, not for being a Papist; and which is another thing, that was present, this is to come. If this Que­stion be to let the Duke in, and then make a Question whether Allegiance be due to him; but I am afraid, that unless we be true to those we represent, from whom by express direction, most of us are to pursue the Bill, &c. we shall not be avowed in what we do. The Bill, &c. has been under consideration of all the people of England, and perhaps all the Protestants of Europe; all the Wits of Learned Men have made their Objections against it, yet notwith­standing all people are still of the same mind.—And now we run upon the most mis-shapen thing, which it may be two or three years be­fore we understand it, and we may expect to have an operation of it, no body knows when. I see very little weight in it, unless improved by some other person, therefore I am for the Bill.

We are flying at a great matter. To fight against the D. if he should be King—God forbid.—We have been told three or four times of Directions Gentlemen have had [Page 327] from their Principals, to be against all those things of Expedients, and to insist upon the Bill of Exclusion, &c. I would not have that way much cherished, 'tis an uncertain thing; and no Footsteps remain of any Papers from their Country. I take the meaning of that going down, is to consult their Neighbours for Direction what to do. I hear talk to day of Parliaments of France, but this way is as dan­gerous; like the States of Holland to consult with their Principals before they resolve, most unusual and of very dangerous Consequence. A Regency has been proposed to secure the Administration of the Government in Prote­stant Hands, so as not to alter the Constitution of the Monarchy; and this alters the Consti­tution of the Monarchy the least imaginable. A Regency in room of a King, and the Mo­narchy goes on. We have had Regent Pro­tectors, call it what you please, Primus Consilia­rius, in case of a Minor Prince; but I propose not this. If you alter the Government, I am against it; but here is offer'd a Regent in place of the King, or transferring the Government. But it may be said, Where shall the Duke be all this while? That Point I think is pretty well over, there is no design of Seclusion—The Lords would have banished him 600. Miles from England.—The Duke has an Estate, and he, as all men besides, loves it, and will not part with it, and will do nothing to forfeit it. But your Bill of Exclusion secludes the Duke, and the Crown then is to fall as it does fall. What is then the Case? You must imagine, either his own Daughter will take up Arms, if [Page 328] the D. attempt the Crown, or some body else will, to keep him out; and that will raise such an Anger in the Duke's mind, whither will they shelter themselves? Not under his Daugh­ter: they must naturally shelter themselves and run into Arms. Cromwel's way was to keep up an Army of Sixty Thousand Men for his Se­curity, especially an Army flesht with Victo­ry—And they that have it will keep it. We are not in the condition we were formerly, when the Lords cherished their Tenants by good Leases, they could raise an Army, and send them home to their Houses when they had done what they were raised for: But we are now in another way; raise an Army, and they will think of their own Interest to be kept up. But if it fall out thus, your Bill leaves it very loose.—As soon as this Bill is pass'd, suppose the Regency established in the Princess of O­range, or the Lady Ann, and in the same Law a Commission be sent over to take an Oath from her strictly to execute this Law, you are then not left in that loose manner you will be by the Bill, &c. 'Twill be a far less matter for her to save a Family, before Misfortune come upon it, than to take the Government upon her afterwards, in the trouble of an Op­position. But it may be said, What needs all this, 'tis just nothing but retaining the name of K. in an exiled man?—But 'tis less viola­tion in her to govern in her Father's Name, than to take the Kingdom from him. It may be wondred, why in Portugal, upon deposing that King, there was a great Debate of the three Estates (though they hold not the proportion [Page 329] as they do here.) In this great Debate, the Commons were for Don Pedro to be King, the Nobility to have him Regent, the Ecclesiasticks demurr'd; but at last both came over to the Nobility. But Don Pedro stuck here, and would still leave his Brother the Title of King, and would leave nothing of shelter to force Na­ture too far. There are Reserves in the King's Speech, I cannot but take notice of by the way. There is another thing to be con­sidered. Some will be paying a deference to the Sacredness of a Crown, for Governments sake. This Objection looks like something, He is like to be five hundred Miles off, &c. and a Law to take up Arms against him.—How was that Law, that the King and Parliament have Power to dispose of the Crown? It was then an Opinion amongst Lawyers, that the Crown was unalienable; but when that Law was made, that Opinion was damn'd under a Penalty, though 'twas a standing Maxim be­fore that Statute was made. If so, this new Act will be a Warrant for what is proposed, as that was for the other. For my part, I have had the ill▪ Fortune to have the Wind in my Face, and to be against the general Opinion and Stream of the World; and having had for some time no share in the Government, I may speak possibly more freely than they that have. 'Tis a great Crime to spy things too soon, which makes men apt to run from one Extreme to a­nother. I have proposed the best Expedient I can, and most safe; but I am afraid, if you do no­thing in this great Affair now it is started (I'll grapple with neither of the Expedients) but [Page 330] if you do nothing but let the thing lie loose, you'll gratifie the Jesuits by our confusion, and the Commonwealths-men to shuffle the Cards again: but if you go into some Medium, both these sort of men will be undone.

I have heard with great Attention this very learned and able Gentleman. I am really of Opinion, if any better Expedient could have been found out, than what has been proposed, that he as soon as any Gentleman would have proposed it. But I am amazed, that so learned a Gentleman should not see through this Expedient. That which I take for the Expedient, is, the Duke to retain the name of King, and the next Heir to be under the title of Regent or Protector. What does he mean by next Heir? For any thing I know and be­lieve, it is the Duke's Daughter; but it may be the Duke may have a Son. Either I have a great Cloud upon my Understanding, or this is strange, that if the Duke have a Son, and shall he at a Day, a Month, or a year old be Regent? Suppose the Princess of Orange come over, and she die, (the Prince of Orange has no Right to the Regency) and she leave a Child, and that Child be Regent, that Child must have a Protector, and so there will be a Protector of a Protector. But, Sir, we are told, that no­thing but to keep up the Greatness of the Go­vernment makes them go from the Bill of Ex­clusion to this Expedient. But is it so great and pleasing a thing to wear a Crown, and be called King, and have no Authority? It is much worse than to lose an actual Crown and the Posses­sion of it. If the Bill pass, and the Duke be ba­nished [Page 231] 500 Miles off, it must be out of Eng­land—if the name will please him, in Civility beyond the Sea he shall be King, and it will be as much to his purpose beyond the Sea to be called King only, as here.—But for the Security of his Estate being here: He that would venture the loss of a Kingdom for Re­ligion, will his Estate too, that's but a weak tie. It is less injustice to take away the Crown and Power from him, than to have of both but the Name. If you allow the Duke the Name, it will imply a Right, therefore for that to be used as an Argument is strange. But why is this Contention, and all this ado, I wonder, for an empty Name? But I am afraid this Ex­pedient is a kind of Jesuits Powder (I do not think the Gentleman's intent or opinion is for the Jesuits) but a wise man may over do some­times.—If you do not exclude the Duke's Title, the Duke is King still, and then will Learned Lawyers tell you, that by 1 H. 7. all incapacity is taken away by the Possession of the Crown. If you take not away the Discent of the Crown, and that the Duke has a Title to be King, then without doubt all incapacities fail,—but if the thing may be effectually done, I am as willing to exclude him the Name, as well as the Power; but Lawyers know no di­stinction—When the Lady comes to be Re­gent, not only Nature, but Conscience will put her upon giving Caesar his due; and per­haps that Text some of our Divines will preach upon. They'l say that the Parliament by what they have done, acknowledge a good Title in the Duke. But if he be King, as the Parliament [Page 332] allows him to be in Name, he has right of De­scent, and so will be restored to all the Rights of King.—An Argument upon Queen Mary like this, restored the First▪ fruits and Tenths—Ano­ther thing perhaps may come from them that proposed this Expedient, (I do not believe it came from that Gent, &c.) if you had pass'd the other Bill, great many would not submit to it; but if you pass this, if the Duke have right to be King, and be kept from the Ad­ministration of it, I doubt whether I shall fight against him. And the Papists will say, you have got a Law to separate that which is inse­parable. I would, if I were as the Duke, have this Bill to perplex my opposers, rather than a clear one. He has told you of an Army to maintain the Bill, &c.—which will not soon be laid down. But why an Army?—If there must be an Army for your Bill, there will be four Armies requisite to maintain the Expedi­ent.—A Protector has been proposed, not like that of E. 6. who was little more than the now Lord President of the Council.—But cer­tainly they who proposed the Expedient, would have by it the same Power of letting in the Duke, as of keeping him out. Therefore I move to lay aside this Consideration, and take up the Bill as has been moved for.

I think it is fit we should present Rea­sons to the King for passing this Bill of exclu­ding the Duke, &c. I do think that the Ad­ministration of the Government has been in such hands since the King came in, that tho' the Ministers have been changed, yet the same Principles remain to this day, though some [Page 333] have been removed.—The breaking of the Tripple League, the taking of the Dutch Smyr­na-Fleet. The King of France makes War for his Glory, and we for nothing but to get Riches to make the King Absolute. Such a violation was done upon the Rights of the People as has been done.—He was called down to Order—

A Question so extreamly well spoken unto, to be interrupted with any angry Que­stion, is not very decent at this time; what is spoken of, is matter to be enquired into ano­ther time, though the Gentleman does it with a worthy intent. If any Gentleman have any thing else to propose, pray hear him.

I intend to move you for Reasons to induce the King to pass this Bill. The strange and dishonourable Retrenchments made in the King's Family.—He is surround­ed by the Duke's Creatures.—'Tis not safe for the King to part with any one Minister, unless he part with all; and when these men have got a bank of Money for a Popish Suc­cessor, then will be the time to take away the King.

This we are upon is a matter of great weight and difficulty. Let any man that can, maintain this Expedient, or give you a new one.

I have heard with patience this Expedient, which has been well offered, and I believe mistaken by the Gentleman who an­swered it. I must say this, your Question and your business is Religion, and I have given as good proof of my Zeal for the Protestant Re­ligion this twenty years as any man has; and [Page 334] I have been for this Bill of excluding the Duke, &c. I am of opinion something must be done to secure Religion. For the point of Law men­tioned, if the Law be such, That Dominion must run with the Name of King, that single Reason is to carry the Debate. But if I answer not that, I am at an end. But sure those words that can disinherit a King, may make this Ex­pedient Law. I would not rise now, if I thought the Bill to exclude the Duke, &c. could pass; my grounds are but Conjectures. The last Parliament I did think this Bill would pass with greasing the Wheels. The condition of England is thus: we do need one another, both King and People, and we have need to make use of a Parliament to assist one another, to relieve us in the difficulties we are in. If the Duke should be King, he will need a Parliament, and so will the People. In order to this, if another Ex­pedient can be found out as like this, though not the same, which no Objection of Law could destroy, he would do the King and Kingdom great service and advantage who would pro­duce it. In this necessity we are like two great Armies encamped upon two Hills, and neither dare remove, not for want of Valour, but from their Reason: He that has the last Loaf stays longest, necessity compels the other to discamp. At last it must be one side or other, or else England will have the worst of it. But if none will venture to clear the matter in point of Law, I am answered. If any could alter that Bill, that it should not be the same we have had twice before, I should like it. I like this Expedient offered you, for 'tis a Bill of [Page 335] Exclusion, and so strong a one, that the Duke may chuse the first rather. I am for the Nail that will drive to do our business. If Gentle­men have other Thoughts, pray so contrive it, that we have one Bill or t'other.

All the Expedients I have heard yet, are like a Cucumber, when you have well dress'd it, throw it away. These Gentlemen tell you, they will bring in a Bill of Excluding the Duke from the Regency, &c. This Proposition is either ho­nest or not; if it be honest and without De­sign, then all the Dispute betwixt the King and Us, will be, Whether the Duke shall have a Title to the Crown. But I hope the King will rather gratifie the Nation than the Duke. If this be not honest, and People about the King circumvent him, they will find means from day to day to divert him. Why was England so fond of Calais, but to have some Footstep into France? And so this Bill, let the Bill pass, and all those Gentlemen who have dependency upon the Duke, if he come to the Crown, will change matters.

A worthy Member not being sa­tisfied▪ with Arguments of Law against the Expedient, that calls me up, as in my Profes­sion. The Question about this Bill of Exclu­sion; that 'tis lawful in Conscience, no man will oppose: The great opposers of it in the Lords House, agreed it lawful when they threw it out.—Not Jure Divino unlawful concur­rentibus iis qui concurrere debent. Some Gentle­men told you, their Country gave them Instru­ctions to press this Bill of Exclusion, &c. Sir T. Litt. said, it was dangerous to take Instructions [Page 336] from the Country; but I say, 'tis much more to take it from Court. Parliaments formerly upon any extraordinory matter, staid, and sent their Members to consult with those who sent them. I am not subjugated (when I am here) to what the Country does propose. I am as much against a Republick as he that fears it; but I am a Protestant. I say, I know Sir T. Litt. to be of that Experience and Reason, that if he go away satisfied in this matter, he will do all the good he can in the Post he is in. But to keep close to this Question; it being allowed by Law, That an Exclusion of the D. from the Crown may be; the next thing is to con­sider the Expedient of the Regency proposed. The same Authority that can make a Descent of the Crown, may modifie it. He argued to shew that the Regency would make the Duke in­significant in the Administration of the Go­vernment. Now the Question is, which is the most practicable. We Lawyers are aptest to go on the strongest side, and to call every thing Prerogative. I'le put you a case, in King James's time the Sheriff of—there was an exception in his Commission, that he should not keep the County-Court of—but should have all other Exercises of his Office. But the Judges resolved he was Sheriff to all intents and purposes, and that he could not be hindred keeping the County-Court. An Act of Parlia­ment against common sense is void. To make a man King, and not suffer him to exercise Kingly Power, is a Contradiction. Some clau­ses formerly in Acts of Parliament, were flat­tering clauses to satisfie the people, and not [Page 337] let them have the thing. Should this of the Expedient be an Act, 'tis nonsense, and may be said hereafter, the House of Commons were outwitted. I owe the Duke obedience if he be King: but if he be King, and have no power to govern, he is the King and no King. I have urged this to shew, that this is no Ex­pedient, it blears only peoples Eyes, and is no solid security. To say the Duke values his E­state, which he may forfeit, &c. He loves a Crown too very well, therefore you are not to arm your self in point of Conscience, but in point of Reason. The last Parliament I did see, by the management of the Papists and the Ministers, that without this Bill of Exclu­sion, our ruine is irresistible. If the Duke come to the Crown; he brings with his Religion Merum Imperium, and that made me fond of the Bill; but if by Law the Duke never was King, there is no Case of Conscience lies up­on us in his Exclusion. I will only make this Observation of the King's Speech, in relation to this Question—And if it be practicable, the ridding of our selves quite of that Party, &c. and not to lay so much weight upon one Expedient, as to determine all others are ineffectual. Vide Speech. The two main points (it seems) the King doubts himself, and all this delivered by the King in great Wisdom, is clipt off to this Ex­pedient of the Regency. You see now we come to Expedients; the Ministers have had two Par­liaments to consider it, and now we are come to this Expedient of the Regency. I find no se­curity in Law by this Expedient; you take a­way nothing by this Expedient, and therefore [Page 338] I hope the Bill of Exclusion will pass. I hope that Reason, and not great Offices, will take men off from their Nemine contradicente. I speak this as if I were a dying man, and humbly move for the Bill, &c.

I have it in command from my Coun­try, That they apprehend no Expedient to secure us from Popery, but that the Remedy will be worse than the Disease, unless this Bill. I have heard as yet no Reason given against it. But there is an aliquid latet. If the D. be not set aside, I am sure the Government will be; and there­fore I am for the Bill of Exclusion, &c.

I know not how far Sir Fr. W's. Ar­gument may be prest, what Bill soever we may have▪ Pray let us have the Law on our sides, that if the K. should dye, we may know whi­ther we are to go. I think the K's Speech is penned as it ought to be penned; and should a K. speak positively to what Laws He would have, we are an Irish Parliament, and not an English; but the K's words are tender words. The thing lies fairly before you, if any Expe­dient can be thought of, not to destroy the Mo­narchy; and if the next presented be not the best, not to refuse the next.

You have had an Expedient offered you of a Regency, &c. instead of the Bill of Exclu­sion, &c. Pray consider what this Regency is. 'Tis the whole Office of a King, to appoint Judges, call Parliaments, &c. This Power they would take away from the Duke. But if by Law they will reserve the name of King to the Duke, 'tis to bring a War upon us, and to bring the Duke in by force. This Regency must [Page 339] be supported by War, as well as the Bill of Ex­clusion. By the 13 Eliz. the Crown is not alie­nable by the K. but may be alienated by King, Lords, and Commons. And when that Statute was made, no Successor was named, to keep King James in awe; which I conceive was the Rea­son why none was named in the last Bill of Ex­clusion. Though we have been frighted out from that Bill by Prorogations and Dissolutions, yet 'twill not frighten them whose Reasons go along with it. And I am for that Bill, because all men are for it, and have sent up the same Parliament again that past it. But if you lead people into uncertainties in the Government (as this Project of Regency undoubtedly will do) the Court and the Country will be of a mind to lay aside Parliaments, because they are useless.

Peoples eyes are now enlightned, and all the World over they are an informed people. The Papists care not who is K. if he be a Papist. And so he proceeded much to the same purpose in several Speeches in the last Parliament.

I would not have spoke so much out of Duty to my Master, but for the Duty I owe to my Country. I owe a new Obligation to the K. for I am the D's Servant from the K. My Father was a Servant to the late K. and this; and I have my Protection under Him. I was bred in England, and for his Service at Sea. I know my own weakness, not being bred to the Law; but by enquiry I find, that the Doctrine of disposing a Kingdom from the Right Heir is Damnable: and 'tis the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. I have heard that in the 24 E. 3. the K. demanded Advice of the Parliament, in mat­ters [Page 340] relating to the Crown. The Answer was by the whole Parliament, They could not advise in any thing relating to the Crown, nor of Disinhe­riting Him to whom they were sworn. The Fun­damental and Common Law of England has made the Duke Heir to the Crown, if the K. have no Sons. The Title of Hen. 4. was con­firmed by Parliament, but he laid his Claim of Descent from H. 3. and it continued in that Descent till H. 6. and then the Parliament de­clared that those Acts were not binding, but unjust; and declared the Oaths of Allegiance to those Kings infamous and wicked; and so the Right Heir came in. H. 8. had Power to dispose of the Crown, by his last Will and Te­stament, to place and displace the Crown at his pleasure, yet all his right Heirs came to the Crown, though Jane Gray claimed it by vertue of that Will, and baited her Title with Religion. Queen Elizabeth made a Law, That whoever did maintain, That the Crown could not be disposed of by Parliament, should be Guilty of Treason, &c. and for ever after of Praemunire. But since that, there is a Restitution of King James, which ac­knowledged him lawfully, rightly, and justly the next Heir to the Crown, and did beseech the K. to accept of their Allegiance to him and his Posterity. And I think our Ancestors swore to the K. and his Posterity, as well as we. 'Tis a great Happiness to this Nation that both the Lines are united, and that we are rid of the Misfortunes of the Barons Wars. We have had Attempts to turn the Government into a Repub­lique. And who knows but that if you put by the Right of the D. the Revenue of the Crown [Page 341] being much upon the People, but that there may be Attempts to turn the Government into a Republick again? When my Father was in Pri­son in the late Troubles, an eminent man then in Power, in Discourse with him, said, I have obliged you, and if the K. come in, as I believe he will, then think of me; Look to your selves when you are in the Saddle again: If once you divide, adieu to Monarchy for ever. If you keep out the D. what must follow? An Act of Association; I speak now for England, and for my Posterity (I have seven Children.) How will this look? The Kings Father Murder'd, and his Brother taken from Him; Will this take no effect with the King? I wish the Duke many happy days, but the King more from my heart than the Duke. The King is a healthful Man, and the Duke is not. I am not barely the Duke's Ser­vant, which makes me concern my self, nor out of pique of Honour would I do any thing to destroy my Posterity. Therefore I am against the Bill, &c.

That which calls me up, is to an­swer something that was said by the worthy Member that spoke last; I am for the Bill of Exclusion, (and was so the last Parliament;) because I am clearly satisfied there can be no Security without it: But I must so far agree with him, that this Bill (if it should pass) will not be a full and compleat Security. But—Here being an Interruption by a noise in the House, this Gentleman proceeded no further.

This is the day of England's distress, and not only England, but upon this days De­bate depends the good Fate of the Protestant [Page 342] Religion all the World over. Except you ex­pect a Miracle from Heaven, nothing else can save the Protestant Religion, but this Bill of Ex­clusion. I think I have said this many years ago, That Popish Matches would bring in Popery at last. As to the point of Law (spoken of) that 'twill be interpreted according to the strength of the Party—But I doubt not, if we do our endeavours, God will help us, if we have nothing left us but Prayers and Tears. We are in condition of Conquest or Compact, and so is all Government. Interest must de­fend this Bill, and not an Army; we are the Army. I have a Family as well as others, and where Idolatry must be set up; and rather than my Children should breathe in such an Air, I had rather they were buried, and had all the mischiefs in the World. Col. L. ingenuously offer'd some things; but without this Bill you may sit down, take a Popish Successor, and re­nounce the Protestant Religion. I would break this Popish Interest, and then Interest will main­tain this Bill. If once this Bill pass, and as in Queen Elizabeth's time Protestants are put in places of Trust, you need not fear the distur­bance spoken of. Where ten were of this mind, an hundred are now that will bleed for this Bill. In plain English, let the World see that the Protestant Religion is dear to us, and we shall have the Law on our sides.

I was mistaken by some Gentle­men in what I said: I shall be very short and tender of the time, because 'tis late. That of the Lady Mary's Regency obviated an absurdity in the former Bill. If the Duke should have a [Page 343] Son, where are you then? The Lady cannot descend from the Throne, having possess'd it. But my meaning was, that the two Princesses respectively should Succeed in the Regency du­ring the Minority of that Son. The Bill of Ex­clusion is so weak a thing, that 'twill need all the Props to support it. And a train of conse­quences will follow it. What is told you of Scotland, is worth your consiedring; if Scotland be not consenting to it, I know not how you'll obviate that. It unites the Papists of England and France, which we ought above all things to prevent.

He may be convinced by his own Ar­gument. For by so much the easier 'tis for the Princess of Orange to descend from her Autho­rity of Regent, so much the less is our Security. And for Scotland, the same Interest that passes this Bill here, will do it in Scotland, and in Ireland there is no need of it. By this Propo­sition of the Regency, all Commissions Military by Sea and Land, Church and Law, are to go on in the Duke's Name. And if all Dispatches un­der the Great Seal must go under his Name, we can have no Security. The Oaths of Allegi­ance and Supremacy can be taken to none but Him; and if that be granted, That 'tis unlaw­ful to take up Arms against the K. or those Com­missionated by him—If that be not a true Pro­position, I know not why that Declaration was made: It lies loose to me, I must confess this Expedient seems to me, as if a man that scorched his shins at the Fire, instead of removing him­self farther off, should send for a Mason to remove the Chimney back. I have heard from [Page 344] Lawyers, That if a man do make a Free▪hold Lease, to begin from the date thereof, 'tis void. It would be more ingenuous for the Gentle­men to say, If you do pass the Bill to exclude the Duke, they will not be bound by it, they will have the D. to succeed; and then I wish they would tell us what will save the Protestant Re­ligion. If the Duke come to the Crown, will Gentlemen chuse either to be Papists, or burnt, or hang'd? I have no disrespect to the Duke, if this Proposal could keep out Popery: But if I am to leap over a River, I had rather have no Staff, than a broken one. This can be no Se­curity. If you leave it in the Power of the Council to make War and Peace, and dispose of Money, pray then where is the Govern­ment? Either they will be faithful, and keep the Law of Regency; or the King must be King but in name, and they the Soul of the Govern­ment. I have heard the Expedients with pati­ence, and have not been over-hasty to put the Question. But▪ I see no Remedy to save Reli­gion, unless excluding the Duke: Therefore pray put the Question for the Bill, &c.

You have been moved to add to the Duke's Exclusion, all other Popish Successors. This is a Bill on purpose to exclude the Duke only. You may exclude all other Papists from succeed­ing, &c. in another Bill by it self. But I ob­serve, that the way to lose a Bill, is to clog it.

I shall only observe, that by the last Bill of Exclusion, if the Duke should turn Prote­stant, he will be excluded; and if the Princess of Orange turn Papist, she is not excluded. Vid. the Vote for the Bill in Print.

Monday, March 28. 1681.

NO Bill was ever offered in Parlia­ment of the like nature, so much against the Justice of the Nation; it condemns a Man never heard, and then 'tis a Law made ex post facto.—Very extraordinary—against the Fundamental Justice of the Nation; and not only that, but against the wisdom of the Nation, and will introduce a change of the Government. If the Duke will try to cut this Law with his Sword, if he overcome, he will have the same power to set aside all Laws, both for Religion & Property: the power will be in the hands of the Conqueror, and certainly he will change the Government. 'Tis against the Re­ligion of the Nation, which teaches us to pay Obedience to our Governours, whether good or bad, never so faulty or criminal. In Pri­mitive Christianity, Obedience was paid to Heathen Princes, in licitis & honestis; and we are not to do evil that good may come of it, nor on the prospect of any good. I shall say one word more, 'tis against the Oaths of the Nation, of Allegiance and Supremacy. The Duke is the King's Lawful Heir, if he have no Son, and in the Eye of the Law I am sworn to him, and every Oath is in the sense of the Law-giver. If this Disinherison pass now into a new Law, who dispenses me from that Oath to the King? Possibly I am too tedious, and not [Page 352] willingly heard.—If the Bill be against the Religion of the Nation, being obliged by Oaths, against the Government and the wisdom of the Nation, I hope you will throw it out.

Sec. J. has moved to throw out the Bill, and desired to be heard patiently; I find no body second him, pray let him go on and second himself. Ordered a second Reading.

Because there has been much dis­course in the Town of the Votes that past on Saturday, upon the Lords Spiritual and Temporal rejecting the Impeachment, &c. though I believe what is done will be made good, yet I would for the present, give the Nation all the satisfa­ction we can, that we are in the right. Amongst our misfortunes in being called to this place, we are far remote from Records and Books; but yet I think it may be easie to prepare our selves to maintain what we have done. According to the little light I have, I find it the undoubted Right of the Commons, not only to bring Im­peachments against Lords, but against Commons too. Magna Charta does not only say, Per ju­dicium Parium, &c. but per Legem Terrae, &c. Tryal by Parliament is Lex Terrae. I have heard of a Record, 4 E. 3. where when the Earl of March—

The Black Rod came to command their Attend­ance in the House of Lords, whither they im­mediately went, and the Lord Chancellor by Command of the King Dissolved the Parlia­ment.