Page images
PDF
EPUB

rate perpetual, as this must be. Sir George Reeves was rather for regulating the Court of Wards, than burden the people with taxes. Sir John Frederick for laying it upon the land, which ought to pay it.-Upon the whole, it was resolved to adjourn the debate till the 21st instant.

the severity of his punishment, but to burri the book. Sir John Northcot said, It was not safe nor honourable for them to spare him; and moved to agree in all with the committee but the imprisonment. Mr. Howard, That, he was a person who was writing a Mene Tekel' upon the wall against thein, and that they would not so much as rap him upon the fingers; that he ought to be severely punished, by being tied up to the gallows, whilst his Book was

Resolutions against Mr. Drake's Book.] Noy. 20. Serjeant Raynesford reported that the committee appointed to examine Mr. Drake's Book had come to the following Reso-burning below it; for if he, being a friend, lutions: 1. "That the pamphlet, intituled The Long Parliament revived,' &c. is seditious in those particulars which were alledged at the committee. 2. That the house be moved to order, that the said Pamphlet be publickly burnt by the hands of the common hangman. 3. That the house be desired to appoint a committee for the drawing up an Impeachment, in the name of all the commons of England, against Wm. Drake, for penning and publishing of this seditious Painphlet, to be presented to the lords. 4. That the house be moved, That the said Wm. Drake may be kept under such restraint, that none may have access to speak with him."

[ocr errors]

Debate thereon.] The MS. Diary tells us, that sir Edw. Massey presented a Petition to the house, from Mr. Drake, acknowledging his faults as a rash and inconsiderate action; that he had ever retained his loyalty, and humbly begged the king's pardon and the favour of the house. Sir Edward spoke also in his behalf, saying, That be looked upon him to be distempered, and therefore desired the favour of the house for him. Mr. Secretary Morrice said, That punishment in the Greek was the same as example, and that he ought to be made one, because he did not own their power; and moved to agree with the committee. Captain Titus spoke highly in his favour, saying, He did not think him infallible, though he knew him to be extremely loyal; but he wanted that temper of mind which he ought to have; and added, that his former merits should compensate for his present slip. Lord Falkland was for condemning him first, and then leave him to the king's merey. Sir Harry North said, It was true he had been loyal, but did not know whether he was so then; and was for agreeing with the committee. Mr. Hyde moved to examine him again, whether any one saw this Book, and approved it before it was published, and was for agreeing with the committee. Mr. Palmer was for making him an example. Sir Heneage Finch said, The price of the book was raised, and that every one hoped all would be turned up-side down again; that the burning the book was too tame a punishment; that no man had merit enough to expiate the setting the kingdom in a flame again; and moved to agree in all with the committee. Mr. Annesley said, He did agree that the Book was seditious, but the man repented of it, and had formerly merited; that it was hard to ruin a man for the first fault, and moved to forbear a while

wrote in that manner, what would their enemies do? Sir John Potts moved to have him make a public recantation whilst his book was burning. Mr. Knight, to make an example of him, notwithstanding his former merits.-At last Mr. Harris moving to put the Resolves of the committee, singly, to the question, it was voted, nem. con. That the Book was seditious; that an Impeachment be drawn against Mr. Drake; and that sir Heneage Finch go up to the lords with it, the next morning, and carry the Book along with him. But though this prosecution against Mr. Drake was or dered in so warm a manner, we do not find that the commons made any great haste in it. For, though the Impeachment was brought in, read, and ordered to be ingrossed, on the 26th instant, and the manner of presenting it to the lords ordered to be considered of on the 29th, we hear no more of the matter till the 4th of the next month, when the Impeachment was actually sent up to the lords by the lord Falk land; as will shortly be seen.

Further Debate on the Court of Wards.] Nov. 21. The commons went again on the business of the Court of Wards, when sir Heneage Finch opened the debate, by moving, That the annual Income to be settled on the king, in lieu therereof, might be raised bý an Excise on Beer and Ale, and to take away Purveyance also. And that half of this Excise might be settled for, the king's life, and the other half for ever on the crown. This motion was seconded: by Mr. Bunckley and Mr. Pierepoint; but sir John Frederick, Mr. Jolliffe, sir Wm. Vincent, Mr. Annesley, and some others, spoke against it. The last-named gentleman saying, That if this bill was carried, every man who earns his bread by the sweat of his brow must pay Excise, to excuse the Court of Wards, which would be a greater grievance upon all, than the Court of Wards was to a few. Sir A. A. Cooper spoke against the Court of Wards, and for the Excise. Mr. Prybne, against the Excise, saying, It was not fit to make all house-keepers hold in capite, and to free the nobility and inveighed passionately, says the Diary, against the Excise; adding, That those Lands which ought to pay, being held in capite, should pay still. Mr. Banfield said, He was against an everlasting Excise, and for laying the tax on lands in capite. Mr. Bainton also was against an Excise, saying, If it was carried so, they might expect that, one time or other, there would be some strange commotions by the common peo

ple about it; that he was rather for keeping the Court of Wards, regulated in its proceedings, than submit to an Excise, which, if it was kept up, an army must be so to sustain it. Sir Tho. Clarges was against the Excise, saying, That the rebellion in Naples came from impositions and excises. This debate was ended by serj. Maynard and Mr. Trevor, who both spoke for an Excise, though the last said, that nothing but the Court of Wards taking away should have moved him to it. At last, the question being called for, the house divided, the numbers 151 against 149, when it was resolved, "That the Moiety of the Excise of Beer, Ale, Cyder, Perry, and Strong Waters, at the Rate it was now levied, shall be settled on the king's majesty, his heirs and successors, in full recompence and satisfaction for all tenures in capite, and by knights service; and of the Court of Wards and Liveries; and all emoluments thereby accruing, and in full satisfaction of all Purveyance. Resolved also, That the further consideration of settling a Revenue of 1,200,000l..a year, on the king's majesty, be adjourned to the 23d instant."

Message from the King concerning a Dissolution.] Nov. 22. The commons received a Message from the lords desiring a present con

[ocr errors]

"Soon after the Restoration," says Mr. John Hampden, in a Tract intitled Some 'Considerations about the most proper way ' of Raising Money in the present Conjunc"ture,'"the house of commons expressed a desire, as their predecessors had often done, to take away the Court of Wards, and they had long deliberations how to settle upon the crown a recompence for it; many ways were proposed (as is usual in such cases) but at last it was thought best to lay it on Land; and they agreed the sum to be 100,000l. per ann. and appointed a committee to settle an equal rate upon every county towards it. This would have procured another great advantage to the nation, and especially to the associated counties and others, that are over-taxed in the Monthly Assessment, by bringing in a just and equal way of taxing all the lands of England, according to their true value. The committee, in pursuance of the order of the house, having taken great pains in settling a new Rate, at length agreed upon one, and reported it to the house, and it is entered in the Journal. But while they were taking all these pains, the court was privately informed, by some selfdesigning men, that it would be of much greater advantage to them, to get a Grant of the Excise upon Beer and Ale, since the value of that was unknown; and they assured them, that it would amount to a sum vastly beyond what the parliament intended them in lieu of the Court of Wards. These men encouraged the court to undertake this work, and promised their assistance and endeavours for the success of their proposal:, hereupon the court resolved to push for the settling of the whole Excise, and by threatening privately the mem

ference in the Painted-Chamber, about a Mess sage they received yesterday from his majesty ; which being agreed to, Mr. Hollis reported the substance of the Conference as follows, viz. That the lord-chancellor was pleased to acquaint them, That, in order to that good correspondence which hath been continued, and which he desires may ever be held, between the two houses, that house had been careful to acquaint the house of commons with all matters of consequence which did occur: and that the lords having received a Message from the king's majesty yesterday; which they desired then to have presently communicated to you, and sent their messengers to that purpose; but the important business of the house not then permitting, the lords had therefore desired this conference with them, to communicate his majesty's Message to them; which Message was as followeth :

"C. R. In consideration of the season of the year, and the approach of Christmas, when members of parliament will desire to he at their houses in the country; and, in regard of his majesty's Coronation within, a month after Christmas, the preparation for which will take up much of his majesty's thoughts and time, and the time of the servants, which bers of that house with a dissolution; and by giving to some considerable places, they got a question put, to settle one Moiety of the Excise (which had been invented and raised on evident necessity, in the time of civil war, and not granted longer than a few months) upon the crown in fee, in lieu of the Court of Wards, and the other moiety on the king for his life. The former part, to give the moiety in fee in recompence of the Wardships, was carryed in the affirmative, though in truth, it was the giving 300,000l. a year for one, for which that house is justly blamed, and will be so, as ill husbands for the kingdom, and unfaithful to their trust. A great parliamentman, late deceased, undertook to make out, it was the giving away the Barley-Land of England. The other part, viz. to give the other Moiety for Life (as much as that house was influenced by the court) was first carried in the negative, which enraged them to such a degree, that, the next day, a Message was sent to the house, to let them know they were to be dissolved a month after. This was a strange and unusual Message; they might have been quickened to dispatch public Bills, and told, the session would be but short; but the Message, as sent, put men throughout the kingdom on supplanting them. If the members staid in town (and go they could not without leave of the house) their several interests in their counties, were endangered. If they went down, the settling the Excise, for life, might be carryed in their absence. This was the dilemma the court had brought them to, and accordingly it was granted before that session ended." See APPENDIX to the present Volume.

therefore should be vacant from other business, his majesty hath thought fit to declare, That he resolves to dissolve this parliament on the 20th day of the next month, and to call another with convenient speed; and that this his purpose may be forthwith communicated to his houses of parliament, that they may the more vigorously apply themselves to the Dispatch of the most important business that depends before them. Given at our Court at Whitehall, the 20th Nov. 1660."

resolved, "That it be referred to the Committee for his majesty's Revenue to state the several particular Heads from which the yearly Revenue of 1,200,000l. for his majesty is to arise; and to prepare Bills, as they shall find necessary, for the settling and making the same effectual, and to report the whole to the house:"

Debate on the Lord's Day Bill.] Nov. 28. Two religious Bills were read a 2nd time, one against the Profanation of the Lord's Day, the other against profane Cursing and Swearing, &c. Sir John Masham spoke against the former, and was for throwing it out, not being satisfied which day in the week was the Lord's Day, that ought to be kept holier than the rest, but said, It was novelty. On which Mr. Prynne got up and spoke for the Bill, alledging several reasons, and vouching divers authorities for the antiquity of the custom. Sir Ralph Ashton moved, That the Speaker should reprove sir John Masham, for what he said relating to the Sabbath. Sir John said, He spoke against the bill only because it was a transcript of one in Oliver's time, and therefore he could not consent to any thing that was done by him. To which sir George Booth answered, That the Devil spoke Scripture sometimes; and moved for both the bills to pass; which was ordered accordingly.

Debate on the King's Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs.] The same day, aBill for making the king's Declaration touching Ecclesiastical Affairs, effectual, was read a first time; on which a long debate ensued, which we give also from the MS. Diary.-Sir Allen Broderick moved to lay the bill aside, saying, The king would suddenly call a new parliament, and with them a Synod; and moved to let this alone till then. Mr. Stevens was for having the bill read again, as it would not stand with the honour of the parliament to lay it aside. Sir George Reeves was against the bill, and to be satisfied with the king's Declaration. Sir Clement Throckmorton said, That the bill gave too great a toleration, and made the Bishops no more than 'vox et præterea nihil.' Mr.

Further Debate on the Court of Wards.] Nov. 27. The state of the King's Revenue, and the Settlement for the Court of Wards, was again taken up. Mr. Prynne began the debate, by moving the house to consider, first, | what legal things might be offered to make up the king's Revenue, before they fell upon the Excise; and named the Customs of Ireland and Scotland, the Post-Office, and several others. Sir George Downing said, The Customs did not amount to 400,000l. a-year; and, for the improvement of the King's Parks, there were divers grants made by the late king to his servants, which were then claimed; so that those could not be valued till they were surveyed and settled; and therefore moved to settle the other Moiety of the Excise upon the king. Col. King and Mr. Boscawen moved for inquiring into the state of the king's present Revenue first, and what was wanting there, before they voted an addition. Serj. Charlton said, It was scarce possible to know exactly the value of the king's Revenue, and therefore moved for putting the question for the Excise. Hereupon, an Estimate was read of the value of the king's Revenue; which, by computation, came to 819,000l. odd money. To this col. Birch said, That, by his computation, he could not make it amount to more than 110,000l. and therefore moved to refer it to a committee to examine. Sir John Northcot said, The king's Revenue was under-rated; and moved that the Excise might be settled in full for the Revenue. Sir Heneage Finch said, It was not material whether the words in full, or in part,' were inserted, and moved for the question; which being called for, the house, without dividing, voted, "That Arthur Annesley, esq. who, by the death the other Moiety of the Excise on Beer, Ale, of his father, was then viscount Valentia, afterCyder, Perry, Strong, Waters, Chocolet, Cof-wards earl of Anglesey. "He was very learnfee, Sherbet, and Metheglin, be settled upon ed, chiefly in the law. He had the faculty of the king during his life, in full of the 1,200,000l. speaking indefatigably upon every subject; but per ann. revenue resolved to be settled on his he spoke ungracefully, and did not know that majesty."-1. Resolved, "That the several he was not good at raillery, for he was always particulars of Chocolet, Coffee, Sherbet, and attempting it. He understood our government Metheglin, be added to the former Vote for well, and had examined far into the origisettling a Moiety of the Excise of Beer and nal of our constitution. He was capable of Ale on his majesty, in compensation for the great application, and was a man of grave deCourt of Wards and Purveyances. 2. That portment, but stuck at nothing, and was the time for commencement of that part of his ashamed of nothing. He was neither loved majesty's Revenue, which is to arise from the nor trusted by any man on any side, and he Excise of Beer, Ale, &c. be the 25th Dec. 1660. seemed to have no regard to common decen3. That the Committee for his majesty's Re-cies, but sold every thing that was in his power: venue be revived; and that they do meet, de and sold himself so often that at last the price die in diem, in the Queen's Court." fell so low that he grew useless." Burnet, vol, i. p. 97.

On a motion of the lord Valentia, it was

parliament. Sir John Masham said, They had before them an excellent Declaration, metamorphosed into a very ugly bill; that the king's intention was for a settlement of Religion amongst us, which surely this bill did thwart; and moved to throw it out. Mr. Prynne answered the last speaker, and said, The Declaration was to settle peace in the kingdom only, which the bill did not confirm; and what a wonder would it be, after they had given the king thanks, to throw out the bill. Mr. Thurland said, It was very disputable, whether such an excellent Declaration would make an excellent law: he thought not, giving so great a toleration, and endeavouring to lessen the Liturgy. He added, that he never knew a Declaration, by wholesale, voted into an act; and moved to lay this aside for the present. Col. Shapcot said, That the king's ho nour and the honour of the house, were both concerned in this bill. That Ireland was highly pleased with the Declaration, and begged for bowels of mercy one towards another; and was for the bill. Sir Heneage Finch was as much for indulgence to tender consciences as any; but said, It must then be used and allowed to such as could not consent to such a liberty as the bill offered: neither did he think it was the king's desire to have it put into a bill; that the Catholics would upbraid them with doing injury to them, for so many years, for not going to Church, when we were going, says he, by an act, to tolerate it in others. He was

Bunckley said, That without a bill the Decla- | ration would be insignificant; that it was very fitting that many things in the Liturgy should be altered. He produced a Book, printed in 1641, which was the Opinions of the bishops of Armagh and Lincoln, Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Ward, Dr. Featly, and Dr. Hacket, that several things in the Liturgy should be rectified; and moved for another reading of the bill. Mr. Henry Hungerford moved, That all those, who pretended to so much loyalty, should agree with the king's desire, that they might all go down into the country, and be well accepted there; which, he said, they could not better deserve, than by setting this great affair in order before their dissolution. Mr. Howard said, That the present business was of the highest concernment that ever yet was brought before them, wherein the honour of God was so much concerned, as well as the peace of the nation. He moved, therefore, that the bill should be read again in 3 days. Sir Rd. Temple said, That there was no repugnancy between the Declaration and the bill; and moved for having it read again at the same time.-Sir Tho. Meres spoke against the bill, and said, That to make this bill a law was the way to make all papists and other heretics, rejoice, since it would wholly remove all conformity in the church; and therefore moved to lay the bill aside, and leave it to another parliament and a Synod. Mr. John Stevens said, The King had taken much time and deliberation to consider it well, before he pub-not for taking away the rule of conformity, lished his Declaration. To this Mr. Secretary nor yet for throwing out the bill; but he wished Morrice added, That the same man who was it had never been brought in, and moved for sick might be cured with a medicine at one time, a 2nd reading some other time, rather on that which would not help at another; and that day se'nnight.-Mr. Swinfen was for having the some things are seasonable now, which were bill read again in 3 days, saying, Nothing was not so at another. That matters were not only more hoped by the people, than the passing to be done, but well done. Sometimes a wound this bill; and therefore they ought not to dewould heal of itself, if you applied nothing to ceive them: that he thought it would not grate it; and added, that time would rather do that the Bishops at all, because they were with the good which they desired, than to have it en-king at the framing the Declaration. Lord forced by a bill; and therefore he was for laying it aside.-Mr. Young said, He had rather the bill had never been brought in, than that it should now be laid aside; that the Ceremonies of the Church were not of that great weight, as to embroil us again in a new war: but that some indulgence ought to be given to such as had ventured their lives for the good of all. He said, he could not hope for any benefit to be had by a Synod, because the spirits of the clergy, for their late sufferings, would be much higher in resentment than the minds of the house were there; and moved for a 2nd reading. Sir Solomon Swale spoke against the bill, but for the Declaration, saying, That since the government of the Church was despised, how were they fallen into confusion? And moved, that the laws established might suffice, and not frame this into a new one. Mr. Bodurda said, The king, by his Declaration, having desired an indulgence, he hoped they would not resist it; and therefore he moved the bill might pass, till the first session of the next

Bruce said, They might as well make every act of grace from the king into a law as this, which he was utterly against; and moved to adjourn the debate. Serj. Maynard concluded this long debate, in saying, He was against passing the bill, because it gave too great a liberty, yet would not seem to reject it by a vote, because the king's Declaration, on which the bill was built, was so pleasing to every on He moved rather to put the question, Whether the bill should be read a 2nd time? The house dividing upon it, the numbers were 157 for, and 183 against, a 2nd reading.

Debate on the Restitution of the Title of Duke of Norfolk.] Dec. 3. The bill for the Restitution of the Earl of Arundel, &c. to the Title of Duke of Norfolk, was brought from the committee to whom it was referred, unaltered, and was read a 3rd time.

The MS. Diary informs us, that Mr. Stevens spoke very earnestly against passing the bill, saying, That the earl was always bred amongst those who were enemies to the protestants;

[ocr errors]

the queen, nor any of the royal family, had the least relief from those people, but were left to starve in exile; and moved that, if the debts on bond be allowed them, the book-debts should be so too; that the bill should be en

were proper to be received. Mr. Hollis said, He had as great an abhorrence of that black crew as any one; and therefore moved rather to consider the poor creditors, their wives and children, and the executors, by a proviso. Serj. Charlton said, That, in Scripture, we are told that the whole families of traitors were destroyed: that the case was not alike in private bonds, as it was in this, where the persons were attainted. He moved to leave it to the law, whether to allow any legacies or not; but added, It was reasonable the legatee should refund. Sir A. A. Cooper said, There was reason to allow Settlements before marriage, or as far retrospect as 1647. Col. Shapcot said, That to deny the payment of their debts, was to punish the honest creditors, not the offenders; and therefore moved to consider those poor people, by a proviso large enough for the purpose. Mr. Prynne spoke against any proviso, saying, There were none for the Gunpowder Traitors, nor any else that ever were traitors before. Captain Titus ended this debate, by observing, That execution did not leave traitors at their graves, but followed them beyoud it and that, since the heads and limbs of some were already put upon the gates, he hoped the house would order that the carcasses of those devils, who were buried at Westminster, Crom

that the earl was distracted; and that if he | that the parliament had made; that neither was here, it was a question whether they would confirm the Title; for, in his opinion, it was giving honour to the man in the moon. Sir Robert Paston said, That the earl's want of senses should rather gain him more advocates than enemies; that the lords had already ex-grossed, and such provisoes taken care for as amined witnesses concerning his present condition of mind, and were satisfied with it; that he himself was not satisfied fully concerning the death of the late duke of Norfolk, but thought the restoration of the honour could be no prejudice to any one; and therefore moved to have the bill pass. Mr. Prynne spoke against the bill, saying, It was nonsense, because it did not express from whence the first honour came, nor to whom given; that here was no patent produced, nor any form how the late duke was attainted; and said, the earl ought to have petitioned for his honour; but that here was no such thing. Sir Rd. Onslow moved for the bill, saying, That he was one of the guardians, and thought it very fit it should pass. Mr. Thomas moved to have that part of the bill, which reflected upon queen Elizabeth, amended at the table, and then to pass it. Serj. Charlton said, The house was not ready yet for passing the bill, without examining the record and the indictment of the late duke; that it was fitting the earl himself should be here, but if he was so far distracted, it was better to take his honour from him, and bestow it upon the next worthy person in the family; adding, that it was fitter to use the earl as Nebuchadnezzar was, to send him amongst beasts, for he had not the ordinary cleanliness of one; and moved to re-commit the bill.well, Bradshaw, Ireton, and Pride, might be Mr. Bamfield said, he did not understand why they should confer honour upon a mad man; neither was it fit to give an act of grace to those of the Popish religion.-Serj. Raynesford was against bestowing honours upon any of the Popish religion, which he understood this family was of; and unless they took the oaths he was against the bill. But, lastly, Mr. Trevor and sir George Reeves, speaking for the bill, the question was called for, and, being put, the house divided upon it, yeas 187,

noes 116.

torn out of their graves, dragged to Tyburn, there to hang for some time, and afterwards be buried under the gallows.-This motion was agreed to, says the Diary, nem. con.: this is confirmed by the Journals, where the Order is entered at large. Ordered also, That James Norfolk, esq. serjeant at arms, should see execution done upon the bodies; and that capt. Titus do carry up the Order to the Lords for their concurrence; which was agreed to the same day. *--The Bill to be engrossed.

Articles of Impeachment against Drake for publishing a Pamphlet intitled the "LONG

Debate on the Bill of Attainder.] Dec. 4. Mr. Thomas reported to the house, from the committee, some amendments and three pro- *This Order was not executed till January visoes to the bill of Attainder, which were read. 30, after the dissolution of this parliament, Mr. Ratcliffe moved for an allowance to be when a chronological Historian of these Times made of just debts, legacies, and funeral ex-gives us this Account of it: "This day, Jan. pences, out of this Forfeiture of those four persons estates who have been attainted after their deaths, viz. Cromwell, Pride, Bradshaw, and Ireton. Sir John Northcot was against paying the Funeral Expences of Cromwell and Bradshaw. Mr. Allen and lord Valentia moved in favour of the executors, That they might not be ruined for what they had paid, because they were compelled to pay the legacies by law; but that a proviso might be added to the bill concerning it. Sir Heneage Finch said, That this bill was the prime sacrifice to justice

30, 1660-1, the odious Carcasses of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton, and John Bradshaw, were taken out of their graves, drawn upon sledges to Tyburn, and being pulled out of their coffins, there hanged at the several angles of the triple tree, till sun-set; then taken down, beheaded, and their loathsome trunks thrown into a deep hole under the gallows. Their heads were afterwards set upon poles on the top of Westminster-Hall." Gesta Britannorum: or a succinct Chronology, &c. By sir George Wharton. London, 1667.

« PreviousContinue »