and that it will never be otherwise, until he | rity of our Religion, if a Papist should come 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 of our affairs. Sir L. Jenkins. Sir, I have hearkened 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 itself, 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 things, 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 and people of another. The late duke of Hanover was a Papist, yet lived in peace with bis people, though Lutherans. The king of France, notwithstanding his greatness, permits a great proportion of his people to be Huguenots, 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 ourselves 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? Col. Titus. Sir; the great character this hon. member bears, the great employments he hath been in under his maj. 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, though a Papist, lived in peace with Lutherans, and the king of France with Huguenots, that we had better spend our time in contriving laws for the secu 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 sense of his discourse, I am willing to be corrected. But, sir, if it be, I do admire upon what foundation the first argument is grounded; I mean, that relating to the unlawfulness and invalidity of the Exclusion Bill. Was there ever any government in this world, that had not an unlimited power lodged 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 the laws to prevent it. But as this opinion is strange, so are the politics 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 come home to our case: but if they should, why must we be so willing to have a Popish king to govern us, as that we should be rather led by examples fetched 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 otherways may be said of us, what the devil could not say of Job, that we have served 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 plainly see, that this hon. member is in the right in one thing; that we struggle in vain to get any Act, that shall signify 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 inferred; for are not all bis 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 signify 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 of fering 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 the Penal Laws is at this time grievous to the | esq. and certain members 'of the court of alsubject, and a weakening to the Protestant Interest, and an encouragement to Popery, and dangerous to the peace of this kingdom." The Parliament dissolved.] The same day the king came to the house of peers, and prorogued the parliament to the 20th of Jan.; but dissolved it on the 18th, leaving 22 bills depending, and eight more that were ordered to be brought in, but never came to be debated.* dermen, and common-council. But this farther provoked the king, and hastened his resolution of finally parting with his parliament. Accordingly, two days before the time of their meeting, he by Proclamation dissolved the present parliament: and in the same Proclamation, he declared his intention of calling another parliament to meet on the 21st of March next. But, being offended at the city of London, and hoping to meet with better PRINCIPAL OCCURRENCES AFTER THE DIS- Success by a removal, he appointed Oxford to SOLUTION-LONDON PETITION-LONDON be the place of their meeting, where he had forINSTRUCTIONS ΤΟ THEIR MEMBERS-merly, in the year 1665, found the most imaPETITION AGAINST SITTING AT OXFORD.] ginable harmony in and between both houses. The prorogation being attended with some-When the elections came on, the temper of very extraordinary consequences, we cannot the nation was soon discovered by their choice; avoid laying some of the principal before both parties were extremely busy; and the our readers, as the most proper introduction city of London set the first example to the rest to the meeting of the next. On the 13th of the kingdom by returning their old members of January, the lord-mayor of London, sir Clayton, Player, Pilkington, and Love; to Patience Ward, with a court of common-whom, as soon as the election was over, an excouncil, ordered a Petition to be drawn up, and presented to the king, setting forth, "That whereas the parliament had convicted one of the five Popish lords in the Tower, and were about to convict the other four of high-treason; that they had impeached the chief justice Scroggs, and were about to impeach other judges; and all this in order to the preservation of his majesty's Life, the Pro-tablished government of this realm, to secure testant religion, and the government of England: that they were extremely surprized to see the parliament prorogued in the height of their business that their only hopes were, that this was done only in order to bring such affairs about again as were necessary to the settling the nation. They therefore prayed, that his maj. would be pleased to let the parliament sit at the day appointed, and so continue till they had effected all the great affairs before" That being confidently assured, that they, them." To this effect was the Petition, which was further ordered to be delivered that night, or as soon as might be, by the lord-mayor, attended by the new recorder George Treby, : * "Though the king came privately to the house this day, the commons had a quarter of an hour's previous notice. In which short interval, in a loose and disorderly manner, they made a shift to pass the above extraordinary Resolves. They had not time to proceed any farther, if they had any farther matter to proceed upon. While the last Vote was yet passing, the usher of the black-rod came to the door, and ordered their attendance on his majesty. Those who are pleased to assume the venerable title of Patriots, have given large scope to their resentments against the king for this anti-constitutional proceeding; and those who value themselves as much on the glory of being Loyalists, have shed their gall as freely on the commons for their licentious Votes; and it may serve as a general key to the modern History of England, That parties have never so good a title to be believed as when they expose each other.'" Ralph, traordinary Paper was presented in the name of the citizens of London then assembled in common-hall, containing, "A return of their most hearty Thanks for their faithful and unwearied endeavours, in the two last parlaments, to search into and discover the depth of the Popish Plot, to preserve his majesty's royal person, the protestant religion, and the well the meeting and sitting of frequent Parliaments, the said Members for the City, will never con- The lords here present, together with divers other peers of the realm, taking notice that by your late Proclamation, your maj. had declared an intention of calling a parliament at Oxford; and observing from history and records, how unfortunate many assemblies have been, when called at a place remote from the capital city; as particularly the congress in Hen. ii's time at Clarendon; three several parliaments at Oxford in Hen. iii's, and at Coventry in Hen. vi's time; with divers others which have proved very fatal to those kings, and have been followed with great mischief on the whole kingdom: And considering the present posture of affairs, the many jealousies and discontents which are amongst the people, we have great cause to apprehend, that the consequences of a parliament now at Oxford may be as fatal to your maj. and the nation, as those others mentioned have been to the then reigning kings. And therefore we do conceive, that we cannot answer it to God, to your majesty, or to the people, if we, being peers of the realm, should not on so important an occasion humbly offer our Advice to your majesty; that, if possible, your maj. may be prevailed with to alter this (as we apprehend) unseasonable resolution. The Grounds and Reasons of our opinion are contained in this our Petition, which we humbly present to your majesty."-The Petition itself consisted of a recapitulation of the misfortunes attending the untimely prorogations, dissolutions, and discontinuations of parliaments of late, at a time when his majesty's person, and the whole nation, was in imminent danger from the papists: "And now at last his maj. had been prevailed to call another parliament at Oxford, where neither lords nor commons could be in safety, but would be daily exposed to the sword of the papists, and their adherents, of whom too many had crept into his majesty's guards: The liberty of speaking according to their consciences would be thereby destroyed, and the validity of their acts and proceedings left disputable: the straitness of the place no ways admitted of such a concourse of persons, as now followed every parliament; and the Witnesses which were necessary to give Evidence upon the Commons Impeachment, were unable to bear the charges of such a journey, and unwilling to trust themselves under the protection of a parliament, that was itself evidently under the power of guards and soldiers. In conclusion, they prayed that the parliament might, as usually, sit at Westminster, where they might consult and act with safety and freedom." This Petition was subscribed by 16 lords, viz. Monmouth, Kent, Huntington, Bedford, Salisbury, Clare, Stamford, Essex, Shaftsbury, Mordant, Evers, Paget, Grey, Herbert, Howard, and Delamer. The king gave no answer that we find, but frowned upon the deliverers of this Petition, and persisted in his resolution of holding the parliament at Oxford: whither the king repaired with a great train, March 14, as likewise the members to attend him.-Those for the city of VOL. IV. Abington, Sir John Stonehouse. Thomas Pope Blount, Samuel Grimstone. John Corrance. Andover, Sir Richard Ingolsby, Bath City, Visc. Fitzharding. Sir William Guston, Sir DuncombeColchester, Boroughbridge, Sir Thomas Meleverer, Bossing, Charles Bodvile Roberts, Sir Peter Colliton. Boston, Sir Anthony Irby, Sir Wm. Wenham. Bramber, Brecon Town, Sir Richard Hart, Sir Thomas Whitmore, Sir George Hungerford, Sir Levinus Bennet, Cardigan County, Carlisle, Lord Morpeth, Sir Christ. Musgrave. Caermarthen County, Lord Vaughan. Caermarthen Town, Altham Vaughan. Caernarvon County, Thomas Bulkley. Caernarvon Town, Chester County, William Williams, Roger Whitley. Christ Church, Sir Thomas Stringer, Sir Nathan Naper, Derby Town, Devizes, Sir Walter Ernley, Sir William Courtney, Dorchester, James Gould, Nathaniel Bond. Dorsetshire, Thomas Strangeways, Dover, Samuel Sandys, jun. Sir Philip Shippon, Durham City, Edmunds Bury, John Lemot Honeywood, Sir James Rushout. Exeter, Sir Thomas Carew, Thomas Walker. Eye, Sir Robert Reeve, Sir John Hanmer. Gatton, Sir Nicholas Carew, Glamorgan, Sir Edward Mansel. Grimsby, Sir Philip Parker, Sir Wm. Moore, Sir Robert Parker, Thomas Mann. Haverford West, Thomas Howard. Helston, Charles Godolphin, Herford Town, Sir Rice Rudd. John Thynne, Sir R. Grobham How. Sir Walter Young, Huntingdonshire, Huntingdon Town, Sidney Wortly, Lionel Walden. Hythe, Sir Edward Deering, Kellington, Sir Michael Whartes, Sir Thomas Slingsby, Lancaster Town, Sir Hugh Pyper. Sir John Hartop. Sir Jonathan Trelawney, Lestwithiel, Sir John Carew, Lincoln City, Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Henry Hobart, Malden, Sir Thomas Darcy, Sir William Wiseman.. Sir William Estcourt, Sir Watkinson Paylet, Marlow, Henry Seymour, jun. Midhurst, Middlesex, Sir William Roberts, Sir Wm. Russel, Monmouthshire, Sir Trevor Williams. Morpeth, Sir Richard Rothwell, Newport, (Cornwall) Newport, (Hants) John Lee, Sir Robert Dillington. Newton, (Lancashire) Sir John Chichley, Andrew Fountain. Newton, (Hants) Sir John Holmes, Lemuel Kingdon. Norfolk County, Sir John Hobart, Sir Peter Glyn. Northamptonshire, John Packhurst, Miles Fleetwood. Northampton Town, Sir William Langham, Ralph Montagu. Northumberland County, Sir John Fenwick, Sir Ralph Delaval. Norwich, Lord Paston, Augustin Briggs. Nottinghamshire, Sir Scroop How, John White. Nottingham Town, Richard Slater, Sir William Jones, Sir George Treby, Pontefract, Sir Patience Ward, Sir Robert Carr, Rutlandshire, Ryegate, Sir Edward Nevill, John Banks. Sir Francis Clark. Sir Charles Sedley. Sir James Oxenden, Robert Fagg, Somersetshire, Sir William Portman. Southampton County, Staffordshire, Sir Walter Baggot, Sir James Morton, Henry Whitehead, Sir Jervas Elwys, Sir W. Spring, Sir Samuel Barnadiston. Surry County, |