1129] PARL. HIST. 31 CHARLES II. 1679.—Address against the D. of Lauderdale. [1136

council, no judges of the common law or in chancery, shall, at any time during the reign of any Popish Successor, be put in, or displaced, but by the authority of parliament; and that care also be taken, that none but sincere protestants may be justices of peace. In reference to the military part, the king is willing, that no lord lieut. or deputy lieut. nor no officer in the navy, during the reign of any Popish Successor, be put in or removed, but either by authority of parliament, or of such persons as the parliament shall entrust with such authority.-'Tis hard to invent another restraint to be put upon a Popish Successor, considering how much the Revenue of the successor will depend upon consent of parliament, and how impossible it is to raise money without such consent but yet, if any thing else can occur to the wisdom of the parliament, which may further secure Religion and Liberty against a Popish Successor, without defeating the Right of Succession itself, his maj. will most readily consent to it. Thus watchful is the king for all your safeties and if he could think of any thing else, that you do either want or wish, to make you happy; he would make it his business to effect it for you. God Almighty long continue this blessed union between the king and his parliament and people !"

The Commons vote the Earl of Danby's Pardon illegal and void, and demand Judgment against him.] May 5. The commons resolved, "That it was the opinion of this house, that the pardon pleaded by the earl of Danby was illegal and void, and ought not to be allowed in bar of the Impeachment of the Commons of England." After which, Mr. Speaker, with the whole house, went up to the lords bar, and demanded Judgment against the earl in these words:

66

My lords; the knights, citizens and burgesses, in parliament assembled, are come up to demand Judgment, in their own names, and the names of all the commons of England,against Tho. earl of Danby, who stands impeached by them before your lordships of High-Treason, and divers high Crimes and Misdemeanors; to which he has pleaded a Pardon: which Pardon the commons conceive to be illegal and void; and therefore they do demand Judgment of your lordships accordingly."+

Bishop Burnet affirms, "That the duke was struck with the news of the king's concessions, when it reached him at Brussels, and that he (the bishop) saw a letter written by the dutchess the next post, in which she wrote, 'That as for all the high things that were said by their enemies, they looked for them, but that Speech of the Lord Chancellor's was a surprise, and a great mortification to them.'"

"Nothing could be more artificial than It was mathe proceedings of the commons. nifest, that, in condemning the Pardon, they, in effect, condemned the man, and yet they seemed to leave the peers in full possession of their privilege of judgment. The lords, on the

The Commons' Address against the Duke of Lauderdale.] May 8. The following Address against the duke of Lauderdale was agreed to; with the Resolution that it should be presented by the whole house :

"We your majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the commons in parliament assembled, finding your majesty's kingdoms involved in imminent dangers, and great difficulties, by the evil designs and pernicious councils of some who have been, and are in high place, and trust and authority about your royal person; who, contrary to the duty of their places, by their arbitrary and destructive counsels, tending to the subversion of the Rights, Liberties and Properties of your subjects, and the alteration of the Protestant Religion established, have endeavoured to alienate the hearts of your loyal subjects, from your maj. and your govern-, ment. Amongst whom we have just reason to accuse John duke of Lauderdale, for a chief promoter of such counsels; and more particularly for contriving and endeavouring to raise jealousies and misunderstandings between your majesty's kingdoms of England and Scotland; whereby hostilities might have ensued, and may arise, between both nations, if not prevented. Wherefore, we your majesty's loyal subjects, could not but be sensibly affected with trouble, to find such a person (notwithstanding the repeated Addresses of the last parliament) continued in your councils at this time, when the affairs of your kingdom require none to be put into such employments, but such as are of known abilities, interest and esteem, in the nation, without all suspicion of either mistaking or betraying the true interest of the kingdom, and consequently of advising your majesty ill. We do therefore most humbly beseech your most sacred majesty, for taking away the great jealousies, dissatisfactions, and fears among your good subjects, that your maj. will graciously be pleased to remove the duke of Lauderdale from your majesty's councils, in your kingdoms of England and Scotland, and from all offices, employments, and places of trust, and from your majesty's presence for ever."

To this the king only made this cold Reply: "That he would consider of it, and return an Answer."

May 9. The commons resolved, "That no Commoner whatsoever should presume to maintain the validity of the Pardon pleaded

other hand, had their expedients and resources as well as the commons, and resolved not only to center the whole authority of decision in themselves, but to make sure of such a decision as should be favourable to the Prerogative. In order to which, they made an Order, the same day, That the house, on the morrow, would take into consideration, whether the lords spiritual were to give their Vote in judicature, in Cases of Blood, or upon Bill of Attainder,' as a preliminary to the demand of the Speaker, concerning the earl of Danby." Ralph.

came to the crown, by a wrong title, but must maintain it by a standing army.

Mr. Hampden. For us to go about to tie a Popish Successor with laws for preservation of the Protestant Religion, is binding Sampson with withes; he will break them when he is awake. The duke is the presumptive heir of the crown, indeed; but if a man be likely to ruin the estate he may be heir to, we disinherit every day. But I find it a principle amongst a great many, That if the prince be great, it is no matter how low the people are, if his greatness be kept up.' I think that a prince is made for the good of the people, and where there is a Popish prince that may succeed, I think we ought to secure ourselves against that Succession. There is great inconvenience that may be assigned in every proposal I have heard to-day, but there is the least inconvenience in 'a Bill to exclude the duke from the crown,' and therefore I move for it.

Lord Cavendish. In all this debate, I see nothing certain but our danger; the remedies moved for are uncertain. A Bill of Banishment has been moved for the duke, but no man at this time will think it convenient for the duke to come into England, for he may come, and you cannot deny him to be heard by his counsel, before such a Bill pass. If you pass it, it may put him upon getting assistance from some foreign prince, and make a party here or in Ireland, and you ought to consult therefore the safest remedy, before the desperate. If you say, " a Popish prince cannot be limited,' you may as well say, 'No law can keep the duke out.' I would therefore know first, whether what is proposed in the king's and chancellor's Speech may not go a great way in what you aim at. Consider therefore the safest ways, and if they will not do, then go the desperate.

Sir F. Winnington. I shall say a few words to this debate, though I must confess, I am the unfittest man to meddle in it, considering the relation I have had to this great prince, the duke of York. But when I consider, that the greatest thing in the world is at stake, I must argue to defend it. You have been told of doubts and fears from several hands, but have had no resolute motions. As they have been of different natures, so, if the house divide upon this great thing, you give the greatest blow to the protestant religion imaginable; therefore, whatever we do, let it be with unanimity, as Protestants, and I hope all here are so. There fore I propose, that, in giving our opinions, all gentlemen that are not pleased to speak to the business, may have as visible actions as they that do. I think we are not ready for the main question, but I propose that we may consider the danger of the nation. It is easy to argue, that we are inevitably ruined if there be a popish Successor, but it is hard to say what will save us. The prospect of the duke's being a Papist has brought upon our hands enough to overwhelm us. The disease seems desperate. The five popish lords are in

the Tower, on account of the plot, and ano-
ther lord is there, though not under that name,
yet centered on that bottom, and has made his
greatness upon it. The lords in the Tower, if
we divide upon this great thing, will think
themselves saved; and now within a few days,
they are to be tried. If what I shall say be
not acceptable to the house, I protest I speak
it not out of favour to the duke, but for the
preservation of the Protestant cause. Now
that this thing is brought on, let us do like ho-
nest men, and Protestants. If we divide upon
the question, the Papists will have more en-
couragement than the duke ever gave them.
Now we are steady, I would not lose one mite
of advantage; therefore I would have the de-
bate adjourned, and no question now put upon
it, and go on upon it, as soon as the Lords in
the Tower are tried, and no business whatso-
ever to be interposed; and when we are once
come again to this debate, whoever is here
may personally say, he owns or disowns the
Resolution, and not leave it to a few gentle-
men to debate and argue, and the rest to slip
away, but that every man may have his share
in it; and if we part with this debate, we do
not wisely. If the Judges see the commons
faint and tender in this matter, the Judges will
be so too in judging this law, and the lords will
shrink and be tender too. As this Bill will be
hard for the duke, so it is hard for us to be de-
prived of our civil liberties, which will be at
the power of a prince that governs as the pope
shall give his determination. When popery is
introduced, but for one prince's reign, the pope
will dispose of the royal family as well as us;
therefore when I speak against Popery, Í
speak for the royal family; and in speaking
this, I speak for all good and virtuous men.
it be Exclusion, or Banishment, of the duke,
let the Resolution be what it will, it is for our.
security.

If

Mr. Boscawen. I do not take this matter we are upon, but with all the circumstances that attend it, and then I take it for granted, that if there be any more probable means to preserve the protestant religion amongst us, than what have been proposed, I shall not differ at all. But if you consider the horrible Plot which has made the papists an irreconcileable party, and that a protestant king is in danger of his life, much more will religion be in danger when a papist comes to the crown, By being willows, and not oaks, men have kept their places at court; which makes me expect little effect from what has been proposed in relation to the king's and chancellor's Speeches. No confession of faith binds a man to any allegiance to a prince secluded the crown by law. As for Hen. iv. there was no law to seclude him from the crown, and he was but a private person, and the people ought not to have taken up arms against him. But where there is a law for it, they are betrayers of the protestant religion, if they do it not when in their power. We ought to consider the chancellor's first Speech, and not that last Speech. Now

May 15. The Exclusion bill was called for and read the first time. It set forth, after the particulars of the execrable Conspiracy,

pope, had traitorously seduced James duke of York, presumptive heir to these crowns, to the communion of the church of Rome; and had induced him to enter into several negotiations with the pope, his cardinals and nuncios, for promoting the Romish Church and interest; and by his means and procurement, had advanced the power and greatness of the French king, to the manifest hazard of these kingdoms. That by descent of these crowns upon a papist, and by foreign alliances and assistance, they might be able to succeed in their wicked and villainous designs." Then, after another Preamble, they enacted to this effect: 1. "That the said James, duke of York, should be incapable of inheriting the crowns of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with their dependencies; and of enjoying any of the titles, rights, prerogatives and revenues belonging to the said crowns. 2. That in case his majesty should happen to die, or resign his dominions, they should devolve to the person next in Succession, in the same manner as if the duke was dead. 3. That all acts of sovereignty and royalty that prince might then happen to perform, were not only declared void, but to be high-treason, and punishable as such. 4. That if any one, at any time whatsoever, should endeavour to bring the said duke into any of the fore-mentioned dominions, or correspond with him in order to make him inherit, he should be guilty of high treason. 5. That if the duke himself ever returned into any of these dominions,considering the mischiefs that must ensue, he should be looked upon as guilty of the same offence; and all persons were authorized and required, to seize upon and imprison him; and in case of resistance made by him or his adherents, to subdue them by force of arms."

you have an opportunity to secure the protestant religion, do it; else, posterity will curse you in your graves. The whole protestant religion in Europe is struck at, in a Popish Suc-"That the emissaries, priests and agents for the cession in England. If the protestant religion keeps not up its head now, under a protestant king, it must be drowned under a popish. Suppose the succeeding prince should be a lunatic, as the king of Portugal was, and they had no way of securing the government, but by pretermitting him-Much more in our case, if the security of an act of parliament be as good as any security for the right of the crown. Queen Eliz. had no right to the crown, but by act of parliament, and she made it Præmunire, by law, for any man to hold the contrary, &c. and yet some gentlemen say, it is against law.' We must have a law to secure this law, else you will be infamous. I am clearly of opinion, that till we go against popery, beyond retreat, we shall have no happy days; and then, I hope, we may see happy days. But popery and French government are almost check-mate with us. There is no probability of security the other way proposed. Would you have parliaments make laws without a prince? or would you have the government in conservators hands, such as we may confide in? That would look like a commonwealth, and I know no such great men that we can trust upon such an account; besides, they have no power, and will be insignificant. Making clergymen and justices of the peace will signify nothing. A troop of horse, and a file of musketeers, will easily turn us all out of doors. Let us know what we have to trust to. But the several proposals made to secure the King's Person, and the Protestant Religion (except this Bill proposed) look like gold, but are but leaf-gold when you touch them. Whatever becomes of us, let us preserve the protestant religion, and pray put the question for the bill. After further debate, and some contest, for candles, or no candles, the Vote was carried in these words: Resolved, "That a Bill be brought in to disable the duke of York to inhe rit the Imperial Crown of this Realm." The house divided, those for the Bill went out, and those within soon removed from their seats, and would not be counted, but yielded the question. And a committee was appointed to draw it up.

The Commons resolve to stand by the King with their Lives and Fortunes.] Resolved, nem. con. "That in defence of the King's Person, and the Protestant Religion, this house doth declare, That they will stand by his majesty with their Lives and Fortunes; and that, if his majesty shall come by any violent death (which God forbid !) that they will revenge it to the utmost upon the papists." And an Address was ordered to be drawn up accordingly.

*A phrase at chess, implying that the game is lost, by the king's being in such a situation, that he cannot move, without being taken.

May 21. The Bill was read a 2nd time. Upon which, the question being put, whether the Bill should be committed, the house divided, and the Yeas ordered to go forth, were 207, and the Noes who staid were but 128, the majority 79; and so the Bill was committed to a committee of the whole house: but the parliament being soon after prorogued, it proceeded no farther.

Debate on Money paid to Members by sir Stephen For.] May 23. Sir Francis Drake. It is generally reported, that the last parlia ment had sold the nation; as if they came up to give Money to betray their public trust. I am of opinion that such were amongst us then. I would have the committee report what they are informed of it, though Bertie's book is not yer known.

Sir John Holman. If my name be there, I would have you know it.

Sir Nich. Carew. Though nothing can be got out of Mr. Bertie, yet the secret committee knows something. I know not how long we shall last; and I would have the world know it.