cross,

Sir Tho. Littleton said, it is dangerous to make laws too big to be executed, although some over-forward men may execute themThe Churchmen are arrived to that pass, as to bring in what ceremonies they please, though they lie under suspicion of popery; and that others must conform to these innovations What hope can we have of their doing any good from those that should be men of mercy, and carry things with the greatest severity?

Sir Giles Strangeways. When such formidable mushrooms should start up in a night that are too great for the law, no prudent state will suffer their laws to be flown upon-It is a trouble to him to hear the Church of England arraigned--It was upon the suspicion of popery that abp. Laud's head was cut off; and what will they have popery 7 years hence, when asking blessing is now popery?-Is this the way to make union, for every man to be tolerated his profession?-Would have ourselves in this house reformed-He is sorry to hear any thing of toleration countenanced here-No man can blame him for being zealous in his religion, as they are in theirs Must a father yield his authority to his son?Leave was given to bring in a Bill for continuance of the former Act against Conventicles. April 8. The debate was resumed.

Sir Fretcho. Holles moves, after many discourses of decay of trade, That his maj. may be desired by this house to call together what number he pleases, and whom, of Dissenters, as he thinks fit, to hear them.

Sir John Northcote moves to have it referred to the consideration of the Convocation now sitting.

"Knight of the Bath, and afterwards lord chief-justice of the Common-pleas: but in 1679, from a foresight of very troublesome times, he thought fit to resign and retire into the country. Having been zealous for the revolution, he was made by king William lord chief baron of the Exchequer, and died in 1711, aged 88." Biogr. Brit. VOL. IV.

Mr. Progers would have it referred to the Committee of Religion.

Col. Birch says he knows no sect, unless Quakers, that will not subscribe the 36 Articles; three of them not concerning doctrine but discipline-The dissenters are either enemies, or we shall make them sɔ--if so, there must be something to keep them quiet-he much doubts whether it be lawful amongst Christians to use any other weapons than what our master used-much more easy to govern persons of several opinions than one, by setting them up one against another-The dissenters doubt their condition, and secure a good part of their money beyond sea, as a more secure place--for dissenters, the Church will be stronger the fewer it has-this principle of liberty the Pope admits not of, to read the Scriptures-the Turks suffer no learning, and the papists pray in an unknown tongue, lest the people should send their own prayers to Heaven, as we do-some would have the Cross, some not; some the surplice, some not he ever acknowledged prayers to be a convenient thing in the church-he is not against them, but would have us consider of Assent and Consent, and so proceed upon the rest, and the fittest for us only to do.

Sir Walter Yonge is for taking off Assent and Consent, and could wish that Birch was as orthodox in the rest of his discourses.

Mr. Steward expected some proposals from dissenting persons, but for us to be felo de se of our own act, is a strange weakness; and so scan our government, piece by piece-would make a bridge of gold for them if they would come over, but never upon such terms as he hears discoursed of-it is to be frighted out of our government with bugbears-he lives in a county (Norfolk) of much trade; he knows not of a family removed, nor trade altered, and in the country a general conformity, which grows daily upon the people-in Norwich are 20,000 persons, and not 20 dissenters-he believes an interruption of trade, but merely out of design,which he hopes will not take here-the king can call persons of all persuasions without our desires; it was once done when the king came in, but without effect-but when they propose, if any thing be Scandalum datum, or acceptum, he would have it seriously weighed; but not to be felo de se in arrainging our own act.

Mr. Waller stands up to prevent the heat that always attends debates concerning Religion-if proposals be made to the house, they will hinder the king's business, now we are ready to part-for the Convocation to consider of it, not proper for them, but absolutely exclusive; for when they altered the book of Common Prayer from what came from us, we allowed it not-Their business is in puris spiritualibus; it is our business to fence about and wall religion, not theirs-so the question is, whether to continue these laws, which were made in terrorem-The king proposed it at Breda, when we were not a people; at the Convocation also, when we were not a people-he

2 E

wished then he had listened to this business, and is of the same mind still-The sheriff's oath against Lollards is mended since sir Edw. Coke refused that oath-he repents not his being against severe laws-the Quakers, a people abused he hoped that would have abolished them; but since the severity of the law against them, they begin to be respectedthe vulgar ever admire such sufferers as do it almost above nature-he hears the proclamation is not executed-the people of England are a generous people, and pity sufferers The Justice of the Peace fears the offender will leave his wife and children upon the parish as our church resembles the primitive church in doctrine, so it does in believers also; amongst us some know not so much as a Holy Ghost; and our clergymen, by their laziness, whip people out of the church--he would have all the opinions address themselves to his majesty he presumes they will but differ in opinion, and so nothing will be granted, and they kept different-he would not have the Church of England, like the elder brother of the Ottoman family, strangle all the younger brothers-Empson and Dudley were hanged after the death of Hen. 7, not for transgressing the law, but for pressing too much the penal laws, which was the great blemish of that prince.

Mr. Vaughan. It is not proper for us to return this upon the king who proposed it to us-if it goes to the king, we may be apprehended not to deal candidly; and what we are subjected to in this case, the king is the same; and should the king chuse persons that may persuade him, is it likely that we should acquiesce in that persuasion? No.

Mr. Swynfin would have his naj. moved to call some persons to consult with him; it will prepare the business the readier for us-the dissenters increase, and the severity of the law increasing too, is never the way to unite us.

Sir Rob. Howard would have nothing have a tacit fate, but come clearly to you, whether it be fit to do something or no.

Sir Tho. Clifford. The question of going to the king being carried in the negative, is, in effect, a negative to the whole-it may terrify any person from advising the king.

Sir Tho. Meres. Those little things, so called, are nothing less than Ordination, and many other alterations in the government besides, and Toleration at the last-his maj. did acquiesce in our reasons against the Toleration; all the rest of the conference was spent in bitter railing, and invectives, and reflections upon the ecclesiastical government, as in 1610, and so will be again upon conference-the Dissenting party did not generally rest satisfied with the king's Declaration.

Sir Walter Yonge. The address is fit to be made to his majesty; he best knowing the temper of persons; they may be so best consulted with-there has been good use of colloquies, though no good of that at HamptonCourt, nor when the king came in; but in

queen Eliz.'s time, and Edw. the 6th's time, very successful.

Sir John Goodrick. These persons would have a superstructure without a foundation: they propose nothing-though at HamptonCourt conference the authority of truth stopped some mens mouths, yet the rest were never satisfied-The Synod at Dort, and the conference in Scotland, as fruitless.

Sir Tho. Littleton secs no reason for apprehending terrifying of counsellors, for addresses of this nature have been formerly done-they take no privilege from the parliament-the king has so large a prerogative, that he apprehends the king may do more than is now desired.

Sir Adam Browne. Suppose they should persuade the king not to put the laws in execution against Conventicles, what a rock do we put the king upon!

Sir Rob. Atkins. Many are of opinion in the house that something should be done, who will be precluded by the negative, if no Address to his majesty; and so a prejudice to them who are friends to the end, but not to the means, by addressing his majesty.

Mr. Hampden. It will be said abroad, Why no proposals from the Nonconformists ? Says. one, if we grant something, you will have more and more, will you make the law already felo de se? So let what will be proposed, here is a negative in effect-The envy will not come upon his majesty, but upon the last persons that it rests upon, which is the house-this is a thing which has, in all ages, been done, and this Address is most suitable to the occasion.

Sir Tho. Lee moves that the oaths may be taken off, many having fallen from the church since they were imposed, it is probable, if taken away, they may return. They cannot meet without being thought tumultuous, so that we are to grant them, what, in our judgment, we think fit.

Sir Tho. Mercs would, before any thing be farther proceeded in, have a vote pass that we shall have no Toleration.

Sir Tho. Littleton would have a toleration of some things; how could people else bow to the Altar, a thing not enjoined in the Rubrick? It is a question of a large extent.

Mr. Vaughan. As long as persons conform outwardly to the law, we have no inquisition into opinion, and a toleration will go a great way in that; but if you generally give it, it is to all Dissenters in point of conscience-he takes Arius and Nestorius to be with Mahometans and Jews, the same reason for all as for one: he would never do it, to introduce anarchy: thinks no man so impudent as to desire it: laws arise from within us, or without us: new laws, or repeal of laws, must be either by petition, or leave asked to bring in a bill : nothing of the toleration being within us, or without us, we mispend our time to no purpose: consider what offence it is to dissuade the people from obedience to the law: it is, in law, to disturb the government, and execution of the

Mr. Swynfin. It was never thought that the law for Conventicles extended to any other persons than such as were out of all communion with us in doctrine, and hold no salvation in our church: it was never till now construed a Conventicle, the Dissenters being a people in communion with us in doctrine, though different in ceremonies.

Sir Ch. Wheeler. Condescension is as wide as the ocean': tender conscience is primitia gratiæ, which, when the devil has done with, he puts a man upon`spiritual pride.

Mr.Vaughan. To the one kind of Dissenters, would have the Bill of Conventicles gone on with; for the inconvenience is as great from many others, as from the Dissenters mentioned.

Mr. Coventry. If a bill be brought in, he would not have it countenance the taking away the oath about the Covenant; and he that brings it in, at his peril: but yet would have an oath to alter nothing either in Church or State -by way of tacit consent, not by order of the house, to bring in such a bill.

The question being propounded, That his majesty be desired to send for such persons as he should think fit, to make Proposals to him, in order to the uniting of his Protestant Subjects, it passed in the Negative, 176 to 70.

Debate on the Bill for suppressing Seditious Conventicles.] April 28. An ingrossed Bill, for continuance of a former Act, to prevent and suppress Seditious Conventicles, was read. Mr. Secretary Morrice. The fire of zeal for suppression of Conventicles may be so hot, that it may burn those that cast them in, as well as those that are cast in.

Mr. Waller. School divines cannot unite them with us: we have united them; what? against both State and Church-make the fire in the chimney, and not in the middle of the room-let the zeal be in the Church-we have seen the fruits of this formerly: let them alone, and they will preach one against another: by this bill they will incorporate, as being all under one calamity.

Mr. Vaughan. To be against this bill, is to cure a disease by doing things against it. Though this be but an adjournment, yet there may be reasons why we shall not meet again; therefore this may be a sufficient reason for passing it. Liberty has been given for any man to bring in a bill for union; no such thing has been done. In my own judgment, I am for indulging the people; the harm is not to be feared from the people: but if persons must be suffered to subvert the laws by seditious teaching, judge the consequence, and prevent it, by passing the bill at this time.

Some words fell from Sir Trevor Williams to this effect,That if the Proviso, concerning making the Roman Catholics part of this Bill of Conventicles, be not admitted of, he desires liberty to bring in a Bill to tolerate Popery;

narrowly escaped calling to the bar; but at length was permitted to explain, which he did, expressing much trouble for the offence he had given the house, and that he had no ill meaning in what he had said.'

Mr. Vaughan. The statute of queen Eliz. has given liberty to the lords to sit in parliament, without test of their religion; the commons not: therefore, if a man should say, the lords would not pass the Bill with the proviso of the Papists, because a great party amongst them are so, it is no reflection upon the lords: it would be otherwise to the commons, they having a test upon them.-The Bill was then passed, 144 to 78.

Great Misunderstanding between the two Houses, in Skinner's Case.] About this time, a Difference happened between the lords and commons, occasioned by Mr. Skinner, a considerable merchant of London, who, having received great damages from the East-India Company, had brought the matter by Petition into the house of lords originally, by whom he was relieved in 5000/. cost.* The commons hearing of this, after a debate, came to these Votes and Resolves on the 2d of May: 1. "That the lords taking cognizance of the matter set forth and contained in the Petition of Thomas Skinner, merchant, against the Governor and Company of Merchants trading to the East-Indies, concerning the taking away the petitioner's ship and goods, and assaulting his person, and their lordships over-ruling the plea of the said Governor and Company, the said cause coming before their house originally, only upon the Complaint of the said Skinner, being a Common-Pica, is not agreeable to the law of the land; and tending to deprive the subject of his right, ease and benefit due to him by the said laws. 2. That the lords taking cognizance of the right and title of the island in the Petition mentioned, and giving damages thereupon against the said Governor and Company, is not warranted by the laws of this king

"The case was this: Skinner, the plaintiff, was a considerable merchant of London; the defendants were the East India Company, and, in their right, sir Samuel Barnardiston, as their governor. The matter of complaint was, That the said Company had seized a ship and cargo of Skinner's, and assaulted his person. Skinner, instead of commencing his suit in Westminsterhall, has recourse at once to the house of lords, who give him a hearing, and allot him 5000l. damages. Sir Samuel and the Company, on the other hand, knowing no balance for the power of one house, but that of the other, appeal to the commons, who vote Skinner's Complaint, and the lords proceedings thereon, illegal. The lords did the same by the Company's Appeal. The commons order Skinner into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms; and the lords did the same by sir Samuel, as likewise sir Andrew Riccard, Mr. Rowl. Gwynn, and Mr. Christopher Boone." Ralph.