the right of Adjournment to be in the house, yet you hindered the house from proceeding in their debates.

Sir John Ernly. If I thought that the crown was not concerned in these Adjournments, and had a right to command it, and the only business was chastising the Speaker for not doing his duty, I should be for maintaining my right as much as any man. But if there be a Message from the king, sent by one of the secretaries, to adjourn, or the king sends for the house by the black rod, and signifies his pleasure of adjournment, it is the undoubted right of the king, and you are, according to his pleasure signified, to adjourn immediately. Mr. Sacheverell stood up to speak, and you obeyed the king's Order, and the house universally called out Adjourn! adjourn!' and it was done accordingly. Though it is the undoubted right of every member to speak, yet if the universal cry he to adjourn, you do it every day, till to-morrow 8 o'clock,' though gentlemen stand up to speak.

Sir Rob. Carr. It has been the general sense of the house to-day, that no interruption be given to the consideration of the king's Speech. I move that a time may be taken for the consideration of this matter of adjourning the house by the Speaker, &c. and I believe the Speaker will submit to the house, if he cannot satisfy the house therein.

Lord Cavendish. It did not appear to me, that, in the adjournment of the house, in May last, it was the opinion of the house to adjourn. Here is a charge against the Speaker, and, according to order of the house, if a charge be brought against a member, it ought to be read. | It is a business of so great importance, that you are not fit to sit in the chair whilst it is debating, it concerning yourself. The gentleman that brought it in, has laid it upon the table, and I would have it read.

Sir Cha. Wheeler. Are we not imposed upon to have that Paper thrown upon the table, without the consent of the house by a vote? The charge is, Whether you can adjourn the house? But the adjournment was the king's adjournment, and I desire to have it fairly stated, and the king's Message for adjourn ment read. But supposing it was not the king's adjournment, the thing is done every day, and you take the sense of the house by the noise of the house calling adjourn! adjourn! Three parts in four of the house, in May last, were for adjourning, and your declaration of it was good, till excepted against. When the king sends to adjourn, the question is between the king and us, and not between the Speaker and us. Therefore I move that a day inay be set apart to debate this thing, that gentlemen may be ready to speak to it. The whole world will know this debate to-day, and will be apt to say, Why did not the house debate the great business in the king's Speech? They put that off always for weighty considerations, and now (they will say) The commons fall into other

matters.'

Mr. Sec. Coventry. I am sorry for this debate, without making a compliment to you, Mr. Speaker, or any other. The matter in question is concerning the charge delivered in by Sacheverell, and I will speak only to what can be the issue of the debate of it in this house. The king's power of adjourning the house is denied by no man. The question is then, de modo only. If you put the king upon other ways of adjournment of the house, than by the Speaker, there is disadvantage on the other side. The consequence will be delay of your proceedings; and the French king's advantages are so great in this conjuncture, that if we should be left alone, we are no equal match for him. He is now upon his campaign, and if the Confederates hearts fail, by our delay, and the king of France takes two or three more important places, he may quickly end his campaign, before the Spaniards begin theirs. This debate will draw many circumstances along with it. And, whilst we come to our privileges, we shall, I hope, be tender of the king's prerogative. In the 19th of king James, there was a jealousy, in the parliament, of the power of the Spanish ambassador, Gondamar, at court, concerning the Spanish Match, then depending. The house of commons sent a very rough Message then to the king, and the king did adjourn the parliament by writ. The commons sent to the lords, 'that they could not adjourn unless the writ was read in their house,' and they entered a protestation into their books accordingly. King James was offended at it, and sent for the Journal, and in the privy council tore out the protestation with his own hands. I desire only to show you, by this, how great jealousy and discontent it occasioned betwixt the king and the commons. A year and a half after, the king called a parliament, and altered his councils about the Spanish Match, and told the parliament how he was abused by Spain, and made other complaints about breaking the Treaty of the Match, and of war in the Palatinate. Did the commons then go back to all those things of privilege about their adjournment of their house? No; they went on to the matter of the Palatinate war. They were not a body of men too easy to give up their privileges and the liberties of their country, but they laid them aside for that time, and entertained themselves about the Palatinate. At the Diet of Ratisbon, the electors themselves met. The elector of Mentz was their Speaker. The duke of Lunenburgh sent his credentials to the bishop of Cologn, by his secretaries; but being no elector, he was not received by his deputation; for the Diet said, he must come himself, for they would not receive them.' Upon which, Lunenburgh made his protest, that nothing should stand good to oblige him in that Diet, which occasioned a great disorder and delay in the proceedings of that Diet. I speak this so much from the bottom of my heart, that I think these delays, which this debate will occasion, extremely dangerous; and, I vow to God, though

I hate murder, yet I had rather be guilty of 20 murders than hinder our proceedings now; and I would be guilty of all the cruelties of Alsace rather than hinder our progress in this great conjuncture. Therefore I humbly move that this debate be laid aside.

twixt the king and the house. The giving in the Paper is not regular; and no person can go about to make that the Speaker's case, which is wholly the king's.

Mr. Powle. He that delivered this Paper in, did well to make a difference in the case betwixt the king's and the Speaker's adjourment of the house. In the king's Speech, in the Gazette of the 28th of May, 1677, his majesty directed himself to the Gentlemen of the House,' and not to • Mr. Speaker.' How has the Speaker then the authority of adjourning the house? If this be admitted, I need not tell you how dangerous the consequence would be. The former practice of adjournment was, that the king did do it in the lords house, and we were called up to that bar. The king may grant away a manor under his signet, but Westminster-hall will void that

Mr. Garroway. I am sorry to hear some honourable persons put so great stress upon two days time. We have been 14 days in town; and when our liberties are concerned, and this matter of money must go abroad, for reputation's sake, I would willingly have had time to consider, whether we shall be undone by peace or war. If this great affair had been taken in time, according to our reiterated advices, something might have been done. But still we are put off to the last moment. Α Paper is now offered, and I am sorry it is a Charge against yourself, Mr. Speaker. I mean clearly, as the gentleman said who brought in the Paper, the point of adjournment is not betwixt the king and us, but betwixt you and us. Therefore put a question to lodge it fairly, before we adjourn the debate. I think, that, if it appear to be your encroaching upon the house, it may be of as ill consequence as the war with France; if your power encroach upon us more than ever was intended you. If you will put the question, Whether the Paper shall be read, and adjourn the consideration of it to Thursday, I am well contented.

Sir Rd. Temple. For order sake, I would not have the question put for the reading the Paper given in by Sacheverell. It is a Charge and no Impeachment, against the Speaker. I never saw any thing of this nature before. If the gentleman that brought it in will recall it, and give it in as an Impeachment, it is another thing. The question about this matter of adjourning the house will necessarily arise be

"Coventry in some heat said, 'The king was engaged, and he would rather be guilty of the murder of 40 men than do any thing to retard the progress of the war.' The oddness of the expression made it often to be objected afterwards to him." Burnet.

do not preserve form, we shall lose substance. The question is plainly, by what authority you assume to yourself to do what the king commands us to do? I am sorry to have seen us on a precipice, and that that should be an argument against us of losing no time in preventthe growing greatness of the French king, which might have been prevented, in a great measure, had our advice been taken in time. The fault is somewhere. I never yet saw a pocket-order of adjourning the house admitted, and the whole liberty of the house is concerned, By the same reason that you adjourned the house, you may put by any question. It is in vain to think of conquests abroad, when we lose our liberty at home. Suppose to-morrow we come to a question in this great affair we have adjourned, you may adjourn the house to Friday, and prevent the question. The gentleman that brought in the Paper, does not call it an Impeachment, because it is not to be sent up to the lords. He calls it a Charge, because we have liberty to judge of the misdemeanors of our own members. By word of mouth, or in writing, the Charge may be given in. Let the Paper be read, and admitted, and then adjourn the debate of it, if you please.

The Speaker. What is charged within doors, by word of mouth, against any member, or what is charged without doors, is at the election of the gentleman that brings it, to take his own method. I assure you, I sit uneasily till I answer to any thing relating to this Charge. As many artifices have been used as may be, to report me to have spoken what I never did, and to have done what I never did. But, I hope, no discourses will make impression upon the house, of things neither said nor done. I have received many undeserved favours from the house, which I acknowledge with all thankfulness. My coming to this place at first was as unexpected as your displeasure in what I did. Whatever my proceedings were in adjourning the house, when duly considered, the house, I believe, will see nothing in them inconsistent with the Order of the house, That power, which is lodged in the

Chair, is not to be dislodged until the house dislodge it. When the king commands au Adjournment, it is the house's right to adjourn themselves. But, I say, the house has always exercised adjournment in that method I did it. The reason is, because, in executing the king's commands, the house goes out of the ordinary method. The king seems not to doubt any obedience in the house; which, putting a question for adjournment, after the king's cominand signified, will do. I desire to have your Order for what I shall do. There was never any debate, but once, of Adjournment, and then it was about executing a commission of adjournment not directed to the house; and I ought to continue in the practice of what I have done, till you have altered it; else I should commit a greater offence than I am now charged with. Matter of form is only the case. If I have the honour to serve you, I must observe the same method I have done, till you order it otherwise.

Sir Tho. Clarges. You state not the case right. When any doubt, or question, arises about a thing, it is otherwise than when the thing goes off fairly by conseut. This adjourn ing the house has been usurped by you, more than by any Speaker before you; and gentlemen stand up to speak, and you adjourn the house, and will not hear them; and you adjourn. He who was Speaker before you, would not patter out of the Chair with that precipitancy. He would sit till eight or nine o'clock at night, as long as any gentleman would speak. If the opinion of the Speaker must be the sense of the house, the ships and men the king speaks of may be doubled. It is our birth-right to speak; and we are not so much as a part of a parliament, if that be lost. Many worthy men, who are the king's servants, went on fast for Money; but when Privilege was but mentioned, all was laid aside. The then Attorney General, (Finch) now lord chancellor, when the king's Declaration, &c. was excepted against here, and the king told us, he would not have the Declaration touched upon,' did worthily give his opinion of it. Though his zeal, at that time, was great for money; yet he laid all that aside, and did bravely defend it at a conference. If it had been so in the Declaration, &c. freedom of speech had gone off; and if we cannot debate things with freedom, all is gone. The black rod knocked the last session, and then we must go to attend the king. But hold, (said you, Mr. Speaker) we cannot stir without the Money-Bill:' and the Money-Bill was sent down to you from the lords, before you would go up. The king may adjourn us in person, or by his commission. 1 Ch. i. there was a commission of adjournment sent to the lords house, and it was signified to the commons; but the commons answered, if the commission be sent down to their house, they would consider of it.' It was then debated, though under the broad seal; which is above all Paper commands. And the house was set

19

in order first. And must you assume to yourself to adjourn without debate?' to adjourn immediately' is with a salvo jure, that we may sit that day to set the house in order. James, there was a kind of Protestation before the house adjourned; and when the king razed the Protestation out of the Journal, there was no privilege lost. The Adjournment is only obeyed here, where we have freedom of speech. When any exception is taken at words that fall from a gentleman, they are to be put into writing, and you snapped us off by your usurpation; so that there was no time to debate the exception we had against it. I move it, because it lies hard upon my heart; for, without this freedom, we are no house of commons; and I would have the Paper read.

The Speaker. I sent up for the Tax-bill, and the bill was actually brought down before the black rod knocked at the door. The 11th of July, 1 Ch. i. the house desired the lords to join with them in an Address to the king for a Recess; a commission accordingly was sent to the lords house by the king. The lords sent to the commons, to come up to their house to hear the commission read; the commons returned, That they would send Answer by messengers of their own.' The commission was sent down to the commons, and they did adjourn themselves to Oxford. Their adjournment was by the king's command; and so is this complained of now; and I will put upon that the issue of the cause. In all the Journals, I cannot find, that, when the king commanded an immediate Adjournment, the house proceeded in one tittle of business.

Mr. Sacheverell. If any such thing as a commission, &c. had been, I had done you, Mr. Speaker, much wrong in complaining. But I have precedents to show, when the matter comes to be debated, that the course of parliament is quite otherwise.

Mr. Waller. The gentleman that spoke last tells you of precedents, &c. but I have sat here 50 years, and never saw the matter done as you, Mr. Speaker, speak of. There is a confusion in the debate, whether the matter in question be betwixt the Speaker and us, or the king and us. When a man speaks against his duty, or we speak against one another, or the king, the words are stated, and the person is to withdraw. You, Mr. Speaker, bring us precedents overgrown with weeds. I believe the matter must be stated betwixt the king and us, or else the trumpet will give an uncertain sound.' No tribunal can judge of the privilege of this house but itself. I will tell you the practice for 50 years here. The king, without doubt, has the sole power of calling and suspending the states of the kingdom. But if the king should descend so low as to come to us, and adjourn us, I never knew but that we com plied with the king. For writs to supply defects of members, a committee has been sent to desire leave of the king to sit on. And when the king would have prorogued, the house has interposed to sit on. Besides, we

Mr. Williams. There is no such matter as prerogative in the case. The king's Message was, That the house should adjourn itself.' The question is between the Speaker and the house, whether you have not imposed upon the house, by adjourning, without their consent by a question. You have declared the right to be in the house, and yet you have done the contrary. When a member stood up to speak, you silenced him, and would not suffer him to go on. The Paper delivered in at the table ought to be read presently. You, Mr. Speaker, have repeated this adjournment, without a question, or consent of the house, four times over. The privileges of the house are, by course of parliament, first to be considered; and there can be no greater privilege than this of freedom of speech. I have heard and read of propositions to bridle parliaments, and they were censured in the Star-Chamber. This action of yours, Mr. Speaker, is gagging the parliament; and you, by skipping out of the chair, prevented speaking in parliament, I desire the Paper delivered in may be read.

Sir Tho. Lee. We are all out of the way in matter of order. Here is a Paper tendered, and called for to be read; and it is moved below to be adjourned to Thursday; and now the debate is entered into, which is moved to be on Thursday. Your proper question is, first, Whether the Paper proposed to be read, shall be now read; and the next question, Whether Thursday shall be appointed to debate the manner of your adjourning the house. Sir Rob. Thomas. Mr. Speaker, you have gone about to answer the Paper, before the house was possessed of it.

Lord Cavendish. The Speaker put us first out of order, by answering the Paper before it was read. I doubt not but precedents are to the contrary of what you, Mr. Speaker, pretend. In this parliament there have been several to the contrary, and you yourself was of a contrary opinion formerly to what you are of now. I desire the Paper may be read; and when that is done, I will give reasons why this debate should not be adjourned, but proceeded in now.

Sir Tho. Meres. The debate is, whether the Paper shall be read, or no. My opinion is, that all forms in this house ought to be cautiously preserved, else we destroy the commons of England. Whenever you search into this matter, I believe you will find there have been

Mr. Sec. Williamson. I look upon the thing particularly as between the house and the crown, and not the Speaker; I move for Thursday to debate it.

Col. Birch. Whether the matter be betwixt the house and the Speaker, or the crown and the house, it is of absolute necessity to be determined. If it had been determined in May last, we had not been troubled with it now, to lose our time. I remember the precedent of the Tax-bill, that Clarges mentioned, &c. It is for the service of the crown and us, in uniting us; and I would have this thing set right. If the banks be good, the channel will go right. I would have such steps made in this as would give it dispatch. The question the Speaker put is a fair question, viz. Whether the Paper delivered at the table shall be read. I would have that put to the question; but I would have any one show me a precedent, whether a Paper given in at the table, and not then read, was read ever after. Then if any gentleman be of opinion not to have the Paper read, and be of opinion to adjourn to Thursday, and in the mean time would have you search Precedents, you will lose Thursday. Read the Paper now, and after that search Precedents.

The Question being put for reading the Paper now, it passed in the negative.-Ordered, "That this debate of the irregular Adjournment of the house, by the Speaker, be adjourned till Thursday."

The session opened with an unexpected strain of loyalty, for before the House had

* "The Constitution of the present house of commons, that had sat near 17 years, was now more manifestly grown into two Parties, which were called by the name of the Court and the Country: the former were grown numerous, by a practice introduced about five years before this time, by the lord-treasurer Clifford, of downright buying off one man after another, as they could make the bargain. The Country Party still continued the majority and retained more credit upon the corruption of others, and their profession of adherence to the true interests of the nation, especially in points of France and Popery: where these came in question, many of the Court Party voted with those of the country, who then carried all before them; but whenever the court appeared