would appoint to-morrow for this end, that no jealousy may be objected: knows how matters will go when money is passed: would not have this debate stop the Address to the king.

Mr. Cheney. Would have persons withdraw, to add a few words to the Address, of uniting his majesty's Protestant subjects.

most humble and hearty thanks for the many gracious promises and assurances which your maj. hath, several times, during this present parliament, given to us, that your maj. would secure and maintain unto us the true reformed Protestant Religion, our liberties and properties; which most gracious assurances your maj. hath, out of your great goodness, been Sir John Monson thinks it not proper to pleased to renew unto us more particularly, at add any thing to the Address, until we have the opening of this present session of parlia- passed this address by vote: moves for toment. And farther we crave leave humbly tomorrow, to take this business into considerarepresent, that we have, with all duty and ex- tion. pedition, taken into our consideration several parts of your majesty's last Speech to us, and withal the Declaration therein mentioned, for indulgence to Dissenters; and we find ourselves bound in duty to inform your majesty, that penal statutes, in matters Ecclesiastical, cannot be suspended but by act of parliament. -We, therefore, do most humbly beseech your majesty, that the said laws may have their free Sir Rd. Temple. The committee left out force, until it shall be otherwise provided for the addition, because they expected some preby act of parliament; and that your majestyvious vote from you. Though the manner was would graciously be pleased to give such directions herein, that no apprehensions or jealousies may remain in the hearts of your majesty's good and faithful subjects."

Debate on the above Address.] Sir Tho. Littleton. Several motions were made at the committee for an Address to the king for ease of tender consciences.' When we say this vote, we ought to do the other; but the committee would not agree to it moves now for a committee to draw such a Bill, and that the Address may be re-committed.

Mr. Crouch. The question is, Agree, or not, with the committee;' adding to the Address is but to distract things; and if you agree not with the committee, then it is irregular to debate adding.

Mr. Garroway. It would have looked so like bargaining, if the committee had put it in, that they waved adding any thing to it.

not concluded in your debate, yet every man agreed to the matter of the Declaration : will it not be an abrupt Address to the king to find fault with the Declaration, and not say any way you would have the thing remedied in the matter? What difficulty do you put upon the king? Would it not be proper for you now to speak it, that you have it under consideration to provide for relief of dissenting brethren? Would have a vote passed, to take Dissenters into consideration, and have it put into your Address.

Sir Tho. Lee would have you informed by the chairman of the committee, whether ever it was debated to have it part of your Address. Mr. Powle. No sense of your committee that it should be part of your Address.

Mr. Vaughan denies that it was the sense of the committee: they thought it unparliamcutary to inform the king of any such thing, and they had no ground for it; for until you had voted the thing, they could add nothing to it.

Sir Rob. Howard. You must first put the question of agreeing with the committee' before you can add any thing.

Mr. Swynfin thinks you rightly moved by Littleton. Your sense was to go no farther than to secure the law, and preserve the true strength of the statute-law. Nay, farther, it seemed to all men's sense, that some consideration should be had of the indulgence; great reasons were given for the matter of it, as the war, trade, &c. as far as inight be for the safety of religion; but the committee could not originally express it, having no authority from you, therefore no haste, it being to be sent to the lords: we have had so ill experience of those laws, that he hopes we shall consider them: if the kings of France and Col. Birch does not agree with those genSpain should draw their subjects to prison, tlemen. It is not parliamentary to add (if and persecute them, they could not preserve you intend it) after having voted the thing. unity sees nothing in the Declaration but The thing moved to be added, could not apyou may well dispense with, but the preser-pear to be true at the committee: would alvation of the laws. If you shall go so far as a law for the Declaration, it will be no difference, only the Declaration turned into a law, and so you have your end in it: moves to appoint a committee to prepare a Bill to that end, which cannot but appear well, both to king and people..

Sir Tho. Meres is one of those that think " ease fit for tender consciences.' in the words of Breda Declaration, for union of the Protestant subjects;' but how shall we proceed? No committee can do it, that is numerous three men of a committee better to draw a bill, than 12 upon the subject-matter of a vote:

ways have the king thanked by Dissenters. The committee could not do it, the house baving not voted the thing of Indulgence: desires it for the honour of the king, that you make a vote for taking the thing into consideration, and then vote your Address.

It was then resolved, "That this house doth agree with the committee in the Petition and Address."

Sir Tho. Meres. What will you do with this Address? The Address must go to the king, and it is usual to send to the king to know when he will command us to wait on him, by some of the lords of the council of our house.

Mr. Garroway. In plain English, would not put Romanists in the Bill: would give them some ease, but would have them publicly in all their robes; and if you might see them in all their frippery, believes you would not have so inany of them. If the Papists had arrived at their end, you had not sat here now: would have them favoured, but not as trees to bear fruit, only as pillars to be seen, they giving no such liberty in any place of the world, they having inquisitions and persecutions.

Col. Strangways conceives that the Declaration, issued out in the war, was to have peace at home: would not have it in any man's power to hurt the Church; first consider the Protestant interest, and put that to the question.

Mr. Secretary Coventry hopes you will provide something that men may not be outlawed: a preliminary vote cannot be brought in, for you are not resolved whether comprehension or toleration: thinks it a thing of the greatest consequence in the world to bind up yourselves, and not hear reasons first.

again, we could not do it: has a sense of kindness for any persons that suffer. Our Saviour had some for him that suffered with him: hopes the Papists may be capable of some favour, as well as other dissenters.

Sir Tho, Littleton. We ought not to make the Address partial as to Dissenters: in the king's Speech the Papists are not spoken of. It is better to reduce the Papist to something, for he is now always in fear, and yet, always escapes: would have a full answer to the king's Declaration.

Sir Tho. Meres. What is it that makes us now so zealous in this question, but our fears of Popery? And he hoped never to have occasion to speak to it here: let us take care that, whilst we dispute the indulging the Protestant subjects, the third dog does not take the bone from us both.

Mr. Attorney Finch. You are labouring to put a question in terms exclusive. It is an unnatural way to exclude ease of persons: at a committee you have lately voted an Address to the king. The king may believe that the Sir Tho. Clarges. It was an insinuation from manner, and not the matter, does displease ill people, that the late king had an inclination you. Your thinking his Declaration illegal to Popery. After Edgehill fight he did de- cannot be grateful to him. Vulgarly speaking, clare, that the Papists in the parliament's a Protestant is a negative, viz. not a Papist, army were equal, if not more, in number, than but, affirmatively, what, is difficult to define. in his own.' He blamed much the remissness If a Protestant, according to the Church of of the Papists in that battle, that they did not England, you exclude all persons that differ their duty will say nothing to their estates, but in one article. We cannot consider relibut to be part of this Bill will destroy all our gion in parliament, but as part of the civil goreligion until 11 Eliz. no difference in Reli-vernment; its doctrine, God forbid we should: gion; all went to Church, until Pius vth's Bull came forth, dissolving all allegiance of her subjects to her. No acts were made against the Papists until 22 Eliz. In king James's time, the jealousies of that religion were much the cause of what followed: the duke of Ormoud made a treaty with that army in Ireland, to the end he might preserve the king's person, then in danger in England, and they were, by those articles, to have liberty of open profession of their religion, and equal numbers of officers in the army there. They fell from this, and declared for the Pope, and so they showed their loyalty; but the parliament army, when they were better informed, laid their arms at the king's feet, under general Monk-Molinos, Zuares, and many other Jesuits, held it lawful to depose kings. One has written a book at Paris, which he is ready to publish when called for, that proves the Jesuits were the authors of the king's death. These people, out of an excellent good intention, commit high treason every day, going to jails to convert people condemned; they get into our houses, perverting people every day; surely his majesty's good intentions are abused.

Mr. Waller. Whether general words of inclusion? thinks rather general words, because he would not have an act of despair on Papists. There are but two ways of changing religion, by act of parliament, or by force; by parliament impossible, none coming in here amongst us. If we were to make new laws against them

does any man hope ever to see the time that there shall be never a Papist in England? He may hope never to see an error, and yet the Scripture says, there must be errors, that they that are approved may be made perfect.' In all times there were Roman Catholics, though the Bull of Pius v. in queen Eliz.'s time, and the Powder Treason in king James's time, fired every man with indignation. Priests there will ever be. Queen Eliz. employed lord Clanrickard, a papist, in highest trust. They may do good, when impossibility is taken from them of doing harm: when you go and tell the king he is mistaken, and that no temperament or relaxation, believes it will have no vote: we are masters of our vote, but not of the interpretation of standers-by. Hopes it will suit with all the ends of piety and Christianity, if the vote be general, and it is for your honour to have it so.

Sir Wm. Coventry. It has been said, the word Protestant' excludes the Papists: would have have the word 'Protestant' to stand, that they may know you use some other manner of kindness, than to the Papists. The king has restrained his favours to them; I would have you do so too. Believes it is the intention of no man here to equalize them in his thoughts. [Here he stopped a while, and desired leave a little for recollection, and then proceeded.] He supposes the Declaration was to quiet persons in consideration of their numbers, so that the Papists have no claim, if few, then not

considerable. If so few as we apprehend and hope, they are not considerable in the war; if many, it is time to look after them, and hinder the growth, and would not mingle them therefore, but retain the word Protestant' in the question.

Sir Rob. Carr likes neither the papists nor dissenters, but the papists have fought for the king, the others have not; therefore would have more kindness for them.

Mr. Powle never thought of extirpating the Papists, but would not have them equal to us. Their insolence is the complaint in every street. This has filled the minds of the people with apprehensions. They have abused the king's favour. There are some good and some bad among them. Would have the nation secured of our own religion, especially seeing that some of them have crept into commands and employments: would have the word 'Protestant' in the question.

Sir Henry Herbert is not for enlarging the question, for the Papists at this time enjoy liberties beyond us. They are neither sheriffs, constables, nor tything-men, nor are any laws put in execution against them. Knows very well that at Edgehill battle, the late king complained that they did not their duty, and during the war they lay couchant at Worcester. Religion is to be preferred before all considerations. The best foundation of the state is religion; it makes men more peaceable and better subjects. The Quaker and Anabaptist have no foundation. He has greater apprehensions of the Papists than of any others. Superfetations of religion are horrible. Has travelled, and (he thanks God) came home a better Protestant than he went. Their wine is the better in France by being brought into England, but our gentry worse by going into France. The Papists are wholly excluded out of the question; for they are not quiet and peaceable men, as others are.

It was then resolved, nem. con. "That a Bill be brought in for the Ease of his majesty's Protestant subjects that are Dissenters in matters of Religion from the Church of England."

Debate on desiring the Concurrence of the Lords to the Address.] The question being put, That the Concurrence of the Lords be desired, to the Petition and Address to the King,

Mr. Swynfin said, If you had voted, upon a single vote, what laws to be suspended, and what not, you must have gone to the lords; but now it is involved with other things, you cannot; your Message must have been singly upon the vote. It is a matter in which the lords cannot agree with you, viz. You say.you have taken the matter of the Speech into consideration; if the lords have not, they cannot agree with you. For a single judgment uninvolved, you must go to them, and for an opinion in law.

Sir Rd. Temple. No precedent that ever we went single to the king in things of this

nature without the lords. You went to the king and offered him reasons for what you could not concur with in his Speech. About relaxation in the Petition of Right, you went to the lords to join with you in petitioning the king, that the laws might have their free course. This Address is to the same effect. We never went alone in a public concern of the kingdom to the king. The inatter of your Petition is a judgment in law. Hopes not for a good success if you go without the lords. If you take this course, the lords may justly object, that you declare law without them; the king may possibly say, he will have the advice of the lords before he gives an answer, and will think it unreasonable to do it, without consulting the lords and the judges,

Mr. Attorney Finch. The former going without the lords, about the Declaration of Breda, was no judgment of law. Did you ever desire a Proclamation against the Papists, but by both Speakers, hand in hand? Do you think this matter of less consequence? He granted this indulgence to peers as well as commons. If they shall differ from you, it lies at their doors, and you have discharged yourselves. Will not you acquaint the lords in an universal judgment of law? The king may deny it because not parliamentary. To send it to the lords, is the way to make it more easily pass, and it is for your honour to do so.

Sir Wm. Coventry. When you asked liberty of access to the king's person, it was for yourselves, not the lords. In the Petition of Right there was more need than in this, for that had the force of a law. We usually go to the lords when things are in doubt; but may we not by ourselves claim our laws, and that they may have a free course? Some among the lords may be distasted with your vote. It may be, the lords will have conferences to delay. In all the debates we have avoided disputes of prerogative and liberties; the committee would not touch reasons for fear of offence. Will you go from your former precedents, and put hazard of conferences, which will put us upon arguing what we would not argue here, and put ourselves upon that rock we would avoid ?

Mr. Milward. In your vote you have declared the law, and now you would avoid the judgment of the highest judicature. The Petition of Right is de jure to be granted, and therefore the lords to be consulted. Before the lords come to Addresses they will consider, and conferences are natural, and can never be avoided in any transaction with the lords.—The Question being put that the concurrence of the lords be desired, &c. it passed in the negative, 125 to 110.

Sir Job Charlton quits the Chair, and Mr. Seymour chosen in his place.] Feb. 15. The Speaker, Sir Job Charlton, being much indisposed, the house adjourned to Tuesday, Feb. 18; when being met, and the Speaker's in

"Some insinuated that the Speaker was sick of his post." Grey.

disposition growing still more upon him, that therefore they keep out, and may have the he was not able to attend the service of the sam same arguments with the Papists of salvation house, and having, by letters, desired leave of in their Church, and not in ours, &c. It is his majesty and the house to resign the place confessed that never any Liturgy was like our of Speaker, and retire into the country, Mr. Common Prayer. We may suppose that all Edward Seymour, eldest son of sir Edw. Sey-people here are for the Cominon Prayer, mour, bart. being nominated and recommended, by Mr. Secretary Coventry, as a fit person, both in respect of his ability and experience, as also of his constitution and health of body, for the Speaker; he was accordingly chosen, presented, and approved of by his maj.