1680 mit to the reft that is enjoined by Law, that fo we may unite Anno 32Car.II against the common Enemy: But if this Bill should not have this defired Effect, but, on the contrary, notwithstanding this Condefcenfion, they fhould continue their Animofities and: Difobedience to the Church, I think ftill the Church will gain very much hereby, and leave that Party without Excufe, and be a juft Caufe for the making of more coercive Laws. So that, upon all Accounts, you have been well moved for thepaf fing of this Bill.' Mr. Speaker, Sir, I very much admire to hear it alledged, that this Bill will tend to the Advantage of the Church; for how can the pulling down of the Pales, and weakening the Laws against its Enemies, be a way to preferve it? I am of another Opinion, and do think this Bill may not only occafion a great Weakness, but give, I fear, a mortal Wound to the Church. Is it not much more reasonable, that the Dif fenters fhould fubmit to the Church, than the Church to the Diffenters? And I am afraid, if once the Government should begin to yield to them, it will be as in Forty-one, nothing will ferve but an utter Subverfion; the having of one thing will give occasion for demanding more; and it will be im-' poffible to give them any Satisfaction, without laying all open and running into confufion. It is our Mifery, that the Church is in fo much danger of Popery; pray, Sir, let us have a care how we encrease her Danger from Fanatics. Instead of this Bill, I humbly conceive, that Laws to force the Execution of fuch Laws as as are in being against the Dif fenters, and what more may be neceffary to compel an entire Obedience, (feeing the Experience we have already had of this other way hath not proved effectual) may more contribute to the ftrengthening of the Church, and prevention of Popery. Mr. Speaker, Sir, As well Church-men as Diffenters do all know we have a dangerous common Enemy that is got within our Bowels, and wants nothing but a King to their Minds to have the Strength of the Nation, as well Civil as Military, at their command; and fo confequently, a fufficient Power to destroy the Proteftant Religion, if not prevented by a timely Union of the Proteftant Intereft. The Question that may properly arise at this time is, whether the putting the Laws we already have in execution, and making more againft Diffenters, in order to bring them into the Church by Force, or the making of a Law to bring them in by fair means, be the most likely way to unite us, that fo we may be in a better Condition to oppofe the common Enemy. It is obvious to me, that the making of new Laws, or Execution of the old, at this time, is the ready way to ruin us; and what the Papifts do certainly defire and aim at, above all things whatsoever : E. 1680. Anno 32 Car.II. whatsoever: For, if it should be put in practice, the Effect would be this; it would be the Occafion of throwing off the farther Prosecution of the Plot and Popery, and in a little time occafion, not only more Heats and Animofities, but fuch a revengeful implacable Spirit amongst us, as would prove irreconcileable, and give opportunity for the Popish Intereft to join with either Party, or at least ways abet and affift them under hand, fo as that they fhall easily be provoked to destroy one the other. But if this fhould not happen, what real Love, Friendship, or Obedience, can the Church expect from fuch Perfons, as by the Execution of fuch Laws may be forced to come to Church? How can they be depended on, or the Church be ftrengthened by them? You may prevent their Conventicles, and force them either to come to Church, or pay Fines, or be imprifoned; but you cannot expect that their Opinions or Affections fhould be altered by fuch Proceedings, without which the Church can never be the ftronger. It must be a Work of Time to reconcile the Divifions that are amongst us, and may be a great and neceffary Employment for many Parliaments hereafter, when the common Enemy doth not give fuch a juft Occafion of Distraction, and for employing all your Thoughts and Care about him; when they may have more Leifure, because their Dangers may not be fo imminent. But to go about it at this Time by any fuch Laws, is the ready way to weaken the Proteftant Intereft, and bring Ruin uponus. But fuppofe we should follow this Advice, and make new Laws, and require a fevere Execution of the old, how can you imagine that, as long as the Popish Intereft is fo prevalent, the Execution of fuch Laws fhould be continued longer than may be fubfervient to the Intereft of that Party? Have we not had a fad Experience of this? Hath the Oxford act, or that of the 35 of Queen Elizabeth, or any other against the Diffenters, been executed in favour of the Church? Are not the Diffenters as many, if not more, now than ever? And is not Experience in all Affairs the best Mafter? And is there any thing more visible, than that thefe Laws have been made ufe of to ferve the Popish Intereft, or as Engines rather for the Affairs of the State than Church? When in the Year 160, by the fevere Execution of thefe Laws, all Meetings in Conventicles were prevented, and many Diffenters came to Church, did not the Toleration happen thereupon? And was not the Execution of the Laws put afoot, as may be prefumed, by that great Papift Clifford, who had then the greateft Share (under his Majefty) in the Adminiftration of the Government? If the Execution of the Laws against Diffenters had been for the Advantage of the Church, why was there then granted a Toleration? And if the Toleration had been intended for the Advantage 1680. Advantage of the Proteftant Religion, why were not the Anno 32 Car.IT Churchmen, nor Diffenters of any kind pleafed with it? And if the Oxford-Act, and other Laws against Diffenters, were projected in favour of the Proteftant Religion, it was ftrange that they were fo much promoted (as any Members now here, who did ferve in those Parliaments do remember) by Sir Thomas Clifford, Sir Solomon Swale, and Sir Roger-Strickland, who have fince all appeared to be Papifts. Sir, we have been ftrangely led by the Popish Intereft for many Years already; I pray, Sir, let us not now at laft do like Narciffus, to be fo much in love with a Shadow, as to fall into a Gulph, and drown ourselves, Sir, I am afraid the Name of Church hath been ftrangely made ufe of to bring in Popery. I hope we fhall endeavour to preserve, not only the Name, but the Subftance, I mean the Proteftant Religion, otherwife we may come off no better than the Dog in Efop's Fables with his Shoulder of Mutton. I hope that what I have faid will not reprefent me as an Enemy to the Church, or Church-government; I am fure, I am not confcious to myself, that I ever entertained a Thought against the Prefervation of either. All what I have faid doth proceed from an Apprehenfion that our Churchmen of late have been out of the right Way to preferve either our Religion or our Church; because the Courfes which they take muft (though I am far from fufpecting they defign it) give a great Affiftance to Popery. I remember that, after the Plot broke out, there was for a little while a kind of Reconciliation amongst Proteftants, and an united Oppofition made to the Common Enemy; and how then the Popish Intereft gave way, we may all remember; but this was too much in favour of the Proteftant Religion to hold long. Within a few Months the Fire broke out again, and the Pulpits and the Prefs, instead of being employ'd against the Common Enemy, were reduced to their old Way, of carrying on the Divifions amongst Proteftants: And how the Popish Intereft have fince gone on triumphant again, all here, I fuppofe, may know. Sir, the Church hath two ftrong Enemies, the Papifts and Fanatics. We are already engaged in a fharp Conteft with the Papifts, and find they are ftrong enough for us; why muft we now also enter into a fresh Engagement with the Fanatics, especially when we may be fure thereby to ftrengthen our Enemies, and weaken ourselves? Such Advice cannot proceed from fuch as are Friends to the Proteftant Church: If we fhould make new Laws againft Diffenters, as hath been moved, and enforce the Execution of the old ones, as long as we have a Popish Succeffor, can any Man imagine, that the Execution of them will be longer kept a-foot, than Anno gzCar.II. 1680. Queries relating to the Execution of Lord Stafford. Sir Richard port relating to will confift with the Popish Intereft? Sir, our Church and Refolved, That the faid Bill be committed upon the Debate of the House. 7 December 23, 1680. Some Queries relating to the execution of William late Viscount Stafford, offered to the House by the Sheriffs of London and Middlefex. 1. Whether the King, being neither Judge nor Party, can order the Execution? 2. Whether the Lords can award the Execution? 3. Whether the King can difpenfe with any part of the Execution? 4. If the King can dispense with some part of the Execution, why not with all? Mr. Speaker, Sir, Death is the end of the Law in criminal Matters; the other Particulars of the Sentence are but Ceremonies, ufed ad terrorem. I never read of any Peer that was quartered, though many have been condemned for Treason, and fome in Parliament. The Lady Jane Gray, and many other Women, have been condemned for Treafon, and in that Cafe are always condemned to be burnt; but however, are ufually, if Perfons of Honour, beheaded. Wherefore it is probable, that the Royal Power hath always difpenfed with fuch Sentences formerly; and if so, this House lieth not under any Obligation to offer at any Oppofition, nor concern themselves herein, especially at this Time, when fuch a Difpute may end in preventing the Execution of the faid Lord Stafford. And therefore I humbly conceive you may do well to give your Confent, that the faid Writ be executed according to its Tenour." Refolved, That this Houfe is content that the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex do execute William late Viscount Stafford, by fevering his Head from his Body only. The fame Day Sir Richard Corbet reported, from the Committee appointed to examine the Proceedings of the Judges, as follows. The Committee being inform'd that, in MichaelmasTerm laft, the Court of King's-Bench discharg'd the Grand Jury that ferved for the Hundred of Ofwaldfton, in the County of Middlefex, in a very unusual manner, proceeded to enquire into the fame, and found by the Information of Charles Umfreville Efq; Foreman of the faid Jury, Edward Proly, Henry Gerrard, and John Smith, Gentlemen, also of the faid Jury, That on the 21ft of June laft, the Conftables attending the faid Jury were found defective, in not prefenting *This Affair was brought into the House by Mr. Treby, but who made the Speech upon it is uncertain, 1680. prefenting the Papifts as they ought, and, thereupon, were Anno 32 Car.II. ordered by the faid Jury, to make farther Prefentments of them, on the 26th following: On which Day the Jury met for that Purpofe, when feveral Peers of this Realm and other Perfons of Honour and Quality, brought them a Bill against James Duke of York for not coming to Church: But fome Exceptions being taken to that Bill, in that it did not fet forth the faid Duke to be a Papift, fome of the Jury attended the faid Perfons of Quality, to receive Satisfaction therein. In the mean time, and about an Hour after they had received the faid Bill, fome of the Jury attended_the Court of King's-Bench with a Petition, which they defired the Court to prefent in their Names unto His Majefty, for the fitting of this Parliament. Upon which the Lord ChiefJuftice Scroggs raifed many Scruples, and on Pretence that they were not all in Court (though twenty of the Jury had fubfcribed the Petition) fent for them, faying he would dif patch them prefently. The Jury being come, and their Names called over, they renewed their Defire that the Court would prefent their Petition; but the Chief-Juftice asked, if they had any Bills? They answered, they had, but the Clerks were drawing them into Form. Upon which, the Chief-Juftice faid, they would not make two Works of one Bufinefs. And the Petition being read, he faid this was no Article of their Charge, nor was there any Act of Parliament, that required the Court to deliver the Grand-Juries Petitions: That there was a Proclamation about them; and that it was not reasonable the Court fhould be obliged to run on their Errands; and he thought it much, that they should come with a Petition to alter the King's Mind, declared in the News-Book. The Jury faid, they did it not to impofe on the Court, but (as other Juries had done) with all Submiffion they defired it; but the Court refufed, bidding the Cryer return them their Petition. And Mr. Juftice Jones told them, they had meddled with Matters of State, not given them in Charge, but prefented no Bills of the Matters given in Charge. They anfwered as before, that they had many before them, that would be ready in due Time. Notwithstanding which, the faid Juftice Jones told them, they were discharged from farther Service. But Philip Ward (the Clerk that attended the faid Jury) cried out, No, No, they have many Bills before them; for which the Court underftanding (as it feems to this Committee) a fecret Reason, which the Clerk did not, reproved him, asking if he or they were to give the Rule there? The Cryer then told the Court, they would not receive their Petition; the Chief Juftice bid him let it alone, fo it was left there, and the Jury returned to the Court-Houfe, and there found feveral Con TOME II. H ftables |