Speaker. If the debate has held so long, it is some excuse to the Speaker, that it was a doubtful case. The king who calls us hither by record, sends us not away but by record. If the king required so immediate an adjournment after signification of his pleasure, as some gentlemen would have it, we needed not have come hither, but it might have been done in the Banquetting-House. That point of the king's power of adjourning the house is out of doors, and yielded on all hands. But I hope the king has never had, nor will have occasion to suspect the obedience of this house to his commands. Those kind of adjournments from day to day, and time for eating, and drinking, and keeping holidays, are as ancient as ever since parliaments have sat. But it must be understood, that the house has that power cum grano salis. We cannot adjourn for any long time. The point then is, that the act of adjourning is purely the act of the house, when done here. That we must obey the king is clear, but how this obedience is to be performed is the question. If by the pronunciation of the Speaker alone, without direction from the house, it is dangerous to the whole constitution of parliament. If after 12 of the clock no new business is to be started (which is an Order, and the Speaker has the house on his side) and the Speaker rises up to adjourn, and will hear no man speak, though the matter be of ever so great an importance, or the consequence extraordinary, surely you would not suffer it. Any inconvenience of refusing an adjournment, when commanded by the king, is answered by a gentleman of the long robe, viz. The king in half an hour may do it, by commission under the great seal.' Suppose an Act of Recognition should pass, or the taking the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, the question must be put three times, according to order; and can any man imagine there will be a negative? There will be terrible inconveniences, if it be the other way. Some gentleman may rise to speak, not to hinder nor oppose the command of adjournment, but if heard speak, would have moved for the adjournment. It is a fundamental rule of the house, that the house cannot be concluded in any thing as long as any gentleman stands up to speak.' That respect is had to the gentleman that stands up, to suppose, that possibly he may say something to give you new light into the matter coming to the question, so as to change the whole thing. It is not known what a gentleman will say, till he speaks. But if the Speaker will not give leave to the house to vindicate their obedience, here is such a power taken from you, that the Speaker, by the same reason, may take the thanks to himself that the whole house deserves for their obedience to the king's commands. I desire that the question may be put.

bours. This is not the way to have a good understanding betwixt the king and us. Will the Speaker make children of us in the Adjoumment? They are asked, Will you be bap tized into this faith? But not without godfathers. The king says, we shall adjourn ourselves,' and the Speaker does it.

The house was then adjourned, on a division, 131 to 121, but not the debate, and no question was passed upon the matter of the debate.

Debate on a Supply for carrying on the War with France.] Feb. 13. The house went into a grand committee of Supply.

Sir George Downing. You have voted that the house will give the king a Supply, to support his Alliances, Now the question is, what is to be given to carry on 90 sail of ships, and 30,000 landmen. This being so, charge so much, (that that lies before you is not a mere speculation,) for what time you will make provision for this charge. I wish our end may be obtained by a peace, but I would as little get into a bad peace, as any inan here. If now we go away, and provide not for the whole charge, and come back again for the remainder, will that be done like provident men? I would provide for the whole charge of the thing. Christmas seems a more rational time to calculate to, for then the measures of princes are changed for the following year, and it is not prudent to run into arrear till then.

Mr. Waller. I look upon union betwixt the king and his people to be of as much consequence, as the sum to be given; therefore, for God's sake, let us lay aside all distrust of the king. The rule of the government is for us to assist, and the king to make peace and war: let us rely upon him, and I hope for good success. I hope that tomb we have voted to be erected for the late king will bury all the jealousies betwixt the king and us.-There was a great silence for some time.

Mr. Sec. Williamson. Whilst we sit still and say nothing, you must do something in the Chair, or we shall do nothing; you must either come to a question, as the Estimates are given in, or go upon a sum in gross. I have said something to day, and on other occasions, for the king's Supply to maintain his alliances, and the king would not have it, at present, nor will more be taken than in reason shall be seen necessary to keep this great force on foot, but till you may meet again. But a less sum (to the ensnaring the hand that takes it) than the king can comfortably proceed, and go on with in this great thing, I hope you will not think of. If there be such a lethargy upon men, they must be waked. The sun shines, sets, and rises, and things go on, as if we were careless, and understand it not. If this war must cost us so much per mensem, the first day's journey is always the longest, and if you consider so much for the months forward, let some gentleman come to a sum by the months, or a gross sum upon the months, as you shal see cause for it hereafter.

Mr. Powle. I wonder not, at the silence of the committee, if every man is in the dark as well as I. I am so much in the dark, that I see not whether we shall have war or peace. The complection of affairs seems rather inclined to peace; and I see not the end of the war, by what fell from the honourable persons the other day, only in making this war to impose peace upon the world. If that be so, the question is, who is our enemy? If the confederates refuse to join with us in it, for ought I know, we shall have war against them. If that matter be not clear, I know not what to give. The honourable persons know what is spent, and is likely to be spent. If they will charge themselves on their reputations, that it will be such a war as will please us, then I would give to maintain it. But I think there seems some flagging in what was formerly told us. When that is cleared, I shall be as ready as any man to give Supply.

Sir Thomas Meres. I hear it complained, 'That nothing is said in this matter of Supply, &c.' You were told of 500,000l. as a motion. If the nation be in war, and at stake, no doubt but those here will go through stitch with it. And I doubt not but that some will do it. But to show frankness, and discharge my conscience, if it shall be a war to purpose, (but, as it is said, in case of refusal of the French to give towns, it may be a peace for Holland) because I will not spend your time idly, if we give 500,000l. in case there be war, we give to purpose.

Mr. Garroway. I hear it said, That there is no proposition made, &c. but we have sat so long, and if the danger be so great as is told us now, gentlemen should have told us of it sooner, and we would have named a sum. We have made the French king an idol, and we must worship him, and he must scourge us. If 250,000l. be too little if we have war, if it be peace it is every penny too much.

Mr. Sec. Coventry. I aver to you that we are not a hair's breadth towards a peace with France, and the king has not consented to a cessation of arms, nor any thing.

Sir Henry Capel. I would not give such a sum as may make a peace, and pin the basket there. Till we have a war, let us give in some proportion to the noise abroad. I move therefore to cut the thing in the middle. 600,000l. may happen to be intended, when 500,000l. was moved for and a million moved for. Therefore I move for 800,000l.

6

Col. Birch. I would have a word put into the question, viz. For maintaining a war against the Fresch king.' I believe the money will be for a war, or kept for some other use. It is too great a thing to be jested with, and you cannot be looked in the face, if it be not done according to the bill.

Mr. Sec. Williamson. The purport of those words is no more than what is understood to be the sense of the words and intention of the order you sit by. Though I take not the words to be of a different sense, and I am not against

them, yet you must go to the house for leave for the addition of them to the question. To enter into a war with the French king," is no more than to support the alliances.' If the words be insisted upon, we must go to the house for power to add them to the question. Sir. Tho. Clarges. It is not fit to have the words in the question, to support Alliances with the States General,' because you are told that the Treaty is not yet confirmed, and it is strange to have it in an act of parliament.

The Speaker. I think it will consist with your order, though it be not in the words of your order. If you will give me leave to take notice of the order of your proceedings, the debates have been upon two sums, &c. I could have wished you had proceeded in another method. In this there is but one way of raising this. When several sums are proposed, and those, debated, the least sum is first put to the question; and then the other sum likewise in competition with the greater sum. So then the competition in the debate is between 600,000l. and a million. The other sum of 800,000l. interloped. I am never for so great a sum as will fright the people, nor so little a sum as is not to be depended upon by our allies. Shall the ships and men be raised in earnest? That will cost 3 millions, and you give but 600,000l. The king has made those Alliances upon our actual engagement and assurances of assisting him only, and, after a computation of so much, you come on with 600,000l. There would be no difficulty in this, if the question was betwixt the king and the people only; but others are to take measures too by it, and if you lessen it, they must seek it elsewhere. No man that hears me but will say, that it is an unnatural step to lower the king of France by distrust amongst ourselves. Distrust is a weed apt to grow here, and those, not under the duty we are will despise him; and therefore I never think it will proceed, from this house. The greatest consent has been to a million, and will the king part with this duty and loyalty for a million? The king must never look you in the face again upon this cheat, that no particular man would go about to get money by. I will say nothing of the willingness of the nation to lend money, so bit by public faith, but they would caution such a sum of money as to make your coming again necessary. I would have this his act, not ours, not the result of his necessity but your duty, and not to perpetuate ourselves. We must trust the king, and you injure your question by sticking on it so long, and therefore I would have you put it.

Sir Tho, Meres. I affirm it to be order, that, if several sums be put to the question, you must put the least sum first, and so on; but if gentlemen would put 700,000l. afterwards, I do not say that question must be put. If I may have leave, I will say a short word to matter of trust. We may be trusted by the seamen. Foreigners may trust us; they have no cause to distrust us: betwixt the king and

crown.

Mr. Mallet. I agree not with the Speaker, that a sum, having been named, may be waved, and not put to the question. As to all other parts of the Speaker's discourse, in florid language, he says, Alliances are made;' but yet there is no discovery of them; but by woeful experience we have found vast deviations of money, and that makes me more cautious. I will say no more.-The question being put for 600,000l. it passed in the negative. The question for 800,000l. passed also in the negative.

Resolved, "That the sum of one Million be raised, for enabling his majesty to enter into an actual War against the French king." Which was agreed to by the house.

Debate on raising the Million-Tax upon New Buildings.] Feb. 19. In a grand committee on the Supply, on the manner of raising the Million, &c. A motion was made to lay part of the Tax upon New Buildings, &c.

Sir Tho. Clarges. I would know what new foundations have been since 1672. Lately, upon trial at law, lord chief justice Hale did declare it legal to build, where foundations were laid. And why may not á man make the best of his own land?

Sir Tho. Littleton. You cased London, and laid the tax upon Middlesex, by reason of these New Buildings; and so they are taxed already. Sir Nich. Pedley. New Buildings were declared general nuisances in king James's time. They would in time make London too big for the whole body. You may well give a year's value upon them towards this charge.

Mr. Garroway. Young gentlemen, come lately into the house, flatter themselves that this may save their land in this tax. It is now 16 years experience that when we come to result, the thing, I believe, will be upon land; and that is ready calculated for you.

Mr. Sec. Williamson. These New Buildings are one of the banes of the country; they draw away all your tenants, and must not these lands supply your present occasion by way of penalty? Buildings may give somcthing, &c. Those that hire them pay dear, and those that buy them. The owners having made profit of them, to the nation's injury, ought to bear some part of the burden. To lay not more upon land than what will come in upon land, is a necessary caution for this great work.

Serj. Maynard. The question is, where you

nuisance that ever was. Though the court of Star-Chamber in some things was a grievance to the nation, and the king could not make a thing unlawful to be lawful by prerogative, yet the Star-Chamber construed the increase of New Buildings to be a contempt, to do an unlawful thing, when there was a proclaination to the contrary.

Col. Birch. If I were sure we should have no war, I would charge land without any more ado. But if gentlemen have a clear sight in this great matter, there is nothing to make you low and contemptible to your enemies, but charging your land. If once you make a concurrent tax upon land, the French king will not be afraid of what you can do. I am for char2ing land, when we come shoulder to shoulder with the enemy. Till then it will be but vain to charge land. In the body politic it is as in the body natural. If the money does not circulate, all will fly to the head, like the blood, and kill presently. If those at the helm do not consider to bring the blood round again, the many consequences will be fatal. If you lay this tax upon land, the first six months perhaps may come in, but the second six months will sink a third part of the value of the land; and cattle and corn will give nothing. I would have this seriously thought of; there can never be war, if this money be raised by land-tax. I take this as before you; let New Buildings go as the least of evils; keep the tax from lands, I was here in a Convention in 1654, about paying some debts contracted for the Ί never saw so many wise men together.) And then it was said, and said again, that New Buildings were nuisances,' when all was fair green fields at St. James's.

navy.

Mr. Solicitor Winnington. I stand up, in the main, to ease land. But I think there is a mistake in this of new buildings, &c. It is the interest of the house to establish the durable interest of the nation, the freeholder. This debate is charging new buildings, and the rea son in the debate is, that they are a common nuisance.' Though I am not of the coif, yet I will presume to offer my reasons. A common nuisance is not dispensible but by act of paria ment, and is a detriment to all the king's subjects.' 27 Eliz. No buildings were to be within such a distance of London whatsoever. But that was but for a number of years. I never knew a nuisance enacted perpetual, bot that of exportation of leather, and importation of Irish cattle. When the act was expired notice was taken of the contempt of it, against a proclamation. When Essex-House was t be pulled down, the society of the Middle Tem ple thought it an inconvenience. They h the best counsel they could get, but were force

to sit down with as good a composition as they could get. The first cause I ever was of was that between lord Clare, and Clement's Inn. Now they are not a nuisance. Yet there is reason why they should be charged. I think, a very young man may remember the increase of buildings about London. Nothing decays rents in the country like new buildings about London. Labourers in the country, at 6d. and 8d. a day, come here, and turn coachmen and footmen, and get a little house, and live lazily; and in the country the farmer is constrained to pay 16 or 13d. a day through the fewness of workinen, and therefore can pay less rent. They will leave the country for better wages. Sumptuous houses are a great invitation to gentlenen of quality, and their wives, to come to London, where they live better, and more at their ease and content, than with a greater number of servants and expence in the country.

Mr. Garroway. I look upon this tax as unjust, and therefore I am against it. I am taxed to the utmost in the country. If you will say, Tax them at the rate of the city of London by reason of their trade, but if for their monies because they have built houses,' I know not, but by the same reason, you will tax all men that have raised estates since the king came in and had nothing before, as if they were Rosicrucian Knights that had got the Powder of Projection.

The first question was put, "Whether one half of the full yearly value should be charged upon all the Buildings erected upon new foundations, without the city of London, and within the weekly Bills of Mortality, since 1630, except such as were demolished by the late fire;" which passed in the negative. The second question, "Whether upon Buildings, &c. since 1640;" passed also in the negative. The third question, "Whether upon Buildings, &c. since 1656;" passed in the affirmative, and was agreed to by the house.

Debate on the Re-assumption of Crown Lands.] Feb. 20. In a grand committee on the Supply-On the Re-assumption of CrownLands.

Sir Cha. Wheeler. The duke of Buckingham had 30,000l. a year of the crown-lands granted to his father, &c.

Serj. Maynard. King Ch. i. granted many lands to the city of London. Those that bought these lands were so wise as not to keep them. Consider from what time you will make this Re-assumption. That is one consideration. As to tenants that have bought those lands, will you make a distinction of service? Some have done great services for the crown, and have bad those lands for a reward: and have not those that purchased been invited by you? 80,000l. a year was sold, by act of this parliament, of the king's Fee Farm Rents. If you shall undo the owners of these lands, without any way of consideration, it will be very hard.

Sir Tho. Mompesson. To put this in a method, will take more time than you have to VOL. IV.

spare. There is a stronger consideration for this of Re-assumption, &c. than the other of New Buildings, and I would have some consideration of that.

Col. Birch. They were chiefly rents bought in the late king's time: but I can show forty times the value now upon improved value. What has been disposed of by act of parlia ment cannot be touched, and I lay that aside, and it is not considerable in comparison of the others. Kings rarely come to parliament to enter into war: formerly they entered first into war, and then came to the parliament for aid to maintain it. I have heard from serj. Maynard, That acts of parliament confirm sales, &c. from such a time:' but none from the 1st of James. Now to make an Act of Re-assumption, from so long a time, would make an earthquake. We have found that deans and chapters' lands were sacred; they were restored, &c. I had bought some, but now I have none: the crown lands are in so many hands now, that it is not practicable to reassume them, from 1st king James; and not one part in ten is alienated for the tenth part of the value. If you please to put those lands, at a two years value, towards this tax, with a non obstante, where there is an act of parliament for confirmation of them, I think it reasonable.

Mr. Sec. Coventry. Either these men that have these crown lands came lawfully by them, or unlawfully. It is not fair dealing to take from the king, &c. and confirm it to parties: if they are lawfully seized of these lands, I know not why they should be taxed for them.

Sir Tho. Meres. Those that have got on a sudden into great wealth and rents, I would have taxed.

:

Sir Tho. Lee. I think it as great a crime to take away the support of the crown, as to do a thing against the government, like that of New Buildings. The state of the case is quite altered. The king, at his coming in, was possessed of a great quantity of land: I think, of 150,000l. per annum. This, together with Excises, and 1,200,000l. and then the solicitor, general Finch said, it was all you had to give, and all the king could ask of you;' and since that, the king has had the Chimney Act. An estimate was then brought into the house, it seems for no other purpose than for people to beg them, and the other revenues. And now the king cannot speak nor act, &c.' because all the Revenue is gone away. These are arguments why you always must give, and it always must be begged. These lands cannot be given without act of parliament, but re-assuming entirely is a great consideration; but this is only to take from them that have got it, out of what you have paid. Put the question then,

6

Whether these lands shall bear any part of the tax; and how much, is an after consideration.

Mr. Sacheverell. I think these revenues are not to be alienated on any terms, and if gentlemen look upon the grants as good, I am not

3 P