have had satisfaction, and have given Supply thereupon. In all former Alliances there was a quota expressed for Lorrain, Spain, Holland, &c. This 40,000 men and 90 ships, in the king's Speech, is a doubt to me, what quota Holland must come up to. Formerly we saw all before us-And when we know what our parts are to bear, in this confederacy, or whether we are to bear the whole burden of the war, then it is time to talk of aids to support

the war.

Mr. Mallet. One false step made by this parliament in this great afair, and England is lost for ever. What is done in it, I would have done with true light and good understanding, and I am for the consideration of it to

morrow.

Col. Birch. I have such a difficulty upon my spirits, as I never had since I was born. As the union of the house, in our last Address, gave me great rejoicing, so dividing of opinion, in this matter, inakes me tremble. A right understanding amongst ourselves will prevent the greatness of the king of France, above all things. We were all of a mind, the other day, in the Address, and I wonder it is not so now. Surely it is for some great reason, and I would know what reason. Whatsoever we resolve of, I would not have a negative.

Sir George Downing. I have seen sadder days here than Birch speaks of, which he knows as well as I; but let that pass. I hope there will be no cause of division amongst us, and that, in what we do, we shall have no negative. I saw the other day the meaning was good to engage the kingdom in the Pyrenean Treaty: but that treaty was never brought to the table. I saw the meaning was good, and therefore I said nothing. The thing is wholly mistaken; the king's Speech is entire. After you have voted Supply, the rest is gradual, and you may go by steps. Consider, is France to be dallied with? Threaten him, and not dare to strike him? We may be stricken before we are ready strike. When I consider what has been called, the grievances of French counsels amongst us,' they are departed, since the time the prince of Orange a protestant prince, was married to the heir of the crown; and now we demur in going into a grand committee.

Mr. Powle. If I could be satisfied that we are wholly departed from French counsels, I would not be backward to go into a grand committee, to consider his majesty's Message. But these four years, Addresses have been made to prevent the growing greatness of the French, and the ministers declare against him, and yet France grows great under these counsels. I fear some inclination is still amongst the ministers to France, and they have brought us to the brink of ruin. And we may lay all considerations aside, if we suffer this; ever by urgent necessity to be driven from Religion and Property. The apple of contention in the king's Message is as if the house had no interest to concern themselves in war and peace. If we look not to the interest of this house, it

is in vain to think of any thing abroad. The king may make war and peace, and the house may advise war and peace; and this might have been done sooner, if you, Mr. Speaker, had not leaped out of the chair, and would not suffer gentlemen to speak, but adjourned the house. I can show precedents out of my small store, that the constant practice of the house has been otherwise. Now we are told, that here is a league offensive and defensive made with Holland, for preservation of Flanders.' And Money is called for to maintain that Treaty, and we know not one word of it. Must we be kept thus in the dark! When an Aid was desired in parliament for supporting the Triple Alliance, Mr. Secretary Morris opened every particular of it to the house. In the last war with the Dutch, the king offered to show us all the League with France. We are told in the king's Paper, he has communicated this Treaty to several of his Allies, and they approved it;' and why must we only be kept in the dark, who are called upon for money to support it? We have not brought Christendom into this danger; therefore we should not be alone to bring it out. I would see this Treaty, and then will support it as far as any man. I would adjourn the house now, that in the mean time the honourable persons who may know our desires, may come better instructed to inform us farther.

Mr. Sec. Williamson. It is moved, that the debate be adjourned to see how things stand, as to the Alliances his majesty hath eutered into. And not to enter into the matter, unless the house go into a grand committee. But because something has been spoken, as to the king's ministers, I will answer. I will say, I know not the alliances, allies, nor the quota. For the terms we are upon, as much has been said as is fit to tell you. The king has spoken it out. It is a League with Holland, offensive and defensive, and that is spoken out; and after this is known, I take war to be declared, and that our neighbour, the French king, is at liberty, by the law of God and man, to take advantage upon us, when the king has so said to his people. Those Alliances are made, that you asked for, and which the nation longed for, and groaned for, and it is a cause for the French king to enter into war with us, and to seize our merchants. Let God and the world judge now, should this thing rest here, where the fault lies. This is, in sum, to answer, all inter mediate doubts of what Alliances are produced by the king; and there is a great difference between what you ask of the king to do, and what the king does of himself. The thanks of this house did not go to the Alliances the king told you he had entered into, and that is a great arrear of thanks. I move that the house will go now into a grand committee.

Mr. Sec. Coventry. I and it insisted upon, that we should see the Treaty. I ask this only, why is not this Treaty published in Holland, as well as here? Showing it, or not showing it, depends upon the nature of the treaty. Show

a Supply be given to his majesty for the support of his present Alliances made with the States General of the United Provinces, for the preservation of the Spanish Netherlands, and lessening the power of France."

Feb. 6. Resolved, "That 90 ships are necessary for the support of his majesty's present Alliances," &c. Which was agreed to by the house.

Further Debate on the Speaker's irregular Adjournments of the House.] Feb. 9. The debate on the Speaker's Adjournments of the House was resumed.

The Speaker. After the king's command of adjournment of the house, I declared the house (as I thought was my duty) adjourned accordingly.

Sir Tho. Clarges. Lord Coke, in his Institutes, speaks at large of Adjournments of parliaments; where he declares the house of commons to be a court, and says, that adjournment of the house is not the single act of any one person, but of the whole court. Prorogations and adjournments were formerly convertible terms (as he tells you) but altered since. That of adjournment is always by general consent of the house, and if any one scruple arises, the Speaker cannot adjourn till it be removed, and the method is so in both houses of parliament.' I did enquire whether the lord chancellor, in the house of lords, did ask the lords pleasure, whether they would adjourn? and he had it in direction from the lords to adjourn. And in one of the late adjournments, the lords had a writ of error recorded before they adjourned. The lord chancellor is a man of great experience, and learned in parliament affairs, and would not do contrary to the lords commands, which he received. Now, whether will you read those records, which, you say, Mr. Speaker, will satisfy us in your proceedings? I would either have it done, or refer them to a committee to examine the authenticity and weight of them. And I move that the lawyers may be sent for from Westminster Hall, as is usual in such cases. There is one learned gentleman has studied the point, and may be of great help to us.

Sir John Ernly. I hear this house called a court' but we are no judicature, we cannot give an oath, our clerk is but Subclericus.' The lords clerk is Clericus Parliamentorum.' Full parliament is a Court.'

The Speaker. I had not all my precedents when this matter was last touched upon. I bave since searched farther; and it is the doctrine I have learned from my predecessors, that when the king commands an adjournment of the house, it is your duty to obey it without any matter intervening; and till you declare the contrary, I shall continue to do what I have done formerly. If it be your pleasure, I shall open the nature of the thing, and leave it to your consideration.

Sir Phil, Warwick. A thing you would not have debated I will not begin to debate, since it is the king's authority. Consider the nature

of the thing, whether the king cannot adjourn this house at his pleasure; and, after that, whether you can enter into any debate. I would see precedents of the thing, as has been moved, and those Records, the Speaker says, he has, to justify himself in what he has done.

Sir Tho. Meres. I observe, that when a troublesome matter comes before the house, and is once put off, it is seldom taken up again. But now we are come to our day, and we begin to debate it, I will wholly wave the present debate of the king's prerogative. This matter of adjourning the house is a question very requisite to be determined, which way soever it be, and I would by no means have you let it go, but settle it. I desire that those who are conversant in things of this nature, may be sent for, to attend, and the mace sent to call them up. And, I hope, in an hour or two, to find it a very clear case. Prorogation is not the point in question, and if you debate what is convenient, there will be no end of that; but let us go upon custom of parliament, which is the easiest way, and the matter will be quickly decided.

The Gentlemen of the Long Robe were sent for by the mace.

Mr. Powle. I allow the king's prerogative to call, adjourn, and prorogue parliaments. The question is not that, but the manner of exercising that power. That being premised, I conceive this is the right, and ought to be, of the house, adjourning themselves. Calling and dissolving parliaments is an act relating to the government of the nation; but adjourning the house, from time to time, relates to the affairs of the house, and is lodged in the house; and ought not to be communicated to the king, but by the mouth of the Speaker. It is a power always to reside in the house, who knew best how their affairs stand, and may be very inconvenient if in the king. The way of doing it by the king, is either by himself in person, in pleno parliamento, or it is done by commission, or writ, under the great seal, and no private message by the secretary or message under the signet is of authority, to adjourn us, unless, in pleno parliamento, as I have said. The king camot call a parliament under his signet, nor any other way but by his writ, under the great seal. Though the house does take notice of Messages from the king, yet we are not bound by them. It has been said we are a court,' but the powers are diminished since the two houses separated themselves: though I can bring several precedents that we are a court of record. I take the lords house, and the commons to be but one court in judgment of law; and that is the high court of parliament. It must follow then, that the king must adjourn the whole court; either he must take the whole, or leave the whole, as in the courts of Westminster. If the king should adjourn the, house of commons, and leave the lords sitting, or the lords, and leave the commons sitting (their actings mutually relating to each other as to the legislature) it

would breed a confusion; and no man knows how far the lords court would extend itself upon lives and estates. Little now is left farther to be said; for if the power of adjourn ments be not in the crown, it cannot be in the Chair. The Speaker is called the mouth and tongue of the house,' which speaks the conceptions of the mind. Not that he is to make those conceptions, but pronounce what he has in command from the house. Lenthal, the Speaker, (upon an occasion known to most) told the late king He had neither tongue, eyes, nor ears, but what the house gave him. And having said all this, I think I have showed you some kind of reason for my assertion, that it is the right of the house to adjourn themselves. Now how this matter of Adjournment has been in practice; I am not so well versed in precedents, as other gentlemen. I have a book in my hand, of all the main precedents in Rushworth's Collections, which I shall rather make use of than those in particular cabinets. In 3 Charles, the king sent a Message to the house, not to adjourn the house for the Easter holidays, which by reason of the departure of many members they intended to do, but to continue sitting . Sir Rob. Philips excepted first against this Message of nonrecess, and took notice that in the 12th and 18th of king James, upon the like intimation, the house resolved that it was in their power to adjourn, or sit, and moved for a committee to consider thereof, and of our right herein, and to make a declaration; and accordingly it was appointed. And resolved, that it being now yielded unto, in obedience to his majesty, it might not turn to prejudice in time to come. Sir R. Philips and sir Edw. Coke both urged then, that the business of the house is always done by the house itself. Coke then cited a case of a Corrody, &c. The king sends his writ for a Corrody to an abbot, for a vallet; if it be ex rogatu, though the abbot yields to it, it binds not, but if without it, the abbot is charged by such a pension, for life of the vallet. So Coke desired that the Adjournment of the house might be entered upon the books, 'Ex rogatu, non ex mandato, Regis.'

The Speaker then asked Mr. Powle, Whether the Records he had recited agreed with the original?

Mr. Powle answered; Those in private hands agreed with Rushworth, and proceeded. In the 18th of king James, the king had a mind to adjourn the house by commission: some then checked it in the house, for they found the commission was not directed to them; and therefore took no notice of it, but adjourned themselves. The next thing I shall mention is the strongest case of all, though not in all respects; and that is the case of lord Finch. The declaration, and causes of dissolving that parliament, which he was Speaker of, and the whole matter is in print, which

sufficiently justifies me in the precedent. The 23d. of Feb.* the king sent to the house of commons to adjourn themselves for ten days, (The house was them in a Grand Committee The Speaker signified the king's pleasure, and asked leave of the house to attend the king as he had commanded him; they gave him leave. The Speaker then delivered the king's com mand of adjourning the house, without a question, or admitting any farther speeches. Sir John Elliot then presented the house a Remonstrance against the lord treasurer Weston, to be read. The Speaker then leaped out of the chair, (as you, Mr. Speaker, have several times done) but offered not to adjourn the house, but would not suffer any man to proceed, and refused to put questions, and alledged he had the king's command for it; for had he supposed himself in that power, be needed not to have refused to put questions but might have adjourned the house without a question. Then a long time intermitted till that parliament, called the three weeks Parliament,' met. And although an intermission of 12 years, and Finch was removed into the lords house, yet the thing was revived, and debated. The short parliament was much better than that which succeeded, for the house then consisted of learned and worthy men, and therefore I lay the more weight upon it. And if the king had complied with that parliament, much of the misfortunes which afterwards happened, might have been prevented, in all human probability. The Vote they then made, was That the Speaker (sir John Finch) refusing to put a question, being thereunto required, or to adjourn the house upon any command whatsoever, without the consent and approbation of the house itself, are breaches and violations which highly impeach the pr vilege of parliament.' When the king bad made a verbal command of adjournment, and signified it, and no adjournment shall be made; I dare venture the cause upon that issue. The Long Parliament came after, and lord Finch was impeached the 27th of Dec. Whilst the house was in debate upon the Impeachment, lord Finch asked leave of the house, and obtained it, to make his de fence, and made the Speech in the printed paper. This was done very early in that parliament, before any disturbances began, and, without question, that was an assembly of knowing and learned men. And his adjournment of the house by the king's command was voted a crime, and was the second Article in his Impeachment. For the Speaker to forbid a man to speak, is an offence of a high nature. For if that Speaker could have pretended power of adjournment, he might have done it, without forbidding gentlemen to speak. The lord keeper made this apology for himself, amongst several others in print, at large, humbly to beseech you all to consider that if it had been any man's case, as it was his, between Vol. ii. p. 488. † See vol. ii.

P.

686.