The Diary of Thomas Burton: 4 March 1658-9

PARLIAMENTARY DIARY. &c. &c.

Friday, March 4, 1658–9.

Mr. Speaker took the chair at nine.

Prayers by Mr. Cooper.

Colonel Terrill reported from "the Grand Committee for Grievances and Courts of Justice," the state of the case con. cerning Mrs. Sarah Rodney, widow, plaintiff, and Mr. John Cole, defendant. (fn. 1)

Mr. Knightley. I move to have it examined de novo. It is not proper for us to build upon the proceedings of another Parliament.

Mr. Trenchard moved contra.

Resolved that it be taken into further consideration this day sevennight.

Mr. Scawen and Mr. Bampfield moved that the Speaker sign protections for such persons as are called before the Committee for inspecting the Treasury and Revenue. (fn. 2)

Mr. Speaker acquainted the House that a prisoner was at the door. It was Mr. Henry Wroth. (fn. 3)

They said, call him in.

Major-general Packer. I am content to pass by the injury if the House so please. I believe Sir Henry Wroth did not know me.

Mr. Turner. It is moved like a gentleman. Therefore I move that the House consider it, and pass by the offence.

Sir Thomas Wroth. He is my near kinsman, yet I shall not countenance any of his crimes. The gentleman has moved worthily, and like a gentleman. I know the person has so much worth that he will repair to the gentleman, and make a recognition. I pray that he may not be called in.

Mr. Knightley. I move that for your own honour you call him, and let him find your displeasure; for ignorance will not excuse. If that will serve a man's turn to say he knew not he was a Parliament man, every Serjeant that arrests a member may say so.

Mr. Manley. I move that he may not be called in; for it is not clear that this was a crime, or breach of your privilege. It seems it was done in a time when he could not know what the person was, much less that he was a Parliament man.

Captain Hatsell. I move that he be called in. It is not an indignity offered to a single person, but to a Parliament. I would have some exemplary punishment upon him.

Colonel Gibbons. The law of Lycurgus said, that a crime done in drink should be doubly punished. I would have him called to the bar, and have exemplary punishment.

Captain Baynes. I move that he be called in, and have your reprehension; but no farther punishment.

Major-general Kelsey. If he was drunk, the law punishes him; the like, if he did assault him. He did not know he was a member. If he come to your bar he must come as a delinquent. I would not have him called in at this time; but passed by, seeing the worthy member that informed believes he did not know him.

Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. I move that he be called in, and neither have his crime, nor his answer repeated; but only be told that, upon the motion of the person that informed, the House had considered of him, and would pass it by.

Mr. Bodurda. He may haply deny he is the person, or deny the crime. I would hear him first, and then pass it by, if you please. He must come as a delinquent on his knees.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge seconded that.

Mr. Swinfen. It will not be for your gravity to discharge him upon the motion of the person that informed you. I would have him discharged till farther order: otherwise it will hold all day.

Colonel Thompson. I move that the Serjeant take his security to appear when you will call for him. Whatever you do in it, it will cost you this morning, and you have a great business in hand. If you call him in, and have nought to say to him, he will go home and say he was sent for as a delinquent, and nought said to him.

Colonel Matthews, Sir John Northcote, and Sir Richard Temple. It was an error in the dark. Call him to the bar, and acquaint him, that, at the motion of the person that informed you are content to pass by his offence, and to discharge him.

Mr. Trevor. I would have him called in; but you may dispense with his kneeling, as you did in the case of Major Audley, who was sent for as a delinquent. (fn. 4) I would have you tell him that, upon the motion of the person that informed, the House had discharged him.

Sir Walter Earle. It is a book-case. Every man, at his peril, is bound to take notice of a member of Parliament, but is not obliged to take notice of his servants, unless he be told. I would have him called in, and his offence told him. Commit him for two or three days to the Serjeant, and then release him upon the gentleman's motion.

Colonel Cock. I believe he was not so ignorant of the person as is informed. I could tell some reason. He has bragged since, in the country.

I would have him called in, and remain in the Serjeant's custody. The Serjeant has been at great trouble in finding him. He might have rendered himself. It is not for your own honour, nor justice, to pass it by.

Captain Whalley. I move that he, first, be called in and hear his answer. Then let him withdraw, and discharge him if you think fit.

Mr. Chaloner. This is higher than arresting a man; for it is lawful to arrest a man, but unlawful to assault any man. I would have him called in, to hear his defence. Then proceed as you please.

Mr. Trevor moved that he may not be called in, but discharged.

At last it was resolved that he should be called in, and to let him make his answer, and then withdraw.

He was called in, and Mr. Speaker bade him kneel. He made a short kneel.

Sir Horatio Townshend and Sir Richard Temple cried, No, no; and he stood up again.

Mr. Scot moved that he withdraw, and he was withdrawn; for it could not be denied if any member moved it.

He moved to make a conditional sentence.

Colonel Morley said, no conditional sentence could be given.

Mr. Knightley. It is a high breach of privilege for any man to cry, No.

I have known divers sent to the Tower for saying less. It is a breach against the gravity of this House.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge agreed that it was very irregular to cry, No, no.

It was moved that the House would be pleased to pass by his kneeling.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. You can by no means now dispense with it, lest it be thought that the Speaker bade him kneel before without your directions.

Sir Henry Wroth was called in again, and said for himself thus:—

Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to this honourable House to give me leave to speak for myself.

I overtook Major-general Packer in the highway, and another with him, one Captain Gladman. I knew neither of them, but I heard afterwards who they were. There were two tracks, and they kept them both. I desired them, as the course is, to put on, or to let me have one of the ruts; whereupon Major-general Packer turned back upon me and drew his sword. I, in my own defence, drew, and disarmed him. Then Captain Gladman drew upon me, and I took his sword from him.

Major-general Packer rid to the next town, and alighted. Captain Gladman and I came after. I gave Captain Gladman his sword again, and came into the House where Majorgeneral Packer was, and delivered him his sword. He alleged he had lost his scabbard four miles before I overtook him. I wished the people of the house to look the next morning, and I appointed them within ten yards, where they found both my scabbard and his, and Captain Gladman's.

I gave them no offence but in my own defence. I have witnesses here at the door, if you please, either to hear them or refer as to law. I am able to make out all this that I say to be truth. (fn. 5)

Hereupon he withdrew. This altered the scene.

Major-general Packer. I think now, I am a little concerned to prosecute this business. I shall pray that you would appoint a day to hear it, that I may have Captain Gladman here, who is my only witness.

Sir Thomas Wroth. Justice should have two ears. You have heard both parties. I would have it buried in silence, and let this worthy Commander and the gentleman meet together to make an end of the business, if you please. Your time will not afford for you to examine.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. You are not ripe for judgment. One affirms, the other denies. I would have it referred to a Committee, or to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Knightley. Sir Thomas Wroth has a horror to see his kinsman here. He has made you a very discreet answer. You are not ripe for judgment. I would not have the gentleman continue under restraint; but take his parole to appear, and examine it by a Committee.

Mr. Turner. He lies at expense. I move therefore, to call him in, and take his parole.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move that you first appoint a Committee, and it is fit he should be acquainted with it.

A Committee was appointed accordingly. (fn. 6)

Sir Thomas Wroth being named; prayed, in respect he was a kinsman, he might not be of the Committee.

Mr. Turner and Mr. Trevor moved that his parole might be taken.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. The word parole is a new word; I move that the Serjeant take his bond.

Sir George Booth. Seeing we all understand not French, let us take his word; that is English. I hear he is a person of great worth.

Sir Richard Temple. His word is sufficient.

Colonel Bennet. I move that he enter bail to the Serjeant.

Mr. Goodrick. You took the honour of a Lord the other day. (fn. 7) You may well take the word of a gentleman now.

Mr. Neville. I move that he enter security. The person complaining, is a person of as great worth as any person can be.

Colonel Morley. Leave it to the Serjeant to do what he thinks fit. He has heard your debate, haply he will take his word; but it becomes not your gravity to take his word, though there is no danger of breaking it.

Lord Lambert and Mr. Raleigh. Moved that the Serjeant take his own security for his appearance.

Mr. Annesley. I move that he be discharged from his imprisonment, and enter bond to appear; otherwise I doubt he will continue a prisoner still.

Ordered, that Mr. Henry Wroth be discharged of his imprisonment upon his own bond, to be given to the Serjeantat-Arms, to appear from time to time by the Committee's appointment. (fn. 8)

He came off of this business with a great deal of honour, and by his narrative, quite altered Packer's story. It was referred to a Committee, but I believe it will fall asleep in the chair. It will scarce be prosecuted.

The Committee to meet in the Queen's Court on Monday afternoon.

The order of the day was read at half an hour past 10.

Mr. Knightley. I move that Captain Whalley have leave for 10 days. It will ask no debate.

It was resolved accordingly.

After altum silentium,

Sir Walter Earle. I move that you take some part of your question to debate upon.

First, begin to debate whether the ancient Peers that are faithful, may be admitted to sit in that House, being approved by this House.

They claim it in. equity as hereditary; in regard they have nobody here to represent them. They were formerly held useless. It may be now, they will be held useful. I would have you first make that your question. I con. fess I am for them.

Mr. Annesley. You must keep to your question. To make additions, some offered to the beginning, some to the middle, some to the conclusion: if your debate go thus at large, your debate will hardly come to a question.

Mr. Speaker repeated all the additions that have been offered, and concluded with Mr. Annesley's former motion, (fn. 9) about saving the rights of the ancient Peers.

Captain Baynes. First go on with your debate, whether you will transact with those persons in the other House. That being resolved, you may make what additions you please.

Colonel Kenrick. I cannot give either year or no to this question. If yea, I doubt we cannot afterwards bound. If no, then I doubt that will be against your former vote. I would have the question so that, as David says, "My tongue and heart might go together."

To the main question of transacting, I move to debate upon what foot of account this other House stands. The ancient Peers (it has been observed to you) have an ancient right. They have claimed from Brute (fn. 10) down to this time. This House are neither those men, nor claim as their sons or any relations to them. The date of their claim is only from 57, on the Petition and Advice; and the more we dispute this right, it is the more difficult.

One worthy Serjeant says all the articles in the Petition and Advice hold forth that his Highness may, by that, call this other House. Another Serjeant is of another opinion; (fn. 11) and the Long Robe much differ, so I have little light from them. It is said, we may compare part with part, and so understand it. The rule is good in explaining Scripture, but I would have the law more clear. Yet there are several articles wherein it cannot be understood of his now Highness; he not then having had a being.

They seem merely personal. They have a clear dependency upon the late Protector, and die with him.

What reason, then, to transact, trade, or traffic with those that have no foundation in prescription, custom, law, or reason; no being either by God or man.

If you add this estate to your House, you and they are all one land. This other House is like ward-land, and will draw on a bad tenure and consequence upon all the rest. If they be unclean, you cannot be clean. No fountain can run sweet in bitter water. Put new wine into new bottles. Bound first.

I move that this question be laid aside, and that you would go to bounding again.

Mr. Bayles. I see little fruit of what the minister prays for, every morning, and what the minister told us. There is no unity amongst us. What one moves, another crosses presently. Let us come to a question by a side-wind, rather than by no wind. I am sure a contrary wind will never bring it about. The Protector reduced us to a single government. We have now two Houses, and are upon a settled foundation.

My motion is, that you would transact with the persons now sitting in the other House, &c.

Mr. Rigby. I intended to have been silent. It is the first time that ever I sat in Parliament.

You have voted that the Government shall be in a single person. You have voted another House. There are none in this more in love with this government than I am. I never appeared in this House before; but the country knows I have appeared in the field for the Parliament.

You have resolved to bound both. The news' books have told the nation you intend to bound them.

I look upon this House as the Representative of the free people of the nation. All here either thus, (fn. 12) or by procuration. If I should give this, (fn. 13) I call all the blood that has been spilt under my command, upon myself.

This question gives all away at once. I would have them first bounded; I would not have us, as the phrase is, by a side-wind part with all.

I pray that this question may be laid aside, and, when bounded, I shall be as much for these persons as any man.

Mr. Archer. To have transacted with the old Peerage should have had my free concurrence. It was told you (fn. 14) what the old Peers had done formerly, in procuring the Long Parliament, else your cause had perished in embryo.

This new House of Lords consists of swordsmen, colonels, and commanders of armies. (fn. 15) The persons are all either military, or in civil judicature. It is not fit for those that receive public moneys to have a legislature with us. If therefore we should be overruled by the major part, and will needs transact with those men, let us take the self-denying ordinance (fn. 16) to be our rule, and let it go throughout that House. I would have no resolution of ours to bar the right of ancient Peerage, nor to invade the self-denying ordinance.

Colonel Gibbons. I think the text had been clearer, if there had not been so many comments upon it. The Petition and Advice I mean.

A part of the Commonwealth has leaped over the door. Libertas is written over the door of some senate-houses, where yet the people live under the greatest servitude. It concerns us to look after that great concernment.

The question now before us is a great-bellied question, (fn. 17) and will not easily go down with me. I am not for laying it aside neither. It is pressed upon us, and necessity is pretended. Many absurd consequences are in that necessity. There was a Spanish Don that burnt his shins by the fire, who could not be satisfied, till he presently sent for a mason to pull down the chimney as a heretic, whereas he might have removed his shins more easily. I doubt we are doing so. I shall offer as an addition to the question, that this House will transact with the other House, when they are bounded and limited by this House, and not before.

Mr. Stephens. I cannot give my assent, to include all the members that sit there in a lump (fn. 18) to transact, nor in a lump to exclude all that have a right to sit there.

I can very well confide in his Highness, and am glad to find one in possession who will rule according to the law, and not by the sword. If I could have the same confidence in those that sit in the other House, I should willingly consent. But I would have a government by law, and not by the sword; and I should fear it much if those men should sit. Losers must have leave to speak.

1. They are many of them military persons. Thus they would have a military and civil sword. There are nineteen regiments of horse and foot, and divers garrisons, besides the Tower of London, all in that House; and a great part of the fleet besides. Lord Lieutenants were always chosen by the country laws, (fn. 19) by the good laws of Edward the Confessor. The great commanders, both by sea and land, and privy counselors, were chosen by the people anciently, in pleno foro. (fn. 20) This is no new doctrine. They that sit there, ought to be by your election.

We have found, by experience, the mischief of the sword. The little fingers of Major-generals have I found heavier than the loins of the greatest tyrant kings that went before.

2. Several persons there, receive salaries out of the public monies and treasure of the nation. It is dangerous for them to have the legislative, and thus to commit your purse to them.

Many of the old nobility have been faithful and real to you, that you could not have maintained your cause without them. I cannot agree to lay them aside, Salvâ conscientiâ. I can neither transact with the one, nor exclude the other in a lump. Arguments of force, or fighting over again, (fn. 21) or the like, do not at all sway with me.

There is an Act, (fn. 22) by you, to take away the House of Peers. I shall not dispute the legality of it; but it was made with reference to the present government of a Commonwealth, which was then setting up. There was a clause in it, that the old nobility that continued faithful, and their posterities, shall not be excluded out of the councils of these nations. (fn. 23) When here was a Commonwealth, there was no need of them. Now it is suitable to your constitution. Cessante ratione legis, cessat lex.

I move, therefore, for a previous vote, that the House declare that the Act for taking away the House of Peers be repealed, and then vote that such Lords as have been faithful, and demeaned themselves honourably, and have a right to sit there, may be summoned by writ.

I will not raise that question, whether the Petition and Advice be a law; some paragraphs say one way, some another.

I would have this vote pass, that those that are to sit in the other House shall be approved by this House; for that is clear in the second article, though doubtful in the explanation.

Colonel West. I am rather for the other question, than for what was last moved. I would not have the Act of Parliament taken away by a vote. As the question is complicated, I cannot consent. You must transact with all. T cannot ex cept against any of them, but I cannot pass them by the lump.

If any thing make them capable, it is being soldiers. That is the greatest trial of faithfulness. I am not for passing them upon that account neither, but would have them bounded. If you bring in ancient lords, you must bring them by entail; you may as well entail the places of judicature upon all judges in Westminster-hall.

They must come by constitution, and not by restitution; by way of bounding. You have spoken to the nation, you will bound them; you have left rational men behind you (fn. 24) that will expect you shall perform your words.

I move this addition, that you will transact, &c., when you have bounded and approved them. By all means you must bound them.

He told a long story of Adam; and concluded,

I move that you would transact, &c., when they are bounded and approved by this House.

Mr. Speaker propounded the question so, and the affirmative was put.

Mr. Bodurda. I move against the addition; for if you go to approve them, it may happen that you will approve none of them, so that you will have no House to transact with.

Colonel Morley. This is a plain question. I am for another House, if you bound it, and for the persons, if you approve them.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am for another House, if you, as the Commons of England, may bound them and approve them. I would have it examined, upon what foot they are called, whether by the old law, or by the Petition and Advice.

Mr. Attorney-general said it was so.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. Oh, then ! I am in the right if he say so.

The last Parliament would never transact with them as Lords. We were turned out for it. (fn. 25)

They had voted themselves thither, I crave your pardon. I mean brought themselves up, or were brought up. They were intended, doubtless, only to survey laws. (fn. 26)

I shall reserve myself till the last, that I may, if I can, help you at a dead lift. The question is plain. If you please to bound them, and approve them, I shall be for them.

Mr. Trevor. The last Parliament, they were admitted to the other House.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. They are the other House, and so let them be.

Mr. Trevor. The question is only whether a House of Lords or no, and that gentleman is pleased to take a great deal of pains to prevent the question.

If you please, pursue your former question without addition. Adjourn for an hour, and then debate it out.

Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. I would not have things misrepresented to the House. I was here last Parliament, and the constitution of the other House was disputed all along, and their co-ordinate power denied still, else we had not been so soon dissolved. (fn. 27)

Mr. Hewley. I am against the addition, especially for approving. I was before for bounding, but that was not relished. It is not for our honour to recede to what we have waved. If we go on to approve, when shall we end ? As was moved, admit you should approve none of them, then you must transact with the walls. They may be bounded as to hereditary, or swearing upon their honours, or voting by proxies.

As to the persons. No less can be said but that they are the best army and best officers in the world. Their swords, it appears, are made of what Hercules' club (fn. 28) was made of. Our olive is an emblem of peace. (fn. 29) Many men's tongues are sharper than their swords. If they had not been good, arrears of pay and other temptations would have wrought upon them. The Judges being there, is no inconveniency. There is but one judge of one bench. If all that have salaries for their faithfulness should be excluded, there may be care taken about that, of the. Lords' Commissioners; or any other inconveniency may be provided for in the bounds.

I am against the addition. I would have three questions put singly.

Colonel Matthews. I wonder that the bounding and approving should be so much disputed. I shall make it out, that by the Petition and Advice the approbation of those in the other House ought to be in this House. (fn. 30) That article was never repealed. His Highness was only to nominate. Clauses ought to be repealed in the express words that they are expressed in the law.

The clause touching trying the members of the House is, in terminis, repealed. This is not so. I would have it well understood if that clause be repealed. Not a word expressed to take away the power of approbation from this House, and it is not only clear by the Petition and Advice, but by an ordinance sent to the King to the Isle of Wight. I have the law here. (fn. 31) It is of force still.

I am for all those persons to be of this House that have been faithful; not that I would admit them (it may be, they will not ask it) to have an hereditary negative upon the people. I doubt we forget where we are.

There is a story of the Bishop of Lincoln, (fn. 32) that when he was committed to the Tower, being in his chamber, he got into a little closet, and his keeper cried, "Where are you ?" He said, "I am here." He cried, "Where ?" "I am just got into a little closet. I am reduced to my first principles, where I was when first at the University, a little door." I doubt we are going up to that little door, the lobby door. We may lose our purse there, in the crowd. I have known parts of cloaks lost. We are going up to our first—

The Instrument of Government (fn. 33) was much played upon, till it was out of tune. We were free, when the people sent us hither.

It is laid to the blame of the Instrument that Major-generals came in upon it. I heard no great complaint against them in my country.

This is a putting them in a bundle together, and binding them upon the people's backs, with an hereditary negative upon them.

My motion is, to lay aside the question.

Sir Richard Temple. At this rate, we shall be reduced to our first principles, all of us. The sum of what he (fn. 34) moved, though he concluded otherwise, was, to reduce us to the first principles that all along he has aimed at.

I would have you adjourn, either till to-morrow, or for an hour.

Sir Thomas Wroth. I had rather sit till to-morrow morning, than retard the great affairs of this nation. I would go out of the House, and say my prayers, and come hither again, to have this question come to a resolution.

Here is a very fair question propounded to you. Why should any man be afraid of this question ? Why should any that are not guilty, not venture upon approbation.

It is said, the soldiers have ventured their lives. They were well paid for it. I had a sword once. (fn. 35) I never had a penny. It cost me 10,000l.

Put the question, that you will transact with them when you have bounded and approved them.

Mr. Salway. The question has been put in the affirmative. I beseech you, put it in the negative.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. That gentleman moved very materially. You ought, I think, to put the negative, seeing the affirmative was put.

Serjeant Maynard, Mr. Knightley, and Sir Lislebone. Long. There is no such order. Any gentleman may, before the negative is put, speak against the question; and it is all one as if the affirmative had never been put.

Mr. Swinfen. The addition takes away the question itself. You are now in debate about constituting another House, and your order is, only, to transact with another House. Other additions were offered, and they must be put in order.

First, a constant order of the House. Then we must press that the question be, whether you intend hereby to exclude the rights of the old Peerage, as was first moved.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I appeal to all, whether this, being so long and so often insisted on, ought not to be the proper question. Let the question, as it is stated, be put in your books. This question, with this bounding and approving, will not have one negative.

Colonel Morley. I would have none surprised by the question. Therefore, adjourn till to-morrow, and let this be the subject of your debate, with the additions. I am against adjourning for an hour. You will lose all your members. You were but two hundred and ninety (fn. 36) upon the last division.

Mr. Annesley. If men will not be satisfied without this question, put it if it shall be put, and I hope the House will so understand it as that it pass in the negative; and then all your debate is lost. I understand not what this addition will operate. I would have the first additions put first.

Mr. Reynolds. This Bill has had ill fortune. It came in irregularly at first; brought in by a privileged person, (fn. 37) without order. You cannot bring in a Bill to pass a subsidy without an order, and yet, to pass away three nations at once.

I am not against a single person, nor this single person, nor against another House. I am for the laws having another digesting, but I would have these bounded. I would have the question well understood and stated.

Mr. Swinfen took him down.

A great debate whether properly taken down or no, and then he went on.

Mr. Reynolds. We are now about transacting or trafficking. I would have us first understand upon what foot we are. Similitude is best to beget affections. If those that sit in another House have revenues and salaries out of the public, we sit at our own charge. Either go you up to them, or they to you: so much for the word "transact."

I never had my health since last motion to adjourn. We lost a day by it. No man is against a single person, nor against another House. We agree so far as we go together.

If we rise without doing aught, I doubt it will be the last Parliament that ever we shall have. Make the vote as passable as you can, at the peril of the vote that you pass it singly. Make it as pleasing as you will, it will hardly go down.

Mr. Attorney-general. According to a man's constitution, will be the digestion. That gentleman says he has been sick. It will not well digest with him. It was never known in any age that leave was asked to bring in a Bill to recognise the Chief Magistrate. We are not in love with this nor that, nor with any other question, but only with rules.

I move that the question be which was first moved. As to a salvo to the rights of the ancient Peerage, you shall have my vote for it.

Mr. Trevor. If it be an addition to amend the question, I shall not be against it; but if to destroy it, I shall not be for it: If you please, keep to the question and adjourn till to-morrow.

Mr. Neville. Your whole debate has gone to-day upon the bounds. If you put a question for adding or not adding, then you are barred from speaking against the question. I would, therefore, have you adjourn till to-morrow; else you will spoil the Committee of Trade, which is a great part of settlement, and much expected.

Serjeant Maynard. By your bounding, you do not say that the Protector shall concur in it. You will also bound the rights of the ancient Peers, which you have nought to do with. All this winding to me, in plainness, seems an aiming at no House. You turn out the old nobility, clearly.

Mr. Knightley. I am for approving, but against bounding. It concludes the rights of the ancient Peers. It was meant in the constitution of the other House, that they should only be for a second digestion of laws. I conceive it is a fair question. I desire it may. be put with the additions offered.

Sir George Booth and others moved to adjourn, and the House was adjourned accordingly; and rose at past one, and the debate adjourned till to-morrow morning at eight of the clock, to be then proceeded in, and that nothing else do then intervene.

The Grand Committee of Trade sat,

Mr. Scawen in the chair.

The Committee for approving Ministers, (fn. 38) sat in the Speaker's chamber.

Mr. Hewley in the chair.

They proceeded with part of the Bill, and adjourned till Tuesday, at three.