from the city of London lately rejected: it may be an instance of our great confidence in his majesty's wisdom and goodness, when we tryst him with such powers, unknown to the constitution; but, we think, it ill becomes us to repose such trust, when it tends, in our opinion, rather to render him terrible than amiable to his subjects, and when the only advantage he can, as we conceive, draw from the trust reposed in him is, not to make use of it.

(Signed,) W.-Ebor', North and Grey, Weston, Fra. Roffen', Coningsby, St. John de Bletsoe, Gower, Strafford, Boyle, Fr. Cestriens', Bristol, Trevor, Uxbridge, Aylesford, Aberdeen, Cowper, Bingley, Guildford, Foley, Bathurst."

Motion for Sir George Byng's Instructions concerning the Action against the Spanish Fleet.] December 19, The House went again upon the king's Speech at the opening of the session, and took into consideration that part of it relating to the treaty with Spain. The earl of Stratford suggested, That as the war with Spain was undertaken without necessity, or a just provocation, so the peace was concluded without any benefit or advantage: that contrary to the law of nations, the Spanish fleet was fallen upon without any declaration of war, and even while a British minister and secretary of state was amicably treating at Madrid; so that the Spaniards might think themselves secure from any hostilities: and as the manner of beginning the war with Spain did not appear justifiable, neither could the war itself be easily reconciled with sound politics, since it was an interruption to one of the most valuable branches of our trade; and at a time when the nation groaned under the pressure of heavy debts, occasioned by a former long expensive war. Concluding with a motion for an Address to his majesty, that he would be pleased to cause the Instructions that were given to sir George Byng, in relation to the Action against the Spanish fleet in the Mediterranean, to be laid before the House.

He was seconded by lord North and Grey, the archbishop of York, the earls of Aylesford and Cowper, the lords Guildford, Trevor, and Bathurst. They were answered by the earl of Sunderland, the duke of Wharton, and lord

Carteret.

Protest against rejecting it.] And the question being put upon the said motion, it passed in the negative by 67 voices against 24.

"Dissentient'

"1. Because not finding any instance, on search of the Journals, we believe there is none, wherein a motion for Admirais' Instructions to be laid before the House has been denied; but, on the contrary, there are many precedents of instructions of a like nature, and in stronger cases, as we conceive, addressed for by the House, and several in point, for instructions given to admirals, particularly to sir George Rooke and sir Cloudesly Shovel;

nor does it seem, to us, at all material, whether the conduct of such admirals had or bad not been blamed before such instructions were asked for, since the sight of instructions may be previously and absolutely necessary to inform the House, whether their conduct be blameable or not.

"2. Because we think it highly reasonable, that those instructions should be laid before this House, upon which the action of the British against the Spanish fleet in the Mediterranean was founded, without any previous declaration of war, and even whilst a British minister, a secretary of state, was amicably treating at Madrid, which court might justly conclude itself secure from any hostile attack during the continuance of such negotiations.

"3. Because, till we have a sight of those instructions, and are able to judge of the reasons on which they are founded, the war with Spain, in which that action of our fleet involved us, does not appear to us so justifiable cial to the nation in sundry respects; for it as we could wish, and yet was plainly prejudivaluable commerce with Spain, at a time when occasioned an entire interruption of our most Great Britain needed all the advantages of peace to extricate itself from that heavy national debt it lay under; and as it deprived us of the friendship of Spain (not easily to be retrieved) so it gave our rivals in trade an oppor tunity to insinuate themselves into their affec

tions; and we conceive that to that war alone between the crowns of France and Spain, is owing the strict union there is at present which it was the interest of Great Britain to have kept always divided; an union which in its consequences may prove fatal to these Britain has had any fruits from this war, bekingdoms. Nor does it appear that Great yond its being restored to the same trade we had with Spain before we began it.————(Signed,)

W. Ebor', Aberdeen, Aylesford, Strafford, Bristol, Foley, North and Grey, Bathurst, Fran. Cestriens', Compton, Guildford, Scarsdale, St. John de Bletsho, Trevor, Boyle, Weston, Cowper, Uxbridge, Gower."

Protest against passing the Mutiny Bill.] Dec. 21. The Bill for punishing Mutiny and Desertion, and for the better payment of the army and their quarters, was read the third time: and the question being put, whether the bill with the amendment should pass; It was resolved in the affirmative.

"Dissentient';

"1. Because we have heard no arguments to convince us, that there is any necessity for a greater number of troops being kept on foot at this time, than there was after the peace of Ryswick or the peace of Utrecht; for as to the argument urged from the present disaffec tion of the people, we are fully persuaded, that the keeping up so great an army is much more likely to increase than lessen such disatfection,

"2. Because this precedent is likely to be allowed in all subsequent times, there being 30 probability that a conjuncture can happen, when there will be less apparent reason for keeping up a great number of forces, than at his time of a general tranquillity.

"3. Because, we conceive, there are seveal clauses in this bill, which tend to overthrow the civil power in this kingdom, and urn it into a military government; and we apprehend it to be our duty to take care, that dangerous a precedent may not be made for any future time without an evident necessity; and it is plain there is no such necessity for erecting this military power within this kingdom in time of peace, because the army was well governed without it in the two former eigns.

4. That allowing such a number of troops were necessary, yet there is no reason can be lledged, as we apprehend, that they should ve constituted in this expensive manner, which aises the charge upon the nation to about louble what it was, in time of peace, in the wo former reigns: and we must, with great concern, assert, that the public is much less ble to bear such an excess at the present, than t any former time.——(Signed,) W. Ebor',

Bristol, Strafford, Bathurst, Uxbridge, Aberdeen, Guildford, Scarsdale, Tadcaster, F. Roffen', North and Grey, Foley, Boyle, Trevor, Frau. Cestriens." The Quakers' Affirmation Bill brought into he Commons.] Dec. 14. A Petition of the eople called Quakers, on behalf of such of heir friends who scruple the form of solemn Affirmation, was presented to the House, and ead; setting forth, "That many of their riends do conscientiously scruple the present orm of solemn Afirmation; whereby they ave fallen under great sufferings, by imprionment, or loss of their properties; they not eing able to answer in courts of equity, take robates of wills, prove debts on commissions f bankruptcy, verify their entries on the leaher or candle acts, take up their freedoms, be dmitted to poll for their freeholds, give evience for others, nor to declare their fidelity to he present government: all which they coneive to be hardships; and praying, That leave ay be given to bring in a Bill for granting ein such a Form of Affirmation as may reaove the difficulties they now lie under." This Petition was spoke to by sir John Ward, nd Mr. Heysham, inembers for London, who ere backed by the lord William Paulet, Mr. loper, Mr. Horatio Walpole, and sir Wilfrid awson; whereupon a Bill was ordered to be rought in, according to the prayer of the said 'etition; which Bill passed the House, on the th of the following month.

Debate in the Lords on the Quakers' Affirsation Bill.] January 9, 1722. The Lords eing met again, their lordships read the first ime the Quakers' Bill; but a motion being nade, That the said bill be read a second time,

the same was opposed by the lord North and Grey. He was seconded by the

Bishop of Rochester, who, among other things, said, He did not know why such a distinguishing indulgence as was intended by this bill should be allowed to a set of people, who were hardly Christians. To this

The Earl of Ilay answered, He wondered that reverend prelate should call in question, whether the Quakers were Christians; since they were so, at least by act of parliament, being included in the Toleration Act, under the general denomination of Protestant Dissenters.

The Bishop of Rochester smartly replied, it was against the standing Orders of that august assembly to make any personal reflections; and he thought it a much greater indecency to make a jest of any thing that was sacred; and that the calling the Quakers, Christians by act of parliament, was a sort of side-wind reflection upon Christianity itself. However, he would let that pass, and reserve to another opportu nity what he had to offer against the bill.

On the other hand, the earl of Sunderland, and the lords Carteret and Bathurst having spoke for a second reading, the same was ordered for the 15th,

Debate in the Lords relating to the Building of Ships for Foreigners.] January 11. The Lords resumed the debate about the Building of Ships for Foreigners, which was opened by lord North and Grey and the earl Cowper. the earl of Coningsby, and seconded by the Their lordships suggested, "That the practice of building ships for foreigners may be attended with very ill and dangerous consequences; for with us, may yet, one time or other, become our as such foreigners, though at present in amity enemies, they will in such a case make use of that besides this general consideration, the prethose very ships to fight against ourselves. And such a practice so much the more unjustifiable, sent great scarcity of timber in England, made especially if it was considered what great num ber of ships had lately been built for the French, some of which were sixty or seventy gun ships.” To this the lords Carteret and Townshend answered in general, "That they knew of no law in being to hinder any ship carpenter from working for any one that would employ him; that the French, though now in amity, may, indeed, be one day our enemies: but yet, if they built not here such ships as they have occasion for, they might get them built in Holland, or Hamburgh; and their lordships were of opi nion, it was better for us to get their money than our neighbours: that indeed if we could hinder the French from building ships at all, it would be prudent to do it, but since they can have them in other places, our prohibiting them to buy them here, would rather be detrimental than advantageous to us."

The Judges, whose opinions the House desired to have, not being all come, the further consideration of that affair was put off till the next day,

The Judges' Opinion thereon.] January 12. | The Judges that were in town being present, The Earl Cowper set forth the pernicious practice which, for some time, had been carried on, of building ships of force for the French, not only in the river Thames, but also at Bristol, and was seconded by the lord North and Grey. They were answered by

The Lord Townshend, who alledged, That there was no law against it that he knew of. The Earl Cowper thereupon moved, That the Judges might be asked their Opinions as to that point; and being seconded by the lord Coningsby, the question was put to them accordingly. Thereupon the Lord Chief Justice Prat, in the name of all the Judges present, except baron Montague, who desired farther time to consider of it before he gave his opinion, declared, "That they knew of no law, whereby the king was impowered to hinder any of his subjects from building ships for any one that would employ them, whether natives or foreigners." Hereupon

The Earl Cowper said, That if there was no such law, it was high time there should be one, to put a stop to such a pernicious practice for the future; and therefore moved "That the Judges be ordered to bring in a Bill for that purpose."

This motion being opposed by the earl of Sunderland, the earl Cowper replied to him, which occasioned a debate between the lord Townshend, the earl of Sunderland, the duke of Argyle, and the lord Carteret on the one side; and the lord Bathurst, the earl Coningsby, and the lord North and Grey on the other side: but at last the court-party dropt their opposition to the earl Cowper's motion, provided this clause "except licensed by his majesty" be added to the said Bill, which was ordered to be brought in: but it did not pass into a law.

Farther Debate in the Lords, on the Navy Debt.] January 13. The Lords in a grand committee resumed the consideration of the great Debt of the Navy.

Earl Cowper moved, That the Papers laid before the House, by the commissioners of the Navy, relating to the number of ships employed in the Baltic and Mediterranean, might be read; which being done accordingly, his lordship observed, That one great cause of the Navy Debt, was, the not discharging the Seamen belonging to his majesty's ships when they came home, but keeping them in sea-pay all winter. To this

Lord Torrington answered, That though seamen in the winter might be said to be of no use, yet the keeping them in pay was an expence absolutely necessary; for if they were discharged, the government would be to seek for them in the spring, when they had occasion for them, since seamen cannot live without business; and if not employed in the royal navy, they are forced to hire themselves either to the merchants or into foreign service.

The House being resumed, a motion was

made, "That the not paying off his majesty's ships when they came home from their several voyages, according to the ancient usage of the Navy, but continuing them in sea-pay dur ing the winter, till they went out again, ha been one great cause of contracting so large a Navy-Debt."

being stated thereupon, after debate, the Protest on that occasion.] And a question previous question was put, Whether the said question shall be now put? It was resolved in the negative.

"Dissentient'

1. "Because, we conceive the main ques tion ought to have been put, since the practice complained of in it having been from the year 1690 very frequently represented against to the Admiralty and the Treasury, by the commis sioners of the Navy (the proper officers to give advice in such matters, and who then were men of great experience, ability and probity) for being contrary to the ancient usage of the Navy, giving great disgust to the seamen, and causing an unnecessary expence of the public money; we thought it highly reasonable to endeavour that a stop should be put to this method, which was attended with so many fatal consequences; and we cannot but think, the putting and vot ing the main question in the affirmative would have greatly conduced to that end.

2. Because it did not appear necessary, at a time when so few men were either granted or demanded for the service of any one year, that the seamen should be treated with so much severity, as not to be paid off according to the ancient usage of the navy, but kept in floating prisons, as the said commissioners of the navy very well express it; especially since we find, that during the late wars, when 40,000 men a year were granted, this was truly thought, by the said commissioners of the navy, a way rather to provoke the seamen to desert, than encourage them to come into or continue t the service; and to be the principal, if not the only reason, why it is become so difficult to get them again when wanted.

3. "We thought at this juncture, when his majesty had so lately, in a most gracious speech from the throne, signified his having so happy established peace throughout Europe, it would be proper (if ever) to use our best endeavours that the seamen might partake of the benett of our mild and free government, and not be liable to greater hardships than any of their fel low subjects, as we think they would be, if this practice be suffered to continue.

4 "Because such methods ought to be used as will most contribute to procure the affections of the seamen to the service, which, we think, the ancient usage of the navy will in this case best effect; by which they will have the satis faction to spend their money within the king dom, for the benefit and support of their s milies, as formerly, when the ships were paid off at their return home from their sever voyages; and will, we hope, prevent their ab→

sconding from, and deserting the service, and engage them cheerfully to enter into it whenever there shall be occasion; whereas according to the late practice, by the opinion of the said commissioners of the navy, the difficulty of getting them in the spring chiefly rises from keeping them all winter, and yet the difficulty of getting them again is assigned as the only reason for keeping them in pay during the winter, although it amounts to an intolerable charge upon the kingdom; it appearing by one of the papers now upon the table, that keeping them in pay all the winter comes to near five times as much as raising them again in the spring.

5. "We cannot but think it a very unusual way of arguing in a house of parliament, that a question ought not to be put, because it is generally admitted to be true; though at the same time there may be too much reason to believe that the practice complained of will not be altered without the interposition of parliament.

6. "We cannot conceive the treaty with Sweden could make it necessary, as was alledged, to keep the men in pay all the winter; since it appears by the papers upon the table, that very little or no time would have been lost, if the old method of the navy of raising them in the spring had been followed, by which much money would have been saved to the public; especially since their so early arrival there did neither prevent landing the Czar's troops in Sweden, when and where they pleased, nor by any action at sea contribute to weaken his naval strength.

"Lastly. We take it to be very clear, that if any necessity or sufficient reason was foreseen at any time for the dispensing with this rule of the navy, it ought not to have been done with out his majesty's consent in council; it being, as we conceive, a fundamental maxim in the government of the navy, and a most essential part of his majesty's prerogative, that no rule or establishment in the navy, whether written or unwritten, and customary, ought to be, or can regularly be abrogated, altered, or dispensed with, but by his majesty's consent in council, especially in so weighty a point as spending the public treasure so much faster than it need have been in the proportion abovementioned; and therefore we thought it expedient that the main question should have been put and voted in the affirmative, that this great and useful prerogative of the crown might by censuring what we take to be a breach thereof (though with the temper recommended from the throne) have been the better preserved for the future.(Signed,) W. Ebor', Strafford, Masham, Uxbridge, Compton, North and Grey, Cowper, Trevor, Bristol, Guilford, Bathurst, Gower, Aberdeen."

Further Debate in the Lords on the Quakers' firmation Bill.] January 15. The Lords read the Quakers' Bill the second time, and a motion being made and the question put, That

the said bill be committed, the same was opposed by the

Bishop of Rochester, who according to his former assertion, endeavoured to prove, that the Quakers were no Christians.

His lordship was seconded by the earl of Strafford, lord North and Grey, earl Coningsby, and his grace the archbishop of York; but they were answered by the earl of Sunderland, the duke of Argyle, the bishop of Peterborough, the earl of Ilay, and the earl of Macclesfield; and the question being put for committing the bill, was carried in the affirmative by 64 voices against 14.

Petition of the London Clergy against the said Bill.] Jan. 17. Their lordships were to go into a grand committee upon the said Bill, but from some of the London Clergy, which was were prevented by an unexpected Petition presented by the archbishop of York, and was

as follows:

"To the right hon.the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the Clergy in, and about London. With all submission, Sheweth "That there is a Bill now depending in your lordships' House, intituled An Act for granting the people called Quakers such a form of 'Affirmation or Declaration as may remove the difficulties which many of them lie ' under.' Which Bill, should it pass into a law, as it may, in its consequences, nearly affect the property of the subject in general, so it will in a more especial manner endanger the legal maintenance of the clergy by tythes; in as much as the people called Quakers pretend to deny the payment of tythes upon a principle of conscience, and therefore as your Petitioners apprehend, may be under strong inducements to ease their consciences in that respect by violating them in another, when their simple affirmation on behalf of friends of the same persuasion, shall pass in all courts of judicature for legal evidence.

"However, the injuries that your Petitioners in their private affairs may possibly suffer, are, as they ought to be, of small account with them in comparison of the mischiefs which may redound to the society from the indulgence intended, as it seems to imply, that justice may be duly administered, and government supported without the intervention of any solemn appeal to God as a witness of the truth of what is said, by all persons, in all cases, of great importance, to the common welfare; whereas your Petitioners are firmly persuaded, that an oath was instituted by God himself as the surest bond of fidelity among men, and hath been esteemed, and found to be so by the wisdom and experience of all nations in all ages.

"But that which chiefly moves your Petitioners to apply to your lordships, is, their serious concern lest the minds of good men should be grieved and wounded, and the enemies of Christianity triumph, when they shall see such condescensions made by a Christian legislature

to a set of men who renounce the divine institutions of Christ, particularly that by which the faithful are initiated into his religion, and denominated Christians, and who cannot on this account, according to the uniform judgment, and practice of the Catholic church, be deemed worthy of that sacred name.

1

"Your Petitioners moreover crave leave to represent to your lordships, that upon the best information they can get, the instances wherein any Quaker hath refused the solemn affirmation prescribed by an act in the seventh and eighth year of William the 3rd, have from the passing that act to this day been exceeding rare, so that there might be ground to hope, that the continued use of the said solemn affirmation, would by degrees have intirely cured that people of all those unseasonable prejudices against an oath which the favour designed them by this bill may tend to strengthen and confirm.

"And your Petitioners humbly leave it to your lordships' wise deliberations, whether such an extraordinary indulgence granted to a people already, as is conceived, too numerous, may not contribute to multiply their sect, and tempt persons to profess themselves Quakers, in order to be exempted from the obligation of oaths, and to stand upon a foot of privilege not allowed to the best. Christians in the kingdom. "Your Petitioners therefore humbly hope, that these and other considerations, which may offer themselves to your lordships' great wisdom, may induce your lordships not to give your consent to the passing of this bill into a law. And your petitioners shall ever pray, &c."

The Archbishop of York spoke in behalf of this Petition, and moved, That it be received and read:

The lord North and Grey, the earl of Strafford, the bishop of Rochester, the earl Coningsby, lord Trevor, earl Cowper, and lord Bathurst, supported the archbishop of York's motion; but the same was warmly opposed by the lord Townshend, earl of Scarborough, earl of Sunderland, lord Carteret, duke of Argyle, earl of Ilay, and the bishop of Peterborough; and the question being at last put thereupon, it was carried in the negative.

Then the question being put, That the said Petition be rejected, it was resolved in the affirmative, by 60 voices against 24.

Protest against rejecting the said Petition] Whereupon the following Protest was entered: "Dissentient'

"1. Because the right of petitioning in a legal manner to legal purposes does, we appre hend, appertain by law and usage to the free people of this realm, and is as essential to the subject, acting within his due bounds, as the liberty of debate is to the constitution of par liament: and this right, as it extends to the petitioning even for the repeal of acts now in force, by which the people think themselves aggrieved, so it justifies them yet more in repre senting their humble sense of any new law, while it is under the consideration of parlia ment; nor are the clergy, we presume, less privileged in relation to the exercise of this right, than any other of his majesty's subjects: On the contrary, we believe them as worthy of enjoying it, and as capable of exerting it to wise and good ends, as any rank of private men in the kingdom.

"2. Because the petition so rejected is, in our opinion, proper and inoffensive, both as to the matter and the manner of it; since it partly relates to the peculiar rights of the clergy in point of tythes, and partly expresses their fears, as we conceive not altogether groundless, lest the sect of Quakers, already too numerous, should by this new indulgence be greatly multiplied, and lest the honour of religion should any ways suffer, and the foundations of government be shaken by what is intended; both which it is the particular duty of their function to uphold and secure. We are not therefore apprehensive, that it misbecame their cha racters to interpose on any of these important points: And the way in which they have done it, must seem to us free from exception, till some passages in their petition is pitched upon, as obnoxious, and censured by the House: which, as yet, hath not been done.

Lord Sunderland, who said, That a com mittee ought to be appointed to inquire into the authors and promoters of it; for he looked upon it to be no better than a libel.

Lord Townshend took notice of the irregular way in which the said Petition was presented, for if it was a petition of the London clergy it ought to be offered either by the bishop of that diocese, or the archbishop of Canterbury, whereas it was presented by the archbishop of York, who was metropolitan of another pro

vince,

which as it had never been observed on the debates on the bill, so was allowed to deserve the consideration of the House. And therefore, had there been any other part of their petition less unexceptionable (as we apprehend there is not) yet we do not think that it was unreasonable to lay aside the whole on that account, and reject what was acknowledged fit to be considered, for the sake of what was thought improper to be offered.

4. "Because the clergy of London are not, in general, so liberally provided for, but that they have reason to be watchful in relation to any step that may unwarily be taken, towards diminishing their maintenance; which we look upon as not duly proportioned to their labours, in populous parishes, and to the various em ployments given them by infidels and heretics,