Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:44:37.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Press and Parliament in the Revolution of 1689*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Lois G. Schwoerer
Lois G. Schwoerer
Affiliation:
The George Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Convention Parliament, the revolutionary tribunal of the English Revolution of 1689, prohibited the printing of news of its affairs and barred the public from its debates. Authors, printers and publishers, however, defied these orders and published unlicensed accounts of speeches, votes, committee reports, and the membership of the Convention. Although the laws and administrative procedures which the later Stuarts had used to restrict the press were still in effect, they were not enforced. During the weeks of political crisis, quantities of news-sheets, newspapers and tracts reporting parliamentary news and political opinion appeared. At a time of growing scholarly and popular interest in the Glorious Revolution, it may be useful to examine the relationship between parliament and press. Although studies of the early press and of parliamentary reporting have been made, no detailed examination of these matters during the months of political upheaval in the winter of 1688–9 has been undertaken. Two central questions suggest themselves. How did the politically conscious public learn about what was happening in Westminster where their elected representatives and the peers of the realm were meeting to resolve the crisis facing the nation? What was the attitude of those representatives and peers to having information about their affairs spread beyond their chambers? The answers to such questions may deepen understanding of the Convention and of one aspect of the part played by the press in the Revolution.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 1977 , pp. 545 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The various terms used for news publications are discussed in Williams, J. B. [Muddiman, J. G.], A history of English journalism to the foundation of the Gazette (New York, 1908), p. 7.Google Scholar

2 The two latest general studies are Jones, J. R., The Revolution of 1688 in England (London, 1972)Google Scholar and Prall, Stuart, The bloodless Revolution: England 1688 (New York, 1972).Google Scholar Two new books written for a popular audience are: Miller, John, The life and times of William and Mary, with an introduction by Antonia Fraser (London, 1974)Google Scholar and Henri, and Barbara, van der Zee, William and Mary (London, 1973).Google Scholar Among recent articles are: Frankle, Robert, ‘The formulation of the Declaration of Rights’, The Historical Journal, XVII, 2 (1974), 265–79;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHorwitz, Henry, ‘Parliament and the Glorious Revolution’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XLVII, 115 (1974), 36–52 (hereafter B.I.H.R.);Google ScholarKenyon, J. P., ‘The Revolution of 1689: resistance and contract’, Historical perspectives: studies in English thought and society. In honour of J. H. Plumb, ed. McKendrick, Neil (London, 1974), pp. 43–70;Google Scholar and Schwoerer, Lois G., ‘A Jornall of the Convention at Westminster begun the 22 of January 1688/9’, B.I.H.R. XLIX (1976), 242–63.Google Scholar

3 For example, Aspinall, A., ‘The reporting and publishing of the house of commons debates 1771–1834’, in Essays presented to Sir Lewis Namier, ed. Pares, R. and Taylor, A. J. P. (London, 1956), pp. 227–57.Google ScholarBellot, H. Hale, ‘Parliamentary printing, 1660–1837’, B.I.H.R. XI, 32 (1933), 85–98;Google ScholarLambert, Sheila, ‘Printing for the house of commons in the eighteenth century’, The Library, fifth series, XXIII, 1 (1968), 25–46;Google Scholar and Siebert, Frederick S., Freedom of the press in England J476–1776; the rise and decline of government controls (Urbana, 1952), chs. 9, 10, 13, 17.Google Scholar

4 Siebert, , Freedom of the press in England, pp. 202–7.Google Scholar

5 Journals of the house of lords, XI, 79.Google ScholarOrders, Essential, Fundamental and Standing Orders, Reports, Declarations, Memorandums, Rules, Agreements and Resolutions of the House of Commons relating to their Forms of Proceeding, Privileges & Collected out of the Journals (London, 1756), pp. 176–81,Google Scholar contains a list of the orders against printing the votes and proceedings of the house of commons. See Siebert, , Freedom of the press in England, pp. 180–3, 280–3.Google Scholar

6 Journals of the house of commons, IX, 643, 708 (hereafter C.J.).Google ScholarKemp, Betty, Votes and standing orders of the house of commons. The beginning (House of Commons Library document 8, H.M.S.O., London, 1971), pp. 16–23Google Scholar for the best account of these two orders. (I am indebted to Mr H. S. Cobb, deputy clerk of the records, House of Lords Record Office, for referring me to Miss Kemp's article.) Siebert, , Freedom of the press in England, pp. 282–3.Google Scholar Public interest in the printed votes is attested to by the fact that they sold ‘thousands’ of copies each week: Fraser, P., The intelligence of the secretaries of state and their monopoly of licensed news, 1660–1688 (Cambridge, 1956), p. 127.Google Scholar

7 Grey, Anchitell, Debates of the house of commons from the year 1667 to the year 1694 (London, 1973). VIII, 292–5.Google Scholar

8 Kemp, , Votes and standing orders of the house of commons, p. 16; cf. pp. 23, 28.Google Scholar

9 In the spring of 1685 at the time of die elections to the parliament, die Observator, edited by Sir Roger L'Estrange, die surveyor of the press, reviled the printing of the votes of 1680 and 1681. It prayed that the votes might ‘be so absolutely forgotten as if diey had never BEEN’. Quoted in Kemp, , Votes and standing orders of the house of commons, p. 22.Google Scholar

10 Folger Shakespeare Library, Roger Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book, Being an Historical Register of Occurrences from April 1677, to April 1691’, Q, p. 437, the only account of Uiis debate which seems to have survived. The manuscript of die ‘Entr'ing Book’ is in Dr Williams's Library in London; a photocopy, which I have used, is held by die Folger Shakespeare Library (hereafter F.S.L.), to which warm thanks are expressed. Also, C.J. x, 12. It should be noted that the manuscript minutes of the votes and proceedings from 22 January to 21 October 1689 are preserved in die House of Lords Record Office (hereafter H.L.R.O.). The vote did not prohibit die compilation of the proceedings, which apparendy is based on die notes taken by die clerk of die table.

11 Conformable to generally accepted practice, diis partisan identification for 1688–9 is based upon two division lists which are reproduced widi notes in Browning, Andrew, Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby and duke of Leeds (1632–1713) (London, 1944–1951), III, 164–72. See below, note 55.Google Scholar

12 Grey, , Debates, IX, 142–7 for the debate.Google Scholar

13 In 1686 Williams was fined £10,000 for licensing, when Speaker, a paper judged to be a seditious libel. For a brief account, see Dictionary of National Biography.

14 C.J. X, 45.Google Scholar

15 Ibid. p. 273.

16 Orders, Essential... and Standing, pp. 34–7 lists the orders.Google Scholar

17 C.J. X, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20.Google Scholar Bodleian Library, MSS Rawlinson D 1079, fo. 12V (hereafter Bodl.). The location of the ‘back door’ may be plainly seen in diagrams in Williams, Orlo Cyprian, The topography of the old house of commons (London, 1953). This is a limited edition work, a copy of which is in the H.L.R.O.Google Scholar

18 Petyt, George, Lex Parliamentaria: or A Treatise of the Law and Custom of the Parliaments of England (London, licensed 6 Dec. 1689), pp. 250–2. Described as a political handbook for members of the Convention.Google Scholar

19 Huntington Library, Hastings Collection, HA 13889 L5B1, Remembrances for Order and Decency to be kept in the Upper House of Parliament, 1690, unpaginated. I thank the Huntington Library for permission to use this and other references to its collection. (Hereafter H.M.)

20 Another example is the resolution barring papists or reputed papists from entering the Lobby, Painted Chamber, Court of Requests, or Westminster Hall during the sitting of the Convention. It was ordered printed and posted on the doors of the said rooms.

21 Fraser, , The intelligence of the secretaries of state, pp. 131–2. See pp. 114–31 for a brief account of the development of coffee houses.Google Scholar

22 H.L.R.O., MSS Minutes, 11 Feb. 1688/9. For tne broadside, see below, pp. 555, 564–5.

23 Bodl. MSS Rawlinson D 1079, f. 7. See below, p. 552.

24 The Orange Gazette, 12–15 Feb. 1688/9,Google Scholar no,2Similarly a notable bonfire celebrating Prince William's acceptance in late December of the administration of the government was placed outside Watt's coffee house and was contributed to by persons who were to serve in the Convention. See ibid., 31 December 1688, no. 1 and the London Courant, 25–9 Dec. 1688, no. 6.

25 Grey, , Debates, IX, 142.Google Scholar

26 Printed in Philip Yorke, 2nd earl of Hardwicke, , ed., Miscellaneous State Papers (London, 1778), II, 401–26. The original manuscript is in the New York Public Library.Google Scholar

27 Schwoerer, , ‘A. Jornall of the Convention at Westminster’, B.I.H.R. p. 243.Google Scholar

28 Debeer, Esmond S., ed., The diary of John Evelyn (London, 1955), IV, 619.Google Scholar Evelyn had eavesdropped in 1648 and 1649 on discussions closed to the public. See ibid. 11, 546, 547. Both instances are mentioned by Wedgwood, C. V., The trial of Charles I (Collins, 1964), pp. 72. 104.Google Scholar

29 Eachard, Laurence, The History of England, From the First Entrance of Julius Caesar and the Romans, To the Conclusion of the Reign of King James the Second, And the Establishment of King William and Queen Mary upon the Throne, in the Year 1688 (London, 1720), p. 1143.Google Scholar Mr Blaney, otherwise unidentified, also made a shorthand report of the trial of the seven bishops. For that and a fair copy thereof, he was paid £43. See de Beer, , ed., Evelyn's diary, IV, 615,Google Scholar n. 2, with reference to Gutch, John, Collectanea curiosa; or Miscellaneous Tracts, relating to the History and Antiquities of England and Ireland (Oxford, 1781), II, 378.Google Scholar It is reasonable to assume that Mr Blaney made a fair copy of his shorthand notes of the 6 February debate. If this is indeed the case, it would help explain the large number of manuscript accounts of the debate surviving in die Bodleian Library and the British Library Manuscript Room. These accounts are all the same (slips of the pen, perhaps, excepting), thus demonstrating that precise information about the debate was widely circulated. The first printed account appeared in 1695 under the tide, The Debate at Large, between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, at the free conference held in the Painted Chamber, in the session of the Convention. Relating to the word, abdicated, and the vacancy of the throne in the Common's vote. Anno 1688 2nd edn, 1710; 3rd edn, 1714 (with different title).

30 C.J. X, 20; Bodl. MSS Rawlinson D 1079, fo. 12v.Google Scholar

31 Grey, , Debates, IX, 13, 21–2, 23, 30, 33.Google Scholar

32 F.S.L., Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, p. 454; British Library Add MSS 40,621, fos. 12, 14V (hereafter B.L.). It was feared that bloodshed would erupt if agreement were not reached.

33 John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace of Hurley, offered the petition in the house of lords, while Anthony Rower, M.P. for Penryn Boro., Cornwall, attempted to have it read in the house of commons. Luke Robinson was identified as a proponent of the petition from London: F.S.L., Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, pp. 453–4; Grey, , Debates, IX, 45;Google ScholarSinger, S. W., ed., Correspondence of Henry Hyde, earlof Clarendon and of his brother, earl of Rochester (London, 1828), II, 258;Google Scholar F.S.L., ‘The Newdigate Newsletters, Addressed to Sir Richard Newdigate, 1st Bart., and to 2nd Bart., 1673/74–1715’,L.C. 1967; Königl. Geh.Staats-Archiv., Acta betr. des Residenten Bonnet relat: aus England 1689 Jan.-June, Rep. XI.73, fos. 41v-42 (the Kenneth Spencer Library, University of Kansas, kindly supplied a microfilm of this manuscript, hereafter referred to as K.S.L., Bonnet's dispatches).

34 No copy of this petition has, apparently, survived. Its language was reported by Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, pp. 453–4.

35 Ibid. p. 454. The petition was unsubscribed to avoid the ‘noise’ and ‘great concourse’ of people that would have accompanied an effort to collect signatures. It is worth noting that the Tumultuous Petitioning Act: Chas. II, sess. I, c. 5 (1661) required the consent of the authorities (the lord mayor and common council in the case of London) to procure the signatures of twenty or more persons on a petition. (See Statutes of the Realm, V, 308.)Google Scholar For a brief statement of how petitions were handled by Parliament, see Bond, Maurice, A guide to the records of parliament (London, 1971), pp. 172–3, 210, 240–1.Google Scholar

33 Grey, , Debates, IX, 45;Google ScholarBrowning, Andrew, ed., Memoirs of Sir John Reresby (Glasgow, 1936), pp. 548–9;Google Scholar Bodl. MSS Rawlinson D 1079, fo. 7; but see F.S.L., Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, p. 453–4, who puts the numbers of persons variously at about twenty and at between twenty and forty.

37 Grey, , Debates, IX, 45;Google ScholarSinger, , ed., Correspondence…of Clarendon, II, 258.Google Scholar

38 Bodl. MSS Rawlinson D 1079, fo. 7; F.S.L., Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, p. 454; the London Intelligence, 2–5 Feb. 1688/9, no. 7.

39 ‘Journaal van Constantyn Huygens, den zoon, van 21 October 1688 tot 2 September 1696’, Historisch Genootschap (Utrecht, 1876-1878), Werke, new series, XXIII, 80–1; F.S.L., ‘Newdigate Newsletters’, L.C. 1969.Google Scholar

40 F.S.L., Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, p. 454; Luttrell, Narcissus, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs from September 1678 to April 1714 (Oxford, 1857), I, 499–500;Google Scholar K.S.L., Bonnet's dispatches, 5/15 February, 1688/9, fo. 42; Algemeen Rijkarchief, Collectie van Citters, Brieven van den Ambassadeur van Citters, 1688 tot 1690, no. 25, 5/15 Feb. 1688/9.

41 Bodl., Ballard MSS 45. The collection covers 1688–1706. H.L.R.O., The Willcocks Collection, Hist. Coll., H.L. (GRP, 284). The letters cover 1672 to 1692 and are listed in H.L.R.O. memorandum no. 47. See also Stanley West to Richard Tucker, merchant, Dorset, 22 Jan.-28 Feb. 1689. West was quoting verbatim from letters that an unidentified M.P. sent to his friends (B.L. Add. MSS 15, 949, fos. iov, 14). Professor Horwitz called my attention to this correspondence.

48 For studies of these services see Fraser, , The intelligence of the secretaries of state, passim;Google ScholarMuddiman, J. G., The king's journalist, 1659–1689. Studies in the reign of Charles II (London, 1923);Google ScholarWilliams, J. B. [Muddiman, J. G.], ‘The newsbooks and letters of news of the Restoration’, English Historical Review XXIII (1908), 252–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 The Newdigate Newsletters, at F.S.L., cover 1674–1715. The Bulstrode Newsletters run from 1667 to 1689. I thank the Carl H. Pforzheimer Library in New York for permission to inspect them. Another series of newsletters was published by Henry Muddiman from 1667 to 1689: see Williams, , ‘The newsbooks and letters of news of the Restoration’, E.H.R. p. 274.Google Scholar There were also less well-established newsletter services than these. Samuel Buder's characterization of an ‘intelligencer’ [in Daves, Charles W., ed., Samuel Butler, 1612–1680: characters (London, 1970), pp. 128–9] is amusing and instructive.Google Scholar

44 See Watson, George, ed., The new Cambridge bibliography of English literature (Cambridge, 1971), II, cols.Google Scholar 1318–19 for titles and dates of publication. The newspapers are in the British Library either in original copies or photocopied from originals held by the Bodl. In the United States copies of almost every issue of all the newspapers, with the exception of The Harllum Currant (which lasted for only two issues), are at the Huntington Library. Walker, R. B., ‘the newspaper press in the reign of William III’, The Historical Journal, XVII, 4 (1974), 694–5Google Scholar refers to these newspapers, but the focus of his article is on the press in the 1690s. For a comparison with the number of newspapers printed during the Civil War years, see the calculations of Siebert, , Freedom of the press in England, p. 203, n. 1.Google Scholar

45 Anon., A Dialogue Between Dick and Tom; concerning the present posture of affairs in England (London, licensed 18 01 1688/1689), p. 4.Google Scholar The names mentioned are variants of the titles of the newspapers. The remarks echoed earlier comments about a surfeit of news: DeBeer, , ed., Evelyn's diary, IV, 609;Google ScholarEllis, Henry, ed., Original letters, illustrative of English history (London, 1827), second series, III, 376; and H. M. Stowe collection, Temple correspondence, box 36, 5 Jan. 1688 [/9].Google Scholar

46 The London Intelligence, nos. 2, 3; the London Mercury, no. 9; the Orange Gazette, nos. 4, 6; the Universal Intelligence, no. 11; cf. the London Gazette, nos. 2418–21.

47 F.S.L., Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, p. 454. B.L. Add. MSS 40, 621, fo. 12.

48 The London Intelligence, 24–9 Jan. 1688/9, no. 5.

49 The Orange Gazette, 1–5 Feb. 1688/9, no. 9.

50 Ibid., 5–8 Feb. 1688/9, no. 10.

51 The London Mercury: or Moderate Intelligence, 10 Jan.-5 Feb. 1688/9, no. 10.

52 The London Intelligence, 5–9 Feb.; 9–12, 1688/9, nos. 8, 9; the Orange Gazette, 8–12 Feb. 1688/9, no. 11.

53 The London Gazette, 31 Jan.-4 Feb. 1688/9, no. 2424.

54 The broadside is not listed in Bibliotheca Lindesiana: catalogue of English broadsides, 1505–1897 (Aberdeen Univ. Press, 1848) nor is it noticed in any published study of the Revolution. It may be found in die B.L. at shelf mark 1850. c. 6 (p. 82). See below pp. 559–60.Google Scholar

55 ‘A List of Those that were Against Making the Prince and Princess of Orange King and Queen’ in A Letter to a friend upon the dissolving of the late Parliament and the calling of a new one, which was in print by 14 February 1690. The list refers to the division of 5 February 1689. It was, apparently, a reprinting of a list which, although no copy has survived, was almost certainly in print by 19 February 1689; see Grey, , Debates, IX, 90,Google Scholar For contemporary comment: F.S.L., Morrice ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, p. 459; Bodl. MSS Rawlinson D 1079, fos. iiv-12. For date of the 1690 printing, see Horwitz, Henry, ‘The general election of 1690’, Journal of British Studies, XI-XII (1971), 82Google Scholar and n. 21. The list is available in Browning, Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby, III, 163–72.Google Scholar

56 This broadside lists the names as they appear in the Journals of the house of lords, XIV, 119,Google Scholar except for the omission of die name of the bishop of Ely. See H.M.C., House of lords, 1688-1689, p. 18.Google Scholar The copy in the Public Record Office (SP 31/4/289) varies slighdy from die copy in H.L.R.O. See also A List of the Lords that Enter'd their Protest against the Vacancy of the Throne, Feb. 7, 1688 (London, 1689): Bibliotheca Lindesiana, no. 499, in die John Rylands Library, Manchester, which includes die name of die bishop of Ely. See below pp. 564–5.Google Scholar

57 The second draft, dated 7 February, is also said to have been printed, but no copy seems to have survived. See H.L.R.O., Willcocks Collection, VI, 20, Lord Yester to Lord Tweeddale, 7 Feb. 1688/9, which specifically refers to diis draft as being in print. The penultimate draft prepared by die house of commons was also printed under the title The agreement of the House of Lords, during this session, with the concurrence of the House of Commons, to this present eleventh of February, in the great affairs of these nations (no date, no place). Despite the title, die lords amended this draft. Copy at Huntington Library.

58 A true list of the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, Summoned by the letter of His Highness the Prince of Orange, To Meet at Westminster the 22th [sic] of January, 1688/9. As they have been returned to the Office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery (London, 1689). Another list of members with an abbreviated tide and no imprint also appeared: Bibliotheca Lindesiana, no. 485.Google Scholar

59 Another aspect of the press is studied by die present author in ‘Propaganda in the Revolution of 1688–89’, forthcoming in the American Historical Review.

60 Stone, Lawrence, ‘Literacy and education in England, 1640–1900’, Past and Present, XLII (02 1969), 109, 112, 125, 128.Google Scholar

61 Plomer, Henry, A dictionary of the printers and booksellers who were at work in England, Scotland and Ireland from 1668 to 1725 (Oxford, 1922), p. 106.Google Scholar

62 Morrison, Paul G., ed., Index of printers, publishers and booksellers in Donald Wing's short-title catalogue 1641–1700 (Charlottesville, 1955).Google Scholar

63 Plomer, , A dictionary of the printers and booksellers, p. 106.Google Scholar

64 Ibid. p. 217.

65 Ibid. p. 170.

66 See Siebert, , Freedom of the press in England, p. 269, n. 17 where Janeway's name appears. 20–2Google Scholar

67 Of them only Baldwin has been studied systematically. See Rostenberg, Leona, ‘Richard and Anne Baldwin, whig patriot publishers’, Papers of the Bibliographical Soceity of America (New York, 1953), XLVII, 1–42. Baldwin's publishing activities during the months of the Revolution are not noticed.Google Scholar

68 Walker, , ‘The newspaper press in the reign of William III’, Historical Journal, p. 695.Google Scholar

69 The Orange Gazette, 3–7 Jan. 1688/9, no. 3.

70 The Universal Intelligence, 3–5 Jan. 1688/9, no. 9; cf. the Orange Gazette, 31 Dec. 1688, no. 1.

71 The London Courant, 12 Dec. 1688, no. 1.

72 Ibid.

73 Steele, Robert, ed., Bibliography of royal proclamations of the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns and of others published under authority, 1485–1714 (Oxford, 1910), I, nos. 3888, 3891.Google Scholar

74 Anon., A Dialogue Between Dick and Tom, p. 4.Google Scholar

75 F.S.L., Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, p. 459 and see below pp. 563–4.

76 Hakewill, William, Modus tenendi Parliamentum: or, The Old Manner of Holding Parliaments in England (London, 1671 edn), p. 201.Google Scholar According to Hakewill's account, first printed in 1641, only two speakers-designate since the fourteenth century had failed to disable themselves (pp. 203, 207). In March 1679 Sir Edward Seymour and in October 1680 Sir William Williams also failed to protest their unworthiness: Kemp, , Votes and standing orders of the house of commons, p. 19.Google Scholar In modified form, the custom survived the eighteenth century: Thomas, Peter D. G., The house of commons in the eighteenth century (London, 1971), p. 333.Google Scholar

77 C.J. X, 9.Google Scholar

78 In the house of lords the Speaker, George Savile, first marquis of Halifax, was to stress this point. See especially Bodl. MSS Rawlinson D 1079, fo. 7V. The lords' concern for their Irish estates had been reflected earlier, at their meeting called by Prince William on 22 December, when they had resolved that all Irish officers in England should be held as hostages for protestants in Ireland and asked William, until the Convention could be assembled, to take on die administration of die government and to give special attention to Ireland. See Foxcroft, H. C., The life and letters of Sir George Savile, Bart, first marquis of Halifax (London, 1898), II, 44–5 and note 5;Google Scholar and Universal Intelligence, 3–5 Jan. 1688/9, no. 9.

79 ‘Diary of Constantyn Huygens’, Historisch Genootschap, p. 72;Google Scholar Algemeen Rijkarchief, Collectie van Citters, Brieven van den Ambassadeur van Citters, 1688 tot 1690, no. 25, 22 Jan./1 Feb. 1688/9; van Citters said Seymour was defeated ‘beyond his belief. Also C.J. X, 9;Google Scholar F.S.L., Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, p. 436; B.L. Add. MSS 40, 621, fo. 5.

80 Algemeen Rijkarchief, Collectie van Citters, no. 25, 22 Jan./1 Feb. 1688/9.

81 F.S.L., Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, p. 542. See an unpublished account prepared by die History of Parliament Trust of Powle's election difficulties, which were not resolved until July 1689. I thank Professor B. D. Henning and his colleagues in London for permission to use this material.

82 See also Anon., Some Remarks Upon Our Affairs (no place, no date).Google Scholar

83 Grey, , Debates, IX, 3–4, records no such speech, but reports that moderate speeches of thanks to William in response to his letter were made.Google Scholar

84 The Licensing Act was first issued on 10 June 1662 and renewed periodically until 1679 when it was allowed to lapse. James II's parliament revived it in June 1685, specifying that it was to remain in force for seven years and from then to the end of the next session of parliament. See Siebert, , Freedom of the press in England, p. 238Google Scholar and n. 4; Statutes of the Realm, VI, 20.Google Scholar

85 For an excellent, brief review of the enforcement procedures, see Siebert, , Freedom of the press in England, pp. 249–60.Google Scholar

86 Ibid., chapter 13 and Ogg, David, England in the reign of Charles II (Oxford, 1955), II, 515–16. Between 1660 and the fall of 1688, Charles II and James II issued ten proclamations against unlicensed printed material.Google Scholar

87 The order was printed in the London Gazette, 7–10 Jan. 1688/9, no2417, and noticed by Mortice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, p. 427.

88 F.S.L., Morrice, ‘Entr'ing Book’, Q, p. 449.

89 Grey, , Debates, IX, 38.Google Scholar

90 Ibid. p. 51.

91 Ibid. p. 63.

92 Ibid. p. 90.

93 C.J. X, 273, 281.Google Scholar

94 Between 1660 and 1689 there were eight instances in which the house of commons called to the bar and punished an offending author, printer or publisher. The house of lords followed the same course. For example, see C.J. VIII, 66, 68, 118, 186, 193, 331, 368, 369, 446; IX, 29, 161, 163, 167, 572–7, 592, 610; and L.J. XIII, 42, 49, 54, 55, 60, 61, 64, 65, 122.Google Scholar

95 L.J. XIV, 123.Google Scholar

96 H.L.R.O., Braye MS 43, fo. 29V, 11 Feb. 1688/9 (the so-called Draft Journal of the house of lords) and the MS Minutes, 11 Feb. 1688/9. Tne details printed in H.M.C., MSS of house of lords, 1688/9, p. 18. may be enlarged by these manuscript accounts.

97 H.L.R.O., MS Minutes, 11 Feb. 1688/9.

98 A note that the warden of the Company of Stationers was to be summoned is crossed through in die MS Minutes, 11 Feb. 1688/9. See also L.J. XIV, 123.Google Scholar

99 L.J. XIV, 142. Lord Grey, Baron Grey of Warke (1655–1701), a vigorous Exclusionist, was suspected of complicity in the Rye House Plot and fled to Holland. He returned with Monmouth, but by giving evidence against others was pardoned. Grey was created Viscount Glendale and earl of Tankerville in 1695 and at his death held the post of lord privy seal.Google Scholar

100 H.L.R.O., MS Minutes, 8 Mar. 1688/9.

101 Ibid.; L.J. XIV, 144.Google Scholar

102 L.J. XIV, 269, 270.Google Scholar

103 C.J. X, 105, 111.Google Scholar

104 See Ogg, David, England in the reigns of James II and William III (Oxford, 1955), p. 510.Google Scholar

105 See Siebert, , Freedom of the press in England, p. 281.Google Scholar

106 For example, C.J. VIII, 259, 400;Google Scholar IX, 35, 421, 736. L.J. XII, 464, 469; XIII, 13, 14, 17.Google Scholar

107 C.J. X, 111. William complied in a proclamation of 7 May which offered a reward of £100 for the discovery and seizure of the offending author, printer or publisher.Google Scholar

108 Hickeringill, Edmund, A Speech Without-Doors: or Some Modest Inquiries Humbly Proposed to the Right Honourable the Convention of Estates Assembled at Westminster Jan. 22, 1689 (London, licensed 17 Jan. 1688/1689) argued against the Licensing Act, but did not specifically mention the issue of parliamentary reporting.Google Scholar

109 Kemp, , Votes and standing orders of the house of commons, pp. 24–31 for a detailed examination of the subject to 1733;Google ScholarSiebert, , Freedom of the press in England, ch. 17 for the years 1714–76.Google Scholar

110 Cf. Fraser, , The intelligence of the secretaries of state, p. 132.Google Scholar