recesses. Thereupon our House called all the defaulters, and the Sergeant at arms to send for them, and they not to sit till they have paid their fees."

A few days afterwards he thus writes, "To-day the Duke of Buckingham and the Marquesse of Dorchester were, upon their petitions, freed from the Tower, having been committed for quarrelling, and scuffling the other day, when we were at the Canary conference."

January 26, 1667, he writes, "At eleven o'clock we went up to the Lords, to manage the impeachment against Lord Mordant. Our managers observed that he sat in the House, and that he had counsell, whereas he ought to stand at the barr as a criminal, and to have no counsell to plead or manage his cause."

Marvell's attention to the business of Parliament, and in writing to his constituents, appears to have been excessive, for we find from a letter, dated November 14, 1667, in which he says:-" Really the business of the house hath been of late so earnest, daily, and so long, that I have not had the time, and scarce the vigour, left me by night to write to you, and to-day, because I would not omit any longer, I lose my dinner to make sure of this letter. The Earl of Clarendon hath taken up much of our time, till within these three days: but since his impeachment hath been carryed up to the House of Lords, we have some leisure from that business."

December 3d, he writes, "Since my last to you we have had a free conference with the Lords, for not committing the Earl of Clarendon upon our general charge. The Lords yesterday sent a message by Judge Archer, and Judge Morton, that they were not satisfyed to commit him, without particular cause specifyed; whereupon our house voted that the Lords, not complying with the desire of the House of Commons, upon the impeachment carried up against him, is an obstruction to public justice in the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament, and is the president of evill and dangerous consequences. To-day the Lords sent down by Judge Twisden, and Judge Brown, another message to us, that they had received a large petition from the Earle of Clarendon, intimating that he was withdrawn. Hereupon our House forthwith ordered addresses to his Majesty, that care might be taken for securing all the Sea ports less he should pass there. I suppose he will not trouble you at Hull."

March 17, 1668, he says,

To-day the House, before a Committee of the whole House, sat and voted that towards the King's supply of £300,000 they will raise at least £100,000 upon wines and strong waters."

Respecting the King sitting in person in the House of Lords during

the debates, Marvell thus writes, March 26, 1670, "His Majesty hath for this whole week come every day in person to the House of Lords, and sate there during their debates and resolutions. And yesterday the Lords went in a body to Whitehall, to give him thanks for the honour he did them." To William Ramsden, Esq., a few days after, he states the particulars of the King's visit more fully. "The King about ten o'clock took boat, with Lauderdale only, and two ordinary attendants, and rowed awhile as towards the bridge, but soon turned back to the Parliament stairs, and so went up into the House of Lords, and took his seat. All of them were amazed, but the Duke of York especially. After the King was seated, his Majesty told them it was a privilege he claimed from his ancestors, to be present at their deliberations. After three or four days' continuance, the Lords were well used to the King's presence, and sent the Lord Steward, and Lord Chamberlain, to enquire when they might render him their humble thanks for the honour he did them. The hour was appointed, and they thanked his Majesty, who took it well. The King has ever since continued his session among them, and says, 'it is better than going to a play." And in the same letter Marvell adds,-" There is some talk of a French Queen to be invented for our King. Some say a sister of the King of Denmark; others, a good virtuous Protestant, here at home. The King disavows it, yet he has sayed in public, he knew not why a woman may not be divorced for barrenness, as a man for impotency."

April 9, 1670, he writes,-" Sir John Pritiman, who serves for Leicester, was yesterday suspended from sitting in the House, and from all privilege, till he find out one Hume (a most notorious fellow), whom he suggested to be his meniall servant; whereas he was a prisoner for debt, and thus, by Sir John's procurement, has escaped his creditors. The Sergeant was sent into the Speaker's chamber with the mace, to bring Sir John, to receive the sentence upon his knees, at the barre. Hereupon the House was disappointed; for in the mean while he was escaped by the back doore; it was then ordered, that that doore be nailed up for the future."

Also of a similar escape he thus writes: "Sir James Norfolk, Sergeant of the House of Commons, was by them voted to be sent to the Tower; and that his Majesty be desired to cause a new Sergeant to attend, he having betrayed his trust, &c., but Sir James forthwith escaped from the House while they were penning the order."

December 8th he says, "The bill for Conventicles hath been twice read, and committed; it makes them henceforth, riots; and orders that those who cannot pay 5s., or who shall refuse to tell their names, or abode, shall work it out, in the House of Correction."

Again December 20:-"The House, before rising to-day, ordered that the Sheriffs of countyes give notice that all members not present in the House on Monday come a fortnight, should be rated double in the bill of Subsidy, so that it will concern them in the country to be up by that time, and if sooner, the better.

be built out of the money, and she frigate."

One moved, that a frigate should might be named the "Sinner's

April 13, 1671-"The Lords and we have agreed on an addresse to his Majesty, that he wear no forain manufactures, and discountenance, whether man or woman, who shall wear them."

By some accident we are unfortunately deprived of Marvell's correspondence with his constituents, for above three years. His next letter bears date, Westminster, October 20, 1674, and is addressed to "The Right Worshipful Daniel Hoare, Mayor, and the Aldermen his Brethren, of Kingston-upon-Hull." The Duke of Monmouth was at this time Governor of Hull, and the Corporation appears to have desired Marvell to wait upon him, with a congratulatory letter, and a present of gold, both as a testimony of their duty and respect, and also as an honorary fee of his office. After executing this commission, he thus writes::

The Duke of Monmouth returned on Saturday from Newmarket. To-day I waited on him, and first presented him with your letter, which he read over very attentively, and then prayed me to assure you, that he would, upon all occasions, be most ready to give you the marks of his affection, and assist you in any affairs that you should recommend to him; with other words of civility to the same purpose. I then delivered him the six broad pieces, telling him I was deputed to blush on your behalfe for the meanness of the present, &c.; but he took me off, and said he thanked you for it, and acccepted it as a token of your kindness. He had, before I came in, as I was told, considered what to do with the gold; but that I by all means prevented the offer, or I had been in danger of being reimbursed with it. I received the bill which was sent me on Mr. Nelehorpe ; but the surplus of it exceeding much the expense I have been at on this occasion, I desire you to make use of it, and of me, upon any other opportunity, remaining, Gentlemen, &c.,

Your most affectionate and humble Servant,
ANDREW MARVELL."

April 17, 1675, he says,-" The Commons have these two days been in a Committee concerning Religion; the occasion of which rose from

the motion of a member of the House concerning the growth of Popery, for giving ease to Protestant Dissenters, and other good things of the same tendency,"

April 22:"A bill was read the first time, that any member of Parliament, who shall hereafter accept any office, after his election, there shall be a new writ issued to elect in his place; but if his Borough shall then, the second time, elect him, it shall be lawful: upon the question, whether it should have a second reading, 88 carried it against 74."

April 24:- "The House of Commons having received a report from the Committee for drawing up the addresse concerning the Duke Lauderdale; Dr. Burnett being examined, whether he knew any thing of bringing over an army into his Majesty's dominions, told them, that, discoursing of the danger of rigorous proceedings against the Presbyterians in Scotland, while his Majesty was engaged in a war with Holland, the Duke said to him, he wished they would rebell; and in pursuit of that discourse, said, he would then hire the Irish Papists to come over, and cut their throats; but the Doctor replying, that, sure, he spoke in jest, the Duke answered, no; he said he was in earnest, and therefore repeated the same words again. Further, that being asked, whether he knew any thing of bringing the Scotch army into England; the Doctor answered the Committee, that he had acquainted them with that of Ireland, because no secret, for the Duke also said the same to several others, and particularly to the Dutchesse of Hamilton; but if the Duke had said any thing to him in confidence, he assured them he should not reveal it, but upon the utmost extremity."

May 15, he thus writes:-"The unhappy misunderstanding betwixt the two Houses increaseth. An ill accident hath come in; for a servant of the Commons' House, having the Speaker's warrant to seize Dr. Shirley, and finding him in the Lords' lobby, showed the warrant to the Lord Mohun, who carried it into the other House, where they kept it: the Commons sent to demand justice against the Lord, and the Lords answered, he had done his duty: upon hearing this, our House voted this message of the Lords unparliamentary. I dare write no more, lest the post leave me behind."

May 27:-"The house of Commons was taken up for the most part yesterday in calling over their House, and have ordered a letter to be drawn up from the Speaker, to every place for which there is a defaulter, to signify the absence of their member, and a solemn letter is accordingly preparing to be signed by the speaker; this is thought a sufficient punishment for any modest man, nevertheless, if they shall not come up hereupon, there is a further severity reserved."

He writes, October 21,-" I crave leave to advertise you, that Mr. Cressett this afternoon discoursing with me said, he had received a letter from the Mayor and seven or eight of the Aldermen, giving him notice that you had received a letter from me of three sides, partly concerning Parliament business, which makes me presume to advertise you, and though I object nothing to Mr. Cressett's fidelity and discretion, neither do I write any thing deliberately that I fear to have divulged, yet seeing it possible in writing to assured friends, a man may give his pen some liberty, for the times are something criticall; beside that, I am naturally, and now more so by my age, inclined to keep my thoughts private, I desire that what I write down to you, may not easily, or unnecessarily, return to a third hand at London; if in saying this I have used more freedom than the occasion requires, I beg your pardon.”

After he had received an answer to this letter, he thus writes, November 4:-" And now, as to yours of the 26th, occasioned by my complaint of intelligence given hither of my letter, I must profess that whosoever did it hath very much obliged me, though I believe beyond his intention, seeing it hath thence happened that I have received so courteous and civil a letter from you, that it warms my very heart, and I shall keep it, as a mark of your honour, always by me, amongst whatsoever things I account most precious and estimable, for it would be very hard for me to tell you at how high a rate I value all expressions of your kindness to me, or how sensibly I should regret the loss of it by any mistake that might chance on either side. I am very well satisfied by your letter, that it was none of you, but it seems there is some sentinell set upon both you and me, and to know it therefore is a sufficient caution; the best of it is, that none of us, I believe, either do, say, or write, any thing but what we care not if it be made public, although we do not desire it."

About this time, in a letter to a friend, Marvell observes, that “the Earl of Clare made a very bold and rational harangue, the King being present, against his Majesty's sitting among the Lords, contrary to former precedents, during their debates, but he was not seconded."* In

* It is presumed that such a hearer, in the House of Lords, would not now have a vote of thanks tendered to him "for the honour he had done them." With respect to courts of justice, it is almost certain, that in early times our Kings, in person, often heard and determined civil causes. EDWARD I. frequently sat in the King's Bench: and in later times, JAMES I. is said to have sat there, but was informed by his Judges that he could not deliver an opinion. Dr. HENRY, in his excellent "History of Great Britain," informs us, that he found no instance of any of our Kings sitting in a court of justice, before EDWARD IV., who, in the second year of his reign, sat three days together in the Court of King's Bench; but, as he was then a very young man, it is probable he was there merely for instruction. In criminal cases, however, it