Hitory ofthePuritans, examin'ci r o5 ` bottom. And it was afterwards clear'd by Ma- ' fter Attorney- General, by his writing a Letter to Mr. Rolls, that the ferving a Subpoena upon him was a Miftake, and pray'd that a favourable = Interpretation might be given to the Matter.' Neal, p. 196. It was mov'd in the Houle, that notwithftanding the King's "Infwer, theOfficers of the Cuftoms fhouldbe proceeded againft, byfeparating their IntereJlsfrom the King's. But when the Speaker, Sir John Finch, was defar'd to put the Queftion, he re- fufed, faying, The King had commanded the contrary. Upon which the Houfe immediately adjourn'd to Jan. 25. ,and then were adjourn'd by the King's Order to March 2. When they met, and requir'd the Speaker to put the former Queftion, he refus'd again, and faid he bad the King's Order to adjourn them to March 16. [roth, it fhould be.] But they detain'd him in the Chair, not without lbw, Tumult and Co:fufion, till they made the following Proteftation. The King, in his Declaration concerning his third Parliament, * gives this Account of the Matter. Underftanding by good Advertifement, that their al-content did not in that time digeft and pats away, we refolv'd to make a fecond Adjournment to the Loth of March : which was done as well = to take time to ourfelf, to think of fome mean = to accommodate thofe Difficulties, as to give. them time to advife better ; and accordingly we- ' gave Commandment for a fecond Adjournment in both Houles, and Ceffation ofall Bufineff'es till the Day appointed. Which was very dutifully obey'd in the higher Houfe, no Man centradi'-. ing or queftion.iing it ; but when the fame Corn- = mand was deliver'd to the Houfeof Commons by ' their Speaker, it was ftraightways contradided And although the Speaker declar'cl unto them, it * King Charles's Works, p. 218. Rufhworth, Vol. I.. App. P. 9. was..
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=