Anglesey, electing to sit for the former (Journals of the House of Commons, 13 May 1661). He was carried by the influence of Clarendon, whose son Laurence Hyde stood with him, of the Bishop of Oxford, and of the heads of houses, against strong opposition aroused apparently by the conduct of their former representative, Selden (Cal. State Papers, 1660-1). He appears to have disappointed his constituents by not assisting to get rid of the hearth-tax (Wood, Athenæ Oxon.) In this year also he was made treasurer and autumn reader of the Inner Temple. He chose as the subject of his lectures, which excited much attention, lasting from 4 to 17 Aug., the statute of the 39th of Elizabeth, concerning the recovery of debts of the crown, which had never previously been discussed. The favour in which he stood was shown by the presence of the king and all the great officers of state at a banquet in his honour on the 15th in the Inner Temple (ib. ; Pepys, Diary ; Dugdale, Origines Juridiciales). It is noticeable that in one matter upon which Charles seemed really bent, toleration of dissent, he certainly opposed the court. In February 1663 he was made chairman of the committee of the commons which drew up in the most uncompromising terms an address to the king praying for the withdrawal of his declaration of indulgence (Parl. Hist. vol. iv.), and in March was the representative of the house in the conference with the lords about a bill against the priests and Jesuits (Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser. 1663-4). In October 1664 he was leading counsel for the Canary merchants in their endeavour to acquire a new charter (Evelyn, Diary, 27 Oct.) When the house met at Oxford in 1665 he again vehemently espoused the intolerant policy of the Anglican church by pressing forward the Five Mile Act ; and at the prorogation he, with Hyde, Colonel Strangways, and Sir John Birkenhead, received the honorary degree of D.C.L. (7 Nov.), having with the two latter (Commons' Journals, 31 Oct. 1665), by order of the commons, communicated to the university on 31 Oct. 1665 the thanks of the house for its 'loyalty in the late rebellion, especially in refusing to submit to the visitation of the usurped powers, and to take the solemn league and covenant' (Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser. 1664-5). In the debate on the Five Mile Act, when Vaughan wished to add the word 'legally' to 'commissioned by him,' Finch pointed out that the addition was unnecessary, and his argument was adopted by Anglesey in the lords, where Southampton moved the same addition (Burnet, Own Time, i. 225). In the session of 1666 he spoke against the Irish Cattle Bill (Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser. 1666-7), and in October 1667 on Clarendon's impeachment. The account is obscure, but apparently he did what he could to check the violence of the commons, insisting on sworn evidence, though willing that it should be kept secret. On 18 Feb. 1668 he did the court good service by shelving the bill for holding frequent parliaments on the ground of informal introduction (Parl. Hist.) ; and in the same month, in the celebrated Skinner controversy, he pleaded against Skinner before the lords on behalf of the East India Company (Pepys, 22 Feb. 1668). In December 1668, on the motion for impeaching the Earl of Orrery, he warned the house against acting upon 'out-of-door accusation' (Parl. Hist.) On 10 May 1670 he became attorney-general, and soon afterwards councillor to Queen Catherine. He was chamberlain of Chester from 1673 to 1676. He exercised a moderating influence in the debates on the bill for 'preventing malicious maiming,' which followed the outrage on Sir John Coventry [q. v.], and he successfully opposed the proposal for a double assessment of defaulting members of the house by the argument that by tacking it to the subsidy bill a matter affecting the commons only would come before the lords. In April 1671 he conducted with great skill the conferences between the lords and commons on the subject of the interference of the former in money bills, from which dates practically the cessation of the practice. His ability in the conduct of this matter was recognised by the formal thanks of the house. On 6 Feb. 1673 he argued in favour of the 'chancellor's writs,' the writs issued for parliamentary elections during the recess by Shaftesbury, on the ground that parliamentary privilege was then dormant, but could not make head against the determination of the house to suffer no court interference. In the great debate of 10 Feb. on the king's declaration of indulgence, while repudiating the doctrine advanced by Shaftesbury of a distinction between the exercise of the royal power in ecclesiastical and temporal affairs, he defended the legality and expediency of the declaration. 'A mathematical security,' he said, 'we cannot have ; a moral one we have from the king.' Seeing the temper of the house, however, he concluded by the illogical motion that the king be petitioned 'that it might be so no more.' In March 1673 he passionately opposed the Naturalisation of Foreigners Bill, and in October did his best in vain to combat the determination of the commons to refuse further supplies for the Dutch war (Parl. Hist.)
