University of
Michigan
Libraries
18 17
ARTES SCIENTIA
VERITAS
THIS BOOK
FORMS PART OF THE
ORIGINAL LIBRARY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
BOUGHT IN EUROPE
1838 TO 1839
BY
ASA GRAY
DIARY
OF
THOMAS BURTON, ESQ.
&e. &c.
VOL. III.
же
1
LONGON:
TRINTED BY S AND H. BENTLEY, DORSET-STREET.
Fav-similes in illustration of the Diary.
Ohire Comwett.

T
Mimwek Olure
Hrant Richard B

-waiste
to Murlos agent
78
F-
F
10

انا
Published Hangs vellain London, 188
by
DIARY
COLD
OF
THOMAS BURTON, ESQ.
MEMBER IN THE PARLIAMENTS
OF
OLIVER AND RICHARD CROMWELL,
FROM 1656 TO 1659:
NOW FIRST PUBLISHED
FROM THE
ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPH MANUSCRIPT.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION,
CONTAINING AN
ACCOUNT OF THE PARLIAMENT OF 1654;
FROM THE JOURNAL OF
GUIBON GODDARD, ESQ. M. P.
ALSO NOW FIRST PRINTED.
EDITED AND ILLUSTRATED
WITH NOTES HISTORICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL
BY JOHN TOWILL RUTT.
IN FOUR VOLUMES.
VOL. III.
!

LONDON:
HENRY COLBURN, NEW BURLINGTON STREET.
1828.
1
1
1
Val R
OCH
DA
4
1
INTRODUCTION.
THE Courtiers of Whitehall, who attended the last hours of
the late Protector, agreed in their report, that he had exer-
cised his prerogative* of appointing a successor, by nomi-
nating, though, probably, almost in the article of death,†
Richard, his eldest son; who had been a member of both his
Parliaments, and in whose favour he had resigned the Chan-
cellorship of Oxford University. He also had been distin-
+
+
* See infra, p. 224, note; Vol. i. p. 385.
† See infra, p. 141, 263, note. Roger Coke mentions the opinion,
that "Cromwell had, by his last will, when he was compos mentis,
designed Fleetwood for his successor; whereas, Richard was substituted
in a surreptitious manner, by the craft of some of the Council, when
Cromwell had lost his senses." Detection, (1697,) p. 406.
See vol. ii. p. 314, note. "Whitehall, July 29, 1657.
This day,
the most noble Lord, the Lord Richard Cromwell, was installed Chancel-
lor of the most famous University of Oxon.
+
"About four o'clock, afternoon, Dr. John Owen, Vice-Chancellor of
the University, with the heads of houses in their scarlets, the proctors,
and a great number of masters of arts, came hither to the lodgings of
my Lord Richard in their formalities, the beadles of the University
preceding the Vice-Chancellor.
CC
"The Convocation being set," and "the most noble Lord Chancellor
elect" being "admitted Master of Arts," he came attended by the
reverend Dr. Wilkins," (his uncle, afterwards Bishop of Chester.)
"His Lordship's robe was scarlet, and after the manner of the Proctor's
habit.” After "a speech in Latin to his Lordship," by the senior
Proctor, and the presentation of "the Book of Statutes," and the
various "
ensigns of authority,” and “an elegant speech in Latin, by
the Vice-Chancellor, the oath of Chancellor was administered. His
Lordship, in a short speech, declared his good acceptance of the honour
done him, with promises of performing whatever lieth in his power, as
VOL 111.
a
iv
[1658.
INTRODUCTION.
4
guished by the priority of nomination to the other House.
With this report the Council were easily satisfied ;* though
an appointment, under such circumstances, was liable to ani-
madversion, as will presently appear,† and could scarcely
be sustained, except by the argument of possession, against
that rigorous scrutiny which from the discordant interests
of rival parties might be speedily expected.
Richard Cromwell accepted the appointment, with all its
informality, and was immediately proclaimed in London and
Westminster. In a few days, the ceremonial was repeated
becomes their Chancellor, for the security, honour, and advantage of
that renowned University.
"This ceremony being ended, banquets were prepared in several
rooms, for the entertainment of that learned body." Mercurius Poli-
ticus, No. 373.
Whitlock represents "the Council" as "satisfied, that the Pro-
tector, in his life-time, according to the Petition and Advice, had de-
clared his son Richard to be his successor." Memorials, (1732,) p. 674.
+ See infra, pp. 25-33, 87, 104, 105, 112, 113, 124, 125, 129, 141,
151, note, &c.
((
See infra, p. 130. "The proclamation of Richard to be Lord Pro-
tector," says Whitlock, was made in London, in the following words:-
"Whereas, it hath pleased the most wise God, in his Providence, to
take out of this world the most serene and renowned Oliver, late Lord
Protector of this Commonwealth; and his Highness having, in his life-
time, according to the humble Petition and Advice, declared and ap-
pointed the most noble and illustrious, the Lord Richard, eldest son of
his said late Highness, to succeed him in the government of these
nations :
"We therefore, of the Privy Council, together with the Lord Mayor,
Aldermen, and citizens of London, the officers of the army, and num-
bers of other principal gentlemen, do now hereby with one full voice
and consent of tongue and heart, publish and declare the said noble and
illustrious Lord Richard, to be rightful Protector of this Commonwealth
of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions and territories
thereunto belonging.
To whom we do acknowledge all fidelity and constant obedience,
according to law, and the said humble Petition and Advice, with all
hearty and humble affections, beseeching the Lord, by whom princes
rule, to bless him with long life, and these nations with peace and hap-
piness under his government.
"Richard
t
1658.]
V
INTRODUCTION.
throughout England; and at Dunkirk, the fall of which, and
its exclusive military occupation by the English, though the
French contributed to the capture, had formed the last, and
not the least brilliant exploit, in the history of the Pro-
tectorate:*
Addresses, too often the stratagems of political intriguers,
or the vehicles of servile adulation, are said to have been first
employed in England, to compliment the late Protector's
successful usurpation. They were now profusely laid,+
"Richard Chiverton, Mayor. Henry Lawrence, President. Na-
thaniel Fiennes, C. S. John Lisle, C. S., &c.
"God save his Highness, Lord Protector." Memorials (1732); see
Parl. Hist. xxi. 227–232.
*See infra, p. 488, note.
+ "In Oliver's time, they came in fashion," says the author of the
History of Addresses, (1709,) p. 2.
+
"Richard had his addresses, as well as his father, and in a far
greater number, the custom prevailing more and more daily.” Ibid.
p. 6.
Dr. Bates says: CC
cum petitionibus approbatoriis numero circiter nona-
ginta quaquaversus advolant, ut exorienti soli adblandirentur." Elen-
chus, (1676,) p. 334. (They hastened from all parts, with about ninety
addresses of congratulation, worshipping the rising sun.)
Roger Coke mentions "numerous companies of sycophants, from all
parts of the nation, to the number of ninety congratulatory addresses,
which Richard had as little good of, as King James II. had from those
above thirty years after." Detection, (1697,) p. 406.
Richard, like other sovereigns, was not left unacknowledged by the
flattering incense of dedications. See infra, p. 163, note*. The
learned lawyer, Rushworth, (whose name appears, disgracefully, in
1660, among the witnesses for the crown,) now publishing the Historical
Collections, to which I have been very frequently indebted, thus con-
cludes a dedication to the young Protector:-
"But few words are best to princes. Vouchsafe, your Highness,
pardon to him who thus presumes to make so mean an oblation at so
high an altar. Your good acceptation will be the greatest honour to
it." Parl. Hist. (1763,) xxiii. 218.
Even Mr. Locke has fallen into this absurdity of dedication. Thus,
presenting his Essay, in 1689, to the Earl of Pembroke, a respect-
able private nobleman, neither possessing nor affecting any uncommon
literary or scientific attainments, and scarcely known to posterity, be-
yond the peerage, he says:—
vi
[1658.
INTRODUCTION.
such is the unmanly vernacular language of Courts, at the
feet of his son. These addresses, of whose preservation, on a
reverse of his condition, Richard is said to have been sin-
gularly observant,* conveyed the usual tenders of lives and
fortunes, from civil, military, and ecclesiastical communities,
in various quarters of England and its dependencies. They,
at length arrived, though probably "a day too late," even
from the transatlantic provinces.+ Foreign ministers, also,
as if in accordance with Sir Henry Wotton's definition of an
ambassador, were not regardless of their diplomatic duties.
Each presented from his Court, in the laboured style of com-
pliment, the customary common-places of sorrow and gratu-
lation; thus giving, "to airy nothings, a name" required on
+
"A present I here make to your Lordship; just such as the poor
man does to his rich and great neighbour, by whom the basket of flowers
or fruit, is not ill taken, though he has more plenty of his own growth
and in much greater perfection. Worthless things receive a value,
when they are made the offerings of respect, esteem, and gratitude.”
Works, (1740,) i. 10. See infra, p. 52, note ‡.
* See infra, p. 153, note; House of Cromwell, (1787,) i. 179–182.
+ See Biog. Brit. (1789,) iv. 529. Yet Governor Hutchinson, says:
"An express acknowledgment of Richard Cromwell, was expected from
the Massachuset's, but they declined it." History, (1765,) i. 206.
Isaac Walton relates, that Sir Henry Wotton, at his first going
ambassador into Italy, (in 1604,) as he passed through Germany, was
requested," by a friend, "with whom he was passing an evening in
merriment, to write some sentence in his albo; a book of white paper,
which for that purpose, many of the German gentry usually carry about
them; and Sir Henry Wotton, consenting to the motion, took an
occasion from some accidental discourse of the present company, to
write a pleasant definition of an Ambassador, in these very words:
Legatus est vir bonus peregrè missus ad mentiendum reipublicæ causâ.”
See the Life prefixed to Reliquiæ Wottoniana:
§ The Lord de Bourdeaux, "at an audience to which he was intro-
duced by Sir Oliver Fleming, Master of the Ceremonies, presented
to his Highness two letters; one from his Majesty of France, the other
from his Eminency, Cardinal Mazarine, and delivered himself in a
speech to this effect:
"That his Master, the King of France, having heard of the death of
his late Highness, of glorious memory, did very much take to heart the
loss of so great a captain, and so good an ally of his crown. That his
1658.]
vii
INTRODUCTION.
such occasions, to avoid the imputation of some unfriendly
purpose.
"The situation of Richard," says Dr. Kippis, "had every
thing that was promising and prosperous in its external
appearance. The voice of joy and praise was heard from all
parts:" and "for nearly five months from his accession to the
Protectorship, he seemed to remain as great a prince as ever
*
Majesty rejoiced, at being informed, that in order to the repairing so
great a loss, it had pleased God to establish his Highness, as his father's
undoubted successor." Parl. Hist. (1760,) xxi. 237.
"Yet as soon as Cardinal Mazarine heard, at Paris, of Oliver's death,
he personally waited upon the Queen-Mother of England, to congratu-
late her thereupon, as the most probable accident that could have hap-
pened to advance her son's restoration." Ibid.
Whitlock mentions, "October 18th, audience given by Richard, to the
French Ambassador, when Richard did carry himself discreetly and
better than was expected." Memorials, (1732,) p. 675.
* The circumstances attending the accession" of his serene Highness,
Lord Richard Cromwell," are thus described by Prestwich, a con-
temporary.
Instantly, on the death of his serene Highness, Oliver Crom-
well, Lord Protector, the Privy Council assembled, and summonses
were immediately sent to all the Lords and superior officers, both civil
and military. After which, his son and successor, Lord Richard Crom-
well, was acknowledged by the Council, and was thereupon proclaimed,
as the rightful and most undoubted Heir, Prince, and Governor. And
the next morning, being Saturday, the following notice was forwarded
to all the chief towns in the dominions of the Commonwealth, with
orders to make the same public, by means of the Common Cryer, &c. &c.
"Public notice is hereby given and declared: That whereas, it hath
pleased Almighty God, by his providence, to take away the most serene
and most illustrious Oliver, Lord Protector; who, according to the
Petition and Advice, in his life-time, had declared the most noble and
illustrious, his son, the Lord Richard Cromwell, to be his successor; the
Council, the Lord Mayor, the officers of the army, therefore, do heartily
and unanimously, acknowledge the said Lord Richard, as rightful
Protector and Chief Magistrate, and do require all persons to yield
obedience; beseeching Almighty God, by whom Princes reign, and wise
men decree justice, to bless him with long life, and the nations under
him, with peace and happiness.
"This being finished, Sir Richard Chiverton, the Mayor, and the
Aldermen of London, according to order from the Council, that Satur-
day, in the afternoon, came down to Whitehall, and condoled and
viii
[1658-9.
INTRODUCTION.
The exigencies of govern-
his father had been before him."*
ment, however, required a Parliament,† to whatever hazards
the Protector's new and feebly constituted authority would be
exposed, amidst the free and fearless discussions, which from
a late example, might be fairly apprehended in such an as-
sembly. That these hazards were of no ordinary character
will presently appear.
Westminster, January 27, 1658-9.
This being the day appointed for the meeting of the Par-
liament, his Highness, attended by his Privy Council, and
the high officers of state, and of his household, with the
officers of his army, and the gentlemen of his household,
passed by water, in a stately new built galley, and landed at
the Parliament-stairs; from whence, the Lord Cleypole,
Master of the Horse, bearing the sword before him, he passed
up to the House of Lords; where, having reposed a while,
he passed thence to the Abbey Church, being attended as
before, the Lord General Disbrowe then bearing the sword. 1
+
congratulated Lord Richard Cromwell; and, in their presence, Fiennes,
the Lord Commissioner gave him his oath. After which, the Rev. Mr.
Manton, as Prelate of the Protectorship, said prayers, and blessed him,
his council, armies, and people. After this, on the Monday next, they
proclaimed in great triumph; the lords, great officers, with most of the
superior army and navy officers attending the solemnity, and this at the
usual places in London." Respublica, (1787,) pp. 204, 205. See supra,
p. ii. note 1.
"Richard Cromwell," says Wood, was proclaimed Protector, at
Oxon. (Sep. 6,) at the usual places where Kings have been proclaimed.
While he was proclaiming before Saint Marie's Church dore, the Mayor,
Recorder, Town-Clerk, &c. accompanied by Colonel Unton Croke, and
his troopers, were pelted with carret and turnip-tops, by young scholars
and others, who stood at a distance." Life, (1772,) pp. 115, 116.
* Biog. Brit. iv. 530.
+ Which was called on the antient model. See infra, p. 74, note.
Mercurius Politicus, No. 552.
+
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
&c. &c.
Thursday, January 27, 1658-9.
THE Parliament began at Westminster.`
Dr. Thomas Goodwin* preached at the Abbey, where his
Highness and the Lords sat together, and the House of Com-
mons, sparsim. His text, Psalm lxxxv. 10; his scope, heal-
+
A celebrated Independent, whose works occupy five folios. In the
Assembly of Divines he took an active part, and preserved their trans-
actions, in several volumes. Dr. Goodwin was of Cambridge University,
and a Fellow of Eton College, but became "one of the favourites of
Oliver Cromwell, who made him President of Magdalen College,
Oxford." He, of course, lost every thing at the Restoration, but his
religion and learning, preferments which kings can neither give nor
take away; and which, under the imperfect discipline of a princely
education, they have been, too seldom, qualified to appreciate.
Dr. Goodwin died in 1679, in his 80th year. He was buried in Bun-
hill Fields, where is a long Latin inscription on his tomb: yet, such was
the vengeance on the dead, indulged by the adherents of restored roy-
alty, that several lines, not in the least political, but describing the
judgment of the deceased, as to the scriptural form of Christian socie-
ties, and his ability and success as a Christian Minister, "were not suf-
fered to be engraved on the stone." See Dr. Calamy's Account (1713),
p. 60. Continuation (1727), 1, 91.
According to Wood, Dr. Goodwin " is said, in the common Register of
the University, to be in scriptis in re theologicâ quamplurimis orbi notus.”
See Athen. Oxon. (1692,) ii. 783.
+ Here and there.
On the late Protector's use of this Psalm, see Vol. ii. p. 325.
VOL. III.
B
be
[JAN. 27,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
ing, inciting to unity, and to mix mercy and truth, righteous-
ness and peace together: to give liberty for erroneous con-
sciences; but not so much encouragement as to true pro-
fessors, &c.
A Quaker got near the pulpit and spoke a deal of nonsense
(the sermon done), and his Highness paused a little till he
had done.
The sermon ended about one o'clock. His Highness went
to the Lords' House, where the Lords being all placed; and
a great many Commons, sparsim, at the bar amongst strang-
ers; the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Comptroller, and Black
Rod and Heralds, cleared the room, save only for some
known Members that stayed, and some that would not go out
by their command; as Colonel Matthews, &c.
They say there were about 150 Members sitting in the
House, while his Highness was speaking in the other House,
and that the Black Rod went for them, but they came not.
Mr. Scobell* said we should have come there, as a House of
Parliament.
His Highness made a very handsome speech,† in order to
his father's memory, his esteem of Parliaments, his own being
settled by God's providence and the law. He called the
army the best army in the world, from their patience in not
mutinying for their pay:‡ invited us to unity, and referred
the business of money, particularly, to the House of Com-
mons. He would spend his life for and with the Parliament
as that wherein his and the nation's principal safety consisted,
and they should see his readiness to attend to any thing that
they should offer as advice to him. He left the rest to be
said by Lord-keeper Fiennes.
Lord Fiennes said,§ what can he say but the same thing,
that is, to speak after a King; so I, after his Highness, can
only echo it over.
""
* On the appointment of the "Other House he had become their
Clerk. See vol. ii. pp. 350.
+ See infra pp. 7, 11, notes *
1 See their destitute condition, Vol. ii. p. 366.
§ See his speech, at length, Parl. Hist. xxi. 269–281.
1658-9.]
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
His speech was longer, but much to the same purpose;
only run more upon the triple cord, and inviting to unity,
and not to meddle with foundations.*
This done, the members then present went to the House of
Commons, where, about one o'clock, the House was very
full, at least four hundred.
Sir Walter Earle. We do not come here to sit still and
say nothing. A speaker must be chosen; you will think that
fit. I believe there is in the House a very worthy person,
and fit for your service.
The House called, Name him, name him; then he named
him, viz. Mr. Chute.
Then divers called out, nemine contradicente. Mr. Chute
to the chair.
Mr. Chute. I need not make a speech to excuse my un-
fitness to serve you. I carry a natural infirmity about me.
I have it in my foot; so much disability, that I was scarce
able to crawl hither to do my duty here. Another infirmity
I have, which you all know, and will every day more. I
have no manner of experience in the way of that employment,
and the greatest part of what I know, is the least part of
what I ought to know. For these and other reasons I could
offer, I move to make choice of another.†
* The Lord Commissioner recommends, "That all parliaments for
the future shall be parliaments of the three nations; and so, at length,
a strong treble cord twisted together, which cannot be easily broken;
I say,” he adds, "which cannot be easily broken while it remains twisted
together. But if untwisted, it may not only be soon and easily broken
itself; but afterwards each part will serve and help to break the other.”
Ibid. 271. For other specimens of the learned Lord Commissioner's par-
liamentary eloquence, see vol. ii. p. 330, 409, notes.
+ This desire of another choice, like the noli episcopari, attributed to
the prelacy, is still affected at the commencement of every Parliament.
"The Speaker's excuse," says Mr. Elsynge, " is formal, and out of mo-
desty; for he first excuseth himself to the Commons, when they elect
him, and afterwards to the King when he is presented. The Lord Chan-
cellor confers with the King, and then telleth him, that his Majesty doth
approve of the Commons' choice, and will not allow of his excuse. See
"Manner of holding Parliaments," (1768,) pp. 165, 167.
>>
It does not appear that the Protector had any controul over the Com-
mons, in their choice of a Speak er.
B 2
4
[JAN. 27,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
All called out Mr. Chute to the chair.
Sir Walter Earle and
* led him to the chair.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge was about to second the motion, but
it needed not.
Mr. Speaker,+ being in the chair, moved; Gentlemen, I am
bound to obey your commands; and paused till the mace
came, which was called for. Then he proceeded to make
another apology.
As the form is, gentlemen, you called me to this place for
directions, so that I must not give ill examples by troubling
you with a long speech. I never knew much said in long
speeches. I never loved them. I desire that you would
think of me as the motto on the sun-dial is, auspice me; ut
te auspiciam. The best adage is, self dc, self have; volenti
non sit injuria. You have placed me here, and you must
bear the burthen of my infirmities, &c.
Mr. Speaker being thus placed, four Aldermen of the City
of London came together into the House in scarlet gowns,
and took their places.‡
Mr. Speaker moved that he would not hinder the business
of settlement; but supposed the course to be, first, to read
a bill.§ He had a bill touching the non-exportation of fish.
He moved it might be read, and it was read. He presented
it, as a bill which was of the last Parliament.
Mr. Knightley. I move for a day for the second reading
of it.
Sir Walter Earle. It is not proper to recommend a bill,
let it recommend itself; but if one will speak to the rejecting
* Thus blank in the MS., but in the Journals "Mr. Charles Rich, bro-
ther to the Earl of Warwick." See vol. ii. pp. 315, ad fin.
tr
+"Mr. Chaloner Chute," says Whitlock, was chosen Speaker of
this Parliament, an excellent orator, a man of great parts and generosity,
whom many doubted that he would not join with the Protector's party,
but he did heartily." Memorials (1732), p. 676.
This custom is still observed, on the meeting of every new Parlia-
ment, though the four members, as at present, are not, necessarily, Al-
dermen. Any liveryman is eligible.
§ Such is the modern practice, before the consideration of the King's
speech, as if to assert for the Commons their independence of the crown.
1658-91
5
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
LO
of it they may; otherwise, no one may speak to it upon the
first reading.
Mr. Speaker. I move to adjourn for two or three days.
Mr. Weaver. Adjourn now, and call the House, for fear
of intruders.
Mr. Hungerford. It is too soon to call the House, till all
returned come in.
Colonel Thompson. You have two laws a-foot. You spoil
the game if you run not one out first. Put this question off
your hands, and I shall not be against adjourning.
Mr. Hungerford, Captain Hatsell, Captain Baines, and
Mr. Chaloner, moved the like.
Mr. Knightley. Formerly all bills were read a second time
between ten and eleven.
Mr. Speaker. Formerly, no time was set down for the se-
cond reading; but the Speaker took a convenient time for it.
Sir Walter Earle. I move to call the House, in case of in-
truders. The commissioners for swearing the members* have
informed me that one borough, which had a right to choose
but one burgess, had returned two, and that by an escape both
were sworn and sat. I would have all those things examined.
Colonel Mildmay. I move to choose your clerk. The
person in place may be deserving, and haply none will be
against him; but own your privilege in choosing; and the
like, for all your officers.
Mr. Onslow. Put your question upon the form. He
served in the last Parliament; and, I suppose, is so deserving
that none will be against it.
The clerk, viz. Mr. Smythe, being commanded to withdraw,
the question was put, and passed, nemine contradicente.
Mr. Speaker moved the question, that the clerk be continued.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge liked not the word continued; so it
was changed, that he shall be clerk, &c.
Sir Thomas Barnardiston and Mr. Weaver moved the like for
the other officers, viz. Darnall, Clerk Assistant, and Serjeant
Birkhead, and all resolved, nemine contradicente.
* See infra, p. 11, note †.
6
[JAN. 27,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
+
Colonel Mildmay. I would have the clerk cautioned for
sitting without leave, before he was chosen by the House.
The like may be imposed upon you hereafter. Part not with
any of your privileges, &c.
He was not seconded.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move that care be taken to
make your House as full as you can; that, in case of double
returns, by reason of the false dealings of Sheriffs and Mayors,
these may be speedily considered. I would ever in all places,
especially in this House, observe this rule,-do as I would be
done by.
A gentleman cried No.
Sir Arthur took exceptions. If that gentleman that cries
No, were without doors, and kept out as divers of your mem-
bers are, he would not cry No. I move that, to-morrow, you
appoint your Committee for privileges.
Colonel Matthews, the like.
Mr. Weaver. It is not proper to meddle with privileges
till
your House be called, to see if all that sit are members.
Some said, name the Committee first, and some, have the
House called first, and both said it was according to the orders
of the House.
Mr. Speaker. Well may I be ignorant of your orders,
when I see both sides so confident, in different orders.
Mr. James Ashe. I move for a Committee of privileges.
Mr. Trenchard. I never knew a Speaker and a Commit-
tee appointed both in one day.
Major Burton moved for a day of humiliation; but nobody
seconded the motion.
The House adjourned itself till eight next morning; but
no question was put, for it need not, unless there was a day
intervening. The house rose at four.*
* The following is the commencement of the journal of this Parlia-
ment, kept by Mr. Guibon Goddard, Recorder of Lynn, and Member for
Castle Rising, whose manuscript volume I have described in the preface.
Tuesday, 25th Jan, 1658-9. I set forward in a great storm of wind
from Lynn for Westminster, in order to serve the Parliament, where, on
Thursday morning, about nine of the clock, I arrived, and presently
1658-9.1
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The Speech of his Highness the Lord Protector.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
I believe there are scarce any of you here, who expected
some months since to have seen this great Assembly at this
time, in this place, in peace; considering the great and unex-
pected change which it hath pleased the all-disposing hand of
God to make in the midst of us. I can assure you, that if
things had been according to your own fears, and the hopes of
our enemies, it had not been thus with us: and, therefore, it
will become both you and me, in the first place, as to reve-
rence and adore the great God, possessor of heaven and earth,
in whose hands our breath is, and whose are all our ways,
because of his judgments; so to acknowledge him in his
goodness to these lands, in that he hath not added sorrow to
sorrow, and made the period of his late Highness's life, and
that of the nation's peace, to have been in one day.
Peace was one of the blessings of my Father's government;
a mercy, after so long a civil war, and in the midst of so great
shifted myself, and got down to Westminster that day (being the first
day of the sitting of the Parliament) before the sermon was done, that
being preached by Dr. Thomas Goodwin, upon the text of mercy and
truth having met together, righteousness and peace having kissed each
other.
Being at Westminster, I was informed I must take an oath, in the
lobby before the Parliament door, where being, and demanding of the
oath, I was told by Mr. Smythe, that there being a double return, I could
not sit before the opinion of the House was therein agreed, and so I did
forbear, at present, to go into the House, but I went into the Painted
Chamber, and so to the other House.
"Not long after, the sermon being ended, my Lord Protector came
into the other House, where he first made a very sober and full discourse
of the occasion of the calling of this Parliament. After whom, my Lord
Fiennes, one of the keepers of the seal, enlarged upon the heads of the
Protector's discourse; after which the Commons departed to their own
House, and chose for their Speaker, Mr. Chaloner Chute, and appoint-
ed their officers, and read a Bill, according to their course, and ordered
the next day to call over the House, and to appoint a Committee then
of privileges, which being ended, they adjourned until next morning at
eight of the clock." Goddard MS.
8
[JAN. 27,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
division which that war bred, is not usually afforded by God
unto a people in so great a measure.
The cause of God, and these nations, which he was engaged
in, met in all the parts of it, as you well know, with many
enemies, and great opposition. The Archers, privily and
openly, sorely grieved him, and shot at him, yet his bow
abode in strength; and the arms of his hands were made
strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob.
As to himself, he died full of days, spent in great and sore
travail; yet his eyes were not waxed dim, neither was his
natural strength abated, as it was said of Moses. He was
serviceable even to the last.
As to these nations, he left them in great honour abroad,
and in full peace at home; all England, Scotland and Ire-
land, dwelling safely, every man under his vine, and under
his fig-tree, from Dan even to Beersheba.
He is gone to rest, and we are entered into his labours;
and if the Lord hath still a blessing for these lands (as I trust
he hath), as our peace hath been lengthened out to this day,
so shall we go on to reap the fruit, and gather the harvest
of what his late Highness hath sown, and laid the founda-
tion of.
For my own part, being by the providence of God, and
the disposition of the law, my Father's successor, and bearing
that place in the government that I do, I thought it for the
public good to call a parliament of the three nations, now
united and conjoined together into one commonwealth, under
one Government.
It is agreeable, not only to my trust, but to my principles,
to govern these nations by the advice of my two Houses of
Parliament. I find it asserted in the humble Petition and
Advice (which is the corner-stone of this building, and that
which I shall adhere to), "that Parliaments are the great
Council of the chief Magistrate, in whose advice both he and
these nations may be most safe and happy." I can assure
I have that esteem of them: and, as I have made it the
you
first act of my government to call you together, so I shall
further let you sce the value I have of you, by the answers
1658-9.]
9
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
that I shall return to the advice that shall be given me by
you, for the good of these nations.
You are come up from your several countries, as the heads
of your tribes, and with hearts (I persuade myself) to consult
together for their good. I can say I meet you with the same
desires, having nothing in my design but the maintenance of
the peace, laws, and liberties, both civil and christian, of these
nations; which I shall always make the measure and rule of
my government, and be ready to spend my life for.
We have summoned you up at this time, to let you know
the state of our affairs, and to have your advice in them: and
I believe a Parliament was never summoned upon a more im-
portant occasion.
It is true, as I have told you, we are, through the goodness
of God, at this time in peace; but it is not thus with us,
because we have no enemies. There are enough both within
us and without us, who would soon put an end to our peace,
were it in their power, or should it at any time come into
their power.
It will be becoming your wisdom, to consider of the secu-
ring of our peace against those, who, we all know, are, and
ever will be, our implacable enemies. What the means of
doing this are, I shall refer unto you.
This I can assure you, that the armies of England, Scot-
land, and Ireland, are true and faithful to the peace and good
interest of these nations, and it will be found so, and that
they are a consisting body, and useful for any good ends;
and, if they were not the best army in the world, you would
have heard of inconveniencies, by reason of the great arrear
of pay which is now due unto them, whereby some of them
are reduced to great necessities: but you shall have a par-
ticular account of their arrears, and I doubt not but consider-
ation will be had thereupon, in some speedy and effectual way.
And this being matter of money, I recommend it particularly
to the House of Commons.
You have, you know, a war with Spain, carried on by the
advice of Parliament. He is an old enemy, and a potent one,
and therefore it will be necessary, both for the honour and
10
[JAN 27,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
safety of these nations, that that war be vigorously prose-
cuted.
Farthermore, the constitution of affairs in all our neighbour
countries, and round about us (as well friends as enemies) is
very considerable, and calls upon us to be upon our guard
both at land and sea, and to be in a posture able to maintain
and conserve our own state and interest.
Great and powerful fleets are preparing to be sent forth into
these seas, and considerable armies of several nations and
kings are now disputing for the mastery of the Sound, with
the adjacent islands and countries; among which is the Ro-
I need not tell you
man Emperor, with other Popish states.
of what consequence these things are to this state.
We have already interposed in these affairs, in such manner
as we found it necessary for the interest of England; and
matters are yet in such a condition in those parts, that this
state may, with the assistance of God, provide that their dif-
ferences may not prejudice us.
The other things that are to be said, I shall refer to my
Lord Keeper Fiennes, and close up what I have to say, with
only adding two or three particulars to what I have already
said.
And first, I recommend to your care the people of God in
these nations, with their concernments. The more they are
divided among themselves, the greater prudence should be
used to cement them.
Secondly, the good and necessary work of reformation, both
in manners and in the administration of justice, that profane-
ness may be discountenanced and suppressed, and that righte-
ousness and justice may be executed in the land.
Thirdly, I recommend unto you the Protestant cause
abroad, which seems at this time to be in some danger,
having great and powerful enemies, and very few friends;
and I hope and believe, that the old English zeal to that cause
is still among us.
Lastly, my Lords, and you Gentlemen of the House of
Commons, that you will in all your debates maintain and
conserve love and unity among yourselves, that therein you
1658-9.]
11
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
may be the pattern of the nation, who have sent you up in
peace, and with their prayers, that the spirit of wisdom and
peace may be among you: and this shall also be my prayer
for you and to this let us all add our utmost endeavours for
the making this a happy Parliament.*
Friday, January 28, 1658-9.+
Mr. Peters prayed, standing.
Mr. Bacon moved, that Wednesday be appointed for a fast
in the House.
Mr. Knightley moved for a fast.
Mr. Gerrard moved for Dr. Reynolds § to preach.
Resolved, nemine contradicente.
Mr. Knightley moved for Mr. Manton,|| his parish minister.
* See " A Compleat Collection of Remarkable Speeches," (1707) pp.
76-80; Parl. Hist. xxi. 265-269; Harleian Miscellany (1808), i. 25—28.
Mr. Slingsby Bethel, member for Knaresborough, in this Parliament,
says, the Protector "made, beyond expectation, a very handsome speech
exceeding that which followed by his Keeper of the Great Seal." See " A
Brief Narrative of the Parliament called by Richard Cromwell," annexed
to "The Interests of the Princes and States of Europe." (1694)
pp. 334.
+ "Friday, 28th Jan. 1658-9. This morning I went to Westminster,
and the Commissioners for tendering the oath, being fully satisfied that
although there was a double return for the borough for which I served,
yet, in regard, I was returned by both the returns, that my election stood
free from any objection, therefore they made no farther scruples, but
gave me the oath, whereupon I presently entered the House." Goddard
MS. p. 106.
Among these forty-one Commissioners, was Edmund Ludlow, whose
attendance in that capacity could not have been expected, but who was
named, probably, with the vain hope of conciliating him to the Protec-
toral usurpation. That inflexible republican, however, sat in this Par-
liament, without taking the oath. See his Memoirs, ii. 619-623. For
the names of the Commissioners, see the Journals. The oath was, ver-
batim, as quoted, vol. ii. p. 297, note.
↑ See vol. i. p. 244. ; ii. pp. 346, 420, note.
§ Who, after the Restoration, became Bishop of Norwich. See infra.
See vol. ii. p. 311. note.
12
[JAN. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Resolved, nemine contradicente.
Mr. Weaver moved for Mr. Calamy.*
Major-General Kelsey moved for Dr. Owen.†
Dr. Clarges moved for Mr. Calamy.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge moved for the same.
Lord Lambert moved for Dr. Owen.
There was a great debate about which should be of the
two.
Mr. Grove. To prevent reflection, I move for both to
be appointed, and that all the four carry on the work of the
day, two preach and two pray; as themselves should agree
of it.
Mr. Bacon seconded that motion.
Mr. Bodurda and Mr. Knightley moved to put the ques-
tion for them singly. Otherwise, you include men's votes,
that, haply, would be for one, and not for the other.
A great debate arose which should be put first.
Lord Lambert was for Dr. Owen.
Sir Walter Earle was for Mr. Calamy.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge was for Mr. Calamy, first, and
highly commended him.
Mr. Hoskins was for the same.
Resolved, to put Dr. Owen first, because, as it was urged,
the motion for him was first seconded.
A debate arose about the place.
Mr. Knightley was for Saint Margaret's church.
Major Burton and Mr. Bodurda were for the House.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am for the House. The mi-
nister cannot speak so freely in public, to tell of faults and
duties, for a reflection upon the Parliament there, is a reflec-
tion upon the nation. People come there with ill ears, to re-
proach if they can. There is a mixture of hearers. Though
there be less room here, and crowding, and want of air; yet
I would expose myself to any inconvenience within these
walls, to hear our faults and our duties.
See vol. ii. pp. 320, 373, notes.
† See Ibid, p. 97, notes.
1658-9.]
13
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Jenyns. I am sorry to hear this House has so many
faults, that they may not be told of them publicly. I move
that St. Margaret's be the place.
Resolved, that it be on Friday next, in the House.*
Serjeant Dendy made a set speech for thanks to be given
to Dr. Goodwin.
Nobody seconded him. They said the sermon was to the
Lords, and they must thank him.
* "That the Serjeant at Arms do receive the collection of the charity
of this House on the day of humiliation." Journals.
"The first thing propounded was, for a day of humiliation and seeking
of God, for a blessing upon the endeavours and counsels of the House.
The time, the place, the persons, were much controverted. At length it
was resolved and so ordered, that, for the time, it should be upon this
day sevennight, for the place that it should be within the walls of our
own House, and not in St. Margaret's, Westminster. And that, to avoid
some inconveniences, which had happened in former times, when such
preachings being public, and before a promiscuous auditory, either the
ministers, though good men, wanted the liberty which it is fit they
should have, in rebuking and reproving the faults and miscarriages of
their superiors, the Parliament, or if they did speak plain, and home to
the infirmities and faults of their governors, the auditory and people
were too apt to take hold of any thing to reproach and scandalize the
members for their faults: by which the Parliament itself was brought
into great obloquy and disgrace. Besides, sometimes, through indiscre-
tion in the preachers, who sometimes would be too busy and pragmatical,
in matters of news and state, ill affected persons came frequently to such
exercises, not out of any zeal or devotion, but to feel the pulse of the
state, and to steer their counsels and affairs accordingly. Many other
inconveniences were apprehended to arise from those public exercises
before the body of the Parliament out of their own house.
"Besides a very material distinction was used between a private fast
of the House, which ought to be only by the House, and in the House,
and a public fast wherein the House was concerned with the rest of the
nation, and might be observed promiscuously by them, in any place
where they pleased.
"The persons nominated to officiate, were 1, Dr. Reynold's; 2, Mr.
Manton; 3, Dr. Owen; 4, Mr. Calamy, whereof two of them were desired
to pray, and two to preach, but to be distributed and ordered as them-
selves shall think fit. And those members that nominated these persons
were to give notice to them respectively." Goddard MS. pp. 107, 108.
14
[JAN. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Walter Earle. We must not spend time in compli-
ment.*
Mr. Speaker moved to call the House.
Mr. Scawen moved, not to call it, till the House be full.
Resolved, that the Committee for Elections and Privi-
leges† do, in the first place, consider of those returns, where
more than ought to be are returned for one place, and make
their report thereof speedily to the House.
Resolved, that all such as will question any elections now
already returned, shall do the same by petition, within
twenty-eight days from this day, and that those that shall
question any elections, to be hereafter returned, shall like-
wise do the same within twenty-eight days after the return
thereof.
Resolved, that the Committee for elections and privi-
leges, do mark and read the petitions to be delivered in to
them, concerning questionable elections, in order as they
shall be delivered in; and that they do appoint days for
hearing and proceeding upon the same, accordingly; and
report the same to the House, in order as they shall be de-
termined.
Resolved, that the Committee of elections and privileges
do, in the first place, examine the mistake concerning the
return of Colonel Salmon, to be one of the members of this
House, and do first report the same to the House.
Resolved, that the Committee this day appointed for elec-
tions and privileges, do sit, notwithstanding the adjournment
*"It was moved by Serjeant Dendy, with a studied preamble, that
thanks might be returned to Dr. Goodwin that preached yesterday, but
that was presently cried down, as well in regard that he was not appoint-
ed or desired by the Parliament to preach, as for that in truth sufficient
care was not taken to give that respect to the members which was fit, in
preserving rooms and accommodation of places for them, for Sir Walter
Earle affirmed, he could not get any room to hear it." Goddard MS.
p. 108.
+ Consisting of 147 members. The names annexed in the MS. are
exactly the same as in the printed Journals.
1658-9.]
15
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
of the House. John Smythe, Clerk of the Parliament, to
attend the petitions.*
*"Some moved for the calling over of the House, but that was
thought not yet seasonable, in regard many returns were not yet come
up, and some thought it rather fit that the Committee of Elections should
be first nominated. It was objected that unless the House were called
over, many might sit upon double returns, or otherwise, who had no
right, but that was thought good reason to proceed to the naming of a
Committee of privileges, which might examine, and prevent that incon-
venience, but not to hasten the calling over the House, when it could
not yet be justly accounted a fault in any man that was yet so early
absent.
"Therefore, it was unanimously desired that the Committee of Privi-
leges might forthwith be made, that such persons as were unduly kept
out by false or double elections, might be brought in, and such other as
did sit without good right might be cast out.
CC
Thereupon a Committee was named, of which myself was one, to sit
in the Star Chamber this afternoon, at two of the clock, and so after-
wards upon Saturdays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, in the afternoon.
"The powers and instructions were to hear all matters of privilege
concerning elections. 2dly, That double returns shall be first consider-
ed. 3dly, That all Petitions shall be received by the Committee, and
marked as they were received, and shall be proceeded in, and reported
in the same order as they were marked, that men might the better
know how to attend and prepare themselves in their business.
"After this Committee was settled, and the House ordered to be call-
ed over on Monday morning, the House adjourned over until that time,
only a breach of privilege was moved, as offered to the person of a parti-
cular member of the House, which happened to be my brother Bish,
who, being chosen with one Mr. Turgis, for the borough of Gatton, in
Surrey, one Audley, who had been a kind of Major, had stood in com-
petition with them, but Mr. Turgis and my brother Bish, being returned
by the officer, and Audley not returned, he conceived himself thereby
grieved, and meeting with my brother Bish in Westminster-hall he
accosted him with very passionate words. At length, he called Mr. B.
rascal, several times, and base fellow, and that he was no gentleman,
and that he would set him out in his colours, and, in fine, provoked him
to go out of the hall with him, and challenged him plainly to fight with
him, and although Mr. Bish did let him know, that he was returned a
member of Parliament, yet Audley desisted not. This being represent-
ed to the House by Mr. Knightley, and after seconded by Mr. Bulkeley,
and thirded by Sir A. Haslerigge, and a precedent by him cited, which,
in truth, was his own case against one Holford, who, after Sir A. Has-
lerigge and another had been elected knights for the county of Lei-
16
[JAN. 29,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Saturday, January 29, 1658-9.*
The Committee of Privileges this day adjourned from the
Star-Chamber, to the House, in the forenoon, where the case.
of Reading, between an election made of Mr. IIenry Nevile,†
and Mr. Blagrave one way, and another election made of
other persons, another way, took up almost the whole fore-
noon's debate.
The case was, that the Mayor was elected and chosen in
August last, and sworn the first Monday after Michaelmas,
according to usual course. Not long after, upon the noise of
a Parliament, some debate happened in the Council Cham-
ber, between the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council,
concerning the manner of their elections, the Mayor declar-
ing for free and open public elections by all the Commons
out of the House. Some of the members of that House
conceiving the right of election to remain with them in the
House, apprehended that the Mayor went about to betray
and lose the privileges of the House, which being resented by
others, and heat of the debate begetting unkindness, the ma-
jor part of the House displaced the Mayor, ejected and re-
moved him from his place, and did choose and swear another
Mayor in his place. This new Mayor makes an election in
the House of two Burgesses, and returns them. The old
cester, spake openly while the Indentures were sealing, and before they
were delivered, or returned, that the county had made good choice of
one, but the other was unworthy, or to that effect; yet for these words
Holford was sent for up to the bar, committed to the Tower, and fined
to the party, and forced to be in prison until Sir A. Haslerigge moved
for his freedom.
"Hereupon it was ordered that Audley should be sent for up to the
bar, in safe custody, to answer the said complaint, and after to be pro-
ceeded against as justice and the privilege of the House required.”
Goddard MS. pp. 109, 110.
Several pages of the MS. Diary, after Jan. 28, are left entirely blank,
designed, no doubt, to contain the Parliamentary proceedings of the
29th and 31st. What can now be recovered of these, are here supplied,
from the Goddard MS. pp. 110-112.
+ Author of Plato-Redivivus.
1658-9.]
17
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mayor, and the Commons at large, make another election of
Mr. Nevile and Mr. Blagrave. Whether of these two elec-
tions were good and warrantable was the question.
Reported by the Committee, and so ordered by the House,
that the return and election of Mr. Nevile and Mr. Blagrave
was good, and the other not.
Monday, January 31, 1658–9.
Calling the House, and something concerning the Scotch
members.
Reports from the Committee of Privileges.
A warrant for apprehending Major Audley.
The cases of Oxford and Reading, about elections.
Tuesday, February 1, 1658-9.
Mr. Speaker took the chair at half an hour past eight.
Mr. Cooper* prayed.
"Ian. 31. Resolved, that Mr. Cooper, who prayed with the House
this morning, be desired to continue to officiate and perform the duty of
prayer in this House, every morning, during this session of Parliament.”
Journals.
The remuneration of their Chaplain appears to have been almost the
final proceeding of the House. "April 22, 1659, (their last day) "Re-
solved that the sum of 501. be given and bestowed upon Mr. Cooper, the
minister, for his great labour and pains, in attending the House daily,"
&c. &c. "That a Committee be appointed of five," (among whom was
Vane and Haslerigge) "to attend his Highness, to desire him to grant
his Privy-seal, for the payment of the sum." Journals.
CC
William Cooper, A. M., was Minister of St. Olave, Southwark,
whence he was ejected in 1662. He is described by Dr. Calamy, as a
critical linguist, no mean philosopher, a quick disputant, and well versed
in controversies, a learned expositor, a celebrated historian, and a fine
poet, especially in Latin." Yet he appears to have published scarcely
anything besides "a thanksgiving sermon before the Parliament, and
some papers of Latin verses.
{
>>
Mr. Cooper was first beneficed by Laud, whose patronage he attained
by some acceptable performances of his wife's father, a considerable
VOL. III.
C
CC
+
18
[FEB. 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Speaker acquainted the House with a message from the
judges of the Common Bench, touching Henry Nevile's case
against the sheriff, about an election last Parliament.
They desired me to take the record hither. I would not
do it without your directions. It is a new case, prima impres-
sionis.
Mr. Gewen. I would have this debated in a full' House,
when the lawyers are present.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I love not to hear it, that there is
a lameness in this House. I know no law-book for you to
be directed by. It is not a case of such difficulty. Yourself
is now the greatest man in England. I look upon you so,
except what is to be excepted. I had almost forgot myself,
but I am pretty right yet; if I can hold myself there.
I say I look upon you as the greatest man in England; the
Speaker of the Parliament of England or Commons, what you
will call it: I would give no offence. It is not fit for you to
take a record from any inferior court.
Your clerk is more
proper than yourself to send for it. Make an order for the
judge's clerk to bring it up. That is more proper and fit
than to send your clerk.
Mr. Starkey. It seems there is causa difficultatis found by
the judges in this case; and they desire your directions.
1. It concerns not any member or right of election, this
present Parliament; so is no concern to you; it being of the
last Parliament, now ended and determined.
2. It is not proper to bring the record hither. It should
rather be brought to the Lords' House. I hope it is no offence
for me to call it so here. I would not wade farther into this
tr
Dutch limner." At length, "proving a Puritan," he found it convenient,
like another Puritan, flying from persecution, to go "beyond Canter-
bury," and became "Chaplain to the Queen of Bohemia," grandmother
of George I., residing " for several years, in her family at the Hague.”
There he "had free conversation, in clean Latin, with the foreign envoys
that resorted to her; and became so well versed in the affairs of Europe,
as to be reckoned no small politician." See Dr. Calamy's Account, (1713,)
p. 22.
1658-9.]
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
19
business, considering that it was of the last Parliament; but
rather leave it to the judges to determine; or arrest judg-
ment, as they please.
Mr. Knightley. The judges do hæsitare in limine. The
judgment is passed: the jurors are judges. So it is said in
the country. You are not taking it from them. I would
have the proper officer to bring it before you, and then judge
as you see cause.
Mr. Pedley. If it be a case of privilege of the House, then
you may take it upon you; but if otherwise, it is proper for
the Lords' House. The record cannot be brought out of the
Court. It should be certified. In Sir John Le Stallen's
case, Edw. iii., they sent the clerk of the House to cause them
to certify. Alius et plures issued out. The House heard the
cause, and directed the judges to give judgment. Nobody
complains to you.
Mr. Speaker. I only ask you whether I shall receive the
transcript.
Sir Walter Earle. I am against bringing the record hither.
The record was once required from the clerk of this House,
but he fell down on his knees* and besought the King that
his life might rather be taken.
Mr. Manley. This is not an ordinary course of proceeding
in a writ of error, but a special case wherein your directions.
are desired. I would have the record brought hither.
Mr. Steward. The rule delivered in the last Parliament
from the chair, was, that the Lord Chief Justice should de-
liver a transcript, by his own hand, to this House.
Mr. Reynolds. I am against your taking it; but have a
transcript brought by the Lord Chief Justice to be delivered
at the table.
Mr. Croke. The Judges have done their duty in desiring
your advice. This House has ever taken this upon them to
I find no account of this curious fact. Mr. Speaker "fell down on
his knees," in 1641, before Charles I., when, just entering on his "road
to ruin," he came to the House to demand the five members, vi et armis.
See "Orders of the Commons," (1756,) pp. 157, 158.
C 2
20
[FEB. 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
{
*
declare a law. You have power of examining all the records,
as in Cole and Rodney's case. I move that the Chief Jus-
tice, at his bringing the record, may express the reasons of
his hesitations and difficulties.
Sir Arthur Hasierigge called this a cunning motion.
Mr. Speaker offered to put the question upon himself.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I would not have it upon your
books that any such question was propounded to the Speaker
of the House of Commons, or to this House of Parliament.
I will offend nobody yet.
Mr. Pedley. Sir Arthur Haslerigge offers rather an order
than a question.
Colonel Cox. I would have it wholly laid aside.
Mr. Bodurda. You put limitations upon the Lords'
House; so that they have no power on this case. I would
have it adjourned to the Lords' House.
Mr. Turner. I expected not such a motion this morning,
and would have it laid aside. When the sole legislative was
in this House, it had been proper; but now, you are upon
another footing of account.
Mr. Cartwright. I move that it be laid aside, and that
the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber first have the hear-
ing of it.
Mr. Edgar. I know not yet what the House of Lords is.
I would have it laid aside at present.
Serjeant Seys. The Court declare, that it was usually,
without writ of error, brought into the Parliament. It being
prima impressionis, there was a privilege in the case. They
thought it fit that the case should be brought to this House,
because of difficulty.
Mr. Chaloner. The Judges desire neither to deny nor to
delay justice to any. I hope you will do neither. So I
would have the transcript brought hither.
Serjeant Waller stood up without making three congees,
and before a member, when he was speaking. The orders
of the House called to.
*See vol. ii. p. 131.
}
1658-9.]
21
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Carew moved, that the orders be
preserved, and that he do his congees.
Mr. Knightley moved, that he had done his duty.
Mr. Steward moved, whether to put the question or not.
Mr. Scot. I wonder to see you so careless of your privi-
leges. Though it was of last Parliament, will you delay
justice? For whom do you sit? Is it not for the people of
England? If the Judge be willing to bring the case hither,
do not you obstruct it. Let the Lord Chief Justice bring
the transcript, as was moved, to you, by those that had the
honour and leave to sit here in the last Parliament.
Lord Lambert. I incline rather to have it determined in
the Exchequer Chamber, as was moved, but would have you
not wholly lay it aside; but have a transcript of the record
brought hither by the Lord Chief Justice.
Mr. Bodurda moved that the question be put, whether
the question shall be put.
Captain Baynes moved for required, instead of desired.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. It is well enough, and all one.
Mr. Turner. I move that the question be put now.
The question being put, it passed in the affirmative.
Resolved, on the main question, that the Chief Justice of
the Common Bench be desired to bring hither the transcript.
of the record depending before them there in that Court, con-
cerning Mr. Nevile and Mr. Strode, late Sheriff of the
County of Berks; and that the Clerk give notice.
Serjeant Waller. Reported from the Committee of Privi-
leges, that the return of Henry Nevile and Daniel Blagrave
is a good return, and that the other return+ be withdrawn.
It was called to him to go to the bar and make his legs;
for no report could be handed.
Mr. Hungerford. Moved that he might report in order.
See vol. i. p. 262, note ‡, ii. p. 316, note *.
+ Of Whitlock and Thornhill. See Journals.
I "Do his congees." In one of Prior's tales, when the celestials
amused themselves, by visiting a cottager, in the disguise of mortals:—
"Jove made his leg, and kiss'd the dame,
Obedient Hermes did the same."
22
[FEB. 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. The House is possessed of this
report, though out of order.
Mr. Knightley. Something is left to the discretion of the
Committee.
Mr. Hungerford. I could not know what would be re-
ported, till he did report.
Mr. Bodurda, the like.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. This was but contention. If we
can have patience, all the reports may come in. I move that
he come up with his three legs.
This he did accordingly, and delivered the report on the
left side of the table.
Mr. Pedley.
I move to know the reasons of the resolution
of the Committee, for satisfaction of those that were not
there.
Mr. Knightley. December is before January.* That is
reason enough.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. If I had not been at the Com-
mittee, I would also have moved to be satisfied of the reasons,
ere I gave my vote.
He reported the whole reasons upon the debate. In the
second election, there was no Mayor, no precept annexed, no
votes. Force was used to turn out the Mayor, but he con-
tinued in his place still. There was but one negative in the
Committee, and a full Committee in this business.
Resolved, to agree with the Committee. Nemine contradi-
cente.
Serjeant Waller. The reason why I did report this first,
was, because it brought in a member, which the other did
not.
Captain Baynes moved to have the pretended Mayor
taken up to be punished; else the consequence may be dan-
gerous.
Mr. Knightley. They tossed the old Mayor like a dog in
a blanket. I would have it referred to the Committee to find
Referring to some informality in the election of a Mayor.
1658-9.]
23
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
out some way to punish that Mayor and other Mayors. If
this be allowed, your House will be thin enough and cer-
tainly break up Parliaments. They promise themselves
indemnity.
Mr. Nicholl and Mr. Turner moved, that the Mayor be
punished. The remedy at law is for the Mayor, but there
is no remedy for you at law.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I agree to it; though I thought
not to have troubled you. The chest was broken open and
one of the seals taken out, and a great many outrages. I
would have this Mayor sent for as a delinquent. Members
on such accounts, have been kept out seven years. This
Mayor has relinquished his place of Mayor, and sits now as
an Alderman. I would have him sent for.
Mr. Grove. There is no contempt in the Mayor to you.
Only the difference arises about the right of election of a
Mayor. I would have you proceed no farther.
Mr. Bulkeley. I am sorry that your time should be spent
about such matters. The Mayor was no wilful transgressor.
He was clearly chosen fourteen days before the precept. I
would not have him come under such a lash. He was voted
Mayor and sworn. They claim that they may turn him out
when they please, upon any misdemeanour. They contemn
him so that he comes not so often to the bench. The elec-
tion by him might be clear. The Mayor is an honest good
man.
Mr. Goodwin. I would not have him sent for as a delin-
quent, but have it referred to a Committee; this and all bu-
siness of this nature, to make some precedent in this case.
Mr. Bodurda. I would have you lay this aside, lest upon
farther examination, you find it fit to undo what you have
done, which will not be for your honour.
Serjeant Waller reported, that a double return is in
Oxfordshire, between Lord Falkland* and Sir Francis
CC
Henry Cary, Viscount Falkland, in Scotland,” as he is described
in the list of this Parliament; as member for the County of Oxford.
24
[FEB. 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Norris, and that the Sheriff being returned a member,* your
Committee desires that the Sheriff may be required to attend
your Committee.
The House proceeded on the report touching Lord Falk-
land; and it was moved that the Sheriff, viz. Unton Croke,
might attend the Committee; but Sir Arthur Haslerigge ex-
cepted against the word attend the Committee. The report
is mistaken, it should have been the House.
Henry Nevile came into the House at ten o'clock.
Mr. Croke. + The Sheriff last week was ill of a fever; I
hear he is somewhat better. I had a letter. He will be here
next week. It proved to be a doubtful case; no malice nor
design in it. The best counsel were at a stand in it. He
will have his deputy and all witnesses in it ready by Thurs-
day.
1
If it please God to give him strength, he will attend you.
Send it back to your Committee. I desire all the favour
and tenderness that may be.
Mr. Knightley. I move, for favour, and not to have it
postponed; but refer it back to your Committee, and appoint
a day.
Lord Lambert. I move not to have it so when he has
strength; but put it on, three weeks, if he have strength.
Mr. Hungerford moved for a shorter day.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. It seems Lord Falkland is a de-
(Parl. Hist. xxi. 253.) He was son of the celebrated Lord Falkland, at
whose decease in 1643, he must have been very young; and now barely
of legal age to sit in Parliament. Langbaine, who describes this Lord
Falkland, as "eminent for his extraordinary parts and heroic spirit,”
relates the following anecdote, which Lord Orford has repeated.
"When he was first elected to serve in Parliament, some of the House
opposed his admission, urging that he had not sowed his wild oats. He
replied, ' if I have not, I may sow them in the House, where there are
geese enough to pick them up.'" See "An Account of the English
Dramatic Poets," (1691,) p. 197; "Royal and Noble Authors," (1659).
Lord Falkland represented the City of Oxford, in the Convention
Parliament, (1660,) and the County, in 1661. He died in early life.
* For Oxford City.
+ The other member for Oxford City.
1658-9.]
25
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
linquent.* Give the devil his due. Admit him, and then
cast him out tacitly.
Sir John Lenthall. You cannot order the Sheriff to be
well. I move that the under Sheriff attend in the interim.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. The under Sheriff cannot be an-
swerable for all. How will you have information, if the
High Sheriff be sick? You cannot judicially send for the
under Sheriff. I would have you declare; if the High Sheriff
cannot, then the Under Sheriff shall attend.
Serjeant Maynard. A double return is undoubtedly a
misdemeanour in the Sheriff. Give the Sheriff a day, that
if he be well, he may attend; otherwise, dispense with it.
Your Committee may proceed without either Sheriff or
Mayors, for there they appear but as witnesses.
Resolved, that Unton Croke, Esq. Sheriff of the County
of Oxford, be enjoined to attend the Committee of Privileges
and Elections, on or before Saturday next. And if, by rea-
son of his sickness, he be not able to attend the Committee
by or before that time, that his Under-Sheriff do then or in
the meantime attend the said Committee, to give an ac-
count to the said Committee, concerning the said double re-
turn.
Mr. Secretary. You have spent some time about the
forms of your House. It is now time to mind other things.
It pleased God to put an end to his Highness's days.
Sad things were expected by that stroke. God has given that
blessing of a son, in his stead, who has the hearts of the
people, testifying his undoubted right of succession. This
can be looked upon as no other thing than the hand of God,
so putting down the late King's family. He raises the
power out of the dust. It is his prerogative royal.
* He probably, soon after this, adventured for Charles Stuart, or, at
least, came under suspicion. This seems probable from the following
order of the restored Long Parliament, a very few days before its disso-
lution, and when the Presbyterian Royalists were triumphant.
"March 6, 1659, 60. Ordered, that the pistols, saddles, and other
goods that were taken from the Lord Falkland, in or since August last, be
restored to him, and that he take them, where he finds them." Journals.
26
[FEB. 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
It is not unbecoming this House to recognize this mercy;
to acknowledge his now Highness to be the undoubted suc-
cessor. In Queen Elizabeth and King James's reign, there
were such recognitions.
Another thing; I hear great endeavours abroad to beget
divisions and troubles amongst us; some contriving abroad
to make addresses to this House to change the Government.
To prevent which, let the nation know we are all of a mind
in the Government; all agreed in the foundation: that those
that offer to pull out any pin of this building, may see their
discouragement, that they have their question with the Chief
Magistrate and this Parliament.
I have a short Bill for a recognition to this purpose.
This he brought to the table.*
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am sorry I have a cold, so that
all cannot hear me.
This is not seasonably offered now. The more I hear of
* “ In a full House Mr. Secretary very suddenly and abruptly stood
up and told us that he confessed that the forms of the House were first
necessary to be settled; but that now it was time to speak of something
else, of which he would make us a beginning. He told us that the death
of the late Protector was a heavy stroke to these nations, but that it had
pleased God to repair it, in some good measure, by the happiness of his
successor; wherein he could not but admire the providence of God, in
pulling down and in setting up, and instanced in the fatal and irrecover-
able taking away of the late King, and setting aside of that family, and
setting up of this, by the unanimous consent of the whole nation, and
therefore moved it as a thing very seasonable for us, as the representa-
tives of the nation, to recognize his Highness's title to the succession of
the government of these nations of England, &c., and this was according
to former precedents, in the beginning of the first Parliaments of former
princes. That he had certain intelligence that there were strong en-
deavours abroad to make disturbances amongst us, and that he knew
petitions were already framing abroad to change the government.
Therefore, it would be very expedient to let the world know we are all
in this place agreed upon the foundation, and that if any will go about
to pull out any of the pins of the Government, they may certainly know
they are to contest with the Lord Protector and Parliament. And so
told us he had brought in a Bill of Recognition, to the same purpose,
and prayed it might be read, and tendered it to the Speaker." Goddard
MS. p. 113.
1658-9.]
27
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
dangers and fears abroad, the more have we need to take
care at home, within these walls. We need not fear any thing
that the people shall here represent for their good. Any
thing brought to us, if bad, punish them that bring it. You
have
many things to do, and have done but one thing. The
next is a Committee of Grievances; the next, Religion.
Wonderful things were taken away by that victorious Par-
liament. Addresses to the King were nine times refused;
then they took the King away. We were a glorious Parliament
for pulling down. I hope this will be glorious for setting up.
I hope all will agree, that whatever we pulled down, was
good and necessary to be pulled down. We turned out no-
cent and innocent, as unnecessary, unprofitable, and unfit.
These are great works to do. My head begins to be a little
hot. Let us see what was done since we went out. He that
is gone promised us an account. The army are our children;
they came from us. We are bound to provide for them.
We have one that is our prince, princeps, our chief. I never
knew any guile or gall in him. I honour the person. I will
say no more.
Let us not read a Bill of this consideration till after the
fast; that we may not be put out of our right way, a Com-
mittee of Grievances. We never pulled down, but by prayer
and humiliation; let us not build without them. Let us see
our materials. Have we glorious foundations in our build-
ings? Let us name our Committee of Grievances, first.*
*"Sir Arthur Haslerigge rose up, and told us, the thing might do
well, but this was not the season for it; that the more fears there rose
from abroad, the more need there was to walk circumspectly; but for
the people at home, there was no fear for any thing they could molest us
with. That we have not yet settled those General Committees of Reli-
gion, Trade and Grievances. That the last Long Parliament was the
rarest Parliament that ever was, in pulling up. They knew all the op-
pressions of the single person, and were sensible of it, and therefore they
turned out the late king and all his family, nocent and innocent together.
That we have been all this while a pulling up, and no foundation yet
laid. He that is lately dead, promised an account of our treasure, army
and navy. We must have an account of them. Besides, there is no bu-
siness of concernment to be done before the fast be over; that we have
28
[FEB. 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
J
Mr. Trevor. I would not have a delay put upon such a
Bill. The first weapon is a delay. The honourable person
has better reason to know your danger. It ought not to go
from you till it is read.
till it is read. Read it now, and appoint the se-
cond reading after the fast.
Mr. Drake. There was a general fast before. We have
an inclination. God has observed the intercession of his ser-
vants. If there must be any thing brought into the House
to know us, where we are, if any thing, this foundation. A
Committee of Grievances should have done first! Not so in-
genious.
It is a greater honour to be good at building up, than at
pulling down, as he said of the Long Parliament.
We have Parliamentary grounds, precedents, and reasons.
We are sworn to it, we but say what we have sworn before.
Mr. St. Nicholas. You are upon a point of government,
upon that which is grounded upon a late act, the power of
nomination. There are many things previous to this matter.
I can read the Act, how that has been observed. It may
concern him that is at the head. First, seek God.
Mr. Scot. You anticipate, if
You anticipate, if you now fall upon this Bill.
I suppose you will not fish before the net. It is irregular to
resolve first, and then inquire. I am not prepared to speak,
as those that haply know of it. I was so tender yesterday as
to put off the Scots' members debate. I should not have been
free to have gone that length, had I thought of this. I profess
myself to be a weathercock of reason. I would have them
confirmed by Act of Union. There is much matter about
the distribution, order, and manner of their coming in to be
considered.
First, model your legislatures; one hundred kept out the
sought God in this, and all other matters of this great weight and con-
cernment. We have a prince, princeps, for so he is, that hath no guile
nor gall. But yet we must proceed in the fear of God, and therefore
prayed that no Bill might be read, until the fast be first spent, and then
that we may not be put out of the right way, that is, that nothing might
anticipate the nomination of the Grand Committees." Goddard MS.
p. 113.
1658-9.]
29
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
last Parliament for want of integrity to the Instrument of
Government, whereof they became guilty themselves in the
Petition and Advice carried but by three suffrages. I would
have that settled first.*
Colonel Birch. I was one of those that was not acquaint-
ed with the Bill now offered. I waited for reasons against it.
I went home, rejoicing that the members of Scotland and
Ireland were received hither so unanimously. I take it for
granted they are admitted into oneness with us. I look upon
it as a return of the nations. I can by no means admit us to
a breach. If it should be heard abroad that though but for
a day this Bill was laid aside! I would not have it laid aside
for an hour. I am readier to pour out tears than words.
Mr. Weaver. Mr. Scot moved not against the union.
There is no foundation of law for the distribution of the
members. I hope we shall all in due time agree to this Bill.
Suspend it two or three days till the fast be over; but first
consider to corroborate those gentlemen that have not yet a
legal authority; to prevent laying it in your dish hereafter
that threescore are not authorized.
Mr. Solicitor-General. I expected no debate in this busi-
ness. Is this any more than we are sworn to at the doors?
From Henry IV. and all downwards there was ever a recog-
nition at the entrance of all Parliaments.
Mr. Salway. I move the question, whether this question
shall be put.
Mr. Knightley. This Bill comes in by surprise. I am
sorry it did come in; but, seeing that it is so, I would not
have a question put upon it.
A Bill was brought down from the Lords' House about
*" Mr. Scot, contra, especially until the fast be over, for it was not good
fishing before the net, and especially because it was not yet determined
what shall be done with the Scotch and Irish members, whom it was ne-
cessary to take into the recognition, in case we admit them, but till that
was determined it was not fit to proceed in this." Goddard MS. p. 114.
↑ "Colonel Birch admitted the Scotch members to be received, and
therefore prayed that might be no reason to delay the reading the recog-
nition." Goddard MS. p. 114.
+
30
[FEB. 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
the Queen's jointure. There was no negative upon it, but it
was read twice that day.
I had not been here if I had not thought his Highness to
be Chief Magistrate. I am sorry to hear such pulling down
repeated here.
The Bill was read accordingly.
Mr. Attorney-General. I move to have it read a second
time to-morrow.*
Mr. Knightley. I am for Monday se'nnight, at the calling
of the House. I would not have the business cool, but that
we may gather heat for it.
Mr. Chaloner. I find, by no law, that the members of
Scotland and Ireland should sit here. I have no disaffection
to them. The gentlemen have done you no wrong in tender-
ing their service here. If they have not power let us give
them power.
The fault is in your Commissioners of the Seal. Let them
be punished. I would have Monday se'nnight for the second
reading.
Mr. Attorney of the Duchy. I would have no coldness—
no hesitation in this business. I would have it read a second
time to-morrow.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. That gentleman may well move
for the second reading. He may know it. I do not. It is
a matter of great weight. I would have a convenient time,
that we may serve posterity in this generation.
It is fit every one should have a copy of it, (I have known
it denied,) if you will bring in a Bill of this nature before a
Committee of Religion be brought in, or grievances.
I understand the grounds formerly gone upon. There
never was such a number of gentlemen so freely chosen. I
move that Monday se'nnight be appointed for the second
time, and that we have copies.
Mr.
(a young man) stood up, and told a story of
"After the reading the Bill, the Attorney-General moved that it
might not lie long before the Speaker, but that it might be read to-
morrow morning the second time, but it was put off for the second read-
ing until Monday morning." Goddard MS. p. 114.
1658-9.]
31
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Cain and Abel, and made a speech; nobody knew to what
purpose.
Mr. Steward. We are doing no more all of us now than
we have every one of us done. I cannot blame those that
desire time; for they that must have argument had need
have time to seek it.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. It is a reflection; for he knows
not whether I seek arguments for or against it.
Sir William Wheeler. I move to read it the second time
to-morrow. This has been in all times since Henry I.
Copies ought to be given. It was done in the Long Parlia-
ment; yet the Clerk cannot without your order.
Captain Baynes. I am not against the Bill, if nothing else
be in the belly of it.
It determines the negative voice and the other House. To
set up a House that has not so much interest as two knights!
You have disputed this with blood and treasure, and leave it
now, you will never come to it again. You will either bring
the Government to your property, or your property to the
Government. I had rather give a third part of what I have
than leave things so dubious. The balance will be too great.
for the people; and if the army turn mercenary, farewell
property.
Mr. Bodurda. That gentleman moved improperly to speak
to any particulars of a Bill at the first reading. I desire
to-morrow may be the second reading, rather than Monday
seʼnnight, because, as a worthy person, Sir Arthur Haslerigge,
said, Monday is before Monday se'nnight.
Mr. Trevor. I wish Captain Baynes's motion could take
effect, that we stand in no need of an army. I hope he
has always been so careful of the charge of the nation as he
seems to be now.
Mr. Starkey. I would have no delay. We reflect upon
ourselves; on the oath we have taken at the doors.
Mr. Manley. The last Bill of Recognition was read the
second time, the same day. I would have no delay; and,
because I see such an unanimous consent, I have a Bill in my
pocket for enabling the Scotch and Irish members.
32
[FEB. 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge stood up to speak to the order of
proceeding, and launched into the merits.
Serjeant Maynard took him down.
Mr. Turner moved for a middle day.
Mr. Reynell. If there were but a bare recognition like
that at the door, I should not say a word. The honourable
person that presented the Bill, said he would have things so
settled, that he that touched a pin of the building might
have a sense of the displeasure of this House and the Pro-
tector.*
Therefore time is needful. I move for Monday
se'nnight.
Lord Lambert. I like the thing, but not the haste. I
would have something go hand in hand with it, touching
your own privileges and the people's rights. A business of
this nature may well be referred to a Grand Committee. I
thought you would have appointed your Grand Committees,
first those of trade, religion, and grievances. It is seasonably
offered, but it is not for your service to be too hasty. I de-
sire that we may all study moderation.
It was ordered to be read on Monday next,† without a
question. The House rose at one.
* See supra, p. 26.
+ "A Bill entitled an Act of Recognition of his Highness's right and
title to be Protector and Chief Magistrate of the Commonwealth of Eng-
land, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions and territories thereunto
belonging, was this day read the first time; and it is ordered to be read
the second time on Monday next." Journals.
"The 1st of February," says Mr. Bethel, “ a Bill was brought in by
one of the then Council, under the pretence only of acknowledging the
Pretender to be Protector, but with such words couched in it, as had no
less in them, than the admittance of the then Chief Magistrate, and the
persons then sitting in the other House, unto the full power, privilege,
and prerogatives of the ancient kings, and ancient House of Lords,
which the court-party designed to have carried undiscovered.
"The Bill was read without much difficulty the first time, which en-
couraged those of the Long Robe, related to the single person, to press
for the reading of it again the same day, to the end that being the next
day read the third time, as was designed, it might then have passed into
an act; but, in opposition to that, some who were more careful of the li-
berties of the people, than those of the Long Robe ordinarily are, moved,
1658-9.]
33
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The Committee of Privileges sat in the Star-Chamber, and
some members being crowded, it was moved and resolved, to
adjourn to the House. Mr. Serjeant Waller had the chair.
The business of double returns between Luke Robinson and
Colonel Lilburn, against Mr. Philip Howard and Mr. Mar-
wood, was debated, and the Committee inclined for the latter.
This day fortnight was appointed for a full hearing.
Wednesday, February 2, 1658-9.
Mr. Speaker took the chair at nine.
Mr. Cooper prayed.
Sir Walter Earle and Captain Hutsell moved for settling
the standing Committees.
Mr. Trenchard seconded.
Dr. Clarges. No private Committee can sit while a Grand
Committee sits.
Mr. Knightley. If forty be but in the House, to make a
Grand Committee, other Committees may sit.
Mr. Speaker. A Committee for Grievances and Courts of
Justice, are all one.
Resolved, that a Grand Committee of the whole House, do
sit in the House, for Religion, on Monday; for Grievances
and Courts of Justice on Wednesday; and for Trade on
Friday; weekly, in the afternoon.
Mr. Neville stood up and was going to say something of
what was done yesterday; but stopped, the House being ac-
quainted that Major Audley was at the door.
that, according to rule, in cases of such weight, it might be referred to
a Grand Committee of the whole House; and when that would not be
granted, that the second reading of it might at least be put off for some
days, and liberty given in the interim to the members, to take copies of
the Bill, that, considering of the business, they might be the more pre-
pared for the debate; which was yielded unto, and the 7th of February
appointed for the second reading of it." Brief Narrative (see supru,
p. 11, note *) p. 335.
VOL. III.
D
34
[FEB. 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge moved, that he might not kneel, at
first.
Mr. Bish moved for a little time, till his counsel came.
Major Burton moved to name the Grand Committee; but
was called down.
Mr. Neville. I am glad that what you did yesterday
passed with so much unanimity. I would have something go,
hand in hand with it, for the liberties of the people. The two
great flaws in the Government, one in the sovereign power,
and another in the executive power, were the negative voice*
and the militia.†
The King would not concur, which produced war; and it
was determined on the people's side. I would have nothing
of aspersion. It is in good hands now; so that the proposi-
tions sent to the King, in all things, will not agree. As to
the propositions of the militia, about putting it in Sheriffs
and Deputy-Lieutenants, I would have a Committee of able
persons appointed to prepare a law, that your negative voice
may not be many, without doors,‡ and the militia be entrusted
in safe hands, that it may not be oppressive. I shall not
bring in an Act, but offer my thoughts.
Mr. Starkey. Those things are settled by the Petition
and Advice. The negative voice is of great use on either of
the three co-ordinate powers. I never could find any law to
the contrary. We are met for peace. By law the King had
a negative voice, on whatever was debated or resolved here.
We ought to keep singly to the Recognition, and not perplex
what is either clear, or ought to be meddled with more sea-
sonably. The gentleman says the militia is settled by the
Petition of Right; so he has answered himself. And if it be
settled, let us not dispute it over again.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I hoped never to have heard this
motion in this place, that the militia and negative voice are
not in this House. I wonder at the gentleman's modesty,
that he brought not in a Bill. I brought in the Bill for the
* See vol. ii. p. 451, note §.
+ See Ibid. p. 435, note *.
Referring, probably, to assemblages of discontented people.
1658-9.]
35
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
و
militia to be in the House, and *, and I was sent into
Leicestershire, where we met the King, about settling the
militia, and the King not condescending, we fought it out.†
I have a complaint to this House, which I hope in due
time will be heard; my being kept out of the House,‡ who
was always faithful.
A strange thing that the top stone shall be laid first. I
would have this business put off till after the fast. I have
met with the printed speeches. § If you please, I will say
somewhat to them. We are in a sad case; our armies in
great arrears, and great need of navies. There is a promise
of accounting to us, of which we have not heard yet. I
went up as one of your servants, to see in what order we
should be. I saw where the Lords were. I asked where
the Commons should be, and they said, at the bar; where
were servants and footmen; and to stand amongst them we
must have begun to rub my Lord. I believe many members
did forbear to go up. I would have the speeches read, if
you please.**
* Blank in the MS.
† I am not aware to what event in the war this speaker refers.
† See vol. ii. p. 347, note ‡, ad fin.
§ Of the Protector and Lord Commissioner.
|| See supra, p. 9.
+ Mr. Bethell says, that "not above twelve or fifteen went out of
the House." Brief Narrative, p. 334.
**« Wednesday, February 2.-By this time it began plainly to appear
that the Commonwealth party and the Protector's or Court party, began
to vie stakes, and pecked at one another in their light skirmishes.
"It was moved by Mr. Neville that it might be declared by this Par-
liament, that there is no negative voice in any single person whatsoever,
and secondly, that the militia of the nation may likewise be declared to
be in this House.
"This motion was opposed by some, as too early and unseasonable.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge was of the same opinion, but thought it neces-
sary not to be deferred longer than until the reading of the Bill of Re-
cognition the second time.
"Which concession coming from the head of the party, did shew that
it was not moved, as apprehended seasonable at that time, but to let the
Court know that they were not asleep, nor less diligent in their business,
but ready to give them a Rowland for their Oliver; for the design of it
D 2
36
[FEB. 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Trevor. I wonder to hear this motion seconded by
the worthy gentleman who moved for nothing to be done
till all Privy and standing Committees w ere settled. He
says Providence has so ordered it, that the case of the
militia and negative voice, are settled by the law, if any
law be. It is said, it was the beginning of the quarrel be-
tween the King and the Parliament. I hope it shall not be
the quarrel between his Highness and the Parliament. That
gentleman had it in his choice that we might have stood bare
to him.*
was, that it might attend the Bill of Recognition, and go on, step by
step, with it. And lest they should surfeit the Protector too much with
kindness in the Bill, hereby resolved to give him a bitt and a knock; at
least involve the Court in this labyrinth, that either they must not make
that speed with the Recognition which they intended, or look that what
promotion they made of the one, it would be expected that the like
should be in the other.
"Sir Arthur Haslerigge desired it might be laid aside until Monday,
that it might be ready at that time, either to set forth, or to stay still,
as the Recognition should do.
"And quitting this debate, he took occasion, from the printed speech
of his Highness and the Lord Fiennes, to let us know that by them it
did appear to him that the nation was but in a very sad condition.
There were great fears from abroad, great arrears at home. It was fit
to take into consideration how, and which way, we shall have a just ac-
count of them. He prayed, if the House thought fit, the printed papers
might be read. He had known the like before that time. Indeed, the
first day of the Parliament he had been in the Lords' House, where they
said a speech was to be heard. He asked where he should stand. He
was answered beneath the bar. What, says he, 'Among the foot-boys.'
He had known former Parliaments take offence that some shall sit, and
some shall stand, bareheaded, and, therefore, for his part, he did not
stay. Therefore he prayed again it might be read, that we may un-
derstand in what condition we are, before we proceed upon any other
matter." Goddard MS. pp. 115, 116.
* Referring to his right to sit in the other House. See vol. ii.
note ‡.
p. 347,
Yesterday, when
"Mr. Trevor wondered at the debate this day.
a Bill of far greater concernment was brought in, then, the House
was not settled, Committees not named, as was objected; and whereas
Sir Arthur had said that the negative voice, and the militia, were
foundations which we had fought for and won, Providence had clearly
and demonstratively settled them, not by the sword, but by a law, if
1658-9.]
37
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir William Wheeler. I move for a Committee to prepare
the Bills under consideration for the people; as the law for
marriages and probate of wills.*
Major Audley was called in; and standing at the bar,†
Mr. Speaker opened the information against him, and said
the House was willing to hear him say for himself, and had
brought him to the bar, not upon his knees.‡
Major Audley. I have not been used to speak for myself,
either elsewhere or in the House. I should be sorry to give
offence by speaking. I have stated the matter of fact in a
Petition, if it please the honourable House to hear it.
He was commanded to withdraw.
Mr. Knightley. It is not parliamentary to receive a Peti-
tion, before you hear what he can say,
Mr. Trenchard seconded it.
Mr. Scot. Take his answer in scriptis; because he may
be afraid of the intemperance of his language.
He may
confess and avoid, confess and justify, or confess and mitigate.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I wonder to hear that motion
from a gentleman that has sat so long in this House. The
gentleman ought to confess or deny. If he confess those
there were any law now in being. He therefore desired we might pro-
ceed to the business of yesterday, which was nominating of Committees,
which, in truth, had been done before his coming in, namely the Com-
mittees of Religion, Trade, and Grievances, and Courts of Justice."
Goddard MS. p. 116.
* See vol. ii. p. 38, 44, 68, 74, 464, note
↑ "The Serjeant, with the mace, stood on the right hand of him within
the bar."
Journals.
"Mr. Speaker informed him, that there had been a complaint against
him of the great violation of the privileges of the House, in the abuse
offered by him, in Westminster Hall, on Thursday last, to two of the
members of this House, Mr. Bish and Mr. Turgis, that serve for the
borough of Gatton in Surrey; and that he had given Mr. Bish very foul
and contumelious language; had called him rascal, and base rascal; and
had given him other provoking language, tending to a duel. And that
he had likewise abused Mr. Turgis, with like contumelious and oppro-
brious language; and had called him base fellow.' And the House,
being willing to hear what he had to say for himself, had brought him
to the Bar, in this manner first, and not upon his knee." Ibid.
38
[FEB. 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
words, they will scarcely be avoided. This gentleman has
had more favour than stands to any upon your books.
Sir Walter Earle. I never knew the like, that a delinquent
should bring a framed discourse in writing. This will be an
ill precedent.
Mr. Scawen. I never knew a delinquent come to the bar,
and not kneel.
Major Audley was called in again, and required to give a
positive answer, guilty or not guilty?
Major Audley. I offered my defence in writing lest by
my tongue I should offend while defending myself. I deny
the charge in the main of it. It arose upon an election. I
was duly elected, and being informed there was a double
return, I applied myself to a gentleman to present my Peti-
tion. My passion and natural temper being worse than other
men's, I said I would lodge a Petition at the cross bar against
the election. I desired him to withdraw and not let people
be witnesses of our follies.
*I was a
He said I was not a gentleman, I had no arms:
turncoat. So that I was provoked to those languages. But
the challenge I deny. I had no intent. I profess I knew him
no member of Parliament; I thought there had been a double
return. I had rather acknowledge myself guilty as much as
I am, than reflect upon him that is your member.
To the other gentleman I said not a word; (but asked him
how long a lease he had of sitting here) meaning only to pro-
secute. I acknowledge myself accidentally, not professedly,
an offender to this House. I have faithfully served you these
eighteen years, and was never guilty of being a turncoat.
That sticks with me.
Mr. Knightley. The gentleman has given you a very in-
genuous answer, and shows himself an able person. I would
have the gentleman that informed, produce his witnesses.
Mr. Lechmere. I observed much of relenting. He asked
pardon of the gentleman, as a gentleman, as a member of this
*See how a "King of Heralds" accommodates the novi homines,
in such a case, vol. ii. p. 456, note.
1658-9.]
39
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
House; or of the House, in public. As the pardon is asked
publicly, you should forgive publicly. He is a perfect man
that can bridle his tongue, and he that speaks much must
sometimes repent it.
Mr. Manley stood up.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge, underhand, said, 'Another lawyer.'
Mr. Lechmere took exception to this, and said, 'It is a
reflection.'
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I spoke it for no reflection; but
out of a desire to hear any of the Long Robe speak, which I
would at any time sit down to hear.
Mr. Manley. Major Audley was a civil gentleman when
he quartered at my house. His confession was ingenuous at
the bar. If you please, pass by the business.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. The complaint is exceeding worthy
your hearing. Many gallant young gentlemen, I see, in this
House, who may be here when I am gone. I would not have
the blood stick on your chair. I think the acknowledgment
is not sufficient. I would fain read the proverb well. “Not
right pity, spoils the city." If one member of this House
should challenge another, I hope he would be turned out and
sent to the Tower.
A competition about an election! It is said the informa-
tion is not well proved. A challenge may be whispered.
The law favours passion, as in the case of manslaughter; but
the manslayer goes not without punishment. In the case of
Mr. Holford, he kneeled at the bar, for one word, and was
sent to the Tower, and you can do no less than send this gen-
tleman to the Tower. I have no end but your own honour,
and to prevent the fall of some young gentlemen in this
House. If the challenge were true, I should disable him
for sitting in this House.
Sir William D'Oyley. The charge is not made out. I
would have it referred to a Committee.
Mr. Steward. His confession did rather imply an ingenuity
than a guilt. His calling him aside was not to challenge; but
* See supra, p. 15, ad fin.
40
[FEB. 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
lest their follies should be conspicuous.
laid aside.
I would have it
Mr. Bulkeley. You cannot so easily lay it aside. This
person has put his hand to the plough and drawn it back.
He was in holy orders. The question is, whether you will
believe a member, or a stranger. I shall put a very great dif-
ference between the testimony of the one; and the other, that
has forsaken his profession. I heard a gentleman of this
House say he heard him say,
"Let us step to the other side
an hedge, and that will decide the controversy." This tends
to blood. It comes regularly before you to vindicate this
gentleman. He that dares do least in this way, dares do most
in another way. When justice is done, I shall be as much
for mercy as any man. A gentleman heard him say more.
Mr. Solicitor-General. I move that those gentlemen that
spoke the last day may be heard, and their evidence.
Mr. Wharton. I was passing through the hall, and heard
Major Audley say, Mr. Bish was an unworthy fellow, and
that he did not challenge him, but if he would go the other
side of an hedge, that would determine it.
Mr. Bish repeated the same story as before; saying, “I
told him he was an uncivil man, which was all I said."
Sir John Lenthall. Wherever an injury is done to any
member, it is done to the whole. I would have him as highly
punished as any man that has offended in this nature. He is
a man that when authority was in his hands did very much
oppress the country.
Major-General Kelsey. I would have no aggravation. He
is a scholar, and might at first exercise as a minister. It is
not unchristian to do so. When a man finds himself unfit,
it is christian to forbear the calling, rather than to be unpro-
fitable. I have acted in that country, and never heard him
called an oppressor before.
He apprehended himself to stand in an equal capacity, and
ill language did flow from both. It is an offence in its own
nature, but I would have all circumstances taken in, to
pass a right judgment. I would have it referred to a Com-
mittee to have the true state of the case laid before you, cre
you pass judgment.
1658-9.]
41
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Raleigh. I would have Mr. Sturges heard, that is
most concerned in the business. I never heard him said to
be an oppressor of his country. He was not returned.
Mr. Sturges. I intended not to have troubled the House
with it, but that a member advised me to it for the conser-
vation of your privileges.
He repeated the same story that he did the other day, and
said he would not misinform the House.
Serjeant Maynard. If any member did inform you of
any thing, it was never your use to refer it to a Com-
mittee. I would have nothing laid in his dish of what he
has done, otherwise. It needs no aggravation. It is a
challenge. Do justice boldly.
Do justice boldly. Vindicate your privileges,
lest from twenty you come to twelve.
Mr. Solicitor-General. He was in passion. He then
might well forget what he said. It is clearly a challenge,
and if you go no further than to send him to the Tower,
you are merciful.
Mr.
You will do him a courtesy to send him to
the Tower. He has a house, and a great office there.
Mr. Knightley. I would not have him go thither, for ex-
orbitant fees; but sent to some prison in Surrey. I would
have him disabled from bearing office.
Sir Richard Temple. I shall not speak to the matter, but
to the manner of his punishment. You will not think it
fit to send him to any other place than the Tower. I have
heard much of his ill deportment. I would have him dis-
abled from all office, civil and military. He has forfeited
his mercy by disproving his ingenuity.
Colonel Okey. I have marched with him several years,
and never saw or heard any thing against him.
Mr. Hungerford. This needs no aggravation. The place
is too good. You sent Sir John Stowell to the Gatehouse.
I would have him sent thither. I am not of that gentle-
man's opinion that said he might draw back from his pro-
fession.
Mr. Starkey. The Tower is too honourable for an ordi-
nary offender. I would have him in the Serjeant's custody,
42
[FEB. 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
where he will appoint him; which will exercise his purse as
well as his patience.
Lord Lambert. I move that the gentlemen concerned may
withdraw.
Mr. Bulkeley. Those gentlemen are not before you as ob-
jects of your justice, so ought not to withdraw.
Mr. Trenchard. The gentlemen ought, in modesty, to
withdraw, though there be no question upon it.
Sir William Wheeler. I would have him sent to the Gate-
house.
Captain Baynes. It is not usual for gentlemen concerned
to press a business after the person have so ingenuously ac-
knowledged. I would have his punishment put off till the
question about the election be determined, lest you punish
the people as well as him; and let him, in the meantime, re-
main in the Serjeant's custody.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I would have the Tower his pri-
son, as most honourable for this House; and the second
question to be, to disable him from sitting in this House; for
I must ever be tender of your privileges.
Mr. Turner. You have testimony from three witnesses,
where one is sufficient. Nay, pro bono publico, a man's self
may be witness in an indictment where no damages are given.
There is misericordia princeps. It is not justice to yourself.
You are the great conservators of the peace. I move that
he be put out of the Commission of the Peace,* for he has
apparently broken his trust.
Lord Lambert. He has done you good service. I am
witness of it. It does not amount to a challenge. It is a
coarse business; scurvy language; a thing in itself less inge-
nuous than a challenge. I would not have you exercise the
utmost severity to an old servant of yours. I would have
him only sent to the Tower. Sir John Stowell: he was long
in arms against you.
Mr. Eyre. I desire not to add affliction to misery; but
I conceive it was not improperly moved you by Mr. Turner
*For the county of Surrey." Journals.
1658-9.]
43
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
that he be put out of the Commission of the Peace. He is a
judge of challenges; and though it be not a challenge, yet
it is a provocation. The true valour of fortitude consists
not in passion. He may be fit for the military commission,
though not for the peace.
Mr. Raleigh. This gentleman is my countryman. I never
knew him do any thing on the bench unworthy. I think
your punishment is great enough, without addition.
Mr. Henley. The offence is heinous. That he is a ser-
vant to the Commonwealth makes his offence the greater. It
is against his duty and his trust. Especially, as an officer,
he ought to give the better example. Great men commit
things with a hundred hands. A little star may twinkle in and
out, but an eclipse of the great luminaries is more conspicuous,
I would have him, at least, turned out of the Commission ;
and that you would be so tender of your privileges, and bear
such testimony against all offenders of this kind, as to let
them know they kick against the pricks.
Mr. Hungerford. Leave it to the Lords Commissioners,
upon your sense, to put him out of the peace, if you please.
Nemo bis punietur pro uno delicto. I think it but fit to
be done; but not by you, and let the other punishment
suffice.
Mr. Grove. It is little enough to put him out of the
Commission of the Peace. How can he make others keep
the peace that is in such a high measure a breaker of it
himself?
Colonel Okey. I am loth to trouble you again on this
business. I am sorry to see those reflections, that he is fitter
to be a soldier than a Justice of Peace. I see it will be a
crime to be an army man. Is the expense of our blood no-
thing? The Long Robe are very (but this he said un-
derhand.)
Mr. Chaloner. The punishment is enough.
Mr. Gewen. The punishment must be proportionable to
the offence, in terrorem, to hear and fear. I would have him
put out of the Commission of the Peace.
Mr. Bulkeley. This seems more necessary than any other
3
44
[FEB. 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
part of the punishment. There is a great difference between
a sudden rash act and a pursuance of it, day after day, as
Mr. Wharton said. The next morning after I heard this, I
heard of some further addition. I would have him put out
of the Commission for ejecting scandalous ministers.*
Mr. Starkey. I am against extending the punishment, till
the offence be better attested than by one witness.
Mr. Goodwin. These gentlemen are my near neighbours.
You have done justly in sending him to the Tower. I have
known him a long time. In the Long Parliament he did you
faithful service. For a slip of passion you would not punish
him further.
Mr. St. Nicholas. Put the question, whether the question
shall be put.
Mr. Knightley. When you send a prisoner, express the
cause; lest any of us be laid by the heels and know not for
what.
Mr. Bodurda. I move that the cause of his imprison-
ment be expressed, and the other question waved; for, if you
disable him from being a Justice of Peace, you must make a
previous vote that he shall not be a member.
Mr. Turner. I move the question be put for disabling
him from the Commission of the Peace.
Captain Hatsell moved that the question be now put.
Mr. Speaker declared for the Noes.
Sir John Lenthall for the Yeas.
The Noes went out.
Noes 173. Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Fagg, Tellers.
Yeas 155. Sir Thomas Beaumont and Mr. Henry Fitz-
James, Tellers.
So the question passed in the negative.
Major Audley being called in, received his judgment on
his knees at the bar; after the Speaker had made an ha-
rangue touching the plaga lingua as well as the plaga dextra,
*In the Protector's Ordinance, Aug. 29, 1654, the name of "Lewis
Audley" appears among the Commissioners for Surrey.
1658-9.]
45
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
&c. that he should stand committed to the Tower during the
pleasure of the House.
The House rose a little past twelve.
I could not attend any Committees. I question if any sat.
Thursday, February 3, 1658.
I came not till prayers were done, and I found the House
engaged in a debate about Colonel Overton's * imprisonment,
upon a petition and printed paper presented at the door by
his sister. Upon this, it seems Mr. St. Nicholas had moved,
and was seconded by Henry Neville and Sir Arthur Hasle-
rigge; and it was strongly urged by them all, as a great
breach of the liberty of the subject, so long and much fought
and contended for, and so dearly purchased.
Lord Fairfax, Colonel Morley, and young Mr. Porter,
came into the House, and were all sworn together.
Mr. Waller, a member for Scotland, was made Serjeant at
Law, so that he could not attend the chair of the Committee
of Privileges.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge moved, that Lord Chief Justice
St. John waited at the door, and so took Captain Baynes
down.
The Lord Chief Justice was called in, and said, in obedi-
ence to this House he had brought a transcript of the record,
which was examined, as also a rule.
Mr. Reynolds called for the Report, and moved that it
might be postponed till Overton's business was over.
Captain Baynes. The unhappy wars have made us neglect
our liberties. I hope we shall be more tender. It may be
the gentleman has deserved his imprisonment. There was no
judgment against him for perpetual imprisonment.
CC
Major-General Robert Overton, prisoner in the Isle of Jersey."
Journals. See vol. i. p. 357, note *.
र
46
[FEB. 3,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. ——————————— moved, that he being reduced to straits by
his imprisonment, have part of the contribution upon the fast
day; but it was rejected.
Mr. Knightley. If this gentleman be nocent, why was he
sent away and not brought to trial? If innocent, the judg-
ment is unjust to detain him.
Mr. Starkey and Mr. Fowell. The question is not ripe
for your judgment, unless the gentleman had first appealed
to the Courts of Justice for a habeas corpus. It does not ap-
pear that has been denied.
Mr. Reynolds. The liberty of the people ought to have
festinè, remedium. This is a habeas corpus that you are
about. Jersey is part of France ;* so it is a moot point whe-
ther a habeas corpus lies. Alured was kept twelve months
close prisoner, and brought to a court martial, and after that,
six months kept close without receiving a letter so much as
from his wife.t
Resolved, that the Governor of the Isle of Jersey, or who-
ever has the custody of Colonel Overton, do bring him to this
House.‡
Colonel Alured moved for the Commissioners of the Admi-
ralty to send a frigate for him, for fear of pirates. He can-
not come without danger.
* The inhabitants of Jersey, though subjects of England, are govern-
ed by Norman laws, and their language is French." Crutwell.
+ This military officer, one of the victims of the late Protector's jea-
lous and justly merited apprehensions, was, no doubt, Colonel Matthew
Alured, a member in this Parliament for Heydon; who appears to
have been actively engaged during the war, and who, according to
Whitlock, after the restoration of the Long Parliament, was t appointed
Captain of the Life Guard to the Parliament and Council." Memorials,
(1732,) p. 681.
Ludlow says: “The Parliament gave order for raising a troop of
horse for their own guard, and gave the command of it to Colonel
Alured, who had been a great sufferer on account of the Common-
wealth, and very active for the restitution of the Parliament." Memoirs,
ii. 670.
"Together with the causes of his imprisonment." Journals.
1658-9.]
47
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Trevor. This is to triumph before the victory, to send
a frigate for him.
Colonel Okey.
When Burton and Prynne* were sent
for, they could not pass, for pirates.
* They were censured in the Star Chamber, and cruelly punished in
1637, with Dr. Bastwick. See vol. i. p. 372, note †.
Prynne was committed a close prisoner to Mont Orgeul Castle, Jer-
sey. "There," says Rushworth, "by an extra-judicial order, under the
Archbishop's hand, the Lieutenant-general was commanded to suffer
none but the keepers to speak to him, to intercept all letters that came
to him, to permit him neither pen, ink, or paper, either to write to his
friends for necessaries, or petition for relief." Hist. Col. (1706), iii. 301.
Mr. Burton, a clergyman, was first imprisoned "in Lancaster Castle,
none to come at him but the keeper, and denied the use of pen, ink,
and paper." Thence "he was transported in winter to the Castle of
Guernsey; his wife being prohibited, on pain of imprisonment, from
setting her foot on the island." Ibid.
To quote Dr. Johnson's jacobitical estimate of the patriotic resistance
to Charles, well might " rebellion's talons seize on Laud." Yet what an
affectation of clemency, like the Inquisitor's, when consigning a victim
to the secular arm, did the Archbishop express in the concluding sen-
tence of his " Speech delivered in the Star Chamber," and printed
(though only fifty copies) by the King's command," because the busi-
nesse hath some reflection on myselfe, I shall forbeare to censure them,
and leave them to God's mercy and the King's justice."
Lord Clarendon, (or those who prepared his papers for the press,) after
a very unfavourable and uncandid representation of these sufferers, thus
admits the distinguished respect which they attracted from the people.
"Prynne and Burton landed at the same time at Southampton; (No-
vember 22) where they were received and entertained, with extraordi-
nary demonstrations of affection and esteem; attended by a marvellous
concourse of company; and their charges not only borne with great mag-
nificence, but liberal presents given to them. And this method and cere-
mony kept them company all their journey, great herds of people meet-
ing them at their entrance into all towns, and waiting upon them out,
with wonderful acclamations of joy. When they came near to London,
multitudes of people, of several conditions, some on horseback, others
on foot, met them some miles from the town; very many having been
a day's journey, and they were brought, about two of the clock in the
afternoon, in at Charing Cross, and carried into the city by above ten
thousand persons, with boughs and flowers in their hands; the common
people strewing flowers and herbs in the way as they passed, making
great noise, and expressions of joy for their deliverance and return;
48
[FEB. 3,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Neville. This person is a fit person for conduct,* and
the Spaniards may take him prisoner, and make good use of
him. I would have a good strong frigate.
Mr. Reynolds. This gentleman was brought from Scot-
land hither, and sent to Jersey in a frigate. It is a good
prison.
Mr. Harrison. Burton and Prynne were wronged persons.
It appears not but that this gentleman is criminal.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am sorry to see this business
stick. I hear it said there are others in his case.
He wagged his head; Lord Fairfax sat next him, and I
suppose it was meant of the Duke of Buckingham.†
and in those acclamations, mingling loud and virulent exclamations
against the Bishops, who had so cruelly prosecuted such godly men."
History, (1705) i. 201, 202.
It has been objected to the historian's florid style, in describing "this
insurrection," as he calls it, that "there could be but very few flowers
in the latter end of November." Biog. Brit. (1784), iii. 45.
* Referring to his military skill.
+ The following passages from Whitlock will explain this speaker's
reference :-
"1657. Sept. 24. The Lord Fairfax his daughter and heir, was
married to the Duke of Buckingham," of whose forfeited estate Lord
Fairfax is said to have procured the restitution.
"1658. Aug. 29. The Duke of Buckingham was apprehended, and
committed to the Tower." Memorials, (1732,) pp. 665, 674.
It was probably under the influence of his son-in-law, as well as of
Lady Fairfax, that the brave General of the Commonwealth lent his
aid to the treachery of Monk, and the justly-requited intrigues of the
Presbyterian Royalists, which produced the unconditional Restoration.
It is said, that he even condescended to provide his own charger for the
use of Charles Stuart, on his public entry.
This second Duke of the Villiers' family, the Zimri of Dryden, in re-
venge for the Rehearsal, and whose life and death Pope has immor-
talized, is perhaps little known as the correspondent of William Penn,
who, in a letter to a friend in 1690, three years after the Duke's de-
cease, thus accounts for such an improbable intercourse :
"Poor gentleman! I know not what the circumstances of that time
might draw from me, but my only business with him ever was, to make
his superior quality and sense useful to this poor kingdom, that he
might not die under the guilt of mispending the greatest talents that
were among the nobility of any country." Belfast Magazine, (1812,)
viii. 82.
1658-9.]
49
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Colonel Cromwell took exceptions that Sir Arthur Hasle-
rigge should so often take notice that so many young men
were in this House. It was a great honour to them that they
were sent by their country here.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge said, he did not name young gen-
tlemen.
Colonel Cromwell said, he did say so; and so was the sense
of the House.
Mr. Bodurda moved, that the Commissioners of the Ad-
miralty and Navy accommodate the Governor, or whoever has
custody of Mr. Robert Overton, with a frigate for the better
and securer bringing of him.
Mr. Steward seconded it, and it was resolved accordingly.
Mr. Scot. I move that Colonel Gibbons, being Governor
of Jersey, and here present, take notice of it.
Colonel Gibbons answered, he was in his Captain's custody,
but agreed that respondet superior, he must answer for all at
his peril.*
re
Upon some petition or information of Colonel Overton's restraint
in the Isle of Jersey, it was ordered that the Committee of the Admi-
ralty and Navy shall be required to provide a good frigate forthwith to
be made ready, to bring over the said Colonel Overton to the Parlia-
ment. Which sending in favour and honour of Colonel Overton, it was
observed by the Court, and qualified thus: That the Committee, &c.
shall be required forthwith to provide a good frigate, with accommoda-
tions convenient for to bring over the Governor of the Isle of Jersey, or
his Deputy, with Colonel Overton, his prisoner, which was ordered ac-
cordingly." Goddard MS. p. 117.
"The state of Major-General Overton's sad and deplorable condi-
tion," says Mr. Bethel," was given at the door, and at the same time
the House was petitioned by his sister, for a hearing of him by the
Parliament themselves, which was readily granted, two votes passing
the same day, in order to it.
“First, that his keeper should, with all speed, bring him, with
the cause of his imprisonment, before the Parliament. Secondly, that a
frigate should forthwith be sent to fetch him from the Isle of Jersey,
where he was then prisoner.
"The Court at Whitehall was troubled at these votes, but the army
having a tenderness for their fellow-soldier, they durst not oppose it;
the votes meeting in the House with but two negatives to each." Brief
Narrative, pp. 335, 336.
VOL. III.
E
50
[FEB. 3,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Knightley stood up to make a report from the Com-
mittee of Privileges, which, per the orders of the House,
ought to precede.
Mr. Robert Reynolds moved to Mr. Neville's business.
Mr. Knightley went on and said, Mr. Serjeant Waller was
in the chair, but being this day to take his order of Serjeant,
could not attend.
The report was touching a double return for Rising, in
Norfolk, wherein Mr. Fielder was returned by the Mayor.
Mr. Bodurda. From the bar all reports ought to be made.
I would not have young gentlemen misled, which I hear
often said.
Sir Walter Earle and Sir Arthur Haslerigge. One may
report where he please. He must go down to the bar and
make his three legs;* but if he can get so near the chair,
that without handing it by another, he may deliver it to the
chair.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. It matters not whether the Mayor
or Burgesses return, the Sheriff must answer for all. It is
no good return, merely because it has the Mayor's seal. I
would have satisfaction for the reporter, about the right.
Captain Toll. The borough of Rising is not within Nor-
folk, but a borough by prescription. I was present at the
election. The return by the burgesses had twenty-five, the
other but nine. So I am against the report.
Mr. Steward.
This gentleman speaks to the merits. You
are now upon the return.
Mr. Starkey. The Burgesses' return is the better return.
Sir Walter Earle. Admit the member to sit, de bene esse,
and examine the merit afterwards.
Mr. Turner. A double return is where the proper officer
makes a double return. This is a borough by prescription;
then no head. Admit they have submitted to an incorpora-
tion, yet to have a mayor or bailiff, this does not out the
right. Lord Coke says so. As to the election of Burgesses,
I would have it re-committed.
* See supra, p. 22, note ".
1658-9.]
51
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Hobart. The precept was directed to the Mayor, and
so it appeared to the Committee.
Mr. Bodurdu and Mr. Trevor.
measure than the rest in such case,
Let not this have harder
Mr. Scawen. It is not parliamentary for the Clerk to
read the report. Your chairman should, by word of mouth,
report, and then only read the resolutions of the Com-
mittee.
Resolved, that John Fielder and Guibon Goddard are
duly returned.
Resolved, that the indenture by which Robert Jermy and
Guibon Goddard are returned, be withdrawn.*
The transcript of the record between Neville and Strowde
was read.+
August 20, 1656. Action in the case laid. Recites the
Instrument of Government, and the Indenture for return of
the other parties. Trumbull returned, first of the five
*" Mr. Fielder, being returned, with myself, Burgess for Rising, by one
Indenture between the Mayor and Sheriff, to which the seal of office was
affixed, and myself and Colonel Jermy by one other Indenture, between
the Parson and several other free Burgesses, and the Sheriff, (which indeed
was rather a certificate than a return,) and Mr. Fielder's Indenture with
myself returned by the Mayor, who was the head and principal officer,
that return was adjudged good, and that the other Indenture shall be
taken from the file, it being reported from the Committee, and ordered
by the House. Whereupon, Mr. Fielder was presently sworn, and ad-
mitted into the House, and Colonel Jermy put to petition to the Com-
mittee of Privileges." Goddard MS. p. 117.
+ See it verbatim in the Journals.
† Afterwards Sir William Trumbull, forgotten as a statesman, but
remembered, such is the immortality which poets can bestow, as the ear-
liest patron of Pope; who says, that their “friendship commenced at very
unequal years. He was under sixteen, but Sir William above sixty.”
To Sir William Trumbull, Pope dedicated the first of those juvenile
productions, the Pastorals, with great local propriety, as
CC Sir William
was born in Windsor Forest," (at Easthamstead Park, now inherited by
the Marquis of Downshire,) " to which he retreated, (in 1697) after he
had resigned the post of Secretary of State to King William III., and
where he died in 1716." His resignation is thus celebrated, while the
grateful protegé fondly assumes that his patron, would he but “ 'tune
E 2
52
[FF.B. 3,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
knights of Berkshire. Damages 20007. Damages assessed,
besides costs, 500/. Costs 20s.* Arrest of Judgment moved,
June 26, 1658. Ordered by Rule, that it be transcribed and
sent to the House. Hide and Seys.†
Mr. Neville. I should be exceedingly sorry to trouble
you with any business of my own; but the wrong is to you,
the lyre," as if fearless of " grand-climacterical absurdities," might even
rival the nightingale.
“ You, that too wise for pride, too good for pow'r,
Enjoy the glory to be great no more,
And carrying with you all the world can boast,
To all the world illustriously are lost!
O let my Muse her slender reed inspire,
Till in your native shades you tune the lyre:
So when the nightingale to rest removes,
The thrush may chaunt to the forsaken groves ;
But, charm'd to silence, listens while she sings,
And all th' aëreal audience clap their wings."
Such, in every age, have been the common-places of adulation with
dedicators, in prose or verse, who frequently apologise for the intrusion
on a patron's modest self-appreciation, before they proceed to inform him.
that he is every thing great and good. A remarkable instance of excessive
praise, was furnished by an early Latin translator of Paradise Lost, Re-
gained, and Sampson Agonistes; whom Bishop Douglas drew from obscu-
rity, to expose the literary frauds of Lauder. William Hog, an indigent
scholar, had found a munificent "friend to his distress," in Doctor Cox,
whom he justly addresses in a dedication, as "Mæcenas mi dignissime ;"
acquainting him, probably to the surprize of the learned physician, that
he might be either a Virgil or a Homer, whenever he pleased: "Ænei-
dos majestatem et Iliados elegantiam æquare possis." See "Paraphra-
sis Poetica in tria Johannis Miltoni viri clarissimi Poemata: Autore Gu-
lielmo Hogæo." (1690) p. xi.
*“The jurors assess the damages of the said Henry Neville, besides
his costs and charges, by him, about his suit in this behalf, extended to
one thousand and five hundred pounds,—and for those costs and charges
to twenty shillings." Journals.
"Hilary Term, 1658. Neville, Esquire, against Strowde, Esquire.
January 26th. Upon hearing of counsel on both sides, it is ordered, that
a transcript of the record in the cause between the said parties, and
hereunto annexed, be delivered unto the honourable House of Commons,
in Parliament assembled, for their resolution therein; this Court doubt-
ing whether they have cognizance of this cause, being grounded merely
1658-9.]
53
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
and comes doubly before you, both as it is your privilege,
and as recommended to you from the Judges.
I had recourse to the 23d Hen. VI., and brought an ac-
tion; but withdrew it, because another kind of Parliament
was provided for by that statute. I had good counsel to
bring my action at Common Law. You are the true father,
the child is brought to your door. The reverend* Judges
find it a case of new impression. If you please, make an end
of it now. If you turn from it, it will come before you again
by writ of error.
I move for a day to be appointed for hearing counsel on
both sides.
Mr. Starkey. I doubt not but you will be as tender of
all men, as you will be of your members. The Sheriff is my
countryman. Here is both matter-of-fact and law. I would
have a day appointed to hear counsel on both sides.
Mr. Turner. A case of that weight is of first impression.
to you, as well as to the Judges.
There are two points.
1. Whether an action of this nature lies at Common-Law.
A declaration in the preamble of the statute, no remedy at
Common Law; therefore the statute appoints a penalty.
The 2d doubt. The thing in its own nature concerns you.
The matter-of-fact is clear, but the judgment is with you.
I would have the debate adjourned till Saturday morning,
that we may look into our books.
upon the Common Law, of which they find no precedent; and wherein
the privilege of that House, in determining the due election of their
members is concerned.
CC
By the Court.
"Mr. Serjeant Hide, for the Plaintiff.
"Mr. Serjeant Seys for the Defendant." Journals.
* This_term_is_now, I believe, confined to the other robe; the long
robe, through all its gradations, being only learned. It appears to have
been otherwise in the age of this Diary. I have now before me, printed
in 1651: “A Perfect Abridgment of the Eleaven Bookes of Reports
of the Reverend and Learned Knight, Sir Edw. Cook, sometime Chiefe
Justice of the Upper Bench."
54
[FED. 3,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
เ
Mr. Reynolds. I move for this day se'nnight. None will
go so hastily to a judgment.
Mr. Bernard. I move for a day after term, that counsel
may attend.
Mr. Neville. If this curb, by the verdict, had not come
in, it is likely you had not been here in such a free Parlia-
ment.*
Mr. Knightley. I move for Tuesday next.
Sir William Wheeler. A scire facias ought to go out to
the defendant; but I would have you first resolve whether
you will take the judgment upon you yourselves.
Mr. Pedley. This is not a privilege that now concerns
you, other than for public example. This is now between
party and party. I would have it postponed for a month,
and the Judges to inform you of the whole matter.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. This is no private business. The
Judges think it to be a business that concerns your privi-
leges. I would have it put this day se'nnight.
Mr. Bodurda. This is indeed a public business. I would
have no counsel at the bar, which is only admitted in private
business. In the case of ship-money it was said counsel was
appointed,† but the Parliament was dissolved first,‡ ere it
could be heard. I would rather hear the Judges.
*"Mr. Neville's case, between him and Strowde. Mr. Neville himself
did move it, but modestly enough, and then withdrew." Goddard MS.
p. 118.
+ See vol. i. p. 407. Rushworth mentions, " April 30, 1640, the Com-
mons being turned into a Grand Committee concerning Ship-money,
and the records where the judges' opinions were entered, being sent for."
Hist. Col. (1706), iii. 152.
CC
"A Resolution of the Commons" followed "that the King's counsel
may be heard there, as soon as they are ready, concerning the lawfulness
of it, with other matters relating to that enquiry." Parl. Hist. viii. 458.
"May 5," says Rushworth, Secretary Windebank went early to
Mr. Speaker's House, with a command to bring him to Whitehall. The
Commons met, and the Speaker not coming, they concluded they should
be dissolved. About eleven, the Usher of the Black Rod came for them,
and the King, applying himself wholly to the Lords," at the conclusion of
his speech, "bid the Lord Keeper do as he had commanded him; and
1658-9.1
55
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Lord Lambert. This is both public and private business.
I would have counsel heard on both sides, at a short day.
There is a great prejudice from double returns, which Sheriff's
make for fear of actions. They know not what to do in
some places, and in others, there are petty designings.
Sir Walter Earle. I would have counsel to be heard in
the business, but not to the jurisdiction of this Court.
Mr. Steward. This is a special action. This case never
happened before, and can never happen again. The con-
sequence cannot be to your prejudice; which way soever it
I would have counsel heard on both sides.
go.
Resolved, to hear counsel in this case, on both sides, this
day sennight.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I made you a short motion yes-
terday, and was put out. I find somewhat in a book I
bought, entitled his Highness's speech.* There is in it mat-
ter of great concernment and inconveniences, lest the mis-
the Lord Keeper told the Lords and Commons, that his Majesty dis-
solved the Parliament." Hist. Col. iii. 156.
Dr. Heylin, in an anonymous publication, acknowledged among his
works, thus remarks on this hasty dissolution, the time and manner of
which were so well calculated to sharpen the spirits of the popular party,
and to bring a powerful democratic influence into the Long Parliament.
"Most sure I am, that it was secretly muttered about the Court, the
night before, that Hamilton had prevailed with the King to dissolve
the Parliament; who, playing as he used to do, with both hands at once,
did, with the one, pull back the Commons, by his party there, from all
compliance with the King, and, with the other, thrust the King forward
to dissolve that meeting: that, by this means, the King's affairs being
more embroyled than they were before, he might confirm the Scots and
confound the English, and thereby raise himself to the point he aimed
at.
"A sad and unfortunate day it was, and the news so unpleasing unto
the author of these papers, whosoever he be, that being brought him by
a friend whilst he was writing some despatches, it so astonished him,
though he had heard some inkling of it the night before, that suddenly
the pen fell out of his hand, and long it was before he could re-collect his
spirits to return an answer. See "Observations on the History of the
Reign of King Charles," (1656,) pp. 175, 176.
* See supra, pp. 7, 11.
JJ
56
[FEB. 3,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
chief, after warning, be said to be yours, if you have notice
given, and do not prevent it.
1. This Parliament was summoned upon such great, im-
portant affairs as the like was never; I believe it.
2. The reason why. We have so many enemies within
and without, and if your care and wisdom be not very great,
evil may come. And that lies upon you, to improve your
wisdom, to secure yourselves against such, expressed to be
implacable enemies. The means are left to yourselves.
3. You have the best army in the world. If they were
not so, you would have heard of great inconveniences by
reason of great arrears. I believe the best army that ever
was in the world. I bless God for it. I hope it will manifest
itself so to the world. We raised them here. I moved it.
We voted all the Colonels and Commanders in Chief. This
noble Lord that sits by me, Lord Fairfax; I bless God that
he, having received so many wounds, now sits on my right
hand. If we should not take care of the best army in the
world we were to blame. I shall speak for them, now I have
liberty. I am sorry they are come to necessity. When
your Speaker was taken out of the chair,* there were
* "On the memorable April 20, 1653. This plain allusion to the mi-
litary outrage then committed by the late Protector, and which his
quondam associates had never forgotten, nor could be expected to for-
give, must have been very unacceptable to the present courtiers of
Whitehall. Yet, see (vol. ii. p. 303) as an instance of freedom of
speech used even in Oliver's Parliament, the proposal of honouring
his Highness with "a rope," though a pretended lapsus linguæ.
James Heath, author of " A Brief Chronicle," containing, says Wood,
❝ innumerable errors," as "being mostly composed from lying pamphlets,"
was, also, the virulent author of Flagellum, now before me, (edit. 1662.)
There I find him indulging, by the aid of the engraver, a pitiful rancour
towards departed greatness, and no doubt he gratified" his sacred ma-
jesty," just restored "to his kingdoms," by prefixing a frontispiece,
quite in the royal taste, in which " Oliver Cromwell, the late Usurper,"
is suspended by a rope.
This writer, however, did not incur, like too many of his contempora-
ries, the disgrace of reviling the memory of the Protector, after having
appeared, during the short period of his supreme power, among his most
servile adulators. He " adhered to King Charles II. in his exile, till
1658-9.]
57
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I am
100,0007. in coin in Ireland, and as much in London, ready
coined. The matter of arrears is left to your care.
glad it is so. It rejoices my heart that we are not likely to
leave posterity in a worse condition than we found them
before.
I shall speak to the war with Spain afterwards.
It is said it concerns you to be in a posture of defence.
You never had such a fleet as in the Long Parliament. All
the powers in the world made addresses to him that sat in
your chair. Lord Fiennes declares that you shall have an
account of all your affairs.* I would have a Committee ap-
pointed to inquire into this, concerning army, navy, money,
and all things. I refused to pay taxes not laid by Parlia-
ment. My oxen of value sold for twenty and forty shillings
a-piece. I would have all the names of your officers, with
an account of that money. There should be two Committees,
but not too numerous.†
his patrimony was almost spent," and then "he was forced to write
books, and correct the press, for bread to maintain his children." James
Heath survived, and celebrated in 1662, "The Glories and Magnificent
Triumphs of the Blessed Restitution;" and such was his talent for am-
plification, that, on a theme so scanty, he produced a large octavo."
Athen. Oxon. (1692) ii. 226.
<<
* "You will receive a particular account, from those under whose
survey and care those things are, of the state of the public revenue, and
of the forces both by sea and land; your inward and outward walls, under
God, and as good as any in the world. But as all things that are good
are also costly, so can it not be expected but that the charge of them
should be great." Parl. Hist. xxi. 279.
+"Sir Arthur Haslerigge told us, that it did appear upon his High-
ness's speech, that we had the best army in the world, for not bringing
in upon us those inconveniences, which an army in want is used to do.
He conceived them to be the best army in the world, because they were
raised by the Long Parliament and by himself, that he had spent much
blood with them in the public service, and that the noble Lord, meaning
the Lord Fairfax, that sat by him, had lost much more, and had, indeed,
many wounds, and spent many pounds of blood with this army. There-
fore, it must needs be good, very good; but he was very sorry they were
in want. It was not so in the time of the Commonwealth. They had
always one month, if not three months' pay beforehand. (Sce infra,
58
[FEB. 3,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
|
*
I
|
Colonel Birch. The honourable person, my honoured
friend, has well moved you for a Committee. I wish the
former part of his speech had been left out, as to the Long
Parliament. Give me now leave to account to you how I left
it. I was one of those who was put out. There were then
100,000 men in arms, carried on with a small charge. We
left 600,0007., and half as much out of compositions, Wea-
vers'-hall money, Dean and Chapter lands,† and 120,000l.
per month laid.
*
If that glorious time had continued seven years longer; if
it had given the people that ease that was expected, it had
yet stood.
The Protector says his interest shall be ours, to give
peace both at home and abroad. That speech, if well looked
upon, will satisfy all.
I would have a Committee to those ends.
p. 64.) It was high time to have an account of this. Soldiers must not
be in want. Necessity will make them break through stone walls.
"In the next place, the speech told us that we had considerable
enemies abroad, and therefore it was high time that our forces be look-
ed into, both by sea and land. Never such an army, and such a fleet, as
under the Commonwealth, we were then in a flourishing condition,
feared abroad and loved at home.
CC
And, therefore, since it was declared by Commissioner Fiennes that
we should have an account of our affairs, he moved for a Committee to
consider how the condition of our affairs stands, especially with reference
to our army and navy, and to consider likewise how our money and our
treasure stands." Goddard MS. p. 118, 119.
* One of the secluded members. Parl. Hist. ix. pp. 13, 29. See vol.
ii. p. 387 note*.
+ See vol. ii. p. 233 note †
↑ "Colonel Birch. The account of the proceedings of the famous
Parliament might have been spared. But since it has been spoken to
(by Sir A. H.) I am engaged to let you know how it was when I left it,
as well as when he left it. There were 100,000 men, at that time in
the army, and yet they were maintained with small tax, and it would
have been accounted a most miserable burden to have laid a tax of
50,000l. per mensem. Yet we left 300,000%. in money (Weavers' Hall
Chapters' lands, and other delinquents' estates.
And, if that glorious time had lasted but a little longer, we must have
sold two thirds of our estates to have kept the third.
accounts) Deans' and
1658-9.]
59
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Starkey. I fear none of that money those gentlemen
speak of, that they left, will now be found. To appoint a
Committee, is very proper, but a work of time. They stand
in need of some money. His Highness would not have told
you of the arrears, had he had it in his treasury to pay them.
We cannot redress past grievances. Other powers are to
be consulted in raising of money as we are now constituted.*
First settle your foundations. Rest not upon an expectation
of a return from your Committee, to supply you. †
Mr. Bodurda. First understand your consistency and
construction. I would have you order the Commissioners
of your Treasury, to bring in what remains on the foot of the
account, since the last Parliament. The Petition and Ad-
vice requires it. I suppose they are preparing it. I should
fear the Committee of the Army presenting their arrears.‡
Mr. Secretary. I am glad to see this House entertain
themselves with this consideration. I shall not look back at
what is passed. If that were examined, I doubt you will
find no such treasury, but rather great debts. Yet com-
pare what sums were raised, and it is no more than might be
expected.
I understand not the grounds of that commission, viz. the
nomination of all the officers. We are now under another
constitution.
The matter of your money, you may have an account of,
which I suppose is all that is meant by this Committee. Se-
"For the Protector's speech, which was delivered freely, and with his
own inclination, it hath given great satisfaction to all, but I am for a
Committee," &c. Goddard MS. p. 119.
* See vol. ii. p. 457, note ‡.
t
Starkey. Hath heard what treasure these two former gentlemen
left, when they left their share in the government: but fears little is to
be found there now. It will be a waste of time to consider how it hath
been spent.
"It is first fit to advise of the Constitution and foundation under
which we now are, before we can consider of these things which are now
propounded. Therefore, he moved it may be totally laid aside." God-
dard MS. p. 119.
"Mr. Bodurda. We ought to meet in some consideration of the
government, before we can consider of money." Ibid.
60
[FEB. 3,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
veral officers can acquaint you with the state of affairs. In-
stead of a Committee, I would have you appoint the several
officers to bring you in these accounts.*
Serjeant Maynard. It is necessary in time to have an
account by a Committee, but a work of time that will be.
I would rather have the state of things from the officers,
which is more proper and natural. Never could you get
an account in Parliament, from whom received, and to whom
paid.t
Mr. Knightley. I have never been a soldier, yet always
was forward that they should have their due encouragement.
That noble Baronet brought a good estate hither. The Se-
cretary and Serjeant Maynard have well moved you. Com-
mittees are tedious. I would first have the officers bring in
their several accounts.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I would have the wheels oiled,
* "Mr. Secretary seemed very glad the House was pleased to enter-
tain themselves with this business. The necessities of the nation must
be provided for, and supplied. Accordingly, to look forward will be
more necessary for the peace of the people, than to tell what hath been
done either in 48 or 53. He said, he was a perfect stranger to the great
treasure that was left.
"He understands not the grounds of the Committee for nominating
officers. We are now under another Constitution.
"But monies may be seasonable, and we may have an account of
them, from the Commissioners of Admiralty and Army, who will be
ready to observe all orders this House shall give them; and therefore he
moved those officers might be made to bring account of all things within
their charge." Goddard MS. p. 120.
+ "Serjeant Maynard. A Committee for looking into the state of the
army is necessary to put us into a way and condition to supply it. But
better first to send for the respective officers to give you an account how
things do stand, and then to appoint a Committee.” Ibid.
‡ “ Mr. Knightley. I agree with Serjeant Maynard, and that he hath
put us into a better order; that the Commissioners of the Navy and Army,
give us a true state of both, so that a supply may be cheerfully given. I
never grudge a soldier his gains. If they be our army, they shall have
the last drop of my blood; but if otherwise, we must consider. Sir, we
must know that no Act of Parliament can bind the hands of another.
It is necessary also we should know our officers. They were raised by
us, and must we not know them." Ibid. pp. 120, 121.
1658-9.]
61
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
If they
that we may go on cheerfully. I would have us plain-
hearted. I would have the names of the officers.
be our army, they shall have the last drop of my blood.
The militia is our militia. Shall not we ask to see their
names again?
We may vote such powers as to put us to fight all our
cause over again. This must be spoken to, fully. Laying
foundations, we shall unsettle as well as settle, and bring
blood instead of power.
I hope
Mr. Trevor. The peace of this nation is more concerned
in looking forward than backward. The question is narrow,
whether you will have an account of your monies ?
it is not intended you should alter your constitution.
Mr. Scot. If you call not arrears looking backward, I
know not what is looking backward.*
He that reckons without his host, or pays without a reck-
oning, is either very rich or very weak. See your charge
first, and then you can the better estimate what to provide.
I am sorry we have any war. I would have your army
encouraged. I would have a Committee, as moved.
purse
Sir William Wheeler. A true saying, the people is the
of the nation. Accounts are always given by the Com-
missioners, but Committees are tedious. I would have the
officers give you an account of all. I move, that they de-
liver in their accounts on Monday sennight, and swear they
keep their books in a good method.†
Mr. Scawen. I would have an account of your strength,
of your charge, and of your treasure.
Resolved, that the Commissioners of the Treasury be re-
quired to deliver into this House, on or before Monday
sennight next, an account of the state of the treasury within
and under their survey and jurisdiction.
* "Mr. Scot. Something must be previous to this account. It will
be necessary to look after the arrears; and, if they will forgive us, then
we will pardon them." Ibid., p. 121.
+"Sir William Wheeler. The Commons are the power of the na-
tion. The Lords Commissioners in King James's time, brought in the
accounts and delivered them to you." Ibid.
62
[FEB. 3,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Colonel Parsons. I move for a list of your officers, to
know your strength.
Mr. Neville. This question is not large enough to hold
your debate.
It is moved that you may know your
strength. I would have a Committee to examine the whole
business.
Mr. Knightley. If my bailiff should bring me an account
of 20007. spent this year, and say not to whom, I should
take it as a lame account.
Mr. Weaver. It was told you by the Protector, that is
now in heaven, that you should have an account last Par-
liament, and he died before you could have it.
Mr. Manley moved to change the word "require" for
"desire."
Mr. Hungerford. They are your servants, and require
is most proper.
Mr. Reynolds. You must have another question. You
must have a statement of your charge, as well as discharge.
I move that, the same day, there be brought in a statement
of the establishments of your Army and Navy.
Mr. Scawen. There are General-officers, Admirals, &c.
Are not they fittest to give you an account?
Lord Lambert. It is fittest to receive an account of the
state of your army and navy from the officers. Of the
Of the army
you may have a certain account, but of your navy, only an
estimate,
Mr. Raleigh. I would have it compared, your present
establishment with what was your establishment.
Dr. Clarges. The Commissioners of the Treasury can
give you an account of the estimate.
Mr. Secretary. Your first question comprehends the lat-
ter. There can be no account of the establishment of your
Navy, only an estimate. Yet, seeing you are inclined to it,
let your question go on, that the officers do give you an ac-
count. Every account comprehends a discharge and a
charge.
Resolved, that the Committee of the Army be required to
deliver into this House, on or before Monday sennight
1658-9.]
63
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
next, the establishment of the Army of the three nations, as
it stands now before them.
Mr. Reynolds. Your charge must be according to your
danger.
Colonel Birch. It is not fit to bring your strength to
such open examination. It is not fit to be discovered.
Mr. Hoskins. It is not proper to discover your strength,
or your designs.
Mr. Jessop. The Lords of the Council* are not altogether
capable to give an account of the charge of the Navy. They
can give you a list. The Commissioners of the Admiralty
and Navy can give an account of present and past charges
and future estimates.
Serjeant Seys. I would not have our preparation laid
open. Sever the questions; for with past or present, you
may have an account.
Colonel Clark moved to leave out the last clause, as to the
future estimate.
Resolved, that the Commissioners of the Admiralty and
Navy, be required to deliver in to this House, on or before
Monday sennight next, an account of the present charge,
and of the debt now owing to the Navy.†
* This speaker was Clerk of the Council.
+ On the flippant assertion of " a young gentleman," one of the court
party in the late parliament, (vol. ii. p. 396), I adduced some authori-
ties to show how the Long Parliament had provided for the public ser-
vice, and administered the nation's pecuniary resources. It will not be un-
seasonable, especially with reference to some passages (supra, pp. 57,58,)
which preceded the above resolution, here to add, from a contemporary,
Mr. Slingsby Bethel, a testimony to their meritorious exertions, written
during the reign of Charles II., though, probably, first published just
after the Revolution :-
"When this late tyrant, or Protector, as some call him, turned out
the Long Parliament, the kingdom was arrived at the highest pitch of
trade, wealth, and honour, that it in any age ever yet knew. The trade
appeared, by the great sums offered then for the customs and excise ;
900,000l. a year being refused. The riches of the nation showed itself,
in the high value that land, and all our native commodities bore, which
are the certain marks of opulency. Our honour was made known to all
the world by a conquering navy, which had brought the Hollanders
64
[FEB. 3,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Bodurda and Mr. Starkey, moved that, for the Speak-
upon their knees, to beg peace of us upon our own conditions, keeping
all other nations in awe. And besides these advantages, the public
stock was 500,000l. in ready money, the value of 700,000l. in stores, and
the whole army in advance; some four, and none under two months. So
that, though there might be a debt of near 500,000l. upon the kingdom,
he met with above twice the value in lieu of it." See "The World's
Mistake in Oliver Cromwell," (1689,) p. 32.
66
Such are the representations of a near and intelligent observer, no
republican, nor injured, or disobliged by Oliver;" of whom he says,
"I can with truth affirm, I never received either good or evil from
him in all my life, more than in common with the whole kingdom.”
Ibid. p. 53.
Roger Coke, another contemporary and an anti-republican, after paying
a forced homage to "the haughty and victorious Rump, whose mighty
actions will scarcely find belief in future generations," thus proceeds—
"To say the truth, they were a race of men, most indefatigably in-
dustrious in business, always seeking for men fit for it, and never pre-
ferring any for favour, nor by importunity. No murmur or complaint
of seamen or soldiers employed by them, either by sea or land, for want
of pay. In all the ports of England, during the Dutch war, money or
credit was found to pay off the seamen, whenever their ships were de-
signed to be laid up.' Detection (1697), p. 363.
"
Thus it appears, that the claim of desert which Ludlow advances for
the Long Parliament, when just about to be interrupted by the mili-
tary intrusion of Cromwell, may be fully justified.
"This Parliament maintained a war against the Dutch, with that con-
duct and success that it seemed now drawing to a happy conclusion ;
recovered our reputation at sea, secured our trade, and provided a pow-
erful fleet for the service of the nation. And however the malice of
their enemies may endeavour to deprive them of the glory which they
justly merited, yet it will appear to unprejudiced posterity, that they
were a disinterested and impartial Parliament, who, though they had
the sovereign power of the three nations in their hands for the space of
ten or twelve years, did not, in all that time, give away amongst them-
selves so much as their forces spent in three months: no, not so much
as they spent in one, from the time that the Parliament consisted but of
one House, and the government was formed into a Commonwealth."
Memoirs, ii. 453.
The condition to which the army was gradually reduced during the
Protectorate, notwithstanding parliamentary supplies and arbitrary ex-
actions, especially from the rapacity of the Major-Generals, is sufficiently
described by the late Protector. He, at length, as he appeals to eye
1658-9.]
65
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
er's health and ease, the House be adjourned till Saturday,
and that the fast be kept without the mace.*
The sense of the House was contrary, and some moved that
it was never so.
The House rose at one o'clock.
All
The Committee of Privileges sat in the Star Chamber,
Mr. Starkey in the chair. Adjourned to the House.
the day, till candle light, taken up in the business of Colches-
ter election, between Major Stone and Barrington, chosen by
the Mayor and Aldermen, &c., and Shaw and Johnson,
chosen by the burgesses.
The question was, whether to go to judgment only upon
the return, or upon the merits of the election? It was re-
solved, twenty-eight to twenty-seven, that the merits should
be debated, contrary to two resolutions of the Committee, the
day before, in the case of Reading and Castle-Rising: Sir
Arthur Haslerigge zealous in those, and slack in this. "Kiss-
ing goes by favour."
Mr. Redding, in his speech to the Committee, called the
Lord Protector Richard the Fourth.
Mr. Starkey would not declare whether the Yeas, or Noes
had it, and was laughed at sufficiently for a quarter of an
hour. He said he was not satisfied that the Yeas had it, and
yet at last declared that he thought the Yeas had, contrary
to his judgment. It was moved that a Clerk might read the
petitions and papers; but denied: and the Chairman appoint-
ed to read them; else to leave the chair. The Chairman
cannot leave it without leave.
The Committee adjourned till Saturday next, and then the
business of Oxford to be taken up.†
CC
and ear witnesses, depended for the support of his government, on
poor, unpaid army, the soldiers going bare-foot." See vol. ii. p. 366.
* To dispense with the Speaker's attendance.
a
+ There were "repeated attempts at the end of Elizabeth's and the
beginning of James the First's reign, to draw the power of deciding con-
troverted elections to the Court of Chancery." They, however, continued
to be decided by the House, on a report from "the Committee of Privi-
leges," till the Grenville Act, establishing the present mode of forming
election Committees, was passed in 1770. Parliamentary Guide (1784),
pp. xiii, xvii-xxx.
VOL. III.
F
66
[FEB. 4,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Friday, February 4, 1658-9.
The House kept a fast within their own walls.
Dr. Owen preached. His text was Isaiah iv. 5.
upon all the glory shall be a defence.”*
Dr. Reynolds preached. His text was 2 Phil. i. 2.
"For
* This sermon was entitled, "The Glory and Interest of Nations
Professing the Gospel." See vol. ii. p. 97, notes.
†This eminent Presbyterian, who at length, "mitre and crosier danc-
ing in his eyes," overcame his scruples against diocesan episcopacy,
is thus described by Sir Thomas Browne: "My honoured friend,
Bishop Edward Reynolds, was a person much of the temper of his pre-
decessor, Dr. Joseph Hall, of singular affability, meekness, and humility ;
of great learning, a frequent preacher, and constant resident." Reper-
torium, (1723,) p. 20.
CC
Wood admits Dr. Reynolds to have been a person of excellent parts
and endowments, of a very good wit, fancy, and judgment, a great di-
vine, and much esteemed by all parties for his preaching and florid style,"
though "of an hoarse voice." Yet, with his usually "great plainness of
speech," the Oxford biographer thus exposes the versatility of this timely
conformist.
"In 1642, he sided with the Presbyterian party, and became one of
the Assembly of Divines, a Covenanter, and a preacher before the Long
Parliament. In 1646, he was appointed one of the six ministers to settle
in Oxford, to preach the scholars into obedience to the said Parliament;
afterwards, one of the visitors to break open, turn out, and take posses-
sion, as Dean of Christ Church, in the place of Dr. Samuel Fell, ejected,
and Vice-Chancellor of the University. Being forced to leave his
Deanery, in 1650, because he refused to take the independent engage-
ment, [see vol. ii. p. 279, note *,] he retired to his former cure of Brayn-
ton in Northamptonshire. Afterwards, he lived mostly in London ;
preached there, and flattered Oliver and his gang; and after his death
he did the like to Richard, and was the orator or mouth of the London
ministers, to welcome that mushroom Prince to his throne, 11th October,
1658. Also, when hopes depended on Monk's proceedings from Scot-
land, he struck in with him, and who more ready than Dr. Reynolds
and other Presbyterians,-[see vol. ii. p. 320, 373, notes *,] when he and
they saw how things would terminate, and could not be otherwise
holpen,―to bring in the King after his long exile, by using his interest in
the city of London, where he was the pride and glory of the Presbyte-
rian party.
"Soon after the Restauration, upon the feeling of his pulse, the King
1658-9.]
St
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
*
Mr. Calamy preached. His text was Psalm xciii. iv.
“The Lord reigneth.”
Dr. Mantont preached. The text was Deut. xxxiii. 4, 5.
The exercises held from nine till six.t
Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Knightley moved that the ministers
have thanks, and print their sermons.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge and Mr. Scot moved against print-
ing them.
Resolved in the affirmative.
Lord Fairfax spoke twice, inclining rather not to have the
sermons printed.
He spoke but so so.
Then arose a division about the
question, so suddenly after the duty.
bestowed upon him the bishoprick of Norwich; which see he willingly
taking without a nolo, was, after he had taken the covenant, and had
often preached against Episcopacy and the ceremonies of the Church of
England, consecrated thereunto, on the 6th of January, anno 1660-1.
By virtue of which bishoprick he became an Abbot, (a strange prefer-
ment, methinks, for a Presbyterian,) of St. Bennet in the Holme, which
he kept (with great regret to his quondam brethren, whom he then left
to shift for themselves,) to his dying day," in 1676.
Wood adds, though I trust the imputation is unjust, "It was verily
thought by his contemporaries, that he would have never been given to
change, had it not been to please a covetous and politic consort, who put
him upon those things he did." Athen. Oxon. (1692), ii. 420, 421.
The King is described by Wood as advancing Dr. Reynolds to the
initre"
upon the feeling of his pulse." In another place, this indefati-
gable detailer of anecdotes has shown the " Supreme Head over all
causes ecclesiastical," either jesting with his high prerogative, of awful
responsibility, or applying it to political purposes, with equal facility.
“1677. Nov. 26. Divers would be asking the King who should be
Archbishop; who, to put off and stop their mouths, he would tell them,
Tom Baillies. He is a drunken lecherous justice of peace for Westminster.
"Dec. 29. Congés d'elire [see vol. ii. p. 465, note †,] went to Can-
terbury to elect Dr. Sandcroft Archbishop of Canterbury, set up by the
Duke of York against London, [Dr. Compton,] and York put on by the
papists. York doth not care for London, because he showed himself an
enemy to the papists at the Council Board." See "The Life of Mr. An-
thony a Wood,” (1772,) p. 271.
* See vol. ii. pp. 320, 373, notes.
1 See Ibid. p. 372.
+ See Ibid. p. 89, 311, notes.
F Q
68
[FEB. 5,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Bampfield came into the House. I
question if they were sworn.
Mr. Disbrowe, Mr. Bulkeley, Mr. Hungerford, and Mr.
Gewen, moved to have the sermons printed.
There was a collection for the poor at the door by the Ser-
jeant ;* so the Speaker went out without the mace.
Saturday, February 5, 1658-9.
The House sat, ere I came in.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge was moving that the petition of
John Lilburne'st widow be read.
It was read, and referred to a Committee.I
Mr. Bodurda and Mr. Manley moved that Major-General
Ludlow sat, and had not taken the oath.§
* See supra, p. 13, note.
† See vol. i. p. 156, note ||; infra, February 28.
"To examine the matter of fact, and to report to the House what
they shall think fit, in their opinion, to be done thereupon." Journals.
§ See supra, p. 11, note +. The General thus fully explains his con-
duct, and details the result of this unfriendly interference :-
"Those that governed at Whitehall, had ordered an oath to be ad-
ministered to all such as should be admitted to sit in the House, where-
by the members were to oblige themselves not to act or contrive any
thing against the Protector. This oath I was unwilling to take, and
therefore declined going into the Assembly; but being one day walking
in Westminster-hall, and meeting Sir Walter St. John, who was one
of the persons appointed to administer the oath, he asked me why I
came not to the House? I told him, that though I had heard divers
arguments for taking the oath, yet my doubts not being fully satisfied
by them, I had hitherto abstained. Whereupon he desired me to meet
him in the lobby the next morning, promising to carry me in with him,
which," said he, " will create a belief in the House that I have given
you the oath." Accordingly I attended, but not finding Sir Walter
there, I went in, and the House being at prayers, I stood amongst the
rest of the members till they were ended, and then went up to the
Speaker's Chamber, where, and in the gallery, I sat with as much pri-
vacy as I could.
CC
"Thus I continued to do for about a week, when news was brought,
1658-9.]
69
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Collins offered a petition against an unqualified mem-
ber, and it was debated whether the other or this should be
read first.
to the great mortification of the Court, that Sir Henry Vane was chosen
to serve in this assembly for the borough of Whitchurch. Sir Henry
being come to town, and informed that I sat in the House, he was
pleased to make me a visit, and to enquire by what means I had pro-
cured admission, for he had been acquainted with my scruples touching
the oath. I assured him, that my doubts remained still unsatisfied;
but that I had ventured to go into the assembly, where I sat as yet
without any interruption.
"Within a day or two, a member informed me of an intention in some
to complain to the House against me, for sitting amongst them, without
the qualification of the oath; to which I answered, 'that it was no more
than I expected.' And accordingly one of the members called Bodurda,
the same day pressed to be heard touching a matter which, he said,
concerned the very being of the House; having been informed that
there sat a person amongst them, who had not taken the oath required
to be administered to every member before his admission. He there-
fore moved the House to enquire into it, and to give order that all men
that sat there might be upon an equal foot. This motion was opposed
by some, who alleged that it was of far less importance than many other
things that were before them.
“Mr. John Trevor, a leading man of the court-party, seconded the
former motion, though with much civility and respect, urging that he
could not but think it very seasonable, and of consequence, considering
the worth, as he was pleased to say, of the person concerned. So the
debate was entered upon, and divers gave their opinions that the oath
should be peremptorily required. But Mr. Weaver and some others
opposed them, alleging that for the most part oaths proved only snares
to honest men, it being generally observed, that those who were least
conscientious in keeping an oath, were the most forward to take it.
Colonel Eyre also informed the House, that he had sat in the Long
Parliament without taking the oath then prescribed, and that he was
fully persuaded that my omission therein proceeded not from a spirit of
opposition, but from a real scruple of conscience; that his case had for-
merly been the same with mine; and though no man could question my
affection to that Parliament, yet I had moved the House in his behalf,
and was the person nominated by them to bring him into the House
without taking the oath.
"This debate continuing for two or three hours, was at length in-
terrupted by the discovery of a person sitting in the House, who had not
been elected so to do: his name was King, and being called to the bar, the
House demanded of him whether he were a member? To which he an-
70
FEB. 5,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Salway moved that the petition against the unqualified
member be read first.
The petition was read. It was from the inhabitants of
Worcester, that they had chosen Mr. Gyles,* but that Mr.
Streete, a person who had been in arms, and a common
swearer, was chosen by the profane rabble, and Cava-
liers.
Mr. Weaver. I move that a Committee be appointed to
examine this business; also the qualifications of all members,
swered, that he knew not whether he were or no, for meeting with an
Alderman of London, who asked him if he were chosen, he demanded of
him the reason of his question: whereupon the Alderman saying that he
had seen the name of one King upon the list of returns, he came down
to the House, and had continued so to do, that he might not be wanting
in his duty.'
"This man being ordered to withdraw, many of the members willingly
left the debate, and others did so too from their great zeal against him,
supposing him to be a dangerous person, because he had been observed
that morning in the Speaker's Chamber to approve and promote a paper
which was there delivered, tending to show the wickedness of the designs
that were carrying on by the court-faction, and the necessity incumbent
on the assembly to restore the Commonwealth. So the merits of this
person having been debated also, and the House being informed by one
of the members serving for the City of London, that the man was dis-
tempered in his head to that degree, that his relations were often obliged
to bind him hand and foot, they contented themselves to send him to
Newgate for a day or two, and then ordered him to be discharged.
By this means the assembly was diverted from resolving to impose
the oath; and though they were much inclined to get rid of my company,
yet partly by finding so great opposition, and partly by discovering that
there were some of another interest which they liked better, that had
not taken it, they were discouraged from resuming that debate for the
future, though they did sometimes mention it by way of reflection, when
I moved any thing displeasing to them." Memoirs ii. 619–623.
It is difficult not to doubt the consistency of this tacit acknowledg-
ment of the Protectoral government, by the General and his republican
associates thus sitting in the Protector's Parliament; though it is still
less easy to call in question their pure and patriotic purpose. As mem-
bers of the Long Parliament, which was not dissolved, but only inter-
rupted by military violence, they appear to have considered themselves
as possessing exclusively the right to an occupation of that House,
during any proceedings conducted according to the forms of Par-
liament.
* Mr. Collins, who presented the petition, was the other member.
1658-9.]
71
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
and that an order be placed at the door, that all persons that
know themselves in their consciences unqualified, may forbear
to sit, at their perils. This was done in the Long Parlia-
ment, and it was to good purpose. Many members left us.
Mr. Starkey. In regard this gentleman is a member, it is
his privilege to be heard in his place. Before you refer it to a
Committee let him be heard for himself. It is a condemna-
tion, to speak before he is heard.
Divers members seconded this, but none seconded Mr.
Weaver's motion.
The petition was read. It prayed that the Sheriff, on hist
oath, bring in a list of the electors.
Ordered, that Mr. Thomas Streete, one of the members of
this House, named in the said petition, be required to attend
the House; and to give his answer to the House, concerning
the matters complained of in the said petition, on Tuesday
morning next.
Mr. Bodurda renewed his motion,* and said that since he
moved, he perceived two or three more members were come
in.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. Let not such a thing as this in-
terrupt your moved business. The debate will cause heat.
I desire not to question Scotland or Ireland, who have no
colour at all to sit.†
The oath is interpreted to a clear contrary sense than as I
took it. I hope such a dry bone as I am may do some help
in this work. I thank God, I begin to love all those that I
hated. I beseech you, put off this debate.
Mr. Trenchard. I move to put off this debate.
Mr. Starkey. Ratio suadit, authoritas vincit. I cannot
* See supra, p. 68.
+ Richard's Council, according to Ludlow, on the advice of those
“learned in the art and mystery of the law," having determined “ that
writs should go out in the ancient manner, to elect members to serve for
England," it was contended that "there could be no pretence for those
of Scotland and Ireland to sit with them. However, the majority con-
cluded that members should be chosen for Scotland and Ireland, as had
been practised in the time of Cromwell, with this proviso, that they
should not be permitted to sit as such, till the consent of those chosen
for England were first obtained." Memoirs, p. 616, 617.
72
[FEB. 5,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
喜
​think this to be so slight a matter as to be put off. The law
is judge. The Petition and Advice: you will not let reason
or argumentation be against that. If it had not been now
moved, I could wish it had been left till Monday be over.
Let the law be read, and you declare it. That is all that is
now required.
Mr. Knightley. I would have this waved at present.
Sins of commission are greater than of omission. Those
touching your qualifications will, I suppose, be greater.
Mr. Henley. We come here upon the Petition and Ad-
vice; through which is the greatest bond of amity that can
be. We must stand upon this foundation. Where shall the
righteous stand, if the foundations be shaken? Four hun-
dred have taken the oath. Why should two or three refuse
it, or, at least, not forbear to sit till they have taken it? Na-
ture and reason require not to question the authority that
called us. If any members sit here that are profane, or have
been Cavaliers, and not given some signal testimony* of their
affection, they ought not to sit.
Mr. Mitford. I move majore ad minus. Most have taken
it, and all should; for twenty may come in on Monday, if
you pass this.
Mr. Neville. You have been often told you sit here on
the Petition and Advice. I hope you sit here by the people's
choice. I would not have that urged here, sit liber judex.
You are judges of the law.
The oath of allegiance was done by as free consent as ever;
yet it was resolved in the Long Parliament to dispense with
it in some cases. Oaths are of a subtle nature. Not but
* See vol. ii. p. 176.
+ Colonel Hutchinson, as represented by his interesting biographer,
had justly appreciated the highly immoral tendency of declaratory oaths,
especially in an age of revolutions. Thus, on the final return of the
Long Parliament, in December, 1659, when the Republicans were soon
to be overpowered by the Presbyterian Royalists, Mrs. Hutchinson says:
"The whole House was divided into miserable factions, among whom
some would then violently have sett up an oath of renuntiation of the
king, and his famely. The collonel, thinking it a ridiculous thing to
sweare out a man, when they had no power to defend themselves against
F
1658-9.]
73
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
that any man may safely take this oath; for they are no part
of the legislature till they sit here, and it does not bind us
not to alter the legislature. We are free to debate any part
of it.
Mr. Trevor. We sit here, it is true, by the people's
choice, but upon the Petition and Advice. There is no
better way to preserve the peace of this House than by pre-
serving unity; that we may all sit on one footing of ac-
count. There are a hundred members to come in; and
shall all these be admitted without an oath? The conse-
quence would be dangerous. I hope you will not break in
upon your Petition and Advice, in such a great and essential
point as this.
Colonel Terrill. I do not conceive you sit upon the Peti-
tion and Advice, though I do very much honour it. It
was left imperfect. The English Parliament is called by
the law, the old writ, without reference to the Petition and
Advice.
I shall speak to the business when it comes in debate.
Captain Hatsell. If we sit not here by the Petition and
Advice, all your enemies may sit here in your places. I am
sorry to hear this doctrine.
Mr. Scot. The qualifications are positive. The distribu-
tion relative; so you sit here by a lapse. It was the sense
of the Long Parliament to alter the distribution.*
him, vehemently opposed that oath, and carried it, (against Sr. Ar.
Heslerig and others, who as violently pressed it;) urging very truly that
those oaths that had bene formerly imposed, had but multiplied the sins
of the nation by perjuries; instancing how Sr. Ar. and others, in Oliver's
time, comming into the House, swore at their entrance [See vol. ii. p.
347] they would attempt nothing in the change of that Government,
which, as soone as ever they were entered, they laboured to throw
down." See "Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson, written by
his Widow, Lucy." (1810), ii. 244.
On Oaths. See vol. ii. pp. 275, 277, 278, (notes,) 289.
*The Act for putting a period to the Parliament," says Ludlow,
when introducing the military violence of Cromwell, "was still before a
Committee of the whole House, who had made a considerable progress
therein, having agreed upon a more equal distribution of the power of
election throughout England." Memoirs, ii. 435.
74
[FEB. 5,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
That which frights you, is your Petition and Advice. The
essential of our title is from the people. This may be a sine
Of this document, the Parliament's justification before the people,
Cromwell, amidst all his apparent eagerness, had the cool policy to
possess himself.
"He went to the clerk," says Ludlow, "and snatching the Act of
Dissolution, which was ready to pass, out of his hand, he put it under
his cloak, and having commanded the doors to be locked up, went away
to Whitehall." Memoirs, ii. 458.
Though the late Protector frequently sought to excuse his usurpation,
by charging the Long Parliament with a design of perpetuating their
power, I cannot find that he ever ventured to produce, and probably he
prudently destroyed that act, which he had purloined, and of which,
after diligent enquiries, no traces can now be discovered; the conceal-
ment sufficiently betraying his self-conviction of a dishonourable pur-
pose. He, however, availed himself of its provisions in the construc-
tion of both his Parliaments.
Richard and his council revived the ancient distribution of the elective
franchise, which still continues with increasing inequalities. Mr. Locke
ranks it (Gov. B. ii. 157) among the "gross absurdities" to which "the
following of custom may lead," that "the bare name of a town, of which
there remains not so much as the ruins, where scarce so much housing
as a sheep-cote, or more inhabitants than a shepherd is to be found,
sends as many representatives to the grand assembly of law-makers, as
a whole county, numerous in people, and powerful in riches." Works
(1740, ii. 219). The Long Parliament's "distribution of the power
of election," which Cromwell adopted, and its improvement on the
former system, Ludlow has thus described—
"And whereas formerly some boroughs that had scarce a house upon
them, chose two members to be their representatives in Parliament, (just
as many as the greatest cities in England, London only excepted) and
the single county of Cornwall elected forty-four, when Essex and other
counties bearing as great a share in the payment of taxes, sent no more
than six or eight; this unequal representation of the people, the Par-
liament resolved to correct, and to permit only some of the principal
cities and boroughs to choose, and that for the most part but one repre-
sentative, the City of London only excepted, which on account of the
great proportion of their contributions and taxes, were allowed to elect
six. The rest of the 'four hundred, whereof the Parliament was to
consist, (besides those that served for Ireland and Scotland) were ap-
pointed to be chosen by the several counties, in as near a proportion as
was possible to the sums charged upon them for the service of the state,
and all men admitted to be electors who were worth two hundred pounds
in lands, leases, or goods." Memoirs, ii. 435, 436.
{
1658-9.]
75
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
qua non.
I will not say the contrary. The Chief Magis-
trate, he that exercises the power, has a very good army to
justify it.*
I have heard of a law of Parliament every year,
and a triennial Parliament, which, if not this way, might
have been called another way. These gentlemen are tender
conscienced.
Put off the other qualification till Wednesday; and if you
will debate, debate the three-score Scotch and Irish mem-
bers; and have an account brought in to validate the mem-
bers for Scotland and Ireland. I would have either an ad-
Thus a Parliament, acting for the people, and unembarrassed by
claims of prescriptive privilege, were prepared to disregard the legisla-
tive rights, of a numerous class of their fellow-freemen, alike amenable
to the laws, as to all their dearest interests, with the proprietors of
"lands, leases, or goods;" and by their consumption, contributing
largely to the public revenue: while their only property was an ability to
provide for the national defence and to perform those offices of ingenuity
or labour, without the due execution of which, "lands, leases, and
goods" would become possessions of no account.
The Duke of Richmond, in his letter to Colonel Sharman, in 1783,
which I had occasion to quote (vol. ii. p. 453), says, "From every consi-
deration which I have been able to give to this great question, that for
many years has occupied my mind, and from every day's experience to
the present hour, I am more and more convinced, that the restoring the
right of voting, universally, to every man not incapacitated by nature
for want of reason, nor by law for the commission of crimes, together
with annual elections, [see vol. i. p. 403 note] is the only reform that can
be effectual and permanent. I am further convinced that it is the only
reform that is practicable." It is well known how Major Cartwright
devoted a large part of his long and honourable life, to the able advocacy
of the same opinion.
Thus the just claims of the people, in the only adequate sense of the
expression, though still withheld, are better understood and more gene-
rally regarded, than in the 17th century; while, by the progress of edu-
cation, the claimants are better qualified to "know their rights," and
peaceably, yet perseveringly, to " dare maintain" them.
* According to Whitlock, "Nov. 16, 1658, addresses to Richard from
the officers of the army were presented by Disbrowe. 20th. The officers
of the army attended Richard, and made large professions to him of their
obedience and faithfulness; and he courted them at a high rate." Me-
morials (1732), p. 675.
† See vol. i. p. 403, notes ‡§.
76
[FEB. 5,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
journment or a preterition, that those that are come in may
sit; and the others not sit till they be sworn.
Colonel Eyre. I was chosen the latter end of the Long
Parliament. I refused the oath. The Commissioners re-
ported it to the House, that I scrupled it. The oath was
dispensed with, and I sat as a member.
Mr. St. Nicholas. I would have it either adjourned or
laid aside. You have precedents in the case, that oaths have
been dispensed with. I question if it was not Lord Fairfax's
case about the engagement.*
Mr. Manley. I would not have you put off this debate,
and shake foundations.
Mr. Chaloner. If it had not been for the Petition and
Advice, you had not sat here at this time. Yet we sit
not here on that Petition and Advice. You sit here by
the old laws. I question whether some are old enough to
take an oath.
Mr. Weaver. I wonder to see gentlemen so very zealous
in this. I hope you will give us liberty to debate it all over,
except the single person.
One hundred and twenty gentlemen of as much integrity as
themselves, without arrogancy I speak it, were kept out. A
dishonourable act. I shall move you in time that no such
abominable order may stand in your book; as to refer us to
a test without doors, after we sent in a letter.† Except it be
the single person, I hope we shall have a liberty to debate it
all. If you lay it not aside, I doubt all will come in question.
Take first the qualification of Scotch and Irish members +
into debate, as more honourable and more satisfactory to the
House.
Sir William Wheeler and Colonel White moved to the
orders of the House. A gentleman in grey clothes had sat
three days; and being asked if he was a member, he re-
fused to answer it. They desired he might be examined
about it.
* See vol. ii. p. 279, note*.
See supra, p. 71, notef
† See vol. i. p. 262, note 1.
1658-9.]
77
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
It seems the fellow got out of the way, and the Ser-
jeant laid hold on him. He was ordered to be brought
in, and pay his fines. He laid all the blame on Sir John
Dethick.
Being at the bar he was asked his name, he said William
King; and that he had a Petition by word of mouth; and
that Sir John Dethick gave him joy that he was a Parlia-
ment man,* and thereupon he came and sat; as not knowing
but he was chosen.†
"He came as a petitioner; but Sir John Dethick joyed him, last
Lord's-day, of his being chosen a Parliament-man." Journals.
Journals. This
Alderman, who could thus sport with the credulity of a person so af-
flicted as William King appears to have been, was Lord-Mayor in
1656, and then knighted by the Protector.
t "One King, a Vintner, about the Stocks, in London, having been
distracted, and being little better now, was observed sitting in the
House as a member, and not being well known, was observed by some
members, who desired the Serjeant to watch when he went out, and
to ask him whether he were a member or not, which the Serjeant did,
and confessing he was not, was called in upon his knees, and being
asked the reason why he durst presume to sit in the House, not being
chosen, be answered, that Sir John Dethick, one of the Aldermen of
London, had given him the joy of being chose a member for the Par-
liament, and he thought Sir John had better intelligence than himself,
and that he had sat in the House already these two days without
check." Goddard, MS. pp. 121, 122.
"The Stocks" comprehended an extensive site, on a part of which
stood the Church of St. Christopher le Stocks, removed for the enlarge-
ment of the Bank. On another part, the Mansion House was built,
in 1739. The early occupations of this spot, and its appearance in
1708, are thus described :-
"Stocks Market, a fine market, chiefly for fruit, roots, and herbs,
between the ends of Threadneedle-street, Cornhill, Lombard-street,
Walbrook, and the Poultry. Stow says it was formerly a market-place
for flesh and fish, and that a pair of stocks for punishing offenders, was
there, from whence it had its name.
"This market was appointed by Henry Wallis, Mayor, in 1282, as
being near the middle of the city. In 1322, a decree was made by
Hamond Chickwel, Mayor, that none should sell flesh or fish out of
the markets of Bridge-street, Eastcheap, Old Fish-street, St. Nicholas
Shambles, and Stocks-market, under the penalty of forfeiting the same
for the first offence, and for the second, loss of freedom. This was
done by command of Edward II., in the first of his reign, under his let-
78
[FEB. 5,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Goodrick. This is the person that owned the pamph-
let, the Twenty-five Queries, which has treason in every line.
It questions the nomination of his Highness; reflects like-
wise on this House, as if some members were about to betray
the liberties of the people. It reflects upon the Army, as if
no commission were of force since the Protector's death.
Colonel Grosvenor. This fellow was in the lobby, above,
all day; and pulled this pamphlet out of his pocket, and was
commending it to several members, and dispersed the same.
I move that he might be examined and sent to the Tower.
Mr. Knightley. A gentleman but stumbling in here! Sir
Petition, a new-made Knight!
Mr. Trotter. The like by mere ignorance! and much ado
to keep him from the Tower! You need not seek more
matter. You hear enough against him. It is a high breach
of your privilege. I desire that he may be committed to the
Tower, that you examine the pamphlets afterwards.
Mr. Launce. I will only add two things. This man gave
me one of those books. He says he was put upon it by one
Dethick. It may be, he is but the fool in the play.
Colonel Mildmay. I would have four or five members ap-
pointed to examine him privately. There may be more in it
than you are aware of.
Colonel Okey. I move that he be not sent to the Tower.
That is too chargeable a prison. I hope in time we shall re-
gulate these things.*
ters patent; and then this market was let to farm for 467. 13s. 4d.
per annum.
In 1507, it was let for 567. 19s. 10d. per annum. In 1543,
there were here twenty-five boards for Fishmongers, and eighteen
stalls for Butchers, which, with 5. 13s. 4d. for sixteen chambers,
amounted to the yearly rent of 821. 3s." See "A New View of Lon-
don " i. 79.
* "A person who had sat in the House some days, being found to
be no member, was, for his offence, committed to Newgate, and not
to the Tower, though accounted the Parliament's prison; and that
partly because the Lieutenant, after the example of his predecessors,
exacted great fees, [see Mr. Knightley,' supra, p. 41.] without any
authority in law, which the Parliament intended to regulate and pre-
C
1658-9.]
79
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
*
The
Sir William Wheeler. I would have four or five appoint-
ed to examine him. It is a matter of great contempt.
pamphlets should be examined.
Mr. Raleigh. I would not have him sent to the Tower.
You are not obliged to send him thither. You may send
him to any prison.
Mr. Speaker. The fellow said he had a petition, by word
of mouth.
Mr. Wharton. I move that he be asked if he owns the
pamphlet.
vent for the future, as being a great grievance." Brief Narrative,
p. 337.
The Lieutenant of the Tower, Sir John Barkstead, knighted by the
late Protector, had been member for Middlesex in the former Par-
liament, (where he has not appeared among the speakers,) till called
to the "Other House." He is described by an anonymous contem-
porary, no very candid remarker, as having " erected a principality in
the Tower, and made laws of his own, executing the same in a martial
way, over all comers."
-
It is added, that "the better to carry on the Protector's interest
ainong the ear-bored citizens, he lately became an Alderman. See
"History of Europe," (1706,) iv. 435.
Having been one of the members of the Long Parliament, who signed
the warrant for the King's execution, he retired to the Continent at
the Restoration, and became a burgess of Hanau. Repairing to Hol-
land, to meet some relations who proposed to share his exile, he was
basely betrayed into the power of his enemies, by a quondam associate,
Sir George Downing, (of whom, see vol. ii. p. 192, note) late a servile
courtier of the Protector, but now the Royal British Resident au Am-
sterdam. On this occasion, the Dutch Republicans appear to have
readily prostituted the authority of their Government to gratify the
Royal resentment, and, perhaps, not unwilling to indulge an unmanly
vengeance against a member of that Parliament which had triumphed
over them. Colonel Barkstead was executed at Tyburn, April 19th,
1662, when "his head was set upon a pole, and placed upon Traitor's
gate, in the Tower,” according to the barbarous taste of the Tudors and
of the restored Stuart, unworthily imitated, to dishonour and dishearten
the partizans of that finally exiled race, by the first and second princes,
of the succeeding dynasty.
"Colonel John Barkstead," says Ludlow (who appears willing to
forget the adherence to the Protectorate, in the earlier services to the
80
[FEB. 5,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir John Carter. I move that he be searched for papers.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. (He came into the House to-
day.) I never heard of the fellow. He is inconsiderable. I
moved that he be sent off to Newgate. I would not have him
accuse himself.
Mr. Fowell. In this pamphlet of Twenty-five Queries, twen-
ty-four are treason.* He labours to subvert the Government,
invites the army, ministers, all professions, to sedition, and
reflects upon the Parliament, as not freely chosen. I move
to examine the party by a Committee, or at the bar.
Colonel Birch. Haply this man may neither be a wise
man nor a fool. I would have him asked as to the book,
and his place of habitation, &c. It may be, he will discover
more. Let him withdraw, and then examine him by a Com-
mittee if you find cause.
Colonel Thompson. I move, that he be examined at the
Tower, or by a Committee; but, he being brought to the
bar, send him to the Tower.
Mr. Herbert. I have one of these books, delivered to me
by this fellow.
Mr. Hoskins. It is not an offence to have one of these
books; but I am sorry we are in such a distraction.
Mr. Drake. I would have him committed to the Gate-
house. Let him not have the honour to be committed for the
book. Refer that to a Committee, to examine the book.
Mr. Hungerford. I move not to make the Tower a prison
so common. Send him to the Gatehouse. That is more dis-
graceful.
Mr. Knightley. I move not to complicate the question.
parliament)" was a citizen and goldsmith of London, who, being sensi-
ble of the invasions that had been made upon the liberties of the nation,
took arms, among the first, for their defence. He was constituted by
the Parliament, in consideration of his services, Lieutenant of the
Tower of London. When he was brought to confirm with the testimony
of his blood, that cause for which he had fought, he performed that part
with cheerfulness and courage, no way derogating from the character of
a soldier and a true Englishman." Memoirs (1699), iii. 102.
* See an earlier discovery of such treasonable paper-shot, vol. ii. p. 134.
1658-9.]
81
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
His offence is high enough to have him committed. Else it
will be thought that we must pick some other fault, before
we can commit him. I would have him sent to Newgate.
Mr. Weaver. Examine him, for the honour of the nation
You may discover much for your service.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. You may often read in ancient jour-
nals, of men intruding into your House. Imprisonment was the
least punishment. I would not have the question complicated.
It is not proper to examine him upon his knees. Let him not
have that advantage against you, as to report he was com-
mitted for the queries.
The question put upon Newgate, passed in the affirmative.
Mr. Goodwin moved to send him to the Tower.
Mr. Knightley. This gentleman is born to bring us five
miles back, when we are at our journey's end.
Ordered, that he be called in and committed to Newgate
during the pleasure of the Parliament.
He came in on this, and said, "If I have done any offence
I will kneel if your counsels be of God they will stand; if
not, they will fall.”
:
On this he withdrew.*
He was called in again. He said he was born in Pope's
Head Alley. He is a vintner, a profession that has been op-
pressed. He never was a scholar since twelve years old, and
भैंर 66
Resolved, that the Serjeant-at-arms attending this House, do take
the said William King into his custody; and that he be committed a
prisoner to Newgate, during the pleasure of this House, for his offence
and misdemeanour, in his wilful, insolent, and bold intruding himself
into this House, and sitting this day, and several other days, in this
House, to hear the debates of this House, being no member of this
House.
"The said William King was brought to the bar, and kneeling there
as a delinquent, Mr. Speaker pronounced the sentence of imprisonment
on him accordingly: whereupon he withdrew." Journals.
Thus the honourable House, "dressed in a little brief authority,"
strangely determine that a harmless intruder, whose sanity is, at least,
problematical, and who has been the dupe of a cruelly facetious Alder-
man, is yet responsible, as a wilful, bold, and insolent" offender.
VOL. III.
G
82
[FEB. 5,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
is glad he was not; for an elder brother, that was a scholar,
wronged him.
He said he was committed to Finsbury Prison,* and kept
in chains. He appealed to Sir John Dethick for redress.
He moved he might deliver his petition by word of mouth.
He denied, as he hoped to answer it before God, that ever he
delivered a book. This was contrary to what two members
had affirmed. He began to talk idly, and so was command-
ed to withdraw.
Colonel Allured. He had much wrong by being ordered to
be chained. It was the design of his brother to prejudice
him in his estate.†
Mr. Bodurda. I move that the business be referred to
the members for the city.
Captain Jones.
He is a madman. After he has borne
a little of your punishment, you may set him at liberty as
you think fit.
Mr. Starkey moved to resume the debate about swearing
the members.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move not to take it up so late.
Let us rise and have pity on ourselves, the better to be
prepared on Monday; that, if God please, we may agree to
what he thinks is best for us.
Colonel Bennet seconded that motion.
Mr. Hoskins. I move to appoint a Committee about the
maintenance of ministers in Wales, as the minister moved
yesterday.‡
Mr. Knightley seconded; and moved that the Committee
of Privileges be not prevented from sitting.
* Where, probably, maniacs were confined, and absurdly treated as
criminals. See vol. i. p. 73; and on "the Blind-house," ii. 112, notes.
+ “The said William King was again brought to the bar; and being
asked where he lived, and what his calling and employment was, he
answered, he was a vintner by his calling, and lived at the Royal Ex-
change Tavern, near the Stocks; and expressed how much he had suffer-
ed by his elder brother, as he conceived, who had endeavoured to preju-
dice him in his estate." Journals.
At the fast.
1658-9.]
83
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir John Carter. I second the motion of Mr. Hoskins;
and would have a Bill brought in by Mr. Hoskins. There
are many Commissioners appointed to judge of ministers, that
are against the ministry.
Mr. Freeman. I am glad the minister's doctrine has made
such an impression, that you take this into consideration.
There are 20,000l. per annum in South Wales. How it is
employed, I wish it were examined. Souls have been
starved.
Mr. Knightley. I would have the northern counties in-
cluded as formerly. I would have it examined by a Com-
mittee how the treasure was expended.
Serjeant Maynard. It seems the sheep are committed to
the wolf. Scandalous ministers, it seems, have scandalous
judges.*
Mr. Goodrick. I move that the northern part of York-
shire be included.
Mr. Wharton. I move that the monies be accounted for,
and that it go all England over.
Mr. Lloyd. I move, particularly, for North and South
Wales, as the minister moved. Beggarly poor gentlemen are
of that Commission. Let it be helpful to their beggarly
friends.
Mr. Disbrowe. I would have Wales particularly referred
to the Committee of Religion, and the rest of the nation gene-
rally.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. There is a vast treasure
arising out of these revenues. I never heard of any ac-
count. I have passed through Wales, and found churches
all unsupplied, except a few grocers, or such persons,† that
have formerly served for two years.
Sir Walter Earle. I move that the northern counties go
with it.
→ The learned Serjeant seems to have been incorrectly reported, as
his conclusion ill accords with his premises.
+ Despised as laymen, (though perhaps) "of mother-wit, and learned
without the schools," both by Episcopalian clergy, and "plain Presby-
ter,”-Milton's "Priest writ large.”
G 2
84
[FEB. 5,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
It was moved, and so ordered, that the question be divided,
and that there be several Committees appointed to examine
the revenues of the Church, and ministers' maintenance in
North and South Wales, Monmouth, the four northern
counties, and Yorkshire; and that all members that serve
for those places be of those Committees. The Committee
for Wales to meet on Tuesday, and for the northern coun-
ties on Wednesday next, in the Exchequer and Duchy
Chamber.
The debate about the oaths of the three members fell.*
The House rose at a little past twelve.
The Committee of Privileges sat in the House about the
business of the election for the county of Oxford, where
the dispute lay between Lord Falkland and Sir Francis
Norris.
Resolved against Sir Francis Norris. Mr. Jenkinsont was
there.
The debate about the borough of Midhurst was taken up;
but for want of time, adjourned. Serjeant Waller had the
chair.
Mr. Starkey and Mr. Goodwin moved, in the business of
Oxford, that a new writ go out, because of the uncertainty of
the election.
It was not seconded.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge said, he spent 12007. in the begin-
ning of the Long Parliament, which he felt yet; and gave
16007. at first coming into the Irish war against the rebels;
so that he had something when he began.
One said he had well improved it.
"I have so," said he. "Time will work all things." +
The Committee adjourned till Tuesday.§
* See "Mr. Bodurda," supra, p. 71.
+ The other member for the county. See supra, p. 24.
↑ See Vol. ii. p. 423, note ‡.
§ On Bishop Reynolds, supra p. 66, note †, it may be added, that he
appears to be still popular as a theologian. His Works, in six volumes,
8vo. were published in 1826, by Mr. Chalmers, with a life of the author.
1658-9.]
85
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
·
Monday, February 7, 1658-9.
I came late, and found the House in debate upon the re-
port about Horsham, from the Committee of Privileges.
Resolved to agree with the Committee, that a writ issue out
for a new election.
Lord Falkland was called in upon the report from the
Committee of Privileges.*
William King was released this morning upon his petition.†
He has not sat so long in prison as he did in the House.
Sir William Wheeler offered a petition from Major Audley,
that he be released from his imprisonment.
The petition was read, signifying his sorrow for offending
the House, and desiring he may have his liberty to prosecute
at the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Bish. I move, for that reason, that he be released,
to the end that he may prosecute his petition against us;
which we fear not.
Sir Walter Earle. You drowned an eel when you sent
him to the Tower, where he has a house and good accommo-
dation. He has been but a little while imprisoned. He is in
orders. I hope you will not think him capable of being a
member; so that his reason ceaseth.‡
* See supra, pp. 24, 84.
+ On "the petition of Ralph King, citizen and vintner of London,
on behalf of his son, William King." Journals.
CC
King, the mad fellow that was committed upon Saturday, was this
day enlarged, it being moved that he was indeed a distracted person:
but it was talked of as ominous, abroad; that in the beginning of a Par-
liament, we had called a King to the bar, and committed him to New-
gate." Goddard MS., p. 122.
CC
In the Act of 1642, which deprived the "Lords Spiritual" of their
seats in Parliament, (see vol. i. p. 391, note,) it is declared that
Bishops, and other persons in holy orders, ought not to be entangled
with secular jurisdiction; the office of the ministry being of such great
importance that it will take up the whole man, and for that it is found by
86
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Captain Baynes. I move to have him released.
Mr. Goodrick. I move to have him bound to good beha-
viour, as usual in dealing with offenders of this kind.*
The orders of the day were called for, and read. The
order was upon the Act for Recognition.
Mr. Fowell and Mr. Fleetwood moved to send into the Hall
for all the members to attend.
Mr. Steward and Mr. Pedley seconded the motion.
Mr. Weaver, Mr. Walter Young, and Mr. Neville. The
mace cannot go without an order, because the Judges and
Commissioners of the Seal are removed to another House. It
cannot be presumed but that your members should attend.
Resolved, that the mace be sent for the members, to at-
tend here according to the duty of their place.
Mr. Weaver. By the orders of the House, a business of
this nature was never taken up till ten o'clock.† The House
being full, I question the reason.
long experience, that their intermeddling with secular jurisdictions, hath
occasioned great mischiefs and scandal, both to Church and State.”
Therefore," his Majesty, out of his religious care of the Church, and
souls of his people, is graciously pleased that it be enacted, that no
Archbishop or Bishop, or other person that now is, or hereafter shall be
in holy orders, shall have any seat or place, suffrage, or voice, or use
or exercise any power or authority, in the Parliament of this realm, nor
shall be of the Privy Council, or Justice of the Peace, or execute any
temporal authority." See Scobell's Acts, (1658,) p. 21.
There was a very modern enactment, to prevent any clergyman from
sitting in the House of Commons in future Parliaments, in consequence
of Mr. Horne Tooke, (who, in early life, had been in Deacon's orders,)
having taken his seat. He had been nominated to a Cornish borough
by the late Lord Camelford.
*"This day Lewis Audley, who was committed to the Tower about
the affront done to my brother, Bish; upon his petition, setting forth
that he had a right of election to prosecute before the Committee of
Elections, was discharged. Mr. Turgis moving also in his behalf.”
Goddard MS., pp. 122, 123.
+ "It not being then ten of the clock, and the lawyers not come up to
the House, it was moved that the Serjeant take the mace, and go to
every bar in Westminster to call them up to attend, that the House may
be full, upon so important an occasion. This motion was opposed by
1658-9.]
87
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The mace being returned, and the lawyers with him, and
the House being very full,
The Act intitled, " An Act of Recognition of his High-
ness's right and title to be Protector and Chief Magistrate of
the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and
the dominions and territories thereunto belonging,” was read
the second time.*
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I wonder not at this silence in a
business of this weight. I have much weakness upon me.†
The business that we are about, is the setting up a power
over this nation. It will be necessary, for method's sake, to
consider what we have been, what we are, and what we shall
be. I must beg patience to look far back. Time was, this
some, as showing too great a respect to that profession, and that it might
as well be done to every member about the town. Others opposed it
upon the account of losing no time, because, in the absence of the mace,
nothing ought to be done until it returns. Yet, in regard the business
was of great weight, and the assistance of the long robe requisite, and
that it has been usually done before, and that in case it could as conve-
niently and easily be done to others about the town, perhaps it should be
so done to them, therefore the mace was ordered to go down, and call
the members out of the hall, and from every bar. But note, the mace
cannot be borne out of the House without a vote to that purpose."
Ibid. p. 123.
Beginning thus, "Whereas his Highness, immediately after the
death of his Highness's late father, became the lawful successor to suc-
ceed to the government of, &c. to the great joy of the people, testified
by their general consent and approbation; and that God had invested
him with power and authority, and that his Highness hath taken the
government upon him. And although this be ample satisfaction, &c.
yet we, the two Houses of Parliament, do think it our duty to recognize
and acknowledge, and pray that it be enacted and declared, that his
Highness is the lawful Chief Magistrate and Protector, &c.; and that
all the people be commanded to obey him accordingly." Ibid. pp. 123,
124. See the Act at large. "Thurloe State Papers," (1742) vii. 603, 604.
+ "The bill being read, Sir Arthur Haslerigge, moving himself upon
his seat, was called up, as if he had an intention to speak, which it seems
he had not, but being called up, and seeing so great a silence, not wonder-
ing at it, it being so great a work, and prefacing something of weakness
then upon him, yet hoping that if he had anything to deliver, that God
would enable him, he began a very long harangue." Goddard MS. p. 124.
88
[FEB .7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
nation had seven kings, and no doubt but the strongest put
down the weakest, against the will of the rest. I never knew
any single person to have power, willing to lay it down.
After it was in one single person, then came in the Con-
queror. The Kentishmen stood up for their liberties, and in
some sort, preserved liberty to all the rest.*
Succeeding Kings, sons and others, began to grow very op-
pressive to the people's liberties. Then rose up the noble
Barons who struggled so long, till with their swords, they
obtained our Magna Charta. That our Barons were men
of great power, appears by what they compelled the King to
grant; the whole estate being in them and the Bishops, Ab-
bots, and King. They were so great, and sensible of their
greatness.
The Government was then in King and Parliament, Lords
and Commons sitting altogether. They withdrew and went
into another House, to make a distinct jurisdiction. Thus
the Lords had all but the power of the purse, which, to this
day, preserved the liberties of the nation. Then the Govern-
ment was enlarged into three estates, King, Lords, and Com-
mons, and continued thus above three hundred years. §
*"The whole nation, in sequel of time, was reduced to one entire
monarchy, ruled by one single person, but that was varied according to
the successes and several providences which it pleased God to ordain
unto us, until at last came in one whom they called William the Con-
queror, and in that time stood up the never to be forgotten Kentishmen,
to preserve what they could, liberty for themselves and the rest.” God-
dard MS., p. 125. See vol. i. p. 210, note.
↑ See vol. i. p. 406, note †.
§ "These Barons were then very great, for they had the whole Go-
vernment of the nation, there being at that time but one House, one
great Council; they had all power and jurisdiction with them, and left
no power to the Commons but that of the purse, which by God's great
mercy hath been the only thing that hath preserved the liberty of
this nation.
↑ See vol. ii. p. 349, note †.
"But not long after, the Barons, by the civil wars being much di-
minished in their power and greatness, and it being the interest of
the single person, the King, to have it so, thereupon the Commons
having got a greater share in the lands and possessions of the
nation than they had before, and being thought a convenient balance
1658-9.1
.89
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY,
As all governments have their beginning from time, so
time puts an end to them. The government, continuing so
long, it had contracted rust. The people groaned under
great oppression, both as men and christians.
The Council Table bit like a serpent; the Star Chamber
like scorpions. Two or three gentlemen could not stir out,
for fear of being committed for a riot. Our souls and con-
sciences were put on the rack by the Archbishop. We might
not speak of Scripture, or repeat a sermon at our tables.
Many godly ministers were sent to find their bed in the wil-
derness.* The oppression was little less in the lower courts
and in the special courts.
Altars were set up, and bowing to them enjoined. Pic-
tures were placed in Church-windows, and images set up at
Durham, and elsewhere; with many other exorbitancies
and check for the greatness of the Barons, they were admitted into
a proportionable part of the Government. And from that time, the
government of this nation was divided into three estates, and so it
hath continued for above three hundred years." Goddard MS., pp. 126,
127.
* See vol. ii. p. 324.
+ Dr., afterwards Bishop, Cosin, (see vol. i. p. 307,) was appointed in
1624 one of the Prebendaries of Durham. Among the twenty-one
articles of impeachment preferred against him by the Commons, in
1641, are the following:-
I. "That he was the first man that caused the Communion-Table
in the Church of Durham to be removed, and set altar-ways.
VII. "That the first Candlemas day, at night, that he had been in
the Church, he caused three-hundred wax candles to be set up and
lighted in the Church at once, in honour of our Lady, and placed
three-score of them upon and about the altar.
VIII. "That in this Church, there were relics of divers images,
above which were remaining the ruins of two seraphims, with the pic-
ture of Christ between them, all which, when Queen Elizabeth came
to the crown, were demolished, which so continued till Dr. Cosin came
to that Church, who, being Treasurer, caused the same to be repaired
and most gloriously painted." Biog. Brit. (1789,) iv. 283.
In 1632, the Recorder of Salisbury, by a sentence in the Star-Cham-
ber, was committed to the Fleet, and fined 500l., for having (by an order
of vestry, but without license from his Majesty or the Bishop) demo-
lished a window in a Church in that city, containing a description of
CC
90
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The Archbishop
introduced, both in Church and State.
would not only impose on England, but on Scotland, to bring
in the Book of Common-Prayer upon them. They liked it
not, and, as luck would have it, they would not bear it.* He
the creation. To express God the Father, were painted," says Rush-
worth, "divers little old men bare-footed, and in long blue and red
coats, and at every of the six days' work, such a little old man was
placed, with the joining of some created thing, to denote what was made
on that day. The sun and moon were painted: and in that old man's
hand, representing God the Father, was placed a carpenter's compass,
as if he had been fixing the proportion of the sun. For the seventh
day, the little old man was painted sitting, to represent God's rest.
"At the hearing of the cause, Laud, Bishop of London, speaking
in favour of the painter, mentioned a place in Scripture, where God is
called the Ancient of Days, which might make the painter mistake; but
Edward Earl of Dorset replied, that thereby was meant God from
eternity, and not God to be pictured as an old man creating the world
with a pair of compasses." Hist. Col. (1706) ii. 123–126.
pp. 219-222; State Trials, (1776) i. 399–418.
See Ibid.
*Bishop Guthry, who died in 1676, relates these circumstances in
his Memoirs, apparently from his own observation :—
“The King, at his coming into Scotland in 1633, had brought with
him Dr. Laud, then Bishop of London, shortly after Archbishop of
Canterbury, one who had much power with his Majesty, but was ge-
nerally hated by the people. He, beholding our form of worship, did,
in conference with our Bishops, and others of the clergy, tax the naked-
ness thereof in divers respects, but chiefly for want of a liturgy, whereby
he thought all might be helped.
CC
Bishop Laud, moving the King to declare it to be his will that there
should be a liturgy in this Church, his Majesty commanded the Bi-
shops to go about the forming of it. The Bishops were busy about
the work, and at length, towards the end of the year 1636, completed it.
"In Edinburgh, July 16th, 1637, the ministers in their several pul-
pits made intimation that the next sabbath the service-book would be
read in all the Churches, extolling the benefit of it, and exhorting the
people to comply with it. That the work might be done in St. Giles's
Kirk, with the greater solemnity, the Bishop of Edinburgh came there
himself from Holyrood House to assist at it.
"No sooner was the service begun, but a multitude of wives and
serving-women, in the several Churches, rose in a tumultuous way,
and having prefaced awhile with despightful exclamations, 'a pape! a
pape! Antichrist! pull hid down!' threw the stools they sat on at the
preachers; and thereafter invaded them more nearly, and strove to pull
them from their pulpits; whereby they had much ado to escape their
1658-9.]
91
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
prevailed with the King to raise an army to suppress them.
The King prevailed with his nobles to conquer them into it.
He went to their country, and finding himself not able to
conquer them, came back.
He called a Parliament, which was named the Little, or
Broken l'arliament, disbanded not his army, but propounded
that we should give him a great sum to maintain the war
against Scotland. We debated it, but the consequence of
our debate made him fear we would not grant it. We had,
if he had suffered us to sit. Then did Strafford and his
Council advise him to break us and to rule arbitrarily, and
that he had an army in Ireland to make it good. For this
Strafford lost his head.* The King suddenly broke that Par-
liament. I rejoice in my soul it was so. He raised the gal-
lantest army that ever was, the flower of the gentry and no-
bility. The Scots raised too, and sent their declaration into
England, that by the law of God and nature they might rise
up for their own preservation; and thus they came into Eng-
land. At Newb in the armies met. We were worsted.
God was pleased to disperse our army, and give them the day.
The Scots passed Newburn, and advanced to Newcastle.‡
Then some of our nobles, Say, Essex, and Scroop,
humbly petitioned his Majesty for a Parliament. He, seeing
danger, called a Parliament. This was the Long Parlia-
ment. The first proposition was to raise money for the Scots.
We gave them a brotherly assistance of 300,000l. They
showed themselves brethren and honest men, and peaceably
returned. Then money was pressed for our own army.
The House, considering how former Parliaments had been
dealt with, was unwilling to raise money till the Act was
hands. And for the Bishop, the magistrates found difficulty enough to
rescue him; and when they had brought him without the Church, he
was yet in danger of being murdered in the street, had not the Earl of
Roxburgh received him into his coach, which drove so quickly that they
could not overtake them." See "
See "Memoirs of Henry Gutbry, late Bishop
of Dunkeld.” (1748) pp. 18–23; Rushworth, ii. 299; Harris, ii. 326;
Neale, ii. 272.
*See vol. ii. pp. 22, 287, 442, notes.
+ See supra, p. 54, note ‡.
See Rushworth's Hist. Col. (1706,) iii. 186–201.
92
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
}
passed* not to dissolve the Parliament but by their own con-
sent. It passed freely by King, Lords, and Commons.
This was wonderful; the very hand of God that brought it
to pass; for no man could then foresee the good that Act
produced.
The King then practised with the Scots, then with his
army, to assist him against this Parliament, and to make
them sure to his particular interest. Sir John Conyers dis-
covered it, to his everlasting fame. Mr. Pym acquainted the
House. Divers officers of the army, Lord Goring, Ashburn-
ham, Pollard, and others, were examined here.† They all
absented. The House desired of the King, that they might
be brought to justice; but the King sent them away beyond.
sea.
The King demanded five members, by his Attorney-General.
He then came personally to the House, with five hundred‡
† See vol. ii. p. 443, note.
* May 10, 1641.
† Whitlock says,
"the King came, guarded with his pensioners, and
followed by about two-hundred of his courtiers and soldiers of fortune,
most of them armed with swords and pistols." Memorials, (1732,)
p. 52.
CC
To the King's ordinary guard," Ludlow adds "those desperadoes
that for some time he had entertained at Whitehall, to the number of
three or four hundred." Memoirs, i. 24.
(C
Lord Clarendon represents the King as "attended only by his own
usual guard, and some few gentlemen, who put themselves into their
company in the way," and that, commanding all his attendants to
wait at the door, and give offence to no man, himself, with his nephew,
the Prince Elector, went into the House, to the great amazement of all:
and the Speaker leaving the chair, the King went into it." History,
(1705,) i. 358.
Rushworth, who was Clerk of the House, and avowedly an eye-wit-
ness, appears in the following account, to differ with Lord Clarendon, as
to the situation of the King's attendants :-
"As the King entered the House with his guard of pensioners, and
halberdiers, he cast his eye towards the place where Mr. Pym used to
sit, but not seeing him there, he went towards the Speaker, saying, ' By
your leave, I must borrow your chair a little.' Having taken the chair,
he looked about on the members as they all stood up, uncovered, and
then made a speech.
"In the evening, his Majesty sent for Mr. Rushworth, the Clerk,
1658-9.]
93
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
men at his heels, and sat in your chair.* It pleased God
to hide those members. I shall never forget the kind-
ness of that great Lady, the Lady Carlisle, that gave
timely notice. Yet some of them were in the House, after
the notice came. It was questioned if, for the safety of the
House, they should be gone; but the debate was shortened,
and it was thought fit for them, in discretion, to withdraw.
Mr. Hampden and myself being then in the House, withdrew.
Away we went. The King immediately came in, and was in
the House before we got to the water.
The Queen, on the King's return, raged and gave him an
unhandsome name, "poltroon," for that he did not take
whom he observed to take his speech in characters, requiring a copy of
it; who, pleading in excuse, how Mr. Neville was committed to the
Tower for telling his Majesty what was spoke in the House, he smartly
replied, I ask you not to tell me what was said by any member, but
what I said myself;' upon which, a copy being transcribed, it came out
in print next morning, by the King's order." Hist. Col. (1708,) iv.
pp. 237, 238. See Parl. Hist. (1762,) x. 164.
Lilly says that "all this Christmas, 1641, there was nothing but pri-
vate whisperings in Court, and secret councils held by the Queen and
her party, with whom the King sat in council very late many nights."
Then having described this outrage on the Parliament, as "the result
of those clandestine consultations," he adds:
"This rash action of the King's lost him his crown. It was my for-
tune, that very day, to dine in Whitehall, and in that room where the
halberts newly brought from the Tower were lodged, for the use of
such as attended the King to the House of Commons. Sir Peter Wich,
ere we had fully dined, came into the room I was in, and broke open
the chests wherein the arms were, which frighted us all out that were
there. However, one of our company got out of doors, and presently
informed some members that the King was preparing to come unto the
House." See "Observations on the Life and Death of King Charles,"
(1651,) in Baron Maseres's Select Tracts, (1815,) i. 170, 171.
* See supra, p. 19, note.
+ This language well agrees with the previous manner of the royal
consort, her husband's unconscious conductor to the scaffold. It is thus
described by Mrs. Macaulay :
"The King went to the Queen's apartment, and expostulated with
her, on the hazard of the attempt, expressing something like a determi-
nation of not putting it in execution. The Queen was transported with
passion at this want of resolution: Go, coward,' exclaimed this impe-
،
94
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
others out; and certainly if he had, they would have been
killed at the door.
Next day the King went to the City. They owned the
members. Thereupon he left the Parliament, and went
rious woman, 'pull these rogues out by the ears, or never see my face
more.' The submissive husband obeyed." Mrs. Macaulay adds a con-
jecture of that time, that "the Countess of Carlisle overheard the dia-
logue between the King and Queen." History, (1769,) iii. 142.
Notwithstanding his failure of success in the attempt," says Lilly,
so wilful and obstinate was the King, in pursuance of that preposterous
course he intended, and so desirous to compass the bodies of these five
members, that the next day he posted and trotted into the City, to de-
mand the members there. He convened a meeting at Guildhall, and
the Common Council assembled: but mum could he get there; for the
word Londonderry was then fresh in every man's mouth.
"But, whereas the author of the King's Portraiture complains that the
insolency of the tumults was such, that his Majesty's person was in dan-
ger in the streets; this is a very untruth. For, notwithstanding his
Majesty dined in the City that day, yet he had no incivility in the least
measure offered unto his person; only many cried out as he passed the
streets- Sir, let us have our just liberties; we desire no more.' Unto
which he several times answered, 'They should, &c.' An honest citizen,
as I remember, threw into his coach a new sermon, the text whereof
was, I remember, To thy tents, O Israel.'
"Jan. 10, The five demanded members were brought into the
House of Commons with as much triumph as could be expressed.
Several companies of trained bands marching to the Parliament to
assist, if need were. There were upon the Thames River I know not
how many barges full of sailors, having some guns ready charged if occa-
sion were; and these also came in multitudes to serve the Parliament.
A word dropt out of the King's mouth a little before, which lost him
the love of the seamen. Some person being in conference with his Ma-
jesty, acquainted him that he was lost in the affection of the seamen ;
for they intended to petition the House, &c. 'I wonder,' quoth the
King, how I have lost the affection of these water-rats;' a word sure
that slipped out of his mouth unadvisedly; for all men must and do
know, that the ships of England, and our valiant sailors, are the very
strength of England." Observations, pp. 172, 173.
The following passages will explain the allusion to Londonderry in
the former part of this note, premising that the twelve principal City
companies, in 1613, on the condition of raising 40,000l. for "the new
plantation in Ulster," had received a royal grant of that portion of the
Irish lands forfeited to the crown.
1658-9.]
95
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
from step to step, till he came to York, and set up his
standard at Nottingham, and declared the militia was in him.
The House of Lords then sent down to declare that the
King had broken his trust. The word of the King, seduced
by evil counsel, lost us forty lords. The House declared the
militia to be in them.* That was then a great question.
Commissioners were then sent out in the name of the King
and Parliament. Then was there the King against the Par-
liament, and Parliament against him. There was at this
time, no thought to alter Government. We met at Edgehill.
The King went to Oxford, and gave thanks for the victory,
and we at London gave thanks for the victory and so it
"1632. The whole county of Londonderry was sequestrated, and
the rents levied for the King's use; and Bishop Bramhell was appoint-
ed chief receiver.
"1634. By sentence of the Court of Star Chamber, it was adjudged,
that the letters-patent of King James I. should be surrendered and
brought into the Court to be cancelled."
In 1641, on the King's return from Scotland, when he “ was invited
to dinner in the City of London, he made a public declaration that he
was much troubled at the judgment, and promised the City that the
grant should be restored." This the war prevented, and in 1656,
"the
Protector, by letters-patent, conferred the same rights as enjoyed un-
der the Charter of James I." See "A View of the Irish Society,"
(1822,) pp. 34, 56, 60, 62.
* See vol. ii. p. 435, note* "The King," says Roger Coke, " as unstable
in his resolutions as inconsiderate in his actions, retracts all he had
done, and promises not to do so again but to no purpose. For the
members resolve not to trust to his royal word, prerogative, and absolute
will and pleasure, and therefore will tear the power of the militia from
him." Detection, (1097,) p. 273.
† See vol. ii. p. 448, note ‡.
I "October 23, 1642, was a very great battell fought between Keyn-
ton and Edge-hill by his Excellency (the Earl of Essex) and his army ;
and that of the King, led by his Majesty. At which time his Excel-
lency's army killed the King's general, the Earl of Lindsey, the Lord
Aubeny, Sir Edmund Verney, and divers more; and took prisoners the
Lord Willoughby, three Colonels, and many hundred more, and brought
away sixteen of the King's ensigns." England's Worthies, (1647,) re-
printed 1821, p. 3.
"However the victory was uncertain," says Roger Coke, "the suc-
96
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
was in many other battles. Thus the English pushed on
both sides, and much precious English blood was spilt on the
ground. Several propositions, at length, were tendered; but
God hardened his heart. He would not accept. Then we came
to make a new model, and a Self-denying Ordinance. There-
upon this noble Lord* was chosen the Parliament's General.
The Commission as to him, was from the Parliament only; the
name "King" was left out. I appeal to all the world for the
undeniable, the unquestionable victories after that. We had
not one doubtful battle. The King after that never gave
thanks. In process of time, there were propositions, again
and again, seven, eight, or nine times,-at least seven times,-
sent to the King, desiring, for ourselves, our ancient liberties
with our ancient Government, but his heart was still hardened.
Next we shall find him in the Isle of Wight, where the last
propositions were tendered to him. He would not consent,
though his sword was broken, and he was in the lowest con-
dition. He denied. Many gentleman in this House, of great
worth, foreseeing our troubles, apprehended there was enough
in the King's condescensions for a well-grounded peace. But
the officers of the army were otherwise opinioned. Finding
the King not sufficiently humbled, they thought the good
cause would be betrayed. The officers seized several mem-
bers. Those that stayed within, asked for them, but could
not have them.
+
+
They seized upon the King, demanded justice, and brought
him to judgment. He would not answer, not owning our au-
thority, because he was accountable only to God; whereas,
God never made such a creature, to govern men, and not to be
cess was not so, for the King took Banbury town and Castle, and Ox-
ford; and Prince Rupert took my Lord Say's house at Brought, and
made excursions near London: whereupon the Parliament recalled
Essex to defend themselves." Detection, (1697,) p. 297.
* CC
Looking upon Lord Fairfax, who sat always next him." God-
dard MS., p. 128. "Mr. John Barwick," a spy in London for Charles
Stuart, thus writes to "Sir Edward Hyde," (Feb. 16, 1658-9): "Fair-
fax sides with the Republicans, and carries a name above Lambert, for
the present." See "Thurloe State Papers," (1742,) vii. 616.
+ Sept. 18, 1648.
1 See vol. ii. p. 387, note.
[
1658-9.]
97
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
accountable to men. Yet he received his judgment, and sub-
mitted his head quietly to the block. The edge of justice
struck it off. See the wonderful hand of God! The King
dead, some members of the House, the late General, and
Commissary-general Ireton, they would have it determined,
(which the wisdom of the House thought meet) that not only
this line, nocent and innocent, but that kingship should be
abolished, as dangerous useless and burthensome.* Then there
was an end of one of the three estates. The Lords, most of
them being gone, the remainder, amazed and troubled at this,
adjourned their House; but never came again unto it. As
they had their beginning from themselves, so they had their
end from themselves. The Commons approved the Lords'
adjournment, and did by them as they had done by the King:
and there was an end of that estate. Two of the three estates
were thus gone. Then, for the third estate, that, God knows!
had been much shattered and broken.
Force was much upon
us. What should we do? We turned ourselves into the Com-
monwealth. By advice of the soldiers among us, a decla-
ration to that purpose went out from the Army.
tinued four years, before we were put an end to.
time, I appeal to all, if the nation, that had been blasted and
torn, began not exceedingly to flourish. At the end of the
four years, scarce a sight to be seen that we had had a war.
Trade flourished; the City of London grew rich; we were the
most potent by sea that ever was known in England. Our
Navy and Armies were never better.
We con-
In which
Yet, after these estates were ended, we found a new trou-
ble. The wars were not then ended. Waters broke out. A
strong remnant got into Colchester. Our brethren of Scotland
were not so firm upon that great shaking of kingship. We
sent an army into Scotland, to Colchester, to Wales. This
noble Lordt went to the gates of Colchester and conquered,
and put an end to all the English war.
Then a general was
sent into Scotland. Our late Protector that died was then
general of all our forces. You know the great mercy. There
* See vol. ii. p. 388, note.
VOL. III.
+ Lord Fairfax.
H
L
98
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
we obtained that memorable victory at Dunbar. What care
did the Parliament then take to furnish their army from
London with all necessaries, by land and in ships; all pro-
vided with the greatest diligence. None but a numerous
company of good and honest-hearted men could have done
the like. The King of Scots came in with a great army.
Twenty thousand men came suddenly and freely to Worcester.
The people voluntarily rise and assist, in the greatest numbers
that were ever read. The Scotch Army returned, not three
in a company. Man by man they returned in rags. This
battle, the 3d of September, 1651, put an end to all the mi-
series of war in England and Scotland. Our wars in Ireland
were then not considerable.
This done, it is true here was only remaining a little part
of that triple cord, and you know what became of them. I
heard, being seventy miles off, that it was propounded that
we should dissolve our trust, and dissolve it into a few hands.
I came up and found it so; that it was resolved in a junto at
the Cockpit. I trembled at it, and was, after, there and bore
my testimony against it. I told them the work they went
about was accursed. I told them it was impossible to devolve
this trust. Next day, we were labouring here in the House on
an act to put an end to that Parliament and to call another.
I desired the passing of it with all my soul. The question
was putting for it, when our General stood up, and stopped the
question, and called in his Lieutenant, with two files of mus-
queteers, with their hats on their heads, and their guns loaden
with bullets. Our General told us we should sit no longer to
cheat the people. The Speaker, a stout man, was not willing
to go.
He was so noble, that he frowned and said he would
not out of the chair, till he was plucked out; which was
quickly done, without much compliment, by two soldiers, and
the mace taken: and there was an end of the third estate
also.*
I rejoiced then, from the soul, that the question was
not put. But I would have passed the severest sentence upon
those that did this horrid business, that ever was passed upon
* See supra, p. 74, note.
1658-9.1
99
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
men, and would have been from my heart the executioner of
it. But I forgive them now, both the dead and the living.
There was no possibility to dissolve this Parliament, the re-
maining part of the three estates, but by our own officer. He
only had power. Our enemies had none.
Surely all the English blood was not spilled in vain ? It
was a glorious work of our Saviour to die on the cross for our
spirituals. This is as glorious a work for our civils, to put
an end to the King and Lords. The right is, originally,
without all doubt, in the people. Undeniably and most un-
doubtedly it reverts to the people: the power being taken
away. Like the gordian knot, it asked but Hercules's sword
to cut this knot. This done, our General, in 1653, looked on
himself as having all power devolved upon himself: a huge
mistake! The power was then in the people. If by conquest
he had come in, he might have had something to say. It
was undoubtedly in the people. It was a mistake in him;
you shall see it.†
+
+
He was pleased to select a number of gentlemen, good,
honest men. hither brought. He gave them power. They
came into this House, and voted themselves a Parliament.
They acted high in some things, and soon cracked. Some of
* A misnomer for Alexander.
+ This paragraph is thus reported by the other member of this Par-
liament :-
"But as the crucifying of Christ, though barbarous and horrid in
itself, was the most beneficial and glorious for our souls, so this action,
though thus wicked and unjust, was (at least, may be, if we will im-
prove it) the most advantageous to our civil interest, that can be; for
this put a final end and dissolution of our long Government, by King,
Lords, and Commons, the three ancient estates of this nation, and de-
volved all right of power and government upon its original fountain, the
people again. When power is plucked up, whither can it return, but
to its right centre, the people? And there was no other way but the
sword, to bring to an end this threefold Government. This was done
20th April, 1653. The General then looked upon himself as having all
power devolved upon him, which was a huge mistake, for he had his
commission from the Parliament, and that being dissolved, his com-
mission ended." Goddard, MS. p. 132.
↑ See vol. ii. p. 67, note.
H 2
100
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
t
*
them ran to Whitehall, and returned their power. Whence
it came, thither it went. Judge whether power could pass
thus, either to or from him.
This not serving the turn, then there was contrived an In-
strument of Government, with our General at the head of it.
This was first delivered to him in Westminster Hall. The
Judges, most that were in town, and the Mayor and Alder-
men of the City of London, were summoned, few knowing
what it was for. There was an oath in this Instrument,
which he took; and after that took upon him the name of
Protector.
After that, a Parliament was called to confirm this. I was
chosen one of those that the people sent up. Something was
put in the writ, concerning our owning of this government in
that Parliament; but, come hither, some gentlemen were
pleased to say, being in the dark. I remember one learned
gentleman, very well read in Scripture, said openly, that
"other foundation than that could no man lay," (the latter
words left out.) Others said that the Parliament and Protec-
tor were twins, but the Parliament was the elder brother.
I then said no one Parliament could limit or impose upon
me in any other. This doctrine was not well liked by the
Protector. We were all turned out Such a thing as never
was done! An oath was made without doors, to be taken by
us, and was set at the door. Those that would take it came
in. Those that would not, were kept out by pikes. Know-
ing the privilege, that no power without doors could make an
oath, I went away, and divers more gentlemen.
Those gentlemen that did sit, after five months were raised
without giving any confirmation. It needed not, if other
foundation could no man lay. They did nothing.
Then came the last Parliament, in 1656. I was again
chosen, but not for any particular place; but for the whole
county. When we came I found pikes again; one set to my
breast. I could not pass without a ticket from the Council.
* See vol. ii. p. 67, note.
† See vol. ii. p. 274, note *.
I See vol. i. p. 273, note †.
י
1658-9.]
101
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I found in the hall above fifty of us. We joined in a letter
to the Speaker ;* declaring our willingness to serve, and that
we were kept out. After two or three days attendance we
were sent to the Council for a ticket. I durst do no such
thing. I had lifted up my hands to God for the privilege
of Parliament. I could not do it. Two hundred were kept
out. Upon this, divers that had been admitted left the
House.
Then the government fell dangerously sick, and it died.
Another foundation was laid; a Petition and Advice; and
this must be the law and the foundation of all! And these
must be the fruits, all we must enjoy, after the spilling of
o much blood and so much treasure! Pardon me, if I thus
make bare my mind to you.
SO
I
This was a forced Parliament, because some of us were
forced out; an imperfect Parliament, a lame Parliament, so
much dismembered. We are here the freest, and clearest, and
most undoubted representatives that ever were since the de-
solation of the three estates, King, Lords, and Commons.
know not one member kept out: if I did, I would on my
knees beg his admittance. I hope God will direct us how to
get out of this great darkness, as the minister told us that
we have been in since this great desolation. What was done
in the last Parliament is not a sufficient foundation to bring
peace and settlement to this nation. The people of England
were never more knowing and sensible of their privileges and
liberties, nor better prepared to have a settlement from this
free representative. We can do here whatsoever is for the good
of the people. We have power over their purses and persons;
can take away whole laws, or part of them, or make new
ones. I will tell you what we cannot do. We cannot set.
* See vol. i. p. 262; ii. 348, notes‡*.
"The Parliament," says Sir Thomas Smith, (and this Speaker may
have had the passage in recollection,)" abrogateth old laws, maketh
new, giveth order for things past, and things hereafter to be followed,
changeth right and possessions of private men, defineth of doubtful
rights, whereof is no law already made, appointeth subsidies, tailes,
taxes, and impositions. All that ever the people of Rome might do
either Centuriatis Comitiis or Tribunitiis, the same may be done by the
102
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
up any power equal to the people; either in one person, or
another House. We are trusted with no such power.
God is the King of this great island, as Mr. Calamy told
us. I hope he is King of our hearts. God has done this
work. King, Lords, and Commons: it was not in our
thoughts at first. Let not us set up what God has pulled
down; not plant what God has rooted up, lest we be said to
build against God.
We see what a confusion we are in. We have not pros-
pered. Our army at Jamaica prospered not.* The trade
and glory of the nation are much diminished. The council
have been exceedingly bewildered. The government you see
twice set up, presently pulled down. The strange oppression
Parliament of England. Every Englishman is intended to be there
present, either in person, or by procuration and attorney ;-and the con-
sent of the Parliament is taken to be every man's consent." See "The
Commonwealth of England,” (1633,) pp. 77, 78.
This representation of popular rights was made in 1565, by a Secre-
tary of State, under a royal executive, too frequently disposed to vio-
late them. It may serve to show, against the now happily exposed and
exploded misrepresentations of Hume, the once favourite "idol of his-
toric taste," that Charles was driven from his throne, and at length
closed his life on a scaffold, not for resisting useful political innovations,
but for exceeding the defined and long established limits of regal autho-
rity.
Dr. Towers was among the early contributors to that detection of
Hume, (whom he justly classes among those de veritate non muļtúm la-
borantes,) which Mr. Brodie, with a free spirit of enquiry, superior to
national partialities, has ably completed. See "Observations on Mr.
Hume's History of England,” (1778,) in “ Tracts on Political and other
Subjects, by Joseph Towers, LL.D.” (1796,) i. 233–430.
* In 1655, the Protector sent out an expedition under Penn and
Venables, to annoy the Spaniards in the West Indies. Dr. Bates hav-
ing described their unsuccessful attempt on Hispaniola, with the loss of
more than 600 men, (sex centis, aut suprà, desideratis) thus proceeds:
"Dein ad Jamaicam vela faciunt, occidentem versùs, insulam per-
amœnam, quasi deliciarum hortum; cujus arenâ sine magno negotio
potiuntur, Hispanis discessum pactis. Ibi verò scelerum vindex, dira
grassata est in Anglos lues, quæ, duobus exceptis militibus, pervasit
atque delevit intra sex menses exercitum universum. Postea paulatim
novi militis et commeatûs adventu refocillati ex omni Jamaica Hispanos
arcent." Elenchus, (1676,) Part ii. p. 307. (They now sail for Jamaica,
1658-9.]
103
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
•
}
by making Acts of Parliament without a Parliament;* rais-
ing monies; denying habeas corpus ;, sending learned long
robe gentlemen to the Tower, for asserting Magna Charta,
towards the west, a pleasant island, even a garden of delights. This
they quickly possess; the Spaniards capitulating to depart. But a
plague, the avenger of wrong, violently attacks the English, and in six
months destroys the whole army, except two soldiers. Reinforcements
arriving with supplies, they at length finally expel the Spaniards.) See
Harris's Lives, (1814,) iii. 382–387.
Governor Hutchinson says, that "Jamaica being conquered, Crom-
well," who "had been very desirous of drawing off the New-England-
ers to people Ireland, after his successes there, renewed his invitation
to the colony of Massachusets to remove, and to go and people that
island." To" the agent of the Colony in England, he was pleased to
express, that he did apprehend the people of New England had as clear
a call to transport themselves from thence to Jamaica, as they had from
England to New England, in order to their bettering their outward con-
dition. God having promised his people should be the head and not the
tail: besides, that design hath its tendency to the overthrow of the Man
of Sin. A few accepted the invitation." See "History of Massachusets,
(1761,) pp. 190, 192.
Jamaica was described in this year, (1655,) as "of a rich and fertile
soil, and in nothing less provided for the necessities of man's life, than
either Hispaniola or Cuba; well stocked with cattle, and plentifully
stored with fruits of all sorts; yielding abundance of cotton-wool, more
than either of the other islands: only it wanteth the convenience of
some good havens and ports, which it hath but few. And the sea round
about it so shelvy, and full of rocks and broken islands, that the coast
of it is held to be not a little dangerous: and therefore little frequented
by merchants or others; there being, at present, only three small
towns inhabited in the whole island." See "America faithfully repre-
sented, by N. N. Gent." (1657,) p. 484.
* In "The Government of the Commonwealth, as it was publicly
declared at Westminster, 16th December, 1653," and " published by
his Highness's command," the 30th Article (p. 40,) provides
"that the
Lord Protector, with the consent of the major part of the Council, for
preventing the disorders and dangers which may otherwise fall out, both
at sea and land, shall have power, until the meeting of the first Par-
liament, to raise money for the purposes aforesaid, and also to make
laws and ordinances, for the peace and welfare of these nations, where
it shall be necessary; which shall be binding and in force until order
shall have been taken in Parliament concerning the same." See these
Ordinances in Scobell's Collection. (1658,) pp. 275–368.
104
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
such as all the Kings of England never did ;* all this because
we knew not the good mind of God. We were in darkness.
It is God's mercy that we are here to declare ourselves in this
place.
I shall now come to speak to the bill, whether to be com-
mitted or not. I confess, I do love the person of the Lord
Protector. I never saw nor heard either fraud or guile in
him. I wish only continuance of wealth, health, and safety
to his family. I wish the greatest of honour and wealth of
any man in this nation to him and his posterity; but this bill
to recognize is a hard word. I never heard of such a bill but
in King James's case; which was to declare him of the un-
doubted line to the crown, and so having a right to succeed.
We must here take for granted the government, the Petition
and Advice, which was not done in a free Parliament. It may
be skinned over for a time, but will break out. The people
are not pleased. What foundation soever is built, let it rise
from us, that are the clear representatives. For the authority
itself, it appears by that Petition that the Protectorate was
1
* "Mr. Conye's case is so notorious," says Mr. Bethell," that it
needs little more than naming. He was a prisoner at Cromwell's suit,
and being brought to the King's Bench bar, by a Habeas Corpus, had
his counsel taken from the bar, and sent to the Tower, for no other
reason than the pleading of their client's cause ; an act of violence that
I believe the whole story of England doth not parallel." See "The
World's Mistake in Oliver Cromwell," (1689,) pp. 45, 46.
This case occurred May 18, 1655. The counsel were Maynard,
Twisden and Wyndham, (see vol. ii. p. 340, note*.) They were not
released till they had humbly petitioned the Protector. See Mercurius
Politicus, No. 298.
Lord Clarendon details, no doubt con amore, the particulars of a
transaction highly disreputable to the Protector's Government. He
admits, however, that "in all other matters, which did not concern the
life of his jurisdiction, he seemed to have great reverence for the law,
rarely interposing between party and party." History, (1712,) iii. 649,
650.
It appears from Whitlock, that about this time, (May, 1655,) “Baron
Thorpe and Judge Newdigate, were put out of their places, for not ob-
serving the Protector's pleasure in all his commands." Memorials,
(1732,) p. 625.
1658-9.]
105
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
&
for his life; but it appears not how he appointed his suc-
cessor; we must not take that upon trust, but be fully satis-
fied. I would not have this committed at present; but let it
lie here. Never begin with the person first, but agree what
trust he shall have. I forget not the great cause of our mis-
chiefs, the influence of the kings over the judges. To make
the King judge of necessity; that cut all our purses, that
brought all our evil upon us. I would have us seriously advise
and consider what we may do, as the people's representatives.
The way of wisdom is everlasting peace. There is no danger
to the nation, so long as this representative sits here. They
are the supreme power. The way to prevent fire is to do our
duties. We shall be preserved from the fire of hell and the
fire of men.
Let us let this rest, and consider of foundation
stones. If a single person be thought best, to be accountable
to the people for mal-administration, I shall submit to the
majority.
Mr. Bulkeley. The gentleman has done the House a great
deal of right in the narrative; yet he has something omitted
whereby those gentlemen that were then at school, whereof I
am one, may be misled. I shall collect his omissions of part
of the history.
Self-defence, undoubtedly, is in this House. The King
protected delinquents against justice. This was one of the
causes of war. Exorbitancy, in the Church Government;
toleration of popery; many causes of the war.
us.
You engaged in a war. God was pleased to give an answer-
able success. We held forth the grounds of our war, and ap-
pealed to God, angels, and men, that success should not mislead
We engaged the whole body on this score: all with con-
fidence that we should all hold to the case as then stated.
True, in the latter part, you were more successful; but your
army was less exorbitant at first. You were engaged upon a
solemn league and covenant,* as highly and solemnly as could
be to engage men's hearts. This was a link to the three na-
tions. This was thrown behind your door as an almanack out
*See vol. ii. p. 214, note *.
106
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
of date. (It was said so here.) We sent away our brethren
with frowns. After Colchester surrendered,* proposals went
to the King, and personal addresses. I was one sent, so can
give the better account. They were persons, generally, of as
great ability and integrity as the nation had
We brought a
good return; but, we being not then ripe for the mercy of
peace, it was blasted. This deserved a debate, a solemn de-
bate. There were near three hundred; a great House in
those days. It was taken up on Monday morning, and con-
tinued all that night till next morning. I cannot say it was
without interruptions, for we had papers of terrors from the
army sent in to us. There was a story of the long sword,†
by that gentleman. I wish I had never heard it.
We came
to a question, and it was carried with a vote, (no question
then of the Government) sixty against it. Many votes of
aged persons were lost, and interruptions, else there had been
two to one. The House adjourned.
man.
The next morning I found Colonel Pryde at the door,
and heard one by him tell him, "This is the person." I came
through pikes and muskets. I was arrested by that gentle-
He asked my name. I would not tell him. I said I
was a member. He said, "You have a mark upon you. You
are a noted man." I asked for my charge.
I asked for my charge. When he saw I
would not go quietly, two ushered me up into Surrey Court,
where I found thirty, and fifteen came after. We were kept
in hold that night; then ushered to Whitehall; and kept
there till next day two o'clock, without food or conveniency.
We were carried to the King's Head, and other inns, with
great reproach. To prison we had coaches, because it was
dirty weather. It is said, it was not done in this House. I
could say it was contrived here; and somewhat else too. Five
members were appointed to examine every member upon the
point of that vote, what his judgment was.
A government was brought in; a Commonwealth, I was
going to say; a monster was introduced, and that was dis-
+ See vol. ii. p. 423.
August 27, 1648. See supra, p. 97.
December 6, 1648. See Ibid. p. 387, note *.
1658-9.]
107
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
solved, without either coroner or inquest upon it.*
This
brought another change. It is new to me that ever it was
moved to resign up their power to a single person. If that
gentleman refused, I shall honour him for it. It is said the
Commonwealth flourished.
After this we had an Instrument of Government, which
had much of good in it, but in the bowels of it took away
your rights. That liberty was not left you which is your
due: not that I would set the crown upon the head of the
people. I gave my attendance to that Parliament that was
called by it. Never Parliament gave out their spirits and
labours, to make a happy government and foundation for
posterity as they did. That unhappily fell from the gentle-
"other foundation," &c.; that might have been
spared. But at length it was submitted to our debate; and
if that had gone on, it had provided well to circumscribe the
single person only it had not another House in it.
man,
:
I am engaged, in my place and calling, to promote a House
of Lords. Those Lords that were faithful, it were the great-
est dishonour that ever were to kick them out. You have it
materially before you. I hope it is the purpose of this House
that the Government be submitted to them. It was hastily
done. Holding fast the head: that is to say, a single person
and another House, you may debate the parts. It is impro-
perly moved to reject it, and not to proceed upon it.
Unless the chief magistrate have this approbation, every
rascal may affront the chief magistrate. He may be arrested,
which a member of this House has a privilege against. I
would have that about the other House laid aside, and take
the recognition singly. Let that about the other House come
singly, as to qualifying them; to prevent returning to that
government, which that worthy gentleman in his motion aims
at. To acquiesce in that which they see against the sense of
the nation, were madness.
Mr. Scot. It was moved that you first digest a govern-
ment, and then fit the person. The last motion does antici-
* See vol. ii. p. 416, note †.
+ See supra. p. 100.
4
108
[FRB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
pate your resolution. We may have liberty to propound any
government to the people. Salus populi will warrant it. I
am not fond of any child of my own. I shall say as Hushai
said, "What God and this people do, I shall acquiesce in."
If bound by the Covenant,† you must restore the House of
Lords as it was, and the like by the King. His last expression
is a felo de se. I shall mind you of one hiatus, the first
rape committed on this House, by the apprentices that came
here‡ and told us we must vote the King here in safely. After
the scabbard was thrown away, we must call home our ir-
reconcileable enemy, to be at his pleasure. If the House
had held to it, it had been too hot for you. We denied it.
There was discourse at the door, too much countenanced.
They said our guts should be about our ears if we did
not vote it. The attack on the Train Bands was counte-
nanced and abetted by the profane Cavaliers. Still God
bore witness against that family; that cursed family! I may
call it so yet. None adheres to it but he carries mischief
with him. Many of us were forced to go to the army for
safety; while others sat safely here and made laws. All
these things were done flagrante bello, interruptions on both
sides. I confess I was one of that Parliament that sat. As
to the privilege of Parliament, it has been sufficiently told
you. The Covenant was not called an Almanack.§ By vir-
tue of that Covenant I took myself obliged to all I did.
* 2 Sam. xvi. 18.
† See supra, p. 105, ad fin.
† April, 1648. See Whitlock in vol. ii. p. 386, note, Parl. Hist. (1755)
xvii. 92–103. According to Whitlock, "this tumult by the apprentices
began in Moorfields, about tipling and gaming on the Lord's Day, con-
trary to the Ordinance of Parliament."
This "tumult and outrage," appears to have been formidable.
Whitlock describes the "small party of the army," about London, as
having "behaved themselves, against a great multitude of men, with
much gallantry and resolution." He proceeds to "notice the incertainty
of worldly affairs," that " when the Parliament and their army had sub-
dued their common enemy, then they quarrelled among themselves, the
Army against the Parliament; when they were pretty well pieced toge-
ther again, then the apprentices and others make an insurrection against
the Parliament and Army." § See "Mr. Bulkeley,” supra, p. 105.
1658-9.]
109
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
+
+
and agreed to
This was hammered in Scotland,*-
destroy the King's person, if he will not carry it so as to pre-
serve religion and liberty. I must then stand and fall by
the judgment of those gentlemen, whether we had cause to
fear that the King would break all these liberties and privi-
leges. It is impossible any man should delight in a man of
so much blood as the King was. The King was not the su-
preme power. He was seven or eight times sent to with pro-
positions, and would not yield. Had he been quiet after
he was delivered up to us by the Scots, knowing him to be
our King- -¶ So long as he was above-ground, in view,
there were daily revoltings among the army, and risings in
all places; creating us all mischief, more than a thousand
Kings could do us good. It was impossible to continue him
alive. I wish all had heard the grounds of our resolutions
in that particular. I would have had all our consultings in
foro, as any thing else was. It was resorted unto as the last
refuge. The representative, in their aggregate body, have
power to alter or change any government, being thus con-
ducted by Providence. The question was, whose was that
blood that was shed? It could not be ours. Was it not the
King's, by keeping delinquents from punishment, and raising
armies ?
Brought first unto defence, until he's at the wall,
And then he must offend: that is agreed by all."
The vindictive justice must have his sacrifice somewhere.
The King was called to a bar below, to answer for that
blood. We did not assassinate, or do it in a corner. We
*See vol. ii. p. 214, note *.
This appears to be in the MS. an imperfect sentence, and not very
easily reconciled to the terms of the Covenant, which proposed, among
other great objects, "the honour and happiness of the King;" and by
the third article, “to preserve the rights and privileges of the Parlia-
ments, and the liberties of the kingdoms, and to preserve and defend the
King's Majesty's person and authority, in the preservation and defence
of the true religion and liberties of the kingdoms."
† See supra, p. 96. § See vol. ii. p. 384, note †. ¶ Blank in the MS.
|| "I have not heard of any (even of the Long Parliament) excepting
1
110
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
did it in the face of God, and of all men. If this be not a
precept, the good of the whole, I know not what is; to pre-
Mr. Scot, that have spoken any way reproachfully of his late Majesty,
only Sir Henry Vane said, (and truly enough) that if the power of go-
vernment was not in the people, the guilt of the King's blood would lie
upon them for ever." Barwick to Hyde, Feb. 16, 1658-9. See "Thur-
loe State Papers," vii. 616.
CC
* Mr. Fox, (as Mr. Godwin has remarked, when enquiring into the
judgment to be made of the death of Charles,”) says, "it is much to be
doubted, whether his trial and execution have not, as much as any other
circumstance, served to raise the character of the English nation, in the
opinion of Europe." See " History of James II." p. 16;
the Commonwealth," ii. 685.
CC
History of
Sir Theophilus Biddulph, one of the members for London, testified
against Mr. Scot, on his trial, in 1660, that "in Richard's Parliament,”
he heard him say, "that he did desire, when he died, that a tomb-stone
might be laid over him, with this inscription: 'Here lies Thomas Scot,
who adjudged to death the late King.'
Mr. Scot, amidst the sufferings and indignities which attended his
last hours, appears to have expected, like the regicides generally, a vin-
dication of his memory in more enlightened times. To those who, just
before his execution, would have drawn from him a confession of guilt,
as "the most likely means to prolong his life, some of his last words
were, that God had engaged him in a cause not to be repented of, I say,"
he added, "not to be repented of.”
Mr. Justice Cooke, who drew up the charge against the King, and
"subscribed it in the name of the Commons of England," expressed in " a
Letter written from the Tower," the expectations he indulged, no doubt
in common with Mr. Scot and their political associates, that it would, at
length, "appear, that they were not traytors, nor murderers, nor phana-
tics, but true Christians and good Commonswealth's men, fixt and constant
to the principles of sanctity, truth, justice, and mercy, which the Parlia-
ment and Army declared and engaged in; and to that noble principle of
preferring the universality before a particularity: that they sought the
public good, and would have enfranchized the people, if the nation had
not more delighted in servitude than in freedom."
To enhance the bitterness of death, Mr. Justice Cooke was drawn
from the Tower to Charing Cross, on a sledge, "whereon was also car-
ied the head of Major General Harrison," (executed three days before)
"with the face bare towards him; and, notwithstanding that dismal
sight, he passed rejoicingly through the streets, as one borne up by
that spirit which man could not cast down."
Mr. Hugh Peters, (see vol. i. p. 244) who was executed immediately
after, was "made to sit within the rails at Charing Cross, to behold the
1658-9.]
111
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
serve the good cause, a defence to religion and tender con-
sciences. I will not patronize or justify all proceedings that
then were.
We sat four or five years in the posture of a Common-
wealth, and fought more in that time than ever before; Scot-
land and Ireland all lost; Dublin and Derry only left. I
remember the cadency of the words, infallible evidence, that
the Scots would endeavour to restore the King to his patri-
monial rights. To prevent them from making England the
seat of war, we went to their own doors. The General sent
out a declaration, calling God to witness that he intended
nothing of domination, but only to assert the interest of the
English nation.
The Dutch war came on. If it had pleased God and his
Highness to have let that little power of a Parliament sit
a little longer,-when Hannibal is ad portas, something
must be done extra leges-we intended to have gone off
with a good savour, and provided for a succession of Parlia-
ments; but we stayed to end the Dutch war.
We might
have brought them to oneness with us. Their Ambassadors
execution of Mr. Cooke; one came to him, bidding him, with opprobrious
language, to repent. He replied, “ Friend, you do not well to trample
on a dying man."
When Mr. Cooke was cut down, and brought to be quartered, one
they called Colonel Turner, called to the sheriff's men, to bring Mr.
Peters near, that he might see it; and, by and by, the hangman came to
him, all besmeared in blood; and rubbing his bloody hands together, he
tauntingly asked: "Come, how do you like this, Mr. Peters? How do
you like this work?" To whom he replied, “ I am not, I thank God!
terrified at it ; you may do your worst." See "The Indictment, Arraign-
ment, Tryal and Judgment at large of Twenty-nine Regicides, the
Murtherers of his most Sacred Majesty King Charles I., of Glorious
Memory." (1739) p. 73, 235, 257, 259.
Such were the sanguinary triumphs of a restored royal legitimate, and
such was the closing scene, dreadful, yet dignified, in the life of a
man to whose name and memory Edmund Burke, on a remarkable oc-
casion, could offer nothing except an eloquent invective.
But Hugh
Peters appears to have been a public-spirited patriot, and Edmund
Burke was earning a royal pension; due, indeed, to his talents, though
dearly purchased by his courtly application of them.
*See supra, p. 73, note *.
112
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
did desire a coalition. This we might have done in four or
five months. We never bid fairer for being masters of the
whole world. Not that I desire to extend our own bounds.
We are well, if we can preserve peace at home. If you be
fain to fight Holland over again, it is vain to conceal it.
That gentleman says the Parliament went out, and no com-
plaining in the streets, nor enquiry after them.* That is ac-
cording to the company men keep. Men suit the letter to
their lips. It is as men converse.
I never met a zealous as-
sertor of that cause, but lamented it, to see faith broken, and
somewhat else. I will say no more. It was as much be-
wailed, at the Instrument of Government. A petition, the day
after the Parliament was dissolved, from forty of the chief
officers, the Aldermen of the city of London, and many
godly divines, (except the rigid Presbyters, too well-wishers
to Mr. Love's treason,†) besought to have that Parliament
restored. But the Protector, being resolved to carry on his
work, threatened, terrified, and displaced them; and who
would, for such a shattered thing, venture their all? You
have had five changes. This is the fifth, and yet the people
have not rest. It may be the people may think of returning
to that again, or it may be to another government.
The Romans continued Consuls one hundred years. There
were endeavours to bring in kingship, and many lost their
heads for it. Brutus's own sons died under the axe, rather
than their father would suffer kingship. Then came the De-
cemviri, to collect the best laws in all nations, still jussu po-
puli, to make peace and war; to make laws; to make magis-
trates; to frame twelve tables to be standing laws.
I would not hazard a hair of his present Highness's head.
Yet I would trust no man with more power than what is good
for him and for the people. I had rather have 1007. per annum,
clear, than 2001. accountable. He is yet at the door. If you
think of a single person, I would have him sooner than any
man alive. Make your body, and then fit your head, if you
please, one head; else we must debate all the limbs over again,
* See supra, p. 107. .
+ See vol. ii. p. 88, note †.
1658-9.]
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
113
either in a Grand Committee, or by twenty or thirty gentle-
men. In the mean time lay this Bill aside.*
Major Beake. I shall not take up much of your time, to
relate or answer all the stories. Though they have said much,
yet those that come after them may find gleanings.
Those stupendous providences may be observed by other
men. They draw this conclusion, that the state of a Com-
monwealth is best for the grandeur and splendour of a nation;
that the opposite to a single person is the best government,
and that no Government can be but what has its power
from this House.
When that woful discrimination was made between the
good people of this nation, and the engagement pressed, it
was a sad and lamentable time with the best of men, and
reached the bowels of your best friends. The worthy pa-
triarch that preached (Dr. Reynolds) felt it.† They were not
such halycon days, but they brought tears from the eyes of
the best men. If ever a godly ministry were browbeaten and
put under deck, it was at that time. A Petition was put up
to this House on behalf of the godly ministers by two worthy
persons, one serves for Worcestershire. I shall ever honour
them for owning that cause at that time. All errors, opi-
nions, and blasphemies, got root in that time; levelling
principles, agreement of the people, § nothing monstrous
“
Bulkeley answered Sir Arthur with another long narration; rec-
tifying some mistakes as he pretended; but here began the brawl between
the two parties, the one showing the mischiefs and the grievances we
suffered under the old Government, and the other the extravagancies of
the times, whilst we were under a Commonwealth.
"Scot answered Bulkeley as smartly, justifying the proceedings of the
remnant of the old Parliament, and admiring the successes of the Com-
monwealth." Goddard MS. pp. 133, 134.
† See supra, p. 66, note †.
† See vol. i. p. 49, note.
§ Whitlock mentions, "Nov. 9, 1647, a Committee of the General
Council of the Army, appointed," among other objects, " to consider the
case of the Army stated, and a paper called the Agreement of the
People.
“Nov. 23. A Petition delivered to the supreme authority of the nation,
presented to the Commons, was read and voted to be a seditious and con-
VOL. III.
T
114
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
but that time produced. When we make the comparison,
we may bless God we are on this side the waves and surges
that those times produced.
I am for the commitment of the bill. I see nothing in it
to cause delay. It is too late to say that all the power is in
this House. See your constitution. Not but that much in
that Petition and Advice may admit debate, so it touch not
the fundamentals. The Boaz and Jachin of Solomon's Tem-
ple,* you cannot alter. That is not in the people. It is
disputable to me that all power is in the people. If so, the
people in Parliament represented, have power. Then the
last had the power. If any thing be urged as to force, it
makes all that was formerly done as inefficacious. This is as
valid as any act formerly done. I know not how they will
deliver themselves from this dilemma. I wished there had
been no bar. Yet, I bless God for it, a great good produced
out of a great evil. To dispute him here, is to question foun-
dations. It nulls the obligation without doors. Either we
swear to him, as our Supreme Magistrate, or else to a nonen-
tity. We are met to declare a supreme magistrate; not to
make a Chief Magistrate, as is said. This bill was only
brought in to obviate what was working without doors, to
alter your Government. All the world will think he had a
good title, and now we are so sceptical as to question it. You
will contract a greater trouble than you are aware of. My
motion is, that you refer it to a Committee.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. Repetitions do but breed trouble.
Will you
I would neither have it laid aside, nor committed.
temptuous avowing and prosecution, of a former petition and paper an-
nexed, styled an Agreement of the People.” Memorials (1732), pp. 277,
280.
Mr. Scot, then a Major, and Colonel Eyre, another member of this
Parliament, were implicated in these proceedings. According to Rush-
worth, “
Major Scot and others animated the soldiers to stand to a paper
called the Agreement of the People. On which order was given, for the
commitment of Colonel Eyre and others into the Marshall's hands, and
Major Scot was sent up to the Parliament, he being a member of the
Commons." Hist. Col. (1708), vi. 298.
* 1 Kings, vii. 21.
1658-9.]
115
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
ን
refer it to a Committee, either grand or private? Let it be
debated in the House, beginning with, "Be it enacted."
Mr. Starkey. Through the various changes of good and
evil, we are arrived at the present posture we are in. These
worthy gentlemen* need not say any thing to justify them-
selves, nor to look back at what is past.
The main objection is, that it appears not that his High-
ness was declared. I believe some here can satisfy you. But,
cui bono, the people have manifested their satisfaction al-
ready, both by addresses, and by sending us hither. They
have sent us hither to represent them, by his Highness's call.
We have owned him in our assembling, in taking our oaths.
at the door, and there is a greater acknowledgment in that.
Cui bono is not all, but cui non malum.
The right of call is as essential a part of a Parliament as
any. This very act has acknowledged him to be Chief Ma-
gistrate. I would not have us put the nation in that danger,
as to ask the question. I find nothing in this Bill, of the
Lords' House. I would as cheerfully and readily conclude
this business, which will be of great consideration to the quiet
and settlement of the nation.
Mr. Knightley. We have no cause to dislike one another's
nest. I would have it committed. I would have the word
"declare." Take your rise, not from addresses from the
counties, but from the judges' and sheriffs' proclamation of
it, and your being called hither by it. I would have it de-
bated in a Grand Committee.
Colonel White. I wish the sins of the nation may be for-
given and remembered no more.
The Government of this nation is not the administration,
but the laws. For proof of this, have recourse to former
precedents of kings' oaths, of the present oath of his High-
One king pulled down another, and they declared one
ness.
* This speaker was soon prepared to become a witness, seemingly a
willing witness, against Mr. Justice Cooke, (see supra, p. 110,) his inti-
mate acquaintance, to whom he professed to "owe all his knowledge in
the laws;"
one who had eminently acted, and at length suffered with
these worthy gentlemen." See "The Trials of the Regicides," pp. 94, 95.
t
1 2
116
[FEB. 7,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
another tyrant; the judges were the same; the laws the
same. The judges were never touched for execution of the
law. You have heard of several changes of Government;
yet the learned judges have not doubted to take commission
from all those powers, upon that supreme law, salus populi,
the law fundamental.
The law is a dead letter only, the difference is in the Ad-
ministration. I suppose the Government intended by this Bill,
is this fundamental law. This was in the late King, by way
of trust, which he forfeited. The root of all former miseries
was about the Militia. This proved a bloody quarrel.
I would have you settle this fundamental and other fun-
damentals, before you settle any single person; else you will
leave them to danger and uncertainty. I hope you will so
leave it, that it may neither be danger to the Government,
nor snare to the governed. It is dangerous to swerve from
the fundamentals. Witness Major-Generals.
I doubt wringing of the nose will bring blood. I doubt, if
we look back, we shall find much dissatisfaction; if forward,
we may
do much for satisfaction; at least, the satisfaction
of the people. You will not feast your eyes with any Go-
vernment that has been since 48.
I observe characters of great designation upon his High-
ness, I am sure without flattery. Set upon the pinnacle by
Providence, I cannot but conclude there is the hand of God
in it. I never saw his person in my life.
I would have some previous votes. I shall offer,
1. In order to the Government fundamental, that you will
declare that the law is the Government of the nation.
2. That this Government, in the hands of person or per-
sons, is by the way of trust and office.
3. That this shall be committed to his Highness by way
of office and trust, with such limitations as you shall after
agree on.
I would have it committed to a Committee of the whole
House, that may bring you in a Bill or Bills to settle these
things as well for the Government as the Administration.
1658-9.]
117
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
If I have said any thing amiss, it is not out of design, but
duty.
We
Mr. Manley. I would ask one question: by what autho-
rity you sit here, if you come in upon new foundations?
are at stake, as well as his Highness.
There is no better foundation for your proceeding than
the Petition and Advice. It is a great honour that this
Bill came first into this House. The question, I hope, is
merely as to the expression of it. Here is evidentia rei.
There needs no affidavit.
The Courts of Westminster Hall evidence it; the army:
your meeting here acknowledgeth it.
I hope there is no competitor. It is said abroad, you in-
tend a Commonwealth.
It will beget great confidence at home and terror abroad.
I would have it amended at this table.
Mr. Neville. The proper question to debate is, whether
to commit it or no; if you will take that up at this time of
day.
Mr. Trevor. I would not have you adjourn indefinitely,
to leave this business, sine die. I have but a short speech
to make.
Resolved, that this debate be adjourned till to-morrow, at
nine.
Mr. Weaver. The business of Mr. Streete was appoint-
ed to-morrow, that he answer his charge. I would have that
first done.
:
Serjeant Maynard. I move that nothing intervene for
the gentleman's speech may prove as long as the speech we
had to-day,* which lasted from nine to twelve. If you go on
at this rate, to have one speech a day, the Dutch will give
you 2,000l. a day to do so.
The Attorney-General seconded that motion.
Resolved that nothing intervene, and the House rose at
almost two o'clock.
By Sir Arthur Haslerigge. See supra, pp. 87-105.
118
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Monday afternoon.
The Grand Committee for Religion sat the first time; Mr.
Bacon in the chair. A Sub-Committee was appointed to in-
quire how Biddle came to be released, being imprisoned for
blasphemy.*
Another Committee was appointed to bring in a Bill to re-
medy the inconvenience touching the approbation of ministers;
the same Committee to bring in a Bill for Commissioners for
ejecting of scandalous ministers. T. B.† unus.
Tuesday, February 8, 1658-9.
+
Mr. St. Nicholas. I find two objections to lie in my way,
in speaking against the Recognition.
1. That we ought not to speak against foundations; as if
that liberty had been taken away by the oath which we took
at the door. But, in answer to that, I hope we are not
spreading of nets, or laying of snares for one another. I have
sworn to be faithful, and I hope in discharging of that faith
I may have liberty to speak; especially finding the faith I
have sworn to the Protector twisted with the liberty of the
people.
2. The Petition and Advice hath laid a foundation already,
and it is too late to deny that now. But, Sir, that is little
above a year old, and can yet scarce speak English for itself.
I conceive it is but a sandy foundation, and that you will not
build upon it. Besides, I pray, observe the manner of ob-
taining that law; when above two hundred members of the
..
1
* Thursday, 5 July, 16 55. Mr. Biddle, (see vol. i. p. 57,) was ap-
prehended by warrant from the Lord Mayor of the City of London ;
and, this day, by the care of the officers of the city, the dispute at Pauls,
touching the deity of Christ, was dismist." See "Perfect Proceedings
of State Affairs." No. 301.
↑ Thomas Burton, the writer of this Diary.
Almost entirely from the Goddard MS. pp. 134, 135.
1658-9.]
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
119
House duly elected were kept out by force, and many that
voted there, I mean the Irish and Scottish members, there
being then no law in force for them, had no more right to
vote than the vintner at the bar. And, farther, it was car-
ried but by three, and in a precipitant and unparliamentary
way.
But as to the matter of that law, it is somewhere said, that
nothing can be added or taken from it. I wish we do not
draw God's judgment by such light eloquence.
It is said we cannot untie the knots. But I would not
have it said that any knot cannot be untied in this place, and
I think that that law called the Petition and Advice, is the
most destructive to the nation of any that ever passed within
these walls, because the militia and negative voice are placed
in the single person, with another negative, and charged
upon us.
King James was wont to say that Kings were made for
Commonwealths, and not Commonwealths for Kings. If you
find that a single person so qualified be not for the good of
the people and the Commonwealth, I hope you will alter it in
that particular. But if you will confirm as this makes him,
you will put as great power into his hands as ever King had.
I profess, with sobriety and in the singleness of my spirit,
that I know not what the messengers of the people shall then
answer at their return, to such as shall ask what we have done
for their liberties, but only ruina Angliæ.
Now God hath put a power into our hands; considering
what exceptions have been taken to former endeavours of set-
tlement, let us lay such foundations as shall be free from
such exceptions. So you may well be called a healing Par-
liament.
I therefore move that the debate be referred to a Grand
Committee of the House.
Sir Robert Goodwin. If ever we were called upon to settle
and compose things, certainly now. Let us eschew what may
cause difference hereafter, that we may be able to answer it to
God and the world.
120
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The Long Parliament did great and glorious things for
the first eight years. Then, I confess, it is best to sigh them
out in sorrowful silence.
But, briefly, as to the Bill. What I shall propound has
been propounded already; that we should proceed to recog-
nize and acknowledge his Highness to be Protector of Eng-
land, &c. upon good foundations, and in doing so we shall be
true and faithful. Draw it into an Act. But we have ano-
ther trust from the people to discharge, for our country.
We cannot proceed so far as to establish the House of Lords
now sitting. It would not consist with the fundamental
constitution of the nation. If so, then it is against the law;
against the oath, the greatest tie. But it will be said;
1. We are upon a new footing.
We are a Parliament of England; not setting up a Parlia-
ment of France or any other nation.
2. This comes in with a legislative power.
But all the circumstances must be examined.
3. We are his Highness's greatest council.
But we must not alter old laws. A law that took away
the Star Chamber, provided that if any one do an act against
the law of the nation, he shall lie under a great guilt, and be
unable to dispose of any thing that is his own. This law is
in force, but this House of Lords would not consist with the
House, in oath. We must in that be very tender.
Temp. i. Edw. III. A Judge did rule against the oath of
the Supreme Magistrate. This was urged by John Pym in the
beginning of the Long Parliament. What was thought of
this Judge? He was by the next Parliament condemned to
die, because it was not only done contrary to his own oath,
but the oath of the Supreme Magistrate.*
tr
* I cannot find any record of such a transaction, i. Edw. III. Fe-
bruary 19, 1388. Rich. II. this sentence of the Parliament was ex-
ecuted the same day," upon Sir Robert Tresilian, Lord Chief-Justice
of England, “that he should be carried to the Tower, and from thence
drawn upon a hurdle through the City of London, to the gallows at
Tyburn, and there to hang by the neck; and that the execution should
1658-9.]
121
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
If we proceed to recognize his Highness, we shall be true
and faithful to him, and build upon a true foundation. It
will preserve him and us, to build upon a good foundation,
and prove a blessing from God to posterity.
Mr. Mitford. That which calls me up is the concern of
my own spirit, and of the public good, and the oath I have
taken. As two hundred men went up with Absalom,* I came
in with the integrity of my conscience, and an oath upon me
religiously done. Every oath carries in the bowels of it a
God do so to me,
In the original it signifies a curse.
curse.
and more also.
1st. Particular. The safety of his Highness's person. If
that may be provided for, I shall leave all the rest.
2d. Of more public concernment. The present safety and
good of this nation. Yesterdaynight, I had intelligence that
the Hollanders were working day and night, preparing a very
formidable fleet. I am afraid this debate will be long, and it
may retard the proceedings of the Navy. I would have you
put a speedy end to it.
Mr. Drake. I know not how long the debate we are upon
may last. There may be a long interregnum, and many in-
conveniences may happen to this nation. Yet I am for the
be done upon him by the Marshall of England, taking to his assistance
the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Aldermen of London."
December 22, 1640, on the accusation of "the Lord Chief-Justice
Bramston, and four other Judges," a speaker, whose name was not
preserved, but whom Sir R. Goodwin might have recollected to be Mr.
Pym, thus refers to the earlier impeachment:-
"Our honourable ancestors taught us, in the just and exemplary
punishments of Chief-Justice Tresilian and his complices, for giving
their judgments out of Parliament, against the established laws of Par-
liament, how tender they were of us. How careful then ought we to
be, to continue those laws, and to preserve the liberty of our posterity.
"I am far from maligning the person, nor, in my heart, wish I the
execution of any man; but certainly it shall be a justice well-becoming
this House, to lay their heads at his Majesty's mercy, who laid us under
his feet; who had made us but tenants at will of our liberties and our
estates." See Parl. Hist. i. 457, ix. 189.
* 2 Sum, xv. 11.
122
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
commiting of the Bill. But I would have it, in the meantime,
asserted, that the present Lord Protector is the undoubted
Chief Magistrate or Governor of the three nations of England,
Scotland, and Ireland, &c.
His Highness is admitted by your call and the people's ac-
knowledgment. His authority is materia substrata. The
ascertaining of his power is very necessary. It will avoid the
hindrance of home and foreign intercourse. Justices will
otherwise be slack in performing their offices.
If we should come to a Commonwealth, there would be
twenty kings in a Committee; which would be a greater op-
pression than the Seven Kings.*
My motion is that you declare his Highness to be the un-
doubted Governor and Lord Protector of the three nations.
Sir John Lenthall. I am for a single person to govern
this nation. We have had good success under them. A
kingdom is but a great family.
To prevent inconveniences, I would have the single person
to be declared, and to be regulated and bounded as soon as
may be, that he may not impose upon us. We have suffered
in our laws, liberties, and properties; and we may unravel
this Government so far as to bring us where we were.
We cannot be so disingenuous as not to admit the other
House to be part of the Constitution. If a better Govern-
ment had been presented, I should probably have been of
their opinion. I think it but cynical and fanciful. I had ra-
ther have a cottage here, than a glorious palace in the air.
I would have his Highness made as great as ever was King
in England, that he may defend the Protestant religion.
My motion is, that you proceed to pass the Bill, and the
sooner the better.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. It was well moved that 2,000l. a
day would be given by the Hollander, for you to spend time
in these long speeches.+
It is our undoubted constitution to be governed by a single
person and a Parliament. There never was any other Go-
vernment, neither in England nor Scotland. There have
1
* See supra, p. 88.
↑ Ibid, p. 117.
1658-9.]
123
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
been three hundred sessions of Parliament in England since
the Conquest (per Sir Edward Coke.)
The Long Parliament, at first, never dreamt of any other
Government. A change of Government was never moved in
Parliament till by the late Lord Protector, yesterday ten
years. A single person was voted useless, and you yourselves
voted useless also.
I could tell you current stories of the tyranny of a Com-
monwealth. Look into Carthage; Athens. See Sir Wal-
ter Raleigh.* Every man had liberty to find out the richest
to destroy for himself.
Therefore I would have his Highness, by a previous vote,
declared to be Protector and Chief Magistrate, and Governor
of these nations. Else a fortnight's time may be spent in
this debate.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. It is against the orders of the
House, to move us by arguments of fear, or any other ar-
guments without doors. They ought not to be made use
of within this House, so as to pass great things over on that
We should be above it. We came to serve God
and our country, and not to make business of greatest con-
cernment to be huddled over in haste. Let us lay founda-
tions for posterity.
account.
Sir Walter Earle. We have had stories of flat-bottomed
boats, but we did always esteem of them accordingly.
Mr. Edgar. We cannot bring the constitutions of the
Saxons, Romans, or Normans, to our purpose.
The Long Parliament had good things in it: de mortuis
nil nisi bonum. They had a good constitution. Other Par-
liaments had not so good a constitution. By our oath we
are not so bound up, but we may dispute it.
* He says of the Carthaginians, (b. v. c. 1. s. ii.), that "the people,
in later times, usurped too great authoritie in their councels,” and
that “this, together with the trust they reposed in hired soldiers, were
helping causes of their destruction:" of the Athenians, (b. iii. c. 8. s. i,)
that they were eager and violent, suddaine in their conclusions, and
as hastie in the execution." To these, he prefers the Lacedæmonians,
who were
"slow in their deliberations, full of gravitie, but very reso-
lute;" while both " deserved the plague of tyranny, having first given
(6
124
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
One side would have no Lords at all; others, none of
those, consilium magnatum, very ancient, if my book fail not.
But in the country whence I come, the people are much
discontented that the ancient nobility should be neglected and
set aside. I speak not for those that have forfeited. Ubi
culpa, ibi pœna. The laws are great protectors of their privi-
leges. I am no Leveller. It is as much justice to give a
man honour as any pecuniary debt. No, I am for a House
of Lords, upon this ground; because ancient. The elder
ought to have priority over the younger. I am a younger
brother myself, and I honour my elder. I would not have
oaths to be the foundation of your declaration.
Peace and justice are the pillars of a Commonwealth. The
Temple was not built in time of war. (44 Psalm.) An equal
distribution of justice, hence came all powers. The Lord
Protector has printed it to the eyes, that it is his principle to
be advised by Parliament. I am much taken with it. He
agrees that the purse is yours. I should thence think that he
admits you also a property in the sword. I have no way to
know his heart, but from his mouth. I never saw the Lord
Protector but twice, and he did publish the same things that
I speak of. The sweetness of his voice, and language 'so
sweet, that he has won my heart. I never had the least fa-
vour from him, and hope I shall never deserve his frown.
I find the people well satisfied with his Government.
Mr. Trevor. This Bill ought to be committed. Yet there
is much fit to be resolved beforehand, which is too big for a
Committee. First, to declare his Highness to be the lawful
Chief Magistrate. This will not admit of delay. The rest of
things may bear their time.
I shall not debate the merits of the title. I shall not
urge the arguments we brought in with us. If we doubt
whether there was and is a lawful Chief Magistrate, by what
authority came we here?
I see gentlemen not willing to take that. Yet we have
occasion thereunto by their great ambition, which wearied and weaken-
ed all the country by perpetual war." See "The Historie of the
World," (1614,) pp. 72, 266.
1658-9.]
125
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
3
either sworn to a thing not in being, or else he is lawful
Chief Magistrate. If it be said the acknowledgment is but a
form, it is such a form as never Parliament sat without it.
When we are gone hence, those that come after us will dis-
pute our authority. It is the wisdom of all Parliaments to pro-
vide for peace. The peace of the people should be the main
consideration of a Parliament. This is a full free Parliament
(some few exceptions against the form, but few, or none,
against members) but if we dispute away their right of these
things, we shall be neither full nor free.
The worst of princes never wanted recognition. It is at
the people's charge, that all Governments are obtained and
settled. There was never more need of a prudent and
patient Parliament, to fix our peace upon a civil interest.
None except against the person. We are content to declare
he shall be so; let us declare that he is so. To defer this, is
at once to leave the people loose from all authority. The
people were lately delivered from this fear on the death of his
late Highness.
Mr. Higgons. This is the first Parliament that ever I sat
in, so that I might be silent; yet the business being of con-
sequence, I shall give you my opinion.
I find most that discourse of Parliament, say of it, that
this is such a crisis of time as never was; and that on this
depend the happiness and glory of the nation. I hope the
prudence will be such that we shall oblige the generations to
come.
We have had to combat together about the privileges of
our country. I cannot see how the rights of the people or
their liberties are endangered or injured by a single person;
while the laws give every man what is his own.
It is my
opinion (what! should I speak of my opinion, when in such a
majesty and wisdom ?), the wisest men's opinion was for that
monarchy, where all innocent men were safe, and nocent punish-
ed. Commines,* that French statesman, knew all Governments,
* Phillippe de Commines, Knight, Lord of Argenton, became, in
early life, a favourite courtier of Charles Duke of Burgundy, from
whom he passed into the service of Louis XI.; in consequence of a
degrading, but well-merited affront from the Duke :-
126
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
and agreed the monarchy of England to be the most
perfect.
CC
À un retour de chasse, Commines fatigué, s'étant assis, avait poussé
la familiarité, ou plutôt le manque de respect, jusqu'à dire à son jeune
maitre Charles, tirez-moi mes bottes!; que le Prince en effet les avait
tirées en riant; mais qu'en riant aussi, il avait pris une des bottes, et
en avait frappé rudement la tête de Commines, qu'était devenu la fable
de la cour de Bourgogne." Nouv. Dict. Hist. (1789,) iii. 32.
Commines died in 1509, aged 64. He has frequent occasion to men-
tion the Princes and the affairs of England; but I am not aware in
what passage of his work he commends, according to this speaker, the
perfection of the English Government. Later Frenchmen, especially
Voltaire and Montesquieu, have been lavish in its praise, assuming the
independence on each other, of the three legislative powers; Ponderi-
bus librata suis, according to the motto from Ovid, which De Lolme
annexed, in 1774, to his "Constitution de l'Angleterre," taken, with
great, but perhaps unconscious propriety, from the Metamorphosis.
These foreigners probably never heard of
"Election, but a market vile
Of slaves self-barter'd
or of the manner in which that market is regularly supplied. Yet Mr.,
now Earl Grey, in 1793, offered to prove, at the bar of the House of
Commons, that of the 513 members for England and Wales, 327 were
returned by 2611 persons, from among the millions. Of these 327, 82
were nominated (besides an extensive influence, and undisguised ap-
pointments by the Treasury,) by 91 Commoners; and 88 by 71 Peers,
though it is gravely voted in every Parliament, to be a breach of privi-
lege for a Peer to interfere in any elections. See "The State of the
Representation, delivered February 9, 1793, to the Society of the Friends
of the People, associated for the purpose of obtaining Parliamentary
Reform," passim.
The Memoires of Commines attracted the attention of Elizabeth's
principal statesmen, though they appear to have been little familiar
with his language. I have now before me a translation, in 1596, dedi-
cated to the Lord Treasurer, Burghley, and of which he had long pos-
sessed a copy in manuscript. The following commencement of Thomas
Danett, the translator's address, may be worthy of quotation, especially
as displaying the apprehensions entertained in "the golden days of
good Queen Bess," of admitting the people," the vulgare sort," behind
the scenes, to discover the complicated, if not cumbrous machinery of
the political drama :-
"It is now, Right Honorable, thirty yeers since I presented to your
Lordship, and the late Earle of Leicester, my Lord and Master, the
Historie of Commines, rudely translated into our vulgare tongue, the
1
1658-9.]
127
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
:
By princes St. George's cross was planted upon the walls
of Jerusalem. By princes were all great achievements.*
which, of later times, at the request of the late Lord Chauncellor, Sir
Christopher Hatton, I perused anew, and enlarged with such notes and
pedigrees, as seemed necessary, as well for explanation, as (in some few
places) for correction of the historie. Since his death, certain gentle-
men, to whose hands the booke happened to come, tooke so great plea-
sure and delight therein, that they determined to put it to the presse.
And albeit that I alleaged many reasons, why, in my conceit, bookes of
this nature, treating of princes' secrets, were unfit to be published to
the vulgare sort, the rather because the author, in some places, seemeth
to be of that opinion himself. Yet none of my reasons could prevail;
so that, would I, nould 1, to the presse the booke must go.”
The translator says of his author, "He was of tall stature, faire com-
plexion, and goodly personage. The French tongue he spake perfectly
and eloquently, the Italian, Duche, and Spanish, reasonably well. He
had read over very diligently all histories written in French, especially
of the Romaines, and bare them all in memory. He much acquainted
himself with strangers, thereby to increase his knowledge. He had
great regard to the spending of his time, and abhorred all idleness. He
was of an excellent, yea, incredible memorie; for he often indited at
one time to fower secretaries, severall letters of waightie affaires, ap-
pertaining to the state, with as great facilitie and readiness, as if he had
but one matter in hand; a vertue so rare, that I have not read the like,
but of Julius Cæsar and him."
* This speaker might have said as much for Consuls. His reference
to the story of the Crusades, that marvellous infatuation of princes,
priests, and people, was singularly unhappy, as an attempt to recom-
mend the preference of royal government. Quidquid delirant reges,
plectuntur Achivi, (Kings quarrel, at the people's expense) is a too appro-
priate motto of almost all history. Hence, it has been well expressed,
as a result of the world's experience, that,
"War is a game which, were their subjects wise,
Kings would not play at."
According to Gibbon, (ch. lviii.) “July 15, 1099, on a Friday, at
three in the afternoon, the day and hour of the passion, Godfrey of
Bouillon stood victorious on the walls of Jerusalem." These secular
glories of the Cross have been sometimes sanctioned, at least by their
phraseology, among men far more enlightened than Crusaders, or, pro-
bably, than most of the speakers in Richard's Parliament. Dr. Blair, in
a sermon, "On the Death of Christ," when describing the Saviour's
consoling foresight of the eventual triumph of his religion, thus elo-
quently takes up the language of exultation over Jews and Heathens:-
128
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
After sixteen hundred years experience of this government
by a single person, shall we now go to change? Your great
ally, the French, is threatened on every hand. The King of
Spain, once on his knees, is now on horseback, by the Aus-
trian family being possessed of the empire. Let us settle
this at home, and we shall carry on our business in Flanders.
Mr. Chaloner. When I came first to the door of this
House, I made no more doubt that my Lord Protector was
the supreme magistrate, than that you sit here; but by what
I have heard since I came, that which was clear to me then,
is now a doubt. I hear an interregnum much spoken of.
What doth an interregnum signify, but that we are without
a government at present, and therefore you are not now to
recognize, but to elect; not to declare a Chief Magistrate,
but to make one.
Those threatenings from the Dutch, are but tricks. If
this had not been brought in, you might have gone a great
"The cross was to shine on palaces and churches, throughout the
earth. It was to be assumed as the distinction of the most powerful
monarchs, and to wave in the banner of victorious armies, when the me-
mory of Herod and Pilate should be accursed; when Jerusalem should
be reduced to ashes, and the Jews be vagabonds over all the world.”
Would not a reader imagine, that the glad notes from the "sweet
harp of prophecy” had been reversed, and that the kingdom of Christ
had become a kingdom of this world. Who does not prefer the lan-
guage which Milton ascribes to the Saviour, when Satan would urge the
persevering pursuit of martial fame? (P. R. iii. 71.)
"They err, who count it glorious to subdue
By conquest far and wide, to over-run
Large countries, and in field great battels win.
But if there be in glory aught of good,
It may by means far different be attain'd
Without ambition, war, or violence;
By deeds of peace, by wisdom eminent."
Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lorrain, was immediately elected King
of Jerusalem, by "the Christian Princes, generals, and commanders.”
The kingdom subsisted till 1162, under five Latin Kings. Sandys, in
1611, visited at Jerusalem, the tombs of Godfrey, and the Princes of his
See Travels, (1673,) p. 127.
race.
* See vol. ii p. 355, note.
1658-9.]
129
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
way in the business of paying your army. The fault is not
in the country.
It
As to the Bill, it is but short. It is not a speech.*
is a Bill. Debate it in parts. I shall address myself to the
principal verb, and that is, recognition. It must be handled.
It must be touched. There can be no recognition, before a
cognition. From whence was that?
1. It is said, from the people, and so testified by the Bill.
Where did these people meet? In their collective body,
or by representatives? Not in their collective. I know
no House, no field, that could contain them. I value not
the addresses, because I know how they were procured. If
you should set up a Committee of addresses, as there is of
privileges, there would be as many complaints for fasle ad-
dresses, as for false elections. The people are only in their
representative. I am sure there hath been no recognition yet,
by you, who are here the representative body.
2. The Judges affirm it. They sit at Westminster, and
they cognize.
I wonder not at this. The long robe will sit and do justice
though a tyrant be in the throne. The Judges sat under
Richard III., while he suffered them to judge by law.
*Probably an allusion to the long speech of Sir Arthur Haslerigge.
Such was the language used by a justly celebrated pamphleteer,
when sending forth his arrows, even bitter words, against the former
Protector:-
"Have not the people of England," says Cromwell's acute and rigor-
ous censor, "much reason to ask the Protector this question: Quis
constituit te virum principem et judicem super nos? Who made thee a
Prince and a judge over us? If God made thee, make it manifest to
us: if the people, where did we meet to do it? Who took our subscrip-
tions? To whom deputed we our authority? And when and where did
those deputies make the choice?" Killing no Murder, (1734), p. 9.
The first appearance of this formidable pamphlet has been noticed,
vol. ii. p. 312, note. Colonel Edward Sexby, (see vol. i. p. 354, note,)
before his death in the Tower, January 13, 1657-8, “owned the book
called Killing no Murder, and said he was still of that judgment.”
Mercurius Politicus, Nos. 398, 399.
་
VOL. II.
K
130
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
3. The Council hath proclaimed him.
They did wisely, to prevent confusion and blood. But, by
this objection, you may see the rare affection of a single per-
son, who, when he dies, endangers the peace of a whole
nation.
4. We do sit here by this authority, and by that we cog-
nize him.
It is easy to make it appear, that a Parliament called by
one that had no authority to call them, yet, being come to-
gether, they are a lawful Parliament, and what they do is
lawful. Richard III., Henry IV., V., and VI., were all
usurpers, and yet their laws were good and unquestionable.
Let no man say, that his Highness is not Lord Protector.
I never thought the contrary. I believe he is, and that it
may be made out; but it is not yet made out to us, and it is
not fit for the representatives of the people to contest they
know not what.
Besides, the Bill is not well penned, not in a Parliament-
ary state.
Every secretary must know his master. If I
be a secretary to a Lord; to a Lord temporal I ought to
write not as to a Lord spiritual. Every secretary ought to
write what is to pass a Parliament, not as he writes his mys-
teries. The style of a Parliament ought to be plain and
perspicuous, grave, majestic, and commanding.
The form of the Bill ought to have been thus: "Whereas,
by the humble Petition and Advice," and so recite the whole
Act, as to the nomination of a successor. Then it should
have followed, that " in pursuance of the said Act, the late
Lord Protector did nominate and appoint," &c., reciting the
manner of his Highness's declaration, naming in whose pre-
sence, and that it was under the great seal. This would have
been more plain, parliamentary, and full of satisfaction. Let
all these things be examined at a Committee.*
* "All this was said because it was verily believed, that the nomina-
tion, according to that Act, could very hardly be made out; and if there
were any, it was but a puzzled nomination, and that very dark and im-
perfect." Goddard MS. p. 139.
1658-9.]
131
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Skipwith. Let it be examined by what authority the
ancient constitution was taken away by a handful of the
House of Commons.* I would, in the first place, acknow-
ledge his Highness, as is moved. He, we, are called by the
law, and chosen so. I know no law to take away the House
of Lords.
Mr. Steward. In this dilemma, you must either acknow-
ledge this government, or else you will ravel into all that has
been done since 47.
Either we have an old government lawfully established, or
a new government. The authority that set it up was as law-
ful as that which took it away. If not lawfully taken away,
your debate is at an end. A great many reflections yester-
day might have been spared.
I
I am bound to defend the acts of the last Parliament.
know no force. The interest of the nation never will be stood
to so much as they did. I was scandalized at keeping out
your members, and absented myself two or three months.
You had lost your purse and balance, those you have restored
to you by them.
A perpetual law was established by the old Government.
Not only now determined as to time, three years; but con-
tracted to half by the quantity, 25,000l. You have now
bounded his Highness by the laws of the nation, that he
cannot, without violation of the laws and his oath, break in
upon your property.
A great weight is in your oath. He is owned by all the
people of England. We have all, or the most of us, recog-
nized his Highness in that capacity. We have done it as the
people's representatives. If another man authorize me to do
an act, it is his act. The single question is, whether we shall
all do, what we have severally done. Malice itself cannot
fasten on our Supreme Magistrate, and this is something to
me of a divine suffrage.
My motion is, that it may pass with all speed.
Mr. Attorney-General. I would have all things past, to
* See vol. ii. p. 431, note †.
+ Per mensem. See Ibid. p. 458, note.
K 2
132
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
settle. Faults
pass away. You are now to make laws to
have been in all times, and are easily found. If we stand to
strict formalities, we must look further back than is meant.
The people, I believe, are willing to forgive and forget all.
We are now to go on to settlement. The Parliament did
still kick off some of the prerogatives which were exorbitant.
No man is so unwise, but he will circumscribe the Chief Ma-
gistrate. I hope we shall have a concurrence. I have served
here many years. I find no man give just exception against
Without guile or gall,* was a good expression.
I hear of none to remove him, nor in competition with him.
Why should not we willingly own him, and cheerfully, against
whom there are no exceptions? There has been debate
enough. While we stand doubting here, I doubt we shall
breed greater doubts in the minds of the nation. Then why
should not we declare this as is moved? Else it will breed
doubts abroad.
the man.
. Mr. Neville. I wish the questions were regularly before
you, that we might speak to them. There are three ques-
tions before you.
1. To lay the recognition aside.
2. To commit it, which is proper and regular.
3. To declare a previous vote.
I wish a Bill had been brought in.
It has been said that the Chief Magistrate is King, and
that his office is hereditary. If nothing has been done to
take away those powers, then Charles Stewart has undoubted
right.
I am for a single person, a senate, and a popular assembly;
but not in that juggling way. King, Lords, and Commons
I cannot like. This man is, at least, actually, if not legally,
settled the Chief Magistrate.
As to the objection of fears, never was greater quiet and
peace for three months, than when the last Government was
in debate, and why should it not be so now.
Since the dissolving the old Government, we have had
* See supra, p. 104.
1658-9.]
133
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
many alterations without success, which hath happened be-
cause every Government hath had some flaw in it which hath
not yet been seen.
It was not the civil war that altered our Government, but
tendencies to the alteration of Government that caused the
civil war.
It is in your power, as the sovereign power of
the nation. Imperium fundatur in dominatione, that is an
infallible maxim. The people are not like a young heir that
hath squeezed wax,* by which being once bound, it is too late
after for him to repent. If one have power to do any thing,
he may and will do it.
William the Conqueror came in with an intent to seize all
the lands. He was only prevented by the privilege of the
Church; that saved us. I mean the Church of Rome, not our
Church, if we have any.
The Barons got a great share, and having a considerable
part of the land, and no part in the Government, they began
to stir and ruffle with the King; and in fine got authority,
and gave laws both to King and Commons, until King Henry
VII.'s time. He designed to weaken the hands of the no-
bility and their power. But Henry VIII. did more by dis-
solving many of the abbeys, and distributing their lands
among the Commons.
The Commons, till Henry VII., never exercised a negative
voice. All depended on the Lords. In that time it would have
been hard to have found in this house so many gentlemen of es-
tates. The gentry do not now depend upon the peerage. The
balance is in the gentry. They have all the lands.† Now
Lords, old or new, must be supported by the people. There
is the same reason why the Lords should not have a negative
voice, as that the King should not have a negative; to keep
up a sovereignty against nature. The people of England
will not suffer a negative voice to be in those who have not a
* On a seal and delivery, as his "act and deed.”
"Query whether this equality or almost parity hath not more
enforced that argument of late, by distributing King, Queen, Bishops',
and delinquents' lands." Goddard MS. p. 140.
134
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
natural power over them. And for the Militia, that power
which was to be employed for the preserving of laws, that
was employed against them. No power will acquiesce in the
taking away their own power. When we are naturally free,
why should we make ourselves slaves artificially?
Let us not return to the Government of the Long Parlia-
ment. It was an oligarchy,* detested by all men that love a
Commonwealth: so that whosoever lays that upon us, it was
not the Government contended for. We that are for a Com-
monwealth, are for a single person, senate, and popular as-
sembly;† I mean not King, Lords, and Commons. I hope
that will never be admitted here. I shall speak to it after-
wards.
The Petition and Advice settled power in a prince to have
kingly authority over a people. Never think that settling
such powers as are not consistent with a free people, can do
your business. There will be hauling and pulling, and irre-
gular proceedings: witness many late exorbitances in the Go-
vernment, of which I will not say you ought to call them to
a severe account that have been instrumental; but this I
will say, that either you ought to call them to account, or to
mend the constitution, so as there may be no danger for the
future. It will be in vain to recognize any body, till you
have provided for the liberty of the people.
I shall move that this Bill be laid aside, and to declare the
Protector to be Chief Magistrate. He is the fittest person of
any man in England. I would have him so; but leave it not
to Westminster-hall to interpret what is meant by the Chief
Magistrate. I could wish he were a magistrate, as supreme
as the nation will bear at this day; but I know not what mis-
representations may be made of it.
Your David, that had shed a great deal of blood, was as
safe as any man, while you were settling the Government.
re
* Thus Neville's associate, Harrington, censures the Long Parliament
an oligarchy, a council without a balance, a parliament consisting
of a single assembly." See Oceana (1656), p. 49, in Harris's Lives (1814,)
as
iii. 321.
The first exception to the remark, vol. ii. p. 460, note.
1658-9.]
135
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
There is no danger of this pious person. I would have you
declare this man to be Chief Magistrate, under such rules
and limitations as you shall agree upon. And let this be de-
bated in a Grand Committee.
Sir William D'Oyley. I move that he be declared to be
Protector, according to the known laws of the nation, and
privileges of Parliament.
Mr. Bodurda. I shall not be long at this time of day. I
can inform the gentleman that there was an Act of Recogni-
tion of his Highness in the former Parliament. The House
thought fit to postpone it in that case, but the reason is not
so in this case. There are two heads.
1. The consequence of the arguments objected.
2. The consequence of the thing laying it aside.
It is proposed not to take for granted the Petition and
Advice.
1. Because it was not a free Parliament.
By what law were all public lands sold? Was the Par-
liament free, or the major part turned out for wranglers,
though by the majority of the nation, thought to be as fair
gamesters as those within? The Army were sent to, and the
Parliament agreed to the reason they gave for keeping them
out. I could speak of private Acts, Acts of Oblivion, and
divers acts of consequence which will fall by it, if now we go
into a Commonwealth. Consider you will find a great part
of the lands of the balance in those lands at Goldsmiths'-hall.
The Petition and Advice was made as freely as any law
since the beginning of the Long Parliament. Never was
property settled better than in that. The 1,300,0007.* was the
hardest article that ever was. It was there asserted to be the
undoubted right of the people, that no tax be laid but by
their representative.
This House had been full of your enemies. That chair
had been filled by those that would have been the Protector
as much as any man here.
His Highness may dissolve you, if he please, within this
Seo vol. ii. pp. 457, 158, note ‡.
136
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
now.
hour. If so, then they that come next may do all this. If
ever there was an opportunity to settle the nation, certainly
If there be a breach or rupture now, it will be found
that some friends will support the cause. Major-generals
may return with a breach in the city and in the country.
Consider the consequence of the fact. I got no fish when
the waters were troubled.* I have no more privilege but as
any commoner by this Government.
Let us clear this business. Some would have it in a Grand
Committee. Some would lay it aside. I have heard it said,
every man may speak as often and as long as he will. How
then shall we in a Committee find out the constitution of
Government. If it come to that, I shall speak while I have
breath against a Republic.
My motion is for a previous vote, that his Highness is law-
ful Magistrate, &c.
Mr. Solicitor-General. I shall not trouble you with a long
speech. The history of the past times is very sad. I hope
we shall now look forward. I do agree with those gentle-
inent that would have it better worded.
The question lies narrow, whether those words shall stand
in the Bill, that his Highness is Lord Protector, &c. that
your Committee may build upon that. I am not of their
opinion that would have it laid aside. Foreign nations will
say, you are debating whether his Highness be Chief Ma-
gistrate. What will all people that have owned the Govern-
.
CC
*This Speaker, probably one of those adherents of Charles Stuart in
disguise, described by Dr. Bates and Lord Clarendon, as members of
this Parliament, had now a lucrative place, (see vol. ii. p 433, note,)
and he put himself into the right road on the Restoration; (see supra,
p. 110,) when he assisted, by his seemingly willing recollections, to des-
troy Mr. Justice Cook; having," as he describes it, a conveni-
ency out of his house into a gallery, that was some part of it over the
Court." There he listened to the King's trial, perhaps even then de-
pending on "the chapter of accidents" to turn his hearing to good ac-
count. That sordid lawyer, William Lenthall, unworthy to have been
Speaker of the Long Parliament, performed the same ill office for Mr.
Scot. See" Tryals of the Regicides," pp. 74, 90.
† Sce supra, p. 130.
1658-9.]
137
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
ment say? I doubt judges and justices of peace will all be
at a stand. I hope we shall not part, till this be resolved,
if those words shall stand. I hope there will be no negative.
Colonel Terrill. We do but beat the air. It is granted
by all that his Highness is Protector, and should be owned as
Chief Magistrate. I shall neither defend nor maintain any of
the actions done. I shall not depend on the Petition and
Advice. We shall do him greater honour to declare him by
this House, which will be a most firm foundation. We find
him in the place. Let us acknowledge him in the power.
We cannot recognize, without looking back, which I would
not do; cognize we may, which looks forward: but whether
by the Bill before you, or by any other way, I am indifferent.
The question will be, whether we shall take the Bill up at a
rebound. I would agree that it might be taken for granted;
that the Bill may be committed, granting his Highness to be
Protector for life, with some limitation. I am sorry to see
that his Highness cannot pass without something else. I am
for declaring him Chief Magistrate, but not with what goes
along with it, and which is intended to be received with it,
and keep him company.
I would have something put in to bound it. Monarchy
unbounded is but supreme tyranny.
If nothing go along
with it, I am afraid we shall give away all our liberties.
Therefore, I would have the Bill committed, with power given
to your Committee to add, amend, and expunge.
Colonel Birch. Plain dealing is best. There are two
ways to destroy a Bill.
1. A Grand Committee.
2. Like a pin in a wall; if you cannot knock it down with
an axe, hang so much on it as to break it down.
I am one of those that would not lose the least of the peo-
ple's liberties. This Bill before you is the best to clear some-
thing, and to make way to gain the rest by degrees and in
time.
All the time of the war there was no questioning of the
Meaning the other House." Goddard MS. p. 142.
138
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
foundation. I take it to be a man's mind, what he speaks.
First and last it was always declared to maintain the rights
of the people to three estates. How we came to lose it, the
foundation: it was an irresistible necessity.
Two parts
were turned out of the House; it was a truth. It arose from
a thing called an Agreement* and Proposals. When the
Jesuits had fought in the field against you, then they got
in here. Some were in your Army, dippers and creepers;
when that army, once out of the way, went further out of the
way. The enemies of our religion brought all this upon
us. See what congregations we had in 43, and what now.
It is questioned whether we have a Church in England;†
questioned, I doubt, whether Scripture or rule of life
is in England. I hope I shall be able to answer God and
good men, and bad men if they ask me, that what I move is
just. We are now resorting to old foundations. Will not
those enemies bring us in still new devices? It has been said
that Parliament men have desired some time, to know the minds
of those that sent us. It would give no satisfaction to tell
them we have spent so much time in debating whether we shall
have a single person. When I was in the Army, some said,
"Let us not go this way, lest the war be ended too soon." I
am afraid this is the aim of some here. If you set up hungry
bellies, the nation will be starved, before their bellies be filled.
My motion is for the previous vote, and then to refer it
to a Committee; but that is too great a power for a Com-
mittee. Make it part of the Bill, and put it before you
rise.
The question was loudly called for, and the Speaker stand-
ing up.
Colonel Bennet. Other questions ought to precede, lest
by stepping into this question, we do a thing we understand
not.
1. As to the Bill itself. We are not of one common un-
derstanding in the words of the question.
Some offer, that the Chief Magistrate intended is another
*See supra, p. 113, note §.
† Ibid, p. 133.
1658-9.]
139
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
than in the Petition and Advice. I cannot tell what power
he has (I know not his person), or how consistent it is with
our liberties. If we are about to do a thing contrary to our
understandings, it will not be improper to stay you from the
question, till we are better informed. I suppose it is the same
we are sworn to at the door.
When I hear such interpretations and glosses upon the
oath and the Covenant, which I never expected, I doubt
such an interpretation will be put upon this, if we easily pass
it. It is meet there should be a recognition singly; but I
hope we may stay awhile, and commit it so as to have liberty
to debate the parts. That which came first to your hands,
let it go first off your hands.
Mr. Raleigh. I scarce see one man against the question
of a single person; but we resolve not of the person that
must accept these conditions. I second what was moved,
that we resolve here to recognize a single person to rule
over us.
Mr. Hungerford. I thought in the morning to have found
a long speech. I would have the Bill committed with lay-
ing, as a foundation, this proviso, "That his Highness is the
lawful and Chief Magistrate, and Lord Protector of the
Commonwealth of England."
Mr. Hewley. It is a short point to acknowledge: first to
settle a being before a well-being: nothing so natural. This
single question will settle us all; you may debate the powers.
afterwards.
Mr. Swinfen. What I shall speak, shall only be to ripen
the question. This was raised in order to give directions to
your Committee, and is matter of great consequence. The
subject, his Highness; the act, Recognition. That which we
give freely, is quickly done, when freely done by a general
assembly, as here. I would not have the question perplexed.
The nearer our oath, the nearer the thing. There is nothing
in the oath requiring us to inquire into that Act; nor more
in this question, but that the House, by a previous vote,
make it part of the Bill to recognize his Highness to be the
undoubted rightful Lord Protector and Chief Magistrate.
}
140
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Let the oath be reconciled to your question, and it will pass
with unanimity. Now that the question is moved, we cannot
go off, without declaring him Protector. I hope you will
not include any monies, or other powers.
Mr. Freeman. You have here the bodies of three na-
tions before you. All offer to you the diseases, none offer
the cures. I cannot add more than what is said of his High-
ness. We are but to light our candles to the sun. The late
Protector was declared Protector without a Parliament. His
Highness might have forced us to do what we ought to do;
but so much sweetness and goodness. He might have brought
an army to your bar, to have forced this.
Lord Fairfax took him down, and moved that he be called
to the bar, for naming an army to be brought to this bar.
Mr. Reynolds. I move that, it being a first offence, he be
not called to the bar, but he may well explain.
Colonel Birch. He ought not to have taken him down.
Haply, he would have explained, if you had let him go on.
Mr. Attorney-General. I cannot justify the word.
I am
sorry it should fall from one of the long robe; but he should
be heard out. I may speak a word, and, if you take me at
half, you may take me at the worst.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. He was gone past explain-
ing. I have never known, but in such a case, he might be
taken down.
Mr. Freeman explained. Such force has been formerly.
I would not justify what is illegal. I desire we may be go-
verned by the laws. I would have his Highness recognized
with all the honours; and with this design, that Commons
may not kick down crowns, nor crowns Commons. I con-
clude with Colonel Birch's motion. (It was against the
orders of the House to name him.)
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am exceedingly against this
question, and
Colonel White took him down, saying, that he could not
speak till a question was propounded.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I may speak against propounding
the question. Though I spoke much yesterday, to the
1
1658-9.]
141
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
+
I
trouble of the House, I may to this question speak as much
more.
Serjeant May nard. I hope the gentleman will not speak
so much to the question as was said yesterday; yet to this
question, he may speak.
Captain Baynes. It was against the orders of the House
to name Colonel Birch.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I hope it shall never be in our
thoughts, by a previous vote, to declare this person to be
rightful, undoubted Protector, &c., and thus determine the
question about the rights of the people. If this pass, you
may sit to-day and be dissolved to-morrow. Yet the un-
doubted right of the people is, for the Parliament not to be
dissolved till all their grievances be heard; though the prac-
tice has been otherwise.
We must labour to behold the will of God. The Pro-
tectorship was granted to the late Protector for life, with
power to declare a successor. Shall not we examine this?
Now if this was not done, if no successor was declared, if
God prevented it, do we think that it becomes us to set up
one? It is a setting up what God has pulled down, and
planting what God has plucked up. You put us to petition
for our liberties.
It is most necessary first to declare the people's rights, the
fundamental rights. One Parliament may take into consider-
ation what another has done. Let the Bill be committed.
Were ever such things done in 500 years, as in these last
five years, to take the people's monies and liberties by a
power without doors? Let us not pass a question that the
wisdom of the nation shall say we had not thought on. I
perceive the generality is for a single person. I am not satis-
fied. If the wisdom of the House settle it so, I shall sub-
mit. If of God, it will stand; if not, it will wither.
would have the things for the people go hand in hand, that
the Chief Magistrate still be accountable.
I
I have delivered my opinion to you in his fear, God's
fear, that we may have a settlement, not to shatter, but to
establish; that this little world may give laws to the great
142
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
world. We are got free. We may make ourselves slaves if
we please. We are going one step to it, by this vote. There
is no danger while we sit here. I move now to rise. It is
one o'clock.
Mr. Weaver. The question called for, ought not to be the
question in your hands. The proper question is for com-
mitment of the Bill. A business of greater consequence than
every man here is aware of. The question comes not in singly.
There is much complicating in it. I am against the Bill
wholly, not because it came from a private hand. Yet it
had been more honourable if it had moved first from the
House. All liberty and power are fundamental in the
people.
In 54, the first block then laid in your way was the Recog-
nition at the doors,* and you know what followed. It was
then six days contended. Give me leave to offer Judge
Hale's expedient, after debating six days together, that the
single person in possession shall be the single person that shall
exercise the supreme magistracy of these nations, with such
powers, limitations, and qualifications as the Parliament after-
wards shall declare. This was proposed, as what would be
satisfactory, both within doors and abroad.
A gentleman looked more like a parasite of France,‡ than
* See vol. i. p. 273, note †.
+ One of the Justices of the Common Bench, and member in that
Parliament for the County of Gloucester. Though he had declined to
acknowledge Richard's Protectorate by renewing his commission, he
was serving in this Parliament for Oxford University.
Bishop Burnet says, inaccurately, that "he lived a private man till
the Parliament met that called home the King." It seems that when
"the rest of the Judges urged upon him to accept of the new commission,
and employed others to press him to accept of it, he rejected all their
importunities, and said,' he could no longer act under such authority.""
Yet, under Richard Lord Protector, he could make laws, though he
could not execute them. Such was the correct judgment and consist-
ent decision of this great lawyer, and (as appeared, vol. i. p. 26, note)
pre-eminent witch-finder." See "The Life and Death of Sir Matthew
Hale,” (1682) p. 49; Parl. Hist. xx. 299, xxi. 253.
+
Whose "body politick," Dr. Heylin, a contemporary royalist, thus
1658-9.1
143
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
!
I
an Englishman, that said we could not take away the Con-
stitution, nor meddle with the Petition and Advice.*
This expedient will answer all. Commit the rest.
Mr. Godfrey. I rise, not to take up your time, but to se-
cond that motion, which will draw into consent most of our
minds and judgments, and because it had good success when
offered by Judge Hales, I hope that expedient will have the
same effect now as then; but to pass it generally, leaves fears
with me.
If passed in the bare terms of the oath, it con-
cludes us.
I doubt, you will be bound up to the interpreta-
tion of your oath, in the largest sense.
I hope it will not give reason and ground of jealousy, that
you pass not this so hastily as is moved you. What is re-
presented to the judgments of this House under care and
caution, will not be called jealousy, but your duty and pru-
dence. And there is great reason to cautionate any preju-
dice that can be upon our rights and liberties, by a general
question. There have been great sufferings by the after con-
structions upon general terms, whether in subscriptions, votes,
or oaths. You will, uno statu, give all that is granted in the
Petition and Advice. That has been urged to you, on the
construction of the oath. One constituent power in that oath,
the single person, made that use of it. It may, nay, it must,
be so construed.
If you shall pass the general question, that he is Su-
preme Magistrate, and do no more, and rise after your vote,
and then be dissolved, all the Judges in Westminster Hall
would be bound by that vote. They would judge according
to the law in being, the Petition and Advice, for that, de facto,
is the law. Their work is not to question the power that
describes from personal observation: "The King, in his own conceit
boundless and omnipotent, is yet affronted by his nobles: which nobles
enjoy all freedom of riches and happiness; the poor peasant, in the
meantime, living in drudgery and bondage. The Lord and the King,
though otherwise at odds among themselves, be sure to agree in this,
the undoing and oppressing the peasant." See "France painted to the
Life." (1656) pp. 216, 229.
* Perhaps referring to " Major Beake,” supra, p. 114.
144
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
made it. Therefore I desire that expedient may be added.
I aim not at all to divert your question, but to make you
more safe. We are not secure, as some move the question,
unless something go along with it.
I think your appearance by his writ and call, owns him to
be the single person: so that it is not the question, single per-
son, or not single person. That is all at an end. Take cau-
tion against all the mischiefs that may follow, if it pass barely,
and I shall freely concur with the question. It will put out
all jealousies from men's minds, and at the same time, it will
put you into a way of settling all things that are for the good
of the people.
Mr. Gotl. I shall not go back to times past, nor look for-
ward to Oceana's* Platonical Commonwealth; things that are
not, and that never shall be. We go about to grasp more,
and lose that which we would have. I would have it plainly
stated. We have a copy to write by, the oath we have taken.
I would not have a debate about saying what we have sworn.
His Highness's oath to us is also considerable. These are
fundamentals. The last Parliament, though I was excluded,†
did pen this with a great deal of care and caution. I would
have us do so: neither add nor diminish from the oath. I
would have the words of the recognition penned in the words
of the oath. As Pilate said, "What I have written, I have
written;" so what I have sworn, I have sworn. Our oath
has bounded us and him too, to rule according to lex et con-
suetudo Anglia.
-
I move to have the question in the very words of the oath.
Mr. If you should absolutely make him Lord
Protector, you unbend him from that oath, unless you add,
that he shall govern according to law.
Mr. Goodrick moved to the same purpose.
Mr. Jenkinson. To add those qualifications, serves to con-
+
* See supra, p. 134, note ‡; Athen. Oxon. (1692), ii. 438-441; Brit.
Biog. (1769), v. 396-398. The diurnals of this time frequently refer to
the Oceana, describing, in a caricature style, the ballot and the rotation.
+ See vol. i. p. 262, note 1.
な
​† Blank in the MS.
1658-9.1
145
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I
clude that you intend not to qualify the Chief Magistrate in
this Bill.
Lieutenant-general Ludlow. The term is ambiguous, to
rule according to law. I would have you first determine
what you mean by law.
The great quarrel between the King and us, was the Mili-
tia. Either he or we were guilty. I look on myself as
guiltless of that blood. My conscience went along with the
Parliament, after the King was brought to justice.
When the interest of the nation was suitable to government
by Kings, (but that was when the constitution was another
thing than now it is,) the people might live peaceably and be
happy under kings. This House of Lords must be a coun-
cil of war.
I honour his Highness as much as any man that speaks
here. It will not appear that they are his best friends that
wish this for him. If we take the people's liberties from
them, they will scratch them back again. I doubt those gen-
tlemen that contend for the covenant,* are for King, Lords,
and Commons. I doubt they would see this man dragged at
a horse's tail, and King Charles set up.
I would have things settled for the Protector's honour and
safety. Such as shall desire to settle that upon him, which
is not for the interest of the nation, will be injurious to the
nation and to him.
Mr. Bulkeley. I am called up to defend what I said of
the covenant. I did it to invite us to unity and brotherly
love.
All is gone when you give this vote, that is comprised in
the Petition and Advice. Those powers are so great, that I
had rather vote him in as King, upon the terms of former
Kings, than give him this that is moved. We are between
Scylla and Charybdis. I would not have too little power
* See supra, pp. 105, 108, 139.
+ With the Lieutenant-General's attachment to a Commonwealth, he
probably designed, in this, his first speech, to insinuate that the Pro-
tector's "post of honour," was a private station.”
<<
VOL. III.
L
146
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
given, nor too great. This does actually give and put a royal
construction upon whatever you have, contained in the Pe-
tition and Advice. He may deny it. He may die, which I
fear more. I would trust him more than any man; but we
must not trust that. I would have those gentlemen that
think of another government, lay it aside, and only look to
the fitting the Government to this single person, making it
neither too wide nor too narrow. If it be not a present
investiture of him actually with whatever is granted by the
Petition and Advice, I wish I could learn it otherwise from
the gentlemen of the long robe, if that vote does not add nor
comprehend.
I take him not to be a person ambitious of power, but to
rule with the love of his people, not to grasp at greatness.
My motion is, for the additional words moved to the ques-
tion.
Colonel Matthews. I hope here is no driving of parties in
this House. I am confident it is not his Highness's aim to
grasp power, to the swallowing up the people's liberties. I
am for what is offered. I would not substract any thing that
is just for the Lord Protector to have, that he may see our
desire to set him upon a clear foundation.
I move for the additional words to the question.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge moved for opening the windows for
the safety of the House.
Captain Baynes. I wonder what is the necessity for this
previous vote. We are returned to the law of nature. It is
said in the Bill the people have all acknowledged him. I
thought the people had been only here. Either he is so, or
he is not so.
If so, there is no necessity for this House de-
claring him so. If not, there is need of some consideration.
The Bill makes it hereditary. Where it speaks of suc-
it mentions nothing of the Petition and Advice. It is
fit you should be satisfied whether he be so. It should be
made out. It makes him Supreme Magistrate, and gives
him as great a power as ever King of England had. I would
know what the words mean, if it give him not the executive
and legislative power as fully as any King. Consider whether
F
1658-9.]
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
147
you do not put yourselves out of a capacity of recalling your
liberties, by this step. First, you settle a monarch; one es-
tate before the other two.
I hope the gentlemen in the Other House, that have fought
against the negative voice, and for the militia, and got their
estates by it, will not now turn contrary. I said, indeed,*
four of them would not balance two knights. I will explain
this. There are forty knights in this House, that represent
more than the property of all the Other House. The House
of Lords, heretofore, could draw to the field half the nation.
They had great dependencies. They had a foundation, a pro-
priety, which was sufficient to support a third estate.
old Lords did stand in balance by their propriety.
The
The
We are not at the root and bottom of our business.
first thing is, to see the materials. All government is built
upon propriety, else the poor must rule it. All nations are
50. Let us therefore consider things before persons. It
was said, Moses was a king. You will find he was not so.
The Jewish commonwealth was founded in propriety; and
for fear of swallowing it up, and lest that Commonwealth
should turn to a change, the year of Jubilee was appointed,
* See supra, p. 31, where the MS. must have been incorrect.
† See supra, p. 75, note. "Government is built upon propriety,"
therefore lands, leases, or goods," should be represented, rather
than the people, or as Sir William Jones well described them, "what
constitutes a state." This assumption, generally admitted in modern
republics, readily sustained that system of slavery, the will of the few,
at the expense of the many, which universally prevailed, whatever may
have been fabled by historians, orators, and poets, in the miscalled free-
states of antiquity.
There had, indeed, been no republic that at all deserved the name,
before the Anglo-Americans vindicated their independence. Nor can
even their democracy become a worthy example till they are rescued
from the foul reproach of negro-bondage. An American patriot, signing
a declaration of independence with one hand, and with the other bran-
dishing his whip over a gang of " poor Blackamoors, used," according to
an early observer, "but as for horses or oxen;" (See Oriental Herald
(1827) xiii. 547) was a picture indignantly presented to the revolting
colonists, half a century ago, by the pen of Thomas Day.
X
7
L 2
148
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
that all lands should be restored, to balance proprieties. The
Lacedæmonian Government was founded on propriety.
The constitution of King, Lords, and Commons, can never
be suitable to this nation, as now constituted.
When the Lords were not able to maintain themselves,
some of them truckled under the King, some under the Par-
liament, as they could shift; and by late experience, what a
screen and complete balance were the Lords between the King
and the people? Do all that they could, the King, and them-
selves to boot, were most of them broken in pieces under the
Commons.
The people were too hard for the King in property; and
then in arms too hard for him. We must either lay the
foundation in property, or else it will not stand. Property,
generally, is now with the people; the government, therefore,
must be there.
If you make a single person, he must be a servant, and not
a lord; major singulis, minor omnibus. If you can find a
House of Lords to balance property, do it. Else, let a senate
be chosen by the election of the people,* on the same ac-
There must be a balance.†
count.
* The first hint I have observed, of the modern wise provision for the
practical utility of a republican government. See vol. ii. p. 460 note.
† This balance Blackstone professed to have discovered, in "three
distinct powers," which, as though he had never seen a Treasury-bench, he
ventured to represent as "totally independent of each other." Besides a
royal executive, with a veto at mere pleasure, there is "an aristocratical
assembly of persons, selected for their piety, their wisdom, their valour,
or their property." There is also " a kind of democracy, chosen by the
people from among themselves."
The construction of this "kind of democracy" has been described, on
good authority, supra, p. 126, note. I have just observed a confirmation,
in a very recent debate (May 8,) when it was stated, by a member for
Penryn, without provoking the least contradiction, "that out of the 658
members sent to the House, only 171 were sent by the people."
Lord Lyttleton, in his Persian Letters, (1735) to which Dr. Johnson
very naturally imputes a headstrong ardour for liberty," makes Selim,
in London, thus instruct Mirza, at Ispahan: “The House of Commons is
the representative of the nation; nevertheless, there are many great
1658-9.]
149
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Henry Vane.* I rise not to trouble you at this time.
Either adjourn for an hour, or till to-morrow.
The more
you see into it, the more you will see, when you come to em-
bowel it. I hope you will take care not to be surprized.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move to adjourn till to-morrow
morning.
Mr. Reynell. I move to adjourn. There are many gen-
tlemen to speak, and much to be said, both in relation to
yourselves and the supreme magistrate.
Mr. Grove. I move that you adjourn till to-morrow, and
limit men from long speeches, and that those that have spoken
may speak no more.
Mr. Reynolds. I believe, if that honourable gentleman†
that brought in the Bill, were here, he would move for the ad-
ditional words; but for the honour of your House, I would
have you not to pop off the question; but do it unanimously,
and in a full House.
Serjeant Maynard. By giving the Chief Magistrate this
title, you determine nothing about the legislative, which was
never in the King. Only the executive power is in question.
I would have no surprize to any, but would have it worded
according to every man's conscience. I would have the ques-
tion divided; for, if put generally, you will conclude some
towns, which send no deputies thither, and many hamlets almost unin-
habited, that have a right of sending two. Several members have never
seen their electors. All the electors swear not to sell their voices, yet
many of the candidates are undone by the expense of buying them."
Letter 7. Again. "The majority of the representative body is chosen,
not by the whole nation, but by a small and very mean part of it. There
are a number of boroughs, which have at present no other trade than
sending members to Parliament." Ibid. 53.
While the popular influence in the representation is so small, the local
influence of property is remarkably disproportioned. In 1794, "the
majority of the House of Commons," for England and Wales, was com-
puted to be “chosen by less than eight thousand, out of eight millions.”
At the same time, Cornwall returned forty-four members, and contri-
buted eight parts to the land-tax; while Middlesex contributed eighty
parts and returned only eight members.
* His first appearance.
+ Secretary Thurloe.
150
[FEB. 8,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
men's votes. I am against the adding those words in this
question. It does imply a negative, quoad nos.
The Bill has no life nor being
You en-
gage yourselves by a vote.
till all be agreed on. It signifies nothing, till the Bill be
passed. I would think of judges very ill, that should judge
laws in fact. I would have you divide the question.
Mr. Attorney-general. Propound the whole question, and,
lest any should be surprized, let the last be first.
Sir Henry Vane. There is much to be said to the whole
matter, before a question is propounded. You will surprize
men that have not spoken to it. It becomes not the gravity
of this House.
Mr. Bulkeley. Rather than dissatisfy that worthy gen-
tleman, let him be heard speak first; and then state your
question.
Mr. Wharton. I move to propose the question; and then
put the question, whether that shall be the question to-
morrow.
Mr. Danvers. Many gentlemen are to speak. I would
not have us limited.
Colonel Terrill. I would have no man suspected to speak
the things over again, that have been spoken. It is against
the orders of the House, to limit us to a question. Let us
spend to-morrow, and then limit us to the question.
as
Mr. Barton. To a business of this nature, I come
rawly as ever. You are not come so near a question. I do
not know but I may speak to it, and many gentlemen that
want strength. Let us not suppose that disingenuity, that
any man will speak over again. It is against a fundamental
order that any man should have his liberty of speech taken
from him.
Mr. Bulkeley. Unless it be to provoke obstructions from
abroad, I wonder why it should be so striven for, to delay it,
and spin out the debate with long speeches.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. I would have us adjourn.
I shall not speak much, nor can speak much to the purpose;
but I desire not to hinder any man to speak.
1658-9.]
151
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir William Wheeler. In such cases men were never suf-
fered to speak over again.
Mr. Reynolds. It is against a fundamental order to limit.
any man as to speaking. I never heard so prudent and grave
a debate as has been for two days together.
Serjeant Maynard. If that gentleman had spoken this in
another place, he should have been called to another place;
for it is no such thing as a fundamental order of the House.
There is nothing so usual, as to tie men up from speaking the
same things over again.
The House rose at four of the clock, without agreeing
upon any question to be taken up to-morrow; only adjourned
the debate till to-morrow, and nothing to intervene.*
* The following passages are from letters to Lord Henry Cromwell,
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. They serve to show the expectations
which had been raised, and the delays now experienced, in the attempt
to procure a parliamentary recognition of Richard's Protectorate. The
last short passage from one of Oliver's silent Lords, sufficiently disco-
vers the difficulty of procuring from the Commons an acknowledgment
of the other House.
Dr. Clarges. "London, Feb. 1. 1658-9. On Monday next there will
be a tuffe debate upon the second reading of the recognition; but there
is no danger. I dare not particularize persons to your excellency; but
when you know Sir Arthur Haslerigge, Lord Lambert, Mr. Scot, Lieu-
tenant-General Ludlow, and Captaine Baynes, are of the Parliament,
I shall not need to enumerate the rest." See "Thurloe State Papers,”
(1742) vii. 605.
"Feb. 8. I am not yet able, by the best observation I can make, to
tell your lordship how things will go in this Parliament. We have
many men of excellent parts, and several judgments, both in politics and
religion; but those that are for a national church seem to be the great-
est number.
"The Act of Recognition of his Highness's right and title, &c. was
yesterday read a second time, and that day and this has been debated
without any resolution, and to-morrow morning the debate is to be
resumed, and nothing to intervene.
"I perceive a great (I think I may say the greatest) sense of the
House is with it; but those that oppose are able speakers, which makes
the considerations long before they come to a question. I do not ob-
serve any that can object anything against his Highness's person. Those
that have been sharp, and have seemed to doubt of his due nomination
152
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
J
The Committee of Privileges sat in the Star Chamber, Ser-
jeant Waller in the chair, upon the business of Colchester,
between Maidstone, Barrington, and Shaw. Counsel were
heard on both sides.
The Committee for ministers in Wales sat in the Exche-
quer Chamber, Serjeant Seys in the chair. Our Sub-Com-
mittee for approving and ejecting ministers met there, and
adjourned to the Speaker's Chamber, and thence, till to-
morrow afternoon, for want of a Committee.
Wednesday, February 9, 1658-9.
The members stayed till nine for the Speaker's coming.
After that he came, and Mr. Cooper prayed.
The House resumed the debate adjourned yesterday, upon
the Bill for Recognition of his Highness, &c.
Mr. Neville. I would not hinder your business for a world.
There are some petitioners at the door. All have honest,
old faces. I desire they may be called in.
Mr. Knightley. Till your House be full, turn not your
face on any petitioners. If it be good, take it. If you like
it not, let it alone.
Mr. Weaver. I move that the petitioners be called in.
to the succession, yet concluded to approve it. Others have glanced at
the establishing a Commonwealth, to consist of a single person, a senate,
and the people; but nothing of this kind has been gratefully received."
Ibid, pp. 609, 613.
Secretary Thurlow. "Feb. 8. This is the 13th day since the Parlia-
ment met, and they have made very little progresse in any businesse
yet.
"Since their meeting, this day sennight, was brought in a recognition
of his Highness to be Protector and lawful Chief Magistrate of this
Commonwealth. It had a good reception, but finds now very much
difficulty upon several accounts. The greatest is, lest by recognizing
him, they should acknowledge the humble Petition and Advice, which
many seem much averse to." Ibid, p. 609.
Lord Fleetwood, “ Feb. 8. We are very silent in our House, and little
probability that we shall be owned." Ibid.
1658-9.]
153
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
}
Captain Baynes. I am glad to see the people in love with
their representative again. It was never denied to call in
petitioners.
Sir Henry Vane. The people were never denied to peti-
tion. I leave it with you if Whitehall give any discou-
ragement to petition. The addresses,* I suppose, are received.
Mr. Bacon, Mr. Sturkey, and Mr. Pedley moved, that it
was against the order of the House, to let any thing inter-
vene, and no man could speak against it without leave.
Sir William Wheeler. I apprehend not that the petition is
of such consequence as to obstruct so great a business as is
before you. This may hold all day.
* CC Sept. 25, 1658," says Whitlock, "several addresses came to the
new Protector, declaring satisfaction in his succession, and resolution to
adhere to him." Memorials (1732) p. 675.
Richard," says De Fue (see Biog. Brit. v. 63.) "had his addresses as
well as his father, and in a far greater number; the custom prevailing
more and more, daily."
CC
Among these was an address from General Monk and his Officers in
Scotland." This was followed, after the interval of a few months, by
"a very long address" to the restored Long Parliament, "so full of
cant and republican principles, that nobody could have imagined Monk
had wit enough to have played the hypocrite so well;" for, "at the
same time, Dr. Clarges, General Monk's brother-in-law, was negociating
with him the King's return;" and " in a speech to that Parliament,
even when his treaty with the King was agreed upon, Monk desired
that no Cavalier might have any share of the civil and military power.
"When Richard was to remove from his palace of Whitehall, and
the household goods were packed up, the quondam Protector ordered his
servants to be particularly careful of two old trunks which were depo-
sited in his wardrobe. The men wondered why he was so solicitous for
their preservation, since, by their appearance, and the place they were
put in, they did not seem to contain a treasure of such consequence ;
and one of his friends, hearing him enquire after them with much more
concern than for any other part of the lumber, asked him what was in
them that made him value them so much. 'Why, no less,' says
Richard, than the lives and fortunes of all the good people of Eng-
land.' It seems the addresses that had been presented him were
thrown in there; and we all know it is a poor address that has not lives
and fortunes in it." See "The History of Addresses. By one very near
akin to the Author of the Tale of a Tub.” (1709) pp. 6—10.
154
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Scot. Petitions were never denied, and you will spend
more time in debating whether it shall be read or no, than
you would do, if you should read it.
Mr. Steward. Nothing can come in of more consequence
than is before you. I would have another day appointed for
hearing the petition.
Colonel Okey. I move to have the petition taken in. I
am glad the people do own their representative. It was once
very desirable.
Mr. Hoskins. I am against the reading of the Petition,
as against the orders of the House.
Colonel
*. If those gentlemen † go away without
seeing your faces, it will discourage abroad.
Mr. Knightley. The gentleman has moved for reading it;
yet the sense of the House being against it, I would have two
or three gentlemen go out and acquaint the petitioners, that
as soon as ever this debate is over, they shall be called in.
Colonel Gorges. There is no exception against the peti-
tion, but against the timing of it. At this rate, if you break
in upon your orders, you shall be interrupted every hour.
Lord Lambert moved to have the petitioners called in pre-
sently. He made a long speech.
Colonel Allured seconded the motion, that the petitioners.
be called in, and a day appointed for reading of it.
Mr. Disbrowe. Nothing can be of greater concernment
than what is before you. The eyes of all nations are upon
you, to see what you will do concerning the owning your
Chief Magistrate. I would have nothing come in the ba-
lance with it. Because three or four are waiting at the door,
should you put off a business of this nature, of greatest con-
cernment?
Lord Falkland. I move, that two or three members be
sent out to acquaint them that the petition shall be read, as
soon as the great business is over.
*Blauk in the MS.
CC
+ Some gentlemen of good affections to the Commonwealth."
Journals.
$
2
1
+
:
1
{
1658-9.]
155
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Danby. I move, that it be referred to the Committee
of Grievances, which sits this day.
Sir Walter Earle. I have no skill in physiognomy. It
matters not to me that they are old faces.* I second Mr.
Knightley's motion.
Ordered, that Sir Walter Earle, Mr. Knightley, and Colo-
nel Gorges acquaint the petitioners, that as soon as ever the
great business is over, their petition shall be read, and the
said members went out accordingly. It seems they were well
satisfied.
The orders of the day were read, and the question on the
Bill of Recognition, called for.
Mr. Speaker. The debate of yesterday was not reduceable
to a question. The proper question is, if this Bill shall be
committed.
Colonel Kenrick. The Bill stands in need of commitment.
There have been various debates upon it.
1. The debate seems to invalidate what was done in the
Long Parliament, to validate and advance what is before
you. I own no spiritual nor outward liberty, but from the
Long Parliament.
2. It is told us, that we have taken an oath at the door;
by which we cannot clearly understand the Chief Magis-
trate's power, whether he assume it, as his father did, or has
it from the Instrument, or that this Parliament should give
it him. It is fit our oath should be understood. I see no
reason, but as those gentlemen took away the Government
from the Instrument, so we may take it away now from the
Petition and Advice.
It is said, that the Petition and Advice came in by better
authority. But whoso considers the last Protector's speech,
will find he thought he had as good authority, by the
Instrument of Government, and as many witnesses for it, as
this can have. I am sure he said, no prince in Christen-
dom had a better title than he had. Therefore, I hope we
* See supra, p. 152.
156
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
shall not be hurried on, to take us off, before we know where
we are.
The matter is, the investing of a power in the Chief Ma-
gistrate. I would gladly know, what the office of this Chief
Magistrate doth imply; what is involved in it. I would
have it understood, whether the House of Lords shall be
appurtenances to this Chief Magistrate; whether the militia,
negative voice, and an uncontrolable power, shall go along
with it. Your learned counsel were taken from the bar,
when pleading for your liberties.* If the power of thus send-
ing gentlemen to prison, or the prerogative of these things
go along with the office, then I look upon it as the King's
cause, and the maintenance of his quarrel.
So far from giving my voice clearly to this business, till
these things be cleared up, I had rather lie in Newgate till
God deliver us.
I desire it may be committed, that we may certainly know
what we give.
It is between you and the Chief Magistrate now, as be-
tween a widow and her servant that go to be married. The
man will offer all things very fair; but unless she make all
things sure before marriage, when he is married, he will tell
her then, that all is his by virtue of his office.
Colonel Gorges. I never rise to speak without great fear.
I never heard it declared that you fought against King,
Lords, and Commons.
If Hannibal be ad portas,t it is not to fright you but to ex-
cise you. It is an ill doctrine that promissory oaths bind, as
that gentleman says. If promissory oaths cannot be dispensed
with, we are in a sad condition. Oaths are assertory, or pro-
missory. If I swear I see you in the chair, and do not, I
swear amiss; but if I swear I will see you there to-morrow,
that is subject to a condition and limitation, that is, if it
please God to send me strength, or the like.
I shall give my ready consent to the single person and a
House of Lords. The more checks, the better the Constitu-
See supra, p. 101, note.
+ See ibid. p. III.
1658-9.]
157
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
tion. You are not ripe to determine what you will have the
other House. What the Long Parliament was, for reasons
of state I shall not say. It was for interest. I would have no
reflexions on the Lord Protector. I would have them quietly
to lie in their graves. I hope they shall never rise again.
I never read of a Commonwealth able to stand without war.
A general may make himself chief, when he pleases. Venice*
is beholden for their quiet to their situation. It was ill said
of a sober person: "a French parasite."+ Those that are for
Commonwealth, are but to bring us into confusion.
I know not what is meant by your restrictions. I would
not give away a tittle of your right. If thus you qualify it,
the question will be whether the Protector shall be Protector,
till you have agreed on the limitations. The militia natu-
rally goes with the legislature. Every sheriff and county
has it. Our ancestors never disputed it. The negative voice
"
* The late Bishop Watson has recorded an unfavourable opinion of
republics given by George III. on the appearance, at Court, of the Ve-
netian ambassador. It is not surprizing that a monarch, "served with
adoration and kneeling," (as Sir Thomas Smith describes the "honour
and reverence done to the prince,") could not discern the excellence of
a republic. Yet the Bishop, lingering at Llandaff, though never“ loth
to depart," when he represented to royalty, that “a republic was
"one of the worst governments in the world," knew, as well as Dr. Ro-
bertson, that the republic of Venice was a rigid and partial aristo-
cracy, which lodges all power in the hands of a few members of the com-
munity, while it degrades and oppresses the rest ;" and that there had
been no proper republic prior to the American. See "Anecdotes of the
Life of Bishop Watson, by himself,” 8vo. i. 314.
CC
Mr. Thomas Cooper, on “Dr. Priestley's Political Works and Opi-
nions," observes, that "America has begun upon the maxim that so-
ciety is instituted not for the governors, but the governed; that the
interest of the few shall, in all cases, give way to the many; and that
entrusted authority shall be liable to frequent and periodical recals.'
3)
He adds: "It is in America alone, that the sovereignty of the people
is more than a mere theory. It is here that the characteristic of that
theory is displayed in written constitutions. I throw out of consider-
ation the ancient as well as the modern communities, ignorantly called
republics. There has been no republic, ancient or modern, until the
American." See "Memoirs of Dr. Joseph Priestley," (1806) p. 357.
† See supra, p. 142.
158
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
was never denied the Chief Magistrate, only he was bound
to deny no law that was offered from the people.* What is
exorbitant in the Petition and Advice, I would have it
amended.
Mr. Stephens. Here has been much said on a Parliament
that was too much on the part of pulling down. They were
at last pulled down themselves. I was of that Parliament.
I hope I am now of a Parliament that will be as much
for building up. I was never of that opinion, that a minor
part should supplant a major part by force or fraud. Non ne-
cesse est, vivere, est, bene vivere, and via recta est via tuta. I
have observed that a packing of Parliament, or a packing
in Parliament, can never have good success. De malo quæ-
ritis, non gaudet tertio Hares. The Act of the Parliament,
21 Rich. II. was repealed by 1 Hen. IV. The Parliament
1 Mariæ, established the Pope's power and authority, as a
string when strained too high at last breaks. It did so in
the hands of all kings. It did so in a Parliament. So it may
be in a Protector. I am for the constitution we lived under ;
for building up the ancient fabric.
1. Because we lived peaceably under it for many years, and
the nation prospered.
it.
2. Because the nature of the people doth best agree with
I am for building up that structure, but not with untem-
pered mortar: never with flattery and fear.
The noble person that we find in the Government, I know
him not; but the character of him, abroad, and here. He has
much gained the affection of the people. Not such an one to
be had, none so deserving. Not that I am ready to give
away my liberty.
The question is only executory, not declarative; only as a
direction to your Committee. I would have you go to the
If this speaker be here correctly reported, it is difficult to under-
stand what he means by such a limitation of "the negative voice." It
would leave a very scanty prerogative to “the Chief Magistrate." See
vol. ii. p. 451, note §.
4
1658-9.]
159
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
question as you have propounded it, with the limitations and
restrictions, &c.
Major-General Packer. I am very unable to utter my
thoughts, so as to contribute to the great work that lies be-
fore you.
I am one among many others, that were guilty of the
errors of these latter times, and of the irruptions of the
privileges of this House; for which I humbly ask you for-
giveness. I was led into this mistake upon a double con-
sideration.
1. Being made to believe that the great work of reform-
ation was not likely to be carried on in this House; or
otherwise than by contracting the power into one hand, es-
pecially such an one as we had fixed upon. I confess, like a
sick man, I have been driven and tossed from bed to board;
but now I am heartily glad we are returned into this way;
that necessity has brought us back to the same opportunity
of reformation.
2. An apprehension I had, never to get liberty or freedom.
of conscience from this House; but I have been ready to
check myself often since, considering all liberty of this kind
hath originally flown from hence. I confess, I have a little
need of some indulgence in that point. I hope I am on the
great foundation of religion, the same with all. I have seen,
of late, that those good people of this nation, that are desi-
rous of liberty of conscience, are now more willing to ask
liberty at your doors than any where else.
those. The good people that have feared
that point, are now willing to seek it here. I hope the two
great interests of religious and civil liberty shall never be
parted. It has been an observation in this election, to bring
those good men in here again, that were for good men's li-
berty. I say it to my shame, I have been one of those that
have opposed some of those liberties. But to the point in
hand:
I am
I am one of
your severity in
This is a Bill of very great weight. I admire that the
persons that brought it in, being men of integrity, should be
}
1
L
F
160
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
so pressing, to have it pass so speedily. I have exceptions
to the particulars of the Bill.
I. To recognize his right and title. This implies an es-
tablishment, a right already. I am afraid that word carried
too much in the late Petition and Advice. I beg your par-
don if I say amiss. I am sorry it should be driven on in so
preposterous a manner. It hath been said, that it* is next
the Gospel, a thing inviolable; and so, unnecessary to sub-
ject it to the approbation of this House. There could
nothing be said more of a Government, than was said of the
Instrument. I was of that House; and, by reason of my re-
lation, I had such an obligation to that person, who, I hope,
is now in heaven, that it was expected I was bound to be
thorough-paced in every thing.
There was a clause in the Instrument of Government, at
which I could not but rejoice; a clause to qualify the mem-
bers, which the last Parliament did rather enlarge than
straiten. The qualifications in the Petition and Advice, were
very considerable: "men fearing God, and of integrity."
When persons speak words in one sense now, and after in-
terpret them in another, it should make us cautious what we
should do. Those very words were interpreted, that those
only were men of integrity that should comply with that
Government. One hundred were kept out, upon straining
that word.
This Parliament went on very successfully: as many good
men and good things on the whole, as ever were in any Par-
liament. Suddenly and unexpectedly, one that is now dead,
Major-General Jephson,‡ made a motion to break in upon
this. After this, a gentleman came with a paper in his
hand. He is now in the other House, and well deserved
to be. He said he had found by Providence, a paper; I
know not where. The poor gentleman was tossed from place
to place, down almost as far as the bar, and then he was
* The Petition and Advice.
See vol. ii. p. 141, note.
† See vol. i. p. 262, note 1.
§ See vol. i. p. 378.
1658-9.]
161
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
brought up again. Providence ordered it so, as brought
him to his place, near the chair.
Some gentlemen spoke twenty times a day, posting all,
like the formality of a Bill. At length, it must be done. It
could not be done by way of Act. That expects too great
deliberation. Therefore, it must be done by the readiest
way, by way of Petition and Advice. Necessity drives it
on. It must pass. I saw the Bill before it came in. It
was for making King, Lords, and Commons; and it prayed
the Protector to assume kingly government. It was an ill
precedent, that it was not in the power of the Parliament to
give, but he must assume.
I concur that the gentleman deserves the government as
well as any man in the world, but I would have him settled
upon a better foundation; against which there is no just ex-
ception.
II. As to the body of the Bill," Whereas his Highness
became Protector by the death of his father." A strange
expression, Sir. He did not do so. He became so, if he be so
at all, by the Petition and Advice, by the declaration or no-
mination of his father, or a proclamation from the Council.
He became so "by the death of his father!" This is, ta-
citly, to admit his title hereditary. Why so did King Charles
on the death of King James; and this brings in hereditary
government by a side wind. I believe, for all that, he would
be glad of your sanction or establishment.
Oh! but he had many addresses, and he would magnify his
office. I would not lay much stress on the addresses. If
the King of Scots had landed at Dover, and had a force, he
might have had as many addresses, and by another sort of
people. Such are easily obtained.* The people are like a
*
See supra, p. 153, note. The following statement is by a contempo-
rary, an undisguised and virulent impugner of every power in possession
during the interregnum.
"Richard Cromwell ascends the throne, being but a private gentle-
man of Hampshire, invited thereunto and encouraged by Fleetwood,
Desbrow, Sydenham, the two Joness, Thurloe and others, the relations
and confidants of his father. His first work is to take care for his fa-
VOL. 111.
M
162
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
flock of sheep. I shall not here insist upon the horrid and
intolerable flatteries in most of them. I commend the dis-
ther's funeral: which solemnity past, by the contrivance of the new
courtiers, congratulations are sent (prepared at Whitehall) from most
of the counties, cities, and chief towns of England, Scotland, and Ire-
land, with engagements to live and die with him: addresses from the in-
dependent churches, by Mr. Goodwin [see supra, p. 1, and Nye, their
metropolitans; and he was, indeed, worshipped by many as the rising sun
in our horizon." See "The History of Independency, the fourth and last
part. By T. M. Esquire, a Lover of his King and Country." (1660)
p. 32.
T. M., like the worshippers of Richard's short-lived ascendancy, also
discovered a luminary in a prince at whose birth, according to Perin-
chief, "Heaven was liberal, kindling another fire more than ordinary,
making a star to be seen the same day at noon." On this tale thus sings
the servile, and here (as if his genius were debased by his subject) the
unusually prosaic Muse of Waller :-
"His thoughts rise higher, when he does reflect
On what the world may from that star expect,
Which at his birth appeared, to let us see
Day for his sake could with the night agree.”
"to in-
T. M. says to his "most dread Soveraign," while venturing
trude" into his presence, "I know so great a sun will quickly dazzle
my weak eyes;" and he proceeds" to pray" for him "the age of Me-
thuselah." But the previous page may be worthy of quotation, as a
royal curiosity, preserved in a book now no longer very common :—
To the sacred Majesty of Great Britain's Monarch, (the triumphant
son of a inost glorious father, who was, in all things, more than Con-
queror) the illustrious offspring of a royal train of antient princes,
CHARLES, the second of that name, intituled Pious, by the sole provi-
dence of an Almighty hand, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland,
King, Defender of the Faith; Restorer of the English Church unto its
pristine state and glory; Patron of law and liberty; not to be seconded
by any but himself, who is the best of kings, and of all vertue to the world
the GRAND EXEMPLAR.
>>
T. M. was soon worthily followed by Waller, Dryden, Spratt, and
others, in the style of adulation which they had cultivated by compli-
mentary addresses to the Protectoral House of Cromwell. But there is
one extraordinary passage addressed by an Academic to the restored
Stuart at the close of his reign, when his character was no longer the
subject of expectation, but had become the theme of history. I refer to
an Epistle Dedicatory" to Archbishop Sancroft, prefixed to " Plu-
tarch's Morals," in 1684, by " Mr. Morgan, of St. John's College in Ox-
ford," one of the learned translators. On the royal appointment of the
1
1658-9.]
163
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
}
cretion of the Intelligencer, that has husbanded them so well
as to have our allowance for every week, and not yet to have
done with them. But the blasphemies in them are into-
lerable. Naylor was committed and whipped for lesser blas-
phemies than those in the book. I shall for example sake
propound them to the Committee for Religion, that there they
may receive discountenance and a check.*
Archbishop (of which see supra, p. 67,) the dedicator thus pourtrays the
character of Charles II :
“A wise and discerning prince, who hath the quickest eye to find out
a transcendent worth, and the most generous temper to reward it a
prince who hath the goodness of Trajan's and the wit of all Augustus his
reign: the image of the Deity is so closely impressed upon him, that the
idea comes very near the original !”
To the apotheosis immediately succeeds a bathos, "and the accomplish-
ments of body and mind, make him the best and most agreeable of man-
kind."
* "The book" to which this speaker refers, was probably the Di-
urnal, whose diligent periodical catering for the intellectual palates of
his readers, he had just commended. There was another book, now
before me, of this date, which appears to have attracted censure, even
"when lying in its first bed, and loose sheets in the print-house." It
is entitled, "Historie and Policie Reviewed, in the Heroic Transactions
of his most serene Highness, Oliver, late Lord Protector; from his
cradle to his tomb; declaring his steps to princely perfection, as they
are drawn in lively parallels to the ascents of the great Patriarch
Moses, in thirty degrees to the height of honour. By H. D. Esq.”
66 to
H. Dawbeny had "been conversant in the courts of some great
princes, and particularly known to many of their persons." Yet, so far
from having incurred " the imputation of flattery," which he "ever ab-
horred," he had "been always most severely taxt of too much of the
other extreme." Of this "little history," he modestly declares, that,
to give it the due dresse and ornament of language, would have re-
quired no less than the pen of a seraphim." This history, he now dedi-
cates "To the most serene Highness of Richard, by the grace of God,
Lord Protector; Chara Dei soboles, magnum Jovis incrementum," which,
though it be a piece of an Æneid," and "some will think of flattery,
yet it is very manifestly" his "most serene Highness his birth-right, and
plain prophetic truth.” In the same style of verity, he thus proceeds: —
"Your most serene Highnesse is known to hold so much of the ver-
tue of your most renowned father in you, as to be better pleased to
meet with an enemy in open field, than a flattering friend in your Privy
Chamber, insomuch that I am afraid to tell your Highnesse some no-
M 2
164
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I perceive there is a great design to settle things in a hurry.
To that end we are affrighted with dangers from Holland.
But, thanks be to God! London Bridge is between us. You
may sit here two or three months without danger of the
Dutch. I wonder that was not used as an argument when
the Long Parliament was dissolved. I ask your pardon for
it. The seamen minded not who was at their backs, but who
went before. A more honourable war was never undertaken
than that with the Dutch, and yet, in the midst of that war,
that House was broken.*
After, the little Parliament was dissolved, when that very
affair was in hand. Yet that Parliament then was dissolved,
and the war went on. I wish that peace, when it was con-
cluded, had not been made upon very carnal and bad grounds.
There was an interregnum for a month.
I wish your Bill had been a Bill of Recognition for the
Army; forty weeks pay behind, as I am informed. This had
been a good argument, if it had been to recognize the soldiers,
and to move for something of relief for them. I do not think
the recognizing the Protector will sink one Holland ship, or
affright one enemy.
Your men and monies must do it.
There is no need of a previous vote. This previous vote
will hereafter come into the Bill, and will work in time. Let
torious truths; how all we, your people, look upon you as our second
Joshua, in the place of our second Moses, as full of the spirit of wis-
dom, courage, and piety, as he was: and that we cannot at all doubt
but your successes will be likewise most proportionable to his; how
walls and cities shall fall before you, gyants wax pale, rivers retire back,
the sun itself stand still, and as many kings will undergoe your yoke.
“I am afraid to tell you, Sir, how we, that are your people, are all
of us employ'd in planting more bayes and laurel in our gardens, to en-
garland your victorious browes, before you come to a battle. In fine,
I am afraid to tell you, how all our hearts, like roses withered upon
the death of your glorious father, now begin again to bloom afresh, and
newly to open ourselves at the benigne, gentle, and glorious princely
aspect of your most serene Highnesse." Historie and Policie. (1659.)
See "The Epistle Dedicatory."
* See supra, pp. 63, 64, note, 111, 112.
1658-9.]
165
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
us not, as we have done, play an after game. The importunity
of passing it so hastily, makes me jealous. Experience tells
me it is contrary to what wise men do. Oh! but the Pro-
tector is a good man! What should we fear? Give us good
laws rather than good men. I will trust more to good laws
than to the best men. These are snares. We had a good
man before; we all thought so: but he had his temptations.
God hath left it upon record that he did not answer all the
trust that was put in him.
A good man had a loving child, and this good man would
settle all upon this loving child. A year after we find this
good man sitting in the chimney corner. Every thing
then sets off the love of the child; if he give him but
a pittance for a pound, he is a good child. But when I
settle my estate upon my child, though never so good, he
shall take my estate with a schedule; a plain bargain annexed
unto it.
It best becomes a grave council, to see your work before
you; or you may give away what you will be glad, with all
your heart, that you had to give again. I shall insist upon
two things.
1. If you vote he shall be Chief Magistrate, who shall
judge how far that expression shall extend? You shall not
judge, the Chief Magistrate shall interpret.
In the last Parliament there was a thing called the "other
House." Never was any thing brought in with more sugar-
sweet and plausible words. It shall be a check upon restraint
of liberty of conscience. There shall be no bringing in of the
old nobility. This makes me suspect we are going to the same
things. I thank God I was none of those that gave it my
vote. It died at first and was buried; but in the next ses-
sion it rose up again, as I have good cause to know. Then,
it seems, it was judged a Lord's House, except for some limi-
tations. I thought it was not a Lord's House, but another
House. But for my undertaking to judge this, I was sent for,
accused of perjury, and outed of a place of 6007. per annum.
I would not give it up. He told me I was not apt: I, that
166
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
had served him fourteen years, ever since he was captain of
a troop of horse,* till he came to this power; and had com-
manded a regiment seven years: without any trial or appeal,
with the breath of his nostrils I was outed; and lost not only
my place, but a dear friend to boot. Five captains under my
command, all of integrity, courage, and valour, were outed
with me, because they could not comply; they could not say
that was a House of Lords. Divers in this House are suf-
ferers of the same kind. When you come to settle the militia,
I shall make use of it, that you may consider your old ser-
vants, and not leave the single person the judge; not place
* "He got a captain's commission from the Commons, and immedi-
ately raised a troop of horse in his own county. They consisted of se-
lect men, whose bravery he proved by the following stratagem. He
placed about twelve of them in an ambuscade, near one of the King's
garrisons, who, advancing furiously towards the body, as if they had
been of the enemy's parcy, put some of their raw companions to the
flight. These he immediately cashiered, and filled their places with
others of more courage." See "A Short Critical Review of the Life of
Oliver Cromwell,” (1747,) p. 20.
"Hi autem initio," says Dr. Bates, "nec arma tractandi, nec equos
gnari, diligentiâ solertiâque bellatores acerrimi evascerunt; equis ete-
nim curandis, nutriendis ac detergendis indies assuefacti sunt, et, si
opus foret, simul humicubando; arma insuper polire, nitida et usui ex-
pedita servare, loricas optimas induere, séque cætero armaturæ genere
communire condocefecerat eos Cromwellius." Elenchus, (1676,) part ii.
p. 332. (They were, at first, unskilful in handling their arms or manag-
ing their horses; yet, by industry and attention they at length became
excellent soldiers. Cromwell accustomed them daily to look after,
feed, and dress their horses, and when needful, to lie with them on the
ground. He also taught them to preserve their arms clean and polish-
ed, to choose the best accoutrements, and in every respect to be armed
to the most advantage.)
"In a letter dated "Whitehall, February 11, 1657-8," the un-
der-Secretary Moreland thus writes to Mr. Pell, the Resident at
Zurich :-
"This morning, his Highness took away the commissions from Ma-
jor-General Packer, and divers of his officers, for having had a finger
in the pye, and endeavouring to make a confusion in the army, and to
corrupt it." Lansdowne MSS. 755, No. 38.
1658-9.1
167
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
it where the army and officers may all be blown away by the
puff and breath of one man.
Who then shall be judge of this important matter. West-
minster Hall knows it as well as A. B. C. that the judges
were of different opinions lately, both in the North and in
the West, and perhaps they will be doubtful whether a Chief
Magistrate in a state be the same with a King upon his
throne. One jury may find for the Protector, another not.
I think you have as able and learned judges as ever sat
upon the benches; yet they are men: interest has swayed
them, as it has swayed me. I am ashamed to tell you how
far fear, respect, and hope of preferment have made me swerve
from what my conscience thought just. Perhaps others may
be subject to the like infirmities. Coney's case I will not
judge. Learned men were carried to the Tower, as it was
told you. A gentleman imprisoned could not get a lawyer to
plead for him.*
The Judges in the King's time, I will not say they were
perjured, but there are great temptations where the sword
* See supra, p. 104, note. "1655. Friday, ay 18. This day,
Serjeant Maynard, Serjeant Twysden, and Mr. Wadham Windham, were
committed to the Tower, by order from his Highnesse and Councel,
upon the account of Mr. George Coney, Merchant, for whom they were
of councel, and had moved on Thursday for a habeas corpus for him,
who stands committed to the Serjeant-at-Arms, for refusing to pay cus-
tom and excise, according to an ordinance set forth by his Highnesse,
with the advice and consent of his Councel. The business was again
moved in the Upper Bench Court, on Saturday, but not determined:
the further consideration thereof, appointed to be on Wednesday next,
in the Upper Bench.
CC
Wednesday, May 23. Mr. Coney appeared at the Upper Bench
barre. Hee said, hee could not engage any to bee counsel for him.
Mr. Moore said hee offered to bee counsel for him, but hee would not
give him his fee. Mr. Coney said, none but a madman would be of
his counsel. Hee had liberty to plead for himself; but his return was
found defective. The word To, (whereby it should have been directed
to Oliver Lord Proiector) was left out. He remains still prisoner, and
hath liberty to renue the businesse." See "Perfect Proceedings of
State Affairs," (1655,) No. 295.
A
168
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
and where the money lie.
Has not a single person power to
put out or in those that will not judge for him? If a judge
will not judge to-day, he shall be no judge to-morrow.
But how shall the judge determine what is the power of
the Chief Magistrate? Is the law so clear in that point?
I own the law, and hold all that I have by it; but do
the laws determine where the militia and the negative voice
shall be? If determined, what was the reason of all the late
wars? Either the law is not clear, or interpreters have been
biassed. Latter ages have smarted for what it is said our an-
cestors did, in not meddling with a debate on the negative
voice.
If they do not judge according to the old law, they must
judge by the Petition and Advice, and should they so judge,
that will go a great way indeed; for by deductions and
consequences, merely from the oath, he would make us to
swallow the whole Petition and Advice, even the Lords' House
to boot, and for not doing that I was esteemed perjured.
I shall not say the Petition and Advice was unduly, but
unseasonably and importunately obtained. I would rather
choose my habitation under the most arbitrary Government
in the world, than under this Petition and Advice without
its being amended.
He hath 130,000l. per annum settled upon him, besides
60,000l. more. This is at his disposal.* He is sworn, in-
deed, to follow advice of his council; but I will speak no-
thing how easy a council may be swayed. He hath an army
of forty or fifty thousand soldiers to assist him, besides a
navy. Was the King's militia ever to be compared to this?
to a standing army,† all depending upon the breath of his
nostrils, and with 1,900,000l. per annum to gratify them, be-
* See supra, p. 131.
tr
The first standing army was raised in 1445, by Charles VII. of
France. Soon after, mercenary troops were introduced into all the
considerable kingdoms of the Continent. It has long," says Dr. Ro-
bertson, “been the great aim of princes and ministers to discredit and
to annihilate all other means of national activity or defence." Charles
V. (1777,) i. 113. See Henault.
1658-9.]
169
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
sides their pay? The militia in old times was nothing to
this. Those were men of interest and estates, that would
not be easily biassed; gentlemen of quality, who had not any
pay; not to be compared to a standing army, which may be
swayed. Besides all this, he hath power also to confer what
honours or powers he pleases, places, monies, and what not.
I hear a rumour that the army thought they should have a
General. They made some address. It was ill resented.
Ay, but you have the purse. But, indeed, he may live
without you, for all that. If he be a little straitened, it is
but making a peace with Spain, or retrenching his army a
little, and he may make a pretty chest, to live without your
purse.
Power may alter good men.
alter good men. He has a negative upon you,
you may be dissolved to-morrow. What power have you?
Ah! a Chief Magistrate with such a power and a negative
voice, who would have ever thought to have seen this?
Sir, why should we, by such a vote as this, give away that
in gross, and by wholesale, which we must expect to beg
again by piecemeal? We shall have to go and say,
"We be-
seech you, as an act of grace, give the poor Commons a little
of their own." We gave him a talent, and perhaps after
much and humble entreating, he will return us a farthing;
and when we get any thing, we must still pay dearly for it.
I am sorry to transgress, by my long speech, the whole-
some rules you gave us at your chair. Upon the whole mat-
ter, I humbly move, that you refer the whole to a Committee
of the whole House, to consider of such qualifications as are
fit to be added to it; and be not entangled with a vote. If
this may not be, then make the previous vote, as was said
before.
Mr. Trevor stood up to speak.
Mr. Weaver excepted, saying, he had spoken twice before.
Serjeant Maynard. I move, that he have leave. Indeed,
if a debate be adjourned, he cannot speak again; but if ad-
journed only from day to day, a man may speak again.
* Sce supra, p. k.
170
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Lord Lambert.
Mr. Trevor.
I
I move, that he have leave to speak.
value the orders of the House more than
any thing I could speak.
Mr. Cariwright. To add any qualifications will not be
for the Protector's advantage; because then it may be taken.
away again; nor for the people's advantage, because, before,
the Protector governed by his own will. Then comes the Pe-
tition and Advice, and limits him to govern according to the
laws. This question says he shall not govern but as this
House shall agree. Now, suppose, before you have qualified
him, he should dissolve us.
Then he will be left to govern
us by will as before, therefore, it were better to let him stand
as he does. I would have a previous vote, that nothing shall
be of force that you now pass, till all shall be agreed on.
Colonel Fielder. It is a mistake to say we are not now go-
verned by law. As to the objection that it was not a free
Parliament; if this be void, then others are also void. I
hope this Petition and Advice will hold as a law, though in
some things imperfect. If it be a law, it must have the for-
malities of repealing it. Add to it what you please. I
would part with none of that.
There is nothing clear in the Petition and Advice to limit
the negative voice, but that of money; which your Chief Ma-
gistrate will stand more need of than you will do of laws;
having the old laws. I move to have the words added, ac-
cording to the Petition and Advice."
Mr. Knightley. I am sorry to hear that doctrine, that the
Petition and Advice is the foundation of your rights, rather
than Magna Charta,* the statute De Tallagio,† and the Pe-
* See vol. i. p. 406.
↑ "A statute, 25 Edw. I., commonly called de Tallagio non conce-
dendo." The king declares: "No tallage or aid shall be taken or levied,
by us or our heirs in our realm, without the good will and assent of
Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights, Burgesses, and other free-
men of the land.
"The word tallage, [or taille] is derived from tailler, to share or cut
out a part, and is metaphorically used for any charge, when the king or
any other does cut out, or take away, any part or share out of a man's
estate.
CC
My
1658-9.]
171
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
tition of Right.* I would not have it named. Haply you
will think it fitter to pass it in silence than to arrange it here.
I would have those words left out.
Sir Henry Vane. I know very well the great disadvan-
tage that any person suffers, that in this great and grave as-
sembly shall, at this time a day, offer you any thing. You
have spent three days in the debate, and it is not unsuitable
to your wisdom to be yet on the threshold. The more time
you have taken, the more successful, probably, it may be.
That which called me up at this time was what the last
gentleman said, that is, to do things with unity. At least we
shall be at greater unity, if not greater amity, by having pa-
tience to hear one another, and admitting the variety of rea-
sons and judgments which are offered by all men. Though
a large field has been led into, the thing is very short.
short. Con-
sider what it is we are upon, a Protector in the office of Chief
Magistrate. But the office of right is in yourselves. It is
in your hands, that you may have the honour of giving or
not giving, as best likes you. You may confer it, if you
please, for any law to the contrary brought now into your
House. I shall advise you to this, as was moved: give not
<<
My Lord Coke (2 Inst.) tells us that the year before this statute
was made, the king had taken a tallage of all cities and boroughs, without
assent of Parliament; whereupon arose a great murmuring and discon-
tent amongst the Commons." English Liberties (1719), pp. 64, 67, 73.
* Given at large, Ibid, pp. 180-185. See vol. ii. p. 137, note*, Rush-
worth, (1703), i. 373, 376, 391.
"The last great act of Sir Edward Coke's life," says Mr. Godwin,
was the framing the Petition of Right, which was endued with the
form of a law, in the Parliament of 1628. The purpose of this measure
was to forbid the imposing any gift, loan, benevolence, or tax, to the
king, without the authority of Parliament; to declare that no subject
shall be detained in prison, without having the power to claim his deli-
verance by due course of law; to abolish the arbitrary billeting of sol-
diers; and to condemn the proceeding against any of the subjects of the
realm by martial law, during a time of peace. Sir Edward Coke was
fourscore years of age at the time of passing this law." Commonwealth,
(1824) i. 9.
In this speech, as well as that by Major-general Packer, are nu-
merous corrections and additions from the Goddard MS.
172
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
by wholesale, so as to beg again by retail.* To give, will, at
any time, get you many friends. It therefore concerns you
in this business, to have your eyes in your heads, to look well
about you, that it slip not from you without considering what
is your right, and the right of the people.
The wise providence of God has brought things in these
our days, to the state of government as we now find it. I
observe a variety of opinions as to what our state of Govern-
ment is.
Some conceive that it is in King, Lords, and Commons;
that the principles of old foundations yet remain entire, so
as all our evils are imputed to our departure from thence.
It hath pleased God, by well-known steps, to put a period,
and to bring that Government to a dissolution. All the three
Parliaments in the late King's time, found the state of things
in slavery. I have had some experience since the two Par-
liaments in 1640, and remember when the Parliament con-
sidered the state of the nations, that they found them in a
grand thraldom of oppression and tyranny, endeavouring to
carry us up even into Popery. God made us see the state
and condition we were then in. The consideration of these
things would have made us make long sweeps to redress it;
but Providence led us on step by step. Therefore, having
the legislative power, God saw it good that we should change
the Government: but we found great difficulties in the work,
as most men were willing rather to sit down by slavery, than
to buy themselves out of it at so great a price.
The first thing expected was, that justice should be done
upon delinquents; who had so much the ear of that Prince,
that they told him he had power enough to protect him-
self and them too. He had the power of the militia. These
grievances brought us to consider where the right of the
militia lay; and when we saw it was in ourselves, we thought
to make use of it with moderation; choosing rather to use it
to reduce the King by fair means, than otherwise.
So well satisfied was this House then with the principles of
that Government, that there was then a declaration drawn
* See supra, p. 169.
+ See vol. ii. p. 323, note.
1658-9.1
173
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
in favour of it. I was one of that Committee. I hear re-
flections as if I changed from that. I think it now my duty
to change with better reason. They did think fit to publish
that which was to preserve that ancient fabrick of Govern-
ment; according to such qualifications as might be for the
public service. I am well satisfied it was the clear intent of
their hearts.
But this encouraged the King, and brought it to that
issue at last, that he hardened his heart; till it was re-
solved to make no more addresses, but to bring him to judg-
ment. But, in the meantime, applications were made to him,
still imploring him to be reconciled; and nothing was want-
ing in the House, that if possible, he might have saved the
Government and himself with it; but God would not have
it so.
God knows best what that work is, which he is to bring
forth. When all applications could not prevail, they thought
fit to bring the King to judgment. Thereby the state of
affairs was much altered.
This House then thought fit to apply themselves to the
Lords, against the Scots' invasion, and in the great case of
justice upon the King. The Lords refused both.* In this
juncture, they were reduced to the necessity of doing that
which is now the foundation of that building upon which
you must stand, if you expect to be prosperous.
When they came to look upon the delinquency of the
King, and considered him as an object of justice, it was then
declared by them that the taking away of kingship was the
only happy way of returning to their own freedom. Their
meaning thereby was, that the original of all just power was
in the people, and was reserved wholly to them, the repre-
sentatives.
When the Parliament, in questions as to what was just
and right, had gathered up all into themselves, it was dis-
puted in what way the King should be tried. They counted
themselves then prepared to grant out a commission to try
* See vol. ii. pp. 384, 387, notes *.
174
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
the King.* I confess I was then exceedingly to seek, in
the clearness of my judgment, as to the trial of the King.
I was for six weeks absent from my seat here, out of my
tenderness of blood. Yet, all power being thus in the peo-
ple originally, I myself was afterward in the business.†
* See vol. ii. pp. 387, 434, notes*.
In a paper left by Sir Henry Vane, containing "the substance of
what he pleaded on the day of his trial," which I have before me,
printed in the year 1662," immediately after his execution, there is an
account of his conduct at this period. Having referred to the time
when that "great violation of privileges happened to the Parliament,”
(see vol. ii. p. 387, note) he adds :-
"This made me forbear to come to the Parliament for the space of
ten weeks, (to wit, from the 3rd of December, 1648, till towards the
middle of February, following,) or to meddle in any public transactions.
And during that time, the matter most obvious to exception, in way of
alteration of the Government did happen. I can, therefore, truly say,
that as I had neither consent nor vote at first, in the resolutions of the
Houses, concerning the non-addresses to his late Majesty, so neither had
I, in the least, any consent or approbation to his death. But, on the
contrary, when required by the Parliament to take an oath to give my
approbation, ex post facto, to what was done, I utterly refused, and
would not accept of sitting in the Council of State upon those terms, but
occasioned a new oath to be drawn, wherein that was omitted.
"In like manner, the resolutions and votes for changing the Govern-
ment into a Commonwealth, or Free-state, were passed some weeks before
my return to Parliament. Yet, afterwards, I conceived it my duty, as
the state of things did then appear to me, to keep my station in Parlia-
ment.
"This I did upon a public account, not daring to quit my station in
Parliament by virtue of my first writ. Nor was it for any private or
gainful ends, to profit myself or enrich my relations. This may appear,
as well by the great debt I have contracted, as by the destitute condition
my many children are in as to any provision made for them. And I do
publicly challenge all persons whatsoever, that can give information of
any bribes or covert ways, used by me during the whole time of my
public acting."
Yet, though the Commons had petitioned for the life of Sir Henry
Vane, as not concerned in the trial and execution of Charles, and the
King had granted the prayer of their petition, and notwithstanding the
notoriety of the fact, the prosecutor for the crown commenced his legal
proceedings by producing the following evidences, of whose credibility
he does not insinuate the smallest diffidence :-
1658-9.]
175
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
The King, upon his trial, denies this power to be in the
Parliament: they try it, and they seal it with the blood of
"The warrant of the 30th of January, 48-9, was proved to be the
hand of Sir Henry Vane, by Thomas Lewis and Thomas Turner, as
they believe, neither of them affirming that they saw him write it, but
knowing his hand, believed it to be so.
The "
King's Attorney-General” was Sir Geoffrey Palmer," the
learned leader of" Sir John Glynn," and of Sir Henry Vane's colleague
in this Parliament. "Sir John Maynard," who were now among
"the
King's Counsel against the prisoner; [see vol. ii. p. 461, note,] no
counsel being permitted to speak one word in his behalf, to the matter
or form of the indictment, or any thing else." See "The Tryal of Sir
Henry Vane, Knight, at the King's Bench, Westminster. Together
with what he intended to have spoken, the day of his sentence, for arrest
of judgment, (had he not been interrupted and overruled by the Court,)
and his Bill of Exceptions. Also his speech and prayer, &c. on the scaf-
fold." pp. 27, 46, 74, 96; State Trials, (1774,) ii. 441, 448, 459.
Among the specimens of professional versatility exhibited at the
English bar, I know not one more complete than the appearance of
Glynn and Maynard, as Crown Prosecutors of Sir Henry Vane, before
judges who had freely acted under, and thus had unequivocally sanc-
tioned, the powers in possession during the interregnum. To these
circumstances should be added, the now well-understood corrupt influ-
ence, (such as the counsel tampering with juries, &c.) exerted on that
occasion. The whole transaction well exemplifies "the Complaint of
Conscience," in an earlier century, which Bishop Percy brought from
an old MS. into his "Relics of Antient English Poetry," (1794,)
ii. 289.
The author of this " allegoric satire," is severe upon the lawyers of
his time; and not unjustly, if barristers would then lend their learning
and eloquence to advocate any cause; either to shield the accused from
the rigour of sanguinary laws, or to invoke their penalties on his head,
with no conscientious discriminination, but just as they happened to
have received a retainer. Conscience, in quest of a patron, wanders
through the metropolis to "the Court of Conscience," probably the
Court of Chancery. There, he says,
"Though the judge us'd my name in everye commission,
The lawyers with their quillets wold get my dismission.”
He now proceeds further among the Glynns and Maynards, and thus
relates the result of his experiment:-
"Then Westminster-hall was noe place for me;
Good Lord! how the lawyers began to assemble,
And fearful they were, lest there I should bee!
176
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
the King This action of theirs, was commanded by this
House to be recorded in all the courts of Westminster Hall
and in the Tower.
If you be not now satisfied with this business, you will
put a strange construction upon that action, and upon all
that has been done by the General and soldiers. If you,
here, will now doubt this right to be in you, you draw the
guilt upon the body of the whole nation. You join issue
with him upon that point. It will be questioned whether
that was an act of justice or murder.*
Brought, step by step, unto your natural right, by an un-
avoidable necessity, that little remnant of the Parliament
were now the representative of the nation, springing up from
another root. This had a more clear foundation, being thus
the supreme judicature, to comprehend all government in it-
self. Whether the death of the King caused not a dissolu-
tion of that Parliament, as to that doing it then had, and
as it was taken to be, I know not. I leave that to the long
robe.
It was then necessary, as the first act, to have resort to the
foundation of all just power, and to create and establish a
free state; to bring the people out of bondage, from all pre-
tence of superiority over them. It seemed plain to me, that
all offices had their rise from the people, and that all should
be accountable to them. If this be monstrous, then it is
monstrous to be safe and rational, and to bear your own
good.
It is objected, that this nation could not bear that govern-
ment; but Holland bears it against the power of Orange.
They keep the office of Stadholder vacant to this day.† So
The silly poore clarkes began for to tremble ;
I show'd them my cause, and did not dissemble:
Soe they gave me some money my charges to beare,
But swore me on a booke I must never come there."
* See supra, p. 110, note ||.
+ Under the administration of the celebrated family of Dewit. The
Prince of Orange, afterwards William III., was now a minor, having
been born a few days after his father's decease, in 1650.
1
1658-9.]
177
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
do other places. This is a principle, that we may bear it, if
we can bear our own liberties, or that we have not the im-
patience of the people of Israel: unless with the Israelites,
we will return to Egypt, weary of our journey to Canaan.
This being the case, we were declared a free state. We
were after tossed upon all those billows that sunk us in the
sands. Though we miscarried then; though this free state
was shipwrecked, yet you have got a liberty left to say it is
now again in your possession; else I am mistaken. If it be
so, I hope you will not part with it, but upon grounds of
wisdom and fidelity. If you were but arbitrating in the
cause of a private friend, you would make the best bargain
for him that you could; you would so do as not to give
away the right of him by whom you were intrusted, but upon
good grounds. That which you give, give it freely on
grounds of justice. Understand well your terms.
This brings me to the consideration of another thing,
which is, that the first government being dissolved, another
is brought into the room. Though not perfect, yet, it is
said, the foundations are laid, upon which we may build a
superstructure of which we need not be ashamed. Now
shall we be under-builders to supreme Stuart? We have no
need, no obligation upon us, to return to that old govern-
ment. I have a vote.
For the covenant with the Scots,* their invasion did render
that covenant invalid. They would have repossessed a King
and imposed him upon this nation, by virtue of that covenant
CC
"His grandmother, a lady of masculine courage, who suffered with
impatience the eclipse of the House of Orange, which she had beheld
in its brightest splendour, was not a little industrious to awaken the de-
pendants and favourers of the Nassovian grandeur." These she taught
to regard themselves as contemned and slighted," and "their reputa-
tion lost," while "all the employments of the Commonwealth were be-
stowed upon the sons of burgomasters." At length, in 1672, there was
a deputation "in the name of the States to invest his Highness in the
ancient dignities formerly belonging to his ancestors." See "The
History of William, Prince of Orange," (1689,) pp. 52, 54.
VOL. III.
*See vol. ii. p. 214, note *.
N
178
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
which they had broken. The Parliament showed that their
shackles were broken; it did not oblige any further. That
it was famous and had power: that was the Israelites' argu-
ment for worshipping the sun and moon. If we return to an
obligation, by virtue of the covenant, by the same reason
we may return to worship the sun and moon.
shall not sway here.
The Chief Magistrate's
There was assumed with
I hope those
Lastly, at the dissolution of the Long Parliament, you
lost your possession, not your right.
place was assumed without a law.
it, not only the power of the crown on the terms of former
kings, which hath its foundation and regulation by the laws,
but the possession was assumed. You were then under vari-
ous forms of administration: some that had not the charac-
ters of trust upon them, some too limited. Still you were
kept out of possession. Parliaments have been called, and as
often broken.
This Petition and Advice, which is now so much insisted
upon, was never intended to be the settled government, but
only to be a pair of stairs to ascend the throne; a step to
King, Lords, and Commons. It pleases God to let you see
you have not been ill-counselled to wait upon him a first day,
and a second, and a third day, to see what he will hold out
for your peace and safety; for asserting the liberties of the
people. This Bill huddles up, in wholesale, what you have
fought for, and is hasted on, lest you should see it.
We have now a Petition and Advice that comes in place of
the ancient Government, the Instrument, and all other forms.
Yet, if this were the case, you are, notwithstanding the Peti-
tion and Advice, in the clear rightful possession of this Go-
vernment, which cannot be disposed of but by your consent.
The old Protector thought it fit to have it given him from
you, and had it by your pleasure invested upon him. But,
although it was acknowledged that he had power to get it,
yet he thought fit to make it your free gift. It will not be
denied now a presenting this office by that Parliament,
and the open investiture of him in your chair, prove it. Yet
as to this gift of yours, I dare be bold to say, the thing given
:
1658-9.]
179
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
was hardly understood. By giving of this office, they gave,
in the 16th Article, the power of their own dissolution.
It being acknowledged to have been your gift, let us con-
sider what was given, and how given.
The gift was the executive power, the ruling power. That
is the office of Chief Magistrate. All the legislative was then
in the people.
The Commonwealth would not put the executive power
out of their hands. For this reason, they set up those sha-
dows, the Keepers of the liberties of England, as an executive ·
power, to distinguish it from the legislative.
This, then, was the thing given. The Petition and Advice
hath made a difficulty of returning.
The power of the purse indeed is left us, because they
know not how to take it from us. There is no dispute but
you have a right to open the people's purse; because Kings
knew they could not well take it: but the Chief Magistrate,
they would not allow you that to give.
Now, this power and the office were given, it seems, by the
regulation of the Petition and Advice; the whole executive
power of the late King was all given, at one clap, to the late
Protector for life. This being given to him, was not given
absolutely to any other for life. Nothing was given him
more, only the nomination and declaration of a successor;
which must be according to law. So says the Petition and
Advice. This nomination must first appear, before we can
say this gentleman is the undoubted Protector. Had I
thought this had been said before, I should have spared both
you and myself.
That which is now brought in, the Bill of Recognition,
takes it for granted, that there is one in the possession of
the Protectorship; for it requires that you acknowledge his
right and title, not that we shall acknowledge his person, and
then inquire, what is this right and title? It is hard we'
should be put upon that. Let us know what this right and
title is that we must recognize. But it seems the Parlia-
ment that made the Petition and Advice, they gave it, and
we must acknowledge it.
N 2
180
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
If he hath any right, it must be by one of these three-
ways:-
1. Either by the grace of God and by God's Providence;
that if he hath a sword, he may take whatever is within the
reach of it, and thus maintain his right.
2. Or as the son of the conqueror. He was, indeed, a con-
queror on your behalf; but never, of yourselves, fit for you
to recognize.
3. Or lastly, by the Petition and Advice. But that can-
not be urged, until it doth appear that he hath it according
to that. Yet that is only a nomination, which hath nothing
´of constitution until you have made it. He must come to
you for that. I appeal then, if this has not deserved three
days' debate. Deserves it not more, to set nails upon it?
May it not deserve a Grand Committee, to convince one
another in love and unity?
Therefore I shall move that this Bill may, upon the
whole matter, be committed to a Grand Committee, where
reason may prevail.
It is not a sudden recognition, a sudden obtaining of the
first steps that will direct us fairly into the room. It must
be on such an unshaken foundation, you will maintain it.
against the old line. If you be minded to resort to the old
Government, you are not many steps from the old family.
They will be too hard for you, if that Government be re-
stored.
Instead of the son of a conqueror by nature, make him a
son by adoption. Take him into your own family, and make
him such an one as the Great One shall direct you. When
the army see they are yours, they will be protectored by
you.
I would have all names of sectaries laid aside, and righte-
ousness go
forward. Let fees and extortions be looked into,
which make the laws themselves your oppressors. I have
discharged my conscience, and look on it as a special testi-
mony of God's Providence that I am here to speak this be-
fore you.
Mr. Gewen. I take it for granted, that nothing shall bind
!
I
1658-9.]
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
181
I
this nation, that is not done in a full and free Parliament.
am not for the humble Petition and Advice; yet the car-
riage in that Parliament, compared with the old Parliament,
is very innocent.
The latter end of the Long Parliament was assumed.
They took a thing which neither God nor the people ever
gave. It was in the collective, not in the representative. All
was null and void which they did. Never was such violation
of the rights of Parliament as in that Parliament. They
were but splendida peccata, felix scelus. This, in truth, is
the fifth Act of meeting in Parliament since that time.
Nolumus hunc regnare. I hear divers gentlemen speak
against the Bill; not what they would have, but what they
would not have. They would return to a Commonwealth
again; to former irregularities. It is impossible for them
to bring that to pass, unless, with an army they take out all
the members that are against returning. My opinion always
was, and is, that a well regulated monarchy is best. Fieri
non debet, factum valet. For my part, I had no hand in it.
I pray God, deliver me from bood-guiltiness. We are like
the needle that is touched, wading still till we come to the
old foundation. There must be some exceptions to the Bill,
else it cannot be committed. I would not have it that the
people should be indefinite in their obedience. I would
have it limited to the law. I am against a Grand Com-
mittee; but would have the question, with the additions,
moved.
Serjeant Maynard. A large time has been spent in the
debate; the consequence of it requires it. I shall use no
preamble. We have had stories by gentlemen of the late
troubles, quorum pars magna fuerunt. It is not pertinent
to our question to tell those stories. There were great oppres-
sions; delinquents protected.
This was not the quarrel for blood. God deliver me from
that. We must go to Mariana* for grounds to prove that
the sword could be taken up other than to defend.
* John Mariana, a very learned Jesuit, who died at Toledo in 1624,
182
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The first cause of the quarrel, was not to assert to our-
selves a right which was no right before. But justice upon
delinquents being denied, it is true, in process of time, these
things came on; the militia, negative voice, and tender con-
sciences. You looked upon such things as those without
which you could not lay down arms. Such, then, was the
cause of carrying on the war, not of taking up arms. God for-
bid! I would rather have been a Cavalier a thousand times.
As to arms raised to protect delinquents, that could not be
the King's act,* only his evil counsels.
aged eighty-seven. There he had published, in 1599, a treatise, De
Rege et Regis Institutione.
Mariana, according to his biographer, "ose soutenir dans cet ouvrage
qu'il est permis de se defaire d'un tyran, et il y admire l'action detes-
table de Jaques Clement." The Parliament of Paris, unable to reach
the author of the book, and not satisfied with the censure of the Sor-
bonne, and the disapproval of the Jesuit's superiors, resorted to a sen-
tence de comburendo, one of the rationes ultimæ regum, who, according to
Milton, "though strong in legions, are but weak at arguments.'
“Il fût condamné par le Parliament de Paris à être brûlé par la main
du bourreau, censuré par la Sorbonne, et désapprouvé par ses supé-
rieurs." See Nouv. Dict. Hist. (1789) v. 606.
* An assertion as complaisant to the memory of Charles, as it is at
variance with the history of his reign. (See especially the King's
conduct in the case of Buckingham, yol. ii. p. 382, note). The learned
Serjeant, who would, probably, have written the history of the Stuarts
with the integrity of Hume, might think it prudent, perhaps in the
hearing of the royal spies who sat in this Parliament, thus to provide for
an admission to favour, on the not improbable return of the legitimate
race, an event likely to be accelerated by the precarious condition of
Richard's power, and these endless debates concerning the manner of
his elevation.
On Glynn and Maynard (supra, p. 175) I ought to have added that the
prosecution in which they engaged their professional assistance, appears
to have been regarded, even by devoted Royalists, as a base and inde-
fensible transaction. Lord Clarendon, to whom Charles had dictated
his royal pleasure (sec vol. ii. p. 184, note,) for the destruction of that
inflexible patriot, avoids the subject in his Continuation, and Parker, the
time-serving Bishop of Oxford, though he unscrupulously accommodates
other facts to his purpose, in the "History of his Own Time," does not
enture to mention the case of Sir Henry Vane.
1658-9.]
183
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
It was moved, that the right did revert by escheat to the
people upon the great change; and now you must give it.
It is clear you came hither upon the Petition and Advice.
I would have any man answer it. I challenge no man. I
was not at making it; yet I am bound by it as a law.
It it said force was upon them; the House was then under
a fear, and so not obliging. Look back and you will find a
Was
greater force upon the face of the greatest affairs.
there not a force when they sent men to demand their mem-
bers, eleven of them.*
* The following extracts from Rushworth refer to this period. The
intermediate passage may serve to show how various were the engage-
ments of the Long Parliament, and how absurdly they encumbered them-
selves with a cure of souls amidst arduous occupations on the most im-
portant civil interests. There is, indeed, sufficient evidence, though not
always fairly admitted, that Protestants have been ready as Catholics to
burn books, or the authors of them, according to the extent of their
power, or the spirit of their times :—
"1647, Sept. 3. Upon debate it was ordered that summonses from the
Commons should be made out for Mr D. Hollis, Sir W. Waller, Sir J.
Clotworthy, Major-general Massey, Colonel Walter Long, and Mr. An-
tony Nichols, to attend the House, to answer things objected against
them. As also, that Mr. Glyn, Recorder of London, [Baronet, not the
Lawyer and Sir John Maynard, attend in like manner.
"Sept. 6. A report was made to the House about a pamphlet lately
printed, of one Mr. John Biddle's, [See supra, p. 118, note] being twelve
arguments against the deity of the Holy Ghost. Upon debate it was
ordered, that it be called in, and burnt by the hangman, (which was
done the day following,) and that Mr. Biddle be referred to the examina-
tion of the Committee for plundered ministers.
"The Commons proceeded to the case of Sir John Maynard, who was
accused upon oath, that he had with great zeal endeavoured a new war,
having subscribed warrants for raising of horse within the City, &c.
Being called in, and heard, it was voted that he be discharged from
being any longer a member, and committed to the Tower: and that an
impeachment of high-treason be drawn up against him." Hist. Col.
(1708) vi. 259, 261.
"Feb. 5, 1647-8. The peers proceeded to judgment on Sir John
Maynard, one of the eleven members, who appealed from them (as not
being tried per pares) saying their lordships were no competent judges
of him, and pleaded likewise, for this purpose, Magna Charta. Their
lordships took the judgment of the judges in point of law; and ordered
184
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Our members were carried to the gaol; one from behind
me, another before me. I asked if they would take me.
They said, they knew not what to make me.
I came
again, and before I spoke, it was cried I spoke. A Com-
mittee was appointed to inquire of it. We had all been voted
traitors but for some worthy gentlemen that stood against
it. Never was a greater force than on that Parliament. If
that nullifies an Act of Parliament, this will be overruled
when we are in dust and ashes. All your sales will be void;
an ill bargain for your monies, on Bishops and Dean and
Chapters' lands.
Who dare say this out of this House, that this law* is void.
This is a law as well as all done in 48, 49, and 50, and since.
There is greater force to turn out, than keep out. I have
had ill luck. No man can say a Parliament is under force, but
to a Parliament itself. It must be put to the question whe-
ther this law is law. You will make a conclusion out of a
proposition, and not affirm the proposition. If every man
should speak it, yet, if not voted, it is not good. It is said,
not pursued. It is a great deal more wisdom to submit than
to inquire. Some have spoken of the great seal. I know
not whether they believed themselves when they said so. It
was a rhetorical expression. I suppose it may be verbal, but
that Sir John be remanded to the Tower, be fined 500l., have sixteen
days to give in his answer, and his trial to proceed before the Lords, on
the impeachment of the Commons, according to former order." Ibid,
p. 338. See Whitlock, pp. 268, 292; Hollis's Memoirs in Maseres's
Tracts, pp. 256, 302.
Rushworth reports, at this time, " Feb. 6, a letter from the Hague,"
which says,
Here seems a kind of fatality upon the counsels and per-
son of your King. This last restraint, with the votes, has astonished the
royal party here, which is not small. They cannot tell which way to
steer. They look on Scotland, they look on France; but say, there
must be money; and if that were had, it were no wonder to see 10,000
merry souls, who, at present, lie here, and curse you in every cup they
drink,-run over, and venture one cast more for the crown.” Hist. Col
vi. 340.
*The Petition and Advice.
1658-9.1
185
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
shall not now debate it. God's will has been done in
-taking
*
1. It is said by the grace of God, &c. he must be in. I
will say to none of these; but I find him in. It is said he
did not come in lawfully to be Protector; lawfully, or un-
lawfully, he came to be Protector. He did become, that is
English. Recognize, or agnize, acknowledge, all one. Re-
cognoscere no more, but severally to acknowledge. Huge
force told of; but nobody says who did it; the soldiery I
suppose. They did desire, indeed, that they might not be
removed without their own consent. You did swear to obey
the Protector, and yet you will not obey him. I cannot dis-
tinguish between myself as a burgess and as a christian.
cannot distinguish myself out of my conscience.
venant, we swore to God, not to the Scots. You gave me
power to put my own interpretation. I would not have gone
three strides back if I had thought of that interpretation.
Myself and three more gentlemen had that privilege of inter-
pretation. If a mutual stipulation, another thing. What
had the Scots to do with the English church?
I
In the Co-
I am afraid of delay. It will breed a great mischief; I de-
sire you would pass the vote with limitations. A suspension
is not a temporary denial. That objection is weighty, give
by wholesale. You are but directing a Committee, not
making a law. The objection is clearly mistaken.
Lord Lambert. There is a weighty business before you,
of large extent, and of great concernment. The peace and
settlement of three nations, meum and tuum, equal distribu-
tion of justice, are all concerned in the things before you.
I shall take leave to make some observations on the narra-
tives that have been given you of transactions in these four-
teen years. We have heard many relations of particular con-
cerns, wherein, of things openly done; we have several dif-
fering opinions. Every man tells that part best which
concerns himself most. I am afraid, if I tell you any thing
* Some words omitted in the MS.
186
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
of my own accounts, I shall fall into the same infirmity; but
I shall only from this observe the baseness of man's nature.
Let us wave any thing which may concern ourselves.
Many things have been disputed, whether this or that Par-
liament be good. One tells you, all sales of lands are void ;*
another tells you, another part is void. Many things have
been said, but I think we all are guilty, even to our lives, if
things should be scanned with the strictest justice.
Other things have been said more near the matter.
One proposition hath been made, as to Government itself,
that it is all from God. We find it expressed so in Scrip-
ture, by that dream of Nebuchadnezzer. He was a great
tyrant, with no reason but his will. After him, was another
monarchy, with limitations, the monarchy of the Medes and
Persians; then the Grecians; lastly, the Romans. All these
governments were set up by God. Monarchy is the worst
Government; yet, of that, God would not have them to re-
cede from it. Some people are more fit to be governed by
a tyrant, than by themselves; as, among others, the wild
Irish, who provided in a treaty, that they should carry the
vermin in their heads, and tie their horses' tails together.
Some people, that are more discreet, are governed by a po-
pular Government.
For the transactions these fourteen years, it is no matter
whether the militia, negative voice, or delinquency, were the
first occasion of the quarrel; or which had the van.
It was
certainly a complicated quarrel, under all the united prero-
gatives and exorbitances of an old monarchy, and the de-
fence of the people to reduce it to its just limits. The pre-
rogative began too great, and continued too great.
Therefore, it is not amiss to look back into the parties con-
cerned, on both sides: what party was the King's; what
were the Parliament's dependencies; and what engagements
*See "Serjeant Maynard," supra, p. 184.
<<
+ See Bishop Burnet, we won't be governed by one another." Vol.
ii. p. 417 and on such government, supra, p. 157, note.
1658-9.1
187
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
either side had to bring such great bodies for their defence
into the field.
The King and Parliament were, as it were, the two great
general heads of this difference. The universality of their
quarrel engaged almost all the world on one side or the other;
especially in England, Scotland, and Ireland, scarce a family
but was divided. All had their angry divisions, and some-
thing of interest, too, bound up in this quarrel.
Now who have been the assistants of these two great
parties, and what have been the strength, the arguments, and
the interest, that enabled these two parties to bring so many
men into the field?
For the King, it is plain that Papists, prelates, and de-
linquents, all such as had places or titles, pluralists of ho-
nour or profit, and generally all debauched people,* ran with
that stream.
For the Parliament's party, an honest, sober, grave peo-
ple, that groaned under oppressions, thirsted after grace, the
reformed party of the nation, that owned their country's ser-
vice, that had no by-ends, and expected no advantage from
the King or from the court.
And these were the arguments and interests that brought
the parties into the field :—
1. The Papist had his toleration, and prerogative was
* See Robert Boyle's opinion, in Dr. Birch's Life (1744), p. 50.
Lord Clarendon praises the "chief commanders of the Cornish army”
of the King for having "restrained their soldiers from all manner of
licence, obliging them to frequent acts of devotion." Yet he afterwards
charges "the remains of the western army" with being " dissolute, un-
disciplined, and wicked;” and the horse, especially, as being only ter-
rible in plunder, and resolute in running away; whom their friends
feared, and their enemies laughed at." History (1712), ii. 276, 725.
rr
In another place, Lord Clarendon admits that "Cromwell had been
most strict and severe in the forming the manners of his army, and in
chastising all irregularities; insomuch, that sure there was never any
such body of men so without rapine, swearing, drinking, or any other de-
bauchery." He excepts, indeed, "the wickedness of their hearts," but
they were anti-royalists, and Lord Clarendon was a royal courtier.”
Continuation (1759), 11. 40.
188
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
that strength and source from whence that was to proceed.
He had a toleration for his person for the present, and for his
religion, it was hopeful.
2. The Prelates, they had the advancement and the form-
alities, which all flowed from the same fountain. Preferment
flowed readily on.
3. Dependence upon places of honour or profit, in pensions
or expectancies, engaged many, and led a great way; but
when I spoke of honour, I spoke of names, not things.
If any
4. Debauched people expected liberty, or rather license, to
exercise their lusts and villanies without control.
cooling for a man's tongue, it was there. I hope the villanies
that party daily acted shall never have encouragement from
your chair.
This was universally true.
On the other side, there was only a sober, quiet, reformed
people, generally thought, perhaps not universally so neither.
I will not ask who had the justice of the cause. I will not
judge it myself, when God himself seems to have determined
the cause. I observed once, from a minister, that the Parlia-
ment had got the prayers of a fanatic people, which had got
together an army, fit for God Almighty to do miracles
withal.
In this great matter every man should lay aside self, re-
lations, and persons, and study to have a Government so
settled as may have strength, and a dependance upon the re-
formed interest and party of the nation. That it may not
depend upon such supporters as the King had, nor give en-
couragement to that party that ran along with the King's
Government. If that had taken its swing, where had we
been?
No man sits here but he adviseth for posterity. Let us
not lay a foundation again that may be subject to such ex-
ceptions. I do not fear that any man here would willingly
advance those old ends, but I see alterations, even farther
than ever I expected, not as concerning myself.
I fear not any desire or design to advance the Papists, but
they are very busy and hopeful at this time.
1658-9.]
189
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
So for prelacy, I think not any do design that. I hope
there is no danger of Papists or prelates; yet I have seen a
paper, a cloud as big as a man's hand, that may spread that
way
The best man is but a man at best. I have had great
reason to know it. Therefore there ought to be a great deal
of care even of the best man. Of your honours you ought
to take as great care as ever.
The present militia differs very much from what it was
before. A deputy-lieutenant in the county, or a captain,
were rather things of honour than dependency.
Too much dependency upon the Chief Magistrates, will
strive to come in here; and when it doth come, it will have
its bias. I shall always speak ingenuously. It will not be
fit to hide our diseases from you. I hope you will be careful
to cure them.
The first thing laid hold on was, the bringing delinquents
to punishment. Does not the same bone and quarrel of pre-
rogative lie now before you, in that Bill, tied with a double
cord?
1. According to the Petition and Advice. I am not so
well skilled, as to find much good or much ill in it.
2. According to the laws of the nation. It seems to be a
mist over what you may challenge as your own due, the mi-
litia and the negative voice. To give from you, what was
duly placed in you; after a possession to reject it, is worse
than to lay a long claim to it, and never possess it. Consider
them well, before you put them away.
There is objected unto us, dangers from abroad, great
preparations made by the Dutch. Those things may be
pressed too far. Danger from abroad is no argument; yet it
ought to be soine spur. The loss of time may be ill for the
whole nation; so it may urge us to go on with what expedi-
tion conveniently may be.
As to the other House, I shall speak to that. It was here-
tofore frenum imperi, to restrain the extravagancies of the
King in those elder times. To balance, was the good that na-
turally brought them in. They had great interest, and some-
thing of dominion. As to that which gave them any thing of
190
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
interest, and, by consequence, power to protect the Commons
of England, I have always approved very well of them; but
as to that which gave them dominion, I like not that. In
reference to the people, they have done many good offices.
They were heretofore frena imperii. They are now many
of them good men indeed, and for some of them, I know,
wherever their persons are, their hearts are here with us;
their interest (I hope in the opinion of most of them) being
more for the safety of this House, than of that where they do
sit. Yet they have a negative upon all your proceedings,
and may be debarred of their places of trust. Their in-
terest is not so considerable, but they must always have a
dependency upon the Chief Magistrate, and be forced to
close in with him. Thus they will be rather stimula, than
frena imperii. It is in yourselves chiefly to make such a
settlement as may encourage a reformed interest, peace, and
quiet.
Sir, it is confessed by all, that there is a Government in
possession, and by law: but be it never so perfect a law, I am
sure it is but an imperfect Government. Providence hath
put a prize into your hands, that you may have the ordering
of all, to be improved for the good of the whole.
Another flaw in the Government is, that the distributions
and elections shall be as this power shall agree upon; another
House, settled on another foundation than the Petition and
Advice. So that you are now upon three foundations. The
law you are upon, requires a King and a House of Lords.
It is hard to serve a Government depending upon so many
laws; so inconsistent. It will not be a perfect Government.
Upon the whole matter, I think the proper question before
you is the commitment of this Bill. Now how shall you com-
mit it? Several particulars are offered to be added; to
divide the question; to put in, according to the Petition and
Advice; to be with such limitations, &c. This resolve will
stand on your books, and it should not be entered without
the equity that it ought to take along with it.
If I should speak in favour of the Protector, I would here
say, make not that vote at all. I would have the vote be,
that you will be ready to join with him against all that shall
1658-9.]
191
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
oppose the Government, and you will give a good testimony.
Whatever you say to him, let the people's liberties be on the
backside of the bond. Let them go hand-in-hand. Commit
it to a Grand Committee.
Sir Lislebone Long. I will not go far back, as that noble
lord. I agree with him in the facts, and his observations,
but not that the consequence shall be the same, now that we
are delivered into that condition wherein the people acquiesce
in most things.
I shall not reflect upon any laws nor settlements that have
been. This stands upon as good a bottom. There has
been peace and tranquillity under this Government. The
vote obliges not till the Bill be passed. That which Lord
Lambert moved, did more oblige than the vote propounded.
Do as much as you may, without concluding yourselves as
to the Government that is a foot. You may debate it again.
Commines saith, after the death of the Duke of Burgundy,
a Parliament met, and the debate about the Government
lasted so long, that a common enemy* had got half the land.
You cannot prevent this better, than by putting this ques-
tion; but I would have it without limitations.
Mr. Reynolds. We came hither to make this a healing
Parliament. You have spent three days upon it, and if you
spend three days more, you will not repent it. I would, to
prevent treason at home and abroad, make a vote before we
* Whose "treacherous baseness, amazing even in the History of
Louis XI.," Dr. Robertson, (Charles V. i. s. 2.,) has exposed from
Commines. Henault thus describes the royal progress, (in 1477,) and
the ingenious fraus pia, to secure a possession, by becoming a vassal of
the Holy Virgin :-
"Le Roi, qui le premier avoit établi l'usage des postes, jusqu'alors
inconnu en France, par un édit de 1461, est bientôt informé de cet
évenement, et en profite pour reprendre plusieurs villes en Picardie, en
Artois, et en Bourgogne. Il s'empare aussi du Comté de Boulogne, re-
levant de l'Artois, en donnant une indemnité à Bertrand de la Tour,
Comte de Boulogne, et pour éteindre la suzeraineté, il la conféra de son
autorité à la Sainte Vierge, qui se nomma Notre-Dame de Boulogne,
afinque, quoi qu'il arrivât de l'Artois, il ne pût jamais avoir le Comté
de Boulogne dans sa mouvance." Abrége Chron. (1789,) ii. 407.
192
[FEB. 9,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
rise, to acknowledge him to be Protector, in fact, and that you
will assist him against all competitions.
Colonel Allured. I move to adjourn the debate till to-
morrow.
Mr. Neville. It is against my business which is appointed
to-morrow, but I will give up mine to the public. There is
no question before you as yet, some time will be spent in
wording the question.
Mr. St. Nicholus. I second the motion to adjourn.
Mr. Bodurda. The previous vote is the proper question.
Lord Lambert. The proper and natural vote is for com-
mitment.
Mr. Attorney-general. The proper question is the previous
for you must direct your Committee. I would have
the question stated.
vote;
Mr. Scot. There is not a word in the question but what
is controverted, every iota. We are not ripe for any ques-
tion. I hope provision is taken against your common enemy.
Your Army are fixed against that interest, at least.
It was cried out he had spoke.
Colonel White. They ought not to cry out.
Lord Fairfax. I move that a vote pass for securing the
peace, in the mean time; as Lord Lambert and Mr. Reynold's
moved.
Sir Henry Vane. Let not that question intervene, till it
also be debated in a Grand Committee.
Mr. Swinfen. The chair ought to keep us up to the things
debated upon. The previous vote was first, and always
moved as a direction to the Committee, be it grand or select.
You ought to propose that first.
Mr. Speaker. I proposed if I should not, in the first place,
put the question for commitment. Next, that the question,
with the additions, should be put. It is hard to know your
sense.
Lord Lambert. You are right. The proper question is
for the commitment.
Mr. Solicitor-General. Every man agrees that it shall be
committed. So that your proper question is the previous
1658-9.]
193
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
vote. The debate has been upon it, three days. If this
House be in possession of the power, I wonder who is out of
the possession. You are ready for a question. It is natu-
ral to put that question first.
Sir Henry Vane. I suppose you will have no Committee.
If you pass this question, what do you leave for your Com-
mittee? This is begging the question. It is seldom but
the House will trust itself. You need no preliminary vote.
From a Grand Committee you refer it to yourself. This is
not ingenuity, to surprise in this question. The whole de-
pends upon the Recognition.
Sir William Wheeler. I would not have three days' de-
bate lost; but propound the question, and let every man
speak to the wording of it, as he pleases.
Serjeant Maynard. There is no rule that the question
which is firsted and seconded shall be the question. Then it
would be easy for two or three members to lead the whole
House; but the question must be put upon what was de-
bated.
Colonel Terrill. I move that the question be stated and pro-
pounded, before you put it.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. The proper question is, that it be
committed. You were exceedingly in the right, as you are
always. You put us in that way. I believe other gentle-
men have not spoken, and will speak yet. I see it is late.
Three days have not been ill spent. This is not the way to
your own safety, to sit so late. Peradventure, forty or fifty
more would speak. I would have this debate adjourned till
to-morrow.
Mr. Attorney-general. Will you have a Committee, to
debate whether you will have a Protector or no? Let the
question be propounded. That were the most ingenuous.
Colonel White. I find many members remember the first,
and not the last part of the oath.* I hope we shall remember
"The preservation of the rights and liberties of the people." See
vol. ii. p. 297, note.
VOL. III.
194
[FEB. 10,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
all. I would have the question propounded, and adjourned
till to-morrow.
Mr. Salway and Sir Arthur Haslerigge moved for the
words" and not otherwise," to be added.
Mr. Neville. We agree him so, in fact, that he is Pro-
tector; but let us not say so: but that he shall be. This is
a previous vote, and no part of the Bill.
Mr. Trevor. I move to propound the question, and to ad-
journ till to-morrow; and that the question be the subject of
the debate.
Thursday, February, 10, 1658-9.
I came not till ten, and the House had been an hour in
debate whether there should be a previous vote.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge and Sir Henry Vane, and others,
strongly urged that the proper question was for commitment.
Mr. Bodurda. Let us not defeat one another.
If any
question intervene, every man may speak again. I move that
we be ingenuous one to another, and not exclude our votes.
Every man agrees that it should be committed.
Mr. Knightley. I never knew commitment to lose a bill.
A man may lose his life by commitment. I am against the
previous vote.
Mr. Trenchard. There is a great difference between a
previous vote and part of a Bill. I would have the previous
vote, first.
Mr. Trevor. I find that either a Bill is so bad that it is
incapable of amendment, or so good that it needs none; and
so may go to engrossing; or else there are some faults in it,
that it stands in need of some amendments.
Mr. Hewley. You differ about the method. Why need
we be so nice? I cannot speak to the orders of the House,
but to right reason. It matters not which question goes first.
You are master-builders, and may lay which stone you please,
first.
1658-9.]
195
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I
I see the doctors differ as to the orders of the House.
Colonel Birch. If the question pass for commitment, then
all the debate is excluded. The meaning is, to lose three
days' debate, if not the Bill.
Mr. Scawen and Mr. Hungerford never knew a previous
vote upon the commitment of a Bill. First commit it, and
then give your Committee directions, as most agreeable to the
orders of the House.
Mr. Fowell. The debate has always been upon the words
standing. If you agree not to this, I am against committing
it. In all your Bills formerly, in all Bills for money, you
ever agreed for the sum and time of payment, before you
committed it.
Mr. Francis Bacon. Your first vote must needs be, whe-
ther you will have a Protector, or not. If the question be
carried for a Committee, two or three days will be spent in
debating whether it shall be a Grand or Special Committee.
I doubt it will breed danger abroad.
Lieutenant-general Ludlow. I move against the previous
vote. I would not have us capitulate with them. I dare not
well trust them.
Mr. Starkey. I move for the words to stand in the Bill.
Mr. Scot. Qui bene distinguit, bene docet. True, a pre-
vious vote is proper upon a first reading; but not on a second
reading, in the case of money, as is moved. It is moved by
Mr. Francis Bacon that you swallow it without a debate,
either in a Grand or Private Committee. The proper ques-
tion and best way to come to a right understanding is, to
commit the whole.
Colonel Fielder. This question was propounded yester-
day. I would have it now put, whether it shall be put.
Mr. Chaloner. If you agree to this, there is nothing left
for your Committee to debate upon; unless a little about
the House of Lords.
Mr. Speaker. It is hard for me to understand your sense.
All agree about the commitment. If this were a previous
vote of itself, then it were another thing; but if you mean
1
o 2
196
[FEB. 10,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
this shall be a part of the Bill, then it will be part of the Bill.
There are divers exceptions against the Bill, in the words,
"lawful successor," and the like.
Mr. Knightley. Let both go together. If you pass this,
you pass the whole Bill. Divers young gentlemen came here
in 44, and said they had been at two hundred Bills, and never
saw one.
Sir Henry Vane. You ought to direct us that the com-
mitment should be first.
Mr. Goodrich. Here are two questions on foot; one for
commitment, and another for the previous vote. Out of these
results a third. Which of these questions shall precede?
Pray put it, which shall be first put.
Mr. Disbrowe. I never knew it, that a previous vote was
denied. I would have the arguments answered. If the ques-
tion be for commitment, why may not all speak over again, to
direct your Committee?
All those reflections on former Parliaments might better
have been spared: better have covered your fathers' naked-
ness, for so I must honour them and call them.
Put the question, whether you shall put the question.
Mr. Pedley. You have a natural and a collateral question.
It cannot be denied but, sometimes, the collateral question
may precede. It has been always expected we are to put a
question for a natural question. I would have the question
put, whether this collateral question shall be first put.
Mr. Neville. It appears to me that as great a sense of the
House is for the natural question.
Captain Baynes and Mr. Weaver the same. Many things
were done precipitately, in the five months' Parliament; but
always, in that, the natural preceded the unnatural.
Major Ashton. This question has received many names.
I wish the unnatural name had been spared. My reason why
the natural question should not be put, is, because it would
unnaturally destroy the other question.
Mr. Steward. I cannot well distinguish between natural
and collateral. I suppose they may be both natural ques-
1658-9.]
197
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
tions. It is very natural that before the first question be put,
the collateral should be decided.
Mr. Reynolds. It is time that makes a prescription. I
wonder how gentlemen can prescribe from 54. I have not
spoken to the merits. Let this question be put for commit-
ment. You have but one question before you, naturally,
and put the next question, afterwards, when debated.
Mr. Hoskins. The proper question is for commitment ;
but I never heard but other questions may intermeddle. Else
how came the debate? Nothing so usual.
Sir John Northcote. I am sorry to see time squandered
When a Bill is but in the question, it follows natu-
rally for commitment, and to give directions to your Com-
mittee. A previous vote never came; but always before the
Bill came in. You must needs put the natural question.
Mr. Hewley. I would have neither question precede; but
that they may be both put together.
Mr. Fowell. You turn the other question out of doors, if
you put that.
Mr. Knightley.
the adopted son.
nothing from me.
Mr. Stephens.
The natural son ought always to precede
He that will ask me nothing, shall have
Jealousies amongst ourselves are the
cause of all this delay. Putting the natural question will be
most proper, but if that pass in the negative, I doubt you
will put a bar upon yourselves, as to the other.
Serjeant Seys. I thought to have sat still, and served, but
as the members find such differences-(used the words "ill-
word, folly," &c. which was improper).
If the question pass for commitment we are locked up. It
is most fit to put the previous vote, before the Bill is com-
mitted.
Lord Fairfax. I move that the question for commitment
be put.
Mr. St. Nicholas. There was a great deal of time, before
that proposition grew up to a question.
Mr. Turner. I have sat in three Parliaments, yet would
198
[FEB. 10,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
not venture to speak to the orders of the House, but that some
that never saw a Parliament before, speak to the orders. In
the turning of all the Instruments of Government that we
have been under, there were always previous votes. We differ
not in the substance, only in the modus agendi.
Mr. Barnham. It is your duty to put the question for
commitment, though all and every individual of this House
were for the other question.
Mr. Jones. You may divide any part of the Bill here. It
will be no way inconsistent to your Bill. The proper ques-
tion is for the previous vote.
Mr. Jenkinson. The natural and proper question is for
commitment.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. It was moved to debate it in parts,
beginning at "Be it enacted." If you determine not this, you
will commit it to a Committee that can do nothing with it.
All the preface may be mended. The substance lies in two
lines, in the latter end. Without this question I shall be
against the commitment of the Bill.
Mr. Manley. I hear nobody deny the single person to be
fitted to be Protector: Why need you then refer the ques-
tion to a Committee?
Mr. Speaker. I cannot yet see that the previous vote is fit
to be propounded. Two questions are before you, whether
the previous vote, or the commitment.
Sir Henry Vane. He mistakes the two questions :-
1. If the Bill shall be committed.
2. Whether that question shall be put.
Mr. Trevor and Serjeant Maynard. If either of those
questions be put, I am deprived of my vote which way soever
I give my vote, either to hazard the casting out the Bill, or
to lose the debate. Let us not lose our ingenuity in surpris-
ing one another into a question. The debate has been soberly
carried on hitherto.
Lord Lambert. The general sense of the House may be
put, yea or nay. The Bill shall be committed, for any thing
that is said; no votes shall be lost. There may be a great
want of ingenuousness on the other side. I believe if this
1658-9.]
199
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
were referred to a Committee, I would be so understood, that
those that would now give their affirmative to the previous
vote would then give their negative to it.
Mr. Speaker. It is very natural to put the question, if
this shall be part of the Bill.
Lord Lambert. Upon the second reading, you cannot
speak to any part of the Bill; unless for rejecting it or com-
mitting it.
Mr. Solicitor-general. You may speak to any part of
the Bill. It is not so natural to commit a Bill. You may
pass a whole, or any part of a Bill. If this question be too
great for us, it is too great for the Committee. So that clear-
ly it agrees with the orders of the House to pass any part.
I hear some except against the style,* that it is not grave
enough, or so Parliamentary. This is the work of the Com-
mittee. I am excluded of my vote if the question be for
commitment; but the other question every man is free to af-
firm or deny.
Sir Walter Earle. I have seen it done ten times; a pre-
vious vote after a Bill has been engrossed. I would not have
men to speak four or five times.
Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Knightley. Any gentleman may
speak to the orders of the House as often as he pleases. Sir
Walter Earle moved expressly against the orders of the
House.
Sir Henry Vane. It seems it is long since any Bill passed
regularly. At the first reading no man can speak for a Bill;
but against it, he may. At the second reading he may speak
for, or against it, that is, against any part of it. The natural
orders will preserve you from rocks. In times when we had
kings, the House was surprised by previous votes.
Our an-
cestors foresaw the necessity of committing a Bill. You
have not touched the question, if the question shall be put for
commitment.
Mr. Attorney-general. I have always observed the rule
that what was the most agreeable to every man's sense was
* See supra, p. 130.
200
[FEB. 10,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
i
L
1
the natural question, not to exclude any man's vote. I think
it too great for your Committee. I would have that ques-
tion put which may save our time.
Colonel White. It is expedient to determine the debate.
Some say, per orders, the question; some, of another mind,
propose this, whether the House will take into consideration
a previous vote, before the commitment.
Mr. Knightley. I like the question well, for an expedient;
but doubt it will be dangerous to skip over the orders of our
ancestors, in Queen Elizabeth's and King James's times. I
have read journals before I was a Parliament man.
Sir John Maynard. If you cautionate it so that the pre-
vious vote shall be upon what is debated. By those interven-
ing votes, I have often known the whole debate turned aside,
and both questions lost.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I hope we shall have ingenuous-
ness on both sides, not to be jealous of one another. If I sur-
prize any, I desire never to be heard again. If I see any
serpent under the green leaves, I will pull off the leaves,
though never so flourishing.
Mr. Bodurda. I observed Sir Henry Vane. He contend-
ed not for the precedency; but for the dangerousness of the
other question. I think it, on the other side, necessary that
you put no question that may put out of doors a question of
this concernment. This gentleman did move that the debate
go on upon this negative debate. I desire the question be,
that a previous vote, in order to this debate, shall be first
put.
Sir Henry Vane. I agree that the question may be, if a
previous vote shall be before commitment.
Mr. Knightley and Mr. Reynolds moved that a question
should be put for a previous vote, to be before the Committee
be named.
Sir Waller Earle. That question is improper. You are,
part, for a previous vote before the Committee be named; and
you know not whether you will have a Committee, or not.
Mr. Godfrey. I agree this is impossible. I would have
1658-9.]
201
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
the question: if a previous vote upon the matter debated
shall be put, before the Bill be committed.
The question was proposing.
Sir Henry Vane. Those that were naming a Committee
should be against this question. (Query, if ingenuously
moved?)
The question being put in the affirmative ;—
Lieutenant-general Ludlow stood up, and pressed that the
natural question might be put, for commitment.
The question being put, whether this House will take into
consideration a previous vote touching the matters here de-
bated before the Bill be committed. The question being put
if that question shall be now put, it passed in the affirma-
tive.
The main question being put, it passed in the affirmative.
The House rose at almost three.
The Committee of Privileges sat in the Star Chamber.
Serjeant Waller in the chair.
Friday, February 11, 1658-9.
Mr. Speaker took the chair almost at nine.
Mr. Cooper prayed.
Dr. Burges's book* was delivered at the door, touching the
sale of Bishop's lands.
* “A Case concerning the Buying of Bishops' lands, with the lawful-
ness thereof; and the Difference between the Contractors for the Sale
of those Lands and the Corporation of Wells." Prefixed, is an address,
"To the Parliament of England," signed " Cornelius Burges, February
9, 1658-9."
،،
cr more ser-
Dr. Burges was beneficed at Wells; performing, (p. 62,)
vice in that Church, than any Bishop that ever sate there;" he had
been "Chaplain to King Charles, in 1627,” but was afterwards much
vexed in the High Commission Court, for opposing the Laudensian fac-
tion." He became " a frequent preacher before the Long Parliament,”
202
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Colonel Morley stood up and made his election for Sussex,
and moved that a new writ may issue for the borough of
Lewes.
by whom he was fixed in an evening lecture at Paul's, with a pen-
sion of 4007. per annum ;" though he had "argued against imposing the
Covenant, and refused the taking of it, till he was suspended: but hav-
ing once taken it, he thought himself obliged to keep it." In 1648-9,
he drew up, and first signed, as "Preacher of the Word in Paul's,
London," the protest of fifty-seven Presbyterian royalist preachers,
against "the bringing of the King to capital punishment," to which I
have referred, (vol. ii. pp. 320, 449.)
Just before, January 14, he had "preached a sermon at Mercers'
Chapel, in which he, with great freedom, inveighed against the design
that was then on foot, of taking off the King, and feared not the con-
sequence." See Dr. Calamy's Account, (1713,) ii. 586; Continuation,
(1727,) ii. 736–745.
CC
Lord Clarendon, on the Bill, in 1641, "to take away Bishops' votes,"
says, "without doubt, the Archbishop of Canterbury had never so great
an influence upon the counsels at court, as Dr. Burges and Mr. Mar-
shall had then upon the Houses." History, (1705,) i. 302. May 12th,
1641, the very day of Lord Strafford's execution, Dr. Burges, accord-
ing to Rushworth, made, at the bar of the Commons, a large answer,"
to a learned oration" of Dr. Hacket, Chaplain, and afterwards the
biographer of Archbishop Williams, " in behalf of Deans and Chapters.
The further debate was adjourned; only the Commons voted that all
Deans and Chapters should be required from the House, to suffer the
inhabitants of the places where their cathedrals are, to have a sermon
preached in them every Sunday, in the afternoon." Hist. Col. (1708,)
iv. 91, 92. See Parl. Hist. (1763,) ix. 322—324.
(C
Now, addressing "the Parliament," Dr. Burges having mentioned
"the death of the late Lord Protector," seasonably compliments "his
present Highness, gentis Anglicanæ nunc deliciarum,” denouncing
quacksalving spirits," and their "new models of government," such
"turbulent polypragmatists" as "will never be for any settlement at
all." Thus he introduces his Case, the second part of which is on his
dispute with the Corporation. In the first part, he repels the charge
of sacrilege; largely and learnedly contending, (p. 7,)" that tythes are
the proper maintenance set out by God for the ministers of the Gos-
pel, and cannot be alienated without sacriledge;" but, "that there is
no warrant in scripture, for the giving of lands to Bishops, and there-
fore it cannot be sacriledge now to alien them." Then, after censur-
ing "Dr. Lindsey," who had " styled Bishop Usher, for his often
preaching, animalculum prædicabile," and praising that Bishop at the
1658-9.]
203
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Fugge made his election for Sussex.
Mr. Knightley moved the like for Higham Ferrers.
expense of unpreaching prelates, Dr. Burges thus diverts the war into
the enemy's country :-
"Even they, who now cry loudest against buying Church-lands, be-
cause once dedicated to God, and make it high sacriledge in others,
can yet be content and quiet to hold things of the same kind, in respect
of dedication heretofore aliened from the Church. They can digest
abbey-lands, canonical-houses, yea, (which is worst) appropriations of
tythes, first made by that arch-thief, the Pope, in favour of monasteries,
and after their dissolution, devolved to private hands and common uses,
as Bishops' lands now be.
How many nobles and gentlemen, who now cry sacriledge against
many purchasers, do possess many lands and manors of Bishops, alien-
ated since Henry VIII. began to destroy monasteries; many of those
lands being, by secret compact, between petitioners for bishopricks and
their friends at court, exchanged, or otherwise aliened from the Church,
upon condition to get such a bishopric for them. If any doubt it, it is
his ignorance." Dr. Burges then gives the names of nineteen manors
"alienated from the Bishopric of Bath and Wells, before ever the late
Parliament seized the rest; and are held by laymen, to their own pri-
vate uses, without scruple or blame.
"Let not such think to wash all off, by saying, 'these were things
done before their times, which they could not help ;' for they can, with-
out scruple, enjoy, yea, purchase them. An accessary in sin long be-
fore committed, must share with the principal in punishment: and this
all acknowledge to be a truth; non firmatur tractu temporis, quod de
jure ab initio non substitit. No house will grow strong by long con-
tinuance, whose foundation is on the sand. They, therefore, that
thus censure him, are themselves inexcusable."
Dr. Burges lost, of course, in 1660, his lectureship at Paul's; and
in 1662, he was ejected from his benefice at Wells, with "
a wife
and ten children." He now "lived privately, and was reduced to
straits, having laid out all he had in Bishops' lands, which, upon the
Restoration, was entirely lost. He died in 1665.”
Having been educated and taken his degree in divinity at Oxford,
Wood has given him an article of some length, and (though the Doc-
tor would have spared the King,) of no small virulence. He has not,
however, forborne to mention, that “about three weeks before his
death, he sent certain Common-Prayer Books to the public library at
Oxford." These, besides the edition of 1663, were the two editions of
Edw. VI., and that 1. Eliz., "which book," he says, "is very hard to
be had,” so that he “could never see any other of that edition.” On
1
204
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The order of the day was read, touching the debate ad-
journed yesterday.
Mr. Hoskins. I would not look back but with relenting,
and never to come to it again. You now are looking forward.
(He stated the debate, which he interrupted with a long
discourse, touching the orders of the House.)
If there had been any doubt who was Protector, after the
death of his late Highness, we had been under no great in-
convenience. I understand that many minds doubt it; but
the reason I know not. I am not against the indorsement
upon the back of the bond,* but not for the limitations, now.
You are now upon a title. You will not have foreign princes
address to his Highness as Protector, under such limita-
tions and qualifications. I would have the words of limita-
tion left out.
Mr. Foxwist. If I had questioned his Highness being
Protector, I had not been here. I have sworn to it, and
hope I shall defend it. I suppose we are under three estates,
a single person and two Houses of Parliament.
My motion is to leave out the limitations.
Mr. Reynolds. I am 1. Against the title. I cannot
swallow the Bill. I understand not the word "recognition."
2. Against the words, "lawful successor."
The first argument is the Petition and Advice, it was done.
by force. The House was divided, upon the question, fifty-
the title of that, 2 Edw. VI. (1549,) he had written, "This is one of
the very first Books of Common-Prayer, in the beginning of Edward
VI.; which book, at the request of Archbishop Cranmer, was reviewed
and censured by Martin Bucer, and then reformed accordingly, in 5
Edw. VI., which latter is the book still in force by the statute, 1 Elis.”
Ou "
a spare leaf,” Dr. Burges presents these books to his "dear and
much honoured mother, the renowned University of Oxford ;" conclud-
ing: "all these I most humbly and thankfully give to my said honour-
able mother of Oxford, (I being ready to die) beseeching her to account
of these four small mites, as our Lord and blessed Saviour did of the
poor widow's two mites, that by casting in that, cast in all she had.”
Athen. Oxon. (1692,) ii. 235–238.
Sce supra, p. 191.
1658-9.]
205
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
That to the manner of it.
:
three affirmative, fifty negative.*
To the matter. The seventh article looks very black like
the Trojan horse, an army in the belly. Where did you
provide for an army? You bind an army on the back. One
of the estates are mostly officers;† and so we shall have an
army entailed upon us, by having the revenue entailed.
The second argument is, that not to recognize will shake
the sales, &c.
I answer, when a Parliament, under a force, doth a just
and right thing, that matter will be trusted to a rightly con-
stituted Parliament to confirm. Here was constituted per
question, a buyer and a seller. I bought some lands myself,
but was sent for. The contractors said, that if some of us
did not break the ice, none would contract. There was an
ordnance, of Lords and Commons, that if they did not con-
tract presently, all should be lost.
500l. to take the bargain off my
paid the whole sum in ready money, 8,000l. If I paid it in
ready money, the officers would have the benefit of it. Then
I bought bills at 951. per cent. to sink the public debt, out of
my service to the public. This was an unjust temporary law,
made by a Parliament under a force, not well pursued.
This was hard.
This was hard. I offered
hands. I thought to have
An acre of land cannot pass without such a nomination as
Westminster-hall and the law will allow of. It must be le-
gally proved.
We must have a recognition, and yet, no debt, no title, no
interest appears. I would have it amended in the title, and
instead of acknowledge, say declare, and establish that he is
Protector.
Mr. Fowell took him down.
Mr. Reynolds stood up again, and said he should not be
taken down.
Now, to the previous vote, whether it shall relate to the
Acknowledgment of the single person only, or take the peo-
ple's rights in with it.
*See vol. ii. p. 119, note*; Journals; Parl. Hist. (1760) xxi. 128.
† See vol. ii. p. 450, note.
1
206
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
In the beginning of the Long Parliament there were two
Armies. We had passed an Act for raising money. All
people were privileged to become security, till the money
was raised. This appeared great fidelity to his Majesty, by
pulling the thorns out of his feet which had gotten in. He
laboured to seduce that Army. Young Lord Goring* came
to the bar and said: " the Queen sent for me into the King's
lodging, and asked me: are you concerned in that cabal ?"
'No,' said I. Then go, join with Jermyn and Piercy, and
bring up the army against the Parliament.""
In those debates men sat in the gallery, and as soon as ever
they could get out, ran to the court, to tell tales and misrepre-
sentations to the King, as soon as ever twelve o'clock came.
Misfortunes, too, came from our friends. Divines,† that
*See vol. ii. p. 443. note.
† The Assembly, (see vol. ii. pp. 333, 334, notes,) where a powerful
ascendancy was maintained by the Presbyterians, among whom had sur-
vived the spirit of the Star-Chamber and High Commission; and of
their favourite theologian, Calvin: the Independents, though generally
adopting the theology of Calvin, having happily rejected his doctrine of
persecution.
That reformer, not otherwise inhumane, in the arrogant and merci-
less spirit which has fixed on his memory the indelible disgrace of be-
traying Servetus to the stake, and then glorying in the atrocious deed,
addressed a letter of counsel, in 1548, to the Protector Somerset, who
was reigning in the name of Edward VI. He denounces to his corre-
spondent two sorts of troublesome people in England, Gospellers and
Papists; thus consigning both to the magistrate's sword: gladio ultore
coerceri quem tibi tradidit Dominus.
There is a fine contrast supplied by Castalio, in the dedication of his
Biblia Sacra to Edward VI. That accomplished scholar, who, as a li-
beral theologian, became an object of Calvin's bitter hatred, having
referred to the instructive parable, which, it might be supposed a
Christian persecutor had never read, adds, in a style of sentiment pro-
bably singular in that age, and, like a Pythagorean scholar, adducing
the authority not to be disputed ;-" Obediamus justo judici, et zizania
usque ad messem sinamus, ne forte frumentum (dum supra magistrum
sapere volumus) extirpemus. Neque enim adhuc ultimus mundi finis
est: neque nos angeli sumus, quibus hæc sit mandata provincia." Bib.
Sac. (1726,) pp. xi. xii. (Let us obey the righteous Judge, and leave
the tares till the harvest, lest, while we would be wiser than the
1658-9.]
207
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
we ourselves had called together, were the occasions of the first
breach in this House.
The House set up the Presbyterian Government in great
might* to please them. They excepted against the Act that
master, we destroy the wheat. Neither is this the end of the world,
nor are we the angels to whom that province is committed.)
For the intolerant Presbyterians of the Assembly, by whom the Long
Parliament was urged to violate the dearest human rights, there was
reserved a just retribution, under the Act of Uniformity, in 1662; when
"with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again," was
strikingly exemplified in their experience; though they have been too
often described as innocent sufferers. They had, indeed, reason to com-
plain of the faithless Stuart, with the promise of whose favour they en-
couraged and assisted Monk, to betray the best interests of their coun-
try: yet they were visited in their turn, only according to the princi-
ples and conduct they had displayed during the short period of their
ecclesiastical ascendancy.
The English Presbyterians of the present day happily inherit nothing
but the name. Of this many of them would gladly be deprived, as no
longer applied with any propriety.
The Directory. April 26, 1645. See vol. ii. p. 68, note; Scobell's
Acts, (1658,) pp. 75-92. This was enforced, August 23rd, by the fol-
lowing invasion of that right, essential to the perfection of civil govern-
ment, the unrestricted exercise of religious profession :-
"And it is further hereby ordained, by the said Lords and Com-
mons, that if any person or persons whatsoever, shall at any time or
times hereafter, use, or cause the aforesaid Book of Common Prayer to
be used, in any church, chapel, or public place of worship, or in any
private place or family, within the Kingdom of England, dominion of
Wales, or port or town of Berwick; that then, every such person so of-
fending therein, shall for the first offence forfeit and pay the sum of
five pounds, of lawful English money; for the second offence, the sum
of ten pounds, and for the third offence, shall suffer one whole year's
imprisonment without bail or mainprize." Ibid. p. 97.
Blackstone justly censures this cruel legislative interference, espe-
cially with the sacred privacies of domestic life. Yet he has sanctioned
the spirit of the whole, by adopting, (b. iv. ch. iv.) that common-place
of Christian persecutors, the dictum of Judge Hale, so degrading to the
divine religion of the Saviour, that "Christianity is part and parcel of
the law of England."
From the following report by Rushworth, it appears that some citi-
zens were disposed to treat with deserved neglect this persecuting
ordinance :-
1
208
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
it had not taken notice of their intrinsical power, that it was
jure divino, from the apostles. For all this they preached up
and down; and said we invaded the civil rights, and suffered
heresies and blasphemies to increase.* We were blamed for
"1647. Dec. 25. Complaints being made of countenancing ma-
lignant ministers in some parts of London, where they use the Com-
mon-Prayer Book, contrary to the ordinance of Parliament; and
some preaching on this day, because Christmas Day; [See vol. i. p.
229.]—the House ordered the Committee for Plundered Ministers, to
examine and punish churchwardens and others, who countenance de-
linquent ministers, and to commit them, if they see cause: upon which
some were taken into custody." Hist. Col. vi. 323.
* Besides their persecution of individuals, especially Biddle and Best,
(see vol. i. pp. 57, 65,) the Presbyterian clergy were instigators of that
draconic ordinance, as it has been justly called, which passed May 2,
1648, (just on the revival, in the Parliament, of the Presbyterian as-
cendancy,)" for punishing blasphemies and heresies."
Whoever, "by preaching, teaching, printing, or writing," should
"maintain and publish" atheism, deism, or any of the forms of anti-
trinitarian Christianity, “and not abjure his said error," was con-
demned to "suffer the pains of death, as in case of felony, without be-
nefit of clergy."
The same penalty of death was incurred by denying the divine ori-
gin of any one of the books of the received canon of the Old and New
Testament, which are all enumerated in the Ordinance. Thus a learn-
ed theologian, however orthodox on every other point, should he indulge
the opinion, that "the Song of Songs" was an epithalamium of King So-
lomon, and "not the word of God," would be doomed to "the pains of
death, without benefit of clergy." See Scobel's Acts, pp. 149, 150.
r
Neale justly denounces this Ordinance as one of the most shocking
laws, in restraint of religious liberty," which "shows that the govern-
ing Presbyterians would have made a terrible use of their power, had
they been supported by the sword of the civil magistrate. The Pres-
byterians of the present age," he adds, (1735) are not only thankful
that the confusion of the times did not permit their predecessors to put
this law into execution, but wish also, that it could be blotted out of the
records of time.” Hist. (1822) iii. 419, 421.
re
Dr. Toulmin, the editor of Neale, (1793) adds, with that just judgment
which I well knew him to possess :-" The indignation which the liberal
mind feels at the principles and spirit of those, who themselves recently
suffering under the hard hand of intolerance, could frame and such
a law, is somewhat relieved by finding that it did not pass without
much opposition." See Whitlock, May 2, 1648.
pass
1658-9.]
209
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
all. You only sent a member or two to admonish and advise
them.
The next unhandsomeness came from the apprentices.*
There was a force upon the Parliament. Some went to the
army, some stayed here. I went another way, but to my
own house till the force was removed. An impeachment was
brought in from the army, not from the army, but from a
spirit in the army. Not so much as a relator allowed on those
gentlemen's behalf that were excluded. They were forced
to go out of the land to save themselves. Persons of honour
they were. I could not in that time come near this House.
I had no hand in, nor heart for, trying the King. I scru-
pled it for divers reasons. 1. Because I feared the people
should not have benefit by it, but that something should step
up like it, through the iniquity of men. I was assured a
thing like this was near at hand, coming upon us.
I came to the town, and was importuned to come into the
House. I thought I might do some good. To take off free
quarter, and excise of ale and beer was no ill deed; and,
seeing I must sit here, I would keep as much of the people's
rights as I could in this House. I was very pressing for that
Act to dissolve ourselves. I never desired any earthly thing
with more earnestness, to see that Parliament fairly dissolved,
and another provided to built up what
+ The ques-
tion being put to dissolve
+
† with a very loud Yea.
This done, persons came to the door. One came in and
sweetly and kindly took your predecessor by the hand and led
him out of the chair. I say, sweetly and gently.§
April, 1648. See supra, p. 108, note.
+ Blank in the MS.
See supra, p. 56, note.
This was
The Speaker
§ See Sir Arthur Haslerigge's account, supra, p. 98.
not stirring from his seat," says Whitlock, who probably witnessed the
extraordinary scene, "Colonel Harrison, who sat near the chair, rose
up and took him by the arm, to remove him from his chair, which,
when the Speaker saw, he left his chair.
"Some of the members rose up to answer Cromwell's speech, but he
would suffer none to speak but himself; which he did with so much
VOL. III.
P
210
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
never known abroad, how near the Parliament that con-
quered others were to conquering themselves.
It gave me some satisfaction that it was hoped we should
know our crimes.* Some continued in and advanced, and
made me believe they were free. I wish there were an act to
oblivion all these things. I could give an act of free pardon
to all.
There has been a large field since. What imprisonments,
and impositions on men's persons and estates; monies raised;
high courts of justice! The hereditary lords never pre-
sumed to raise money. Hard choice; you must either levy
money against the law, or make free quarter.
Since the death of the late Protector we have better hopes.
I never had confidence to serve you, since the Long Parlia-
ment. We ought now to take care that we suffer not these
things over again.
Now to the previous vote. I would have all remember the
oath. There was great wisdom, prudence, and integrity, in
framing that oath; to ligament the single person and people
together. I shall express my faithfulness to him by giving
him the best council I can. I will attempt nothing against
his government. I will not consent to such exorbitant powers
as that others should attempt upon him. I have in this per-
formed the first part of the oath.
As to the second part, the liberties of the people. Is there
any better way than to keep the staff in their hands: the mi-
litia; with an appeal to the lords, on oath, and a judgment for
the people. I will stand by that judgment, jacta est alea.
arrogance in himself, and reproach to his fellow-members, that some of
his privadoes were ashamed of it. All honest and prudent indifferent
men, were highly distasted at this unworthy action.
"Thus it pleased God, that this assembly, famous through the world
for its undertakings, actions, and successes, having subdued all their
enemies, were themselves overthrown and ruined by their servants;
and those whom they had raised, now pulled down their masters." Me-
morials, (1732) pp. 554, 555.
* See supra, p. 74 note.
1658-9.1
211
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I question if you will give that away again. If you give it
by wholesale and beg it by retail,* it will not become the wis-
dom of the House. The negative voice would never be ad-
mitted. The formality of his denying a Bill: "The King
will consider of it."+ His oath awed him, he ought not, he
durst not, deny a law. After you have passed this vote, he
is, de facto, in possession, and then you are disturbed, and
laws, and instructions for limitation are postponed till you
meet here again.
I hear not one man against a single person: against the
single person there is not one exception. Not any other man
in this nation would pass so clearly. I have particular and
personal reasons. I would venture my life rather than he
should be in danger.
+
I have heard his late Highness with tears, and knocking
his breast in this House, say he would sheathe a sword in any
man that should disobey an order of this House. We laid
exceeding temptations upon him; impossible for a mortal
man to bear. Lay them upon any man alive, and the same
exorbitances will ensue. Can any rationally believe other-
wise. It is the clear way to destroy him, to make his power
exorbitant. I have heard great truths from every corner of
+ See vol. ii. p. 451, note.
* See supra, p. 171, 172.
He appears to have possessed constitutionally the indispensable
qualification of an actor in tragedy. Thus, on his behaviour at the in-
terview between Charles and his children, in 1647, Mr. Godwin remarks,
that "it was, by all accounts, one of the peculiarities of Cromwell's
frame, whether the cause were bodily or mental, that he had always
tears at command." Commonwealth, (1826,) ii. 360.
In some CC
particulars of Mrs. Bendysh," (the extraordinary grand-
daughter of Cromwell, by his daughter's marriage with Ireton,) com-
municated to Rev. J. Duncombe, it is said that "Mrs. B. gravely in-
sisted, in a conversation with her friends, that Oliver was one day
seeking the Lord with such ardour of devotion, and striving for a
gracious answer with such vehemence of spirit, that the tears were
forced from him in such abundance as to run under the closet door."
See "Letters to Several Eminent Persons Deceased." (1773) ii. Appen-
dix, xxxvii.
P 2
212
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
this House here spoke of the Long Parliament, with a great
deal of honour. Mr. Disbrowe,* I honour him for that, be
his opinion what it will.
From another corner, those addresses brought an evil
measure to measure the people's affections by: not for his
Highness's service: full of flatteries. One came to my
hands, drawn by a young minister, pretending to contain the
sense of the whole country; that they would stand up to de-
fend the good old cause with all that sat in the Long Parlia-
ment, and “for defence of your Highness's person and go-
vernment."
""
I am glad to see truth come out of corners. Truth seeks
none. In evil times we see truth is driven into corners.
+
I never heard any thing laid to Overton's charge, but dis-
satisfaction that he could not say black was white, and all one.
Another truth from another corner: clearing the army from
the King's blood,§ that all authority is reverted to the foun-
tain and original. It is my prayer that it may be there still:
no family to be balanced with an interest of the people. A
member was sent out for saying so. This was in the begin-
ning, but after, they saw its truth; and they, by a vote, ad-
judged what that gentleman said was true; else they would
not have restored him.
* See supra, p. 196.
↑
† See supra, p. 45.
† See supra, p. 161.
§ See supra, pp. 173-176.
"Query, Harry Marten," added in the MS.
+ In August 1643, according to Whitlock, "A book set out by Salt-
marsh, a minister, was denounced to the Commons," recommending,
CC
among other his counsels," that "if the King would not grant their
demands, then to root him out and the royal line, and to collate the
crown upon somebody else.
"Some excepting against this, Mr. Henry Marten said, 'He saw
no reason to condemn Mr. Saltmarsh, and that it were better one fa-
mily should be destroyed than many.'
C
"Sir Nevil Poole moved that Mr. Marten might explain what fa-
mily he meant, who boldly answered, The King and his children.'
Upon this, some of the members urged against his lewdness of life,
and the height and danger of these words. And divers speaking
sharply against Mr. Marten, he was committed to the Tower." Me-
morials, (1732) p. 71.
1658-9.]
213
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Since Providence has brought us to this pass, that this
right is devolved upon the people, let the people have some
compensation. As long as there is a righteous God in Hea-
ven, he will do it in due time. I pray we may speak above-
board, as Englishmen. I love a man that will speak his
thoughts from his heart. I would have this previous vote to
have no future tense in it. I would have this vote a compre-
I desire that the Chief Magis-
hensive noose, an entire vote.
trate may not only be chief, but the favourite of the Com-
monwealth. Let the vote be like the oath. It has linked
them together, accursed be he that parts them.
As you say what he shall have, say also what he shall not
have.
1. Not to dispose of the militia.
2. What laws they make shall have no negative from him.
I am persuaded in my heart, these things would please him
well; if not pressed from some without doors, as in the King's
time. The more power we can get for you, the more power
and place shall we have. This would have contented the
former Chief Magistrate. The King would have been content
but for his council.* A maiden magistrate has not offended.
He is as little obnoxious to Parliaments as any man.
With what applause came in the King, and in three years
he lost the hearts of all his people by breaking Parliaments.
He followed not the advice of Parliaments, but of his council.
"1645-6. Jan. 6. Voted that a former judgment against Mr. Henry
Marten, of expelling him the House, should be void, and rased out of
the Journal-Book, and Mr. Marten to enjoy the benefit of his first
election. This gave occasion to some to believe that the House began
Ibid. p. 186.
to be more averse from the King.
The reverend author of the book which thus tempted Marten to a
premature declaration, had found his doctrine to become less obnoxious,
and appears to have now made his peace. Baxter,speaking of the
army in 1616, says :-"Saltmarsh and Dell were the two great preach-
ers at the head-quarters." Reliquiæ Baxterianæ (1696) p. 56.
* Unless referring to his chamber-council, the Queen, (see supra,
pp. 93, 94), this is surely incorrect. No Prince was ever more his own
minister than Charles, at least after the deaths of Buckingham and
Strafford.
214
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
See the consequences.
gistrates that will not esteem the love of their people, but are
carried away by those that flatter for their own good.
That will be the lot of all Chief Ma-
This paper is not perfect. This House is not best at pen-
ning a question. Choose two or three to pen a question, to
be the subject matter of the debate.
Mr. Fowell. Some of the Parliament-men are fitter for
repertare than repetiare. I shall not tell you of the lands I
bought.* I shall keep to the question.
We owe our peace, safety, happiness, and meeting here, to
the power of nominating a successor. Else you had met
many competitors.
It is objected that the Parliament was under force.† I an-
swer, three hundred then sat in the House. Sixty were kept
out and wrote a letter. They were persons of integrity. We
did at last obtain it, that they might sit with us. There ought
not to have been that reflection. There is a difference be-
tween force to some members and force upon a Parliament.
If that make all laws void, that some of your members be
absent, two or three Cavaliers may seize two or three of your
members. What is done in Parliament, by another Parlia-
ment must be repealed. There was an Act, 31 Hen. VIII.
to repeal an act of a former Parliament. You set up a court
of wards; and purveyance, and take away all the lands given
to your soldiery by last Parliament.
us.
I sat in the Long Parliament, and there was a force upon
Three hundred § of us were hurried to prison. I will
not say the Parliament were guilty; but they made an order
to keep us out, and a Committee of Inquisition was appointed.
I was examined, how I gave my vote. I said it was not par-
liamentary to discover how I gave my vote. I confessed I was
against it. I did according to my conscience, and he is a
knave that does not so. All public sales will be shaken.
The Petition and Advice is a law. His Highness is Pro-
tector by that Petition and Advice. If there be any defect
* See supra, P.
205.
+ See "Mr. Reynolds," supra, p. 204.
See vol. ii. p. 437, note.
§ Probably an error for thirty. See supra, p. 106.
1658-9.]
215
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
}
:
in the Trojan horse,* let it be mended. This is to give satis-
faction to your allies abroad, and safety at home, that we
should never come under the tyranny of a Commonwealth. I
would have bounds; that he shall rule according to law but
to limit him, as you say, the conclusion denies the premises.
If you had picked the world for a prince. He has given no
cause of jealousy. Shall we deny subjection where we have
protection?
Mr. Knightley. I came to this House with an Act of Obli-
vion in my mouth. I would have no reflection, but would
not have it so peremptorily asserted that the Petition and
Advice was made in a free Parliament. It is said, this House
is a Grand Jury. If the Petition and Advice were arraigned,
I should say billa vera, and find, guilty. There is a dif-
ference between force by two or three Cavaliers and pikes at
the doors. One hundred and fifty members were kept out.
There is a great difference about three Latin words, quos po-
pulus elegerit. I hope we are offering a better title than he
has. Are we not all come to own him here? The judges
own him.
You have a bill,† make it not a hatchet or an
axe to make some of us shorter by the head. It was stum-
bled on well by a learned gentleman, the Petition of Right.
I would have us petition and right rather.
That Richard, now Lord Protector, be the Chief Magistrate
of these three nations, that he ought to govern by laws, and
such laws as the people shall think fit to advise him by :-I
would have such a question agreed on.
Captain Baynes. We are all agreed that his Highness
shall be Protector, and if it had gone to a Committee, I
think you might have been at an end of your question before
this.
The Bill brought in, makes the Government hereditary. It
gives him an absolute power, and acknowledges him the right-
ful successor, which we know not, and are ignorant of. I
hope he is nominated according to the Petition and Advice.
* See supra, p. 205.
+ The name of “ an edge-tool used by husbandmen to top trees."
216
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Yet I would have a previous vote, that his right and title be
made out, and that he have it from this House; such a ques-
tion to which there may not be one negative.
The Petition and Advice, which is his foundation, wants a
foundation itself. It was brought in irregularly, against the
orders of the House, to alter the Government, by a gentle-
man that found it by the way as he came from Lord
*
It was read afterwards in parts, (there was no Committee),
and passed in parts, and never read the third time; but en-
grossed and passed, and carried to the Protector, who did not
accept it, because of the title of king.
•
The House did adhere. A Committee was appointed to
convince his Highness to accept the title. His Highness
brought in a paper;† if he was satisfied in that, he would
not make a bargain to accept the title, but would do ho-
nest things. This brought forth a supplement to the Peti-
tion and Advice, and loose papers were afterwards presented
to the Protector for his satisfaction; yet, the title being in, he
rejected it. It was then moved in the House, that it might
be amended with erasures, and the fifteenth article, where was
a clause concerning the king, not presented. It was urged
against it, that it could not be amended but by a new Bill.
The fifteenth article unprinted, has the title of King still in
it. Looser papers were engrossed, and passed in an additional
Petition and Advice.
There are many other defects in the formality of passing
that law. Therefore it is not good to look too far back, but
to look forward, and to make him what he will be, not that
he is, or is rightfully, but that we intend to make him. I
desire that it may be your Act to make him Chief Magis-
trate, to give him a legal title to what he enjoys de facto.
This must be a distinct clause of itself; not to depend upon
the Bill.
I have heard much of his virtues and his deserts. I do
honour him; but he cannot always live. It is an unhappiness.
*Blank in the MS.
+ Probably "the paper of exceptions," vol. ii. p. 7.
1658-9.]
217
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
oftentimes or the people to have a good Chief Magistrate. The
love and indulgence of the people fail to guard that which
after becomes a snare. Let us set the Government so, that
the worst of men cannot hurt us. The worst kings have
produced the best laws, and the worst have been made under
the good. Though a good man's hands be tied, you may
loose them when you please.
I am not willing, nor free to trust him with your militia.
I speak plain. The army will be an overbalance. Settle the
Government as you please, in Lords and Commons, &c., but
the revenue constant, Excise and Customs perpetual: these
powers are not fit to be put upon a free people. I shall speak
to that in its proper place.
You have the purse, he the sword; but his sword may soon
take your purse. I would have no more high Courts of Jus-
tice, Major-generals, or imprisoning men's persons, unless for
a little time, till a Habeas Corpus.
I
I would have the militia the first question, or at least to go
hand in hand with it. I hope you will not establish a negative.
I suppose you will have a House of Lords, or a Senate.*
shall not oppose it, if such as may, intrinsically, be a balance
on their own footing, without any dependance upon the single
person, if you can find such; that the single person may have
no negative upon the two houses. It might be well enough
to petition for laws when the people's interest was small, but
now when they have got all the interest and property of the
Three Nations, there is no reason. When the King and Lords
had two thirds of the property, the case was otherwise.
I move, that he may be Chief Magistrate, reserving the
militia and negative voice. If these three particulars all
go together, I shall consent. Otherwise I shall not consent
to it. Let some gentleman withdraw, to pen a question to
this purpose.
Mr. Steward. You ought to admit the Petition and Ad-
vice to be a law, else you strike up your own heels. You
have no other foundation. I shall not ruminate, but look
* See supra, p. 148, note *.
{
&
218
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
forward. I shall make it appear that the Parliament was
absolutely free, and freer than the Long Parliament. I had
as much dissatisfaction in keeping the members out, it was
damnum absque injuria.
Two things are necessary; an election; and an approbation,
if it be made a sine qua non, and fundamental to the election.
If those gentlemen had not been kept out, they ought to have
been restrained by their own judgment. It was essential,
their approbation.
1. As to nonformality. You must not presume that if a
Parliament wanted formality, the consequence would be dan-
gerous.
2. As to the disposal of the militia. It is indifferently well
ordered in the Petition and Advice. You may perfect it in
any thing. As to danger in trusting the Chief Magistrate,
it is not in the power of any man to prevent faults in all
government. It is necessary, and puts us upon Providence.
to defend ourselves. I would not leave a negative, to oppress
the people. Yet if he have no deliberative vote,* he is the
most unfortunate man in the world. We may have Parlia-
mentum indoctum or insanum.† The single Magistrate may
have nothing left to defend himself or the people by. If you
take consideration of all this, you will make yourself matter
for two months' debate.
Major Beake. I was exceedingly glad that the two gen-
tlemen did move and second so warily as to take in all the
sense of the House. We have a substratum, out of which to
form a question. The word " undoubted," exceedingly qua-
lifies the nature of the question. The word "lawful," would
have run to the modifications of his title, and answers all ends;
for some say he is in de facto, others, de jure; but whether
de jure or de facto, he is undoubtedly so. It is offered, for
something to be added. You must put it to the question,
whether that shall be part of the question. It was moved
from the bar, "let the rights of the people go hand in
* See " Massachusets," and "the Abbé de Mably," vol. ii. p. 460, note.
† See vol. i. p. 252, notc.
1658-9.]
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
219
hand." The rights of the people are of precious concern-
ment. I hope you will never bespot so precious a jewel.
If all the world were paper, and sea, ink, they could not ex-
press liberty, what it is. Some liberty is licentiousness, as
some prerogative is tyranny. I hope, in their proper places,
you will bring these things into debate. You will never part
with what is essential to preserve the people's rights; but if
you put off this question of settlement till all these things be
agreed on, you will hear of things without doors. If you
never pass the vote, till all things be settled, I am afraid you
will never do it. Thus you will deny what you swore. Then
the argument from out doors will be: you are undoing that
which they thought well done. My motion is, to repeat the
question without the limitations, that this House doth de-
clare that his Highness is undoubted Lord Protector, or Su-
preme Magistrate of England, Scotland, and Ireland.
Mr. Scot. I acknowledge this person is Chief Magistrate;
but the word " undoubted," is a doubt with me.
The argu-
ment used against those that say fire does not burn, is, put
your fingers in.
Were not pikes at the door to keep us
out? It was proved. I cannot admit that a free Parlia-
ment. The Petition and Advice was not pursued. If the
nomination appear not to you, you cannot go upon that.
The Parliament have suffered entails upon the crown; but
this has been done before the Judges and Council, and pub-
licly. This Government is but de bene esse. The kingdom of
England was not always hereditary. Of twenty-five or twenty-
six Kings, fifteen or sixteen of them came in by the choice of
the Parliament, and not by descent. Among the rest, King
Stephen, Richard II., Edward I. The Parliament has al-
ways power to make or empower the Chief Magistrate, and
they changed the Government as often as they thought it
good for the people. As to the instance, the last King, I was
at his coronation. At every corner, every society was asked,
* See "Lord Lambert," supra, p. 191.
+ Feb. 2, 1625-6. "He was crowned at Westminster," says Liby.
"William Laud altered the old coronation oath, and framed ano-
1
220
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
will you have this person for your King?
This implies a
power of the people; though he was so, before, by succession.
As to the oath made without doors, I find myself free here.
You may remove the Chief Magistrate, and make whom you
please so. In Henry VI. and Henry IV.'s time, the election
was from the people.
A second authority is from the practice of God's own
people, Deut. xvii. 14.
"When thou shalt say, I will set a
king over me." Samuel, as good a magistrate as ever was in
the world, asked, "Whose ox or ass have I taken ?"* In his
time the people would have a king. The people chose him;
though God specially designed him. You have a people
that have declared this honourable and very precious person,
with the acclamations of towns and villages. If the whole
body had done this in a collective aggregate body, met in any
place, you ought not to question it; but this is but from
some parts, in their several scattered bodies. You refuse ad-
dresses of this kind.
ther new." See Maseres's Tracts, p. 148; Harris's Lives, (1814,) ii.
198-207,
66
Bishop Laud," says Rushworth, "delivered to the King, Edward
the Confessor's staff, and the Archbishop of Canterbury presented him
to the people, who gave their consent. Afterwards, he was conducted
to the throne, and an exhortation was read to him," (by Bishop Laud)
"that he should stand and hold fast the place delivered to him by the
authority of the Almighty God, and by the hands of all the Bishops
and servants of God: that as he saw the clergy come nearer to the
altar than others, so he should remember that, in all places convenient,
he give them greater honour, that the Mediator of God and man may
establish him to be a mediator between the clergy and the laity." Hist¸
Col. (1703,) i. 129, 130.
tr
A modern writer has assigned some uncourtly reasons,
why the
members of the Lower House are not summoned to appear at a Coro-
nation;" and while "the slavish, barbarous ceremonies of the feudal
system are religiously observed, the King swears to maintain the rights
and privileges of the people, not before their representatives, but be-
fore the nobles and his own servants." See "The History of the
Reign of George III." (1770,) pp. 77, 78.
† Ibid. viii. 5.
1 Sam. xii. 3.
↑ Ibid. x. 24. See vol. ii. p. 391, note 1.
§ See supra, p. 129, noter.
1
1658-9.]
221
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I would have some persons to withdraw and word a ques-
tion; though it would come better from another House, than
from us, that are bargainers for the people. We must con-
sider as well what a man he may be. A young lion's teeth
and claws may grow. I speak not of him, God knows! Yet
we are not to trust too far. If we were assured that through
his life he would not err, no man can tell who is to come after.
Can you retrench that power you are making for perpetuity.
St. Austin and Pelagius were born both in a day.* The
antidote and poison were both of an age.
Make the pro-
vision for the safety of the peoples' liberties and your Magis-
trate's power and prerogative, contemporary. Let them be
twins. Let them justify one another. Let not one precede
the other. Who would you have the Protector thank for his
power the people, the army, the council? Let him own you
for it. Amor et delicia populi Angliæ: let him be so, when
made your creature, not ad extra. It is a human institution,
only own him as your authority. The Parliament will be
said to be either fools or madmen, that know not what is
fit for them so well as another.
Why should we think ourselves more unfit to provide for
ourselves, and for our own good than any other; if we be so,
let us set up the Court of Wards‡ again, not for our children
but for ourselves. Why may not we be as well intrusted as
any single person?
Name a
Who better judges than the heads of the tribes?
Committee to form a question that may take in both. You
will dispatch more in an hour, than you have done in all this
time.
* Nov. 13, 354. Pelagius was born in North Wales. Jerome calls
him Pluto; and his disciple, Celestius, a learned Scotsman, Cerberus.
+ Mrs. Hutchinson, speaking of Oliver, says that when death had
"confined all his vast ambition into the narrow compass of a grave,
his armie and court substituted his eldest sonne, Richard, in his roome,
who was a meeke, temperate, and quiett man, but had not a spiritt fit to
succeed his father, or to manage such a perplexed Government." See
"Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson," (1810,) ii. 218, 219.
† See vol. ii. p. 437, note.
222
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
}
Mr. Bayles. I would not have it thought that those gen-
tlemen that do not speak, cannot speak. They reserve them-
selves for a yea or no. I move to have this question put
singly.
Mr.
Here it is not proved that the title is in you.
There is some argument from Scripture : "not so from the
beginning:" nobody chose Adam: Nimrod not chosen by the
people: Moses not chosen by the people. They would hardly
own him, so could not be imagined to choose him. To prove
it by Scripture is hard, unless by those that mistake Esop's
Fables for the Scripture. Did the people choose Samuel or
Saul? They were chosen in an extraordinary manner. Saul
sends away his servants, brings no witnesses that he was
chosen. He did do it by lot, which clears that the people
had not the right of choice. David so. Our kings: those
that know history, know they were kings before the Parlia-
ment declared them so, their top-stone. They never intended
to change the Government, but it is said, through necessity
and the King's stubbornness, they took him off.* All the
rule of law being taken away, they came to a pretended rule
of nature, that all government was in themselves and found
it out this way, that all power was in the people;† which you
will not find in your books.
:
But, you will say, where shall the blood lie? It was but
the representation of some towns and places. The town that
sent me hither had none; therefore they are clear of the
blood. I admire any man should affirm such a presumption.
He that made one, pulls down another. He that has ordain-
ed the end, has likewise ordained the means; breaking up
this House. The power, de facto, was in them, I will not
deny. What successes in those times? A more advantage-
ous peace might have been made with Holland. They
were terrible abroad, because terrible within. They raised
+
* Bishop Horsely denounces ex cathedrâ, (Jan. 30, 1793), "that clum-
sy contrivance of republican wit, a Court of Judicature, to try a King's
conduct, and to punish his delinquency." See "Mr. Fox,” supra, p. 110.
↑ See Rushworth, in vol. ii. p. 434, note.
↑ See supra, pp. 111, 112.
$
I
Į
8
I
1658-9.]
223
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
terrible taxes within,* and had the power too; whether by
the people's concurrence I shall not dispute.
The same hand of Providence has set him up. I think it
a wonder that such a person, so without gall or guile,†
should be. In these times it is strange, and shall we dispute
this too? He was Protector before we came. I would have
it declared so, in the present tense, that he is. I would have
that to be the question.
Colonel Terrill. The question seems to be, whether he is
Protector, or whether we do make him so. First agree that,
whether your constitution be other than by the foundation of
the Petition and Advice.
If he be Protector, then we must acknowledge the Petition.
and Advice, that makes him so, to be a law. But admit it
to be so, I think it is but in part permanent, in part tempo-
rary.
The second article, touching the two Houses, is a mere
temporary personal power, during the Protector's life only.‡
I appeal whether a grant to his Highness the Lord Protec-
tor, whether it be of power, authority, or land, be other than
temporary, personal, and during life only.
A grant to bodies politic, aggregate of many, whether it
be of power or land, with the word, successors, passes into
perpetuity. But such a grant to a sole corporation without
the word successors, is temporary and dies with the person.
There is a difference between the case of the King and
other sole corporations.
If a grant had been made to the King by name of King,
without heirs and successors, it had gone to his heirs and suc-
cessors as a perpetuity; because, in the eye of the law, he
dies not, and there is no interregnum.
I do not say this, to abate any thing of his Highness's au-
thority. Though I do not allow that he is empowered to call
Parliaments by that authority, yet I acknowledge him in
* Yet see vol. ii. p. 396, note §.
+ See supra, p. 27.
See vol. i. pp. 380, 381; ii. pp. 298, 301, notes.
224
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
possession. He hath a possessionary right, which, I am sure,
gives him power enough to call Parliaments.
Compare, then, his Highness to the King and to a sole cor-
poration. Compared to the King, I acknowledge he hath
the power and prerogative of a King.
But the question is, what capacity he takes. His capacity
agrees in nothing with that of a King. All the lands that a
King was seized of, he had them jure corona. Was the Pro-
tector so seized? No man will say so.
Therefore, you see
they differ in the access of the power.
So when the King departed with lands, those lands which
he died seized of, and which he had by inheritance, descended
to his heir in natural capacity; but those which he had jure
corona went to the successor.
If the King hath a grant to him and his heirs, it goes to
his successors; or, if it be to his successors, it goes to his
heirs.
But in all those things the case of the Protector differs.
One might have been the Protector's heir, and another his
successor; the one hereditary, the other elective. If com-
mitted to him and his successors, it had gone to his heir,
They differ in every thing in the nature of capacity. With
other sole corporations he agrees in all things; but not in
any thing with a King.
A grant to the Protector, without successors, is no more
than a grant to a bishop. If land is committed to a bishop,
it is but for life, without successors.
1. The very intendment of the act is, where any thing is
intended to be placed upon his successor they are particularly
named, and not the word successor left out. But where suc-
cessors are not named, there it is only personal. As the first
article, that your Highness shall have power to name* your
* "That your Highness will be pleased, during your life-time, to ap-
point and declare the person who shall, immediately after your death,
succeed you in the government of these nations." Parl. Hist. (1760,)
xxi. 131.
1658-9.]
225
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
successor cannot be intended for more than personally for
himself.
2. There are words of personality and propriety in this very
article to call Parliament.* It names not successors, so that it
was never intended that he should have the same power that
his father had. Observe the word "yourself," and "the
people," most happy. It is verbum negativum pregnans, ex-
clusive of any thing else. It was a great prudence to leave
out the word. It could not be, that so many learned men
could commit such a word. I commend them much that
omitted this word, successors; for, otherwise, it would have
subverted fundamentals: and therefore it was, as to that ar-
ticle, made but probationary, during the life of his Highness.
3. His Highness had authority to build two Houses, and
built but one. Is that a perfect Act?
Objection. But in one of the additional clauses of the Pe-
tition and Advice, there is the word "successors."+
+
If you refer to that fifth article, in principle, there is no-
thing of grant, but a subsequent limitation. I hope it will be
as much for me. The word "successors" crept in, but only
to help the other as to approbation. It refers only to the ap-
probation, not to the estate limited before. It granted him
not a farther estate. I should not be so positive that we sit
by that Petition and Advice. We trip up our own heels, in-
deed, if we sit by it, and admit of the Act. It is an argu-
ment for Scotch and Irish members.
The child would have devoured the mother. It was a
miracle that they that had power to make themselves what
they did, did not make themselves what they would. I looked
upon setting up that House to be a destroying of this. It was
a providence of God, that that House should fall of itself.
If this be so, I hope it will save your time in pulling down
* See vol. i. pp. 380, 381.
"That the nomination of the persons to supply the place of such
members of the Other House, as shall die or be removed, shall be by
your Highness and your successors." Parl. Hist. xxi. 147.
‡ Ibid, p. 387, 388.
"Meaning the other House," Goddard MS.
VOL. III.
Q
226
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
that which is fallen of itself, the other House. After fifty
years study of the law, if I mistake, I must say with the
cobbler, opus perdidi, if this be not law.
The question is not, whether he is Protector, but whether
we shall make him such.
If we shall build upon a sandy ground and a dubious foun-
dation, and detest that which is sound and fundamental, it will
not be safe.
I agree the Petition and Advice to be a law as to calling
Parliaments; but this part of the law is dead and buried with
the Protector. It followed his Highness to his sepulchre. I
shall not stir in the ashes. Let us build upon ourselves
without any reference. If we take one part to build upon,
we must build on another. All forced Parliaments are
nought. We may build upon a good one. Let us not give
away all, by admitting this previous vote. We are here for
the people. Let us set up that Government that will stand.
I perfectly remember that arms had never been taken up, but
for the militia and negative voice. A Bill was sent to him
thrice about passing the militia, and he would not. Then the
House sent him word they would pass it without him.* Then
he went to the North.
The law of nature is the law of God; I take it so. I was
consenting to the business in that Parliament, but I had never
any prick of conscience as yet.
We shall go about to make him Chief Magistrate, and
know not in the mean time what that means, whether it com-
prehends the militia and negative voice, and all the preroga-
tive. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, if the lion once saith that the
foxes ears be horns, I know what will become of the fox.
I am confident his Highness would quickly make his choice
rather to be built on us than on such a sandy foundation.
I doubt Ireland is no part of this Commonwealth. So it
will not be safe for you to take that into your question.
I move that it be referred to a Committee to word the ques-
tion, as was moved before.
* See vol. ii. p. 135, note,
1658-9.]
227
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
State
Mr. Godfrey. You are out of the way, I doubt.
the question with the limitations; and the resolve for a pre-
vious vote, one a general clause, the other additional; a new
question.
It is offered to you, that a Committee withdraw, and pen a
question about the militia and negative voice. If they agree
of a question, it leads into a large field. I know not what
time will be spent before this be done.
I would have you pass the vote that his Highness be Pro-
tector; but the limitations ought naturally to precede. Make
that your question, whether those words shall be part of your
question.
Sir Henry Vane. The state of the business you were upon,
was for a previous vote. I was once against it; but now it
occurs to me that it may be useful to you.
The whole debate runs upon these two feet, that at the same
time that you declare your judgments for his Highness, you
would also assert the rights of the people. I believe you ap-
prehend how dangerous it is to confess a title in being, that is
not from yourselves, of your own giving; but by way of debt ;
for there is no obligation to acknowledge obedience to a
title you do not set up. I would have it considered: that
such a vote be prepared that both may go together, and that
it may pass with more unanimity.
Mr. Young. I move to put the additional words, first, else
you exclude us that are for the words additional; for if the
other pass, we are not sure this shall pass. I would have
us jointly agree what we have severally sworn to, but not
to part the oath, that the people's liberties should also be
cared for.
Mr. Speaker stated the question, reported the debate, and
was going to put the question for the latter words.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. You have the same state of
things now before you, as you had in the Parliament of 54,
our judgments differing. A recognition was then proposed.
It was said, that it was not consistent with the care, wisdom,
and gravity of this House, to pass the interest of the single
person but with the interest of the people. At length a
previous vote was agreed upon, that nothing in that should
Q 2
228
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
be of force, unless the whole did pass. That which is now
proposed, is thought impracticable, but was not so then.
You are now upon a Petition and Advice, which is told
you is a law, and if you say so, the judges will say so. Never
was so absolute a Government. If the Florentine and he
that sate in the great chair of the world, had all met together,
they could not have made any thing so absolute. Is there
not another House sitting, that claim a negative over you
When you have passed this, what is wanting? Nothing but
monies.
?*
We
State the case. The Petition and Advice is necessary to
stand. A Parliament is freely chosen, and we own it.
go home by some necessity of state. Then does not the Pe-
tition and Advice outlive us? This may happen, and pro-
duce inconveniences to us, to the Protector, none.
Is not
this security to him, that he shall be put in the great magna
charta?
If the Petition and Advice by piece-meal comes to be con-
firmed, we may not feel the smart of the Petition and Advice
in this man's time. It may happen in another's. It may
not sound well in after ages, to have things so uncertain and
liable to disputes. The laws left doubtful, we have not been
faithful to his Highness.
I move to assert his authority together with the liberty of
the people. This will be security and indemnity to all. Put
the case, that you should vote him Chief Magistrate only,
and then leave him to the ancient laws to expound what that
Shall we not leave him to those ancient doubts and
disputes which have cost us so much blood?
means.
Englishmen's minds are free, and better taught in their
liberties now than ever. A Parliament cannot enslave the
people. It may happen in after ages, that the people may
claim their liberties over again. I would have the addition
and the question go all together. We have left a bone of
contention to posterity, I fear. We may rise before all be
perfected, for some reason of state. It is not against the or-
* See this Speaker's jealousy of the other House, vol. ii. p. 433.
1658-9.]
229
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
ders of the House to put them together. I would have them
put together. Let them go hand in hand.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. What is propounded is exceeding
short of what you will do. The general sense is, that all
should go together; that is the main thing, the militia and
negative voice. The words proposed are exceedingly short.
We have found, though we have agreed in the mind, yet the
Chairman could never so well collect it, as when a Com-
mittee was appointed to word a question. It would save
time in the House if a Committee of eight or ten were to pro-
vide against to-morrow morning, a question for you.
Mr. Solicitor-general. The proper question is, whether
you will have any addition at all. I cannot consent to any
addition at this time. I would be as much for the liberty
of the people as any man; but it is not for the honour of
the nation to be disputing whether you will have a Protector
or no. Those that are of opinion that all the power is in
this House, do not acknowledge the Protector to be Chief
Magistrate at all, not so much as de facto.
I hope we shall be all sensible of the liberties of the people;
but there is a time for all things. The Petition and Advice.
may be debated afterward, as to the other House and the
like; but never stay debating your Chief Magistrate. Put
the question whether there shall be any additions at all; or
put the question, if the question shall be put.
I
Mr. Neville. The word magistrate signifies to execute.
first moved you for the additional words.* I affirm it, this
is the same quarrel that was in 1640. Inevitably a civil war
must follow. If you give up the liberties of the people, you
lay the foundation for it. Chief Magistracy continued three
hundred years because the barons' interest supported it; but
the Petition of Right not three months, because the King
had not interest to support it. I would have a Committee
it.+
to pen the question against to-morrow.
* See supra, pp. 34, 132.
+ See supra, p. 171, note*. Of "the Petition of Right, as it was
called," Ludlow says, that "by the manner of passing it, and more by
230
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Attorney-general. I move to propound a question,
and let any gentleman speak to it.
Mr. Reynolds. That gentleman, in learnedly begging a
question, begs the question. They will put that upon you,
which you cannot do, which you may not do. It is impos-
sible for any man to propound a question that will please
all. Always a Committee has been appointed. If you pass
this singly, I must give my negative to it; for I dare not
trust it without any thing for the people. No Prince in
Christendom would have so undoubted a title as this single
person, if founded upon such an unanimous consent; join-
ing his and the people's liberties together. I would have a
Committee to pen the question.
Mr. Speaker. This is against your orders, that a Com-
mittee should be appointed.
Mr. Swinfen. Is it possible for a quarrel to be upon a
word, a question, and you cannot agree how to propound it ?
That which is not denied openly, is denied collaterally. To
hinder this question you will not put it upon his being Pro-
tector, till you have provided all other laws, on a negative
voice, militia, sales of lands. If you agree not of his being
Protector, I would have the question put, whether the ad-
dition shall be part of the question?
The question was propounded, first entire, and then apart.
Mr. Young. I move against the word " undoubted."
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. We must now, it seems, either
speak, or for ever hold our peace. I hear your question. I
am unfit for it at this time a-day; but I see I am put upon
it to go on. I shall move that every man may have liberty
to speak over again. This is a great building you are upon.
We must consider what we were, what we are, and what we
shall be.
Serjeant Maynard. He may not repeat the whole busi-
ness, but only speak to the question.
the way of keeping, or rather breaking it in almost every particular, the
people clearly saw what they were to expect from the King." Memoirs
(1698) i. 2.
1658-9.1
231
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge went on, and said he had spoke.
Captain Baynes and Mr. Neville moved to adjourn, or hear
one another with patience.
Mr. Hoskins. One may speak to change a word in a ques-
tion, but not to launch into the whole debate.
Sir John Northcote. A man must give his reason for
changing it, else we shall go away as very unreasonable crea-
tures. I know not whether, when we have given away all,
they will keep us upon charity. If we do no more but re-
cognize and raise money, I should wish to go beyond sea.
Mr. Redding. I move to adjourn; for our time is spent,
and Sir Arthur is fresh. It is against the orders of the
House. The wording of this question is very considerable.
Mr. Bodurda. I move to put the question without an ad-
dition.
Mr. Reynell. "Undoubted Protector," is more bottom-
less than the limitation. You give all away at a lump;
swallow Petition and Advice and all power unlimited. I
have great exceptions, and desire, on behalf of the people of
England, of the nation, that I may be heard speak. I would
have the militia and negative voice inserted.
Mr. Hungerford. It is the will of Government to govern
at will.* The word " undoubted," gives him a title to all
that is in the Petition and Advice. It is fit we should have
the negative voice and militia inserted in this question.
He said, he had provided a question, which he read. It
was to confer the office of Chief Magistrate and Lord Pro-
tector on his Highness, to rule according to such limitations,
&c. as should be declared in the Bill; and that the militia
should remain in the Commons, and that he should have no
negative in passing laws.
Lord Lambert. The question is neatly and well penned;
but it is much for any gentleman to sum up the sense of the
House in a question; and it takes in only a part of what is
now debated upon. I would have no reflection upon any
person, as that any were for or against the Protector. We
* See this imputation on "the Court party," supru, p. 32, note.
232
[FEB. 11,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
are all for this honourable person that is now in the power.
Laying imputations upon one another, I would have forborne.
Mr. Knightley. No man ought to thrust in a question
upon a debate. I would have such a question that we may
agree upon without dividing. Upon a question, it looks
strangely upon your books, that it was carried but by three,*
and who were Tellers. I would have a Committee to with-
draw.
Mr. Trevor. This question has had ill fortune. I would
have it pass singly. I gave you my reasons. I cannot trouble
you long, if I would. I would have you put the question
you will have any addition.
if
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I would have our minds expressed
in plain English words. I like not recognition, or according
to laws. Let us have it in plainly, militia and negative voice.
He pressed Mr. Hungerford's question.
After an hour's debate what the question should be, the
debate was adjourned till to-morrow morning.†
* Probably the Petition and Advice. See supra, pp. 204, 205.
On the number of "days wholly taken up in debating this grand
point of Government, without coming to any conclusion about it," it has
been remarked, that “this great contest lay between the republican
party and the court party, as they were now called, who, like men of
the same appellation of a later date, were always ready to support such
measures as contributed to their own private ends; and Richard's known
weakness gave them great hopes of much emolument under his reign."
Parl. Hist. xxi. 283, 284. See supra, p. 32, note†.
"The Court," says Ludlow, "presuming to carry all before them,
grew unmeasurably insolent, and all that could be done, was only to
lengthen out their debates, and to hang on the wheels of the chariot,
that they might not be able to drive so furiously. By this means, time
was gained to infuse good principles into divers young gentlemen, who,
before, had never been in any public assembly, in hopes that though for
the present, their previous engagements should carry them against us,
yet, upon more mature deliberation, they might discover where their
true interest lay. Neither were our endeavours without success; for hav-
ing frequently held the House nine or ten days in debate, before they
could come to a question, many gentlemen who came to Westminster
prepossessed in favour of the court, confessed that the reasons of the
Common-wealth party were so cogent that they were not able to resist
them."-Memoirs, (1698), ii. 624, 625.
1658-9.1
233
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The House adjourned at two o'clock, accordingly.
The Grand Committee for Trade sat the first time: Mr.
Scawen in the chair. They were in the business of wool and
wool-sellers transporting, and appointed a sub-Committee to
enquire of that and other things, and adjourned before night.
Saturday, February, 12, 1658-9.
Mr. Speaker took the chair at nine. Mr. Cooper prayed.
Captain Whalley moved that he was chosen for Nottingham
and Shoreham, and that a new writ might issue for Shore-
ham, he making his election for Nottingham.
Colonel Allured. You have vipers in your bowels, divers
delinquents. I move that they be commanded to withdraw.
You have such as have been in arms against you, and Com-
pounders at Haberdashers' Hall;* and particularly one Mr.
Jones. Members in the House can prove it.
Colonel Andrews and Mr. Starkey. A good motion, but
not seasonably offered.
Mr. Reynolds. Nothing ought to intervene a fundamen-
tal order of the House, to purge your own house before any
thing else. Would you have your counsels told beyond sea
to Charles Stuart? I know a record, that when a member
that was the King's servant discovered the debate of the
House to the King, he was turned out of the House, and sent
to the Tower.
Mr. Bodurda. `I am glad the Petition and Advice is armed
with power to keep out delinquents; but there are three
Joneses in the House. He has not named what his christian
name is.
Mr. Speaker. Mr. Streete has been with me, and he
stands upon his innocency. It may be, this gentleman has
given signal testimony.
*Before Commissioners, appointed by the Parliament to compound
with delinquents.
2
J
234
[FEB. 12,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. We stand in no need of the Pe-
tition and Advice for the qualifications of the members. In
the beginning of the Long Parliament we turned out all mo-
nopolists. It is not fit those that have voted and fought
against the liberties of the people, should be here to debate
them.
Colonel Thompson. There are several ordinances to exclude
delinquents, not only from sitting here, but from all other
places of trust.
Mr. Knightley. Being called here by Providence, I de-
sire to know your sense about the Long Parliament, whether
it be still of force, notwithstanding the force put upon it.
*
A gentleman stood up and said, "This may be a mistake,
as one asked me if I was of the Parliament at Oxford ;*
because I said I was of the Long Parliament."
It
It seems, it was Sir Arthur Haslerigge asked concerning
him, because he could not remember that ever he saw him
sit in the Long Parliament, and said he meant no ill in pri-
vately acquainting the gentleman with it; but he was really
of the Long Parliament, and Sir Arthur Haslerigge mistook.
Mr. Jones. I am the Attorney-general of Wales.† If I
might have my charge, I shall answer to it. I deny it.
was my fortune to be in a place of trouble in Monmouth. In
February 48, you took an account of persons against you.
It was your own expression that they were forced to it. I
am not one of those persons. As I have not been in arms,
so I am not one of those. If I stand in a falsehood in the
esteem of this honourable assembly, I had rather not have
desired to be here. I have been in all offices that you dele-
gated since that time. I have served your Protector with
life and member with as much faithfulness as any man. I
deny the whole charge, and no man alive can prove it.
Mr. Scot. If he have compounded at Haberdashers' Hall,
it is evidence enough.
* Forty-fourlords and one hundred and eighteen commoners met there
Jan. 22, 1643-4, and were dismissed April 16 following.
"The King,"
says Coke," in his letters to the Queen, calls them his Mungrel Parlia-
ment." Detection (1697), p. 300.
+ « Edmund Jones, Esq. his Highness's Attorney-general for South
Wales; now member for Brecon." Parl. Hist. xxi. 260.
т
1658-9.]
235
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Colonel Okey.
Colonel Freeman and
prove it.
* could
Sir John Lenthall.
I move to take this member that has
fully served you, to serve you in this House. I would have
the name of Cavalier buried in the Act of Oblivion.
Lord Lambert. It is not enough to serve you in those of
fices, unless they venture life and member. I would not
have that a precedent to bring them into this House. They
would be glad of it. They would outvote you here, and
in the counties, and shall be chosen before those that fully
served. There are more than one, or two, or three, that,
I am well informed, have lived all the time of the war
in the enemy's garrisons. Though but six now, allow this,
and you will have six score next time. After all this blood
and war, to see such an indifference as to who sits within
these walls! Ask him that question, whether he has, directly
or indirectly, aided, assisted, or abetted?
Sir Walter Earle. I move that he be asked if he have
compounded at Haberdashers' Hall.
Mr. Hoskins. I move to hear the gentlemen of the House
that could say any thing to this business. In regard they
say nothing, appoint another day for hearing it.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I wonder to hear the Act of Ob-
livion mentioned. I would have the names abolished, and
men under a severe penalty to name them; but to take such
into our councils, what shall become of us? Can we imagine
that they will not do us a thousand times more mischief;
that we shall be forced to fight the business over again. It
appears to me, that he confesses enough; but said it was
under force. Those in Wales were so numerous, that we
were forced to compound with them by the lump. He says
he is Attorney-general in South Wales, and has served you
all along. I believe the Commonwealth put him into that.
place. I would have him asked if he have compounded.
Mr. Knightley. The House inclines neither to acquit him
nor condemn him. I would have him withdraw and forbear
sitting, till the matter be determined.
* Blank in the MS.
236
[FEB. 12,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
case.
Mr. Starkey. I know the gentleman and something of his
He has served you formerly here. Since 48, he has
had signal testimony, which, if he had not been surprised, he
would have satisfied you of. If I sat not here by the Peti-
tion and Advice, I should withdraw. I know no other law
in force. I know no other law to keep out unqualified
members. The generality of the nation have taken it for their
rule. The qualifications say no otherwise than "signal tes-
timony;"* and those rules invited the electors to choose that
gentleman. His employment goes a far way in giving signal
testimony. He can show you the declaration of his Highness
and Council of his signal testimony. It is reasonable to
take that rule, the Petition and Advice. I desire he may
not be asked questions to accuse himself. Appoint him a
day to satisfy you.
Mr. Neville. If we had not a better law than the Petition
and Advice to sit by, we sat but by a piece of paper. You
heard it from the post, per Colonel Terrill, that without the
word "
successor," the power of the Petition and Advice was
out of doors, and died with his Highness. I would have this
gentleman both for his own honour and yours, to press to
have it put into a speedy way of examination by a Com-
mittee. I should do it, if it were my case.
Mr. Manley. We all ought to thank the gentleman for
that motion; but I humbly conceive there is no case before
you to debate upon. It is an unreasonable thing to bring a
man to his answer before he be accursed. This will bring
more libels upon you than you are aware of. I would have
an accusation first against him, before you proceed.
Mr. Scot. Si accusisse sufficit, quis erit innocens, nec si ne-
gare sufficit, quis erit nocens? I would have him questioned, if
he have compounded at Haberdashers'-hall. It may be, he
never bore arms; no more did Serjeant Glanville§ and Lord
Southampton, yet they did as much against you as those that
* See Parl. Hist. xxi. 132.
+ "Of good affection to this Commonwealth." Ibid.
+ See supra, p. 223.
§ Member for St. Germaus, expelled, probably, on a previous day. See
Journals, Feb. 12; Parl. Hist. xxi. 286, note.
1658-9.]
237
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
fought against you. If having a good place be signal testi-
mony, it is a good requital. I believe few lawyers in Eng-
land would refuse such a place. I would have some
to examine the business, and, in the mean time, to sus-
pend his sitting. I would have him asked if he have com-
pounded.
Mr. Speaker. You have never a charge before you against
this gentleman. If you please, refer it to a Committee,
and, in the meantime, he may withdraw.
Colonel Morley. I have taken an oath to be true and
faithful to his Highness, and also to the liberties of the people.
If I admit Cavaliers to sit here, I break my oath in both.
Sir John Northcote. Sir Richard Onslow being questioned
here for a Cavalier, it was referred to a Committee; yet he
still sat in the House, and was after, acquitted. If you go
about, upon a bare accusation, to suspend gentlemen sitting
here, you will have a thin House. I would not have him
suspended.
Colonel Birch. I move for a Committee to examine the
business, and that the gentleman be suspended.
Lieutenant-general Ludlow. This is more than a bare ac-
cusation. He has confessed enough. I hear of several others.
In this juncture of affairs it is not fit to admit him.
Colonel Thompson. I would do as I would be done by. I
think a bare accusation is not enough to cause you to suspend
this gentleman. If he deny it, which I suppose he has, I
would have another question asked him. An accusation by a
member ought not to sway more with you, than a denial of a
member. If he find himself innocent, it will be his wisdom to
sit; if otherwise, to forbear. Ask him the other question.
Mr. Goodwin. Sir Richard Onslow was never accused of
delinquency. That gentleman is clearly mistaken in reporting
his case.
I would have this referred to the Committee of
Privileges, to report the matter of fact: but leave it to him to
withdraw, or not withdraw.
Mr. Reynolds. Ask him two questions. 1. If he have
"abetted, advised, or assisted,"* or have compounded? This
* See Parl. Hist., xxi. 132
238
[FEB. 12,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
will save your time. It has induced a suspicion by what he
has answered already. I would have him called to his place,
and asked these two questions.
Serjeant Waller. I would ask this question, whether it is
proper for any member thus prodere se-ipsum. Let it appear
upon the accusation.
One Gentleman stood up and said, "All that have abetted
or assisted! You will have a thin House. Many estates
were sequestrated away. I am sure of it."
Captain Baynes. It is a reflexion upon the whole House.
I am sorry to hear that said. I would have the gentleman
explain. I hear it said above, that many such are here.
Mr. Turner. I think a signal service is to be Attorney-
general. It may be he has given over signal service; for so
your qualifications ran.
Colonel Mildmay and Colonel Okey. If that country was
under a force, they made him themselves. Wales was the
nursery of the King's cause. I would have him called down,
and asked if he have compounded.
Sir John Lenthall. It has not been my practice to trouble
you much. Your proceeding here ought to be suitable to our
Courts of Justice. If any matter be before you, proceed
upon it. I think this gentleman has given you signal testi-
mony; so that there is not that danger of him, as is urged to
you.
Mr. Hele. I shall never speak for protecting any delin-
quent, especially within these walls. No law makes a man a
criminal.
Mr. Speaker. I see other things waved. It will appear
on record, in another place, if he have compounded.
Being called down.
Mr. Speaker. Asked him, if ever he compounded as a de-
linquent ?
Mr. Jones. I did not compound as a delinquent in arms.
There was an ordinance to qualify the composition. I did
come to Haberdashers'-hall, and, fearing to come within com-
pass of some ordinance, it may be, I did set my hand to a
1658-9.1
239
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
paper; but, as to being in arms or compounding other than
to prevent inconveniences for fear of the ordinance, I did not.
This said, he withdrew.
He said he sat in Parliament in 54, when there were the
same gentlemen that were here in this House.
Mr. Weaver. I wonder any person calls for the question.
The honour of this House is at stake. He has confessed
enough to draw a guilt upon. him. My motion is that this
gentleman may be suspended from sitting; and to disable the
town that sent him hither, from ever sending any member
hither. I would have the electors punished; at least, for some
Parliaments, disabled. I would have Mr. Streete, that has sat
here ever since, to be now called on to make his answer, and
that a Committee be appointed to receive all complaints of
this nature.
Colonel Okey. I second that motion, that he be suspended,
and the electors for ever suspended.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. This gentleman might, as many
have done, haply compound, to save charge; rather than
be troubled with informations.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am sorry to hear it urged that
there are so many in this House that have aided, &c. It
seems that gentleman was admitted into the Parliament in 54,
when others were kept out. He confesses he set his hand to a
paper, though he is so wise as not to tell you for what. Haply
he compounded for an old song. He got well by his composi-
tion, a good office. I mind you what it was that he set his
hand to to raise money for the King against you, I believe
it might be. If it had been but being present at the Com-
mittee of Array, it was enough to make him liable to compo-
sition. We must believe it was for the worst of purposes,
unless he explain.
Vote first that he may not sit as a member of this House,
during this Parliament. I hope we shall, ere we rise, take
care to keep all such out for a longer time. All the King's
army came out of Wales. Command this gentleman to for-
bear sitting; and do not issue out a new writ, to be further
troubled with such elections.
240
[FEB. 12,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. St. Nicholas. He has confessed a paper. Many men
have done you more harm with their heads and pens, than
with their swords.
Mr. Goodrick. I move not to exclude this gentleman till he
be heard. I come not here to plead for delinquents. Let
matters of fact be stated by a Committee. He has given
signal testimony.
Mr. Bernard. The matter of fact is clear by his own ac-
knowledgment. I move, if you please, that he be excluded
from sitting in this House.
Colonel Morley. He told you he did not compound out of
guilt, but to prevent inconvenience. I believe all Cavaliers
did compound, not out of guilt.
Colonel West. I move that he be excluded from sitting in
this House; but to disable those that sent him, I am against it.
Mr. Manley. I am not ripe for judgment to exclude him,
till you hear his whole answer. If it appear that the leaven
does not remain, and that he has given signal testimony, I
hope you will not suspend him.
Sir William Wheeler. No man was, by that Ordinance,
admitted to compound for a year's value, unless he put in a
petition, and by that Petition did acknowledge himself to be
a delinquent. Enough has been said. Put the question that
he be discharged from sitting in this House.
Mr. Weaver. I move for expulsion, and that for ever he
be unable to be chosen. It is argued that you would admit
him in another Parliament. I would have it entered, that
the nation may know it, that he be expelled for delinquency,
that he be for ever disabled, and that his office be taken from
him.
Major Burton. My heart aches to see gentlemen of the
Long Robe plead for delinquents. I would have him ex-
pelled.
Captain Whalley. I move, that for the present he be ex-
cluded, and that a Committee be appointed to examine his
signal testimony, and then re-admit him.
*,
Mr. Serjeant Seys. I would have signal testimony ex-
plained. He has not cause to complain of the loss of a place
1658-9.]
241
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
of 6007. per annum.
He rides into six counties, and has not
twenty nobles per annum. I second that motion of Captain
Whalley, who has prevented what I could say.
Mr. Secretary. I think the matter is plain by his con-
fession. What should you then refer? I agree with the
highest proposal, that he be expelled for the present, and dis-
abled for the future from sitting here, before the Parliament
have declared that he had given signal testimony. He might
have forborne. I would have you spend no more time about it.
Colonel Morley. I would have not only his discharge, but
his crime entered upon your books.
Resolved, that Mr. Edward Jones, returned to serve as a
member for the county of Brecon in this present Parliament,
be, for his delinquency, expelled this House, and for ever
disabled from sitting in any other Parliament.
Mr. Bampfield. I move for a new writ to issue out.
Colonel White. I would have this addition to his punish-
ment, that he be sent to the Tower for presuming to sit here.
Colonel Kenrick stood up to second that motion.
Major Burton. I move not to put it off so lightly. Many
that hear me, would have something more than ordinary.
That is a poor punishment.
Mr. Bodurda. I have that to acquaint you with, which is
much for your service. A gentleman that has led a regiment
of dragoons against you. I have some difficulty upon me to
name him. Some call him Mr. Danvers, some Mr. Villiers.*
Mr. Ashe. It has pleased God to take out of the world a
gentleman, Mr. John Ashe, who was able to have made good
this information. Sir John Danvers did then acknowledge
him to be a Papist in arms, I thought.
Mr. Danvers. I must first answer totally this charge.
Some of that name I left, because I would not be under
suspicion. I utterly deny all aiding, abetting, or assisting.
Mr. John Ashe was my competitor. I was questioned by
the Major-generals. I have their discharge from under their
* “ Robert Villiers, alias Danvers of Bassetbury, Member for West-
hury." Parl. Hist., xxi. 257. See Journals.
VOL. III.
R
242
[FEB. 12,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
hands, Sir Thomas Widdrington, Sir John Barkstead, and
Major-general Bridges. The Colonel cleared me with a tes-
timony that I was no delinquent. I have not this ready to
produce about me. Calumnio dato, something sticks. I de-
sire, if guilty, that I may have signal punishment; if not so,
that I may prosecute, and that I may have reparation.
Mr. Knightley. That gentleman told me he had great
favour from the King, and that he had a regiment. He told
me, though he had been bred a Papist, he considered the fool-
eries of that religion. Sir John Danvers desired that he
might have a regiment to go into Spain. An ill way of con-
version I told him it was, to go into Spain. This wrought
with Sir John Danvers, whose daughter he married. He
had the favour to come to a composition, against the order
that a Papist in arms could not be admitted to compound.
Here I left him in 48. How he has demeaned himself since,
I know not.
Mr. Danvers. I was but seventeen years old. I do flatly
deny delinquency. Sir John Danvers might confess it.
Money was paid by him for it. I felt it. I deny all, the
least punctilio. It was no act of my own. They were faults
that other people will lay upon me when I was in my mi-
nority. My mother was of that religion and I lived amongst
them. Thence came Sir John Danvers to tell stories.
Mr. Knightley. This story that Sir John Danvers told
me, was in the gentleman's own presence; and he then said
nothing to the contrary.
Mr. Jenkinson. It was told me by Colonel Legge, that
this gentleman had a regiment in the King's army.
Mr. Raleigh. The gentleman has misrepresented. This
makes me suspect some guilt. He says Sir John Danvers,
to his great prejudice, did compound for him. It cannot be
probable that for one that married his daughter, and one of
the heirs to him, he would misspend his money in paying so
much for his composition.
Mr. Weaver. This gentleman came several times in this
Parliament. He was a Papist in arms, and so disabled; but
1658-9.]
243
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir John Danvers did move that Mr. Marshall* should con-
fer with him, and having conferred, he brought a note to this
table from Mr. Marshall, and by the favour of this House he
was admitted to compound.
Mr. Knightley. Sir John Danvers told me, that this gen-
tleman had behaved himself so well in the King's army, that
he had a regiment.
Mr. Grove. This gentleman was chosen for a place in the
County for which I serve. He came a month before the
election to that place, and made the electors drunk every day
with sack. It cost him, they say, 1007. to be chosen ;† and
if you do justice, he will have an ill bargain of it.
Colonel Mildmay. You ought to appoint a Committee,
because he denies the matter of fact.
Mr. Starkey. The matter of fact is proved sufficiently.
So I would not only have him excluded, but have a good fine
his head; because he seems to desire it.
upon
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I wonder at the gentleman's con-
fident denial; the matter being so clear. I am for the honour,
justice, and safety of this House. I would not have any man
complain of injustice. I apprehend him not, at present, fit to
sit in this House; but, it being not clear, let your books be
searched, and it will be found whether he or his guardian com-
pounded. It will appear by Colonel Legge's testimony.
Suspend him for the present, and refer it to a Committee;
and not only this, but all matters of this nature; that the
great business of the nation may not be hindered: for all bu-
siness must give place to that of your purging your House.
Mr. Jenkinson. I saw the gentleman so confident to out-
face a worthy member, else I had not troubled you in this
business. Colonel Legge told me that he told the Major-
general of it. It was Major-general Packer.
Major-general Packer. I know this business, throughout.
* Of whom see Lord Clarendon, supra, p. 202, note.
+ See Lord Lyttleton on a great rise in the market, supra, p. 149,
note. The market for boroughs has, since, further advanced.
R 2
244
[FEB. 12,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
This gentleman, among several others, was accused in the
County of Bucks. There was great trouble about scanning
his business. It was said Colonel Legge could speak fully to
it. I sent for Colonel Legge and examined it. He was very
cautious, and was under some fear: but Legge did say, he had
a regiment of foot in Oxford, and his Major, if called, would
justify it. He answered he was under age. He brought
down several certificates. He did submit to something, some
kind of composition.
Mr. Humphrys. Within these three days the minister of
Wickham, where this gentleman lives, sent a note in to me,
and said it was a grievance to good spirits that such a person
sat in this House. He had never been at church since he was
minister. He frequented a private meeting, being a Cavalier.
A jesuited fellow, to get a certificate from you, that he might
not be decimated! When he had got that certificate he pre-
sently scowled and derided you. None dare prosecute against
such, who cares not to spend 1,000l. upon any man that shall
vex him. There is matter enough to prove him a very un-
worthy person to sit in this House.
Mr. Stephens. This business is clearer than the other. I
was in the chair at Goldsmith's-hall. He was admitted to
compound, upon a certificate that he had conformed. I am
informed that since the purgation before the Major-general, he
did pay 1001. for his purgation. I desire the Major-general
may be asked if he received not 1007. of him.
Mr. Reynolds. He denied it a second time. I would
have it that he who is so confident to affirm in this House an
untruth, should have a signal punishment. He that affirms
any thing here, does it in as high a place as if he swore before
any Court of Record. I would have him not only expelled,
but sent to the Tower.
Mr. Knightley. As I understood the gentleman, I heard
a challenge for any man to prosecute; and he would have an
action at law against him. This was to terrify men.
He has a discharge for that part
of his estate in Bucks; and did pay such a sum of money, I
believe, for his discharge.
Major-general Packer.
1658-9.7
245
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. This is the first time that ever I
heard a gentleman deal so notoriously disingenuously with
you. I would have you pass two questions:-
1. That he be expelled this House for his delinquency.
2. That he be sent to the Tower for affirming in this
House what was not truth, and so let it be entered upon
your books.
Major-general Bridge. He petitioned his Highness, and
his Highness referred it to Lord Widdrington, Sir John
Barkstead and myself. He affirmed that one Villiers had a
regiment, but that Danvers had it he denied. We had se-
veral certificates as to his reformation, and we reported ac-
cording to those certificates.
Mr. Ashe. There is a Colonel at the door, who can make
this information good if you please to call him. Colonel
Touchett is his name.
Serjeant Maynard. The gentleman has withdrawn. He
should sit, when you call in evidence against him, or ask
questions in order to the debate.
Sir John Lenthall. Neither Colonel Legge nor Colonel
Touchett are competent witnesses, unless upon their oaths.
Touchett is a papist, or, being turned from that religion, may
be wronged in his testimony, and then you may refer it to a
Committee.
Mr. Reynolds. I move to leave it to your discretion to ask
him questions.
Mr. Knightley. We never examine upon oath; but, as he
ought, as if upon oath. I have known a person disabled from
bearing testimony for misinforming this House, keeping his
seat.
Mr. Cartwright. In regard he positively denies it, I
would have it referred to a Committee; because you have
testimony offered. None says aught what he did but Sir
John Danvers. He tells you he was but seventeen years old.
I have known him a long time that he has lived here.
Colonel More. It is my duty to inform my knowledge.
When I was governor of Monmouth Castle, he desired a pass
from me to go to London. He did take the negative voice in
246
[FEB. 12,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
45, and I granted him that pass. Lady Hatton lay then a
dying. I heard he took up arms with Sir Robert Howard in
Ludlow Castle. He told you, he had under the Major-ge-
neral's hand testimony to clear him. You find it proved,
otherwise, against him.
Mr. St. Nicholas. I move not to call in Colonel Touchett.
You weaken your testimony.
Mr. Bodurda. I move that he be expelled the House, and
sent to the Tower, and fined 100/.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. A papist is a sufficient testimony,
a competent juryman. I would have Touchett called in, to
convince him. I would have him called in, and, likewise, the
gentleman called down to hear it.
Mr. Foxwist. There may be a witness which may alter the
whole question. It may be a device; but I think it is clear
enough your judgment is ripe.
Captain Hatsell. This will hear well abroad, that you
have vindicated the old cause. I would have the business
fully heard, that he may have nothing to say against the
judgment; and that others may see it and take example by
it. I move that both be called in.
Colonel Touchett being called in,
down. Mr. Touchett, at the bar,
was sitting.
and Mr. Danvers called
stood, and Mr. Danvers
Mr. Touchett said, he had been acquainted twenty years
with him. He was acquainted with him in Shropshire.
We quartered together. I was captain of a troop of horse.
I know not what command he had then. After, I saw him
marching in the head of a regiment of foot, towards Bridge-
north.
He said this was the gentleman, when he looked in his
face.
Mr. Danvers. I shall humbly add further that I may
have leave to fetch papers that will clear me. They trace me
all along, where I lived.
I never saw this gentleman to my knowledge. It is hard
to prove a negative. I came to Colonel More. He can tell
1658-9.]
247
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
you how I came away from those parts. I know not what I
paid for composition. To the Major-general I paid nothing,
only 1501. for horses. I freely desired to give it.
I had had once to have gone for Ireland, under his High-
ness; listed under Colonel Martin. I should have had a
troop of horse.
I deny that I ever was in the head of a regi-
ment. My mother was violent that way. I suffered much
for asserting the Parliament's cause. She might have raised
a regiment. I never had a command. I do detest it. I
never saw it.
He being withdrawn, the question was put.
Mr. Fowell moved not only to expel him, but to send him
to the Tower, and fine him 10007.
Mr. Hungerford. I move to hear his papers and what he
can say. He told you he gave nothing for his purgation but
money, to show good affections. I speak knowingly of gen-
tlemen that did subscribe horses and money for affection and
not purgation. He was young, carried about by his mother.
I desire we may be able to give a good account of our
justice. I would have a Committee appointed, not only to
examine this business, but all business of this nature.
Colonel West. This gentleman was mistaken in this testi-
mony. There is nothing so clear, nor any thing to hinder it
going to the question.
Major-general Packer. He changed his name at that time,
and desired that he might leave that infamous name. He of-
fered freely to lay down money to advance the service, and
he had as fair a certificate as could be on that behalf, and be-
cause of those certificates from above.
Lieutenant-generul Ludlow. I would not have him for ever
disabled from sitting. I like not his reflections on his mother
and family. I would have no further punishment upon him
than that he may not sit in this House.
Mr. Manley. I acknowledge myself to be of the Long
Robe; yet not to plead any delinquent's cause. * I humbly
submit it, if you should not hear any thing offered. It will
"
* See Major Burton," supra, p. 240.
ཡཱ
248
[FEB. 12,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
be for the honour of this House to hear all that can be said.
I would have a Committee.
Mr. Higgins. He was never a delinquent since he came
from the government of his mother, when he was not at age.
It is contrary to the justice of all courts, to condemn unheard.
I would have his certificate produced, to clear up his asser-
tions.
Mr.
He avers his affection to the Parliament
and lays all the blame on his mother's conduct. He says he
has papers that will make out where he has been.
Mr. Knightley. Seeing it is so far insisted upon, I would
have a Committee. His negative papers will not wash off
his affirmative delinquency. He went under the name of
Colonel Villiers a long time. Seeing you will go to a further
punishment, I would have it examined. I have been called
a delinquent over and over, in this House.
Colonel Okey. I move not to exclude this gentleman ut-
terly. Captain Morgan was at Oxford, and is now faithful
to us and on our service, and he may come to do you service.
Mr. Stephens. I was against utter disabling in the other
case, because I would not have you meddle with after Par-
liaments. They will meddle with you. I would have you
be equal now, and not disable one more than another.
Mr. Reynolds moved to the same purpose.
Serjeant Maynard moved to divide the question.
Mr. Speaker would not without requirement mention the
name Danvers, for there is an heir male that claims, and
would not have a patent to change his name to disinherit
another.
Sir Walter Earle. You cannot disable him for ever, but
by an Act of Parliament. If he be chosen next Parliament,
they may receive him.
Major-general Kelsey. I hope that you will severely pu-
nish those that come in on the presumption of their own good
affections. It will prevent men from intruding for the future.
I would have him for ever discharged.
Colonel Morley. It is an old rule, that those that belong
to one thing, should be put both in one case. He says his
1658-9.]
249
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
mother raised the men, and Sir John Danvers paid the mo-
ney.
Mr. Knightley. I would not have a negative in this pu-
nishment. I would have the question divided.
Resolved, that the clause be added.
Resolved, that Mr. Robert Villiers, returned by the name
of Robert Danvers, to serve as a member for the borough of
Westbury, be, for his delinquency, expelled this House, and
disabled from sitting in this or any future Parliament.*
Colonel Cromwell.
I move that he be sent to the Fleet.
Major-general Kelsey. I move to send him to the Tower,
to lie till he pay 10007.
Mr. Fowell seconded that motion.
Lieutenant-general Ludlow. I would have a Committee.
appointed to examine all matters of this nature.
Mr. Stephens moved for the Tower, but not for the
10007.
Lieutenant-general Ludlow. The other gentleman was of
full age; this, under age. I would have you to make the
case no other.
Mr. Bodurda. I would only have him sent to the Tower
during pleasure, but not fined. Let others look for the
10007. that will sue for it.
* "Because all parties had confederated against us," says Ludlow,
"we, in order to lessen their numbers, impeached divers of them, for having
been of the King's party, by which means we procured some of them to
be expelled, and frighted away some others, who knew themselves to be
in the same condition. The Court, to requite us, brought Mr. Marvin
Touchet, a papist, and brother to the Lord of Castlehaven, to accuse Mr.
Villiers, who had voted with us, of serving in the king's army; and though
it appeared that he was forced so to do, by those who had the government
of him, he being then but sixteen years of age, and that he came into
the Parliament's quarters as soon as he had an opportunity, yet all that
could be said proving not sufficient to excuse him, he was likewise voted
out of the House." Memoirs, ii. 625, 626. See Journals.
"Feb. 12. This day wholly employed in turning out two of our mem-
bers for controversies, Mr. Jones and Mr. Villiers: the first, a monar-
chical man; the other, republique." Goddard MS., p. 195.
250
[FEB. 12,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
Colonel
him.
* I would have no more severity upon
You have laid more than the infliction of a fine. You
have deprived him of the natural liberty of an Englishman.
A person offending in infancy must be differenced from one
in ripe age.
Colonel Kenrick. Nothing was said against him for four-
teen years. He told you he went for bread. He was not
likely to raise a regiment in infancy. I would have no fur-
ther punishment upon him. You have done well.
Colonel Okey. If this gentleman had acted any thing since
fourteen years, I should not have troubled you. I would
have you go no further in punishment.
Mr. Starkey. An easy punishment to go only out, and
not have a further punishment.
Colonel Birch moved to send him to the Tower, but not
for the 1000/. fine.
Mr. Steward. My hearty yea went with you for the pri-
vative punishment; but I cannot go to the positive punish-
ment, unless you will acknowledge the Petition and Advice.
to be a law. Then the law makes it plain. I know no
other law.
Mr. St. Nicholas. You have power to make a law. I
would have you go no farther in this; but make it so penal
for the future. No doubt you may make what rule you
please.
Mr. Gewen. Every aggravation is in this man's offence:
the testimony of the minister,† his carriage here, to oppose the
members. Make the punishment suitable to the person. He
is a great man. I would have him in the Tower and fined.
Mr. Barton. It was a rule of the Star Chamber to pro-
ceed upon estates. We ought to proceed upon persons.
When the offence was committed, he had no estate.
House have always been tender of pecuniary mulets. Five
or ten pounds was a great fine in former times. The offence
was fourteen years since. He has laboured to give all testi-
mony. He has paid for his offence by his composition. I
This
*Blank in the MS.
† See supra, p. 244.
1658-9.]
251
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
would not have him punished again. Let us not be over
rigorous, lest it be afterwards brought here to our prejudice,
Mr. Disbrowe. All punishment should be proportionable
to the offence. The offence of this person is greater than the
other's. His asserting positively against an affirmation in
Parliament, is not singly a cause of his imprisonment. I
would have him sent to the Tower.
It being propounded, that it be further added to his pu-
nishment, that he be committed to the Tower, to continue
during the pleasure of the Parliament,-
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move that his offence in deny-
ing the truth, be inserted in the additional punishment.
Lord Lambert. The other offence is sufficient to send him
to the Tower. I would have the other gentleman also sent
to the Tower. It was prevented by interposing this business.
Otherwise it was in debate to send the other gentleman to the
Tower.
Colonel Clark. I would have the difference of the offence
assigned. Otherwise the one punishment is not adequate to
the offence. You cannot manifest your justice to the world
else. The offence of Mr. Villiers is inferior to that of Mr.
Jones. I would have you assert some other crime against
Mr. Villiers. I would have you either do no more to this
man, or assign some other offence.
Major Beak. There is no disparity in his age. It was
not in the infancy of your war. He was pregnant in his
parts and powerful in his interest, though but tender in his
years. This tends to the distinction of your business. Let
him be exemplary in his punishment. Send him to the
Tower, and fine him 10007.
Mr. Mitford. The latter gentleman is a higher offender
than the first. The first did ingenuously acknowledge it.
This peremptorily denied.
The first was an offence against the Commonwealth.
The second offence was against order; and his disingenuity
as much as the first. I would have him committed to the
Tower.
Mr. Scot. I hope I shall not be suspected a delinquent,
252
[FEB. 12,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
but I cannot make a difference of offence. He could not be-
come other principled than as he acknowledges. I have been
twenty times in his company, and heard him strongly defend
the Parliament's cause. He hastened into your bosom. He
was always your zealous champion. I would have no further
punishment.
Colonel Morley. Either lay them both aside, or let them
both go together.
Colonel Eyre. I think you have inflicted the greatest pu-
nishment that could be. My own knowledge of this person
was before the King's death. I never knew any man, in all
his discourses, fly so highly in the King's face. I have heard
him say, rather than execution be not done upon him, he
would do it himself; calling him traitor, tyrant, and the like;
strongly arguing it against that interest.
Sir Richard Temple. I move, that we may have the more
unanimity, to lay both aside. There are different judgments.
I would have the punishment adequate to the crime; not to
the person or any thing that is collateral.
Mr. Sadler. I have no desire to trouble you. I consent
with those that say there is inequality in the punishment. It
is said, go on and prosper. I say, go on and prosper; but
in truth and because of truth, in righteousness and meekness.
He that will not use mercy in judgment, shall have judgment
without mercy. Make a law, and I should be clearer in it.
I thought it true that he had a regiment; but I thought it
also true that Sir John Danvers said he was forced. You
have now dismembered him, and he is no more a member of
your House. He may desire to be heard, and appeal to your
justice. He was approved by those Major-generals, and had
fair certificates. I would not have this case to differ from the
other.
Mr. Bampfield. I would not have you, while you punish
him, put a further punishment upon yourselves by sitting so
late.
The question being put, if the question be now put.
Mr. Speaker declared for the Noes.
1658-9.]
253
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Colonel Cromwell and Sir Thomas Barnardiston declared
for the Yeas.
The Noes went out.
Noes 145. Sir Thomas Beaumont and Major-general
Packer, Tellers.
Yeas 112. Sir William Wheeler and Mr. Pedley, Tellers.
So it passed in the negative.
Mr. Weaver. I am loth to trouble you now, after the best
day's work did yet.
you
I hope you will make a Committee to receive all Petitions.
Divers petitions are abroad, and cannot get in. I would not
put it
upon you now; but that you would proceed upon it
on Monday next.
Major Beake and others moved to read the order for the
great debate, in order to the adjournment of it.
Mr. Collins. The witnesses lie in town at a great charge.
I would have you appoint a day for hearing him.*
Major-general Kelsey and Colonel Kenrick seconded to
proceed in this. They that take away rubbish contribute as
much as those that build.
Colonel Birch. I never knew any thing prevent a matter
of this nature. I would have Mr. Streete make his answer
now.
Mr. Streete stood up to make his defence, but the Petition
was called for first.
Sir Richard Temple. I hope the honour of this House
shall never suffer by an implicit faith. I would have no
Committee appointed, but refer all to the Committee of Pri-
vileges. I would have the great debate put on.
Mr. Bodurda. I move to put this business first off your
hands, and if he have a copy of the Petition, let him answer
to it.
Mr. Streete. This is the first time that ever I was accused
of any crime public or private. I am glad, with Paul, that I
have for my judges the representatives of three nations. I
need neither fear your justice nor honour.
* Mr. Streete. See supra, p. 70.
254
FEB. 12,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
There are two parts in the charge :
1. As to myself.
2. As to my election.
1. That I was in arms. My father sent me to Oxford
where I continued till February, 44.
My mother sent for me
to manage the estate at fifteen years. I returned to that City
of Worcester then. I was neither sequestrated, decimated,
nor secured. I hope to clear this by five hundred testimonies.
For my being a papist, as some swear, I hope by honourable
persons of this House to clear myself.
2. As to my election. I sent to my colleague when I was
invited to stand, Mr. Moore, now my malicious prosecutor. I
was chosen by men of honesty and faithfulness. Persons
were appointed to except against any they pleased. Before
tendering the poll, I prefaced that persons against me might
stand by and except. I will acquaint you with the quality
of the prosecutors. Neither mayor, alderman, nor common-
councilmen, but only six of the common men, most of them
alms-men. We offered a certificate from the substantial and
well-affected citizens of Worcester.
An exemplar of piety, well endowed with learning, hath
never aided, assisted, nor abetted against the Parliament, lived
peaceably, given signal testimony, contributed to all taxes,
duly elected, and duly returned. The Petition as to his un-
capableness, altogether untrue. His prosecutor received
money to prosecute. Divers hands to the Petition deny it.
Poor alms people signed it.*
I pray to be admitted to disprove the Petition, and to an-
swer the charge, and let justice be done.
Mr. Collins. On my own knowledge he was found as
a person in arms. He said the mayor and aldermen were not
subscribers.
The charge was read.
Mr. Collins. I saw much at the election. Some persons
were there in arms, some papists, and men that received
* This paragraph seems to be a summary, by the writer of the MS.,
of Mr. Streete's representations and defence of himself.
1
1658-9.1
255
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
alms. The sheriff had two or three persons that tendered
their oaths to prove his being in arms; but the sheriff refused
it, saying he had no power: which I suppose he had not. I
would have a special Committee to examine the fact.
Colonel Clark moved for a special Committee.
Serjeant Maynard. I would have it referred to the Com-
mittee of Privileges; lest the House be troubled every day
with matters of this nature.
Mr. Turner. I move that they attend the Committee of
Privileges, in regard it concerns a disability of an Election.
Mr. Weaver. They will not, in two months come to a
hearing. I would have a special Committee.
Mr. Knightley. More reports come in this Parliament
from the Committee of Privileges, than ever did in so many
days. If all the witnesses be not in town, let it be ten days
hence.
Mr. Streete. I pray for postponement till Monday sen-
night for my witnesses to come to town. It is eighty-seven
miles off.
Mr. Collins. My witnesses are here at charge, and it is
hard to attend a week longer.
Mr. Neville. Let us do justice. Though the witnesses be
at charge, they needed not have come up till a day assigned.
Lord Lambert. I move, to prevent charge, to hear wit-
nesses ex parte.
I
Sir Walter Earle. It is fit the witnesses be confronted.
would have both parties and witnesses to attend. I would
have the person to withdraw.
Ordered, that on Tuesday sennight the Committee of Pri-
vileges do take into consideration the Petition against Mr.
Streete, and the whole business.
Sir Walter Earle and Mr. Bodurda moved to hear the
great business, sine die.
Mr. Bampfield moved for a new election where the parties
are disabled.
Mr. Weaver. I would have the electors ever disabled.
Colonel Morley seconded the motion.
256
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Serjeant Maynard. There is no charge against the elec-
tors. We may be as guilty for suffering them to sit here a
week.
Mr. Knightley. It was never denied but when Parliament
sat at Oxford.* This House suspended for a time; but to
disable counties, is of dangerous consequence.
Sir John Carter. It is a reflection upon the whole county.
Very honest parties are in those counties. We did service.
in England as well as Wales. Let them have a new writ.
It was always cried, "Order it!" whenever it was moved.
Major-general Kelsey. I move for a new election in Ser-
jeant Glanville'st place.
Ordered, that a new writ be issued out for Brecknock in
Mr. Edmund Jones's place.
Ordered, the like for New Westbury, in Wiltshire, instead
of Mr. Danvers.
Ordered, the like for St. Germain's in Cornwall, in Serjeant
Glanville's place.
Mr. Turner. Two members are dead in law, and one in
fact. There is one Mr. Hill chosen for Old Sarum. I move
that a new writ issue out in his stead.
Ordered the like in Mr. Ashe's place.‡
It was moved again to take the great business into debate.
Mr. Neville moved that the Petitioners the other day at the
door, be heard on Monday; but nothing would be admitted
to bar the great debate adjourned to Monday.
Monday, February 14, 1658-9.§
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. In five years we have had greater
mal-administration than in five hundred years before.
* See supra, p. 234.
+ See supra, p. 236. See supra, p. 241.
§ Here is a blank in the Diary. According to the Journals, "the
House took into consideration a previous vote, before the commitment
of the Bill, intituled an Act of Recognition." For the first speech I am
entirely indebted to the Goddard MS., pp. 174, 175.
1
1658-9.]
257
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
We are a million in debt; some say two, some say three
millions.*
The King demanded but twelve subsidies to maintain the
army against the Scots,† and yet that was thought unrea-
sonable, though it came but unto 720,000l., a subsidy being
but 60,000l. The Queen, by Mildmay her servant, demand-
ed but two subsidies, and she herself thought it too much,
and would have but one, that shall serve her turn. But if
we be in debt, as some say, three millions, that will be
about fifty subsidies. If this be our case, what shall we do?
The people care not what Government they live under, so as
they may plough and go to market.§
+
In a century from this period, by the marvellous operation of the
funding system, that legacy of the Revolution, this puny national debt of
three millions had advanced beyond two hundred; all expended to vin-
dicate "the Act of Settlement," restrain French ambition, secure the ba-
lance of power, and decide the question "of Anjou and the Spanish
crown." During the seventy succeeding years the national debt has
reached the magnificent amount of eight hundred, ninety seven millions,
while Britain was unconsciously rearing the first Republic of America,
or generously re-establishing the monarchy of the Bourbons.
These wars, for which " toiling millions resigned their weal, and all
the honey of their search," were all "just and necessary wars,” so de-
clared by kings and cabinets; or commended to the special patronage
of Heaven, by the priests of rival nations, as if each had fondly ex-
pected that the Father of all the families of the earth would become a
partizan in the sanguinary quarrels of his contentious children.
† In 1640, the Parliament demanded a previous redress of grie-
vances, and was hastily dissolved. See supra, p. 54, note ‡.
++
+ This Queen must have been Elizabeth. Camden says, (An. 1566)
"she freely remitted the fourth payment of the subsidy that was grant-
ed, saying that money in her subjects' coffers was as good as in her
own." History, (1675,) pp. 88, 89. For this politic moderation, Rapin
thus accounts: " parcequ'elle ne prodiguoit pas son argent aux sangsues
de la Cour, comme avoient fait ses Prédécesseurs." Histoire (1724,) vi. 198.
§ A natural, though degrading result, of that disregard to the educa_
tion of the people which the Reformation under the Tudors, if it did
not aggravate, had done nothing to correct, but which continued to pre-
vail long after this period.
Carteret, Earl of Granville, an accomplished scholar and statesman,
who died in 1763, left, among his papers, his last thoughts on a variety
of subjects:-" He was not for having the vulgar taught to read, that
VOL. III.
S
258
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
It must
You have an army, your army raised by you.
be paid. They are yours, and will never own any other.
They are bold Britons, Englishmen that will never own any
thing but a Parliament.
they might think of nothing but the plough, and their other low avoca-
tions." This lettered barbarian, who had a verse of Homer on his al-
most expiring lips; but would thus "meanly seek the blessing to con-
fine," very consistently, and in the genuine spirit of the man-trade,
hoped never to see our negroes in America become Christians, because
he believed that this would render them less laborious slaves." Biog.
Brit. iv. Additions to, iii. 180.
That grand invention of the Sunday-school, which has exalted the
name of Robert Raikes, " above all Greek, all Roman fame;" and the
consequent benevolent and self-denying exertions in middle life, (so lau-
dably patronized by George III., two princes of his family, and a few
generous nobles,) at length stimulated the privileged orders to sanction
the education of the people; though excluding from the mis-named na-
tional schools, that large part of the population who would not conform
to the ritual of "the Church by law established."
rr
These tardy patrons of plebeian education, labourers entering the field
"at the eleventh hour," thus neglected, while securing a prostration
of the understanding," to provide for "the greatest good of the greatest
number.” Such, however, is “the aim of an enlightened and bene-
volent philosophy," which proposes, as well described by Dugald Stewart,
"to diffuse as widely as possible, that degree of cultivation, which may
enable the bulk of a people to possess all that intellectual and moral
improvement, of which their nature is susceptible.”
Among “errors in policy," exposed by Marchamont Nedham, in 1656,
he instances a keeping of the people ignorant of those ways and means
that are essentially necessary for the preservation of their liberty."
Hence, he complains, "implicit faith and blind obedience hath hitherto
passed current, and been equally pressed and practised by grandees, both
spiritual and temporal, upon the people; so that they have in all nations
shared the authority between them.
CC
Though many quarrels have arisen in times past, between kings and
their clergy, touching their several jurisdictions, yet the mysteries of do-
mination have been still kept under lock and key: so that their prero-
gative remained entire, ever above the reach and knowledge of the
people by which means, monarchs, and other standing powers, have
seen their own interests provided for, as well as the Pope's, in this mys-
terious maxim : "Ignorance is the mother of devotion." See "The
Excellencie of a Free State," reprinted by Richard Baron (1767) pp. 103,
104. See, also, Miscellanies by Thomas Christie, (1789,) pp. 203–218.
:
1658-9.]
259
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Besides, we have an army and navy which must be main-
tained; a court also, and a council. We have a Dowager
too: some say 20,000l., others that 40,000l. per annum, will
not serve her.
All the King's tables heretofore were maintained at the
King's charge; but now they must be all borne by the peo-
ple, and out of their purses. Let this be considered, and
let us not put ourselves into worse condition than Egyptians.
Let us not set up that we cannot find materials to make good.
I hope we shall never see an Act of Council to resume the
King's, Queen's, and Prince's lands. I have, indeed, some
Bishop's lands. If the King be restored, I shall willingly
restore the other.
+
If the Protector had nominated my son, (as he might have
done,) I should have begged that the mal-administration
might be called to account before you should have settled
him, or you should have first settled his maintenance.
I desire you would charge boldly the mal-administration
of the Government and the Council. I have seen this House
set about with the Council. I have seen a charge against a
secretary, Secretary Windebanck,§ that mushroom secretary.
He looked as pale as ashes, and sneaked away. This is no
new thing in Parliament. I have heard a charge here against
the Earl Marshall, the Lord Keeper,** and against the Earl of
Strafford. Before we vote a Stadholder, Chief Magistrate,
or Protector, let us call their mal-administrations to account,
and that we may understand our condition first.
This insinuation against the Dowager-protectress, was probably
ill-deserved, though it agrees with Mrs. Hutchinson's language. Speak-
ing of the late Protector, she says, “His wife and children were setting
up for principality." Memoirs, ii. 208. See Noble, i. 129.
+ From the revenue of the crown lands, purveyance and monopolies.
† See vol. ii. p. 423, note ‡.
§ See supra, p. 54, note ‡.
Into France in 1641.
** Finch, who fled to Holland in 1641.
†† See supra, p. 176, ad fin. Marchamont Nedham, considering "what
effects the continuation of power in the family of Orange had in the
United Provinces," adds, "that people have wisely improved their op-
portunity, (the cockatrice being not fledged,) in reducing that family
into a temper more suitable to a state and interest of liberty." See
"The Excellencie of a Free State," p. 112.
$ 2
260
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
We look upon a man as in a desperate condition, when he
is afraid to look into his accounts and see in what case he is.
Lawyers, officers, commanders of the army, that have great
incomes, besides their rents, may be able to pay their rates;
but the poor freeholder, the ploughman, the labourer, that
hath nothing but the sweat of his brow, how shall we take
care for these, how shall they be able to live?
It should have done well that this Bill had been brought in
by your advice.
It is desired you would do nothing suddenly nor unadvis-
edly.
Colonel Briscoe. I shall premise two things.
1. That government is necessary.
2. That all forms of Government are in themselves indiffer-
ent; yet have their conveniences and inconveniences. They
are not like white paper neither.
We
This Government of a single person is fitter for us.
have a government in possession. Our predecessors have
taken the Government in possession. Good laws mend the
bad.
It is not easy to wrest a club out of Hercules's hands. It
must breed great distractions. It is fittest for us; most suit-
able to the ancient Government. If we now go to lay a new
foundation, what a labyrinth shall we run into? To turn all
over, of what dangerous consequence cannot be imagined.
Reciprocal charges and reflections should have been spared.
We might all be so ingenuous as to acknowledge failings on
both sides. I take not this to be the probable way of settling.
We ought not only to provide for settlement, but for the li-
berties of the people. Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile
dulci.
I shall speak a little concerning the liberties of the people.
We have taken an oath which obliges to be tender. Populus
est prior et potior. Though the Chief Magistrate be most
transcendent, he must be less than the whole. Yet I would
have every thing done in its season. But it is said, either do
now, or for ever hold your peace. I most cordially concur
* See "Sir Arthur Haslerigge," supra, p. 230.
*
1658-9.]
261
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
with those that in this Bill would have an equal care of both.
I am not for the first, unless the other be added. Jealousies
on both sides must be secured by something that is material.
The articles should be distinct, not to depend one upon ano-
ther.
I would have two bills, one for the liberties of the people,
another for the Chief Magistrate, with such limitations as
shall be agreed on.
Mr. Trevor. In that quarrel, our business was always to
look forward. For mal-administration, former times have
been as bad. It was rather the fault of the time than of the
men. I am far from justifying all that passed. Methinks
we should be more impartial than only to look back five
years.* If we look with an impartial eye, we shall find as
many in the five years that went before. We had 120,000l.
per month; now but 35,000l., and excise and customs, be-
sides great scarcity of money, and sales of public lands. Mal-
administration was then complained of; men being both buy-
ers and sellers of public lands; writs of error after judgment
taken away.
For the question proposed. It was brought in clear, not
to surprise any body. I shall ever consent to that law which is
made by those that have power; but to consent to make that,
per se, as it may depend upon that uncertainty as that he
may be, or may not be; this shakes all laws since 48.
I would have a general Act of Oblivion on all that has
passed since, but that we are settled by a law. But to allow
all that was done by that Parliament as good, and to call all
done by this Parliament bad, I cannot understand. A good
law by a bad authority, is not so much as a bad law by a good
authority.
I understand not that argument, of a natural right before
any authority was, and that we are reduced to that natural
right. Admit it were so; then it entitles us and no other
Parliament that have met together. If it were so, we are
called by writ according to ancient laws and customs. When
* See supra, p. 256.
↑ Ibid. p. 176.
262
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
;
we go to natural right, all other laws are gone.
say
that we are chosen to any such ends.
of this is, that there is no law in being.
No man can
The consequence
This House was
not chosen to that end. We cannot assume it. The found-
ation to stand upon is a law, which cannot be repealed but by
a power that made it.
Mr. Knightley. It troubles me to look on your Journals,
and find so many blanks in that Bill. Since this day sen-
night, nothing has been done. I told you then I would not
have come into the House, but that I owned the Chief Magis-
We have no cause to rejoice in a Commonwealth. A
Commonwealth was never for the common weal.*
trate.
A
When I came first into this House, we had two armies.
Scotch army entered, and, I will not say, invaded England.
Another army was raised here to suppress them; another in
Ireland.
We are now, by God's blessing, looking towards freedom,
that ancient form of Government. It is some happiness that
the single person is of good disposition, free from guile; but
he is but a man. I have heard the Judges say, that the Chief
Magistrate, man or woman, must be bound; law must not
cease. We are now put into a posture to have the fruit of
our laws. What were done since 48, are equal to me. Much
good may it do to them that have good bits by these, but not
to bespatter another. I would not have it.
It is said, when posts go up and down, they say you are
where you were. There are only reports from the Committee.
of Privileges and Dismemberment.
I see nothing in this vote to take away your laws from you.
Propose your vote singly, and then any gentleman may move
an addition. When it comes to the negative voice and the
militia, I shall insist upon it as much as any man; but to say,
we will not have this man reign over us," I cannot agree
66
* "He reckoned up the great charge that he was at in taxes and horses,
and said they used a severity after men that they knew nothing against.
What do you think of Mr. Knightley ?" MS.
+ See supra, p. 182, vol. ii. p. 392, ad fin.
1658-9.]
263
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
}
to it. This previous vote is a devious vote. Via recta est
via tuta. I desire you would put the question singly. You
shall have my yea.
Mr. Chaloner. Many days have been spent in this debate.
Let them write into the country what they will. It is a great
business. If it be carried in the affirmative for the single
question, I doubt all is gone. Part with that, and the Bill is
done.
Where two questions come before you, you ought to take
that first that concerns the liberty of the people, before pla-
cing any single person, or making a Protector, and leaving the
liberties of the people in the wilderness. You are in a wood.
I know not how you can justify it. You cannot discharge
your trust to the people.
It was told you it was high treason to propound a question
against a law in force. The single person is but the means,
the prop; liberties are the end. It is said there is an inter-
regnum. Then it is plain you have no Protector at all.
The declaration should have been a more solemn deposi-
tion, and witnesses to prove it, who were not persons that
have places by it.*
The practice of other nations is to provide for the people,
and then go to election; as in Bohemia. The reason is,
because after election, he would never consent to making laws.
First provide your bounds and banks, and then I shall
agree as freely as any man to the single person.
Mr. Swinfen. I move to the orders of the House, and not
* See this Speaker, supra, p. 130, and note. "The Commissioners of
the great seal," says Ludlow, " attended the Protector for signing the
declaration of the person to be appointed to succeed him. But whether
he was unwilling to discover his intentions to leave the succession to his
son, lest, thereby, he should, in case of recovery, disoblige others, whom
he had put in expectation of that power; or whether he was so discom-
posed in body and mind, that he could not attend that matter; or, last-
ly, whether he would have named, or did name any other, is to me un-
certain. But, certain it is, that the Commissioners were not admitted
till the Friday following, when the symptoms of death were apparent
upon him." Memoirs, ii. 611. See supra, p. 141.
264
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
F
to wander off the question. We shall rise, doing nothing. I
would have every man to keep close to the debate.
Mr. Harrison. I shall not trouble you with any long de-
bate. I am one of those that are sorry the debate has laid so
long, for I think there is no such danger, nor comprehensive-
ness in the vote. It was never understood so, in the acknow-
ledging of any King.
As the single persons have turned into tyranny, so the li-
berties of the people have been abused, like Pandora's box.
All sects and heresies have grown up under the abuse of these
liberties.* The liberties of the people are dear to us all.
They are so to me.
I doubt the fervour of this debate is much losing by the
delay. To limit, as is propounded, is but splendidum nihil.
Nothing but inconvenience will come to the liberties of the
people.
I served you here in 54. A melancholy man made a pur-
chase, laid his hand on his mouth and said he had lost his
2000. If this vote pass thus limited, it is making him a
Protector to-day, and none to-morrow. I would have the
vote pass singly.
Colonel White. I am one of those that would have these
two great stones of the foundation of this Government laid
together with all the care that may be. The governor and
governed are by the order of nature. The latter ought to
precede; but I would have both go together.
There was an objection made at first that went far with me,
viz. that the liberties of the people are safe enough in the
settlement of the Chief Magistrate; but it is easily answered.
It is said your liberties are hedged in by his Highness's
oath. I wish I had nothing to say against it. That general
tie has been upon all the governors of the nation in all times.
I shall like a little balk to the unsafety of these ties. You have
been under several administrations. A government was
brought in upon you I know not how; by whom assumed I
know, his late Highness. An oath then, in the Instrument,
See this opinion "preached up," supra, p. 208.
1658-9.1
265
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
was as comprehensive as any one of the others could be,-to
govern in all things according to the laws and customs of the
nation. I would not reflect but only by way of argumenta-
tion. Notwithstanding the great obligation and tie of that
oath, we had many impositions upon us no way consistent
with it; witness the Major-generals, grounded upon a high-
prerogative declaration, with power to confiscate men's estates,
banish Englishmen, (a hard word in former Parliaments,)
and put them into imprisonment and bonds. This, indeed,
was executed by honest hands. The best part of it was, a
design to put us into blood by some Cavaliers; therefore all
Cavaliers are guilty. Neither major, minor, nor conclusion
good. Ill logic. This was a high law of prerogative. It
was done, and yet this under a security of his oath.
There was another authority, I know not whether of force
or not. If men proceeded at law, men were sent for. I was
sent for to the friend-makers, as they called them, and so
named in the law; and this was the fruit of that oath three
men were imprisoned several years in order to trial. I think,
if it was so, it was in order to a trial at the day of judgment,
as by an instance at your table.*
:
The fault was not here in the persons, but in the extrava-
gant power. I doubt, if you pass this vote, it will be charged
upon you that you create prerogatives. You must be sent
up to the Lords, for your limitations and troubles abroad
may be told you, so as to put it off two or three years.
I would have these two go together, with the particle
"and." If you separate them, if you please to give me
leave, I will offer you a proposal to that purpose; "that the
government of the Commonwealth of England, agreed upon
in the Protector, shall be intrusted in his hands, under such
limitations as shall be agreed upon by this Parliament," which
will answer all ends.
Colonel Bennet. I rejoice that things come nearer to an
end. I hope we shall come to a better agreement afterwards.
I have been well taught in this debate.
*" Colonel Overton," MS. See supra, pp. 45, 212, supra.
266
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
All our governments were accepted and owned by all our
allies abroad. So it is moved not to question any of these
authorities. The honourable interest of the Gospel and the
Protestant cause has been professed under all these adminis-
trations. I take all these to be lawful authorities, and the
worst of them to be better than any yet propounded.
I confess I have no principle engaging me to any particu-
lar form of Government, exclusive of any other Government.
It is light stuff for Government laid upon Nimrod, a great
thief, or Adam's,* which was an economy rather than a Go-
vernment. There is no text in scripture where they insti-
tuted a monarchical Government. I think it is profitable at
this time to have a single person and two Houses. I liked a
Commonwealth well; but not at this time, when we are so
full of distraction. If you were a tabula rasa, I should be
against putting the first question without the latter; but I
would not part with a bad Government till sure of another,
for posterity's sake.
I am convinced that it will not follow that by this vote you
give away your liberties. I cannot believe the single person
will do it. He cuts off himself, in cutting off this Parliament.
He stands but upon a single vote, and the Parliament dis-
solved, the vote is also dissolved, and what will another Par-
liament say? There need be no jealousy, therefore.
I earnestly desire that the question may be so stated as to
take in the liberties of the people too; to recognize him to
be the undoubted Protector, and that this vote be part of a
Bill for settling the Government.
Mr. Stapleton. I conceive we are not fit for the question
at present. Deliberation of it will produce the safest con-
clusions. Those that brought in the additions for the liber-
ties of the people, tend to unity, and this grave and honour-
able council ought rather to take in those things that tend to
union than to disunion. What more acceptable than his
Highness to marry these together ?
We ought to look for having another preliminary. The
* Sec supra, p. 222.
1658-9.]
267
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
additions seem to speak above-board. The other side have a
reserve. The bottom cannot be fathomed.
There can be nothing spoken contrary to it. That seems
to be kept in which is not spoken out.
We seem all to
agree to a recognition, but only with the additions. That
your ship may come in most laden, take in the additions.
Pardon, if I make a little retrospect briefly, and all in order
to the question.
I have heard a large narrative of things. I shall only be as
one come into this nation in the time of the Commonwealth,
when kingship was laid aside as useless, &c. Once devolved
into a Commonwealth, we stayed not long there; though still
asserted to be a Commonwealth ever since, under a Protector.
This was to heal the disorder and confusion: as well to keep
out the mischiefs of arbitrariness, on one hand, and confusions.
on the other hand: only a single person here was more conspi-
cuous. Formerly a king and his realm: here, a Protector and
a Commonwealth.
Those honourable persons and worthies that sat in the last
Parliament thought fit to make some additions to the power,
but not to take it from a Commonwealth, though first brought
in with king; those worthies, finding a single person, thought
to turn all things upon that hinge, but that startled: that
was not then received. What others may do, I know not.
The Petition and Advice, as now stated, does not alter the
form of a Commonwealth, to remain in that estate still.
Therefore, with respect to those eminent worthies that then
were, let us have the hinges another way. A dwarf upon a
giant's shoulders may see farther. A single person we have all
asserted. We may also take in a Commonwealth. There-
fore, lay down that maxim, and such may be the resolution.
Men give not counsel to affairs, but affairs to men; not
always good counsels, well digested. If you consider affairs
in the providentials; all providences have rather bent that
way, to respect the liberties of the people; if intrinsically
they do not follow. The high refined spirit of the nation
looks that way, as an honourable person emphatically observed.
Methinks we have left that track of providence, we have some-
268
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
what turned out of the way; no wonder at our exorbitances
in council, &c.
Mr. Gerrard took him down and said: We have heard a
long sermon. It is late to have another. I am informed he
is not capable to sit in this House. He has been Chaplain to
a regiment and in arms too, as I am informed.
Mr. Reynolds said, Let him be never so uncapable, he
ought not to be taken down; so the gentleman went on.
Mr. Stapleton. It is necessary to take in the additions,
that the Government may be just. The great Parliaments
declare that the additions were intrinsically in the people. It
will not be repugnant to the justice of this House to give the
people what is intrinsically their own. The Declaration in
41*
proves it. The late King disputed them. The sword
determined it for the people, to be theirs by way of conquest.
If it had not been clear, yet the conquest gave them a right;
but I need not that argument. There cannot be an honour-
able settlement without it.
The eyes of all nations are upon you for this event. A
ticklish state of affairs is at home, and in Europe;† never so
ticklish as now. Therefore do things for our honour. A
barring of the negative voice in the Instrument of Govern-
ment, was a tie upon him. By way of honour and compli-
ment, it gave him some days to consider of a Bill. If he re-
fused, it passed.‡
We ought to go as far from the corrupt form as we can,
lest it bring in the old line. Let us lay the Government so
safe as to prevent that. They have been the cause of great.
wars, and if those live embers are not wiped away, they
will revive again. Let nothing be done rashly, that may sur-
prise the people. I hope before this great council rise, they
will lay such a careful foundation as there shall be no excep-
tion against.
A great danger of evil counsel arises from favourites and
sycophants, as has been told you. A man will feel better to
be put into a capacity not to be able to hurt, than to have
+
See vol. ii. p. 435, note *.
+ See supra, p. 128.
Parl. Hist. (1763,) xx. 257. See, in 1656, vol. i. p. 20, note.
1658-9.]
269
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
power to hurt. It will be more safety and honour for us, to
make the vote as plain, perspicuous, and with as much unity
as may be. If we overlook the great concerns of the people
that we represent, it is a question whether they will recog-
nize us.
I have discharged my duty to his Highness in praying
those land-marks may be set up, that he may not be split;
my duty to the people in caring for their liberties, my duty
to you in desiring that both may be joined for unity's sake.
Mr. Speaker summed up all the debate.
We are indeed in a wood, a wilderness, a labyrinth. Some
affirmative, some negative, which I cannot draw into one
question. Put the question singly.
Colonel Kenrick. If you let the question go together, I
am ready to give my yea or no; but if you put it singly, I
desire to speak. The title, Protector, brought in a Govern-
ment with it, this brings in no Government with it. Adam,
being put into the garden, had a Government given in with
him,* what to do, and what not to do.
I take the Petition and Advice to be out of doors. The
reason why it was desired was, that his Highness would take
the Government because of plots and dangers.† The Bill
for Marriages is imperfect. The members from Scotland
make us imperfect.§ We have it not made out that he was
declared Protector.T
Now, in conscience, am I not bound to give my no, be-
cause they are not put together? Though I have a good
mind to it, I must give my negative.
Mr. Reynolds. I know not how, at this time of day, and
against the sense of the House to speak. Yet I must satisfy
my conscience, though I offend against your sense.
Some cried out he had spoke.
* See supra, p. 266.
+ See vol. i. pp. 354-356, 362–366, 378.
See supra, p. 37.
§ According to Ludlow, his party "endeavoured to remove the Scot-
tish and Irish members who had intruded themselves into the House."
Memoirs, ii. 626.
¶ See supra, p. 263.
270
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Henry Fane. He ought not to have been taken down.
Mr. Grove. The chair ought to direct us to keep to the
point. He began before with his oath, and so began again.
Mr. Reynolds. I hope that gentleman that is a conscien-
tious man will not be offended that I began with my oath. I
took the oath, uno flatu, and I desire the vote may be uno
flatu, both for the single person and the people's liberties.
A gentleman said, the liberties of the people ought to be pre-
ferred before any family in the world. He was sent to the
Tower for it, and after he had stayed without two years, was
called in again.
Colonel Fielder and Mr. Bodurda took him down, and ap-
pealed if he did not tell this very same story on Friday.*
Let us have this question now, and if we be of another
mind two years hence, we will agree with him.
Mr. Reynolds sat down.
The question was put in the affirmative.
Colonel West. I am for the first part of the question, but
not without the other part. I except against the word "un-
doubted." I shall forbear to speak my doubts at present. I
shall only speak, that the militia be preserved to the people,
as necessary at this time. I would have it done before you
rise; as so natural to the people that you cannot deny it. By
the law of the nation, I can go into any part of the nation
with my sword, to defend myself, and not ask leave of another.
I may kill the assailant, and defend my house by force against.
force. I take the law to be so. The tribe that sent me
hither, and another hopeful person in my eye,† how shall we
answer it to the people that sent us? We must have money
before we rise; but they will say, what have you done?
Have you given unlimited power to a single person?
The place that I serve for, is impoverished by this very
same thing. I was sorry to hear those reflections upon the
former Parliament. The Appeal hangs yet upon the file. It
is not a dubious thing. I am bold, and necessitated by those
that sent me hither. We formed ourselves into a garrison to
* See on (C
Harry Marten," supra, p. 212.
† Mr. Henry Porter, member with Colonel West, for Lancaster.
1658-9.1
271
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
defend that natural power of having the sword in our hands.
We had no bye ends. We suffered our houses to be on fire
all about us.
I would not have us contend, so much as in arguments,
against it. I hope those that are in the army would not de-
sire to be in the army upon another principle. Divers persons
have deeply engaged. I have heard it said of this gentle-
man, that he is without guile and without guilt;* and I
hope he will say, it is good news from this House, that his
interest and the interest of the people are so well matched to-
gether. It was minded well by Colonel Terrill. I shall
not trouble you with repeating the question; but put them
together or put neither.
Sir Walter Earle. The militia was not the quarrel. I
would have the question put, whether you will have any ad-
ditions.
Mr Reynell. I differ from that gentleman. The militia
was the ground of the quarrel.
I stand not up to speak against a single person, but against
a single person so clothed, or rather armed, by the Petition
and Advice. Where you say " undoubted," you own that
law by which he claims. But if the power is in that law, I
am loth to remember it.
It was told you by a gentleman from the floor, that this
was the greatest means and art to enslave the people that ever
was, with the Petition and Advice. I shall not mention the
reflections. There are good men on both sides. Weigh
those great powers of the Other House. I have not heard
that argument answered, that the Other House is dead by
the second Article.§
66 I
Colonel Terrill. It hath been told us, that we were men of
intemperate spirits that served in the last Parliament. This
was declared July 3, 1658. A godly minister told me,
was loth to go up and tell the people you were such bad
Divers gentlemen look to see whether the spirit of
men."
* See supra, pp. 27, 223.
+ See supra, p. 226.
† Perhaps Sir A. A. Cooper, supra, p. 228.
§ See supra, p. 223.
272
FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
young gentlemen* will incline to give away your cause;
whether you will destroy the foundation you have built
upon. I will meditate the words of the Psalmist. Posterity
will not applaud the same,† if we leave it thus; if you
clothe the Chief Magistrate with these kind of powers.
An observation I have met withal, of a great reason why
the Turkish Government stands, because no lawyer ministers;
but you have all such ingenious persons here. Are you able
to bear this?
1. To the negative voice. 2. To the militia. I shall
offer whether it is not rational to join these, as declared 20th
May, 1642. I shall leave that to the learned, that under-
stand that about the negative voice. Their bows did not
abide in strength that opposed it. The militia was clearly
declared to be yours in 42, and committed to the care of Ser-
jeant Browne. A declaration of Lords and Commons.‡ I
shall offer nothing done under the force.
A declaration, 13th March, 1647, in answer to the Scots, I
shall offer to you. I shall read the declaration. "As to the
militia as the principal ground of our quarrel, the King can-
not make laws without them. It makes the King capable
of doing all harm." What can a man say that speaks after
the King? What can I say, that speak after the great de-
claration? I would have all taken together.
Sir John Lenthall. I move that you recognize his High-
ness under the style and name of Chief Magistrate, to govern
the nation according to the laws, &c.§
Major-general Kelsey. I shall not trouble you long. I
hope we are not jealous of one another; but only jealous for
the liberties of those we serve.
He repeated the debate, and that some persons were not
satisfied; but they should be excluded by the first vote.
Therefore, he would have a previous vote that nothing shall
be binding in this vote till all be passed.
Sir John Northcote. I can give my vote neither way, if
* See supra, p. 232, note †.
See vol. ii. p. 435, note *.
+ See Ps. xlix. 13.
“As he had offered before." MS. See supra, p. 122.
1658-9.]
273
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
you put the first question. I would have you put the ques-
tion if you will have any additions.
Mr. Jenkinson. I move to add to the question, that no-
thing bind by this vote till the Bill be passed.
Mr. Starkey. I am an earnest suitor to you, in order to
the good of the people, that you recognize his Highness to
be Protector.
Lord Fairfax. I desire that the militia and the other
question may go together, that we give it not out of our
hands to any single person, but that it be intrusted where it
may be serviceable to itself and to the people.*
* It was little to the honour of this brave general, who had suc-
cessfully wielded the military power of the Commonwealth, that he
was prepared, or, at least, persuaded, (see supra, p. 48, note †) so soon
after this prudent and patriotic declaration, to intrigue, in concert with
Monk and the Presbyterians, for the unconditional return of regal go-
vernment; thus betraying the cause of " the People," by giving every
thing into the hands of a “single person," and such a person as Charles
Stuart, who had already commenced his career of profligacy, and who, at
length, earned the following character, from the pen of Horace Walpole,
Lord Orford :-
Fortune, or fair or frowning, on his soul
Could stamp no virtue, and no vice control.
Honour, or morals, gratitude or truth,
Nor learn'd his ripen'd age, nor knew his youth.
The care of nations left to whores or chance;
Plunderer of Britain, pensioner of France;
Free to buffoons, to ministers denied;
He liv'd an atheist, and a bigot died."
See" An Epistle from Florence, written in the year 1740." Dodsley
(1751), iii. 82.
The expiring royal libertine is, perhaps, incorrectly charged with bi-
gotry. He might be scarcely conscious of the solemn farce got up by
Father Huddleston, and in which, in articulo mortis, he was the chief
actor. As to the other charge, Charles II. " said once" to Bishop Burnet,
that "he was no atheist," though, according to the Bishop," he seemed
to have no sense of religion," but at " prayers and sacrament," to which,
even after his marriage, "he usually came from his mistresses's lodg-
ings, to the particular reproach of all that served about him in the
Church, he took care to satisfy people that he was in no sort concerned
in that about which he was employed.” (See supra, p. 67, note.)
VOL. III.
T
Yet
274
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Captain Baynes. I hear a great debate about cognize, or
recognize. I move that the question be, whether recognize
shall be part of the question.
Mr. Speaker was
Sir Henry Vane.
speak to the terms.
going to put the question for an addition.
If it pass in the negative, nobody can
First word your question.
Mr. Attorney-general. I agree that if it pass in the ne-
r
Yet the king, it seems, had not satisfied Archbishop Sheldon and the
rest of his courtly ecclesiastics, for, after the Savoy Conference, in 1661
on a revision of the liturgy, a new epithet, our most religious king, was
added to the king's title, that gave great offence, and occasioned much
indecent raillery, and those who took great liberties with him, have often
asked him, what must all his people think when they heard him prayed
for as their most religious king." O. T. (1724), i. 93, 175, 183. Thus
according to the versifier before quoted :—
"Extent of ill from kings at first begins,
But priests must aid, and consecrate their sins.
The tortur'd subject might be heard complain,
When sinking under a new weight of chain,
Or, more rebellious, might perhaps repine,
When tax'd to dow'r a titled concubine,
But the priest christens all, a 'right divine.''
That compliment to royalty, our most religious king, which Bishop
Burnet himself must frequently have repeated, when priest or deacon,
and, at length, ordained priests and deacons to repeat, is still enjoined in
the established liturgy; and, it may be said, fairly enough, as scarcely
any king can reign, to whom it would be less appropriate than to
Charles II.
It is here worthy of remark, with what submissive caution and extreme
candour, rather than with christian truth and manly freedom, this inter-
polation of the liturgy, in compliment to the restored Stuart, so well ex-
posed by Bishop Burnet, was treated in the following passage by those
gentle reformers, the pious and learned authors of the "Free and Can-
did Disquisitions relating to the Church of England.” (1750).
"The expression in the Prayer for the High Court of Parliament, that
is most excepted to, is very well known, and need not here be specified.
It might, perhaps, have been better, if it had not been put in at first;
and it is certain there was no necessity of inserting it. Whether it may
not now be exchanged for another epithet," (they recommend most gra-
cious Protestant King,) “ which shall be less exceptionable, is a question
we would only propose, and leave the resolution to proper judges;
though we think we could place the matter in such a light as would evi-
dence the necessity of attending to such a question.” p. 116.
1658-9.]
275
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
gative, you cannot speak to the wording the question. I
would have you put if the word, recognize, shall be part of
the question.
Mr. Neville. The word, recognize, gives away the ques-
tion. It betokens slavery.
Mr. Goodrick. We were not slaves in Queen Elizabeth's
time, and it was the language then.
Mr. Scot. The grounds of the word recognize, then and
in the times of Hen. VIII. and Hen. IV., were different
from ours. The reason for Henry IV.'s recognition, was
because Richard II. was alive, and his competitor. It was
in contradiction to competitors; only to distinguish persons.
An Act of Parliament passed to legitimate Queen Elizabeth,
because it was questioned whether she were fit to reign or no.
King James came from another kingdom and another family.
There was no recognition to King Charles, and no need of it.
He had no competitor. I can decognize Charles Stuart and
that family, but recognize I cannot. It comprehends the
merits of the question.
It was told
We must now speak or ever hold our peace.
that the great seal was sent for, two or three times, and either
his Highness was not so well, or I know not what; it was sent
back again.* The Privy Council made him. I would have
him to be your creature, and he will be more tender of your
liberties and privileges. If I recognize, I must be satisfied
how he was declared, according to the Petition and Advice.
We are not ingenuously dealt withal, for this is but a wing
of the debate, and the wing will be out of your reach. If
this pass, you will take a little breath between that and car-
ing for the liberties of the people; and then money must be
had for this Protector.
I was saying I would be a slave, but I would not neither,
till I needs must. If I could have lived safely in any other
part, I would not have lived here. I would be content it
should be set upon my monument,-if it were my last act I
own it, I was one of the King's judges. I hope it shall not
* See supra, p. 130, ad fin.
† See supra, p. 110, note.
T 2
276
FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
be said of us, as of the Romans once; O homines, ad servi-
tutem paruti! He that would take up half a vote, as to the
distribution of the members, will not he take up half a vote
if you recognize? Get your liberties as you can.
It is a
lame question without the other part.
Mr. Bodurda. This gentleman is mistaken of the debate.
upon the negative voice or militia, which was never talked on
till after the previous vote. It is said, recognition is only fit
in case of competition; surely Charles Stuart is a compe-
titor.*
Mr. Higgons. True, recognize is a French word; so is
Parliament and declaration. If we exclude all French and
Latin words, we shall not have words left in our own lan-
guage to express ourselves.
Mr. Disbrowe. We shall, at one dash, root out the liber-
ties of the people, if we go now, de novo, to make a Chief Ma-
gistrate. I doubt, if we have not a Chief Magistrate in
being, we are in a sad condition, and have taken God's name
in vain. I doubt if we acknowledge it not, as not to be in
being, other Parliaments will question what we have done,
and recognize every Parliament.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. The word, recognize, goes to
*This speaker's apparent disaffection to the now exiled royal legiti-
mate, was soon convertible; like that of Lord Broghill (who was equally
disinclined to "fall, uncourtly, with a falling court,") towards "Charles
Stuart and the rest." See supra, p. 136, note; vol. i. pp. 357, 358.
"A court," says Dr. Harris, "is too frequently followed because of
the loaves and fishes which are to be found there. When these fail, it
is no more regarded. So that it is not the desire of profiting the public,
the love of the sovereign, or any of those specious pretences which are
made use of by these kinds of men, that, in fact, do actuate them, in ac-
cepting and executing their various employments.
"It is not uncommon to see such as have been favourites and counsel-
lors under one prince, enjoy the same under another, who has ousted
him of his dominions, and deprived him of his bread. We are not to
wonder, therefore, that those who were preferred by Cromwell, should
be disposed, when their interest seemed to lead that way, to reconcile
themselves to Charles, in order to take care of themselves in the full ex-
tent of the phrase." Lives (1814), iv. 251.
1658-9.1
277
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
!
1
things and not to persons. I appeal to the long-robe men, if
recognize take not in all the laws, Petition and Advice, and
all powers given by that.
*
Mr. Gott. We have been debating by wholesale: now in
words; next will be in syllables; and we shall, I hope, at last,
come to the syllables yea and no, to determine all. We have
had Stadtholder, Sequestrator, Plunderer, and harder words
offered to us. The word, recognize, signifies no more but a
bare acknowledgment of what is, be it by the Petition and
Advice, or what way soever it be. It is se debui makes the
debt, not the recognovit. If I acknowledge a man my son,
it respects no time past. They are plain, innocent words,
words in terminis, in the oath. The oath is nothing but the
echo of what he is. Nobody without doors doubts it.
is sense.
As I would have the Parliament to speak nothing but
what is just, nothing but truth, so to speak nothing but what
It is to say he is a Chief Magistrate without a
Chief Magistracy. It is appositum ab opposito. Let us take
in all. If we must take in this, we must take in the Pro-
testant religion and confession of faith; and where you will
end I know not.
I am against the additions, because I am for the question.
Mr. Speaker. I move that I may withdraw, unless you
will resolve to adjourn.
Mr. Speaker, by consent of the House, withdrew, and di-
vers members, at past three went to dinner, and an hour after
the Speaker returned to the chair.
In the interim, a heat happened between Colonel Okey
and Mr. Hampden;† relating to his differing from his former
principles.
*
Recognize or agnize, acknowledge, all one;" supra, p. 185. Yet
see p. 179. Ludlow says, "It was desired that the words in the Decla-
ration, of recognizing him, might be altered for agnizing him; that so
his right might appear to be founded upon the consent of the people re-
presented in this Assembly." Memoirs, ii. 624.
+ William Hampden, third son of John Hampden, was now member
for Wendover, and one of the court-party. He died in 1675. Mr. Noble
278
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge said he would never speak to him
till he avowed his former principles, and said, "Those that
have not bled, can bleed as well as those that have bled, if
occasion be.
Sir William Wheeler moved to adjourn, before he spoke to
the question.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge seconded.
Sir William Wheeler went on, and moved to change the
word recognize for an English word, "acknowledge."
Serjeant Maynard seconded it.
Mr. Higgons. I move that both words stand, recognize
and acknowledge. It is but bellum grammaticale, that we
are upon.
Mr. Speaker was going to put the question.
Colonel West. I move not to put the question upon us,
till you take in the militia and negative voice.
Sir Henry Vane. I move that the question first be put,
whether you will leave out the word, recognize.*
Mr. Hewley. If neither recognize or acknowledge shall
stand, we shall have no word.
Mr. Bulkeley. I am indifferent which of the words be in.
Acknowledge is as plain an English word as can be.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am against both the words, re-
cognize and acknowledge. I see it is likely to go against us;
yet I would make as much of a bad matter as I can.
This looks like a new warfare. We come to set up votes
that are live quarrels, like York and Lancaster. I believe,
in my soul, it will bring a war upon this nation, alive or not
alive.
Serjeant Maynard took him down.
There is no likelihood of a war between the two words.
There is nothing of life against life in those words.
says: "He was much trusted and beloved by the Protectors Oliver
and Richard. He went with a commission into Ireland, and was dis-
patched by the Lord Lieutenant Henry Cromwell, to the Protector
Richard, with the proclamation, that had been issued upon his Highness's
accession to his sovereign dignity." House of Cromwell (1787), ii. 76.
* See supra, p. 271.
1658-9.]
279
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I
Sir Arthur Haslerigge went on.
I intended to move for two other English words, which our
law knows, constitute and appoint. I except against the
words, undoubted, under such conditions, &c.
If that fail, we may go out and beg, "Lord have mercy
upon us!"
Mr. Bulkeley. I move the last speaker to repeat the last
words, that usually are of most moment.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge stood up, and said over again the
last words.
Mr. Turner. I see we agree about the thing, and only dis-
agree about the words. I would have both recognize and
declare laid aside, and say only, that his Highness is Lord
Protector, and that will satisfy all.
The question was put, if the word " recognize" shall stand,
both in the affirmative and negative.
Mr. Sadler was spied to stand up before the negative was
put, and went on,
more.
I understand not the word, recognize; but it may fetch in
The whole matter may come in upon that question.
For aught I know, I shall never speak more. I would en-
tertain strangers kindly, they may be angels; a saying in
scripture.* If only I and my family were to be sold away,
but souls and consciences will speak. If we hold our peace,
the stones will speak ;† our ancestors' tombs will speak.
I find not the Protector's name in the oath. It is only to
his lawful rights. There was as strong an oath of allegiance
before, as could be. You came to dispute the King's rights
and person. Recognition speaks to acknowledge a debt.
Take in that word, and you acknowledge a debt. A recog-
nition was the solemnest way of attesting a debt, in the pre-
sence of the King, according to the ancient custom of the
nation. An acknowledgment of a debt before the King, was
not only of a debt, but a duty.‡ But, on my soul and con-
* Heb. xiii. 2.
† An allusion to Luke, xix. 40.
{“ Recognizance;—a bond wherein a man, before a lawful judge, ac-
knowledgeth himself to owe a certain summe of money, to the King if
280
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
science, pass this, and it will be out of doors to consider this
after.
I should profane if I should in terms express how much I
honour his now Highness and his father. I would have it
scanned, what it is to be Supreme Magistrate. I shall go as
far as any man, if I may understand. Is it to be High Con-
stable, Supreme Sheriff, or any thing of that kind?
I may acknowledge a supreme judicial executive power, I
speak to them that know the law. Either supreme
1. As coming in by way of inheritance and succession, and
so by the common-law: or
2. By some positive Act. Not only Supreme Governor in
respect of power, Supreme Majesty, or Supreme Magistrate
set down in the throne.
You give it away, you play it away; you do not sell it,
you have nothing for it. I speak it here for the life and li-
berty of the Protector. I stand here to plead for him.
more power is added, the sooner will he down.
The
You leap into all regal majesty, if you confirm him in that
authority. It will be declared in Westminster Hall, that it
is an ill foundation. Consider the nature of the thing. It
matters not what the words be. If you declare him to be
Supreme Magistrate, and say not what it is, you give up all
fought for lately, body, soul, and spirit, a negative voice;
you declare him to be whatever he does think himself to be.
He shall rule over slaves, not over fools.
It was not very lately that either heir or successor was de-
bated in Parliament. If he thought himself undoubted, he
would never come to you to ask it. You beg the question,
you give up all that can be given, House of Lords, and power
to dissolve you by law; all that ever is in the Petition and
Advice; all that ever he is tied up to by his oath. I love
those that love themselves, so that they do it happily and
well. God never curses us, nor enslaves us. I believe him
he faile in performance of a condition thereto joyned." See " Interpre-
ter of Hard English Words." (1639).
1658-9.]
281
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
wiser, in my soul, than to desire to rule over those that will
make themselves slaves.
There is a law in France, that after a man has lost his suit
he may speak nine days. I will come here to speak nine
days and nine nights. I will not go to any closet to pray,
but I will pray here.
We are taught to cry down royalty, as the head of the
beast. I am afraid we shall make him the image of that
beast, to give him an unlimited power. If a man, he rules
over men so far as he is bounded by the right reason of
man; but if over beasts, he must be a beast. Water is not
then free when it covers all the face of the earth, but when it
is in its channel; so man, when out of the channel of reason.
If you please, make a Committee, really to consider how
you may not take his just rights, nor lose your own just
rights. I hear say, I am bound by my oath. If you make
me not free, I must send it up to the Other House. I am
Another House they are, de facto.
sworn.
This is worthy of the serious consideration of the wisest
men about you.
Mr. Speaker. The sun does not stand still, but I think
you do not go forward.
The question being put, that this word, "recognize" shall
stand in the question.
Mr. Speaker declared for the Noes.
Mr. Dunch and Mr. Fleetwood declared for the Yeus.
Mr. Speaker declared the Yeas to go out.
Colonel Birch said, the Noes ought to go out.
Sir Henry Vane. The Yeas ought to go out.
The Yeas went out accordingly.
Yeas 191. Colonel Cook and Colonel Grosvenor, Tellers.
Noes 168. Sir Arthur Haslerigge and Mr. Neville, Tellers.
So it was resolved, that this word, "recognize," shall stand
in the question.
The main question* being put in the affirmative,-
* See p. 32, note, 87.
282
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
1
Sir Henry Vane. I wish I could speak out; for it deserves
it. You had another question, whether you should have any
addition.*
Mr. Weaver. I would have no question put upon an addi-
tion, but would have all the question put together; otherwise
we shall not unanimously concur. For those that are for the
addition, and lose it, then they must give their vote against
the Recognition, which I would not have.
Mr. Knightley. Put the single question first, which is the
substance of the Bill, and I hope we shall all be affirmative
in it.
Mr. Scot. If I cannot have the qualifications, I for one
shall give my negative.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I would have the question put,
whether there shall be any addition or no.
Serjeant Maynard and Mr. Turner. Though it pass in the
negative now, yet it bars not your Committee from making an
addition.
Mr. Attorney-general. If the question be carried in the af
firmative, that you will have an addition, then you are in the
wood again. Your addition may be made at the Committee.
I am against an unlimited power. My gown binds me to it.
Let us agree in this. I am confident we shall be ingenuous.
Colonel Morley. As all is expressed in the oath, why not
put all together in the question. Let us not part them.
Lieutenant-general Ludlow. I wish the vote had gone in
the negative. The main question would have passed more
unanimously. I cannot agree with the word, "undoubted."
Many arguments have been offered against it, but none an-
swered, but by "Question, question !"
It must either be by divine right, by conquest, or by com-
mon consent. By divine right he cannot be. Moses and the
judges had a call from the people. It was said the King
should not multiply unto himself horses, meaning power.
You cast off God, if you cast off that question. He has not
+
* See supra, p. 116.
† See supra, pp. 147, 222.
1 Deut. xvii. 16.
1658-9.]
283
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
conquered you, his father has not. Consider how you give it
away by wholesale, and beg it by retail.*
Let not a vote pass by a small number of men, haply that
by your Petition and Advice are not qualified.† It is the
reason of your vote must carry it abroad.
We are ground between two millstones. The other House
is a sword. I must say so. Either bring the sword to the
property of the nation, or the sword will bring property to
them. Though a Commonwealth be odious amongst you; yet
it is not your wisdom to depart from it.
I doubt this word, recognize, admitted, will cause a great
many negatives to the main question. I would have the
questions go together.
Captain Baynes. Without the additions put in the ques-
tion I must give my negative to it. Put it either that you
will have both together, or whether you will have an addition.
+
Mr. St. Nicholas. I am against the word, undoubted. A
rule in law, nil notum Judici, quod non notum Judici aliter.
Let it appear judicially before you by the instrument whereby
declared. Let that be on your journals. If there be not
such an instrument, but that a title must be sworn out, it
might have been also sworn out for the gentlemans on the
other side of the dike.
+
-
I would have it but by way of appointment. If
If you take
not care, now, for the limitations, I never expect to hear of
them again.
Mr. Disbrowe. I shall speak to the word, undoubted.
He had undoubted power to declare, and did, undoubtedly,
declare.
1. He was proclaimed in all the three nations, undoubtedly.
2. He, undoubtedly, called us hither as undoubted Pro-
tector.
If some limitations be not put in, we shall not be able to
* See supra, pp. 169, 171, 172. + See supra, pp. 29, 71, notes.*
↑ See supra, pp. 263, infra, p. 288, notes.
§ Possibly meaning Charles Stuart. See supra, p. 161, ad fin.
Yet he does not attempt to prove the late Protector's declaration,
284
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
7
answer it, either to God or man; but it is not seasonable
I would have you put the question, if, at this time, ad-
ditions shall be to the question; or put it, if now it shall be
put.
now.
Colonel White. I know, by right of the House, we must
have the other question for additions; but I shall only speak
to the word, undoubted. That was not in the Bill: I wonder
how it comes in now. It is not a salutation from all the
counties* that will make the title, undoubted. I would have
that word left out, and the question put for the addi-
tions.
Mr. Speaker. The word, undoubted, came instead of the
word, lawful.†
Mr. Fagge. I would have the word, undoubted, left out.
Mr. Salway. It is late, and if you go any further, you
will make it but a work of darkness. I would have you ad-
journ.
Sir Henry Vane. If you will not listen to the voice of my
worthy neighbour, let us have candles, that we may see to put
the question.
Mr. Jenkinson. I move to leave out the word, undoubted,
or else put the question to leave it out.
The question was put, that the word "undoubted" shall
stand in the question.
Mr. Speaker declared for the Noes.
Sir William Lawson declared for the Yeus.
Mr. Trevor. I move rather to yield than divide the House.
I would yield it.
So it passed in the negative.
The question being put that candles be now brought in.
Mr. Speaker declared for the Yeas.
Lord Lambert declared for the Noes.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move that the Yeas go forth;
because it is extraordinary to sit with candles.
The Yeas went forth.
See supra, pp. 158, 161, notes.
"Lawful successor," see supra, p. 87,
note*.
1658-9.]
285
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
[
I
Yeas 209. Sir Richard Temple and Mr. Ansley, Tellers.
Noes 153. Colonel Eyre and Mr. Howe, Tellers.
Resolved, that candles be now brought in. They were
brought in accordingly.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I never knew good of candles.
Sir William Widdrington brought in two candles from the
clerk, against the direction of the House, and was sent to the
Tower next morning.*
Mr. Bampfield. I move to alter the words of the question,
and to say, Richard Lord Cromwell is Lord Protector, and
not that Richard Lord Protector is Lord Protector.
I would not have the question put now for the additions.
If it be carried in the negative it is not fit to lie upon your
books. It bars not your Committee.
Sir Henry Vane.
Either put this question, or else you
are not so ingenuous to exclude our votes. If this addition
be left out, you direct your Committee to pass a short Bill
to recognize, without passing any thing for the other.
Mr. Solicitor-general. I like ingenuousness and clearness.
If this vote pass not into a Bill, it binds neither this House,
nor any without doors. I would have a vote that nothing
be binding till all be passed.
I
Mr. Neville. You are now where you were in the King's
time. He had a long hereditary right, which, without the
sword, could not be obtained. Unless we speak now for the
people, we must for ever hold our peace.† I would have the
vote for an addition.
Mr. Knightley seconded Mr. Solicitor-general's motion for
a previous vote.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am one of those that fear that
when this is gone, all is gone. I have been as much deceived
in men as ever was man. I will trust men no more.
I would have nothing of the negative voice and the militia.
go along with it; or if any thing shall be added, I am clear
we cannot meddle with the militia nor negative voice in this
Bill.
* See vol. i. p. 36, note.
+ See supra, p. 230.
}
286
[FEB. 14,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1,300,000l. per annum,* was taken, notwithstanding the pre-
vious vote.
Sir Walter Earle and Serjeant Maynard. A vote does not
oblige the Parliament. If it never pass in the Bill, it never
passeth for a law. If that question go against them, why do
they strive to put it under that danger? Then they may
propound any thing at the Committee: so they conclude
themselves. Would have a previous vote, that nothing shall
bind, &c.
on
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper differed from them.
If it pass in the negative, you are excluded at your Com-
mittee. A proviso may be brought in. Votes will remain
n our books when we are gone, and it will appear that we
had also care of the people. You will have it committed and
nothing appear. I would have both appear on our books to-
gether.
Mr. Bodurda offered an expedient that nothing should be
binding till all was passed; and that before the Bill was com-
mitted, provision should be made for the people's rights and
liberties.
That would not satisfy the contrary party, for after a strong
proposal for it, it was yielded on the other side, that the ques-
tion should be put, if any addition should be made to the
question.
The question was put, that this question be now put, and
it passed in the negative, by above one hundred votes.†
* See supra, p. 168, vol. ii. pp. 26, (Mr. Croke) 457, 458, note.
From "A Statement of the Amount of the Public Revenue at the
commencement of each reign," it appears that the "Annual Income," in
1625, on the accession of Charles I., was 895,8197.; in 1648-9, on the
Establishment of the Commonwealth, 1,517,2477.; in 1660, at the Re-
storation, 1,800,000l.; in 1760, on the Accession of George III.,
8,800,000l. "and in the year, ending 5th Jan. 1808, 75,446,626/. 11s. 6d.”
+ "The House was divided. The Noes went forth.
"Noes 223. Mr. Henry Fitz-James and Sir John Copplestone,
Tellers.
"Yeas 134. Sir Arthur Haslerigge and Mr. Henry Neville, Tellers.
"So the question passed in the negative." Journals.
1658-9.]
287
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The question being propounded, that it be part of this
Bill to recognize and declare his Highness, Richard, Lord
Protector, to be the Lord Protector and Chief Magistrate of
England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions and ter-
ritories thereunto belonging; the question was put, that this
question be now put; and it passed in the affirmative, (pau-
cis contra.)
So the main question being put, it was
Resolved, ut supra.
Mr. Trevor then offered, of his own accord, to the end the
other party might not go away displeased, that it also be re-
solved, and was, with but one negative* to it,
Resolved, that before this Bill be committed, this House
do declare such additional clauses to be part of the Bill, as
may bound the power of the Chief Magistrate, and fully se-
cure the rights and privileges of Parliament, and the liber-
ties and rights of the people; and that neither this, nor any
other previous vote, that is or shall be passed in order to
this Bill, shall be of force or binding to the people until the
whole Bill be passed.†
The House then rose at ten; all parties well appeased.
* "This vote," says Mr. Bethel, "passed the House, without any nega-
tive, more than that of the Secretary of State; but the courtiers no
sooner knew the sense of Whitehall upon it, that, from that time forward,
they never appeared in the least for the making good one word of it.”
Brief Narrative, p. 340.
+"That night he was voted Chief Magistrate, with such boundary
and qualifications, as shall be sett." Goddard MS.
On the subject of these discussions Whitelock, now occupied “about
the business of the great seal," of which he was again one of the three
Commissioners, has only the following short notices.
"Feb. 8. The House of Commons debated the Bill of Recognition of
his Highness to be Lord Protector; and some were very cross in that
business, which caused doubts of the good issue of this Parliament.
"9. The members returned for Scotland and Ireland, to serve in this
Parliament, [see supra, p. 75], appeared very full." Memorials (1732),
p. 676.
tr
Upon the 7th of February," says Mr. Bethel, "the Bill for recog-
nizing the Pretender, was read the second time, and the debate begun.
The court party pleaded the Petition and Advice, as the foundation of
288
[FEB. 15,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Tuesday, February 15, 1658-9.
I came late, and found a great many citizens at the bar,
opening their great Petition, by Samuel Moyer.* I suppose
most of them were Anabaptists.
his title, but the country-party denied it to be a law; in that the mem-
bers were never suffered to meet, but so many of them kept out by force,
and that even by him that called them, as he judged would hinder the
execution of his will. Besides, that, at the creation of the monster, there
were, of 460 members chosen, but 104 in the House, whereof 51 were
against it, and but 53 for it, among whom were Scotch and Irish mem-
bers, who had no right to sit, but were usurpers in making laws for Eng-
land.-
"But the Court, being resolved of no less than a Turkish power,
would suffer no reason to prevail with them, to the making the Petition
and Advice unauthentic; but as it had force for its original, so it must
have the same in the allowance of it for a good law; which provoked the
country-party to demand a proof of the pursuance of that law; in the
Pretender's election, and that his designation was according to the di-
rections of it.
But, though this was pressed by persons of great abilities, never any
answer was given to it, the Court-party knowing that, by the strength
of their members, they could overrule the strength of reason. But,
those for the country, taking the others' silence in the point of proving
the designation, to be a granting that there was none at all, argued
that if the election was void, and that Providence had prevented
the usurper Oliver of keeping to the Petition and Advice, in appoint-
ing, during his life, his successor, the law was thereby fallen to the
ground, and all government reverted to its original, the people, who
ought by their representatives assembled in Parliament, to bestow it as
they should think fit, which would then have been readily given by most
of those then present, to the gentleman in possession, if he and his party
would, upon these terms, have accepted of it, as they refused it, lest, by
owning the Parliament to be the Creator of the government, they should
own a power in them to destroy their own creature when they pleased,
which they were not for in Cromwell's case, though some of them had
made the same thing the ground of their fighting in another case.
"This debate, no man speaking twice to the matter, held eight whole
days successively. In which time, great excellency and good affections
appeared in several gentlemen, in their speeches for the good of the na-
tion. Yet the best they could bring this debate unto was to conclude
with the two votes (14th Feb. 1658,) as previous to the commitment of
the Bill." Brief Narrative, pp. 337–339.
* See supra, p. 152. "Samuel Moyer" was one of the seven members
for London in the Parliament, 1653. "The House being informed that
1658-9.1
289
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
TI
After Moyer had spoken almost an hour, a great deal of
cant language, the petitioners withdrew, and the petition was
read.*
It was very bulky in respect of the number of hands,
principally levelling at the two great stakes, the militia and
negative voice; and that no officer be removed, but by a
Council of War.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge, Mr. Neville, Mr. Knightley and
others, moved that the petitioners have thanks. But see the
sequel. The table was turned; for they got neither thanks.
nor good affection. Such honour have all such factious
petitioners.
Serjeant Maynard. I am against giving thanks to any
petitioners. It is not fit for us to bow to them.
Mr. Starkey. I move to give thanks; but would not,
upon a general complaint, recommend them to the Committee
of Grievances. They may have recourse thither, if they
have any particular grievances.
Sir Walter Earle. I am against giving thanks; but
would have them acquainted, that the particulars they peti-
tion for, you have now under debate.
turn.
Mr. Reynolds. I move to leave it to you to word your re-
You may express it some other way, than by thanks.
Mr. Bulkeley. There are some things in it I cannot give
thanks for.
1. It puts all power in a court-martial, without taking
you in.+
those gentlemen of good affections to the Commonwealth, who formerly
attended to deliver a petition to this House, were without at the door;
they were called in, and Mr. Samuel Moyer, in the name of the rest
presented to the House their Petition." Journals.
*" Directed to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England;
and was intituled, the humble petition of divers citizens and inhabitants,
in and about the City of London." Ibid.
† Dr. Barwick, "immediately after the Restoration successively Dean
of Durham and St. Paul's," but now earning the royal wages of Church
preferment, by his good services as a spy for Charles Stuart, or, in the
plausible language of his biographer, by "secretly managing the king's
affairs,” thus writes to Hyde (Lord Clarendon, see supra, p. 110, note ||).
“Feb. 16. 1658-9. The Protector already relies upon the great offi-
VOL. 111.
U
290
[FEB. 15,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
2. I take notice of the agreement of the people.*
3. A declaration of an army, a Parliament sitting. Where
a petition has a clog, with pamphlets—†
It never mentions a single person, not so much as that
they desire a single person.
I never had office, nor seek office. I find in it a strong in-
ducement for turning men out of office. This goes a great
way. It argues more of self. Those that first engaged, did
not seek themselves. They have their reward.
Those things that are fit for your consideration, you will,
in due time, take them into consideration. Call them in and
say so.
Sir Henry Vane. The name of single person you have
settled. None will speak against it; but if you mean by
that, the thing, I hope it will not be agreed. They desire
nothing but what you have voted, and is for common right.
It is not of particular grievances they complain, but of the
discouragement of those that will act for their interest. If
you could find out a way to discourage us, others will vote
what the single person pleases. I would have a public spirit,
if not a Commonwealth encouraged; and would express your
receiving their desires with a great deal of courtesy.
Mr. Swinfen. I would have this caution along with your
return to the petitioners, that the coming up in the name of
boundless liberty may not destroy liberty; that unlimited
liberty has been the source of all mischief. If we agree but
the thing liberty, we shall not fall out about names. I would
have general discourses laid aside. There is as much tyranny
in liberty as otherwise. I would not stir up that liberty that
leaves you no liberty here.
+
In regard it is the first petition, your answer ought to
cers of the army, and the republicans on the under-officers, more than
upon the votes of either party." See "Thurloe State Papers," vii. 615.
* See supra, 113, note§, 138.
+ Blank in the MS.
‡ Dr. Clarges, who was already intriguing, in concert with his brother-
in-law Monk, for "the King's return," (see supra, p. 153, note,) in a
letter to "Lord Henry Cromwell, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland," (see
supra, p. 151,) says:
"Feb. 15. This day a petition was presented by Mr. Berners, Mr.
Kiffin, and some others in the name of themselves and 40,000 citizens of
1658-9.1
291
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
be wary, lest you set petition against petition, and petitioner
against petitioner. Only take notice of their soberness in
London, which I am told is the same that was endeavoured the last ses-
sion of the last Parliament, and caused his Highness to dissolve them.''
See" Thurloe State Papers," vii. 617.
Mr. Edward Bowles, an eminent Presbyterian minister, thus writes to
Secretary Thurloe. "York, Feb. 12, 1658-9. I perceive the parties
disaffected to settlement, are adroit in making petitions to the strength-
ening of their design. If you find that such things take any impression,
they may easily be balanced with contrary opinions." Ibid. p. 610.
Mr. Bowles, according to Dr. Calamy,
was for some time chaplain to
the Earl of Manchester, but, upon the reduction of York, (in 1611) was
one of the four ministers maintained by the state in that city, with ho-
nourable stipends." Here "the very sequestered, and decimated gen-
tlemen, as Sir Christopher Wyvill, &c., were his hearers, and sometimes
at his house, where, in the evenings, he was wont to repeat his sermons."
He was, however, not merely a religious, but could, on an inviting occa-
sion, readily become a secular.
Though he lay hid, yet was it said, that he was the spring that
moved all the wheels in the city. His greatest activity and interest was
seen in 1660, when the Lord-general Monk passed through Yorkshire,
where most of the gentry of the county, with Lord Fairfax at the head
of them, addressed to him for a free Parliament. The address was one
main cause of the King's Restauration, and, as to this whole business, it
is well known Mr. Bowles had a considerable hand in the management
of it." Account (1713,) pp. 779–781.
In the Introduction, (p. x,) to “A Collection of Letters," (1714) it is
said that "Mr. Bowles and other royalists assured the general, they
were willing to join with him, but they disapproved of his declaration,
filled with many protestations for the asserting of no other than a Com-
monwealth government."
In Dr. Gumble's Life of Monk, Mr. Bowles is named as one of the
two Presbyterian ministers, between whom the general marched into
York.
Dr. Price, another of Monk's intriguing chaplains, having related his
master's progress from Edinburgh to York, in January 1659-60, thus
proceeds :-
"Here we staid five days, one of them being Sunday, and Mr. Bowles
gave us a good sermon in the cathedral. This gentleman was the Lord
Fairfax's chaplain, counsellor and agitator; and dealt with the general
about weighty and dangerous affairs; one night above the rest keeping
him up so very late, that upon my entering the chamber to go to prayers,
I found him and Bowles in very private discourses, and the General or-
dered me to go out for a while, but not to bed. Some time after mid-
night, Bowles went away, so that then our servants hoped to sleep. But
U 2
292
[FEB. 15,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
acquiescing in your determinations. For their affections in
that, give them thanks.
Lord Lambert. If we apply that to the petitioners, that
a crying up of liberty is a destroying of liberty, it is a mis-
take.
The known way to throw out officers, is only by a council
of war, and it agrees very well with the liberty of the sub-
ject. If there be but one good thing in it, take notice of it,
the General sent for me in to him, and commanded them to stay without
as before.
"He took me close to him, and said, 'what do you think? Mr. Bowles
has pressed me very hard to stay here and declare for the King: assuring
me that I shall have great assistance.' I started at the boldness of the
proposition, and asked him whether he had made Bowles any such pro-
mise. He answered me 'no truly I have not,' or 'I have not yet.' For
I found him a little perplexed in his thoughts." See "The Mystery and
Method of his Majesty's Happy Restauration, laid open to Public View.
By John Price, D.D. one of the late Duke of Albemarle's chaplains, and
privy to all the secret passages and particularities of that glorious Re-
volution." (1680), p. 79; Maseres's Tracts (1815), pp. 751, 752.
tr
The once flourishing patriotism of the Parliamentary Hero, (see supra,
p 273,) and his "laurel, meed of mighty conquerors," had now, like the
way of life” of Macbeth, miserably "fallen into the sear." Dr. Skin-
ner (Life of Monk, p. 188), says that "Mr. Bowles was directed by
Lord Fairfax to confer with the General." This accords with Dr. Price's
further relation.
"The noon before this mighty intrigue, the Lord Fairfax dined with
the General, privately in his chamber, and the General, to return the
Lord Fairfax's kindness, went one day and dined with him, at his coun-
try-house, (Nun-Appleton) where he and his retinue were hospitably
entertained, and returned the same night." Just at this time the Gene-
ral had publicly cudgelled an officer who had traduced him, by saying,
this Monk will, at last, bring in Charles Stuart, charging his officers to
do the like to those under their command that should so offend." Mys-
tery, pp. 80, 81.
"Mr. Bowles accompanied Lord Fairfax to Breda, to invite King
Charles into England," and, according to Dr. Calamy, "had not he and
his brethren bestirred themselves, Episcopacy had never been restored."
He was one of a few Presbyterian royalists who just escaped, in the secu-
rity of the grave, their worthy reward from the Crown and the Prelacy;
dying in August, 1662, his age not exceeding forty-nine. He was bu-
ried on the eve of Bartholomew-day." Account, pp. 781, 782.
1
1658-9.]
293
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
and say that you will take it into consideration, and acquaint
them, that they may go home to their houses and mind their
callings.
Mr. Trevor. I am glad those votes please the gentlemen
so well, that were not so pleased with them before. I would
give such an answer as may neither flatter nor discourage. I
would have a grave answer.
Let them know you have read
the petition, and those things that concern the liberties of the
people, you will have under consideration in due time.
Mr. Scot. I move that we may not amuse the House by
discountenancing the petitioners. You may safely own the
good things in the petition.
Sir George Booth. I have been as much for the rights
and liberties of the people as any man. I doubt there is not
such peaceable intentions in this petition. He that would
plunge my country into blood, I must fly in his face.*
A
* Yet this speaker, one of the Presbyterian royalists, secluded from
the Long Parliament, was prepared, in a very few months, to "plunge
his country into blood," in the worthy cause of Charles Stuart, by head-
ing an insurrection in Cheshire and Lancashire, for which latter county
he was member in this Parliament.
66
August 6, 1659," according to Ludlow, an army under Lambert
marched from London, and defeated at Warrington "Sir George Booth
and his party, who were about four thousand in number," their general
attempting to escape in disguise, like his master, Charles Stuart, after
the battle of Worcester, though without the royal success.
"Sir George Booth, after his defeat, put himself into a woman's habit,
and, with two servants, hoped to escape to London, riding behind one of
them. The single horseman going before, went to an inn on the road,
and, as he had been ordered, bespoke a supper for his mistress, who, he
said, was coming thither. The pretended mistress being arrived, either
by alighting from the horse, or some other action raised a suspicion in
the master of the house, that there was some mystery under that dress.
And thereupon resolving to make a full inquiry into the matter, he got
together some of his neighbours to assist him, and with them entered the
room where the pretended lady was. But Sir George Booth, suspecting
their intentions, and being unwilling to put them to the trouble of a far-
ther search discovered himself. Whereupon they took him into their
custody, and sent him up to London, where the Parliament committed
him prisoner to the Tower." Memoirs, ii. 684, 695.
"A Committee was sent to examine Sir George Booth in the Tower,
294
[FEB. 15,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
gentleman heard one of them say great things to this purpose.
It is Colonel Grosvenor. This intimates that it comes with
no such peaceable intentions as it seems to hold forth.
touching the design wherein he had been engaged, and the persons that
had promised to join with him. He confessed to have received a com-
mission from the King, and that many of the nobility and gentry had
promised to appear with him, whereof he discovered some, and desired
more time to recollect himself concerning others." Ibid, p. 696.
The speedy suppression of this insurrection appears to have shed a
lustre on the last days of the expiring Commonwealth.
"Upon the news of our success against Sir George Booth," says Lud-
low," Colonel Lockhart, [see vol. i. p. 107,] our ambassador at the Py-
renean treaty, began to be courted by the Spaniard, as he had been
before, by the French; and our plenipotentiaries met with good success,
in their mediation for an agreement, between the two northern crowns;
and the Dutch not daring to attempt what they had designed for the
King of Denmark, the two Kings were in a fair way to a peace, though
the King of Sweden had expressed his discontent, that the two Com-
monwealths should form conditions, to be imposed on crowned heads.
But being told by Colonel Algernon Sydney that the friendship of Eng-
land was not to be obtained on any other terms he seemed to acquiesce."
Ibid. pp. 697, 698.
Previous to the defeated insurrection of Booth there had been a "Trea-
ty between the Parliament of England and the United Provinces of the
Done
Netherlands, for inducing Sweden and Denmark to make a peace.
at the Hague, July 24, 1659." See "A General Collection of Treaties,"
(1732), iii. 197.
Lord Clarendon "casts discreetly into shade," the neglect which
Charles Stuart experienced from the rival diplomatists, on his fruitless
journey to the Pyrenees, in 1659, though he admits that "the best the
King could now look for seemed to be a permission to remain in Flanders
with a narrow assignation for his bread." He says, that Cardinal Ma-
zarine "knew well that Spain did at that instant use all the underhand
means they could to make a peace with the Parliament. Therefore he
renewed all the promises he had formerly made to Oliver, again to Lock-
hart, that he would never make a peace without the consent and inclu-
sion of England;' and very earnestly desired him, and writ to that pur-
pose to the Parliament, that he might be at the treaty with him, that so
they might still consult what would be best for their joint interest."
History (1712), iii. 677, 690.
Monk, having restored "the secluded members," or Presbyterian
royalists, while solemnly declaring "that he would oppose Charles Stuart
to the utmost," they "gave order," says Ludlow, "to discharge Sir
George Booth from his imprisonment, if he would engage to make his
1
1.658-9.]
295
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I was sent for, to speak with S. A., so could not attend the
debate.
It seems Colonel Grovenor said, he heard one Colonel
White say, that rather than part with a Commonwealth, he
would wade to the neck in English blood. He said it in the
lobby, but knows not whether he was a petitioner or no.
It should seem, it was moved to give the petitioners
thanks, and put to the question that these words," and doth
take notice of their good affections," shall stand, and be part
of the answer.
*
It was carried in the negative almost by one hundred
votes; and the petitioners were dismissed with this only;
that the House would, in due time, take into consideration
such parts of the petition as were fit for them to consider
of.†
appearance upon summons; which he, thinking to be injurious to him,
who had attempted to do no more than they themselves were attempt-
ing, refused the condition, but was soon after released without enter-
ing into any obligation." Memoirs, ii. 856, 857.
Sir George Booth, who died in 1684, was created Lord Delamere, by
the restored Stuart, so appropriately connected were the work, and the
wages. His son, Henry Lord Delamere, who distinguished himself
among the promoters of the Revolution, was sent with the Marquis of
Halifax and the Earl of Shrewsbury, by "the hero William," to his royal
father-in-law, to order that King to remove from Whitehall, a mes-
sage," says Lord Orford," which he delivered with a generous decency."
The dethroned prince afterwards said, “that Lord Delamere, whom he
had used ill, had then treated him with much more regard than the
other two lords to whom he had been kind."
This second Lord Delamere, whom King William "dismissed from
office, to gratify the Tories,” and created Earl of Warrington, and who
died in 1693, aged forty-one, was described by a contemporary ver-
sifyer as
CC
"Fit to assist to pull a tyrant down;
But not to please a prince that mounts the throne."
"The House was divided. The Feas went forth.
Yeas 110. Sir Thomas Style and Major-general Packer, Tellers.
“Noes 202. Mr. Annesley and Mr. James Herbert, Tellers. Jour-
nals.
†“Resolved, that the answer to be given to the petitioners shall be,
296
[FEB. 16,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The petitioners, I believe, were scarce well satisfied.
The House rose at one.*
The Committee of Privileges sat in the House till nine at
night, upon the business of Malton. They did not deter-
mine it; but it is clear for Mr. Howard against Robinson.
Wednesday, February 16, 1658-9.
I came late into the House and found them engaged upon
a great debate, touching an accusation of a member, Mr.
Neville, for atheism and blasphemy.
Mr. Bulkeley was speaking, and it seems he first stirred it,
having been put on by three ministers, who, it seems, heard
Mr. Neville speak words to the same purpose; but there
was no information in writing.
Divers members had spoken pro and con.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. You ought to be very tender of
a member. The charge ought to be certain as to time and
place; else it is in vain to produce witnesses to clear a man.
He knows not what to plead to.
Mr. Attorney-general. This gentleman has had ill for-
tune. Not long since, he was accused here of another crime.
I would have a time appointed when, for your own honour,
that the House hath read their petition: that some of the particulars
mentioned in their petition the House hath already taken into conside-
ration and that such others as are fit for the consideration of this House
they will, in due time, consider of them: and do expect that the peti-
tioners should acquiesce therein, according to their own expressions.
"The petitioners were again called in, and Mr. Speaker gave them
the answer of the House to their petition accordingly." Ibid.
*“ Ordered, that the House do proceed, to take into consideration,
such additional clauses, to be part of the Bill intituled an Act of Recog-
nition, &c., as are mentioned in the vote passed yesterday, the first
business to-morrow morning, and that nothing else do then interfere."
Ibid.
+ "The question was whether New Malton alone, or Old Malton and
New Malton, together ought to elect burgesses." Parl. Hist. xxi. 259.
{
1658-9.]
297
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
and the honour of the gentleman, you will hear this business
at the bar; and let the charge be brought in certain, as to
the circumstances of time and place, in the nature of an in-
dictment; that the gentleman may know how to make a cer-
tain defence.
Colonel Bennet. It is reasonable that an accusation
should be certain. The world pass by the circumstances in
cases of this nature, and only take a charge subscribed by
some person. Godly opposites are apt to consider one ano-
ther as monsters, and heretics. Let us all live by a law,
whatever a man be. He has but an accusation upon him
unproved. For a member to be guilty of atheism and blas-
phemy, you cannot in honour let it go. Let the accusers.
post down their names, and as to time and place in positive
terms; not ambiguous and doubtful, but certain, and appoint
a day of hearing. In the meantime, we ought to look upon
the person as innocent.
Major-general Kelsey. Consider how to vindicate your
own justice. The charge is high, but it becomes you that
the charge be certain, and the persons accusing, to affix time
and place; and not to appoint a Committee, but to hear it at
the bar, and have witnesses on both sides heard.
The gentleman will lie under doubtful thoughts by his
friends. I would give him a copy of the charge, and time to
answer it.
Mr. Ashe. I had not troubled you now, but that I can
assure you I was this gentleman's protemporary beyond sea,
and no man could better defend the Protestant religion and
the Parliament's cause.
Mr. Onslow. I would have your members have as much
benefit of the law as another. This is not ripe for your
judgment. I am sorry it puts out the orders of the day. The
charge ought to have been certain. You ought first to have
a charge before you that may circumstantiate time and place.
Here is no formal accusation, nor signed. The accusation
may slide off.
Appoint a day, that if any will inform, they may come in,
and when you are possessed of a formal charge signed by the
298
[FEB. 16,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
accuser, let the gentleman have a copy, and a day assigned
him to answer in.
I would have
Mr. Gewen. I would not have you stand upon those
punctilios of the law as to form. I would have you appoint
a day to hear it at the bar, upon
you.
the charge you have before
Mr. Scot. I would have the gentleman that brought in
the charge, put it into such a form as he will now abide by.
If every thing spoken in discourse be taken from persons, it
is hard. What can you have more than a clear renunciation,
and an acknowledgment of faith.
The Instrument of Government said, if a man held faith
in Jesus Christ;* and he that denied Jesus Christ to be the
son of God,t was within protection by that act.‡
I would have a day assigned to bring in a certain charge,
as was before moved.
Mr. Raleigh. The gentleman was acquitted of the former
charge, and the reflection tended to his vindication. I would
have a short day appointed for hearing at your bar.
Serjeant Maynard. It is gone too far to put it off your
hands, both for your own and the gentleman's honour. Ap-
point a time to hear it at the bar, and the gentleman that will
accuse, to be there.
Mr. Speaker. I must acquaint the House, that no paper
is in at all, nor is the gentleman that charged him here, at
this time.
Sir Henry Vane. No member of the House ought to take
notice of the charge, till it come in writing, subscribed by the
accuser. The charge comes not certainly in. It neither
comprehends certainty of time, place, fact, or person. When
they could accuse our Saviour of nothing else, they brought
in blasphemy.§ Till this certainty be made out, he ought
not to answer.
Mr. Lechmere. It is impossible for any man to make an-
*Faith in God by Jesus Christ." See vol. i. p. 50, note.
↑ Probably meaning in the Trinitarian sense.
† “Though differing in judgment," &c.
§ Mat. xxvi. 65; Mark xvi. 64.
耄
​1658-9.1
299
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
swer to a charge of this nature; neither time, place, nor per-
son certain. It is your honour that your door is open to
formal and regular charges. I would have you lay it aside,
till it come in formally.
Major Beake. You have made two precedents.* There
was nothing in those two cases but the information of two
members. Records were said to be against them, but none
were produced. I have observed a great deal of tenderness
to this person in all the debate. Have equal respect to all
your members.
Order the gentleman that brought in the accusation, at a
certain day to bring in a charge; and then order a day to
hear both sides. You cannot pass off a matter of this nature
without a strict inquiry.
Mr. Steward. I am not to have it laid aside. It is either
a great crime or a great calumny. Appoint a time to bring
in a formal charge of the crime, and if it come not in that
day, then call it a calumny. When the charge is certain,
then appoint a day of hearing.
Mr. Manley. I cannot down with that doctrine that punc-
tilios should be waved. General terms in an accusation will
not carry. I shall offer that worthy case of Susanna,† who
was acquitted by assigning certainty of time and place. To
be accused of words after so long, they had need to be cer-
tainly assigned.
I would have you wave it for the present, and go to your
other business.
Mr. Speaker. I observe by your debate that the charge is
imperfect, for want of time and place and persons to own it.
I observe you are not willing to wave it nor let it sleep.
Mr. Bulkeley. I am sorry to see this charge compared to
Susanna and the monsters of the elders. You will never
have a charge of this nature, if you tie persons to sign the
charge, and if they prove not all things punctually, then to
be left to be undone. They may fail in circumstances, and
yet prove the substance.
* See supra, pp. 241, 249.
+ "History of Susanna." Apocrypha.
300
[FEB. 16,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
As I would not have you encourage trivial complaints, so
I would not have matters of this nature discouraged. En-
courage those that aim at God's glory in their complaints,
and distinguish such from malicious and light accusations. I
cannot assign a time.
It is said, Why not an indictment at law? I would be ten-
der of life;* but to be capable of sitting in the House, I
would not have it passed by. Manifest your prudence
at this time. I would have as much charity as any man,
if I could hear the gentleman say he did it in heat of dis-
course.
I would have you appoint a day of hearing, and if the gen-
tlemen cannot make it appear, then let them be severely pu-
nished.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. A matter of this nature
ought to be made clearly out. To make a man an offender
for a word, is hard. Manifest and open offences may be pu-
nished with more severity. I would have the charge clear,
that the defence may also be clear and certain.
Mr. St. Nicholus. In a business of this nature, it must be
proved malitiose. I would have the business laid aside.
Mr. Attorney-general. I would neither have discourage-
ment nor invitation to charge men. Let them appear, and
their charge shall be heard. Leave it indifferent.
Colonel Terrill. Neither time, place, nor person, is cer-
tain. I would then put it, whether you have by this charge
ground to proceed upon.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. Here is a high breach of privi-
lege, the highest that ever was but that of the King.† A
charge against a member and no hand to it. I would have
this considered when you come to speak of your privilege.
Therefore I would have no notice taken of it at present; but
to vindicate your honour and that of the gentleman, appoint
a day when you will be ready to hear any charge against this
gentleman. It is a huge breach of your privilege to take
* See the Act, 1648, supra, p. 208, note.
Probably referring to the outrage described supra, p. 92, note Į.
1658-9.]
301
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
notice of this in your book, that further charges shall come.
in, and yet no charge made.
Mr. Bulkeley. I am ready to make good the charge; so
have not broken your privilege, which I shall defend as
much as any man.
Mr. Swinfen. If I were now just come into the House, I
should not know whether you were proceeding against the
person accused or accusing. You seem to lay all upon the
accusers, without hearing them. In the accusations against
two members, no circumstance of time or place was assigned.
You have cast out two members* and committed an accusa-
tion against another,† without any circumstance at all, only
upon general terms.
Mr. Reynolds. Those members were accused of matters-of-
fact that were upon record. Every man may read it. These
are but words. Those gentlemen confessed the facts. That
against the other gentleman was by way of petition of some
eminent person. Those cases differ clearly.
Since it is undertaken to be made good, let us have a
charge circumstantiated as to time, place, &c., and if he be
found guilty, I will go as high in punishing him as any man.
Mr. Bulkeley. I know the persons that informed me of
this so well, that I durst venture to make it good; not that I
desire to add fuel to fire, but rather to pass it by, seeing the
gentleman seems to disclaim it. I shall acquiesce or proceed,
as you please. I know nothing of it myself, but believe it as
much as I do any thing that I did not see.
Mr. Onslow. Appoint a day that you will be ready to
hear it.
Mr. Neville. I would not have it left sine die, but that
you would examine it. If this gentleman accuse me, there
needs no more.
If not, appoint me an accuser, and a day to
answer.
Mr. Speaker moved if any person should be named to pro-
secute.
Sir John Lenthall. I am as great a stranger to the gen-
* See supra, pp. 241, 249.
+"Mr. Streete." See supra, p 255.
302
[FEB. 16,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
tleman as to any that I have long known by sight. If you
pass by this, I doubt it is not for your honour. It is fit
every person should know his accuser; and that all puncti-
lios and circumstances should be as well observed in this
House, as in Westminster Hall.
If you cast dirt somewhat will stick. This is as much as
ever was laid upon any member. It is likely he might argue
in the third person, as I have often done. Let your doors
be open to all complaints, but let things of this nature come
in formally; so that if the accuser fail, either this House
may give us satisfaction, or else we may have it in Westmin-
ster Hall, against such clamours.
Mr. Bulkeley. I am sorry I should be accounted cla-
morous. I took myself to be a member. I have not so
much elocution as that gentleman, but speak in plainness.
Sir William Wheeler. I am sorry to see time spent about
words. Clamour is a good word.*
The House must be possessed of something, but you are
possessed of nothing. There must either be a charge, vivu
voce, in the House, or in writing from without doors. The
gentleman can say nothing. You ought to make no order at
all in this case, because not possessed of it.
Colonel Allured. This is a high breach of privilege, to
accuse an honourable member. Westminster Hall would not
receive such a charge. I suspect it, because the gentleman
said he kept it in his pocket a fortnight. It may be out of
design to dishonour his great business to-morrow. There is
no certainty.
Mr. Hobart. I would neither have an accuser deterred
nor encouraged; but it is not before you. I would have a
day appointed to bring in a charge; else account it a ca-
lumny.
1
Colonel Birch. I am of opinion that this is not before
you. I would have it laid aside till it come in formally;
"He cited a case, in 44, against a member. The case was heard at
bar, and the party acquitted." MS.
1658-9.]
303
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
and
I
go to the business of the report from your treasury.
am glad the word charged can admit of so candid an inter-
pretation. I always understood it in the worst sense. I shall
now take it in the best sense.
Lord Lambert. I could pass by an atheist, a drunkard,
&c., in Westminster Hall, or any other place, but not sit
with him here. I would have nothing done or said in this
House that may exclude just complaints against any member,
be they brothers, or never so near. I have not much known
the gentleman, but have heard well of him. Strong conclu-
sions have been drawn from disputes, even by pious men, as
the minister told you. I have known a charge brought in,
and no particular time nor place. I shall not mention it. It
wanted both circumstances. I would have you lay aside the
debate till the charge come formally before you.
Mr. Bodurda. I would have it ordered that a week's time
be allowed to bring in a formal charge against this gentle-
man; and that the gentleman that informs you, give notice to
the gentleman that informed him, to be here.
Mr. Bulkeley. I should rejoice to ask the gentleman for-
giveness; but I doubt it will be too clearly proved. I wish
may not.
it
Mr. Solicitor-general. I would have no day appointed,
and no further time spent in the debate. If any have a
mind to prosecute, they may. Your doors are open.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. For your honour, I would not
have you spend four or five hours' time in it, then put it off,
and leave it sine die.
Sir Henry Vane moved the like.
Serjeant Maynard. Against what I moved in the morn-
ing, I am convinced that it is not before you to pass any
question.
Colonel White. I would have no question, but lay it
aside.
Colonel Kenrick. Now that you have received it, I would,
for vindicating the gentleman's honour, have a day appointed
to bring in an inquiry.
304
[FEB. 16,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Jenkinson. You cannot put any question without re-
flections on one side or the other. Your doors are, and ought
to be, open to all complaints.
Mr. Disbrowe. I would have had all reflections spared.
It tends to grieve the spirits of one another. I would have
no question put, lest it be understood that you shut your
doors against complaint. I would have the question, if the
question shall now be put.
Captain Baynes. I would have no question at all put.
The gentleman that gave the information is bound, in order
to vindicate himself, to bring in a charge. I would not have
you invite accusations.
A general inquiry has been over all the county against
this gentleman, of all that ever he has done, or has been,
since he was chosen for the last Parliament.
I would have no question remain on your books.
Mr. Onslow. Consider the consequences, to lay aside the
debate. A member singly accuses a member of atheism and
blasphemy, and he denies it. You pass it by. Either he
shall go away as a guilty person, or else you shall be strangely
thought on without doors.
Mr. Scot. I move to have no question at all put.
Sir Thomas Barnardiston. Seeing it is insisted on, put
the question, if the question shall be put.
Lord Lambert. I should be loth that this should be car-
ried in the negative. If in the affirmative, it will be a kind of
proclamation to all to come in and accuse your members; an
invitation to all inquirers.
Mr. Reynolds. There are five hundred members, and
every member might have such a charge against him. They
would take up every one a day, and then the Dutch might
indeed give you 2000/. a day, as it was moved before.* I
would have you go to the orders of the day. This gentle-
man's business† is to come in to-morrow. I would not have
that to be shut out by any other business.
* See supra, pp. 117, 128, 164.
† See supra, pp. 52, 192.
1658-9.]
305
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Colonel Matthews. I move that the gentleman's business
be taken up to-morrow.
Sir Henry Fane. This business came unfortunately upon
you, to hinder the orders of the day for money. I would
have Mr. Neville's business, that should have been heard to-
morrow, give way to the business of the Accounts, and ap-
point another day for Mr. Neville's other business.
It was ordered to be heard on Saturday next, between him
and the late Sheriff of Berkshire.*
As to the charge against Mr. Neville,† it fell asleep after
five hours' debate, nobody knows how. Mr. Neville was pre-
sent all the time.
It was moved, that the Accounts from the Commissioners
of the Army and Navy, &c., be brought in in the morning,
and it was ordered accordingly.‡
The order of the day was read in relation to the great de-
bate adjourned. Ordered to be resumed to-morrow morning.§
The House rose at past one.
There was nothing more done this day, but Captain Whal-
ley made his election for Nottingham, and prayed a new writ
* "Mr. Strowde," and " that counsel on both sides be heard at the
bar." Journals.
+ There appears to have been a similar charge against another mem-
ber, of which there is no report. Thus Barwick to Hyde:
"Feb. 16. This day Young of Shropshire, a Protectorist, and Neville
of Berkshire, a prime republican, have been accused of atheism." See
Thurloe State Papers," vii. 616.
I "That the accompts, concerning the public treasure, left in the
hands of Mr. Sherwyn, one of the members of this House, by the Com-
missioners of the Treasury, be delivered into the House by him to-mor-
row morning, at the first coming of the Speaker to the chair.
"And that the establishment of the army, from the committee of the
army, and the accompt of the present charge and debt, owing to the
Navy from the Commissioners of the Admiralty and Navy, be then also
delivered into the House, by the members of this House, who are em-
ployed in those services, and in whose hands respectively the said esta-
blishment and accompt do remain.” Ibid.
§"At nine of the clock. That this House do take into consideration
the additional clauses to be part of the Bill, intituled, an Act of Recog-
nition, &c." Ibid.
VOL. 111.
306
[FEB. 16,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
for Shoreham, he being chosen for both places; which was
ordered accordingly.
The Committee of Grievances sat, Colonel Terrill in the
chair, on the petition of Rodney and Cole,* and a petition
from Major Portman, who is a prisoner in the Tower.†
1
* See vol. i. p. 300. ii. 130, 131.
"To the Right Honourable, the Representatives of the People of
England assembled in Parliament.
"The humble petition of Elizabeth Portman, the afflicted wife of
John Portman, late principal Secretary to the Generals at Sea, now
close prisoner in the Tower of London,
(C
Humbly sheweth, that your petitioner's husband hath been always of
true and sincere affections to the public cause of God in this nation, and
personally engaged in that cause to the utmost of his power. That,
notwithstanding the premises, he was, about a year since, violently, and
by armed force, taken from his house, by virtue of a warrant from the
Lieutenant of the Tower, and committed to the Tower of London; and
hath been there, ever since, strictly confined, without any notice of the
reason of his commitment, and without bringing him to a legal trial,
though the same hath been earnestly endeavoured and desired, by the
application of several of his friends to those who were in power.
"Your petitioner, therefore, doth most humbly pray, that your ho-
nours will be pleased to take the premises into your tender consideration,
and to take such effectual order herein, as to your wisdoms, upon exa-
mining the true merits of the cause, shall seem meet; that so, your peti-
tioner and her suffering family be not unjustly pressed down, and over-
whelmed by this affliction." See "Thurloe State Papers," vii. 619.
"Tower of London, January 1, 1658-9. One Mr. Portman, a pri-
soner in the Tower, who was, with other fifth-monarchy men, committed
by his late Highness, for endeavouring to asperse, withstand, and sub-
vert the governors and government of this Commonwealth, and for
having been at work, and seeking by all means to alienate and exaspe-
rate the hearts and spirits of persons, so as to disturb the public peace,
raise seditions and commotions in the Commonwealth, that, if it were
possible, they might bring the nation again into blood.
"This Mr. Portman yesterday, in the evening, made his escape hence,
but being suddenly missed and closely followed, was immediately appre-
hended at one Mr. Oram's house, in Water Lane, near the Custom
House, London, and brought back again hither. Yet he had often, and
the very night before, declared both to his keeper and others, that if the
Tower gates were set open, he would not go forth till he had received
satisfaction for his imprisonment." Mercurius Politicus, No. 548.
t
1658-9.]
307
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Ordered, that the Lieutenant of the Tower do bring the
prisoner, with the cause of his imprisonment.
There was no other Committee sat this day.
}
Thursday, February 17, 1658-9.
Mr. Speaker took the chair at nine.
Mr. Cooper prayed.
The order of the day was read that the Accounts from
the Commissioners of the Treasury, Army, Navy, and Ad-
miralty, be brought in.
Mr. Sherwyn, according to the order of the House, did
present an account from the Commissioners of the Treasury,
which was received.
Colonel Bennet likewise presented an account from the
Commissioners of the Army, according to former orders,
which was received.
Colonel Clark likewise brought in an account from the
Commissioners of the Admiralty, which was received.
Mr. Speaker acquainted the House that he had received a
letter from his Highness, directed to the House of Commons.
He supposed it concerned this business.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move, that this being the first
letter from his Highness, it stay till the House be full. I
farther move to know if the establishment of the Army be
brought in, and a list of the officers, that we may know who
are our protectors. It seems this is not done. It is not
within these gentlemen's survey, but the Muster-Master Ge-
neral's. Dr. Stene* is Commissary of those Musters.
Mr. Scot seconded the motion, and said, they were our
army. Divers officers were dead, and their accounts left un-
examined.
He moved that a particular Committee ought not to be
named, but a private Committee was more proper.
Colonel Birch. The letter may give us a great deal of
* William Stene, M.D. member in this Parliament for Thetford.
x 2
308
[FEB. 17,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
light. Read that first, and then read the accounts, before
you commit them.
The letter was read, signed R. P., directed to "Our House
of Commons."
Sir William Wheeler was moving something in relation to
the business of the accounts.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge took him down, and said, though he
looked over the letter, and said nothing to it, he had to say
something to it, though with weakness.
Sir William Wheeler took him down, and said: for aught
Sir Arthur knew, he might have spoken to the letter, but
said not a word to it.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge took notice of it, and said: it ought
not to be slightly passed by.
We are come again, for aught I know, to King, Lords,
and Commons, when Kings and Lords were in their height.
Let us be exceeding careful of an ill precedent.
I heard it said yesterday, that an officer said in the head of
his regiment, that his Highness and the other House were
desirous that the army might have their pay, but the Com-
mons were against it. I wish our young Prince may have
good and wise counsel about him, not to advise him to a
breach of the privilege of Parliament. I doubt this is laid
at our doors. Have we not hastened this?
Was there need of this letter? The Lord deliver us from
such evil counsellors as King Charles had about him, in the
beginning of the Long Parliament. One ran to court, the
other went with the vote, as soon as ever it passed.* We have
looked upon this as a high thing for a member of this House
to go to dinner at court; but we are all in now, say they.
A word is enough to the wise. For an innocent Prince to
be misled, I am heartily sorry for it. There was no need of
this letter. I pray God deliver him and us from evil coun-
sellors.
Mr. Secretary. This letter was well intended, and not to
direct you. If any evil counsellers be, let them be known.
* See supra, p. 206.
1658-9.]
309
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
[
I am, for my part, here ready to answer any charge. It is
an easy thing to charge in general terms. I was never a sol-
dier, but shall have the courage to withstand any charge.
His Highness thought fit to give you this account, and lay
it fairly by you, that you should use your prudence in it.
There was no breach of privilege intended, nor I hope any
done. It is fit you should understand the emergencies of
your affairs.
Sir Walter Earle. I observe no great pressing nor re-
quiring in the letter, only it seems to take notice of your de-
bates, which ought not to be done. One Tirrell was highly
censured by this House for carrying things out of doors.
But it is no more than has ever been done, to acquaint the
House of Commons. It is no new thing, but was always re-
presented this way.
Mr. Knightley. In the beginning of the Long Parliament,
the King did a high breach of privilege upon this House.*
What is past, the single person or any other may take notice
of; but of the debates he ought not. Mr. Kirton brought a
message from court of this nature, but had a warning given
him never to do the like again. I wish this had not come,
and desire it may not be again.
The letter was all this while passing from member to
member.
Colonel White. It is not happy for a Commonwealth to
have daily breaches upon their privileges; but I find not by
this letter, that you are broke in upon. The letter takes no
notice of your debates. It is but his duty, he being Chief
Magistrate, to advertise you of your charge and preparation.
I would have the letter laid aside, and Mr. Secretary to take
notice of it; that nothing may hereafter come from the court
of this nature, to distaste the House.
Sir John Northcote. This was no breach of privilege, to
bring in this letter from the Chief Magistrate. He ought to
acquaint you of the danger; but I cannot but take notice of
what was said by the said officer in the head of his regiment.
* See supra, p. 300.
+ See supra, p. 308,
310
[FEB. 17,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
This may be of dangerous consequence to loose the Army.
Those that have no money would pay, but those that have the
purse stop it and will not. King's servants have been turned
out of the House and sent to the Tower, for telling things out
of the House. I would have gentlemen that know not this,
haply to take notice of it. If the dangers are real, why not a
Parliament called sooner? Why, methinks, our dangers are
not so great.
Mr. Reynolds. I will not say the letter is a breach of Par-
liament. It is fair enough, but I would have no more of
them.
Mr. Solicitor-general. If sending a letter by the Chief
Magistrate be a breach of privilege, it were well it were known.
I have read over the letter, and find no such things in it. It
is fit the physician should know the state of your body; but
to desire no such letter should come again, is to stop the in-
tercourse between you and your Chief Magistrate.
Mr. Onslow. Put the letter wholly aside, and make no
further debate of it. It mentions no money.
It mentions no money. It is no breach
of Parliament. I move that the Muster Roll be brought in.
The letter was laid aside, and the debate upon the esta-
blishment of the Army was proceeded upon.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. Now you are fully possessed of
the business, and ripe to appoint a Committee.
Mr. Bodurda. I am against a Committee. You may,
by the accounts before you, understand the heads of what
is fit.
Colonel Allured. I move that none that are concerned in
the accounts, be of that Committee.
Major Burton. I move that Captain Baynes be added to
the Committee.
Mr. Bodurda. I move that Sir John Carter be of the
Committee.
The question was put, yet Sir Arthur Haslerigge took
exceptions, and the question was again put a first and second
time.
Mr. Knightley. I move that that question be put again.
Sir John Carter. I am no accountant, nor have meddled
1658-9.]
311
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
with money, nor am in any way concerned.
As a soldier,
I have fought and bled for you. If I be a fit member of
the House, I suppose I am a fit member of a Committee.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I found myself unfit for accounts,
and did not know that that gentleman was fit for them; so I
gave my negative. I ask his pardon for it, and am sorry that
he should take exceptions.
Mr. Sherwyn. If Captain Baynes have a salary, he may
not be of the Committee.
The question being put upon Mr. Scot,
Mr. Speaker declared for the Yeas. Some declared for the
Noes, but the House was not divided; yet Mr. Scot stood.
Captain Baynes. By the favour of the Parliament, I am
one of the commissioners appointed to receive appeals touch-
ing the excise, and do receive a salary for it. I shall be laid
aside, if you please.
Mr. Bulkeley. I move that you abide by your order, and
not let any persons that receive or pay salaries be of this
Committee.
Captain Baynes was thereupon excused.
Mr. Secretary. I move that Mr. Knightley be one.
He prayed to be excused, for ignorance, and that Alder-
man Thompson be named in his stead.
Colonel White moved that Captain Baynes be one, for he
was very fit, and not disabled by receiving a salary.
Lord Lambert. I would have Captain Baynes left out,
and Colonel White in his stead.
Captain Hatsell prayed to be excused, and it was ordered
accordingly.
viz.
Mr. Trevor moved that Mr. Knightley be added.
Resolved, that there shall be but twelve of this Committee,
Mr. Middleton, Colonel Birch, Sir John Carter, Sir Henry
Vane, Major-general Brown,* Lord Lambert, Mr. Godfrey,
Colonel Thompson, Mr. Scot, and Mr. Jackson.
*Alderman, and one of the members for the City of London. He is
mentioned by Lord Clarendon as commanding the garrison of Abing don
for the Parliament, in 1644. History, (1712,) ii. 526.
312
[FEB. 17,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Resolved, that five be the quorum of this Committee.
Mr. Godfrey. I move that a chairman be named here,
that may have the particular care of this business. I move
for Colonel Birch.
Mr. Attorney-general. The Parliament used to name a
chairman; but they found that inconvenient, in respect, the
chairman being away, hindered all the business.
The titles of the papers brought in were read, and referred
to the said Committee, and also referred to them, to take an
account of the Armies in Scotland and Ireland.
Mr. Reynolds. I move that, by name, the Muster Master
be ordered to bring in the Muster Rolls to your Committee.
Colonel Birch. I move to give your Committee general
power, and then they need not come to you for particular
powers; only to inspect your forces by sea and land, and to
inquire of the revenue of the three nations, and how your
charge may be defrayed for the future, and to send for per-
sons, papers, and records.
Resolved, that these papers and accounts, delivered in from
the Commissioners of the Revenue, the Committee of the
Army, and the Commissioners of the Admiralty and
Navy be referred to this Committee; and this Committee, or
any five of them are to consider of the number and strength
of the armies and forces by land, and the number and strength
"I thought it strange," says Oldmixon, "that the Earl always gave
Major General Brown,' though in the Parliament service, a good word,
a Citizen of London, (not a woodmonger) of good reputation, a stout
man.' But I found out the reason of it, when, after the Restoration, he
sat on the bench, to judge some of his brother officers to be hanged,
drawn, and quartered." See "Clarendon and Whitlock Compared,”
(1727), p. 165.
rr
66
This is not quite correct. Alderman Brown, who, in 1660, was Lord
Mayor elect, appeared, not on the bench," but as a witness against
his present associate Mr. Scot, nearly to the same purport as Sir The-
ophilus Biddulph, (supra, p. 110, note.) He had been one of the Long
Parliament, and now described himself as one of those secluded mem-
bers that were returned again a little before the coming in of his Ma-
jesty." See "Tryals of the Regicides," (1739,) p. 74. Alderman
Brown, for this good service, was worthily created a Baronet, to grace
his mayoralty.
1658-9.]
313
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
of the navy forces by sea, and how all the said forces by land
and sea are at present disposed of. And this Committee are
to meet to-morrow at two, and so de die in uiem, in the Trea-
sury Chamber.*
Captain Baynes. It is enough to deliver in a list of the
commanding officers, and the number of the soldiers under
their respective commands; and, further, that your Committee
inquire how to retrench the charge of bringing in your money.
Mr. Bayles. I move to inquire of the miscarriage upon the
charge of the money.
Mr. Reynolds. I move that the monies laid out to your
civil officers, as well as military, be inquired into.
Colonel Birch. You intend not to give the disposal of
your forces to your Committee.
It was altered to, inquire how disposed of.
Mr. Reynolds. I move to have the words added "for re-
trenching your charge."
These words were ordered to be added accordingly.†
Mr. Scot. It is fit you should know the state of your affairs
with your allies and enemies. There is a time of year when
kings go out to war. Therefore, whether you are in a good
consistency and right understanding between you and the
Chief Magistrate, or not, your meaning, I suppose, is not to
leave the making of peace or war in the single person's hands.‡
* See Journals.
"How to retrench and lessen the charge of the Commonwealth,
either in bringing in or issuing out the revenues thereof." Ibid.
The sole right of peace and war is now considered as the unques-
tioned prerogative of the crown; though, as to the latter, the executive
can only threaten, should the Parliament refuse the necessary supplies.
Such a refusal, from the influence of the crown over the other branches
of the legislature, is scarcely to be expected while the system of soi-di-
sant representation (see supra, p. 149, note) shall continue to “work
well."
This royal prerogative was disputed, at the close of King William's
reign, by that able political writer, Charles Davenant, in " An Essay upon
the right of making War, Peace, and Alliances," in which he appeals, by
numerous references, to "those authors who are accounted the fathers
of our law." He thus describes the result of his inquiry :
314
[FEB. 17,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
You mean to place it elsewhere. It is, therefore, fit to in-
quire who are your friends and enemies. I would have a
short day appointed to inquire of all this.
Mr. Onslow. This Committee will satisfy you in all these
particulars.
Colonel Birch. I move that all persons under pay attend
your Committee to assist them. I have known a chairman in
such cases spend 407. from his own purse, in sending for decla-
rations, ordinances, and papers, for the service of the Committee.
Mr. Neville. I would have you take into speedy conside-
ration the war with Spain.* There are many reports that
the enemy would seek you in peace, if your sense were under-
stood that you would admit it.
There is a general decay of trade, that money will not be
had for this business. No money has come for two or three
years. I could tell you of one thousand particular decays of
trade, by want of the Spanish trade.
I hope, upon the debate of the militia, this business will
come into consideration.
Mr. Secretary. I move to revive a motion I made in the
morning, for which these gentlemen have moved. For the
rr
"I cannot find when, or how, this doctrine crept in, that the right of
making war and peace is, indefinitely, without any sort of distinction
or restriction, vested in the kings of England; but certainly they who
advance it, have neither read our histories nor consulted our records.
He who makes this search will find them either silent in the point, or
laying down maxims quite of another nature." See "Essays upon the
Balance of Power," &c. (1701), pp. 129, 237. For some animadversions
on these Essays, see Biog. Brit. (1789), iv. 650.
CC
* See vol. i. p. 40, note. Cromwell," says Mr. Bethell," began his
usurpation, upon the greatest advantages imaginable, having it in his
power to have made peace and profitable leagues, in what manner he had
pleased, with all our neighbours, every one courting us then, and being
ambitious of the friendship of England. But he neglected all our golden
opportunities, and, contrary to our interest, made an unjust war with
Spain and an impolitic league with France, bringing the first, thereby,
under, and making the latter too great for Christendom; and by that
means broke the balance betwixt the two crowns of Spain and France,
which his predecessors, the Long Parliament, had always wisely preserv-
ed." World's Mistake, pp. 32, 33.
1658-9.]
315
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
state of your affairs in general, you are at peace with all the
world; but as to that state of Spain, which was made known
to you before, and you may have the estate of it again, when
you please, some part of this affair cannot stay the disposal of
your Committee. Part of your fleet must be disposed of.
Your enemies are at work. It will be your interest to know
how the Sound is disposed of. In Europe, Poles and Danes
and Dutch combined; the Swede only on his own legs.* The
consequence is of weight to you, how far you will engage.
The counsels are before you. You may be informed of all,
when you please. There is no engagement as yet. The
charge of the fleet, next year, will amount to a million.† I
would have a short day appointed to inquire of this.
*See vol. ii. p. 359, note *. It appears that the celebrated Christina
either felt at this time, or at least professed to feel an interest in the
fortunes of her cousin, to whom she had resigned the royalty.
“From Rome, Dec. 28, 1658. The Queen of Sweden is resolved to
return to France. The Pope hath granted a passe for her. She
pretends she will goe thence to Holland, to set her helping hand to a
peace between the Kings of Sweden and Denmark; but it is supposed
she hath some other designs." Mercurius Politicus, No. 550.
There was a statement of " the Issues of England," annexed to 66 a
Brief View of the Public Revenue," presented to the House, April 7,
1659. The following amount, "by way of estimate, yearly," does not
reach half a million :-
"For the charge of 7,500 men, to be employed in 50
ships, for a summer's guard, for seven months, at 47. a
man, per month
"For the charge of 5,250 men, to be employed in 35
ships, for a winter's guard, for seven months, at 47. a man,
per month
"For building of ships yearly
“In the pay of the Commissioners of the Admiralty,
and the Commissioners of the Navy, and the Treasurer's
of the Navy. See vol. ii. pp. 396, 397, note.]
"In the pay of the standing officers belonging to the
yards, and of ships in harbours
"In the pay of the officers and seamen employed in the
looking-to of ships in docks, and otherwise unemployed
“The whole charge of the Navy, by the year
-
£.
s. d.
210,000 0 0
-
147,000 0 0
40,000 0 0
7,744 0 0
3,628 6 11
45,613 13 9
453,986 0 miss
Journals.
316
[FEB. 17,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
if
Captain Hatsell. By this your very being is in question;
you
take not care for your interest in the Sound.
Mr. Bodurda. I move to second this.
Mr. Knightley. I move for Monday, and nothing to in-
tervene.
Sir Henry Vane. I move for Monday. This business is
of great weight, but I would not have you out your other
great vote. Be upon a good foundation at home.
Ordered, to take into consideration the business of the
Sound on Monday morning.
After altum silentium, the order to take into consideration
the additional clause upon the Bill of Recognition was read.
Sir Walter Earle. I move whether you will take into
consideration the business of the Petition of Right, Magna
Charta, &c. as was moved formerly.*
Sir Henry Vane. I move to take things in order as they
lie before you. First begin with bounding the power of the
Chief Magistrate, how far you will have him have the militia
and the negative voice; and how he may not protect delin-
quents by a power against justice, or be himself not account-
able.
Colonel White. I hope the sword will be placed in the
people, so as there shall be no danger of delinquents being
protected.
There was a great person in the army, that said rather than
the militia and negative voice should go from the Chief Ma-
gistrate, he would fight it over again, and begin next morning.
This is a bounding of our power.
A gentleman desired he might name him, and then a charge
might be put down against him, and be tried here.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am altogether for unity. I
would have this done, but in time. When you receive the
From "
a list of the Navy of England, at this time," it
appears that
there were 8,682 men, in 40 ships. Besides the Naseby of 80 guns, and
500 men, there were 5 of 64, and the rest of various force, down to 22
guns. Parl. Hist. (1760), xxi. 423.
* See supra, pp. 170, 171.
1658-9.1
317
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
list of the officers, it may be, you may meet with that officer
then.
Let us proceed upon this vote. I am glad I have it in my
hands. It is of three parts. I take the matter as it lies in
the vote, and would have us first go upon the negative voice.
I would have light from the gentlemen of the Long Robe. I
know not whether Protector or King be the greater man. I
hope we shall learn in the debate. There was a maxim in the
law that the King could do no wrong. It was received and
swallowed by me that the King was so bounded that he could
not act in his own person, neither could any personal actions
be brought against him. No action would lie against him,
as against a justice of peace or constable; because he never
acted but in his public capacity. A constable was less
bounded in his personal capacity than the King, who could
not imprison nor act any thing in his own person.
It is true we had a thing called prerogative. A great per-
son, heretofore, was committed for saying he desired to know
where that monster called prerogative was, and he would,
gladly, know, what that monster could do. It was the Earl
of Oxford.* It was answered, he should know what preroga-
tive could do; and to declare it more demonstratively, it was
told him that it could commit him to the Tower.
Now, if that maxim in law be still true, and this Protector
be not greater than the King, then I am sure he can have no
negative voice, for by that he might be able to do much
wrong. If the Chief Magistrate deny any law, it is a wrong
to the people. This was debated with the late King. The
King denied his assent to what the House of Lords and Com-
mons had made touching the militia, and would not consent
to alter the Lieutenants. We persisted, and did it without
him; some of the gentlemen of the Long Robe's opinion
then much concurring, that the negative voice was in the peo-
ple. Therefore I would have that to be the first boundary:
only state it now in order to the debate.
* Henry Vere, temp. James I.
i. 324.
+
See Granger's Biog. Hist. (1775,)
See vol. ii. p. 435, note*.
318
[FEB. 17,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Attorney-general. We may agree, I hope. We are
not at such a distance. I would have this stated, and let the
negative voice be the matter of your debate to-morrow.
Sir Henry Vane. I would have the nature of the thing
opened a little, that is to be the occasion of the farther de-
bate. I shall offer you my thoughts preparatively. You
are now bounding the Chief Magistrate.
The office of Chief Magistrate hath something in it essen-
tial, and which must be inviolably kept for him for the ne-
cessary preservation of the good of the whole, and the admi-
nistration of justice; and something superfluous, and very
chargeable.* Such as are ;-
1. A thing called kingly power, which implies the whole
affair of monarchy and prerogative, which are great occasions
of vain expenses and waste, all the nation over. Lay aside
this state of kingly power, and keep your Chief Magistrate.+
2. The power of the Chief Magistrate as to the negative
voice. The denying it to the Chief Magistrate as by the law
*
Among "the Issues of England," (see supra, p. 315, note †), are "in
expense of his Highness's household, yearly 100,000l." and " in repair
of his Highness's houses, yearly, 5,6501.” Journals.
+ Thus the United States avail themselves of an unexpensive Execu-
cutive over their widely extending Republic. Their President's annual
salary is considerably less than that paid to the Lord Mayor of Lon-
don. 135,000l. was, in 1792, the whole annnal charge of the fœderal
government.
It was lately shown by the Honourable Leicester Stanhope, in a de-
bate at the India House, " that each of the twenty-four Directors is in
possession of patronage, which would sell in the public market for about
five times as much as the President of the United States receives for
his services." Oriental Herald, (1827,) xiv. 195.
Mr. Thomas Cooper remarks, in 1792, that "the income of his Ma-
jesty George III., which has been regarded as not more than necessary-
for the maintenance of kingly dignity, may be reckoned one way or
other, at 1,200,000l. annually." He adds, "that by the 22 Geo. III.,
32,955l. is appropriated to pay the salaries of the Lord Chancellor, the
Speaker of the House of Commons, and all the Judges of England and
Wales, and 89,7991. Os. 21d., to the menial servants of his Majesty's
household." See " A Reply to Mr. Burke's Invective," (1792.) pp. 18, 19.
1658-9.]
319
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
of the nation now set up by you, is fit and requisite. When
all these things are in our power, must we dispute it over
again between the people and the Chief Magistrate?
The Chief Magistrate pretends to a power, not only of ex-
ecuting laws, but to enact laws; whereas it is the right of
all to bind themselves, and to make those laws by which they
are to be ruled. If corporations or any society of men have
a right to make bye-laws, surely much more hath this House,
which is the representative of the body of the nation. If
the interest of the whole nation should lie at one man's door,
it were worse than in the meanest corporation; especially to
serve a single person, or the interest of a few courtiers or flat-
terers.
Thus it should be, that he should not deny what you find
to be for your good. This our laws have declared that the
single person ought to grant: Leges quas vulgus_elegerit.*
It was urged by Lord Fiennes, who drew the Declaration,
that it was undeniable that the King should not deny laws.†
* The following, according to Rot. Parliam. H. 4. n. 17, is part of the
ancient form at the coronation :---
"Concedis justas leges et consuetudines esse tenendas, et promittis
per te eas esse protegendas, et ad honorem Dei corroborandas, quas vul-
gus elegerit, secundum vires tuas ?
CC
Respondebit. Concedo et promitto." See Husband's Collection,
(1643,) p. 268.
Leges, quas vulgus; id est," says Milton, "communitas, sive ple-
beius ordo elegerit. Hanc clausulam, quas vulgus elegerit, Carolus, ante-
quam coronam acceperit, ex formula juramenti regii eradendum curavit."
Defensio, (1651,) p. 252. See supra, p. 219, note † ; Dr. Harris's Lives,
(1814,) ii. 204–206.
+ In this Declaration, dated May 26, 1642, and called "the Third
Remonstrance," the two Houses assert "the obligation that lieth upon
the kings of this realm, to passe such Bills as are offered to them by
both Houses of Parliament-in respect of the oath that is or ought to
be taken by the kings of this realm at their coronation, to confirm by
their royal assent such good laws as their people shall choose."
They add: "Besides the words in the King's oath, referring unto
such laws as the people shall choose, as in such things which concern
the public weal and good of the kingdom, they are the most proper
judges who are sent from the whole kingdom for that very purpose; so
we do not find that since laws have passed by way of bills, that ever the
320
[FEB. 17,
PARIAMENTARY DIARY.
This, therefore, is of so great concernment, agreeable to
the law of nature and constitution of the nation. It was be-
fore, though, if it were not, it is now in your power. Great
weight was laid upon it in all propositions of peace, and so
much weight depends upon it, as in the proportion of re-
straining or binding of power it ought to be a principal in-
gredient. The Chief Magistrate may do well without it.
On the other side, I would have him possess all things
needful to his acting for the people; all the power to draw
in the public spirits of the nation to a public interest, but
not power to do them or you any hurt. This is to make him
more like God himself, who can do none. Flatterers will
tell him otherwise; but they that wish his safety and honour,
will agree that he shall have power to do every thing that is
good, and nothing that is hurtful. It is therefore necessary
so to bind him as he may grow up with the public interest.
Mr. Knightley. I am free to proceed this afternoon; but
for your safety I would have you adjourn now.
Colonel Birch. Bounding the Chief Magistrate is a ne-
cessary work and fit to be gone upon; but my weakness is
such that I cannot agree this to be the first subject of your
debate; or I should not trouble you. I cannot give my vote
to this, or concur otherwise, till something else be done first;
until it be agreed whether there be another House or not;
for if there be, I would have the militia and negative voice
disposed one way; if not, another way. I leave it before
you, whether you ought not first to debate this, before you
do any thing in order to the bounding the Chief Magistrate.
I humbly submit it.
Mr. Neville. I think the last proposition, whether you
will have another House, not material now; but when the
whole Petition and Advice comes in debate, another House
perhaps may then be thought convenient; but it is not ne-
kings of this realm did deny them, otherwise than is expressed in that
usual answer, Le Roy l'avisera, which signifies rather a suspension than
a refusal of the royal assent." Husband, pp. 268, 269. See vol. ii. p-
451, note §; Parl. Hist. (1762,) xi. 98, 99,
1658-9.]
321
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
cessary you should take the old way into consideration. You
may have another House, and not a negative voice. You
are not going to build upon the old constitution. The Other
House may be such a House as is only preparatory to this,
as, among popular assemblies in other commonwealths, there
was an assembly to propound laws, and another to enact
them, and a single person to put all in execution. Common-
wealth was a good title, but grubbed up by the title of Chief
Magistrate.
The negative voice will not at all touch the Other House.
It is presumed we are going to something else, though what
are men? Therefore it is not fit to debate whether it shall
be in the power of any person or persons to strangle the de-
bates and pains of this House.
Mr. Onslow. I would have no jangling motions in stating
the matter of your debate. The Other House will come on
best when you come to debate upon the rights and privileges
of Parliament. I would have you proceed upon the negative
voice in the first place, and adjourn till to-morrow.
Mr. Starkey. The end of the Other House is for a negative
voice, else they are useless. I conceive the co-ordination of
the powers, of great use and advantage to the people; and
therefore it is most fit and necessary to take into consider-
ation first, the Other House. For if you shall deny a ne-
gative to the Lords, you may, by the same arguments, deny
it to the Chief Magistrate.
Captain Baynes. The Other House is not yet before you;
but as to the power of the Chief Magistrate, formerly so
boundless: what power a single person shall have in the
legislature, which is proposed as the first bounding. For my
part, I think no man can tell how to set bounds to the single
person, no more than to hedge in a cuckoo. Therefore I
think it most fit to deliberate and agree what power the
Chief Magistrate shall have, and not what he shall not have.
Let it be so stated in your Bill, and that he shall have no
more.
Mr. Sudler. All the bounds that ever I have heard of, for
the Chief Magistrate, are but negatives. Exceptions do but
VOL. III.
Y
1
322
[FEB. 17,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
strengthen a rule. Exceptio probat regulam, in non exceptis.
You plainly confirm him in all other power. I would have
him so bounded by the Bill as to give him an affirmative
power, and let him have no more. But that which is most
necessary is, to be satisfied whether the Chief Magistrate has
power to dissolve you. Inquire that first.
You may
Mr. Trevor. I am not for an affirmative power.
bound your Chief Magistrate by negatives well enough. I
am glad there is that care taken to bound the Chief Magis-
trate, but understand not well what you mean by bounding
him affirmatively; unless he were to take his power now.
Your first debate I conceive should be, wherein you will
bound him. I wish we may do it so as he shall not be able
to do any harm; but then it will be questionable whether he
shall be able to do you any good.
Serjeant Maynard. Declare not the powers till you de-
clare the persons. How we can circumscribe the power be-
fore we consider the parts of the Government, I know not.
We are intrusted for the people, not for the nobility. True,
but by whom, if the sole power of making laws be in this
House? Besides, you wholly exclude what is essential to a
Chief Magistrate. You represent not him. Whether are
we intrusted by the nobility, whether by the Chief Magis-
trate? Our ancestors, that is the Commons, did not think
it fit to put this jewel into our chest. A man that has a
treasure, had rather have it kept under three keys than
one.
Many differences are in religion and in our civil con-
cerns. Suppose, in process of time, it should so fall out, that
the major part of this House should agree to do some strange
act, so as to lay some imposition upon conscience, or the like;
or suppose they should be of contrary opinion to us as to
Papists, or some other thing; and one party be pulling ano-
ther out of the House, would you have the Chief Magistrate
consent to their law, and confirm that without more to do?
You swear the Chief Magistrate to do that which is just. If
you offer me that which is not just, I am bound by my oath
to deny it. He means to approve laws that shall be just,
1658-9.]
323
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
but if that be propounded which shall not be conceived to be
just, shall he be necessitated to confirm that?
I know not how you can proceed clearly upon the bound-
ing of powers, till you have determined what the persons are
that are in power.
I therefore move to debate of the Other
House.
Lord Lambert. The negative voice is the most material.
I know not what was meant by the Serjeant's question, Who
represented the Lords? If he meant those sitting at the
other end of the House, they are sufficiently represented here,
both as they were electors, some of them in person, and many
of them by their letters* to several places.
Whether the regular borough-market, (see supra, pp. 126, 148, notes),
where they have been said to " buy and sell seats in Parliament as
openly and notoriously as stalls for cattle at a fair," was now established,
does not appear. The use of lettres missives, it seems, was well un-
derstood by this "other House." Mr. Bethel also mentions, among
"several complaints" of "the Court designs," that "Whitehall had
writ eighty letters for the making members of Parliament, many of which
had had their effect," Brief Narrative, p. 340.
These missives, also,
Blackstone's "kind of
have been since frequently employed to preserve
democracy," among his "three distinct powers." The following letter,
addressed by Bishop Compton, in virtue of "the alliance between Church
and State," to "the Dutchess of Albemarle, at New Hall, in Essex," I
copied from the original in the British Museum.
"Madam,
Sept. 25.
"I am an humble petitioner to you, that when the election of Harwich
is decided, you would give my Lord Cheyne leave to take the borough in
Cornwall, for his option, and that you would give me leave to recom-
mend another person to your favour.
"Were it upon my own account, I should be ashamed to ask this:
but it is for the Government and Church's sake that I beg it; for the
person I would have in, will be of very great and important use to serve
both: and therefore I am sure you will pardon the importunity.
CC
Madam, your Grace's most obedient and obliged servant,
"H. London."
Bibl. Sloan. (Ayscough, 4052).
This interference of a Lord Spiritual, calculated to render the Lower
House" more a representation of the Lords than the Commons," might
serve to expose, if they were not already so well understood, the good
times of William III. The letter was, most probably, written in 1695,
Y 2
324
[FEB. 17,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Assert the negative voice to be here, and you go a great
way in your business. Some say it is here, some say not.
Some would say but part is here, and would have it divided.
Agree this, and all other points are centered here. The best
of all your fabric is to correspond with your interest here,
and to assert it. It is a matter of great weight; but I would
have you adjourn for the present, and take it up to-morrow.
Ordered, that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow, at
nine.
The clerk entered the order thus, viz.: "That the debate
concerning the negative voice, be proceeded in to-morrow
morning at nine of the clock; and that nothing else do then
when Viscount Cheyne was chosen one of the members for Newport,
Cornwall, which borough he had waved in 1690, and sat for Harwich.
The Duchess, on whose eccentricities see Mr. Grainger, (Biog. Hist. iv.
157), had married the son of Monk, and thus became a sharer in the fa-
ther's royal recompense. Monk's biographer, Dr. Skinner, represents
this marriage in 1670, as "the last of his human cares;" for "he died
four days after." He had, however, accomplished a great achievement, in
the estimate of such a mind's ambition. "He united the glories of the
ancient houses of Newcastle and Dorchester, Cavendish and Pierpoint,
with his own ducal coronet." Life (1724), pp. 372, 373.
To another peeress there was a similar parliamentary application,
with very different success. This high-spirited countess, who died in
1676, thus replied to a Secretary of State of Charles II., who requested
to nominate a member for Appleby:
"I have been bullied by an usurper, I have been neglected by a court,
but I will not be dictated to by a subject; your man shan't stand.
Anne, Dorset, Pembroke and Montgomery."
C
Biog. Brit. (1784), iii. 640.
"Dr. Donne," says Mr. Grainger, "speaking of her extensive know-
ledge, which comprehended whatever was fit to employ a lady's leisure,
said, ' that she knew well how to discourse of all things, from predestina-
tion to sea-silk.' She was strongly solicited to go to Whitehall after the
Restoration, but she declined it, saying, that if she went thither, she
must have a pair of blinkers,' such as obstruct the sight of untractable
horses, lest she should see such things as would offend her, in that licen-
tious court. She erected a monument in the highway, where her mo-
ther and she took their last farewell, on which spot a sum of money was
annually given to the poor." Biog. Hist. (1775), ii. 53, 54.
L
4
3
1658-9.]
325
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
intervene :" but it was not till after Mr. Speaker left the
chair, which was not justifiable.
The Committee of Privileges sat in the Star Chamber, and
then adjourned to the House, upon the business of Hasle-
mere, in Surrey, Serjeant Waller in the chair.
The dispute lay between Captain Westbrook, Lord Ons-
low's friend, and Mr. Hooke, who was already admitted into
the House.
Counsel and witnesses were heard on both sides, and all
their electors particularly weighed, and severally put to the
question at the Committee.
Captain Westbrook had fifteen capable electors, and the
other fourteen; so that the Report of the Committee was
for Westbrook.
Resolved there, that a minor is no good elector.*
The reason was, that he was not fit to dispose of his own
estate, therefore not fit to dispose of another's, nor to choose
for the whole nation.
Resolved, that a miller is not an inhabitant, unless his
family be there.
The principal question was, whether the freeholders that
were no inhabitants had votes in the election. Resolved the
contrary, and that the bailiff not being a freeholder and in-
habitant, had no vote; only by his office was to return.
The Committee sat till ten most assiduously.†
"In Coke 4 Part. Instit., title Parl." MS.
↑ It appears by the following passages between General Monk and Se-
cretary Thurloe, that the plotter for Charles Stuart was just now affect-
ing a zealous devotion to the interest of the young Protector :
<<
Dalkeith, [see vol. i. p. 227], 15th of Feb. 1658-9.
Major Knight is chosen here, and Colonel Fitch in the northern parts,
Major Knight will be sent you speedily. I hope such as have been sent
from Scotland will be faithful to his Highness. I am very glad to hear
things go on so well. I hope that they may be well settled, notwith-
standing the diversities of opinions of men.
"Feb. 17. As for Judge Advocate Whalley to be chosen for Peblis
and Selkirk, there is a Scotch gentleman chosen; but the country will
not give him so much money as he expects; and so he is not like to go,
but if he should not go up, and that they should choose another, which
326
[FEB. 18,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
;
Friday, February, 18, 1658.
Mr. Speaker took the chair at nine o'clock.
Mr. Cooper prayed.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge.
The justice of the nation is
abused by putting off the assizes. Justice should not be
delayed on any pretence. I move that it be debated to-
morrow, and inquired where the stop is, and that the
persons concerned do attend. There is neither war, sick-
ness, nor any special occasion for it. It was carried so
closely; sometimes put off, and sometimes not, but now it is
put off.
It seems Sir Arthur Haslerigge let somewhat fall, viz.
"He that we intend to be our Protector."
Serjeant Maynard took him up.
That gentleman may not say any thing in this. He is
Protector, and I hope we intend him no other. It may be
that gentleman would be quit of that ill counsel which he
speaks on, in case the Assizes should hold. He ought to
they cannot do without another writ, I do not doubt to get him
chosen." See "Thurloe State Papers," vii. 613, 617.
C
Dr. Price relates, concerning his master, that "Oliver Cromwell, not
long before his death, writ once to him with his own hand; and in the
letter there was this drolling expression: 'Tis said there is a cun-
ning fellow in Scotland, called George Monk, who lyes in wait there to
serve Charles Stuart; pray use your diligence to take him, and send
him up to me.' Mystery, p. 12, Maseres's Tracts, pp. 711, 712. See
Dr. Skinner, p. 72.
A letter written "to General Monk," from "Collen, 12th August,
1655," by Charles Stuart, shows that the royal exile had, even then,
good hope of his assistance at the "seasonable opportunity." See "Life
of Dr. Barwick," (1724), p. 397.
This same day, Feb. 17., “Mr. R. Rookwood," who appears to have
been a royal spy, bought off by the judicious application of "secret ser-
vice money," thus writes to Secretary Thurloe:
"I deliver, enclosed, the character by which Charles Stuart directed
me to write weekly to him, and the means to receive letters and money."
See "Thurloe State Papers," vii. 617.
1658-9.]
327
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
give an account of his words. Nothing is so ordinary as to
put off assizes in Parliament time.
Serjeant Maynard was highly moved.
Mr. Attorney-general seconded him, that it was not of such
necessity to have assizes as was moved.
Mr. Fowell. People are busy at plough and hedging, so
cannot attend assizes.
Sir Henry Vane. I second Sir Arthur Haslerigge. A
delay of justice is of great consequence to the nation.
Mr. Swinfen. Nothing should put out the order of the
day.
So the other debate departed,* and the order of the day was
read.
Mr. St. Nicholas. There is as much reason to bind up an
Aristides as a Dionysius. Your vote intends a bound. It
is universal, the whole power; and nothing greater than the
power of making law. You have not made him a Lycurgus,
absolute. It is not properly incident to that office to have a
negative. You have not made him king; but if so, anciently,
kings of this nation had not a negative,† only power to deli-
berate on ordinances.
+
It is a happiness to bring the Chief Magistrate as near to
be like God as may be. With this, you make him the great-
est prince in the world.
+
If a good man, he will be satisfied
with it; if not, it is too much.
If he have a negative, what signifies your sitting here?
* cc
Complaints were made," says Mr. Bethel, "that the assizes, with-
out precedent, were put off, to the common wrong of the whole nation ;
and therefore, to the end that the people might receive no prejudice by
the sitting of the Parliament (as the courtiers were suspected to design,
to the end to make them out of love with Parliaments,) it was desired
that the Pretender might be moved to command the carrying on of the
assizes; but the courtiers being resolved not to lose so considerable a
part of their strength as the lawyers, they would have the whole nation
to suffer in the want of justice, rather than they would want one of their
members." Brief Narrative, p. 340.
† See supra, p. 319, note †.
See supra, p. 320.
༈
328
[FEB. 18,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
When you have done all you can to make good laws, and he
refuse, all your pains and hopes are lost. It is not probable
that this House will, in civil concerns, make any law destruc-
tive to themselves.
To answer Serjeant Maynard's objections:
*
1. It is not wisdom to keep treasure but under three keys.
If he commit his treasure to other persons, I am apt to be-
lieve he will keep the keys himself.
2. It is necessary for the Other House to have a negative.
I have read that kings were bound by the laws made by
the representative, though he were absent.
If a person of that House should slip into treason or fe-
lony, who should be his peers to try him? That learned
man, if he were a Judge, would say he should be tried by
honest men in the country.
3. If a law should be imposed to intrench upon men's con-
sciences.
I answer. Suppose the major part should propose a law
for the liberty of men's consciences, or to take away a law
that intrenches on that, and the single person or another
House have a negative, where are we then? I hope we are
in that light, that persons oppressive of men's consciences
will not be chosen. I had rather trust my liberty among
seven times seventy in this House, than with seventy† in ano-
ther.
My motion is, that the question on the negative voice may
precede; and that the Chief Magistrate may not have a nega-
tive, nor your laws that you have prepared, be hung up for
the want of consent, by a Chief Magistrate.
Mr. Swinfen. You are not ripe for your debate till you
concur in your own constitution. You must concur in that
which is naturally before.
Let us deal plainly with one another. No governments in
themselves are good or evil. We have not debated whether
we will have a Republic. Let us plainly debate it, and not
be drawn off by indirect votes.
* See supra, p. 322.
† See vol. ii. p. 17, note.
1658-9.1
329
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
You have voted a single person, suppose without a nega-
tive voice, and the militia.
The single person has no being but what you may put an
end to when you please. What need you then debate where
the negative shall be?
In order of nature it is reasonable to know the thing be-
fore the power. First, you vote Committees, and then powers.
Those that would have a single person and another House,
must not lose their votes.
We are not chosen a House according to law, (it is said)
but a representative chosen and in full power to frame any
government. To have a negative in the single person, were
to reduce us to the power of a single person, for he will be
able to have a negative as to his own preservation. There-
fore I would have the Lords' House first settled.
Mr. Knightley. Is the Other House the Chief Magistrate ?
How came we to talk of them? There is another place in
the Bill about the Other House. I only speak to the order
of your proceedings, and would have us hold to the order in
the vote.
Mr. Onslow. I am not for debating of new forms, but
for stating that we live under. Keep to the order of the
House, to debate first the negative voice; which is no new
thing, no stranger to our laws; and when we come to talk of
a House of Peers, I doubt not but if we make that House,
we shall give it that just power that the ancient laws give.
Mr. Attorney-general. I cannot give my vote in this case,
till you agree whether you will have two Houses, and first,
whether you will have it a Republic. Let us know where
the legislative power is, before you say such a person shall
have no negative. Let us be clear in this. If there be a ne-
gative voice elsewhere, perhaps I shall agree the Chief Ma-
gistrate shall have none.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. Well may I change my opinion,
when those learned persons change theirs so often. It is
easy to misconstrue the debates of this House if we be not
sparing one with the other. It is very trivial to move any
thing concerning government or the Lords House, upon the
赠
​330
[FEB. 18,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
vote before us. The question is, whether the Chief Magis-
trate shall have a negative. Let us go plainly to it, and con-
sider how to bound the power of the Supreme Magistrate in
reference to the good of this nation, that he may not preju-
dice that; and whether it be for the good of the people that
the single person should have a negative voice. I am glad to
hear the name of Commonwealth is not so odious. When
this House shall have made his Highness Chief Magistrate,
I would not have us diverted by another question.
Captain Baynes. Reading the order yesterday would re-
concile all.
It was read, and it was touching the negative voice, to be
proceeded in.
Mr. Swinfen. That
were out of the chair.*
order was not made till after you
I would not have us surprised.
Sir Henry Vune. If you ingenuously reason on that which
is in your vote, it is clear you must proceed with the order
of it, about the negative voice. The Lords' House doth not
concern the bounding of the single person, the liberties of
the people, or any thing in that vote.
Serjeant Maynard. That vote doth not bind you up as
to the order of it. In your vote it is not agreed which part
should go forward. Suppose you should order the negative,
to whom or what will you apply it; whether to the person
or the matter? I desire you will propound, whether a nega-
tive shall be now propounded.
It is most proper to concur in the Other House first. I
mean not this House of Lords, or any other House. It will
be a disadvantage, to those that are against a negative to have
this question put.
Mr. Neville. It is all one. You will either have the
Lords' House, or none. If you will have none, then you can
have no negative. If you have one, how can that, the House.
of Lords, be a boundary to the kingly power? You have
no such House of Peers now, which hath an interest answer-
able to be able to do it. Here will be a negative upon you,
* See supra, p. 325.
1658-9.]
331
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
and the Chief Magistrate shall have the power of that.
There is no intent to cheat. Whenever a House of Peers
comes to be debated, it will not be found that a House of
Peers shall be of that use now as formerly.
We are upon
alterations, and no thought now is to be taken of what was
done by John of Gaunt, and such fellows. The Lords much
outweighed before, and now the Commons and the people
outweigh; and your King, not long since, before the Parlia-
ment, did oversway. So you build upon an ill foundation if
you aim at the old way. You cannot build up that which
God and nature have destroyed. We are upon an equal
balance, which puts out Turkish government* and peerage.
Laws are made to preserve things that are, not things that
are destroyed. You are invested with all legal power. If
you will say, all power is in the sword, that is one thing; if
in the people, that is another. But it is in the people, in you,
in consent. You have laid a good foundation, a single per-
son. It now concerns you to build upon that, and to bound
him, that he may lay claim to no more power than now you
give him. You are in a good way. Go on.
Mr. Attorney of the Duchy. Make that the question, that
the supreme legislative power is only in the Commons of Eng-
land, Scotland, and Ireland, assembled in Parliament. I am
free and clear to debate; but if you apply it singly, it can
never come to a clear resolution. Make that the question,
and we will singly enter upon the debate of it.
Sir Henry Vane. I did, and do think, that you have the
sole power to bind the people. The single person joining
with you, binds the thing faster, but he hath no power to
deny laws to the people. Therefore the question ought to
be, whether the single person ought not to be excluded from
any power of a negative voice in making laws for the good of
the people.†
Mr. Reynolds. I understand that you and your clerk are
reflected upon, as for mispenning your order. The order is
clear. The negative voice is expressly within the words of
* See on CC
a Turkish power," supra, p. 288.
Thus Richmond and Sidney. See vol. ii. p. 153, note.
332
[FEB. 18,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
7
yesterday's order. There is nothing for bounding the Lords.
Our business is to bound the Chief Magistrate. The Lords
are quiet.* We trouble not them, nor do they trouble us. I
pray those gentlemen will not prophecy. We desired the
Lords to concur with us in bounding the King in the nega-
tive voice. I know not but we may go up to these Lords,
and desire their concurrence that the Chief Magistrate shall
not have a negative voice. Let not the Lords' House trou-
ble you. Let it not be a stumbling block in your way. If
the Lords' House will not trust us, why should we trust
them?
Mr. Raleigh. I am not free to give a vote till this stum-
bling block, this House of Lords, be removed out of the
way. If you admit the legislature is here, I shall know
how to give my vote. I humbly conceive the other debate is
very proper.
Mr. Goodrick. The order was mistaken and penned after
you were out of the chair. How the negative voice comes
in, I know not.
Mr. Speaker. You all agree in one thing, only differ
about the manner. The bounding the Chief Magistrate was
thought by all, the first thing in order in the great vote, and
it was the sense of the House to debate upon the negative
voice. It is true, the legislative power was spoken of as con-
cerning it previously, by some, but the negative voice was in-
sisted upon as touching laws made by this House alone, or by
* See supra, p. 152, ad. fin. For the only record I have discovered
of any activity in the "Other House, see vol. ii. p. 439, note*.
"Barwick to Hyde. Feb. 16, 1658-9. Those they call Lords meet
and adjourn, and consult about making a catechism, and make speeches
against plays and the Common Prayer-Book. But all men's eyes are
upon the Commons; for it is clearly foreseen the Petition and Advice
will not support the Other House, and thereupon the Commons look
upon it as a personal privilege of the last Protector." See " Thurloe
State Papers," vii. 615.
↑ Referring probably to Serjeant Maynard's suppositions, supra, p.
322.
↑ By concurring in the Declaration. See supra, p. 319, note*.
1658-9.]
333
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
this House and another, or elsewhere.
the debate.
This was the sum of
It all tends to the same thing.
Sir Henry Vane. The consideration by you is only of
laws passed by you, and you must hold us to the negative
voice.
You must not leave the chair till the question be read. It
is of dangerous consequence for two or three to direct the
sense of the House, when you are out of the chair. No
member can direct the sense of the House. The clerk ought
not to take it.
I move that it is properly before you to debate the nega-
tive voice.
Mr. Trevor. There was no order to debate the negative
voice; or, if any order was made, it was after you were up.
There is a necessity to debate what the negative shall be
upon. If I thought the laws should come but from one
House, I might perhaps conceive it fit to give the single per-
son a power to support himself, more than if I thought they
should refer to two Houses; so that it is natural to look at
these two considerations. Determine this first, as it is most
proper and natural for you. I have no interest that is di-
vided from the whole. I speak not to direct you; but that
you may go naturally to the business before you.
Lord Lambert. This which is offered you, is no part of
your debate. I cannot but wonder we should have any scru-
ple in going ingenuously on with the things before us. How
came the other House to be concerned in any of the particu-
lars of the great vote? Doth it limit the Chief Magistrate?
It is so far from that, as it is rather a further strengthening
and enlarging than a bounding of his power, as having a de-
pendence upon him, and nothing to oblige to the least public
interest, but their own goodness.
By your appointment agree the Government. Then ap-
point officers, appoint servants; for you have a House. I
am apt to think we may all agree in that thing afterwards.
But I see not the delay of this work of bounding as the put-
ting off an evil day. Therefore it is high time to fall to it;
334
[FEB. 18,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
and to know where the power is. It concerns the rights and
liberties of the people; and most of all the privileges of Par-
liament, at least of this House. The Commonwealth, I per-
ceive, must not be named without a brand. I hope it is no ill
word.
I am apt to suspect the swelling of the power of the single
person. I fear it may get too high. I know the last Pro-
tector was not willing to use all that power that was put upon
him. I would very gladly see what you will do for the peo-
ple. I would have you go on to debate the negative voice.
Mr. Attorney-general. The order yesterday was no order,
because the question was never put. However, this House is
master of its own orders. I move to put the question, whe-
ther the power of the legislature be singly in this House, or
the single person ought to have a negative; or the other,
whether you will have another House. Let the question
nakedly come, that every man may know what to give his
vote to.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. This is an exceeding catching
question. But that is not the question; but what power the
single person shall have; and, if we make laws for own good,
whether the single person ought to do us any hurt in that.
The sole legislative is here. I am of that opinion, that we
would give a legislative power, to the good of the people, but
not to do us any mischief; that he may ingratiate into the
people; that, if his Highness consent, we may humbly thank
his Majesty." The King can do no wrong.”
If this question go on, we surprise ourselves. It is not in-
tended but the Chief Magistrate should have part of the le-
gislature.
Serjeant Maynard. I would be content the question should
go, that he should not have a negative upon all laws that are
for the good of the people: whether, when the House of
Commons only shall propound bills to the Protector, he shall
have power to deny them ?-make that your question.
Mr. Onslow. We have recognized a Protector. I would
have us recognize a Parliament. I had rather change an
order than that any gentleman's vote should be debarred.
1658-9.]
335
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
They have declared themselves; so it is not improper to state
that Government that must have to do with this single person.
I shall willingly go on to debate of what is the Parliament of
England.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. The bounding the single per-
son is the most proper thing in debate, and I apprehended
we had now been upon the Chief Magistrate's limitations. It
is objected, that men cannot vote unless they know whether
there shall be another House. That objection is made as if
we were constituting a new Commonwealth. If that should
be, then unless you know what power your single person shall
have, how will you declare the power of the other House, for
this will still lay in your way? I have not heard that de-
bated yet, whether we are upon the footing of the Petition and
Advice, or on a new foundation, or on the old Constitution.
I think we are yet to be supposed to be upon the foot of the
old constitution, unless something appears to the contrary.
Therefore, I would not have us surprised in a vote. We may
by this, put a limitation upon this that we mean not of; and
instead of bounding the Supreme Magistrate, be rather bound-
ing the liberty of Parliaments.
Captain Baynes. I would not have the legislative power
in any one constitution, but in two; and they both to be repre-
sentatives of the people.* When the House of Lords was in a
co-ordination of power with you, they did near upon represent
half the property of the nation. The Bishop of Durham
There are now no mem-
of old represented a whole county.
bers at all for that place.†
See the United States, vol. ii. p. 460, note.
+ In 1653, there had been one member for Durham, and in 1654, and
1656, two for the county and one for the city. Richard, in convening
this Parliament, had reverted to the old distribution of elective franchise.
"This county or bishoprick, having anciently a petty king or palatine
of its own, who called a parliament of his own barons, was therefore
looked upon as an exempt jurisdiction, and was either not permitted, or
did not claim the privilege of sending any members to Parliament."
Since "a special Act," in 1673, there have been two members for the
county, and one for the City of Durham. See Willis's Notitia Parlia-
mentaria in Magna Britannia (1720), i. 636.
336
[FEB. 18,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The Lords represented at least in old time, two thirds of
the rest, who having so great a propriety in the nation, it was
all justice and reason they should have a co-ordination in the
Government.
It is my judgment to have two Houses. And if we can find
out such persons as have such proprieties as may balance this
House by property, in any considerable measure, it is fit we
should have them; but if there be none such, I would have
another House, indeed, that there may be a propounding and
an enacting power, but to be chosen either by the people or by
some other way for there never was any Commonwealth,
but there was one body to propound laws, and another to
enact.
I shall offer you a question, to be the ground of this de-
bate. Whether there shall be a negative voice upon the
people represented in Parliament, in making of laws for their
own good, without naming any House?
Mr. Scot. Many questions are offered, and some press for
preference. You will find a complication of questions
wherever you begin. It is equally ensnaring to me to give a
negative before I know he shall be Chief Magistrate, as well
as before you have another House. We must either
go ascen-
dendo or descendendo. In the order of nature this seems first:
that, having recognized his Highness as Chief Magistrate,
we should agree what power he should have. Then, if a
House of Peers, say what shall their power be: and out of
both these may result our power. It is my opinion that the
people should have no final negative voice upon them.
The Romans, after Romulus's death, desired a king, omnes
regem poterunt; because they knew not what liberty was.*
They were an outlawed people. I would plainly have no
negative upon the people, otherwise than deliberative demur-
rative, &c.t
"In variis voluntatibus," says Livy, "regnari tamen omnes vole-
bant, libertatis dulcedine nondum experta." Hist. lib. i. cap. xvii. (1749),
i. 24. (Amidst their various opinions, all desired a regal Government, not
having yet proved the sweets of liberty.)
† See supra, p. 321.
1658-9.]
337
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I know not upon what foot we are. We are not King, Lords
and Commons, we lost that about 44 or 45, before we lost our
virginity.
that.
We are not upon the Petition and Advice. All do not sit
here upon So we are only upon the foundation of the
people.
Mr. Hewley. Upon what foot do we hang? If it be not on
the Petition and Advice, I know not how we came here.
By the order of nature we should know the constitutive part,
before we agree on the emanations and power from this.
We
make the Chief Magistrate less than a shadow if he have not
a negative. If there be but one House, I shall say the Chief
Magistrate shall have a negative. If two estates, haply no
Of necessity, and naturally, you must proceed
upon the other House.
negative.
Colonel Morley. I see this bounding is a tender point.
We are loth to come at it. We are now putting a negative.
upon ourselves, instead of bounding the Chief Magistrate, and
now are setting up another House. So that, when both those
are set up, we shall have a negative upon neither.
Mr. Swinfen. I would have the question put, whether the
Chief Magistrate shall have a negative upon such laws as
shall be presented unto him from Parliament; a secure ques-
tion, without naming this or either House.
Colonel White. Before we have laid the foundation, we
are come to the superstructure. A question is proposed,
which would be very comprehensive of the matter, to take
into consideration whether the legislative is or is not funda-
mentally in this House? Till you assert where the legisla-
ture is, it will not be so fit to think where to dispose of it, or
how. Till then, the conveniency or inconveniency of dis-
posing of it will not be known by you. Whence came the
Other House, but from this House? It was not of itself,
nor came out of the clouds.
Sir Henry Vane. Whilst you are saying that you are tak-
ing into consideration the negative, you allow him an affirm-
ative voice. Yet we sit here intrusted with preserving the
rights of the people. If we be of opinion that the single
VOL. 111.
Z
338
[FEB. 18,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
person should have the negative voice, let us own it, and de-
clare it, and not take it in by a side-wind. If the people
think they are not competent judges of what is good for
them, let us say so plainly, and let that be the debate.
Sir John Lenthall. The order yesterday was made with-
out consent of the House. This is the most intricate question
that ever came within these walls; for we are not of our
own foundation. The people have not conceived that this is
the Parliament. For those persons that say this is the Par-
liament, may as well say the Other House is the Parlia-
ment.
Till we go to the right constitution, we shall never know
where we are. There never was any constitution but under
four persons; the King, Lords Spiritual, Temporal, and
Commons. As I shall not go so high as to vote a King, so
I shall not go so low as to believe and acknowledge that all
power is in this House. What extravagances have been,
from supposing all power was here! The country sent us
here to consult de arduis regni, with the King and his nobles.
See upon what grounds you stand. If you conclude your-
self a Parliament without another House, then go on that
debate; and if we be the only Parliament, vote that.
Mr. Reynolds. It ill becomes that gentleman to reflect
upon the Long Parliament. I doubt he forgets who sat in
that Parliament from beginning to end, that his father sat
in the chair all the time.* This looks just like the begin-
ning of the Long Parliament, when speeches with such re-
flections used to come from under the gallery.
I appeal, if instead of bounding the Chief Magistrate, we
are not about bounding ourselves. If we pass the Lords
with a negative voice, then we bound ourselves again. So
that some gentlemen are content, if we but bind, it is well
enough. We are so loth to come at the point. A great
Chancellor, when counsel would with art go from the point,
used to say, they play with the point; and that he thought
the plague was in the priest. I hope there is no plague in
See vol. ii. p. 29, note.
+ Referring, probably, to the directions, Lev. xiii., for discovering the
plague of leprosy, by application to the priest.
J
1658-9.]
839
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
this. I would have you therefore plainly to debate if the
the Chief Magistrate shall have a negative voice.
Mr. Manley. I move, like wise builders, to examine
the constitution. I would have the Other House first de-
bated, because you know not where to apply it. If
If you in-
tend really to go to a Commonwealth, debate it. To say,
we have the whole power, what is that but a Commonwealth?
The question is only for precedency of one that is doubt-
ful, or of the other that is clear. What is meant by Chief
Magistrate and also by bounding? This last is not meant to
take all away that is in the Chief Magistrate by right; but
only those excrescences and suckers which grow from that
tree, from which this nation hath received good fruits.
The Other House doth lie in our way, if the legislative
be here, we need go no further.
Mr. Chaloner. I move to debate whether the Chief Ma-
gistrate shall have a negative upon what this House shall de-
clare, as the Parliament of England.
Mr. Bodurda. By that motion there is more uncertainty.
I know not what you mean shall be the Parliament of Eng-
land. Is not setting bounds a bounding ourselves, as well as
bounding him? The more you give him, the less you have
yourselves. The Other House is most natural to go first
upon. It is impossible for any man to give his vote clearly
till you explicate the terms that must come first or last. The
Other House is the balance; it tells minutes between the two
estates. The most natural question is for the Other House.
Mr. Croke. There are weighty reasons on both hands.
You were pleased to vote the single person, which has gene-
ral acclamation. Then you proceeded to bound the single
person. That the Other House is any part of bounding is
not apparent to me. Nothing we do now does exclude that
debate of the Other House. In the Bill, the question of the
two Houses will have its place. We may debate upon this
negative properly without touching the Other House. There
is uncertainty in what is propounded. First consider, what
is fit to bound the Chief Magistrate in, and then dispute the
Other House.
Z
7 2
340
[FEB. 18,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
Mr. Turner. This question of precedence has spent this
day, and may extend two or three days longer. I would
have it put, if you will adhere to the words of the order,
which, it seems, is arraigned.
Mr. Knightley. Because that order is so arraigned, which
is not parliamentary, let us go upon the former order, which
was to bound the single person.
Mr. Sturkey. I move that the constitution be first debated.
Mr. Hungerford. I apprehend not such difficulty for gen-
tlemen to give their votes. Nothing is to be binding, till
the whole be passed. None then can be bound by their votes.
Mr. Speaker. You have been debating a negative in ge-
neral. Make your question, if the Supreme Magistrate shall
have a negative upon laws presented to him by Parliament.
Then you will be engaged in another debate, what shall be
the Parliament ?
Mr. Attorney-general. Make any plain question, and I
will consent to it; so that none may be surprised. I cannot
give my vote upon such uncertainty.
Mr. Turner. Put the question whether this House will
proceed upon the negative voice, before you have resolved
the constitution of Parliament.
Mr. Onslow. I second that motion. It will be most re-
concileable.
Colonel Bennet. I must look upon that order as binding,
till
you take it off. It is not parliamentary to arraign your
orders. You arraign the whole journal, your whole records.
Mr. Raleigh. I shall not dispute that order. It is a con-
stant course of Parliament to appoint a Committee every Sa-
turday night, to overlook your orders. You are going to
bound your Chief Magistrate. Will not you know the boun-
ders, as well as the bounded? Will you bound him to he
knows not what, and you know not what? If it shall appear
that the legislative is in this House, I shall agree the Chief
Magistrate a negative. If in two Houses, I shall never give
my vote that then the Chief Magistrate shall have a negative:
so that it is clear my vote is out of doors till you clear this.
Mr. Steward. I second what Mr. Turner and those gen-
tlemen have before moved.
1658-9.]
341
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Henry Vane. I insist still to adhere to your orders of
yesterday.
Mr. Swinfen. If you affirm that order, you cannot pro-
ceed; because your terms are not explained. It is plain you
will bind votes both ways.
Mr. Jenkinson. I second the motion. You may satisfy
all by a plain question; whether the sole legislative be in
this House? Or put the question; whether there shall be
any negative at all in this House?
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. By the orders of the House we
must have this question. It is strange to me how this other
House comes in, when you are bounding the Chief Magistrate.
Must we now debate it, as a privilege? We have tried it with
our swords. Let us not lay new foundations for a civil war.
He was taken down by Colonel Cox, and Colonel Morley
moved him on again.
He then went on to beat the old point, that the negative
voice first be gone upon, according to the orders.
Mr. Stephens. I am very spare of speaking, for sure that
petition is true. I cannot make sense of it, that the Chief
Magistrate shall have a negative, and you say not to what
persons and things. It will come properly under another
House, if you agree on another House. Let the numbers
and qualifications be agreed on afterwards.
Serjeant Maynard. All I desire is to settle your question
without ambiguity. Put it that his Highness shall have a
negative upon Bills presented by this House. Let that be
the question.
Mr. Neville. The inconveniences are equal, on both sides.
I doubt, by dividing the question, this great question will be
out of doors. The King's oath was that he would confirm
the laws, quas vulgus elegerit.* Those that will have another
House, why should they distrust their own strength? The
question is clear enough, and by it every man may have his
free vote.
Mr. Bumpfield. If you put the question that the Chief
Magistrate shall have a negative on laws made by Parlia
* See supra, p. 319, note “.
342
[FEB. 18,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
ment, then you still bring in debate what is meant by the
Parliament. I take this to be the order; that the order
leads you directly to debate whether you will have another
House. It is touching the negative voice generally. That
must be understood of the other House. You cannot go
one step till that be determined. If you do adhere to your
order, it leaves it indefinitely still. It is proper to your ques-
tion to consider whether you will have another House.
Colonel Matthews. I see not why we should lay aside this
order. It is most natural to proceed upon this. In the be-
ginning of the Long Parliament this was one of the great
questions, and then there was a House of Lords. I see no
man's opinion tied up. The Parliament in 54, disputed this
long.*
* Then there was no Other House.
-+
I would not have the Chief Magistrate to be denied a ne-
gative as to all. He should have a negative as not to-
the government. I beseech you go on with your order.
Serjeant Seys. It is most proper to debate first, whe-
ther you will have another House: first, of the way of
making laws, before whether he shall have a negative or no.
Some previous debate is necessary.
Sir John Northcote. I never knew this House claim a
constitutive power, but a declarative power. The question
was then, not whether they should take away a privilege
from the King of making laws, but that he should not refuse
good laws. Our consistency ought not to be denied. We
are three estates. I wonder how the power that we claim
See vol. ii. p. 395, note. It was resolved, Nov. 10, 1654, according
to Whitlock," that if the Protector consent not to bills presented to
him, within twenty days, they shall pass as laws without his consent."
Memorials, (1732), p. 608. See Parl. Hist. (1763), xx. 378,379. On
1656, see vol. i. p. 20, note.
There was a provision, in 1654, "that such Bills contain nothing in
them contrary to such matters wherein the Parliament shall think fit
to give a negative to the Lord Protector."
On the division there were,
"Noes 85. Sir Charles Broghill and Sir Charles Wolseley, Tellers.
"Yeas 109. Sir Richard Onslow and Colonel John Birch, Tellers."
Journals.
+ Blank in the MS.
1658-9.]
348
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
now, comes to us; either by usage, constitution, or conquest.
We must not keep that by the sword, which we have got by
the sword. In a peaceable time, I hope such sharp argu-
ments shall not be used.
*
Mr. Disbrowe. I never knew it denied to make a question
clear, when any gentleman excepted, and said they could not
give their votes if it passed so. When there was a House
of Lords, the negative voice might be debated with the King
in clear terms; but now it is not clear that you are
You are not under that constitution. If you say that there is
another House, or not another House, till that be deter-
mined, I cannot give my vote clearly. There are, fairly,
some things, wherein, if there were never so many negatives,
you would not deny the single person a negative. As, if
the Government should all be pulled up by this House, shall
he be bound to consent to that?
Mr. Gott. Every negative contains an affirmative. I
cannot be satisfied to give my vote, till I know what shall
be the affirmative; or till I know, whether two negatives
or one are upon me, which is a great difference. Two and
one differ and quite alter the debate. Put your question
thus: whether, in consequence of the negative voice, you
will first take into consideration the Other House. Or, put
the question, whether to put it or no. This you must come
to at last.
Mr. Speaker was going to put the question.
Sir Henry Vane stood up, and gave his reason against
taking first into consideration the Other House.
It was offered, that the militia and negative voice be in-
cluded in the vote of your Chief Magistrate. Then it
was answered, that the previous vote provided that nothing
should be binding. It was then allowed the reason. Why
is that reason denied now? That Parliament that made the
other House, surely had the legislative? They must either
own that the legislative power was in that House; else
nothing passed to them. If it stand not on that Constitution,
then it must stand on the old Constitution.
* Blank in the MS.
314
[FEB. 18,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I shall clear it, that we are going to settle that which is
fallacious. It will strip you at one time, and at one breath.
You make void all your former expressions, which to me
is as clear as day. If they can do none of those things till
they have set up a co-ordinate power, then you can pass nothing
here, but must have their concurrence.
Pass this, and you
will have that brought in upon you from the Other House,
that will confirm the single person in all things that concern
him, and so your own liberties are left at loose. If you have
a mind to do aught for the people, do it clearly. Pro-
nounce your judgment, that the Chief Magistrate shall have
no negative upon the people assembled in Parliament. Do
this, else I shall take it for granted that you will have no
fruit of your debate, and that you intend nothing for the
people.
Mr. Onslow. I did not think to have heard it pressed
that it was any part of the quarrel to take away a House
of Peers. I hope, in due time, we shall return where we
were. We are now creating a Government out of the ruins
of the people. We must take it for granted that our Go-
verument is destroyed; but that we build. I know no
difference between our constitution now and before, but in
the name of the single person. I would have us give no
more than we gave the King. I know no reason why we
should grow so wanton as to give less to this person.
Captain Baynes took exception against the word "wanton,"
but was decried.
Mr. Bulkeley. It needed not explanation. I think Sir
Henry Vane has said something that stands in need of expla
nation; not a slip in passing. I agree, the ground of your
war was not to take away the single person or the House
of Lords. When another House is stated, it will, I believe,
be found exceedingly needful. Are you afraid that your
laws shall be perfect? I wish all the Judges might perfect
them, not with a negative power. I more dislike the word
Commonwealth than I did in the morning. If you admit
this, you may as well lay him aside. If he be not major
singulis, he will not be able to suppress and allay factions,
1658-9.]
345
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
which you will see will break out. I am against advancing
the single person beyond bounds as much as any man; but
to make him insignificant *
I do not think that any
of those gentlemen that came irregularly into the Govern-
ment†, can think that we are upon the same footing still.
Because there is a willingness to condescend, let us not go
further off. Let us debate this.
Let us debate this. It comes orderly before
you; is genuine to your question. It was never denied to
auy member, if it was not plain. If nothing but this, it were
enough to gain my assent. A liberty will be left to these
gentlemen afterwards, to except against any part, because of
the previous vote. It is but reasonable, and genuine, and
natural.
Lieutenant-general Ludlow. It is plain that there is catch-
ing in this question. Sadden not the hearts of the people.
by putting in bounds upon the people. The Representative
of the people of England cannot be called a faction. I de-
sire to debate the Members of Scotland and Ireland,‡ first,
before you put any more upon us. We sit by the Petition
and Advice, as I take it.
The question being propounded, that this House shall pro-
ceed to determine the power of the negative voice in the Chief
Magistrate, in the passing of laws before the constitution of
the Parliament as to the two Houses be first resolved on,
Mr. Speaker declared for the Noes.
Sir Arthur Ilaslerigge for the Yeas.
The House was divided. The Yeas went forth, contra Sir
Henry Vane's opinion.
Yeas 86. Mr. Brewster and Colonel White, Tellers.
Noes 217. Sir John Coppleston and Mr. Francis St.
John, Tellers.
Lord Fairfax, Sir Christopher Wyvill, and Colonel Neville
divided with the Yeas.
* Blank in the MS.
+ Perhaps, referring to those who sat without taking the oath to the
Protector. See supra, p. 68, note.
"Chosen," says Mr. Bethel, "by the Pretender's interest." Brief
Narrative, p. 313.
346
[FEB. 18,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Bodurda moved for leave for Mr.
John and Mr.
James Ashe to go into the country for ten days, to attend
Mr. John Ashe's corpse. Leave was given.
Sir Henry Vane and Sir Arthur Haslerigge moved to
take
up
the debate to-morrow upon the militia; but it was
called down, as improperly moved, and cried, not ingenuous.
Serjeant Maynard. I see nothing that is disingenuous.
Mr. Trevor. The reasons are the same as to the other.
You must first determine your constitution, before you dis-
pose of your power. ·
Sir Richard Temple. I move to proceed upon the Other
House as most proper.
Mr. Weaver. Sixty persons sit amongst you,† that have
no vote in your legislature. Any sixty persons that walk in
Westminster Hall may as well sit. I would have that your
first consideration, lest it be told it you afterward, when you
would not hear of it.
They have no right at all to sit, by law. Not but that I
would have them qualified.
Sir John Lenthall. Though they cannot sit by the law of
the land, yet it is fit, on this great work of settling the na-
tion, that we should have them here.
Colonel Matthews. I am against that.
Colonel White. I have no faith to convert any body by
my motion.
I only stand up to move that Mr. Neville's bu-
siness be heard to-morrow.
Mr. Starkey and Mr. Attorney-general moved against it,
now you are contending for breath.
Mr. Scot. I doubt that those that are for Ireland and
Scotland are in a pramunire.
Resolved that to-morrow sevennight be appointed to hear
counsel on both sides, in the case between Mr. Neville and
Mr. Strowde, late Sheriff of the county of Berks.
Resolved, that the House do take into consideration the
"Mr. Ashe the elder." See supra, p. 241, vol. i. p. 362.
+ The Scotch and Irish members. See supra, pp. 28, 29, 31.
1658-9.]
347
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
constitution of the Parliament as to the two Houses to-morrow
morning, and that nothing else do then intervene.
The House rose at past two.
The Committee of Trade sat, but I was not there. *
Wednesday, February 19, 1658-9.
Mr. Scawen reported from the Committee for inspection
into the accounts and revenue of the Commonwealth, that
The following reference to some late parliamentary discussions, is
in a letter dated " Holyhead, 18th Feb., 1658-9." Addressed" to
Lord Henry Cromwell, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland," from "the Earl
of Thomond," then on his way to London :-
"Mr. Mabbott tells me heere nothing but of a vintner, which, not
elected, sat as a member, but not for Scotland or Ireland; soe that
my Lord President Coote, nor others at Dublin, need not suspect
being welcomed into the House. The speech of confident Haslerigge,
against the recognition, was found fit only for lawghter in the House."
See "Thurloe State Papers," vii. 618.
Henry, Earl of Thomond," according to Mr. Noble, became
"allied to the Protectoral House of Cromwell, by the marriage in
1660, of Sarah, daughter of Sir Francis Russel, Bart., and widow of Ge-
neral Reynolds, whose large dower made her no inconsiderable fortune
to him. Though he had submitted to bear offices under the Cromwells,
yet he professed all loyalty towards the royal brothers, Charles II. and
James II., to both of whom he was one of the Lords of their most
honourable Privy Council in Ireland. His Lordship died in 1691,
aged 72." House of Cromwell, (1787) ii. pp. 427, 428.
Ludlow, relating the exertions of the Parliament, in 1641, to sup-
press the Irish Rebellion, says: "The Lord Forbes, a Scotsman, was
sent with a party into Munster, where he greatly annoyed the enemy;
and being furnished with some ships, sailed up the Shannon, and secured
several places upon that river, particularly Bonratte, the residence of
the Earl of Thomond. The Earl, unwilling to oppose the English
interest, and no less to make the rebels his enemies, chose to withdraw
himself into England, and to leave his house to the soldiers, where
(though he pretended he had no money to lend them to supply their
wants) they found two thousand pounds buried in the walls, which
they made use of for the payment of their forces." Memoirs, i. 20, 21.
† See supra p. 312, 313.
348
[FEB. 19,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
they should often have occasion to send to the Commanders-in-
Chief, both in Ireland and Scotland, for the knowledge of the
forces in pay under their commands, and to others, concerning
the revenue of those nations. And that the Committee did
therefore desire, that their dispatches in reference to these
affairs, might be signed by Mr. Speaker.
Resolved accordingly.
*
Serjeant Waller reported from the Committee of Privileges
the business of Petersfield; and that it was the opinion of
the Committee that the election was void; and prayed that
a new writ might issue out.
Sir Henry Vane and Mr. Knightley moved, that it be
re-committed; for that the Chairman ought to report the
state of the whole business, as it stood by the Committee.
Serjeant Maynard seconded the motion.
It seems the election was too hasty. No proper notice was
given to the electors; for the electors had notice at nine, and
the election was at ten.
Sir Arthur Huslerigge. It was no good election, for want
of time.
Sir Walter Earle. Recommit it, that it be examined at the
Committee, who are the proper electors.
The opinion of the Committee was, that the election was
void for want of due notice.
Mr. Jenkinson. The whole matter was included in the
question and evidence, as to both cases.
Serjeant Maynard. A Committee ought not to bring in a
report without the tota materia. Else, how shall the House
know it. If the persons capable of electing were there, then
there was notice. The principal point is, who have the right
of electing. I pray that it be re-committed.
Mr. Goodrick. We conceived at the Committee that there
was no due notice; there being eighty electors, and but thirty
present. Therefore we judged the election void. I would,
therefore, have no re-commitment.
* See Journals.
1658-9.]
349
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Scot. I am of opinion, that the fault was not in the
want of notice, but upon the merits of the election.
Resolved, that the case concerning Petersfield be re-com-
mitted.
The order of the day was read, upon the debate of the
Other House.
Mr. Drake. We have not commission to meddle with the
constitution from those that sent us here. It has pleased God
to reduce the constitution of the nation to a single person
and two Houses of Parliament, as it was before. It is our
honour to look forward, and not to go back, that we may be
builders and not destroyers. Our ancestors have sworn to
maintain the constitution: it is mostly for the good of the
nation, to have such a constitution.
1. It is good for our laws to be often read over.
2. It is for the good of ourselves. By putting a question
upon them; we may have a question put upon ourselves.
They may be a screen between us and the pcople, as well as
between us and the single person.
EXE
3. The two Houses are good for the peace of the nation.
The old Lords have still a right. It doth but sleep, and will
at one time or another awake upon us. If we take away the
rights of the peers, we may have a barons' war again. There
are great attempts and endeavours of your enemies to agree.
It behoves us to agree among ourselves.
4. A separation is endeavoured between the martial and
civil powers. We had need to strengthen the hand of the
civil power.
My motion is, that you declare it your opinion that there
shall be two Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Edgar. I find in precedents, formerly, that there was
a power (to be tried by the peers in criminals, and, in civils,
their bodies not to be attacked) so inseparable from the Lords'
House, that no power could take it away. The engagement
but takes it away by implication. The Petition and Advice,
they say, gives it a right, I cannot say as to the force of that.
*The Other House.
† See vol. ii. p. 279, note *.
850
[FEB. 19,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
!
Divers boroughs had no representative then. This right of
the House of Lords is not taken away by any legal power.
Then if they be in possession, be it by what power it will,
they are in, and ought to hold their right.
It will be very useful for the Commonwealth. They have
had their education in arts and arms. They were the pro-
curers of Magna Charta,* by the Barons' wars; and many
counsellors are useful in making laws. There has been no
forfeiture, no transferring of their power. If I were satisfied
that the people sent us not here to do this; I conceive we
came here to do right and justice, and to maintain the honour
and birthright of that House. The wisdom and strength of
the body should go together. It is a very dangerous thing to
alter laws and customs. A proverb says, "Old laws and
new meat are best for Englishmen.”
I would have another House of Lords. Matter of honour
and reverence is as much a right as any thing else. The
old Lords have no voice in elections,† and it were hard for
them to be barred from sitting in their own House, and
from being serviceable here.
Mr. Young.
I perceive the question is, whether two
Houses or not? The question is whether there be a Lords'
House in being, and not whether this shall be one for the
future. First determine whether the Other House be upper
or no. It was told you not long since, that the Other House
was down, by the Petition and Advice. He was never an-
swered yet. Those insignificant inincing terms, Other House,
do not at all agree with my judgment. I would have it a
House of Lords. Therefore first agree whether the power of
the Other House be determined by the Petition and Advice.
No other law is of force for them.
Serjeant Wroth. Whether there be two Houses, depends
upon the validity of the Petition and Advice. A Parliament
not free, and yet the acts are binding. Otherwise, it would
strike at that act.
Colonel Gibbons. This is a question of great concernment
* See vol. i. p. 406, note *.
† See supra, p. 126.
1658-9.]
351
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
in the tendency of it; the setting up another power, with a
jurisdiction in some cases concurrent with you, in some other,
superlative, above you. Thus you will have two superinten-
dants over you.
You are therefore to consider,
1. Whether there be another House or not.
2. Whether there shall be, or not.
If there be, it must be upon the old foundation or upon a
new constitution. The last Parliament cashiered the old
foundation. The victorious Long Parliament, the dictators
and legislators, they have laid them aside.* The House's Ad-
vice is no legal footing, as was moved learnedly by Colonel
Terrill. Therefore, if there be any in existence, it must be
upon some new constitution, de fucto; but whether de jure is
the question.
First examine whether you have another House, and then,
rebus sic stantibus, rebus sic cadentibus.
Colonel Terrill. It cannot be de jure in the Protector; it
being but personal in the other Protector, and executed by
him, and dead and buried with him.
Serjeant Waller undertook to answer Colonel Terrill.
All his cases are at common law: none upon Acts of Parlia-
ment, which are to have a reasonable construction. There
was a plain intention in the law for him and his successors.
In this Act, an Act of Constitution, it was declared that
his Highness might summon another House. His Highness
constituted another House. He had a power to constitute
them; and the power is executed.
Mr. Knightley. Those gentlemen that stand at the bar, put
me in mind of what I moved the other day, that none should
have votes that would not take their places; so that if
men will not take their places we must needs have another
House.
I desire that the Act, 16 Caroli, on this case, be read. The
dictators and legislators, it is said, did take that House
away. The late army had no power to dissolve, much less
* See vol. ii. p. 388, note.
† See supra, p. 223.
352
[FEB. 19,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
to annihilate that House. Therefore, instead of two Houses,
we shall have two houses in being; one by that statute which
I would fain have answered, and you have another House in
being by the Petition and Advice.
Via tuta est via recta. We were called to advise with the
nobles, and we were indeed in the Lords' House, and there
we found some sitting that call themselves Lords. We must
consider what constitution we are upon; what we have, not
what we shall have. We have a constitution by a single
person, and a House of Lords, or Peers, which you will. I
can consent to no other.
I move, therefore, that you declare the House of Peers to
be the other House.
Mr. Goodrick. In that very law, 16 Caroli, there was a
clause that the House of Peers should not be prorogued, ad-
journed, or dissolved, without their own consent.
Another law, the statute for triennial Parliaments, is un-
repealed, by which twelve peers ought to meet to summon
Parliament.*
I am against building with rotten timber, but not against
building with old timber if it be sound. Determine, first,
whether you will have a House of Peers, and then, whether
that House of Peers be taken away or no. I pray that the
Act of Parliament, 16 Caroli, may be read.
That Act was read accordingly. It was, that neither
House should be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved, without
their consent and own orders.
The Act for Triennial Parliaments was also read, and it
was that twelve peers might issue writs for Parliaments under
pain of loss of places and preferment, and punishment by suc-
ceeding Parliaments.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am glad to see these two Acts
* See vol. ii. p. 427. This Act, which was repealed in 1664, provides
that, in case of neglect by the Chancellor to issue writs, "The peers of
this realm shall meet in the Old Palace of Westminster, and they, or any
twelve or more of them, shall issue out writs in the usual form in the
name of the King's Majesty, to the several sheriffs, &c." See Scobell's
Acts, (1658,) p. 2.
1658-9.]
353
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
read. I move to explain whether the Petition and Advice have
not made void these two Acts. I would be satisfied from the
Long Robe. It is said the Petition and Advice has made
two Houses of Lords.
Mr. Attorney of the Duchy. I know not what those two
Acts were read for, unless to take the Speaker out of his
chair. Yet I do not think that the intent of those gentlemen.
was to take you out of your chair, and put in your prede-
cessors.
By the same rule, Magna Charta may be called for, the
restoration of the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, the Recog-
nition of King James,* &c. and I know not where you will
end, till you recognize Charles Stuart for King.
Invalidity is endeavoured to be put upon the Petition and
Advice, and upon many good Acts in the end of the Long
Parliament; but a nullity upon them upon any pretence
whatever, brings us to what, and where, we were.
The House's Petition is a good law. I hope we shall not
look so far back; but go on. I hope we shall have no more
such Acts called for.
Mr. Fowell. The acts made in the latter end of the Long
Parliament and the Petition and Advice, are both good laws
until repealed.
* In 1603-4, the first Act passed in his reign. The Parliament " re-
cognize and acknowlege that immediately upon the dissolution and de-
cease of Elizabeth, late queen of England, the imperial crown of the
realm of England, did, by inherent birthright, and undoubted succession,
descend and come unto his most excellent Majesty, as being lineally,
justly, and lawfully, next and sole heir of the blood royal of this realm."
See Parl. Hist. (1763), v. 53—55.
"This was complaisance indeed," says Dr. Harris, " and this, together
with their ascribing to him, in the same 'the rarest gifts of mind and
body,' and acknowledging his great wisdom, knowledge, experience, and
dexterity,' could hardly help rivetting in his mind his absurd opinions,
and high self-estimation." Lives, (1814), i. 214, 215.
r
CC
Jaques n'avoit pas demandé cela,” says Rapin; au contraire, selon
toutes les apparences, en repetant plusieurs fois dans son Discours, qu'il
étoit Roi indubitable par sa naissance, il vouloit faire entendre qu'il
n'avoit pas besoin de la confirmation du Parlement." Histoire, (1725),
vii. 33.
r
VOL. III.
2 A
354
[FEB. 19,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The Lord Protector did not think fit to make every lump
of gilded earth a Lord. He took another measure. Their
valour and virtue were objects to him of their honour.*
The Barons anciently were the great bulwarks and defence.
of the liberties of the nation. How oft did they fight for
Magna Charta. They did great service in old times, and so
did those in the quarrel. There is a necessity for a House
of Lords.
Mr. Bethel. I observe from that Act,† that we are the
people's Parliament, and not any single person's. That is all
that I shall move.
Mr. Manley. I differ from that gentleman. The Petition
and Advice has made those laws of force. It is a question of
fact that there is a House. You exclude the right. I would
have the question comprehend both; whether there shall be
another House or no.
It will come in debate whether it is proper to have another
House. I shall speak to none of the laws that have been
read.
I think those laws are of force till you annul them. I
think they are restored by the Petition and Advice. I con-
ceive clearly they are restored.
The Protector has the same power that any King of Eng-
land had§. He has power to create Barons by writ or
patent. I wish the old Lords, so many as are capable, had
See the late Protector's choice of Lords, vol. ii. p. 468.
+ The Petition and Advice.
+ The Lords.
rr
§ Mr. Bethel, to whom this speaker, one of the Long Robe,” (see
supra, p. 247,) appears to be replying, denounces "the disingenuity of
the court-party, being made up of household servants, officers, suitors
for offices, lawyers (the corrupt part of whose trade cannot be main-
tained but by a corrupt government), Scotch and Irish members." He
then represents "such as were most open" as "confessing plainly, that
they were so far from bounding the Chief Magistrate, that they desired
to give him as much power as any King or Prince of England ever had."
Brief Narrative, pp. 343, 344.
The power of conferring titular distinction, Burke's " Cheap
Defence of Nations," appears to have been assumed as inherent in the
executive. It was not assigned to the Chief Magistrate by any of the
1658-9.]
855
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Ho-
been called. His Highness went by another measure.
nour is the edge of valour; take this away, and you take
away the edge.
projects of government during the Protectorate; and Oliver was very
sparing in the use of this prerogative, for the creation of peers. He was
indeed rather liberal in the bestowment of baronetcy and knighthood,
and Richard and Henry each dubbed two almost ephemeral knights, but
Oliver created only two viscounts and one baron.
"Charles Howard, of Gilsland, in Cumberland," (see vol. ii. p. 415,
note*,) according to Mr. Noble, was "created Baron Gilsland, and Lord
Viscount Howard of Morpeth, July 20, 1657." On the fall of the Pro-
tectorate and the Commonwealth, Lord Howard soon found another
creator, and advanced a grade in the peerage, being "created, by King
Charles II., Earl of Carlisle," probably in acknowledgment of some meri-
torious secret services during the royal exile.
"Edmund Dunch of little Wittenham, in Berkshire," was "created
Baron Burnell, by his cousin the Protector, April 20, 1658." On Ri-
chard's resignation, he "retired from the public scene," prompted by a
peer's very natural "dislike to an absolute republic," and by another mo-
tive as natural, “the jealousy the Commonwealth-party entertained of
him." When "he perceived the restoration of monarchy likely to take
place, he again took an active part, and was chosen one of the Committee
of Safety, in 1659. This procured a good reception for himself and his
family from King Charles II. Probably he had some expectation of a
new patent for his nobility, but he died a private gentleman in 1678.”
House of Cromwell (1787), i. 439-448, ii. 162.
Mr. Noble has ornamented his second volume with "a fac-simile," of
Baron Burnell's " original patent of peerage," discovered by "the late
Lord Dacre," among "the writings in Sir Henry Oxendon's Evidence
Room." The following is the preamble:
"Oliver, by the Grace of God, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth
of England, Scotland, and Ireland, the dominions and territories there-
unto belonging, to all and singuler Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Vis-
counts, Barons, Knights, Provosts, Ffreemen, and all our Officers, Minis-
ters, and Subjects whatsover, to whom these our letters shall come, greet-
ing. Amongst other the prerogatives which adorne the Imperiall
Crowne of these Nations, none is of greater excellency or doth more am-
plifie our favours, then to be the ffountaine of honor, and those who, being
of antient descents, have ample patrimonies for their supportation, and
have deserved of us and the publique, to assume to titles of honor and
dignity, for a reward to them and an encouragement to others. Thero-
fore," &c.
Whitlock, notices, “Aug. 21, 1658. A Bill signed by his Highness, for
QA ?
356
[FEB. 19,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Lords were ever since Parliaments were; only they sat to-
gether. The 8th of Henry IV., they then sat asunder.
Had there not been a House of Lords, then we had not been
a House of Commons neither.
They always fought battles for our liberties. How often
engaged against the King for the Parliament. Two worthies
of them are never to be forgotten; one by land and another
by sea. Essext and Warwick.‡
If you will have another House, they cannot be Commons.
If any thing, they must be Lords. Commons against Com-
mons cannot stand. Shall they dispose of your purse? One
hand is enough in a purse. If you have not a House of
Lords already, I wish we may have a House of Lords.
Mr.
§. I move to declare, whether, as to this
point, the Petition and Advice be of force.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. This statement will not hold you
"">
a patent to make me a Viscount, and in Secretary Thurloe's hand to be
passed; but I did not think it convenient for me. Memorials, (1732),
p. 674. Such was the sober judgment of this learned lawyer, and such
the short story of the third and last creation of a Protectoral peerage,
only a few days before "the ffountaine of honor," for ever ceased to flow.
*See vol. ii. p. 349, note †.
† See ibid, pp. 448-450, note ‡.
† See vol. ii. pp. 311, 315, ad fin. 450, notes*. He had been appointed
by the Parliament in 1642, to be admiral of the fleet; recommended to
them, as Mr. Godwin remarks, by "his known alienation from the
Court, the flexibility of his temper, and his singular aptness for gaining
the affections of men, especially in the ordinary and middle classes of
society, added to his eminent talents and abundant wealth." Com-
monwealth, (1824), i. 192. The Earl, however, did not decline to act
under Cromwell; and, till his decease in 1658, a few months before the
death of the Protector, appears to have been ranked among the most fa-
vourite courtiers of Whitehall.
"Cromwell seemed," says Lord Clarendon, " to be much afflicted at
the death of his friend, the Earl of Warwick, with whom he had a fast
friendship; though neither their humours nor their natures were like.
And the heir of that House, who had married his youngest daughter,
died about the same time: so that all his relation to or confidence in
that family was at an end; the other branches of it abhorring his al-
liance." History, (1712), iii. 647.
§ Blank in the MS.
1
1658-9.]
357
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
There is
long. De facto, King and Lords are taken away.
something in the nature of a law on foot, which is the
Petition and Advice. By that, another House is set up;
whereas, before there was but one. It is not so much a new
Constitution, as a reviving of the old with taking off the
exorbitances.
You are not yet come to the manner of the House; but
the question is, whether the Constitution of the Parliament
of England ought to be by two Houses?
I think it ought, from long continuance. It hath been
so for many hundred years. Long usage hath so settled it,
as Acts of Parliament cannot alter it. No Act of Parliament
can take it away; nor can the single person be taken away
without special authority.
This Government hath been interrupted, de facto, and put
out of practice; but the right cannot be taken away. The
people of England have a right to the single person and two
Houses of Parliament, and it cannot be taken away without
their consent.
I would not now consider what it shall be, but whether
the Constitution shall be in two Houses or no.
Mr. Stephens. The state of the question is well moved to
you by the gentleman that spoke last. It is clear that the
Constitution was by two Houses.
We all aim at settlement. I hold life and estate by
Magna Charta, thirty times confirmed. It is clear, that the
ancient Constitution was a House of Lords. Ever since the
fourth of William the Conqueror, you will find the nobles a
House of Peers. How they came to forfeit that I know
not; particular men may. The laws read are, without
doubt, not repealed. I am clear that these laws are not
repealed.
The latter end of the Long Parliament took them * away,
and last Parliament restored another House. You have
both laws before you. I was always against taking away the
House of Peers; and that upon account of the covenant. I made
The Lords. See vol. ii. p. 388, 430 note *
858
[FEB. 19,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
that covenant with God, and not with the Scots. The act
by which that House was taken away, was made by a kind of
surprisal too.
I tell you truly, I am for the ancient Constitution by two
Houses. Justice is always pictured with a pair of scales.
The two Houses were So. Sometimes the Lords were
too heavy, and sometimes the Commons were too heavy.
No bills for monies did ever come from that House.
You ought to restore the ancient House of Lords, if one
may be added to the other. I am bound by my covenant to
maintain the privilege of Parliament. I think too, we must
restore the House of Lords, as a point of policy and pru-
dence. They may be a good screen on both sides; between
the magistrate and the people. Let us build upon good and
sound foundations.
The question being put in the affirmative, that the Con-
stitution of Parliament doth and ought to consist of two
Houses,-
Sir Henry Vane. Here has been a learned debate; but,
by the question, I know not how to give my vote. If the
Constitution be by the old right, I must go one way; if by
another right, another way; but if both these might be taken
away, then the question must be whether we shall have
any or no.
If you say, the Constitution of Parliament consists upon
the old laws read, I may give my yea. If upon the Petition
and Advice, I may give my negative, I am exceedingly per-
plexed which way to give my vote. I would have the words
"shall be."
Mr. Bulkeley. The question gives a man latitude enough
to give his vote, whether he will have it upon one footing or
another.
The question was again put in the affirmative.
Sir Henry Vane moved an addition, "As the state of
affairs have been since the war," but it was decried.
Mr. Godfrey. The question is complexed of matter-of-
fact and matter-of-right. They are different, therefore move
it singly, that it ought.
1658-9.]
859
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I cannot assert the right, till it be debated whether the
Other House be the House that ought to be. It is not
proper, when both these are in debate, that we should admit
either. I desire the word "doth" may be left out.
Colonel Matthews seconded the motion.
Mr. Trevor. The word "doth" left out, leaves out a great
many of our senses. It is a word which may relate either to
the old or new Constitution.
Serjeant Maynard. You ought in justice to condescend,
if any person be unsatisfied. The word does not stick
with me.
Leave out the word "doth," however, to satisfy
all persons.
I hear nobody offer that it was part of the quarrel to have
no House of Lords. They showed themselves for you, in a
time of hardness. They did oppose your enemies. You
could not have held out laws to the people, in that time, but
by their ordinances. They were innocent, so let us not go
away with that mistake that they were as nocent as the King.
Put the question upon the word "ought," and leave out
the word "doth.”
Colonel Bennet. I look upon this question as that, which,
at the long run, may cost us dear. There are different under-
standings in the matter of this question. Let us not be too
hasty, but hear one another. Many arguments have been.
used for the right of hereditary peerage to legislature. I
have heard it learnedly argued that, not only by ancient usage
but by the common law of the land still in force, the ancient
peerage are restored, and now in being. I shall consent they
may have had such a reasonable claim to offer, as other things
of like nature have had, witness the Court of Wards,* and
Star Chamber,† and Bishops. These had no natural right;
but only a right by usage, which is no right.
* See Sir Arthur Haslerigge, vol. ii. p. 437 and note. See also "Of
the Court of Wards and Liveries," Sir T. Smith's "Commonwealth of
England," b. iii. ch. v. (1633,) pp. 232-242.
CC
"There is," says Sir Thomas Smith, a court, of the which, that I
can understand, there is not the like in any other countrey. In the terme
time, the Lord Chancellour, and the Lords, and other of the Privie
360
[FEB. 19,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I was for a single person, though, if the condition of the
people were as receptive of a Commonwealth as it might be,
I still have thought a Commonwealth better for us. I shall
contend for a mediocrity.
I cannot like it, to have five hundred men set over us for
them and their heirs to have a legislative over us and
our heirs. I never understood the covenant in that sense as
Councell, so many as will, and other Lords and Barons, which bee in the
towne, and the Judges of England, specially the two Chief Judges, from
9 of the clocke, till it be 11, doe sit in a place which is called the Starre
Chamber, either because it is full of windowes, or because, at the first,
all the roofe thereof was decked with images or starres gilded.
"The punishment most usuall, is imprisonment, pillory, a fine, and
many times both fine and imprisonment. The matters belonging most
commonly, are by statutes :-as is taken away of maids within age,
against parents' or guardians' will; all notable forgeries, counterfeiting
letters or privie tokens; slandering of nobles, and seditious newes;
all
notable riots and unlawful assemblies; all notable deceits and all kind
of cousenage, &c." See ibid, b. iii. ch. iv. pp. 223–231.
“This Court,” says Rushworth, "is taken little notice of, either in
the Reports or other books of law. In the ancient Year-books, it is
called, Camera Stellata, not because the Court is adorned with stars, but
for that it is the great court. It was a glorious sight, upon a star-day,
when the Knights of the Garter appeared with their stars on their gar-
ments, and the Judges in their scarlet; and in that posture they have
sat from nine in the morning till five in the afternoon. And it was
usual for those that came to be auditors, to be there by three o'clock in
the morning, to get convenient place and standing.
"Archbishop Whitgift constantly was for maintaining Magna Charta,
that none ought to be fined, but salvo contenemento, and commonly in
his sentence mitigated the acrimony of those that spake before him,
and the slavish punishment of whipping was not heard of among them.
But when this Court came to be delighted with blood, and nothing
would satisfy some clergymen but cropt ears, slit noses, branded faces,
whipt backs, gagged mouths, dungeons, banishment to remote islands,
eternal separation from wife and children; then began the English
nation to lay to heart their slavish condition, if this Court continued in
its greatness." Hist. Col. (1706,) ii. 348, 350.
This Court was abolished by an Act passed July 5, 1641. See ibid,
iii. 112, 115; Parl. Hist. ix. 440—444. "The Parliament," says Lud-
low, proceeded to correct the abuses that had been introduced in the
preceding years. Whereupon, the Star-Chamber, the High Commission
Court, the Court of Honour, with some others, were taken away; and
the power of the Council Table restrained." Memoirs, i. 13.
1658-9.]
361
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
now used. I look upon that as exclusive of this family, and
inclusive of Charles Stuart. I have no such opinion of any
in this House.* I know not what may be.
I would fain have it agreed, if restoring the old peerage, or
that way, be not inclusive of that and exclusive of the other.
I do consider this power of legislature in a single person,
and in another House, hereditary, and if it be possible for any
man to apply his arguments taken from the statute of 16 Ca-
roli, exclusive of Charles Stuart, I shall be glad to hear it.
If they who are for monarchy, will be content with the
good things that are in it, we shall be content that all the
good reason of monarchy and of another House may be con-
verted to our use. Another House, for the castigation of de-
bates, to prevent passion and too much precipitation, that
will fully answer the reason of another House. But for the
law of 16 Caroli, I conceive that clause of the Act, that
they shall not cease to be, is improperly tendered. It is set
aside,-
1. By the calling of another free Parliament, by virtue of
a new election and constitution.
2. A greater power than the power that made that House,
hath taken it away. I mean not any power on earth, but
God himself. He hath let us know that it is he that planteth
and plucketh up, and taketh away. I am of opinion that he
hath taken it away by a long series of providences, and what
God hath taken away, I shall never plant again. It was not
taken away in a corner. They may have peace in themselves
that did it. God hath dissolved that Parliament. That sa-
tisfies my conscience. I cannot plead that any jury deter-
inined it.
I am willing that two Houses should be, upon the reasons
of utility; but I cannot consent to hereditary power in those
that sat below our ancestors. I shall be willing to grant you
my honours upon condition you will give us an hereditary le-
gislature from such as our grandfathers sat by their sides and
took pleasure in them.
Mr. Higgons. I am glad to see this done, that we may
*Yet see L. G. Ludlow, supra, p. 145.
362
[FEB. 19,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
plead for our ancient constitution, that we were born to.
This House was set up long, ages before ever a House of
Commons was.
No good Christian can argue from events. Because Con-
stantinople is taken from the Christians, ergo they must not
endeavour to recover it.
I would have the question put, that there ought to be two
Houses of Parliament.
Major Beuke. As to the first argument, destructive to the
single person, because the single person may call five hun-
dred, and set them over you: yet you have no cause to fear
this new nobility.
1. I suppose he will have a retrospect to what other princes
have done. Or suppose the single person should nominate
five hundred peers, or more, to grow up over us and overtop
us, such a numerous nobility will rather strengthen your
hands than his; for, by experience, we found the numerous
nobility of King James* was the destruction of his son.
When King Charles began to multiply Lords, they struck
in with you, and deserted the King; ergo, that will be a
rock, a peg on the top of the Bill, which will direct him on
that behalf. It may be you will limit the number.
As to the second argument, a greater power hath taken it
away. Then let every man's mouth be stopped. Let no
man attempt to set up a Commonwealth.
Though God in his providence hath taken away the no-
bility, yet what God doth providentially, he not always ap-
proves. That he did approve it, is not clear to me. Το
untie this knot, we may say he did not do it approvingly. I
take the single person and the Commons as two scales, the
House of Lords as the beam. Both scales are subject to fac-
tions and tyranny and extravagances. The beam is pru-
dential. The power, for seven hundred years transmitted to
1
At his accession in 1603, they amounted to 77. On the accession
of his son in 1625, they had increased to 97, consisting of 1 Duke, 1
Marquis, 37 Earls, 11 Viscounts, and 47 Barons. See Parl. Hist. v.
9-11, vi. 410, 41. See also vol. ii. p. 448, note*.
1658-9.]
363
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
them, they have as much right to it as the gentleman has to
his cloak. Usage is a good right, if ancient. If nothing be
right but what is natural, he has not right to his victuals, his
meat and drink: so that there is but a tantum non to make it
natural. It is so twisted with the constitution, that five hun-
dred for one upon the poll, would be for a House of Lords. I
never knew any Christian against the constitution, only
against persons.
We have been
Laws went out here without their lustre, not so practical
and useful. By no law of England can the Judges sit in the
House of Commons. They must sit in the Lords' House,
else we want their grave and sage advice.
tumbling ever since they were taken away.
by the covenant to maintain the two Houses; and the Par-
liament might as well take away meum and tuum, as a House
of Lords.
We have sworn
Mr. Jenkinson. Your question is not of conveniency or
inconveniency, but of right. Then the other arguments will
weigh nothing. I conceive it a great question, and fear
whilst you vote them Lords, you vote yourselves slaves.
I find their names in all your laws, but by what right, it
appears not to me. Some say the old Barons were by merit,*
* Dr. Knox, while he is ably exposing the courtly theories of Burke,
and especially his description of "what he calls a true natural aristo-
cracy," says:-
"Most of the titles of nobility, and other civil distinctions were taken
from war; as a marquis, a duke, a count, a baron, a landgrave, a knight,
an esquire. The inventors of arts, the improvers of life, those who
have mitigated evil and augmented the good allotted to men in this
world, were not thought worthy of any titular distinctions. The reason
is, indeed, sufficiently obvious. Titles were originally bestowed by des-
potic kings, who required and rewarded no other merit but that which
supported them by violence in their arbitrary rule.
"That the best and ablest men should govern the worst and weakest,
is reasonable and this is the aristocracy appointed by God and nature.
But what do we mean when we say the best and ablest men? Do we
mean men of the best families; that is, men in whose families riches
and titles have long been conspicuous? By the ablest men, do we mean
men who possess the greatest power, by undue influence, in borough and
364
[FEB. 19,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
some by patent, but I conceive by neither. It was neither
writ nor patent gave it to them, but their tenures and pos-
sessions gave it them. He that had so much in possession, or
so many Knights' fees, was by law a Baron, and might chal-
lenge a right to sit in Parliament.*
There was a law in King Ethelbert's time, that if any per-
son came to have good possessions by his tenure, he was to
be a Lord, or Theyn, as it then was called. In the 11 Henry
VII., the law was for Archbishops, &c. that hold of the King
in capite. "Let them do service to the King, and be present.
at the King's courts." Mr. Selden understands it to be pre-
sent in Parliament. This was by their tenure.
No writ was
then, but every man that had right might come. The first
distinction between the Barons, majores et minores, was in the
latter end of King John, as appears in Magna Charta. In
the last year of that King, upon this statute, were several
writs to distinguish them severally. The Barons, Majores
were to be called separatim, and the Minores were to be
county elections, though the exertion of that power be strictly forbidden
by the law and constitution? Or do we mean men of honest, upright,
and benevolent hearts; of vigorous, well-informed, well-exercised un-
derstandings? Certainly the latter sort, which forms the aristocracy
established by God and nature. This is gold: the king's head stamped
upon it, may make it a guinea. The other is only copper; and though
the same impression may be made upon it at the mint, it is still intrin-
sically worth no more than a halfpenny." Spirit of Despotism, S. xxv.
(1794,) pp. 204—206.
<<
"I have sometimes," (says Lord Bolingbroke, as quoted by Dr. Knox)
represented to myself the vulgar, who are accidentally distinguished
by the title of king and subject, of lord and vassal, of nobleman and
peasant; and the few, who are distinguished by nature so essentially
from the herd of mankind, that, (figure apart) they seem to be of ano-
ther species. The former loiter or trifle away their whole time; and
their presence or their absence would be equally unperceived, if caprice
or accident did not raise them often to stations wherein their stupidity
and their vices make them a public misfortune. The latter come into
the world, or at least continue in it after the effects of surprise and in-
experience are over, like men who are sent on more important errands.”
Ibid, p. 210.
* See vol. ii. p. 416, note †.
1658-9.]
365
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
called, generally. The Majores at last came to exclude the
rest. The excluded for a time took it well, but out of their
ashes came the Commons. These were first called in the
time of Henry III. Even at that time the Commons began
to grow upon the Lords, and all their glass is now run out.
Almost all that power is in this House, the Commons having
now whatever possessions and tenures made them consider-
able.*
The Lords have no interest now, and signify no
more than you. How can you now make those men Lords,
by any other reason than to make twelve pence to go for
twenty shillings. You may vote them what you please, but
should you say so, other people will value it, at the same
value. If they be not Lords in the country, it will signify no-
thing. It is not your voting of them to sit in another House
will make them so.
If you will have another House, limit them. Let it be
part of the Bill, that this House doth declare that there shall
be two Houses; and then you may limit them, as you have
done the single person.
Serjeant Maynard. I would have the question look for-
ward as much as may be, and as little backward as you can.
If we look too much upon the point of right, it may bring us
upon some rocks by pressing it too far. We must go that
way which comes nearest settlement. The question before
you will answer every man's sense, to debate after right or
conveniency, or what he please. If you put it in the same
way as you put the single person, that will do best.
The question was put in the affirmative, that it be part
of this Bill to declare the Parliament to consist of two
Houses.
Colonel Matthews. I move to consider whether you do
not destroy yourselves by this question.
The question was put both in the affirmative and negative.
Mr. Sadler stood up, and it was agreed that he stood up
before the negative, and so he went on.
A power to laugh is essential to a man, but he does not ab-
* See supra, p. 88, note §.
t
366
[FEB. 19,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
solutely consist of it: so, that may be essential to a Par-
liament that is not constitutive of a Parliament. By putting
this question, you conclude that all Parliaments that were
before or since the House of Lords, were no Parliaments.
Say whether for hereafter, or whether convenient to have
another House. It may be, I can give my vote. I would
have the question plain.
Resolved, upon the question, that it shall be part of this
Bill to declare the Parliament to consist of two Houses.
Mr. Onslow. I would now have you take care to bound
this House, as well as you intend to bound the Chief Magis-
trate.
I shall mind you what was done in the King's time. I
would not have more given to this single person than was
comprehended in the propositions at the Isle of Wight.*
There was then a short BiH to bound the peerage, both as to
number
I would have you declare some additional
clauses :
That all peerages made after the great seal was taken
away, be void, and that no Peers be afterwards made but
such as shall be by judgment of both Houses.
He offered a Bill, it was but ten lines.
Major-general Kelsey. It is improperly moved to bound
them till you have determined that they are a House of
Peers.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. It was not improperly moved by
the honourable person that offered the Bill.
Sir Henry Vane. You have not voted them peers. It is
* See vol. ii. p. 21, ad fin. Godwin's Commonwealth (1826), ii. 474.
"The propositions," says Perrenchief, "that were sent to be treated,
were the same which had before been offered to the king at Hampton
Court. The Commissioners were five of the Lords' House, and twelve
of the Commoners, and with them some of their Presbyterian ministers,
who were to press importunately for their church-government, to elude
the king's arguments for Episcopacy, and," adds the courtly Episco-
palian, "only to impose, not to dispute their own." See "The Life of
Charles I.," (1666), pp. 178, 179.
+ Blank in the MS.
See vol. ii. p. 453.
1658-9.]
867
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
moved that they are the King's men. Then let them come
after the King. First bound him, and then bound them.
Mr. Godfrey. The paper is not improperly offered. It
may well be taken into consideration.
Mr. Attorney-general. I would have bounding this House
first taken up, because it is easier to bound the Chief Ma-
gistrate than to bound them.
Mr. Bulkeley. I second that motion.
Captain Baynes. It is most proper now to go to the ne-
gative voice. The objection is answered that was made, that
we knew not how to dispose of the negative, till we knew
whether you will have another House.
I would have it referred to a Committee, to consider of a
way how you will qualify and bound this Other House, and
that you now proceed to bound the single person.
Mr. Bodurdu. Surely you mean it shall not be another
House of Commons; then you will have two hands in a
purse. None here surely mean it a House of Ladies.*
surely it must be a House of Lords.
So
I would have you debate the powers and qualifications to-
morrow.
Mr. Reynolds. Those that were anciently of that Other
House, the old Lords, ought to sit here; and I hope you
mean it so, that they shall not be excluded.
Colonel Birch. I look upon this agreement among us, to
be the return of the prayers of the good people. I would
have you now proceed to bound this House, before you talk
of the persons, and take up this on Tuesday morning.
Mr. Goodrick. It is first most proper to give them a
* Perhaps a pleasantry designed for Mr. Neville, who was, probably,
now in the House. He had published, in 1647, a satirical pamphlet, en-
titled, "The Parliament of Ladies, or Divers Remarkable Passages of
Ladies in Spring Garden, in Parliament assembled." This was presently
followed by
"The Ladies, a Second Time assembled in Parliament. A
Continuation of the Parliament of Ladies," supposed to be "written by
the same hand." See "Some Account of H. Neville," prefixed to Plato
Redivivus, (1763), p. 5.
368
[FEB. 19,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
name, as you did your Chief Magistrate, and then dispute
their powers.
Mr. Solicitor-general. It is fit to set bounds first, and
then to qualify the persons.
Sir Henry Vane. There must be the thing before there
can be bounds.
He took exception against Colonel Birch's notion, that the
returns of our prayers are, to bound the people by setting a
House of Peers over them. Observe that.
Mr. Stephens. It is most natural to set the bounds first.
Captain Baynes. If you call the old Lords, it is not in
your power to bound them without their consent. If another
House by you is to be constituted, then the case is different.
Mr. Neville. It is clear that the bounding of Peers is like
that which was said of the King: it is like hedging the
cuckoo.
The question was put in the affirmative, that the House
will proceed, on Tuesday morning, to the bounding of the
other House of Parliament.
CC
Mr. Turner moved to change the word "bound," for
power."
Captain Whalley moved that the word "bound" may stand.
Mr. Trevor moved that both words be in, viz. "bound the
powers."
Mr. Bodurda. I move only to consider the bounds and
powers of the other House.
Mr. Bampfield. It is not yet determined by you that you
will have another House under that title; else you admit the
Petition and Advice. Make your question the bounding of
the two Houses.
Sir Henry Vane. I see, now, we are for bounding every
thing but the single person. Whatever you may agree upon,
they must consent to it, if you set them up.
Mr. Bulkeley. Put it, the bounding of another House.
Mr. Goodrick. Let it be thus, that you will take into con-
sideration the powers of each House.
But it was decried.
Mr. Onslow. There may be as much reason for bounding
1658-9.]
369
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
the House of Commons. We have seen how all have exceed-
ed their bounds. I would have the question, upon bounding
both Houses.
Major-general Kelsey. First declare what that House
shall be.
Colonel White. If you bound them not before, you will
find them boundless.
Mr. Trevor. I doubt you are going to set up another
House; that is three Houses. Put it, to limit the power of
the other House.
Resolved, that the bounds of the powers of another House,
in relation to the former vote, shall be taken into consideration,
the first business, on Tuesday morning next, and nothing to
intervene.
Resolved, that Sir Henry Lee have leave to go into the
country for a week.
Resolved, that Sir Henry Vane be added to the Committee
of Privileges.
The House rose at almost two o'clock.
The Committee of Privileges sat till almost eight, in the
House, upon the business of Walton, Serjeant Waller in the
chair.
Counsel and witnesses were heard on both sides: yet they
did not finally determine the business; but adjourned the de-
bate of it till Thursday at two.
Resolved, at that Committee, that one that claims right to
be an elector, cannot be a witness to prove another in the
same predicament, to be a fit elector.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge and Sir Henry Vane took exceptions
at it, and will move the House against it.*
* "General Monk to Secretary Thurloe.-My Lord; I have received
your letter, dated the 17th instant. I am glad to hear, that the affairs of
parliament succeed so well, though but slowly; I am sorry some officers of
the army should trouble themselves with things they have nothing to do
withall; but you need not doubt for the officers here. I hope we shall
give you no trouble no way, but be satisfied with what his Highness and
the Parliament shall settle. For news here we have none.
All things
are quiet and well."-See "Thurloe State Papers," vii. 623.
VOL. III.
2 B
370
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY
Monday, February 21, 1658-9.
This day the Lord Fairfax preferred a petition in behalf of
the Duke of Buckingham, for his enlargement.*
Mr. Onslow. I move that he be at liberty, not upon the
terms that Lord Fairfax moved, but upon the principles of
common justice, and that he be released upon his security.
He that has been trusted with three nations, we may well
trust him with a single person. He offers his security.
Colonel Clark and Colonel Mildmay. Refer it to a Com-
mittee, before you remit him. It may be dangerous to give
such a precedent.
Mr. Scot. I move for his release, upon Lord Fairfax's se-
curity.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. One person cannot do you so
much harm by his liberty. It is no ill precedent of liberty.
While we have an eye of punishment upon delinquents, let us
not wound ourselves, by leaving arbitrary precedents.
I have not so much as a correspondence with this person,
or any of that name. Let it not be thought, whatever is in
our hearts, that we shall have ingratitude to that person that
offered the petition. The care that Lord Fairfax will have
of him, in his family, will be beyond all security you can
care for. You may well trust him.
Sir John Northcote. Say, in your vote, that it is upon
Lord Fairfax's security; to save your time of another debate.
Sir Henry Vane. By what I understand by your debate, it
is no more than what is agreeable to your justice. Your dis-
charge is but conditional. You cannot be too jealous. Con-
sider the ground you are going upon, to leave the difference
between family and family.† Others, at liberty, are as dan-
* See supra, p. 48, note †.
†This sentence is probably incompletely reported. Perhaps it was
designed to show, that having returned to the ancient constitution of
two Houses and a single person, the only difference now, was between
the Cromwell and the Stuart family. Thus new intrigues in favour of
the latter would be encouraged, and might be reasonably expected.
1658-9.]
371
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
gerous as he; the Marquis of Worcester* and others. But to
discharge him, upon this way you take, is but agreeable to
your justice. You cannot imprison him but you must im-
prison his lady.
* The father of this nobleman, who was a zealous Roman Catholic,
died at an advanced age. His name became remarkably connected with
the story of Charles I., by Dr. Bayly's publication of "A Conference
betwixt his Majesty and the Marquesse of Worcester, at Ragland
Castle, Anno 1645." See Dr. Heylin's Bibliotheca Regia, (1659,)
pp. 65—102. With the Marquis, the King had passed several weeks,
soon after the battle of Naseby.
;
Annexed to this Conference, appears "His Majestie's Answer to the
Paper delivered in by the Marquesse of Worcester, concerning the An-
tiquity, Universality, and Sanctity of the Church of Rome;" from
which it might be imagined that a Hoadly, and not a Laud, had been
the King's favourite prelate and ghostly counsellor. The following
passages may reasonably excite the regret that the course of Charles
had ever been diverted, by the death of Prince Henry, from the Arch-
prelacy of Canterbury to the crown of England :-
T
3
CC
My Lord, I perused your paper, whereby I find that it is no strange
thing to see error triumph in antiquity, and flourish all those ensigns of
universality, succession, unity, and conversion of nations, &c. in the
face of truth; and nothing was so familiar, either with the Jews or Gen-
tiles, as to besmear the face of the truth with spots of novelty.
"Controversies cannot be decided by the Catholic Church, but by
the Scripture, which is the thing by which the nearness unto truth must
be decided; for that which must determine truth must not be fallible.
But whether you mean the consent of Fathers, or the decrees of General
Councils, they both have erred. I discover no Father's nakedness, but
deplore their infirmities, that we should not trust in arms of flesh.
They have oftentimes contradicted one another, and sometimes them-
selves."
"But who then shall roll away the stone from the mouth of the mo-
nument? Who shall expound the Scriptures unto us? One pulls one
way, and another, another. By whom shall we be directed? You that
cry up the Fathers, the Fathers, so much, shall hear how the Fathers do
tell us how that the Scriptures are their own interpreters." The King
adds very apposite quotations from Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus,
Chrysostom, &c., and thus concludes his answer, as if a Chillingworth,
rather than a Stuart, had guided the pen : O si sic omnia !-
"Wherefore we see the Scripture is the rule by which all differences
may be composed. It is the light wherein we must walk; the food of
our souls; an antidote that expels any infection; the only sword that
kills the enemy; the only plaster that can cure our wounds; and the
I
2 B 2
372
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
=
Mr. Reynolds. If you leave it without agreeing the secu-
rity, you may spend another day. Therefore, agree of two
indifferent persons of 20,000l. security, leaving out this lord.
Let him also be engaged himself upon his honour. You
cannot be too wary at this time.
Mr. Trevor. No security can be so great as that noble
lord's security. I pray that he may give security, as he him-
self has offered it.
Captain Hatsell. I move that he be discharged, and to
leave out the words, "notwithstanding his delinquency."
Mr. Chaloner. I hear that the King of Scots* has no power
only document that can be given towards the attainment of everlasting
salvation." Ibid. pp. 103-109.
The Earl of Glamorgan, who had succeeded his father in 1649, as
Marquis of Worcester, was now justly regarded as
t dangerous." He
had been engaged in advancing the King's project of a coalition with
the Irish rebels, to secure their aid against the Parliament. Milton,
among his proofs that "the King was ever friendly to the Irish papists,"
charges “the Earl of Glamorgan" with having accepted a
"commission
to bring over ten thousand of them." Iconoclastes, (1649,) p. 126.
This transaction, which strongly implicates the character of the
King, has been better understood since Dr. Birch, in 1744, with his
usual accuracy, and diligent research, investigated the subject. See "An
Inquiry into the Share which Charles I. had in the Transactions of the
Earl of Glamorgan, afterwards Marquis of Worcester, for bringing over
a body of Irish rebels to assist that King in the years 1645 and 1646."
To the second edition, (1756,) is annexed" An Appendix containing se-
veral Letters of the King to the Earl of Glamorgan, from the originals
in the Harleian Library of Manuscripts." Dr. Harris has largely con-
sidered "whether Charles excited or encouraged the Irish Rebellion."
Lives, (1814,) ii. 389–408.
* This title had been conferred on Charles Stuart by the Parliament
of Scotland, a few days after his father's execution, on certain con-
ditions, including an acceptance of " the Solemn League and Covenant.”
Being disappointed in his expectations from Ireland, by the vigour and
military success of Cromwell, he, however reluctantly, determined to
purchase the crown of Scotland, on the rigorous terms proposed, at what-
ever price these terms might be estimated in foro conscientiæ. Thus he
engaged to the Scotch Commissioners, at Breda, "to remove from his
counsels all who stood excommunicated by the Kirk, that he would
take the National Covenant, and Solemn League and Covenant, and
prosecute the ends thereof," &c.
On these conditions Charles Stuart landed in Scotland, June 23, 1650,
in quest of a crown; or, like Saul, "to seek his father's asses," according
1658-9.]
373
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
of this person, nor has not had these four or five years. I
would have you release him upon security, and his own
honour.
to the remark of a sarcastic republican. "There had been debates on
the passage," says Crookshank, "concerning the King's taking the
covenants, to which he seemed refractory; however, at last he declared
his willingness," and proceeded to make the required subscription;
having first uttered before the Commissioners the following oath :-
"I, Charles, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, do assure
and declare, by my solemn oath, in the presence of the Almighty God,
the searcher of hearts, my allowance and approbation of the National
Covenant, and of the Solemn League and Covenant, above-written;
and faithfully oblige myself to prosecute the ends thereof, in my station
and calling; and that I shall observe them in my own practice and
family, and shall never make opposition to any of these, or endeavour
any change thereof.”
This was followed by "a most remarkable declaration from Dum-
fermling, August 16, 1650;" in which, though His Majesty, as a
dutiful son, be obliged to honour the person of his royal father, and have
in estimation the person of his mother, yet doth he desire to be deeply
humbled before God, because of his father's hearkening to, and following
evil counsels, and his opposition to the work of reformation, and to the
Solemn League and Covenant, and for the idolatry of his mother; the
toleration of which in the King's House could not but be a high provo-
cation to him who is a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers
upon the children." Further," His Majesty, doth profess and declare,
that he will have no enemies but the enemies of the Covenant; and no
friends, but the friends of the Covenant."
Crookshank adds: "When the Rev. Mr. Gillespie put the pen into
this Prince's hand, to subscribe the declaration, he told him,' that if he
was not satisfied, in his soul and conscience, beyond all hesitation, of the
righteousness of the subscription, he was so far from over-driving him to
run upon that for which he had no light, that he obtested him,—yea,
charged him in his Master's name,-not to subscribe that Declaration ;
no, not for the three kingdoms! To which the King answered:
Mr. Gillespie, Mr. Gillespie, I am satisfied, and therefore will sub-
scribe it.' The truth is, Charles could swallow any thing." See "The
History of the Church of Scotland,” (1749,) i. 39–41.
was very
"The King," says Bishop Burnet, (on the Declaration,)
uneasy when this was brought to him. He said, he could never look
his mother in the face if he passed it. But when he was told it was ne-
cessary for his affairs, he resolved to swallow the pill without farther
chewing it. So it was published, but had no good effect; for neither
side believed him sincere in it." Own Time (1724), i. 57.
It is related by this eye and
ear-witness, that "the King wrought
374
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Solicitor-general. I think when that noble Lord
says he will engage himself, it is more than 20,0007. I am
ready to take that noble lord's engagement, that he shall be
answerable to justice, rather than any thing else that is offered.
himself into as grave a deportment as he could. He heard many
prayers and sermons, some of great length. I remember," says the
Bishop, "in one fast-day, there were six sermons preached without
intermission. I was there myself, and not a little weary of so tedious
a service. The King was not allowed so much as to walk abroad on
Sundays; and if at any time there had been any gaiety at Court, such
as dancing or playing at cards, he was severely reproved for it."
Ibid. p. 53.
Charles Stuart had not long to "dwell in decencies," before it was
determined to dignify his brows with the crown of Scotland; being
(according to the Tabula Regum Scotia Chronologia) her 110th King,
from Fergus I., contemporary of Alexander the Great; and he proved
the last king which Scotland welcomed, till the late visit from
George IV.
Charles arrived at Scone January 1, 1650-1; "being placed in a chair,
under a cloth of state," in the hall of the palace, he was addressed
by the Chancellor, and intreated to accept the Crown, on the condition
of defending the "rights and liberties" of the people. Having made
a pious and satisfactory reply, the nobles, &c. " accompanied his
Majesty to the Kirk of Scone." Here I must leave Charles Stuart,
to endure a penance of some hours' continuance, and could almost com-
"most
passionate the young royal libertine, thus enforced to act a
religious king," seated in "the throne or chair of state, set in a fitting
Place for his Majesty's hearing of sermon, over against the minister."
See The Forme and Order of the Coronation of Charles II., as it was
acted and done at Scoone, January 1, 1651. Aberdeene. Imprinted
by James Brown, 1651;" Phenix (1707), i. 232—270.
C
Regal power, dead and dethroned in England," was now described
as reviving
"In Scotland, where they seem to love the lad,
If he'll be more obsequious than his dad."
The satirist proceeds to unmask the royal Covenanter.
"But wants he King-craft, to create a plot
To undermine the sycophantic Scot?
No; he'll a Presbyterian brother be
And vow to ratify their hierarchy:
The sins of his Father's House he will bewail,
Mourn and lament under a Scottish veil ;
But this religious mock, we all shall see,
Will soon the downfal of their Babel be."
1658-9.]
375
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Attorney-general agreed with the last motion.
Mr. Disbrowe. I move that the question be put, if the
question shall be put.
Colonel Whitehead. If I saw all persons in his condi-
tion in prison, I should take more notice of it; but when
I see Papists in arms, as Colonel Touchett here, at your
bar,* and divers other persons in Westminster Hall walking
at liberty,† I think what is now offered to you is not against
your justice, nor unreasonable.
Mr. Attorney-general. I move to have added, "the ene-
mies of the Protector of this Commonwealth."
Lord Fairfax. When I engage my estate, I know what
I do; but when I engage his honour, I engage what is not
in my power.
Mr. Serjeant Seys. You ought first, to enquire into the
causes of his imprisonment. It may be, you will not require
so great a security of him.
Colonel Fothergil. I second that motion, and to have
a Committee appointed to attend the Council, to know the
cause of his imprisonment. It may be less then delinquency.
Resolved, that George Duke of Buckingham, now a pri-
soner at Windsor Castle, upon his engagement upon his
honour at the bar of this House, and upon the engagement
of the Lord Fairfax in 20,000l. that the said Duke shall
peaceably demean himself for the future, and shall not join
with or abet, or have any correspondence with any of the
enemies of the Lord Protector, and of this Commonwealth, in
any the parts beyond the seas, or within this Commonwealth;
shall be discharged of his imprisonment and restraint; and
that the Governor of Windsor Castle be required to bring the
Duke of Buckingham to the bar of this House, on Wednes-
day next, to engage his honour accordingly.
See supra, pp. 246, 249, note.
+ See the Orders, 1690, vol. ii. p. 438, note §.
+
† “Agreed at length; but not without opposition, even almost to a
sense of ingratitude towards the merits of so noble a petitioner." God-
dard MS., p. 195. Perhaps the " noble petitioner" so soon to appear in
the no longer hopeless cause of Charles Stuart, was already suspected.
376
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Ordered, that the security of 20,000l. to be given by the
Lord Fairfax, on the behalf of the Duke of Buckingham, be
taken in the name of his Highness the Lord Protector.*
The order of the day was read, and it was that an account
be given touching the war between Denmark and Sweden.
Mr. Secretary. I am here, by order of his Highness, ready
to give you that account; and to ripen it, we must look a little
back, to the beginning of those troubles, to see where we now
are.
•
It is not amiss, to speak a little in general. 1. Of the
parts, princes, and states engaged in that war; and 2. Where
the seat of that war is.
You know, the war in those parts first began between Swe-
den and Poland,† afterwards between Sweden and Denmark ;‡
those are the principal parties, but others have since fallen
in, by way of aid. Poland is aided by the German Empire,
Denmark by Brandenburgh ;§ and the States General at sea.
Sweden is alone. All these against him, and he against all these.
The seat of the war between Poland and Sweden is Prus-
sia, where are Marienburg, Dantzic, and many other great
cities, where the English have had trade. The seat of the
other war is Denmark, Zealand, and the territories of the
Danish king. There are two sects in Denmark,|| Holstein
* See Journals.
+ In 1655.
§ See, on
See vol. ii. p. 359, note *.
"the Duke of Brandenburgh," Ibid. p. 356, note †.
| Lord Molesworth found in Denmark, "no other religion professed
than the Lutheran, except the little reformed French church at Copen-
hagen, set up by the Queen, and one Popish chapel, at Glucstadt, per-
mitted about ten years ago to a few Popish families in those parts, the
first since the Reformation."
His Lordship adds, that "the Calvinist is hated by the priests
as much as the Papist; and the reason they give is, because he is
against absolute monarchy, and has a resisting principle." See "An
Account of Denmark, as it was in 1692," (1738,) pp. 159–161.
Of these Danish priests, Lord Molesworth says (on the Revolution
1660, in favour of the Crown). "The Clergy, who always make sure
bargains, were the only gainers in this point; and are still much
encouraged by the court, as the instruments that first promoted, and
1658-9.]
377
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
and Jutland, and considerable sects on the Baltic Sea, by
which it will appear that the interest of this nation seems very
much concerned in the success of this war. I shall go by steps
in it :
1. Whilst the war was only between Sweden and Poland,
there were great hopes that the Swede might have carried on
his arms against the Emperor, and the Protestant cause have
been thereby much advanced. The success of the Swede in
Poland at first gave hopes of this.*
2. The Emperor, then King of Hungary,† sent an army
against the Swede in aid of the Pole, which gave Sweden a
good ground of war.
3. There was thus a great engagement upon the Protestant
party to have assisted this war, and there were great hopes
that they would have joined against the Emperor.
+
+
4. The Duke of Holstein and the Prince of Transylvania,
Protestants and Calvinists, joined with the Swede. He had
our good wishes in it. We assisted to our power, and the
Protector's interest was engaged.
It is true a treaty with the States General did not succeed.
They apprehended jealousies of that work, and of the growing
greatness of the King of Sweden, and sent forty sail of ships
against the Swede to strengthen Dantzic. The general of
now keep the people in a due temper of slavery; the passive obedience
principle riding triumphant in this unhappy kingdom. To the people
remained the glory of having forged their own chains, and the advantage
of obeying without reserve; a happiness which, I suppose, no English-
man will ever envy them."-Ibid. p. 47.
*
"His progress at first surprized not only Poland, but alarmed all
Europe; for in three months' time he had taken all Prussia, except
Dantzic, a great part of Lithuania, the cities of Warsaw, Cracow, and
other places in the Greater and Lesser Poland. But his career of pros-
perity did not long continue. The first consternation being over, the
Poles were as ready to fall from him, as they had been to embrace his
party." See "An Account of Sweden," as it was in 1688, annexed
to Lord Molesworth's "Account of Denmark," (1738,) pp. 286, 287.
† See vol. ii. pp. 355, 356.
The Lutherans were now generally denominated Protestants, and
the Calvinists, Reformed; in France, "Ceux de la religion pretenduë
Reformée."
378
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
that fleet was to make a treaty of peace between the Swede
and Denmark, in which their interest of trade might be se-
cured; but that peace was never ratified.* Afterwards, a
renewing the league was projected on all hands; but, in fine,
it was concluded only between the Dane and Holland, in
order to a former league made in 49.
This league changed the state of affairs, and brought the
war upon a new footing. Here was a total embroiling of the
Protestant party. The wars by this means were drawn out
of the bowels of the Romish party into the bowels of the Pro-
testant, between the Dutch and Sweden. Thus the seat of
war was diverted. The Dutch were engaged against the
Swede, and the Elector of Brandenburgh drawn in to that side.
His Highness, the late Protector, according to that manner
by which he guided all his foreign affairs, kept himself indif-
ferent and equal between his Protestant friends, as an arbi-
trator. He sent messengers to offer his mediation, in making
peace between them. He sent, also, to the United Provinces
to dispose them to fall in with our neighbours upon the
like occasion, but it did not succeed.
It being more happy for a successful prince to turn his
arms into the right channel, than to employ them against
friends, to their own destruction, the two kings accepted the
mediation. After six months there was a peace concluded, in
February 57; so that war was then seemingly ended: the
Swede having the advantage. But that war, whilst it lasted,
discomposed affairs so much, as they could never be composed
again.
The peace thus made did not last. There fell out other
difficulties, and another division. The Prince of Transylvania
was forced to quit his interest with the Swede, and is since
made useless.
The Elector of Brandenburgh was disposed first to a
* Quitting Poland, “Charles Gustavus soon hastened to Denmark,
which he soon reduced to the necessity of buying peace at the price of
the provinces of Schoven, Halland, and Bleaking." The war " broke
out again in a few months." See "Account of Denmark,” p. 287.
1658-9.]
379
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
neutrality, and is since engaged farther with the Emperor.
His Highness sent to him, to advise in this affair, and for a
time suspended his resolution; and he sent ambassadors to the
Swede, to prosecute a league, but they returned re infectâ.
Then they made a league, offensive and defensive, with the
Emperor.
Besides all this, new differences did arise between the Dane
and the Swede, about the peace made in February 57; and
in August last, a new war broke out between these two kings.
I do not yet know the justice nor the grounds of it, but all
their neighbours found themselves concerned in this difference,
and, as their interest served, did mingle themselves with the
interest on one side or other.
The Emperor, Brandenburgh, and the Pole, joined their
forces, and marched to the assistance of the Dane into Hol-
stein and Jutland; all commanded by Brandenburgh as ge-
neral.
The Emperor had 8000 foot, and 4000 horse. Branden-
burgh *foot, and 6000 horse.
They marched to the coast of the Baltic Sea, to be trans-
ported for Zealand, to raise the siege before Copenhagen,
retake Cronenburgh Castle, which commanded Copenhagen,
and recover what was lost there.
The States-general, they thought themselves bound, and
according to their treaty, sent aid to the King of Denmark.
There were thirty or forty men of war, with all manner of
provision, besides 4000 foot, with directions to relieve Copen-
hagen, to favour the transporting of Brandenburgh, and to
fight the Swede's fleet, which was all done accordingly. The
Dutch fleet also engaged in the Sound. I shall not mention
what happened between the fleets.
* Blank in the MS.
r¢
†“The passage or strait called the Sound or Ore-Sound, which has
so great a reputation in the northern parts of the world, lies between
the island of Zealand, and the firm land of Schonen. On Denmark
side, where it is narrowest, stands the town of Elsinore, and the strong
fortress of Cronenburgh, near which is a tolerable good road for ships.
380
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
This was the state of things in October last. His High-
ness, that now is, took these considerations:--
1. The continuance of a war in these parts would infinitely
hinder our trade, and be of very great prejudice to this nation;
many of our manufactures being transported and vended thi-
ther, and many of our materials for shipping and navigation.
being carried from thence, hither.
2. Considering what the issue of this war might be, that
the Sound was likely to be put into the hands of those that
would exclude the English, or put us in such a condition, as
we should be as bad as excluded; the consequence of which
would be the ruin of our shipping; hemp, pitch, tar, cordage
and mast, coming all from thence, and an obstruction there,
would endanger our safety.
We had experience of this in our war with the Dutch,*
On Sweden side is the town of Helsinburgh, with a demolished castle ;
whereof only one old tower remains, sufficient to hold half a dozen
great guns, to repay the salutes of men of war which pass through.
"Betwixt these two do pass and repass all vessels that trade into the
Baltic; so that next that of Gibraltar, one may justly reckon this
a strait the most important and frequented of any in Europe. The loss
of Schonen, though it was considerable in regard of the largeness and
fruitfulness of the province, yet it was more so in regard to the do-
minion of this great passage." See " Denmark, in 1692," p. 11.
* Hostilities began, August 16, 1652, by an engagement in the Downs
between Van Tromp and Blake. See Ludlow, i. 404-406. This had
been preceded by "the English Parliament's Manifesto, July 31."
Among other causes of quarrel, are charged "the cruelties committed
upon the English at Amboyna, for which not the least satisfaction has
hitherto been given, though often demanded."
This was followed, "August 2," by "the Manifesto of the States
General," imputing “unjust and violent proceedings” to “the present
Governors of England ;" but not a word of Amboyna. Then appeared,
"Dec. 5, A Placaert, forbidding all commerce with England." See
"A General Collection of Treaties," (1632,) iii. 36—67.
During this contest between the rival republics, appeared the follow-
ing nationality, quite in the spirit of an age which presumed with re-
markable confidence, as if in the cabinet-council of Heaven, to interpret
the sovereign dispensations of Divine Providence :—
"Nov. 17, 1653. This day came letters from Holland, confirming
the former relation, that whereas the Dutch having now brought home
1658-9.]
381
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
when the Dane did prohibit our access thither, which put us
to great distress, having none of those commodities, but what
came from our enemies at double rates.
their Eastland ships, had determined to make themselves lords of the
narrow seas, and to have blocked up our harbours; and for that purpose
had their fleet ready, with full hopes of effecting their design. The
Lord was pleased, by a violent tempest on the fourth of this month, to
scatter them before the Texel, so as divers of their ships were driven to
sea, whereof no account is yet given; about fourteen or fifteen of them
were sunk and cast away, and the rest miserably scattered, their masts
cut by the board, and some of their rudders lost, so as they are not in
a condition to do any thing this winter; and they have been enforced
to discharge their men who remain, a great number of them being also
cast away in their ships; and besides all this, they have sustained no
small loss by the breaking in of the water over their banks; upon which
occasion these verses were written, viz. :-
(C
"Carmen Duodechastichon.
"Væ vobis Belgæ, si contrà militat æther,
Angligenumque Deus, ventus et oceanus.
Quid stratagema valet? Quid gens? Quid bellica classis?
Si contra Christum, Christicolumque gregem.
Ah, revocate gradum Batavi! desistite bello,
Angliades non sunt Gens inimica togæ.
Pro Christo pugnant, ut Christus monte Sionis
Regnet apud Gentes, et ruat urbs Babylon.
Pandite tunc oculos Belgæ, vestigia cœli
Cernite, sit Castris pax pietasque redux.
Ne Deus Omnipotens vobis malefacta rependat,
Et pereat refragis, spesque salusque Poli.
See "Several
Augustinus Wingfieldus, Parliamenti Membrum.”
Proceedings of Parliament, licensed and entered according to the late
Act for Printing. Printed by John Field, 1653." pp. 234–236.
Augustine Wingfield was one of the three representatives for Mid-
dlesex, in 1653. I have so much respect for my native county, as to
attempt the presentation of her quondam M. P.'s Carmen Duodechasti-
con, in an English dress, not quite so unbecoming as the made English
in which it first appeared.
Woe to the Belgians! leagued against them see
Ocean and air, and England's Deity.
Their stratagems, their martial navies fail;
Christ and his flock-o'er these no hosts prevail.
Ah, cease Batavians! from the contest cease
With Albion's sons, no foes to arts of peace.
382
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
3. His Highness considered that the Emperor was likely to
arrive at the design of the House of Austria, to command the
Baltic, and the eastern seas, as the Spaniard already hath the
command of the western seas. Thus, they would command
all the trade of the world. Of this the Dutch were so sensible
before, as they engaged the Swede to come to hinder the pro-
gress of the Emperor, who is now fairer in hopes of it than
ever he was in the world, they having greater possession there.
than formerly, as two or three principal places in Holstein,
by the delivery of Denmark, are already garrisoned by the
Emperor's forces.
And I think the King of Denmark is in more danger from
those that are allied with him, than from his open enemies.
4. He considered that when the Emperor had done his bu
siness there, he and his confederates would next pour them-
selves into Flanders, and from thence hither into this Com-
monwealth, where they intend to bring in another government,
when they are ready for it. Such counsels, we know, are on
foot, de facto, already.
5. The great danger of overthrowing the Protestant in-
terest, in general, which we have so much reason to preserve
and promote.
His Highness, considering these mischiefs, thought himself
concerned to obviate them as far as he could. We are yet in
friendship with all these princes, and have no enmity with
the Emperor; nor would his Highness have it otherwise.
He therefore thought fit to interpose upon the account of
amity.
You should make it your first step to endeavour to recon-
cile those two fighting kings, thinking it to be our interest
rather to preserve both, than to suffer either to be destroyed;
and that France and you would join to take off the Dutch
For Christ they combat, till he reign o'er all
On Sion's mount, and Babel's turrets fall.
Yes, Belgians! Heaven's high providence discern,
And quick to peace and piety return,
Or ere the Almighty's well-earn'd wrath ye prove,
And perish, hopeless of the bliss above.
1658-9.]
383
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
and Brandenburgh, and if possible to reconcile the Pole and
Sweden.
To promote the success of this mediation, and bring all
parties to a reconciliation, not excluding the House of Aus-
tria, too, his Highness thought fit and meet to send a fleet
into those parts of twenty ships, to the intent to make a peace
between the two kings, and of this he acquainted the States
General.
The Dutch sent twelve sail of ships, and 4000 men, to the
Dane. His Highness desired them not to send farther suc-
cours. They said they desired to reconcile the two kings,
and declared that it was not to engage in hostility with
Sweden; but for the assistance of their ally, the King of
Denmark. Whereupon they unshipped their men.
It is true, our fleet did not proceed by reason of the un-
seasonable frost, but they had this advantage, as that things
do stand now as fairly as they stood in October last. Thus
far as to what is past. Now as to what is before
you.
Spring is a time of action. There are great preparations
for it on all hands. The States General endeavour a peace,
but think it not safe to trust the success to a treaty barely,
but will have a good navy to attend it. They have, therefore,
resolved to set forth one hundred sail of men-of-war, besides
the continuation of thirty ships in the Sound, already, with
Opdam.
to
They have capital ships, fifty-eight* more, from forty guns
+ twenty frigates, ten fire-ships, as many advisers.
Upon these ships they have, or intend to ship 18,000 men.
They are building of eighteen ships more, and three of
one hundred and thirty feet long, all which will be ready in
a short time. They carry 4000 foot soldiers more, to the
assistance of the King of Denmark, besides furnishing fifteen
or sixteen ships of the King of Denmark's own, which are
very strong.
"Here was a particular how every ship was raised, and how many
every city sent forth. Rotterdam 13, Amsterdam 18, Holland 14,
Friesland 13."
† Blank in the MS.
MS.
384
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
So as, the truth is, the Dutch manage this business with
a great deal of vigour and resolution, laying great taxes for
the carrying on this work, which they never do but upon
great concernments for the country.
His Highness, in these affairs, thinks our concernment as
great as the Dutch, and that the same reasons hold in every
thing with us; our nation being, indeed, as much or more
concerned in that business than theirs; for they are upon the
continent, and we, an island.
He, therefore, thinks, that unless he hath considerable.
fleets, as well as the Dutch, his bare interposition as to peace,
will signify little or nothing.
When neighbours do prepare in such extraordinary ways
and proportions, we, in prudence, must do so too.
Therefore, in order to that, and to keep peace between our
neighbours, his Highness hath thought fit to prepare ships, in
order to these affairs and emergencies. The preparation is
well onward, only he thought it fit and necessary that this
House should be acquainted with it, that we, knowing of it,
may advise as we shall think fit in this case.*
Altum silentium for a good while.
Sir Henry Vane. Upon this great and weighty infor-
mation, the consequence is much to be thought upon in
your wisdom. I desire in one particular a little farther
light, it having been but shortly touched upon, and it would
According to the order of this House, made on Thursday last,
Mr. Secretary Thurloe made a narrative, and gave the House an ac-
count of the state of the war, and of the affairs of the Kings of Sweden
and Denmark, in relation to the Baltic Sea, and to the command of the
Sound; and how far, and in what manner, as well his late Highness
the Lord Protector deceased, as also his now Highness the Lord Pro-
tector, had severally interested themselves in their respective differ-
ences, by way of mediation. He farther gave the House an account of
the shipping and forces of the States General of the United Provinces
now in the Sound; and what farther preparations, as he is informed,
they are now making; and that his now Highness and his Council had
directed such shipping and forces to be prepared here, as he apprehends
may be for the security of this Commonwealth in these times of so great
action." Journals.
1658-9.]
385
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
give much satisfaction, in reference to what is to be thought
upon by the House. That is, concerning the second war,
which the Swede entered upon with the Dane after the
mediation. We understand not where the fault of that breach
lay, which began that second war. I would that we under-
stood how the peace came so suddenly to be broken off,
and Copenhagen besieged.*
Mr. Secretary.
I did omit to say somewhat, which if
I had said, this noble person would have had no reason to
ask for that satisfaction.
What the ground of raising that second war was, I am not
well able to state; for though we have heard what they have
both said, yet his Highness is still in the dark. But, as to
the matter in hand, his meaning is, not to espouse either
interest in the quarrel, just or not just, or to meddle with the
state of that war, in which we have no concern, but only
in relation to the good of this nation and of our trade.
His Highness thinks himself concerned to look to the state
and interest of ourselves, and that we should not stand still
to look on, while two princes are thus fighting, and drawing
on the engagement of all their neighbours on either hand.
Mr. Trevor. The considerations of war and peace are fit
considerations for this House. I think there will be little
debate of what has been in his Highness's thoughts, to make
that preparation. I hope nobody will except against that.
And if you shall desire his Highness to take care of the
interest of the nation in this affair, in this great juncture,
it will be but what it is fit for you to do. I move that
it be referred to his Highness.
Mr. Noell. It is not the interest of states to look into
the cause of war, but their own concern in it. I can say
nothing in this case as to matter of state. I can only speak
to matter of fact.
* In the summer of 1658," The King of Sweden unexpectedly
landed an army in Zealand, where he took the castle of Cronenburgh,
at the entrance of the Sound; but had not the like success at Co-
penhagen, which was besieged and stormed in vain." See "Sweden in
1688," p. 287.
VOL. III.
2 c
386
FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
\
I think the interest of the nation was never more con-
cerned than now. All the Protestant interest here, all the
Protestant interest in the world, lies now at stake. If Sweden
were now overrun, you might then as well conclude all the
Protestants shall be overrun; and when you are not able to
protect them, I doubt their interest will be very low.
But I shall only speak to trade. If the interest of trade
come into the hands of those that bid fair for it; if they get
it, you need build no ships. If the power of the Sound
were once in the hands of those that now look for it, that is,
the Dutch, you will be so far from protecting your mer-
chants, that they will serve you as we served the King of
France in Queen Elizabeth's time. We forbade him to
build ships in his harbours, because we would take care
to keep the seas ourselves.*
They have already forbid us going into Bantam,† because
they say it is an enemy to them; and in time we shall not
be able to trade, especially there. Nay, they will forbid all
the trade of England.
I know not what you can do for timber, for ammunition,
for ships, and for other common uses, if you shall be forbid
that trade. When the war between you and Holland was,
you were kept from that. You shall have but what they
will give you.
+
Consider generally what you will do in it. I know what
will be the consequence of it, as well as I know the sun is in
the meridian. I have no end in it. A day, an hour, is
precious in a matter of this nature. It will be that which
will strengthen you, and make you considerable in the
world. Put it into such hands as will answer your ends.
I move to have the management of this business com-
mitted to the Protector.
* I cannot find in Camden, or elsewhere, the historical authority for
this extraordinary prohibition.
"A seaport town on the north-west part of the Island of Java,
trading with merchants of all nations, before the Dutch obtained
the exclusive trade." Crutwell.
Through the Sound.
1658-9.]
387
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
curate.
Mr. Neville. The account is very satisfactory and ac-
Here hath been something offered of interest of
state, of trade, and of religion. For this last it is certain,
that the Protestant cause or the Protestant religion are
different things. When a war is begun upon account that
the Protestant religion is in persecution, as in France and
Spain formerly, there is a great concernment, and it ought
to move us before all things else. There is no such war now,
as I take it.
But I call that a Protestant interest or cause, when several
particulars agree and league together for maintaining their
respective dominions.
As to this quarrel, I can see nothing of religion or
Protestant religion. There are Calvinists and Lutherans
on both sides. Brandenburgh, Holland, Denmark, are all
Protestants; and as good, if not better than the Swede;*
* The Dutch were certainly more tolerant. See vol. i. p. 100, note.
In Sweden, during this seventeenth century, " A Committee chosen out
of the several bodies of the estates, spent some years" in revising "the
ancient ecclesiastical laws and canons." The following new canons"
enforced by royal authority, were among the precious results of their
pious and learned lucubrations:-
"If any Swedish subject change his religion, he shall be banished the
kingdom, and lose all right of inheritance, both for himself and his de-
scendants.
“If any continue excommunicated above a year, he shall be impri-
soned a month with bread and water, and then banished.
"If any bring into the country teachers of another religion, he shall
be fined and banished.
Foreign ministers shall enjoy the free exercise of their religion, only
for themselves and families.
CC
Strangers of a different religion shall have no public exercise of it ;
and their children shall be baptized by Lutheran ministers, and educated
in that religion; otherwise they shall not have the privileges of Swęd-
ish subjects." See "Sweden in 1688,” pp. 228, 229.
The Long Parliament, in 1642, had betrayed an intolerance quite
in the spirit of the latter canon. See vol. ii. p. 151, note. Charles I.
in one of his last communications to the Parliament, (October 1648,)
proposed to sanction their Protestant partiality and injustice, by con-
202
388
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
and therefore I cannot see how the Protestant religion is
particularly concerned in this.
England, indeed, cannot subsist without trade, and interests
of state may, peradventure, far engage us. I know not how
it comes, unless it is because of your interest against Spain,
that the Emperor is in alliance with Spain. It is told you,
the interest of the Baltic Sea is material to your trade.
Therefore, our question will be:-
How far forth our engaging now, by intermeddling with
the business of the Sound, can advance our interest, either
for the strength or for the trade of this nation? And it
seems to me to be for our service to preserve it in Denmark's
hands, where it hath been this long time; your friend's,
whose right it is, and where it was and will be well enough,
if we please ourselves. The King of Denmark hath but the
door into the Sound. But what if we should help to put it
into the hands of Sweden, that hath both the door and
house too? Consider whether thus to trust them be for
your service.
Your recommending it, may include peace or war; to de-
cree which is our work. The management, indeed, may be
elsewhere, but we must well consider the inconveniences we
may be engaged in, if we undertake a war, and therefore you
must resolve what you mean to do by setting forth our ships.
It is one thing to maintain a fleet at home, another thing to
maintain a war abroad. Contending for that trade, we are
like two rivals, that go a wooing to one woman.
It grieves my heart to think what hath been the event of
the breaking of the peace with Spain.* We had a war with
senting" to Acts for the better discovery and conviction of Popish re-
cusants, and education of their children in the Protestant religion."
Whitlock, p. 340.
CC
* See supru, p. 314, note*. By Cromwell's war with Spain," says
Coke," the Dutch, who, since the peace of Munster, 1648, became com-
petitors with the English in the Spanish trade, are now sole proprietors
of it, as much to their enriching, as our impoverishing." Detection,
(1697,) p. 387.
"Cromwell joined with France against Spain," says Lord Boling-
1658-9.]
389
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Holland. I am ashamed to say upon what terms the peace
was made.
broke, " and though he got Jamaica and Dunkirk, he drove the Span-
iards into a necessity of making a peace with France, that has disturbed
the peace of the world almost fourscore years, and the consequences of
which have well nigh beggared in our times, the nation he enslaved in
his. There is a tradition, I have heard it from persons who lived in
those days, and I believe it came from Thurloe, that Cromwell was in
treaty with Spain, and ready to turn his arms against France when he
died. If this fact was certain, as little as I honour his memory, I should
have some regret that he died so soon." See "Letters on the Study
and Use of History," written in 1735, (1752,) i. 258, 259.
Dr. Harris has adduced the principal authorities on the merits of the
Protector's foreign policy. See Lives, (1814,) iii. 362–377.
To justify the war with Spain, Milton wrote, officially, a Latin mani-
festo, which has been translated. See "Critical Life of Oliver Crom-
well,” (1747,) pp. 200—203.
A biographer of the French minister thus describes how Mazarine, in
1654, had seriously apprehended, and laboured to interrupt, the relations
of amity between Spain and England:
"Les pratiques des Espagnols en Angleterre luy tenoient fort au
cœur, voiant qu'ils faisoient tout ce qui leur estoit possible, pour em-
barquer le Protecteur Cromüel dans une ligue offensive et defensive
avec eux.
"Il s'agissoit donc seulement de tourner les Anglois contre l'Espagne;
en leur faisant des offres plus avantageuses, que n'estoient celles par où
les Espagnols pretendoient les tourner contre la France. La chose
n'estoit pas sans difficulté, car les Anglois et les François ont de tout
tems de l'antipathie les uns pour les autres, et les derniers démelez
qu'ils venoient d'avoir, sembloient l'avoir accruë. D'ailleurs le Protec-
teur estoit un homme plein de luy-même, infiniment ambitieux, et qui
vouloit se signaler par quelque chose d'éclatant: et par cette raison il ne
falloit pas que les offres qu'on luy feroit fussent au dessous de sa vanité
ny moindres que ses vastes pretensions.
CC
Après avoir examiné toutes ces choses, le Cardinal donna ses in-
structions au President de Bourdeaux, Ambassadeur de France à Lon-
dres.
“Il fut receu tres-honnorablement du Protecteur, avec lequel il
entreprit une tres-importante negotiation. C'estoit celle d'une ligue
offensive et defensive entre la France et la Grand-Bretagne, dans le
temps que les Espagnols s'efforçoient d'en arrester une semblable entre
le Roy Catholique et le Protecteur. Dom Alonso de Cardenas estant
venu pour ce sujet à Londres comme Ambassadeur Extraordinaire, et le
Marquis de Leide après luy. On verra dans la suite comment le Car-
390
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I cannot give a rational account of it, unless it were to es-
tablish the Government over us, which was set after on foot,
so that England was conquered, instead of conquering Holland.
For if the Hollander had come into conditions with us, as
was fairly offered,* that Government would never have ex-
pected any place in this nation: but the abrupt war with
dinal Mazarin rompit toutes les mesures des Espagnols en cette affaire,
pour mettre, comme il fit, les Anglois de son costé ; et ce fut un des
coups les plus merveilleux de sa politique." See "Histoire du Minis-
tère du Cardinal Mazarin," (1672,) ii. 170, 172, 173, 290, 291.
ap-
"Mazarine, a man of large and subtle wit," says Mr. Bethel, "
prehending the greatness of England at that time, which was then
dreadful to the world, and the vast advantages France would have, in
pulling down, by their help, of Spain, granted him not only any thing
for the present that he demanded, but disregarded also even his parties
making their boasts of the awe he had him under. And though nothing
is more ordinary than to hear men brag how Oliver vapoured over
France, I do esteem Mazarine's complying with him, for his own ends,
to be the chief piece of all his ministry." World's Mistake, p. 42.
“Mazarine was too wise not to know what he did," says Charles
Davenant," and not to see that no punctilio of honour was to come in
competition with so great a benefit as the ruin of the Spanish monarchy
would produce to France. He suffered Cromwell to enjoy the empty
glory, while he reaped the solid profit; and perhaps it may be reckoned
the master-stroke of all his ministry; for like the lion he crouched, but
it was to leap more conveniently upon his prey." Essays, (1701,) p. 17.
* See supra, pp. 111, 112. "Cromwell not only remitted," says Coke,
"the 300,000l., which the Dutch proffered the Rump, for the damages
the English sustained by the war, (see Stubbe, p. 112,) but left out the
coalition, the revenue to be annually paid to the English for liberty to
fish in the British seas, the sovereignty of the seas, except the flag, se-
curity from the Dutch not to molest the English in time to come, and
to have their ships searched in passing through the British seas, and
not to set out any greater than such a number of ships of war, without
giving an account to the English State of the reason, and also that the
English should have a free trade up the Scheld." Detection, (1697,)
p. 383.
While this peace dissatisfied the English, especially the republicans,
as disadvantageous, it was disapproved by the Continental powers on a
very different account. "Elle allarme les Couronnes," says the bio-
grapher I have just now quoted.
"Cette paix ne plût pas aux François, et moins encore aux Espag-
1658-9.]
391
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Spain, and the dishonourable peace with the Dutch,* gave
opportunity to what after followed. I am afraid, if you en-
gage now against Holland, they will be too hard for you.
We are exhausted for money It is not for a hierarchy to
maintain that war.
If we put the Sound into the Swede's hand, we must, for
ever after, trade but at his courtesy; for he will have not
only all the dominion of the Sound, but all the Baltic in his
own hands, and the territories adjoining to it in his power.
Thus Sweden is able to maintain that trade himself. Den-
mark is not able to maintain that trade himself. I know not
that it is fit to trust Sweden with it. Why may we not as-
sist Denmark?
I suppose the danger from the Emperor is not considerable.
He is not like to sit down by the Sound. His dominions lie far
off. He hath enough to do to defend himself against the Turk;
and though he hath sent forces into Flanders, yet I presume
you may have terms of security, at least of neutrality from him.
Besides all this, I apprehend it will be no easy matter to
get monies to carry on this war. I would have it our first
nols: car il estoit de l'interest des deux Couronnes, que ces deux repub-
liques, qui leur estoient contraires et de maximes, et de mœurs, et de re-
ligion, et qui faisoient tous leurs efforts pour leur nuire en toutes ren-
contres, ne vinssent pas ainsi à se fortifier en s'unissant." Ministère du
Mazarin, ii. 285.
* Concluded" at Westminster, April 5, 1654," The 30th Article
provides, "that Commissioners shall be named on both sides, to exa-
mine and distinguish all those losses and injuries, in the year 1611; and
after, to the 18th of May 1652, according to the English style, as well
in the East Indies, as in Greenland, Muscovy, Brazil, or wherever else
either party complains of having suffered them from the other.”
Before these Commissioners were exhibited the mutual complaints of
the English and Dutch East India Companies. The former allege, as
their 10th article, "Feb. 20th, 1622. At the same time when the
Dutch Company committed that inhuman massacre of our countrymen
at Amboina, [see supra, p. 380, note * they took away 300,58 reals of
cight from the English. On this account, 36157. was awarded in
various sums to the representatives of the English sufferers. See “A
General Collection of Treaties," (1732,) pp. 67, 78, 123, 124, 134, 135.
See also, Dr. Harris's Lives, (1814,) iii. 354–358.
392
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
business, that by peace we may remain umpire, rather than
engage upon such a hard service in a war. Therefore, I shall
move for a further day to be appointed, that gentlemen may
consider of this; that we bethink ourselves what to offer in
this business; unless you think fit, now, to send ambassadors
for a mediation.
Colonel Birch. I cannot blame those gentlemen that are
unwilling to hear me, knowing my unfitness to contribute to
this great debate.
I must differ from the gentleman that spoke last. The
Protestant cause is deeply concerned in this business, and so
is this Commonwealth in particular. If the Emperor get
footing in the Baltic Sea, it will concern the Protestant cause.
If those conjoined forces should get a footing in those parts,
the King of Spain would have as great a strength in the south
as he hath already in the west.
It will undo us, either to put it off to another day, or to
send an ambassador. The effect is plain, if we engage not in
this way as it is offered.
It will be difficult into what hands to put the Sound. The
King of Denmark-he is so low, and so much in the power of
the Dutch, as that it will not be for your service to put it
into the hands of the Danes. If it be in the hands of him
that hath the door and the house too, that may be dangerous;
but Sweden can never be able to maintain either door or house
without your assistance.
Though it cost you never so dear, I would contribute my
all. This business may beget us a long peace, though a
great charge follow in the settlement. It looks to me like a
way open to a great work. Not that I am for fighting, but
for treating with sword in hand, and to do it upon the place.
Upon the whole, I think it best to refer it wholly to the Pro-
tector back again, to take present care of the Sound, and to
send such force as may enter the Baltic Sea.
Mr. Lloyd. This concerns not only our well-being, but
our very being. But by this care, no materials can you have
for shipping. We are islanders, and our life and soul is
traffic. Your cloth trade will be lost.
1658-9.]
893
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Denmark borrowed not long since a great sum of money
of the Hollanders, and gave them the Sound for security, and
they had it many years. They that know affairs well in
those parts, say they have security of it again.
I will mind you of the business of Amboyna. Nothing
done by treaty.* A sword in your hand makes your treaty
strong. That was the fault of King James.†
Take time by the forelock. A wise man sees things afar
off. This is the spring, defer it not. The Hollanders now
furnish our enemies of Spain with shipping, and better an
open than a close enemy. Our war with Spain has destroyed
all our trade. This we have upon us already. We cannot
long hold in this way.
For my part I would no sooner trust Sweden than the
Dane; but I hope you will secure your own interest. The
Swede cannot keep it without your ships, no more than the
Dane can do without Holland. Make good conditions upon
the place. Trust not compliment. I shall not speak of the
interest of religion; but this nation has ever been looked
upon as the head of the Protestant interest. I would have
you take speedy care of the Sound.
Mr. Scot. You are not yet come to the bellum religionis,
but your cards are ill sorted at present, if it be so. I am sorry
to hear of combinations, against, and amongst Protestants.
Here is one Protestant against two or three, and the Bran-
denburgh is more of that religion than the Swede; though I
like not his company. Therefore it cannot be bellum religio-
sum.
Nor do I understand it to be bellum mercatorium, but
it concerns you to understand where your interest lies.
Whether the King of Sweden, or the House of Austria
have the Sound, it is to me, as to that, indifferent. Our in-
* See supra, p. 391, ad fin. Yet the order for compensation was dated
August 30, 1654.
+ It is uncertain whether this speaker refer to the pusillanimity ge-
nerally discovered by James in his intercourse with foreign states, or
only to his extraordinary conduct in the affair of Amboyna. See Coke's
Detection, (1697,) i. 120, 121; Lord Clarendon's History, (1712,) iii.
489 Dr. Harris's Lives, (1814,) i. 198-201.
i
394
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
terest certainly lies in the Danish hands, which, for aught I
hear, is no more than what the Dutch intend. I am not for
sending ambassadors, neither, without a strength to back
them. Ambassadors, to be waited upon with a good navy,
may do some good; but I think you are not yet so forward,
at least not to put the power of war into any man's hands, or
to recommend it to him.
There is a game, it seems, a playing, and stakes to be kept,
abroad; but we have a game, and of greater concernment to
us, that is now playing at home. The militia at home is first
to be settled. Now you have recommitted it, do it deliberate-
ly, ex consulto. We must not make too many steps at once.
Let us have time to consider what is to be done. I do not
think that resolutions of this nature should be too precipitate.
If it can bear six months, before a Parliament be called, it may
well bear some hours consideration, that we may deliberate.
You should be made somewhat more than purse-bearers, and
to tell the Protector, "If you will make the war, we will find
purses." Henry acquainted the Parliament before war with
France; always before he went to try his title there.
*
Are the Commons so little concerned, as not to have so
much as two of their members of the council ?+
+
I do think this business will at length resolve into a war with
Holland. You know who it was, that, when time was, made
war with Spain, and peace with Holland. How destructive the
peace hath been, lately made, and the war also, you your-
selves can best judge. I am afraid to say it. It is now come
to be your unhappiness, that you must begin that war again,
where it was left by us in 1653. I believe it is an irreconcile-
able quarrel between us. We are rivals for the fairest mistress
in all Christendom, trade. You need not be their enemies,
directly or designedly. They began the quarrel for a flag.§
* See supra, pp. 313, 314, note‡; vol. ii. p. 48, note.
+ They appear to have consisted chiefly of Members of the Other
House. Secretary Thurloe was of course one of them.
See supra, pp. 390, 391.
§ Referring, probably, to the commencement of hostilities in 1652.
See supra, p. 380, note *.
1658-9.1
395
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I am of opinion, that you should make preparations, pre-
viously, in order to that design. If they get the Sound, that
is cause of quarrel. If they get it not, will they lay down
their ships? I think, if peace be made with Sweden, they will
turn upon you, and never leave you until they be masters
over you.
I would have you not to delay for a minute, but command
the Commissioners of the Army and Navy to go forward
vigorously with the business, as it doth by your direction;
but leave not any body to sweep the stakes. Keep yourself
in your chair as long as you can, and be you yourself the
great disposer of peace and war. This will otherwise de-
termine the dispute of the militia.
Mr. Knightley. What necessity requires, must be done.
What honour and safety require, must be done; but, I
doubt, in referring this business to the single person, you de-
termine the controversy. The Dutch are heavy enemies, and
covetous.
I would have it referred back to his Highness and Council
to manage the business, because of secrecy, with a salvo, not
to prejudice us in the great business of the militia; and that it
may not extend to give up the liberties of the people, nor be
brought into precedent to that purpose.
Mr. Bulkeley. I understand not, that by sending this fleet
you are entering into a war; but, because your neighbours
make such transcendant preparations, yours ought to be suit-
able to theirs not to make this or that nation your enemies,
but to be there to make terms for yourselves.
They deserve the esteem and respect of this House, that
have made this preparation. If it were to do now, it would
be too late.
I cannot say that this will at all touch the great dispute
of the militia, which I suppose will mostly be contended for.
I would have it speedily recommended to the care of such
persons as may stand by, and make terms for yourselves. I
question whether it be not prudential to interpose. It is not
a making peace or war, but to assist what is twisted in your
interest.
396
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The Emperor would resign Hungary to have the Baltic,
as more consistent with the interest of the House of Austria.
What Protestant soever joins with Austria, must expect what
Ulysses had from Polyphemus.
I second Mr. Knightley's motion. I would not have the
House caught in any thing.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. This concerns Englishmen's
blood, and Englishmen's flesh and purse. It is offered that
we must send a fleet to stand by, and, if the Dutch fight on
one side to assist Denmark, we must fight on the other
against the Dutch.
We were kept out, when we wanted war, at Jamaica, and
see what became of it. It hath been told us we have not
lost all our men, nor all our money; we have a good tenure
in Flanders. War with Flanders cost 20,000 Englishmen's
blood; more precious, Sir, than many such tenures: nothing
so precious. It is plain you will bring on a war with Hol-
land.
How will your army be paid? Many millions are spent,
and many millions will be required to carry on this business.
If
you engage suddenly in a war with Holland, I think all
England will be lost. When our forces are gone to the
Sound, an army may be landed here, and Charles Stuart *
*On his coronation as King of Scots, were
by I. L. Philalethes," on a single leaf:
CC
Printed, London 1651,
"Old Sayings and Predictions Verified and Fulfilled touching the
young King of Scotland and his gued subjects." (quoted supra, p. 374.)
“Jockie. I, Jockie, turne the stone of all your plots,
For none turne faster than the turne-coat Scots.
"Presbyter. We for our ends did make thee king, be sure,
Not to rule us; we will not that endure.
You deep dissemblers, I know what you doe,
And, for revenge's sake, I will dissemble too."
Then over a characteristic print is the following title:
“ King.
"The Scots holding their young Kinge's Nose to the Grinstone."
Over Jockie, who is turner, are these lines:-
"Come to the grinstone, Charles, 'tis now too late
To recollect 'tis Presbyterian fate."
The Presbyter, bearded, and wearing the cloak and the then fashion-
1658-9.]
897
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
to head them. I would have time to consider of this bu-
siness.
The business of the navy is already under consideration,
and so likewise that of the army beyond the seas. By them
you will understand all things.
Let us not engage too suddenly, before it be well weighed
and considered. I move for a farther time to consider, and
that a business so destructive should not suddenly be resolved
upon.
Colonel White. It was not reported to you by way of a
war, but by way of a wise foresight. The Dutch go not to
fight, but only to mediate for their interest. Why may not
you do so for yours?
I would have you give directions to your Commissioners
of the Army and Navy, to go on with the preparations; but
as to the conduct and management of the design, that may be
a farther consideration.
It is here represented to you as if you had the power of
making peace and war. I would have you name no persons
nor places, but only move that the preparations may go on,
vigorously, in order to your trade in the Baltic Sea.
Colonel Clark. His Highness and his Council gave orders.
to the Commissioners to provide a fleet for such purposes as
they should afterward employ them.
This affair stands you highly upon, to take care of this
great business. What hath been offered, hath been exceed-
ingly well for the occasion. I stand not upon the justice of
able skull-cap, says, by a label proceeding from his mouth, "Stoop,
Charles!" while he holds to a grinstone the face of the royally-robed
youth. Over the King are these lines :-
"You Covinant pretenders, must I bee
The subject of youer Tradgie-Comedie !"
"I will conclude," says I. L. " with an old prophecy of a Jesuit in
Henry VII.'s time, of all the Kings and Queens that should succeed in
England; thus, Mars, Puer, Alecto, Virgo, Vulpes, Leo, Nullus. The
English of it is this: Mars, the god of war, Henry VIII., Puer, a boy,
Edward VI.; Alecto, a fury, Queen Mary; Virgo, a maiden, Queen
Elizabeth; Vulpes, a fox, King James; Leo, a lian, King Charles;
Nullus, none."
398
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
the war, or the injustice of it. You have a vigilant and cu-
rious neighbour, that looks on all your proceedings abroad,
especially at sea. It will be your wisdom to prevent those'
dangers which may happen to you.
at stake, is the gate of your trade, and will you see it cast
out and given away, and not look about you, till too late?
The Sound, that is now
If you give them this opportunity of getting the Sound,
they will be too strong for you. Yourselves will be the next
morsel. Let them get this step, and they get all.
The great charge is often objected; but it is considerable
whether it will not be a greater charge hereafter to recover
what you may now secure. All your naval materials come
thence.
I know not but the Dutch navy may be out within this
week. They have wrought night and day. Is it for nothing?
If they get the mastery in this, they will easily have it in your
shipping, or any other matter.
There hath been as vigorous a preparation of the fleet as
may be. If you countenance it, it may be out as soon as
theirs; but if you shall do otherwise, it will be discouraged.
Therefore, I think some seasonable resolution should be, con-
cerning it. I pray, think it worthy of a speedy resolution. I
have heard that there are the greatest endeavours to put
some obstruction in this business. Dutch and Dane are not
wanting to lay stumbling-blocks. If they can give you the
go-by in it, the issue is obvious. They will have advantage
enough over you.
Some do infer that a war must follow. I am not discou-
raged at it, neither do I think that England is undone in case
it should so happen; but I do not think a war will necessarily
follow. Yet, if the Dutch will fight with you, it is not for
your honour to sit still. If they will begin, you will defend.
If you do send a fleet now, you will be able to balance your
interests, at least you will have a share in what happens. I
would not have it fall into the Dutch hands. Every member
ought to be tender how he lets any such thing fall as discou-
ragement. I would not have the Sound divided, and you not
have a share. If the Dutch do go with one hundred sail, and
1658-9.]
399
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
dispossess the Brandenburgh, and beat the Swede, where will
the Sound fall? Who else can have it but the Hollander, if
you interpose not?
Referring this to his Highness and council, will not deter-
mine the question about the militia.
Mr. Onslow. I shall begin where that gentleman ended,
that this business deserves a vigorous prosecution. But it
being a business prima impressionis, you cannot too soberly
consider it; nor can you delay it long. Yet the delay of a
day or two can make no great obstruction; and I know not
what motion drives on this great wheel now, so much faster
than it was wont to be.
It is said, preparations are ready. It is fit, first, the whole
state of the matter should be farther represented to this
House. The interest of religion is here much divided. I
am not prepared to give my vote. I am not so quick as other
men.
The great stress is laid upon our danger from the Hol-
lander. The person who opened the matter did not so open
it. He laid it upon the German Emperor, and his design for
getting possession of the Baltic Sea; and if so, there is no-
thing of difference between us and the Dutch. Besides, I
have observed that it is
we shall engage at all.
declined that hitherto.
not yet directly insisted upon that
His Highness and the Council have
It is not Christian, when our neigh-
bour's house is on fire, to run to partake of the spoil.
I therefore move, to adjourn this debate till Wednesday or
Thursday morning next.
Mr. Raleigh. I am for a speedy dispatch of this business.
He that is master of the Sound, is master of all the trade of
Europe. I conceive not that we are about to engage in a
war: but the Dane cannot keep the Sound without help of
the Hollander, and if the Hollander hath it, the House of
Austria shall have it and if the Swede hath it, he cannot
keep it without us. By this we may guess how far our in-
:
* For the remainder of this day's debate, I am entirely indebted to
the Goddard MS., pp. 209—214.
400
[FEB. 21,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
terest is concerned in it. I would have you resolve, before
you rise, to refer it back to his Highness.
Lord Lambert. I am for proceeding vigorously in this bu-
siness. I will not judge whether this be a Protestant war or
no, but that which concerns you is a war which interests.
yourselves. The interest of England is, or ought to be, the
great care in this business.
How we shall manage this affair, that the Sound may be in
such hands as may best suit with our interest, is difficult to
judge.
Some think it most dangerous to fall into the Dutch
hands, others to the Emperor's, others to the Swede:
and indeed, for my part, I am of opinion it is best in his
hands that, it seems, is least able to keep it.
The Dutch are the only people that are able to engage us
at sea, and to cope with us in trade; and if it be taken for
granted that they must have the Sound, certainly it will
very much concern our trade.
For the Swede, if he be master at land, he will soon
be master at sea, and not suffer his commodities to come
down to the coast; and if he continues his conquests, he will
grow very considerable. Besides, his navigation and hist
trade begin of late to grow very great. We have a wolf by
the ears.
Sweden is likely to be as potent in navigation as
Holland.
If Denmark be not already too much in the Dutch
bottom, I think a friendly assistance would do well there.
That our fleet is in good forwardness, I am very glad;
but designs of this kind are not in one fleet, but in reserves.
Therefore, I think it requisite you should countenance it
all along.
Look principally, upon the interest at home.
Stand by,
and fall on the victors. Have a main regard to that interest.
of yours, the militia.
Engage some particulars from yourselves to take care of
this business.
I am of opinion you should declare, that it is the interest
of England and of the world, that the power of the Sound
1658-9.]
401
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
should not be put into any one hand whatever, without
naming the Dutch or any other particular.
Sir Henry Vane. I am yet perplexed in my thoughts.
Therefore, I shall only mind you of the old order in Par-
liament. Upon such reports as this, or letters, or messages
from the King, we never looked upon them the same day;
but had a jealousy and suspicion of some court-design in
them, to engage us in such rash designs, before we knew
where we were.
I do not say there is any such thing now; but it looks
like some such thing. I told you, at first, that I feared
matter of money was our chief concern. I fear still, the
same thing is now intended, in that we must not have leave
to sleep so much as one night upon it. We must give
a million of money by a side-wind. Sure, we must find
out this money, and yet we must not sleep upon it. I dare
not think of the sad consequence of this, unless your
wisdoms will disintricate you in it.
It hath been the great wisdom of princes, that heretofore
have had to do with the House of Commons, who see not at
first the sad consequences of things, to make a war; and
then presently to make a peace, and then put up the money
that was given them towards the pretended war. I do not
say such things are now; but I desire we may sleep upon
this, at least forty-eight hours.
I perceive many things are taken for granted, of which
I am not yet fully satisfied.
1. That the King of Denmark must be dispossessed.
2. That we must fit ourselves to take possession of some
part of it, like birds of prey.
3. That Holland is your enemy already.
If it be our interest that Sweden should be emperor of
the Baltic Seas, I should be very glad to understand how?
France may, perhaps, be willing to engage us in this
quarrel; and when we are engaged, he will be as fit to
bridge over somebody else* as any other.
VOL. III.
* Charles Stuart was, no doubt, here designed.
2 D
402
[FEB. 21.
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I move for Thursday or Friday.
Mr. Bampfield. I agree that it is one of the greatest
matters in debate, since this assembly met, and may carry
with it the greatest good or the greatest evil.
I do remember when that of the war with Spain was
offered to us, without any consideration we approved it;*
but the consequences of that war have been the decay of our
trade in all parts; and in this little war, we have not only
lost our trade, but they have set up our manufactures;
and in three years, we have lost 1500 ships.
And whether this expedition will be for our good or hurt
I will not dispute; but only advise you to consider well
before you enter into this war.
It is certain, that before this war, Elsineur and Elsenburgh,
belonged to Denmark. Since the first war, one belonged to
the Dane, the other to the Swede; but now they are both
the Swede's.
+
The Swedes, indeed, are Protestants, but the Danes are
Calvinists; so I think the Protestant cause not concerned.
To declare that these two shall not be in the hands of one,
is to declare against the Swede.
If we forward the preparations, what do we say other than
that we will defray the charge of these preparations, which
are very chargeable? If we approve it so far, and that it is
more than probable that it will produce a war with Holland;
whilst we go about to engage in that, how shall we secure
our interest ?
The very being of the Hollander is founded upon the rivers
of some of the Spanish monarchy, therefore, their interest
will lead them always against it; and though their affairs
lead them, at present, to unite with some members of that
family, yet if we shall engage in a war with Holland, so the
Protestant cause can be safe, where is there one foot of
Protestant ground that will be at peace? Suppose also, that
* See vol. i. p. 40.
+ This speaker was member for Exeter, where there was a con-
siderable manufacture of woollen stuffs for Spain and Portugal.
↑ See supra, pp. 379, 385, notes.
1658-9.]
403
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
marriage and consequential peace should hold between France.
and Spain, where shall then a Protestant find one foot
of ground in the whole world, to set his foot in quiet?
Therefore, it seems to me of vast concernment, in one day
to launch into a war which hath so much weight in the con-
sequences of it.
At length, this debate was adjourned until Wednesday. †
Tuesday, February, 22, 1658.
I came in late, so knew not what was before; I suppose
only the orders of the day about bounding the other House.
Divers persons had spoken to it.
I found Mr. Gewen speaking; and it seems his aim was at
King, Lords, and Commons.
* The treaty of the Pyrenees (see supra, p. 294,) produced in 1660,
a marriage between Louis XIV. and the Infanta.
+"Resolved, that the matters of this debate be taken into further
consideration on Wednesday morning next, at nine of the clock.".
Journals.
During these important civil avocations, the Parliament appear
to have found leisure to aid, by their authority, the progress of religious
persecution. The following orders prepared a plausible apology for
the "Act of Uniformity," in 1662, and the various severities against
the Nonconformists, by which it was enforced.
"Westminster, Feb. 21, 1658-9. At the Grand Committee for
Religion,
"Ordered, that it be referred to the sub-committee named, to
bring in the Bill for supply of the defects in the Act for the observation
of the Lord's Day, to peruse the several Ordinances and Acts for
abolishing of the Book of Common Prayer, and to consider wherein
those laws are defective, and to bring in a Bill to supply the same; and
further to prevent the using of Common Prayer, and to provide against
the using of other superstitious ceremonies and practices in divine
worship.
"It was further ordered, that it be referred to another sub-com-
mittee, to consider how to suppress the meetings of Quakers, Papists,
Anti-Sabbatarians, Antitrinitarians, and of the setters up of Jewish
worship; and two worthy members were desired to take care hereof,
and to bring in one or more bills to remedy the same." Mercurius
Politicus, No. 555, p. 261. See supra, pp. 207, 208.
2 D 2
404
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Colonel Gorges. The new Lords are fittest, and an honest
cobbler better than one hundred old Lords. I would not
have them hereditary.
Mr. Stephens. Since the last day's debate, I have met
with this objection, that those that are for the old Lords.
are for the old line. I do not take the line to be fundamental.
Nothing is fundamental but the will of God.
By the statute of 14th Elizabeth,* and by other statutes,
it is clear, that the Crown may be limited in all things. The
declaring of the line was always subject to the power and
disposition of the Parliament; but it is new light to me,
that ever one House did, or that one House had power to
put down another. I should be very loth to hear such
doctrine.
The ground why the Lords were always called to sit in
Parliament was, because they had the greatest share in the
kingdom; but it is not so now. Abbots, Priors, and
Bishops, had one-third part of the kingdom, the Lords
another; but now the Commons have obtained a larger
interest in the land, and therefore they should have a greater
share in the Government. I would not have the two
Houses fall out among themselves. Let us tie ourselves to
some reasonable rule.
Two Houses was the ancient foundation. Lords and
Commons in all ages have had the Government, with the
single person, and carried the power of Parliament.
Restore such old Lords as have not forfeited, and add
some new ones. Their number is part of the power. I
* In 1571. "The iniquity of those times," says Camden," and the
love of the estates in England (which were then assembled at
Westminster,) towards their Prince and country, extorted a law for
preventing the practices of seditious persons." Among several clauses
for the protection of the Queen, "it was enacted," evidently to coun-
teract the pretensions of the captive Queen of Scots, "that if any man
should affirm that any other hath a right to the Crown, or that the
laws and statutes cannot limit and determine the right of the Crown
and the succession thereof, every such person should be guilty of
High Treason." History (1675), pp. 166, 167.
1658-9.1
405
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
as
would have the number and the persons themselves,
the King was moved they might be, by approbation of this
House. Their power the law will regulate.
But the great thing is the negative voice. A negative
voice in them, generally, I think not fit; but all Acts are
not of the same nature. There are public Acts and pri-
vate. The private Acts may pass without them; but, if
the House of Commons do declare any Act to be a
public Act, if difference happens that cannot be reconciled
by conference, then let both Houses, pro hac vice, sit and
vote together.
I shall never give my consent to put that yoke upon
ourselves of this other new House; where, I hear, there are
some sit that have endeavoured to make the greatest
Dieach upon our liberties that can be. When you have
set up them, for aught I know they may pull you down.
I may be made a slave by the sword, but I will never make
myself a slave.
Some in that House have carried elections this Par-
liament, very strangely.* We know not what they may
be led on to. Some have the long sword by their side, and
perhaps may help to hew you down and pull your House
over your ears.
Mr. Pedley. This nation has been a long time in a des-
perate distemper, and you ought to use as much reason,
wisdom, and moderation in this, as may be. Consider the
condition of the nation, what at present they are able to
bear. The laws will well fall in with the frame that you
propound; a monarchical government, by a single person
and two Houses of Parliament. Look at your ancient
records, Hen. IV., Hen. VI., Ed. IV., Rich. III.'s time.
You will find how that, in cases of necessity, the King and
Commons together might have made a constitution suitable
to the good of the people.
You have propounded that you will not let them appear
abroad, till they be well dressed. I would have you make
* See “ Lord Lambert," supra, p.323.
406
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
something the matter of your debate; as to limit the power.
Begin first with this, that they shall not be hereditary.
Mr. Buller stood up and read his speech.
You have now set up another House. It is not in your
power to limit another House. We are in another House.
We cannot limit them. They are judges of their own mem-
bers and privileges.
He was laughed down.
Sir Henry Vane. I move that the worthy gentleman be
not interrupted, seeing he is pleased to bestow his pains
among us.
Mr. Buller went on; but I know not, nor any body else,
what he would be at; but that by our votes we had excluded
our bounding them, and must ask them leave, whether they
will be bounded or no.
Major-general Kelsey. It hath been argued that you
should have a House of Peers, and that is that House you
are now a bounding of; and if it be so, you must ask them
leave whether they will be bound or no. Whatever resolu-
tion you take up for bounding them, I can hardly believe they
will consent to it. Yet, if they sit there by an ancient right
of co-ordination, I am sure you cannot take any thing from
them without their consent.
If
It is hard to limit men's power; they will rather strive to
enlarge it. I have found by woful experience, that power
is willing to enlarge itself, but never to be restrained.
they have a right still to sit, then the law which took
them away is no law. If they be another House in
being, if they have a legal right, your bounding is out of
doors.
If the Long Parliament had no legal right to take away the
House of Lords, then it must be granted they have a right of
sitting. Otherwise they have no right, and surely that Par-
liament has as much power to take away them as well as the
kingly government.*
I find that law of 14 Elizabeth can cut away a line. For-
* See supra, p. 351, ad, fin. vol. ii. pp. 38, 279, 388, 130, 131, notes,
1658-9.]
407
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
merly I have heard the Long Robe insist upon it that no law
is of force but what is made by the three estates. If the law
was not good which took away the Lords, because the Lords
did not give their consent, then the law which took away the
king is not good, because it was made without the king's
consent. It will then as naturally follow that Charles Stuart
is as rightful king at this day as the Lords are rightful Lords.
And if it be objected that Charles Stuart has forfeited his
right, there are of that line* that have never forfeited it. So
then there is no foundation for any thing that hath been done
since. All hath been a mere usurpation of the House of
Commons.
In doing this, we shall draw all the soldiers upon us, and
all purchasers of public lands, and a great deal of confusion.
And I do desire to see how this dilemma can be avoided, and
where the difference is, that they could make a law, to one
end good, but, through insufficiency, not to another. To
begin upon such a foundation will inevitably shake yourselves.
I wonder how it can be urged that the House of Lords sit
upon a legal right. Sir, the Long Parliament made many
laws. Either they are of force or not. If they be, why do
we dispute them? If they be not laws, then the Petition and
Advice is no law. The Petition and Advice is a thing I was
never for; I never gave my vote in it, yet is it a law and in
being, else, I am sure, the Scotch and Irish members cannot
possibly have power to sit here.t I wonder any such person
should argue so, seeing they sit only upon that foot.
Either the Petition and Advice hath power and authority
in it, or it hath not. Consider that first, whether that be a
law. I pray, let no member sit here that hath no right to sit.
If Scotch and Irish members sit upon no right, it may after-
wards reflect, to make void your law. I speak not against
their right in equity to sit here,‡ but only by way of argu-
ment's sake.
If then, the Petition and Advice be a law, before you go
Probably meaning Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester.
† See supra, p. 29, notes,
1 See supra, p. 346.
408
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
any-farther, you must consider of it as in being, and then
think how to limit and bound the Other House; and then
you must have their consent to the bounding of themselves.
These you may limit and bound; but if you declare the old
Lords' right, those you cannot limit. They will tell you,
they have and know the bounds already, they sit upon as
good a law as you do, and they will not be bounded by you.
Divide the lands of the nation into twelve parts. The
Peers at this day have scarce a twelfth part, when they had
two thirds; yet they must have a co-ordinate
It was reason that they had a co-ordination.
power with you.
The same
reason is not now. Many gentlemen now sit in this House
of Commons, that have as good estates as any of those Lords.
You shall find that forty-two of them have not forfeited.*
If
you go this way, I doubt you will lay a foundation for
Charles Stuart's coming over. The other Lords you need not
fear. I would have in first place, what you mean by this Other
House, else you shoot at rovers. It is a vain thing to bound
them. You are bounding, and do not consider what it is you
would bound; till then you run but a loose bound.
Therefore, let us debate what this other House is we in-
tend. If it be a Lords' House, say so. If it be the other
House now sitting, pray say so too.
Major Beake. Because the question is perplexed, some-
thing else ought to be previous. Let it be your question
before you bound, whether the old House of Lords be in
being, or whether this House now sitting have any evidence,
or the Other House shall be the House of Lords.
Captain Hatsell. We talk of going step by step; but, if
we vote in the old Lords' House, we do not only go by steps,
but we make a pair of stairs for Charles Stuart to run up to
the top, into the room of the single person.
I move, therefore, to bound in this House now sitting.
I would have it the first matter of your debate that the
Other House shall not be hereditary.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. You are not now constituting of
* See the Peerage, supra, p. 362, vol. ii. p. 418, notes.
1658-9.]
409
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
If you
any House; but declaring limits and bounds of that Other
House which you intend shall be parliamentary with this.
You cannot make any bounds fit for all persons. If
vote the persons first, you can never set their bounds, for they
must vary, according to the persons. If you respect the per-
sons in the House now, you are led into a wilderness. It may
fit the persons now, and not fit them afterwards.
It has been propounded, as to the bounds, whether those
that sit in the Other House shall sit there hereditarily, or by
succession. I think fit to begin there. I would have you first
declare what rights the old Lords did legally exercise. Ex-
amine those powers.
I would have it considered, that which is propounded, that
it might not be hereditary. And, as to the first, I think the
old Lords never sat there hereditarily. They never sat by
birth, but according as they were called by the king's writ.
They were sometimes called, and sometimes left out. No Lord
could challenge a right to sit there, without a writ. It was
never intended that children, fools, and madmen, should sit
there. They were not called, for those that sat there were
called to advise, and they could not advise that were not qua-
lified for it. Is every man fit to advise a king? the writ says
"advise." It is against reason that unfit persons should be
called. Therefore, there was no power or right to sit there
by inheritance, but by election. It may be, they had it for
life; it may be, not so long. Some were called one Parlia-
ment, and left out another.
I would have them to be elective, and to be no longer than
for life, at the most. Therefore I shall propose, as the fittest
bounder, that they may sit by election.
Mr. Hanmer. I move, that as many as are now called by
his Highness may be approved on by this House, and that as
many of old ones as are capable be called in, and approved
likewise by this House.
Mr. Trevor. To the order of your proceedings.
You are pleased to order that the Parliament shall consist
of two Houses. This day you have ordered to bound it.
410
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The best rule to pursue is, what is for the safety and good of
the people, which should be the rule of this debate.
There is a necessity of bounding those powers which have
been formerly exercised, which did consist of two parts, the
judicial and legislative, that our late revolutions have awakened
us to care for. When our powers are agreed on, we shall best
know to what persons to fit them.
We are to consider first, how far it is bounded, and then
it is fit to consider what boundaries, in reference to the peo-
ple's safety, should be given to them; and first begin with the
judicial part.
Mr. Knightley. When a point is before us, we may dis-
course upon something. So long as we are in a wide field,
and never a gap open, we shall ride round and round and never
get out.
I second Mr. Trevor's motion to begin with the power of
judicature in that House.
Colonel Thompson. That which is moved and seconded, is
that they shall not be hereditary. Though I was not at
taking away the House of Lords, yet I believe they are taken
away.
You are told that they were formerly considerable, and had
once the greatest interest. It is now told you that most of
their sand is run out into your glass.* The Lords' House
is melted down into the Commons. If you set them over
you as high as formerly, I doubt your sand may un into
their glass.
But you are resolved of another House, and some would
have it hereditary. I would have it first considered if they
shall be hereditary; I am against that opinion; for they may
be unfit, by poverty or want of bread; and, being judges,
they may be corrupted. I would not have them to judge in any
thing between commoner and commoner, or that concerns a
commoner, until the cause be transmitted to them from hence,
as in writs of error, &c. I have known judgments suddenly
See supra, p. 404.
1658-9.1
411
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
given in that House, against decrees in Chancery of sixteen
years standing.
I would have the persons named by the Protector; and the
approbation of this House to every single person that is
named to sit in that House.
Mr. Jenkinson. I would begin with the judicial power.
There is less danger in that than in the legislative. It is
nearest to come to your end. But to begin with the heredi-
tary is to begin with that which is not so dangerous.
I would have it referred to a Committee to consider and
provide you somewhat that may bound them in that point.
Sir William Wheeler. I am against referring it to a Com-
mittee. It is too great a work to be done by any but by
the House itself.
Lord Coke says, that any called to that House have a fee-
simple right to sit there.* Be he poor or weak, he may sit.
Therefore, first consider whether they shall be hereditary.
I am against their being hereditary. It will draw after it
all inconveniences and dependences that formerly attended
them. Three parts in four deserted in the last war. It is
for the safety of the nation to declare they shall not be here-
ditary.
Make that your first question.
Sir John Lenthall. In the beginning of the debate, I was
for opening the doors to such of the nobility as have been
faithful to you, and all persons of the Other House that were
capable. I am not convinced as yet of the contrary.
Their merits in ancient times were great. Great benefits
*"As the barons' honour is inheritable," says Elsynge, so their com-
ing to Parliament hath ever been reckoned an essential point of inherit-
able honour, as given them by the king at their first creation." See
"The Ancient Method and Manner of holding Parliaments in Eng-
land,” (1679,) p. 52.
"As the King hath not used to omit any lord that hath been within
the land (rectus in curia), and of full age, so none have used to come
to Parliament, until he had received his writ of summons: but in such
case he may send to the Lord Chancellor for his writ." Ibid. p. 59.
|
t
412
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
we have had by the old Lords. Magna Charta was obtained
by them,* in such a time when the Commons scarce durst
ask such a thing from the King. The assistance they gave
in the late wars, was likewise very memorable. I shall come
now to what they obtained from the late King, whereof Mug-
na Charta was but a counterpart.
If this House be not hereafter so well qualified as it ought
to be, then will this screent be of great use.
I am for another House; for suppose religion should be in
question, and if the single person be alone, he must pass it.
If men of strange religion should come in, and if there should
not be a screen, our religion were gone. Our laws may be
+
* On" their merits," in this instance, see vol. i. p. 406, note.
+ See "Mr. Drake," supra, p. 349; "Baron Thorpe," vol. ii. p. 446.
↑ Alas, for our religion!" which thus suddenly "were gone,” or
which a vote of either House, or even an enactment by the three es-
tates, could create or destroy.
From "Some Traditional Memorials on the Reign of Elizabeth," it
appears that the Queen, in her too-customary exercise of despotic au-
thority, accommodated "the Parliament" to her purpose of imposing the
religion which the crown chose to profess, on an ill-educated and ac-
quiescing people, by “denying all farther debate," when she had erected
her terminus. This was so notorious to all," that "the doctrine pro-
fessed most generally in England, bore in foreign nations the name of
Parliament-faith." See "The Works of Francis Osborn," (1673,) p. 450.
In 1721, there was an attempt to advance that idol of civil power,
religious uniformity, by persecuting Antitrinitarians, under the spe-
cious disguise of "A Bill for the more effectual Suppression of Blas-
phemy and Profaneness." On this occasion, the Earl of Peterborough
declared, "that though he was for a parliamentary King, yet he did not
desire to have a parliamentary religion, or a parliamentary God."
This Bill was introduced by a Dean of Windsor, Lord Willoughby de
Broke, and supported by the Primate, Dr. Wake, and the Bishops of
London, Winchester, and Lichfield; yet one was found on the Bench,
a singular prelate, (like a Bathurst in our days,) who declared "that
neither himself, nor, he hoped, any of that Bench would be executioners
of such a law, which seemed to tend to the setting up of an Inquisition.”
This Prelate was the Bishop of Peterborough, Dr. White Kennet. To
the honour of the Lords, the Bill was rejected "by 60 against 31." See
Oldmixon's “ History of England,” (1735,) pp. 718, 719.
"Make religion what you will," says Robert Robinson, "let it be
1
1
1658-9.]
413
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY,
also destroyed by the same rule. I move to examine the
power they have by the Petition and Advice. Let the limi-
tations there be the rule; or, if those be not restrictive
enough, bound them farther.
Mr. Bodurda. To the order of proceeding.
I move to begin with the question, whether they shall be
hereditary.
Mr. Cartwright. It is not proper to bound the Other
House, until you say what it shall be.
I move to consider first, which of the Houses you will
have, and then fit the powers and bounds. Your powers,
haply, may not fit the old House of Lords. By the Petition
and Advice, the Other House have no legislative power given
them, and if you bound them upon that point, you will give
them something they never had.
Mr. Attorney-general. I move to make it the ground of
your debate, that they shall not be hereditary. The old
Lords had clearly an hereditary honour, but hereditary
right, as to session in Parliament, they had not, without
being called by writ.* Formerly, they had no stinted num-
ber. Anciently, three Lords made a House, and the absen-
tees sent their votes by proxies.
Mr. Young. I am sorry to trouble you; but you are well
minded, first, to consider which of the Houses you will have,
old or new.
I am perplexed how to give my vote. If old Lords, it
may be, I shall give my vote that they may be hereditary,
and have a negative. But if the new Lords, that are your
creatures, I shall give them neither.
Sir Thomas Wroth. We are here come to make our con-
dition better than it was before.
It was not so in Queen Elizabeth's time, that three made
speculation, let it be practice; make it faith, make it fancy; let it be
reason, let it be passion; uniformity in it is not to be expected. Phi-
losophy is a stranger to it, and Christianity disowns it." Arcana,
(1774,) p. 23.
* See supra, p. 411, note.
414
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
a House of Lords. Of late there was packing a House of
Lords. They were the King's creatures. Let us go as far
from the old constitution as we can. Take in some of them
that are capable. Let us nourish the
band them for our best conveniency.
best flowers, and hus-
I would have the hereditary question go first, and then the
judicial. I am against hereditary lordship, for the reason
why his Highness refused king;* because he knew not what
he that came after him should be, a wise man or a fool. I
see plainly here is a great inclination to come round again.
It is to bring in old Lords by degrees, and then, conse-
quently, one who I hope my eyes shall never live to see here.†
It is fit we should have a kind of check upon us. Many
laws passed, in the late Parliaments, very lame and imperfect.
On the other side, to have another House; that will be a
dishonour to the nation. I shall scorn it as much as any man
in the nation. If we have a House of mean people, we shall
contemn and despise them.
A poor judge is dangerous. It is hard for a poor man to
keep a good conscience in so high a place. A man has two
hands, to take from whom will give most.
Put the hereditary part first to debate.
Mr. Bodurda offered the question, whether the persons
called to that House shall transmit to their posterity an here-
ditary right of sitting in that House.
pp.
* There were other sufficient reasons for this refusal. See vol. i.
382-385, 420, note; ii. 116-119, 140, note. On this subject, the fol-
lowing remark, by Thomas Gordon, in 1723, may be worthy of quo-
tation:-
"Had Cromwell been declared king, I doubt not but his preachers
would have found a revelation for it, and probably the coronation ser-
mon would have abounded with texts that gave him the diadem. It
would not have been the first nor the last time that the Bible has been
made a great courtier, and Heaven the voucher of wickedness and false-
hood." Cato's Letters, (1754,) iv. 275.
CC
+ This hope was frustrated. Yet Sir Thomas Wroth was entirely
safe at the Restoration." See "Lives of the Regicides," (1798,) vol.
ii. p. 339.
1658-9.1
415
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Colonel White. I move not to admit it that they now sit,
for that is a granting the other question.
Mr. Jenkinson. I move that the question be, if they shall
only have a right of sitting there for life.
Sir John Northcote. It is apparent the old Lords did not
sit by an hereditary right.* You may go upon your old
grounds and yet preserve that.
If you give them a negative, it will be clear that the single
person shall have two negatives; for he shall have them his
Put the question whether the other House shall consist
of the ancient nobility that have not forfeited their rights.
own.
Mr. Raleigh. It appears not to me but the old Lords
had a right of sitting by inheritance. A letter was sent from
the Lord Keeper to a Lord
that was called to the
House of Lords, notwithstanding his writ, to forbear sitting;
but he prayed judgment if for any letter he ought to forbear.
It resolved he ought not, which proved it hereditary.
I would have it first put, if it shall be hereditary.
Mr. Knightley. A man may be worthy in one Parliament,
and unworthy in another Parliament. I am not able to give
a Yea or No to hereditary; but if you say that their claim is
not hereditary, I can give my vote. Some, I believe, in the
Other House would refuse hereditary, as they do a negative,
if it should be given them.
Mr. Onslow. I am afraid we are in a wood. No wonder
the nation is puzzled, when the wisdom of the nation is puz-
zled in this place. Once out of the way, we see how hard it is
to get in again.
Whether do we debate here upon a supposal that we are
boundless and without limits. I hope, while making limits
for others, we make not ourselves boundless. If so, we shall
leave them very little power. I know it was once esteemed
our right to vindicate our own privileges, not to take away
those of other men.
I shall not debate whether to have old or new peers. It is
* See supra, pp. 409, 411, note.
+ "The Earl of Bristol." Goddard MS. p. 219. See vol. ii. p. 415.
+16
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
enough that we do something to bar the old lords of their
rights. None of us are attornies or solicitors.
It is pressed, the King can do no wrong; I hope we shall
not do wrong to any, much less to a whole body of a House
of Peers, to take away their rights. You have a difficult
work in hand. Put no question that will involve us in a
wrong. We are with freedom ourselves.
We
We are called to consult with nobles and great men.
have had no complaints from them. They cannot properly
complain to us. I suppose they complain to their own House
if any such thing be. I know not why we should take notice
of their privileges. You cannot create power. If any thing
amics in their power, why may they not join with you, as for-
merly Peers have done, to limit themselves? Why may we
not consider a House in being, and consult with them, in li-
miting and bounding their own persons and powers?
Go on with your law, and then talk of limits and bounds.
Leave it to the law to interpret their bounds.
Sir Lislebone Long. This House is not so bound up, but
if any evil be in a constitution, this House certainly hath
power to remedy it.
I cannot understand their arguments that say the Lords
were not hereditary. Whether it be for the good of the
people that it should be so, or not, may be a question. I find
in some Parliaments a whole House called, and all left out
the next Parliament; but this was in times of troubles and
difference between York and Lancaster, when the nobles
were abroad in the wars.
The case cited was the Earl of Bristol's, and by judgment
of the House of Lords, he was admitted.*
Another was Lord de la Mare, disabled by Act of Parlia-
ment, and yet his son claimed it, and was admitted to his
right.†
See vol. ii. p. 415, note†.
+ This may be an incorrect account of the following:
John de la Mare, of Garington, in the county of Oxford, had sum-
mons 28 to 33 Ed. I., but none of his descendants continued in the rank
of Barons.' Extinct Peerage, (1769,) p. 192.
1658-9.]
417
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I can by no means apprehend that you should first define
the Houses, and leave the powers to be determined by law-
This is a leaving of fuel for posterity. You must determine
the powers. This may well come under this head, that the
power shall not be hereditary.
It is fit what power they shall have should be stated here.
They anciently claimed very large powers, and not all for the
good of the people. They have judged of the lives of the
Commoners and of property. It is not for your service that
they should have that power, or that the bounds should be so
uncertain.
Without declaring my own opinion in the case, make this
your question; that a member sitting there shall not give
his heir an hereditary right to sit here.
Where the old Peers were called, if there was no limitation
in it, they could not sit otherwise than pro hac vice; but if a
limitation were in the writ, then they might sit according to
that limitation.
Colonel Terrill. I am of opinion that the old Lords sitting
there, were not hereditary. They were called by writ as we
are, and could not sit longer than Parliament lasted; but
this happened where a patent was made to a Peer, and the
heirs male, of his body. Therefore the lords that claimed,
had a right, and whether that right were taken from them I
shall spare to speak of it, till the debate come properly before
you.
Sir George Booth. I shall be bold to second this question :
to consider of the persons before you consider of the powers;
for what is more natural.
Those Lords that have done you service shall be no Lords,
and those that have done you no service shall be Lords. This
is somewhat hard.
Colonel Mildmay. The debate of this was waved before, and
you resolved to consider the powers first, and then the persons.
Mr. Manley. I hope you are so well founded, as to your
own sitting here, that you want all the blemishes that former
Parliaments have had.
Let us go on clear grounds, that every man's judgment and
VOL. III.
2 E
418
[FLB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
conscience may be satisfied. We find another House, and if
his Highness had not called them, he had not done his duty.
Unless you bring them to be a House of Peers, I see no
power you have given that is affirmative, but only negative.
I would have you first assert their powers. I find them
not in the Petition and Advice. The debate has admitted
a right in this House to determine the powers. To follow
the tract of the law will lead you into many inconveniences
The Petition and Advice is not large enough for you to
debate upon.
Mr. Turner. I know no way to proceed in this, than
as you did concerning the single person. The same must
I say now.
If it be upon old Peers, then I question whether it be
proper for
you to bound them. If upon a new House, then
it is proper to bound them.
But declare first, whether you are upon a constitution
or a restitution. I doubt your vote looks back as well
as forward. The word, be, goes a great way.
Sir Richard Temple. I would neither look at one House
nor another; but would have it the matter of your debate
what these persons shall be, under such bounds and limi-
tations as you shall agree them; what the persons shall be
that this House shall consist of, under such bounds, &c.,
as this House shall agree.
Colonel Cox. I have been always jealous of this other
House. It was, first, in the last Parliament, that the Pro-
tector should nominate, and we approve; but the approbation
slipped out, I know not how; which hath since made me
think of the tale in Æsop of the Fox, who desired only
to get in his head, and he would after bring in his body.
I am very well satisfied that there should be another
House; but not with your question, that the persons should
first be considered.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. If you would have us all of
one mind, your question must be as clear as may be. The first
question ought to be, whether there be a right or no; for,
where there is a right (in all the actions of a man's life), there
is a duty; and then matter of convenience or inconvenience
1658-9.]
419
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
is out of doors. Two rights are offered to be in being; one
of the old Lords, the other of the other House, or new
Lords, who have already a vast power in their hands, and
dangerous to the people. Some tell you the right of one
House, some of another. I offer it to you that it is not
fit, and if it may not be dangerous to prejudge or preclude
either of their rights before you agree to the persons. If
there be a right, then all their boundaries must be offered to
them, whether they will pass them or not; and I have
seldom found men in power to part with it upon casy terms.
It is therefore necessary to be cleared, how far we are
to deliberate and restrain them in this point.
Seeing great rights are claimed on both sides, let me
be satisfied in that point, first, before I can give my vote.
The consideration of the persons is most natural.
One while it is argued for right, pro and con, and persons
differ; and then they fly off to conveniency.
Matter of right and of conveniency are two different
things. Therefore, now take into consideration these two
claims. Consider first, whether the old Lords or new Lords
have a right or no, and then go on to bound them.
Colonel Birch. I was loth to interrupt any worthy gen-
tleman, though I might have done it. They speak against
your order; that you should first consider of the bounds.
I am still of the same mind, that you must proceed
upon the bounds. The matter of right will come in upon
the bounds.
I desire you to keep to your order; and lay it, whether
those that sit in the other House, shall sit there by an
hereditary right.
The question was a question propounded upon hereditary.
Mr. Swinfen. I shall speak to your question. Scarce
any gentleman has spoken ad idem; because something is to
be cleared first. The same reason that led you before must
lead you now.
There are two Houses in debate. It is,
therefore, necessary to have a previous question, whether the
Peers be excluded.
Those that do debate for old Lords, must say, hereditary;
those that are for the other House, must say it is not.
2 E 2
420
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
This must be cleared, else we cannot freely vote.
the old Peerage, and they were as hereditary.
I am for
I would have your question to be upon, who shall be
members of the other House, and adjourn this debate,
because it is late.
Mr. Godfrey. I hope, without expense of time, you may
come to a question. I find the same difficulty upon you now
as was the other day, when you debated about the two Houses.
On one side the old peers, on the other, the other House, by
the Petition and Advice.
Here are two rocks,
1. The asserting the ancient Peers.
2. The asserting of the other House.
You then found out a prudential way to avoid both those
rocks, by neither excluding the one, nor asserting the other;
and your vote seemed to satisfy the sense of the House.
I see the same tenderness now, by a side vote, to exclude
the right of the old Peers, or assert the new, by the Petition
and Advice. You may word your question, to be the
subject of your debate, that it be a part of this bill to de-
bate the persons sitting in the other House of Parliament,
to have an hereditary interest and right to sit and vote. By
this
you neither exclude the right of any, nor assert the right.
of any Parliament.
Mr. Goodrick. I hope, before
I hope, before you make your hedges,
you will set your stakes; that you will first declare whether
the old Peers have a right to sit there that have not forfeited
their right.
Mr. Speaker propounded that question, whether the ancient
Peers that have not forfeited, have right to sit in the other
House.
Sir Walter Earle. We are all bound to maintain their
rights. If you lay that aside, you lay aside their inhc-
ritance. You bring them into a worse condition than the
poorest cottager in England, if you take away
what is
their inheritance. That is your proper question. I question
the validity of that vote that called them useless.*
* See vol. ii. p. 388, note.
1658-9.1
421
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Gott. They found the unsuitableness and incon-
veniency of a Commonwealth with the constitution of the
people. Then they came to a single person and a Common-
wealth; but neither of these were unius seculi. The ancient
constitution we are again come to; a single person and two
Houses of Parliament.
I do desire not to declare the persons now sitting in the
other House, nor exclude the old Peers. Leave yourselves
at large. A many great men are in the other House. I
would have some nobles. Our writ is to consult with great
men and nobles. There are some that have a good sword.
I would have some there that have a good purse; and both
together will make a good balance. Nature and necessity
oblige us to determine upon the persons; what persons the
other House shall consist of.
The question was propounded according to that motion.
Mr. Trevor. I am satisfied that the other question is not
clear. I am not bound to put such a question. When in my
conscience I am satisfied about the right, but not satisfied
about the practice, the consequence will go very far against
safety. I doubt if you let in that, that it will not be practi-
cable.
If you please, adjourn the debate till Thursday.
Captain Halsell. I am not ashamed to say, I am afraid,
when I am afraid. If you let in this question, the consequence
will be very dangerous. What hath the son of Lord Goring*
r
• "The King's party in Colchester," says Ludlow, were forced
to surrender on the 28th of August, 1648, upon articles. The Lord
Goring and the Lord Capel were sent prisoners to London, and
committed to the Tower, by an order of Parliament." Memoirs,
(1698,) i. 264.
CC
After he had been condemned to death by the High Court of Jus-
tice, it " was carried by one vote," March 8, 1648-9, " that the Lord
Goring should be reprieved. This one vote," says Whitlock,
was the
Speaker, who carried the House, between equally divided, four-and-
twenty of each part; and he said he did it, because he had formerly re-
ceived some civilities from the Lord Goring, and his single vote now
saved his life." Memorials, (1732,) p. 386.
422
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
or Lord Capel* done, to forfeit their right. If you admit a
right, there is no keeping them out.
* He was beheaded March 9, (the day after it had been voted, "that
the Lord Capel should not be reprieved ;") dying "much after the mau-
ner of a stout Roman. He had no minister with him, nor showed any
sense of death approaching, but carried himself all the time he was upon
the scaffold, with that boldness and resolution as was to be admired."
Ibid. pp. 387, 388. See Lord Clarendon's History, (1712,) iii. 272, 273.
After an interesting description of Lord Capel, whose heroic resigna-
tion of life deserved a worthier object, Lord Clarendon immediately
adds :-" So ended the year 1648, a year of reproach and infamy, above
all years which had passed before it, in which the memory of all the
transactions ought to be rased ought of all records;" as Burke once,
when under the influence of his organ of destructiveness, erased France
out of the map of Europe.
Yet in this annus mirabilis, or execrabilis, as opinions may vary,
there was one event, which the noble and diffuse historian has unac-
countably compressed into a single short sentence, though most worthy
to be rescued, by his usual elongation of a period, from the threatened
general oblivion. "There was a woman at the Hague," says Lord
Clarendon, "of the middling rank, who, being with child, with the
horror of the mention of it," (the King's execution,) " fell into travail,
and in it died." Ibid. pp. 273–275.
In England, as appears from the following article of early intelli-
gence, the execution of the sentence on King Charles, could be more
calmly considered, as if executed on any other convicted criminal, in the
exercise of rigorous public justice; while the right or policy of in-
flicting, on either prince or peasant, the punishment of death, of which
there are such reasonable doubts, had been seldom or ever questioned:
“The 30th of January, 1648, was Charles, King of England, Scotland,
France, and Ireland, put to death, by beheading, over against the Ban-
quetting-House of Whitehall, the place where formerly King James had
all the fencers of London encounter each other, in their school way, for
content of the King of Denmark, who came out of his kingdom to visit
him, the scaffold being made from the same window, and in the same
manner, only larger." See " The Moderate Intelligencer, Jan. 25 to
Feb. 1, 1648-9." No. 202.
Bishop Horsley, 144 years after this execution, appears to have been
horrified at the recollection of it, like King Charles's too sympathetic
female contemporary" at the Hague." I well remember listening to his
Lordship, in 1793, when he thus declaimed, amidst all "the pomp and
circumstance" of his recent prelatical preferment; afterwards thus en-
forcing his holy abhorrence, from the press, by the printer's aid of a
few imposing Capitals :-
1658-9.1
423
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Knightley. If we be under a force, let us adjourn
ourselves, and sit no longer. Here is plain threatening.
"But if any have DARED to avow the wICKED sentiment, that this
day of national contrition, this rueful day of guilt and shame, ‘is a
TROUD day for England, to be remembered as such by the latest pos-
terity of freemen,' with such persons it is meet that we abjure all bro-
therhood. Their spot is not the spot of our family. They have no
claim upon our brotherly affection. Upon our charity, they have indeed
a claim. Miserable men! They are in the gall of bitterness and in
the bond of iniquity.' It is our duty to pray God, if, perhaps, the
thought of their heart may be forgiven them." See "A Sermon preach-
ed before the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in the Abbey Church of
St. Peter, Westminster, on Wednesday, January 30, 1793; being the
Anniversary of the Martyrdom of King Charles the First. By Samuel
Lord Bishop of St. David's." (1793,) p. 25.
Among these "miserable men," who thus agreed with Mr. Fox,
(supra, p. 110,) it was, I believe, Lord Keppel who had “ DARED to
avow the WICKED sentiment," in the terms alleged. Dr. Priestley,
who had been the preacher's theological opponent in the Trinitarian
controversy, and who pleasantly claimed to have made Dr. Horsley a
Bishop, was thought by some to be intended. In his " Essay on the
First Principles of Government," Dr. Priestley had, indeed, expressed
an opinion that "such a transaction will appear an immortal honour to
this country, whenever that superstition of the sacredness of kingly
power shall be obliterated. Charles I.," he adds, “ whatever he was in
his private character, which is out of the question here, was certainly a
very bad King of England. If he was misled by his education or his
friends, he was, like any other criminal in the same circumstances, to
be pitied, but by no means to be spared on that account." (Works,
xxii. 25.)
But poets have generally been foremost in the adulation of deceased
princes, often a ready way to conciliate the favour of living royalty.
Thus Tickell, as quoted by Dr. Harris, (Lives, ii. 488,) exclaims on this
occasion, in a style of indignation, impious, or at least extravagant :
"Where then, just Heav'n, was thy unactive hand,
Thy idle thunder, and thy ling'ring brand!
Thy adamantine shield, thy angel wings,
And the great genii of anointed kings!
Treason and fraud shall thus the stars regard !
And injur❜d virtue meet this sad reward!
So sad, none like can Time's old record tell,
Though Pompey bled, and poor Darius fell.
All names but one, too low,—that one too high :
All parallels are wrong" or blasphemy."
424
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Turner. This is a plain threat. I am not afraid to
do right. Let us go plainly to it. If it be their right, let
us not be ashamed to give it them. I have no fear upon me
at all.
Mr. Jones. I move to put the question as to the right of
the ancient Lords.
Mr. Disbrowe. I move to adjourn. I am not free to give
my vote upon this question of right, at present.
It seems the other party were at a loss, and prayed to ad-
journ the debate, and it was adjourned accordingly.
The House rose at one.
On this “too high" parallel, Young adventured, who was an early can-
didate for royal favour, and thus records, in declining age, his continued
disappointment:-
"When in his courtiers' ears I pour my plaint,
They drink it, as the nectar of the great :
They squeeze my hand, and bid me come to-morrow.
Refusal! canst thou wear a fairer form ?"
In 1713, he published "The Last Day," with a dedication, grossly
adulatory, to Queen Anne, though not too gross to receive the "Im-
primatur Vice-Can. Oxon.," according to the censorship then in force.
The poet, unawed by an appalling theme, which might be expected to
inspire no words but those" of truth and soberness," introduces a com-
pliment to the British Queen, by thus panegyrising her grandsire. Of
the concluding lines, it is difficult to determine whether to admire most,
the absurdity or the profaneness:-
"But what is he, who midst the radiant bands
Of spotless saints and laurell'd martyrs stands
Conspicuous from afar? Whose rays so bright
Solicit, and attract the ravisht sight?
In whom I see two distant virtues joyn'd,
A royal greatness and an humble mind.
His lifted hands, his lofty neck surround,
To hide the scarlet of a circling wound.
The Almighty Judge bends forward from his throne
Those scars to mark, and then regards his own.”
Yet after all the efforts of priests and poets to consecrate the death of
Charles I., it appears, on the best authority, that James VIII. refused
to recognize his grandfather's martyrdom. Lord Bolingbroke says, that
when "the draught of a Declaration to be dispersed in Great Britain,"
was presented to "the Chevalier,” in 1715,
"the Chevalier," in 1715," he struck out these words,
1658-9.]
425
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Afternoon at three.
The business of Mr. Streete and City of Worcester* was
taken into debate.
Mr. Finch+ was counsel for Mr. Streete, and Mr. Latham
that blessed martyr who died for his people,' and would say nothing
more than that he fell a sacrifice to rebellion."" See "A Letter to
Sir William Windham," (1753,) pp. 276, 282.
See supra, pp. 70, 253–256.
† See vol. i. pp. 334, 352. This barrister, whose father was a Serjeant
at Law, became, in 1660, a Baronet and Solicitor-general; in that capa-
city, zealously devoting himself to the vengeful purposes of the re-
stored royal court. In the case of that conscientious, if mistaken
patriot, Major-general Harrison, the first prisoner tried, Sir Heneage
Finch, even urged the Bench not to indulge him with a day's reprieve,
but immediately to pass the judgment of death. On the trial of Mr.
Scot, too, and other regicides, before some of whom he was now about to
plead, (respectfully, no doubt, for they were not yet become powerless
prisoners,) the Solicitor-general appears to have occasionally emulated
the manner of Sir Edward Coke, who, in his pleadings for the Crown, as
Lord Bacon once plainly told him, was "wont to insult over misery,
and to inveigh bitterly at the persons." The Crown lawyers have since,
generally cultivated a suaviter in modo; content not to worry the
prey of whose destruction they were secure.
After representing in Parliament the University of Oxford, and at-
taining the office of Attorney-general, Sir Heneage Finch, on the dis-
grace of Shaftsbury, in 1673, was made Lord Keeper, created Baron
Daventry, and soon after appointed Lord Chancellor.
"He thought,"
says Bishop Burnet, "he was bound to justify the Court, in all debates
in the House of Lords, which he did, with the vehemence of a pleader,
rather than with the solemnity of a senator." Yet, "in his own court,
he could resist the strongest application from the King himself, though
he did it no where else." Own Times, (1724,) i. 365.
(6
On the Roman Catholic Lord Stafford being judicially sacrificed, in
1680, to a Protestant alarm, excited by a pretended Popish plot, Lord
Nottingham, "when he gave judgment, committed," says Bishop
Burnet, (Ibid, p. 492,) one great indecency:" for he said, “who can
doubt any longer that London was burnt by Papists, though there was
not one word in the whole trial relating to that matter." Yet of more
than "
one great indecency" towards a state prisoner, when on his
dreary progress to the gibbet or the block, a Solicitor-general, in 1660,
426
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
for Worcester.
the bar.
Mr. Streete and Mr. Finch sat together at
The petitions, on both sides, were read. The charge was
for delinquency and common swearing. A great many per-
sons were present.
Asserit A, negat. B, point blank contrary.
Serjeant Waller in the chair, demanded whether they would
proceed upon the election, or against the person first.
Mr. Latham. We will proceed against the person first,
and that, inasmuch as he was a member. We expect we shall
prove it well. If he had only lived in the garrison, it had not
been enough; but we shall prove him in arms, and if my in-
who, since, for twenty years had been a favourite courtier in such a
court, would be too easily capable.
In 1681, Lord Daventry
•
(
was created Earl of Nottingham," accord-
ing to Wood, as a mark of the great satisfaction his Majesty had in the
many faithful services which his Lordship had rendered the Crown."
Athen. Oxon, (1692), ii. 538–510.
The second Earl, who succeeded his father in 1682, was known in a
walk of literature, where “Lords Temporal," are not often found. In
1719, he published "The Answer of the Earl of Nottingham to Mr.
Whiston's letter to him, concerning the eternity of the Son of God and
of the Holy Ghost." Lord Orford says that, "the University of
Oxford, in full convocation, returned his Lordship solemn thanks.
Mr. Whiston published a reply, which ended the controversy." See
"R. & N. Authors," (1758,) ii. 125.
Notwithstanding this favourable judgment of the University, the Earl
appears to have scrupled to rely, exclusively, on the force of argument
which he had brought to this controversy; especially against such
a practised polemic as William Whiston. His Lordship discovered, in-
deed, too much" of the courage of a combatant," as Dr. Jortin remarks
on another occasion, "who calls upon the constable to come and help
him." Thus, in the "Postscript," disputing Mr. Whiston's " demand
for an open toleration," he appeals to "the laws of the land," and
regards an indulgence" to his antagonist's opinions, as
measure establishing these iniquities by a law." The Earl had just
before quoted with evident approbation "the advice of Mæcenas to
Augustus, never to suffer any innovation in religion;" thus unwittingly
justifying the Pagan persecutions of the Christian Church. Answer,
(1721,) pp. 157, 159. See "Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Mr.
William Whiston," (1753,) pp. 222, 223.
CC
"in some
[
1658-9.]
427
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
structions fail not, it is as pregnant proof as ever came before
you.
Mr. Smith. I know Mr. Streete. When the city was a
garrison, I have seen him ride with gentlemen, well mounted,
with pistols and holster. This was in 45, when the garrison
was for the King. I believe those gentlemen were of the
King's party. I have seen him ride so, alone, to and out of
the town. I never saw him walk or talk with any persons
but those that were, and are disaffected. I think it was Sir
William Russel* he was in company of.
Mr. Finch. Under what captain was you listed, and
marched?
He said he could not remember.
Do you not contribute to prosecute against Mr. Streete?
He answered, We are all as one man, but confessed upon
the matter, he doth bear part of the charge.
Mr. Knightley. Was this information ever given to Com-
mittees, or Major-generals, either upon decimation or seques-
tration?
Answer. I was never called nor moved to complain, nor
ever did complain. I never heard of any complaint. If he
had sate still, I believe he had never heard of it, but he was
puffed up with ambition.
Mr. Finch. Were the horse and arms his own?
Answer. He was able to have such a horse his own.
Did he do any duty as other of the King's soldiers did?
What number were there that he rid out with?
Were any quarters allotted him?
Whether rid they rank and file?
Of what age was he when he rid with this company?
Answer. Much about twenty.
Mr. Latham. If he was but sixteen, it is enough to bring
him under compass of sequestration: malitia supplebit
ætatem.
* It appears from Rushworth, that Worcester surrendered to Colonel
Whalley, July 22, 1616, when "Sir William Russel was excepted from
the benefit of the Articles." Hist. Col. (1708,) vi. 17.
428
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Finch. Did you not yourself ride, and in arms, with
the King?
Mr. Latham. It is not fit that he accuse himself.
Mr. Finch moved contra, that it was proper; for birds of a
feather might know more.
Mr. Finch released the question.
Witness saw him but twice in all, once in company, and
once alone.
John Butler. In the time of the King's garrison, I have
seen him several times come on a good horse into the city,
from his own house, with pistols, holsters, and sword. I was
a prisoner. Several times, when the trumpet has sounded, I
have seen him amongst their company in the street. I cannot
justly remember time.
Thomas Eaton. I have seen Mr. Streete three miles from
Worcester, in the month of June, about the middle of the
war, before the great battle between Waller and Ashby.*
There was a great sickness at the time. On a Lord's day, I
saw Mr. Streete come to church as other officers did, with a
sword. It trailed on the ground. Sir Gilbert Gerrard was
governor.
I have heard he had a house very near there. He
and his sister were there. No soldiers were there at that time.
John Harthfoorth. When Worcester was a garrison for
the King, my master sent me to the wall to clear my mus-
ket.
Mr. Streete, with several gentlemen, some of the King's
officers, coming by, he said, he would see this soldier let off
his musket. He threatened me, till I let off the musket.
I have several times seen him wear either sword, or rapier,
most commonly. I cannot say he had then a rapier or
sword.
Mr. Collins (a member) was produced to prove Mr.
Streete was taken a prisoner by the Parliament, and exchang-
ed for another prisoner.
It was moved that they might withdraw, but
offered that
* At Cropedy Bridge, June 29, 1641. Scc Rushworth, v. 336.
1658-9.]
429
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
the Colonel ought to be present to take examination. It was
fit all should hear that they may know how to answer.
Mr. Collins. In May, 46, we were commanded to march
under Colonel Morgan and Colonel Birch to Ombersley with
all the forces in Worcester. In our way we met Mr. Streete,
and other persons of the King's army, and took him prisoner.
He was exchanged for a kinsman of mine. We could not
have him released for two soldiers, but as soon as ever Mr.
Streete was taken, on their own accord, they sent to exchange
him, and my kinsman was released, and he released.
Mr. Finch being asked, if he did accept of the exchange,
answered, he did not accept of the exchange, and insisted still
he was not in arms. Mr. Collins was a Committee man, yet
did never prosecute against him.
Mr. Streete. I was a prisoner under Colonel Morgan, but
I could never accept of the exchange, for I always insisted
upon my innocency; I have testimonials under the officer's
hand.
Mr. Latham offered now to prove, that he kept company
with cavaliers; but that was taken off presently as a thing
not material. The counsel said they only offered that as
a circumstance. It may be all the town was disaffected.
Richard Duce. In September, 57, I heard Mr. Streetc
swear, twice or thrice, by God, at his own house, without any
provocation at all. I came to demand money of him for
highway, as being overseer.
Thomas Duce, a minister. About December or No-
vember last, I heard him oftimes reiterate, by his faith and
by his troth. There were by, Mr. Moore and his son.
Mr. Simon Moore, a minister.* Some civil carriage has
been between Mr. Strecte and mc. Mr. Streete came to
give me a visit, where, in civil discourse, it was ordinary
with him to swear by his faith and by his troth.
* Dr. Calamy says, "he preached at the Cathedral. After Bartho-
lomew Day, (1662,) through the fury and rage of the justices and
people, he was forced to leave Worcester." Account, (1713,) ii.
768, 769.
430
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I heard that Mr. Streete had a mind to stand. Some
Christians intreated me to interpose with Mr. Streete to pre-
vent it. I denied it, but being prevailed with, I sent to a
special friend of Mr. Streete's to acquaint him that we wished
he would not stand. I said, I fear he will do himself
more harm than good. I heard one say he had been in
arms. The man that first accused him was an honest godly
man, Richard Hodgkins.
This Hodgkins told him all that I had said. That night
Mr. Streete came to my house to give me thanks, as he said,
for my civility. He told me he had never been in arms.
Then he swore by his Maker that he would sue and undo
that man that should give evidence against him.
Then he said he would steer by Mr. Collins's directions.
He was in the next room, and I said it is well, you may
meet; but as soon as he heard Mr. Collins was there, he
went away in an anger and would not hear him.
Mr. Moore gave an account of himself, that he had been
faithful from the beginning. He never prosecuted against
him for swearing. That is an ill way for a minister to take.
He has reproved him, and did not consent to his being chosen.
He bears no part of the charge to prosecute.
Mr. Richard Moore. I have heard him
I have heard him often, since
October last, usually swear by his faith and troth.
Mr. Latham. Though the law take off the punishment
in point of time, yet I hope it will not take off the crime
before you.
I shall offer nought at present to the election, but only rest
it here for the present.
1. As to his delinquency.
2. As to his swearing.
Mr. Finch. This gentleman stands impeached of the
highest crime that can be brought against any man in
England.
The evidence ought to be very clear. We shall not need
to support ourselves by the weakness of their evidence. Yet
we shall not forgive it them.
I do not call Smith to an account for want of circumstance
1658-9.]
431
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
as to listing and quartering; but as to the time of 45, and
Sir William Russel, I shall except his going to church
with a long sword with his sister. I hope that will not stick
with you.
When a man comes to demand a petty tax, I leave it to
your discretion whether a lawyer and discreet person will
swear himself out of double the tax.
If the words were at length, "By my faith and troth," it
will amount no farther then bonâ fide, or in veritate. The
angriest interpretation will not do it.
If, for this, a member should be thrown out, for such a slip
of frailty, it would be an easy thing to draw many members
to such a slip. I shall leave that to your wisdom.
I shall only answer what sticks most: the evidence of a
member. He was called from the University to manage the
estate left him by his father, to this place, where we find him
thus prosecuted. We grant he wore a sword, both in the
town and out of town, but never employed it against the Par-
liament.
Going once out of this city, he light upon, or was rather
light upon by some soldiers of the Parliament. He refused
the exchange, and was constrained to live there.
He that dwells in Mesech,* must keep company with such;
yet Mr. Moore was pleased sometimes to keep him company.
I shall reserve my examination, as to matter of law, till after-
wards.
I
He was but fourteen years old when the war began.
must crave Mr. Moore's pardon to reflect a little upon him,
to disable his testimony. He was born in October 25.
Mr. Thomas Streete. About the year 41 or 42, he went to
Oxford. He came from Oxford in 44, his father was dead
before. His father and mother made him executor. He left
Oxford, as I have been informed, because he would not take
up arms there.
I have inquired of two hundred that never
heard he was a soldier.
Mr. Purdo. I never heard that ever he was in arms against
the Parliament.
Ps. cxx. 5. "Wo is me, that I sojourn in Mesech."
432
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. George Streete, his brother. I have seen money dis-
posed of that my brother had given to the Parliament soldiers.
He procured me a horse and furnished me with arms the year
before the Scots came to Worcester, and said that he would
assist me.
He said, he would not come nigh that party that
came to Worcester, and advised me not to come near them ;
for, he said, all that came to them would be proceeded
against as traitors.
Another witness. I have known him from his cradle, and
never knew him, nor heard of him, that he was in arms. I have
been often in his company and never heard him swear an oath.
Mr. Moore preached Job 27 last verse, and declared that the
people should clap their hands and hiss at them. They were
gone out like the snuff of a candle. Another witness said the
same that the other said of the minister, clap your hands, &c.
Mr. Finch. Take notice of this only; that he was
always a person well affected to the present government. All
our witnesses have been in arms for the Parliament.
Mr. Moore, after a long pause, of his own accord, explained
that he did preach on that text.
I was inciting all persons to be faithful to their trust, clse
God would cast them out; but I named not the Parliament.
There are some worthy persons in this assembly that heard
me.
Richard Hodgkins. Mr. Streete sent me to Mr. Moore,
who said, if Mr. Streete stand, I wish I had known two days
since, before I was otherwise engaged. I would have en-
gaged all my friends, but rather than be a hindrance to him,
I will be out of town that day.
Mr.
*. Mr. Streete sent me to Captain Collins.
He said he would not appear against any townsman; but
would take his horse and go out of town rather than hinder
him, and for aught he understood, Captain Collins did well
approve of his standing.
Mr. Finch produced the certificates; but Mr. Latham ex-
cepted that the House would not take that for evidence which
would not be accepted in any court.
* Blank in the MS.
1658-9.]
433
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Finch. It is but a concurring testimony to what Cap-
tain Collins has said.
Mr. Latham. You will not accept of paper evidence
against that, viva voce.
Mr. Knightley. The evidence you take here must either
be viva voce, or upon record. I would not, for danger of the
precedent, accept of paper certificates.
Mr. Finch. I am content to wave it. A petition of three
hundred against a petition of thirty-five, so we have vor po-
puli along with us.
The witnesses are angry, and partakers of the charge. I
hope the testimony of one godly person will not carry all with
you. We have offered you something to prove him to be an
eager witness.
After Mr. Streete's being at Oxford, he retires to a garrison
for safeguard of his estate.
A man then,* to save his sustenance and estate, may be
found in evil company, and not be guilty.
How could a man demean himself more innocently. He
joins his devotion with the ministers that were praying for
you; comes with a sword, and therefore must be an enemy.
We cannot fear that a member heard by his peers, shall
not be found innocent.
We cannot pray other than that we may be dismissed with
costs, if you would discourage such as inform without cause;
that it may not only be exemplary in our acquittal, but in
our reparation.
Mr. Latham. This gentleman hath not only done the part
of an advocate, but of an exquisite orator,† and, under his
pardon, a judge too, to direct you what to do.
It
appears that the counsel had referred to several law-cases, but
the report is too imperfect to be understood.
+ It is to be regretted, that this report has preserved nothing of the
orator. He was a person," says Wood, "of so eloquent and fluent
speech, and of so great sapience, that he was usually styled the English
Roscius, and the English Cicero." Athen. Oxon. (1692,) ii. 540.
Bishop Burnet, on "Finch's character," says, "he was long much
admired for his eloquence; but it was laboured and affected, and he saw
2 F
VOL. III.
434
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I hope you will not discourage persons that complain to
you, for the advantage of the public.
We are before you, as the proper judges.
If they had matter, they would have laid aside their de-
viations. I submit it, if it be not as full a proof as can be.
True, by the Act of Oblivion, they are pardoned, but it is
your law in being that does disenable; viz. the Petition and
Advice, and an Act of the Long Parliament.
The proof is as full as can be expected, unless we should
rake amongst those that have been your enemies.
We have proved him several times in arms.
An exchange is not usually offered for an adversary, but
for such as they know to be a friend.
It is notoriously known that no man durst wear a sword in
a garrison, but such as was a friend. He was seventeen years
old at Edgehill fight, and twenty years, when at Worcester.
He might at that age have done as great an offence, and been
punished as highly as if double his age.
As to the discharging the musquet, if he had not been a
friend to the garrison, he durst not have said so to a soldier.
The fact is plainly proved, to make him incapable.
For that of swearing. It is proved by godly men he had
fair admonition volenti non fit injuria. He may blame him-
self.
The reflection upon the minister must needs be the height
of envy and malice, and does not abate his testimony. The
person for all the reflection may go home as clear as he came
hither.
The evidence being thus summed up on both sides. The
counsel, witnesses, and Mr. Streete withdrew.
Lieutenant-general Ludlow moved against what Mr. Onslow
had moved that it may be, of what Mr. Moore had said in his
sermon something might be true. This might have been
forborne; such a reflection was ill said before strangers.
it as much despised before he died." The Bishop adds: "he was too
eloquent on the Bench, in the House of Lords, and in common con-
versation." Own Times, i. 365.
1658-9.]
435
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Walter Earle. I never saw such disorder at a Com-
mittee.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move that we proceed no fur-
ther in this business, other than to report the matter of fact
to the House. I wish the Chairman to read his notes, and
any member to take his examination, and the state of the
case being agreed to, report it so to the House.
He undertook to state it, but mistook in many things.
Mr. Goodrick and Mr. Knightley, and other good friends
of Mr. Streete corrected him.
I came away at seven. Query-what became of the busi-
ness? I suppose the Chairman will report the whole matter.
Mr. Bodurda moved for a Sub-Committee.
Wednesday, February 23, 1658-9.
I came in late, and the Duke of Buckingham had been at
the bar according to order of the House.*
thus:
In the Journals
The House being informed that, in pursuance of the order
of this House, of Monday last, the Duke of Buckingham at-
tended to make his engagement to this House.
He was called in, and was brought to the bar by the Ser-
jeant-at-arms, standing by him, without the bar, and by his
keeper, a servant to the governor of Windsor Castle, coming
with him into the House.
Mr. Speaker acquainted the Duke, that a Petition having
been delivered from him to this House on Monday last, by a
person of honour, one of the members thereof, and nearly re-
lated to him; the House had taken into a due consideration
the Duke's demerits, which had been very great to this Com-
monwealth; but had overbalanced them with the high merit.
of his relations; and of their goodness had ordered, that,
upon his own engagement, upon his honour, and of the Lord
Fairfax in twenty thousand pounds, that he should not abet
* See supra, pp. 370, 375.
ļ
2 1 2
486
[FEB. 23,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
any, the enemies of this Commonwealth, either at home or
abroad, he should have his enlargement; which engagement
they now expected from him.
The Duke, standing at the bar, said, he accounted it his
great happiness to come before this assembly; and that, in
pursuance, and, according to the order of this House, he did
here now engage himself to this House, upon his honour, to
demean himself peaceably and quietly, and not to join with,
or abet, or have any correspondence with, any the enemies of
this Commonwealth, either at home or abroad, for the future.
And further, gave the House his most humble thanks for
their high favour towards him; and professed he should be
ready to lay down his life and fortune for their service.
After the Duke's engagement, made as before, he was com-
manded to withdraw, and withdrew accordingly.
Resolved, &c. That George Duke of Buckingham, upon
this his engagement upon his honour, made to this House
this day at the bar, be forthwith freed and discharged from
the imprisonment and restraint he is now under.*
Mr. Speaker acquainted the House with an abuse offered
to Major-general Packer on the highway.
Major-general Packer. As I was going home on Saturday
night, a gentleman, being drunk, switched my horse and then
myself. I was content to pass on the road with the abuse,
till I came to a town and called for a constable.
He fell upon Captain Gladman, who was in my company,
and cut him in the hat, and had killed him if help had not
been made.
A rude ranting Cavalier swore "God damn him," often.
He was one of the King's knights. He and his complices
have boasted much of this. I chose rather to show my valour
* I know not if it were any recollection of the lenity thus discovered
in this short day of their power, by these anti-episcopalians, which in-
duced the Duke of Buckingham, on a mighty reverse of fortunes, to
move for "leave to bring in a Bill of indulgence to all Protestant dis-
senters." See "The Duke of Buckingham's Speech in the House of
Lords, Nov. 16, 1675, for a Toleration." Genuine Works, (1752,) PP.
164, 165.
1658-9.]
437
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
in another way. The person is Mr. Henry, alias Sir Henry
Wroth*.
Mr. Reynolds. You have had a fair evidence from your
member, and it will be enough for you to proceed against
him as a delinquent.
I would have the worthy member have a reprehension for
concealing this information from you: for it seems, if he had
but held his tongue when he was sober, he had never trou-
bled him. I would have no member to keep any thing in his
pocket, not an hour, of this nature.
Resolved, that Mr. Henry Wroth be forthwith sent for as
a delinquent, and that he be brought to the bar of this House
by the Serjeant-at-arms.
The order of the day was read, then went on the debate,
touching the business of the Sound.
Mr. Topham, (Alderman of York). I lived in the eastern
parts thirty years. There are many oppressions upon our
merchants. The Spaniards were always plotting to grasp the
trade, and the Spanish commanders rule all there.
Sir Thomas Roet demanded of us the merchants, which
* "Of Durans, in the parish of Enfield, Middlesex." Journals.
† This statesman, who possessed both literary and diplomatic talents,
was first employed by Prince Henry, in 1604, to attempt discoveries in
America. In 1614, he was sent Ambassador to the Great Mogul, of
whose court and country, where he spent four years, (and greatly ad-
vanced the interests of the then inconsiderable East India Company,)
his Chaplain, Edward Terry, published an account, which was reprint-
ed, 1777. From 1621 to 1628, he was employed on an embassy to
Turkey, whence he brought some valuable Greek and Oriental MSS.,
as presents to the Bodleian Library, and the celebrated Alexandrian
MS. from the Patriarch Cyril to Charles I. "The Negotiations of Sir
Thomas Roe at the Ottoman Porte," were published from his MSS. in
1740, by the "Society for promoting learning."
His next mission, (during which, no doubt, Alderman Topham had
met with him,) was "in 1629, when he was sent to mediate a peace be-
tween the kings of Sweden and Poland." Howell, in a letter "to the
Earl of Bristol, April 23, 1630," speaking of Gustavus Adolphus after
"the battle of Leipsic," says:
upon which victory the King sent Sir
Thomas Roe a present of 20007. and in his letter calls him his strenuum
consultorem, be being one of the first who advised him to this German
CC
438
[FEB. 23,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
着
​might be the best way for the good of our own nation. The
King of Denmark hath dealt treacherously with England. He
hath been always plotting against us, and ever our enemy.
We pay more taxes than any other nation. He kept up our
100th penny, then doubled it, then took four times as much.
In wars between us and the King,† he seized all our ships, pre-
tending order from the King.
He promised us protection if we would come into his har-
bour, and then seized on our ships. True, the merchants
got satisfaction, but the land never got any; though it cost
us a million.
Two masters of Hull were at the Baltic, in October last,
being laden with corn. One of them carried a packet from
the King of Sweden, and brought one back again. He affir-
med that the King offered, if his Highness of England would
but lend him twenty frigates, he would deposit in our hands
Elsinore* Castle, for his security, and I believe we might
have our own terms. Nothing under heaven concerns the
English so much as that channel. Let us plant our ships in
time there, and we have advantage enough of the Hollander.
All that is done in this House is carried abroad, all the
world over. My motion is that you presently join your as-
sistance to Sweden.
Captain Whalley. I hope this House will think it neces
sary to send a fleet to cover our interest in the Sound. 1
shall not speak of the difference between the princes; but we
are the fittest umpires. The Hollander will use harder argu-
ments.
!
war, after he had made peace between him and the Polander." Epis-
tolæ Ho-Elianæ, (1754,) p. 228.
Sir Thomas Roe, who died in 1644, aged 64, was M. P. for Oxford
University, in the Long Parliament. His colleague was John Selden:
but their paths soon diverged; for he took the Covenant, while Sir
Thomas Roe, a few months before his decease, retired to Oxford to join
what the King unpolitely called "his mungrel Parliament." See supra,
p. 234, note.
*See supra, p. 379, note.
+ Charles I.
1658-9.]
439
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
J
I am jealous of that neighbour of ours, because he is a
rival at our trade. His sending 4000 soldiers* is very com-
mendable. The preparation of the Dutch seems to tell you
what you are to do. It will be necessary that you be included
in the treaty. If there be a war, will it not be necessary that
you have a fleet to secure your interest there and guard your
merchants?
You have another potent enemy, Spain.
My motion is, that you recommend the care of this to his
Highness and the Council, and make what salvo you please
for the militia; lest we suffer by a public enemy, while we are
over eagerly jealous over one another about our interests at
home.
Mr.
† We are not upon a business of war, as I ap-
prehend it. The object of this design has a great deal of
glory, and honour, and bounty in it, and it is but just when
the ball of contention is thrown, that we see for a share of it.
If this be not well looked to, it will diminish all trade.
The wisdom of prevention is always best, at the latter end.
I apprehend it not that it concludes the business of your mi-
litia. I would have it, to prevent delay, recommended to his
Highness; it being, in itself, both just, honourable, and pro-
fitable.
Sir Robert Goodwin. Our wealth increaseth not. The
bodies of our men increase not. It will ask money. I know
not how it will rise. It is not good to discontent the people
at this time.
Let us consider well how we engage between these two
Protestant princes; unless to make peace.
unless to make peace. I would have us
well satisfied of the state of the quarrel. The justice of the
war is first to be considered and made out. I move to endea-
vour a reconciliation between the two Protestant princes.
Major-general Kelsey. Time will not admit of debate, to
examine the grounds of the quarrel, for, before we can be cer-
tified of the state of affairs, as to the justness of the quarrel,
* See supra, pp. 383.
+ Blank in the MS.
440
[FEB. 23,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
the point will be determined, and no place left for debate.
It is of greater consequence than we are aware of, to the sale
of our commodities and the increase of our navigation.
If we take not this opportunity, we destroy our trade. Our
wool and cloth are vented this way, and we have a return of
cordage, &c. If that trade be taken from us, we cannot sub-
sist. All our trade to all other parts of the world will decay.
Our rivals will be, inevitably, our masters. They not long
since would have sent us white paper to write what we pleased.
To them we must now send white paper to write what they
please upon. Two kingdoms and the Commonwealth of Hol-
land are very much concerned in this quarrel. Thus there is
a combination of several enemies against the King of Sweden,
and he hath none to stand by him, in this exigency and
strait. Unless we assist him he is undone. It will either
force him to a mean compliance or else utterly destroy him.
If we had to do only with the Dane and Swede, the thing
were not very considerable, but the Dutch are most in our
eye, and we most in theirs. The Dane is in that condition,
that all his confederates can do him no good, without the as-
sistance of the Dutch. If so, it need not be much insisted on,
what the inference will be. It matters not whether the
Swede or Dane have it.
You showed the greatest favour to the Dutch in the peace,
that ever was. You took no advantages against him. He
has ever since sought all advantages against you.
Therefore it much concerns you to the being and well being
of this nation to be as expeditious in this business as you
possibly can.
Your life lies at stake. A great charge is objected. This
is inevitable, and no way to prevent a greater charge but by
expedition in this business.
As to the objection of a war with Holland. There is no
other way under heaven to prevent that war, than by sending
this fleet into the Sound. They have experience of your
strength at sea. But if they get the Sound into their hands,
vou must not expect any freedom, but what you make with
the sword.
1658-9.]
441
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
We may by this make peace between the two princes that
it may be in the hands of neither of them wholly. We should
have our eye upon our own present interest. If it should
please God to divert the councils in this great business, the
consequence may be dangerous.
It will be no granting the militia, if we make his Highness
the Instrument. I would have no delay in this business.
Sir William D'Oyley. I came with some prejudice to this
debate, upon the principle of good husbandry; but the de-
bate has made me your convert. I would have this business
sent back to his Highness, and twenty frigates sent out pre-
sently; and let the Commissioners of Admiralty prepare far-
ther assistances.
Mr. Knightley. It is for your honour to be active at sea.
It will make the Dutch put in their horns.
There is no danger of granting the militia. We make a
fair claim to it. It is for our honour not to slip this oppor-
tunity.
Sir Henry Vane. I shall only speak to the manner of your
proceeding, and to save time. The end of Mr. Secretary's
report was to have a powerful navy at sea this summer.
That, I think, is every man's sense, and with expedition
too.
I believe we all agree that this year we should have a pow-
erful well-manned fleet at sea; but I would not have such a
general vote, lest more may be carried than is intended, and
we grant what we know not.
1. Here is the expenditure of a million of money presented
to you, and you draw that debt upon you. I hope your Com-
mittee, touching the accounts, will find out a way that your
revenue already settled, being well managed, will defray this
charge; and not involve us further, before we see what our
affairs are.
It is propounded that you have a very consider-
able navy at sea, 15,000 men. I hope you will have money
before you, to furnish them.
2. By this very vote you grant away your approbation, if not
disposal of your chief commanders at sea, which I suppose is
your right. It is very fit you should know who they are and
442
[FEB. 23,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
approve
of them, which was never denied you. You, also,
give up the right of the militia. If you consent to give away
that which is in your disposal, you do not do prudentially.
3. In referring this to his Highness and the council, do not
you take it for granted that there is a council in being whose
names you yet know not, and confirm them all in a lump.
I would have you first resolve that for the safety of trade
of this nation, &c. You will have 15,000 men raised, and
appoint a Committee to consult with the Commissioners of
the Navy and Admiralty, how this may be put in a way with
the least charge; and to report the state of this expedition to
the House.
Mr. Trevor. That the militia should not be disposed of
without your consent is a right, I suppose, you will never part
with. His Highness does not seem to demand it of you, by
his submitting this to you. He that asks authority, assents.
that he of whom it is demanded, hath it. I doubt the present
juncture of affairs will not admit of a delay. The opportuni-
ties may be lost in a few days. All considerations of officers
of Navy and council, and militia, are all reserved entire unto
you. Your men and officers are all ready to go out. They
are now all aboard, or very near it. I would have all things
left clear, and that you make this reference to his Highness
and council.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am sorry to hear this pressing
upon you of the word necessity. It caused shipmoney. Oh!
woful, lamentable necessity. Oh, Sir, why is so much put
upon us? I love not to see you overwitted. You are not to
be overwitted. Why were we not called five months since?
Why was not this matter brought in before the Bill of Re-
cognition? You are owning the single person, and his coun-
cil by this means. Must we own the council, too, before we
know them. Have you limited his council?
The gentleman in the corner gave me light. I hope we
shall have a navy, as great as we can bear at this time, and
with all expedition. He tells me that may be done, and there
is money too to be had; he is quick-sighted, I know it very
well. When our affairs, as to the Navy, were such as we
1658-9.]
443
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
could not turn ourselves unto them, did we not turn our eyes
upon that gentleman, by whose providence it was so excel-
lently managed.* We turned out all our army by a self-deny-
ing ordinance. Oh, Sir, I would to God we had a self-deny-
ing vote now. I think we should give better advice than
we now do.
I would have no fleet sent out, till the officers be approved
on by you, and the whole business.
Bound your single person, and my soul shall go along with
you. Let us not be put to fight it over again and to make
acts to bound the council table. I know not this council, nor
what are their names, and shall never give my consent to their
stipends. I would have as potent a fleet forthwith set out,
but would have this referred to the Commissioners of the
Navy, and to have inspection into our treasures by your Com-
mittee of Accounts. Search your treasures. This is weak
but faithful council. For my part I shall get nought
by confusion. I would not have it. I apprehend it not
prudent to reflect upon those that you are in amity with. I
would have a very great fleet.
I neither think it prudence you should tell what you mean
to do with the fleet, neither would I have you give it out of
your hands at once, to you do not know where. Sir, we have
enough here within ourselves to carry on this work. We
have done it, when we were not so wise as we now are.
First put it that you will have a very potent fleet at sea,
and refer it to your Committee of Accounts.
See vol. ii. pp. 396, 397.
This ordinance first passed the Commons, December 19, 1644,
though not without opposition, especially from Whitlock, (see Memori-
als, p. 119,) when it was rejected by the Lords, after several conferences.
At length, April 3, 1645, the Self-denying Ordinance passed the Lords.
It imported, according to Rushworth, 1. “ A general discharge of the
Members of both Houses, from all offices, military and civil, conferred
on any of them by either House, since November 20, 1640. 2. That the
benefit of all offices, either military or judicial, hereafter to be granted
by either House, shall be accounted for to the Parliament, and the of-
ficer allowed a competent salary." Hist. Col. (1708,) v. 517. See vol.
ii. p. 449, note *.
444
[FEB. 23,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Bodurda. I believe the Committee of Accounts have
enough to do. You must appoint another Committee, and
that must report. This will spend time.
One part of the light I received from the corner was matter
of charge. If there be so much remaining upon accounts, is
not this good payment.
If your officers should be called back again, that happily
have received your imprest money, that will give you new
imprest money. I am afraid there is much of that kind of
reason in this debate, as if we were in time of peace.
It ought to be our greatest consideration to keep out that
family and line.* We had better be at the bottom of the
sca; nay, they that would bring them in, had better be at
the bottom of the sea.
The late king had not so faithful an ally as Denmark.
Holland the nursery of arms, was at that time against you.
They are, at this time, confederates with the house of
Austria, your great and potent enemy.
Let us be ingenuous in this business and hearken to
nought that may be matter of delay. Refer it to his High-
ness and the Council, to make a vigorous prosecution of
sending a fleet to cover your just interest in the Sound.
I suppose the commanders will come hither to be approved
by you: that will not ask you much debate.
Mr. Onslow. The first question should be, that a con-
siderable fleet be made ready, suitable to the preparation
of other nations, for safety and preservation of the commerce
of this Commonwealth.
I move that a very considerable navy be forthwith pro-
vided and put to sea, for the safety of this Commonwealth
and the preservation of the trade and commerce thereof.†
Mr. Reynolds and others moved, that the word, commerce,
be left out.
* See supra, p. 276, and this Anti-Stuart in 1660, p. 136, note.
+ "Onslow seconds Sir Arthur's motion, as tending to a conclusion
of the debate. Never let us sound into the justice of the quarrel, but
find a necessity to provide a good navy." Goddard MS. p. 225.
1658-9.]
445
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Henry Vane. I move that it stand. It will best
satisfy the merchants, and was always the ground of tonnage
and poundage.
Mr. Swinfen. I move to leave out the word, very; it
signifies nought.
Mr. Fowell. I would have the word, very, stand.
Mr. Knightley. The word, very, will not add a man : nor is
it material to have the word, commerce, for you intend that
your fleet should not be as dead walls, but for the pre-
servation of commerce.
But, in the end of the debate it was put to the ques-
tion, and
Resolved ut suprà, in ipsissimis verbis, without any alte-
ration, and nemine contradicente.
Sir William Wheeler. I move that the care of this be
referred to his Highness and the Council.* I have always
observed, that these jealousies have been easily passed over.
Sir Henry Vane. It is not a vote that will set the fleet
to sea. There is an estimate before you of 15,000 men.
Take that into consideration, how they shall be paid and who
shall command them.
I would have this vote made effectual. Therefore refer it to
your Committe of Accounts, to examine, if the fleet already
provided, or the money already taxed, will answer this busi-
ness; and I hope you will have the officers before you, at
least, to approve of them.
Mr. Bulkeley. I move that you would not let your
strength be known, or examine what number is fit; but to
refer it back to his Highness and the Council.
Lord Lambert. I move to appoint a Committee to prepare
Although some moved that it may be sent out only for guarding
the narrow sea, and for maintenance of trade, with instructions from
the Protector, and to appoint a Committee to attend his Highness and
the Ambassadors to be heard, lest if we should go to part States, it
might happen to us as to a sober man that attempts to part two drunk-
ards. He is often fallen upon by both, and comes off with the greatest
loss." Goddard MS. p. 225.
4446
[FEB. 23,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
this business, that the world may see the Parliament of Eng-
land are concerned in it. Let your Committee be declared, in
number, five or six, not exceeding seven, that may wait
upon his Highness, to consider of a way how to carry on this
business.
Mr. Knightley. I second that motion, that a Committee
of seven may wait upon his Highness and advise with him, to
carry on this business, and to join with those of the council
that he shall appoint to be employed in this service; and
I would be as free as any, if there be a necessity.
Colonel Clark. The generality of the vote will not do
your business. There must be some more particulars in
your resolution.
You have resolved a very considerable navy, but what
you will do with it, non constat. Fifteen thousand men were
desired by his late Highness, and a fleet considerable, either
for the affairs of France, or for any other service. Besides
this fleet, you have other considerable navies, to guard your
seas, and the trade in the straits. I therefore desire you
would resolve something more in particular, of this affair.
Your neighbours, the Dutch, are not ashamed to publish,
that they are preparing to send a fleet for assistance of the
King of Denmark. Why should we fear to declare that we
are preparing a fleet for preservation of our interest in the
Baltic seas.
I am sorry this business has not been made known to the
House before now. It is now before you, and your navy is
already in great forwardness. I pray you, for the concern-
ments of England, that you would declare that you will send
a considerable fleet to secure your interest in the Baltic seas.
If you lose opportunities, they will never be recovered; for
if you should put all the vigour upon it that this House
could, I fear it would not answer your expectation of the af
fair.
Sir Henry Vane. So far as I was able to calculate, I told
you I thought that the excise and customs already settled,
would bear this charge without any other tax. I did not tell
you that any money was ready.
1
1658-9.]
447
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
That Committee has work enough, you must appoint ano-
ther Committee.
Mr. Solicitor-general. It is not for your service at present
to interpose with his Highness, now when the navy is ready
for action. I would have some of this House appointed to
attend his Highness with this vote, and that you desire his care
in managing the business. There is another House in the
constitution.
Mr. Turner. I move to know whether you will look u pon
this expedition as an additional charge; or that the present
provision will carry it on.
Sir Henry Vane. It concerns you exceedingly to look
about you. The question will inevitably involve you in the
business of the militia, and negative voice, and the other
House. This House by silence cannot suffer; by a vote
they may.
I suppose his Highness and Council (though you be silent
in it) will go on with the business. There is nought to hin-
der but this fleet shall be at sea. But to send a Committee
to his Highness, or to the Lords, you will put entanglements
upon you. It is intended, I suppose, to go on, though you
say nought; and the less you say the better.*
Mr. Trevor. I desire this expedition may go on. There-
fore make no reference that may retard it. A Committee
will retard it, and the opportunity is lost. If I had thought
the business would go on without you, I should not have
troubled you. It is now before you to give order how this
fleet shall go on.
I would therefore have it referred to his
Highness, barely, without the Council.
Colonel White. If your fleet were ready to go out, it
would signify nought, unless you agree how it shall be dis-
posed on.
I move to have a Committee appointed, to advise with his
Highness, to carry on this business.
* "Sir H. Vane is for doing and declaring nothing, nor referring it
to any, but to leave it in the hands of those where it now is, and as it
is." Goddard MS. pp. 226, 227.
4
448
[FEB. 22,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
The House rose at two o'clock, and adjourned the debate
till to-morrow,* eight o'clock, nothing to intervene.
The Committee of Grievances sat upon the business of Ma-
jor Portmant.
Colonel Terrill in the chair.
Major Portman was brought to the bar, and Sir John
Barkstead‡ sent in the warrant for his imprisonment by a mem-
ber; but the Committee would not be satisfied till Sir John
Barkstead came himself to the bar. Colonel Terrill would
not call him Lord Barkstead. It was said that it was not fit
for a Lord of the other House to be a gaoler.
He produced a warrant from his Highness for Portman's
commitment, and also a letter all writ with his Highness's
own hand, to him directed, desiring him to seize Major-gene-
ral Harrison,§ Mr. Feak, Rogers, Portman, Carew, and ano-
ther named in the letter; and said further, " and other
*"So the question as Mr. Onslow stated it, was voted, and what
should be farther done, in pursuance of that vote, was adjourned over
to the next day, to be the subject of that debate." Goddard MS. p. 227.
† See supra, pp. 306, 307.
Lieutenant of the Tower. See supra, p. 79.
Secretary Thurloe :-
He thus writes to
"Feb. 22, 1658-9. The last night I received an order from the
Grand Committee of Parliament, for Grievances, &c., to bring to-mor-
row the body of Mr. John Portman to that Committee, together with
the causes of his commitment and detainer; and according to that order,
I have this day received a copy of Mr. Portman's petition, and am to
give an answer to the Committee concerning the particular complaint
relating to myself; in which I am confident I cannot be charged with
any thing but keeping close to my warrant: the copy of which petition,
as also of the warrant for his commitment, &c., I have herein enclosed.
"I shall have the prisoner there, as required, and humbly conceive it
convenient Mr. Attorney may have notice to be then at the Com-
mittee." See "Thurloe State Papers," vii. 620.
§
rr
upon
"Feb. 4, 1657-8. Divers were imprisoned," says Whitlock,
the new plot, and the Protector and his Council were busie in the ex-
aminations concerning it; and Thurloe did them good service. Major-
general Harrison was deep in it. Feb. 12. Divers seditious books
taken, of the conspirators." Memorials, (1732,) p. 673.
|| Probably Courtney. On Feak and Rogers, see vol. i. p. 350.
“Feb. 4, 1657-8. It is observable that Major-general Harrison and
1658-9.]
449
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
eminent Fifth Monarchy men." The latter words were highly
excepted against by the Committee, and the general sense
was that it was a high breach of the liberties of the subject,
and,
Resolved, that the imprisonment of Mr. Portman was un-
just and illegal.*
Resolved, that the debate touching the bounds and powers
of another House, appointed to be taken up to-morrow morn-
ing, by the order made yesterday, be further adjourned until
his wife, Mr. John Carew, and Major Courtney, though formerly sup-
posed to be persons a story or two above ordinances, being desirous to
enter into the way of the rebaptized, have all of them, sometime since
the beginning of this frosty weather, been dipped, notwithstanding the
bitterness of the season.
"And it is further observable, that when the said Major Courtney
was apprehended, (who, with Mr. Rogers, the minister, &c., now stand
committed to the Tower,) there were found in his lodgings several
dangerous printed pamphlets, divers of which were enclosed in letters,
directed to several persons in the country; being the very same pam-
phlets with those which have lately been scattered up and down, among
the soldiery and elsewhere." Mercurius Politicus, No. 402, p. 294. See
vol. ii. p. 134, note †, and p. 312.
* Barkstead to Secretary Thurloe. "Feb. 24, 1658-9. I believe
you have had an account, ere this, what was the sense of the Grand
Committee yesterday, upon the bringing of Portman thither. Not-
withstanding my producing my Lord Protector's letter, under his High-
ness's owne hand, and a full warrant (as I apprehended) some seeme to
dislike my showing that letter; but such was my affection and faithful-
ness to his Highness's commands, I did not imagine the doing that
would have reflected upon his honour, which I esteemed my great en-
couragement. I heartily wish this occasion had been prevented, either
by Portman's discharge before, or such warrant given for his detainer,
as might have justified me more.
Sir, I am confident I shall be brought again upon the stage, by se-
veral prisoners in my custody. These committed by the warrants en-
closed, I suppose will be forwardest, and therefore humbly desire your
honour will take it into consideration, that as I have kept close in obe-
dience, soe I may not be left lyable to the malice of particular men. I
shall not doubt of your tenderness herein.
I
suppose the report touching Portman will be made to-morrow
morning to the House." See "Thurloe State Papers," vii. 620.
VOL. III.
26
450
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Friday morning, next; and then proceeded in according to
the former order.
Mr. Secretary Thurloe being chosen to serve as a member
of this present Parliament for the University of Cambridge,
for Wisbeach, and for Huntingdon, declared that he made
choice to serve for the University of Cambridge.
Ordered new writs to issue for Huntingdon and Wisbeach.
The House being informed that Mr. Anthony Nicholl, who
was returned to serve for Bossiny, in Cornwall, was lately
dead, it was ordered that a new writ do issue for electing a
member in his place.
Thursday, February, 24, 1658-9.
Mr. Speaker took the chair at nine.
Mr. Cooper prayed.
Query, per diurnal* what passed before, for I went out
into the hall for half-an-hour, and when I came in again
The order of the day was read. According to the order
made yesterday, the House took into consideration the matters
then debated on.†
Nothing appears on the Journals, except orders for new writs in
the cases of two members, who had each been chosen for two boroughs.
↑ Thursday, Feb. 24. This being the day to which the business of
the Sound was adjourned, many questions were proposed for debate.
"1. Whether this House should, at this time, give the advice for the
sending the navy of the Commonwealth, now prepared, to the Baltic
seas.
“2. Whether the fleet shall be disposed by advice and direction of
this House, or by the single person, or any other without doors.
3. That this flect be disposed of by his Highness, by advice of this
House.
"4. Unless we see cause to send a considerable fleet into the Baltic,
***** of the order or rate the other day; for if by sending it
thither, a new war should break out that might not be for our service;
but if it be only to umpire affairs, there may be something in it.
“5. Unless it should be disagreed by the single person and the Par-
liament." Goddard MS. p. 227.
1
I
1658-9.]
451
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Walter Earle. I move that the Speaker collect the
debate, and put us in a way to come to a question.
Sir Henry Vane. The committing this business to his
Highness will at once give away your militia, as to the naval
part. The next step will be your militia, at land, and then
you are concluded in your claim to the militia.
I would have a fair question touching the sending a fleet
to secure the Baltic sea.
Mr. Attorney-general and Mr. Bacon moved that it was no
complicated question, nor a granting away the militia.
Mr. Neville. Your debate only relates to sending a part
of your fleet to the Baltic sea. Otherwise you give away the
merit of the business at once.
Captain Baynes. This sending to the Baltic sea tends to a
breach of peace with Holland. For defence we are always
prepared. If anything of offence be intended, it is fit we
should understand it.
Such actions as these are called expeditions, because expe-
dition is the life of action. I except against the word " ad-
vise," in the question, I know not whom we shall advise with.
The militia is in you. I would have the word, declare or
direct. Because this House must pay them, it is, therefore,
fit they should dispose of them.
I move for a Committee of this House to dispose of this
business.
Mr. Onslow. I see we are at a loss for want of being open
faced in this debate. Make this the matter of your debate,
whether this House shall dispose of this fleet, or his High-
That will clear the matter.
ness.
Mr. Attorney of the Duchy. Another question is more
proper, that the fleet be disposed of by the single person; by
the advice of this. House. That will exclude neither this
House nor the single person.
Mr. Onslow agreed with that motion.
Sir Henry Vane. The greatest pinch in this debate is,
whether you will have a war or no, and whether, as the state
of the report is, and the state of your affairs are, you will
think fit, at this time, to send a fleet.
26 0
452
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Bampfield. That question will draw the House into
many considerations. It is not fit to debate all those things
in this House. This will lead you to a conclusion, that the
power of sending this fleet is wholly in this House. Then,
the officers must be agreed on, here. This will lead you in-
evitably into debate, whether the single person or the other
House have any, or what part of this power. You will in-
sensibly creep into the other debate.
Make your question, that it shall be disposed on by the
single person and the Parliament. Till you come to your
constitution, I see you are gravelled in every debate. What-
ever you propound, the constitution will, inevitably, come in
upon you.
The business of sending a fleet to the Baltic Sea was nearer
in the debate yesterday.
I found a general inclination that the words in the question
had been only, as to referring the preparing of the fleet to
the single person. Then it would not stick; but this word,
disposing, say some, seems to give away the question.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. You cannot proceed other than
upon the report, as Sir Henry Vane moved.
I agree we are in a perplexity, and likely to be so, till we
resolve our constitution.
For husbanding your time, for which we must answer, for
we are all mortal, refer it to your Commissioners of the Navy,
to inquire into the preparation, and report it to you.
I would have us go plainly, and like right Englishmen to
debate this.
Let us go to the proper business of the day, to debate the
other House. We die away apace. Let us settle the
greatest things, in our time, that we can.
Sir Thomas Wroth. We discover rocks every day. If we
must sail by rocks, we were better to do like wise pilots, that
is, avoid if we can, or hazard them as little as we can.
The proper debate, in my opinion, is about the other
House. Another House or no House.
Men are born to be subjects and not to be slaves. Either
1
1658-9.]
453
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
let us be slaves or freemen. The English are easy to be go-
verned, and they love it; but it must be as freemen and not
as slaves.
The greatest questions before us, and fittest first to be
resolved, are the negative voice, and the militia, both by sea
and land.
I therefore move to waive this question, till that be deter-
mined. Sure we are more than mere bankers, called together
to raise monies, and to put them into bottomless bags.
First debate your constitution.
Captain Hatsell. You ordered to debate this, de die, in
diem. It is told you, the sun rises high. This will admit of
no delay. If you enter into these considerations, I know not
when you will end.*
* A few days before this, "Mr. John Barwick," a spy in London for
Charles Stuart, (see supra, p. 289, note †,) had thus communicated his
collected information to "Sir Edward Hyde," afterwards Earl of Cla-
rendon:-
“Feb. 16, 1658-9, late at night. The proceedings at Westminster
are so full of distraction, that it is probable they will end in confusion.
For the one party thinks the Protectorists cannot stand, and the other,
that the Commonwealth cannot rise; and those that are indifferent men
hope both may be true; and then the conclusion will be easy to foresee
and foretell.
き
​"To prevent this mischief, the Protector's party brought in a Bill,
Jan. 31, for a Recognition of the Protector, wherein were some com-
prehensive phrases for the other House, the militia, and negative,
voice; but now that it comes to scanning, it finds no small opposition.
"From their first meeting, the Commons have consisted of two ex-
treme parties, (one for the Protector, the other for a Commonwealth,)
and a moderate party between both; which being more or less moderate,
as occasion serves, are able to cast the scales on which side they please;
and this makes the foresight of things very obscure, though most men
think it will end in a titular Protector, without either militia or nega-
tive voice, if he be so tame as to submit to it. The republicans are the
lesser party, but are all speakers, zealous, diligent, [see supra, p. 232,
note,] and have the better cause, admitting those common principles
(which are not yet exploded,) by which they destroyed monarchy in the
Long Parliament." See "Thurloe State Papers," vii. 615.
454
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Knightley. I should be sorry that any power without.
doors, should, sitting the Parliament, dispose of any forces,
without your advice.
It has been reported to you, of the preparation on the other
side.
In 40,* the disposing of the militia was by your advice.
The officers depended upon your allowance.
We are to advise what is for the good of his Highness and
the nation, not, only to make him great.
If you think this gives away nought from you, I am not
against it, with a preliminary vote to this purpose, that, sitting
the Parliament, the disposing of the militia, by sea and land,
is, wholly, in the Parliament.
Colonel Parsons. I rise up to second Mr. Knightley's
motion, that, sitting the Parliament, the disposing of the
forces, &c. is in the Parliament.
Make this preliminary vote, and then refer it to his High-
ness's disposal.
Mr. Reynolds. I move to the same purpose. Thus the
rights of the people are not only asserted by votes. There is
not only a claim made, but a possession along with it, which
does strengthen the claim.
If we fall a raising of money, and leave it to the single
person to spend it as he pleases, it is not reasonable. We
did not so with Ireland.
We have not only a right in claim, but a possession and
fruition of it. Let us come roundly to this question, as was
moved before.
Mr. Manley. Remember the time, the constitution of the
skies, what we have learned at school. Occasion is bald be-
hind.
The question of authority and power at this time is not
necessary. I am sure it is your proper business to advise;
that excludes no person's right.
It is in vain to counsel at home, if forces be not abroad.
I would have it the advice of this House to his Highness, to
* Perhaps in 1642. See vol. ii. p. 135, note.
1658-9.]
455
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
་
proceed in such a way, for the best maintenance of your in-
terest by sea, and not tell them whither you will go.
Mr. Turner. This has been done as to the general pre-
paration, it being the duty of the single person to guard the
sea. But this is a particular design, and it is said there will
be matter of charge, a million of money. It is very need-
ful that you should advise in this.
I would not have your debate so open, but refer it to a
small Committee to attend and advise with his Highness
about it. Whatever is debated here, is beyond sea in six
days. By that time your Committee have considered of this
business, you may, in the meantime, consider your constitu-
tion.
Captain Baynes. As the peace was made without the
House, the war might also have been made without it. It
is fit you should have an account of all this, how your es-
tate is with all your allies. But I would not have this now
debated, but only go upon your vote that you will send out
a fleet for the ends propounded.
This is a power which I suppose you will delegate, whether
to his Highness and council, till you have considered them,
or refer it only to his Highness and such persons as he shall
advise with, or with the Commissioners of the Navy and Ad-
miralty, who are all members. It is but on the defensive
part that is propounded.
First assert your right to delegate, and then delegate. I
would have it be asserted to be in this House, and not in the
other House, unless it appear that they are equal contri-
butors. I would have this to be part of the Bill.
Sir Walter Earle. If you proceed not in this, till all these
things be determined, I doubt it will be too late. Consuletur
Roma, &c. While you are consulting, the Sound will be
gone, out of your power to recover.
Colonel Gibbons. Sapiens incipit a fine; consonant here-
unto is your vote, to preserve your safety and commerce.
I conceive this House is fit to dispose of them, because
* With the Dutch, in 1651. See supra, p. 391, note*.
456
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
they must pay them. To that purpose, I would have a Com-
mittee appointed by you, to dispose of this business. Con-
tent not yourselves with the bare declaring it your right, but
do it by action.
Major-general Kelsey. Your vote will not answer your
ends.
It was reported to you, that the Sound was in the eye of
his Highness and the Council, which if once in the posses-
sion of another, you arc ruined and undone.
I understand not much difference of charge between having
forty ships in the Downs or in the Sound. You have voted
such a fleet to be prepared. Whether will it be more advisable
to have them in a place where they may do you service? It
is not a fleet in the Downs, or on the coast of England can
do you any good; but to put yourselves in such a posture,
as may break the design of your neighbours, which is to pos-
sess themselves of the Sound, and thereby become your mas-
ters.
It is true, we run the hazard of a war, if we go; but it
is more obvious that we run a greater hazard if we do not
go; and suffer the Dutch to possess themselves of the Sound.
They will give laws to all the world, if they once get you
under,
If you stay at home, the Danes are not beholden to you,
nor the Swede neither. If the Dutch go to aid the Dane,
they will have a good pledge for their assistance. They will
save stakes which way soever the scales turn. You will cer-
tainly lose yours.
I hear all say, his Highness is a very wise, prudent, and
innocent person. He will be very cautious in sending a fleet
thither, while you leave it thus in the dark.
neral vote, he will do nothing without your
Upon this ge-
advice, neither
will any without these walls, as I suppose, dare to give him
any advice to the contrary.
It is evident it will discourage the Swede, and encourage
the Austrian faction.
It will be certainly effected, to bring over the Austrian
1
1658-9.]
457
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
forces into Zealand. It is not enough to be triumphant in
the Channel.
If I apprehended that referring the care of this to his
Highness were giving away your militia, I should be as much
against it as any man. I think nought less.
No more is given to his Highness by delegating this
power, than if you did appoint a Committee, for you dele-
gate them. Do you give away your power to any?
Two or three days are considerable. I doubt the time will
be irrecoverable, unless the Providence of God prevent it. I
would have this business speedily referred to his Highness, to
take effectual course in it.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I rise with a sad heart to see
worthy gentlemen that have been with us from the beginning,
so differ from us in this business.
I am prudently tender of foreign war, and conscientiously
tender of drinking blood. We are too much guilty of that
already, unless it were better digested. I doubt God is
angry with us. We are here in an island, or little world,
and it is enough if we can preserve ourselves.
The law of nature directs us not to shed blood without
just cause; but upon unavoidable necessity. If one will
take my house from me, and will fight for it, I have a just
cause to defend it. But if another man have a better hat
than I, must I have it? If the Sound belong to the Dane,
what have we to do with it, if it is the blessing of God that
maketh rich, not the counsels or the wisdom of wicked per-
sons? Is it our right? Can we fashion ourselves after the
princes of the earth, and not expect to partake of their cup?
Let us do like Christians. What success had we in going
about to take away that which belonged to the King of
Spain? God blasted that action, with the Dutch expense
and dishonour, and disowned our seeking after the dominion.
of Spain, which was noue of ours.
I confess it grieves my heart to consider what your pre-
decessors did in voting the Spanish war, so costly and dis-
honourable to us.
458
[FED. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
It is our interest and our honour to redress and reconcile
our neighbours.
It is said, we have our commodities from thence. It is true,
we have so; but whoever has the Sound, we may have still
the commodities for our money. The Dutch are resolved to
defend the Dane, and I think they may. They go upon a
just and honourable account, to assist an oppressed prince.
He is a poor prince, and the Dutch in friendship with him.
I hoped we should have sown in the spirit, not in the flesh.* I
find nought of Jesus Christ in the bottom.
God Almighty would never have ordered a war with Ca-
naan, but that they gave the first occasion of it.
Councils of men engage in war without inevitable cause;
but I think we especially ought not to be drawn into it, upon
any cause of denomination, or carnal ends.
It is a maxim in Parliament, that no war ought to be made,
without our consent, because it is our purse, and our blood
must maintain it.
'O AVTIXPIOTOS is in every man's mouth, that it is against Au-
tichrist, and for pulling down the Pope, for which we fight.†
I do not know who that Antichrist is. However, I do not
think that Antichrist must come down by the fleshly sword;
it must be by another kind of weapon.
It is impossible to send a fleet, but a war must ensue.
That we should be the catchers of the spoil is not Christian.
Remember what Achan said. God blessed the war with the
Dutch, because we stood on a good footing. They began
with us.§
+
Let the quarrel go as it will, we are safe, we are secure to
defend ourselves. I hope there is not a man within these
walls but will account English blood precious. We ought
not, for any fleshly advantage, to buy domination with blood.
Set Christian rules aside, it is not suitable, as your affairs
are now, to undertake this. Antichrist must not fall but by
the spirit.
* See Gal. vi. S.
↑ Joshua vii. 20, 21.
+ See supra, pp. 381, 382, note.
§ Sec supra, p. 380, note *.
1
1658-9.]
459
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Put not this business out of your own hands. Choose
officers. I would have none to engage in a bloody war,
your
or in the expense of millions of money, without your consent.
Sir, if our navy should miscarry, do we not lose all, to take
princes', poor princes' possessions from them. Have we not
enemies at home and abroad?
Will not God blast us? If God blast our navy, where
then are we? If, by wicked courses, we should exasperate
other princes abroad, how do we know that they may not
unite to pour out all their forces upon you? How many dis-
contented spirits there are.
Sir, there is a great deal of weakness in this their counsel
that is given you. War ought to be very just, and undertaken
upon godly principles and scripture grounds, which will no
where justify the taking away another man's right. Let us
make a war upon scripture principles, viz. defensive. Has
not all the blood spent been held forth as upon reformation.
In order to your safety and preservation, I would have you
command your Commissioners of the Navy and Admiralty
to put your vote, the other day,* in execution. Thus put
yourselves into such a posture, as that you may not be found
naked to defend yourselves, when your enemies come upon
you.
Mr. Attorney-general. It is your duty to collect the sense
of the House, and if you do not put us into a way, we shall
wander, ad infinitum. There is no danger of giving away
the militia, by referring this business to his Highness.
Sir John Lenthall. I am as much against war as any man.
Consider your charge. You have five armies abroad, besides
that at home, and now going to send a sixth; now going
upon 50,000l. pay behind, fifty weeks arrears, and this navy
will be as big as any army. I find a great difficulty how
they shall be paid. But this interest being at stake, I doubt
if we suffer this to go away from us, all our reputation is
gone.
You lose your cordage, &c. as was told you. Like good
*Sec supra, pp. 41k, 115.
460
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
gamesters, if you will not play, stand by. I think it is fit to
stand and look on. Calking, pitch, tar, sails, and mast, come
from Norway. The Swede hath got considerable places, and
he hath got all the tar in those places into his possession, and
hath put such rates upon it, that we pay double the value for
it. He buys up all, and sells to us as he pleaseth, and im-
poseth several hard things upon us, and hath engrossed all
the tar trade.
As I shall never press you to make a great enemy too
little, so I would not have you make a little enemy too great.
If he shall get Copenhagen, he hath the largest extent of
ground of any prince in Christendom. If he gets Copen-
hagen, Norway will soon fall into his hands; as casily as,
when you have taken Westminster, Chelsea must yield, and
then we lose all our masts too. However the case go, your
interest will be out of doors.
A considerable navy is very fit; not to increase the Swede,
nor diminish the Dane, nor irritate the Dutch, but to secure
our own interest.
If you please, I would move to nominate a Committee of
a few members of your own House to treat with his High-
ness about this, and I doubt not but by their advice, his
Highness may manage this business with the like prudence
and care as all see he has done hitherto; which may re-
concile every part to the benefit of the whole.
Mr. Speaker. There are various debates for eight or nine
propositions. (He repeated them all). It is doubted that
some questions may involve that the matter of the militia
might be preserved entire to you.
I shall propose it to you, whether, sitting the Parliament,
the power of disposing the militia shall be in this House.
Colonel Fielder. I move to change the word House, and
to say the Parliament, and I doubt not but it will be as una-
nimous as the vote yesterday.
Serjeant Seys. This previous vote will take away all
grounds of jealousy. I would have the question be, that the
militia be disposed by the single person, with the consent of
1658-9.]
461
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
the two Houses, sitting the Parliament, and, then, that there
shall be no no war undertaken, but by consent of Parliament.
Mr. Neville. I doubt this will lead into a long debate.
The militia hath been in several hands according as the ba-
lance of government hath varied. It has sometimes been as-
serted to be in the King, sometimes in the Lords, sometimes
in the Commons.
By the Petition and Advice the militia is entrusted in the
Parliament, sitting the Parliament. I suppose you will con-
sider where it is now. It is no where in the world by any law,
for the Petition and Advice is out of doors.
I doubt the business of the Sound will hardly keep cold
corked up, till you have considered these things, and settled
the debate concerning the militia. I would have you, then,
quite put this off at present.
Let it pass now and declare your sense, whether you think
it fit to engage in this war, whether this fleet shall go into
the Baltic sea, or whether they shall have your instructions
along with them what to do.
Mr. Higgons. Before you go to another debate, resolve
whether it shall be transmitted to his Highness, as was moved
on Monday.
Serjeant Maynard. I am loth to offer my conception,
being unfit to advise.
That which is desired is, that what we conclude may be in
plain terms, and not doubtful, ambiguous and scrupulous.
I was under some mourning to find the militia question at
this time. The right of the militia, in this discourse, looked
rather like a diversion, and seemed very wide from the matter.
Some spoke concerning the Dutch. I look upon it, there
are many of them that wish us well; but, in general, they
have trade for their great Diana, which hath made them
forget the good they have received from us.
They have a readiness always to harm us. Your loss in
the Spanish war has been by the hands of the Dutch. It is
rather a Dutch war, under the Spaniard's name.
They sell their ships to the Spaniards, and their goods are
462
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
exposed to open sale in their markets. They fill their ships
with men, and meet with Englishmen. If we are too weak,
then they are Spanish; if too strong, Dutch. Two hundred
and odd ships have been thus lost in a short time. More
mischief is done by them, than by the Spanish. Such is
their affection, and such their interest.
It is their interest to take away trade from the English.
Our ships lie by the walls, and theirs ride. The whole trade,
almost, of Christendom is come into their hands.
I think they love us well enough but for our trade. Yet
their attempts have been set enough upon us, by making
such preparations. We hear they are now setting out one-
hundred-and-twenty sail, whereof ten are advisers, and as
many fire-ships.
Is this preparation for naught? If it be for the Sound,
that is not our business to engage in a war. But we are
obliged in a proportionable measure. We shall not thereby
design a war, but rather prevent it. I hope every good
Christian prays against it. But, to take it in the general.
If a war should fall out, let us send such persons well in-
structed, not to engage but upon good terms.
There is great odds between two ambassadors and twenty
sail of ships. If you go weak, and creeping, and begging,
you are like to do little good. Your forces must be as bold
as theirs. If you send two ambassadors, and they one hun-
dred sail, you will come home with rags.
It is said, your
ships will be of little use without cordage, and what if the
Dutch will not sell? Truly, I think he will not, until he
hath ruined you and your concernment. But admit we can-
not have it at all, your ships must lie by the walls. They
cannot ride without sails.
A Committee will but clog the business. You cannot give
such certain instructions as any man can pursue, but, in
general, we may. I hope we shall be careful of blood, but
for fear of that, we must not put ourselves in danger of fall-
ing into greater.
I shall humbly conclude, that it may be referred to his
Highness, my Lord Protector, to put your vote into effec-
1658-9.]
463
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
tual execution, and to add some instructions which I am not
prepared with. But to that purpose, that there be as much
care as may be taken, not to give any occasion of war.
Mr. Onslow. Your vote already passed, to put a fleet
forthwith to sea, answers all objections as to any delay in
the business. I would have us careful, whatever our jealou-
sies be, not to asperse our allies. I do not concur to speak
so largely against the Dutch, who are at present in amity
with us; though, perhaps, I am as jealous of them as any.
Those that offer you a Committee and the like, put you
upon a delay.
I shall pursue what is offered. The great rocks are,
1. The fear of involving ourselves, in passing away of the
militia; and 2. The danger of involving us in a war with our
friends. I would reconcile these difficulties and dangers. I
would have no vote to conclude your claim to the militia, nor
one that has any inclination to foment a war, and so it was
opened to you by the Secretary, to mediate peace, &c. I
therefore move to pass a vote to this effect: that, pro hac
vice, it be referred to his Highness, to put the former vote in
speedy and effectual execution, and to send the fleet to sea;
and that special care be taken to preserve a right understand-
ing between foreign states, and to use all endeavours to medi-
ate a peace between the princes.
Mr. Chaloner. If it be matter-of-fact that the worthy
Serjeant has offered you, as that the Dutch have done you
that mischief, I should be as much for a war as any man, but
I doubt he is mistaken.
They have been your friends. Your men go under their
flags and in their ships. They have not done you that harm.
I would have the grounds of the war examined, before you
send any fleet.
The Council of State durst not send an army to Scotland,
till they had acquainted the Parliament with it. They pro-
vided all, and a declaration ready. The Parliament approved
of the war and declaration.* I was one of the Council.+
* June 26, 1650. See Parl. Hist. (1763), xix. 276—283.
"Mr. Thomas Chaloner" is the first of the five new members of the
Council elected Feb. 13. 1649-50. Ibid. p. 251.
464
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
It is necessary you should be acquainted with the reason
of this preparation. Make it your debate, whether for the
interest of England and preservation of your trade in those
parts, you should send a fleet into those seas.
If
you merely assert the right of the militia, and then re-
fer this matter back to the Protector, what account can you
give* of it? I would not have any begin or hazard a war,
without your privity.
Mr. Swinfen. Nought in your vote carries so far as the
debate goes. Nothing is mentioned as to your advantage or
disadvantage, to engage for or against any interest.
It is only generally agreed to send out a fleet for the ends
that you do every year.
The Spaniard trades not. We can get nothing of him.
The Dutch is in the bottom of all this business.
We cannot have our necessary commodities but over land
to Lubeck, and there the Dane hath Glucstadt up the river;
so we cannot pass without his leave.
Rather than to lose this, we ought to fight for it.
The nation will not have that weight and reputation with
it, if the Protector send it, as if you send it, and own it, and
countenance it; for they know abroad that the money is
yours, and if you engage, you both will and can carry it on.
Suppose you should refer the execution of this vote to hist
Highness. This does not make a war, nor direct him one.
way or other. You need not determine touching the debate,
of Dutch, or Danes, or Swede.
The militia comes not at all in dispute by this reference.
This reference takes and keeps the militia in your hands.
His Highness acquaints you, and rather gives you a posses-
sion. It implies that the militia is in you. His Highness
would never have sent to you else. If he had sent to you,
to put it into execution,† it had been that he had then taken
the militia upon him.
You have, nemine contradicente, agreed to send a fleet, and
* Probably to their constituents, unless they were nominces.
+ By merely voting a supply, is probably intended.
1658-9.]
465
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
now, unless you send them out, it will do you no good. Such
debate will retard your business; you lose both opportunity
of honour and safety. The occasion requires speed.
Admit it should engage us in a war, you cannot come to
a particular resolution but your enemies will know it before-
hand. You must hear Dutch, Dane, and Swede, by their
ambassadors; and who so proper as his Highness?
Refer it to his Highness, with due caution not to engage us
in a war. I agree with Serjeant Maynard's motion.
Mr. Lloyd.
This preparation amounts to no more than
your ordinary preparation every year; but it is reported to
you, that the Sound is in danger.
We must come out of the clouds and speak plain English.
The bottom is the Dutch, but it is res ipsa loquitur. We
feel the Dutch. The Spanish could not offend us at sea
without the Dutch. They are worse than enemies, secret
enemies.
If we were enemies, we could meet with his prizes, as well
as he does with us. I vow I speak it tremblingly. If this
opportunity be lost, I dread the consequence.
I hope you will send ambassadors to mediate a peace, but
rather than lose your interest you will engage in a war. Let
us speak plain, come out of the clouds, whether you will en-
gage if there be occasion.
If the Dutch give us no provocation, we will not engage.
Do but countenance and own it. It will go a great way
abroad.
You need not involve your militia; make it with an hac vice
tuntum. You admit the executive power in his Highness;
and this is no more than to give him the executive in this.
Refer it to his Highness and the officers of the Admiralty and
Navy. Let it be expressed, that you will send a fleet to the
Sound. The Dutch have a long time declared their resolu-
tion. The more public, I think, the better, and more for
your service.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. If I thought to refer it to a
Lord Protector and Council, were no more than a reference
VOL. III.
2 H
466
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
to a Council of State, or a Committee of the House, I should
not now trouble you, but there is more in this.
You might very well retain what you grant. And, on the
other side, if there were no hazard of a war, nor engaging
your militia,* it were not so much neither. But this implies a
war: and doth it not signify that you will have no regard to
treaties and amities, but merely to interest of state?
If you will begin a war, it must be upon clear grounds;
the state of all things declared, the justness of the quarrel
stated. The grounds† were manifestly held out to the Long
Parliament. When Henry V.‡ engaged in the war with
* This term now comprehended the whole machinery of war, le matériel,
whether human, brutal, or mechanical; and however engaged, in the sea
or land service.
+ Of war with the Dutch in 1652. See supra, p. 380, note; where,
for August, read May. "The Parliament's manifesto," or declaration,
and "the papers" in proof of the allegations, were "all translated into
Latin, Dutch, and French," and "ordered, July 7, to be forthwith
printed and published." Parl. Hist. (1763,) xx. 90.
‡ “Aug. 13, 1415," the King "set sail from Southampton, and landed
the next day near Harfleur to invade France, and, by the ratio ultima
regum, to assert his right to that kingdom." Parl. Hist. (1762,)
ii. 148.
This war, according to Rapin, was highly popular, even "le désir uni-
versal de tout l'Angleterre ;" and the unscrupulous ambition of the
Prince was well prepared to indulge the savage and sanguinary propen-
sities of an ignorant priest-ridden people.
CC
Henry V." says Le Père d'Orleans, “ n'eut aucune tendresse de con-
science sur l'usurpation des couronnes, et à en juger par ses actions,
Cesar, tout payen qu'il estoit, n'eut jamais plus avant que luy cette
maxime dans le cœur, qu'il n'est pas honteux d'estre injuste quand on
l'est que pour regner." Revolutions d'Angleterre, (1693,) pp. 175, 176.
"Henry V.," says another foreigner, "was, in the eyes of an English-
man, greater than Alexander; in the eyes of a Frenchman, almost a
Nero; in the eyes of a citizen of the world, an ambitious Prince, who
suffered himself to be led into several barbarities; and a conqueror,
most of whose successes were easy ones. He owed the conquest of
France somewhat to his valour, a good deal to the weakness of Charles
VI., to the rage of the Queen, the youth of the Dauphin, and the di-
visions of the ministers." See "A Short View of the History of Eng-
land, translated from the French of the Abbé Raynal," (1757,) p. 131.
1658-9.]
467
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
France, the grounds were first laid, then money and shipping
prepared.*
“Croiroit-on bien,” says Henault, referring to Rymer's Fœdera, “que
ce même Henri V., le conquerant d'une grande partie de la France,
étoit obligé, chaque année, de mettre en gage ses pierreries et sa cou-
ronne pour entrer en campagne?" Histoire, (1789,) i. 365.
* "'The grounds" of this war, were pretended hereditary claims to the
crown of France, and to the people, the servile pecus, as a necessary ap-
pendage, a sort of heir-loom to the monarchy; but the determination
now to vindicate those claims by a hostile invasion, was the work of the
ecclesiastics, who raised the cry which has been heard through four
centuries down to our times, and now especially, from the almost
sinecure Protestant prelacy of a neighbouring Catholic island, “The
Church is in danger ;" and they thus contrived to effect her deliverance.
In 1404, the Commons had declared "that there was no other way
of supplying the necessities of the public, but by diminishing the ex-
cessive wealth of the clergy." In 1410, they prepared a Bill in the
form of a Petition to Henry IV., which was attributed to Sir John Old-
castle, Lord Cobham. It purported, according to Walsingham,
" that
temporalities disordinately wasted by men of the Church, might well
suffice to find the King with 15 Earls, at 3000 marks each, annually;
1500 Knights, at 100 marks and 4 plough-lands each; 6200 Esquires,
at 40 marks and 2 plough-lands each; and 100 additional almshouses,
for the relief of poor people, at 100 marks each. And, over and
above all these, the King might put yearly into his own coffers 20,000l.
"The Commons affirmed in their Bill, that the temporalities then in
the possession of spiritual men, amounted to 322,000 marks, yearly rent.
They also alleged that, over and above the said sum, several houses of
religion in England possessed as many temporalities as might suffice to
find 15000 priests, every priest to be allowed for his stipend, seven
marks a year." Parl. Hist. (1762,) ii. 114, 115. See "The Life of
Archbishop Chichele,” (1699,) pp. 44, 46.
"The King rejected the petition of the Commons, whether it were
that he feared an eternal infamy would attend him if he should rob
the Church, or because he thought that the promoters of this design
were secret favourers of the doctrine of John Wickliffe." Ibid, pp.
46, 47.
"Si le Parlement qui avoit le premier proposé de diminuer les reve-
nus du clergé," says Rapin, “avoit reçu le nom de Parlement ignorant,
[see vol. i. p. 252, note, on peut bien juger celui-ci ne fut pas plus
favorablement traité. Le nom de Lollard et d'Hérétique ne lui fut pas
épargné, et le clergé regarda cette proposition comme tendant à sapper
la religion par ses fondemens. C'est ce qu'on tâcha d'insinuer au Roi,
2 H 2
468
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
This navy must either go to look on or engage, if to en-
gage, it is a war, if to look on, it is dangerous rather than
advisable. I never knew it successful.
avec toutes les exagerations que des gens intérressez sont capables de
donner à un tel sujet. Il est difficile de juger si le Roi en etoit lui-
même persuadé; mais, quoi qu'il en soit, il fit connoître qu'il ne prenoit
pas
moins à cœur les intérêts du Clergé, que le clergé même. Il repon-
doit avec aigreur aux Communes, qu'il ne pouvoit ni ne vouloit con-
sentir à ce qu'elles demandoient, et leur défendit, très expressement,
de se mêler d'avantage de ce qui regardoit l'Eglise." Histoire, (1724,)
iii. 407, 408.
"From that time, during the reign of Henry IV., there was nothing
attempted against the Church." The Commons, however, in 1414,
' in a Parliament at Leicester, petitioned the new King that their de-
mands against the clergy, which were represented four years ago,
might be taken into consideration again. The Archbishop was ex-
tremely troubled at this." He consulted "the Bishops," by whom “it
was determined that the clergy should offer the King a great sum of
money, and excite him to make war with the French :" further," the
Archbishop was of opinion, that the only way to keep the young King
from making any disturbances at home, was to show him an enemy
abroad, as there is no other way to stop the fury of a torrent, but by di-
viding the water into several channels." Life of Chichele, pp. 47, 49, 50.
"This before-remembred Bill," says an ancient chronicler, was
much noted and feared emongst the religious sort, whom in effect it
muche touched, insomuch that the fat Abbotes swet, the proud Priors
frouned, the poore Friers curssed, the sely Nonnes wept, and al together
were nothyng pleased, nor yet content.-Wherefore thei determined to
cast all chaunces whiche mighte serve their purpose, and in especial
to replenish the Kynge's brayne with some pleasante study that he
should nether phantasy nor regard the scrious petition of the importu-
nate Commons."
tr
cr
The "pleasante study" which they determined to recommend was,
the conquest of "the whole realme of Fraunce," Thus, “on a daie
when the Kyng was present in the Parliament," this was enforced on
his royal attention, in a long and learned speech by " Henry Chicheley,
Archbishop of Canterbury, therto newly preferred, whiche before time,
had been a monke of the Carthusians, a man which had professed wilfull
povertie in religion, and yet commyng abrode muche desired honor,
and a man muche regardyng Gode's law, but more lovyng his owne
lucre." See "The Victorious Actes of Kyng Henry the Fifth," in Hall's
Union, (1548,) fol. xxxvi.
Grafton adds, "that nothing could be eyther more or better spoken.
1658-9.
469
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The Pope sent an army or navy once to the like purpose,
when two fighting princes were determining their quarrel.
He intended to look on in a war between Milan and the Flo-
rentine. But the fortune of that was, that he was made a
prey to the conqueror,* and conquerors have always discou-
raged that looking on. You are in peace with Swede, and
Dane, and Dutch. If at peace, what is the quarrel?
The justice of the quarrel must be considered. If we war
with any, we must answer it as one honest man would do to
another.
The Dane made first an invasion upon the Swede. The
Swede's quarrel was just, I grant. He might safely keep
what he gained.
The Dane kept the treaty punctually, which was made by
our mediation. How then, can we assist the Swede, who is
upon the score of breaking his treaty, and go against our
confederate, the Dane, without ground; or stand by, and see
him ruined.
The Dutch have the greatest interest, and they have a just
And when the Bishop had done, then the nobilitie in like manner sayd
to and fro their mindes, so that nowe there was used none other talke
in every manne's mouth in the Parliament House, but for the con-
queryng of Fraunce, and the Bill against the clergie was lulled asleep,
and nothing came thereof." Chronicle, (1569,) p. 445.
As Henry V. claimed the crown of France through a female line, to
which claim the Salique law was opposed, the Archbishop urged as a pow-
erful theological argument to recommend the "pleasante study," the ge-
nealogy of the Saviour, thus consecrating the proposed hostile expedition.
"We Christians do all acknowledge that Jesus Christ was the lawful
heir of the Jewish kingdom. Now, they who deny a right of succession
to be derived from the female sex, do not only oppose his title, but also
deprive us of those exceeding great benefits which God hath promised to
mankind through Christ. The French choose rather to destroy the ve-
racity of the divine promises, than to submit to a foreign prince: and
they that call themselves most Christian, do prefer a supposititious law
of Pharamond, a heathen, before those sacred laws given by God." Life
of Chichele, pp. 56, 57. Thus it was truly said (supra p. 414, note) that
"the Bible has been made a great courtier."
The Pope to whose intrigues and misadventures this speaker refers
was, I apprehend, Clement VII.
470
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
interest already granted them by the Dane. If we invade
that right of the Dutch, we begin the quarrel. So far for
justice. Till the justice be decided, I shall never countenance
the war.
If the Dane gain the Sound, it will be very dangerous; and
will it not be more so, if the Swede get it, than if it comes
into the hands of the Dane or Dutch? He hath almost all
the Sound, and the territories and coast by land. He is mas-
ter of the greatest shipping, and will command the Baltic
Sea. He is a most potent prince, that hath at this time one
of the best and ablest councils for war in Christendom. He
understands the secret of trade. His business must be to
make himself not only the greatest master at sea, but of trade
also. He may overrun Spain, Denmark, Pomerania, Italy,
and make himself master of this part of the world.
His predecessors overran the whole world with their bodies
of men; but how much easier will it be for them to transport
these great bodies of men, when they shall gain the great
mastery at sea. Are not the Dutch and we in most danger to
be the first fallen on? By reason of state, we or Holland
must be his next prey.
Admit the worst. Suppose the Dutch have the Sound.
But how will they keep it? You have the King of Sweden
your friend; and the King of Denmark, he also is a sure
friend, as necessity makes him to be so.
You have all the petty princes upon the Baltic coast, the
Hans Towns, and free States and Cities. These will help
you against Holland, whose interest it is to suppress them.
But if the Swede obtain it, what friend have we, or friend_
ship with any, that can serve us
can serve us to get it out of the Swede's
hands, if ever he get it wholly? I move that we may not
engage.
Here is a preparation of a million, and our eyes are towards
the Sound. But how stand our engagements. Are we en-
gaged, or free to assist the Swede. If we be not engaged,
that may alter the case, and we may debate it. But I would
move, upon the whole matter, to have the power of war and
peace in this House.
1658-9.]
471
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I would neither be engaged in a dangerous war, nor in
what will cost a million of money. It is a dangerous prece-
dent, which in former times would not be suffered. This pre-
cedent was not allowed in 1640. You will give away a great
part of your militia. I move again, not to be surprised in
anything; lest by quenching flames abroad, you kindle
flames at home.* You have done enough in preparing what
you have done.
In the meantime, whilst we debate, let the preparations go
forward. I would have it referred to the Commissioners of
the Navy and Admiralty.
Major Beake. I understand not what that gentleman
would have referred to the Commissioners of the Navy and
Admiralty. There is a necessity to do something with all
speed. Self-preservation, in some cases, furnishes good
grounds to justify the taking up arms: the argument against
the design, is the difficulty of undertaking it by a war.
suppose the case may be a case of war. I cannot distinguish
but that a war will ensue, in case the state of affairs require
it, upon the place.
I
Here are two princes in dispute about their respective
rights. As to the Swede, it is supposed the first war was
* This speaker, the Achitophel of Dryden, was not ill described as
"for close designs and crooked counsels fit.” He now would not
"kindle flames at home." Yet he was "accused before the Parliament"
during this year, 1659, and, as now appears, not unjustly, "for keeping
intelligence with the king, and for having provided a force of men in
Dorsetshire, to join with Sir George Booth." (See supra, p. 293 note.)
A panegyrical biographer, says of "our brave patriot," while describ-
ing "his unwearied endeavours to restore his most sacred Majesty," that
"the constant correspondence he always kept up with the royal party,
and that almost to the hazard of his life and family, are sufficient testi-
monies of his sincerity to his master's interest and service.
"His house was a sanctuary for distressed royalists, and his corres-
pondence with the king's friends, (though closely managed, as the neces-
sities of those times required) are not unknown to those that were the
principal managers of his Majesty's affairs at that time." See "The
Compleat Statesman demonstrated, in the Life, Actions, and Politicks of
that great Minister of State, Anthony, Earl of Shaftsbury." (1683),
pp. 24, 25. See, also, vol. i. p. 204, ad fin., ii. 419.
472
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
upon just grounds: I will not dispute it. But a war unjust
in its rise, may be just in the consequences of it; in something
arising upon the result.
Suppose an innocent party assaulted, the party assaulted
goes beyond the bounds, the just measure of defence or re-
taliation, and pursues his stroke to blood. In this case the
party nocent may keep the sword in his hand, to defend him-
self against the innocent person, and a third party may step in
to prevent him from doing injury. Let this case be applied.
Examine the interest engaged in this business. You will
find the imperialists the highest and greatest. Take away
the King of Sweden, and you make clear way for the impe-
rialists.
As to the interest of trade, if the Sound come into the
hands of the Dutch, they will draw the portcullis, and without
that, we can neither defend ourselves nor employ ourselves.
We are an island, and not capable to depend upon ourselves
without trade with all parts.
Refer this to his Highness and council.
Sir Henry Vane and Mr. Trevor moved to adjourn for an
hour, that we might all sit upon an equal account; and this
debate was adjourned accordingly.
Resolved that the House be adjourned until half-an-hour
past two o'clock.
Afternoon at three. February 24, 1658-9.
Mr. Alderman Topham, (a burgess for York.) Except
the Sound be guarded, we shall not want only cordage, &c.
but very bread. All commodities which come from Moscow,
would be brought down to the ports of Poland. We want
only a navy to secure our trade, and be a guard to the mer-
chants and ships.
My motion is, that you would refer to his Highness the
Lord Protector the care of guarding the seas, and that two
members of the House be joined in a Committee to go along
with the Admiral, to see that there be no rash engagement.
Mr. Speaker moved what Mr. Onslow had moved, as to the
1658-9.]
473
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
hac vice tantum, that it be referred to his Highness forth-
with to set forth a fleet, &c.
read.
This question was twice
Mr. Scot. You are asked to have it referred, hac vice. I
except against the words. I dare not give away our right,
no, not for a moment; especially yielding it to him who claims
it er adverso. Take possession of it first. Nil dat, quod non
habet. I would have a previous vote, before you dispose,
that the right of the militia is in this House; for all is yet
here, until you give it out. You cannot dispatch this fleet
under the word, Parliament. We must know first what is
the Parliament; and if two Houses, which of the two Houses.
The question is, whether you should refer it to the single
person, or keep it here. There are two things, first, the ex-
ecution. As to the preparations, what need you to say the
Protector shall order the Commissioners of the Navy, when
you yourselves may do it. Secondly, the dispositive and di-
rective power. Is it all that you have to do, to say that
you are so far masters of the militia as to dispose of it to
others. You have said it is in you. You are the consti-
tutors. It is yet in your power, and not suitable to your
occasions, to stay settling the constitution. The fleet can-
not stay so long. Take not less than the Petition and Ad-
vice gives you.
It is objected, that you are not a body fit to manage such
an affair as this. But the time well was, when two kingdoms*
were conquered, and the Dutch tantum non, by the counsels
of a Parliament and some twenty of the Council. Then why
that argument, that such bodies are not fit to manage such
a business, because of required secrecy.
It is said, that when we made war against Scotland, we
began first; that the war was carried on by the Long Par-
liament upon a presumption that they would do us wrong;
and so it is applied to the Dutch being capable to do us harm.
But it was not presumptions barely against Scotland: it was
demonstrations. They made the war first. We had uncon-
* Scotland and Ireland.
474
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
trollable evidence and even assurance that they espoused the
King of Scots' interest, his patrimonial interest here, and
would restore the King to his hereditary dominions. Was not
this ground enough ?* Secondly, there was justice demand-
ed. An army was raised and sent to the frontiers, and a de-
claration sent to them, that if they would secure us against
these attempts, then we would desist.
Whether then, we should refer this matter to his Highness
and the Council, or whether we should manage it here? I
have told you already, that a Parliament and Council did
manage the war with great success. The case is different
now. Eudem ratio, eadem lex. De operibus Dei non est judi-
candum ante quintum actum.
I know no incommodiousness in it.
The former vote was, as Mr. Swinfen told you, a virgin
vote, not big-bellied at all. You gave nought away. But do
not you, in
any vote, say you are not fit to manage that af-
fair, or denounce a war; but you leave it to his Highness. Is
it not ground enough for you lawfully to send a fleet of ships
into the Baltic Sea, to guard your merchants and secure your
trade there.
The last summer, Mr. Topham said,† the King of Sweden
sent a dispatch, that if he might have ten or twenty ships,
he would quit us of contribution. He further said, that you
might have had Cronenburgh Castle. If the Council would
not accept such an advantage, you should not think it fit to
trust them with the management of it now.
Are not the Council you would refer it to, his Highness's
Council? I look upon his father as of much more experience
and counsel than himself; yet he was never so successful as
when he was a servant to the Commonwealth. What a dis-
honourable peace he made, and what an unprofitable and
dangerous war. Was not the effect of the peace with Hol-
land, and the war with Spain, the most disadvantageous and
deplorable that ever were? Therefore, if he that was a man
of war and of counsel, miscarried, why should I trust a single
**See supra, p. 372, 396, notes.
↑ Supra, p. 438.
1658-9.]
475
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
person, the most unfit to refer it to. Yet you do implicitly
commit the whole charge upon his Highness.
We are not engaged against the Dane, Swede, or Dutch.
What then should our fleet do there? Provoke five or six
princes, engage voluntarily, not only against Holland, but
against the Dane, Brandenburgh, Emperor, and all that
party. If the Dane gain it, never expect any kindness from
thence. If the Swede be conqueror, you are at his discretion;
you have no footing.
Sir, let the business be what it will be; whatever you do,
let it be by your counsels. Transmit it not, it is your doing
and counselling, and countenancing, that will give credit and
reputation to the action.
It is known abroad, the Dutch know, that a Parliament of
England can fight and conquer too; but they do not know so
much of any body else.
When should the fleet go? What if, when your fleet go
forth, the Dutch should pour out their fleet and strength in
Charles Stuart's behalf, upon you at home.
Here is a rubber playing in Christendom. Can you, by
law or conscience, undertake to assist either party. Is there
any of them you can in justice attack. What title can you
have? If the war be not just, it will ruin you. It was told
you well, there is no just ground. It is objected that you are
in danger, therefore you must prevent it. Indeed, by the ju-
daical law, if I were hungry, I may take an apple hanging
over my head, or in a hedge, or, being in want, kill a sheep
and take the shoulder, and leave the rest: it shall not be fe-
lony. But I cannot take away the land, nor the tree that
bore the fruit. I dare not say it is mare liberum, lest I con-
clude your narrow sea. But if we cannot do well without
Cronenburgh and Elsinore, what! must we have and take
then by justice and injustice, by hook and by crook. God
can send supplies a better way, and by better means. I move,
1. To declare the right of the militia, sitting the Parlia-
ment, to be in yourselves.
2. That you will dispose of this expedition, yourselves, to
be in such hands as you think fit.
476
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
L
3. That you will examine the grounds of the war; and be
shown how you may make a lawful war, or upon what terms
we ought to undertake it.
Mr. Topham. A word of vindication. I never said that
I knew ought of dispatches between the King of Sweden and
his Highness; it was only what I heard a merchant say.
Mr. Scot said he understood him otherwise.
Captain Hatsell. I desire not to reflect upon what was
done by his Highness, or the Long Parliament. It is ob-
jected that this may occasion a war. I hope not; but if for
not doing this you become a prey, that is considerable too. I
shall speak to your question.
The Hollander is undoubtedly endeavouring to become
master of the Sound, the door of the Baltic Sea.
We find the King of Sweden deeply engaged against the
Dane, Pole, Emperor, and Brandenburgh. If these compli-
cated interests prevail, you are utterly shut out. The Dutch
contribute their assistance to the King of Denmark. If the
Dutch go forth with their fleet, and supply the Dane, and
the Swede be driven out, and the Dane become master of it,
what is our interest then in those parts? If the confederate
forces drive out the Swede, what will your commerce there
signify? The Swede never did you an injury. You need
not suspect him. The Dutch have done you injuries, and
that very lately.
If the Swedes should succeed, the Dutch would, with their
fleet and 4000 men, make peace with them.
You can neither preserve your trade nor your own safety,
without putting out the fleet presently. The time of year
is for hemp and flax coming from those seas. I would have
you refer it to his Highness and the Council.
Mr. Neville. I know not what your question is, nor to
whom you are referring it. I know not that the Council are
made, or approved by you. I know not that there is a
Council in being; you give the power of peace and war by
this vote, to his Highness.
I understand by that gentleman's motion, that the Dutch
are already your enemies. He says they carry 4000 men that
1658-9.]
477
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
are your enemies. I would have you refer it to the Commis-
sioners of the Admiralty and Navy; but I am against refer-
ring it to any Committee. I shall desire to be heard to the
merit, before I part with so great a right as this in one
question.
Mr. Lechmere. In your vote you had this business in your
eye, touching the Baltic Sea; you have resolved to go forth
with a very considerable navy.
It was moved that you cannot, in justice and right to the
people, transfer it. I think you will not equip a navy, or ap-
point officers without advising your single person. I would
not have us do that yet. This is to limit him with a witness.
You did so in the beginning of the Long Parliament, limit
the King, but that was only in case of his refusal. His
Highness does not refuse to join in any thing that you advise.
Let your vote be thus: That it be referred to his
Highness to put in speedy and effectual execution this vote,
and to dispose and employ the same, according to such advice
as from time to time he shall receive from the Parliament.*
him to.
By the Petition and Advice, which I take to be a law, it is
directed that, sitting the Parliament, the militia shall be dis-
posed by Advice of Parliament. The case is not as in 42, in
case of his Majesty's not concurrence,† for you may have
what consent and concurrence you please from his Highness.
He repeated the question again, as he had said before.
Mr. Godfrey. I second that motion, as clearly concurring
with my sense.
There is no necessity at present to enter upon debate of the
militia. The asserting of it in your declaration was only in
case of the King's refusal. Blessed be God, there is not that
occasion now.
You ought indeed to be very tender how you engage
against your allies. Leaving the putting the execution to
his Highness will answer that.
Mr. Trevor. I desire to know what is meant by advice of
"This motion was not expected from him."
† See vol. ii. p. 435, note*.
Goddard MS., p. 240.
478
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Parliament; whether it is intended that all instructions that
shall go along with this expedition must be first allowed and
confirmed here. Then the consequence is obvious. If you
mean the advice shall signify nought, then otherwise.
It is objected, that this war is not just nor lawful. It may
be replied, that we send our fleet and forces thither, not de-
signedly to pick a quarrel, or to make a war.
It is true,
the consequence may be a war, so may our sitting still be a
If the Dutch get the possession of all, we are not then
further off from war than now. We must either have a war,
or a peace as bad as a war; to have trade at their discretion.
No man that has a concern in the interest of this nation can
refuse this.
war.
Instead of denying your power in the militia, it asserts it.
We must be ready to serve occasions, not to pick occa-
sions. The business of war or peace must be trusted to the per-
sons upon the place; you must give them general instructions.
If I knew any other way, I should advise. It would make
us laughing-stocks, to declare beforehand what we will do.
The Long Parliament never did it, but left it to the Council.
Refer it to his Highness to put this vote in execution, and
if you please to add such prudent instructions as to be care-
ful of making unnecessary war, &c.
Serjeant Maynard. I am against putting the word “ ad-
vice," or to put whether these words shall be added; not that
I am against advice, but that I would not have it so as that
they cannot proceed but by your advice.
Mr. Bulkeley. Add "not to engage upon unnecessary
terins."
Colonel Morley. My heart has bled for the blood already
spilt, seeing how we were mistaken in what we fought for. I
am against a war, unless upon clear grounds. I would have
the leagues before us. All transactions should be before a
Committee Those being drawn up, communicate them to
his Highness and then go out.
I like well that you leave out the Council. I had rather
refer it to his Highness; for the Council has made a dis-
honourable peace and a worse war.
1658-9.]
479
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
Mr. Noell. Your case is, whether you will now go out to
defend your being, or for ever destroy it.
You cannot re-
trieve it, if once past.
I understand not that you are going to quarrel, either with
Dutch or Dane. His late Highness sent to mediate a peace
between those two princes. He did it with a great deal of pru-
dence and wisdom. This could take no effect; they gave
good words. The Dutch did yet send forces to assist the
Danes. If we will be blind, we may. They went with a mi-
litary power.
We that are merchants do see, and can see this business,
that he intends to bring us under subjection. Where they
have power, they are the unpitifullest people in the world.
We know it, that feel it.
You go
You go with a mediatory design, like Christians. It is not
your design to take away the Sound from Denmark.
not with any design of ruining any prince.
The business is not to help one or another, or to fight the
Dutch; but with a force to mediate. If God bless the me-
diation, well. But suppose the worst, that the Dutch will
set up the King of Denmark against the Swede, let us then
share with the Dutch.
Without this, we cannot go out to sea; but sneakingly. Is
it not for your honour. Your merchants cannot go with re-
putation unless they can say " Our prince can protect us."
What makes the Jews so despicable, and made to wear yel-
low caps and red caps, but because they want a prince to
protect them.*
* See vol. i. p. 309, note. "In the 18th of Edward I. (1290,) all the
Jews were banished out of London and England, there being at that
time about 15000 in the kingdom, who had all their goods seized and
confiscated to the King's use, and only so much money left them as would
bear their charges out of the kingdom. But before this, he ordained
that the Jews should wear a mark or cognizance upon their upper gar-
ments, whereby to be known, and restrained their excessive taking of
usury." See "The Proceedings, 1655," annexed to Two Journeys,
(1730,) pp. 173, 174.
During those Proceedings, "the Judges Glynn and Steel said, there
44
480
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
If you miss this opportunity, I shall repent that ever I
was born in this generation. It will be too late to-morrow.
This action requires privacy. I understand not how you can
manage.
I have nought but what I have scattered all the world
I shall suffer as much by a Dutch war as any man;
but I care not for my all, so posterity be cared for.
over.
It must be carried on with counsels not fit to be known
here. I hope you will not rise till you rejoice the hearts
of all merchants in England; and all good people and
tions to come will bless you for it.
genera-
Mr. Reynolds. If the Council go upon a principle that it
is not fit for you to know, it is then fit indeed, to refer it to
them. I have heard all this debate, and I profess I appre-
hend not what is at the bottom of it; nor am I convinced of
the necessity so strongly pressed to hasten out this fleet.
If there be any engagement between us and the Swede, let
us know it, and what it is. Who can blame the Dutch in
what they do. If there be any design to make the King of
Sweden master of the Sound, I pray we may know the bot-
tom of it. The Swedish agent, I have heard, solicits for
twenty frigates.
It is the interest of the mortgager as well as mortgagee to
preserve the pledge; it is wisdom in the Dutch to do so. I
understand not this to be the interest of England, else I am
not an Englishman.
Without all doubt there is some latent reason, and engage-
ment to the Swede, that we do not know of; else so many
worthy persons would not press it so earnestly. If we must
be involved in a war, contrary to our reason, it is strange.
It is said he trembles if we go not. I tremble if we go,
was no law which forbid the Jews' return into England; and it was
therefore insisted on, that they might come upon terms and agreements,
and might at first be only permitted and connived at, which might be
restrained if any inconvenience happened, and that all due care might
be taken to prevent their blaspheming the Lord Jesus Christ, adoring
the law, and seducing others." Ibid, p. 174. See also Parl. Hist. (1762,)
i. 95, 96.
1658-9.]
481
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
and I doubt we shall deserve to wear caps and coats, as the
Jews do,* if we go on with this business upon no better con-
siderations. I would have some members appointed to advise
about it. It may be carried on with secrecy enough.
I say it again, I am confident there is some engagement
underhand, to carry on the Swedes' interest contrary to ours,
or I know not what, per fas aut nefas.
The Dutch dare not take the Sound, lest they bring all
Europe about their ears.
I move to consider what engagement there is between us
and Sweden.
Mr. Secretary. This question has spent you much time.
I shall not spend much more. It is not fit for me to advise
you. I presume not to give you any counsel in this business,
but only to clear matter-of-fact. That worthy gentleman said
he was very confident that there was some engagement under-
hand, to carry on the Swedish business. It doth not belong
to charity to say or think so. You had a very honest, just, and
true account of that affair, which was neither more nor less
than what was then told you, with all ingenuity, and left to
your wisdoms to take what counsels you think fit in that bu-
siness. I told you there was no engagement at all. I was in
hope that gentleman would give as much credit to my report,
as not to have disbelieved it, unless he had known something
of certainty against it. I know not what the Dutch think,
but I do not believe they are such fearful men as we think they
are; that they are afraid of bringing Europe about their ears.
I never heard that anybody made a doubt in Holland, whe-
ther they should prepare their fleet upon this expedition or
not. Really here is no question about any war; nor, if you
* See supra, p. 479. ad fin.
t
"The last from the Hague, Feb. 28, S. N. There are two new
frigates building at Rotterdam, and more in several other places, and
they are eagerly hearkening after what you do in England.
"This State hath appointed an Envoy Extraordinary to go to Tho-
ren, to assist in that treaty betwixt the Swede and the Pole; and two
persons to go in the same quality to the King of Denmark. In a word,
they are resolved here, rather to fare hard at home, than to starve, or
VOL. III.
2 I
482
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
refer it to any, will they engage in any war but to defend
themselves in case of being first assaulted.
If the Dutch should affront you and assault you, and your
interest be attempted upon, I think you would give way to
fight; and this is all that I know, that is in question.
It is neither for one end nor another, but only to secure
the interest of England. The things are very obvious. I
had as lieve it should be referred to other hands, but not for
those reasons.
Great objection has been made to the management of the
peace for ending the Dutch war. I wonder these gentlemen
are so much now against the beginning of it again. I wish,
with all my heart, the war had been prosecuted by the Long
Parliament, to the utmost success, instead of their being tan-
tum non conquered ;* that they must either have come to a
coalition with you, to be one people, or have been brought to
your feet. What progress was made in this, I know not;
but I am sure of this, that the first offer of peace came
from them.
That war had cost you near two millions of money. That
was going to be done to manage that war, which would not
have pleased the nation; the selling of tithes.† The pro-
be wanting to their interest abroad." Mercurius Politicus, No. 556,
p. 271.
"From the Hague, Feb. 28. The States resolved, that the one-hun-
dredth part of men's estate should be paid by way of assessment, which
the people is willing to pay, because it tends to preserve their trading.
A considerable navy is to go very speedily to help the King of Den-
mark.” Public Intelligencer, No. 166, p. 267.
* See supra, p. 473, ad fin.
↑ I have not found any record of this parliamentary project. A pro-
posal for removing "the burden of tithes" was made in 1648, (see vol. ii.
p. 386,) and again, "Feb. 26, 1648-9," when, according to Whitlock,
"John Lilburn delivered a paper to the House, with many hands to it,
in the name of Addresses to the Supreme Authority of England.'”
Among the proposed reforms, was the following paragraph :-
"That tythes be quite taken away; the Excise, Customs, and Mer-
chants Companies; that there be no imprisonment of disabled men for
debts, and a course to force all that are able, to pay their debts, and not
to shelter themselves in prison." Memorials, (1732,) p. 384. See vol. i.
p. 5, note.
1658-9.]
483
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
posals of peace came from them. One of the two provinces
did write a letter, indeed, bewailing the sad effects and con-
dition of the war. Thereupon, this State did write a letter
back to heal the breach.
If
The peace savours more of a conquest than a peace.
that treaty be looked into, they took part with you against
Charles Stuart.* They departed from many things they
Dr. Bates says of these petitioners, "complura justa reique publica
proficua futura, convitiis, haudquaquam tamen falsis, interspersa propo-
nunt." Elenchus (1676,) p. 139. (They proposed many things, just
and conducive to the public service, interspersed with censures not ill-
merited.) The same author ascribes to some officers under Fairfax
another proposal, "ut abolitis, aut alio conversis decimis, certiora sti-
pendia sacrorum ministris erogentur." Ibid. (that tithes being abo-
lished, or otherwise applied, the ministers of religion might receive more
certain stipends.)
These compulsive stipendia were as tenaciously claimed by the Pres-
byterian, as by the Episcopalian clergy. They soon, however, became
disapproved, not only by the Quakers, but also by the increasing com-
munity of Independents, as a judaical support of “ an hireling minis-
try," ill-calculated, by rendering "the wages" more certain than “ the
work performed," to secure a succession of diligent and exemplary
Christian teachers.
Petitions for and against the abolition of tithes were presented to
the Short Parliament in 1653, though, so far as appears, without pro-
ducing any farther consideration of the subject Tithes are still en-
forced by law; too often checking the improvement of agriculture, or
harassing the agriculturist, if not detracting from the character and in-
fluence of an endowed clergy, amenable for misconduct to ecclesiastical
superiors, but entirely irresponsible to the people; over whom they are
appointed, except in some rare instances, without even the semblance of
a popular choice.
* This, without naming Charles Stuart, was sufficiently implied in
several clauses of the treaty, (See supra, p. 391, note) especially in the
following provisions of the 9th and 10th Articles :—
"Neither of the said Republics, or the people thereof, shall receive
either the persons or goods of such as are already declared, or may
hereafter be declared, the enemy or enemies, rebel or rebels, fugitive or
fugitives of either republic." Upon notice that such enemy is "resi-
ding, lurking, or seeking shelter," a mandate shall be issued, and “if
he does not depart within a fortnight, he shall be punished with death,
and the loss of goods and chattels." See "A Collection of Treaties,"
(1732,) iii. 69, 70.
2 1 2
484
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
had demanded at the beginning of the war. I have heard
very wise men say, that they think themselves so hard put
"A
This Treaty was soon followed by " A Secret Article, or Declaration
of the States of Holland and West Friezeland, done at the Hague,
May 4, 1654."
It recites "the great apprehension of his Highness, that whenever
the highest office in these States should happen to be conferred upon
the Princes of Orange, or their successors or descendants of the House
of Stuart, great misunderstandings and jealousies might on several ac-
counts naturally arise between the two nations."
Then the States, "particularly to content and satisfy his aforesaid
Serene Highness, to the utmost of their power-do declare themselves
by those presents, that they think proper never to elect any Prince of
Orange, or any of their issue, for their Statholder or Admiral of their
provinces; neither will they consent to his being elected so much as
Captain-general of the Militia of these countries. To all which they
oblige themselves in the most solemn manner." Ibid. pp. 87, 88. See
supra, pp. 176, 259. notes.
In 1660, the Dutch hastened to make their peace with the royal
exile, whose " residing, lurking, or seeking shelter" in their territories.
they had thus forbidden, in 1654, on pain of death.
"The king had not been many days in Breda," says Lord Clarendon,
"before the States General sent deputies of their own body, to congra-
tulate his majesty's arrival in their dominions, and to acknowledge the
great honour he had vouchsafed to do them. The magistrates of the
town took all imaginable care to express their devotion to the King.
So that no man would have imagined by the treatment he now received,
that he had been so lately forbid to come into that place." History,
(1712,) iii. 766, 767.
CC
CC
"The first that made court to the King," says Coke, "were the Dutch
when he was at Breda, to enter into a league with them." They ca-
ressed him with a most rich and splendid gilded yacht, to prepare him
for a treaty, after his accession to his crowns." Detection, (1697,) p. 426.
King Charles," says Bishop Burnet, "when he was seeking for
colours for the war with the Dutch, in 1672, urged it for one, that they
suffered some of his rebels to live in their provinces. Borel, then their
ambassador, answered, that it was a maxim of long standing among
them, not to enquire upon what account strangers came to live in their
country, but to receive them all, unless they had been concerned in con-
spiracies against the persons of princes.' The King told him, upon that,
how they had used both himself and his brother. Borel, in great simpli-
city, answered, Ha! Sire, c'estoit une autre chose. Cromwell estoit un
grand homme, et il se faisoit craindre et par terre et par mer. This was very
1
1658-9.]
455
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
upon by that peace, that they will never be quiet until they
have extricated themselves out of it.
They were then able to put forth one hundred sail. Let
not him that puts on his armour, boast himself as he that
puts it off. Then, as to the war with Spain: the Spanish in-
terest was never before cried up in Parliament as so consider-
able to this State. Queen Elizabeth would never be per-
suaded to make peace. She always vexed them in their In-
dias, though she had great affection to Philip II.* King
rough. The King's answer was, Je me feray craindre aussy, à mon tour :
But he was scarce as good as his word." Own Times, (1724,) i. 81.
To him Elizabeth probably owed her preservation, "on the break-
ing out of Wiat's conspiracy," in 1554. "The Bishops were offering
cruel counsels against her. But King Philip so far mollified the Queen
towards her, that he prevailed with her to bring her to Court, and to ad-
mit her to her presence," having "conveyed himself secretly into a
corner of the room, that he might prevent a farther breach, in case the
Queen should fall into heats with her." See Bishop Burnet's Reforma-
tion, (1728,) ii. 302, 303.
Yet the martyr's crown, so profusely bestowed in the reign of Mary,
was not the diadem to which Elizabeth aspired. Camden thus describes
her accommodating policy, at this critical period :—
Quum tamen illa, ut navigium, ingruente tempestate, sese moderans,
ad Romanæ religionis normam sacra audiret, et sæpius confiteretur. Imo
Cardinale Polo asperius interpellante, se Romano-Catholicam, præ ter-
rore mortis, profiteretur." Historia, i. 21.
"The Lady Elizabeth, now governing herself as it were a ship in
stormy weather, both heard divine service after the Romish manner, and
was often confessed. Yea, at the rigorous instances and menaces of Car-
dinal Pole, professed herself, for fear of death, a Romish Catholic."
History, (1675,) p. 9. See supra, p. 412, note.
On the accession of Elizabeth, in 1558, CC
Philip proposed marriage
to the Queen. Yet, though she firmly resolved not to marry King Phi-
lip, she thought that, during the treaty at Cambray, it was not fit to put
him quite out of hopes. So he sent to Rome for a dispensation." Bur-
net, ii. 313.
Queen Elizabeth became," says Osborn," the severest scourge to
Spain that it ever had, since emancipated from the Moors. The occa-
sion of which some lay at the haughty and proud gate of the Spaniard,
who grew implacable after he found he was deluded of his hope to marry
her; others, to a nature residing in all princes, not to acknowledge any
یا
486
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
James, indeed, courted the peace with Spain, pleasing himself
with the title of Rex Pacificus,* whilst he forgot to be Defen-
sor fidei. But, in the 18th of that King, he was advised
friends or kindred, but what are allied to a capacity of doing them some
future good.
"Yet this is manifest in the histories on both sides, that the Queen
did, by way of mediation, long endeavour for a milder governing of his
Dutch subjects, (of whose oppression both heaven and earth are wit-
nesses,) before a sword was drawn in their defence." Works of Osborn,
(1673,) p. 416.
* See "Mr. Lloyd," supra, p. 393.
"The King of England," says
Rushworth, “will not take the alarm (1619), abhorring war in general,
and distasting the Palsgrave's cause, as an ill precedent against mo-
narchy." Hist. Coll. (1703,) i. 11.
+ This title was bestowed on Henry VIII. in 1521, by Leo X. as a re-
ward for the King's defence of the Holy See. The book was first presented
to the Pope in a fair MS. (as appears by Bishop Burnet's Records,) and
soon after printed. It was entitled: “Assertio Septem Sacramentorum
adversus Martyn Luther; edita ab invictissimo Angliæ et Franciæ Rege
et de Hyberniâ, ejus nominis Octavo."
The Reformer" not only treated this piece of royal theology in a very
cavalier manner, but, which seems to have given the most offence,
ascribed it to others. The King, in 1525, replied in a second piece,
intituled, 'Litterarum quibus invictissimus Princeps Henry VIII. &c.
respondit ad quandam epistolam Martini Lutheri ad se missam, et ip-
sius Lutheranæ quoque Epistolæ exemplum.'
"As all the successors of this Prince," says Lord Orford, "owe their
unchangeable title of Defender of the Faith to his piety and learning,
we do not presume to question his pretensions. Otherwise, a little
scepticism on his Majesty's talents for such a performance, mean as it is,
might make us question whether he did not write the defence of the
Sacraments against Luther, as one of his successors is supposed to have
written the Exwv Baoλix; that is, with the pen of some court-prelate.
"It happened, unfortunately, that the champion of the Church neither
convinced his antagonist nor himself. Luther died a heretic. His Ma-
jesty would have been one, if he had not erected himself into the Head
of that very Church which he had received so glorious a compliment for
opposing. But by a singular felicity in the wording of the title, it suit-
ed Henry equally well, when he burned Papists or Protestants; it suited
each of his daughters, Mary and Elizabeth; it fitted the martyr Charles,
and the profligate Charles; the Romish James and the Calvinist Wil-
liam; and, at last, seemed peculiarly adapted to the weak head of high-
church Anne." See "Royal and Noble Authors,” (1759,) i. 9
11.
1658-9.1
487
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
!
by Parliament against it, and they then espoused the
war.
*
A Declaration or Remonstrance in the beginning of the
Long Parliament, who were a wise Parliament, complains
greatly against the peace with Spain.
It states that the King was managed by the Jesuits, hav-
ing been damped before by the breaking with Spain, in the
last year of King James. The interest of France was not, as
they affirmed, so contrary to religion as that of Spain; and
the peace made with Spain was without consent in Parlia-
ment. Those things have weight with me.
Ofttimes peace with Spain has been complained of in
Parliament, but this is the first time that war with Spain was
complained of. You export as much commodity, and import
as much from Spain, as ever you did. You will find the de-
cay of trade, if you examine it, to proceed from another
Our trade is lost by occasion of the Dutch.
cause.
We had ill success in the beginning, in the West Indies;
but we must not judge by events. Never were things done
* In 1621. "The Commons," says Rushworth, “ before their recess,
drew up a Declaration to this effect; that if his Majesty cannot by
treaty procure the peace and safety of his children abroad, and of the
true professors in foreign parts, of the same religion professed by the
Church of England, they would, to their utmost power, with their lives
and fortunes assist him; so as that he may be able to do that with his
sword, which, by a peaceable course, shall not be effected." Hist. Coll.
(1703,) i. 27, 28. See Parl. Hist. (1763,) v. 472, 473.
(C
(C
+ On this "Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdom," which was
presented to his Majesty at Hampton-court," Dec. 15, 16411, see
vol. ii. p. 325, ad fin.; Lord Clarendon's History, (1712,) i. 311, 312.
The Commons describe" the Jesuited counsels," as being most ac-
tive and prevailing ;" and "the interests and counsels of France," as
'being not so contrary to the good of religion, and the prosperity of this
kingdome, as those of Spain; and the papists of England having been
ever more addicted to Spain than France." They then denounce "the
precipitate breach with Francé," and "the peace with Spain, without
consent of Parliament, contrary to the promise of King James to both
Houses." See Husband's Collection, (1643,) pp. 3-5; Rushworth, iv.
204, 205; Parl. Hist. (1762,) x. 62, 63.
‡ See supra, pp. 102, 103, note.
488
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
more to the interest of the English nation than of late; or
greater honour attained than from that war. Dunkirk* is
more considerable than men are aware of.
* Whitelock records, "June 21, 1658, intelligence of the surrender
of Dunkirk, and that the King of France, the Cardinal, and General
Lockhart, entered the town with their forces; and Lockhart was put
into the possession and command of it. Sept. 10. Letters of the pro-
claiming of Richard Lord Protector, at Dunkirk.” Memorials, (1732,)
pp. 674-5. See English Forces in France, vol. ii. p. 115, note.
In 1662, Charles II. sold Dunkirk to the French for 500,000/., which,
according to Bishop Burnet, "was all immediately squandered away
among the mistress's creatures." This was "Mistress Palmer," whom
the King" advanced to be Duchess of Cleveland," and whose husband
was content to derive from such a "fountain of honour" as the royal
adulterer, his titular dignity of " Earl of Castlemaine."
cr
r
It was
"at Mistress Palmer's lodgings" that "the cabal met," in
1661, by whom "the King was determined in the disposal of offices,
with little regard to men's merits or services. And though the Earl of
Clarendon did often prevail with the King to alter the resolutions taken
there, yet he was forced to let a great deal go that he did not like."
This peeress,
one of the race of the Villiers, was a woman of great
beauty, but most enormously vitious and ravenous; foolish, but imperious;
very uneasy to the king, and always carrying on intrigues with other
men; while yet she pretended she was jealous of him. His passion for
her," adds Bishop Burnet, “ and her strange behaviour towards him, did
so disorder him, that often he was not master of himself, nor capable
of minding business, which in so critical a time required great applica-
tion." Own Time, (1724,) i. 94, 164, 165, 173.
Andrew Marvel, (Works, ii. 75.) as quoted by Dr. Harris, thus writes:
"They have signed and sealed 10,000l. a-year more to the Duchess of
Cleveland; who has likewise near 10,000l. a-year out of the new farm of
the county excise of beer and ale; and 5000l. a-year out of the Post
Office. All promotions, spiritual and temporal, pass under her cogni-
zance." Lives, (1814,) v. 48. Well might the candidates for prefer-
ment in Church and State disguise or flatter the vices of their "Supreme
Head," and even teach "the right divine of kings to govern wrong,"
while royal favour was awarded under such a discretion. The betrayed
and infatuated people, who had invited Charles Stuart to return, were
thus "taxed to dower a titled concubine." See supra, p. 274.
"It is credibly reported," says Oldmixon, (on Charles's Restoration,)
that "he took Barbara Villiers from her husband that very night."
House of Stuart, (1730,) p. 471. Sir Philip Warwick says: "because
his chapel was out of order, he made his presence-chamber his oratory,
1658-9.]
489
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
You may make as advantageous a peace as you please with
them, if you spoil it not by your discourse here. You may,
I believe, have your own terms. I shall pray you to make
no delay of it, for I believe the necessity of your affairs re-
quires it.
Sir Henry Vane. We are not yet at the bottom. Many
considerable things have been offered in the last matter-of-
fact, by Mr. Secretary.
What is declared, is to me very satisfactory. He assures
us there is no engagement, nothing of any private treaty,
between us and the Swede, that he knows of. But may there
not be an underhand, secret treaty, that he knows not of. I
have heard something to that purpose, and upon very good
intelligence, that there is an engagement.
If the good Providence of God had not interrupted it, I
believe the question had not now been to have been decided
by you. The fleet should have gone long since, but it was
prevented; and if it had gone, this debate had been deter-
mined before this time. But I shall not go upon that ground,
but only upon the grounds that are offered, and suit my dis-
course to that.
The coalition with that State, the Dutch,* if it had been
wherein to pay his devotions that night to God." Memoires, (1813,) p.
473.
The reader may accept which of these anecdotes he pleases; or, per-
haps, may credit both, with all their apparent incongruity, if he recol-
lect the "lodgings" described by Bishop Burnet, whence "our most re-
ligious king" usually proceeded to prayers and sacrament." See
supra, p. 273, ad fin.
tr
tr
* This Speaker was well acquainted with the designs of the Council of
State, acting for the Parliament after the king's execution. Dr. Doris-
laus, who was assassinated at the Hague, in May 1649, according to
Whitlock by "twelve English Cavaliers in disguise," had been sent as a
public minister there for the Parliament.' Dr. Bates says that he
had been instructed, "de Coalitione, si opportunum viderit, injicere men-
tionem, offerre, et illam hortari." Elenchus, (1676,) p. 138. (If opportu-
nity offered, to introduce the subject of a coalition, and to recommend it
to their acceptance.) So early had the Parliament entertained this
project.
490
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
well pursued, you had shut out all correspondency with the
Spanish interest.
I am not able to see through it, nor to understand how the
whole state of managing the peace with Holland, and war with
Spain, hath been agreeable at all to the interest of the State,
but rather, very much to the interest of a single person.
The interest then used, and the endeavouring to bring the
two nations to a coalition, which had made a great progress,
would have drawn off the States wholly from the Spanish in-
terest, which now mingles much in their counsels; and if that
had been then followed home, it would have made that State
at that time, wholly yours.
If, when you sent ten thousand men to Jamaica, where you
have left your dead men to your reproach,* you had sent the
same fleet to the Sound, and fallen upon the Dutch, that
would have done your business. You might have been a
great way in Germany, and have made an emperor there
yourself.
That which increases my jealousy is, that I see this affair
all along managed but to support the interest of a single per-
son, and not for the public good, the people's interest.
Our counsels have been mingled with France, and taken
from the Cardinal, who goeth upon the most tyrannical prin-
ciples of government in the world. The French put us upon
this remote design; and out of that bow, I doubt, comes
this shaft, to be sent into the Sound. Whether this looks
not like a principle of Cardinal Mazarine, for your single
person to get a fleet into his hands?
I know no reason you have to send a fleet indefinitely, im-
plicitly upon this design. The Swede is absolute possessor
of both sides of the Sound, and he will make sure of the pas-
sage too, if you do but assist him; and when he hath it, he
must either give it you by new treaty, or you must take it
out of his hands by force.
When one half was in the Dane's hands, and the other in
*
See "Dr. Bates," supra, pp. 102, 103, note.
1658-9.]
491
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
the Swede's, it was then best for us, for we might be as ne-
cessary to the Dane as any other.
France, when they see an opportunity, can easily resent
former injuries. This business is not fit to be so openly de-
bated. It requires more secrecy.
A two-fold necessity has been thought of, and is put upon
you.
That will be too
1. It is not to be delayed till to-morrow.
late. This is the very nick of time, and they put it upon you
with so great necessity, that all other arguments must receive
no favour.
2. You must transmit wholly to the disposal of your single
person, to do what he pleases. There is nothing lost in the
preparations of the fleet. Your officers, I believe, are all
commissionated upon that presumption, that the militia is al-
ready in him. Nought will satisfy, unless the militia be
granted in the single person within twenty-four hours.
1
In answer to the objection.
1. The vote will not seclude us, unless the disposal be in
the single person, and by that you give away implicitly the
power of the militia, before you have asserted your own right,
or taken it upon yourselves. Oh! but would you make the
single person no other than a Committee-man!
Yet, though loth to own it, lest you come to a Common-
wealth again, so dangerous, not so much as advice will be ad-
mitted.
2. And as you do not assert your right in the militia, so
you do not assert your interest, or take that part of it that
belongs to you in the very business before you. You must
have the persons names brought in to you to be approved.
It is told you, you are not able here to make peace or war.
Neither you nor your Council can manage peace and war.
Your Commander-in-Chief must do it. I hope you will ex-
press your interest as well as a declaration. Assert the prac-
tice as well as the right of the militia. Be assured of the faith-
fulness to the Commonwealth, first, of those persons that you
send. I hope you will have an able commander, and one that
hath given good testimony of his good affection towards you.
492
[FEB. 24,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
2
3. You must at one day give up all the interest in the mi-
litia, upon the necessity that is urged upon you; the necessity
that it must be done in this manner, and no other way.
1. Assert your militia to be in you.
2. Refer it to your Commissioners, to see that no delay be
in it.
3. Have your officers before you, and approve of them.
4. Appoint a Committee of your own, to advise about dis-
posing of this to the most public advantage.
Mr. Solicitor-general. I am no great statesman, and shall
only look upon your affairs as they are at this time. It is a
great question how your vote shall be put in execution. Is
it not our interest to go into the Sound as the Dutch do, and
for the same reason? We may go there without breach with
them, as well as they without breach with us, to secure that
place where our interest lies. To what end did his High-
ness acquaint you, unless he desired your advice, and acknow-
ledged your interest. When you desire it, do you give it
up from you.
If you vote all this power in you, it is not to exclude all
other; for then we are as perfect a Commonwealth as ever we
were.
This is plainly to shake off a single person and another
House. Before 48, it was never challenged to be in this
House. In the Parliament it was, and in the single person.
Your fleet will never go out, if it stay till all these ques-
tions be determined.
Notwithstanding the Secretary's explanation, that he knew
nought of any private engagement to the Swede, Sir Henry
Vane had affirmed that he was confident there was an engage-
ment that he knew not of, and that he had heard so.
Mr. Bulkeley pressed that he might explain where he
heard it, and of whom. If it was any of the council that
engaged, they were not fit counsellors.
He was very hot in it, for which Sir Henry Vane after-
wards reprehended him, and said, he could remember it, when
he saw his turn.
Mr. Turner seconded Mr. Bulkeley.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge took it off. It was not pressed.
1658-9.]
493
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The question being put for candles,
The House was divided. The Yeas went forth.
Yeus 177. Mr. Gerrard and Mr. Raleigh, Tellers.
Noes 119. Sir Arthur Haslerigge and Mr. Scot, Tellers.
After a long debate, till almost eleven, the question was
put if the question be now put.
Mr. Speaker declared for the Yeas.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge declared for the Noes.
The House was divided. The Noes went forth.
Yeas 176. Mr. Raleigh and Mr. Bodurda, Tellers.
Noes 98. Sir Arthur Haslerigge and Mr. Neville, Tellers.
So it passed in the affirmative. The main question was put.
Resolved, that it be referred to his Highness the Lord
Protector to put the vote of this House concerning the pre-
paring and putting to sea a considerable navy for the safety
of this Commonwealth, and the preservation of the trade and
commerce thereof, in execution; saving the interest of this
House in the militia and in making of peace and war.*
Resolved, that Mr. Secretary Thurloe be desired to carry
this vote to his Highness.
Mr. Trevor moved to adjourn till Saturday.
Resolved, that the House be adjourned till Saturday morn-
ing next, at eight of the clock. The House rose at 11.
*The secretary gave an account of foreign affairs," says Mr. Bethel,
which gave occasion to the country party to bring on, in behalf of the
public, a debate concerning the navy, wherein (arguing, that as the
navy is part of the militia, and the militia, the then right of the people
assembled in Parliament, and that without the militia the Parliament
could not make good their promises to the people, in bounding the
power of the Chief Magistrate,) they moved that the House would ap-
point certain Commissioners for the management of the naval forces.
"The debate for setting forth a very considerable fleet to sea, for the
honour and defence of the Commonwealth and commerce, held not long,
the thing being readily agreed unto by all parties; but who should
manage the fleet, was a debate of several days, and at last carried with
a strong hand by the courtiers, that the Pretender should have the dis-
posal of it; all that the country-party could get into the question being,
that the making peace and war should be reserved unto the Parliament."
Brief Narrative, pp. 341, 342.
494
[FEB. 26,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Saturday, February 26, 1658-9.
Mr. Speaker took the chair at nine.
Mr. Cooper prayed.
Colonel Terrill reported from the Grand Committee of the
House for Grievances and Courts of Justice, their resolution
and opinion touching Mr. John Portman ;* that his impri-
sonment by the Lieutenant of the Tower was, and is, unjust
and illegal, and that he ought to be discharged without any
fees or charge.†
Mr. Jessopt made a narrative of the Book of Characters
found with the Fifth Monarchy-men, which, with the help of
some members now present, he did decipher, and found this
Mr. Portman often named in the book.
There was a great deal of humility in it, and often seeking
of God. They came to several resolutions to go into arms,
told the manner how, and arms and horses prepared. The
Mews was intended to be seized on.
His late Highness, now in heaven, was very tender towards
them, for that appearance of Christ in them. The commit-
ment was on the account of preserving the peace.
He craved pardon if he had offended.
Mr. Knightley. He ought to be proceeded against, if there
is any law. The gentleman does not charge any action.
against him. If any man should come and say I am a Fifth
* See supra, p. 449.
+ "The Lieutenant of the Tower, Feb. 3, 1657, received a letter
from the late Lord Protector, early in the morning, directing him to ap-
prehend Mr. John Portman, amongst others, forthwith. The same day,
in the afternoon, a warrant was sent. The same night, or shortly after,
Mr. Portman was taken by a lieutenant and about six soldiers, under
the command, and by the order and direction of the Lieutenant of the
Tower; and hath ever since then remained a prisoner there, without
any proceedings had against him.” Journals.
The letter," being only from the Usurper Oliver," was thus: "Sir, I
desire you to seize Major-general Harrison, Mr. Carew, Mr. Portman,
&c. Do it speedily, and you shall have a warrant after you have done."
Brief Narrative, p. 342. See supra, p. 448.
Clerk of the Council,
1658-9.]
495
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
DIARY.
Monarchy-man, I should be thrown into prison, and never
brought to trial in a twelvemonth.
He called the Lieutenant, a Gaoler and a Justice of the
Peace.
Mr. Neville. There does no cause of his imprisonment ap-
pear by the return, so that it is clear he ought to be dis-
charged.
Serjeant Maynard agreed.
Mr. Knightley and Colonel White moved that he might not
only be set at liberty, but have his action against the Lieu-
tenant, for against the Chief Magistrate no action lies.
Sir Thomas Wroth. It was a high breach of the liberty of
the subject. I would have some, of your sense, declare
against him that did imprison him upon a bare letter. Here
is no more in the case.
Sir Walter Earle. You ought, as the first question, to
agree with the Committee, and, if nought be to be said after-
wards, let them say.
Colonel Birch. I cannot agree with the Report, that this
business is illegal and unjust. You have had a report, with
much tenderness, touching these Fifth Monarchy-men.
He tells you, the character was deciphered, and that this
gentleman, or one of his name, was in the business. They
were drawing into arms. If they had been under another
name, I believe this had hardly come before you; but I will
say no more of that.
I can agree that the
against the Petition and
the imprisonment was so.
Sir Henry Vane. The
is because the whole matter is not before you.
detainer is illegal and unjust, and
Advice; but I cannot agree that
There was good cause for it.
reason why we are so in the dark,
I would have the letter and warrant read, but in that, not
a word of what is reported of the character. If the decipher-
ing of a character by any man that shall pretend to be master
of it, be enough of evidence, few will escape. The Gate-
house was filled with divers persons upon this score, and
they laid in a miserable case, and were released but a little
before this Parliament.
496
[FEB. 26,
PARLIA
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Let us do what may show we bear the bodies of English-
men, and not of slaves. If any be a criminal, let him be
brought to speedy justice.
Mr. Bodurda. His Highness did this to secure the peace,
and there was reason haply for it. But if you please to put
the question, to agree with this Committee, I shall concur
with it.
Mr. Godfrey. I cannot agree with the Committee. Those
persons were about to raise arms. The Chief Magistrate's
vigilance in this business was not to be blamed. It appears
his name was in the book.*
There is a just imprisonment upon suspicion of treason.
It is hard to go so far, as to condemn the whole. I cannot
agree with the Committee, as to his imprisonment to be un-
just; but of the illegality of the detainer, I shall agree.
Mr. Onslow. In answer to Godfrey and Birch thus:
If there were justice for his commitment; there was the
same justice for his trial. But the proceedings touching his
imprisonment are unjust. The letter for warrant is no just
ground of his imprisonment. Though the crime were true,
no law gives the Chief Magistrate power to commit any man,
of his own accord. If any man was committed upon man-
datum domini regis, it was not of the king himself, but per sig-
nificationem privati consilii. Yet these imprisonments were
condemned in the Arguments, Tertio Caroli †. This is much
higher than ever the King pretended to.
* See supra, p. 494.
† In 1627, in the case of Sir John Heveningham, and others who
were imprisoned for refusing loan-money, "Sir Edward Coke," ac-
cording to Rushworth, "said: The question is, whether a freeman can
be imprisoned by the King, without setting down the cause of it? If he
may, it follows, I shall have an estate of inheritance, or for life, or
years, in my lands; or property in my goods; and I shall be a tenant at
will for my liberty." (See supra, p. 121, ad fin.)
rr
The Commons "resolved upon the question, nemine contradicente,
"1. That no Freeman ought to be detained, or kept in prison, or
otherwise restrained, by the command of the King, or the Privy Coun-
cil, or any other, unless some cause of the commitment, detainer, or
1658-9.]
497
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Put the question to agree with the Committee first; and
then do what you please, touching the Lieutenant of the
Tower, afterwards.
Serjeant Seys. I agree with that noble knight,* that
it is a dangerous proceeding, to make a man a criminal, by
deciphering a book; though I should suspect them to work
under ground, like moles.
This letter came at five o'clock in the morning. If there had
not been good cause, the Chief Magistrate would not at that
time have broken his sleep. I think the detaining, or trying
a man upon this ground is hard, and the precedent dangerous;
but as to the imprisonment, there are grounds enough for it.
Mr. Neville. Admit that by the book of characters, the
persons had been guilty of high treason; your question is
whether the proceeding be according to law. No cause is
shown in the warrant. Every warrant ought to bear in it
the crime. A Fifth Monarchy-man is not defined, what it is.
Put the question to agree with the Committee.
Captain Clayton. I cannot agree that the imprisonment
was illegal.
Captain Baynes moved that it was illegal.
Mr. Bacon moved the contrary.
restraint, be expressed, for which by law he ought to be committed, de-
tained, or restrained.
"2. That the writ of Habeas Corpus may not be denied, but ought to
be granted to every man that is committed or detained in prison, or
otherwise restrained, though it be by the command of the King, the
Privy Council, or any other, he praying the same.
"3. That if any freeman be committed or detained in prison, or
otherwise restrained by the command of the King, the Privy Council,
or any other, no cause of such commitment, detainer, or restraint being
expressed, for which he ought by law so be committed, detained, or
restrained; and the same be returned upon a Habeas Corpus, granted
for the said party, then he ought to be delivered or bailed." Hist. Col.
(1703,) 1. 325. See Parl. Hist. (1763,) vii. 377.
This contention with the Crown, for the liberty of the subject, an
avant-courier of the civil war, produced the next year (1628) the ill-ob-
served royal sanction to the Petition of Right. See supra, p. 171, note*
* "Sir Henry Vane,” supra, p. 495.
2 K
VOL. 111.
498
[FEB. 26,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Starkey. I wonder to see the difference amongst the
gentlemen of the Long Robe, in their opinions. I cannot
say that the imprisonment is legal. The law is otherwise.
Multa tenent facta, qua fieri non deberent.
I would not have us mealy-mouthed, but in a Parliamen-
tary way to assert the liberties of the people; which is the
great part of bounding the Chief Magistrate.
Mr. Attorney of the Duchy. The report is not according
to the sense of the Committee, upon the account of the Lieu-
tenant tearing, by soldiers, the prisoner out of his own house.
They did not proceed upon the papers, but upon the act of
the Lieutenant. Let it go upon the proper sense, and I shall
agree with the Committee.
Resolved, that this House doth agree with the Committee.
That the apprehending, imprisonment, and detaining of
Mr. John Portman a prisoner in the Tower, by the Lieu-
tenant of the Tower, was, and is illegal, and unjust and
that the said John Portman be discharged from his impri-
sonment in the Tower, without any fees or other charges to
be paid by him.*
The Counsel and parties were called into the bar, to hear
the case of Neville and Strowde.†
Mr. Finch made a learned discourse in defence of the ac-
tion, on Mr. Neville's side, and said it was well brought, and
no new case. He prayed a procedendo in the Common Pleas
Mr. Green, (for Mr. Strowde.) It is a case prima impres-
sionis. The Judges (as able as ever) were unsatisfied how
to pass their judgment in it. A Committee of the last Par-
liament did conclude that election void. (He recited all the
pleading; damages 20007. The Jury have given 15007.
damages.)
*“ Resolved, that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant, under his hand,
to the Lieutenant of the Tower, for the discharge of Mr. Portman from
his imprisonment accordingly." Journals.
+ See supra, pp. 51, 346.
‡ See supra, p. 425, note.
of Counsel with the plaintiff,
Counsel with the defendant."
“Mr. Heneage Finch and Mr. Windham,
and Mr. Green and Mr. Wentworth, of
Journals.
1658-9.]
499
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I shall offer such authority as is fit to insist upon at this
bar; I offer nought impertinent here; I should much forget
where I am.
It appears that this case, upon the whole matter, con-
cerns the privilege of this House, and here it ought only
to be determined. No other Court can meddle with it.
Lord Coke (Instit. part 4,) saith: "It is lex et consuetudo
parliamenti that must determine matters of this nature; the
Judges are not to meddle." The Bishop of Winchester's, and
Mr. Plowden's cases, clear this point. The privileges of both
Houses are to determine, and not the Judges. 27 Henry VI.
in a case between two Lords for precedency, the Judges
would not meddle.
Though a Parliament be dissolved, the Judges cannot
meddle in any cases happening there. Justice Jones would
not meddle. He did declare it as a settled ground and
maxim. Take the case wholly, and it will prove only fit for
a Parliament, not fit to be determined by an inferior Court.
Matters of Election are not properly determinable by strict
rules of common law.
In case of non-residency of a Burgess or Knight, lex et
consuetudo parliamenti dispenseth it, but the Judges must
judge by the letter of the law.
It was resolved in this House, that a person might sit in
this House, contrary to the opinion of the Judges. I have
the case here at large. To serve in Parliament, is certainly
a great honour, but it is also an onus .* yet the law takes
care that the Sheriff do cause the members to appear; which
argues the unwillingness of some persons to serve, and there-
fore there is no particular damage if the Sheriff return them
not.
This case being most properly examinable in this honour-
able House, I shall pray that the whole business upon the
merit, be heard here.
*For which the members used to receive a salary. Lord Coke says,
"the fee for the knight of any county is four shillings per diem, and
every citizen or burgess is to have two shillings per diem." (4 Inst. 46.)
Lex Parliamentaria, (1690,) p. 124.
2 K 2
500
[FEB. 26,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Wentworth, (for Strowde.) I shall show this case is
proper
for this House. It concerns, as Lord Coke (on Lit-
tleton) says, "the very being and heart-strings of Parliament."
It is a good ground for a man to judge that an action ought
not to lie, where it has never been brought. Thence I may
conclude stronger, that no action since the Conquest, 500
years since, was ever brought; so that this cannot properly
be brought.
I shall therefore humbly move that the whole business may
be heard here, and that it may not be transmitted to the
Common Pleas.*
Mr. Turner. We are all full of the business; I hope we
shall all be of one mind in it.
If you please, to appoint another day, and adjourn now.
Major Burton. We sit not here to hear causes at the bar.
Let it be sent back again to the judges. Why do they trou-
ble us with it ?
Sir Henry Vane. We cannot spend our time better
than in asserting the liberty of the subject. I am sure it was
better employed in thus bounding him,† than in giving him
such an unlimited power. Yet I move that it be adjourned
till another day, for a final determination of the business.
Resolved, that this day sevennight be appointed for the de-
termining of this cause between Mr. Neville and Mr.
Strowde.
Sir George Booth and Sir Henry Vane, and others, moved
that none that were accountable, or were farmers of any
tithes, should be of the Committee for maintenance of minis-
ters in Wales. (Query if Colonel Freeman be not one.)
The debate held a long time about wording the question;
but at last it was ordered ut supra, or to that purpose.‡
• Numerous cases were cited on each side, but the report is too im-
perfect to be understood.
+ Probably the Sheriff.
↑ "Resolved, that no members of this House, that are of the Com-
mittee for North Wales and South Wales, and are, or have been, ac-
countable for any of the revenues of the Church, within North Wales
or South Wales, or the county of Monmouth; or that are, or have been
1658-9.]
501
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Onslow. I move, that before you proceed to bound
the other House, you first bound the superior.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge (and others). It was agreed that a
great deal of time was spent about precedency of those de-
bates, and it was resolved that the other House be first pro-
ceeded upon. I therefore would not have us go back again,
but proceed upon the debate adjourned. I move that it be
taken up on Monday morning, and nought to intervene.
Resolved accordingly.*
Upon information given to the House, that certain articles
were ready to be presented to the House, concerning some
discourses had, and words spoken, by Mr. Neville, one of the
members of this House,†
Resolved, that Tuesday next a sevennight, be appointed
to receive and read the articles informed of, to be now ready
to be presented concerning any discourse had, or words sup-
posed to have been spoken, by Mr. Henry Neville, one of the
members of this House.
Resolved, that the Lord Viscount Falkland‡ shall have
leave to go into the country for ten days.
The House did adjourn till Monday morning, and rose at
one.
The sub-Committee for preparing of a Bill for ejecting of
scandalous ministers, sat in the Inner Court of Wards, and
proceeded in parts upon the Bill.
The Committee of Privileges sat in the Star Chamber.
Serjeant Waller in the chair.
Mr. Stone, Colonel Clark, and I, moved for Cousin John
Blakiston's Petition to be read, touching the undue return of
Captain Lilburne.
It was ordered to be heard on Tuesday come month.
farmers thereof, shall have any vote at the said Committee; and that al
others that will come shall have votes." Journals.
* "That the debate concerning the bounds and powers of another
House, be taken into consideration on Monday morning next, the first
business; and that nothing else do then intervene." Journals.
† See supra, pp. 296–305.
↑ See supra, pp. 23, 25, notes.
502
[FEB. 26,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Ordered, that the business of Cheshire be put
off for a
month.
Serjeant Waller moved it, inter Bradshaw and Brookes.
Captain Whalley moved that the business of Radnor might
have a certainty assigned as to the disability of the election,
which was ordered accordingly.
The Committee adjourned to the House, where was heard
at the bar, by counsel on both sides, the business of Malton.
Mr. Allen was counsel for Mr. Howard and Mr. Mar-
wood; Mr. Green and Mr. Winstanly, for Major-general
Lilburne and Mr. Robinson.*
The Commonwealth party strove mainly to make all
things right on their side, but it would not be. At last it
came to the question. They had but sixteen, and the other
at least twenty-six. The debate held till nine.
It was resolved and determined by the poll, that Old Mal-
ton has a right to join with New Malton in the election and
return of burgesses to sit and serve in Parliament for Malton.
Resolved, that Mr. Howard and Mr. Marwood are duly
returned.
Resolved, that the indenture whereby Major-general Lil-
burne and Mr. Luke Robinson are returned ought to be
withdrawn, and taken off the file, and that this be reported
to the House.
Mr. Finch was present all the time as a by-stander, being,
it seems, unawares, retained on both sides; and so the parties
withdrew their fees, and he stood neuter.
Mr. Monerell and other lawyers were there, and Cousin
John Blakiston, all as by-standers.
The case was well argued on both sides. Mr. Robinson's
and Mr. Lilburne's party intend to move to have it recom-
mitted, but the case is clear enough, in my opinion.
* This zealous republican, Mr. Robinson, on the now approaching re-
storation of the Long Parliament, of which he was a member, was joined
with Mr. Scot on a mission to Monk, to confirm his professed regard to
the Commonwealth. Yet see Luke Robinson, on the Expectation of
Charles Stuart, in 1660, vol. i. p. 263, note.
1658-9.]
503
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Monday, February 28, 1658-9.
Mr. Speaker took the chair at nine.
Mr. Cooper prayed.
Out of the Journals.
Colonel Bennet reported from the Committee to whom the
Petition of Mrs. Elizabeth Lilburne, widow, late wife of Mr.
John Lilburne,* deceased, was referred, the proceedings of
* See supra, p. 68; vol. i. p. 156, note ||; Dr. Towers's Tracts, (1796,)
ii. 34-36.
John Lilburne died in 1657, at Eltham, where he is said to have
joined the quakers, and preached among them. Though only in his
thirty-ninth year, he had suffered, and probably, in some instances, had
provoked, numerous injuries, unfeelingly inflicted by the successive
powers in possession.
In 1636, at the age of eighteen, he became acquainted with Dr. Bast-
wick,” (see vol. i. p. 372, note,) “then a prisoner in the Gate-house,
whom he afterwards constantly visited;" though they were in later
years much at variance. To print one of that free politician's anti-pre-
latical MSS., he went over to Holland, "where," he says, "I was divers
months, and where the King's ambassador laid for me, as I was informed,
several designs to put me a ship-board, and send me over to the Bishops
here, for my visible activity there against them, which forced me, con-
tinually, to wear my sword about me." Brit. Biog. (1770,) vi. 44, 45.
Soon after his return, "he was seized," and referred from " the Coun-
cil Board and High Commission, to the Court of Star-chamber." There,
"he repeatedly refused, with the utmost firmness, to take the oath ex
officio, or answer interrogatories, and by his noble behaviour on this oc-
sion, acquired the honourable appellation of Free-born John." In 1638,
he was sentenced to the pillory, which he bravely endured, with whip-
ping from the Fleet Prison to Westminster, "five hundred lashes with
knotted cords," and "imprisonment with double irons on his arms and
legs;" till, in 1641, the Parliament resolved "that the sentence against
Mr. Lilburne was illegal, barbarous, bloody, and tyrannical." Ibid. p. 46.
During the war he distinguished himself in the service of the Parlia-
ment, especially at Marston Moor. Becoming, however, obnoxious to
the House of Lords, in 1646, he was fined "4000l. to the King, for ever
disfranchised," and for some time imprisoned in Newgate and the Tower.
Besides" contempt of their jurisdiction," Free-born John had exasperated
the Lords, (he says,
"made them mad,") by maintaining "that by the
504
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
the late Parliament, in January 1651, concerning Lieutenant
laws of England, they had no jurisdiction over commoners, to try them
either for life, limb, liberty, or estate." Ibid. p. 52.
In 1649, John Lilburne was tried at Guildhall, at the instance of the
Council of State of the Commonwealth, and on the prosecution of At-
torney-general Prideaux, “upon an indictment of high treason, for writ-
ing and publishing seditious and treasonable books." On this occasion
occurred the following dialogue, in which it will be generally considered
that the prisoner had the advantage of the Court; now that the rights
of juries are ascertained and secured by Mr. Fox's Libel Bill, passed, I
believe, against the opinions of Lord Kenyon, and nearly all the judges
in the late reign, except Lord Camden.
"Lord Keble. Master Lilburne, quietly express yourself and you do
well. The jury are judges of matter of fact altogether, and Judge Coke
says so; but I tell you the opinion of the Court: they are judges of mat-
ter of law.
“ Lieutenant-colonel Lilburne. The jury by law are not only judges
of fact, but of law also, and you that call yourselves judges of the law, are
no more but Norman intruders; and, indeed, and in truth, if the jury
please, are no more but cyphers to pronounce their verdict.
66
Judge Jermin. Was there ever such a damnable blasphemous he-
resie as this is, to call the judges of the law cyphers?
“ Lieutenant-colonel Lilburne. Sir, I intreat you, give me leave to
read the words of the law then; (Coke's Institutes, sect. 366 ;) for to my
jury I apply, both in the law and fact.
"Lord Keble. Sir, you shall not read it.
CC
Judge Jermin. You cannot be suffered to read the law. You have
broached an erroneous opinion, that the jury are judges of the law,
which is enough to destroy all the law in the land. There was never
such a damnable heresie broached in this nation before."
When the jury, after this extraordinary trial of three days, pro-
nounced an acquittal, " immediately the whole multitude of people in
the Hall gave such a loud and unanimous shout, as is believed was
never heard in Guildhall, which lasted for about half an hour, without
intermission; which made the judges, for fear, turn pale, and hang
down their heads; but the prisoner stood silent at the bar, rather more
sad in his countenance than he was before."
On some pretence, instead of being discharged, he was remanded “ to
the Tower," under the guard of “ Major-general Skippon," till Novem-
ber 8, when he was released at the instance of Ludlow and others, by an
order from the Lord President Bradshaw. He had been attended with
"acclamations and loud rejoicing expressions, quite through the streets
to the very gates of the Tower, and for joy the people caused that
night abundance of bonfires to be made all up and down the streets."
1658-9.]
505
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Colonel John Lilburne, deceased, entered in the Journal-
book of that Parliament, which were read.*
He farther reported, that the 22nd January, 1658, it was
moved by the Council, that his Highness, in respect of Mrs.
Lilburne's poverty, would, by his pardon under the great
See "The Trial of Lieutenant-colonel John Lilburne, at the Guild-
hall of London, the 24th, 25th, 26th October, 1649, taken in short
hand," (1649,) pp. 121-123; State Trials, (1776,) ii. 69, 151, 153.
Brit. Biog. vi. 61—66.
* A petition was presented, December 23, 1651, to the Long Parlia-
ment, by “Josiah Prymatt, of London, Leather-seller," who charged
Sir Arthur Haslerigge with having fraudulently procured the seques-
tration of his collieries, in Durham, which produced 5000l. per annum.
He further charged Messrs. Squib, Molyns, Winslowe, and Russell, four
of the "Commissioners for compounding," with "having refused to re-
lieve him" after "clear evidence before them," as "not daring to op-
pose the will and pleasure of the said Sir Arthur.”
On the report of a Committee, the House affirmed " the judgment of
the Commissioners," and voted the petition" false, malicious, and scan-
dalous ;" and fined the petitioner 3000l. to the Commonwealth, 2000l. to
Sir Arthur, and 500l. to each of the four Commissioners, with imprison-
ment in the Fleet till payment.
The House next "proceeded against Lieutenant-colonel John Lil-
burne, who had confessed at the bar, that he did disperse divers copies
of the petition." He was also fined 70007. in the same proportions, and
banished out of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the islands and
territories thereto belonging; to depart within thirty days, and not to
return, upon pain of being proceeded against as a felon, and suffering
death accordingly."
The next day," Jan. 16, 1651-2, several passages in a printed book,
entitled A just reproof to Haberdashers' Hall; or an Epistle, writ
by Lieutenant-colonel John Lilburne to four of the Commissioners',
were read; which book was delivered to a member of Parliament by
Lieutenant-colonel John Lilburne.
"Resolved, that this book doth contain matter, false, scandalous, and
malicious, and that all the printed copies of the same be burnt, by the
hand of the common hangman, at the same place, and time, with the
petition of Josiah Prymatt.
"Jan. 20, 1651-2. Lieutenant-colonel John Lilburne was brought
to the bar, but he obstinately denied to kneel. Thereupon he was com-
manded to withdraw," and it was "Resolved, that an Act he brought
in, for enacting the judgement of Parliament against Lieutenant-
colonel John Lilburne." Journals.
506
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
seal, discharge the fine of 3000l. imposed on Lieutenant-
colonel Lilburne, payable to his Highness and the Common-
wealth. That Sir Arthur Haslerigge had, by deed under his
hand and seal, released the 2000. given to him; that Mr.
Squib, by like writing under his hand and seal, had released
the fine set to be paid to him; that Mr. Molyns had referred
himself to the award of Colonel Okey and Colonel Bennet, as
to the fine set to be paid to him; and that Mrs. Lilburne
had likewise submitted to, and undertaken to perform their
award; and also, to deliver such papers to Colonel Bennet
as she had in her custody, relating to the matters for which
the fines were imposed, to be burnt, without keeping any
copies of them; that Mr. Winslowe, to whom a fine was like-
wise set to be paid, was since dead at Jamaica, without any
heir, executor, or administrator in England; and that neither
himself in his lifetime, nor any other since his death, had
ever made any demand of it: that Mr. James Russell, to
whom a fine was also set to be paid, was likewise dead, and
that the fine set to be paid to him, was never demanded either
in his lifetime, or since his death: that Mrs. Russell, his widow,
had notice to attend the Committee, but neglected to do it,
as not intending to have any benefit by that fine.
He reported also the opinion of the said Committee; That
a Bill be brought in, and offered to the House, to repeal the
Act of January 30, 1651-2, concerning Mr. Lilburne. *
CC
*He" went over to Amsterdam," where he printed an apology for
himself, and sent it in a letter to Cromwell, wherein he charged him
with being the principal instrument in procuring the Act for his ba-
nishment." Brit. Biog. vi. 68.
In 1653, after a vain attempt "to procure a pass for England, he re-
turned without one, June 14, for which he was tried at the Old Bailey,
Aug. 20, upon the Act for his banishment; but acquitted by the jury,
for which they were examined before the Council of State," three days
after. From the following answer of a juryman, to the Council's ex-
trajudicial interrogatories, it appears that this jury of citizen-shopkeep-
ers were as little disposed as the prisoner, or his jury, in 1649, (or as Fox
and Erskine to the Kenyons and Bullers of a later age,) to concede to
the Kebles and Jermins of the 17th century, that their assumed monopoly
of legal jurisdiction was sanctioned by the ancient law of England.
1658-9.1
507
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
He offered a Bill to that purpose; in regard Sir Arthur
Haslerigge, Mr. Squib, and Mr. Molyns, who had fines given
them by that act, had remitted them.
"Gilbert Gaynes, of Dunstan's in the West, grocer, saith he was one
of John Lilburne's jury, and found him not guilty. Being asked what
the issue was, he acknowledged that he was indicted for felony, for
coming into England; but, that the jury did find as they did, because they
took themselves to be judges of the law, as well as of the fact: and al-
though the Court did declare they were judges of the fact only, yet the
jury were otherwise persuaded, from what they heard out of the law-
books.' He confesseth he did at first differ from the Jury, but was
convinced by their reasons." State Trials, (1776,) ii. 80, 82.
Free-born John had probably conciliated the goodwill of Lord Cla-
rendon, by appealing, on his trial, in 1649, to "that excellent ar-
gument of Mr. Hide, April 1641." The noble historian says, confound-
ing however, the trials of 1619 and 1653, "Lilburne appeared un-
daunted, and with the confidence of a man that was to play a prize
before the people for their own liberty.
“He defended himself with that vigour, and charmed the jury so pow-
erfully, that, against all the direction and charge the judges could give
them, (who assured them, 'that the words and actions, fully proved
against the prisoner, were High Treason by the law, and that they
were bound by all the obligation of conscience, to find him guilty ;')
after no long consultation between themselves, they returned with their
verdict, that he was not guilty: nor could they be persuaded by the
judges to change or recede from their verdict." History, (1712,) iii.
502, 503.
"Soon after his trial, Aug. 20, 1653,” says Wood, "he was conducted
to Portsmouth, in order to his conveyance beyond the seas, but by
putting in for his peaceable deportment for the future, he returned, fell
into the acquaintance of the Quakers, became one of them, settled at
Eltham in Kent, where sometimes he preached, and at other times at
Woolwich, and was in great esteem among that party." Wood then,
having noticed his death, (Aug. 29, 1657,) says, “ his body was two days
after conveyed to the house, called the Mouth, near Aldersgate in Lon-
don, which was then the usual meeting-place of Quakers. Whence it
was conveyed to the then new burial-place in Moorfields, where it was
interred." Athen. Oxon. (1692,) ii. 102.
The Mouth was probably a sign of Boulogne mouth, or harbour,
which is supposed to have produced the corruption of " Bull and Mouth
Street." The "new burial-place" to which the remains of John Lilburne
were attended by 4000 persons, and where John Biddle (See vol. i. p. 57)
was interred, was not covered with houses till a few years since. It is
508
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Knightley. I move to put off this business till some
inorning, then bring in a Bill.
Mr. Bacon. Before a Bill can be brought in, you must
resolve to agree with the Committee.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move that you would only de-
clare that the Bill is void, in regard there was no prosecution
upon it.
described as,
"the New Church-yard in Petit France, given by the
City, and consecrated June 4, 1617." Petit France, about the site of
the present Broad Street Buildings, was so called," according to Stowe,
See "New View of Lon-
CC
"from many French people living there.”
don,” (1708,) i. 63, 179.
There are two accounts, by contemporaries, of the four last years of
John Lilburne, not easily to be reconciled with the very probable rela-
tion given by Wood, whose punning prejudice calumniates Free-born
John, as "having been very famous for his infamy."
Mr. Bethel, without "favour or respect" towards " John Lilburne,"
contrasts the conduct of Cromwell, in 1653, with that of the Parliament
in 1649, by whom he says, incorrectly, (see supra, p. 504,) that he
"was immediately, according to law, generously set at liberty," while
"Oliver kept him in prison until he was so far spent in a consump-
tion, that he only turned him out to die." World's Mistake, p. 45.
Lord Clarendon, extending the rigour and injustice of the Protector
even a full year beyond the life of Lilburne, says: "Though he was thus
acquitted in the year 1653, yet Cromwell would never suffer him to be
set at liberty, but sent him from prison to prison, and kept him enclosed
there, till he himself died." History, (1712,) iii. 503.
Thus opposing parties unite to aggravate the sufficiently numerous
wrongs justly imputed to the usurpation of Cromwell. Yet it appears
that John Lilburne might freely enjoy air and exercise amidst the
rural scenes of Kent, and, resolving not to "learn war any more,”
was occupying the last days of a harassed and tumultuous life, in teach-
ing the religion of purity and peace, while Mr. Bethel "
kept him in
prison," and Lord Clarendon, more amplifying, "sent him from prison
to prison, and kept him enclosed there;" in the last prison, I appre-
hend, and that prisons are usually designed to be enclosures.
Dr. Towers observes, that the account given of Lilburne's trial by Lord
Clarendon, is, in many particulars of it, a remarkable instance of that
want of truth and exactness, which is too frequently discoverable in the
writings of that noble historian." Brit. Biog. vi. 66. See "The Earl
of Chatham" on "Lord Clarendon's History," vol. ii. p. 443, note. See
also, Mr. Godwin's Estimate of Merits and Defects in the Character and
Conduct of John Lilburne. Commonwealth, (1826,) ii. 1-24, 411-435.
1658-9.]
509
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Raleigh. I move that the Bill be brought in. Mr.
Winslowe and Mr. Russell, who had part of the fines, are
dead, and no executors to be heard of. Winslowe died in
Jamaica; yet, unless they were satisfied, you cannot repeal
that part as to them.
Sir William Wheeler. You cannot absolutely take their
rights away.
Mr. Onslow. Such hasty acts of Parliament deserve a re-
peal. There was no entry nor engrossing of it. If it appears
to be an Act, then it will be worthy your pains to repeal it.
Sir Walter Earle. You may give order to bring in a Bill
to repeal that Act, and then may add what proviso you
please, to save Mr. Winslowe's and Mr. Russell's rights,
which is but reasonable.
Sir John Northcote. You allow it to be an Act, if you
order an act to be brought in to repeal it. I doubt it was
no Act. It wanted the formality of passing. I believe it
was not ab initio an Act.
Mr. Knightley. I move that an Act be brought in for an-
nulling the judgment and proceedings against John Lilburne,
so by that means you do not allow it to be an Act.
Resolved, that a Bill be brought in for annuling the sen-
tence and proceeding had in this House against Lieutenant-
colonel John Lilburne, and that a Committee do prepare
such a Bill for the House.
T
Mr. Knightley, Sir William Wheeler, Colonel Birch, Mr.
Raleigh, Mr. Swinfen, Sir Anthony Cooper, Sir Walter
Earle, Sir John Copplestone, and Mr. Edward Turner, are
appointed to be a Committee: and they, or any four or more
of them are to peruse the Journal-book of the House on every
Saturday weekly, or oftener; and to inform the House (if
there shall be cause) concerning the entries of the orders and
proceedings of this House, whether the same be duly made
and kept, or not.
The order of the day was read touching the bounds and
powers of another House.
Altum Silentium, a pretty while.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move that the Petition and Ad-
510
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
vice be read, as to the bounds and powers of the other House.
Sir Walter Earle propounded to take the perambulations,
or bounds, mentioned in the honourable Petition and Advice.
Mr. Onslow. If you bound their powers according to law,
I hope you will not forget to look into the good old laws,
Magna Charta, and others; and not begin with the Petition
and Advice, and conclude that a law, which is not yet deter-
mined to be a law.
Let us first debate whether the Petition and Advice be a
law or no, before we take it for an Act.
Mr. Starkey. The chariot of our affairs moves slowly,
because one wheel is yet wanting. Every thing invites you
to a speedy resolution. I am neither for leaping over hedges
and ditches, nor for so much retrospect as to look back upon
the old peerage, nor to the right nor left-hand; but to
look to the present establishment, the Petition and Advice
that settled the other House, for the authority whereof I will
say nothing.
I look upon it as the ark that has preserved us in the de-
luge of anarchy and confusion. I can comply with it, though
haply I should not have had a hand in it. Allow it, at least,
as a ladder for your building. Afford it a standing, until
your fabric be finished.
I find another House embarked with you in this ark.
They have honour given them by this Petition and Advice.
I know not which is the elder brother. I never knew the
House of Commons less honourable, because the House of
Lords was right honourable. Do not take from them that
patrimony, which their and your common ancestors hath
given them. You cannot legitimate yourselves and deny
them; you all claim from one common ancestor.
We are
twins. Why should we strive, therefore, being brethren.
Let us not struggle in the womb, to destroy one another. Let
us rather, like Harpocrates's twins, live and die together.
Let us twist and unite. A three-fold cord is not easily
broken. As they are our brethren, let us timely salute them,
that so we may go hand in hand together, towards the finish-
ing of a happy settlement.
1658-9.]
511
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Knightley. You have a question before you, to bound,
but the question is whether you can bound or no.
How should we bound this other House? We go, like
men of Gotham, to hedge in the cuckoo. Some talk of Magna
Charta, and the Petition of Right, and some will have the
Petition and Advice to stand in competition with them. I
think the Petition and Advice does not set up a House of
Lords.
I see you cannot meddle with a horn or a hoof of this
other House. They begin to take it ill already, that you
come not up to them, if fame be true. Talk here these
twelve months, and then say you cannot bound.
They do
you service. Let us look to our own House, not the other.
There is another House already. We are called by writ;
the writ says, to consult with the great men and nobles.* I
know not where they are; but there are some, and I doubt
all our labour without them, will signify nothing.
Were we
are but
If we cannot have what we would have, let us have what
we can get. Let us stand as we are, and they as they are:
else we may sow much, but we cannot reap.
tenants in fee, we might say something; but we
tenants at will, on one foot with them, and have less than they
have.
I would have this debate laid aside, else we can do nothing.
If you please, let these sit as they are; but let us make a
drawbridge, and propound a Bill to take down their number,
and for the future, let none be called thither, but such as
shall be allowed by this House. If in future we should see
any thing in that constitution defective, we may mend it.
Declare for the present, as part of the Bill, that no member
hereafter be called to that House, but by your approbation,
and that no member be chosen out of this House thither,
without your consent, and that is my humble motion.
Altum silentium.
CC
*
According to "the ancient writ," the Commons were summoned,
cum prælatis, magnatibus, et proceribus habere colloquia." See El-
synge's Antient Method, (1679,) p. 68.
512
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
If
Colonel Cox. I cannot concur with the gentleman that
spoke first,* that told you of Magna Charta, and a House of
Lords. The old House of Lords was taken away by Act of
Parliament, which had reason, law, and authority; as good
a law as that Act was to take away the single person.
we bring in old Lords, we bring in old lines. You set open
the doors. If that House be not taken away, I know not
what takes away the interest of the King. If he, which was
the fountain of their honour, be laid aside, much more may
they be, which do but derive from him.
We talk of the Barons' wars. I have seen the pedigrees of
most of the nobility, and there are not above six or seven
families left, that can pretend any title from those that were
in the Barons' wars.†
If you please by an Act, with concurrence of his Highness,
let those that have fought for, and with you, and have stood
faithful, be restored, and have right to sit in the other House,
not upon any old account, but to have originacy from this
House, and none to come in, but by approbation from hence.
I would also have a number of men that have been faithful,
and ventured their lives, of good estates, that may be a ba-
lance; I would have his Highness to present three, and you
take one, and likewise you three, and he choose one.
When at the rising of the House, in that Parliament, a
Committee was named, touching the explanation of the Pe-
tition and Advice, they meddled with this clause concerning
the Lords' house, which was not committed to them.t
As to taking that clause, which put the approbation of the
other House in the Protector, I then told the Speaker, I sus-
pected that many of these gentlemen that brought in that
clause, had a mind themselves to be called to that House,
and feared they should be left out.§ I since fiud many of
them there, I shall not say but they are persons of worth. I
* "Mr. Onslow," supra, p. 510.
† It has been said, that there are now only three such families in the
English peerage, and that these are Roman Catholics.
1 See vol. ii. pp. 284, 298.
§ See ibid. p. 299.
1658-9.]
513
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
would have us know the men, before we debate their
powers.
Colonel Terril. I see we are upon a difficult point, and
before we conclude this debate, we must speak plain English,
and come to a right understanding.
There are two other Houses already in our eye, besides
our own; the one in right, the other in fact; the one in forma
pauperis, contending with the other, cum domino manorii; the
right of the one suspended, not extinguished.
While God has given me a tongue I shall speak my mind.
I shall not reflect upon those that are in possession.
It is the custom and usage of all nations under heaven,
where there are nobles, princes, lords, and grandees, those
are the persons that have been ever called to the highest
councils, parliaments, diets, and assemblies. This must
arise from something of natural right and reason; as being
looked on, in all ages, to understand the state of affairs best.
I shall only speak of England. We have history beyond
our own records. Look from Brute to this age. Among
CC
* "Those tales of Brute and his Trojans," says Sir William Temple,
are covered with the rust of time, or involved in the vanity of fables
or pretended traditions, which seem to all men obscure or uncertain,
but to me, forged at pleasure by the wit or folly of their first authors,
and not to be regarded." See “An Introduction to the History of
England," (1695,) p. 19.
"Of British affairs," says Milton, "from the first peopling of the
island to the coming of Julius Cæsar, nothing certain, either by tradi-
tion, history, or ancient fame, hath hitherto been left us. That which
we have of oldest seeming, hath, by the greater part of judicious anti-
quaries, been long rejected, as being only a modern fable.
Nevertheless, seeing that oft-times relations heretofore accounted
fabulous, have been afterwards found to contain in them many foot-
steps and relics of something true, I have therefore determined to be-
stow the telling over even of these reputed tales; be it for nothing else
but in favour of our English poets and rhetoricians, who, by their art,
will know how to use them judiciously."
Thus are introduced "Brutus and his line, with the whole progeny of
kings, to the entrance of Julius Cæsar; disputed facts, the principal
author" of which" is well known to be Geoffrey of Monmouth." See
"The History of Britain,” (1818,) pp. 2, 5.
VOL. III.
2 L
514
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Romans, Saxons, Danes, &c. the great men of the nation, the
barons and nobles have been consulted with in all councils
and assemblies, especially in Parliament. Until about 49
Henry III., the stile still run, the King and his nobles, the
King and his barons. I cannot say the Commons were then
left out, but no notice is taken of them until then.
Since, laws have run in that tone, King, Lords, and Com-
mons. The Chief Magistrate is the same in construction of
law as King. The judges would never venture upon a law,
without concurrence of all three estates. If there were not
King and Lords in a law, they would never do any thing
upon it. The Barons were never omitted in any law. The
Commons are sometimes not named.
Who were they that stood up and asserted the liberties of
the people? Stood they not up for Magna Charta, with
In the introduction to his second book of "The Reason of Church
Government urged against Prelacy," first published in 1641, just after
his return from Italy, Milton regrets that while "the Athenians, as
some say, made their small deeds great and renowned by their eloquent
writers, England hath had her noble achievements made small by the
unskilful handling of monks and mechanics." He then considers “what
the mind at home, in the spacious circuits of her musings, hath liberty
to propose to herself, though of highest hope and hardest attempting;
and lastly, what king or knight, before the Conquest, might be chosen to
lay the pattern of a Christian hero; if, to the instinct of nature, and
the emboldening of art, aught may be trusted; and that there be no-
thing adverse in our climate and the fate of this age.”
About the same time he wrote the Epitaphium Damonis, to bewail the
death of his friend, Charles Deodati. There, proposing the future oc-
cupations of his Muse, with which his willing labours "in liberty's de-
fence" immediately interfered, he thus selects, (v. 162,) the story of
Brute:-
Ipse ego Dardanias Rutupina per æquora puppes:
Dicam, et Pandrasidos regnum vetus Inogeniæ."
"Of Brutus, Dardan chief, my song shall be,
How with his barks he plough'd the British sea,
First from Rutupia's tow'ring headland seen,
And of his consort's reign, fair Inogen."
Cowper.
1658-9.]
515
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
King John and Henry III.* Did not they, in Richard II.'s
time, contend and regain their lost liberties for the people?
To come to our own times, which we are too apt to forget,
when Parliaments were grown contemptible, and no man
durst, under less than a capital offence,† mention a Parliament,
to move the King to call one; we had then Lords, some twelve
at least, yet living, that took courage even whilst the King
was in the midst of an army; they went with a paper in one
hand, and their lives in the other, to solicit the King to call
Parliament. I know there were but a few hairs between life
and death as to divers of them. I shall name one, the Earl
of Manchester. Judgment had passed. He has lived to see
their heads off their shoulders that would have had his head
off.§
♡
* See vol. i. pp. 343, 406, notes. "The King," says Raleigh, "being
betrayed of all his nobility, was forced to grant the charters of Magna
Charta and Charta de Forestis, at such time as he was environed with an
army in the meadows of Staynes." Remains, (1726,) p. 223.
Magna Charta,” says Rymer," instead of being superannuated, re-
news and recovers its pristine strength and athletic vigour by the Petition
of Right, [see supra, p. 171, note*, with our many other explanatory
or declaratory statutes. And the Annual Parliament is as well known
to our laws, [see vol. i. pp. 403, 404, ad fin.] as ever it had been famous
among the customs of France and Germany." See "The Antiquity,
Power, and Decay of Parliaments. By Thomas Rymer, Esq. late His-
toriographer Royal." (1714,) p. 55. See also "The Use and Abuse of
Parliament," (1744,) i. pp. 81-83.
† I have not been able to find the authority for any prohibition un-
der such a penalty. In 1629, "soon after the Parliament was dis-
solved," there was a proclamation by the King, declaring that " he shall
account it presumption for any to prescribe any time to his Majesty for
Parliaments." Parl. Hist. (1763,) viii. 390. See Rushworth, ii. 6.
Mr. Rymer says, after Comines, that "the courtiers of Louis XI.
went so far that they called it rebellion to mention a Parliament." See
Antiquity of Parliaments." pp. 32, 33.
Whitlock has preserved the petition presented to the King at York,
August 28, 1640, and the names of the twelve petitioning peers. Me-
morials, (1732,) p. 36. See also Parl. Hist. viii. 491–493.
§ Here is some misrepresentation, probably from an imperfect report,
which I know not how to correct. Among the twelve peers, is Man-
deville. Viscount Mandeville, Earl of Manchester, died in 1642, with-
I
2 L 2
516
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
}
The Barons were as stout and resolute for the rights of the
people then as ever. Of all those twelve, eleven stood right to
the cause. There was but one that left you. The Parlia-
ment always looked upon him as the best of them that ad-
hered to the King.
There is a statute, 5 Richard II., which enacts, that if any
of the Barons do not appear in the Parliament, they shall be
amerced; and another, in 31 Henry VIII., that appoints how
they shall be placed after their appearance. So that here is
custom, prescription, common law, statute law, and reason, for
them.
We have forgot, I doubt, what was done in our times. The
statute of 16 Caroli, for Triennial Parliaments,* enacted
out, as appears, having incurred any hazards from royal displeasure. His
son, the justly popular Lord Kimbolton, one of the five members whom
Charles would have seized in the Commons' House, and whom he had
accused of high treason, succeeded to the title. He was nominated in
1657, to the Other House, (see vol. ii. p. 450, note*,) but declined the
appointment," and strove, as far as was consistent with his own safety,"
to bring back Charles Stuart. "This," says Mr. Noble, was taken
so gratefully, that he died at Whitehall, Chamberlain of the House-
hold and Knight of the Garter." House of Cromwell, (1787,) i. 376.
rr
For the further invaluable consideration, (if fair fame be a priceless
treasure,) which the Earl of Manchester paid to the restored Stuart, for
a ribbon, a wand, and a death-bed "at Whitehall," see vol. ii. p. 387,
ad fin.
* See "Mr. Goodrick," supra, p. 352. This Act, like that which dis-
placed it in 1664, and which Charles II. violated, was to prevent the in-
termission of Parliaments for more than three years, but had no effect
to limit their duration.
re
Perhaps it would have been better than to pass either of these Acts,”
says Baron Maseres, "to have revived and enforced the good old statute
of 36 Edward III., for having a new Parliament once in every year, or
more often, if need be, and to have enacted, that the elections should
take place of course, or without any writ from the King, on a certain
fixed day, and that the Parliament should meet on another fixed day.
Thus the Parliament would appear to be as essential and necessary a
part of the government of the nation as the King himself, or the King's
Courts of Justice, which do meet on certain, fixed, or known days of
the year.
"The practice of proroguing a Parliament to a distant day, without a
re-election, (as the learned and patriotic Mr. Granville Sharp informs
1658-9.]
517
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
that the Lords and Barons shall be called to Parliament.
Here is nothing wanting for the establishing of any thing
us,) seems to have begun in the reign of Edward IV., after the people
had been so cruelly harassed by the civil wars, that they had no spirit,
or perhaps power left, to oppose that dangerous usurpation of their Par-
liamentary rights by the royal prerogative. But it was afterwards fre-
quently resorted to, by the princes of the Tudor family, and by their
successors, the Stuarts, and has continued to the present day." Select
Tracts, (1815,) i. 21, 22, note. See vol. i. p. 403, ad fin.
"It is observable in the course of histories," says May, "how much
kings, in such limited monarchies as that of England, do in time, by
degrees, gaine upon the people's right and privileges: so that those
things, which, by the constitution of the government, the people may
challenge as due from the prince, having been long forborne, become
at last to be esteemed such acts of extraordinary grace, as that the
prince is highly thanked for granting of them.
"Such was this case of the Triennial Parliament; as both Houses af-
terward, when the unhappy division began, and the King upbraided
them with this favour, could plainly answer: ' that it was not so much
as by law they might require, there being two statutes then in force
for a Parliament once a yeere.'
"The King himself also, at the time when he granted that triennial
Parliament, could not forbear to tell them, that he put an obligation
upon them in doing it which they had scarce deserved." History of
Parliament, 1647, (1812,) p. 67. See vol. i. p. 104, ad fin.
"He told them," says Milton, "with a masterly brow, that by
this Act he had obliged them above what they had deserved,' and gave
a piece of justice to the Commonwealth three times short of his prede-
cessors, as if he had been giving some boon, or begged office, to a sort
of his desertless grooms." Iconoclastes, (1649,) p. 42.
During the debate on this Bill, Jan. 19, 1640-1, the following pas-
sages occur. They are in the speech of Lord George Digby, afterwards
Earl of Bristol, who soon became a courtier, and appeared in arms
against the Parliament :-
"It hath been a maxim among the wisest legislators, that whosoever
means to settle good laws, must proceed in them with a sinister opi-
nion of all mankind; and suppose that whosoever is not wicked, it is for
want only of the opportunity. It is that opportunity of being ill, Mr.
Speaker, that we must take away, if ever we mean to be happy; which
can never be done but by the frequency of Parliaments.
"No State can wisely be confident of any public minister's continuing
good, longer than the rod is over him.
"Let me appeal to all those that were present in this House at the
agitation of the Petition of Right; and let them tell themselves truly,
518
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
which we have made to supply our Solemn League and Cove-
nant. So here are both civil and sacred obligations. Give
me leave to put you in mind of a military one too, at Sion-
house. A noble person,* I believe, remembers it; it was a
declaration sent up to the Lords by Sir Hardress Waller.+
of whose promotion to the management of affairs do they think the ge-
nerality would, at that time, have had better hopes than of Mr. Noy
and Sir Thomas Wentworth; [Earl of Strafford, both having been at
that time, and in that business, as I have heard, most keen and active
patriots; and the latter of them, to the eternal aggravation of his in-
famous treachery to the Commonwealth be it spoken, the first mover
and insister to have this clause added to the Petition of Right: ‹ That
for the comfort and safety of his subjects, his Majesty would be pleased
to declare his will and pleasure that all his ministers should serve him
according to the laws and statutes of the realm.'
"And yet, Mr. Speaker, to whom now can all the inundations upon
our liberties, under pretence of law, and the late shipwreck at once of
all our property, be attributed more than to Noy; [see vol. ii. p. 444,
ad fin.] and all those other mischiefs whereby this monarchy hath been
brought almost to the brink of destruction, so much to any as to that
grand apostate to the Commonwealth, [see vol. ii. p. 442, ad fin.] the
now Lieutenant of Ireland?
"The first, I hope, God hath forgiven in the other world; and the
latter must not hope to be pardoned it in this, till he be dispatched to
the other." See "Use and Abuse of Parliaments," i. 84, 85; Parl. Hist.
(1763,) viii. 120, ix. 200, 201.
* Lord Fairfax. It was presented, Jan. 17, 1647, on the Lords hav-
ing agreed “ to the votes sent up" from the Commons, "that no more
addresses be made to his Majesty;" signed " John Rushworth, Secre-
tary; by the appointment of his Excellency, Sir Thomas Fairfax, and
his Council of War." See Rushworth's Hist. Col. (1708,) vi. 331; Parl.
Hist. (1755,) xvi. 497; Sir William Waller's Vindication, (1793,) pp.
195, 196.
† In 1656, one of the members for Ireland, (where he had been chiefly
engaged in military service during the war,) and also in this Parlia-
ment, though probably he had not yet taken his seat. He appears to
have been in great favour with the Cromwells, and was as fully engaged
as any of the High Court of Justice in the judgment on the King.
Yet, on his arraignment in 1660, as may be seen in "The Trials of the
Regicides," he prevailed to save a life, probably soon closed in prison,
by professions of penitence which have been little credited either by
royalists or republicans.
"It was contrived," says Ludlow, "that Sir Hardress Waller, (who
was known to be a man that would say any thing to save his life, and
1658-9.1
519
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
All were
Their declaration was that the Army will support the Lords'
House, and the words are "live and die with it."*
protestations to preserve rights of Parliaments.† But, the
right being theirs, they are now blown up by I know not
what nor whom. The act for perpetuating the Parliament,
saith that the Lords' House shall not be adjourned nor dis-
solved without their own consent in Parliament.
wanting to preserve them?
What is
was prepared to that purpose,) should be first demanded whether he were
guilty or not guilty; which being done, he, after a little shifting, ac-
cording to the expectation of the Bench, pleaded guilty, taking the
blood which had been shed during his employments in the army upon
his own head.” Memoirs, (1699,) iii. 61.
The late Rev. Mark Noble, as sensitive on King Charles's execution
as Bishop Horsley himself, (see supra, p. 422,) has interspersed his
biography of the King's Judges, amidst an ample adulation of “the
royal Martyr," with reproachful epithets on the anti-Stuarts, which ap-
pear almost ludicrous to an unimpassioned enquirer into a disputed
passage of remote history. The reverend author probably designed
thus to atone for the "Memoirs of the Protectoral House of Cromwell."
Yet on this occasion, while he suffers Ludlow to pass from his pen to
posterity, with merely the unattested charge of misrepresentation, from
excessive republican partiality; he thus describes his military and judi-
cial associate, Sir Hardress Waller, the professedly penitent regicide:-
"That he was a very deceitful, base character, is undoubted. He
had been untrue and treacherous to every party; and had there been
ten times as many, and each had become uppermost, he would have de-
clared for them. There were few better, or more fortunate commanders
in an age of arms, than he was, nor few more infamously deceitful or
treacherous men, in a period when human nature was more disgraced
by those passions, than at any other during a long succession of ages."
See "The Lives of the English Regicides." (1798) ii. 297, 299.
* Sir W. Waller says: Sir Hardress " came, with divers of the officers
to the bar, and there, in the name of the whole army, avowed their re-
solutions to live and die with their Lordships." Vindication, p. 196.
"That they hold themselves obliged, in justice and honour, to en-
deavour to preserve the peerage of this kingdom, with the just rights
belonging to the House of Peers, and will really, in their places and
calling, perform the same." Parl. Hist. xvi. 497.
I "That this present parliament, now assembled, shall not be dis-
solved, or prorogued, unless by Act of Parliament passed for that pur-
pose: and that neither the House of Peers, nor Commons, shall be ad-
journed, unless by their own order." Hist. Col. (1708) iv. 86.
520
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I cannot wholly blame them, that took them away; they
had a government in their eye, which they could not set up
till that House was taken away; a Commonwealth which
they did not live to finish. And that House was then a block
in their way, necessary, in order to that undertaking, to be
r
This Bill was passed by Commission, May 10, 1641, with the "Act
of Attainder" against the Earl of Strafford. "Great censures," says
Whitlock, were passed upon the King's passing of both these Bills;
that the one was against his most faithful servant, and the other against
himself." Memorials, (1732,) p. 46.
"It is impossible," says Sir Philip Warwick," to think how so intelli-
gent a person as the King was, should by any persuasions, which certainly
were great on the Queen's side; or treachery, which certainly was great,
on the side of many of his great courtiers; be induced thus to divest him-
self of all majesty and power; or to be so overseen, as to think he should
avoid danger by running into the greatest hazard imaginable." Memoires,
(1813,) p. 200.
"This Bill," says May, 66
was a thing that former ages had not seen
the like of; and therefore, extremely was the King's grace magnified
by those that flattered him: but it was much condemned by others of
his friends, who hated Parliament and Reformation, who complained
that the King had thereby too far put the staff out of his own hands.
But many men, who saw the necessity of such a concession, (without
which no money upon the public faith could be borrowed,) did not at
all wonder at it, saying, that as no king ever granted the like before,
so no king had ever before made so great a necessity to require it.
"But some men were of opinion that it was not of security enough
to make the kingdom happy, unless the King were good: for if he were
ill-affected, he had power enough still to hinder and retard them in any
proceeding for the good and settlement of the Commonwealth; and so
by time and delays, to lay a greater odium upon the Parliament for not
satisfying the people's desires, than if they had not had that seeming
power to have done it: which proved in the conclusion too true, when
the King by such protraction of business, not at all concurring with
them in the main, had raised a party to himself against them, to cut
asunder that knot by the sword, which by law he could not untie.
Breviary (1650) in Maseres's Tracts, (1815,) 1. 30.
cr
This "Act for Perpetuating the Parliament” in defiance of the King's
authority, was according to Milton "a testimony of his violent and
lawless custom, not only to break privileges, but whole Parliaments;
from which enormity they were constrained to bind him, first of all his
predecessors: never any before him having given like causes of distrust
and jealousy to his people." Iconoclastes, p. 43.
1658-9.]
521
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Possibly if
removed. I shall not speak for nor against it.
that government had been finished, it might have been good
for the people. All governments are alike by divine law.
But what is it which that Act saith or doth? (here he re-
cited the Act of 1648,) when a Parliament then consisted of
two Houses, as well de jure as de facto. One says* it is en-
acted by Parliament, and yet one of the two Houses never
consented to it. It was inconsistent for one House to say the
other was useless. Might not the House of Lords have said.
the same of this House, the Commons. There was a contra-
diction in it. I say nothing of them that did it; they having
another thing then to do.
The Lords were never called to any trial, never accused,
nor impeached for any thing they had done; yet they must
be laid aside. It was not the law of the Romans so to do.
I can mind you of nothing done by these Lords, but I
shail tell you how, in the latter time of Henry VIII., there
was a person whose name was* and is famous, one Cromwell,†
* "Colonel Cox." Supra p. 512.
↑ "Whose sudden downfall," says Bishop Godwin, "there want not
those who attribute it to God's justice, inflicted on him for the sacri-
lege committed in the subversion of so many religious houses. And
indeed, even they who confesse the rousing of so many unprofitable epi-
cures out of their dennes, and the abolishing of superstition, wherewith
the divine worship had by them been polluted, to have been an act of
singular justice and piety, do, notwithstanding, complain of the loss of so
many stately churches dedicated to God's service, the good whereof
were no otherwise employed, than for the satisfaction of private men's
covetousnesse. [See supra, p. 203.] But Sleidan, peradventure, comes
nearer the matter, touching the immediate cause of his death :-
nours.
"The King of England beheadeth Thomas Cromwell, whom he
had, from fortunes answerable to his low parentage, raised to great ho-
Cromwell had been procurer of the match with Anne of Cleve,
but the King loving Catharine Howard, is thought to have been per-
suaded by her to make away Cromwell, whom shee suspected to be a re-
mora to her advancement." The Bishop adds, "The actions of kings
are not to be sifted too neerely, for which we are charitably to presume
they have reasons, and those inscrutable.” Annales of England,
(1630,) pp. 175, 176.
This style of reserve, in sifting "the actions of Kings," is quite be-
522
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
!
who was attainted of treason by the Lords' House, and lost
his life. He was condemned, though never brought to trial;*
a brand for ever upon that Parliament.
coming a prelate of King James's court, though exceeded in 1560. Eli-
zabeth had retained in her chapel a crucifix, and proposed to preserve
such in churches, with images of Mary and John. "Protestant Bishops
and Divines" expostulate with the Queen, and thus conclude: "Not in
any respect of self-will, stoutness, or striving against your Majesty, for
we confess that we are but canes mortui aut pulices [dead dogs or fleas,]
in comparison." Records, See Burnet's Reformation, ii. 316.
"The King," England's first Defensor Fidei (see supra, p. 486), is
described by Bishop Godwyn as now "like a torrent bearing all before
him. Three Divines being condemned for heresie, were committed to
the torments of the mercilesse fire. At the same time and place, three
other Doctors of Divinity were hanged for denying the King's supre-
macy; the sight whereof made a Frenchman cry out, Deus bone! quo-
modo hic vivunt gentes? Suspenduntur pupista comburentur antipapistæ.
Good God! how do the people make a shift to live here, where Papists
are hanged, and Antipapists burned?" Annales, pp. 177, 178.
Buchanan witnessed these horrible scenes, and they drove him into
France. Speaking in the third person, he says (1539), "In Angliam
contendit: sed ibi tum omnia adeo erant incerta, ut eodem die ac eodem
igne utriusque factionis homines cremarentur. Vita, ab ipso scripta
biennio ante mortem, prefixed (1764), to Rerum Scoticarum Historia.
(He went into England; but there every thing was so uncertain, that
men of each faction were burned on the same day, in the same fire).
* "Our King," says Lord Herbert, "now judged him no longer ne-
cessary. Therefore he gave way to all his enemies' accusations, and
caused him to be arrested at the council-table by the Duke of Norfolk,
when he least suspected it; to which Cromwell obeyed, though judg-
ing his perdition more certain that the Duke was uncle to the Lady Ca-
tharine Howard, whom the King now began to affect. The news where-
of, and his commitment to the Tower, being divulged, the people, with
many acclamations, witnessed their joy; so impatient are they usually of
the good fortune of favorites arising from mean place, and insolent over
the ill.
"It cannot be denied but the crimes whereof he was attainted in Par-
liament were great and enormous, and such as deserved the most ca-
pital punishment; though, as he was not permitted to answer for him-
self, the proceedings against him were thought rigorous; but so few
pitied him that all was easily passed over." See "The Life and Reign
of King Henry VIII.," (1740), pp. 391, 392.
“He had,” says Bishop Burnet, "the common fate of all disgraced
ministers. His friends forsook him, and his enemies insulted over him ;
1658-9.]
523
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir, there is something of the hand of God in it, that one of
that name* should have a hand in revenging of that blood
only Cranmer stuck to him, aud wrote earnestly to the King in his fa-
vour. But the King was now resolved to ruin Cromwell, and that un-
just practice of attainting, without hearing the parties answer for them-
selves, which he had promoted too much before, was now turned upon
himself." Reformation, (1728,) i. 234.
Among Bishop Burnet's Records, is a letter from Lord Cromwell to
the King, in a strain of abasement, dictated probably by the vain hope
of life. It thus concludes: "Written at the Tower, with the heavy
heart, and trembling hand of your Highness's most heavy, and most
miserable prisoner and poor slave. T. C. Most gracious Prince, I cry
for mercy! mercy! mercy!" Biog. Brit., (1789,) iv. 471.
How pitiably abject appears this fallen favourite of a merciless prince,
compared with his contemporary, Sir Thomas More, who "bravely with-
stood the brutal tyrant's rage," or with those judges of Charles I., who
calmly endured, as conscious of an honourable, though disappointed pur-
pose, the barbarous retaliations of the triumphant royalists. See supra,
pp. 110, 111.
Bishop Burnet, in his Additions, says: "It was thought they had
once designed to burn Lord Cromwell as a heretic, and that these con-
siderations made him so humble." "It appears," the Bishop adds,
“how diligent and exact a minister he was, by those many memorandums
which remain of his, upon all affairs which he was to lay before the
King." Reformation (1719), iii. 105, 106.
* The Protector, as it is now, I believe, generally agreed, was also of
the same family, being descended from a sister of Lord Cromwell. See
Mr. Noble's House of Cromwell (1787), i. 1—6, and the Genealogy pre-
fixed. Raguenet, whose Histoire, however, is too often fabulous, thus
describes the Protector's lineage :-
"C'est de la sœur de Thomas Cromwell, que descend Olivier. Elle
épousa un, nommé Williams, dont elle eut un fils qui fut appellé Richard ;
et ce fils ayant été avancé à la Cour par son oncle, durant le tems de sa
faveur, prit le nom de Cromwell, en reconnoissance. Il ne le quitta point
aprês la chute de son protecteur, et il le fit même porter à son fils
Henry, et à Robert, son petit fils, qui fut le père de notre Olivier Crom-
well, dont par consequence le veritable nom est celuy de Williams."
Histoire d'Olivier Cromwel, à Paris. (1691,) i. 16.
It was, I apprehend, fashionable in the court of the Protectors to
derive their pedigree directly from the Earl of Essex, and for this pur-
pose to annihilate that nobleman's son, Gregory Cromwell, whom Henry
VIII. restored to the peerage a few months after his father's execution.
“The Lord Thomas Cromwell," says S. Carrington, a panegyrist rather
than a biographer, "dyed without heirs male, leaving one only daugh-
524
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
which was so unjustly taken away, by setting aside that
House which was so guilty of that illegal judgment. I sup-
pose this House was not altogether innocent of the same Act,*
for it hath been sensible to purpose of the same punishment,
for it is well known how even this House also was dismem-
bered and dissolved by the same person.
A late author says that a Grand Jury may as well vote
down the Judges; the Commonalty of London vote down the
Lord Mayor and Aldermen; nay, the judges in Westminster-
hall vote down this House; as this House the Commons vote
down the Lords. They were the superiors.
The King, indeed, was the fountain of the honour. They
had their right to sit there only by grant from the King;
ter, espoused to one Mr. Williams, a gentleman of Glamorganshire, of
a good family. She was the lively representative of her father, and the
very portraiture of his great soul, as the Lady Claypool was of his late
Highness the Lord Protector."
tr
Then follows an unattested and improbable story, how "Mr. Wil-
liams made his appearance before the King in deep mourning, like a
dark cloud eclipsing the sun at noonday;" Henry was surprized and
offended," yet, which is the most difficult to credit, sent Mr. Williams
away with his head on his shoulders.
"Some while after, troubles arising," the king's marble heart was
softened by remorse, finding the want of such a minister of state as
Lord Cromwell, "whose life he had so inconsiderately taken away.”
Then "
calling to mind the action and discourse of Williams," at the
time of his "so unseasonable apparition," Henry "sent for him up to
court, and commanding him to take the name of Cromwell, he invested
him with all the offices and charges the late Lord Thomas Cromwell
enjoyed near his person." Thus the biographer deduces "his late
Highness and our present Lord Protector," from the heiress of Lord
Thomas Cromwell. See "The History of the Life and Death of his
most Serene Highness Oliver, late Lord Protector," (1659,) pp. 253–255.
It has been not improbably conjectured, "that an agreeable history
enough might be made of Cromwell, without one word of truth in it,
except a few public transactions; and all taken from historians." Biog.
Brit. (1789,) iv. 521.
*«He had such enemies in the House of Lords," says Bishop Burnet,
"that the Bill of Attainder was dispatched in two days, being read
twice in one day. In the House of Commons it stuck ten days." Refor-
mation, p. 234.
ן
1658-9.]
525
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
either by patent, or Parliament-writ. But when this was
done, the King himself could not recal it.
Quo ligamine quid ligatur, dissolvitur.
If a Parliament do it, I say then it was legal.
The House of Commons did, in 48, declare that the House
of Lords being by necessity taken away, the protestations
were to be dispensed with. I would have you declare that
they are of force now.
I move to restore the old Lords to their ancient right, and
I hope in time you will repeal that Act made against them;
for two Houses being in our eye, we are obliged to set up
that which hath most right. It is right that shall lead me,
and will lead me through the world. When what I said before
is unsaid, it may receive a reply. I shall say nothing against
the other House in possession; and I presume they will not
take it ill, that I spake for those that have a right by all
laws in the world.
I therefore move to fix upon one of those two Houses
before you go on to bound them.
Consider which shall be the House first, and then let us
debate the powers. I would have the old peers restored.
Mr. Attorney-general. I shall not suppose whether Charles
Stuart be at the bottom of this debate or not. But let us
well consider whether Charles Stuart be well gone or no.
If all the laws, constitutions, civil and sacred, which concern
the Lords' House be yet in force, I am sure none are dis-
abled, and that law which concerns Charles Stuart is not yet
void. You must leave the Chief Magistrate to come in as he
can, and the old Lords are in already. I know not how you
can refuse any of them. Consider whether in prudence you
can admit this. Peerage will necessarily bring in regality,
high and great enough.
Admit this argument; and nought has been done since 48
that is good. All public lands, sales, &c. are gone.
I cannot say there is a custom or prescription for what we
are now under. I hope none will, by a side wind, lay all
things aside that have been done and settled since.
526
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
!
Let us speak plainly out. You need not bound them.
Then each House will call their own members.
You must
not touch their members. As affairs are now, many of the
ancient peerage are beyond sea.
I hear no man move directly for Charles Stuart; but it is
all one to me if that be at the bottom of it. If you bring in
one, I know who will bring in the other.
There are laws, and I hope they will pass, and be taken
for laws till you declare otherwise. Else from 42 to 48, from
thence to 52, from thence to 53, and from thence, hither,—all
are void.
I shall speak for the safety of the nation. This other
House now in being will be of great security to this nation.
This House, that sits here, is but in the nature of a servant
at will, dissolvable, here to-day and another by to-morrow.
You would have such a body as would be engaged with you
clear through.
Now the other House, which in my judgment you should
make and mould, I think you should take in such as have
been faithful to you. I know not why the next Parliament
may not be all, or most of them, the sons of Cavaliers, and if
the other House be so too, where are you.
Therefore I offer it, as our security, to take first into con-
sideration the House now in being, those persons that sit
there; and then declare that for the future, none shall sit
there but such as shall be approved by both Houses; not to
dispute the right, but, as your present condition is, to build
upon this House now in possession. Let us not now think
what was the ancient right, but what is best for the good and
safety of the nation.
Colonel Terrill moved to explain himself.
Sir Walter Earle moved he might speak.
Colonel Terrill. I am not against those that are in pos-
session, if his Highness and this House please; but that they
may sit there only for the sakes of those that stood faithful
to you. I would have us build upon that rock, the old
foundation, and admit such of the old Peers as you shall
think fit. This is that which I drove at.
1658-9.]
527
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir George Booth. I rise up to correct that mistake of
Mr. Attorney-General, that if you admit these Lords that
are capable, you break in upon all that has passed since 48.
We are obliged to Mr. Attorney-General, who tells us
plainly that we are upon a new foundation; that he would
have this House in being to be the other House. We must
admit of that, and none other. If this be so, I pray, Sir,
what becomes then of Magna Charta and the Petition of
Right, which make Englishmen freemen, and not slaves.
Must they either be fought over again or shamed, they hang-
ing but upon the bare thread of this Petition and Advice,
which is disputable.
I do not know how in justice you can lay that blemish
upon those persons that have so eminently served you, to
lay them aside. If the inconveniency be great to admit
them, you may answer, "If there be danger on that side,
there is as much danger on the other." My motion is, that
those that have been faithful to you may be this House of
Lords, not exclusive of others.
I know very few of the other.
I have heard that some of them have taken strange things
upon them, at other times, as Major-generals, to meddle with
difference of meum and tuum.* There hath been such
per-
* "Cromwell's deserting his Major-generals in their decimations,"
says Mr. Bethel, "crying out most against them himself, when he only
had set them at work, because questioned by his assembly, is not to be
forgotten." The immediately following sentence may serve to enhance
the value of the writer's testimony (supra, pp. 63, 64) to the economy and
successful vigour of the republican administration. It also discovers the
accommodating principle of the political morality professed by Mr. Bethel,
after "the restoration of his Majesty," and that, though never" injured
or disobliged by Oliver," he could bring against him " a railing accusa-
tion,” unbecoming a writer, Mr. Bethel says, according to his own self-
appreciation, “clear from the vices of envying virtue in any, how con-
trary soever in judgment," or of being "unwilling to allow every one
their due commendations."
"I would not be understood to remember any thing here in favour of
the Long Parliament, for what might be wicked in him might be just as
to them. And though, if what he did had been for the restoration of
528
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
sons in this nation, in military employments, that have told
men that the law was in their breasts. If any such be in
the other House, they will be fit to revive and put in execu-
tion that doctrine again.
There was a difference between two states of Italy. The
Pope, as a common father, desired to reconcile the difference,
and moved them to refer themselves to him, to compose the
matter. They both refused his mediation. The Princes said
to the Pope, "You have the spiritual sword; we have only
the temporal sword. If we give you both, you will be too
hard for us." I doubt this may prove so. If will put
you
the civil sword into the hands of those that have the military
sword too, I think it cannot be safe for you.
Let these persons that have not forfeited (some aspersions.
upon them, I wish they had been spared,) let them be your
foundation, and take what other in, you please.
Colonel Clark. I wish we may come well off. It is said
the Petition of Right and Magna Charta are laid aside. He
might as well have said you wanted one of the triple cords,*
the King. I would have been glad to have heard his reasons
for it. Then all other laws are laid aside. I would gladly
hear his reason.
The best argument is that of right. He says it is funda-
mental in all nations, to call those nobles.
Every nation hath a power within themselves, to alter the
government as they shall think fit.
If every nation have that right, so God does please to
order the opportunities, and the powers, towards the alte-
ration of constitutions. And be it right or wrong, if it be
once done, I have nothing to say against it. One power outs
and alters another. The plea of right is out of doors. By
God's disposal they are gone. Let us see our constitution
his Majesty, he might have been excused, yet being for his own single
advancement, it is unpardonable, and leaves him a person to be truly
admired for nothing but apostacie and ambition, and exceeding Tiberius
in dissimulation." World's Mistake, pp. 31–50.
* See, on CC
a strong treble cord," supra, p. 3, note*.
1658-9.1
529
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
explained in the Petition and Advice. The sole question is
now, whether we shall reject this House in being and posses-
sion, and restore the old Lords.
We have beaten the bush, and not come plainly to the
point. Seeing there is another House in the room of that
House of Lords, why may not we have the same good of that
House as of the other House of Lords?
By law they stand, and if it be intended to remove them,
it must be by Bill. You have declared the Parliament to
consist of two Houses. Thus, another House is in being by
your constitution. It is so clearly argued, that if it be de-
nied, you must grub up all your constitution, and make an
earthquake in the nation. I would fain hear it reasoned,
that the constitution in possession is a nullity, and void.
The old Lords that did you service, were exceeding raw
and few. The Earl of Manchester* is in now.
You have been pleased to vote another House. I think it
is in as good hands as you can put it.
This House is a fluid body. God knows who you shall see
here next Parliament; and unless the other House be faithful
and fixed to your interest, I doubt the consequence.†
I would have the question put, that the House in being
shall be the other House.
Mr. Jenkinson.
I second that motion
Mr. Gewen. The Parliament shall consist of two Houses;
but whether the ancient peerage, or the other House now
sitting, shall make the constitution of the Parliament, is the
question.
Those I conceive are not in, by law. The power was only
given to the late Lord Protector, and not to his successor;
and therefore, admitting it to be a law as to other things, to
this it is not.
It was moved by Colonel Terrill, that any man would an-
swer what he had formerly objected, that the other House
was fallen for want of the word successors. If that be so, we
need not stand upon it; not that I would exclude those gentle-
* See supra, pp. 515, 516 note.
VOL. III.
2 M
+ See supra, p. 526.
530
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
[FEB. 28,
men that are there. They that sit, may come in; but I
would have them laid upon the old Lords, as their basis and
foundation. It is just and right, and their inheritance, that
those that are capable should be restored. But if you take
upon you to make another House, you cannot make them co-
ordinate, but subordinate, and as you set them up, you may
pull them down.
God forbid but the public sales should be confirmed. That
argument* may be answered.
As to bringing in Charles Stuart, the argument is against
it. If you exclude these Lords, you put them upon joining
with that interest: into councils for him, from great provoca-
tion. Diseases of the spirit are the worst diseases. Manet
altâ mente repostum.†
This House will be (as our Saviour says ‡), piecing an old
garment. You are bound by your oath to maintain the
rights and liberties of the people.
I think it is as much in your power to restore the old
House, as it was in those that took them away. The argu-
ments from the inconvenience seem nought with me.
If you please to declare, that of right the ancient peerage
ought to be the other House, I mean those that have not for-
feited; and let his Highness add whom he pleases.
Declare that the ancient peerage ought to be the other
House.
Mr. Fowell undertook to answer Colonel Terrill, touching
the want of the word " successor."
Saving his favour, he is much out of the law as to that.
He instanced in a bishop, a parson, and the master of an
hospital.
The case differs. Acts of Parliament must be interpreted
by the law-makers. If the King grant aught, he is a corpo-
ration, and never dies, without the word successor. The oath
is to be true to the Protector and his successors, and if it had
not been expressed, he should call Parliament, notwithstand-
ing the want of the word " successor."
* Supra, p. 525.
Eneid, i. 30.
↑ Luke, v. 36.
I
¿
1658-9.]
531
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The Act must be interpreted according to the meaning of
it, which appears plainly in many paragraphs, to entitle the
successor to the nomination of this other House. Besides, a
grant heretofore made to the King, without successors, had
been good to his successors.
The Protector is King of England, to all intents and pur-
poses whatsoever. There is express authority in the point, in
Penruddock's* case, who was adjudged a traitor within the
* See vol. i. p. 231. Generosum sanguinem effudere complures,"
says Dr. Bates, "securi apud Sarisburiam percusi, et Exoniæ aliquot,
Penruddockius, Grovius, Lucasius; et alii quos æternitati commendare
par esset, `suspendio periêre, statuas promeriti." Elenchus, (1676,)
p. 286. (Generous blood was now freely shed. Some fell by the axe, at
Salisbury and Exeter, Penruddock, Grove, Lucas; and others deserving
eternal remembrance, perished on gibbets, though they had merited sta-
tues.)
"In aggravation of their crimes," says Ludlow, "it was urged that
this was their second offence of this kind, and that it was committed
against much favour and kindness. To this they answered, that they
did not rise against those who had extended that favour to them, but
against a person who had dissipated those men, and established himself
in their place. And I cannot tell by what laws of God or man they
could have been justly condemned, had they been upon as sure a found-
ation in what they declared for, as they were in what they declared
against. But certainly it can never be esteemed by a wise man, to be
worth the scratch of a finger, to remove a single person acting by an
arbitrary power, in order to set up another with the same authority."
Memoirs, (1698,) ii. 517, 518.
This design of restoring an unlimited monarchy, in the person of
Charles Stuart, sufficiently appears from Colonel Penruddock's own
account of his trial, the only account probably now remaining. In his
speech on the scaffold, he does indeed describe the cause in which he
was about to suffer, as comprehending not only his "lawful King" but
"the liberty of the subject, and privilege of Parliaments." He also invites
"all true Englishmen to stand up as one man, to bring in the King,
and redeem themselves and all this poor kingdom, out of its more than
Egyptian slavery." Yet it seems evident, from the following assertion
of unqualified regal power, as his defence against the charge of being
guilty of High Treason," that he considered, as declared in the Li-
turgy of the Church of England,” that God is "the only Ruler of
Princes," exactly the doctrine of the Patriarcha; and that "the liberty
of the subject, and privilege of Parliaments," are boons to be expected
CC
?
2 M 2
532
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
[FEB. 28,
statute of 25 Edw. III., for attempting the life of the Protec-
tor, because he had indeed the kingship, as if it had been
against a Queen Regnant.
and gratefully acknowledged, from the Crown, rather than rights to be
justly claimed and perseveringly vindicated by the people:-
(C
‹
My actions were for the King, and I well remember what Bracton
saith: Rex non habet superiorem nisi Deum; satis habet ad pœnam,
quod Deum expectat ultorem." And in another place he saith: Rex
habet potestatem et jurisdictionem super omnes qui in regno suo sunt.
Ea quæ sunt jurisdictionis et pacis, ad nullam pertinent, nisi ad regiam
dignitatem; habet etiam coercionem, ut delinquentes puniat et coerceat.'
Again he saith Omnes sub rege, et ipse nullo nisi tantum Deo.' This
shows us where the true power is."
When Colonel Penruddock alleges, "neither is there any such thing
in law as a Protector, for all treasons and such pleas are propria causa
regis," the President of the Court says: "Sir, you are peremptory; you
strike at the Government; you will fare never a whit the better for
this speech."
This presiding judge was Serjeant Glynn, whom we have seen, like
Serjeant Maynard, ready to become a prosecuting crown lawyer, under
the restored Stuart, and to pursue his royal master's business, through
primrose paths or miry ways, per fas aut nefus, just as the via regia
might happen to direct.
The Attorney-general who now prosecuted, was Prideaux, who has
just been unmasking the delegates from Charles Stuart to this parlia-
ment, (supra, p. 525,) and to whom Mr. Fowell might now particularly
address this case of Penruddock. The Colonel thus brings together his
prosecutor and himself:-
"Mr. Attorney made a large speech in the face of the Court, wherein
he aggravated the offence with divers circumstances; as saying I had
been four years in France, and held a correspondency with the King my
master, of whom I had learned the popish religion: that I endeavoured
to bring in a debauched, lewd young man, and to engage this nation
in another bloody war; and that if I had not been timely prevented, I
had destroyed them (meaning the jurors,) and their whole families. I
interrupted him and said:-
"Mr. Attorney, you have been heretofore of counsel for me; and
you then made my case better than indeed it was. I see you have the
faculty to make men believe falsehoods to be truths too.'
· Attorney-general. Sir, you interrupt me.
were a gentleman.
You said but now you
“Colonel Penruddock. I have been thought worthy, heretofore, to sit
on the Beuch, though now I am at the bar.
1658-9.1
533
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Since the Conquest we never had but one King:-the
King never dies.
No power is given to the other House but negative, and,
in all things else, to go according to the ancient usage. They
are the old House, they have only changed the names.
Though new members, they are the old House. I move that
you would transact with them as another House of Parlia-
ment, and add the old Lords to the new House.
"Mr. Attorney proceeded in his speech, and called the witnesses.
Then I said:
"Sir. You have put me in a bear's skin, and now you will bait me
with a witness.'" State Tryals, (1776,) ii. 261.
This account of" the Trial of Colonel Penruddock" is concluded by
a very interesting correspondence; the only passages indeed, which can
now be attractive, except as contributing to the exactness of history.
The Colonel's wife had written to him a most affectionate letter, dated
"May 15, 1655. Eleven o'clock at night." on the eve of his execution.
I subjoin his answer, not without regret that a husband and a father, so
well prepared to enjoy and to enhance the true felicities of life, should
have sacrificed himself in the midst of his days, and especially on such
an unworthy occasion as the attempt "to bring in a debauched, lewd
young man," and thus to vitiate his country, ad Regis exemplum.
"Dearest, best of creatures,
"I had taken leave of the world when I received yours. It did at
once recall my fondness for life and enable me to resign it. As I am sure
I shall leave none behind me like you, which weakens my resolution to
part from you; so when I reflect I am going to a place where there
are none but such as you, I recover my courage. But fondness breaks
in upon me; and as I would not have my tears flow tomorrow, when
your husband, and the father of our dear babes, is a public spectacle ;
do not think meanly of me that I give way to grief now in private,
when I see my sand run so fast, and I within few hours am to leave
you, helpless, and exposed to the merciless and insolent, that have
wrongfully put me to a shameful death, and will object that shame to
my poor children. I thank you for all your goodness to me, and will
endeavour so to die, as to do nothing unworthy that virtue in which we
have mutually supported each other, and for which I desire you not to
repine that I am first to be rewarded. Since you ever preferred me to
yourself in all other things, afford me with cheerfulness, the precedence
in this.
"I desire your prayers in the article of death, for my own will then
be offered for you and yours.
J. Penruddock."
534
FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Sir Henry Vane. I shall not speak to the matter, but to
the order of your proceeding. I cannot bear what is spoken.
There is a law still in force, declaring it treason for any
man to declare or proclaim any person to be King of
England. * I desire that gentleman may explain.
Serjeant Maynard. He did not say he was King; but
that he exercised the kingly power. If he do not, you must.
hang up all your judges in Westminster-hall.
Sir Thomas Wroth. He said, absolutely, the Protector was
King of England. If so, I pray you where is your Prince
of Wales. If we find kings destructive to the nation, we may
lay them aside. It is a formidable thing to speak of a King.
One maxim has undone the nation. The King can do no
wrong, (he said no right).‡
When it was told the King, that Ireland would be lost
if he looked not to it; he answered, I shall go last: but it
proved not so.
You are now not come to declare who the persons shall be,
but how you will bound them.
Spend not your precious time, whether upon old or young
lords, but debate the bounds. That is my motion.
Mr. Bacon. It was well propounded to leave the business
as we find it, and go to bound them. If I thought that
House would not fall upon that, I should be as willing as
any man, that the old faithful nobility might be restored, if it
could consist with the safety of this nation, and the interest of
those noble persons.
* See vol. ii. p. 38, note; Scobell, Jan. 30, 1648-9.
+ See supra, p. 531.
On "the King's going into Scotland" in 1641, Mrs. Hutchinson
says, “It retarded all the affairs of the Government of England, which
the King had put into such disorder, that it was not an easie taske to
reforme what was amisse, and redresse the reall grievances of the peo-
ple; but yet the Parliament showed such a wonderfull respect to the
King, that they never mentioned him as he was, the sole author of all
those miscarriages, but imputed them to evill councellors and ministers
of state, which flattery I feare they have to answer for. I am sure they
have thereby exposed themselves to much scandal." Memoirs, (1810,
i. 141, 142.
1658-9.]
535
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
!
I
If the Lords have a right, consider whether it is proper
for us to judge their right, as members of that House. Can
we do it, and will they accept it. I doubt they will not take
it well from us. Should we be judges of it, I fear they will
stumble at it. As the affairs stand now, I think their right
very much interrupted. If they come in by right of peer-
age, are they peers to his Highness? Do they hold of him?
Are they peers to the rest of the House. Will they like that
some of them have had writs, and have refused.*
is
Things
See vol. ii. p. 415, note*. The Earl of Warwick, (see supra, p. 356,
note‡,) according to Mr. Noble, “refused to sit with Pride and Hewson,
one of whom had been a drayman, the other a cobler." The undoubted
possession of armorial bearings by these Lords, risen by good fortune
from the working classes," seems to have perplexed that diligent
investigator of heraldic lore.
CC
"A seal of arms, bearing a chevron inter three animals' heads erased,"
is annexed, in the King's "death warrant," to the name "so strangely
written that it is scarce legible," of Colonel Pride, a foundling in a
church-porch." Colonel Hewson, also " sprung from the dregs of the
people, first a cobler, then a shoemaker," a natural and easy ascent, un-
questionably "bore for his arms, (as appears by his seal) two horses
counter salient, a sword erect in base, and four annulets." Mr. Noble
therefore suggests the "Query, did they not receive arms from the
heralds, or did they assume them without?" House of Cromwell,
(1787,) i. 375, 417, 418, 421.
Sir Thomas Smith (see vol. ii. p. 456, ad fin.) has set such a question
at rest, by showing how, at least in 1565, one of the novi homines, of
any rank, could procure the herald's "slender help to fame;" now, by
the progress of plebeian education, becoming every day more slender. If
he would only, by an allowed and well-understood palmistry, conciliate
a king of heralds," that prime officer in the court of honour, “his
visual nerve" being thus invigorated, would presently discover among
“old registers,” arms, if not supporters, belonging to the applicant's re-
mote" ancestors."
If the Earl of Warwick really "refused to sit with Pride and Hew-
son," from a consideration of what they had been by the accident of
lowly origin, whatever they had since become by the successful appli-
cation of talent and opportunity, he was ill fitted to have served a Par-
liament which, had the people been sufficiently enlightened to choose a
virtuous and unexpensive, instead of a profuse and profligate govern-
ment, would have founded a republic. To become the favourite of a
Protector, who vainly desired to be a king, and especially to have the
536
[FEB. 28
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
are unhappily come to this. I fear that they are not peers
to the present powers, and will not own a right from this
Protector. Do they hold their baronies by this title?
The new constitution is not the foundation of the rights
and liberties of the people. We have our Magna Charta and
Petition of Right now in being, by a better title. Yet our
rights and liberties are but declared by them. They are by
ancient usage and custom, though neither of them both had
been.
There are two Houses in being you have declared, so what
hinders but we may declare that those that are in the other
House are the other House. It is to no end to debate of the
old House. That debate will stop proceedings all the nation
"
honour of putting on him a " purple velvet robe lined with ermines,"
(see vol. ii. p. 311,) and of serving him as " post-master of the foreign
letters” with “ 5000l. per annum," must have been more congenial to
his Lordship's sense of aristocratic dignity. See " Dr. Harris," supra,
p. 276 note.
Another Peer of England who refused to sit in the Other House, was
the Earl of Manchester, (see supra, p. 516,) of whom Cromwell had
said, before he became a creator of Lords, as reported by a contempo-
"that it would be never well, and we should never see good days,
whilst there was one Lord left in England, and until the Earl of Man-
chester was plain Mr. Montague." History of Europe, (1706,) iv. 434.
rary,
Of "Lord Viscount Say and Sele," Mr. Noble says, "Cromwell invited
him to partake of his honours; but he turned from that great man with
disgust and abhorrence, as the betrayer of the common interest of the
republic." He, however, soon found another "great man," towards whom
"he turned." Mr. Noble says that, "to the disgrace of King Charles
II., he raised him, though an open enemy to the constitution in Church
and State, to be a privy-counsellor and lord privy-seal." This versa-
tile politician seems not to have thought that preferment "might come
a day too late." Yet, as "his Lordship died April 14, 1662, aged about
80," it was surely more than a grand climacterical absurdity," after
having been “
excepted from pardon" by the father, as an inflexible re-
publican, thus to crouch at the last, and to die a placeman and a cour-
tier to the son. House of Cromwell, i. 377.
t
The Earl of Mulgrave can scarcely be said to have refused; dying
August 28, 1658, a few days before the Protector, on his way to Lon-
don.
Viscount Fauconberg, the Protector's son-in-law, and Lord Evers, ap-
pear to have taken their seats.
1658-9.]
537
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
over, and will destroy all. Therefore, for peace and unity's
sake, propound for the other House.
Mr. Stephens. I agree as to matter of unity.
Magna Charta was not merely the purchase of the sword.
It was confirmed often by Parliament. I would not have it
taken away by the sword.
Dan Vincent, a good author, tells you in his History,
that the Barons made protestations to confirm and stand
by Magna Charta. He cites the oath for obtaining it. The
King was also sworn: but they, not content with that, an-
other clause was added more binding, and he repeated this
clause: et si contra eam ibimus, tunc liceat omnibus in regno
nostro insurgere, et vim, &c. which gave great countenance to
the late proceedings, in the war against the King.
For my part, I stand neither upon terms nor words. I did
not hear that the word " King" was so formidable a word
to the last Parliament;* and I do conceive that the Protec-
tor and Chief Magistrate may declare titles, and names of
government.
It is declared to be law, and constantly practised, that he
that is Chief Magistrate may declare his successor, and, by
all laws, it shall go to his successor.
I would have you careful that that House grow not so
great as to swallow up your own House.
The question is now, whether of restitution or constitution?
The Parliament to consist of two Houses, may relate to either.
For my part I am against altering constitutions. I know the
old Lords had an ancient fundamental right, and the words of
the perpetuating Act† are that they should not be dissolved
but by their own consent, nor by that neither, without an Act
of Parliament.
The Petition and Advice does not take away the former
Act. It may be a good law till you declare otherwise, but to
say that we come hither upon that foot, I see not, for there
are words in the Petition and Advice, that Parliaments shall
be called according to the old law.
* See supra, p. 519 ad fin.
See vol. ii. p. 140 ad fin.
538
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Your Petition and Advice says there shall be another
House. It gives to this other House, a negative power, but
no affirmative power is given them, neither by that, nor by
the explanatory clauses. It only saith what they shall not
do; but doth not tell them what they shall do.
I would have the old foundation restored, and those that
are capable restored, and what others now in the House are
thought fit to be called thither. I move that the old Lords
be called in.
Mr. Chaloner. Where the law is silent, no man ought to
speak. Divers are for the old faithful Lords. They did
you great service in Magna Charta. I understand not that
so many of the old Lords are so deserving. As many were
against it as for it, and few of the posterity now living, or
any of themselves twenty years after it.
*
If you tie us to the old foundation, then why not bring
in archbishops, bishops, priors, and abbots. The clergy had
a third part of the land, and were then a third estate. The
Prior of St. John sat above all the Lords, because the clergy
had the lands; but when Henry VIII. put down the clergy,
the Commons then rose up, and grew great and rich. The
bishops were then grown poor, and it was their baronies that
supported them. I am not for one House to put out ano-
ther. But if the Lords owned all the lands of the nation, as
now the Commons almost do, I believe they would not suf
fer this House to sit here to give laws to them.
But that constitution, though it was very ancient, and then
good, yet time hath defaced it, and it is now impossible to
attain any good by it, because it differs so much from what
it was.
In France, the clergy and nobility have most part of the
lands, the Commons not a third part, unless it consist of
monies and goods.
All governments fall into one another, as Aristotle says;
nought so ordinary.
They talk of ancient constitutions. The constitution of
* See supra, p. 512 note †.
1658-9.]
539
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Paul's Church was very noble and ancient, but where is it
now? If you go about to do any thing with it now, all the
workmen in the world will tell you the foundation is rot-
ten.
*
\
* It appears that a large sum had been collected for repairing the
Church, during several years before the war, when " the body of the
Church" was "turned into quarters for horses; and part of the choir,
with the rest of the building, eastward, was, in 1649, by a partition wall,
converted into a conventicle." See "Life and Times of Cardinal Wol-
sey,” (1744,) iii. 226, note. See also supra, pp. 118, 202, notes.
The following orders, from the commanders of the guard, printed as
a hand-bill, refer to this occupation of Paul's Church :—
CC
May 27, 1651. Forasmuch as the inhabitants of Paul's Church-
yard, are much disturbed by the souldiers and others, calling out to pas-
sengers and examining them, (though they goe peaceably and civilly
along,) and by playing at nine-pinnes at unseasonable hours; these are
therefore to command all souldiers and others whom it may concerne,
that hereafter there shall bee no examining and calling out to per-
sons that go peaceably on their way, unlesse they doe approach their
guards, and likewise to forbeare playing at nine-pinnes, and other
sports, from the houre of nine of the clocke in the evening, till six in
the morning; that so persons that are weake and indisposed to rest, may
not be disturbed. Given under our hands, the day and yeare above
written.
"John Barkestead,
'Benjamin Blundell.”
CC
John Lilburne thus complains in 1649:-" I was fetched out of my
bed in terror and affrightment, and to the subversion of the laws and
liberties of England, and led through London streets, with hundreds of
armed men, like an Algier captive, to their main-guard at Paul's,
where a mighty guard stayed for the further conducting me by force of
arms to Whitehall." Trial, p. 11.
This Church had been desecrated, in a very different manner, in the
earlier part of the century, and probably long before. Bishop Earle, in
1628, thus somewhat quaintly describes it, as a place of daily and very
general resort :-
"Paul's Walk is the land's epitome; or, you may call it, the lesser
isle of Great Britain. It is more than this, the whole world's map,
which you may here discern in its perfectest motion, justling and turn-
ing. It is a heap of stones and men, with a vast confusion of lan-
guages; and, were the steeple not sanctified, nothing liker Babel. The
noise in it is like that of bees, a strange humming or buz, mixed of
tongues and feet. It is a kind of still roar, or loud whisper. It is the
540
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I would have no one sort of men to be hereditary judges
of the nation, to them and their heirs for ever. I would have
you make these to stand, and then debate whether you will
add any to them.*
Captain Baynes. Make this your question, whether the
House now in possession shall be that other House intended
in the vote.
Mr. Speaker propounded a question to that purpose.
Mr. Attorney-general. I move that the question be, if
they shall be hereditary.
Colonel White. Put it whether the persons now sitting in
the Other House by the Petition and Advice, shall be that
other House you intend.
Mr. Onslow. The method of bounding the fens, is not
to lay out money on bounding that which has no need. So
I would have us do. Consider, whether by another House,
expressed in the vote, you intend that other House by some
said to be in possession.
Frame your question to this purpose, and take it up to-
morrow morning.
Sir Thomas Wroth. First resolve that they shall not be
hereditary.
great exchange of all discourse, and no business whatsoever but is here
stirring and a-foot. It is the synod of all pates politick, jointed and
laid together in most serious posture, and they are not half so busy at
the Parliament; and for vizards you need go no farther than faces.
"It is the market of young lecturers; whom you may cheapen here
at all rates and sizes. It is the general mint of all famous lies, which
are here, like the legends of popery, first coined and stamped in the
Church. All inventions are emptied here, and not few pockets. The
visitants are all men without exceptions, but the principal inhabitants
and possessors are stale knights and captains out of service; men of
long rapiers, which, after all, turn merchants here, and traffic for news.
Some make it a preface to their dinner, and travel for a stomach; but
thriftier men make it their ordinary, and board very cheap." Micro-
cosmography, (1732,) pp. 131, 132.
solve
*Here several motions were made, to define the persons, and re-
upon what House we would have before we go to bounding them."
Goddard MSS. p. 256.
1658-9.1
541
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Godfrey. I think it not a matter of that necessity as
is urged, to debate the persons before the bounds. The best
foundations are upon principles ab abstracto.
If you resolve upon the old peers, and go about to bound
them, perhaps you intend that which you cannot do; and if
you bound the other House now sitting, instead of bounding
them you will perhaps add something to them.
There has been great debate whether to join the right
hand to the left, or the left hand to the right. That is not
the question; nor whether the new House shall be a House
of Lords. You can never make a bird-bolt of a pig's tail.
It will not be prudent to do any thing exclusive of the
ancient Peers. The Petition and Advice does not do it; no
powers nor qualifications exclusive of the old nobility. There-
fore avoid that question, seeing you find nought in that law
to do it. I would have no vote pass here in the negative,
which should exclude the nobility.
A clause indeed, in general terms, that in all other things
they shall be called according to the laws, is rather an affirm-
ance than an exclusion of the old peerage. Therefore call
not that into question, which is not now in question. You
may very prudentially consider of bounds; though it be some-
what difficult to suit all persons, and to bound those who
claim by ancient right. Make this the first bounding of that
new House :-
That none shall sit in the other House, but such as shall
be approved by both Houses. This is not prejudicial to the
old Peers. They have consented to such a Bill in the Long
Parliament.* I know not why it may not as well be offered
now, as before. This boundary looks every way, as to either
House, and it will greatly secure you of the interest of those
that sit there.
Colonel Parsons. I perceive, whether they be old Lords
or new Lords, you intend to bound them; but I would have
the first question to be, whether it be the other House that
you mean by your vote, the persons now in possession.
*See vol. ii. p. 21 ad fin.
542
[FEL. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The reason why we have not all this while proceeded to
the bounds before the persons, was because, until you knew
what the other House should be, you could not tell what
bounds to set them.
The other House you cannot bind, nor this, without their
own consent.
I move, to consider whether the House now sitting, shall
be the other House.
Mr. Bodurda. We are rather bounding the persons than
the House. There is no positive power in the other House.
I move, that we go not upon negatives, as not so season-
able, but make this the subject of debate; whether it shall
be part of the Bill to declare the other House of Parlia-
ment mentioned in your vote, to have a co-ordination with
this House in the legislature, or how far they shall have this
power: else time is but spent to consider what persons or
what powers.
Mr. Hobart. I think you have the greatest business be-
fore you, that you will have, sitting this Parliament.
We all agree a boundary should be between this House
and the Chief Magistrate.
Those gentlemen that are for a popular government, do
say that the monarchy of England was the best settled go-
vernment, the best limited monarchy in the world; and the
House of Peers the best boundary between the supreme ma-
gistrate and the people. And if such a boundary could be
now found, it would be best to submit to it. If, according
to property, you could make a fit balance, they would not be
against it; but they say, such a bound you cannot have.
They would have a propounding, and a deliberative power,
in making laws.
It is the best way to go on with your negative, and then
conclude with your affirmative.
Our first care must be, how to find such another House
as the old House of Peers was, which may be a sufficient
bulwark for us. If it happen that they may be made a fit
and proper boundary, then let them stand. But if that can-
not be, then you must have a special care; and it will be most
1658-9.1
549
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
proper to think of boundaries, that we may not trust them
with too great powers. If it prove not like the walls between
Tartary and China, I would have it well considered.
If you cannot make them such a bulwark as the ancient
Peers, then take heed how you put the staff in their hands;
that if it cannot beat us, it run not into our hands and hurt
us.
I would have none there that have any office, nor let them
have a negative in any thing, unless that the government
shall not be altered, nor imposition upon consciences; and
what other things gentlemen shall please to add.
It was moved, that this constitution might otherwise be
the greatest tyranny that could be invented. A single per-
son with an army. A negative voice, 130,000l. per annum,
and a Council of officers,* a balance upon you. This should
be well considered.
For this Petition and Advice, if Pope Alexander, C. Cæsar
Borgia, and Machiavel, should all consent together, they
could not lay a foundation for a more absolute tyranny.†
First debate the persons, and then the powers. I move
to bound the negatives, before you assert the persons.
Mr. St. Nicholas. The debate hath been all about which
should be the other House. Your stream hath all run that
way.
I move that the question be, whether the bounds you
are now about, and the House in our vote, shall be applied
to the House now sitting in possession.
* See supra, p. 168 ad fin.
+ Mr. Bethel describes "the country-party" as showing that if
Pope Alexander the Sixth, Cæsar Borgias, or their cabal, had all laid
their heads together, they could not have framed a thing more dange-
rous and destructive to the liberty of the people than is the Petition and
Advice, in several particulars; as in settling so great a revenue upon the
Pretender. That in giving the purse of the people to the Chief Magis-
trate, they give away all the security they have for their rights and li-
berties; because, having the purse he hath power to raise what forces he
pleases, and having that, all bounding him signifies no more than bound-
ing a lion with paper chains." Brief Narrative, p. 338.
544
FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Turner. I move not to put the question first, for if
we shall put that question, and it go in the negative, I fear
we shall not have power to vote again. I know not what
will become of us.
I would have the first question to be, if the old Peerage
shall be the other House, and then you may add these per-
sons that are now in possession.
Sir A. Haslerigge. To the orders of the House.
Here is no use nor place for such arguments. We expect
law from the Long Robe, and not fear of the long sword.
We came up free, and I hope we shall go down free. Let
us fear nothing here, but God and the neglect of our duty.
If, at last, we be sent down as wise as we came up, there is
no great harm in it.
Mr. Turner. Though I have never worn a long sword, as
that gentleman, yet the Long Robe has as little fear as
others. I did not express any fear, but I said if this vote
passed in the negative, we should not know what to vote
next.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge was satisfied with the explanation.
Mr. Bulkeley. That there is a law is most clear, how
taken away I know not.
I would be glad the question may
not be exclusive of the one, nor positively inclusive of the
other, yet I would not have them all brought into a sieve.
The way to give every man his vote, is to put that they
shall be approved by this House; and then, if any person
dislike the choice, they may give their objection. This will
tend most to settlement to declare that the members to sit
hereafter in the other House shall be approved of by both
Houses.
Mr. Jenkinson. This is admitting them to be a House in
being.
I would have it run, that this House shall approve of
them. For how can that House approve that is not in being.
Mr. Goodrick. I move that the question be for both
Houses to approve, and that the word "hereafter" be added.
Mr. Steward. I move that the question be, that first, this
House approve, and when another House is in being, then let
them concur.
1658-9.]
545
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Knightley. I move that those that are in, be in; and
that for the future we have this drawbridge. Else, as I said
before, we destroy the constitution on which we ourselves sit.
Serjeant Maynard. We are not fully ripe yet for a ques-
tion. We must determine something, else we shall always be
debating, and never come to resolutions; or if to resolutions,
never to practice. We must come to it first or last, to resolve
whether the members now sitting shall be that other House
we have voted. Of necessity and prudence we must come
to that which, in our consciences, we think shall be the ques-
tion. The appointing of what persons, is one of your great-
est bounds; and then the number and qualifications, whether
hereditary or no.
Make this the question, whether the persons called to sit
in the other House, shall be members of that other House
which you are now bounding.
it.
Sir Henry Vane. You will only propound it, but not put
Mr. Trevor. I understand not very well that motion from
the learned gentleman. I conceive another question more
proper. It looks too exclusive of the right that is so much.
urged. I would rather have it by a concurrence with the
other House, than by a vote here.
If you mean, the approbation of the present persons; that is
as much as to say they are not in being; but I suppose you
mean only those that shall hereafter be named, that they may
be approved on by both Houses.
Colonel Bennet seconded Serjeant Maynard's motion.
Colonel Fielder seconded the other motion, that for the fu-
ture they might be approved.
Sir Henry Vane. That last motion is not ingenuous; for
it is a granting by the lump all that are in possession to be
approved on already by this House, and only gives us power
to consider of members hereafter to be added.
The question upon the persons, is most proper and inge-
nuous; and if that pass, you will think fit to send messengers
to them for a concurrence. Let that be your question, and
then it is most plain and ingenuous for every man to give his
VOL. III.
2 N
546
FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
vote, and do what in your wisdom you shall think fit. It is
not clear that there is any law in being for their sitting.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I second the question that the
learned Serjeant moved, whether the House now in posses-
sion shall be that other House? Let us go plainly and clearly
to it.
Mr. Hewley. Sir Arthur Haslerigge is mistaken in the
Serjeant's motion, for he moved that the question might be, if
the persons now called to sit in the other House shall be mem-
bers of that House.
Mr. Neville. That question will be more doubtful than
the other. Put it clearly upon which of the Houses you will
have. I can then give my vote; otherwise I cannot. I would
not have us involved in a question. I must steal out, if your
question be so perplexed.
Sir Walter Earle. That gentleman may withdraw if he
cannot clearly give his vote to this question. I know very
few of those persons of the other House. There is one that
is gone.
I should have been sorry to have given my vote
that he should have been a member of that House that had
so highly broken the privilege of Parliament.*
*
Query, if it was not Pride ?" MS.
С6
He had soon followed the Protector, and very narrowly escaped the
same violation of his grave; for it is not in the reign of Charles II. that
“British vengeance wars not with the dead." (See vol. ii. pp. 145, 443,
notes.) Mr. Noble describes Colonel Pride as dying just before the
Restoration, October 23, 1658, at Nonsuch: he was buried with baro-
nial honours. But after that joyous event, his body was ordered to be
dragged from its grave, and hung upon the gallows at Tyburn with his
old master Cromwell's, Ireton's, and Bradshaw's." This cowardly out-
rage, on the ashes of the learned and the brave, a worthy celebration of
that "joyous event," was averted from the grave of Colonel Pride, no
doubt," by "the interest of the Duke of Albemarle, he having married
the natural daughter of Thomas Monk, Esq. his grace's brother." Eng-
lish Regicides, (1798,) ii. 132.
re
Bishop Burnet has inflicted an historic justice on the royal violator of
the dead, by very minutely relating, when describing the close of his in-
glorious reign, how the king's body was indecently neglected." The
disgust excited by some of the expressions, may be excused, as applied
to one who, in the judgment of this near observer, though he had an
[
1658-9.]
547
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr.
moved for the old Peers.
Colonel Birch. I take our great end to be God's glory,
and our own and the nation's peace and safety. I should not
trouble you, if I thought at this time it would answer these
ends, to call in the old Peers. I am of their minds that
would neither meddle one way nor another, but leave it to
time.
I think your other question is as dangerous, if it pass in
the negative.
The proper question is, that for the future all should be
approved by both Houses. Then are my fears removed; for
the single person cannot impose.
It is best for the interest of this nation to take the other
House as we find it. When I go into the country again,
and tell them this was the cause why I came down so soon,
they will hardly be satisfied.
If I can read the Petition and Advice, they are in being,
Declare that hereafter none shall be admitted but by appro-
bation of both Houses, and that will satisfy me.
appearance of gentleness in his outward deportment, seemed to have no
bowels nor tenderness in his nature. Own Times, (1724,) i. 610.
"An anonymous author of that time, describing the " 40 that accept-
ed the promotion out of 62 lords that were appointed,” says :—
"Colonel Pride, then Sir Thomas, and now Lord Pride, was, some-
time, an honest brewer in London. He went out a captain, upon ac-
count of the cause, fought on, and in time became a Colonel. He did
good service in England and Scotland, for which he was well rewarded
by the Parliament. He gave the Long Parliament a purge, fought
against the King and his negative voice, and was against the negative
voice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal; being unwilling there
should be any of them in the land.
"But, since that, he changed his mind and principles with the times,
and would fight for a negative voice in the Protector, and also have one
himself, and also be a lord, since he was a knight of the new order al-
ready, and grown very bulkish and considerable. It is hard to say how the
people would like it, though it is likely the noble lawyers would be now
glad of his company, since there was now no fear of his hanging up
their gowns by the Scotish colours in Westminster-hall, as he formerly
so much boasted and threatened to do." History of Europe, p. 434.
*He probably means, because the Commons had provoked a disso-
lution by disallowing the other House.
{
2 N 2
548
[FEB. 28,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Lieutenant-general Ludlow. The gentleman contradicts.
himself. He says it is not time to dispute right.
Declare what in your judgment is right. I would not have
you go to persons. It is most proper to put the question
whether the old Peers or new shall be this other House; that
will answer all objections, and if you please, let that be the
matter of your debate to-morrow morning.
Resolved that this debate be adjourned till to-morrow
morning at eight of the clock.
And the House adjourned at one o'clock accordingly.
Resolved that Mr. Hunt, one of the members of this House,
have leave to go into the country for ten days.
The grand Committee for Religion sate,
Mr. Bacon in the chair.
They proceeded a great way in debate upon the greater
Catechism of the Assembly of Divines.*
The Committee for preparing a Bill for ejecting scandalous
ministers, &c.,† sat in the Inner Court of Wards,
Mr. Hewley in the Chair.
They proceeded to debate the Bill, a good way, and ad-
journed till Wednesday at 3 o'clock.
The Grand Committee sat till candles were called for.‡
* See supra, p. 332, vol. ii. pp. 333, 334, notes. On the "Shorter Ca-
techism," See vol. i. p. 376, note.
+ See supra, p. 152.
""
The following article of intelligence, probably refers to what "Mr.
Noel" says, supra, p. 386, on “going into Bantam." "Mr. Downing,
was the "Sir George Downing," of Charles II. (see supra, p. 179.) " M.
De Witt" was the celebrated Pensionary, assassinated in 1672, by some
zealots of the House of Orange. He had opposed, in 1650, the war with
the English Commonwealth. Bishop Burnet has given some interest-
ing particulars of De Witt. Own Time, (1724,) i. 220, 326.
"The last from the Hague, Feb. 28. S. N. The adjusting of matters
concerning the three ships, taken in the road of Bantam, being brought
to a point on Saturday last, our English resident, Mr. Downing, treat-
ed the Directors of the East India Company, together with the London
merchants; upon Monday, Monsieur De Witt treated them again; on
Wednesday, the London merchants did the like; and yesterday the said
resident signed the adjustment of the sum, with the deputies of the
States General." Mercurius Politicus, No. 556, pp. 269, 270.
L
I
!
1
1658-9.]
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
549
}
Tuesday, March 1, 1658.
The House being acquainted that Mr. Serjeant Birkhead
was fallen sick, and that by reason of his indisposition he
could not for the present give his attendance on the House,
and that Mr. Serjeant Middleton, who had formerly upon
a like occasion supplied the place, if the House should so
think fit was ready to give his attendance instead of Mr.
Serjeant Birkhead, until his health should be recovered,—
Resolved, that Mr. Serjeant Middleton do supply the
place of Serjeant-at-arms during the sickness and indisposition
of Mr. Serjeant Birkhead, and that Mr. Serjeant Middleton
be called in to give his attendance on the House accordingly;
and he was called in by the clerk assistant, and gave his
attendance in the same place.
Resolved, that such of the members of this House as are
returned to serve for several places, for none of which places
their elections have been as yet questioned, do make their elec-
tions respectively for what place they will choose to serve, by
this day se'nnight; and if they shall not make their election
by that day, that then the House do appoint for what place
such members shall serve.
Resolved, that the sheriff of the county of Southampton,
do deliver in the indenture remaining in his hands, concern-
ing the election for Yarmouth, in the Isle of Wight, (wherein
Mr. Sadler is concerned,) to be filed of Record there, to the
clerk of the commonwealth in Chancery.
Dr. Stave being chosen for several sheriffdoms in Scotland,
made his election for Thetford, in Norfolk, and waved his
election for those sheriffdoms.
I came after prayers.
Serjeant Waller offered to report Mr. Streete's business
from the Committee of Privileges,* being by order of Com-
mittee, upon motion of Colonel Blake, appointed this day to be
reported.
* See supra, p. 435.
550
[ MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
But the House, supposing it would involve them in a
debate, appointed it to be brought in on Friday morning; but
no order was entered upon it. There was only taken the
sense of the House.
It was moved, that to settle the constitution was of greater
consequence than the business of any one member.
The order of the day was read, which was adjourned yes-
terday, touching the bounds and powers of another House.
Mr. Mussenden. I have learned at the University that
the quid goes before the quale. It will be hard for you to
make a suit that will fit anybody. I would have the per-
sons first debated. I therefore move that you declare what
House you will have, before you consult what bounds you
will give. You proceeded so with the single person.
voted not only a single person, but the single person, before
you went to bound him.
You
Mr. Pedley. If you make not a settlement now, I fear
the consequence, that good men in the nation will think you
cannot settle them; they must look for it by forced means,
from beyond the seas.*
>>
* With Vane, Ludlow, Scot, and the yet unperverted Fairfax, (for I
cannot allow myself to degrade his weakness into hypocrisy,) were, no
doubt, now acting, as they had cast their different parts, several com-
missioned "from beyond the seas," to the former Parliaments under the
Protectorate, who, like the "spies sent forth" by "the Chief Priests
and the Scribes," in Jewish history, “should feign themselves just men,'
and for whom it would not be difficult, at the borough market, to pur-
chase seats; while the oath against monarchy, would be as readily
uttered as that by their royal master (supra, p. 373) for the Presby-
terian covenants. This purchase of seats, would, indeed, be more easy,
now Richard had revived the system of nominal, or as more plausibly
expressed by anti-reformers, virtual representation, invariably practised
under the royalty. (See supra, pp. 74, 323.)
"In these debates," says Bishop Burnet, (referring to the discussions
in Parliament, on Cromwell's project of kingship,) "some of the Cava-
lier party, or rather their children, came to bear some share. They
were then all zealous Commonwealth-men, according to the directions
sent them from those about the king. Their business was to oppose
Cromwell, on all his demands, and so to weaken him at home and expose
him abroad. When some of the other party took notice of this great
I
#
1658-9.]
551
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
There is another House, a House of Lords, which, it seems,
is a litigated title.
change, from being the abettors of prerogative, to become the patrons of
liberty, they pretended their education in the court, and their obliga-
tion to it had engaged them that way; but now, since that was out of
doors, they had the common principles of human nature and the love of
liberty in them. By this means, as the old republicans assisted and pro-
tected them, so at the same time they strengthened the faction against
Cromwell. But these very men at the Restoration, shook off this dis-
guise, and reverted to their old principles for a high prerogative and
absolute power." Own Times, (1724,) i. 70, 71.
Dr. Bates, describing those members of the Parliament in 1654, who
qualified by signing the recognition, speaks of some among them manoeu-
vring between the Democrats and the Cromwellians, for the destruction
of both; rr
“ utrique parti se conjungentibus, qui clàm Regi bene volebant,
simultates insufflantibus, et quantum fieri potuit, partes inter quas hæc
seriò agerentur, acrius committentibus." Elenchus, (1676,) p 290,
(some who secretly adhered to the King, joining each party, inflaming
animosities, and exasperating against each other in these disputes,
those who were engaged on principle.)
Again, in 1656, Dr. Bates, having first described the arguments for
the proposed kingship, thus introduces a Stuartine faction in that Par-
liament; whose "directions from beyond the seas," must have differed
from those described by the Bishop.
CC
Regii, manibus pedibusque, contendunt ut iretur in priorem senten-
tiam; utpote quam haud exigui momenti credebant ad causam suam à
mortuis resuscitandum, dum continua Democraticos inter et Cromwel-
lium contentionis poma spargerentur," Ibid. p. 313. (The Royalists
strove tooth and nail, for his compliance with the first advice, as emi-
nently conducive to the revival of their cause, while thus the apples of
discord would be continually thrown between the Democrats and Crom-
well.)
Dr. Bates, on the Republicans in Richard's Parliament, says:-" Hisce
adjunxêre se non pauci qui Regi studebant, ut in æquilibrio detentis
contrariis partibus, nihil utrinque certi statueretur." Ibid. p. 336. (To
these, many adherents of the King joined themselves, that thus, both
parties being equally balanced, nothing might be decided.)
Lord Clarendon, on Cromwell's royal project, in 1656, describes,
among those members who "would presently vote him king, some men
who had always had the reputation of great fidelity to the King, and
to wish his Restoration;" for which they seemed "really to believe that
the making Cromwell king for the present, was the best expedient ;”
while “the more sober persons of the King's party," also members, I
552
[MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
}
There are three claims :-—
1. Those honourable persons in possession. They claim by
the Petition and Advice.
2. The ancient peerage. They claim by prescriptions from
their ancestors to them and their heirs, and that they are only
deforced. They did enjoy it, until they were expelled by
those on the post. There are others who say they have for-
feited, and that the right is in this House. They would
put it wholly into your hands.
My desire is, that the title may be postponed, and that you
would hold the scales indifferent, until the title of the two
other Houses be tried between them, for the ancient right of
the peerage. It is certain they are very ancient, but they
have no title by prescription; therefore it may be inter-
rupted.
The old Lords' title was so strongly argued yesterday, that
if it had gone, he* had set you beside your chair. He said
there, more ancient mention made of King and Lords, than of
the Commons. The return of the Commons is as ancient as
any return or records. A council was called on all occasions.
I must confess there is very ancient mention of the legis-
lative power in the people, as well as the great men, and no-
bles, and King.
Henry III. A remonstrance mentions the Commonalty to
join in the laws.
2 Richard II., mentions that the Commons shall be called
as by the ancient laws.
I cannot comply with his prescription; he must prescribe
either in the thing or in the person. In the person he can-
not, because their prescription is broken.
The Barons were not created Lords; but by reason of
their tenures, they were called by writ.
suppose, of that Parliament," who made less noise, trembled at this
overture, and believed that it was the only way utterly to destroy the
King, and to pull up all future hopes of the royal family by the roots."
History, (1712,) iii. 589.
* "Colonel Terrill," supra, p. 513–525.
1658-9.]
553
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Many Barons cannot claim that they hold by one knight's
fee of the King.
Then they must claim by their persons. Can any line-
ally claim, since Henry III.?-They cannot.
That a Parliament consists of two Houses, is a constitu-
tion which I think is so fundamental that it cannot be taken
away.
The Constitution still remains, though the persons be re-
moved.
It is no new doctrine that the rights of particular persons
may suffer for the public interest. Nobody will deny but in
a public combustion, a common calamity, it is lawful to pull
down fences or houses to prevent the spreading of fire; so, in
a natural body, to cut off a hand or any member that is gan-
grened.
I suppose there was cause for taking these away; I shall
not examine the merits of it; sin was the cause, whether
public or of persons. It concerns us now to go on.
We find the Lords now taken away, by an Act of Parlia-
ment de facto. I shall speak to the de jure by and by. Then
came the other House, and they say that what was taken from
the old Lords' House was granted to them, as, by the Peti-
tion and Advice. You say you have not granted to them.
They say, they are called. If you have granted it, it will
not be proper for you to question it. You have granted it;
and unless you will run yourself upon a rock, you will ac-
knowledge they have some right, and not boggle at them at
a distance. Perhaps if you will look upon them nearer, you
would not take them for such bugbears and scarecrows as
that you should so stand off. Not all the things done that
Parliament, were without exceptions. It is true the Parlia-
ment was not so happy as to be free, but if you make a
nullity of all done under a force, whither goes the tendency
of that? where will you end? You may find, and, look back
into all ages, you will find laws made under force. Who
knows but the Great Charter was obtained by as great force*
* See "Raleigh," supra, p. 515 note*.
554
[ MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
as any law. If Charles Stuart had a Parliament of his
friends what could he do better for his service then to void
all done since 42? Do not you by this take up their princi-
ples and make their ends?
A question hath been preferred, whether those persons now
called to sit in the other House be not the House intended by
your vote. If you should lay aside this House by a question,
see where you are.
I could tell whether to give my yea or
no, but I think it is a very dangerous rock if it pass in the
negative. They are gone. Another rock is the right of the
old lords. Then if you vote in the other Lords; if they will
not come in, then you will of necessity come to a democracy
and confusion.
Had you made your prescription for the Spiritual Lords,
you might have made it far clearer. The Bishops and suc-
cessors had a more ancient right by far, and can prescribe by
better title. Yet for the Spiritual Lords there is not one
word spoken; so that if you will drive on the argument upon
the account of persons and estates, that those are so essential,
the argument will go a great way.
Consider where you are. You are come from confusion.
You are not guilty of taking them away, but you find others
in possession, in peace, by your establishment.
I am not against calling in so many of the old Lords as
are capable, but I am not for their being hereditary. I
would have you, therefore, in the first place, to confirm your
rule, and take those that are in possession, and let your vote
be, that none shall sit hereafter without the approbation of
both Houses, and I doubt not but you and those persons may
agree of qualifications and bounds. It is better when your
laws are kept under two locks. If you had no new laws for
twenty years, it would be no damage to the nation.
My motion is, that this may be the matter of your debate:
that those persons that shall hereafter be called to sit as mem-
bers of the other House, shall be nominated by both Houses.
He meant," approved," and so was corrected by the chair.
Colonel Gibbons. I shall begin with a fundamental, that
which is an undeniable verity: it is righteousness exalteth
1658-9.]
555
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
a nation; sin is a reproach to a people. If we desire the
honour and safety of this nation, we ought to promote and
establish the one, and suppress the other.
Government is either ecclesiastical or civil; that of the
keys to the Church and the sword to the Chief Magistrate.
When Peter meddled with the sword, it was bid him put it
up:
so when Uzzah meddled with the keys. He pertained
not to the ark.† If we had all kept in our spheres, this
confusion had not been.‡
The several sorts of government, are monarchy, democracy,
&c. Corruptio optimi pessima. The three corruptions of
government, as tyranny, oligarchy, anarchy, are not properly
called government, but wens and exulcerations of them. As
Augustus had three daughters,§ which made him wish, uti-
nam vixissem cælebs, aut periissem ortus; and so he called
them his tres cancri et tres abscessi. So say I of these three
corruptions of government.
Our ancestors gave place to monarchy, as so should I, if
we were fit for it. The ancient feudal government¶ did best
* John xviii. 10, 11.
† 2 Sam, vi. 7.
↑ Here is probably a censure, both of the Episcopalian and the Pres-
byterian priesthood, for their notorious assumption of civil power in
their ecclesiastical characters.
§ A son and two daughters.
|| "The two Julias and Agrippa Posthumus," says Crevier, "embit-
tered all the happiness of Augustus. He used to call them his three
cankers, his three abscesses. He never heard them named but he
sighed; and often applied to them a line of Homer, (Iliad, iii. 40.) the
sense of which is:- Would to Heaven I had never married, but had
died without posterity!' Rom. Emp. (1755,) i. 268, 269.
Augustus applied the exclamation of Hector to Paris, flying from
Menelaus, which Pope thus renders—
t Oh, hadst thou died when first thou saw'st the light,
Or died at least, before thy nuptial rite!”
¶ Montesquieu, who has devoted his 30th Book to this subject, asks ;
C'est un beau spectacle que celuy des lois feodales? "It was a system,"
says Mr. Dalrymple, "during the progress of which men arrived from
the most rude to the most polished state of society: which has been
the cause of the greatest revolutions, both civil and military, and con-
nected equally with the manners and with the governments of modern
556
[MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
suit with this nation, and it flourished many centuries; but
such were our national and personal sins, that they brought
a change and confusion among us.*
The change of government in this nation, was by the in-
strumentality of men. What their ends were, I can neither
speak nor justify. We have seen the Lord's judgment de-
nounced, "I will overturn," &c. put in execution. King,
Lords, and Commons, have been all overturned. When God
has a controversy with a nation, it is not the skill of man
can prevent it.
Dies, hora, momentum, &c. as Casaubon says in Sir Walter
Raleigh. When the Lord pleaseth, a day, an hour, a mo-
ment sufficeth to overturn governments which have had last-
ing and adamantine foundations. We are met together by
the good hand of Providence. It is my desire that we should
settle it in righteousness and judgment, &c.
Government is radically and fundamentally in the people,
Europe." See "An Essay towards a General History of Feudal Pro-
perty in Great Britain," (1759,) pp. ix. 10.
* This speaker, unless misreported, appears to have strangely regard-
ed, as a divine judgment, the decline of a system under which the arts
of peace were especially degraded; (see supra, p. 363, note,) and those
who would "turn their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into
pruning-hooks," were scarcely allowed a legal protection.
(C
"The husbandmen," says Mr. Dalrymple, were despised in the
commonwealth. In every different nation they had a different name
of baseness. They were subjected to the meanest services. They bore
no part in the councils of the nation. In the law, even the price of
their lives was estimated very low." At length, "the times grew more
peaceable;” and, as a happy consequence, peaceable manners made
the minds of men be shocked with the bondage of their fellow-crea-
tures." Feudal Property, pp. 25, 26.
How much is it to be desired, that the supporters of the man-trade,
professed Christians, and zealous for their own liberty, should feel this
salutary mental shock. They would then no longer buy and sell and
goad on to exertion, their helpless brethren of the negro race, as if only
a superior denomination of labouring brutes. "Il est impossible,” says
Montesquieu, " que nous supposions que ces gens-là soient des hommes ;
parce que si nous les supposions des hommes, on commenceroit à croire
que nous ne sommes pas nous-mêmes Chrêtiens." De l'Esprit des Loix,
(1750,) i. 343.
[
י
1658-9.]
557
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
which is the form and frame of our present Government, to
come to the point. I doubt I am tedious. I have given
you experience that I can be.
Government must have for its adequate object, futurum
possibile. The Commonwealth government did not stand.*
I wish it might have continued a little longer, that we might
have received the benefit as well as the burden of it.†
But we are now returning to the old foundation form. It
was told you, the Protector is, to all intents and purposes,
King. It may be told you, that this other House is a House
of Lords, to all intents and purposes; and ere long, we shall
be under the same oppressions, to all intents and purposes, as
ever we were before. We must, therefore, be very circum-
spect in the materials of the other House. Let us, there-
fore, look to the integrals in this building.
+
It was told us, that building with old timber, if it be
sound, is best. I am of his mind. I confess I am not
against building with old timber, so as it be sound; for in
our country, we do not love to build with green timber, as
being subject to warp, especially if it be placed near the sun.
I am a plain fellow have got little but the gout by the
service. But to the point. That I heard concerning two
swords, was well applied. It moved me very much. It is
something absurd to walk with two swords. One is useful.
I have seen a sword and dagger worn together; but two
swords! spectatum admissi risum teneatis ?||
:
It
They are our children, it is said: the army I mean.
is fit, then, they should receive laws from us, and not lord it
over us. Men of great place in the army are not fit to give
laws in Parliament. I would have them men of honour and
estates and interests.
My motion is, that such as are, or shall be summoned to
serve and sit in the Other House, shall be such as shall be
named and approved on by this House.
* See supra, p. 354.
‡ See " Mr. Goodrick," supra, p. 352.
† See supra, p. 63, note.
§ See supra, p. 528.
|| Hor. Ars Poet. 1. 5.
558
[MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Morice. It is most proper to agree the persons be-
fore the bounds. First propound what Peers shall sit, before
you determine with what powers they shall be invested. It
is most consonant to reason. When you speak concerning the
bounding of the House, I presume you mean it metonymically,
for the persons sitting in the other House. The persons,
therefore, must first be defined. No accidents but inherent
in a subject. According to the definition of the persons, pru-
dence will direct you to limit their bounds. But, Sir, I con-
ceive you have not yet laid your foundation low enough to
build this House. You have not yet digged into the rock.
I think it requisite that you should, in the first place, assert
your own power to do it; for if you have no power to bound
them, why should you meddle with it. We do but build a
castle in the air, and spend time superfluous, to debate a cause
that lies before us as coram non judice. If you be painting
out a government, do it as Zeuxis did, who painted for eter-
nity; which you can never do, unless your ground-colours
be well laid.
Therefore, 1. declare whether this House, the people's
representative, have power to bound that other House;
2. Then declare the persons; not particularly I mean, but
as to the constitution.
3. Qualify the persons, and then proceed to bound them.
His was
a finely-timed speech, with rhetoric and story
adorned, but I could not well hear him. If he spoke but for
candles, the Poet must come in.
Mr. Hewley. I am one of those that would have gone
upon the powers before the persons.
We cannot dispute the powers that flow from the entity,
without disputing the entities; the accessories before the
principal; yet in this case, we might have considered the
powers.
But in regard the debate leads to examine the persons.
Let us examine the rights.
The old Lords first, as to their rights as Barons, then as
to their judicial powers. They have claimed an hereditary
right. We must examine the reason.
1658-9.]
/559
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I think ab initio non fuit sic. A judicial office cannot in
reason be granted to a man and his heirs. It requires skill and
science. A man cannot be steward of a Court-Baron, to him
and his heirs. If this be so, how can such a power be in-
herent that is the highest judicature? Nemo nascitur artifex.
Virtue is not derivative. Anima non fit ex traduce.* Further
it is not safe. Salus populi suprema lex.
Whether it will be safe to admit the sons of Cavaliers?
They have sucked in these principles with their milk. I am
rather led by that which is in being.
I doubt this string is stretched too high, as to the right of
the old Lords. It is a clear mistake, that the Lords' blood
purchased the Great Charter. The Commons were in.
The other House is part of our sinews. We can do no-
thing without them. Let us take notice of those that are
in the other House. All proceedings are stopped.
Let that be your question, whether the members now
sitting shall be members of the other House? I am not
against calling in so many of the old Lords as are capable;
but would not have the sons as yet.
expedient. All that is lawful, is not
In time it
In time it may be more
expedient.
Colonel Briscoe. I conceive there is danger on both hands;
both as to old and new Lords. Suum cuique tribuere is just,
but whether now convenient is the question.
I am not satisfied that it is prudent at present, to admit
the ancient right. They will not only claim as coequal, but
I doubt above you. The consequence may be dangerous.
For the other House now erected, make that the first
matter of your debate. If it pass in the affirmative, it must
be according to the Petition and Advice.
put bounds to them afterwards I doubt.
Whether you can
It is most pruden-
* Dr. "William Ramesey" published, in 1661, a small volume, now
before me, in which he learnedly maintained "the soul's traduction."
It is entitled: "Man's Dignity and Perfection vindicated; being some
serious Thoughts on that commonly received Errour touching the In-
fusion of the Soule of Man; wherein it is rationally, philosophically, and
theologically demonstrated, that the Soul of Man is ex traduce, and be-
gotten by the Parents."
560
[ MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
tial in my opinion, to begin with the powers.-I know the
quid before the quale is most rational. You have done that
already; you have resolved there shall be another House.
What the persons be, it is not so material. If they be fit
persons, they will fit the powers.
1. It is your own order to proceed upon the bounds. We
ought to be confined to that communis error facit jus, says
the civil law. We only differ de modo procedendi. Here has
been a great deal of time spent, I doubt I may say misspent.
2. If you make bounds, it may fit any persons; the law
looks to no affection to persons. Apply yourselves to the
powers; and you may come to some result. The other way,
I doubt, we shall never come to it.
I would have it your
question, that the members hereafter to sit in the other
House shall be approved by this House.
Mr. Speaker. It has been often said that the persons is
the special part of your bounds. The denomination of the
persons is within your order, as being part of the bounds.
Colonel White. If you go to the denomination of persons,
it will not do your work, or at least not do it well. It may
be the persons that now are, may not be so fit to make
good constitution in regard of their offices and places.
up a
There are no constitutive words, of powers of the other
House, in the Petition and Advice. They must either have
power given them by that, or they have none.
That question is too comprehensive to pass all those persons
in the other House by the lump. First clear the foundation,
and let your question be, whether by the other House, in
your vote, shall be intended the other House mentioned in
the Petition and Advice.
Mr. Sadler. I had no mind to trouble you, but that I
perceive this silence; yet I am glad to perceive, on the other
hand, that the debate is carried on so soberly.
Mr. Juxon took him down, and said no man ought to sit
that was not duly returned.
Mr. Sadler. I am returned. I saw it. It was affixed to
the writ by the Committee of Privileges.
This return was brought to the clerk of the crown. Some
༩༢༠༠༥
L
1658-9.]
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
561
of his clerks demanded some monies for receipt of it. The
party that carried it would pay none. Then the clerk began
to examine if the writ was there, and, therefore, he could not
receive the indenture without the writ. The sheriff demand-
ed money. A gentleman standing by, that better knew the
course of the times than I, gave him the money, and it was
but half. It is more than I shall get by it. Another gentle-
man was returned in the writ, and because his money was
wanting he would not return. I kept seven days out, before
I came in. The other gentleman was chosen for another
place. The Committee of Privileges ordered that they should
annex the writ to the indenture, and then I thought the bu-
siness had been done.
Mr. Speaker. This business was moved this morning.*
He needed not make this long narrative,
Serjeant Maynard. This gentleman, upon his own show-
ing, is not a member of the House, but only a member by his
own averment. There is no return of the Sheriff.
This House is a Court of Record, and your judgment
must be led by that. There was a case of one Mr. Poole, in
the Long Parliament, chosen in the same manner, and till it
was returned by the Sheriff he was thrown out, though a very
worthy member.
It is clear he ought not to sit, (and he was called to with-
draw,) for though you have made an order that the Clerk of
the Crown shall receive the writ, yet till it be duly returned
he cannot sit.
Mr. Reynolds. I move that one and all go out, the Scotch
and Irish members.† I would not have us so strict in this
case.
Mr. Sadler. The worthy Serjeant that knows law better
than I do, does not know the law in this; for some boroughs
may return without the Sheriff. The law differs and may
differ.
Serjeant Maynard. I wonder this point should be put
* See supra, p. 549.
+ See supra, pp. 29, 71, 75, 269, 287, 288, 354, notes.
VOL. III.
20
562
[MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
#
upon us as law, that any borough can return without the
Sheriff. I know the law to be contrary as well as I know any
point of Littleton, and I were a mad man if I should know-
ingly offer aught in this House for law, that is not so.
Mr. Solicitor-general. Mr. Sadler is clearly mistaken in
that point of law.
Sir Henry Vane. I move not to put a question upon this
gentleman's withdrawing, but leave it to his discretion to
withdraw if he think fit.
He did withdraw.
(But
Colonel Allured. Another person sat upon the same score
for Swansea in Wales. I move that it be considered.
it was waved.)
I move that the Clerk of the Crown come to the bar to-
morrow morning to mend the return, that we may not want
the gentleman's company. It was ordered accordingly, that
the Clerk of the Crown do attend with the return of the
Borough of Yarmouth, in the Isle of Wight, and mend the
same at the bar to-morrow morning.
Sir Henry Vane moved also to consider the return for new
Boroughs, but nought was done in it.
The order of the day proceeded on.
Colonel Terrill seconded the motion of Colonel White, that
the question might be whether that other House intended in
the vote shall be the other House meant in the Petition and
Advice.
Mr. Edgar moved that those that are called to sit in the
other House, be members of that other House during this
Parliament, but was laughed down.
Colonel Parsons moved to the same purpose that Colonel
Terril moved.
Mr. Stephens. I find it as hard to bound our debate, as
to bound another House. Those that sit in the other House
by the Petition and Advice, I cannot say that they sit upon
the foot of right, as called by the successor of the late Pro-
Whether they were called to Parliament according
tector.
*See supra, p. 549.
1658-9.]
563
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
to the explanation,* and whether this calling makes them for
their lives only, I very much question.
If it do not express it so in the writ, I question they are
only hac vice. Besides the word successor being wanting, I
make a little scruple because it says your Highness. It
differs from a grant to the Chief Magistrate, the King, or
Protector.
Our call hither may be by the Common law, and not upon
the Petition and Advice.
When you sent propositions to the King, the other House
agreed with you in it; they concurred with you, and you
with them.t
I think it not amiss to have this previous vote, that those
that shall sit in the other House, shall be approved by both
Houses, and if you please you may pro hac vice, de bene esse
allow the other House, by applying yourself to them by a
vote.
Mr. Swinfen. There is most reason not to delay this
business above all; for all your proceedings are at a stand
till this be clear. But what is last moved, is far from doing
your work. Will you put the approbation in two Houses of
Parliament, before you agree who shall be this other House?
If your question be, that the persons now called to sit by
writ, shall be members of the other House: this may also
entangle you, for some haply will except against some of
them that sit there, and then all shall be debated, severally.
The best and nearest an issue, will be to put whether this
House now sitting, will transact with the other House now
sitting, as a House of Parliament. This will take in all men's
sense; for
you must go upon the constitution. You have
agreed two Houses, so that you are but a part of the con-
stitution.
If this other House be called by writ only, and not ac-
cording to the Petition and Advice, then they are the other
House according to the old constitution. The only fault
* Of the Petition and Advice. See vol. ii. pp. 298, 301, notes.
+ See supra, p. 319, note †.
202
564
[MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
that fit persons, that ought rightfully to sit, and have been
faithful to you, are left out.
You must come to debate the
constitution, to keep you out of the flood of confusion.*
Mr. Neville. You are not now about transacting with
the other House; and therefore to move that we shall trans-
act with them begs the question.
vote, in order to preparing a Bill.
You are upon a single
I hear it not yet answered that the Petition and Advice
being personally addressed to his late Highness is personal;
therefore the Protector that now is, is not obliged, nor indeed
empowered to call another House; so that by what is offered,
you will swallow the Petition and Advice at once.
That question of transacting with them, was the debate of
many days, last Parliament,† and that lies unresolved yet,
and it might have been better insisted upon, then.
Your proper question, and I pray hold us to it, is whether
the House you intend shall be the other House mentioned in
the Petition and Advice.
Mr. Knightley. I cannot give my vote to that question.
If it go in the negative, I know not where we are.
If we
give a negative upon them that are called by a writ, by the
same power that we sit upon, and have unanimously owned
by our vote, where are we?
If it go in the affirmative, I shall not know how to give
my vote.
As the constitution is now, as to the persons, I
* "Mr. Swinfen, considering the variety of opinions upon this occa-
sion, to drive the business home to a point, propounded this question as
the subject of our debate, viz. :
"Whether this House will transact with the other House, now sit-
ting, as with a House of Peers, with some proviso to summon the old
nobility.
"This question, thus proposed, was immediately seconded and third-
ed by some little ones of the same party, and was soon apprehended as
a thing that had been studiously contrived and forged at Court, or by
common consent of that party, insomuch as before the end of this day's
debate, that party became to be called by the name of Transactors."
Goddard, MS. p. 263.
† See vol. ii. pp. 339, 377, 380, 395, 406, 424, 442,
1
1658-9.]
565
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
shall hardly give my vote, not that they have two swords, one
of either side,* but that appeals should lie there, &c.
Let us rather apply to them de fucto as they are in pos-
session.+
Sir Henry Vane.
ficulty I meet with.
Advice, and if you
The more I consider this, the more dif-
I have my eye upon the Petition and
consider how things are left, upon the
death of the late Protector, by that Petition and Advice, I
am sure, unless you shut your eyes, you may see that you
are the undoubted legislative power of the nation; even by
that constitution by which you are called, and the Protector
himself proclaimed.
1. You know when the recognition was pressed, how much
it was urged that the Protector should be made out to be so,
according to the Petition and Advice; namely, by due nomi-
nation,‡ which hath never been done unto this day. That
the declaration of his Highness appears not.
2. Admit that he was duly nominated himself; yet there
is no power in that Petition and Advice for this Protector to
nominate another House, and that power in him is defective,
because it was singly given to the late Protector.
I would have you first examine, whether those now sitting
have any foundation, as now called by that law; there will
be no cause of complaint against you, by keeping to that
rule.
I understand not that objection, that we are sinew-shrunk,
and manacled, and cannot proceed; that we can effect nothing,
unless we transact with these men. You have as much power
to make a House of Lords with the concurrence of the Pro-
tector, as the last Parliament had.
I thought you would have gone to clear the rights and
* See supra, p. 557.
+"Mr. Knightley seemed to second Swinfen's motion, as conceiving
them not to have a foundation upon the Petition and Advice, but as
they are called by the Protector's writ, who hath the government de
facto; so to apply de facto to them, but not to approve them." Goddard
MS. pp. 263, 264.
† See supra, pp. 130, 151, 152, 263, notes.
566
[MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
liberties of the people, and that to have passed between you
and his Highness, without owning the other House.
Sir, we have as much power as those that made the Pe-
tition and Advice. It is but the using of the just power.
We are wandering, and cannot find the door; so great and
wilful blindness is upon us. It has pleased God to confound
us in our debates, that we cannot, in a third, come to a ques-
tion; because we wander from our constitution.
Cannot we dispatch the business of this Parliament, and
leave the other House alone till next Parliament. Why may
it not be left till then? Keep but true to the things you
have already. I know not how we are limited. Discourse
abroad says, your vote is with them. How it comes, I know not.
It will be told you, that the House of Commons is unne-
cessary, and out of your ruins the Seventy* shall be built up.
Consider clearly, whether this House now sitting, have any
foundation, by this calling, to sit upon the Petition and Ad-
vice. If they have not, I think you are as fit to advise about
calling them, as the council that called them.
Sir Walter Earle. That which is moved, is the way to
bring you to confusion indeed. I would have you put the
question, upon what the debate has been.
Colonel Terrill. I move that the question be, whether
those that now sit, have any foundation to sit by the Peti-
tion and Advice.
Mr. Solicitor General. The very constitution of two
Houses of Parliament gives the other House powers. I do
clearly find, that it was not personal or temporary to set up
this House, but clearly a constitution. And if it be a consti-
tution, it will be clearly intended that his successor shall have
it, more clear by many clauses in the Petition and Advice.
I was not at making the Petition and Advice, but the
ground appears to me that the Parliament thought fit to
have two Houses. When they were made another House,
their power was constituted, and the other powers are only
negative. As to trying men's lives, and meum and tuum, the
See vol. i. pp. 385, 405.
1658-9.]
567
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
constitution clearly gave them the power;* all men knew
what it was.
The other House was clearly intended by the eighth pa-
ragraph; the Privy Council of his "Highness or successor"
shall be "approved by both Houses of Parliament." Is it
probable they did not intend another House?
The like by the oath both Houses shall take to be true to
his Highness and successors.‡
Also, they are actually in possession of this constitution, and
called by writ; § then how can you transact without them?
And if this House claim all the power, why may not the
other House vote out the power of this House, as well as
this House vote out their power? If we lose this foundation,
we must go to Major-generals,|| and the Instrument of Go-
vernment,¶¶ that had no foundation in Parliament. I hope
no man means that you must go to confusion and anarchy.
It was never meant that we should be upon framing new
constitutions every day.
I find them in possession, and think it best to comply with
it, and if there be a mind to alter the constitution, which
way can you do it, but by the other House? I therefore
concur with Mr. Swinfen, that your proper question is, that
you will transact with the other House of Parliament, or
else you labour in vain.
Sir Arthur Haselrigge. No gentleman will say this Peti-
tion and Advice is a law like that of the Medes and Persians.
Upon turning out the Long Parliament, the Protector said
all power was devolved upon him,** having been trusted with
* See vol. i. p. 387.
+ Parl. Hist. (1760,) xxi. 136.
"Successors" not in "the oath." Ses vol. ii. p. 297, note.
§ See Ibid. p. 410, note.
|| See supra, p. 527; vol. i. p. 235 note, 384.
¶ See vol. i. pp. 42, 50, notes, “ Colonel White," p. 60.
** As " Captain-General and Commander-in-Chief." He says to the
Parliament, "I was arbitrary in power, having the armies in the three
nations under my command:" See "The Lord Protector's speech, (Sept.
12,) taken by one who stood very near him, and published to prevent
mistakes," (1651,) pp. 14, 15; Parl. Hist. (1760,) xx. 152, 356.
568
[MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
the power of the sword: it was answered nobly, No; how
was it ever in you? how can it come to you? you were but
entrusted. It was yielded by all learned men, that the triple
cord being cut asunder, all the power was in you, and it is in
you now. The original power reverted to the people.
Afterwards, there was a little thingum* that called them-
selves a Parliament, that were dissolved; and some of them
went to Whitehall, and delivered up their power to the Pro-
tector, but how could that be the power of the people, who
were never trusted by them. Afterwards he was advised
that that government which he intended, could never be set
up by consent of the people; therefore he must assume it to
himself.
Hereupon the Protector, with the advice of some whom he
called to himself, makes a law without doors. The Instru-
ment of Government, which was brought hither, he said of it,
other foundation could no man lay, and that the Parliament
and it were twins; that the elder brother. You see how that
was broken, and perished like a gourd; nay, worse.
not offend. It was made by the sword,
must be maintained and not otherwise.
I would
and by the sword it
That, therefore, pe-
rished, because it was not upon a good foundation.
After this came Major-generals.
fear coming to Major-generals again.
+
+
I hope we need not
Last of all, he set up
a faction or a forced thing; but, however, these gentlemen
could not make any thing greater than themselves; they could
set up nothing above the people; if they did, it was void, ipso
facto.
The Petition and Advice may be altered by you if you find
inconveniences in it. What confusion can we be in, so long
as we have voted a single person. Why may not this noble.
person, with your advice, be able to keep all our enemies at
home and abroad in peace. Fear not.
Fear not. I fear nothing but
doing our duty. If there be such a power set up as we can-
not touch, let us pull off our hats to them. But I shall move
that this may be the subject of our debate, and let us be con-
+ See supra, p. 567.
* Sec vol. ii. p. 67, note.
↑ The other House.
!
1658-9.]
569
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
vinced of it by law, right reason, and divinity, if there be any,
because, if we go round and round thus, we shall be called
Roundheads indeed.
If we thus spend our time, the nation will grow weary of
us, and the Cavaliers may come in the Round, as we turn
round. It will be told us, that salus populi* will make a
fewer number more profitable.
Let us go and debate the Petition and Advice by clear
law and reason. Understand what foot you go upon; else
let us not sit at all. Let your question be to-morrow, whe-
ther those Peers (persons I should say, yet they call them-
selves Peers,) that now sit in the other House, have any
foundation to sit by the Petition and Advice.
Sir John Lenthall.
Medes and Persians.
Our foundation is like the laws of
It is not prudence for us to rake into
the proceedings of the former Parliaments. We are a free
Parliament, and it is by the Petition and Advice that we
have this freedom. We know how things were then. Be-
fore the Petition and Advice, there were no free Parliaments.
Shall we come hither to make a law this Parliament, that
may make work for another Parliament to pull down? What
have we done, but looked into the laws of former Parlia-
ments?
+
3+
I wonder to hear it moved, that the other House may
be let alone till next Parliament. That is the way to undo all
you have done.
I see you cannot admit the old Lords without great incon-
veniency, though I confess my heart is along with it.
I understand no danger of our lives, liberties, nor limbs.
The other House have exercised it in no age. A person sen-
tenced by the King and House of Lords to lose his hand, the
Judges in Westminster Hall would not execute it, because
the Commons concurred not. The King of France got the
people fettered by a law on their own consent, and never had
Parliaments since.§
§
The privilege is very great that is offered, that the power
* See supra, p. 559.
↑ Ibid. p. 566.
"About an hundred years after Magna Charta was established,"
+ Ibid. p. 567.
570
[MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Make your
of approving hereafter, shall be in this House.
question at present, that this House will transact with the
other House.
Sir Thomas Wroth. If the Petition and Advice were as
ancient as the Conquest, if we find any inconveniency in it,
we may repeal, alter, or mend it. I would not have interest
sway with us.
If my brothers sat in this House, and had no
right, I should be against it.
A noble knight has made himself famous in the world, for
refusing to sit there. He shall have my vote to sit there.
says Rymer, was that project of the modern Parliament in France, set
on foot to render unnecessary the ancient assembly of the States;" and
"to the unwary multitude served the turn as well" as "the great old
Parliament;" though "the French Parliaments in their scarlet robes,
knew none of that sovereign power which their plain ancestors so long
had exercised in their grey jackets." (See Hotoman's Franco-Gallia.)
At length "it was the boast of Louis XI. that he had mis la royauté hors
du page, so ordered matters that the royal state should be no more a pupil."
Mr. Rymer, writing in the 17th century, describes "the Parliament of
France" as (C
quite antiquated and subdued. The ghost and shadow of
the defunct," he adds, "has appeared three or four times since Louis
XI.; but to revive that Assembly in its full and perfect vigour, requires
a miracle like the resurrection." Antiquity of Parliaments, (1714,) pp. 7,
28, 29, 31, 54.
From the following anecdote, the restoration of " perfect vigour” to
"that Assembly" could scarcely have been desired. When the art of
printing had made some progress among the Germans :
"Trois d'entre eux, en 1470, avaient apporté en France quelques
épreuves de cet art naissant. Ils exercèrent même leurs talens sous les
yeux de la Sorbonne. Le peuple alors très grossier, et qui l'a été très
long temps, les prit pour des sorciers. Les copists qui gagnaient leur
vie à transcrire le peu d'anciens manuscrits qu'on avait en France, pré-
sentèrent requête au Parlement contre les imprimeurs. Ce tribunal,
(un corps plus jaloux de conserver les anciens usages que soigneux de
s'instruire de l'utilité des nouveaux) fait saisir et confisquer tous leurs
livres."
This King," Louis XI." (See supra, p. 191, note) "qui savait faire le
bien, quand il n'était point de son intérêt de faire de mal," obliged the
Parliament, in reparation of their unjust arrêt, " payer aux Allemands le
prix de leurs ouvrages." See "Histoire du Parlement de Paris. Par M.
l'Abbé Big ***. à Amsterdam." (1769,) 1, 77, 78. I have seen this
Histoire attributed to Voltaire.
1
1658-9.]
571
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
If our liberties be forced from us, we have nought but
prayers and tears; but let us not yield them, or betray our
liberties. The Supreme Magistrate is a person highly worthy
and honourable; but how those that are about him shall ad-
vise him, we shall hear hereafter.
Serjeant Maynard. If you come not to some conclusion,
and admit the Petition and Advice, at least some vestigia of
it, you will run round indeed.* A fearful precipice, is before
you, of confusion. I perceive two great questions are raised
about it:
1. Whether the Petition and Advice be a law.
2. Whether the persons be called to the other House pursu-
ant to that law.
And unless the Petition and Advice be understood to be
no law, the arguments they go upon are out of doors.
It is a dangerous thing to go upon the first point. The
questioning of that, will overthrow all the proceedings of this
Parliament. I wonder how any gentleman can, with sane
conscience, produce two contradictory conclusions. One law
good under a force, and not so another law, under a force. If
you make the Petition and Advice no law, as to one particu-
lar, how can you make it good as to others? You will over-
throw abundance of things. The Dean and Chapter, and
King's, and Queen's, and Prince's lands, were sold by that
law, and all your ministers' settlement established.
In effect, to make that no law, is to make it no Parliament.
That will go even to your own constitution; or what may
succeeding Parliaments say, you make that precedent. Till
you declare it no law, I shall understand it a law.
if
But it is a greater question, whether the persons now
sitting be duly called according to that law. It is objected,
1. That because it is personal to the Protector, and goes
not to the successors. It was learnedly argued by Colonel
Tirrel.‡
* See supra, p. 569.
+ First by a law of the Long Parliament. See vol. ii. p. 233.
‡ See supra, p. 351.
572
[MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
But under favour, it is very clear that, taking it for a
law, the successor Protector has a power to call a Parliament
according to that Advice.
Look into the preamble. It cites the mischiefs there in-
tended to be remedied. The scope had more respect to pro-
vide for succession, than for the present.
*""
As to the second objection, in the first article it is true that
it is personal, and personally expressed, and it is impossible
it should be otherwise; but in the second article " that your
Highness will for the future be pleased to call Parliaments,
if it be not understood of successors, it is a contradiction in
itself. It must be meant of the constitution. It is clear
there are to be two Houses in the very constitution, though
not in the persons, and we are not upon the persons there, as
Sir Henry Vane moved;† but upon the constitution.
But then in several other clauses, the word "successor" is
expressly named, and both Houses of Parliament,‡ which
shows the intention of the Act, and the cause of nomination
in the additional Act, is expressly your Highness and suc-
cessors.
As to the Privy Council, none can be admitted without ap-
probation of both Houses of Parliament, the like for supply
of members in the time of your Highness and successors.
How then can there possibly be a supply to a non ens?
Lastly, the very persons are to take an oath, before they
sit in either House; before a Commission authorized by his
Highness and successors.
This is the way to examine and expound an act of Parlia-
ment according to the meaning of those who made it. A
will is therefore compared to an Act of Parliament, because
it is to be expounded according to the intent. Let any man
lay his hand upon his heart, and consider whether it was not
clearly intended that the successor should call two Houses.
It is also objected, that there is no positive authority given
by the Petition and Advice to those persons; but exceptio
* See vol. i. pp. 380, 381.
↑ See supra, p. 545, ad fin.
See vol. ii. p. 297, note.
1658-9.]
573
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
probat regulam. Whoever says that I shall not do, in that
case, admits that I shall do, in another case. No man will un-
derstand the law to be otherwise. There is a general law,
that they shall have their privileges. All things shall be
done according to the laws and customs of the nation. Is
not that clear, that they should take the customs for their
rule?
How many revolutions have we run through; first a little
thing, then another thing, then the Major-generals, then
this; and what is this, a grant? This is not a grant, but a
restitution of what was interrupted by a little Parliament,
and an Instrument of Government. It is a humble Advice
and Petition, a qualified restitution, and nothing like a grant.
That is very clear. Yet a grant to a King goes to his successors,
as adjudged 2 Henry VII. though the word successor be not
there. But how to compare a Protector with a King, I
know not; yet the construction hath been in all Courts alike.
If this doth not mean succession, what can it mean but con-
fusion? Though our laws be not like the laws of the Medes
and Persians,† yet our foundations are, or ought to be, like
their laws. If this be a law, then I may boldly say you can-
not alter it by way of vote; nor make any law, but by their
consent.
Consider what had fallen out, if this had not been. If
no Protector had been named, who should have called the
Parliament? If all power were in the collective body, who
shall call out this body? London, North, West, all claim to
be the collective body. One says, I called. Another says, I
called. If this was not meant that successor should call,
what should become of us then? Who should call? What
should they call?
If it be, that by a law they are another House, then may
they as well take you away, as you take them away. How
ancient is the law for a House of Commons alone to make
laws? Not older than 48. No Englishmau will claim to it.
Whither can we go, but into a collective body, and where
↑ Ibid. p. 537, ad fin.
* A thingum, see supra, p. 568.
574
[ MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
do we go? We suppose ourselves to be the representative,
but how came we to be so? Who brought us hither? If it is
not by writ, we shall rest no where. If we had been called
for another purpose to this place, these walls had not made
us a Parliament. The writ gives us a being to treat with the
nobles, &c.* We come here by a Commission, and by
wounding them, we wound ourselves through their sides. If
this be a law, then the other House is a House by that law;
then you cannot meddle with them.
I would have you make it your question, whether you will
transact with this House. The same arguments are against
the one House that are against another. I know not what to
think of it. I doubt then we should have no House at all.
It is not prudent to dispute the right. If we vote in the
old lords, then I shall not doubt that their sons will come in,
and then where will your rights be? There is no complaint
from any of them. Will you restore them ex officio?
Lord Coke, no flatterer of prerogative, tells you plainly,
it is no law that is not made by the three estates.
I conclude with Swinfen's motion. Let it be your debate
that we will transact with those that sit in the other House.
Serjeant Wylde. I hope we all bring with us a principle of
unity. The matters mostly insisted upon are,
1. The ancient right of the Lords.
2. The right of those by the Petition and Advice.
I cannot understand aught of the argument that is built
upon the foundation of France,† nor aught of that kind.
I do not see but if you allow another House, you must in
justice and right restore the old Lords. Quod jure fieri
potest, id justum est.
We are to maintain the right and liberties of the people.
We have been turned out of our freeholds.
Admit that some of the Lords have been nocent; with what
reason, justice, or conscience, can you let the innocent suffer
for that? A Parliament is the firmament-
* See supra, p. 511, note.
+
+ Ibid. p. 538, ad fin.
↑ A blank in the MS. The lords were, probably, the primary planets.
1658-9.1
575
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I see what wresting and screwing of laws there is in all
cases. I beseech you let not the Petition and Advice be our
rule. We are a free Parliament. They were not so. They
have given away all that then had been fought for, and
redeemed. Why were your members kept out?* Shall
a number of men thus called together make laws to bind the
whole nation.
The lands of monasteries were got by tricks in the time
of Henry VIII.+ There is nought so ordinary as for Parlia-
ments to examine laws. I would have the Petition and Ad-
vice examined, and examined to the bottom, as to what
you have given away. It is a proper work for this Parlia-
ment.
That Parliament was called to set up that power, as to
which you know how it came in. I would not have us go to
dispute about transacting with that other House till we have
first examined their foundation. Consider whether there be
such another House before you debate any more about trans-
acting with them.
+
Sir John Northcole. It was minded you by my learned
countryman, that no law was rightly made, but by King,
Lords, and Commons. I am sure this law was not made so.
If
you admit this for a law, you give away all the rights and
liberties of the people at once; such a thing as never was
done. How that law was made, I shall not examine. The
Triennial Bill had taken care for calling Parliament,§ if the
Petition and Advice had not; or the lex naturæ directs us
how Parliaments should be called.
In the Saxons' time, every May-day, the chief officer and
great council were chosen.|| All power, I do affirm, was de-
+ See supra, p. 203.
* See vol. i. p. 262, note‡.
See supra, p. 574.
§ See supra, p. 352, vol. ii. p. 427, note.
"When the English and French," says Rymer, "came from Germany
to people Britain and Gaul, the German liberty and moderate sway
were transplanted with them, and still the Common Council had the
main stroke in all weighty affairs. Ubi Rex (says Tacitus) vel princeps
audiuntur auctoritate suadendi, magis quam jubendi potestate: where the
king or prince are heard, for the reasons they bring to persuade, rather
than for any authority to command." Antiquity of Parliaments, pp. 12, 13.
576
[MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
rivative from the people. After the Conquest, in Henry III.'s
time, the Lords were not hereditary.
Lord Molesworth, in 1711, to counteract the prejudices in favour of
divine right, and unlimited regal authority, translated and published
"Franco-Gallia, or an account of the ancient free State of France, and
most other parts of Europe, before the loss of their liberties. Written
in Latin by the famous Civilian, Francis Hotoman, in the year 1574."
The following passages, where the author refers to le champ de Mai, may
serve, especially from the similarity remarked by Rymer, to illustrate
the observation of Sir John Northcote, and to show, also, that France, so
long the vassal of a Grand Monarque, and now doomed again to en-
dure a Bourbon, was for ages one of the freest countries in Europe.
“Our ancestors wisely ordained that every year, on the Calends of
May, a public council of the whole nation should be held; at which
council, the great affairs of the nation should be transacted, by the
common consent and advice of all the estates.
"Whereas it may be objected, that most kings have a constant privy
Council to advise them in the administration of public affairs, we an-
swer that there is a great deal of difference between a counsellor of the
king, and a counsellor of the kingdom. This last takes care of the
safety and profit of the whole Commonwealth; the other serves the
humour, and studies the conveniencies of one man."
It appears that Charles Stuart would have had no chance of a perma-
nent establishment, had he become a Chief Magistrate of Franco-Gallia.
"The very first that was created king, when the people had found him
out to be a profligate, lewd person, wasting his time in adulteries and
whoredoms, they removed him from his dignity by universal consent,
and constrained him to depart out of the territories of France." Franco-
Gallia, chap. vi. x. Lord Molesworth republished this translation, in
1721, with a very free and interesting political preface.
On the Anglo-Saxon government, see "An Historical Discourse of
the Uniformity of the Government of England," (quoted vol. ii. p. 266,)
pp. 12–113; Bishop Squire's "Enquiry into the Foundation of the
English Constitution," (1745,) pp. 170, 173, 190. This author remarks
that "when we meet with the Nobiles Angli, totius regni proceres, opti-
mates, and such like expressions, as we frequently do, in the Acts of the
Anglo-Saxon Synods, and Wittena-gemots, we are not to understand
the nobiles, &c., in the sense some people pretend, as if none but the no-
bility, or people of title, were present at them; but rather of the Eng-
lish in general, of the free-born military Anglo-Saxons, who were all
noble, all great men of the kingdom, in comparison of the remnant of the
conquered Britons, of their slaves and freed-men, who made up the bulk
of the nation." Ibid. p. 112. note.
1658-9.]
577
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The first hereditary Lord was one Beaumont, in Henry
VI.'s time.* If usage can make a right, they had it, but not
for themselves, but for the good of the nation.
I would have this examined, whether it be for the good
or destruction of the nation that this House now in being
should stand. They ventured their lives, but not their for-
tunes. The other Lords did venture both, and that they
should be excluded and these advanced, is not just nor rea-
sonable. I would have you first put the question, whether
the Petition and Advice be a law.
Mr. Bodurda. Unless you come to some resolution about
transacting with them, you had as good do nought. What
should we sit here for, if we will not transact with them?
Our proceeding is at an end. If we vote them down, they
may vote us down; but if you vote that you will have no
transactions, then you must go on some other way to settle
the nation. I would have this debated to-morrow morn-
ing.
Captain Baynes. I move to let it be known why we must
either transact with them, or our time is lost. I would have
that gentleman explain.
Mr. Trevor. This is no more than forty have moved,
and the debate has run upon that. I desire it may be put
whether you will transact with the other House, as was moved
before. Let that be the matter of your debate to-morrow,
and do not rise till you have a question.
Sir Henry Vane. It is hard to limit us to a time, that be-
fore we rise the question shall be put. If the Providence of
God so order it that we cannot come to a question, let not
us say we will have a question before the House rise. Let
us not turn day into night, nor starve ourselves. The people
are attending without, upon your committees, at great charge.
I was called out at one, upon occasion, to Sir T. S
so could not attend the debate upon which question should
recede. It seems there was a hot debate till three, upon it,
;
*"1439. John Beaumont, created Viscount Beaumont, being the first
of that title in England." Chron. Hist. (1747,) i. 45.
VOL. III.
2 r
578
[MARCH 1,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
and with much ado brought to this result, as I find entered
in the Journal, viz.
The question being propounded that it be the matter of
the debate to-morrow morning, that this House will transact
with the persons now sitting in the other House, as a House
of Parliament.
The question was put, that the question be now put.
The House was divided.
The Noes went forth.
Noes 113. Sir Arthur Haslerigge and Mr. H. Neville,
Tellers.
Yeas 177. Sir John Copplestone and Mr. James Herbert,
Tellers.
So the question passed with the affirmative;
And the main question being put, it was
Resolved ut supra.
Ordered, that no other business do then intervene.
Resolved, that Colonel Crompton shall have leave to go into
the country to attend his own occasions for a month.
The Committee of Privileges sat in the House, upon the
business of Dartmouth, between Major Thompson and Mr.
Burne-Serjeant Waller in the chair.
The difference lay between the Aldermen of the Borough
and the Commonalty, which had most right to elect. Mr.
Burne was chosen by the Commonalty, and it inclined upon
the debate to his part. Quere, what was resolved upon it?
The Committee I left sitting at 8, it being post night.
Wednesday, March 2, 1658-9.
Mr. Speaker took the chair at nine.
Prayers by Mr. Cooper.
Colonel Hatcher offered a Petition from the Freemen in
Lincolnshire against the drainers, which was read,* and re-
ferred to a Committee to meet this afternoon.
* “ A petition read from the inhabitants of Deeping Fen, where 240
families were drowned, 20 towns in danger to be surrounded, and ac-
tually more hurtfully drowned now than ever. They moved against an
1658-9.]
579
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Mr. Annesley. The Deputy-clerk of the Commonwealth in
Chancery attends at the door, touching the mending the re-
turn of Mr. Sadler for the Borough of Yarmouth, in the Isle
of Wight.
The Deputy-clerk was called in, and said he could not
make a return, because the indenture came not to his hand
till after the Parliament sat. He being withdrawn,
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. You may cause him to return it.
Mr. Bethel. The Act for Triennial Parliaments warrants
the freeholders to return, in default of the sheriff.
Mr. Turner. The sheriff may return, he being the proper
officer. It cannot be otherwise done.
Captain Baynes. I move that the Deputy-clerk stay at
the door till the sheriff come: and it was ordered accordingly.
The order of the day was read at ten, touching the debate
adjourned yesterday, whether this House will transact with
the other House, as with another House of Parliament.
Mr. St. Nicholas. There are two reasons why you should
not yet transact with them under the notion of another
House.
1. Because you have not yet limited their powers. In all
ordinary dealings between man and man, if several parties
would trade together, they trade not till the covenants be
perfected.
I am a plain countryman, and shall offer you what coun-
try experience tells us. If a man hath got young colts, he
will make good chains before he useth them. If I be to put
two or three young horses together, I fasten them well toge
ther, lest they run away. This other House is young and of
high mettle. I think it necessary you should fetter and
bound them, before you work with them. If you first vote
to transact, and then carry up a Bill to bound them that they
shall not be hereditary, they will say, you have voted us, and
cannot now bound us.
old Law called Lovell's Law, who was to have a third part in 1000
acres, I think, for his undertaking. They pray a new Law and Act, for
draining, and remedying of the inconveniences." Goddard MS. p. 268.
2 P 2
580
[MARCH 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I
2. Because they are not yet so declared, to be another
House of Parliament. All the footing they have had hath
been from the Petition and Advice.
Great reasons have been offered by Serjeant Maynard* why
you should look upon that as a law, and why a successor has
power to issue out warrants for summoning another House,
according to that law, by comparing that law in several parts
together.
But, admit that he had power; yet, under favour, if that
person be not such a successor, within the meaning of that
law, as is commissioned to issue out such writs, then I am
sure they are not well issued, nor these men well called.
They are not such another House.
That Act gives power to the late Lord Protector to nomi-
nate and declare a successor in his lifetime. Where is that
done? Where is the record ? No authentic instrument has
been brought before you to make that law. If he be a King
to all intents and purposes, as is told you within these walls,‡
such a power could not pass away a title to three nations, but
by matter of record. You have since declared his Highness
to be Protector, and I do cheerfully join with it: but at that
time, he had not power as such a successor, and he doth not
judicially appear to you to be such a successor as was enabled
to issue writs to this other House.
There was a case yesterday, and a piece of it this morn-
ing, Mr. Sadler's. You were satisfied he was a member,
yet because it did not appear to you, judicially, that he was
duly returned, you thought fit not to transact with him. As
I may say, the Protector was not the successor, and they are
not the other House of Parliament.
Colonel Terrill. We spoke in the bush before. We shall
now speak plainly. We ought not to transact with them, for
reasons before offered. Something before fell from me,§ which
hath been endeavoured to be answered. What was offered,
produces three questions.
* See supra, pp. 571-574.
† See supra, p. 531.
+ See supra, p. 130, ad fin.
§ See supra, pp. 513-525.
[
1658-9.
581
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I
L
1. Whether the Petition and Advice be a law, and whe-
ther his Highness can call another House by virtue of that
law ?
2. Whether the successor by that law, be empowered to
call another House?
3. Whether he be empowered by the common-law, to call a
House of Lords?
I am sorry the first should come again into question.
Somewhat was observed in the debate on his Highness's re-
cognition. It was moved then, that the House might be
satisfied that it was a law.* That law was not dealt with
as a law; the print differing from the original Act. A
whole article was omitted, and the passing of it not Parlia-
mentary. This hath not yet been answered.
I desire that the Journals and Rolls may be brought, to
see if the formality of passing a law has been observed.
If it be an Act, and if the Protector's title be by the Peti-
tion and Advice, then there is a question, whether his High-
ness be brought in according to that law. I am sorry this
should come into question to be now debated. That he is,
we agree; we have voted it: but quo modo appears not. I
thought he had two better titles than that, and that this
Petition and Advice was the worst of three:
1. His possessory right, which was sufficient title for him
to call a parliament, and for us to submit to it.
2. The constitution of this House. I should be sorry it
should be stirred. I suppose either of these to be best. This
of the Petition and Advice is the worst of all.
As to the second question, whether, admitting it to be a
law, his Highness be empowered to call the other House by
virtue of that law.
The words, it is clear, are wanting; and the learned Ser-
jeant's seeking for a meaning, by picking out the sense,† doth
yield that the words will not bear it. Where then shall we find
the meaning? If you appeal to the makers of that law, some
say it was set up in lieu, others say in bar of the House of
* See supra, pp. 129, 130.
† See supra, p. 372.
582
[MARCH 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
Lords; so that we cannot find the meaning from the makers.
We must then have recourse to the letter.
"That your Highness, &c."—that cannot imply a successor.
I have said enough. He is a sole corporation, and the grant
extends not to a successor. It was argued that he is King
to all intents and purposes; yet that was meant of the power,
not of the capacity. Highness signifies no more than for life.
If a grant to his Highness by Parliament for term of life,
and after name successors, this does not enlarge the grant,
and it is all one as if the words had been expressed. Your
Highness, during your life, is all one as if he bad said a grant
for life.
All I find in the preface relates only to "the succession in
government;" only I find the word "settlement."* That
cannot be applied to Parliament; for unless the old Lords
were taken away to build another House upon it, it is rather
to unsettle than settle, unless they had taken away the old
House.
2. As to the words in the oaths. The word "successor”
may be true, although there be no other House of Parliament.
It doth not imply both Houses.
3. We have nought to do with disposing of the Army.
4. As to that of approving the council, where any mention
is made of the two Houses it may stand reddendo singula sin-
gulis; it may be understood only of the two Houses during
the life of the Protector, and not to his successors.
I am clearly satisfied that the word "successors" in all the
subsequent clauses does not enlarge the estate in the premises,
no more than if a grant of land be made to his Highness, and
then that he and his successors shall have all the royalties.
Admit the honour of Windsort were granted to his High-
ness, and that he and his successors shall have all the privi-
leges; his successors shall have all the privileges, but not the
honour: it enlarges not the grant on the first article. It is
agreed, as to the nominating successors, that it is only person-
* "Upon just and legal foundations." Parl. Hist. (1760,) xxi. 130.
+ "The manor or honour of Windsor." Mayna Britannia. i, 189.
1658-9.]
553
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
al; that his Highness's successors shall not name his suc-
cessor by virtue of that clause. If we grant this in the second
article, we admit the first, that the same power is granted for
his Highness's successors to name his successor.
This might
nominate, and the next, and so ad infinitum.
I omitted another answer. Those that his Highness named
were members for last Parliament only, and not for this.
The explanation reaches not this Parliament. They must
be approved here.
As to the third argument. His Highness might have
called them by the law.
He hath power to call another House by the Common Law,
although he hath not power by the Petition and Advice, and
if he had but called the old nobility, he had done his work.
If he had no right by the Petition and Advice, he comes
in by his possessory title. He comes in under the law, but
not paramount to the law.
Henry IV. Henry VI. Richard III.: They came in under
that law.
If he came in so, under the law, I may admit all for laws
till they be repealed. So then there is another bar in the
way, a law in being to take away the Lords' House; so while
that is of force by the Common Law, another House could not
be called.
I have no prejudice against any person in that House,
but I cannot agree we should yet transact with them. If
you and his Highness please to approve them, to sit upon
another foot, I shall not be against it. I move, therefore,
not yet to transact.
Mr. Letchmere, Attorney of the Duchy. This question is
well come in before you; for which way soever you go, the
wind would else have been in your face till you got over this
question.
I cannot say how well the questions are stirred, but I shall
answer them.
1. Whether the Petition and Advice be a law.
I think while so much pains are taken to answer it, it is an
admittance that it is a law; though there is not much weight
to be laid upon that.
584
[MARCH 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
2. Whether his now Highness be Chief Magistrate by that
law.
This is the first time that ever any Prince in possession
had his title questioned; or that the title of Chief Magistrate
was doubted or considered in Parliament. Therefore this is
a single precedent, unless that of 39 Henry VI. which had a
miserable event. Richard of York put in his claim, but it
had no good endment.†
All Parliaments have rested well pleased with the possessor,
and, being called by him, have gone on to make laws and
never disputed the title.
The Parliaments then had more evidence of new titles than
now they have.
Observe the passage of the two late queens, whose title de-
pended upon the will or letters patents of their father. The
Parliaments then so well admitted the title that they never
disputed it, though both could not be legitimate.‡
* In 1460, See Parl. Hist. (1762), ii. 313, 324, "Après une délibéra-
tion qui dura plusieurs jours," says Rapin, “ il fut arrêté, que Henri gar-
deroit la couronne sa vie durant, et que le Duc d'York seroit déclaré
son successeur. Cette résolution fut reduite en Act de Parlement.
"Le jour après, il se fit une procession à St. Paul's, où le Roi assista,
la couronne sur la tête, étant accompagné du Duc d'York." Histoire,
(1724,) iv. 171, 172.
† Dec. 31, (1460,) Richard Duke of York fell in the battle of
Wakefield. "Le jeune Comte de Rutland, son second fils, qui n'étoit
âgé que de douze ans, s'enfuyant avec son gouverneur, fut atteint par
le Lord Clifford, qui lui plongea son poignard dans le sein, malgré les
instantes prières de ce gouverneur, qui lui demandoit la vie du jeune
prince. Ensuite, le même Clifford, ayant trouvé le corps du Duc d'York,
lui coupa la tête, et lui ayant fait à la hâte une couronne de papier, il
la mit au bout d'une lance, et alla la presenter à la Reine, qui la fit
planter sur les murailles d'York. C'est aussi que finit le Duc d'York
à l'âge d'environ cinquante ans." Ibid. pp. 173, 174.
In 1544, (35 Hen. VIII.) an Act passed, in which there is " a recital
of a former, (28 Hen. VIII.) touching the succession." According to
these Acts, the people were left, by their professed representatives, to
be bequeathed at the royal pleasure, like any other goods or chattels,
cattle and creeping things, belonging to the monarchy.
"Our most dread Sovereign," says the courtly Parliament, "intend-
eth by God's grace, to make a voyage royal in his most royal person in-
1658-9.]
585
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
Let us exercise our duty in conscience and prudence.
But let us now to our business.
to the realm of France against the French king." Then, in accordance
with the pleasure of "his Highness," who is "most prudently consider-
ing how this realm standeth in the case of succession," it is "enacted
that in case the King's Majesty, and his only son Prince Edward,
should decease without heirs, the imperial crown, and all other the
premises shall be to the Lady Mary;" and in case of her leaving no
heir," to the Lady Elizabeth and her heirs ;" provided they comply
"with such conditions, as by his Highness shall be limited by his Letters
Patent, or by his Majesty's last will."
In case of non-compliance with the royal conditions, or defect of heirs,
"the Imperial crown, and all other the premises," shall "remain, suc-
ceed, and come to such person and persons, in remainder or reversion,
as shall please his Highness," as expressed "by his last will in writing,
signed with his most gracious hand." The penalties of High Treason are
then denounced on any who "interrupt this Act, or any estate limited
thereby." See Lord Herbert's Henry VIII. (1740,) pp. 430, 432. See
also Bishop Burnet's Reformation, (1728,) i. 281, 282. Parl. Hist.
(1762,) iii. 195, 196.
This most dread Sovereign," to whose unqualified discretion and
provident care, signified by "his most gracious hand," an obsequious
parliament now committed the great interests of the people, has been
thus characterized by Sir Walter Raleigh.
"For King Henry VIII., if all the pictures and patterns of a merci-
less Prince were lost in the world, they might all again be painted to
the life out of the story of this King. For how many servants did he
advance in haste, (but for what virtue no man could suspect,) and with
the change of his fancy ruined again, no man knowing for what offence?
To how many others of more desert, gave he abundant flowers from
whence to gather honey, and in the end of harvest burnt them in the
hive? How many wives did he cut off and cast off, as his fancy and af-
fection changed? How many princes of the blood, (whereof some of
them for age could hardly crawl towards the block,) with a world of
others of all degrees, (of whom our common chronicles have kept the
account,) did he execute? Yea, in his very death-bed, and when he
was at the point to have given his account to God for the abundance of
blood already spilt, he imprisoned the Duke of Norfolk, the father, and
executed the Earl of Surrey, the son; the one, whose deservings he
knew not how to value, having never omitted any thing that concerned
his own honour and the King's service; the other, never having com-
mitted any thing worthy of his least displeasure; the one, exceedingly
valiant and advised, the other, no less valiant than learned, and of ex-
cellent hope.
· But
586
[MARCH 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1. Consider how the House of Lords came to be taken away.
Kingship was taken away first, and then Lords followed.
In that famous year, (48) that did produce many wonders,
not only the kingly office was taken away, but also chief
magistracy in a single person. The House of Peers were the
supporters of it, and so not consistent with a popular govern-
I admit that Parliament did prudently. I would
have the memory of them famous to their last breath.*
ment.
What followed then? How were our liberties overrun.
I will not say how the single person came to the government,
nor of past Parliaments, save only the Parliament in 56.
They looked upon their rights as in a bleeding condition.†
They, in a fair way, did redeem the people's rights. It was
a Petition of Right, ‡ and brought the heads of our liberties
above the water; so that though that Parliament did not
fully recover all the rights, they went a great way, and de-
serve not those reflections.
+
+
(He ran over the Petition and Advice, wherein our rights
and liberties were restored as by that Petition of Right.)
You had the fruits of it.
Immediately the doors of
"But besides the sorrows which he heaped upon the fatherless and
widows at home, and besides the vain enterprizes abroad, what laws
and wills did he devise to establish his kingdom in his own issues;
using his sharpest weapons to cut off and cut down those branches
which sprang from the same root that himself did? And in the end,
(notwithstanding these, his so many irreligious provisions,) it pleased
God to take away all his own without increase." Historie of the World,
(1614,) Preface.
Horace Walpole, (Lord Orford,) speaking of the treatises De Christi-
ani Hominis Institutione and De Instituenda Pube, attributed to Henry
VIII. says:- "If the pieces ever existed, it would be curious to see
what rules for the education of youth, or for the institution of a Chris-
tian, were laid down by a man who confounded every idea of govern-
ment and religion, who burned martyrs of opposite sects at the same
stake, [see supra, p. 522, bastardized his own children, and then entail-
ed his crown upon them; and who seems to have provided for nothing
but a succession of civil wars, by the unwarrantable disposition he made
of his dominions." See "Royal and Noble Authors," (1759,) i. 16.
* See supra, pp. 63, 64, 210, notes.
‡ See supra, pp. 171, note.
+ See vol. i. p. 262, note*.
1
T
1
1
J
1658-9.]
587
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Parliament flew open,* both in that Parliament and this free
Parliament.
The Petition and Advice pretends not to perfection. It
says only, it will prove some remedy. It does not totally,
but in degrees, restore our liberties. In some places it may
be amended.
We come now to the constitution of this law.
It is objected that the successor is not named in the second
and third paragraph. The word "successor" is not in all
other parts that concern the rights of the people, yet I hope
none will say he is not bound by that.
There are a hundred Acts of Parliament wherein the suc-
cessor is not named, yet the successor in possession is always
bound by them. Our books are full. Hill and Grange's
case, with Plowden's Comment, does fully clear this point.
Now for that other House.
That those honourable persons that have been courageous
and persons of fidelity are not restored, I lie down under the
objection. The Act that took them away, does not exclude
them from being called to public council. I hope they may
in time be taken in.
The other House does now consist of persons that deserve
as well from the English nation as ever any persons that sate
there. It may be they may fall short in birth and pedigree.‡
The Romans always preferred virtue. § The time may come
when those honourable persons amongst us that have deserved
the like honour shall be translated from us. I speak not to
be rid of them.
My motion is, that you would transact with the other
House, and set both your doors open.
Mr. Bence. I am glad persons are so quick-sighted as to
see many of the laws so far off. It does not appear to me
why the persons that have deserved so well should be ex-
cluded from their right. Possession is eleven points of law.
* See vol. ii. p. 316, note.
+ See vol. iv. p. 12, note ‡.
↑ See supra, p. 535, note.
§ See "Sir Thomas Smith," vol. ii. p. 456, note.
588
[MARCH 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Those gentlemen that are in possession, you cannot get them
out by force, but by a wile.
I would have this previous vote, that nothing in the vote
shall prejudice the title of those honourable persons of the
old House of Lords that have faithfully served you.
Colonel Morley. It is said, possession is eleven points of
law. Now you would have a salvo for the rights of old Lords.
I am against that. I doubt words will not do it. If you pass
this, they have eleven points, and give them another, they
have twelve. You are going to pass all by a lump.
It was told you
* the French by sudden vote gave away
all their liberties. Let not us do so rashly.
They are all officers, counsellors, judges, and chancellors.
If any complaints shall be against them, you must complain
of them to themselves.
It is said you have gained by the bargain, in putting down
the Major-generals. You have mended the matter well, in
giving them a power in your legislature.
Have not many of those persons been guilty of the remon-
strances and forces upon Parliaments? May they not force
their resolutions upon you by the same rule ? I would have
them bounded.
Major Beake. It is said the persons ought to be excepted
against for their military capacity. I would have the sword
less, if there were not need. In former Parliaments, Lord
Marshals, Lord Admirals, and Lord Lieutenants of Counties,
were always in that House.
In that they are there, therefore let us transact with them.
It was moved, that none would deal without a contract.I
* See supra, pp. 569, 574, ad fin.
+ "Hab. Morley. You have taken away the Major-generals out of
the field, and from exercising their power in the country, and you are now
making of them Major-generals in Parliament: they are most of them
military men, that have forced Parliaments before, and if you make
them part of your constitution, they will force your resolutions." God-
dard MS., pp. 271, 272.
See "Mr. St. Nicolas," supra, p. 519.
1658-9.]
589
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
Can we contract before we transact? Must not we declare our
sense to them, and they to us, before we can transact? If
any exorbitant executive powers are in their hands, mutual
correspondencies will take them away.
I will not say but there are men of will there, yet I doubt
not but there are men of reason there. I doubt not but they
will make common safety their end, as well as you will
do. If it be your advice to a handful* sitting there, if
you say it is for the good of the nation, they will not be
against it.
It is objected that the Petition and Advice wanted the for-
malities of a law.†
The Parliament making a law, may dispense with the se-
cond or third reading. They are properer judges than any
without doors. It may as well be said they are not a Par-
liament. It is told you, the meaning of the Act cannot be
found out by inquiring of contrary opinions. The best way
to judge is by comparing the parts.
Colonel White. I think you have a great and weighty bu-
siness before you. You have all now before you. This
transacting is the owning the persons, the powers, and all.
I shall not mention aught of the arguments about the Pe-
tition and Advice. It is learnedly argued both ways, it is
clearly argued now, that those are a House of Peers. I would
have the constitution examined, if it be well founded. If the
Petition and Advice want words of constitution, make it so.
I find not a word of constitution in it. It is said, it is im-
plied. I have heard it said, that an Act of Parliament is
lex loquens, and cannot be supplied by implication. You
have already declared that you will have two Houses, but
you have also declared that you will bound them; and I hope
you will examine the persons.
All erroneous judgments have their appeal at last thither.
Admit an erroneous judgment, whither shall he have his re-
course but thither, be it from Ireland or any benches. You
appeal then from a Lord to a Lord, to the same person sit-
See supra, pp. 535, 547 note.
+ See supra, pp. 581, 583.
590
[MARCH 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
ting upon a form, as was sitting upon a bench. It was very
rare that Judges were called to vote. Their Judges always
sat on woolsacks.
Three Lords Chancellors,* two Chief Justices are there;
and you may have one Chief Baron there,† as deserving well
as any of them.
For the law I doubt we shall be in a sad condition.
Also for military power.
The Colonels are now more than the Lord-lieutenants. If
you give this army a negative upon you, put the case you
make a law to disband all or part of your army. Power is a
spreading plot against nature. One more to these ten Colo-
nels, makes a quorum in that House. Thus the people of the
nation may be destroyed by a power.
When you come to constitute powers for posterity, bound
them as well as you can. I cannot at present give my con-
sent to transact with them, till they be thus bounded.
Mr. Attorney-general. They that would make a settle-
ment, and not upon this foundation of the Petition and Ad-
vice, cannot erect it upon foundations of righteousness and
peace. For the person of the Chief Magistrate; if he is
but possessionary Protector, he is then hereditary and not
subject to any boundings. If you do not bound him, his
good-nature will, without gall or guile, as is said.
But since the Chief Magistrate is elective, and this House
electors, I wish the other House elective, and not hereditary;
and so the Constitution will be homogeneal.
The Petition and Advice has been beaten so thin, nothing
more can be said on it. I suppose there is a general inclina-
tion to conserve the Petition and Advice for a good law, even
among those that speak against it, and the other House to be
well constituted and well called. We are now arguing upon
a moot point, as to the interpretation of this law. The Judges
in Westminster-hall shall interpret. No one House can; it
must be the two Houses.
I will either put in or leave out "
your Highness," which
• Commissioners of the Great Seal.
+ Probably Serjeant Wylde.
1658-9.]
591
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
}
the gentlemen please. It is said there must be two Houses.
I would ask any man that wears a gown, who shall call them?
Undoubtedly the Chief Magistrate has power by law to do it.
His Highness, in his lifetime, did execute that power. He did
design and call the persons, which, as much as that requires,
is personal still. Then come successors, in all other places,
when it mentions supplies to that House. There was no
need of successors in the other articles.
Now to the persons, civil and military men.
1. It is not entailed upon them, neither successors of the
Seal. I take the persons now in place to be thorough-paced.
They have gone thoroughly with you.
I am very willing that those of the old Lords that have
been faithful be taken in. My motion is that you will
transact.
Mr. Annesley. If it be yielded that the Petition and Ad-
vice is a law, and without dispute, then there is an end of the
debate; but that was never yet yielded. Many arguments
against it are not answered. I am sorry we have forgot the
beginning of the debate, when the current opinion was, if not
to restore, yet not to prejudice the old Peers.
I doubt the expedient offered will not hinder the exclud-
ing of the old Lords. I think your time will be well spent
to state this business clearly.
I have that to say which I was not willing to have done, if
things had gone on in a moderate way. But, whatever is upon.
my spirit to say, I shall not fear to speak and I think it my
duty not to forbear, whatever be the issue, and though I am
satisfied I can never bring the sense of the House to mine, and
was unwilling, but Mr. Attorney-general called me up. I
shall revert to the beginning of the debate.
My many bonds and relations will not allow me to bar the
rights of the old peerage. How far the Lords adventured
themselves in the late war, how they assisted you in all your
straits, how far they hazarded their lives in calling the late
Parliament, you have been already informed. What laws,
customs, and prescriptions, there are for them, to give them
power to sit. What protestations, vows, covenants, solemn
592
[MARCH 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
}
leagues, and declarations of Parliament, for the preserva-
tion of their privileges:* one, 17th of April, 46, ordered to be
hung up in all churches, setting forth your obligation to
maintain their rights! If now, after all this, they must be laid
aside, being thus settled, without ever being heard, my soul
shall have no share in such counsels and such a resolution.
I know no law against them, but the law which I abhor to
think of. We know under what impressions they were, that
took them away. The law punisheth them for not coming
thither; and yet they must not come. There are places as-
signed them by law, to sit in; and yet they must not sit. No
law without consent of the Lords in Parliament is good, but
Lord Coke is clear that no law is of force but what is
made by the three estates.
void.
An expedient hath been offered for them with a salvo, but
that will not serve the turn, to say we give them a liberty to
sit, or be admitted, and yet to put such shackles upon them
as they cannot in honour sit. It is but nugatory thus to put
the Petition and Advice upon them. If not, let us say the
laws of God and man are of no force in that point.
It is objected against them,
1. That it is contrary to reason, that there should be an
hereditary judicial power in them.
I wish such new reason may not proceed from our new
lights. Practice and experience many hundred years, show
the reasonableness of them.
2. It is objected that the Peers sat at first upon account
of their ancient possessions, and their great proprieties and
estates.
And have they not so still, or if they have not, what have
they that sit there? I could name five or six of the ancient
Peers that are not disabled from sitting; that have estates
and interests equivalent to buy out all that sit there now.
3. It is objected that they are considerable enough al-
ready. What security that their greatness may not be our
danger?
* See supra, pp. 518, 519.
1658-9.]
593
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
I
This is an argument not fit to be answered with less than
20,000 men.
4. It is objected that there is a House already in pos-
session.
But to say they sit by a law, is begging the question. If
that be so, the controversy is at an end. That objection was
waved yesterday, and is now made again.
I am much troubled what to say in the whole. I can say
I am plain-hearted and single-hearted. I am not for those
prudential ways of weighing conveniency, to do our duty.
Something of the innocence of the dove, and a little simpli-
city of the gospel will better become this House, than all the
politic prudence in the world.
But you may say you wonder what I drive át.
Shall we
meet and do nothing? shall we leave all things in confusion,
if we come not to settlement? I am sensible you are under
straits every way; should this question pass as is proposed,
all your work is done, but money. If this question should
pass in the negative; then your next question may be, for the
old nobility; the old other House. If that be carried in the
negative too, then you must either usurp the same power
we have so much decried, and shamefully retract your vote
for two Houses, or else do nought.
But what then shall we do? For a week together, it hath
puzzled the wisdom of this House. It is our duty to do
things that may tend to a settlement. If we could avoid the
owning of this House, without endangering our interest
abroad, I would it were set aside. I hope the major part
are not against the right of the old Peerage.
This vote going alone, is much more dangerous than if it
go as part of that Bill, and it is fit that Bill should be the first
thing that passes.
When things are in some measure stated, and this is passed,
then the first transaction may be, to carry up your Bill to
the persons now sitting.
There is a necessity to go on in business. You cannot do
without transacting. It signifies no more than trafficking,
trading, or bargaining, and the better bargain you make, the
2 Q
VOL. III.
594
[MARCH 2,
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
1
better for the people. Therefore, in order to the juncture of
present affairs, I would make as good a bargain as I can.
As additions to that question, I shall offer,
That in respect of the present constitution or juncture of
affairs, this House will transact with the persons called by
writ, and now sitting in the other House; not intending here-
by to exclude such of the ancient Peers who have been faith-
ful to the Commonwealth, from their privileges of being sum-
moned, and sitting members of that House.
Mr. Disbrowe. Stood up to speak to the question*.
I being called out at twelve, could not stay to hear the end
of the debate. Divers others, it seems, spoke to the question,
and to the additions offered; but the House rose without a
question, having sat till two, and adjourned the debate and the
House till Friday morning.
Resolved, that all Committees shall sit, notwithstanding
the adjournment.
Resolved, that Mr. Duckett have leave to go into the
country for fourteen days.
Serjeant Maynard being chosen for Newtown and other
Boroughs, made his election for Newtown, and new writs or-
dered to issue out for the other two places.†
* "Disbrowe. Much of our settlement consists in that which lies be-
fore us.
When we have such a settlement once founded upon righte-
ousness and justice, that will stand. Greatness will do no good, but a
great man thrown into the gap may stop it better, if he will stand to it,
but goodness and greatness together is better." Goddard MS. p. 274.
"H. H. London, March 1, 1658. To Lord Henry Cromwell, Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland:-
"The Parliament newes stands thus, as I am informed. Last Thurs-
day, after a debate of sixteen hours, the House sitting till twelve of the
clock at night, the speedy preparing of a navye to sett out to sea, for
the security of the Commonwealth, and preservation of the commerce
and trade thereof in the Baltick Sea, was referred to his Highnesse, (the
Councell being allowed no share therein, nor suffered to be named in
the House,) but with a caution of keeping a good correspondency he-
tweene us and other allyes, and saveing the right of the militia in the
Parliament.
"The same day, Portman was discharged, and the Lifetenant of the
Towre (to whome they will not allow the title of Lord,) check for his
1658-9.]
595
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY.
The Committee of Grievances sat, and heard several Pe-
titions, and heard Counsel between Long and Edwards about
the Roll's Office in Chancery, where Lady Jermine offered her
title above them both; but hers was waved till the other was
tried. It was held by divers, to be improper for the Com-
mittee to meddle with it, being depending and remediable at
law, but it was notwithstanding retained: an ill precedent.
Thursday, March 3, 1658-9.
The House was adjourned, with a saving to the sitting of
all Committees, and that the Committee of Grievances should
sit till twelve in the forenoon.
They sat accordingly in the House,
Colonel Terrill in the chair.
They read the Petition of the Beer-brewers against the
Excise, and appointed it a day for hearing, as also several
other Petitions.
The most part of the day was spent in hearing counsel at
the bar, upon Long and Edwards's business, about Long's
claim to the Register's Office in Chancery; and put the fur-
ther hearing of it till next meeting; as also to hear the claim
of Lady Jermine, who it seems has a better title than either
of the others.
The Committee of Privileges sat in the afternoon till eight
at night, in hearing the business of Petersfield, which was re-
committed.
illegall (as they called it) imprisonment. Saturday, yesterday, and this
day, in the debate of the other Howse. But, in this grand affayre, the
House is much divided, some being for the old Peeres only, some for the
new Lords only, and others for both together; while the Common-
wealth partye sett still, resolveing to give theyr vote to the greatest
disadvantage of his Highnesse. Nothing being yet resolved, the further
debate is adjourned till to-morrow.
"This I accidentally gleaned up, and resolve to give it you, though
contrary to my natural inclination, which affects not to meddle with
state affaires. Nam quæ supra, nihil ad nos, has been my opinion." See
"Thurloe State Papers," vii. 626.
596
PARLIAMENTARY DIARY. [MARCH, 1658-9
Counsel being heard on both sides; it was resolved nemine
contradicente, that the freeholders had a right equal with the
burgagers to elect burgesses, so that it was carried or Mr.
Cole.
I came late, so know not what other business passed that
day.*
Captain Langley to Secretary Thurloe. Leith, March 3, 1658-9-
"Here are severall bookes sent downe, one entitled the Leveller; another,
the Good Ould Cause, and some other, whose names I have not. I ques-
tion not, but that your Lordshipp hath hard and seene of them, soe that
I shall not need to say any more, then that they are of dangerose con-
sequence as to
and all the partie are extremely taken with them.
I can tell you, when need requires, how they come handed heather, and
who writes the goaud intelligence, out of the House to the A. B. when
you think good to make use of it; but I am not willing to commit too
much to—(it may bee the miscarryinge of a pack itt.) You little think
how the newes for passing the vote for recognision of his Highness
troubled the A. B. and other of, &c. soe that they are freted to the very
galle, and the House of Loords ads much to the sorow; yett they hope
for a helpe at last, but few can desearne this; for 'tis order by the
that all bee caried plausibly as to the outward. I speak nothing but one
sure knowledge; therefore believe me, the A. B. and those of the van-
ting crew, are your two antagonists, throughout the whole. But that
might have been helped long since: pardon mee, Sir, I could tell you
how 'tis sed, that one partie is for the other House to consist of the ould
Lords, and another of the new; and that the third, hering the debats,
smiles in silence at you boath these they title, the ould statist, with
many such like passages, which pleaseth very much; and how they will
at last. I must not inlarge in these."
you a
:
"Thurloe State Papers," vii. 627.
See
END OF VOL. 111.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY S. AND R. BENTLEY, DORSET-STREET.
{
604 AUG 13
1
ļ
!
1
t
}
*
}
454
لو
"}
1
T
2
!
1
+
1
་ {
1
BOUND
។
AUG 24 1950
UNIV. OF MICH,
LIBRARY