Diary of Thomas Burton Esq: Volume 2, April 1657 - February 1658. Originally published by H Colburn, London, 1828.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, June 24, 1657.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn reported from the Committee appointed to withdraw yesterday about the oath of his Highness and the Council. It was in relation to an oath of his Highness and the Council, and members of Parliament, and the solemnity of investing his Highness.
Captain Baynes. There is more in the Report than was in the Order to the Committee. I move that the Order be read.
This done, the Report was proceeded upon, &c.
1. That your Highness will be pleased, according to the usage, (fn. 1) to take an oath in the form ensuing:—
"I do promise, in the presence of God, that to the utmost of my power I will endeavour, as Chief Magistrate of these three nations, the preservation of the just rights and privileges of the people thereof, and to govern according to law, &c. (fn. 2) The like for his successors.
2. That all of the Privy Council shall take an oath to be faithful to his Highnesses person, and his just authority, and for securing, &c.
3. That all members of either House shall also take an oath to be faithful to the Lord Protector, and to preserve the rights and liberties of the people.
4. That your Highness will, before next meeting, issue out your summons for members to serve in the other House, and that the persons so summoned are hereby declared to be the other House, and to have all the privileges in the Petition and Advice expressed.
5. Westminster-hall to be prepared suitable to such a solemnity, a chair of state on the high end, seats for members and Lord Mayor and Aldermen; the Speaker to demand the assent of the people, and then to administer the oath, and deliver his Highness a sword, by way of investiture:
Major-General Bolder moved to proceed upon the last part first, for that there will be time little enough to prepare the place.
Mr. Bond seconded.
Colonel Jones moved to take the report in parts as it lies, and so it was taken up, and first for his Highness's oath.
Colonel Sydenham moved against the oath.
Mr. Bampfield offered additions to the oath, to defend the Protestant religion, and not to violate the privileges of Parliament and liberty of the people; so would have it recommitted.
Captain Baynes. I was against imposing any oath upon his Highness; but since it is the sense of the House, I would have it such as may be effectual.
He offered some additions to it, and moved a re-commitment.
Mr. Downing. It is very essential, what was moved for an additional clause about religion. It was always in the form of an oath to begin with religion. We may have a Papist become Chief Magistrate.
Major-General Disbrowe. The oath is full enough without it. To put in such a clause about the Protestant religion will but be a snare, in regard of the great disputes about what shall be the Protestant religion.
Lord-Chief Justice Glynn offered a clause to this purpose.
Colonel Jones. I move to second it. We have had full experience of his Highness's attention to the Protestant religion, and I never doubted but his Highness would cheerfully take it.
Major-General Goffe moved against the words in the oath, "in the name of God."
Mr. Bampfield. It is the phrase of Scripture.
Colonel Briscoe. There was no need of an oath. His Highness was obliged, by his consent to the Petition and Advice. But if you will have an oath, I would have the clause in it about religion.
The clause was added accordingly.
Mr. Bampfield moved another addition, after laws, viz. statutes, customs, &c.
Lord Chief-Justice. It was my opinion, last Parliament, that laws was the most general and safest word, enumerations being never the best, where it was agreed the best to have no enumerations.
Major Audley moved a further addition, viz. "And according to the humble Petition and Advice," which, though it be now a law, yet we cannot tell but another Parliament may think as slightly of our laws as that of the little Parliament, (fn. 3) who thought themselves to be the legislative; yet now you confirm their laws.
The Master of the Rolls moved for this addition, viz. and for maintenance and preservation of the rights, &c. which was done.
Lord Lambert. Excepted against the preamble before the oath, relating to the custom of former Chief Magistrates. An oath was a sacred thing, and ought to be guided by religion, and not by custom.
Mr. Godfrey. There is something wanting in the oath, and that is drawn from the inducement, viz. the custom of the Chief Magistrates to take an oath; if you refer to that usage, and leave out the most material part, which was the ground of the quarrel, and upon which all turns;
I shall not state the question, negative, or no negative, by law. It is certain it is upon conscience to confirm those good and wholesome laws that shall be tendered him by the people. Queen Elizabeth refused to confirm a law for establishing Popery, for that was not good nor wholesome; so no breach of her oath by refusal.
All the blood that has been spent has been about this, and wherein his Highness himself engaged, viz. and to confirm these good and wholesome laws that the people in Parliament shall present unto him. This I would have added.
Mr. Vincent. I stand up to second those two motions that were now made you.
1. To secure the privileges of Parliament: unless those be kept entire, it is an error in the first concoction, scarce remediable.
2. To put this long controverted point out of question, the negative voice. To me, I profess, I look upon it that the legislature is, where the negative voice is. I know not what a Parliament signifies else.
It will be said that monies were always the chief consideration. Now you have parted with that by settling a perpetual revenue; and unless you insert this in your oath, I know not how you shall come to your consideration. Late experience tells us how, for a circumstance, the Chief Magistrate may reject any law.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn moved, that this was debated when the Petition and Advice was debated. This was never the quarrel stated nor determined. It will be hard to prove that the Long Parliament ever denied the King the negative voice. As to that of the privilege of Parliament, it is comprehended under the word laws.
Resolved, the oath so amended. (fn. 4)
Resolved, that his Highness's successors shall take the like oath.
The oath of the Privy Council was read:
Mr. Bampfield moved to add the same clause in the oath for the council that was put in his Highness's oath.
Colonel White. I move to put out the word " just," and insert the word " lawful;" and that the Council be all chosen to have their approbation here. The Petition and Advice makes no provision.
Lord Lambert moved some amendments, viz. to " advise and maintain."
Colonel Jones agreed that this was material.
Mr. Bampfield. I offer some other amendments to the oath, as was agreed on in last Parliament; that the Council may not be under an oath not to reveal secrets to the Parliament in some cases. We remember Lord Strafford's case. (fn. 5)
Lord Whitlock agreed this to be very proper, not to reveal them without the consent of his Highness, the Parliament, or Council, which was added.
Major Aston moved, that the Council of Ireland might take the same oath. It was said that may be added after, and the like for Scotland.
Captain Baynes. The Council are the trustees of the people. I would have a clause added that they shall likewise be faithful to the people; for that no provision is made in that oath for their rights. We have good cause to suspect that we shall not always have good Chief Magistrates.
Colonel Chadwick. I second that motion. It is very fit to have such a clause.
The Master of the Rolls offered this amendment, " nor wittingly do any thing to the prejudice of the Commonwealth."
Mr. Bampfield offered an addition, according as was in the case agreed last Parliament, viz. " in order to the good government, peace, and wellfare of these nations."
Resolved, that these words be added.
Resolved, that the word " lawful" be put instead of the word " just."
Colonel Cox moved additions, viz. " nor wittingly nor willingly do any thing to the disadvantage of the Commonwealth."
Lord Whitlock. It is not fit to put such a stress upon the office of a Privy Counsellor. They are accountable for their actions, in Parliament. They have not any power of legislature. This will put a low esteem upon Parliaments, and set up a jurisdiction you intend not. I like not that word "consent." Lay it rather upon the word " advise."
The Master of the Rolls agreed that the word " consent" was too large, and would have it " advise" or " do any thing," &c.
Lord Strickland. I would have you to distinguish what you mean by consent; for a man may be over voted, and then it is our act.
Sir William Strickland and Major General Goffe moved to leave out the word " consent" It looks like a legislature. Would you have them to protest against what is voted there ?
Colonel Shapcott. I am against the word " consent." In Parliament as a Court of Justice, though some dissent, yet the minor part have their consent included: otherwise their constitution is destroyed. On one side, the word " consent" gives too much power; on the other side, it is too straight for the reasons asserted.
Sir Richard Onslow moved, that the word may stand. It differs from that of a Parliament, every Privy Counsellor represents himself. And there may be an entry in a book, who consents, and who dissents.
Lord Lambert took some other exceptions to the oath, but I could not hear for the noise.
Mr. Secretary. I except against the word " disadvantage," which is very comprehensive, as also against the word " interest:" These are not legal terms, and nobody can tell how far those words may reach.
Lord Strickland. If those words " lawful liberty" be in, you debar the Secretary from taking any man up upon suspicion; for if he must discover the reason of securing such person, then he discovers the plot before he fully know it.
Colonel Sydenham. I am against all oaths, (fn. 6) because there are snares in them; much more, against additions to oaths: for more words, more sins. But if you will do any thing, it must be moved by a member.
Mr. Speaker. I hope you will not deny me the liberty of a member. I never find any but one deny me this, to offer an amendment to you.
Colonel Rouse. I see your oaths grow, and it seems men's consciences must grow to them. I would not have you go according to the rule of that dead carcase, the last Parliament; who, by your own acknowledgment, did make an oath for the Council, that they would not have taken themselves, on purpose to lay them aside; tying us to perform such directions as the Parliament should hereafter give, (fn. 7) which was more than a Jew or Turk would impose.
Sir John Thorowgood moved some additions in relation to property and liberty, &c.; but it was laid aside, and the oath was resolved. (fn. 8)
Resolved, that the like oath be taken by the Council of Scotland and Ireland.
Mr. Bampfield moved the addition of a clause, that the affirmative and negative of every member of the Council shall be entered by the Council; but this being held improper to be offered now, it was waved, and they went on with the Report.
The oath for the members of Parliament was read.
Mr. Grove. I shall not speak against the matter of the oath; but I am against any oath at all in this case. Your Committee had no such order. I desire you will lay it aside. Oaths are but snares; times are changeable, and a multiplicity of oaths draw but on to sin. It will but keep out the conscientious, and let in those that make no scruple of any oath. Haply, some may be kept, both out of this place and the Council, by imposing this oath.
Colonel Shapcott. You have admitted this Report, and you must proceed upon it. As to the matter of an oath in this case, do we not in every action between party and party, swear men to do justly; and may not the people demand it of you, to take an oath to do justice in this greater trust whereunto you are called ? And here is no more in this oath than what was contained in the Recognition, (fn. 9) whereunto most members here have already subscribed.
Captain Baynes. This is neither agreeable to your orders, nor yet to the privilege of Parliament, to bring in any such oath. I desire the order may be read.
Mr. Godfrey. It was never denied, to read an order when it was moved.
The order was read accordingly.
Mr. Drake. You are the fountain of justice; whence all the springs of justice flow to the nations. His Highness is under an oath, and you have bound up the Council by an oath. For you, the Parliament, which are the great legislature, to go free, is strange; and you cannot ingenuously bind one and not another.
Major-General Goffe. It will be disingenuous to think that his Highness and the Council should be under an oath, and your members free. The oath is tenderly penned, and I hope it is no more than ought in reason to be done. Your Committee did debate whether it was within their order, and they found it pursuant to the Petition and Advice.
Mr. Godfrey. I must insist upon it, before I speak any thing to the merit of the business, that this Report comes not properly in, and ought not to be received. This is, I think, hard measure, not being pursuant to the Petition and Advice: so I would have it laid aside.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn. Your Committee had as much power to bring in this oath as that for the Council. As to the oath of itself, it is not indifferent that his Highness should take an oath, and we take none. It is no more than, formerly, members have taken in all Parliaments. Is it not more fit now, to impose an oath to distinguish between persons of several judgment ? May not the children of Cavaliers, that are of a contrary opinion, creep into this House, who are not within the penalty, and yet will be bound up by the oath ?
Colonel Sydenham offered these reasons against the oath:—
1. It comes in against your order.
2. It has a tendency to impose an oath upon the whole nation; and you do in effect lay an oath upon the people of England; the collective body of England. I did foresee this would bring it upon every individual.
3. It is no argument to say, because his Highness is bound, therefore we must be bound. He is a single person, set up to act for the body; and not intrusted for himself, but for the people.
4. As to that, that oaths have been taken, there is such a vast parenthesis, a sea of blood betwixt, that it needs not be urged what was done formerly. You are not bound to take that chain up, upon yourselves, upon the people, upon posterity. It is like that of the ceremonial law. A servant may go out free if he will. If he will not go out, bore his ear to the post. (fn. 10)
5. It is harder to tie members of Parliament than those of the Council. That is a narrower door; and if he cannot go in, he may stay behind; but he cannot stay out of the nation.
6. You have said you would have Parliament free; and will you now lay a force upon you ? I had rather soldiers stood at the door, than my conscience to keep me out. It is worse than a file of musketeers. Who will you keep out ? those that are faithful to you and your good intentions. They that can tumble down nations and kingdoms, none more ready to take it; none less ready to keep it. You will make it a straight-way for good men, and a broad-way for bad.
Mr. Trevor. I shall not dispute how this Report comes before you, nor speak to the matter of an oath. Certainly, in all civil powers and governments, oaths are very useful and necessary. The greater the trust is, the greater the obligation. Does not every petty constable take an oath ? Have you not resolved, that the Council and his Highness shall take an oath.? I would be free from ties as to man, and strictly tied as to God. There is no other way to take off other ties. I would have the Parliament to take the oath, and to keep it too.
Colonel Winthorpe. I see nothing of precedent for it, but the example of former times, to which I shall say nothing.
There can be nothing in an oath but to lay a stronger obligation and assurance from him that I trust, that I employ; as Abraham swore his servant. But that we that trust should take an oath: we are only trusted, by our Indentures, and trusted as by way of executors. It seems unuseful, incongruous and unreasonable, that a people that are not trusted with any thing, should be under any obligation to perform a trust to themselves.
Colonel Jones. It is clear we are here servants for the people. We are under a trust. His Highness is under a trust.
Is it ingenuous to put his Highness under such a test, as not to trust his faithfulness; and yet our own faithfulness must come to no test ?
It has been no long parenthesis. (fn. 11) I had rather have an oath made here than without doors; and whilst we make our own oath, there is no danger.
I understand not that argument that we are the collective body of the nation; and therefore all the nation takes it, in our taking of it. (fn. 12) I think it is for the freedom of Parliament, that an oath should be imposed.
Major-General Whalley. I wonder to see gentlemen so unwilling that a Parliament should be imposed on by themselves, and yet his Highness must be imposed on.
I could instance to you where Parliaments have given away their liberty and their religion to the lusts of a king; (fn. 13) and it is fit there should be an oath to bind men in such cases.
Lord Fiennes. In your Petition and Advice you bind his Highness to call Parliaments according to the law, and by the law, members of Parliament ought to take an oath. Is it reasonable that he should be bound, and we free ?
He that has a conscience that he cannot take this oath, he is not fit to sit here; for he must either have a prejudice against his Highness or the liberties or freedom of the people. I do wonder any should scruple what is his duty in this case to do.
Mr. Godfrey. Against the oath.
1. The Petition and Advice holds it not forth.
2. Not a word of an oath in his Highness's proposals.
3. Nothing of it in your additional Petition and Advice.
4. You are making new matter every day. I wish it had been made more early, when all your members—. (fn. 14) For a matter of this weight to come within these doors, when you are going out of doors!
5. It is against the Declaration to take away the Engagement. (fn. 15) It is said there, that oaths and Engagements are generally found to be snares. That Engagement showed as far as this.
6. The argument, that no more is required but faithfulness, and what is your duty, and no man fit to sit here that does deny it: the same had laid as strongly for the Engagement.
Therefore, for the inconsistencies of it with that Declaration, unless principles vary, and are but per hic hoc, it will strangely refute that principle. I could wish, for the honour of that Declaration, and for the honour of the Parliament, that you would not impose an oath at this time.
7. As to that of his Highness' oath, volenti non sit injuria.
8. We are under penal laws, and liable to be questioned.
They are a security for his Highness against us.
It is a strange thing to me that cuch fetters should be called freedom; and all the honour you have in it is, in making your own shackles.
9. As to the judgment of what shall be faithfulness. It is not fair that you should interpret it. It must be to the sense of him by whom it is made, ad sensum imponentis, and that may prove a snare, or ad sensum impositi, and that makes way for equivocation. I shall not judge but a man may, with a safe conscience, refuse this oath.
Major-General Disbrowe. I think this oath both just and reasonable. My principle is for settlement, and I hope it is in your Petition and Advice provided for. If I intended, when we come again, to throw up all that we have done, and lay the legislation open again to the people, let us go with open force. It would be more ingenuous to tell his Highness we have set him up, and will pull him down again. If I would have all this, I would have us left without any tie. This is not ingenuous to bind one and let free another.
Lord Lambert. I cannot agree that this comes in by your order. I am not for any kind of oaths. I think they prove but snares.
If a man may speak his heart and thoughts to that oath before you, the swearing to these two things that are so contrary, you set up one to fight against another. Some will think that his Highness has too much power; others, that the people have too much. You will set up these two things, that will be perpetually quarrelling; I mean arguing. I hope some of us shall never see quarrelling about it.
If this go to the Parliament, it will reach to all officers of trust, justices, and the like.
This oath will go freely down with all that are not scrupulous of an oath.
This may seem to put a greater edge upon men that are conscientious, and who are settled in their consciences.
Lord Whitlock. There is a great weight in what this noble lord offers; but his argument reaches to all oaths whatsoever: for if a man's conscience do equally oblige with or without an oath, then what need more scruple at it ? If. it must be without an oath, then all oaths of justices of peace, and the like, are useless.
Second objection: It will be a snare to good men.
True, if it light with bad consciences, it may be a snare; with good men it cannot. If the words of the oath carry not a snare, the oath draws none. Oaths were very frequent in all ages, and members of Parliament always took an oath. The allegiance was general, the supremacy particular.
Third objection: It may be designed to make it universal.
There is no such thing appears, and it is no argument. The universality is not before you now. I should make a great difference. Are not the members of Parliament the greatest judges in England? Every man is bound by honour and honesty. Is it a less obligation to be under an oath ?
It is said it is a shackle, a fetter. So it is. It is vinculum animi.
It is said his Highness must interpret it.
I am not of his opinion: You are the imposers of it, and must have the interpretation of it. No man is to be questioned for any thing he does in Parliament, but by Parliament. The case is famous.
The question being put,
Mr. Speaker declared for the Yeas.
Colonel Sydenham for the Noes.
Yeas 63, Lord Whitlock and Mr. Secretary, Tellers.
Noes 55. Sir Edward Rhodes and Colonel Sydenham, Tellers.
So it passed in the affirmative.
The debate was resumed upon the report, and first proceeded upon the form of the oath for the members, which, with alterations, according to the first part of the oath for his Highness about defending the protestant religion, was agreed.
Mr. Highland moved, contra, that the members be sworn to maintain the privileges of Parliament.
Captain Baynes and Colonel Sankey seconded.
Colonel Jones and Lord Chief-Justice Glynn. It is submitted to your judgment, whether you need swear members to maintain their own privileges, but if you will put it, there will be no negative.
Colonel White. It is hard to define the privileges now, so I would not have members sworn. It is needless. You may as well add to his Highness's oath to maintain his own prerogatives.
Major Aston. You may as well put a question for a man to eat his meat, and put off his clothes, and things that cannot be omitted, as to maintain his own privilege, which is his interest.
Major-General Goffe. I wonder to hear the gentleman that moved it insist so much upon having that of privileges put in the oath. Methinks he should not be so strict. It is probable, if we were sworn to maintain our privileges so strictly, we should not suffer some to sit, against those privileges.
Captain Baynes. Indentures, &c.
Resolved, the oath without that amendment.
Amendments were offered to the oath, as to the penning of it; for it was so penned as that none could sit in Parliament till all had taken the oath. The oath, thus amended, passed. (fn. 16)
The other part of the report, about calling the other House, was read. It was to summon the members by writ, whereas the Petition and Advice says, they shall be first approved by this House.
The Lord Deputy. It was properly moved, that it was contrary to the Petition and Advice; yet it is fit that, at your next meeting, you should have a trial of that other House, and see how your constitution will stand. Your time is short; that you cannot approve them now. I shall move that the approbation and nomination may be in his Highness.
Colonel Matthews and Mr. Bampfield. This is expressly against the Petition and Advice, and against the order of Reference, and is such a trust as is not to be transferred. It is a considerable part of the privilege of the Commons. Have we not gone too far already ?
Mr. Grove. I hope you would not, at first, break the Petition and Advice, yourselves.
Resolved, the first part of the clause, as to the summons. (fn. 17)
The second part, as to their constitution, when they are met, was read.
Colonel Jones. I move for an addition, viz. " without farther approbation;" and this is an implied power of approbation in you. Some persons will scruple to have their names scanned over here.
Mr. Godfrey. No man can, without leave, speak against the order, and you have said expressly, you will have the approbation in yourselves.
Colonel Shapcott. I think that, till you have the other House, you are not upon your right constitution. I wish we might put somewhat of a real confidence in his Highness. Divers members will come in, upon the account of right, such as have not forfeited. Whereas, men shall be tossed up and down here, and their lives ripped up. You may consider how you are constituted. You have created, and you are created, you know not how.
Colonel Sydenham. I can better agree with the gentleman's conclusion than his premises; that we should question how we came together, how created. We must stay till some lawful power come to confirm us. The second argument is against tumbling men up and down. I would have such a tumbling; and I thought you would have had such persons as would look about them, and abide tumbling and a trial. If you mean the old Lords, you had as good, indeed, rake in a kennel as tumble some of them up and down.
If such a foundation be laid, as that the old Lords shall be admitted upon the account of birth-right or privileges, I shall very much fear, what I did at first, a returning to another line. I could very well consent that his Highness should choose them: but, upon the account that the worthy gentleman moved, I fear the consequence.
Colonel Cox. It is no dishonour for the persons to be approved of here; and, but that I know the persons that brought in the Report to be persons of honour, I should suspect that they themselves hope to be named, and fear disapprobation here. I would have the approbation where you have placed it.
Major-General Disbrowe. The gentleman was much mistaken in what he said. He did not speak of any birth-right that members had, to be of the other House; but he said that some might so challenge, in regard they have not forfeited.
In point of prudence, I think it is not best to lay a foundation of heat and difference, when, by doing as is propounded to you, you can answer your ends as well as if it were in your approbation.
I have seen the experience of it, that the choosing of a Committee, by a balloting here, did so divide the House into parties, that they were never united again: I doubt this may be the consequence. Now, if we have the same confidence in his Highness that formerly we had, that he will do things for the good of the nation, we need not fear to leave it to him, seeing we have put him upon qualifications.
If his Highness should send you a list of names, and they lie before you, and some think that they ought to be named that are left out, they will stir up obstructions in the approbation of others.
Major Audley. I was against the House of Lords, and also against the power of approbation in this House; but I am somewhat stirred up by what I heard from a worthy gentleman as to hereditary lords. I am not for such a choice, nor for any of those that went to Oxford. (fn. 18) But if you will have some of the old Lords, I would have this addition to the qualification, that they may sign some such Recognition as this:—
1. To approve of the death of the late King.
2. Of laying aside his family.
3. Of taking away the House of Lords.
Major Morgan. We should take measure of these lords by ourselves, who would have all ripped up from the beginning. I am diffident of my own ability to approve, and have confidence in his Highness's fitness for it: so that I can freely place it in his Highness.
Mr. Bampfield. This is most essentially the privilege of this House. It is in your Petition and Advice already, and how you can now part with it I cannot well tell. I would have this addition to your question, that the persons being so met shall be approved by this House.
Mr. Goodwin. I move to know what this other House shall be; whether it shall be an Upper or a Lower House, or one equal with yourselves ?
Colonel Matthews. The words offered you, " without further approbation," are expressly against the Petition and Advice. It is also moved and seconded, that they shall be approved by this House.
This is a great business. Let us a little consider our duty, and who we act for. Are we grown so low ? Shall we put a yoke and bridle upon ourselves, and have no cognizance of it ? Have we not parted with such a sum as was never parted with in Parliament ? and are we now parting with our power further ? I beseech you that it may be considered.
Major Putter. I move that you would do the Petition and Advice as much honour as you did the other Instrument of Government. There no members were to sit without approbation.
Lord Fiennes. You are now to consider, if you may attain your end without putting your approbation here, if it will not do as well to omit it. Why shall we insist upon it ? Formerly, those persons were called by writ; and to put this approbation upon them may seem to lessen that power that you intend them in the constitution.
Sir John Thorowgood moved against the question.
The question being put, to add the words, " without approbation of this House,"
Mr. Speaker declared for the Yeas.
Colonel Matthews for the Noes.
The Yeas went forth.
Yeas 90. Colonel Talbot and Captain Blackwell, Tellers.
Noes 41. Colonel Matthews and Captain Lister, Tellers.
Passed in the affirmative.
Colonel Talbot reported it by affirmatives and negatives. (Not proper.)
Colonel Cooper moved an addition, that in case any member die or be removed, the other House shall approve, &c.
This is in the body of the Petition already, so improper.
Mr. Godfrey. To second that motion; but both were mistaken.
Sir Charles Wolseley stood up and explained it.
Resolved, the second part of the clause thus amended. (fn. 19)
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn moved, that these words might be part of the Petition and Advice, " and brought in ingrossed."
This was ordered accordingly.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn offered from the Committee a draught of a Proclamation to be published.
As also, that the Petition and Advice be printed (omitting the 15th Article, mentioning the King).
Resolved, to agree with the Committee in this form of a Proclamation, without any debate.
The debate about printing and publishing the Petition and Advice was put off, till the explanatory Petition and Advice be ready.
The other part about the solemnity was read, about preparing Westminster Hall.
Sir Charles Wolseley doubted Westminster-hall would be too long preparing, and would rather have it done in the Painted Chamber.
Major-General Goffe and others moved for the Court of Chancery.
Major-General Disbrowe. I doubt to-morrow will be too quick. I would have a matter of this solemnity done with respectful deliberation, and not expensively. Any of the courts will serve. I would have it done on Friday; and first have an honest man to preach and pray.
Major-General Goffe. I move that a Committee wait upon his Highness with the oath and your votes this night, and then you may know how to proceed, and when the House shall wait upon him to pass some Bills; and that the same Committee that brought in the Report might attend his Highness.
Mr. Bodurda. I move that the solemnity may not be in the Chancery Court, because there was lately another government settled there, which had not such. It will not be so hard to prepare the other place.
Resolved, to agree with the Committee as to the place of the solemnity; and that Sir Thomas Pride, Mr; Maidstone, and Captain Blackwell, take care of this.
Upon Sir Charles Wolseley's motion,
Part of the Report was left out; that the Speaker shall show his Highness to the people, and make acclamation. (fn. 20)
It was moved, that the sword to be delivered by way of investiture might not be left out.
Mr. Lister. His Highness has a sword already. I would have him presented with a robe.
Some understood it a rope, and it caused altum risum. He said he spoke as plain as he could, a robe.
You are making his Highness a great prince, a King indeed, so far as he is Protector. Ceremonies signify much of the substance in such cases, as a shell preserves the kernel, or a casket a jewel. I would have him endowed with a robe of honour.
Lord Lambert. There are other solemnities and ensigns of power, as a sceptre and the like. A sword is an emblem of justice. The ceremony of the sword was laid aside without a question. (fn. 21)
The Lord Deputy moved, that the Bill of Attainder (fn. 22) might be read to-morrow morning, the first business.
Sir Charles Wolseley seconded it. So it was resolved.
Alderman Geldart, Sir William Strickland, Captain Baynes, and Captain Stone, moved, that the Bill for the Probate of Wills might be read now. The order of the day was to read it.
Mr. Secretary moved, that the Bill of Attainder was first seconded. So he would have that first, and the other next.
Major Audley. Unless you read one of these Bills tonight, you will not be able to read them both to-morrow.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn and Mr. Fowell moved that the first business to-morrow might be the explanatory Petition and Advice.
The question was put that the Bill of Attainder be read to-morrow morning.
Captain Stone excepted for the Noes.
It was the sense of the House it would spoil the other Bill reading.
Major-General Disbrowe offered a clause to Lord Broghill's Bill, which has laid these three weeks engrossed. None can give a precedent of that nature.
Captain Hatsel pressed a Report, and moved the orders of the House.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn. It is against the orders of the House to put by another business to have his own received. I desire that you would hear that Report.
Alderman Geldart moved, that the little Bill for the river of York, no bigger than his thumb, might be now read.
Mr. Lister offered a rider to the Bill of Lord Broghill, to settle an impropriation of 300l. per annum, for ninety-nine years, upon Colonel Carter, for his arrears of 5000l.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn strongly backed this.
Mr. Grove and Sir William Strickland strongly opposed it, as smelling of sacrilege, and the House had indignation for it; insomuch, that it was thought most prudent to withdraw it.
It was moved to give him 3000l. out of the Prize Office, in lieu or part of those arrears, but held improper to be moved till the debate upon the Bill was ordered.
Colonel Sankey offered a proviso for Mr. Moorcock's widow, for 100l. per annum, lands in Ireland.
The Lord Deputy seconded.
The motion passed; and another proviso for Colonel John Jones, for 3000l. worth of land in Ireland. Both which being passed, the Bill passed.
The motion was revived for Colonel Carter to have 3000l. out of the Prize Office. And the question being put,
Mr. Speaker declared for the Yeas.
Major-General Kelsey for the Noes. The Yeas went forth, and Colonel Carter one.
Yeas 45. Colonel Ingoldsby and Mr. Bodurda, Tellers.
Noes 43. Major-General Kelsey and Colonel Harvey, Tellers.
So it passed in the affirmative.
A letter from his Highness, to reinforce his former letter about James's and the Westmoreland regiment, (fn. 23) was read; but it being late, past nine, it was adjourned by candle-light ill to-morrow.