Diary of Thomas Burton Esq: Volume 3, January - March 1659. Originally published by H Colburn, London, 1828.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Monday, February 14, 1658–9. (fn. 1)
We are a million in debt; some say two, some say three millions. (fn. 2)
The King demanded but twelve subsidies to maintain the army against the Scots, (fn. 3) and yet that was thought unreasonable, though it came but unto 720,000l., a subsidy being but 60,000l. The Queen, by Mildmay her servant, demanded but two subsidies, and she herself thought it too much, and would have but one, that shall serve her turn. (fn. 4) 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. (fn. 5)
All the King's tables heretofore were maintained at the King's charge; (fn. 7) but now they must be all borne by the people, 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. (fn. 8) 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, (fn. 9) that mushroom secretary. He looked as pale as ashes, and sneaked away. (fn. 10) This is no new thing in Parliament. I have heard a charge here against the Earl Marshall, the Lord Keeper, (fn. 11) and against the Earl of Strafford. Before we vote a Stadholder, (fn. 12) Chief Magistrate, or Protector, let us call their mal-administrations to account, and that we may understand our condition first.
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 is not easy to wrest a club out of Hercules's hands. It must breed great distractions. It is fittest for us; most suitable 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 liberties 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. (fn. 13) I most cordially concur 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 another.
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. (fn. 14) 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, besides great scarcity of money, and sales of public lands. Maladministration was then complained of; men being both buyers 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. (fn. 15) Admit it were so; then it entities 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 we go to natural right, all other laws are gone. No man can say that we are chosen to any such ends. The consequence of this is, that there is no law in being. This House was not chosen to that end. We cannot assume it. The foundation 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 sennight, nothing has been done. I told you then I would not have come into the House, but that I owned the Chief Magistrate. We have no cause to rejoice in a Commonwealth. A Commonwealth was never for the common weal. (fn. 16)
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.
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," (fn. 17) I cannot agree 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 placing 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 interregnum. Then it is plain you have no Protector at all.
The declaration should have been a more solemn deposition, and witnesses to prove it, who were not persons that have places by it. (fn. 18)
Mr. Harrison. I shall not trouble you with any long debate. I am one of those that are sorry the debate has laid so long, for I think there is no such danger, nor comprehensiveness in the vote. It was never understood so, in the acknowledging of any King.
As the single persons have turned into tyranny, so the liberties of the people have been abused, like Pandora's box. All sects and heresies have grown up under the abuse of these liberties. (fn. 19) The liberties of the people are dear to us all. They are so to me.
I served you here in 54. A melancholy man made a purchase, 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.
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, 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 argumentation. 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 highprerogative 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. (fn. 20)
The fault was not here in the persons, but in the extravagant 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.
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 administrations. 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 particular form of Government, exclusive of any other Government. It is light stuff for Government laid upon Nimrod, a great thief, or Adam's, (fn. 21) which was an economy rather than a Government. There is no text in scripture where they instituted 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 dissolved, the vote is also dissolved, and what will another Parliament 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 conclusions. Those that brought in the additions for the liberties 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 ?
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.
I have heard a large narrative of things. I shall only be as pne 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 conspicuous. 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. Therefore, 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 somewhat 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. 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 (fn. 22) 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 honourable settlement without it.
The eyes of all nations are upon you for this event. A ticklish state of affairs is at home, and hi Europe; (fn. 23) never so ticklish as now. Therefore do things for our honour. A barring of the negative voice in the Instrument of Government, was a tie upon him. By way of honour and compliment, it gave him some days to consider of a Bill. If he refused, it passed. (fn. 24)
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 surprise the people. I hope before this great council rise, they will lay such a careful foundation as there shall be no exception 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 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 recognize 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.
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 Government with it, this brings in no Government with it. Adam, being put into the garden, had a Government given in with him, (fn. 25) 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. (fn. 26) The Bill for Marriages is imperfect. (fn. 27) The members from Scotland make us imperfect. (fn. 28) We have it not made out that he was declared Protector. (fn. 29)
Mr. Reynolds. I hope that gentleman that is a conscientious 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 preferred 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 appealed if he did not tell this very same story on Friday. (fn. 30)
Colonel West. I am for the first part of the question, but not without the other part. I except against the word "undoubted." 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, (fn. 31) 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 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 desire to be in the army upon another principle. Divers persons have deeply engaged. I have heard it said of this gentleman, that he is without guile and without guilt; (fn. 32) 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 together. It was minded well by Colonel Terrill. (fn. 33) I shall not trouble you with repeating the question; but put them together or put neither.
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, (fn. 34) 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. (fn. 35)
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, "I was loth to go up and tell the people you were such bad men." Divers gentlemen look to see whether the spirit of young gentlemen (fn. 36) 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, (fn. 37) if we leave it thus; if you clothe the Chief Magistrate with these kind of powers.
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 understand 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 Sergeant Browne. A declaration of Lords and Commons. (fn. 38) 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 cannot 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 declaration ? I would have all taken together.
Sir John Lenthall. I move that you recognize his Highness under the style and name of Chief Magistrate, to govern the nation according to the laws, &c. (fn. 39)
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.
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. (fn. 40)
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.
We must now speak or ever hold our peace. It was told 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. (fn. 41) 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 caring 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, (fn. 42) I hope it shall not be said of us, as of the Romans once; O homines, ad servitutem parati! 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 competitor. (fn. 43)
Mr. Disbrowe. We shall, at one dash, root out the liberties of the people, if we go now, de novo, to make a Chief Magistrate. 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 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, (fn. 44) 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.
As I would have the Parliament to speak nothing but what is just, nothing but truth, so to speak nothing but what is sense. 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 Protestant religion and confession of faith; and where you will end I know not.
In the interim, a heat happened between Colonel Okey and Mr. Hampden; (fn. 45) relating to his differing from his former principles.
Sir Henry Vane. I move that the question first be put, whether you will leave out the word, recognize. (fn. 46)
Mr. Turner. I see we agree about the thing, and only disagree 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.
I understand not the word, recognize; but it may fetch in more. The whole matter may come in upon that question. For aught I know, I shall never speak more. I would entertain strangers kindly, they may be angels; a saying in scripture. (fn. 47) 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; (fn. 48) 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 recognition was the solemnest way of attesting a debt, in the presence 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. (fn. 49) But, on my soul and con science, pass this, and it will be out of doors to consider thisafter.
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 Constable, Supreme Sheriff, or any thing of that kind ?
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 liberty of the Protector. I stand here to plead for him. The more power is added, the sooner will he down.
You leap into all regal majesty, if you confirm him in that authority. It win 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 debated 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 wiser, in my soul, than to desire to rule over those that will make themselves slaves.
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 sworn. Another House they are, de facto.
The main question (fn. 50) being put in the affirmative,—
Sir Henry Vane. I wish I could speak out; for it deserves it. You had another question, whether you should have any addition. (fn. 51)
Mr. Weaver. I would have no question put upon an addition, 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. Attorney-general. If the question be carried in the affirmative, 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.
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 answered, but by "Question, question !"
It must either be by divine right, by conquest, or by common consent. By divine right he cannot be. Moses and the judges had a call from the people. (fn. 52) It was said the King should not multiply unto himself horses, (fn. 53) meaning power. You cast off God, if you cast off that question. He has not conquered you, his father has not. Consider how you give it away by wholesale, and beg it by retail. (fn. 54)
Let not a vote pass by a small number of men, haply that by your Petition and Advice are not qualified. (fn. 55) 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.
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. (fn. 56) 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 gentleman (fn. 57) on the other side of the dike.
He had undoubted power to declare, and did, undoubtedly, declare. (fn. 58)
If some limitations be not put in, we shall not be able to answer it, either to God or man; but it is not seasonable now. I would have you put the question, if, at this time, additions shall be to the question; or put it, if now it shall be put.
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 (fn. 59) that will make the title, undoubted. I would have that word left out, and the question put for the additions.
Mr. Speaker. The word, undoubted, came instead of the word, lawful. (fn. 60)
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. (fn. 61)
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.
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. (fn. 62) I would have the vote for an addition.
1, 300,000l. per annum, (fn. 63) was taken, notwithstanding the previous 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.
If it pass in the negative, you are excluded at your Committee. A proviso may be brought in. Votes will remain on 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 together.
The question was put, that this question be now put, and it passed in the negative, by above one hundred votes. (fn. 64)
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 territories thereunto belonging; the question was put, that this question be now put; and it passed in the affirmative, (paucis contra.)
Mr. Trevor then offered, of his own accord, to the end the other party might not go away displeased, that it also be resolved, and was, with but one negative (fn. 65) 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 secure the rights and privileges of Parliament, and the liberties 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. (fn. 66)