The Diary of Thomas Burton: 5 February 1658-9

Pages 68-84

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.


Saturday, February 5,1658–9.

The House sat, ere I came in.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge was moving that the petition of John Lilburne's (fn. 1) widow be read.

It was read, and referred to a Committee. (fn. 2)

Mr. Bodurda and Mr. Manley moved that Major-General Ludlow sat, and had not taken the oath. (fn. 3)

Mr. Collins offered a petition against an unqualified member, and it was debated whether the other or this should be read first.

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, (fn. 4) but that Mr. Streete, a person who had been in arms, and a common swearer, was chosen by the profane rabble, and Cavaliers.

Mr. Weaver. I move that a Committee be appointed to examine this business; also the qualifications of all members, 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 Parliament, 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 condemnation, 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 his 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, (fn. 5) 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 interrupt your moved business. The debate will cause heat. I desire not to question Scotland or Ireland, who have no colour at all to sit. (fn. 6)

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 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 Advice; 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 hundred have taken the oath. Why should two or three refuse it, or, at least, not forbear to sit till they have taken it ? Nature 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 (fn. 7) 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. (fn. 8) Not but 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 preserving unity; that we may all sit on one footing of account. There are a hundred members to come in; and shall all these be admitted without an oath? The consequence 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 Petition 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 distribution relative; so you sit here by a lapse. It was the sense of the Long Parliament to alter the distribution. (fn. 9)

That which frights you, is your Petition and Advice. The essential of our title is from the people. This may be a sine qua non. I will not say the contrary. The Chief Magistrate, he that exercises the power, has a very good army to justify it. (fn. 10) I have heard of a law of Parliament every year, and a triennial Parliament, (fn. 11) 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 members; and have an account brought in to validate the members for Scotland and Ireland. I would have either an ad journment or a preterition, that those that arc coinc 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 reported 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. (fn. 12)

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. (fn. 13) 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 (fn. 14) 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 refused to answer it. They desired he might be examined about it.

It seems the fellow got out of the way, and the Serjeant 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 Parliament man, (fn. 15) and thereupon he came and sat; as not knowing but he was chosen. (fn. 16)

Mr. Goodrick. This is the person that owned the pamphlet, the Twenty-five Queries, which has treason in every line. It questions the nomination of his Highness; reflects likewise 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 appointed 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 regulate these things. (fn. 17)

Sir William Wheeler. I would have four or five appointed to examine him. It is a matter of great contempt. The 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.

Sir John Carter. I move that he be searched for papers.

Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. (He came into the House today.) 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, twenty-four are treason. (fn. 18) 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 Committee 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 Gatehouse. 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 disgraceful.

Mr. Knightley. I move not to complicate the question. 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 natior You may discover much for your service.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. You may often read in ancient journals, 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 committed 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. (fn. 19)

He was called in again. He said he was born in Pope's Head Alley. He is a vintner, a profession that has been oppressed. He never was a scholar since twelve years old, and is glad he was not; for an elder brother, that was a scholar, wronged him.

He said he was committed to Finsbury Prison, (fn. 20) 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 commanded 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. (fn. 21)

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. (fn. 22)

Mr. Knightley seconded; and moved that the Committee of Privileges be not prevented from sitting.

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 included as formerly. I would have it examined by a Committee how the treasure was expended.

Serjeant Maynard. It seems the sheep are committed to the wolf. Scandalous ministers, it seems, have scandalous judges. (fn. 23)

Mr. Goodrick. I move that the northern part of Yorkshire 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 generally.

Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. There is a vast treasure arising out of these revenues. I never heard of any account. I have passed through Wales, and found churches all unsupplied, except a few grocers, or such persons, (fn. 24) that have formerly served for two years.

Sir Walter Earle. I move that the northern counties go with it.

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 counties on Wednesday next, in the Exchequer and Duchy Chamber.

The debate about the oaths of the three members fell. (fn. 25)

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. Jenkinson (fn. 26) 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 1200l. in the beginning of the Long Parliament, which he felt yet; and gave 1600l. 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." (fn. 27)

The Committee adjourned till Tuesday. (fn. 28)


  • 1. See vol. i. p. 156, note ||; infra, February 28.
  • 2. "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.
  • 3. See supra, p. 11, note †. The General thus fully explains his conduct, and details the result of this unfriendly interference:— "Those that governed at Whitehall, had ordered an oath to be administered to all such as should be admitted to sit in the House, whereby 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 privacy as I could. "Thus I continued to do for about a week, when news was brought, 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 procured 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 therefore 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 formerly 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 interrupted 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 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 distempered 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 acknowledgment 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 members of the Long Parliament, which was not dissolved, but only interrupted 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 Parliament.
  • 4. Mr. Collins, who presented the petition, was the other member.
  • 5. See supra, p. 68.
  • 6. 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 concluded 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.
  • 7. See vol. ii. p. 176.
  • 8. 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 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 hene formerly imposed, had hut 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.
  • 9. " 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. 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 concealment sufficiently betraying his self-conviction of a dishonourable purpose. He, however, availed himself of its provisions in the construction 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 Parliament resolved to correct, and to permit only some of the principal cities and boroughs to choose, and that for the most part but one representative, 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 appointed to be chosen by the several counties, in as near a proportion as was possible to the sums charged upqn 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. Thus a Parliament, acting for the people, and unembarrassed by claims of prescriptive privilege, were prepared to disregard the legislative 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 consideration 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 generally regarded, than in the 17th century; while, by the progress of education, the claimants are better qualified to "know their rights," and peaceably, yet perseveringly, to "dare maintain" them.
  • 10. 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." Memorials (1732), p. 675.
  • 11. See vol. i. p. 403, notes ‡ §.
  • 12. See vol. ii. p. 279, note *.
  • 13. See vol. i. p. 262, note ‡.
  • 14. See supra, p. 71, note
  • 15. "He came as a petitioner; but Sir John Dethick joyed him, last Lord's-day, of his being chosen a Parliament-man." Journals. This Alderman, who could thus sport with the credulity of a person so afflieted as William King appears to have been, was Lord-Mayor in 1656, and then knighted by the Protector.
  • 16. "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, he answered, that Sir John Dethick, one of the Aldermen of London, had given him the joy of being chose a member for the Parliament, 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 enlargement 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 ters patent; and then this market was let to farm for 46l. 13s. 4d. per annum. In 1507, it was let for 56l.19s. 10d. per annum. In 1543, there were here twenty-five boards for Fishmongers, and eighteen stalls for Butchers, which, with 5l. 13s. 4d. for sixteen chambers, amounted to the yearly rent of 82l. 3s." See "A New View of London" i. 79.
  • 17. "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 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 Parliament, (where he has not appeared among the speakers,) till called to the "Other House." He is described by an anonymous contemporary, 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 among 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 Holland, 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 at Amsterdam. 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 parliament) "was a citizen and goldsmith of London, who, being sensible 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.
  • 18. See an earlier discovery of such treasonable paper-shot, vol. ii. p. 134.
  • 19. "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 hold 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 Alderman, is yet responsible, as a "wilful, bold, and insolent" offender.
  • 20. Where, probably, maniacs were, confined, and absurdly treated as criminals. See vol. i. p. 73; and on "the Blind-house," ii. 118, notes.
  • 21. "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 Exchange Tavern, near the Stocks; and expressed how much he had suffered by his elder brother, as he conceived, who had endeavoured to prejudice him in his estate." Journals.
  • 22. At the fast.
  • 23. The learned Serjeant seems to have been incorrectly reported, as his conclusion ill accords with his premises.
  • 24. Despised as laymen, (though perhaps) "of mother-wit, and learned without the schools," both by Episcopalian clergy, and "plain Presbyter,"—Milton's "Priest writ large."
  • 25. See "Mr. Bodurda," supra, p. 71.
  • 26. The other member for the county. See supra, p. 24.
  • 27. See Vol. ii. p. 423, note ‡.
  • 28. On Bishop Reynolds, supra p. 66, vote †, 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.