The Diary of Thomas Burton: 7 February 1658-9

Pages 85-118

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 7, 1658–9.

I came late, and found the House in debate upon the report about Horsham, from the Committee of Privileges.

Resolved to agree with the Committee, that a writ issue out for a new election.

Lord Falkland was called in upon the report from the Committee of Privileges. (fn. 1)

William King was released this morning upon his petition. (fn. 2) He has not sat so long in prison as he did in the House.

Sir William Wheeler offered a petition from Major Audley, that he be released from his imprisonment.

The petition was read, signifying his sorrow for offending the House, and desiring he may have his liberty to prosecute at the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Bish. I move, for that reason, that he be released, to the end that he may prosecute his petition against us; which we fear not.

Sir Walter Earle. You drowned an eel when you sent him to the Tower, where he has a house and good accommodation. He has been but a little while imprisoned. He is in orders. I hope you will not think him capable of being a member; so that his reason ceaseth. (fn. 3)

Captain Baynes. I move to have him released.

Mr. Goodrick. I move to have him bound to good behaviour, as usual in dealing with offenders of this kind. (fn. 4)

The orders of the day were called for, and read. The order was upon the Act for Recognition.

Mr. Fowell and Mr. Fleetwood moved to send into the Hall for all the members to attend.

Mr. Steward and Mr. Pedley seconded the motion.

Mr. Weaver, Mr. Walter Young, and Mr. Neville. The mace cannot go without an order, because the Judges and Commissioners of the Seal are removed to another House. It cannot be presumed but that your members should attend.

Resolved, that the mace be sent for the members, to attend here according to the duty of their place.

Mr. Weaver. By the orders of the House, a business of this nature was never taken up. till ten 0'clock. (fn. 5) The House being full, I question the reason.

The mace being returned, and the lawyers with him, and the House being very full,

The Act intitled, "An Act of Recognition of his Highness's right, and title to be Protector and Chief Magistrate of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging," was read the second time. (fn. 6)

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I wonder not at this silence in a business of this weight. I have much weakness upon me. (fn. 7)

The business that we are about, is the setting up a power over this nation. It will be necessary, for method's sake, to consider what we have been; what we are, and what we shall be I must beg patience to look far back. Time was, this nation had seven kings, and no doubt but the strongest put down the weakest, against the will of the rest. I never knew any single person to have power, willing to lay it down. After it was in one single person, then came in the Conqueror. The Kentishmen stood up for their liberties, and in some sort, preserved liberty to all the rest. (fn. 8)

Succeeding Kings, sons and others, began to grow very oppressive to the people's liberties. Then rose up the noble Barons who struggled so long, till with their swords, they obtained our Magna Charta. (fn. 9) That our Barons were men of great power, appears by what they compelled the King to grant; the whole estate being in them and the Bishops, Abbots, and King. They were so great, and sensible of their greatness.

The Government was then in King and Parliament, Lords and Commons sitting altogether. (fn. 10) They withdrew and went into another House, to make a distinct jurisdiction. Thus the Lords had all but the power of the purse, which, to this day, preserved the liberties of the nation. Then the Government was enlarged into three estates, King, Lords, and Commons, and continued thus above three hundred years. (fn. 11)

As all governments have their beginning from time, so time puts an end to them. The government, continuing so long, it had contracted rust. The people groaned under great oppression, both as men and Christians.

The Council Table bit like a serpent; the Star Chamber like scorpions. Two or three gentlemen could not stir out, for fear of being committed for a riot. Our souls and consciences were put on the rack by the Archbishop. We might not speak of Scripture, or repeat a sermon at our tables. Many godly ministers were sent to find their bed in the wilderness. (fn. 12) The oppression was little less in the lower courts and in the special courts.

Altars were set up, and bowing to them enjoined. Pictures were placed in Church-windows, and images set up at Durham, and elsewhere (fn. 13); with many other exorbitances introduced, both in Church and State. The Archbishop would not only impose on England, but on Scotland, to bring in the Book of Common-Prayer upon them. They liked it not, and, as luck would have it, they would not bear it. (fn. 14) He prevailed with the King to raise an army to suppress them. The King prevailed with his nobles to conquer them into it. He went to their country, and finding himself not able to conquer them, came back.

He called a Parliament, which was named the Little, or Broken Parliament, disbanded not his army, but propounded that we should give him a great sum to maintain the war against Scotland. We debated it, but the consequence of our debate made him fear we would not grant it. We had, if he had suffered us to sit. Then did Strafford and his Council advise him to break us and to rule arbitrarily, and that he had an army in Ireland to make it good. For this Strafford lost his head. (fn. 15) The King suddenly broke that Parliament. (fn. 16) I rejoice in my soul it was so. He raised the gallantest army that ever was, the flower of the gentry and nobility. The Scots raised too, and sent their declaration into England, that by the law of God and nature they might rise up for their own preservation; and thus they came into England. At Newburn the armies met. We were worsted. God was pleased to disperse our army, and give them the day. The Scots passed Newburn, and advanced to Newcastle. (fn. 17)

Then some of our nobles, Say, Essex, and Scroop, humbly petitioned his Majesty for a Parliament. He, seeing danger, called a Parliament. This was the Long Parliament. The first proposition was to raise money for the Scots. We gave them a brotherly assistance of 300,000l. They showed themselves brethren and honest men, and peaceably returned. Then money was pressed for our own army. The House, considering how former Parliaments had been dealt with, was unwilling to raise money till the Act was passed (fn. 18) not to dissolve the Parliament but by their own consent. It passed freely by King, Lords, and Commons. This was wonderful; the very hand of God that brought it to pass; for no man could then foresee the good that Act produced.

The King then practised with the Scots, then with his army, to assist him against this Parliament, and to make them sure to his particular interest. Sir John Conyers discovered it, to his everlasting fame. Mr. Pym acquainted the House. Divers officers of the army, Lord Goring, Ashburn. ham, Pollard, and others, were examined here. (fn. 19) They all absented. The House desired of the King, that they might be brought to justice; but the King sent them away beyond sea.

The King demanded five members, by his Attorney-General. He then came personally to the House, with five hundred (fn. 20) men at his heels, and sat in your chair. (fn. 21) It pleased God to hide those members. I shall never forget the kindness of that great Lady, the Lady Carlisle, that gave timely notice. Yet some of them were in the House, after the notice came. It was questioned if, for the safety of the House, they should be gone; but the debate was shortened, and it was thought fit for them, in discretion, to withdraw. Mr. Hampden and myself being then in the House, withdrew. Away we went. The King immediately came in, and was in the House before we got to the water.

The Queen, on the King's return, raged and gave him an unhandsome name, "poltroon," (fn. 22) for that he did not take others out; and certainly if he had, they would have been killed at the door.

Next day the King went to the City. They owned the members. (fn. 23) Thereupon he left the Parliament, and went from step to step, till he came to York, and set up his standard at Nottingham, and declared the militia was in him.

The House of Lords then sent down to declare that the King had broken his trust. The word of the King, seduced by evil counsel, lost us forty lords. The House declared the militia to be in them. (fn. 24) That was then a great question. Commissioners were then sent out in the name of the King and Parliament. Then was there the King against the Parliament, and Parliament against him. (fn. 25) There was at this time, no thought to alter Government. We met at Edgehill. The King went to Oxford, and gave thanks for the victory, and we at London gave thanks for the victory: (fn. 26) and so it was in many other battles. Thus the English pushed on both sides, and much precious English blood was spilt on the ground. Several propositions, at length, were tendered; but God hardened his heart. He would not accept. Then we came to make a new model, and a Self-denying Ordinance. Thereupon this noble Lord (fn. 27) was chosen the Parliament's General. The Commission as to him, was from the Parliament only; the name "King" was left out. I appeal to all the world for the undeniable, the unquestionable victories after that. We had not one doubtful battle. The King after that never gave thanks. In process of time, there were propositions, again and again, seven, eight, or nine times,—at least seven times,— sent to the King, desiring, for ourselves, our ancient liberties with our ancient Government, but his heart was still hardened. Next we shall find him in the Isle of Wight, where the last propositions were tendered to him. (fn. 28) He would not consent, though his sword was broken, and he was in the lowest condition. He denied. Many gentleman in this House, of great worth, foreseeing our troubles, apprehended there was enough in the King's condescensions for a well-grounded peace. But the officers of the army were otherwise opinioned. Finding the King not sufficiently humbled, they thought the good cause would be betrayed. The officers seized several members. (fn. 29) Those that stayed within, asked for them, but could not have them.

They seized upon the King, demanded justice, and brought him to judgment. He would not answer, not owning our authority, because he was accountable only to God; whereas, God never made such a creature, to govern men, and not to be accountable to men. Yet he received his judgment, and submitted his head quietly to the block. The edge of justice struck it off. See the wonderful hand of God! The King dead, some members of the House, the late General, and Commissary-general Ireton, they would have it determined, (which the wisdom of the House thought meet) that not only this line, nocent and innocent, but that kingship should be abolished, as dangerous useless and burthensome. (fn. 30) Then there was an end of one of the three estates. The Lords, most of. them being gone, the remainder, amazed and troubled at this, adjourned their House; but never came again unto it. As they had their beginning from themselves, so they had their end from themselves. The Commons approved the Lords' adjournment, and did by them as they had done by the King: and there was an end of that estate. Two of the three estates were thus gone. Then, for the third estate, that, God knows! had been much shattered and broken. Force was much upon us. What should we do ? We turned ourselves into the Commonwealth. By advice of the soldiers among us, a declaration to that purpose went out from the Army. We continued four years, before we were put an end to. In which time, I appeal to all, if the nation, that had been blasted and torn, began not exceedingly to flourish. At the end of the four years, scarce a sight to be seen that we had had a war. Trade flourished; the City of London grew rich; we were the most potent by sea that ever was known in England. Our Navy and Armies were never better.

Yet, after these estates were ended, we found a new trouble. The wars were not then ended. Waters broke out. A strong remnant got into Colchester. Our brethren of Scotland were not so firm upon that great shaking of kingship. We sent an army into Scotland, to Colchester, to Wales. This noble Lord (fn. 31) went to the gates of Colchester and conquered, and put an end to all the English war. Then a general was sent into Scotland. Our late Protector that died was then general of all our forces. You know the great mercy. There we obtained that memorable victory at Dunbar. What care did the Parliament then take to furnish their army from London with all necessaries, by land and in ships; all provided with the greatest diligence. None but a numerous company of good and honest-hearted men could have done the like. The King of Scots came in with a great army. Twenty thousand men came suddenly and freely to Worcester. The people voluntarily rise and assist, in the greatest numbers that were ever read. The Scotch Army returned, not three in a company. Man by man they returned in rags. This battle, the 3d of September, 1651, put an end to all the miseries of war in England and Scotland. Our wars in Ireland were then not considerable.

This done, it is true here was only remaining a little part of that triple cord, and you know what became of them. I heard, being seventy miles off, that it was propounded that we should dissolve our trust, and dissolve it into a few hands. I came up and found it so; that it was resolved in a junto at the Cockpit. I trembled at it, and was, after, there and bore my testimony against it. I told them the work they went about was accursed. I told them it was impossible to devolve this trust. Next day, we were labouring here in the House on an act to put an end to that Parliament and to call another. I desired the passing of it with all my soul. The question was putting for it, when our General stood up, and stopped the question, and called in his Lieutenant, with two files of musqueteers, with their hats on their heads, and their guns loaden with bullets. Our General told us we should sit no longer to cheat the people. The Speaker, a stout man, was not willing to go. He was so noble, that he frowned and said he would not out of the chair, till he was plucked out; which was quickly done, without much compliment, by two soldiers, and the mace taken: and there was an end of the third estate also. (fn. 32) I rejoiced then, from the soul, that the question was not put. But I would have passed the severest sentence upon those that did this horrid business, that ever was passed upon men, and would have been from my heart the executioner of it. But I forgive them now, both the dead and the living. There was no possibility to dissolve this Parliament, the remaining part of the three estates, but by our own officer. He only had power. Our enemies had none.

Surely all the English blood was not spilled in vain ? It was a glorious work of our Saviour to die on the cross for our spirituals. This is as glorious a work for our civils, to put an end to the King and Lords. The right is, originally, without all doubt, in the people. Undeniably and most undoubtedly it reverts to the people: the power being taken away. Like the gordian knot, it asked but Hercules's (fn. 33) sword to cut this knot. This done, our General, in 1653, looked on himself as having all power devolved upon himself: a huge mistake ! The power was then in the people. If by conquest he had come in, he might have had something to say. It was, undoubtedly in the people. It was a mistake in him; you shall see it. (fn. 34)

He was pleased to select a number of gentlemen, good, honest men, (fn. 35) hither brought. He gave them power. They came into this House, and voted themselves a Parliament. They acted high in some things, and soon cracked. Some of them ran to Whitehall, and returned their power. (fn. 36) Whence it came, thither it went. Judge whether power could pass thus, either to or from him.

This not serving the turn, then there was contrived an Instrument of Government, (fn. 37) with our General at the head of it. This was first delivered to him in Westminster Hall. The Judges, most that were in town, and the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, were summoned, few knowing what it was for. There was an oath in this Instrument, which he took; and after that took upon him the name of Protector.

After that, a Parliament was called to confirm this. I was chosen one of those that the people sent up. Something was put in the writ, concerning our owning of this government in that Parliament; but, come hither, some gentlemen were pleased to say, being in the dark. I remember one learned gentleman, very well read in Scripture, said openly, that "other foundation than that could no man lay," (the latter words left out) Others said that the Parliament and Protector were twins, but the Parliament was the elder brother.

I then said no one Parliament could limit or impose upon me in any other. This doctrine was not well liked by the Protector. We were all turned out Such a thing as never was done ! An oath was made without doors, to be taken by us, and was set at the door. Those that would take it came in. Those that would not, were kept out by pikes. (fn. 38) Knowing the privilege, that no power without doors could make an oath, I went away, and divers more gentlemen.

Those gentlemen that did sit, after five months were raised without giving any confirmation. It needed not, if other foundation could no man lay. They did nothing.

Then came the last Parliament, in 1656. I was again chosen, but not for any particular place; but for the whole county. When we came I found pikes again; one set to my breast. I could not pass without a ticket from the Council. I found in the hall above fifty of us. We joined in a letter to the Speaker; (fn. 39) declaring our willingness to serve, and that we were kept out. After two or three days attendance we were sent to the Council for a ticket. I durst do no such thing. I had lifted up my hands to God for the privilege of Parliament. I could not do it. Two hundred were kept out. Upon this, divers that had been admitted left the House.

Then the government fell dangerously sick, and it died. Another foundation was laid; a Petition and Advice; and this must be the law and the foundation of all! And these must be the fruits, all we must enjoy, after the spilling of so much blood and so much treasure ! Pardon me, if I thus make bare my mind to you.

This was a forced Parliament, because some of us were forced out; an imperfect Parliament, a lame Parliament, so much dismembered. We are here the freest, and clearest, and most undoubted representatives that ever were since the desolation of the three estates, King, Lords, and Commons. I know not one member kept out: if I did, I would on my knees beg his admittance. I hope God will direct us how to get out of this great darkness, as the minister told us that we have been in since this great desolation. What was done in the last Parliament is not a sufficient foundation to bring peace and settlement to this nation. The people of England were never more knowing and sensible of their privileges and liberties, nor better prepared to have a settlement from this free representative. We can do here whatsoever is for the good of the people. We have power over their purses and persons; can take away whole laws, or part of them, or make new ones. (fn. 40) I will tell you what we cannot do. We cannot set up any power equal to the people; either in one person, or another House. We are trusted with no such power.

God is the King of this great island, as Mr. Calamy told us. I hope he is King of our hearts. God has done this work. King, Lords, and Commons: it was not in our thoughts at first. Let not us set up what God has pulled down; not plant what God has rooted up, lest we be said to build against God.

We see what a confusion we are in. We have not prospered. Our army at Jamaica prospered not. (fn. 41) The trade and glory of the nation are much diminished. The council have been exceedingly bewildered. The government you see twice set up, presently pulled down. The strange oppression by making Acts of Parliament without a Parliament; (fn. 42) raising monies; denying habeas corpus; sending learned long robe gentlemen to the Tower, for asserting Magna Charta, such as all the Kings of England never did; (fn. 43) all this because we knew not the good mind of God. We were in darkness. It is God's mercy that we are here to declare ourselves in this place.

I shall now come to speak to the bill, whether to be committed or not. I confess, I do love the person of the Lord Protector. I never saw nor heard either fraud or guile in him. I wish only continuance of wealth, health, and safety to his family. I wish the greatest of honour and wealth of any man in this nation to him and his posterity; but this bill to recognize is a hard word. I never heard of such a bill but in King James's case; which was to declare him of the undoubted line to the crown, and so having a right to succeed. We must here take for granted the government, the Petition and Advice, which was not done in a free Parliament. It may be skinned over for a time, but will break out. The people are not pleased. What foundation soever is built, let it rise from us, that are the clear representatives. For the authority itself, it appears by that Petition that the Protectorate was for his life; but it appears hot how he appointed his successor; we must not take that upon trust, but be fully satisfied. I would not have this committed at present; but let it lie here. Never begin with the person first, but agree what trust he shall have. I forget not the great cause of our mischiefs, the influence of the kings over the judges. To make the King judge of necessity; that cut all our purses, that brought all our evil upon us. I would have us seriously advise and consider what we may do, as the people's representatives. The way of wisdom is everlasting peace. There is no danger to the nation, so long as this representative sits here. They are the supreme power. The way to prevent fire is to do our duties. We shall be preserved from the fire of hell and the fire of men. Let us let this rest, and consider of foundation stones. If a single person be thought best, to be accountable to the people for mal-administration, I shall submit to the majority.

Mr. Bulkeley. The gentleman has done the House a great deal of right in the narrative; yet he has something omitted whereby those gentlemen that were then at school, whereof I am one, may be misled. I shall collect his omissions of part of the history.

Self-defence, undoubtedly, is in this House. The King protected delinquents against justice. This was one of the causes of war. Exorbitancy, in the Church Government; toleration of popery; many causes of the war.

You engaged in a war. God was pleased to give an answerable success. We held forth the grounds of our war, and appealed to God, angels, and men, that success should not mislead us. We engaged the whole body on this score: all with confidence that we should all hold to the case as then stated. True, in the latter part; you were more successful; but your army was less exorbitant at first. You were engaged upon a solemn league and covenant, (fn. 44) as highly and solemnly as could be to engage men's hearts. This was a link to the three nations. This was thrown behind your door as an almanack out of date. (It was said so here.) We sent away our brethren with frowns. After Colchester surrendered, (fn. 45) proposals went to the King, and personal addresses. I was one sent, so can give the better account. They were persons, generally, of as great ability and integrity as the nation had We brought a good return; but, we being not then ripe for the mercy of peace, it was blasted. This deserved a debate, a solemn debate. There were near three hundred; a great House in those days. It was taken up on Monday morning, and continued all that night till next morning. I cannot say it was without interruptions, for we had papers of terrors from the army sent in to us. There was a story of the long sword, (fn. 46) by that gentleman. I wish I had never heard it. We came to a question, and it was carried with a vote, (no question then of the Government) sixty against it. Many votes of aged persons were lost, and interruptions, else there had been two to one. The House adjourned.

The next morning (fn. 47) I found Colonel Pryde at the door, and heard one by him tell him, "This is the person." I came through pikes and muskets. I was arrested by that gentleman. He asked my name. I would not tell him. I said I was a member. He said, "You have a mark upon you. You are a noted man." I asked for my charge. When he saw I would not go quietly, two ushered me up into Surrey Court, where I found thirty, and fifteen came after. We were kept in hold that night; then ushered to Whitehall; and kept there till next day two o'clock, without food or conveniency. We were carried to the King's Head, and other inns, with great reproach. To prison we had coaches, because it was dirty weather. It is said, it was not done in this House. I could say it was contrived here; and somewhat else too. Five members were appointed to examine every member upon the point of that vote, what his judgment was.

A government was brought in; a Commonwealth, I was going to say; a monster was introduced, and that was dis solved, without either coroner or inquest upon it. (fn. 48) This brought another change. It is new to me that ever it was moved to resign up their power to a single person. If that gentleman refused, I shall honour him for it. It is said the Commonwealth flourished.

After this we had an Instrument of Government, which had much of good in it, but in the bowels of it took away your rights. That liberty was not left you which is your due: not that I would set the crown upon the head of the people. I gave my attendance to that Parliament that was called by it. Never Parliament gave out their spirits and labours, to make a happy government and foundation for posterity as they did. That unhappily fell from the gentleman, "other foundation," (fn. 49) &c.; that might have been spared. But at length it was submitted to our debate; and if that had gone on, it had provided well to circumscribe the single person: only it had not another House in it.

I am engaged, in my place and calling, to promote a House of Lords. Those Lords that were faithful, it were the greatest dishonour that ever were to kick them out. You have it materially before you. I hope it is the purpose of this House that the Government be submitted to them. It was hastily done. Holding fast the head: that is to say, a single person and another House, you may debate the parts. It is improperly moved to reject it, and not to proceed upon it.

Unless the chief magistrate have this approbation, every rascal may affront the chief magistrate. He may be arrested, which a member of this House has a privilege against. I would have that about the other House laid aside, and take the recognition singly. Let that about the other House come singly, as to qualifying them; to prevent returning to that government, which that worthy gentleman in his motion aims at. To acquiesce in that which they see against the sense of the nation, were madness.

Mr. Scot. It was moved that you first digest a government, and then fit the person. The last motion does antici pate your resolution. We may have liberty to propound any government to the people. Salus populi will warrant it. I am not fond of any child of my own. I shall say as Hushai said, (fn. 50) "What God and this people do, I shall acquiesce in."

If bound by the Covenant, (fn. 51) you must restore the House of Lords as it was, and the like by the King. His last expression is a felo de se. I shall mind you of one hiatus, the first rape committed on this House, by the apprentices that came here (fn. 52) and told us we must vote the King here in safely. After the scabbard was thrown away, we must call home our irreconcileable enemy, to be at his pleasure. If the House had held to it, it had been too hot for you. We denied it. There was discourse at the door, too much countenanced. They said our guts should be about our ears if we did not vote it. The attack oh the Train Bands was countenanced and abetted by the profane Cavaliers. Still God bore witness against that family; that cursed family! I may call it so yet. None adheres to it but he carries mischief with him. Many of us were forced to go to the army for safety; while others sat safely here and made laws. All these things were done flagrante bello, interruptions on both sides. I confess I was one of that Parliament that sat. As to the privilege of Parliament, it has been sufficiently told you. The Covenant was not called an Almanack. (fn. 53) By virtue of that Covenant I took myself obliged to all I did.

This was hammered in Scotland, (fn. 54) — and agreed to destroy the King's person, if he will not carry it so as to preserve religion and liberty. (fn. 55) I must then stand and fall by the judgment of those gentlemen, whether we had cause to fear that the King would break all these liberties and privileges. It is impossible any man should delight in a man of so much blood as the King was. The King was not the supreme power. He was seven or eight times sent to with propositions, (fn. 56) and would not yield. Had he been quiet after he was delivered up to us by the Scots, (fn. 57) knowing him to be our King— (fn. 58) So long as he was above-ground, in view, there were daily revoltings among the army, and risings in all places; creating us all mischief, more than a thousand Kings could do us good. It was impossible to continue him alive. I wish all had heard the grounds of our resolutions in that particular. I would have had all our consultings in foro, as any thing else was. It was resorted unto as the last refuge. The representative, in their aggregate body, have power to alter or change any government, being thus conducted by Providence. The question was, whose was that blood that was shed ? It could not be ours. Was it not the King's, by keeping delinquents from punishment, and raising armies?

"Brought first unto defence, until he's at the wall, And then he must offend: that is agreed by all."

The vindictive justice must have his sacrifice somewhere. The King was called to a bar below, to answer for that blood. (fn. 59) We did not assassinate, or do it in a corner. We did it in the face of God, and of all men. (fn. 60) If this be not a precept, the good of the whole, I know not what is; to pre serve the good cause, a defence to religion and tender consciences. I will not patronize or justify all proceedings that then were.

We sat four or five years in the posture of a Commonwealth, and fought more in that time than ever before; Scotland and Ireland all lost; Dublin and Derry only left. I remember the cadency of the words, infallible evidence, that the Scots would endeavour to restore the King to his patrimonial rights. To prevent them from making England the seat of war, we went to their own doors. The General sent out a declaration, calling God to witness that he intended nothing of domination, but only to assert the interest of the English nation.

The Dutch war came on. If it had pleased God and his Highness to have let that little power of a Parliament sit a little longer,—when Hannibal is ad portas, something must be done extra leges—we intended to have gone off with a good savour, and provided for a succession of Parliaments; (fn. 61) but we stayed to end the Dutch war. We might have brought them to oneness with us. Their Ambassadors did desire a coalition. This we might have done in four or five months. We never bid fairer for being masters of the whole world. Not that I desire to extend our own bounds. We are well, if we can preserve peace at home. If you be fain to fight Holland over again, it is vain to conceal it.

That gentleman says the Parliament went out, and no complaining in the streets, nor enquiry after them. (fn. 62) That is according to the company men keep. Men suit the letter to their lips. It is as men converse. I never met a zealous assertor of that cause, but lamented it, to see faith broken, and somewhat else. I will say no more. It was as much bewailed, at the Instrument of Government. A petition, the day after the Parliament was dissolved, from forty of the chief officers, the Aldermen of the city of London, and many godly divines, (except the rigid Presbyters, too well-wishers to Mr. Love's treason, (fn. 63) ) besought to have that Parliament restored. But the Protector, being resolved to carry on his work, threatened, terrified, and displaced them; and who would, for such a shattered thing, venture their all ? You have had five changes. This is the fifth, and yet the people have not rest. It may be the people may think of returning to that again, or it may be to another government.

The Romans continued Consuls one hundred years. There were endeavours to bring in kingship, and many lost their heads for it. Brutus's own sons died under the axe, rather than their father would suffer kingship. Then came the Decemviri, to collect the best laws in all nations, still jussu populi, to make peace and war; to make laws; to make magistrates; to frame twelve tables to be standing laws.

I would not hazard a hair of his present Highness's head. Yet I would trust no man with more power than what is good for him and for the people. I had rather have 100l. per annum, clear, than 200l. accountable. He is yet at the door. If you think of a single person, I would have him sooner than any man alive. Make your body, and then fit your head, if you please; one head; else we must debate all the limbs over again, either in a Grand Committee, or by twenty or thirty gentlemen. In the mean time lay this Bill aside. (fn. 64)

Major Beake. I shall not take up much of your time, to relate or answer all the stories. Though they have said much, yet those that come after them may find gleanings.

Those stupendous providences may he observed by other men. They draw this conclusion, that the state of a Commonwealth is best for the grandeur and splendour of a nation; that the opposite to a single person is the best government, and that no Government can be but what has its power from this House.

When that woful discrimination was made between the good people of this nation, and the engagement pressed, it was a sad and lamentable time with the best of men, and reached the bowels of your best friends. The worthy patriarch that preached (Dr. Reynolds) felt it. (fn. 65) They were not such halycon days, but they brought tears from the eyes of the best men. If ever a godly ministry were browbeaten and put under deck, it was at that time. A Petition was put up to this House on behalf of the godly ministers by two worthy persons, one serves for Worcestershire. I shall ever honour them for owning that cause at that time. All errors, opinions, and blasphemies, got root in that time; levelling principles, (fn. 66) agreement of the people, (fn. 67) nothing monstrous but that time produced. When we make the comparison, we may bless God we are on this side the waves and surges that those times produced.

I am for the commitment of the bill. I see nothing in it to cause delay. It is too late to say that all the power is in this House. See your constitution. Not but that much in that Petition and Advice may admit debate, so it touch not the fundamentals. The Boaz and Jachin of Solomon's Temple, (fn. 68) you cannot alter. That is not in the people. It is disputable to me that all power is in the people. If so, the people in Parliament represented, have power. Then the last had the power. If any thing be urged as to force, it makes all that was formerly done as inefficacious. This is as valid as any act formerly done. I know not how they will deliver themselves from this dilemma. I wished there had been no bar. Yet, I bless God for it, a great good produced out of a great evil. To dispute him here, is to question foundations. It nulls the obligation without doors. Either we swear to him, as our Supreme Magistrate, or else to a nonentity. We are met to declare a supreme magistrate; not to make a Chief Magistrate, as is said. This bill was only brought in to obviate what was working without doors, to alter your Government. All the world will think he had a good title, and now we are so sceptical as to question it. You will contract a greater trouble than you are aware of. My motion is, that you refer it to a Committee.

Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. Repetitions do but breed trouble. I would neither have it laid aside, nor committed. Will you refer it to a Committee, either grand or priyate ? Let it be debated in the House, beginning with, "Be it enacted."

Mr. Slarkey. Through the various changes of good and evil, we are arrived at the present posture we are in. These worthy gentlemen (fn. 69) need not say any thing to justify them selves, nor to look back at what is past.

The main objection is, that it appears not that his Highness was declared. I believe some here can satisfy you. But, cui bono, the people have manifested their satisfaction already, both by addresses, and by sending us hither. They have sent us hither to represent them, by his Highness's call. We have owned him in our assembling, in taking pur oaths at the door, and there is a greater acknowledgment in that. Cui bono is not all, but cui non malum.

The right of call is as essential a part of a Parliament as any. This very act has acknowledged him to be Chief Magistrate. I would not have us put the nation in that danger, as to ask the question. I find nothing in this Bill, of the Lords' House. I would as cheerfully and readily conclude this business, which will be of great consideration to the quiet and settlement of the nation.

Mr. Knightley. We have no cause to dislike one another's nest. I would have it committed. I would have the word "declare." Take your rise, not from addresses from the counties, but from the judges' and sheriffs' proclamation of it, and your being called hither by it. I would have it debated in a Grand Committee.

Colonel White. I wish the sins of the nation may be forgiven and remembered no more.

The Government of this nation is not the administration, but the laws. For proof of this, have recourse to former precedents of kings' oaths, of the present oath of his Highness. One king pulled down another, and they declared one another tyrant; the judges were the same; the laws the same. The judges were never touched for execution of the law. You have heard of several changes of Government; yet the learned judges have not doubted to take commission from all those powers, upon that supreme law, salus populi, the law fundamental.

The law is a dead letter only, the difference is in the Administration. I suppose the Government intended by this Bill, is this fundamental law. This was in the late King, by way of trust, which he forfeited. The root of all former miseries was about the Militia. This proved a bloody quarrel.

I would have you settle this fundamental and other fundamentals, before you settle any single person; else you will leave them to danger and uncertainty. I hope you will so leave it, that it may neither be danger to the Government, nor snare to the governed. It is dangerous to swerve from the fundamentals. Witness Major-Generals.

I doubt wringing of the nose will bring blood. I doubt, if we look back, we shall find much dissatisfaction; if forward, we may do much for satisfaction; at least, the satisfaction of the people. You will not feast your eyes with any Government that has been since 48.

I observe characters of great designation upon his Highness, I am sure without flattery. Set upon the pinnacle by Providence, I cannot but conclude there is the hand of God in it. I never saw his person in my life.

I would have some previous votes. I shall offer,

1. In order to the Government fundamental, that you will declare that the law is the Government of the nation.

2. That this Government, in the hands of person or persons, is by the way of trust and office.

3. That this shall be committed to his Highness by way of office and trust, with such limitations as you shall after agree on.

I would have it committed to a Committee of the whole House, that may bring you in a Bill or Bills to settle these things as well for the Government as the Administration. If I have said any thing amiss, it is not out of design, but duty.

Mr. Manley. I would ask one question: by what authority you sit here, if you come in upon new foundations ? We are at stake, as well as his Highness.

There is no better foundation for your proceeding than the Petition and Advice. It is a great honour that this Bill came first into this House. The question, I hope, is merely as to the expression of it. Here is evidentia rei. There needs no affidavit.

The Courts of Westminster Hall evidence it; the army: your meeting here acknowledged it.

I hope there is no competitor. It is said abroad, you intend a Commonwealth.

It will beget great confidence at home and terror abroad. I would have it amended at this table.

Mr. Neville. The proper question to debate is, whether to commit it or no; if you will take that up at this time of day.

Mr. Trevor. I would not have you adjourn indefinitely, to leave this business, sine die. I have but a short speech to make.

Resolved, that this debate be adjourned till to-morrow, at nine.

Mr. Weaver. The business of Mr. Streete was appointed to-morrow, that he answer his charge. I would have that first done.

Serjeant Maynard. I move that nothing intervene: for the gentleman's speech may prove as long as the speech we had to-day, (fn. 70) which lasted from nine to twelve. If you go on at this rate, to have one speech a day, the Dutch will give you 2,000l. a day to do so.

The Attorney-General seconded that motion.

Resolved that nothing intervene, and the House rose at almost two o'clock.

Monday afternoon.

The Grand Committee for Religion sat the first time; Mr. Bacon in the chair. A Sub-Committee was appointed to inquire how Biddle came to be released, being imprisoned for blasphemy. (fn. 71)

Another Committee was appointed to bring in a Bill to remedy the inconvenience touching the approbation of ministers; the same Committee to bring in a Bill for Commissioners for ejecting of scandalous ministers. T. B. (fn. 72) unus.


  • 1. See supra, pp. 24, 84.
  • 2. On "the petition of Ralph King, citizen and vintner of London, on behalf of his son, William King." Journals. "King, the mad fellow that was committed upon Saturday, was this day enlarged, it being moved that he was indeed a distracted person: but it was talked of as ominous, abroad; that in the beginning of a Parliament, we had called a King to the bar, and committed him to Newgate." Goddard MS., p. 122.
  • 3. In the Act of 1642, which deprived the "Lords Spiritual" of their seats in Parliament, (see vol. i. p. 391, note,) it is declared that "Bishops, and other persons in holy orders, ought not to be entangled with secular jurisdiction; the office of the ministry being of such great importance that it will take up the whole man, and for that it is found by long experience, that their intermeddling with secular jurisdictions, hath occasioned great mischiefs and scandal, both to Church and State." Therefore, "his Majesty, out of his religious care of the Church, and souls of his people, is graciously pleased that it be enacted, that no Archbishop or Bishop, or other person that now is, or hereafter shall be in holy orders, shall have any seat or place, suffrage, or voice, or use or exercise any power or authority, in the Parliament of this realm, nor shall be of the Privy Council, or Justice of the Peace, or execute any temporal authority." See Scobell's Acts, (1658,) p. 21. There was a very modern enactment, to prevent any clergyman from sitting in the House of Commons in future Parliaments, in consequence of Mr. Horne Tooke, (who, in early life, had been in Deacon's orders,) having taken his seat. He had been nominated to a Cornish borough by the late Lord Camelford.
  • 4. "This day Lewis Audley, who was committed to the Tower about the affront done to my brother, Bish; upon his petition, setting forth that he had a right of election to prosecute before the Committee of Elections, was discharged. Mr. Turgis moving also in his behalf." Goddard MS., pp. 122, 123.
  • 5. "It not being then ten of the clock, and the lawyers not come up to the House, it was moved that the Serjeant take the mace, and go to every bar in Westminster to call them up to attend, that the House may be full, upon so important an occasion. This motion was opposed by some, as showing too great a respect to that profession, and that it might as well be done to every member about the town. Others opposed it upon the account of losing no time, because, in the absence of the mace, nothing ought to be done until it returns. Yet, in regard the business was of great weight, and the assistance of the long robe requisite, and that it has been usually done before, and that in case it could as conveniently and easily be done to others about the town, perhaps it should be so done to them, therefore the mace was ordered to go down, and call the members out of the hall, and from every bar. But note, the mace cannot be borne out of the House without a vote to that purpose." Ibid. p. 123.
  • 6. Beginning thus, "Whereas his Highness, immediately after the death of his Highness's late father, became the lawful successor to succeed to the government of, &c. to the great joy of the people, testified by their general consent and approbation; and that God had invested him with power and authority, and that his Highness hath taken the government upon him. And although this be ample satisfaction, &c yet we, the two Houses of Parliament, do think it our duty to recognize and acknowledge, and pray that it be enacted and declared, that his Highness is the lawful Chief Magistrate and Protector, &c.; and that all the people be commanded to obey him accordingly." Ibid. pp. 123, 124. See the Act at large. "Thurloe State Papers," (1742) vii. 603, 604.
  • 7. "The bill being read, Sir Arthur Haslerigge, moving himself upon his seat, was called up, as if he had an intention to speak, which it seems he had not, but being called up, and seeing so great a silence, not wondering at it, it being so great a work, and prefacing something of weakness then upon him, yet hoping that if he had anything to deliver, that God would enable him, he began a very long harangue."Goddard MS. p. 124.
  • 8. "The whole nation, in sequel of time, was reduced to one entire monarchy, ruled by one single person, but that was varied according to the successes and several providences which it pleased God to ordain unto us, until at last came in one whom they called William the Conqueror, and in that time stood up the never to be forgotten Kentishmen, to preserve what they could, liberty for themselves and the rest."Goddard MS., p. 125. See vol. i. p. 210, note.
  • 9. See vol. i. p. 406, note. †.
  • 10. See vol. ii. p. 349, note †.
  • 11. "These Barons were then very great, for they had the whole Government of the nation, there being at that time but one House, one great Council; they had all power and jurisdiction with them, and left no power to the Commons but that of the purse, which by God's great mercy hath been the only thing that hath preserved the liberty of this nation. "But not long after, the Barons, by the civil wars being much diminished in their power and greatness, and it being the interest of the single person, the King, to have it so, thereupon the Commons having got a greater share in the lands and possessions of the nation than they had before, and being thought a convenient balance and check for the greatness of the Barons, they were admitted into a proportionable part of the Government. And from that time, the government of this nation was divided into three estates, and so it hath continued for above three hundred years." Goddard MS., pp. 126, 127.
  • 12. See vol. ii. p. 324.
  • 13. Dr., afterwards Bishop, Cosin, (see vol. i. p. 307,) was appointed in 1624 one of the Prebendaries of Durham. Among the twenty-one articles of impeachment preferred against him by the Commons, in 1641, are the following:— I. "That he was the first man that caused the Communion-Table in the Church of Durham to be removed, and set altar-ways. VII. "That the first Candlemas day, at night, that he had been in the Church, he caused three-hundred wax candles to be set up and lighted in the Church at once, in honour of our Lady, and placed three-score of them upon and about the altar. VIII. "That in this Church, there were relics of divers images, above which were remaining the ruins of two seraphims, with the picture of Christ between them, all which, when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, were demolished, which so continued till Dr. Cosin came to that Church, who, being Treasurer, caused the same to be repaired and most gloriously painted." Biog. Brit. (1789,) iv. 283. In 1632, the Recorder of Salisbury, by a sentence in the Star-Chamber, was committed to the Fleet, and fined 500l., for having (by an order of vestry, but without license from his Majesty or the Bishop) demolished a window in a Church in that city, containing a "description of the creation. To express God the Father, were painted," says Rushworth, "divers little old men bare-footed, and in long blue and red coats, and at every of the six days' work, such a little old man was placed, with the joining of some created thing, to denote what was made on that day. The sun and moon were painted: and in that old man's hand, representing God the Father, was placed a carpenter's compass, as if he had been fixing the proportion of the sun. For the seventh day, the little old man was painted sitting, to represent God's rest. "At the hearing of the cause, Laud, Bishop of London, speaking in favour of the painter, mentioned a place in Scripture, where God is called the Ancient of Days, which might make the painter mistake; but Edward Earl of Dorset replied, that thereby was meant God from eternity, and not God to be pictured as an old man creating the world with a pair of compasses." Hist. Col. (1706) ii. 123–126. See Ibid. pp. 219–222; State Trials, (1776) i. 399–418.
  • 14. Bishop Guthry, who died in 1676, relates these circumstances in his Memoirs, apparently from his own observation:— "The King, at his coming into Scotland in 1633, had brought with him Dr. Laud, then Bishop of London, shortly after Archbishop of Canterbury, one who had much power with his Majesty, but was generally hated by the people. He, beholding our form of worship, did, in conference with our Bishops, and others of the clergy, tax the nakedness thereof in divers respects, but chiefly for want of a liturgy, whereby he thought all might be helped. "Bishop Laud, moving the King to declare it to be his will that there should be a liturgy in this Church, his Majesty commanded the Bishops to go about the forming of it. The Bishops were busy about the work, and at length, towards the end of the year 1636, completed it. "In Edinburgh, July 16th, 1637, the ministers in their several pulpits made intimation that the next sabbath the service-book would be read in all the Churches, extolling the benefit of it, and exhorting the people to comply with it. That the work might be done in St. Giles's Kirk, with the greater solemnity, the Bishop of Edinburgh came there himself from Holyrood House to assist at it. "No sooner was the service begun, but a multitude of wives and serving-women, in the several Churches, rose in a tumultuous way, and having prefaced awhile with despightful exclamations, ' a pape! a pape ! Antichrist! pull hid down!' threw the stools they sat on at the preachers; and thereafter invaded them more nearly, and strove to pull them from their pulpits; whereby they had much ado to escape their hands. And for the Bishop, the magistrates found difficulty enough to rescue him; and when they had brought him without the Church, he was yet in danger of being murdered in the street, had not the Earl of Roxburgh received him into his coach, which drove so quickly that they could not overtake them." See "Memoirs of Henry Guthry, late Bishop of Dunkeld." (1748) pp. 18–23; Rushworth, ii. 299; Harris, ii. 326; Neale, ii. 272.
  • 15. See vol. ii. pp. 22, 287, 442, notes.
  • 16. See supra, p. 54, note ‡.
  • 17. See Rushworth's Hist. Col. (1706,) iii. 186–201.
  • 18. May 10, 1641.
  • 19. See vol. ii. p. 443, note.
  • 20. Whitlock says, "the King came, guarded with his pensioners, and followed by about two-hundred of his courtiers and soldiers of fortune, most of them armed with swords and pistols." Memorials, (1732,) p. 52. To the King's "ordinary guard," Ludlow adds " those desperadoes that for some time he had entertained at Whitehall, to the number of three or four hundred." Memoirs, i. 24. Lord Clarendon represents the King as " attended only by his own usual guard, and some few gentlemen, who put themselves into their company in the way," and that, "commanding all his attendants to wait at the door, and give offence to no man, himself, with his nephew, the Prince Elector, went into the House, to the great amazement of all: and the Speaker leaving the chair, the King went into it." History, (1705,) i. 358. Rushworth, who was Clerk of the House, and avowedly an eye-witness, appears in the following account, to differ with Lord Clarendon, as to the situation of the King's attendants:— "As the King entered the House with his guard of pensioners, and halberdiers, he cast his eye towards the place where Mr. Pym used to sit, but not seeing him there, he went towards the Speaker, saying, 'By. your leave, I must borrow your chair a little.' Having taken the chair, he looked about on the members as they all stood up, uncovered, and then made a speech. "In the evening, his Majesty sent for Mr. Rushworth, the Clerk, whom he observed to take his speech in characters, requiring a copy of it; who, pleading in excuse, how Mr. Neville was committed to the Tower for telling his Majesty what was spoke in the House, he smartly replied. ' I ask you not to tell me what was said by any member, but what I said myself;' upon which, a copy being transcribed, it came out in print next morning, by the King's order." Hist. Col. (1708,) iv. pp.237, 238. See Parl. Hist. (1762,) x. 164. Lilly says that "all this Christmas, 1641, there was nothing but private whisperings in Court, and secret councils held by the Queen and her party, with whom the King sat in council very late many nights." Then having described this outrage on the Parliament, as "the result of those clandestine consultations," he adds: "This rash action of the King's lost him his crown. It was my fortune, that very day, to dine in Whitehall, and in that room where the halberts newly brought from the Tower were lodged, for the use of such as attended the King to the House of Commons. Sir Peter Wich, ere we had fully dined, came into the room I was in, and broke open the chests wherein the arms were, which frighted us all out that were there. However, one of our company got out of doors, and presently informed some members that the King was preparing to come unto the House." See "Observations on the Life and Death of King Charles," (1651,) in Baron Maseres's Select Tracts, (1815,) i. 170,171.
  • 21. See supra, p. 19, note.
  • 22. This language well agrees with the previous manner of the royal consort, her husband's unconscious conductor to the scaffold. It is thus described by Mrs. Macaulay: "The King went to the Queen's apartment, and expostulated with her, on the hazard of the attempt, expressing something like a determination of not putting it in execution. The Queen was transported with passion at this want of resolution: 'Go, coward,' exclaimed this impe rious woman, 'pull these rogues out by the ears, or never see my face more. 'The submissive husband obeyed." Mrs. Macaulay adds a conjecture of that time, that" the Countess of Carlisle overheard the dialogue between the King and Queen." History, (1769,) iii. 148.
  • 23. "Notwithstanding his failure of success in the attempt," says Lilly, "so wilful and obstinate was the King, in pursuance of that preposterous course he intended, and so desirous to compass the bodies of these five members, that the next day he posted and trotted into the City, to demand the members there. He convened a meeting at Guildhall, and the Common Council assembled: but mum could he get there; for the word Londonderry was then fresh in every man's mouth. "But, whereas the author of the King's Portraiture complains that the insolency of the tumults was such, that his Majesty's person was in danger in the streets; this is a very untruth. For, notwithstanding his Majesty dined in the City that day, yet he had no incivility in the least measure offered unto his person; only many cried out as he passed the streets —' Sir, let us have our just liberties; we desire no more.' Unto which he several times answered, 'They should, &c.' An honest citizen, as I remember, threw into his coach a new sermon, the text whereof was, I remember, 'To thy tents, O Israel.' "Jan. 10, The five demanded members were brought into the House of Commons with as much triumph as could be expressed. Several companies of trained bands marching to the Parliament to assist, if need were. There were upon the Thames River I know not how many barges full of sailors, having some guns ready charged if occasion were; and these also came in multitudes to serve the Parliament. A word dropt out Of the King's mouth a little before, which lost him the love of the seamen. Some person being in conference with his Majesty, acquainted him that he was lost in the affection of the seamen; for they intended to petition the House, &c. 'I wonder,' quoth the King,' how I have lost the affection of these water-rats;' a word sure that slipped out of his mouth unadvisedly; for all men must and do know, that the ships of England, and our valiant sailors, are the very strength of England." Observation, pp. 172, 173. The following passages will explain the allusion to Londonderry in the former part of this note, premising that the twelve principal City companies, in 1613, on the condition of raising 40,000l. for "the new plantation in Ulster," had received a royal grant of that portion of the Irish lands forfeited to the crown. "1632. The whole county of Londonderry was sequestrated, and the rents levied for the King's use; and Bishop Bramhell was appointed chief receiver. "1634. By sentence of the Court of Star Chamber, it was adjudged, that the letters-patent of King James I should he surrendered and brought into the Court to be cancelled." In 1641, on the King's return from Scotland, when he "was invited to dinner in the City of London, he made a public declaration that he was much troubled at the judgment, and promised the City that the grant should be restored. "This the war prevented, and in 1656, " the Protector, by letters-patent, conferred the same rights as enjoyed under the Charter of James I." See "A View of the Irish Society," (1822,) pp. 34, 56, 60, 62.
  • 24. See vol. ii. p. 435, note * "The King," says Roger Coke, "as unstable in his resolutions as inconsiderate in his actions, retracts all he had done, and promises not to do so again: but to no purpose. For the members resolve not to trust to his royal word, prerogative, and absolute will and pleasure, and therefore will tear the power of the militia from him." Detection, (1097,) p. 278.
  • 25. See vol. ii. p. 448, note ‡.
  • 26. "October 23, 1642, was a very great battell fought between Keynton and Edge-hill by his Excellency (the Earl of Essex) and his army; and that of the King, led by his Majesty. At which time his Excellency's army killed the King's general, the Earl of Lindsey, the Lord Aubeny, Sir Edmund Verney, and divers more; and took prisoners the Lord Willoughby, three Colonels, and many hundred more, and brought away sixteen of the King's ensigns." England's Worthies, (1647,) reprinted 1821, p. 3. "However the victory was uncertain," says Roger Coke, "the suc cess was not so, for the King took Banbury town and Castle, and Oxford; and Prince Rupert took my Lord Say's house at Brought, and made excursions near London: whereupon the Parliament recalled Essex to defend themselves." Detection, (1697,) p. 297.
  • 27. "Looking upon Lord Fairfax, who sat always next him." Goddard MS., p. 128. "Mr. John Barwick," a spy in London for Charles Stuart, thus writes to "Sir Edward Hyde," (Feb. 16, 1658–9): "Fairfax sides with the Republicans, and carries a name above Lambert, for the present." See "Thurloe State Papers," (1742,) vii. 616.
  • 28. Sept. 18, 1648.
  • 29. See vol. ii. p. 387, note.
  • 30. See vol. ii. p. 388, note.
  • 31. Lord Fairfax.
  • 32. See supra, p. 74, note.
  • 33. A misnomer for Alexander.
  • 34. This paragraph is thus reported by the other member of this Parliament:— "But as the crucifying of Christ, though barbarous and horrid in itself, was the most beneficial and glorious for our souls, so this action, though thus wicked and unjust, was (at least, may. be, if we will improve it) the most advantageous to our civil interest, that can be; for this put a final end and dissolution of our long Government, by King, Lords, and Commons, the three ancient estates of this nation, and devolved all right of power and government upon its original fountain, the people again. When power is plucked up, whither can it return, but to its right centre, the people ? And there was no other way but the sword, to bring to an end this threefold Government. This was done 20th April, 1653. The General then looked upon himself as having all power devolved upon him, which was a huge mistake, for he had his commission from the Parliament, and that being dissolved, his commission ended." Goddard, MS. p. 132.
  • 35. See vol. ii. p. 67, note.
  • 36. See vol. ii. p. 67, note.
  • 37. See vol. ii. p. 274, note*.
  • 38. See vol. i. p. 273, note †.
  • 39. See vol. i. p. 262; ii. 348, notes ‡*.
  • 40. "The Parliament," says Sir, Thomas Smith, (and this Speaker may have had the passage in recollection,) "abrogateth old laws, maketh new, giveth order for things past, and things hereafter to he followed, changeth right and possessions of private men, defineth of doubtful rights, whereof is no law already made, appointeth subsidies, tailes, taxes, and impositions. All that ever the people of Rome might do either Centuriatis Comitiis or Tribunitiis, the same may be done by the Parliament of England. Every Englishman is intended to be there present, either in person, or by procuration and attorney;—and the consent of the Parliament is taken to be every man's consent." See "The Commonwealth of England," (1633,) pp. 77, 78. This representation of popular rights was made in 1565, by a Secretary of State, under a royal executive, too frequently disposed to violate them. It may serve to show, against the now happily exposed and exploded misrepresentations of Hume, the once favourite "idol of historic taste," that Charles was driven from his throne, and at length closed his life on a scaffold, not for resisting useful political innovations, but for exceeding the defined and long established limits of regal authority. Dr. Towers was among the early contributors to that detection of Hume, (whom he justly classes among those de veritate non multúm laborantes,) which Mr. Brodie, with a free spirit of enquiry, superior to national partialities, has ably completed. See "Observations on Mr. Hume's History of England," (1778,) in "Tracts on Political and other Subjects, by Joseph Towers, LL.D." (1796,) i. 233–430.
  • 41. In 1655, the Protector sent out an expedition under Penn and Venables, to annoy the Spaniards in the West Indies. Dr. Bates having described their unsuccessful attempt on Hispaniola, with the loss of more than 600 men, (sex centis, out suprÀ, desideratis) thus proceeds:— "Dein ad Jamaicam vela faciunt, occidentem versus, insulam peramœnam, quasi deliciarum hortum; cujus arenâ sine magno negotio potiuntur, Hispanis discessum pactis. Ibi vero scelerum vindex, dira grassata est in Anglos lues, quæ, duobus exceptis militibus, pervasit atque delevit intra sex menses exercitum universum. Postea paulatim novi militis et commeatûs adventu refocillati ex omni Jamaica Hispanos arcent." Elenchus, (1676,) Part ii. p. 307. (They now sail for Jamaica, towards the west, a pleasant island, even a garden of delights. This they quickly possess; the Spaniards capitulating to depart. But a plague, the avenger of wrong, violently attacks the English, and in six month's destroys the whole army, except two soldiers. Reinforcements arriving with supplies, they at length finally expel the Spaniards.) See Harris's Lives, (1814,) iii. 382–387. Governor Hutchinson says, that "Jamaica being conquered, Cromwell," who "had been very desirous of drawing off the New-Englanders to people Ireland, after his successes there, renewed his invitation to the colony of Massachusets to remove, and to go and people that island." To "the agent of the Colony in England, he was pleased to express, that he did apprehend the people of New England had as clear a call to transport themselves from thence to Jamaica, as they had from England to New England, in order to their bettering their outward condition. God having promised his people should be the head and not the tail: besides, that design hath its tendency to the overthrow of the Man of Sin. A few accepted the invitation." See "History of Massachusets, (1761) pp. 190, 192. Jamaica was described in this year, (1655,) as "of a rich and fertile soil, and in nothing less provided for the necessities of man's life, than either Hispaniola or Cuba; well stocked with cattle, and plentifully stored with fruits of all sorts; yielding abundance of cotton-wool, more than either of the other islands: only it wanteth the convenience of some good havens and ports, which it hath but few. And the sea round about it so shelvy, and full of rocks and broken islands, that the coast of it is held to be not a little dangerous: and therefore little frequented by merchants or others; there being, at present, only three small towns inhabited in the whole island." See "America faithfully represented, by N. N. Gent." (1657,) p. 484.
  • 42. In "The Government of the Commonwealth, as it was publicly declared at Westminster, 16th December, 1653," and "published by his Highness's command," the 30th Article (p. 40,) provides "that the Lord Protector, with the consent of the major part of the Council, for preventing the disorders and dangers which may otherwise fall out, both at sea and land, shall have power, until the meeting of the first Parliament, to raise money for the purposes aforesaid, and also to make laws and ordinances, for the peace and welfare of these nations, where it shall be necessary; which shall be binding and in force until order shall have been taken in Parliament concerning the same." See these Ordinances in Scobell's Collection. (1658,) pp. 275–368.
  • 43. "Mr. Conye's case is so notorious," says Mr. Bethell, "that it needs little more than naming. He was a prisoner at Cromwell's suit, and being brought to the King's Bench bar, by a Habeas Corpus, had his counsel taken from the bar, and sent to the Tower, for no other reason than the pleading of their client's cause; an act of violence that I believe the whole story of England doth not parallel." See "The World's Mistake in Oliver Cromwell," (1689,) pp. 45, 46. This case occurred May 18, 1655. The counsel were Maynard, Twisden and Wyndham, (see vol. ii. p. 340, note *.) They were not released till they had humbly petitioned the Protector. See Mercurius Politicus, No. 298. Lord Clarendon details, no doubt con amore, the particulars of a transaction highly disreputable to the Protector's Government. He admits, however, that "in all other matters, which did not concern the life of his jurisdiction, he seemed to have great reverence for the law, rarely interposing between party and party." History, (1712,) iii. 649, 650. It appears from Whitlock, that about this time, (May, 1655,) "Baron Thorpe and Judge Newdigate, were put out of their places, for not observing the Protector's pleasure in all bis commands." Memorials, (1732,) p. 625.
  • 44. See vol. ii. p. 214, note*.
  • 45. August 27, 1648. See supra, p. 97.
  • 46. See vol. ii. p. 423.
  • 47. December 6, 1648. See Ibid. p. 387, note *.
  • 48. See vol. ii. p. 416, note †.
  • 49. See supra. p. 100.
  • 50. 2 Sam. xvi. 18.
  • 51. See supra, p. 105, ad fin.
  • 52. April, 1648. See Whitlock in vol. ii. p. 386, note, Parl. Hist. (1755) xvii. 92–103. According to Whitlock, "this tumult by the Apprentices began in Moorfields, about tipling and gaining on the Lord's Day, contrary to the Ordinance of Parliament." This "tumult and outrage," appears to have been formidable. Whitlock describes the "small party of the army," about London, as having "behaved themselves, against a great multitude of men, with much gallantry and resolution." He proceeds to "notice the incertainty of worldly affairs," that "when the Parliament and their army had subdued their common enemy, then they quarrelled among themselves, the Army against the Parliament; when they were pretty well pieced together again, then the apprentices and others make an insurrection against the Parliament and Army."
  • 53. See "Mr. Bulkeley," supra, p. 105.
  • 54. See vol. ii. p. 214, note *.
  • 55. This appears to be in the MS. an imperfect sentence, and not very easily reconciled to the terms of the Covenant, which proposed, among other great objects, "the honour and happiness of the King;" and by the third article, "to preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms, and to preserve and defend the King's Majesty's person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdoms."
  • 56. See supra, p. 96.
  • 57. See vol. ii. p. 384, note †.
  • 58. Blank in the MS.
  • 59. "I have not heard of any (even of the Long Parliament) excepting Mr. Scot, that have spoken any way reproachfully of his late Majesty, only Sir Henry Vane said, (and truly enough) that if the power of government was not in the people, the guilt of the King's blood would lie upon them for ever." Barwick to Hyde, Feb. 16, 1658–9. See "Thurloe State Papers," vii. 616.
  • 60. Mr. Fox, (as Mr. Godwin has remarked, when enquiring into the "judgment to be made of the death of Charles,") says, "it is much to be doubted, whether his trial and execution have not, as much as any other circumstance, served to raise the character of the English nation, in the opinion of Europe." See "History of James II." p. 16; "History of the Commonwealth," ii. 685. Sir Theophilus Biddulph, one of the members for London, testified against Mr. Scot, on his trial, in 1660, that "in Richard's Parliament," he heard him say, "that he did desire, when he died, that a tomb-stone might be laid over him, with this inscription: ' Here lies Thomas Scot, who adjudged to death the late King.'" Mr. Scot, amidst the sufferings and indignities which attended his last hours, appears to have expected, like the regicides generally, a vindication of his memory in more enlightened times. To those who, just before his execution, would have drawn from him a confession of guilt, as "the most likely means to prolong his life, some of his last words were, that God had engaged him in a cause not to be repented of, I say," he added, "not to be repented of." Mr. Justice Cooke, who drew up the charge against the King, and "subscribed it in the name of the Commons of England," expressed in "a Letter written from the Tower," the expectations he indulged, no doubt in common with Mr. Scot and their political associates, that it would, at length, "appear, that they were not traytors, nor murderers, nor phanatics, but true Christians and good Commonswealth's men, fixt and constant to the principles of sanctity, truth, justice, and mercy, which the Parliament and Army declared and engaged in; and to that noble principle of preferring the universality before a particularity: that they sought the public good, and would have enfranchized the people, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom." To enhance the bitterness of death, Mr. Justice Cooke was drawn from the Tower to Charing Cross, on a sledge, "whereon was also caried the head of Major General Harrison," (executed three days before) "with the face bare towards him; and, notwithstanding that dismal sight, he passed rejoicingly through the streets, as one borne up by that spirit which man could not cast down." Mr. Hugh Peters, (see vol. i. p. 244) who was executed immediately after, was "made to sit within the rails at Charing Cross, to behold the execution of Mr. Cooke; one came to him, bidding him, with opprobrious language, to repent. He replied, "Friend, you do not well to trample on a dying man." When Mr. Cooke was cut down, and brought to be quartered, one they called Colonel Turner, called to the sheriff's men, to bring Mr. Peters near, that he might see it; and, by and by, the hangman came to him, all besmeared in blood; and rubbing his bloody hands together, he tauntingly asked: "Come, how do you like this, Mr. Peters ? How do you like this work? "To whom he replied, " I am not, I thank God! terrified at it; you may do your worst." See "The Indictment, Arraignment, Tryal and Judgment at large of Twenty-nine Regicides, the Murtherers of his most Sacred Majesty King Charles I., of Glorious Memory." (1739) p. 73, 235, 257, 259. Such were the sanguinary triumphs of a restored royal legitimate, and such was the closing scene, dreadful, yet dignified, in the life of a man to whose name and memory Edmund Burke, on a remarkable occasion, could offer nothing except an eloquent invective. But Hugh Peters appears to have been a public-spirited patriot, and Edmund Burke was earning a royal pension; due, indeed, to his talents, though dearly purchased by his courtly application of them.
  • 61. See supra, p. 73, note *.
  • 62. See Supra, p. 107.
  • 63. See vol. ii. p. 88, note †.
  • 64. "Bulkeley answered Sir Arthur with another long narration; rectifying some mistakes as he pretended; but here began the brawl between the two parties, the one showing the mischiefs and the grievances we suffered under the old Government, and the other the extravagancies of the times, whilst we were under a Commonwealth. "Scot answered Bulkeley as smartly, justifying the proceedings of the remnant of the old Parliament, and admiring the successes of the Commonwealth." Goddard MS. pp. 133,134.
  • 65. See supra, p. 66, note †.
  • 66. See vol. i. p. 49, note.
  • 67. Whitlock mentions, "Nov. 9, 1647, a Committee of the General Council of the Army, appointed," among other objects, "to consider the case of the Army stated, and a paper called the Agreement of the People. "Nov. 23. A Petition delivered to the supreme authority of the nation, presented to the Commons, was read and voted to be a seditious and con temptuous avowing and prosecution, of a former petition and paper annexed, styled an Agreement of the People."Memorials (1732), pp. 277, 280. Mr. Scot, then a Major, and Colonel Eyre, another member of this Parliament, were implicated in these proceedings. According to Rushworth, "Major Scot and others animated the soldiers to stand to a paper called the Agreement of the People. On which order was given, for the commitment of Colonel Eyre and others into the Marshall's hands, and Major Scot was sent up to the Parliament, he being a member of the Commons." Hist. Col. (1708), vi. 298.
  • 68. 1 Kings, vii. 21.
  • 69. This speaker was soon prepared to become a witness, seeningly a willing witness, against Mr. Justice Cooke, (see supra, p. 110,) his intimate acquaintance, to whom he professed to "owe all his knowledge in the laws;" "one who had eminently acted, and at length suffered with these worthy gentlemen." See "The Trials of the Regicides," pp. 94, 95.
  • 70. By Sir Arthur Haslerigge. See supra, pp. 87–105.
  • 71. "Thursday, 5 July, 1655. Mr. Biddle, (see vol. i. p. 57,) wad apprehended by warrant from the Lord Mayor of the City of London; and, this day, by the care of the officers of the city, the dispute at Pauls, touching the deity of Christ, was dismist." See "Perfect Proceedings of State Affairs." No. 301.
  • 72. Thomas Burton, the writer of this Diary.