The Diary of Thomas Burton
14 February 1658-9

Sponsor

History of Parliament Trust

Publication

Author

John Towill Rutt (editor)

Year published

1828

Pages

Citation Show another format:

'The Diary of Thomas Burton: 14 February 1658-9', Diary of Thomas Burton esq, volume 3: January - March 1659 (1828), pp. 256-287. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=36907 Date accessed: 24 October 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Monday, February 14, 1658–9. (fn. 1)

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. In five years we have had greater mal-administration than in five hundred years before.

We are a million in debt; some say two, some say three millions. (fn. 2)

The King demanded but twelve subsidies to maintain the army against the Scots, (fn. 3) and yet that was thought unreasonable, though it came but unto 720,000l., a subsidy being but 60,000l. The Queen, by Mildmay her servant, demanded but two subsidies, and she herself thought it too much, and would have but one, that shall serve her turn. (fn. 4) But if we be in debt, as some say, three millions, that will be about fifty subsidies. If this be our case, what shall we do ? The people care not what Government they live under, so as they may plough and go to market. (fn. 5)

You have an army, your army raised by you. It must be paid. They are yours, and will never own any other. They are bold Britons, Englishmen that will never own any thing but a Parliament.

Besides, we have an army and navy which must be maintained; a court also, and a council. We have a Dowager too: some say 20,000l., others that 40,000l. per annum, will, not serve her.

All the King's tables heretofore were maintained at the King's charge; (fn. 7) but now they must be all borne by the people, and out of their purses. Let this be considered, and let us not put ourselves into worse condition than Egyptians. Let us not set up that we cannot find materials to make good. I hope we shall never see an Act of Council to resume the King's, Queen's, and Prince's lands. I have, indeed, some Bishop's lands. (fn. 8) If the. King be restored, I shall willingly restore the other.

If the Protector had nominated my son, (as he might have done,) I should have begged that the mal-administration might be called to account before you should have, settled him, or you should have first settled his maintenance.

I desire you would charge boldly the mal-administration of the Government and the Council I have seen this House set about with the Council. I have seen a charge against a secretary, Secretary Windebanck, (fn. 9) that mushroom secretary. He looked as pale as ashes, and sneaked away. (fn. 10) This is no new thing in Parliament. I have heard a charge here against the Earl Marshall, the Lord Keeper, (fn. 11) and against the Earl of Strafford. Before we vote a Stadholder, (fn. 12) Chief Magistrate, or Protector, let us call their mal-administrations to account, and that we may understand our condition first.

We look upon a man as in a desperate condition, when he is afraid to look into his accounts and see in what case he is. Lawyers, officers, commanders of the army, that have great incomes, besides their rents, may be able to pay their rates; but the poor freeholder, the ploughman, the labourer, that hath nothing but the sweat of his brow, how shall we take care for these, how shall they be able to live ?

It should have done well that this Bill had been brought in by your advice.

It is desired you would do nothing suddenly nor unadvisedly.

Colonel Briscoe. I shall premise two things.

1. That government is necessary.

2. That all forms of Government are in themselves indifferent; yet have their conveniences and inconveniences. They are not like white paper neither.

This Government of a single person is fitter for us. We have a government in possession. Our predecessors have taken the Government in possession. Good laws mend the bad.

It is not easy to wrest a club out of Hercules's hands. It must breed great distractions. It is fittest for us; most suitable to the ancient Government. If we now go to lay a new foundation, what a labyrinth shall we run into ? To turn all over, of what dangerous consequence cannot be imagined.

Reciprocal charges and reflections should have been spared. We might all be so ingenuous as to acknowledge failings on both sides. I take not this to be the probable way of settling. We ought not only to provide for settlement, but for the liberties of the people. Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci.

I shall speak a little concerning the liberties of the people. We have taken an oath which obliges to be tender. Populus est prior et potior. Though the Chief Magistrate be most transcendent, he must be less than the whole. Yet I would have every thing done in its season. But it is said, either do now, or for ever hold your peace. (fn. 13) I most cordially concur with those that in this Bill would have an equal care of both. I am not for the first, unless the other be added. Jealousies on both sides must be secured by something that is material. The articles should be distinct, not to depend one upon another.

I would have two bills, one-for the liberties of the people, another for the Chief Magistrate, with such limitations as shall be agreed on.

Mr. Trevor. In that quarrel, our business was always to look forward. For mal-administration, former times have been as bad. It was rather the fault of the time than of the men. I am far from justifying all that passed. Methinks we should be more impartial than only to look back five years. (fn. 14) If we look with an impartial eye, we shall find as many in the five years that went before. We had 120,000l. per month; now but 35,000l, and excise and customs, besides great scarcity of money, and sales of public lands. Maladministration was then complained of; men being both buyers and sellers of public lands; writs of error after judgment taken away.

For the question proposed. It was brought in clear, not to surprise any body. I shall ever consent to that law which is made by those that have power; but to consent to make that, per se, as it may depend upon that uncertainty as that he may be, or may not be; this shakes all laws since 48.

I would have a general Act of Oblivion on all that has passed since, but that we are settled by a law. But to allow all that was done by that Parliament as good, and to call all done by this Parliament bad, I cannot understand. A good law by a bad authority, is not so much as a bad law by a good authority.

I understand not that argument, of a natural right before any authority was, and that we are reduced to that natural right. (fn. 15) Admit it were so; then it entities us and no other Parliament that have met together. If it were so, we are called by writ according to ancient laws and customs. When we go to natural right, all other laws are gone. No man can say that we are chosen to any such ends. The consequence of this is, that there is no law in being. This House was not chosen to that end. We cannot assume it. The foundation to stand upon is a law, which cannot be repealed but by a power that made it.

Mr. Knightley. It troubles me to look on your Journals, and find so many blanks in that Bill. Since this day sennight, nothing has been done. I told you then I would not have come into the House, but that I owned the Chief Magistrate. We have no cause to rejoice in a Commonwealth. A Commonwealth was never for the common weal. (fn. 16)

When I came first into this House, we had two armies. A Scotch army entered, and, I will not say, invaded England. Another army was raised here to suppress them; another in Ireland.

We are now, by God's blessing, looking towards freedom, that ancient form of Government. It is some happiness that the single person is of good disposition, free from guile; but he is but a man. I have heard the Judges say, that the Chief Magistrate, man or woman, must be bound; law must not cease. We are now put into a posture to have the fruit of our laws. What were done since 48, are equal to me. Much good may it do to them that have good bits by these, but not to bespatter another. I would not have it.

It is said, when posts go up and down, they say you are where you were. There are only reports from the Committee of Privileges and Dismemberment.

I see nothing in this vote to take away your laws from you. Propose your vote singly, and then any gentleman may move an addition. When it comes to the negative voice and the militia, I shall insist upon it as much as any man; but to say, "we will not have this man reign over us," (fn. 17) I cannot agree to it. This previous vote is a devious vote. Via recta est via tuta. I desire you would put the question singly. You shall have my yea.

Mr. Chaloner. Many days have been spent in this debate. Let them write into the country what they will. It is a great business. If it be carried in the affirmative for the single question, I doubt all is gone. Part with that, and the Bill is done.

Where two questions come before you, you ought to take that first that concerns the liberty of the people, before placing any single person, or making a Protector, and leaving the liberties of the people in the wilderness. You are in a wood. I know not how you can justify it. You cannot discharge your trust to the people.

It was told you it was high treason to propound a question against a law in force. The single person is but the means, the prop; liberties are the end. It is said there is an interregnum. Then it is plain you have no Protector at all.

The declaration should have been a more solemn deposition, and witnesses to prove it, who were not persons that have places by it. (fn. 18)

The practice of other nations is to provide for the people, and then go to election; as in Bohemia. The reason is, because after election, he would never consent to making laws.

First provide your bounds and banks; and then I shall agree as freely as any man to the single person.

Mr. Swinfen. I move to the orders of the House, and not to wander off the question. We shall rise, doing nothing. I would have every man to keep close to the debate.

Mr. Harrison. I shall not trouble you with any long debate. I am one of those that are sorry the debate has laid so long, for I think there is no such danger, nor comprehensiveness in the vote. It was never understood so, in the acknowledging of any King.

As the single persons have turned into tyranny, so the liberties of the people have been abused, like Pandora's box. All sects and heresies have grown up under the abuse of these liberties. (fn. 19) The liberties of the people are dear to us all. They are so to me.

I doubt the fervour of this debate is much losing by the delay. To limit, as is propounded, is but splendidum nihil. Nothing but inconvenience will come to the liberties of the people.

I served you here in 54. A melancholy man made a purchase, laid his hand on his mouth and said he had lost his 2000. If this vote pass thus limited, it is making him a Protector to-day, and none to-morrow. I would have the vote pass singly.

Colonel White. I am one of those that would have these two great stones of the foundation of this Government laid together with all the care that may be. The governor and governed are by the order of nature. The latter ought to precede; but I would have both go together.

There was an objection made at first that went far with me, viz. that the liberties of the people are safe enough in the settlement of the Chief Magistrate; but it is easily answered.

It is said your liberties are hedged in by his Highness's oath. I wish I had nothing to say against it. That general tie has been upon all the governors of the nation in all times. I shall like a little balk to the unsafety of these ties. You have been under several administrations. A government was brought in upon you I know not how; by whom assumed I know, his late Highness. An oath then, in the Instrument, was as comprehensive as any one of the others could be,—to govern in all things according to the laws and customs of the nation. I would not reflect but only by way of argumentation. Notwithstanding the great obligation and tie of that oath, we had many impositions upon us no way consistent with it; witness the Major-generals, grounded upon a highprerogative declaration, with power to confiscate men's estates, banish Englishmen, (a hard word in former Parliaments,) and put them.into imprisonment and bonds. This, indeed, was executed by honest hands. The best part of it was, a design to put us into blood by some Cavaliers; therefore all Cavaliers are guilty. Neither major, minor, nor conclusion good. Ill logic. This was a high law of prerogative. It was done, and yet this under a security of his oath.

There was another authority, I know not whether of force or not. If men proceeded at law, men were sent for. I was sent for to the friend-makers, as they called them, and so named in the law; and this was the fruit of that oath: three men were imprisoned several years in order to trial. I think, if it was so, it was in order to a trial at the day of judgment, as by an instance at your table. (fn. 20)

The fault was not here in the persons, but in the extravagant power. I doubt, if you pass this vote, it will be charged upon you that you create prerogatives. You must be sent up to the Lords, for your limitations and troubles abroad may be told you, so as to put it off two or three years.

I would have these two go together, with the particle "and." If you separate them, if you please to give me leave, I will offer you a proposal to that purpose; "that the government of the Commonwealth of England, agreed upon in the Protector, shall be intrusted in his hands, under such limitations as shall be agreed upon by this Parliament," which will answer all ends.

Colonel Bennet. I rejoice that things come nearer to an end. I hope we shall come to a better agreement afterwards. I have been well taught in this debate.

All our governments were accepted and owned by all our allies abroad. So it is moved not to question any of these authorities. The honourable interest of the Gospel and the Protestant cause has been professed under all these administrations. I take all these to be lawful authorities, and the worst of them to be better than any yet propounded.

I confess I have no principle engaging me to any particular form of Government, exclusive of any other Government. It is light stuff for Government laid upon Nimrod, a great thief, or Adam's, (fn. 21) which was an economy rather than a Government. There is no text in scripture where they instituted a monarchical Government. I think it is profitable at this time to have a single person and two Houses. I liked a Commonwealth well; but not at this time, when we are so full of distraction. If you were a tabula rasa, I should be against putting the first question without the latter; but I would not part with a bad Government till sure of another, for posterity's sake.

I am convinced that it will not follow that by this vote you give away your liberties. I cannot believe the single person will do it. He cuts off himself, in cutting off this Parliament. He stands but upon a single vote, and the Parliament dissolved, the vote is also dissolved, and what will another Parliament say ? There need be no jealousy, therefore.

I earnestly desire that the question may be so stated as to take in the liberties of the people too; to recognize him to be the undoubted Protector, and that this vote be part of a Bill for settling the Government.

Mr. Stapleton. I conceive we are not fit for the question at present. Deliberation of it will produce the safest conclusions. Those that brought in the additions for the liberties of the people, tend to unity, and this grave and honour, able council ought rather to take in those things that tend to union than to disunion. What more acceptable than his Highness to marry these together ?

We ought to look for having another preliminary. The additions seem to speak above-board. The other side have a reserve. The bottom cannot be fathomed.

There can be nothing spoken contrary to it. That seems to be kept in which is not spoken out. We seem all to agree to a recognition, but only with the additions. That your ship may come in most laden, take in the additions.

Pardon, if I make a little retrospect briefly, and all in order to the question.

I have heard a large narrative of things. I shall only be as pne come into this nation in the time of the Commonwealth, when kingship was laid aside as useless, &c. Once devolved into a Commonwealth, we stayed not long there; though still asserted to be a Commonwealth ever since, under a Protector. This was to heal the disorder and confusion: as well to keep out the mischiefs of arbitrariness, on one hand, and confusions on the other hand: only a single person here was more conspicuous. Formerly a king and his realm: here, a Protector and a Commonwealth.

Those honourable persons and worthies that sat in the last Parliament thought fit to make some additions to the power, but not to take it from a Commonwealth, though first brought in with king; those worthies, finding a single person, thought to turn all things upon that hinge, but that startled: that was not then received. What others may do, I know not.

The Petition and Advice, as now stated, does not alter the form of a Commonwealth, to remain in that estate still. Therefore, with respect to those eminent worthies that then were, let us have the hinges another way. A dwarf upon a giant's shoulders may see farther. A single person we have all asserted. We may also take in a Commonwealth. Therefore, lay down that maxim, and such may be the resolution.

Men give not counsel to affairs, but affairs to men; not always good counsels, well digested. If you consider affairs in the providentials; all providences have rather bent that way, to respect the liberties of the people; if intrinsically they do not follow. The high refined spirit of the nation looks that way, as an honourable person emphatically observed. Methinks we have left that track of providence, we have somewhat turned out of the way; no wonder at our exorbitances in council, &c.

Mr. Gerrard took him down and said: We have heard a long sermon. It is late to have another. I am informed he is not capable to sit in this House. He has been Chaplain to a regiment and in arms too, as I am informed.

Mr. Reynolds said, Let him be never so uncapable, he ought not to be taken down; so the gentleman went on.

Mr. Stapleton. It is necessary to take in the additions, that the Government may be just. The great Parliaments declare that the additions were intrinsically in the people. It will not be repugnant to the justice of this House to give the people what is intrinsically their own. The Declaration in 41 (fn. 22) proves it. The late King disputed them. The sword determined it for the people, to be theirs by way of conquest. If it had not been clear, yet the conquest gave them a right; but I need not that argument. There cannot be an honourable settlement without it.

The eyes of all nations are upon you for this event. A ticklish state of affairs is at home, and hi Europe; (fn. 23) never so ticklish as now. Therefore do things for our honour. A barring of the negative voice in the Instrument of Government, was a tie upon him. By way of honour and compliment, it gave him some days to consider of a Bill. If he refused, it passed. (fn. 24)

We ought to go as far from the corrupt form as we can, lest it bring in the old line. Let us lay the Government so safe as to prevent that. They have been the cause of great wars, and if those live embers are not wiped away, they will revive again. Let nothing be. done rashly, that may surprise the people. I hope before this great council rise, they will lay such a careful foundation as there shall be no exception against.

A great danger of evil counsel arises from favourites and sycophants, as has been told you. A man will feel better to be put into a capacity not to be able to hurt, than to have power to hurt. It will be more safety and honour for us, to make the vote as plain, perspicuous, and with as much unity as may be. If we overlook the great concerns of the people that we represent, it is a question whether they will recognize us.

I have discharged my duty to his Highness in praying those land-marks may be set up, that he may not be split; my duty to the people in caring for their liberties, my duty to you in desiring that both may be joined for unity's sake.

Mr. Speaker summed up all the debate.

We are indeed in a wood, a wilderness, a labyrinth. Some affirmative, some negative, which I cannot draw into one question. Put the question singly.

Colonel Kenrick. If you let the question go together, I am ready to give my yea or no; but if you put it singly, I desire to speak. The title, Protector, brought in a Government with it, this brings in no Government with it. Adam, being put into the garden, had a Government given in with him, (fn. 25) what to do, and what not to do.

I take the Petition and Advice to be out of doors. The reason why it was desired was, that his Highness would take the Government because of plots and dangers. (fn. 26) The Bill for Marriages is imperfect. (fn. 27) The members from Scotland make us imperfect. (fn. 28) We have it not made out that he was declared Protector. (fn. 29)

Now, in conscience, am I not bound to give my no, because they are not put together? Though I have a good mind to it, I must give my negative.

Mr. Reynolds. I know not how, at this time of day, and against the sense of the House to speak. Yet I must satisfy my conscience, though I offend against your sense.

Some cried out he had spoke.

Sir Henry Vane. He ought not to have been taken down.

Mr. Grove. The chair ought to direct us to keep to the point. He began before with his oath, and so began again.

Mr. Reynolds. I hope that gentleman that is a conscientious man will not be offended that I began with my oath. I took the oath, uno flatu, and I desire the vote may be uno flatu, both for the single person and the people's liberties. A gentleman said, the liberties of the people ought to be preferred before any family in the world. He was sent to the Tower for it, and after he had stayed without two years, was called in again.

Colonel Fielder and Mr. Bodurda took him down, and appealed if he did not tell this very same story on Friday. (fn. 30)

Let us have this question now, and if we be of another mind two years hence, we will agree with him.

Mr. Reynolds sat down.

The question was put in the affirmative.

Colonel West. I am for the first part of the question, but not without the other part. I except against the word "undoubted." I shall forbear to speak my doubts at present. I shall only speak, that the militia be preserved to the people, as necessary at this time. I would have it done before you rise; as so natural to the people that you cannot deny it. By the law of the nation, I can go into any part of the nation with my sword, to defend myself, and not ask leave of another. I may kill the assailant, and defend my house by force against force. I take the law to be so. The tribe that sent me hither, and another hopeful person in my eye, (fn. 31) how shall we answer it to the people that sent us ? We must have money before we rise; but they will say, what have you done? Have you given unlimited power to a single person ?

The place that I serve for, is impoverished by this very same thing. I was sorry to hear those reflections upon the former Parliament. The Appeal hangs yet upon the file. It is not a dubious thing. I am bold, and necessitated by those that sent me hither. We formed ourselves into a garrison to defend that natural power of having the sword in our hands. We had no bye ends. We suffered our houses to be on fire all about us.

I would not have us contend, so much as in arguments, against it. I hope those that are in the army would not desire to be in the army upon another principle. Divers persons have deeply engaged. I have heard it said of this gentleman, that he is without guile and without guilt; (fn. 32) and I hope he will say, it is good news from this House, that his interest and the interest of the people are so well matched together. It was minded well by Colonel Terrill. (fn. 33) I shall not trouble you with repeating the question; but put them together or put neither.

Sir Walter Earle. The militia was not the quarrel. I would have the question put, whether you will have any additions.

Mr Reynell. I differ from that gentleman. The militia was the ground of the quarrel.

I stand not up to speak against a single, person, but against a single person so clothed, or rather armed, by the Petition and Advice. Where you say "undoubted," you own that law by which he claims. But if the power is in that law, I am loth to remember it.

It was told you by a gentleman from the floor, (fn. 34) that this was the greatest means and art to enslave the people that ever was, with the Petition and Advice. I shall not mention the reflections. There are good men on both sides. Weigh those great powers of the Other House. I have not heard that argument answered, that the Other House is dead by the second Article. (fn. 35)

Colonel Terrill. It hath been told us, that we were men of intemperate spirits that served in the last Parliament. This was declared July 3,1658. A godly minister told me, "I was loth to go up and tell the people you were such bad men." Divers gentlemen look to see whether the spirit of young gentlemen (fn. 36) will incline to give away your cause; whether you will destroy the foundation you have built upon. I will meditate the words of the Psalmist. Posterity will not applaud the same, (fn. 37) if we leave it thus; if you clothe the Chief Magistrate with these kind of powers.

An observation I have met withal, of a great reason why the Turkish Government stands, because no lawyer ministers; but you have all such ingenious persons here. Are you able to bear this ?

1. To the negative voice. 2. To the militia. I shall offer whether it is not rational to join these, as declared 20th May, 1642. I shall leave that to the learned, that understand that about the negative voice. Their bows did not abide in strength that opposed it. The militia was clearly declared to be yours in 42, and committed to the care of Sergeant Browne. A declaration of Lords and Commons. (fn. 38) I shall offer nothing done under the force.

A declaration, 13th March, 1647, in answer to the Scots, I shall offer to you. I shall read the declaration." As to the militia as the principal ground of our quarrel, the King cannot make laws without them. It makes the King capable of doing all harm." What can a man say that speaks after the King ? What can I say, that speak after the great declaration ? I would have all taken together.

Sir John Lenthall. I move that you recognize his Highness under the style and name of Chief Magistrate, to govern the nation according to the laws, &c. (fn. 39)

Major-general Kelsey. I shall not trouble you long. I hope we are not jealous of one another; but only jealous for the liberties of those we serve.

He repeated the debate, and that some persons were not satisfied; but they should be excluded by the first vote. Therefore, he would have a previous vote that nothing shall be binding in this vote till all be passed.

Sir John Northcote. I can give my vote neither way, if you put the first question. I would have you put the question if you will have any additions.

Mr. Jenkinson. I move to add to the question, that nothing bind by this vote till ther Bill be passed.

Mr. Starkey. I am an earnest suitor to you, in order to the good of the people, that you recognize his Highness to be Protector.

Lord Fairfax. I desire that the militia and the other question may go together, that we give it not out of our hands to any single person, but that it be intrusted where it may be serviceable to itself and to the people. (fn. 40)

Captain Baynes. I hear a great debate about cognize, or recognize. I move that the question be, whether recognize shall be part of the question.

Mr. Speaker was going.to put the question for an addition.

Sir Henry Vane. If it pass in the negative, nobody can speak to the terms. First word your question.

Mr. Attorney-general. I agree that if it pass in the ne gative, you cannot speak to the wording the question. I would have you put if the word, recognize, shall be part of the question.

Mr. Neville. The word, recognize, gives away the question. It betokens slavery.

Mr. Goodrich. We were not slaves in Queen Elizabeth's time, and it was the language then.

Mr. Scot. The grounds of the word recognize, then and in the times of Hen. VIII. and Hen. IV., were different from ours. The reason for Henry IV.'s recognition, was because Richard II. was alive, and his competitor. It was in contradiction to competitors; only to distinguish persons. An Act of Parliament passed to legitimate Queen Elizabeth, because it was questioned whether she were fit to reign or no. King James came from another kingdom and another family. There was no recognition to King Charles, and no need of it. He had no competitor. I can decognize Charles Stuart and that family, but recognize I cannot. It comprehends the merits of the question.

We must now speak or ever hold our peace. It was told that the great seal was sent for, two or three times, and either his Highness was not so well, or I know not what; it was sent back again. (fn. 41) The Privy Council made him. I would have him to be your creature, and he will be more tender of your liberties and privileges. If I recognize, I must be satisfied how he was declared, according to the Petition and Advice.

We are not ingenuously dealt withal, for this is but a wing of the debate, and the wing will be out of your reach. If this pass, you will take a little breath between that and caring for the liberties of the people; and then money must be had for this Protector.

I was saying I would be a slave, but I would not neither, till I needs must. If I could have lived safely in any other part, I would not have lived here. I would be content it should be set upon my monument,—if it were my last act I own it,—I was one of the King's judges, (fn. 42) I hope it shall not be said of us, as of the Romans once; O homines, ad servitutem parati! He that would take up half a vote, as to the distribution of the members, will not he take up half a vote if you recognize ? Get your liberties as you can. It is a lame question without the other part.

Mr. Bodurda. This gentleman is mistaken of the debate upon the negative voice or militia, which was never talked on till after the previous vote. It is said, recognition is only fit in case of competition; surely Charles Stuart is a competitor. (fn. 43)

Mr. Higgons. True, recognize is a French word; so is Parliament and declaration. If we exclude all French and Latin words, we shall not have words left in our own language to express ourselves.

Mr. Disbrowe. We shall, at one dash, root out the liberties of the people, if we go now, de novo, to make a Chief Magistrate. I doubt, if we have not a Chief Magistrate in being, we are in a sad condition, and have taken God's name in vain. I doubt if we acknowledge it not, as not to be in being, other Parliaments will question what we have done, and recognize every Parliament.

Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. The word, recognize, goes to things and not to persons. I appeal to the long-robe men, if recognize take not in all the laws, Petition and Advice, and all powers given by that.

Mr. Gott. We have been debating by wholesale: now in words; next will be in syllables; and we shall, I hope, at last, come to the syllables yea and no, to determine all. We have had Stadtholder, Sequestrator, Plunderer, and harder words offered to us. The word, recognize, signifies no more but a bare acknowledgment of what is, (fn. 44) be it by the Petition and Advice, or what way soever it be. It is se debui makes the debt, not the recognovit. If I acknowledge a man my son, it respects no time past. They are plain, innocent words, words in terminis, in the oath. The oath is nothing but the echo of what he is. Nobody without doors doubts it.

As I would have the Parliament to speak nothing but what is just, nothing but truth, so to speak nothing but what is sense. It is to say he is a Chief Magistrate without a Chief Magistracy. It is appositum ab opposito. Let us take in all. If we must take in this, we must take in the Protestant religion and confession of faith; and where you will end I know not.

I am against the additions, because I am for the question.

Mr. Speaker. I move that I may withdraw, unless you will resolve to adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, by consent of the House, withdrew, and divers members, at past three went to dinner, and an hour after the Speaker returned to the chair.

In the interim, a heat happened between Colonel Okey and Mr. Hampden; (fn. 45) relating to his differing from his former principles.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge said he would never speak to him till he avowed his former principles, and said, "Those that have not bled, can bleed as well as those that have bled, if occasion be.

Sir William Wheeler moved to adjourn, before he spoke to the question.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge seconded.

Sir William Wheeler went on, and moved to change the word recognize for an English word, "acknowledge."

Serjeant Maynard seconded it.

Mr. Higgons. I move that both words stand, recognize and acknowledge. It is but bellum grammaticale, that we are upon.

Mr. Speaker was going to put the question.

Colonel West. I move not to put the question upon us, till you take in the militia and negative voice.

Sir Henry Vane. I move that the question first be put, whether you will leave out the word, recognize. (fn. 46)

Mr. Hewley. If neither recognize or acknowledge shall stand, we shall have no word.

Mr. Bulkeley. I am indifferent which of the words be in. Acknowledge is as plain an English word as can be.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am against both the words, recognize and acknowledge. I see it is likely to go against us; yet I would make as much of a bad matter as I can.

This looks like a new warfare. We come to set up votes that are live quarrels, like York and Lancaster. I believe, in my soul, it will bring a war upon this nation, alive or not alive.

Serjeant Maynard took him down.

There is no likelihood of a war between the two words.

There is nothing of life against life in those words.

Sir Arthur Haskrigge went on.

I intended to move for two other English words, which our law knows, constitute and appoint. I except against the words, undoubted, under such conditions, &c.

If that fail, we may go out and beg, "Lord have mercy upon us!"

Mr. Bulkeley. I move the last speaker to repeat the last words, that usually are of most moment.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge stood up, and said over again the last words.

Mr. Turner. I see we agree about the thing, and only disagree about the words. I would have both recognize and declare laid aside, and say only, that his Highness is Lord Protector, and that will satisfy all.

The question was put, if the, word "recognize" shall stand, both in the affirmative and negative.

Mr. Sadler was spied to stand up before the negative was put, and went on,

I understand not the word, recognize; but it may fetch in more. The whole matter may come in upon that question. For aught I know, I shall never speak more. I would entertain strangers kindly, they may be angels; a saying in scripture. (fn. 47) If only I and my family were to be sold away, but souls and consciences will speak. If we hold our peace, the stones will speak; (fn. 48) our ancestors' tombs will speak.

I find not the Protector's name in the oath. It is only to his lawful rights. There was as strong an oath of allegiance before, as could be. You came to dispute the King's rights and person. Recognition speaks to acknowledge a debt. Take in that word, and you acknowledge a debt. A recognition was the solemnest way of attesting a debt, in the presence of the King, according to the ancient custom of the nation. An acknowledgment of a debt before the King, was not only of a debt, but a duty. (fn. 49) But, on my soul and con science, pass this, and it will be out of doors to consider thisafter.

I should profane if I should in terms express how much I honour his now Highness and his father. I would have it scanned, what it is to be Supreme Magistrate. I shall go as far as any man, if I may understand. Is it to be High Constable, Supreme Sheriff, or any thing of that kind ?

I may acknowledge a supreme judicial executive power, I speak to them that know the law. Either supreme

1. As coming in by way of inheritance and succession, and so by the common-law: or

2. By some positive Act. Not only Supreme Governor in respect of power, Supreme Majesty, or Supreme Magistrate set down in the throne.

You give it away, you play it away; you do not sell it, you have nothing for it. I speak it here for the life and liberty of the Protector. I stand here to plead for him. The more power is added, the sooner will he down.

You leap into all regal majesty, if you confirm him in that authority. It win be declared in Westminster Hall, that it is an ill foundation. Consider the nature of the thing. It matters not what the words be. If you declare him to be Supreme Magistrate, and say not what it is, you give up all fought for lately, body, soul, and spirit, a negative voice; you declare him to be whatever he does think himself to be. He shall rule over slaves, not over fools.

It was not very lately that either heir or successor was debated in Parliament. If he thought himself undoubted, he would never come to you to ask it. You beg the question, you give up all that can be given, House of Lords, and power to dissolve you by law; all that ever is in the Petition and Advice; all that ever he is tied up to by his oath. I love those that love themselves, so that they do it happily and well. God never curses us, nor enslaves us. I believe him wiser, in my soul, than to desire to rule over those that will make themselves slaves.

There is a law in France, that after a man has lost his suit he may speak nine days. I will come here to speak nine days and nine nights. I will not go to any closet to pray, but I will pray here.

We are taught to cry down royalty, as the head of the beast. I am afraid we shall make him the image of that beast, to give him an unlimited power. If a man, he rules over men so far as he is bounded by the right reason of man; but if over beasts, he must be a beast. Water is not then free when it covers all the face of the earth, but when it is in its channel; so man, when out of the channel of reason.

If you please, make a Committee, really to consider how you may not take his just rights, nor lose your own just rights. I hear say, I am bound by my oath. If you make me not free, I must send it up to the Other House. I am sworn. Another House they are, de facto.

This is worthy of the serious consideration of the wisest men about you.

Mr. Speaker. The sun does not stand still, but I think you do not go forward.

The question being put, that this word, "recognize" shall stand in the question.

Mr. Speaker declared for the Noes.

Mr. Dunch and Mr. Fleetwood declared for the Yeas.

Mr. Speaker declared the Yeas to go out.

Colonel Birch said, the Noes ought to go out.

Sir Henry Vane. The Yeas ought to go out.

The Yeas went out accordingly.

Yeas 191. Colonel Cook and Colonel Grosvenor, Tellers.

Noes 168. Sir Arthur Haslerigge and Mr. Neville, Tellers.

So it was resolved, that this word, "recognize," shall stand in the question.

The main question (fn. 50) being put in the affirmative,—

Sir Henry Vane. I wish I could speak out; for it deserves it. You had another question, whether you should have any addition. (fn. 51)

Mr. Weaver. I would have no question put upon an addition, but would have all the question put together; otherwise we shall not unanimously concur. For those that are for the addition, and lose it, then they must give their vote against the Recognition, which I would not have.

Mr. Knightley. Put the single question first, which is the substance of the Bill, and I hope we shall all be affirmative in it.

Mr. Scot. If I cannot have the qualifications, I for one shall give my negative.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I would have the question put, whether there shall be any addition or no.

Serjeant Maynard and Mr. Turner. Though it pass in the negative now, yet it bars not your Committee from making an addition.

Mr. Attorney-general. If the question be carried in the affirmative, that you will have an addition, then you are in the wood again. Your addition may be made at the Committee. I am against an unlimited power. My gown binds me to it. Let us agree in this. I am confident we shall be ingenuous.

Colonel Morley. As all is expressed in the oath, why not put all together in the question. Let us not part them.

Lieutenant-general Ludlow. I wish the vote had gone in the negative. The main question would have passed more unanimously. I cannot agree with the word, "undoubted." Many arguments have been offered against it, but none answered, but by "Question, question !"

It must either be by divine right, by conquest, or by common consent. By divine right he cannot be. Moses and the judges had a call from the people. (fn. 52) It was said the King should not multiply unto himself horses, (fn. 53) meaning power. You cast off God, if you cast off that question. He has not conquered you, his father has not. Consider how you give it away by wholesale, and beg it by retail. (fn. 54)

Let not a vote pass by a small number of men, haply that by your Petition and Advice are not qualified. (fn. 55) It is the reason of your vote must carry it abroad.

We are ground between two millstones. The other House is a sword. I must say so. Either bring the sword to the property of the nation, or the sword will bring property to them. Though a Commonwealth be odious amongst you; yet it is not your wisdom to depart from it.

I doubt this word, recognize, admitted, will cause a great many negatives to the main question. I would have the questions go together.

Captain Baynes. Without the additions put in the question I must give my negative to it. Put it either that you will have both together, or whether you will have an addition.

Mr. St. Nicholas. I am against the word, undoubted. A rule in law, nil notum Judici, quod non notum Judici aliter. Let it appear judicially before you by the instrument whereby declared. (fn. 56) Let that be on your journals. If there be not such an instrument, but that a title must be sworn out, it might have been also sworn out for the gentleman (fn. 57) on the other side of the dike.

I would have it but by way of appointment. If you take not care, now, for the limitations, I never expect to hear of them again.

Mr. Disbrowe. I shall speak to the word, undoubted.

He had undoubted power to declare, and did, undoubtedly, declare. (fn. 58)

1. He was proclaimed in all the three nations, undoubtedly.

2. He, undoubtedly, called us hither as undoubted Protector.

If some limitations be not put in, we shall not be able to answer it, either to God or man; but it is not seasonable now. I would have you put the question, if, at this time, additions shall be to the question; or put it, if now it shall be put.

Colonel White. I know, by right of the House, we must have the other question for additions; but I shall only speak to the word, undoubted. That was not in the Bill: I wonder how it comes in now. It is not a salutation from all the counties (fn. 59) that will make the title, undoubted. I would have that word left out, and the question put for the additions.

Mr. Speaker. The word, undoubted, came instead of the word, lawful. (fn. 60)

Mr. Fagge. I would have the word, undoubted, left out.

Mr. Salway. It is late, and if you go any further, you will make it but a work of darkness. I would have you adjourn.

Sir Henry Vane. If you will not listen to the voice of my worthy neighbour, let us have candles, that we may see to put the question.

Mr. Jenkinson. I move to leave out the word, undoubted, or else put the question to leave it out.

The question was put, that the word "undoubted" shall stand in the question.

Mr. Speaker declared for the Noes.

Sir William Lawson declared for the Yeas.

Mr. Trevor. I move rather to yield than divide the House. I would yield it.

So it passed in the negative.

The question being put that candles be now brought in.

Mr. Speaker declared for the Yeas.

Lord Lambert declared for the Noes.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move that the Yeas go forth; because it is extraordinary to sit with candles.

The Yeas went forth.

Yeas 209. Sir Richard Temple and Mr. Ansley, Tellers.

Noes 153. Colonel Eyre and Mr. Howe, Tellers.

Resolved, that candles be now brought in. They were brought in accordingly.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I never knew good of candles. Sir William Widdrington brought in two candles from the clerk, against the direction of the House, and was sent to the Tower next morning. (fn. 61)

Mr. Bampfield. I move to alter the words of the question, and to say, Richard Lord Cromwell is Lord Protector, and not that Richard Lord Protector is Lord Protector.

I would not have the question put now for the additions. If it be carried in the negative it is not fit to lie upon your books. It bars not your Committee.

Sir Henry Vane. Either put this question, or else you are not so ingenuous to exclude our votes. If this addition be left out, you direct your Committee to pass a short Bill to recognize, without passing any thing for the other.

Mr. Solicitor-general. I like ingenuousness and clearness. If this vote pass not into a Bill, it binds neither this House, nor any without doors. I would have a vote that nothing be binding till all be passed.

Mr. Neville. You are now where you were in the King's time. He had a long hereditary right, which, without the sword, could not be obtained. Unless we speak now for the people, we must for ever hold our peace. (fn. 62) I would have the vote for an addition.

Mr. Knightley seconded Mr. Solicitor-general's motion for a previous vote.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am one of those that fear that when this is gone, all is gone. I have been as much deceived in men as ever was man. I will trust men no more.

I would have nothing of the negative voice and the militia go along with it; or if any thing shall be added, I am clear we cannot meddle with the militia nor negative voice in this Bill.

1, 300,000l. per annum, (fn. 63) was taken, notwithstanding the previous vote.

Sir Walter Earle and Serjeant Maynard. A vote does not oblige the Parliament. If it never pass in the Bill, it never passeth for a law. If that question go against them, why do they strive to put it under that danger ? Then they may propound any thing at the Committee: so they conclude themselves. Would have a previous vote, that nothing shall bind, &c.

Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper differed from them.

If it pass in the negative, you are excluded at your Committee. A proviso may be brought in. Votes will remain on our books when we are gone, and it will appear that we had also care of the people. You will have it committed and nothing appear. I would have both appear on our books together.

Mr. Bodurda offered an expedient that nothing should be binding till all was passed; and that before the Bill was committed, provision should be made for the people's rights and liberties.

That would not satisfy the contrary party, for after a strong proposal for it, it was yielded on the other side, that the question should be put, if any addition should be made to the question.

The question was put, that this question be now put, and it passed in the negative, by above one hundred votes. (fn. 64)

The question being propounded, that it be part of this Bill to recognize and declare his Highness, Richard, Lord Protector, to be the Lord Protector and Chief Magistrate of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging; the question was put, that this question be now put; and it passed in the affirmative, (paucis contra.)

So the main question being put, it was

Resolved, ut supra.

Mr. Trevor then offered, of his own accord, to the end the other party might not go away displeased, that it also be resolved, and was, with but one negative (fn. 65) to it,

Resolved, that before this Bill be committed, this House do declare such additional clauses to be part of the Bill, as may bound the power of the Chief Magistrate, and fully secure the rights and privileges of Parliament, and the liberties and rights of the people; and that neither this, nor any other previous vote, that is or shall be passed in order to this Bill, shall be of force or binding to the people until the whole Bill be passed. (fn. 66)

The House then rose at ten; all parties well appeased.

Footnotes

1 Here is a blank in the Diary. According to the Journals, "the House took into consideration a previous vote, before the commitment of the Bill, intituled an Act of Recognition." For the first speech I am entirely indebted to the Goddard MS., pp. 174,175.
2 In a century from this period, by the marvellous operation of the funding system, that legacy of the Revolution, this puny national debt of three millions had advanced beyond two hundred; all expended to vindicate "the Act of Settlement," restrain French ambition, secure the balance of power, and decide the question "of Anjou and the Spanish crown." During the seventy succeeding years the national debt has reached the magnificent amount of eight hundred, ninety seven millions, while Britain was unconsciously rearing the first Republic of America, or generously re-establishing the monarchy of the Bourbons. These wars, for which "toiling millions resigned their weal, and all the honey of their search," were all "just and necessary wars," so declared by kings and cabinets; or commended to the special patronage of Heaven, by the priests of rival nations, as if each had fondly expected that the Father of all the families of the earth would become a partizan in the sanguinary quarrels of his contentious children.
3 In 1640, the Parliament demanded a previous redress of grievances, and was hastily dissolved. See supra, p. 54, note ‡.
4 This Queen must have been Elizabeth. Camden says, (An. 1566) "she freely remitted the fourth payment of the subsidy that was granted, saying that money in her subjects coffers was as good as in her own." History, (1675,) pp. 88, 89. For this politic moderation, Rapin thus accounts: "parcequ'elle ne prodiguoit pas son argent aux sangsues dela Cour, comme avoient fait ses Prédécesseurs." Histoire(l724,) vi. 198.
5 A natural, though degrading result, of that disregard to the education of the people which the Reformation under the Tudors, if it did not aggravate, had done nothing to correct, but which continued to prevail long after this period. Carteret, Earl of Granville, an accomplished scholar and statesman, who died in 1763, left, among his papers, his last thoughts on a variety of subjects:—"He was not for having the vulgar taught to read, that they might think of nothing but the plough, and their other low avocations." This lettered barbarian, who had a verse of Homer on his almost expiring lips; but would thus "meanly seek the blessing to confine," very consistently, and in the genuine spirit of the man-trade, "hoped never to see our negroes in America become Christians, because he believed that this would render them less laborious slaves." Biog. Brit. iv. Additions to, iii. 180. That grand invention of the Sunday-school, which has exalted the name of Robert Raikes, "above all Greek, all Roman fame;" and the consequent benevolent and self-denying exertions in middle life, (so laudably patronized by George III., two princes of his family, and a few generous nobles,) at length stimulated the privileged orders to sanction the education of the people; though excluding from the mis-named national schools, that large part of the population who would not conform to the ritual of "the Church by law established." These tardy patrons of plebeian education, labourers entering the field "at the eleventh hour," thus neglected, while securing "a prostration of the understanding," to provide for "the greatest good of the greatest number." Such, however, is "the aim of an enlightened and benevolent philosophy," which proposes, as well described by Dugald Stewart, "to diffuse as widely as possible, that degree of cultivation, which may enable the bulk of a people to possess all that intellectual and moral improvement, of which their nature is susceptible." Among "errors in policy," exposed by Marchamont Nedham, in 1656, he instances "a keeping of the people ignorant of those ways and means that are essentially necessary for the preservation of their liberty." Hence, he complains, "implicit faith and blind obedience hath hitherto passed current, and been equally pressed and practised by grandees, both spiritual and temporal, upon the people; so that they have in all nations shared the authority between them. "Though many quarrels have arisen in times past, between kings and their clergy, touching their several jurisdictions, yet the mysteries of domination have been still kept under lock and key: so that their prerogative remained entire, ever above the reach and knowledge of the people: by which means, monarchs, and other standing powers, have seen their own interests provided for, as well as the Pope's, in this mysterious maxim: "Ignorance is the mother of devotion." See "The Excellencie of a Free State," reprinted by Richard Baron (1767) pp. 103, 104. See, also, Miscellanies by Thomas Christie, (1789,) pp. 203–218.
6 This insinuation against the Dowager-protectress, was probably ill-deserved, though it agrees with Mrs. Hutchinson's language. Speaking of the late Protector, she says, "His wife and children were setting up for principality." Memoirs, ii. 208. See Noble, i. 129.
7 From the revenue of the crown lands, purveyance and monopolies.
8 See vol. ii. p. 423, note‡.
9 See supra, p. 54, note‡.
10 Into France in 1641.
11 Finch, who fled to Holland in 1641.
12 See supra, p. 176, ad fin. Marchamont Nedham, considering "what effects the continuation of power in the family of Orange had in the United Provinces," adds, "that people have wisely improved their opportunity, (the cockatrice being not fledged,) in reducing that family into a temper more suitable to a state and interest of liberty." See "The Excellencie of a Free State," p. 112.
13 See "Sir Arthur Haslerigge," supra, p. 230.
14 See supra, p. 256.
15 Ibid. p.176.
16 "He reckoned up the great charge that he was at in taxes and horses, and said they used a severity after men that they knew nothing against. What do you think of Mr. Knightiey ?" MS.
17 See supra, p.182, vol. ii. p. 392, ad fin.
18 See this Speaker, supra, p. 130, and note. "The Commissioners of the great seal," says Ludlow, "attended the Protector for signing the declaration of the person to be appointed to succeed him. But whether he was unwilling to discover his intentions to leave the succession to his son, lest, thereby, he should, in case of recovery, disoblige others, whom he had put in expectation of that power; or whether he was so discomposed in body and mind, that he could not attend that matter; or, lastly, whether he would have named, or did name any other, is to me uncertain. But, certain it is, that the Commissioners were not admitted till the Friday following, when the symptoms of death were apparent upon him." Memoirs, ii. 611. See supra, p. 141.
19 See this opinion "preached up," supra, p. 208.
20 "Colonel Overton," MS. See supra, pp. 45,212, supra.
21 See supra, p. 222.
22 See vol. ii. p. 435, note *.
23 See supra, p. 128.
24 Parl. Hist. (1763,) xx. 257. See, in 1656, vol. i. p. 20, note.
25 See supra, p. 266.
26 See vol. i. pp. 354–356,362–366,378.
27 See supra, p. 37.
28 According to Ludlow, his party "endeavoured to remove the Scottish and Irish members who had intruded themselves into the House." Memoirs, ii. 626.
29 See supra, p. 263.
30 See on "Harry Marten," supra, p. 212.
31 Mr. Henry Porter, member with Colonel West, for Lancaster.
32 See supra, pp. 27,223.
33 See supra, p. 226.
34 Perhaps Sir A. A. Cooper, supra, p. 228.
35 See supra, p. 223.
36 See supra, p. 232, note †.
37 See Ps. xlix. 13.
38 See vol. ii. p. 435, note *.
39 "As he had offered before." MS. See supra, p. 122.
40 It was little to the honour of this brave general, who had successfully wielded the military power of the Commonwealth, that he was prepared, or, at least, persuaded, (see supra, p. 48, note †) so soon after this prudent and patriotic declaration, to intrigue, in concert with Monk and the Presbyterians, for the unconditional return of regal government; thus betraying the cause of "the People," by giving every thing into the hands of a "single person," and such a person as Charles Stuart, who had already commenced his career of profligacy, and who, at length, earned the following character, from the pen of Horace Walpole, Lord Orford:— "Fortune, or fair or frowning, on his soul Could stamp no virtue, and no vice control. Honour, or morals, gratitude or truth, Nor learn'd his ripen'd age, nor knew his youth. The care of nations left to whores or chance; Plunderer of Britain, pensioner of France; Free to buffoons, to ministers denied; He liv'd an atheist, and a bigot died." See "An Epistle from Florence, written in the year 1740." Dodsley (1751), iii. 82. The expiring royal libertine is, perhaps, incorrectly charged with bigotry. He might be scarcely conscious of the solemn farce got up by Father Huddleston, and in which, in articulo mortis, he was the chief actor. As to the other charge, Charles II. "said once" to Bishop Burnet, that "he was no atheist," though, according to the Bishop, "he seemed to have no sense of religion," but at "prayers and sacrament," to which, even after, his marriage, "he usually came from his mistresses's lodgings, to the particular reproach of all that served about him in the Church, he took care to satisfy people that he was in no sort concerned in that about which he was employed." (See supra, p. 67, note.) Yet the king, it seems, had not satisfied Archbishop Sheldon and the rest of his courtly ecclesiastics, for, after the Savoy Conference, in 1661, on a revision of the liturgy, "a new epithet, our most religious king, was added to the king's title, that gave great offence, and occasioned much indecent raillery, and those who took great liberties with him, have often asked him, what must all his people think when they heard him prayed for as their most religious king." O. T. (1724), i. 93, 175, 183. Thus according to the versifier before quoted:— "Extent of ill from kings at first begins, But priests must aid, and consecrate their sins. The tortur'd subject might be heard complain, When sinking under a new weight of chain, Or, more rebellious, might perhaps repine, When tax'd to dow'r a titled concubine, But the priest christens all, a 'right divine.'" That compliment to royalty, our most religious king, which Bishop Burnet himself must frequently have repeated, when priest or deacon, and, at length, ordained priests and deacons to repeat, is still enjoined in the established liturgy; and, it may be said, fairly enough, as scarcely any king can reign, to whom it would be less appropriate than to Charles II. It is here worthy of remark, with what submissive caution and extreme candour, rather than with Christian truth and manly freedom, this interpolation of the liturgy, in compliment to the restored Stuart, so well exposed by Bishop Burnet; was treated in the following passage by those gentle reformers, the pious and learned authors of the "Free and Candid Disquisitions relating to the Church of England." (1750). "The expression in the Prayer for the High Court of Parliament, that is most excepted to, is very well known, and need not here be specified. It might, perhaps, have been better, if it had not been put in at first; and it is certain there was no necessity of inserting it. Whether it may not now be exchanged for another epithet," (they recommend most gracious Protestant King,) "which shall be less exceptionable, is a question we would only propose, and leave the resolution to proper judges; though we think we could place the matter in such a light as would evidence the necessity of attending to such a question." p. 116.
41 See supra, p. 130, ad fin.
42 See supra, p. 110, note.
43 This speaker's apparent disaffection to the now exiled royal legitimate, was soon convertible; like that of Lord Broghill (who was equally disinclined to "fall, uncourtly, with a falling court,") towards "Charles Stuart and the rest." See supra, p. 136, note; vol. i. pp. 357, 358. "A court," says Dr. Harris, "is too frequently followed because of the loaves and fishes which are to be found there. When these fail, it is no more regarded. So that it is not the desire of profiting the public, the love of the sovereign, or any of those specious pretences which are made use of by these kinds of men, that, in fact, do actuate them, in accepting and executing their various employments. "It is not uncommon to see such as have been favourites and counsellors under one prince, enjoy the same under another, who has ousted him of his dominions, and deprived him of his bread. We are not to wonder, therefore, that those who were preferred by Cromwell, should be disposed, when their interest seemed to lead that way, to reconcile themselves to Charles, in order to take care of themselves in the full extent of the phrase." Lives (1814), iv. 251.
44 "Recognize or agmze, Acknowledge, all one;" supra, p. 185. Yet see p. 179. Ludlow says, "It was desired that the words in the Declaration, of recognizing him, might he altered for agnising him; that so his right might appear to he founded upon the consent of the people represented in this Assembly." Memoirs, ii. 624.
45 William Hampden, third son of John Hampden, was now member for Wendover, and one of the court-party. He died in 1675. Mr. Noble says: "He was much trusted and beloved by the Protectors Oliver and Richard. He went with a commission into Ireland, and was dispatched by the Lord Lieutenant Henry Cromwell, to the Protector Richard, with the proclamation, that had been issued upon his Highness's accession to his sovereign dignity." House of Cromwell (1787), ii. 76.
46 See supra, p. 274.
47 Heb. xiii. 2.
48 An allusion to Luke, xix. 40.
49 "Recognizance:—a bond wherein a man, before a lawful judge, acknowledgeth himself to owe a certain summe of money, to the King if he faile in performance of a condition thereto joyned." See "Interpreter of Hard English Words." (1639).
50 See p. 32, note, 87.
51 See supra, p. 116.
52 See supra, pp. 147,222.
53 Deut. xvii. 16.
54 See supra, pp. 169,171,172.
55 See supra, pp. 29, 71, notes.*
56 See supra, pp. 263, infra, p. 288, notes.
57 Possibly meaning Charles Stuart. See supra, p. 161, ad fin.
58 Yet he does not attempt to prove the late Protector's declaration.
59 See supra, pp. 158,161, notes.
60 "Lawful successor," see supra, p. 87, note*.
61 See vol. i. p. 36, note.
62 See supra, p. 230.
63 See supra, p. 168, vol. ii. pp. 26, (Mr. Croke) 457, 458, note. From "A Statement of the Amount of the Public Revenue at the commencement of each reign," it appears that the "Annual Income," in 1625, on the accession of Charles I., was 895,819l.; in 1648–9, on the Establishment of the Commonwealth, 1,517,247l.; in 1660, at the Restoration, 1,800,000l.; in 1760, on the Accession of George III., 8,800,000l. "and in the year, ending 5th Jan. 1808, 75,446,626l. 11s. 6d."
64 "The House was divided. The Noes went forth. "Noes 223. Mr. Henry Fitz-James and Sir John Copplestone, Tellers. "Yeas 134. Sir Arthur Haslerigge and Mr. Henry Neville, Tellers. "So the question passed in the negative." Journals.
65 "This vote," says Mr. Bethel, "passed the House, without any negative, more than that of the Secretary of State; but the courtiers no sooner knew the sense of Whitehall upon it, that, from that time forward, they never appeared in the least for the making good one word of it." Brief Narrative, p. 340.
66 "That night he was voted Chief Magistrate, with such boundary and qualifications, as shall be sett." Goddard MS. On the subject of these discussions Whitelock, now occupied "about the business of the great seal, "of which he was again one of the three Commissioners, has only the following short notices. "Feb. 8. The House of Commons debated the Bill of Recognition of his Highness to be Lord Protector; and some were very cross in that business, which caused doubts of the good issue of this Parliament. "9. The members returned for Scotland and Ireland, to serve in this Parliament, [see supra, p. 75], appeared very full." Memorials (1732), p. 676. "Upon the 7th of February, "says Mr. Bethel, "the Bill for recognizing the Pretender, was read the second time, and the debate begun. The court party pleaded the Petition, and Advice, as the foundation of his title, but the country-party denied it to be a law; in that the members were never suffered to meet, but so many of them kept out by force and that even by him that called them, as he judged would hinder the execution of his will. Besides, that, at the creation of the monster, there were, of 460 members chosen, but 104 in the House, whereof 51 were against it, and but 53 for it, among whom were Scotch and Irish members, who had no right to sit, but were usurpers in making laws for England.— "But the Court, being resolved of no less than a Turkish power, would suffer no reason to prevail with them, to the making the Petition and Advice unauthentic; but as it had force for its original, so it must have the same in the allowance of it for a good law; which provoked the country-party to demand a proof of the pursuance of that law; in the Pretender's election, and that his designation was according to the directions of it. "But, though this was pressed by persons of great abilities, never any answer was given to it, the Court-party knowing that, by the strength of their members, they could overrule the strength of reason. But, those for the country, taking the others' silence in the point of proving the designation, to be a granting that there was none at all, argued that if the election was void, and that Providence had prevented the usurper Oliver of keeping to the Petition and Advice, in appointing, during his life, his successor, the law was thereby fallen to the ground, and all government reverted to its original, the people, who ought by their representatives assembled in Parliament, to bestow it as they should think fit, which would then have been readily given by most of those then present, to the gentleman in possession, if he and his party would, upon these terms, have accepted of it, as they refused it, lest, by owning the Parliament to be the Creator of the government, they should own a power in them to destroy their own creature when they pleased, which they were not for in Cromwell's case, though some of them had made the same thing the ground of their fighting in another case. "This debate, no man speaking twice to the matter, held eight whole days successively. In which time, great excellency and good affections appeared in several gentlemen, in their speeches for the good of the nation. Yet the best they could bring this debate unto was to conclude with the two votes (14th Feb. 1658,) as previous to the commitment of the Bill." Brief Narrative, pp. 337–339.