Saturday, March 5, 1658–9.
Prayers. (fn. 1)
Mr. Stephens. You have voted a Chief Magistrate, and
worthily. You have said you will bound him. You have
only mentioned negative voice and militia. This is a part,
and a great part of the bounds. If his Highness have power
to appoint another House, both as to numbers and persons, it
is a great privilege. It is so far from bounding, that it will
rather enlarge his power.
I conceive the persons that now sit in that House, do not
sit by that law called the Petition and Advice. The explanation says, they "shall be respectively commanded," &c. (fn. 2)
1. The Petition and Advice will not enable him (fn. 3) , and is
not pursued; neither in truth is the writ grounded upon the
Petition and Advice, but according to the common law. I
move, therefore, to have the writ brought in.
2. It does not judicially appear before you, that those are
the persons called by the Petition and Advicé.
The last Parliament, that very Parliament that made
them, would not transact with them. (fn. 4) If they must be the
members, why should not we approve them ? I think we are
as full and as free a parliament as that, and we have as much
right to approve.
I look upon the persons in the other House, as standing in
a throng at a little door, through which they cannot enter.
There they have stood three days, while we are thinking of
an expedient how to bring them in. Whereas, if they had
gone in one by one, all, or most of them, peradventure, might
have been in before now.
I suppose it is not intended to exclude all, nor admit all.
I shall never include all those, nor exclude all the other in a
lump. (fn. 5) Why may we not then go to approve them one by
one ? I am against that addition offered, viz. not excluding
the rights of the old Peerage. I doubt that will exclude
them in fact: I therefore move as before, that the old Act
be repealed, and then they come to their rights of course;
and I would have an Act brought in, that such of the old
Lords as have demeaned themselves with honour and fidelity,
for their long continuing so may be summoned to sit in that
I know no reason why you should give away your right of
approving the members of the other House.
Here is a list in print. If you please, I move that we approve of those now sitting, beginning at the bottom of the
list and going up to the top.
Mr. Goodrick. I cannot let such a good motion die. My
opinion goes along with it. I would have only this addition,
"with the consent of his Highness," that being but reasonable; and that you begin at the end, and go through the list,
to approve them.
Mr. Stephens. There is a noble person in this House,
that has the writ in his pocket. I move that it be produced
by Sir Arthur Haslerigge.
Mr. Speaker reported the sum of the debate, how that
several questions had been propounded. He prayed them to
keep close to the debate, and single out one question to
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am a free-born Englishman.
You may command me when you please to prison, but out of
this House of Commons will I never go. I cannot be forced
to sit in another House. I will never do it while I live. If
you please to command me to fetch the writ, I will have it
Mr. Boacawen. I move that he produce the writ.
Mr. Knightley. It is not likely he has the bees'-wax in
his pocket; it would be melted. I doubt it is melted already,
because he will not own the writ.
I would not have us wander up and down. My humble
Petition and Advice to you is, that you would go with a Petition of grace to his Highness, to have the old Lords brought
in. It is told you very well what fault there is in the Petition and Advice as to that point. Intreat his Highness to
send some noble persons in there, to advise with you. Tell
him your straits.
Mr. Gewen. I say there is no need of repealing that Act
against the Lords. It is not to be thought of. It was never
a law. Besides, how will you repeal it without the other estate ? They, now sitting, will never consent to pass it and
destroy themselves. It is not an Act of Parliament. That
Parliament died with the King, and so the Act is void of itself. Again, one House could not have power to destroy
another; and therefore, without doubt, the old Peers have
a right still in them. I know my twenty-four letters as well
as the learnedest man.
The old Lords are not taken away. I therefore move that
they be summoned. Let us do righteous things in righteousness. The persons sitting are honourable persons, but I
should be loth to put them in another's right. Let the old
Lords be settled upon the old foundation, and then you and
his Highness add whom you please. I will except against
none. Nemo lœsitur, nisi a seipso, is a true rule. It is said, the
officers of the army are your army, under your pay. Shall
then the single person make them a part of the legislature ?
That is a disposition of them indeed!
I cannot agree the Petition and Advice to he a law, because made only by two estates. The single person and this
House cannot make a law; besides, demittetur pars, relinquetur pars. There was but a piece of a House. We were not
kept out by force, but by a vote. (fn. 6)
I hear prudentials much pressed upon us, why we should
not call the old Peers; but I am not for prudence against
righteousness. My understanding will never lead me to do
any thing unjust. There was never any foundation lasted,
that was not laid in righteousness. Fear hath had some influence. The serpent sees best out of the dove's head. There
are two fears. The fear of man is a snare, but the fear of
God is true understanding. I have no fears to do justice.
I would have it presented as a Petition of this House to
his Highness, to call the old Lords to advise, &c.
Colonel Birch. You are much out of the way. It is told
you, you are upon an unrighteous foundation, till you call in
the old Lords. An affirmative commands not, always.
If it be a duty upon us to do it, by doing it out of time,
we may not do our duty.
An addition is offered you, not to exclude the rights of the
old Peers. That or any other addition may afterwards be
made; but first put the question which lies before you, that
you will transact with the persons, &c.
Mr. Neville. All the motions are irregular. I am for
another House, but. not for this, nor that, but another. I
am, in truth, against both these Houses.
I think you are going to vote that which cannot be,
though you should vote. There were two ends of the other
1. For a balance, and that is impossible now to be. No
power in England can be a balance. There can be no support, no subsistence for it, but by force. That which made
them a balance before, was their great power and interest in
the nation. Then every lord of the manor was called.
They represented their tenants. Thus the whole nation was
truly represented by the Lords, and no need of a House of
The Commons will be apt to say, shall we have a vote stand
between us and home ? The people will never return to them
without force, or be subject long. We have known when
the Lords refused to consent to a Bill, the Commons sent
up a messenger to know the face of that Lord that refused it. Another time, this House sent them word, by Sir
John Evelyn, (fn. 7) that if they would not pass an ordinance, they
would pass it without them. (fn. 8) This will not be endured by
the people, to have a sort of privileged persons to obstruct the
passing their laws.
The Commons at present are much more considerable than
at that time, and the Lords much less. Therefore, as to the
balance of power, it will come to nothing. Heretofore the
Lords' House paid this. There were so many blue coats in
our father's remembrance, that sat in this House, as we could
see no other colours there. Near twenty Parliament-men
would wait upon one Lord, to know how they should demean
themselves in the House of Commons. The Lords paid the
Commons then, and we must now pay the Lords.
The King would have been glad to have had tonnage
and poundage for ever. We are now having an excise for
ever. (fn. 9) If this be at any time thought grievous, you can never
lessen the charge nor grievance of the nation. You give
them salaries to be your balance. For these persons, they
depend upon the single person, and they are paid by the
public revenue as well as the single person, so as you will
have two negatives upon you, both in pay by that revenue,
when you think to diminish it. If the King had stood in no
need pf money from the people, we had had no Parliaments.
The great Turk had been amongst us.
The second use of another House is to bar the sudden and
precipitate passing of laws, for that, indeed, I would have the
other House, either to consider of laws before or after they are
considered by you; but I would have them chosen either
by the people or by you, (fn. 10) so that they might rise or fall
I shall move you, that you will not transact with those persons. There is much more to be said for the old peerage
being neuters. They have no dependency. They are but as
rich commoners now. They are no more. Let us have
them rather than the other; as much more fit and indifferent.
Mr. Drake. We have every day divers questions. I desire you would hold us to the question. The argument of
force is not of much force with me. If there has been any
Parliament since 48, nay, since 42, which has not been under
force, I shall be satisfied.
If a ship come home safe through many storms, yet if it
bring home good commodities, it is well. If through a storm
we came here with good commodities, I hope you will not
Paul and his fellow prisoners were not saved by the ship,
but by the pieces of it. (fn. 11) If he had refused to be saved,
unless he could have been saved by the whole ship, he must
have perished. So we, if but saved by the pieces, must not
refuse the means, nor fall out, with it.
We may bound these persons well enough by the Petition
and Advice. Divers objections are against them.
These persons have not interest to be a balance.
They are a good balance. Their interest is deep enough.
They that have engaged so much, and ventured their blood
to be a balance against tyranny, cannot allow that any should
tyrannize. To preserve their interest, is the best way to prevent confusion and destruction of the whole.
It is objected that they are mean persons.
But that should never be an argument made use of against
them in this House; for the meaner they are, the better for
That it will affront the old Lords, and exclude them.
It will rather be better for them. For if the authority of
that House be quite broken, their hope will then be less than
That there are many soldiers.
Then the better guards.
It is said that a great many judges are there. It will obstruct appeals.
They are in those cases to withdraw.
My motion is, that you will transact, &c.; and if any addition be offered touching the rights of old Peers, let it be
Mr. Trenchard. This other House is such an ambiguous
word, that it occasions, all this debate.
My judgment concurs wholly with your vote for two
Houses. The question now is, what that House shall be,
whether constitutive or restitutive. Restitutive is dangerous.
Constitutive hath conveniences.
It is exceeding dangerous to restore the old Peers at one
blow. When that is done, you have done with bounding.
They will bound you. It is settlement I look after. By the
same ground you may bring kingship, bishop, and all that.
Nay, I know not but they, in conclusion, will put you out, if
you put them in.
There is nought of constitutive power in the Petition and
Advice. It is fit you should add some powers to them. I
would have you constitute a House rather. It will make
way to restore all the old Lords that are capable.
Determine whether this House shall be a constitutive or
restitutive. Then you may mould a House, else they will
bound you instead of your bounding them. This is the way
to make this House serviceable, to the Commonwealth.
Mr. Annsley. I see it is growing so common to speak
twice to a question, that I shall venture to speak again. I
shall not speak of the right of old Lords. They have strength
enough to stand of themselves. The House is so fully satisfied of the indispensable right of the Lords' House, as I think
no vote will pass to exclude them, and there will be no need
of restoring them. If you do not exclude them, they are
good to be a balance between the Supreme Magistrate and
the people, and to supervise and protect the laws.
That which is said of the interest of the Peers, that it has
failed, is a great mistake. There are as great a number of
Peers that have not forfeited, as were in the beginning of
Queen Elizabeth's reign.
It was said the Commons will not bear them. We find the
misery of that success. (fn. 12) I hope we shall never have that again.
The multitude we represent are the great waters. We are yet
under the miseries of that inundation. Perpetuating the excise, &c. was done by the House of Commons. (fn. 13) If there
had been a screen, it may be, the liberties of the people had
been better looked to.
If you please to go from addition to addition, else we shall
never come to a resolution. I pray you let us go from point
to point, if we can agree of aught. A fate hangs over us. We
shall not know what to think of ourselves, as the people know
not what to think of it.
Let us have any settlement rather than no settlement. I
beseech you, keep us to something.
Mr. Turner. It is more ingenuous to give a plain negative to the question, than to put an addition to it which destroys the question.
It is objected, they are no House till "approved of by this
House." The letter of the law is clear, "without approbation
of this House," the words are exclusive enough. (fn. 14)
Many arguments have been used against transacting. It has
been sharply urged upon us as to the persons, that the House
consists of Major-generals that are taken out of the country,
and set in a House of Parliament. (fn. 15) If it were so, they are
taken from an unlimited power, to be circumscribed by a law.
I fear not the persons, but their powers; but I am sure it
will be our great unhappiness, if by the misfortune of this
Parliament they should return to the (fn. 16) same power again.
But the strongest objection is; will you vote to transact
with them before you bound them ? I know no bounds you
can apply to them without consent, other than are put to them
already. You cannot bound them farther till you transact.
If you agree the powers, you must do it by a law. That
must be by consent of both Houses, and your very carrying
up a Bill to them is to transact. Why should we be unwilling to say what we actually do ? We cannot make laws without another House. Our own vote bars us.
I dread to think whither the revolutions of another war
may carry us. I appeal to any man if aught can be settled
but by a law, and that to pass two Houses. It is the most
wise, just, and prudent way.
I do think it best, for these and no other reasons, to pass
the question before you. If we rise, re infecta, we shall
leave the nation in a worse condition than we found them.
Lord Lambert. It is plainly and truly told you from the
bar, that you must transact with this House. If this be the
argument, there is no answering of it. You can make no
laws without them. You cannot bound them. They already
know their bounds.
If it be said you can neither bar nor bound, till you transact with them; if I might advise you, I would have some
previous vote to assert your own privileges, and what is the
right of this House. You may then easier assert the Protector's and the other House's rights.
Colonel Bennet. A good inclination appeared in the noble
person that spoke last. He is willing that all things may be
brought to a right end, as to the preserving the liberties of
this House. He offered you some previous vote. As the
people's temper or distemper is for no other way of settlement,
but by a single person and another House, the question is,
how we shall do this, and preserve and secure our own rights
I shall conclude with that gentleman, if it be a duty that
we must restore the old Peers, let us do it. The generality
of the House stand obliged in conscience to the contrary.
This point of prescription hath been so interrupted in all
ages that it has no foot to stand upon as to that. Long after
the Conquest, the great assemblies with the Prince, were but
in one House. (fn. 17) The armory of the gentry did not descend
hereditarily till after the Conquest. It became hereditary
then, non sic ab initio.
This House is anciently the Parliament of England. The
Peers have no such right. If it be not for the common good,
no right can be pretended. The prelates (bishops, I cannot
call them, it is a good name,) they had a right; the Court
of Wards the like. They were jus sine jure. Hereditary,
legislature has been destructive to the people of the nation.
If a posterity of ruined gentry and ruined nobility shall
have it put in their hands to make a price of the Commons,
and for a time have a party of the Commons to back them,
it is as great a temptation as ever Achish, King of Gath, had.
There were hereditary officers in the nation; those were
thought to be dangerous; hereditary sheriffwicks. Those
arguments as to persons bind throughout; and bring Charles
Stuart in manifestly, and with open face, not in at the back
There are not two in this House, I believe, against another
House; but I am not absolved of that oath against a House
of Lords. I believe others are so. Let us lay aside what
cannot be taken up without peril, and take up that which
may come to the best settlement for the present, and for our
children. I am for a government with defects rather than
for none at all.
Why may not some preliminary votes be made, to preserve
our rights ? I cannot say the Petition and Advice is not a
law. The law of nature bids us own the possessory power.
Secure these things, let gentlemen propose them. I am for
Mr. Steward. I understand not how this right of restitution (fn. 18) comes before you. They do not complain to you. It
is not judicially before you. Admit you be obliged to do
them right, you must give them their ancient rights, else it
will be no more than Naboth might have had for his vineyard, "a better vineyard." (fn. 19) If they submit to those bounds,
they that were a co-ordinate power with you, are now a subordinate. The next House of Commons may bound them.
They will not take it kindly from you. It is more for their
service to transact with this House; saving the rights of the
Peerage. By the constitution, his Highness is bound to call
Parliaments of two Houses, according to the laws.
They, being now in possession, may be admitted, de bene
esse; else you are wind-bound. You cannot do aught without them.
Captain Baynes. There is an inconsistency in your vote.
If you vote them before you bound them, you cannot bound
them afterwards. So it is, if you mean the old Lords. The
like of the new Lords; for you cannot bound either, with
out their consent. If you once admit this new House to be
a House, you exclude the old Lords. Their number is up,
within four or five. (fn. 20)
For the persons in possession, I should be much for them,
if you could divide between them and their offices. The
Government will then be solely in that House. It matters
not what laws you make, or they consent to. If they have
a mind to break in upon a paper law, they have a force to
do it. If you go to balance a Government, if it be not equal
in power, it matters not what the law be. If the militia be
in another House, that House of Lords, you may be, or may
bear the name of a House of Commons; but if you will not
give them money, they will, in process of time, levy it without you. They will do it de facto, and better so than de
jure. They have twenty-two or twenty-three regiments, divers garrisons, and the Tower of London.
If it be said, they have this power already, let us go
transact. Admit they have it de facto, let us not give it
them de jure. But I would have them come to this pass,
either to recede from the other House, or from those employments, and their dependence upon the single person and
the people's purse. And I would fain you would find a
House of Lords that should signify the thing, and not barely
the name, before you confirm the single person in his
possessory right. I hear no other right made out yet.
There may be another right. You are now about a constitution.
If those persons in the other House will become independents, I shall be for them.
It is an easy matter to make names of Lords. It is estates
that make men Lords and esteemed in the country. If you
take old lords by the lump, they will want estates. You
will find many gentlemen among yourselves that have Lords'
estates; but this is not before you yet. But if you vote now
to transact, all other things are but of doors.
You are told you can do nothing without them; but I
think this House and the single person may transact without
them, and have as much power as the last Parliament had,
without them. You made them a House; but no power was
then given them as to the legislative part: but they made
That Bill has not made them a House of Lords, unless
going into that House made them Lords. It was not intended for them to be Lords. You denied that, the last parliament It was in consideration, whether they should have a
negative or co-ordinate power with you; some negative as to
the judicial power, but nought as to the legislative.
It is said to you, that by the Petition and Advice they are
not another House. I would have had it examined whether
they be another House. I was against the question, because I did not know what fruit you would have by it.
Add the words to the question, "whether you will transact
with them, &c. as they are now constituted."
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. We might easily come to a conclusion, if we could understand our own principles that we
You have already recognized a single person, and Parliament to consist of two Houses. This Parliament must
either have new bounds or old bounds. We are neither
upon restitution nor constitution, but transacting.
Let us, first, consider our own condition, and whether this
House could or can legally meddle with the persons that are
members of the other House.
It is said, it is grievous to give them the powers that
another House formerly had. We must, therefore, have
How can we legally determine this of ourselves, or how,
unless we transact with them? Why should we walk out
of our duties? By transacting, we may come to an understanding; but this way we shall never do it.
It is said, we admit them with all their infirmities. No
such thing. We may complain of it, if it be a grievance,
that old Lords are not there. May not we complain of
right ? Are we here as we were in 49, when the King was
taken away, or are we on another foundation? I think
we are on another foundation. Let us go to them without
Sir John Northcote. If you follow that ground laid down,
you are on a sad ground. You can no more change persons
We thought in the Long Parliament we might restrain the
inordinate power of the Chief Magistrate. That was the
ground of our quarrel in the late war; but by this argument
we cannot, and it seems we cannot bound these Lords' exorbitant powers. I am sorry to observe the argument.
It is said, (fn. 21) we must take care we bring not ourselves
under Major-generals. I did not expect that argument in
this place. I did fight against an exorbitant power in the
King's hands, and I will fight against it again to the last
drop of blood, if his Highness command me, whenever such
power shall be set up, if it be to-morrow, and in whatever
hands it be.
It is objected (fn. 22) that Lords Lieutenants heretofore sat in
the other House.
That was introduced but in Queen Elizabeth's days, and
was then complained of. Besides, they were great lovers
of the people. The Lieutenants were persons of quality, and
the Captains men of estates. The common soldiery were
the yeomanry. None had any pay. These are mean people,
and must be paid by you.
You bring yourselves into the old condition of slavery, if
you go to establish those with this external power. If you
establish them not by a law, if they be established in their
power, you establish slavery perpetually upon the people.
If the civil and military power be joined together there by
a law, some of them that offered force to Parliaments, and
disturbed us, are sitting there, what they have done they
may do. Job would not take part with Absalom, (fn. 23) but he
did with Adonijah.
I cannot be satisfied but that those persons, in consequence,
may join to set up themselves, and pull down both the single
person and this House.
I would have such an addition as may so bound them, that
they may not enslave the people. (fn. 25)
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. I said not that this House could
not reform exorbitancies; but that this House could not do
it without the other two estates.
Mr. Scot. All that is admitted is this: you may bound
the single person and the other House, if you please.
If the old Lords be not taken away, then I have no right
to sit here, by the writ of that person that summoned me; but
by another person. The same argument makes the Duke of
Gloucester King of England. (fn. 26) He has not forfeited. That
argument is as broad as long. This House is like the heathen gods that were of a year-and-a-half's authority.
If a Parliament with the single person have constituted
them— (fn. 27)
If I may say plainly, your passing-bell is a ringing. It is
said, you must either return to Major-generals, or admit this
Government; (fn. 28) and, farther, they are in, how will you get
them out ? If so, you must fight them. You need not do
it. If you say otherwise, the nation will not be really engaged or concerned in it.
What are you less than slaves, if you confirm them by the
lump ? (fn. 29) What are you then? A House of Commons, a
council of officers, and a single person, appointing them.
Let them have the militia of the country. If ever that betray your liberty, I will fall under it. I wish I could say so
If it be not in the design to bring in Charles Stuart, the
argument does it.
They are your servants, and it is improper to make them
your masters. You cannot, of nineteen regiments take away
one. They have them all. It is said, the soldiers are in
arrears. The officers, I believe, are not so. I believe they
Are those fit to have a parliamentary authority, that will
undertake to abet the single person to levy taxes without
you ? We bind the girdle of war upon us in the times of
peace, which you know was a curse elsewhere. Though
some be men of estates there, yet the bulk are not such persons. I am rather for going upon qualifications than persons.
I deny their induction that say, I am neither for old nor
new; but I am for such as may be serviceable to you. This
is a kind of theomachy. God has fought against them, and
we set them up. I may say of them, as was said of the Jewish ceremonies, first moribundi; now thus come to be mortiferi, to be noisome, like a broken tooth, useless, better to be
What good will such a Peerage do you that must borrow
12d. to buy a blue ribband to distinguish their honour. It is
said, you must bound them by application. It must be by
You say you will bound, and you will not bound. It looks
like quibbling. This is like swallowing your meat, and
never drinking after it. As the people said to Samuel, (fn. 30)
"Nay, but we will have a King over us," though they
seemed to advise with Samuel. When of your constitution,
they will be most fit for a balance, more your kinsmen, bone
of your bone. But these words, trusty and well-beloved cousin—these, like judice meipso, teste meipso, (fn. 31) make them too
near a kin to the Chief Magistrate.
I have a learned discourse of Mr. Bacon's (fn. 32) by me, which
makes out that the rights are equal in the people. They
prevailed not more jubendi but persuadendi.
Appoint a committee to consider of what persons are
fit for that House, and then consider the powers and qualifications.
Mr. Attorney-general. I rise up to speak because you
Mr. Speaker. I cannot.
Mr. Attorney-general. We are in for a month at this
rate of speaking. I had rather that this House were laid
aside by a question, than rove up and down thus, and
The first addition that was moved was, that nought in
the vote should exclude the rights of the old Peers that
are faithful. I would have you put that question first,
that it is not hereby intended to exclude the rights of the old
Mr. Speaker was putting the question,
Colonel Terrill. This saving will not do it, for you admit
that House to be a House of Parliament, and then there is
no room for the old Peers.
I would have you first consider whether you. will have
that House or no, or upon what foundation they sit, and
whether they shall be approved or no. That House mentioned in the Petition and Advice must relate to the last
House, and not to this House.
Mr. Bodurda. I shall speak nought that has been said.
As to the objection that they are military persons.
1. That rule throws out all here that have commands
in the army or garrisons.
2. If you throw out the Major-generals out of that
House, you must also throw out very worthy gentlemen that
have been Major-generals.
It is objected that they are judges.
The Chief Justices, Commissioners of the Seals, Chief
Baron, were all in this House when the legislature was
here, from 49.
The persons concerned must withdraw when any question
is. How many here have a share in executing the laws of
this nation. All justices of peace, I suppose, by that rule
should not come hither. This, in my opinion, turns all the
edge of the argument upon those that make it.
Nor are only Major-generals in this House, but a great
many worthy gentlemen here that were commissioners with
them. I doubt we should then have a very thin House to
throw them all out.
I have no thoughts of impeaching the rights of old Peers.
Let us consider the original of their rights. The original
of this and of that House must be the writ of the Chief
It is impossible that ever this House should have an
original from the people. I cannot tell how to set the circle.
Who can say all on this side Trent, Tweed, Tyne, shall set
the bounds and circle, who shall choose? Who shall draw
the line and circle. The original must be in the Chief
The persons did not come and say: we are of great estates,
but the Chief Magistrate thought them to be so.
Though I serve for a borough, yet I could wish we were
upon a more equal constitution than by boroughs. Put the
question when doors were opened last Parliament (fn. 33) that we had
called in the old Lords. They would have said you are not
the persons, that we will transact with you. You are not
upon the old constitution; (fn. 34) two members for every borough, &c.
Then the parallel runs thus. Those persons that we are
to transact with, we except against them, because they are not
the same persons that were formerly. (fn. 35)
If any persons unfit are there, they may be removed; as
those that are here may be removed, if they be unfit; but it
must be done inordinately.
It was told you the sword may be melted in the scabbard,
and the scabbard not burned; and that our result was one
way, and our votes another. If the sword be melted with
reason, I would not have us contend and fight with the scabbard. That is my motion.
Colonel White. I should join with that gentleman willingly, if his conclusion had not destroyed his premises. It is
told you, that the ancient constitution of this, and the other
House, was not from the people. I shall not look so far back.
We both build upon wrong premises, to speak plainly.
While we palliate a wrong interest, we can never do things
for the interest of the nation, whether upon an old or a new
foundation. One of the three pillars is gone, as to the King,
so it cannot be an old foundation. It was as good a foundation as ever the world had. I wish we had such a balance
again, but that is gone. One of those pillars is destroyed,
and I hope you are not returning to that again. No more to
the old, now to the new.
1. They have either a foundation or none; if so, they
have it by the Petition and Advice. I moved before, (fn. 36) to
know by what words or terms they were constituted. If they
are another House, this House was their father, and this
House may order them, and bound them.
2. As to the persons, we have military men and judges
amongst us. We have so; but have not such great matters
before us in the country, as dissensions, erroneous judgments, &c.
Seven Judges, five Privy Counsellors, fifteen Colonels, so
many among those that make the seventy within five. (fn. 37) All
have pay from the public. If these persons could be divorced from their interest, I could like well that they should be
in that House.
The ancient nobility served without salary, and I believe
many of them would not sit with such persons that have salaries. It is not safe for the nation, to have persons for profit
and interest to sit there.
Let us, amongst all these things, remember the people of
England. We have taken an oath to preserve their liberties.
After you have voted them, you are concluded. You
cannot then bound them.
I shall humbly move you that, in relation to the people's
rights and liberties, you would, by some previous vote, assert
that the power does consist in the single person and this Parliament; and farther, that none that have salaries may sit
there. This does not put the Judges off their woolsacks,
which is their place.
Mr. Trevor and Colonel Morgan. Lest we lose the benefit
of this debate, adjourn for an hour.
Colonel Morley. I move against sitting in the afternoon,
but if you will sit it out, I shall, though I have eat nought,
Sir Richard Temple. I hope I shall offer what has not
been said. There is a right, undoubtedly, before you, the
right of the old Peers. This is well enough said to, already.
1. It is said, you have not materials for that House.
I must differ. If they have not such estates, they are
much more suitable. When they had great estates they did
overbalance. If they have but an estate to keep them from a
dependency upon employment by the Chief Magistrate, it is
2. As to the objection, against returning to that right.
Hereditary right is a grievance. I think it is a qualification very suitable. (fn. 38) They must naturally serve the interest
of Chief Magistrate to advance their posterity. That continues them still in a dependency upon him.
3. It is said, those that are there may be more suitable.
I think this army a foot now are extraordinary. I hope in
time we may be without them.
I have diligently attended the debate, and I find not, by
ought that is said, that they have any foot in the Petition and
Advice. They are called upon another foot. If he could
by law have called them, he might have formed a writ; if
there had been no such House in being. How, then, will the
right of this peerage come before you? All the right in
calling two Houses terminated with the single person.
You are now repairing breaches. This House and the
Protector may as well join in calling the old Peers, as they
might join in calling the other House. This may be done by
way of address to his Highness. They are worthy persons
upon the same account that you are. They have estates to
support them. I would as soon trust the ingenuity of them
in bounding as the other House, seeing that cannot be without their consent. They have also faithfully served you, as
well as the persons how in the other House.
My motion is, that your previous vote be, that you will repeal that Act which takes away the old Peers.
Mr. Solicitor-general moved to adjourn for an hour.
Major-general Kelsey. You are gone off from the old
point. I would have this to be part of the question, whether
you will have any saving of the rights of the old Peers.
Mr. Manley. I move to adjourn the debate for an hour or
two, if you please to hold this debate.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. The great order of the House is
to preserve yourselves; I must die. It matters not to me if
I die upon the spot. I am from my heart for settlement, but
upon a good foundation.
The first order was to bound them, and now we must have
the question swallowed. Many of us are to speak to the
matter of the question before there be additions. Much has
been said for the right of the old lords, and a great deal to
be said to the question. We have sat many Lord's days, (fn. 39) but
no such need of it now.
Mr. Hungerford. As we must sanctify a day, so we must
sanctify ourselves for a day. (fn. 40) I would, therefore, have you
to adjourn till Monday.
Resolved that this debate be adjourned. (fn. 41)
The Committee of Privileges sat in the House upon the
business of Tiverton between Colonel Shapcot and Alderman
Warner; it was carried against Colonel Shapcot, for which I
The Committee sat late; I know not what other business
passed. Nor could I attend any other Committee. (fn. 42)