The Diary of Thomas Burton: 6 March 1656-7

Diary of Thomas Burton Esq: Volume 1, July 1653 - April 1657. Originally published by H Colburn, London, 1828.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

Citation:

'The Diary of Thomas Burton: 6 March 1656-7', Diary of Thomas Burton Esq: Volume 1, July 1653 - April 1657, (London, 1828), pp. 381. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/burton-diaries/vol1/p381 [accessed 22 June 2024].

. "The Diary of Thomas Burton: 6 March 1656-7", in Diary of Thomas Burton Esq: Volume 1, July 1653 - April 1657, (London, 1828) 381. British History Online, accessed June 22, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/burton-diaries/vol1/p381.

. "The Diary of Thomas Burton: 6 March 1656-7", Diary of Thomas Burton Esq: Volume 1, July 1653 - April 1657, (London, 1828). 381. British History Online. Web. 22 June 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/burton-diaries/vol1/p381.

Friday, March 6, 1656–7.

The House, according to former order, resumed the debate upon the remonstrance, yesterday adjourned.

Resolved, that, when the fifth article comes into debate, not only the qualifications of the persons to be of the other House, shall then be taken into consideration, but also by whom and how the persons of that House shall be chosen; and likewise the powers and authorities of the other House.

The third article being read,

Resolved, that the words "whole kingdom" be omitted; and instead thereof, the word "people" be inserted.

The fourth article was read, and afterwards read by parts.

Resolved, that instead of these words, "Roman Catholic," the word "Popish," be inserted in the first clause of this article. (fn. 1)

Footnotes

  • 1. I shall here suspend the extracts from the Journals, to introduce, according to the practice occasionally adopted by the writer of this Diary, a transaction occurring out of Parliament, yet intimately connected with its proceedings. The article which will occupy the four following pages, I copied verbatim, at the British Museum, from the volume of MS., described supra, p. 370, note †. After every examination in my power, I cannot find that it was ever printed. It was evidently part of a letter, and has too direct a reference to the then much-agitated question of the Protector's Kingship, to be hero omitted.