The Diary of Thomas Burton: 29 January 1657-8

Pages 379-394

Diary of Thomas Burton Esq: Volume 2, April 1657 - February 1658. Originally published by H Colburn, London, 1828.

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


Friday, January 29, 1657.

I came in late, and found the House debating upon the answer which they had received from his Highness by the Committee appointed to attend him; which, it seems, he did not like, as coming not from both Houses, whose privileges he was equally sworn to maintain.

As for the printing of his speech, he said he delivered his mind plainly, but could not remember four lines of it. And for the paper of the charges which he told us of, he would put it into method, and give us a speedy account of it.

This return raised some debate, but the Orders of the day were called for, and it was moved to put it off till the House was fuller; and that the mace be sent for the members into the Hall.

The mace was sent into the Hall for the members, accordingly.

There had been some other business dispatched that morning, per book and per Colonel Grosvener's motion.

Sir Robert Collingwood was called to the bar upon his knees, and presently discharged upon Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper's and Colonel Briscoe's motion, in regard there was none to prosecute against him. Mr. Crouch met me afterwards, and gave me thanks for my pains that morning in that business.

The mace being returned, the report of his Highness's answer yesterday to the Committee, was called for and read.

The substance of it was that he spoke to both Houses, and was sworn accordingly, and was tender of the privileges of either House. As to his speech he could not remember four lines of it.

See the report at large in the Journal, and the Committee's resolution.

Altum silentium for a while; then stood up

Mr. Thistlethwaite. I move to take notice of his Highness's reiteration, "I say the House of Lords."It seems his Highness looks upon the other House as joined in the legislature, and he said he would rather die than suffer a breach of privilege to either House, to which he was sworn. Our sitting here is fruitless, unless we come to an understanding between the two Houses. I desire you would take up that debate.

Sir Arthur Hoslerigge. I thought not to have troubled you, but I cannot see any thing pass that may be a breach of the privileges of this House and the liberties of England, to which I am sworn, and will, with my life and my all, maintain. I come not here to make any faction or division. I did observe what his Highness said to the Committee, that he would communicate the point of money to both Houses, whereas it is the undoubted, inherent, right of the Commons to have the business of money wholly and absolutely communicated to this House. I would have, in all humility, an acknowledgment and a representation of our desires in this case.

Mr. Drake. I hope you will not take a report of a single person about the report of your Committee. There is nothing of the point of money, by his Highness mentioned as to be communicated to both Houses; and for that which the worthy gentleman is pleased to say of that victorious Parliament, (fn. 1) I have heard him say in the place where he now sits, that let pur debates and votes go which way they would, it is the long sword must carry it.

Mr. Trevor. It is not improper to communicate to both Houses the necessities of the nations in point of monies; and I am glad to hear that worthy gentleman take so good an aim as the constitution of this House, when there were three estates. (fn. 2) My motion is that you take up the debate upon the message: which was twice read over, and after awhile ahum silentium:—stood up

Mr. Pedley. The substance of the message is good. That which is before us, is under what title you will answer the same.

All our ancient books and records make mention of that other House, under the title of Lords. The ancientest book is that of the Saxon laws, which saith, Epispocorum, Magnatum, et aliorum sapientium Regni. From Edward III. till Richard II. no addition of Lords, till Henry VI. time, the family of the Poynings. Then it was Dominus de Poynings: but ever since the Houses sate apart (fn. 3) they have been called Peers; but that they were all actually called Lords, I know not.

I find several records that those that were called Lords, one Parliament, were not so called, another Parliament. George de Latimer, (Henry VIII.,) called Lord then, and, after, Knight.

Lord Coke (1st Part of Institutes) says, whosoever is once called to sit in Parliament, he is ever after called a Peer. Inheritance may be created by writ, without the word " heir." (2nd Part of Institutes).

Mr. Selden's " Titles of Honour" saith, that Banneret is but a title of Baron. Admit these were Lords, whether, by your Petition they are to be called Lords or that they are Lords, you have limited them in some things. You intended not that to be the title, " the other House;" for then, addresses thither may as well be meant of this House.

The writ doth agree with former writs. You have made the chief magistrate to exercise as other chief magistrates have done. If he does exercise by this name, according to the laws of the land, then this writ, if he send it out as other chief magistrates have done, you give it the very same effect as other writs have had.

You have, by your Petition and Advice, declared a limitation of inheritances to the Lords, yet they must have the same dignity, and in my opinion this other House must be called a Lords' House.

Mr. Scot. Truly it was in my mind to have moved you that a matter of this consequence should be debated in a Grand Committee; but it may now seem too late. I shall therefore offer my opinion. I am not studied to answer all that that gentleman has said, but I shall give it this answer. The business before you is now res integra, without looking back at any thing else. I shall state the case. We all know the state of our affairs under former powers of this kind; what encroachments upon both our civil and religious liberties. You have them reckoned up, all the encroachments of this kind, in a declaration of that Long Parliament.

I cannot but remember what was charged upon the late king, upon the vote for Non-Addresses, his not suffering his father's blood to come into question. (fn. 4) I hope I shall never be suspected to be Cavalierish: I have always opposed that. See the two declarations, a full prophecy that a king shall never return (fn. 5) to rule over us.

It was with great unwillingness of his, that he met a Par-, liament. Before, it was almost treason to speak of Parliaments, albeit the laws said Parliaments should be called once a year if there was occasion. (fn. 6)

If you resort to the ancientness of Parliaments, you willfind it as that gentleman said; but the other House was justly cast out (fn. 7) by their being clogs upon passing of many good laws.

The Scots, when the king was at Carisbrook Castle, invaded England, not as brethren, but to impose a king upon you. (fn. 8) The Lords were then desired that they would declare this invasion of the Scots, enmity, and as enemies to the nations, which, for their affection to the King, they would not do. (fn. 9)

You know afterwards what happened. By the virtue of two or three hundred thousand pounds the Scots were persuaded to give over, and leave their King in Carisbrook Castle. (fn. 10)

After the House of Commons had declared all this of nonaddresses and the like; yet the Lords voted addresses notwithstanding. (fn. 11) The major part of this House voted the like. (fn. 12) The army foresaw that their liberties were likely to be betrayed.

I am for trusting the people with their liberties as soon as any; but when they come to irregularities, and the major part grow corrupt, they must be regulated by miracle, or otherwise perish. The soldiers see their cause betrayed; the city and apprentices all discontented: (fn. 13) and if the army had not then appeared, where had then our cause been. (fn. 14)

The Lords would not join in the trial of the King. (fn. 15) We must lay things bare and naked. We were either to lay all that blood of ten years war upon ourselves, or upon some other object. We called the King of England to our bar, and arraigned him. He was for his obstinacy and guilt condemned and executed; and so let all the enemies of God perish. The House of Commons had a good conscience in it. Upon this the Lord's House adjourned, and never met, (fn. 16) and hereby came a farewell of all those Peers, and it was hoped the people of England should never have a negative upon them.

You are now moved to have both titles. There is neither House of Lords nor King yet; so that your clerk might well have taken that oath which Mr. Schobell took. (fn. 17)

I shall now say why they are not, why they ought not to be, a House of Lords.

1. You have not called them so. In all your Petition and Advice you have not said a word of it. Oh, but you intended it, said he. (fn. 18) It appears to me you never intended it, because you never said it; and it is reason enough for me to say it.

Once this House said King, (fn. 19) and yet you never said Lords; and if ever you had said it, it would have been then. He refused it upon a pious account, (fn. 20) and I hope he will still do so.

Shall I, that sat in a Parliament that brought a King to the bar, and to the block, not speak my mind freely here ? Could you ever so seasonably express yourselves, when it came so regularly and roundly as " King, Lords, and Commons;" though I trust you will not do it so handsomely.

2. Those that now sit in that House that would be Lords, did they, or not, advise you to make them Lords ? Let me argue in a dilemma.

Did they think to be Lords ? Then it was their modesty. Did they not think to be Lords? Then they voted like Englishmen; just, entire, like choosing the Roman general.

I think you have not yet meant to put a negative upon the people of England; I suppose you would not call them Lords, for tenderness of the consciences of the people of England. They are under an Engagement, (fn. 21) and I hope you will be as tender as you were to the point of a King; and you will not come under the crime of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, which caused Israel to sin. (fn. 22)

I come to show why you now should not make a House; I should say, a House of Lords. I cry you mercy ! If there be a House of Lords, it is more reason to call the old peerage; and there is not one of them there, as I am informed. But you cannot call them for impossibility. You have not a quorum, (fn. 23) not half a quorum of persons qualified. Those that be, fail in the very formalis causa, estates and interest. Anciently the Bishops, Abbots, and Lords, their tenants, and relations, could engage half England. The Providence of God has so ordered it, that England is turned a Commonwealth, and do what you can, you cannot make it otherwise; and if you join any with them in the legislature it will not do your work.

The administrations of God's dealings are against you. Is not God staining the glory and pride of the world. Is there any thing but a Commonwealth that flourishes; Venice against the pride of the Ottoman family. All their mountains are pulled down. God governs the world, as he governs his church, by plain things and low things. It was this that led your Long Parliament; the Providence of God, that virtue and honesty should govern the world; not that I am for fifth monarchy. (fn. 24)

II. Why not this House to be Peers ?

1. Because they are but Commoners, and were yesterday here. It is not agreeable to the qualification of Commoners. For ought appears to you, they sit as a part of the Commons, in another place. They have not the reason of the quality of Lords. They have not interest, not the forty thousandth part of England.

2. Have they an interest; had they an interest; why not sit here ? The interest follows the persons. As they have none by sitting there, they lose interest by it. The old nobility will not, do not, sit there. They lose that interest. You lose the people of England by it.

They were, by the Providence of God, set free from any negative. Will they thank you, if you bring such a negative upon them? the people that have bled for you, that have not gained by you, But you by them. What was fought for, but to arrive at that capacity to make your own laws ?

3. The unhandsome posture you bring yourselves into by. it; to stand here to that House, not like a Parliament of England. I know no number of men that represent so many thousands that should have that respect. (He told a story of the Senator of Rome's answer to the King.) (fn. 25)

Consider the consequences, that you charge not all the blood upon the great Parliament. The blood that shut out a negative stands at your door. (fn. 26) Some of Queen Mary's blood (fn. 27) lies here. I have heard of some motion for a day of humiliation for this blood. (fn. 28) Yon must put on the King's head again, which was surely taken without his consent and the Lords' too. Let not the people of England petition to have fetters upon them. Let it be your patience, and not your desires. It is not noble for the people of England to seek this.

1. Objection, it is an old custom, an old constitution.

This is an argument for popery, prelacy, and atheism. True, Adam in his: innocency was before Adam in his apostasy.

2. They are made Lords. They that made them another House made them Lords. I will not say but his Highness has power of honour, but not to set up courts. I would as soon be knighted under his sword in the camp, as under any man that ever gave honour.

The argument is sophistry: you made them another House; his Highness made them Lords; therefore they are a House of Lords. You have settled them only as a high Court of Justice; but if you make them a co-ordinate power with you, you give them the power of your purses, of peace and war, of making laws; and magistrates to execute them.

The people of Israel were governed by themselves; by the people. The people met, saith the text, and went to Hebron. (fn. 29) The people have power of all these things. God submits all his administrations to the people, (fn. 30) with reverence may I say it. God left to Adam to name all creatures. God did not say this is a lion, this is a bear; but Adam gave names to every creature. So he did to the woman, because a rib out of his side gave her a name. This House is a rib out of your side. You have given it a name. My motion is, that you would not alter it.

Sir Arthur Hasterigge. I should be glad to make any good motion. This business before you is a matter of great life and consequence. It is the effect of much blood and treasure. I should move that it may be seriously debated in a grand Committee, and taken up to-morrow morning; and that you would now go to dinner.

Mr. St. Nicholas. I second that motion, that you would now rise, and take up this debate to-morrow in a Grand Committee; it being a business of eminent consequence, and that whereon depends a great deal of our liberties that we are sworn to.

Major-General Boteler. I move, for saving time, that you adjourn till this business be over.

Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. I second the motion to have it debated in a Grand Committee. It will be most proper in a business of this consequence, and cannot be denied.

Mr. Gewen stood up, and offered some answer to the long oration, as he called it, made by Mr. Scot; and endeavoured to answer some reflections upon some of that victorious Parliament, which he (fn. 31) called the corrupt party. He was taken down.

Mr. Weaver moved to take down Mr. Gewen, and justified Mr. Scot's motion, and seconded the motion to have it debated in a Grand Committee; it being a matter of great moment to the people of England.

Mr. Serjeant Maynard. You have resolved even now, that this debate shall be adjourned till to-morrow; and now you come to speak of a Grand Committee. The debate being ended, no other motion ought to be put.

Mr. Gewen. The gentleman that made the long oration did, in substance, say, Nolumus hunc Regnare. (fn. 32) He shows himself a thorough paced Republican. There was such a sharp reflection upon that Parliament. He speaks that the greatest part were corrupt. I desire he may explain of whom he means; those that were peaceably spirited, and would not go that length that some did, who could bring over the army to purge the House (fn. 33) of such spirits as inclined to peace, and then call them the corrupt party. I like not such reflections.

Colonel Shapcott. I move to adjourn the debate till tomorrow morning; but if you go to a grand Committee, you. will never come to an end.

Serjeant Maynard. If you put the question to adjourn, you exclude the other question, as to a grand Committee; so you need not cry No.

Colonel Matthews. The other question was first moved, viz. for a grand Committee.

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

Colonel Morley moved to put off the question about a grand Committee till to-morrow.

Mr. Bodurda moved against a grand Committee.

Major Morgan. There will be no end of a grand Committee; and if you must have such a question for a grand Committee, put it now.

Colonel Shapcott and Mr. Trevor. It will look strangely upon your books, that you will go into a grand Committee to consider what answer you will give to a message for a fast. (fn. 34)

Mr. Weaver and Sir Arthur Haslerigge pressed to rise now, and take it up to-morrow morning.

Captain Baynes. I move that you put the question, whe ther that question shall be now put.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. There is a great deal of blood and treasure depends upon this question, and though two speakings take up a day, it may very well be two months debate; and after I have half answered the arguments against it in the House, I may answer the other half in a Grand Committee. It is a matter of the greatest consequence that ever can be to the people of England.

The question being put, that the question be now put,

Mr. Speaker declared for the Noes.

Captain Dunch for the Yeas.

The Noes went forth.

Yeas 84. Sir John Thorowgood and Sir John Coppleston, Tellers.

Noes 78. Sir Thomas Rous and Mr. Windham, Tellers.

So it passed in the affirmative.

The main question being put for a Grand Committee, it passed in the negative.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge and others offered, that notwithstanding it might, in the morning, be moved to bring it to a Grand Committee, they hoped no man should be debarred of speaking his mind freely, and as often as he pleased in a business of this great weight and importance to the people of England; but it came to no further question.

The House rose at one. I did attend no Committees this day.


  • 1. supra, p. 376.
  • 2. Referring to the earlier constitution of the Long Parliament.
  • 3. See supra, p. 349, note †.
  • 4. Jan. 15, 1647–8, the Lords and Commons passed this vote, which the Lords annulled on the 30th of June following. Feb. 11, " a Declaration of the Commons of England," in justification of their vote, was passed " by eighty voices against fifty," Sir Arthur Haslerigge being a Teller for the Yeas. " Mr. Rushworth informs us that great care was taken in the framing of this Declaration, that all the particulars of it might be warranted by sufficient proof." From the Declaration it appears, that on "the 10th of May, 1626, the House of Commons charged the Duke of Buckingham" with administering to James a supposed poisonous " plaister and potion." On the 15th of June, ". while the House was preparing to send up their proofs " to the Lords, Charles suddenly dissolved the Parliament. See Part. Hist. xvii. 1, 2, 6, 9. " They call to mind," says Rushworth, " the death of King James, charged on the Duke of Buckingham, at a conference in the Painted Chamber; when the King coming into the Lords' House, told them he could be a witness to clear the Duke in every one; and while the proofs were preparing against the Duke, the King declared an intent to dissolve the Parliament, which the Lords petitioned him not to do: yet it was done immediately after, and Sir Dudley Diggs and Sir John Elliot, who chiefly managed the conference, put dose prisoners in the Tower, by warrant of the King's own hand; and so never further legal enquiry concerning the death of the said King was made; let the world then judge where the guilt remains." Historical Collections (1708), vi. 345, 346. It is remarkable that, in " An Answer" to the Declaration published by the King's appointment, his extraordinary protection of Buckingham under such an accusation, is entirely unnoticed, as not one of the " most material points," but included among the " frivolous, malicious, and groundless calumnies" to which " contempt is the best answer." Parl. Hist. xvii. 41, 42. " There were several pens," says Mr. Macauley, " drawn to attempt to confute the aspersions thrown on the King in this Declaration; but all the performances on this subject are so poorly executed, that they would rather tend to confirm the King's guilt than otherwise, in the opinion of a judicious reader." History, (1769) iv. 346, note †.
  • 5. Little did this speaker apprehend that he was soon to become a victim, offered to the manes of a King justly deposed and executed; and to the vengeance of his son, returning in the pomp and power of unconditional royalty, though, at this time, the wandering and almost destitute Charles Stuart.
  • 6. See vol. i. p. 403, note §.
  • 7. Voted useless, February 6, 1648–9.
  • 8. " The Scots," says Whitlock,'' are turned enemies to England, and invade them with a considerable army. Before, they joined with the Parliament against the King, now they join with the King's forces against the Parliament. How like the sea the people of the world are, still ebbing or flowing; always in an uncertain motion, and constant in nothing but inconstancy." Memorials (1732), p. 320.
  • 9. July 10, 1648.—The Scots army, under the Duke of Hamilton entered England. They were soon defeated by Cromwell and Lambert, and their General was beheaded a few days after the execution of the King. Rushworth thus describes the cruelties charged on this army, and their not unjust retribution:— "August 11.—Letters say, the Scots play sweepstake; take all moveables, cows, and sheep, in great abundance, and all household stuff, to the very pot-hooks; they take our children, and make us ransom them, and force our women before our faces. "September 4.—On a Report from the Committee to whom the transporting the Scots prisoners was referred, the House voted, that they take care, first, to supply the plantations; the rest to be sent to Venice: and take special security, that none of them ever return to the prejudice of this kingdom: that within fourteen days after they are contracted for, the contractors do clear the kingdom of their charge." Hist. Col. (1708), vi. 4CO, 478. "July 18.—The Commons sent up a message to the Lords, with their resolution of the fourteenth, " that the Scots now come into England in an hostile manner, were enemies to the kingdom of England, and that all such English and Irish who join them are traitors." After " a very warm debate " on the question " to agree to the resolution," it " passed in the negative." Part. Hist. xvii. 309.
  • 10. The word, " afterwards" must, I apprehend, have been a misnomer for before, by the writer of the Diary, and " Carisbrook Castle," for Newcastle, as this speaker could scarcely have so mistated. The last of the two payments of 100,000l. each, was made Jan. 30, 1646–7, when, according to Rushworth, " the Scots marching out of Newcastle, Skippon took possession of it, and the Parliament's Commissioners received the Bang into their charge, and soon after set forward to Durham, and so towards Holmby. "The money, in thirty-six carts, was carried out of London, and Skippon met it at Northampton." Hist. Col. (1708), vi. 76, 84. "The money," says Oldmixon, " was lent by the City of London, to be repaid out of delinquents' estates and bishops' lands." House of Stuart (1730), p. 312. "There was," says Oldmixon, " another 200,000l. talked of," (as Rushworth also states). " The Scots were to take the Parliament's word for it; and probably they would have paid them, if they had not foolishly invaded England a few months after, to procure the liberty of that prince whom they now delivered up to prison." Ibid. p. 313. "This treaty the Cavalier historians exclaim against, as a bargain and sale." Yet " the money was due to them, long before the King came to their army. Add to this, it was not possible for the Scots to keep him without a war; and they were not so enamoured of the cause as to enter into one with the conquerors." Ibid.
  • 11. "June 30, 1648," says Rushworth, " a message came from the Lords," that "their Lordships had agreed" with ''their Committee for considering a personal treaty, that the vote of January 3, forbidding any addresses to be made to, or received from his Majesty, be made null, and desire the Commons' concurrence." Hist. Col. (1708) vi. 425.
  • 12. " August 16, The Lords at a conference " proposed, " that in order to the treaty between the King and Parliament, the votes of both Houses against farther addresses to his Majesty be recalled. August 17. The Commons considering the King's letters, agreed with the Lords." Ibid. pp. 461, 462.
  • 13. " Sep. 11, 1648," says Rushworth, "A paper was delivered to the Commons, intitled. 'An humble Petition of thousands of well-affected, dwelling in and about London; giving reasons why they first assisted them in the war: that they expected other ways than a treaty, and would have the following things proceeded on and perfected. "Then follow twenty-seven articles. The following appear especially worthy of recollection:— "1. To make good the supreme power of the people from all pretences of negative voices, either in the King or Lords. 2. To have laws made for electing representatives yearly, without writ or summons. 4. Matters of religion exempted from the compulsive or restrictive power of any authority. 5. That none be forced to serve in war. 6. That Kings, Queens, Princes, Dukes, Earls, Lords, and all persons, be alike liable to every law of the land. 9. That the proceedings in law be abbreviated, and the charge thereof made certain in all particulars. 12. That all late inclosures be laid open, or inclosed only or chiefly to the benefit of the poor. 13. That the many thousands rained by perpetual imprisonment for debt (see vol. i. p. 5, note) be considered. 15. That punishments be more equally proportioned to offences. 16. That the tedious burden of tithes be removed, and a more equal way of maintenance for ministers provided. 18. That they bind themselves, and all future Parliaments, from levelling men's estates (see vol. i. p. 49, note ‡). 23. Not to follow the example of former tyrannous and superstitious Parliaments, in making ordinances or appointing punishments concerning opinions or things supernatural; styling some blasphemies, others heresies." The concluding article contained, probably, more meaning than met the ear. " 27. To lay to heart the abundance of innocent blood spilt, and the infinite spoil made of peaceable people, by express commission from the King; and whether the justice of God can be satisfied, or his wrath appeased, by an Act of Oblivion." "The House, in answer, gave them thanks for their great care of the public good, and promised speedily to take their desires into consideration." Hist. Col (1708), vi. 481–483. At the time to which this Speaker must refer, the discontent of the "Apprentices " had discovered itself in support of the royal cause. According to Whitlock, " April 9 and 10,1648, there happened a very high and dangerous tumult by the apprentices, with other people and malignants who instigated them. They overpowered a party of the trained bands, surprised Newgate and Ludgate, took the keys, went to the Lord Mayor's, and took thence a drake; and beat up drums upon the water, to invite the seamen and watermen for God and King Charles." Memorials, (1738) p. 299. The first appearance of the apprentices in the mortal strife between the Crown and the Democracy was equally tumultuous, though on the other side, " May 9, 1640, about five hundred beset the Archbishop's house at Lambeth; but he having provided for his defence, they could make no entrance, only their tongues ceased not to utter revilings of all bitterness against him. " In this case, although there was nothing but a breach of the peace, and of a few glass windows, and setting at liberty some prisoners, and none slain or hurt, yet because so great a number were assembled, and in a warlike manner, with a drum, which beat up before them; the judges resolved it to be treason, and one of their captains, a cobler, was hanged, drawn, and quartered for it, and his limbs set on London Bridge." Ibid. p. 34. See Rushworth.
  • 14. According to Rushworth, " November 20, 1648. A large remon strance of the army was presented to the Commons with a letter to the Speaker, from the General" (Fairfax.) "December 6. Several members going to the House were seized, and kept in custody, by special order from the General and Council of the army." (See supra, p. 85, note †.) "December 12. The House resolved, that the vote of June 30, 1648, (which concurred with the Lords, that the votes of January 3, 1647, forbidding all addresses to or from the King be taken off) was highly dishonourable to the proceedings of Parliament, and destructive to the good of the kingdom. "December 13. The Lords and Commons resolved to make no further addresses to the King," and " that the revocation of the votes about non-addresses, and the vote of July 28, 1648, for a treaty with the King, were highly dishonourable and destructive to the good of the kingdom." Hist. Col. (1708) vi. 525, 543, 550, 551. To this interference of the military, with the members of the Commons, Whitlock alludes, in the following paragraph:— " February 24, 1648,9. From the Council of State, Cromwell and his son, Ireton, went home with me to supper. We discoursed together till twelve o'clock at night, and they told me wonderful observations of God's Providence in the affairs of the war, and in the business of the army's coming to London, and seizing the members of the House." Memorials, (1732) p. 384.
  • 15. " Jan 2,1648,9. The Ordinance for trial of the King was carried up to the Lords, of whom many more sat this day than usual,—in all 16. They agreed to send answer by messengers of their own, and then adjourned till the 11th instant;" having previously voted " that they rejected the Ordinance for trial of the King." Ibid. p. 561. "The Lords rejected the Ordinance for his trial with indignation," if Oldmixon (Stuarts, p. 354) be correct, though he quotes no authority. Yet they had lately resolved, with the Commons, no more to address the King, or to treat with him. How then could they justly regard him, but as a criminal, liable to punishment, or, at best, as a prisoner of war, surrendered at discretion, and thus holding his life at the mere pleasure of the victors? (See Lord Orford's judgment, supra, p. 320, note.) Among these sixteen Lords was the Earl of Manchester, the once popular and uncourtly Lord Kimbolton, who had been one of the Parliament's generals, but, on a change of times, paid his court successfully to the restored Stuart, and complimented the new power in possession, by sitting in judgment on his quondam associates, the Regicides.
  • 16. This is not quite correct. It appears from Whitlock, that, " February 1,1648,9," there was " a message from the Lords for a Committee to be named of both Houses, to consider of a way to settle this nation." Thus the Lords appear to have virtually sanctioned the Ordinance of the Commons, after the execution of the King, though they refused to become parties to his trial. The Commons took time to consider, " whether the Lords' messenger should be called in or not, and whether the House should take any cognizance thereof." February 5. There was a " smart debate till six o'clock at night, whether the House of Lords should be continued a Court of Judicature, or a Court Consultatory only." The next day, " the House of Lords was voted useless and dangerous." Memorials, (1732) p. 377. See supra, p. 383.
  • 17. To be faithful to the Government, without a King, or House of Lords.
  • 18. See supra, p. 381.
  • 19. Vol. i. p. 393.
  • 20. Ibid. pp. 419, 420.
  • 21. See supra, p. 279, note *.
  • 22. 1 Kings xvi. 26.
  • 23. See Vol. i. p. 386.
  • 24. Of which the adherents now excited apprehension. See supra, p. 2," note *.
  • 25. Here may be a reference to the intercourse of Cineas, the ambassador of King Pyrrhus, with the senators of Rome, as related by Plutarch.
  • 26. It is frequently very difficult to understand this Speaker; and there remain only the disjecta membra of his speech. He seems here to mean that if the House re-admit a negative, by recognizing a House of Lords with a co-ordinate legislative power, they are accountable for all the blood shed to secure the exclusive power of the Commons, by thus causing it to have been shed in vain.
  • 27. Mary Queen of Scots, I apprehend. Perhaps some words are omitted.
  • 28. Referring, probably, to some ante-restoration project for regarding the anniversary " of The Martyrdom of the Blessed King Charles the First," which, in modern days, favourable to a more impartial examination of his character, appears to be silently falling into an unregretted desuetude. The Parliament, if assembled, generally adjourn over the day, as they do also over the 29th of May, entertaining, probably, some " historic doubts" as to the " unspeakable mercies, which, according to the Liturgy, had attended " the restitution of the King."
  • 29. 2 Samuel v. 3. See " The History of Hereditary Right," (1711,) pp. 91–96.
  • 30. " Even this divine choice," says Fleming," did not properly constitute David, King, in a full and legal sense, until it was ratified and confirmed by the people's choice." Ibid. p. 91.
  • 31. Mr. Scot. See supra, p. 385.
  • 32. " We will not have this man to reign over us." Luke xix. 14.
  • 33. See supra, p. 85, note †.
  • 34. See Ibid, p. 340.