The Diary of Thomas Burton: 4 February 1657-8

Pages 442-465

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.


In this section

Thursday, February 4,1657–8.

When I came in, I found

Sir Arthur Haslerigge moving for a new writ to issue out, for choosing a Member for Hereford.

Mr. Scot stood up and seconded that motion.

Mr. Bodurda. There cannot a writ issue out under the old form; for then it must go in the King's name (rex). You must first make a new writ, as part of your legislature. There must be first a correspondence between us and that other House. His Highness has resolved to have it by that title. I desire you would go to that question.

Mr. Chute made a Speech, that the motion was good, but not well timed. He moved, instead, to put it off till the greater business be over.

Mr. Darky. I move to put this off your hands. Refer it to a Committee. This business is a great business. The "other House" are at best but your younger brother, and by the rule of heraldry they ought to bear a distinction.

Mr. Onslow. You have spent three days' debate about this business.

The order of the day was read.

Mr. Speaker propounded the question twice.

Colonel Cox. I have not spoke to this debate. This is the first time that ever I heard a House of Lords spoken of.

They were talked on, to be a balance. (fn. 1)

Lord Strafford. (fn. 2)

Sir John Suckling. (fn. 3)

Mr. Noy, when once he came to be Attorney-gene ral, was the greatest enemy that the liberties of England had. (fn. 4)

Baron Thorp. I was one of those that did freely and heartily give my consent to take away the House of Lords; and my only reason was their negative voice. They stood so as a screen between you and the King, that you could not address to the King but by them, and though they said they would send—.

I beseech you consider the gospel. (fn. 5) You are going to build a house. Consider the cost that you will be at with building the Tower. I have no quarrel to Lords, or Lords' House, but the attendances I fear. First charge, what will become of your old Lords ?

1. The charge of injustice; to take away them and their birthright, which they brought into the world with them. (fn. 6)

2. The charge of your negative voice. What will that cost you? Before you prescribe the rules, first circumscribe them; and I will freely give my consent as any.

To advise and consult with you, as the Petition says, (fn. 7) but not to control. I know what a word here, and answered out of doors, will do. It will do wonders.

The last words of the Petition whip up the heels of whatever you have done in the Petition and Advice; so that all that ever you have limited them in, is gone. (fn. 8) And if you call them Lords, that will be claimed, and easily holden out.

I do plainly speak my mind and shall do. I acknowledge the old constitution, by Lords and Commons, to be the best constitution; I ever thought it. But if we are now returning to what we were; what have we got by the war.

1. Ascertain them in your proceedings.

2. Take care for the old Lords. (fn. 9)

3. Take care about the negative voice.

And till then (fn. 10)

Mr. Fowell I must differ from these worthy gentlemen, that you are now building a House. You have built the old House of Lords. We have a maxim in law, the composers shall have the explication.

You are under the Constitution by three estates, two Houses of Parliament, and a single person. What shall the two houses be? Shall they be two Houses of Lords, or two Houses of Commons ?

A house divided cannot stand. You do more than all the Cavaliers could ever do. This is the way to open the bag, indeed, at both ends. We know no other name for the two Houses, but Lords and Commons. The King was, and so is the Protector, the fountain of honour.

It is clear they are Lords by the writ. It is clear in Nevil's and Lord Delamere's case. (Lord Coke's first part of Institutes.)

The barons have always done you greatest service. Amongst the other House, you had a gentleman (fn. 11) that first set other House. (fn. 12) They are Lords.

Their extravagancies are lopped off.

I am of opinion that they are Lords; and you cannot annex a custom to a new House;. for it must have time to be a custom.

My motion is, that you concur with them in that title. You cannot alter it by bill.

Colonel Matthews. The Commons of England have no places, no offices to give; as we shall expect none from them. All we have to do is clearly to understand how we part with their liberties.

There is nothing so dear but that it is a new House; and it is asked what shall it relate to ? It relates to the House of Commons. You may, no question, divide this House into two or three Houses.

If it had not intended another House, (fn. 13) it would, in express terms, have said so; but not a word of that restitution in your Petition and Advice; not a word of repealing the Act against the House of Lords. (fn. 14)

It was in debate, the negative voice in the legislature.

1. The great reason was then, that Bills passed too hastily here; that you could not debate laws here.

2. A judicial power. Complaints from Courts of Justice and Equity, which would take up much of your time. That you might attend the business of safety and monies, &c., here was your ground of another House. There was something of that in the proceedings against that wicked person Nayler, (fn. 15) that you wanted a power in such matters.

I am not against the name of Lords by way of appellation, as an honour to them; but to give it with all the powers and privileges, I cannot consent.

The ground of the quarrel with the King was his invasion upon the people's liberties, and the negative voice. (fn. 16) You not obstruct that. They were only formed to consult and advise. I shall allow them that.

Here is no revival of a House of Lords, but a fortiori against it. " The last words " (fn. 17) do not exclude the former restrictions; but only relate to the taking of the approbation from this House.

The word " further" (fn. 18) signifies something. I cannot say it is a redundancy. It implies that a power of approbation is also elsewhere.

There is no intention to revive the other House.

There is an Act of the three estates unrepealed, whereby for ever it is limited, that the Chief Magistrate shall not send up any member to the other House but by consent of the other House. (fn. 19)

It is not an old obsolete thing, that we do not know when. It was very lately, even in Anno 7 Jac. both Houses sat in a Parliament together, in the Court of Requests, prepared as for the Parliament of England. I have a clear record for it. They did not stand, but sat. It was upon creating a Prince of Wales. (fn. 20) The Lords sat on one side; the Commons on the other.

It may easily be made out, that upon conferences, a Committee of the Lords came down to conference here, in this House: in 7 Hen. VIII. I know not that distance is so much as before.

I grant this to be the House of Commons. We shall never be ashamed of it. Why may we not give them this appellation, " My Lords and Gentlemen of the other House;" there are Lords, by courtesy, in this House; and why may it not be said so here, " My Lords and Gentlemen of this House:" I am no leveller; I profess it, I am for distinction. The word "gentleman" is a title of no small honour. (fn. 21) In Spain, it is of high esteem, and a saying there is "As good a gentleman as the king."

Why may you not enter it so in your books ? And your messengers may curtail it in delivering the message. The writ is not the old writ, but grounded upon the Petition and Advice.

Let us not do any thing, I beseech you, that may insnare us.

Mr. Onslow. I wonder to see so much time spent about names. I think there is not so much in it. Let these words be added to the question, " that the giving of this title shall not extend to the giving of any powers more then are given, or shall be given by the Petition and Advice."

Colonel Morley. I am against that addition. Your order will be insignificant, if you own them by another title than you have given them. I fear you can hardly mend it, when you would. How meanly soever the old Lords be spoken of, there are some of them of as much piety as any in this or the other House.

All precedents are out of doors in this case. Let me know whenever there was a precedent for calling a House of Lords of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

You will dissolve the union between the nations, and I question whether you shall ever have the company of any from thence, to sit here again.

My motion is to call them Lords and Gentlemen, and that will clearly be the exclusion of a House of Peers.

Mr. Doddridge. You have two messages to return an answer to, and it is fit you should agree of a way of correspondency; yet it is a matter of such difficulty that I know not what, at present, to advise.

I cannot consent to give the tide that is mentioned. My reasons are only grounded upon the Petition and Advice. They are to be nominated by his Highness, and when it was first brought in, it was modestly brought in, the approbation here. (fn. 22) But to place the disposition of one of the estates in one, (fn. 23) it is hard, and the Commons have little right by that. I could rather agree that they should be hereditary. Their sons may be better, than what another man shall choose.

I am not only against the title, but the thing. It is an embryo; a child of five months old. It wants form and figure.

The business of the disposition of money excludes us wholly from ever meddling. The Excise and Customs were never granted longer than for three years. (fn. 24) There are other imper fections in the Petition and Advice, much to be excepted against.

Serjeant Maynard. The question is not now what you will do, but what you have done. I should be much of that gentleman's opinion, were we to begin again. We sit by virtue of the law, and cannot now dispute it. And the question before you is, whether this shall be the Lords' House.

I cannot tell how to name another house than the House of Commons, but the Lords' House. And as to the negative upon you, if that be not clear by what you have done, I understand it not.

If there must be two Houses, it cannot be one House. If you say they are a House of Commons, qui dividit, destruit. And if you invest them in that, you give them the greatest privilege that ever was. If so, they are a swarm from this House, and will be a hive, as well as you.

Can you pass a law without them ? You have put no restraint upon them, more than upon yourselves.

It is observed to you, that you have let in the Irish and Scottish nations into your Parliament. (fn. 25) As you have let in them, those have not altered the privileges of the other House. We are not now to deliberate. You have passed as to number, and they are clearly another House.

Under favour, there is a negative dearly upon you There may be a difference about the circumstances of beginning or ending laws. So that giving them the title of Lords is but using letters of no signification. You have not given them one syllable of what they shall do, but only what they shall not do; and, in other things, according to the laws. What other laws than of the Lords' House?

1. In cases adjourned to the Parliament, what means it but a Lords' House ?

2. You admit them a House with privileges: what other House ?

3. No final determinations, but by the House itself. (fn. 26) They did business by Committees, under adjournment, and it was thought irregular. 34 Edw. III. clears it, that it shall be regular.

4. The word " usage," (fn. 27) can there be any usage of what never had a being ?

5. " The other House of Parliament," not another House of Parliament.

6. To do and perform all the powers, &c. and have, &c. exercise all the powers, &c. (fn. 28) These must refer to the old House, and not to the former words, in the Petition and Advice.

Non loquimur, in republica, catenis. If this break off, we shall go into a wilderness again. It is not great words to say what we will do. We see, oftentimes, coldness afterward. Think what may follow, if we should break. I know not what may be the consequence.

If you would look upon yourselves as freeborn, I wish we had been as free as we were born. We had not power to make laws before. There was still a check upon us, and very needful, too. (fn. 29)

I profess to you, I am not ambitious. I would be lower. I would give my negative, if it were put, that we should have a free legislature within these walls. You know what has been done here in a morning. You know my meaning; a law made in a morning. This Parliament did pass more in one month than the best student in England can read in a year, and well if he can understand it then. There is nothing can be well done by man. I should suspect myself. A check is necessary upon us.

If it were in our power to take off the Excise, I should do it; but we are bound now, and it is not without need.

I shall not tell you of a King (fn. 30) now. It is not material.

It was ill put; a strange doctrine in Parliament, to say that we were kept out by the House. It was another power (fn. 31) that did it. I even sent twice that morning, (fn. 32) to demand restitution of your members.

There may be a necessity of a restraint, sometimes. A corrupt party may be in a House. I see other business, so I shall not trouble you now.

My motion is, that you would call them by the title of Lords.

Mr. Speaker. The Black Rod is at the door.

Mr. Scot stood up to speak to the question, but was taken down by

Captain Whitgrave, who did affirm he had spoken to it already, and promised he would speak to this debate no more.

Sir Arthur Haselrigge. He ought not to have taken the gentleman down. You have made some alteration in your question, and he may speak to it.

Some said the Black Rod stays, as Sir Arthur was speaking, Said he, "What care I for the Black Rod ? The gentleman ought to be heard."

Serjeant Maynard. Without question, the gentleman may speak to-day, though he has spoken yesterday to the same question.

But it was moved, first, to call in the Black Rod, and then hear the gentleman.

The Usher was called in accordingly; who, coming to the middle of the room, said, "Mr. Speaker, his Highness is in the Lords' House, and desires to speak with you." (fn. 33)

Being withdrawn, the debate was adjourned, and the House, till their return from attending my Lord Protector: but they never met again.

They presently rose, viz. a little past twelve, and met his Highness in the Lords' House; where, after some pause, his Highness made a speech about half an hour long, declaring his grounds and reasons to put an end to this Parliament; and in the dose of all said, "I do dissolve this Parliament. And God judge between you and me." (Vide Book of Speeches.)

The mace was presently clapped under a cloak: the Speaker withdrew, and exit Parliamentum. (fn. 34)

Out of the Diurnal thus:

We find the House of Commons, this morning, resumed the debate which was yesterday adjourned to this time, touching the appellation of the other House, viz. the House of Lords.

Betwixt the hours of ten and eleven, his Highness came to the House of Lords, and commanded the Usher of the Black Rod to go and acquaint the House of Commons, that his Highness was come to the Lords' House, and there expected them.

The Usher of the Black Rod being called into the House of Commons, signified the same accordingly. Whereupon the Speaker and the whole House coming into the Lords' House, and standing, without the bar, his Highness standing under the cloth of estate, made a speech to them; wherein he declared several urgent and weighty reasons, making it necessary for him, in order to the public peace and safety, to proceed to an immediate dissolution of this Parliament. And accordingly his Highness dissolved the Parliament.


  • 1. See vol. i. p. 384.
  • 2. Here is a blank, designed, no doubt, to have been filled up from recollection of the debate. This Speaker had, probably, drawn some conclusion for which the versatile political life of the Earl had supplied the premises. His talents, and the courtly prostitution of them, so fatal to their possessor, have been well described by his contemporary, Thomas May, who compares " the Lord Went worth," to " the Roman Curio," thus translating the passage; Haud alium tantâ, &c. which he quotes from Lucan: "A man of abler parts Rome never bore, Nor one to whom (whilest right) the lawes ow'dmore. Our State itself then suffer'd, when the tide Of Avarice, Ambition, factious Pride, To turne his wavering minde, quite crosse began: Of such high moment was one changed man." See " The History of the Parliament," (1647). Ed. 2. By "Francis Maseres," (1812), pp. 13,14. This able historian, also " Secretary for the Parliament," whose monument was destroyed, and the sanctuary of his grave violated, at the Restoration, with those of Blake and others (as Wood testifies, " by vertue of his Majestie's express command," whose " vengeance," says Dr. Symmons, " extended itself to mean and atrocious outrages on the dead,") has received distinguished praise from Bishop Warburton, and a still higher commendation from the Earl of Chatham; thus expressed to his nephew Lord Camelford, in 1754. " I desired you, some time since, to read Lord Clarendon's History of the Civil Wars. I have lately read a much honester and more instructive book, of the same period of History. It is the History of the Parliament, by Thomas May, Esq. I will send it to you as soon as you return to Cambridge." Ibid. p. x.
  • 3. Here is another blank in the MS. Sir John Suckling, whose father had been Secretary of State to James, and Privy Counsellor to Charles, is now only known as a dramatic writer, and a versifier not very remarkable for poetic, and still less for moral, taste. The following passages, from Rushworth, will discover him to have been a plotting politician, to which circumstance this Speaker probably referred:— " May 3,1641. Mr. Pym acquainted the House concerning divers informations given in, of desperate designs against the Parliament and peace of the nation, the conspirators being under an oath of secrecy. That they attempt to disaffect the army against, and bring the same up to overcome, the proceedings of Parliament; as also there was a design upon the Tower, and endeavours used for the Earl of Stratford's escape. "May 5. Colonel Goring being examined in the House of Commons, confessed that Sir John Suckling first made overtures unto him concerning the Army's marching towards London." See also, " June 16, a Report from the Committee." Hist. Col. (1708.) iv. 70, 78,107,108. See Parl, Hist. ix. 304, 307, 374–379, 501, 517. Davenant, according to Wood, was " accused to be one of the Conspirators." He adds, " Henry Percy, brother to the Earl of Northumber land, was one. Hen. Jermyn (afterwards Earl of St. Alban), and Sir John Suckling, were two more, who all escaped." Athen. Oxon. (1692.) ii. 293. See May's History, pp. 65, 66; Breviary, (1655), in Maseres's "Select Tracts," (1815), i. 29. Jermyn, a constant attendant on the widowed Queen of Charles, was supposed to have been privately married to her at Paris. Sir John Suckling had " made a Campaign under the Great Gustavus Adolphus, where he was present at 3 battles, and 5 sieges. After his return to England, he raised a troop of horse for the King's service, entirely at his own charge, so richly and completely mounted, that it stood him in 1200l." He was, however, ridiculed "for a show of finery which he affected in decorating his troop." His death, at an early period of the war, is said to have been hastened by chagrin, because "his zeal for his Majesty did not meet with the success it deserved." See Gibber's Lives (1753), 1, 296,297. Davenant, the other plotting poet, had also a command in the royal army. In 1650, according to Wood, he had a project of emigration, the success of which would have placed him among the earliest promoters of Arts in the New World. "Having laid an ingenious design to carry a considerable number of artificers, chiefly weavers, from France to Virginia, (being encouraged thereto by Henrietta Maria, the Queen-Mother of England, who got leave for him so to do from the King of France), he did effect it so far that he and his company were shipped in their way thither, and had got on the main ocean; but being soon after seized on by certain ships belonging to the Parliament of England, he was carried prisoner to the Tower, in order to be tried for his life in the High Court of Justice; but, upon the mediation of John Milton and others, he was saved, and had liberty allowed him as a prisoner at large." Athen. Oxon. (1692), ii. 293. For the probability that Davenant gratefully remembered this service, in the hour of Milton's imminent peril, on the Restoration, See Richardson, (1734), pp. lxxxix. xc; Todd, (1809), p. 101; Symmons, (1810), p. 489.
  • 4. " William Noy," says Lloyd, " born in Cornwall, was bred in Lincolns'-Inne. He was a man passing humorous, but very honest; clownish, but knowing; a most indefatigable plodder, and searcher of antient records, verifying his anagram:— I moyl in law. "He was for many years the stoutest champion for the subject's liberty, until King Charles entertained him to be his Attorney. No sooner did the King show him the line of advancement, but, quitting all his former inclinations, he wheeled about to the prerogative, and made amends with his future service, for all his former disobligements." State-Worthies, (1670) p. 892. Noy " became a sojourner of Exeter College, in 1593, aged 16." He was chosen to the Parliaments of 1620, and 1623. In the Parliament of 1625, "as in another following, showing himself," says Wood, "an enemy to the King's prerogative, as before, he was at length diverted from his proceedings by being made Attorney-general." Athen. Oxon. i. 506. This diversion, Lord Clarendon attributes to " great industry and importunity from Court," by which he was "persuaded to accept that place, for which all other men laboured." Persuaded, however, he was soon prepared " to be an instrument in all their designs," (and what less would courtiers expect, or satisfactorily receive, from an Attorneygeneral?) " He moulded, framed, and pursued, the odious and crying project of soap; and with his own hand, drew and prepared the writ for ship-money." History, (1705) 1. 73. See vol. 1. p. 407; ii. p. 214. Whitlock names Noy and Wentworth, among the " members taken off" in 1629. He says, " 1634, Mr. Attorney Noy, having set on foot the tax of ship-money, leaveth it, and the world. He died of the distemper of the stone." Memorials, (1732) pp. 13,22. Rushworth says, when this " famous lawyer of that age died, papers were put upon posts, reflecting on him, that there was found in his head a bundle of proclamations; in his maw motheaten records; and in his belly, a barrel of soap." Hist. Col. (1706) ii. 171. Howell, in a Letter to Lord Savage, who appears to have been Noy's patron, says, "Master Attorney-general Noy is lately dead, nor could Tunbridge Waters do him any good. The Vintners drink carouses of joy that he is gone, for now they are in hope to dress meat again, and sell tobacco, beer, sugar, and faggots; which, by a sullen capricio of his, he would have restrained them from." Howell mentions the anagram, and thus describes the peculiar corporeal and mental constitution of this learned lawyer, " Though he had good matter in his brain, he had, it seems, ill materials in his body; for his heart was shrivelled like a leathern penny-purse, when he was dissected, nor were his lungs sound. "Being such a clerk in the law, all the world wonders he left such an odd will, which is short, and in Latin. The substance of it is, that he, having bequeathed a few legacies, and left his second son 100 marks a year, and 500 pounds in money, enough to bring him up in his father's profession, he concludes, Reliqua meorum omnia primogenito meo Edwardo, dissipanda, nec melius unquam speravi ego. " I leave the rest of all my goods to my first-born, Edward, to be consumed or scattered, for I never hoped better." Epistolœ Ho—Elianœ, (1754) p. 256. Noy's last learned occupation was " A Treatise on the Rights of the Crown," left in manuscript at his death, and " first published" in 1713. Among many curious particulars, the result of much antiquarian research, he points out, from precedents in " motheaten records," the means of "raising the revenues of the crown" not only "by grant of the subject," but in a manner more acceptable to his royal master, "by power absolute in the sovereign." Among the royal resources, described in this small volume, it is related, Ex. Rot. Turr. in temp. Eliz. Reg., that " the Queen, to ease her people, did pawn the jewels in the Tower; besides the often mortgaging of her lands." Treatise, p. 40. The Queen of Charles partially followed this example, by pawning the crown-jewels in Holland, to subdue, and not to ease the people.
  • 5. Luke xiv. 28.
  • 6. See Colonel Sydenham, supra, p. 299. The early origin and the progress of the English peerage, I find thus described among the " ancient customes of England," by a learned lawyer of that age, W. Hakewell of Lincoln's Inn:— " Being desirous, for my own particular satisfaction, to search and inquire after reverenced antiquity, it was my hap to light on an old manuscript; which, although in sound is Saxon-like, yet in some things it savours of the Danish matters, and of the ancient British laws under the Rule and Government of the Danes: which writing, writ in the Saxon tongue, I have translated into English, word for word, according to the true sense and meaning thereof:— "' It was some times in the English Laws, that the People and the Laws were in Reputation; and then were the wisest of the People worship-worthy, each in his degree, Lord and Chorle, Theyn and UnderTheyn. And if a Chorle so thrived, that he had full five hides of his own Land, a Church and a Kitchen, a Bell-House and a Gate, a Seat and severall Offices in the King's Hall; then was he, thenceforth, the Theyn's right-worthy. And if a Theyn so thrived, that he served the King, and on his message or journey, rode in his houshold; if then he had a Theyn that him followed, who, to the King's expedition five hide had, and in the King's Pallace his Lord served, and there, with his errand, had gone to the King, he might afterward with his fore Oath his Lord's part play, at any need. And if a Theyn so thrived, that he became an Earle, then was he right forth an Earle right-worthy: And if a Merchant so thrived, that he passed thrice over the wide sea of his own craft, he was thenceforth the Theyn's right-worthy. And if a Scholler so thrived through learning, that he had degree, and served Christ, he was, thenceforth, of dignity and place so much worthy, as thereto belonged; unlesse he forfeited so that the use of dignity might be taken from him.' "These ruines of Antiquity make shew of a perpetuity of Nobility, even from the beginning of this land. But times are changed, and we in them also. For King Edward the Confessor, last of the Saxon blood, coming out of Normandy, bringing in then the title of Baron, the Theyn from that time began to grow out of use; so as at this day, men remember not so much as the names of them. And in process of time, the name of Baronage began to be both in dignity and power so magnificent above the rest, as that in the name of the Baronage of England, all the Nobility of the land seemed to be comprehended. As for Dukes, they were (as it were) fetcht from long exile, and again renew'd by King Edward the Third. And Marquesses and Vicounts were altogether brought in by King Richard the Second and King Henry the Sixth." Modus tenendi Parliamentum, (1660), pp. 96—99.
  • 7. " To give their advice and assistance." Parl Hist. xxi. 150.
  • 8. A reference to the conclusion of " the humble Additional and Explanatory Petition and Advice." See supra, p. 391, note.
  • 9. The " old Lords" for whom alone this Parliament could have been expected to " take care," in any sense of the expression, were those who had transferred their allegiance from the Crown, to the Republic and the Protectorate. They must have been very few, considering the small number who met in 1649, (See supra, p. 434,) just before the abolition of their House. At the meeting of the Long Parliament, (1640,) the Lords amounted to 124, and on the return of royalty, (1660,) to 151, including a few creations. Among these, were Denzil Holies, and Ashley Cooper, who now began to " have their reward." See Parl. Hist. ix. 1–8; xxii. 332—335.
  • 10. Blank in the MS.
  • 11. The Earl of Essex. In July, 1642, he was appointed Captain-General, and the Earl of Bedford (who, in 1643, deserted to the King, at "Oxford, and returned again to the Parliament,) General of the Horse, at the first formation of an army going forth under the professed authority of the King and Parliament, to fight against, and possibly to slay the King. Essex, indeed, in his speech at the head of his army, declares they are " assembled for the defence of His Majesty," and again " for the securing of His Majesty's royal person;" his foot in the Red Sea, like Moses, to head your army. He was not suffered to carry on all the work; but God raised (See Parl. Hist. xi. 436,) as if, when attacking the King's army, under his immediate command, a bullet or a ball would distinguish persons, royal or plebeian. The Episcopalian justly reproached the Presbyterian Royalists of that age, for freely hazarding the destruction of their King in battle; their preachers too, riding in the Parliament's army to animate the soldiers; and yet regarding his person as sacred every where else, shocked at the thought of shedding " the least drop of the blood of a King." See supra, p. 320, note. Thus, in 1513, just before the battle of Floudon, the Earl of Surrey, (according to Lloyd's Worthies, p. 144), " sends Rouge Croix to the Scotch King, to tell him, that he expected as little mercy as he intended; his sword being commissioned to spare none but the King, whom no hand 'must touch." Yet, so uncourtly and indiscriminating is the sword, that James IV. was left among the slain. Ludlow, whose notions respecting forms of government, and the just extent of popular rights, differed materially from those of Essex, bears the following testimony to his high integrity:— "The two Houses voted the Earl of Essex to be their General; whom the King, (to take him off from the public interest,) had lately made Chamberlain of his Household. But this could not corrupt the Earl of Essex, nor hinder him from discharging vigorously that trust which the Parliament had reposed in him." Memoirs, i. 40. May, having described this appointment, as " by a great and unanimous consent of both Houses," adds, " when they sought a Lord to undertake the high charge of commanding in chief, there seemed to be no choice at all; but we may say of this election, as Paterculus did of another, Non quœrendus erat quem different, sed eligendus qui eminebat." See " History of the Parliament," p. 138. Whitlock, however, charges Essex with losing two opportunities during the first campaign, of putting an end to the war, by following too implicitly the advice of the " old soldiers of fortune," and he names " Colonel Dalbier," (on whose authority Lord Holles was prompted by folly or malignity, to " that weak attempt," as Lord Orford styles it, " to blast Cromwell for a coward.") Memorials, (1732,) pp. 64, 66. See Mr. Godwin's estimate of the patriotism of this first Parliamentary General, Commonwealth, i. 34—36.
  • 12. On the new model of the army, in 1645, Essex was succeeded by Fairfax, who resigned the chief command to Cromwell, on the expedition against the Scots in 1650. Essex dying in 1646, was honoured with a public funeral in Westminster Abbey. The procession was thus described in a letter to a friend by Robert Boyle, whose serious his Highness to perfect it; and those worthies that assisted in it, his Highness hath rewarded them, by calling them to the strictures on " Death's fopperies," written in his 20th year by one who became so justly eminent, cannot be uninteresting. "This day, with kingly state, was buried the great Earl of Essex, having four hundred officers, not one so low as a captain, the House of Peers, the House of Commons, the City, and the Assembly of Divines, for his mourners; and all the other parting compliments of honour, that ever subject could aspire unto. But I have usually observed, that in these great funeral solemnities, the pageantry of sorrow has eaten up the reality; and the care of the blaze diverted men from mourning. Besides, these costly flatteries of the dead (with neglect of the poor, whom that charge might keep alive,) seem to endeavour to make them guilty of prodigality in their very graves, whilst it wastes that upon a senseless carcase, that is to it as useless as it is needless; whereas it were much better for them to procure the prayers of the living, than their admiration." See Dr. Birch's " Life of Robert Boyle," (1744,) p. 61.
  • 13. Among the sixty-three persons nominated to form that House, ten had been distinguished during the war. These were the Earl of Warwick, who had commanded the fleet of the Parliament, and the Earl of Manchester, in whose army the Protector had served. (On the accommodating policy of this earl, see supra, p. 387, note *) Another of "those worthies," was Montague, who, after an honourable service under the Commonwealth, was employed in 1660 to bring over Charles Stuart, and rewarded with the Earldom of Sandwich. Such has been too often the iter ad honores. There were also Fleetwood, Disbrowe, Skippon, Whalley, Pryde, Ingoldsby, and Monk. The Protector found great difficulty in filling his " other House," (as Thurloe informs Henry Cromwell) " between those who were fit, and not willing to serve; and those who were willing, and expected it, but were not fit." See Parl. Hist. xxi. 167, 168.
  • 14. Than a revived House of Lords.
  • 15. See supra, p. 388, note *
  • 16. See Vol. i. pp. 246, 370, note †.
  • 17. I am not aware that the right of the King to " the negative voice" was disputed by the Parliament, till they proceeded to enforce as legal, the Ordinances of the Lords and Commons, passed without his authority; yet not renouncing, as they ought consistently to haye done, their own allegiance, which they justly deemed conditional. Sir Thomas Smith, (in 1565,) describing the " order and forme" of presenting Bills for the royal assent, says,—" What the Prince doth allow, to such he saith, Le Roy, or, la Bayne le veult. And those be taken now as perfect lawes and ordinances of the realm of England, and none other. To those which the Prince liketh not, he answereth, Le Roy, or la Rayne s'advisera, and those be accounted utterly dashed, and of none effect." See "The Commonwealth of England," (1633,) p. 95; Modus tenendi Parliamentum, on "the passing of Bills," (1659,) p. 182. This right the last of the Tudors appears to have largely exercised. "Feb. 9, 1597, (39 Elizabeth.) Her Majesty gave her royal assent to twenty-four public Acts, and nineteen private; and refused fortyknow what declaration was put out then, to which the King was sworn. It was then thought the House of Lords could eight, which had passed both Houses." Lex Parliamentaria, (1690,) p. 198. Camden says, under that year, the Queen " made several laws very acceptable and pleasing to the people," without noticing these extraordinary refusals. In 1692–3, William III. refused the royal assent to a Bill " for the frequent calling and meeting of Parliaments," which originated with the Lords, and passed the Commons by 200 to 161. See Grey's Debates, (1763,) x. 299–309, 375–386. "The King," says Burnet, " let the Bill lie for some time upon the table; so that men's eyes and expectations were much fixed on the issue of it. But, in conclusion, he refused to pass it; so the session ended in ill-humour. The rejecting a Bill," adds the Bishop, " though an unquestionable right of the Crown, has been so seldom practised, that the two Houses are apt to think it a hardship when there is a Bill denied." Own Times, (1734,) ii. 107. In 1694, a Bill passed both Houses, " touching free and impartial proceedings in Parliament," against the eligibility of placemen. On its discussion, Mr. Harley (afterwards Earl of Oxford) remarked, that " in the first of King James I., the Chancellor, studious of the good of the kingdom, sent down to the House of Commons a list of the members in office, and they were turned out of the House, and new writs were sent out, and new members chosen, that might attend the business they were chosen for." See Grey's Debates, x. 338, 339. King William, however, refused his sanction to this Act of the two Houses. " A Dutchman," says Mr. Burgh, " comes over to Britain, on pretence of delivering us from slavery; and makes it one of his first works to plunge us into the very vice which has enslaved all the nations of the world, that have ever lost their liberties. When the Parliament passed a Bill for incapacitating certain persons, who might be supposed obvious to court influence, from sitting in Parliament, our glorious deliverer refused the royal assent." Political Disquisitions, (1774,) i. 403. See Oldmixon's History, (1735) p. 89. " So tenacious of corrupt influence," to quote Mrs. Macaulay, was " our deliverer," and, I may add, so little merited, the glorious and immortal memory. "The negative voice" seems, in modern Parliamentary practice, a superfluous prerogative; since the Lords Spiritual, with seldom more than a solitary exception, and the Temporal Peers, whose number increases, ad libitum, at the royal pleasure, cannot be supposed ever to decide against the will of the Crown; even if the present exclusive system of technically popular representation should cease to " work well," in the style of the Treasury Bench, from some extraordinary mismanagement of the political machinery. The Duke of Richmond, addressing the volunteers of Ireland in 1783, assumes the virtual abandonment" of the royal veto. " I admit," says the Duke, "that I am not for restoring the negative of the Crown. My reason is, that it appears to me preposterous that the will of one man should for ever obstruct every regulation which all the rest of the nation may think necessary." See " A Letter to Lieutenant-Colonel Sharman," as delivered by the Duke in evidence, Nov. 3,1794. " Trial of Thomas Hardy," (1795,) iv. 12. The Duke of Richmond might, possibly, have had in his recollection the language of Algernon Sidney: " I leave any reasonable man to judge, whether it be more safe and fit that those two estates, (Nobles and Commons,) comprehending the whole body of the nation in their persons, or by representation, should have a right to overrule or limit the power of that man, woman, or child, who sits in the throne; or that he or she, young or old, wise or foolish, good or bad, should overrule them and put a stop to their proceedings." Discourses, (1704,) p. 217.
  • 18. See " Baron Thorp," supra, p. 447.
  • 19. " Without further approbation," supra, p, 301, note.
  • 20. I have not found any Act to this purpose. It appears that a limitation of the royal prerogative, as to the creation of Peers, was proposed in 1648, at the Isle of Wight. See " Mr. Bond," supra, p. 21.
  • 21. Prince Henry, in 1610. It will, however, presently appear that the reference does not serve the argument of this speaker. " Both Houses sat together," hut not " in a Parliament," nor for any purpose of legislation or jurisdiction. They were in attendance, like the Lord Mayor, &c. merely as witnesses to a ceremonial. Of this Dr. Birch collected from the " Chronicle of England," and " Rymer's Fœdera," a full and curious account. The following are the most amusing particulars:— "Wednesday, the 30th of May, being accompanied by divers young noblemen, the Prince rode from St. James's to Richmond, where he reposed himself for that night. The next day, the Lord Mayor of London, with his brethren the Aldermen, and fifty-four of the companies of the City, in their barges, distinguished by their proper ensigns, banners, and streamers, passed up the Thames to Chelsea. Upon the Prince's arrival, after speeches made to him by a representation of Neptune upon a dolphin, and that of a sea-goddess upon a whale, they proceeded towards the Court, the inferior companies first, and the Lord Mayor's barge between the two sea-monsters, next before his Highness's barge. At the bridge at Whitehall, his Highness, taking leave of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, landed, and was received by the Officers of the King's Household. "His Majesty, having on Sunday, June 3, made five and twenty Knights of the Bath, proceeded the next day to the creation of the Prince of Wales, the patent for which was passed that very day. The place provided for this solemnity was within the great white chamber in the Palace of Westminster, where both the Houses of Parliament being for that time assembled, together with the Lord Mayor, and Aldermen, and Ambassadors of Spain, Venice, and the States General, the King entered in his royal robes, and with his crown upon his head first took his place of state. After a good space of time, the Prince entered at the lower end of the Great Chamber, having a surcoat of purple velvet, close girt. The order of his entrance was this:—The trumpets Bounding, in the first place came the Lord Chamberlain and the Earl Marshall. In the next place followed the twenty-five Knights of the Bath. Next these followed Garter King-at-Arms, bearing the letters patent. The Earls of Nottingham and Northampton supported the Prince, who, presenting himself before the King with very submissive reverence, kneeled upon the uppermost step, leading to the state, while his patent was read-by the Earl of Salisbury, till it came to the putting oil of his robes, sword, and the rest, by the Lords who carried them: but the crown, rod, ring, and patent, were delivered to him by the king's own hands. This being done, and the Prince, with a low reverence, offering to depart, the King stepped up to him, and took him by the hand, and kissed him. His Highness then took his place on the left hand of his Majesty, sitting there in his royal robes, with the crown upon his head, the rod in one hand, and the patent in the other, while a public Act was read, testifying his having been declared Prince of Great Britain and Wales. "After this they returned down through Westminster Hall to the Palace Bridge. They proceeded to the stairs, where all took water in several barges; the Heralds and trumpets going in a row-barge next the Knights, and landed at Whitehall Bridge, where the Officers of Arms, the Knights of the Bath, and the Lords being first landed, attended the King; and when his Majesty and the Prince were landed, they went all before him into the Hall, and so into the Great Chamber, whence the Prince came to dinner in the Great Hall. His Majesty dined privately in his Privy Chamber, but his Highness was served in such state, that greater could not have been done to the King himself. The table, being very long, was served with two messes of meat, and he who sat nearest the Prince was at the full distance of half the board from him. The noblemen, who sat at this table, were all in their robes, as well as the Prince. At a long side-board dined the Knights of the Bath, and no other person. During the whole time of dinner, the Hall resounded with all kinds of exquisite music.'' See " The Life of Henry Prince of Wales," (1760,) pp. 190–195. The subject of this splendid ceremonial survived the accession to his dignity little more than two years. According to the representations of his learned and accurate biographer, he was honourably distinguished among those expectants of regal power, never tried by the possession of it, who appear in history with peculiar advantage. Thus a Prince, who might have lived to become, too literally, a " dread Sovereign," as that " most Christian King," Charles IX., or that modern Nero, our eighth Henry, the first " Defender of the Faith,"—has died with " his blushing honours thick upon him,"—and lamented as another decus humani generis.
  • 22. Sir Thomas Smith, in his B. i. Ch. XX." of Gentlemen," speaking of "old riches or prowesse remayning in one stock," says, " which if the successors doe keepe and follow, they be verè Nobiles, and Euleneis and ; if they doe not, yet the fame and wealth of their ancestors serve to cover them so long as it can, as a thing once gilted, though it be copper within, till the gilt be worne away," "This matter," adds this accomplished scholar and statesman, " made a great strife among the Romans, when those which were novi homines, were more allowed for their virtues, new and newly showne, than the old smell of ancient race, newly defaced by the evill life of their nephews and discendants could make the other to be. Thus the Cicerones, Catones, and Marii, had much ado with those ancients." Sir Thomas Smith proceeds to remark, that " Gentlemen bee made good cheape in England. For whosoever studieth the lawes of the realme, who studieth in the Universities, who professeth liberal sciences, and, to bee short, who can live idlely, and without manuall labour, and will beare the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall bee called master.—And, if need be, a King of Heralds shall also give him, for money, armes newly made and invented, the title whereof shall pretend to have been found by the said Herald, in perusing and viewing of old registers, where his ancestors, in times past, had beene recorded to beare the same." See " Commonwealth of England," pp. 54–58.
  • 23. See vol i. pp. 386, 404; supra, pp. 298—301.
  • 24. The Protector.
  • 25. This speaker refers to the following article of the Petition and Advice, as providing for a perpetual revenue, unalterable, except by "the consent of the three estates." The further augmentation of the revenue appears to have depended, perhaps exclusively, on the will of the Commons. " VII. And to the end there may be a constant revenue for support of the Government, and for the safety and defence of these nations by sea and land, we declare our willingness to settle forthwith a yearly revenue of 1,300,000l., whereof 1,000,000l. for the navy and army, and 300,000l. for the support of the Government, and no part thereof to be raised by a land-tax; and this not to be altered without the consent of the three estates in Parliament; and to grant such other temporary supplies, according as the Commons assembled in Parliament shall, from time to time, adjudge the necessities of these nations to require; and do pray your Highness that it be declared and enacted, that no charge be laid, nor no person be compelled to contribute to any gift, loan, beneVolence, tax, tollage, aid, or other like charge, without common consent, by Act of Parliament; which is a freedom the people of these nations ought by the laws to inherit." Parl. Hist. xxiii. 135,136. For the discussions on the Excise, see vol. i. pp. 292, 308,324; on the Revenue, supra, pp. 11, 23—31, 41,121.
  • 26. See " Colonel Morley," supra, p. 457.
  • 27. See vol i. pp. 387,405.
  • 28. See ibid. p. 388.
  • 29. "Any law or usage to the contrary, notwithstanding." Ibid.
  • 30. The words in " the Humble Additional and Explanatory Petition and Advice," to which this speaker refers, are in the following coneluding paragraph:— "That the persons so summoned and assembled together, shall be, and are hereby declared to be, the Other House of Parliament; and shall and may, without further approbation of this House, from such time of their meeting, proceed to do and perform all such matters and things, as the Other House of Parliament ought to do and perform; and shall and may have and exercise, all such privileges, powers, and authorities, as the Other House of Parliament ought, by the aforesaid humble Petition and Advice, to have and exercise; the said humble Petition and Advice, or any thing therein contained, to the contrary thereof notwithstanding." Parl. Hist. xxi. 150.
  • 31. The English republicans of the seventeenth century, do not appear to have contemplated the advantage of two deliberative assemblies, with a single executive; all emanating from the people, by elections at no long intervals; and to the latter accorded a power of subjecting legislative proceedings to further deliberation. Such is the constitution of the United States, now sanctioned by the test of experience, and first adopted in 1780, by the State of Massachusets; which determined on the following articles:— "I. The department of legislation shall be formed by two branches, a Senate, and a House of Representatives; each of which shall have a negative on the other. "II. No Bill or Resolve, of the Senate or House of Representatives, shall become a law, and have force as such, until it shall have been laid before the Governor for his revisal; and if he, upon such revision, approve thereof, he shall signify his approbation by signing the same. But if he have any objection to the passing of such Bill or Resolve, he shall return the same, together with his objections thereto, in writing, to the Senate or House of Representatives, in which soever the same shall have originated; who shall enter the objections sent down by the Governor at large on their records, and proceed to reconsider the said Bill or Resolve. But if, after such re-consideration, two-thirds of the said Senate or House of Representatives shall, notwithstanding the said objections, agree to pass the same, it shall, together with the objections, be sent to the other branch of the legislature, where it shall also be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of the members present, it shall have the force of a law." See " The Constitution of the several independent States of America, published by order of Congress," (1783,) p. 24. "The Governor of Massachusets," says the Abbé de Mably, " is restrained within the mere prerogative of making his remonstrances to the legislative power; and this is a recourse which, far from impeding the action of such a power; renders it more salutary, by preventing all temerity, all surprise, and all infatuation. The censure which the two Houses of the General Assembly may exercise against each other, by mutually rejecting their respective bills, is a point extremely favourable to the stability of the Government." See " Remarks concerning the Government and the Laws of the United States, addressed to Mr. Adams." (1784), pp. 82, 83. It appears (vol. i. p. 21, note ) that the Protector could delay the passing of a Bill only twenty days. Yet see on "The consent of the three Estates," and "common consent," supra, p. 458, note ‡.
  • 32. "May 1, 1658," a few weeks after this speaker had thus cast "one longing lingering" glance, at the favourite but impracticable project of royalty in the House of Cromwell, "he was, by patent, made," according to Whitlock, "his Highness's Serjeant-at-Law." Memorials, (1732,) p. 673. Serjeant Maynard, remembered for a witty reply in his old age to King William, which Bishop Burnet has recorded, rather than for any valuable public services, was now, no doubt, willing enough to become King's Serjeant, and sufficiently prepared to devote his intellect and his eloquence to advocate, professionally, any design of any King. Ibi fas, ubi maxima merces, or, according to the version of Lord Melcombe, which he so amply illustrated in his Diary, "all for Quarter-day." See supra, p. 184, note §. The Protector's Lord Chief-justice, Glynn, divided with his Serjeant the deep disgrace of appearing, in 1661, among the crown-lawyers, to sustain the accusation against Sir Henry Vane, for having acted in the government of the Commonwealth; an alleged crime, which those versatile lawyers themselves had unreservedly committed: as the royalist Butler sings— "Did not the learned Glynn and Maynard To make good subjects traitors, strain hard." They would, however, be desirous, on a change of times, and a consequent change of interests, to atone for this imputed attachment to the popular cause; an imputation which, probably, never did, nor ever will, advance a barrister to a gown of "silken sheen," or to the Bench; under any royal or aristocratic administration of government.
  • 33. The Protector's Council.
  • 34. September 17th, 1656. See vol. i. p. 262, note‡.
  • 35. Whitlock, having related how "some were against the House of Lords, perhaps because they were not thought fit to be members of it, and others upon other fancies, and upon a spirit of contradiction," thus describes the abrupt finale of Cromwell's Parliamentary government:— "The Protector looked upon himself as aimed at, though with a side wind; and he was the more incensed, because, at this time, the FifthMonarchy men began again their enterprizes to overthrow him and his Government by force; whereof there were clear discoveries. He therefore took a resolution suddenly, to dissolve this Parliament. "I dissuaded him from it, and told him the danger of frequent dissolving of Parliaments, the straits it would bring him into for money which he could not raise without the highest discontent, unless it were given by them. But some fierce men and flatterers, to comply with him, advised the dissolving of them." Memorials, (1732), pp. 672, 673. "Dr. Bates describes the contempt with which the Commons regarded "the other House," and adds, "Dynastæ tamen è contra (uti docuerat Cromwellius) blandiri, assentatiunculis conciliare velle, illecebris propitiare, nihil intentatum relinquere quo mansuefacerent." Elenchus, p. 320. (The Lords, on the contrary, according to Cromwell's directions, endeavoured, by the most flattering blandishments, to abate their opposition, and to propitiate their good will, nor left unessayed any method of conciliation.) This writer, from his office an inmate of Whitehall, thus attributes the hasty dissolution to the inflexibility of the Commons, and the new, and reported formidable attempts of Charles Stuart:— "Sed perstant usque morosi, ad omnia difficiles et refractarii. Quibus rebus À Cromwellio perspectis, et præsertim quia novas res moliri Regios subintelligeret, Regique in procinctu esse nescio quot millis, quibus Angliam invadere niteretur, imo et reipsÀ hisce terris interesse Ormondiæ Marchionem, excitandis Provinciis clÀm invigilantem; has ob causas Parliamentum istud protinùs abrogavit." Ibid. (They continue utterly unaccommodating and refractory. Cromwell perceiving this, and also being advised of new attempts by the Royalists, and that the King was on a neighbouring coast, prepared for an invasion, with I know not how many thousand men, and that the Marquis of Ormond was in England, endeavouring to promote an insurrection; for these causes he immediately dissolved that Parliament.) Ludlow, on the admission of the members "formerly excluded by Cromwell and his Council," (see supra, p. 316, note *,) adds, "They began to call in question "all that had been done in the former sessions, grounding their arguments on the force that was upon that assembly. Eight or ten days were spent in these debates; and in the mean time, some petitions were carrying on, and subscribed by many thousands, to be presented to those who sat in the place where the Parliament of England ought to be. Cromwell was not a little startled at these proceedings, suspecting that part of the army, especially those that were quartered about St. James's, were engaged therein. Therefore, to prevent that which he feared, and which his conscience told him he had deserved, he took the inspection of the watch at Whitehall for several nights suc cessively in his own person. And the alarm from abroad increasing daily, he resolved upon the dissolution of this assembly. "Whilst he was deliberating about the best means of effecting this design, fresh information was brought him concerning the diligence of his adversaries in all parts; which quickened him to that degree, that he would not stay for one of his own coaches, but taking the first that was at hand, with such guards as he could presently get together, he hurried to the other House. Whither being come, he imparted his intentions to dissolve that assembly to Lieutenant-General Fleetwood; who earnestly endeavoured to dissuade him from it. He clapped his hand upon his breast, and swore by the living God he would do it. Then he sent for the Judges, and they being come, dispatched another message to the assembly to attend him presently." Memoirs, (1698,) ii. pp. 597, 598.
  • 36. "Their Journals show how many projects were then on foot for the public service; and that the questioning the Protector's title, and affronting his 'other House,' was not the sole employment of the Commons." Parl. Hist. xxi. 203. The following were among the parliamentary projects for which "the Bills then depending," were thus "rendered abortive." "Establishing county registers; providing fòr orphans, and preservation of their estates and descents; compelling prisoners who have estates to pay their debts, and relief of such as are not able; suppressing customary oaths; better distribution of the revenues of hospitals; impowering and requiring parishes to raise a stock for setting the poor at work; preventing the inhabitants of the sea-coasts from plundering such as have the misfortune to be wrecked there; repairing of the highways, and improving the public roads." See ibid.