Thursday, April 23, 1657.
Out of the Journal book for this day.
A Bill enabling Hamlett Latham, and other persons therein named, to sell certain lands of the said Hamlett Latham, for
payment of his debts, was this day read the first time, and
upon the question, ordered to be read the second time on
Monday morning next.
Ordered, that the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal,
the Lords, the Judges, and the Lawyers, members of this
House, be sent for by the serjeant attending this House, to
attend the service of this House.
The Lord Commissioner Whitlock, reported from the Committee to wait on his Highness the Lord Protector, according
to an order of the ninth of this month, the proceedings of the
said Committee therein; and the substance of his Highness's
speech to them, on the 21st of this month; and two papers
delivered to the Committee by his Highness: which the reporter read, and afterwards were read by the clerk. (fn. 1)
Colonel Jones moved, that the exceptions might be read in
part, and that an explanatory Bill might be prepared upon
the debate, which is usual.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. I move that you would approve of
what your Committee has done. They may bear a reproach
afterwards, as if they had not done their duty. I would that
the House should be gratified by their faithfulness.
Mr. Bodurda. I second that motion. It is very fit that
the Committee's faithfulness should be approved of.
Mr. Speaker moved, that the House would also approve of
their words as well as their actions.
Colonel White. You are not ripe for such approving till
you know what it is: the Committee being the major part of
the House, what they agree to, must conclude us. So we
approve we know not what.
Lord Whitlock. I hope your Committee has given you no
such occasion to suspect their faithfulness: I told you I had
no Report in writing, but only some note's for my own memory, and I hope you will approve it.
The question put to approve of the proceedings of the
Committee in this business, there was one No.
Mr. Speaker said, it may be it was a mistake; I did not
think there had been a No.
Mr. Bampfield moved, that the Speaker ought not to have
reflected upon any member for giving his No. It was against
the order of the House, and every man has freedom to give
his No or Yea, without reprehension.
(It seems it was Mr. Bampfield's No, which made him
seem more concerned.)
Mr. Speaker. I hope you will vindicate your chair. I
did not mean, it was a mistake in any man giving his No,
but that any man said there was a No, that was the mistake.
I did not reflect. Besides, that gentleman ought not to have
spoken, till the question was put again.
Mr. Drake. That exception needed not to have been
taken, for there was no reflection, and the Speaker might
rectify such a mistake.
Colonel Matthews. Any might give his No, without a mistake, and it ought not have been so said of any man.
Mr. Speaker put the question the second time, and so this
Resolved, that this House doth approve of the proceedings
of the Committee in this business.
We were growing a little angry, and indeed, (as I understood it,) the Speaker was more to blame.
Colonel Jones said it was the first time that ever he heard
a debate after the question was once put in the negative.
Altum silentium for a while.
Mr. Fowell seconded Mr. Bacon's motion to read the paper
in parts, and so it was.
Mr. Secretary. It is not proper to debate any thing in the
Petition, but to have an explanatory Bill.
Mr. Bacon. It is not proper to debate any part of the Instrument, but to do it by another Bill.
This was against Mr. Speaker's directions, who would have
the article read, and see how it agrees with the paper now
read. (fn. 2)
Colonel Chadwick moved that the words "signal testimony," were so general, that they had need to have explanation.
Mr. Speaker. That gentleman mistakes the question. It
only relates to Scotland, and not to England, for the rules are
stricter for England than Scotland.
Mr. Pedley. Read your votes, and see their coherence
with the Instrument, and so order your way for an explanatory Bill.
Mr. Speaker was going to put the question to exclude all
members for Scotland that have not borne arms for the Parliament or his Highness: but it was moved by
Colonel Jones, to add these words, " or have given signal
Major-General Goffe. I move that if they have aided, advised, assisted, or abetted, before 48, they may be excluded:
for that provision is made for England.
Colonel Sydenham. To call this addition of yours an explanatory Bill is not proper; for the Petition itself is not a
Bill till his Highness consent. So I would have your amendments in the body of the Bill. It will not be honourable for
the Parliament to amend a thing the very day that it has its
birth; nay, before that which you amend has a being. It is
more for the honour of the Parliament, and the thing too, to
have the amendments part of your Bill, and not otherwise.
Mr. Bodurda. I think the explanatory for Scotland, relates
only to their testimony since March 1648.
Mr. Disbrowe. Such as have altered their judgment, indeed, and are come over, you would not exclude them. That
invasion was by vote of Parliament, and the whole nation
was engaged. There were some also at Worcester. But
such as are your friends, I would have them restored. Such
as are your enemies (indeed) exclude them: to this purpose,
refer it to a Committee to prepare a clause.
Dr. Clarges. If you exclude all, you will leave few that
have not been engaged: some, even of them, have done you
good service; and those that are your friends, indeed, I
would not have you make enemies of them, nor yet take in
those that are still your enemies.
Mr. Bond moved that it may be explained what is meant by
signal testimony, and that the test may be the same for Scotland and Ireland as for England.
Sir William Strickland. Do not divide it. Your bearing
arms, and giving signal testimony, let them go together;
otherwise you leave them under a cloud that have otherwise
done good service, though not in arms. I would not have
them shut out, but a way open for them.
Captain Hatsel. You are not ripe for that question yet.
This has not the efficacy of a Bill, it is but advice; and explanatory is not proper to advice. I would have those excluded
that contributed, or aided any way, by money or otherwise,
which were as bad as those that actually engaged in the invasion.
Lord Strickland. You will not capacitate Sir Marmaduke
Langdale, (fn. 3) and those that came in with him, more than you
will those of Scotland.
Mr. Speaker. This is a Scotch article, and relates not to
Resolved, that it is necessary to exclude all those Scottish
men, and other persons, who invaded England under Duke
Hamilton, except they have since borne arms for the Parliament, or his Highness the Lord Protector: or have otherwise
given signal testimony of their good affection.
Colonel Jones. You may safely put the second question,
to explain what shall be meant by "signal testimony," which
your Committee may explain if they think the words be not
Mr. Disbrowe. The words "signal testimony" are so general, that they had need be explained, which may be referred
to the Committee.
Major-General Disbrowe. It may be explained by your
Committee, and it is indefinite to all, as well in England,
Scotland, and Ireland.
Mr. Godfrey. Now you have inserted the word signal, it
is fit you should explain, as it is more obscure, that all may
avoid their own danger; otherwise neither the choosers nor
the chosen, shall know whether they be out of danger; for it
is extensive and indefinite to all, and the words testimony
and signal, are both alike doubtful.
The Master of the Rolls. No doubt, while the Parliament
are judges of what "signal testimony" is, it will be well
enough understood; but the danger is, how the electors or
elected shall know when they are free. Haply men may go
as far in any thing you command them, and yet may fall short
of what you may interpret to be "signal testimony." I like
it very well that we shall not have that stop at the door, as
his Highness is pleased to except against. I would have you
refer it to a Committee to explain the words.
Mr. Thistlethwaite. The Parliament is the best inter
preter of " signal testimony." I would not have it committed.
Sir William Strickland. I move that it may be explained,
for the safety both of electors or elected, what shall be meant
by the words; for signal is a note of some eminent service,
which some men, haply, cannot challenge without breach of
modesty. I would, by all means, have it certainly defined.
Colonel Stewart. I agree with those that would have the
Parliament the only judges of "signal testimony;" yet would
have it referred to a Committee, to bring in a clause to put a
characteristical mark upon them.
Resolved, that it be referred to a Committee, to consider of
some explanation to be made, touching "signal testimony,"
and to offer it to the House.
The second clause in the paper was read.
Colonel Philip Jones moved that the article for Ireland
might be referred to the Committee to explain that also,
which was resolved accordingly, and so the first part was
Resolved, that this clause be referred to the same Committee, to consider thereof; and, in case they find cause, to bring
in an explanation to be made upon this clause.
The third clause in the said paper was read, that about the
Colonel Rouse. I move that you would distinguish between
martial preachers, (that as they took it up, so they may lay it
down,) and those that are obliged to preach.
The Master of the Rolls. We never intended to exclude
the colonels that preach, but if they came into the church
publicly to preach. That which you intend is, public lecturers, that undertake public preaching to their congregations;
that undertaking that, they need no other employment: not
that it might extend to those that preach to their families,
and to their soldiers. You know who said, "Who is sufficient for these things," and, having that employment, they
need no other.
Sir William Strickland. The intention was, for those that
take the office upon them not to be sullied with temporal
things. He has time little enough to study, so needs no other
employment. It is true, in the Sabbatical sense, every exhortation or reproof of a master or officer, to his soldiers or servants, is preaching; but not as in this sense. It is meant the
function and office of preaching. They were distinguished
formerly by clergymen, I wish they were so distinguished
still. "Public Preacher" is an officer, and he should not be
dishonoured nor distracted with any other thing. If he have
put his hand to the plough, let him not take it back again.
I hope it will never be said here, that public preaching is not
a function. I think, if all the rest of your Instrument be
good, this is well enough expressed, without further explanation.
Major-General Goffe. It is not thought that it is intended to exclude the officers of the army by this, but the intent
is, not to bar the Gospel liberty of freedom of speaking in the
congregations, as certainly every member has that liberty.
The Parliament having held forth the spiritual liberty, I
move that you will explain it thus, that there may not be a
dust arise afterwards against public preachers; but that it
may only extend to such as have public maintenance, or
have pastoral charges.
Mr. Speaker. If a man be a chaplain in a nobleman's
house, or preaching in a congregation, you cannot call this
public maintenance. This should be explained.
Colonel Philip Jones moved, that it might be such as have
maintenance for preaching, and to leave out the word public.
For it is certainly intended to deprive that man that has a
designation to that work.
Mr. Godfrey. There may come under this designation,
persons that have neither maintenance nor pastoral charge.
I would have the word, congregational.
The question was put in the affirmative, to exclude all
that have pastoral or congregational charge.
Mr. Highland. It is too large, to exclude all that have
any congregational charge. If members of a congregation, in
doing their duty, do speak in their turns, to the edification of
the rest of the body, (sometimes the pastor may be sick or
absent,) and if they be not parsons by way of office, you
would not generally exclude them.
Mr. Bond. If you add the words pastors or teachers,
you will comprehend all, and explain that article.
Major-General Goffe. It is too exclusive, to all that have
Colonel White. You intend not every person that exhorts publicly or privately from vice to virtue, but such only
that have a special designation to that work. The word
maintenance will supply all, seeing you have left out the
Lord Strickland. If you put it pastors or teachers, you
will exclude all Fellows of Colleges.
Resolved, that the words "public preachers," in the third
paragraph of the fourth article, be explained thus; "such
as have maintainance for preaching, or are pastors, or teachers
The fourth clause in the paper, being read; about Committees for trying the members.
Colonel Philip Jones. Leave it out and impose a fine,
and then you must take off your order to bring in a Bill for
appointing the triers.
Lord Strickland. The fine will not serve the turn, for if
there be no check, there may as many members come in as
may outvote the rest, and the fines shall signify nothing.
Again, your fine must be great, else it will not signify.
Colonel Cooper. A way must be taken for levying this fine,
otherwise it will signify no more than the setting penalties
upon persons that have new titles of honour, since the Seal
Mr. Bond moved, that the fine might be 1000l. and that
the former order for the triers might be taken off.
Mr. Bacon. Have a fine and triers too, according to your
former order, and let the fine be 1000l.
Sir John Barkstead. Determine in your question what
the fine shall be, and do not leave it a blank.
This motion was thought as young as the member, this
being the first time that I saw him in the House, since the
first day of the Parliament.
Mr. Godfrey. First take off your order for the Bill to be
brought in for the triers: otherwise, you do not clearly lay
Mr. Speaker. The triers are to be by Act of Parliament:
so that if no such act be made, you have the triers sure
Mr. Bampfield. Triers are not well laid aside by a bare
implication; unless you say that, instead of triers, you do impose this fine, or something to express it. There is a declaration that there shall be such, and you make no mention
of your taking it off. So that the supreme magistrate may,
by force of that, self-appoint, or, at least, claim of the Parliament to appoint, triers.
Mr. Trevor was glad to hear his Highness's resentment of
that clause about the triers. He wants, therefore, to have
it expressed that you do lay it aside. It is not sufficient
to lay it aside by implication, but it should be declared to
the public that your intention is to take off the triers, otherwise it will stand so declared in your Instrument, without
Lord Strickland. Unless you give it to be tried by action
of law, this fine will signify little.
Mr. Bacon. There are degrees of crimes, and it will be
hard to impose the same fine for all offences. But let the fine
be according to the quality of the crime charged.
Major-General Disbrowe. I move that you would make
no distinction of the crimes, for the honour of your House,
and that the fine exceed not 1000l. nor be under 500l.
Sir William Strickland. There needs no reference to the
taking off the former order for the triers; it falls of itself.
I desire that the fines imposed may be as is moved; viz. not
above 1000l. nor under 500l.
Mr. Bodurda. It is a breach of the privilege of Parliament highly, to bind up their hands as to the fines; it being
arbitrary: and you ought not to limit the Parliament.
Mr. Goodwill. It is not Parliamentary to set down the
fine. It is a breach of the privilege of Parliament. Rather
leave it to the discretion of the Parliament, which is more
proper, and you may say so in your question.
Mr. Bond. This fine-setting is no breach of privilege;
but only in terrorem to them that shall presume to come in,
not being qualified.
Mr. Trevor. I move, that the sum may be certain, viz. 1000l.,
and not to limit the Parliament. This is but in terrorem.
Mr. Thistlethwaite. I would not have them punished twice
for one offence; but let the other be clearly taken off, as to
the order for the appointing of triers.
Mr. Fowell moved, that it might be inserted in the question
thus, viz. instead of triers, that a fine be imposed of, &c.
But that seemed to Mr. Speaker to be another question,
and so was laid aside till the other question passed.
Resolved, that the sum of 1000l. be imposed upon all persons unqualified, that sit in the House of Commons.
Sir William Strickland. I move, that you would not let
the other House (fn. 4) sit free from a fine, if they be not qualified.
I would have 2000l. upon every member of. that House, as
you do 1000l. upon every one of us.
Colonel Phillip Jones. This is not before you, for the
case is different. The members of the House of Commons
are chosen by the people, and it is fit there should be rules
to try such by, but those are not so. You know how they
are to be named and chosen.
Mr. Godfrey. I move, that it may be expressed, that instead of appointing triers, the fine be imposed; for it is not
so laid aside but the supreme magistrate may resume it. So
I would have it explained as it has been moved.
Mr. Bacon. I doubt if you put this question, you alter
some part of " the Petition and Advice," which is a business of great weight to be moved at this time of the day after
twelve. I desire you would adjourn.
Mr. Secretary. If you make an order to withdraw your
power from the Committee that were to bring in the Bill,
you will do as much as is needful.
Mr. Speaker was going to put that question, to report
something on the question, about taking off tryers.
Mr. Bacon moved, that the question might be put, whether
the question shall be put or no.
Mr. Speaker. The Committee are not appointed, and so
you can not properly withdraw any power, where no power
Some cried " adjourn, adjourn."
Mr. Thistlethwaite. It is not proper to move to adjourn,
after you have debated a business for an hour together. I
desire the question may be put.
Colonel Philip Jones. There is no danger of putting it in
the question, that, instead of tryers, a fine shall be imposed,
&c., for I apprehend not that, by this debate, you ravel into
any part of the Petition and Advice, nor can it be otherwise understood than explanatory.
Lord Broghill. It is not safe to ravel into any part of
the Petition; and it is sufficient to lay it aside by an implicit
vote. I know not how to offer an expedient, unless you shall
give a supersedeas to your Committee, not to proceed further
upon your former order.
Colonel Stewart. I think I shall offer an expedient in this
business. Let your Committee bring in a Bill for tryers,
according to your former order, and then lay the Bill aside.
This motion was not very wisely resented. It is like make
work and mar work; below a Parliament.
Lord Whitlock. I doubt, if you loose that link, you give
occasion further to ravel into debate upon the Petition: for
you repeal that part of the paper which says, tryers shall be
appointed. I would, therefore, have you lay it aside, by an
implicit vote; and that, in my opinion, will be sufficient.
Mr. Bampfield. I move, that it may be expressed in the
question, that instead of the tryers, the fine shall be imposed.
It is clear that both remains, unless you take it off, which
cannot be done implicitly. I desire it may be explained.
Resolved, that a Bill be brought in for imposing a fine of
1,000l., upon every person who shall sit as a member of the
House of Commons, in any future Parliament, being disabled
by, or not qualified according to the qualifications in the
humble Petition and Advice; and for their imprisonment until
such fine be paid. (fn. 5)
Several members called to adjourn.
Colonel Philip Jones moved, that the House might sit tomorrow, both forenoon and afternoon. Others said it was
time enough to move that to-morrow.
Resolved, that this debate be adjourned till to-morrow
morning, eight of the clock, nothing to intervene, (fn. 6) and the
House adjourned immediately.
I thought to have found a larger report in the journal, for
the clerk took it.
I went to dine at the Mermaid with the Countess's Jury,
who brought in another and a raging verdict against the poor
tenants, at the Common Pleas bar, in affirmance of the private verdict they had given, the afternoon before, to Baron
Atkins, which vexed Atkinson. Some of the Jury, as they
say, were surprised into it, thinking that they were only to
find the reasonableness of the fine, and not the seizure. It
seems Dawes, the foreman, and two or three more, circumvented the rest. I think, by these three trials, we may bid
adieu to Westminster— (fn. 7) juries at the bar. I was, in the
afternoon, with my uncle, and got old Mr. Thwaites' affidavit
about Mr. Blenkinsop's business and mine.