Wednesday, June 24, 1657.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn reported from the Committee
appointed to withdraw yesterday about the oath of his Highness and the Council. It was in relation to an oath of his
Highness and the Council, and members of Parliament, and
the solemnity of investing his Highness.
Captain Baynes. There is more in the Report than was in
the Order to the Committee. I move that the Order be read.
This done, the Report was proceeded upon, &c.
1. That your Highness will be pleased, according to the
usage, (fn. 1) to take an oath in the form ensuing:—
"I do promise, in the presence of God, that to the utmost
of my power I will endeavour, as Chief Magistrate of these
three nations, the preservation of the just rights and privileges of the people thereof, and to govern according to law,
&c. (fn. 2) The like for his successors.
2. That all of the Privy Council shall take an oath to be
faithful to his Highnesses person, and his just authority, and
for securing, &c.
3. That all members of either House shall also take an
oath to be faithful to the Lord Protector, and to preserve the
rights and liberties of the people.
4. That your Highness will, before next meeting, issue out
your summons for members to serve in the other House, and
that the persons so summoned are hereby declared to be the
other House, and to have all the privileges in the Petition
and Advice expressed.
5. Westminster-hall to be prepared suitable to such a solemnity, a chair of state on the high end, seats for members
and Lord Mayor and Aldermen; the Speaker to demand the
assent of the people, and then to administer the oath, and
deliver his Highness a sword, by way of investiture:
Major-General Bolder moved to proceed upon the last part
first, for that there will be time little enough to prepare the
Mr. Bond seconded.
Colonel Jones moved to take the report in parts as it lies,
and so it was taken up, and first for his Highness's oath.
Colonel Sydenham moved against the oath.
Mr. Bampfield offered additions to the oath, to defend
the Protestant religion, and not to violate the privileges of
Parliament and liberty of the people; so would have it recommitted.
Captain Baynes. I was against imposing any oath upon
his Highness; but since it is the sense of the House, I would
have it such as may be effectual.
He offered some additions to it, and moved a re-commitment.
Mr. Downing. It is very essential, what was moved for
an additional clause about religion. It was always in the
form of an oath to begin with religion. We may have a
Papist become Chief Magistrate.
Major-General Disbrowe. The oath is full enough without it. To put in such a clause about the Protestant religion
will but be a snare, in regard of the great disputes about
what shall be the Protestant religion.
Lord-Chief Justice Glynn offered a clause to this purpose.
Colonel Jones. I move to second it. We have had full
experience of his Highness's attention to the Protestant religion, and I never doubted but his Highness would cheerfully take it.
Major-General Goffe moved against the words in the oath,
"in the name of God."
Mr. Bampfield. It is the phrase of Scripture.
Colonel Briscoe. There was no need of an oath. His
Highness was obliged, by his consent to the Petition and
Advice. But if you will have an oath, I would have the
clause in it about religion.
The clause was added accordingly.
Mr. Bampfield moved another addition, after laws, viz.
statutes, customs, &c.
Lord Chief-Justice. It was my opinion, last Parliament,
that laws was the most general and safest word, enumerations
being never the best, where it was agreed the best to have no
Major Audley moved a further addition, viz. "And according to the humble Petition and Advice," which, though
it be now a law, yet we cannot tell but another Parliament
may think as slightly of our laws as that of the little Parliament, (fn. 3) who thought themselves to be the legislative; yet now
you confirm their laws.
The Master of the Rolls moved for this addition, viz. and
for maintenance and preservation of the rights, &c. which
Lord Lambert. Excepted against the preamble before
the oath, relating to the custom of former Chief Magistrates.
An oath was a sacred thing, and ought to be guided by religion, and not by custom.
Mr. Godfrey. There is something wanting in the oath,
and that is drawn from the inducement, viz. the custom of
the Chief Magistrates to take an oath; if you refer to that
usage, and leave out the most material part, which was the
ground of the quarrel, and upon which all turns;
I shall not state the question, negative, or no negative, by
law. It is certain it is upon conscience to confirm those
good and wholesome laws that shall be tendered him by the
people. Queen Elizabeth refused to confirm a law for
establishing Popery, for that was not good nor wholesome;
so no breach of her oath by refusal.
All the blood that has been spent has been about this, and
wherein his Highness himself engaged, viz. and to confirm
these good and wholesome laws that the people in Parliament shall present unto him. This I would have added.
Mr. Vincent. I stand up to second those two motions that
were now made you.
1. To secure the privileges of Parliament: unless those be
kept entire, it is an error in the first concoction, scarce remediable.
2. To put this long controverted point out of question,
the negative voice. To me, I profess, I look upon it that
the legislature is, where the negative voice is. I know not
what a Parliament signifies else.
It will be said that monies were always the chief consideration. Now you have parted with that by settling a perpetual revenue; and unless you insert this in your oath, I
know not how you shall come to your consideration. Late
experience tells us how, for a circumstance, the Chief Magistrate may reject any law.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn moved, that this was debated
when the Petition and Advice was debated. This was never
the quarrel stated nor determined. It will be hard to prove
that the Long Parliament ever denied the King the negative
voice. As to that of the privilege of Parliament, it is comprehended under the word laws.
Resolved, the oath so amended. (fn. 4)
Resolved, that his Highness's successors shall take the like
The oath of the Privy Council was read:
Mr. Bampfield moved to add the same clause in the oath
for the council that was put in his Highness's oath.
Colonel White. I move to put out the word " just," and
insert the word " lawful;" and that the Council be all chosen
to have their approbation here. The Petition and Advice
makes no provision.
Lord Lambert moved some amendments, viz. to " advise
Colonel Jones agreed that this was material.
Mr. Bampfield. I offer some other amendments to the
oath, as was agreed on in last Parliament; that the Council
may not be under an oath not to reveal secrets to the Parliament in some cases. We remember Lord Strafford's case. (fn. 5)
Lord Whitlock agreed this to be very proper, not to reveal
them without the consent of his Highness, the Parliament,
or Council, which was added.
Major Aston moved, that the Council of Ireland might
take the same oath. It was said that may be added after,
and the like for Scotland.
Captain Baynes. The Council are the trustees of the
people. I would have a clause added that they shall likewise be faithful to the people; for that no provision is made
in that oath for their rights. We have good cause to suspect
that we shall not always have good Chief Magistrates.
Colonel Chadwick. I second that motion. It is very fit to
have such a clause.
The Master of the Rolls offered this amendment, " nor
wittingly do any thing to the prejudice of the Commonwealth."
Mr. Bampfield offered an addition, according as was in the
case agreed last Parliament, viz. " in order to the good government, peace, and wellfare of these nations."
Resolved, that these words be added.
Resolved, that the word " lawful" be put instead of the
word " just."
Colonel Cox moved additions, viz. " nor wittingly nor
willingly do any thing to the disadvantage of the Commonwealth."
Lord Whitlock. It is not fit to put such a stress upon the
office of a Privy Counsellor. They are accountable for their
actions, in Parliament. They have not any power of legislature. This will put a low esteem upon Parliaments, and set
up a jurisdiction you intend not. I like not that word
"consent." Lay it rather upon the word " advise."
The Master of the Rolls agreed that the word " consent"
was too large, and would have it " advise" or " do any
Lord Strickland. I would have you to distinguish what
you mean by consent; for a man may be over voted, and
then it is our act.
Sir William Strickland and Major General Goffe moved to
leave out the word " consent" It looks like a legislature.
Would you have them to protest against what is voted
Colonel Shapcott. I am against the word " consent." In
Parliament as a Court of Justice, though some dissent, yet
the minor part have their consent included: otherwise their
constitution is destroyed. On one side, the word " consent"
gives too much power; on the other side, it is too straight
for the reasons asserted.
Sir Richard Onslow moved, that the word may stand. It
differs from that of a Parliament, every Privy Counsellor
represents himself. And there may be an entry in a book,
who consents, and who dissents.
Lord Lambert took some other exceptions to the oath, but
I could not hear for the noise.
Mr. Secretary. I except against the word " disadvantage,"
which is very comprehensive, as also against the word " interest:" These are not legal terms, and nobody can tell how
far those words may reach.
Lord Strickland. If those words " lawful liberty" be in,
you debar the Secretary from taking any man up upon suspicion; for if he must discover the reason of securing such
person, then he discovers the plot before he fully know it.
Colonel Sydenham. I am against all oaths, (fn. 6) because there
are snares in them; much more, against additions to oaths:
for more words, more sins. But if you will do any thing, it
must be moved by a member.
Mr. Speaker. I hope you will not deny me the liberty of
a member. I never find any but one deny me this, to offer
an amendment to you.
Colonel Rouse. I see your oaths grow, and it seems men's
consciences must grow to them. I would not have you go according to the rule of that dead carcase, the last Parliament;
who, by your own acknowledgment, did make an oath for
the Council, that they would not have taken themselves, on
purpose to lay them aside; tying us to perform such directions as the Parliament should hereafter give, (fn. 7) which was
more than a Jew or Turk would impose.
Sir John Thorowgood moved some additions in relation to
property and liberty, &c.; but it was laid aside, and the oath
was resolved. (fn. 8)
Resolved, that the like oath be taken by the Council of
Scotland and Ireland.
Mr. Bampfield moved the addition of a clause, that the affirmative and negative of every member of the Council shall
be entered by the Council; but this being held improper to be
offered now, it was waved, and they went on with the Report.
The oath for the members of Parliament was read.
Mr. Grove. I shall not speak against the matter of the
oath; but I am against any oath at all in this case. Your
Committee had no such order. I desire you will lay it aside.
Oaths are but snares; times are changeable, and a multiplicity of oaths draw but on to sin. It will but keep out the
conscientious, and let in those that make no scruple of any
oath. Haply, some may be kept, both out of this place and
the Council, by imposing this oath.
Colonel Shapcott. You have admitted this Report, and
you must proceed upon it. As to the matter of an oath in
this case, do we not in every action between party and party,
swear men to do justly; and may not the people demand it of
you, to take an oath to do justice in this greater trust whereunto you are called ? And here is no more in this oath than
what was contained in the Recognition, (fn. 9) whereunto most members here have already subscribed.
Captain Baynes. This is neither agreeable to your orders,
nor yet to the privilege of Parliament, to bring in any such
oath. I desire the order may be read.
Mr. Godfrey. It was never denied, to read an order when
it was moved.
The order was read accordingly.
Mr. Drake. You are the fountain of justice; whence all
the springs of justice flow to the nations. His Highness is
under an oath, and you have bound up the Council by an
oath. For you, the Parliament, which are the great legislature, to go free, is strange; and you cannot ingenuously bind
one and not another.
Major-General Goffe. It will be disingenuous to think
that his Highness and the Council should be under an oath,
and your members free. The oath is tenderly penned, and I
hope it is no more than ought in reason to be done. Your
Committee did debate whether it was within their order, and
they found it pursuant to the Petition and Advice.
Mr. Godfrey. I must insist upon it, before I speak any
thing to the merit of the business, that this Report comes
not properly in, and ought not to be received. This is, I
think, hard measure, not being pursuant to the Petition and
Advice: so I would have it laid aside.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn. Your Committee had as much
power to bring in this oath as that for the Council. As to
the oath of itself, it is not indifferent that his Highness
should take an oath, and we take none. It is no more than,
formerly, members have taken in all Parliaments. Is it not
more fit now, to impose an oath to distinguish between persons of several judgment ? May not the children of Cavaliers, that are of a contrary opinion, creep into this House,
who are not within the penalty, and yet will be bound up by
the oath ?
Colonel Sydenham offered these reasons against the oath:—
1. It comes in against your order.
2. It has a tendency to impose an oath upon the whole
nation; and you do in effect lay an oath upon the people of
England; the collective body of England. I did foresee this
would bring it upon every individual.
3. It is no argument to say, because his Highness is
bound, therefore we must be bound. He is a single person,
set up to act for the body; and not intrusted for himself, but
for the people.
4. As to that, that oaths have been taken, there is such
a vast parenthesis, a sea of blood betwixt, that it needs not
be urged what was done formerly. You are not bound to
take that chain up, upon yourselves, upon the people, upon
posterity. It is like that of the ceremonial law. A servant
may go out free if he will. If he will not go out, bore his
ear to the post. (fn. 10)
5. It is harder to tie members of Parliament than those of
the Council. That is a narrower door; and if he cannot go
in, he may stay behind; but he cannot stay out of the nation.
6. You have said you would have Parliament free; and
will you now lay a force upon you ? I had rather soldiers
stood at the door, than my conscience to keep me out. It is
worse than a file of musketeers. Who will you keep out ?
those that are faithful to you and your good intentions.
They that can tumble down nations and kingdoms, none more
ready to take it; none less ready to keep it. You will make
it a straight-way for good men, and a broad-way for bad.
Mr. Trevor. I shall not dispute how this Report comes
before you, nor speak to the matter of an oath. Certainly, in
all civil powers and governments, oaths are very useful and
necessary. The greater the trust is, the greater the obligation. Does not every petty constable take an oath ? Have you
not resolved, that the Council and his Highness shall take an
oath.? I would be free from ties as to man, and strictly tied as
to God. There is no other way to take off other ties. I would
have the Parliament to take the oath, and to keep it too.
Colonel Winthorpe. I see nothing of precedent for it, but
the example of former times, to which I shall say nothing.
There can be nothing in an oath but to lay a stronger
obligation and assurance from him that I trust, that I employ; as Abraham swore his servant. But that we that
trust should take an oath: we are only trusted, by our Indentures, and trusted as by way of executors. It seems unuseful, incongruous and unreasonable, that a people that are
not trusted with any thing, should be under any obligation to
perform a trust to themselves.
Colonel Jones. It is clear we are here servants for the
people. We are under a trust. His Highness is under a
Is it ingenuous to put his Highness under such a test, as
not to trust his faithfulness; and yet our own faithfulness
must come to no test ?
It has been no long parenthesis. (fn. 11) I had rather have an
oath made here than without doors; and whilst we make our
own oath, there is no danger.
I understand not that argument that we are the collective
body of the nation; and therefore all the nation takes it, in
our taking of it. (fn. 12) I think it is for the freedom of Parliament,
that an oath should be imposed.
Major-General Whalley. I wonder to see gentlemen so
unwilling that a Parliament should be imposed on by themselves, and yet his Highness must be imposed on.
I could instance to you where Parliaments have given away
their liberty and their religion to the lusts of a king; (fn. 13) and it
is fit there should be an oath to bind men in such cases.
Lord Fiennes. In your Petition and Advice you bind his
Highness to call Parliaments according to the law, and by the
law, members of Parliament ought to take an oath. Is it
reasonable that he should be bound, and we free ?
He that has a conscience that he cannot take this oath, he
is not fit to sit here; for he must either have a prejudice
against his Highness or the liberties or freedom of the people.
I do wonder any should scruple what is his duty in this case
Mr. Godfrey. Against the oath.
1. The Petition and Advice holds it not forth.
2. Not a word of an oath in his Highness's proposals.
3. Nothing of it in your additional Petition and Advice.
4. You are making new matter every day. I wish it had
been made more early, when all your members—. (fn. 14) For
a matter of this weight to come within these doors, when you
are going out of doors!
5. It is against the Declaration to take away the Engagement. (fn. 15) It is said there, that oaths and Engagements are generally found to be snares. That Engagement showed as far
6. The argument, that no more is required but faithfulness,
and what is your duty, and no man fit to sit here that does
deny it: the same had laid as strongly for the Engagement.
Therefore, for the inconsistencies of it with that Declaration, unless principles vary, and are but per hic hoc, it will
strangely refute that principle. I could wish, for the honour
of that Declaration, and for the honour of the Parliament,
that you would not impose an oath at this time.
7. As to that of his Highness' oath, volenti non sit injuria.
8. We are under penal laws, and liable to be questioned.
They are a security for his Highness against us.
It is a strange thing to me that cuch fetters should be called
freedom; and all the honour you have in it is, in making
your own shackles.
9. As to the judgment of what shall be faithfulness. It is
not fair that you should interpret it. It must be to the sense
of him by whom it is made, ad sensum imponentis, and that
may prove a snare, or ad sensum impositi, and that makes way
for equivocation. I shall not judge but a man may, with a
safe conscience, refuse this oath.
Major-General Disbrowe. I think this oath both just and
reasonable. My principle is for settlement, and I hope it is in
your Petition and Advice provided for. If I intended, when
we come again, to throw up all that we have done, and lay
the legislation open again to the people, let us go with open
force. It would be more ingenuous to tell his Highness we
have set him up, and will pull him down again. If I would
have all this, I would have us left without any tie. This is
not ingenuous to bind one and let free another.
Lord Lambert. I cannot agree that this comes in by your
order. I am not for any kind of oaths. I think they prove
If a man may speak his heart and thoughts to that oath
before you, the swearing to these two things that are so contrary, you set up one to fight against another. Some will
think that his Highness has too much power; others, that the
people have too much. You will set up these two things,
that will be perpetually quarrelling; I mean arguing. I
hope some of us shall never see quarrelling about it.
If this go to the Parliament, it will reach to all officers of
trust, justices, and the like.
This oath will go freely down with all that are not scrupulous of an oath.
This may seem to put a greater edge upon men that are
conscientious, and who are settled in their consciences.
Lord Whitlock. There is a great weight in what this noble lord offers; but his argument reaches to all oaths whatsoever: for if a man's conscience do equally oblige with or
without an oath, then what need more scruple at it ? If. it
must be without an oath, then all oaths of justices of peace,
and the like, are useless.
Second objection: It will be a snare to good men.
True, if it light with bad consciences, it may be a snare;
with good men it cannot. If the words of the oath carry not
a snare, the oath draws none. Oaths were very frequent in
all ages, and members of Parliament always took an oath.
The allegiance was general, the supremacy particular.
Third objection: It may be designed to make it universal.
There is no such thing appears, and it is no argument. The
universality is not before you now. I should make a great
difference. Are not the members of Parliament the greatest
judges in England? Every man is bound by honour and
honesty. Is it a less obligation to be under an oath ?
It is said it is a shackle, a fetter. So it is. It is vinculum
It is said his Highness must interpret it.
I am not of his opinion: You are the imposers of it, and
must have the interpretation of it. No man is to be questioned for any thing he does in Parliament, but by Parliament. The case is famous.
The question being put,
Mr. Speaker declared for the Yeas.
Colonel Sydenham for the Noes.
Yeas 63, Lord Whitlock and Mr. Secretary, Tellers.
Noes 55. Sir Edward Rhodes and Colonel Sydenham,
So it passed in the affirmative.
The debate was resumed upon the report, and first proceeded upon the form of the oath for the members, which,
with alterations, according to the first part of the oath for his
Highness about defending the protestant religion, was agreed.
Mr. Highland moved, contra, that the members be sworn
to maintain the privileges of Parliament.
Captain Baynes and Colonel Sankey seconded.
Colonel Jones and Lord Chief-Justice Glynn. It is submitted to your judgment, whether you need swear members
to maintain their own privileges, but if you will put it, there
will be no negative.
Colonel White. It is hard to define the privileges now, so
I would not have members sworn. It is needless. You may
as well add to his Highness's oath to maintain his own prerogatives.
Major Aston. You may as well put a question for a man
to eat his meat, and put off his clothes, and things that cannot
be omitted, as to maintain his own privilege, which is his
Major-General Goffe. I wonder to hear the gentleman
that moved it insist so much upon having that of privileges
put in the oath. Methinks he should not be so strict. It is probable, if we were sworn to maintain our privileges so strictly,
we should not suffer some to sit, against those privileges.
Captain Baynes. Indentures, &c.
Resolved, the oath without that amendment.
Amendments were offered to the oath, as to the penning of
it; for it was so penned as that none could sit in Parliament till all had taken the oath. The oath, thus amended,
passed. (fn. 16)
The other part of the report, about calling the other
House, was read. It was to summon the members by writ,
whereas the Petition and Advice says, they shall be first approved by this House.
The Lord Deputy. It was properly moved, that it was
contrary to the Petition and Advice; yet it is fit that, at
your next meeting, you should have a trial of that other
House, and see how your constitution will stand. Your time
is short; that you cannot approve them now. I shall move
that the approbation and nomination may be in his Highness.
Colonel Matthews and Mr. Bampfield. This is expressly
against the Petition and Advice, and against the order of
Reference, and is such a trust as is not to be transferred. It is
a considerable part of the privilege of the Commons. Have
we not gone too far already ?
Mr. Grove. I hope you would not, at first, break the Petition and Advice, yourselves.
Resolved, the first part of the clause, as to the summons. (fn. 17)
The second part, as to their constitution, when they are met,
Colonel Jones. I move for an addition, viz. " without
farther approbation;" and this is an implied power of approbation in you. Some persons will scruple to have their names
scanned over here.
Mr. Godfrey. No man can, without leave, speak against
the order, and you have said expressly, you will have the approbation in yourselves.
Colonel Shapcott. I think that, till you have the other
House, you are not upon your right constitution. I wish we
might put somewhat of a real confidence in his Highness.
Divers members will come in, upon the account of right, such
as have not forfeited. Whereas, men shall be tossed up and
down here, and their lives ripped up. You may consider
how you are constituted. You have created, and you are
created, you know not how.
Colonel Sydenham. I can better agree with the gentleman's conclusion than his premises; that we should question
how we came together, how created. We must stay till
some lawful power come to confirm us. The second argument
is against tumbling men up and down. I would have such a
tumbling; and I thought you would have had such persons
as would look about them, and abide tumbling and a trial.
If you mean the old Lords, you had as good, indeed, rake in
a kennel as tumble some of them up and down.
If such a foundation be laid, as that the old Lords shall be
admitted upon the account of birth-right or privileges, I
shall very much fear, what I did at first, a returning to another line. I could very well consent that his Highness
should choose them: but, upon the account that the worthy
gentleman moved, I fear the consequence.
Colonel Cox. It is no dishonour for the persons to be
approved of here; and, but that I know the persons that
brought in the Report to be persons of honour, I should
suspect that they themselves hope to be named, and fear disapprobation here. I would have the approbation where you
have placed it.
Major-General Disbrowe. The gentleman was much mistaken in what he said. He did not speak of any birth-right
that members had, to be of the other House; but he said that
some might so challenge, in regard they have not forfeited.
In point of prudence, I think it is not best to lay a foundation of heat and difference, when, by doing as is propounded
to you, you can answer your ends as well as if it were in
I have seen the experience of it, that the choosing of a
Committee, by a balloting here, did so divide the House into
parties, that they were never united again: I doubt this may
be the consequence. Now, if we have the same confidence in
his Highness that formerly we had, that he will do things for
the good of the nation, we need not fear to leave it to him,
seeing we have put him upon qualifications.
If his Highness should send you a list of names, and they
lie before you, and some think that they ought to be named
that are left out, they will stir up obstructions in the approbation of others.
Major Audley. I was against the House of Lords, and
also against the power of approbation in this House; but I
am somewhat stirred up by what I heard from a worthy gentleman as to hereditary lords. I am not for such a choice,
nor for any of those that went to Oxford. (fn. 18) But if you will
have some of the old Lords, I would have this addition to
the qualification, that they may sign some such Recognition
1. To approve of the death of the late King.
2. Of laying aside his family.
3. Of taking away the House of Lords.
Major Morgan. We should take measure of these lords
by ourselves, who would have all ripped up from the beginning. I am diffident of my own ability to approve, and have
confidence in his Highness's fitness for it: so that I can
freely place it in his Highness.
Mr. Bampfield. This is most essentially the privilege of
this House. It is in your Petition and Advice already, and
how you can now part with it I cannot well tell. I would
have this addition to your question, that the persons being so
met shall be approved by this House.
Mr. Goodwin. I move to know what this other House
shall be; whether it shall be an Upper or a Lower House, or
one equal with yourselves ?
Colonel Matthews. The words offered you, " without
further approbation," are expressly against the Petition and
Advice. It is also moved and seconded, that they shall be
approved by this House.
This is a great business. Let us a little consider our duty,
and who we act for. Are we grown so low ? Shall we put
a yoke and bridle upon ourselves, and have no cognizance of
it ? Have we not parted with such a sum as was never parted
with in Parliament ? and are we now parting with our power
further ? I beseech you that it may be considered.
Major Putter. I move that you would do the Petition
and Advice as much honour as you did the other Instrument
of Government. There no members were to sit without approbation.
Lord Fiennes. You are now to consider, if you may attain your end without putting your approbation here, if it
will not do as well to omit it. Why shall we insist upon it ?
Formerly, those persons were called by writ; and to put this
approbation upon them may seem to lessen that power that
you intend them in the constitution.
Sir John Thorowgood moved against the question.
The question being put, to add the words, " without approbation of this House,"
Mr. Speaker declared for the Yeas.
Colonel Matthews for the Noes.
The Yeas went forth.
Yeas 90. Colonel Talbot and Captain Blackwell, Tellers.
Noes 41. Colonel Matthews and Captain Lister, Tellers.
Passed in the affirmative.
Colonel Talbot reported it by affirmatives and negatives.
Colonel Cooper moved an addition, that in case any member die or be removed, the other House shall approve, &c.
This is in the body of the Petition already, so improper.
Mr. Godfrey. To second that motion; but both were mistaken.
Sir Charles Wolseley stood up and explained it.
Resolved, the second part of the clause thus amended. (fn. 19)
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn moved, that these words might
be part of the Petition and Advice, " and brought in ingrossed."
This was ordered accordingly.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn offered from the Committee a
draught of a Proclamation to be published.
As also, that the Petition and Advice be printed (omitting
the 15th Article, mentioning the King).
Resolved, to agree with the Committee in this form of a
Proclamation, without any debate.
The debate about printing and publishing the Petition and
Advice was put off, till the explanatory Petition and Advice
The other part about the solemnity was read, about preparing Westminster Hall.
Sir Charles Wolseley doubted Westminster-hall would
be too long preparing, and would rather have it done in the
Major-General Goffe and others moved for the Court of
Major-General Disbrowe. I doubt to-morrow will be too
quick. I would have a matter of this solemnity done with
respectful deliberation, and not expensively. Any of the
courts will serve. I would have it done on Friday; and first
have an honest man to preach and pray.
Major-General Goffe. I move that a Committee wait upon
his Highness with the oath and your votes this night, and
then you may know how to proceed, and when the House
shall wait upon him to pass some Bills; and that the same
Committee that brought in the Report might attend his
Mr. Bodurda. I move that the solemnity may not be in
the Chancery Court, because there was lately another government settled there, which had not such. It will not be so
hard to prepare the other place.
Resolved, to agree with the Committee as to the place of
the solemnity; and that Sir Thomas Pride, Mr; Maidstone,
and Captain Blackwell, take care of this.
Upon Sir Charles Wolseley's motion,
Part of the Report was left out; that the Speaker shall
show his Highness to the people, and make acclamation. (fn. 20)
It was moved, that the sword to be delivered by way of investiture might not be left out.
Mr. Lister. His Highness has a sword already. I would
have him presented with a robe.
Some understood it a rope, and it caused altum risum. He
said he spoke as plain as he could, a robe.
You are making his Highness a great prince, a King indeed, so far as he is Protector. Ceremonies signify much of
the substance in such cases, as a shell preserves the kernel, or
a casket a jewel. I would have him endowed with a robe of
Lord Lambert. There are other solemnities and ensigns
of power, as a sceptre and the like. A sword is an emblem
of justice. The ceremony of the sword was laid aside without a question. (fn. 21)
The Lord Deputy moved, that the Bill of Attainder (fn. 22) might
be read to-morrow morning, the first business.
Sir Charles Wolseley seconded it. So it was resolved.
Alderman Geldart, Sir William Strickland, Captain Baynes,
and Captain Stone, moved, that the Bill for the Probate of
Wills might be read now. The order of the day was to read it.
Mr. Secretary moved, that the Bill of Attainder was first
seconded. So he would have that first, and the other next.
Major Audley. Unless you read one of these Bills tonight, you will not be able to read them both to-morrow.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn and Mr. Fowell moved that the
first business to-morrow might be the explanatory Petition
The question was put that the Bill of Attainder be read
Captain Stone excepted for the Noes.
It was the sense of the House it would spoil the other Bill
Major-General Disbrowe offered a clause to Lord Broghill's
Bill, which has laid these three weeks engrossed. None can
give a precedent of that nature.
Captain Hatsel pressed a Report, and moved the orders of
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn. It is against the orders of the
House to put by another business to have his own received.
I desire that you would hear that Report.
Alderman Geldart moved, that the little Bill for the river
of York, no bigger than his thumb, might be now read.
Mr. Lister offered a rider to the Bill of Lord Broghill, to
settle an impropriation of 300l. per annum, for ninety-nine
years, upon Colonel Carter, for his arrears of 5000l.
Lord Chief-Justice Glynn strongly backed this.
Mr. Grove and Sir William Strickland strongly opposed it,
as smelling of sacrilege, and the House had indignation for
it; insomuch, that it was thought most prudent to withdraw it.
It was moved to give him 3000l. out of the Prize Office, in
lieu or part of those arrears, but held improper to be moved
till the debate upon the Bill was ordered.
Colonel Sankey offered a proviso for Mr. Moorcock's
widow, for 100l. per annum, lands in Ireland.
The Lord Deputy seconded.
The motion passed; and another proviso for Colonel John
Jones, for 3000l. worth of land in Ireland. Both which being
passed, the Bill passed.
The motion was revived for Colonel Carter to have 3000l.
out of the Prize Office. And the question being put,
Mr. Speaker declared for the Yeas.
Major-General Kelsey for the Noes. The Yeas went forth,
and Colonel Carter one.
Yeas 45. Colonel Ingoldsby and Mr. Bodurda, Tellers.
Noes 43. Major-General Kelsey and Colonel Harvey,
So it passed in the affirmative.
A letter from his Highness, to reinforce his former letter
about James's and the Westmoreland regiment, (fn. 23) was read;
but it being late, past nine, it was adjourned by candle-light