Wednesday, February 19, 1658–9.
Mr. Scawen reported from the Committee (fn. 1) for inspection
into the accounts and revenue of the Commonwealth, that
they should often have occasion to send to the Commanders-inChief, both in Ireland and Scotland, for the knowledge of the
forces in pay under their commands, and to others, concerning
the revenue of those nations. And that the Committee did
therefore desire, that their dispatches in reference to these
affairs, might be signed by Mr. Speaker.
Resolved accordingly. (fn. 2)
Serjeant Waller reported from the Committee of Privileges
the business of Petersfield; and that it was the opinion of
the Committee that the election was void; and prayed that
a new writ might issue out.
Sir Henry Vane and Mr. Knightley moved, that it be
re-committed; for that the Chairman ought to report the
state of the whole business, as it stood by the Committee.
Serjeant Maynard seconded the motion.
It seems the election was too hasty. No proper notice was
given to the electors; for the electors had notice at nine, and
the election was at ten.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. It was no good election, for want
Sir Walter Earle. Recommit it, that it be examined at the
Committee, who are the proper electors.
The opinion of the Committee was, that the election was
void for want of due notice.
Mr. Jenkinson. The whole matter was included in the
question and evidence, as to both cases.
Serjeant Maynard. A Committee ought not to bring in a
report without the tota materia. Else, how shall the House
know it. If the persons capable of electing were there, then
there was notice. The principal point is, who have the right
of electing. I pray that it be re-committed.
Mr. Goodrick. We conceived at the Committee that there
was no due notice; there being eighty electors, and but thirty
present. Therefore we judged the election void. I would,
therefore, have no re-commitment.
Mr. Scot. I am of opinion, that the fault was not in the
want of notice, but upon the merits of the election.
Resolved, that the case concerning Petersfield be re-committed.
The order of the day was read, upon the debate of the
Mr. Drake. We have not commission to meddle with the
constitution from those that sent us here. It has pleased God
to reduce the constitution of the nation to a single person
and two Houses of Parliament, as it was before. It is our
honour to look forward, and not to go back, that we may be
builders and not destroyers. Our ancestors have sworn to
maintain the constitution: it is mostly for the good of the
nation, to have such a constitution.
1. It is good for our laws to be often read over.
2. It is for the good of ourselves. By putting a question
upon them; we may have a question put upon ourselves.
They (fn. 3) may be a screen between us and the people, as well as
between us and the single person.
3. The two, Houses are good for the peace of the nation.
The old Lords have still a right. It doth but sleep, and will
at one time or another awake upon us. If we take away the
rights of the peers, we may have a barons' war again. There
are great attempts and endeavours of your enemies to agree.
It behoves us to agree among ourselves.
4. A separation is endeavoured between the martial and
civil powers. We had need to strengthen the hand of the
My motion is, that you declare it your opinion that there
shall be two Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Edgar. I find in precedents, formerly, that there was
a power (to be tried by the peers in criminals, and, in civils,
their bodies not to be attacked) so inseparable from the Lords'
House, that no power could take it away. The engagement (fn. 4)
but takes it away by implication. The Petition and Advice,
they say, gives it a right, I cannot say as to the force of that.
Divers boroughs had no representative then. This right of
the House of Lords is not taken away by any legal power.
Then if they be in possession, be it by what power it will,
they are in, and ought to hold their right.
It will be very useful for the Commonwealth. They have
had their education in arts and arms. They were the procurers of Magna Charta, (fn. 5) by the Barons' wars; and many
counsellors are useful in making laws. There has been no
forfeiture, no transferring of their power. If I were satisfied
that the people sent us not here to do this; I conceive we
came here to do right and justice, and to maintain the honour
and birthright of that House. The wisdom and strength of
the body should go together. It is a very dangerous thing to
alter laws and customs. A proverb says, "Old laws and
new meat are best for Englishmen."
I would have another House of Lords. Matter of honour
and reverence is as much a right as any thing else. The
old Lords have no voice in elections, (fn. 6) and it were hard for
them to be barred from sitting in their own House, and
from being serviceable here.
Mr. Young. I perceive the question is, whether two
Houses or not ? The question is whether there be a Lords'
House in being, and not whether this shall be one for the
future. First determine whether the Other House be upper
or no. It was told you not long since, that the Other House
was down, by the Petition and Advice. He was never answered yet. Those insignificant mincing terms, Other House,
do not at all agree with my judgment. I would have it a
House of Lords. Therefore first agree whether the power of
the Other House be determined by the Petition and Advice.
No other law is of force for them.
Serjeant Wroth. Whether there be two Houses, depends
upon the validity of the Petition and Advice. A Parliament
not free, and yet the acts are binding. Otherwise, it would
strike at that act.
Colonel Gibbons. This is a question of great concernment
in the tendency of it; the setting up another power, with a
jurisdiction in some cases concurrent with you, in some other,
superlative, above you. Thus you will have two superintendants over you.
You are therefore to consider,
1. Whether there be another House or not.
2. Whether there shall be, or not.
If there be, it must be upon the old foundation or upon a
new constitution. The last Parliament cashiered the old
foundation. The victorious Long Parliament, the dictators
and legislators, they have laid them aside. (fn. 7) The House's Advice is no legal footing, as was moved learnedly by Colonel
Terrill. (fn. 8) Therefore, if there be any in existence, it must be
upon some new constitution, de facto; but whether de jure is
First examine whether you have another House, and then,
rebus sic stantibus, rebus sic cadentibus.
Colonel Terrill. It cannot be de jure in the Protector; it
being but personal in the other Protector, and executed by
him, and dead and buried with him.
Serjeant Waller undertook to answer Colonel Terrill.
All his cases are at common law: none upon Acts of Parliament, which are to have a reasonable construction. There
was a plain intention in the law for him and his successors.
In this Act, an Act of Constitution, it was declared that
his Highness might summon another House. His Highness
constituted another House. He had a power to constitute
them; and the power is executed.
Mr. Knightley. Those gentlemen that stand at the bar, put
me in mind of what I moved the other day, that none should
have votes that would not take their places; so that if
men will not take their places we must needs have another
I desire that the Act, 16 Caroli, on this case, be read. The
dictators and legislators, it is said, did take that House
away. The late army had no power to dissolve, much less
to annihilate that House. Therefore, instead of two Houses,
we shall have two houses in being; one by that statute which
I would fain have answered, and you have another House in
being by the Petition and Advice.
Via tuta est via recta. We were called to advise with the
nobles, and we were indeed in the Lords' House, and there
we found some sitting that call themselves Lords. We must
consider what constitution we are upon; what we have, not
what we shall have. We have a constitution by a single
person, and a House of Lords, or Peers, which you will. I
can consent to no other.
I move, therefore, that you declare the House of Peers to
be the other House.
Mr. Goodrick. In that very law, 16 Caroli, there was a
clause that the House of Peers should not be prorogued, adjourned, or dissolved, without their own consent.
Another law, the statute for triennial Parliaments, is unrepealed, by which twelve peers ought to meet to summon
Parliament. (fn. 9)
I am against building with rotten timber, but not against
building with old timber if it be sound. Determine, first,
whether you will have a House of Peers, and then, whether
that House of Peers be taken away or no. I pray that the
Act of Parliament, 16 Caroli, may be read.
That Act was read accordingly. It was, that neither
House should be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved, without
their consent and own orders.
The Act for Triennial Parliaments was also read, and it
was that twelve peers might issue writs for Parliaments under
pain of loss of places and preferment, and punishment by succeeding Parliaments.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am glad to see these two Acts
read. I move to explain whether the Petition and Advice have
not made void these two Acts. I would be satisfied from the
Long Robe. It is said the Petition and Advice has made
two. Houses of Lords.
Mr. Attorney of the Duchy. I know not what those two
Acts were read for, unless to take the Speaker out of his
chair. Yet I do not think that the intent of those gentlemen
was to take you out of your chair, and put in your predecessors.
By the same rule, Magna Charta may be called for, the
restoration of the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, the Recognition of King James, (fn. 10) &c. and I know not where you will
end, till you recognize Charles Stuart for King.
Invalidity is endeavoured to be put upon the Petition and
Advice, and upon many good Acts in the end of the Long
Parliament; but a nullity upon them upon any pretence
whatever, brings us to what, and where, we were.
The House's Petition is a good law. I hope we shall not
look so far back; but go on. I hope we shall have no more
such Acts called for.
Mr. Fowell. The acts made in the latter end of the Long
Parliament and the Petition and Advice, are both good laws
The Lord Protector did not think fit to make every lump
of gilded earth a Lord. He took another measure. Their
valour and virtue were objects to him of their honour. (fn. 11)
The Barons anciently were the great bulwarks and defence
of the liberties of the nation. How oft did they fight for
Magna Charta. They did great service in old times, and so
did those in the quarrel. There is a necessity for a House
Mr. Belhel. I observe from that Act, (fn. 12) that we are the
people's Parliament, and not any single person's. That is all
that I shall move.
Mr. Manley. I differ from that gentleman. The Petition
and Advice has made those laws of force. It is a question of
fact that there is a House. You exclude the right. I would
have the question comprehend both; whether there shall be
another House or no.
It will come in debate whether it is proper to have another
House. I shall speak to none of the laws that have been
read. I think those laws are of force till you annul them. I
think they (fn. 13) are restored by the Petition and Advice. I conceive clearly they are restored.
The Protector has the same power that any King of England had (fn. 14) . He has power to create Barons by writ or
patent. (fn. 15) I wish the old Lords, so many as are capable, had
been called. His Highness went by another measure. Honour is the edge of valour; take this away, and you take
away the edge.
Lords were ever since Parliaments were; only they sat together. (fn. 16) The 8th of Henry IV., they then sat asunder.
Had there not been a House of Lords, then we had not been
a House of Commons neither.
They always fought battles for our liberties. How often
engaged against the King for the Parliament. Two worthies
of them are never to be forgotten; one by land and another
by sea. Essex (fn. 17) and Warwick. (fn. 18)
If you will have another House, they cannot be Commons.
If any thing, they must be Lords. Commons against Commons cannot stand. Shall they dispose of your purse ? One
hand is enough in a purse. If you have not a House of
Lords already, I wish we may have a House of Lords.
Mr.— (fn. 19) . I move to declare, whether, as to this
point, the Petition and Advice be of force.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. This statement will not hold you
long. De facto, King and Lords are taken away. There is
something in the nature of a law on foot, which is the
Petition and Advice. By that, another House is set up;
whereas, before there was but one. It is not so much a new
Constitution, as a reviving of the old with taking off the
You are not yet come to the manner of the House; but
the question is, whether the Constitution of the Parliament
of England ought to be by two Houses ?
I think it ought, from long continuance. It hath been
so for many hundred years. Long usage hath so settled it,
as Acts of Parliament cannot alter it. No Act of Parliament
can take it away; nor can the single person be taken away
without special authority.
This Government hath been interrupted, de facto, and put
out of practice; but the right cannot be taken away. The
people of England have a right to the single person and two
Houses of Parliament, and it cannot be taken away without
I would not now consider what it shall be, but whether
the Constitution shall be in two Houses or no.
Mr. Stephens. The state of the question is well moved to
you by the gentleman that spoke last. It is clear that the
Constitution was by two Houses.
We all aim at settlement. I hold life and estate by
Magna Charta, thirty times confirmed. It is clear, that the
ancient Constitution was a House of Lords. Ever since the
fourth of William the Conqueror, you will find the nobles a
House of Peers. How they came to forfeit that I know
not; particular men may. The laws read are, without
doubt, not repealed. I am clear that these laws are not
The latter end of the Long Parliament took them (fn. 20) away,
and last Parliament restored another House. You have
both laws before you. I was always against taking away the
House of Peers; and that upon account of the covenant. I made
that covenant with God, and not with the Scots. The act
by which that House was taken away, was made by a kind of
I tell you truly, I am for the ancient Constitution by two
Houses. Justice is always pictured with a pair of scales.
The two Houses were so. Sometimes the Lords were
too heavy, and sometimes the Commons were too heavy.
No bills for monies did ever come from that House.
You ought to restore the ancient House of Lords, if one
may be added to the other. I am bound by my covenant to
maintain the privilege of Parliament. I think too, we must
restore the House of Lords, as a point of policy and prudence. They may be a good screen on both sides; between
the magistrate and the people. Let us build upon good and
The question being put in the affirmative, that the Constitution of Parliament doth and ought to consist of two
Sir Henry Vane. Here has been a learned debate; but,
by the question, I know not how to give my vote. If the
Constitution be by the old right, I must go one way; if by
another right, another way; but if both these might be taken
away, then the question must be whether We shall have
any or no.
If you say, the Constitution of Parliament consists upon
the old laws read, I may give my yea. If upon the Petition
and Advice, I may give my negative, I am Àxceedingly perplexed which way to give my vote. I would have the words
Mr. Bulkeley. The question, gives a man latitude enough
to give his vote, whether he will have it upon one footing or
The question was again put in the affirmative.
Sir Henry Vane moved an addition, "As the state of
affairs have been since the war," but it was decried.
Mr. Godfrey. The question is complexed of matter-offact and matter-of-right. They are different, therefore move
it singly, that it ought.
I cannot assert the right, till it be debated whether the
Other House be the House that ought to be. It is not
proper, when both these are in debate, that we should admit
either. I desire the word "doth" may be left out.
Colonel Matthews seconded the motion.
Mr. Trevor. The word "doth" left out, leaves out a great
many of our senses. It is a word which may relate either to
the old or new Constitution.
Serjeant Maynard. You ought in justice to condescend,
if any person be unsatisfied. The word does not stick
with me. Leave out the word "doth," however, to satisfy
I hear nobody offer that it was part of the quarrel to have
no House of Lords. They showed themselves for you, in a
time of hardness. They did oppose your enemies. You
could not have held out laws to the people, in that time, but
by their ordinances. They were innocent, so let us not go
away with that mistake that they were as nocent as the King.
Put the question upon the word "ought," and leave out
the word "doth."
Colonel Bennet. I look upon this question as that, which,
at the long run, may cost us dear. There are different understandings in the matter of this question. Let us not be too
hasty, but hear one another. Many arguments have been
used for the right of hereditary peeragé to legislature. I
have heard it learnedly argued that, not only by ancient usage
but by the common law of the land still in force, the ancient
peerage are restored, and now in being. I shall consent they
may have had such a reasonable claim to offer, as other things
of like nature have had, witness the Court of Wards, (fn. 21) and
Star Chamber, (fn. 22) and Bishops. These had no natural right;
but only a right by usage, which is no right.
I was for a single person, though, if the condition of the
people were as receptive of a Commonwealth as it might be,
I still have thought a Commonwealth better for us. I shall
contend for a mediocrity.
I cannot like it, to have five hundred men set over us for
them and their heirs to have a legislative over us and
our heirs. I never understood the covenant in that sense as
now used. I look upon that as exclusive of this family, and
inclusive of Charles Stuart. I have no such opinion of any
in this House. (fn. 23) I know not what may be.
I would fain have it agreed, if restoring the old peerage, or
that way, be not inclusive of that and exclusive of the other.
I do consider this power of legislature in a single person,
and in another House, hereditary, and if it be possible for any
man to apply his arguments taken from the statute of 16 Caroli, exclusive of Charles Stuart, I shall be glad to hear it.
If they who are for monarchy, will be content with the
good things that are in it, we shall be content that all the
good reason of monarchy and of another House may be converted to our use. Another House, for the castigation of debates, to prevent passion and too much precipitation, that
will fully answer the reason of another House. But for the
law of 16 Caroli, I conceive that clause of the Act, that
they shall not cease to be, is improperly tendered. It is set
1. By the calling of another free Parliament, by virtue of
a new election and constitution.
2. A greater power than the power that made that House,
hath taken it away. I mean not any power on earth, but
God himself. He hath let us know that it is he that planteth
and plucketh up, and taketh away. I am of opinion that he
hath taken it away by a long series of providences, and what
God hath taken away, I shall never plant again. It was not
taken away in a corner. They may have peace in themselves
that did it. God hath dissolved that Parliament. That satisfies my conscience. I cannot plead that any jury determined it.
I am willing that two Houses should be, upon the reasons
of utility; but I cannot consent to hereditary power in those
that sat below our ancestors. I shall be willing to grant you
my honours upon condition you will give us an hereditary legislature from such as our grandfathers sat by their sides and
took pleasure in them.
Mr. Higgons. I am glad to see this done, that we may
plead for our ancient constitution, that we were born to.
This House was set up long, ages before ever a House of
No good Christian can argue from events. Because Constantinople is taken from the Christians, ergo they must not
endeavour to recover it.
I would have the question put, that there ought to be two
Houses of Parliament.
Major Beake. As to the first argument, destructive to the
single person, because the single person may call five hundred, and set them over you: yet you have no cause to fear
this new nobility.
1. I suppose he will have a retrospect to what other princes
have done. Or suppose the single person should nominate
five hundred peers, or more, to grow up over us and overtop
us, such a numerous nobility will rather strengthen your
hands than his; for, by experience, we found the numerous
nobility of King James (fn. 24) was the destruction of his son.
When King Charles began to multiply Lords, they struck
in with you, and deserted the King; ergo, that will be a
rock, a peg on the top of the Bill, which will direct him on
that behalf. It may be you will limit the number.
As to the second argument, a greater power hath taken it
away. Then let every man's mouth be stopped. Let no
man attempt to set up a Commonwealth.
Though, God in his providence hath taken away the nobility, yet what God doth providentially, he not always approves. That he did approve it, is not clear to me. To
untie this knot, we may say he did not do it approvingly. I
take the single person and the Commons as two scales, the
House of Lords as the beam. Both scales are subject to factions and tyranny and extravagances. The beam is prudential. The power, for seven hundred years transmitted to
them, they have as much right to it as the gentleman has to
his cloak. Usage is a good right, if ancient. If nothing he
right but what is natural, he has not right to his victuals, his
meat and drink: so that there is but a tantum non to make it
natural. It is so twisted with the constitution, that five hundred for one upon the poll, would be for a House of Lords. I
never knew any Christian against the constitution, only
Laws went out here without their lustre, not so practical
and useful. By no law of England can the Judges sit in the
House of Commons. They must sit in the Lords' House,
else we want their grave and sage advice. We have been
tumbling ever since they were taken away. We have swornby the covenant to maintain the two Houses; and the Parliament might as well take away meum and tuum, as a House
Mr. Jenkinson. Your question is not of conveniency or
inconveniency, but of right. Then the other arguments will
weigh nothing. I conceive it a great question, and fear
whilst you vote them Lords, you vote yourselves slaves.
I find their names in all your laws, but by what right, it
appears not to me. Some say the old Barons were by merit, (fn. 25)
some by patent, but I conceive by neither. It was neither
writ nor patent gave it to them, but their tenures and possessions gave it them. He that had so much in possession, or
so many Knights' fees, was by law a Baron, and might challenge a right to sit in Parliament. (fn. 26)
There was a law in King Ethelbert's time, that if any person came to have good possessions by his tenure, he was to
be a Lord, or Theyn, as it then was called. In the 11 Henry
VII., the law was for Archbishops, &c. that hold of the King
in capite. "Let them do service to the King, and be present
at the King's courts." Mr. Selden understands it to be present in Parliament. This was by their tenure. No writ was
then, but every man that had right might come. The first
distinction between the Barons, majores et minores, was in the
latter end of King John, as appears in Magna Charta. In
the last year of that King, upon this statute, were several
writs to distinguish them severally. The Barons, Majores
were to be called separatim, and the Minores were to be
called, generally. The Majores at last came to exclude the
rest. The excluded for a time took it well, but out of their
ashes came the Commons. These were first called in the
time of Henry III. Even at that time the Commons began
to grow upon the Lords, and all their glass is now run out.
Almost all that power is in this House, the Commons having
now whatever possessions and tenures made them considerable. (fn. 27) The Lords have no interest now, and signify no
more than. you. How can you now make those men Lords,
by any other reason than to make twelve pence to go for
twenty shillings. You may vote them what you please, but
should you say so, other people will value it, at the same
value. If they be not Lords in the country, it will signify nothing. It is not your voting of them to sit in another House
will make them so.
If you will have another House; limit them. Let it be
part of the Bill, that this House doth declare that there shall
be two Houses; and then you may limit them, as you have
done the single person.
Serjeant Maynard. I would have the question look forward as much as may be, and as little backward as you can.
If we look too much upon the point of right, it may bring us
upon some rocks by pressing it too far. We must go that
way which comes nearest settlement. The question before
you will answer every man's sense, to debate after right or
conveniency, or what he please. If you put it in the same
way as you put the single person, that will do best.
The question was put in the affirmative, that it be part
of this Bill to declare the Parliament to consist of two
Colonel Matthews. I move to consider whether you do
not destroy yourselves by this question.
The question was put both in the affirmative and negative.
Mr. Sadler stood up, and it was agreed that he stood up
before the negative, and so he went on.
A power to laugh is essential to a man, but he does not ab
solutely consist of it: so, that may be essential to a Parliament that is not constitutive of a Parliament. By putting
this question, you conclude that all Parliaments that were
before or since the House of Lords, were no Parliaments.
Say whether for hereafter, or whether convenient to have
another House. It may be, I can give my vote. I would
have the question plain.
Resolved, upon the question, that it shall be part of this
Bill to declare the Parliament to consist of two Houses.
Mr. Onslow. I would now have you take care to bound
this House, as well as you intend to bound the Chief Magistrate.
I shall mind you what was done in the King's time. I
would not have more given to this single person than was
comprehended in the propositions at the Isle of Wight. (fn. 28)
There was then a short Bill to bound the peerage, both as to
number — (fn. 29) I would have you declare some additional
That all peerages made after the great seal was taken
away, be void, and that no Peers be afterwards made but
such as shall be by judgment of both Houses.
He offered a Bill, it was but ten lines.
Major-general Kelsey. It is improperly moved to bound
them till you have determined that they are a House of
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. It was not improperly moved by
the honourable person that offered the Bill.
Sir Henry Vane. You have not voted them peers. It is
moved that they are the King's men. Then let them come
after the King. First bound him, and then bound them.
Mr. Godfrey. The paper is not improperly offered. It
may well be taken into consideration.
Mr. Attorney-general. I would have bounding this House
first taken up, because it is easier to bound the Chief Magistrate than to bound them.
Mr. Bulkeley. I second that motion.
Captain Baynes. It is most proper now to go to the negative voice. The objection is answered that was made, that
we knew not how to dispose of the negative, till we knew
whether you will have another House.
I would have it referred to a Committee, to consider of a
way how you will qualify and bound this Other House, and
that you now proceed to bound the single person.
Mr. Bodurda. Surely you mean it shall not be another
House of Commons; then you will have two hands in a
purse. None here surely mean it a House of Ladies. (fn. 30) So
surely it must be a House of Lords.
I would have you debate the powers and qualifications tomorrow.
Mr. Reynolds. Those that were anciently of that Other
House, the old Lords, ought to sit here; and I hope you
mean it so, that they shall not be excluded.
Colonel Birch. I look upon this agreement among us, to
be the return of the prayers of the good people. I would
have you now proceed to bound this House, before you talk
of the persons, and take up this on Tuesday morning.
Mr. Goodrick. It is first most proper to give them a
name, as you did your Chief Magistrate, and then dispute
Mr. Solicitor-general. It is fit to set bounds first, and
then to qualify the persons.
Sir Henry Vane. There must be the thing before there
can be bounds.
He took exception against Colonel Birch's notion, that the
returns of our prayers are, to bound the people by setting a
House of Peers over them. Observe that.
Mr. Stephens. It is most natural to set the bounds first.
Captain Baynes. If you call the old Lords, it is not in
your power to bound them without their consent. If another
House by you is to be constituted, then the case is different.
Mr. Neville. It is clear that the bounding of Peers is like
that which was said of the King: it is like hedging the
The question was put in the affirmative, that the House
will proceed, on Tuesday morning, to the bounding of the
other House of Parliament.
Mr. Turner moved to change the word "bound," for
Captain Whalley moved that the word "bound" may stand.
Mr. Trevor moved that both words be in, viz. "bound the
Mr. Bodurda. I move only to consider the bounds and
powers of the other House.
Mr. Bampfield. It is not yet determined by you that you
will have another House under that title; else you admit the
Petition and Advice. Make your question the bounding of
the two Houses.
Sir Henry Vane. I see, now, we are for bounding every
thing but the single person. Whatever you may agree upon,
they must consent to it, if you set them up.
Mr. Bulkeley. Put it, the bounding of another House.
Mr. Goodrick. Let it be thus, that you will take into consideration the powers of each House.
But it was decried.
Mr. Onslow. There may be as much reason for bounding
the House of Commons. We have seen how all have exceeded their bounds. I would have the question, upon bounding
Major-general Kelsey. First declare what that House
Colonel White. If you bound them not before, you will
find them boundless.
Mr. Trevor. I doubt you are going to set up another
House; that is three Houses. Put it, to limit the power of
the other House.
Resolved, that the bounds of the powers of another House,
in relation to the former vote, shall be taken into consideration,
the first business, on Tuesday morning next, and nothing to
Resolved, that Sir Henry Lee have leave to go into the
country for a week.
Resolved, that Sir Henry Vane be added to the Committee
The House rose at almost two o'clock.
The Committee of Privileges sat till almost eight, in the
House, upon the business of Walton, Serjeant Waller in the
Counsel and witnesses were heard on both sides: yet they
did not finally determine the business; but adjourned the debate of it till Thursday at two.
Resolved, at that Committee, that one that claims right to
be an elector, cannot be a witness to prove another in the
same predicament, to be a fit elector.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge and Sir Henry Vane took exceptions
at it, and will move the House against it. (fn. 31)