Tuesday, February, 22, 1658.
I came in late, so knew not what was before; I suppose
only the orders of the day about bounding the other House.
Divers persons had spoken to it.
I found Mr. Gewen speaking; and it seems his aim was at
King, Lords, and Commons.
Colonel Gorges. The new Lords are fittest, and an honest
cobbler better than one hundred old Lords. I would not
have them hereditary.
Mr. Stephens. Since the last day's debate, I have met
with this objection, that those that are for the old Lords
are for the old line. I do not take the line to be fundamental.
Nothing is fundamental but the will of God.
By the statute of 14th Elizabeth, (fn. 1) and by other statutes,
it is clear, that the Crown may be limited in all things. The
declaring of the line was always subject to the power and
disposition of the Parliament; but it is new light to me,
that ever one House did, or that one House had power to
put down another. I should be very loth to hear such
The ground why the Lords were always called to sit in
Parliament was, because they had the greatest share in the
kingdom; but it is not so now. Abbots, Priors, and
Bishops, had one-third part of the kingdom, the Lords
another; but now the Commons have obtained a larger
interest in the land, and therefore they should have a greater
share in the Government. I would not have the two
Houses fall out among themselves. Let us tie ourselves to
some reasonable rule.
Two Houses was the ancient foundation. Lords and
Commons in all ages have had the Government, with the
single person, and carried the power of Parliament.
Restore such old Lords as have not forfeited, and add
some new ones. Their number is part of the power. I
would have the number and the persons themselves, as
the King was moved they might be, by approbation of this
House. Their power the law will regulate.
But the great thing is the negative voice. A negative
voice in them, generally, I think not fit; but all Acts are
not of the same nature. There are public Acts and private. The private Acts may pass without them; but, if
the House of Commons do declare any Act to be a
public Act, if difference happens that cannot be reconciled
by conference, then let both Houses, pro hac vice, sit and
I shall never give my consent to put that yoke upon
ourselves of this other new House; where, I hear, there are
some sit that have endeavoured to. make the greatest
bleach upon our liberties that can be, When you have
set up them, for aught I know they may pull you down.
I may be made a slave by the sword, but I will never make
myself a slave.
Some in that House have carried elections this Parliament, very strangely. (fn. 2) We know not what they may
be led on to. Some have the long sword by their side, and
perhaps may help to hew you down and pull your House
over your ears.
Mr. Pedley. This nation has been a long time in a desperate distemper, and you ought to use as much reason,
wisdom, and moderation in this, as may be. Consider the
condition of the nation, what at present they are able to
bear. The laws will well fall in with the frame that you
propound; a monarchical government, by a single person
and two Houses of Parliament. Look at your ancient
records, Hen. IV., Hen. VI., Ed. IV., Rich. III.s time.
You will find how that, in cases of necessity, the King and
Commons together might have made a constitution suitable
to the good of the people.
You have propounded that you will not let them appear
abroad, till they be well dressed. I would have you make
something the matter of your debate; as to limit the power.
Begin first with this, that they shall not be hereditary.
Mr. Buller stood up and read his speech.
You have now set up another House. It is not in your
power to limit another House. We are in another House.
We cannot limit them. They are judges of their own members and privileges.
He was laughed down.
Sir Henry Vane. I move that the worthy gentleman be
not interrupted, seeing he is pleased to bestow his pains
Mr. Buller went on; but I know not, nor any body else,
what he would be at; but that by our votes we had excluded
our bounding them, and must ask them leave, whether they
will be bounded or no.
Majer-general Kelsey. It hath been argued that you
should have a House of Peers, and that is that House you
are now a bounding of; and if it be so, you must ask them
leave whether they will be bound or no. Whatever resolution you take up for bounding them, I can hardly believe they
will consent to it. Yet, if they sit there by an ancient right
of co-ordination, I am sure you cannot take any thing from
them without their consent.
It is hard to limit men's power; they will rather strive to
enlarge it. I have found by woful experience, that power
is willing to enlarge itself, but never to be restrained. If
they have a right still to sit, then the law which took
them away is no law. If they be another House in
being, if they have a legal right, your bounding is out of
If the Long Parliament had no legal right to take away the
House of Lords, then it must be granted they have a right of
sitting. Otherwise they have no right, and surely that Parliament has as much power to take away them as well as the
kingly government. (fn. 3)
I find that law of 14 Elizabeth can cut away a line. For
merly I have heard the Long Robe insist upon it that no law
is of force but what is made by the three estates. If the law
was not good which took away the Lords, because the Lords
did not give their consent, then the law which took away the
king is not good, because it was made without the king's
consent. It will then as naturally follow that Charles Stuart
is as rightful king at this day as the Lords are rightful Lords.
And if it be objected that Charles Stuart has forfeited his
right, there are of that line (fn. 4) that have never forfeited it. So
then there is no foundation for any thing that hath been done
since. All hath been a mere usurpation of the House of
In doing this, we shall draw all the soldiers upon us, and
all purchasers of public lands, and a great deal of confusion.
And I do desire to see how this dilemma can be avoided, and
where the difference is, that they could make a law, to one
end good, but, through insufficiency, not to another. To
begin upon such a foundation will inevitably shake yourselves.
I wonder how it can be urged that the House of Lords sit
upon a legal right. Sir, the Long Parliament made many
laws. Either they are of force or not. If they be, why do
we dispute them ? If they be not laws, then the Petition and
Advice is no law. The Petition and Advice is a thing I was
never for; I never gave my vote in it, yet is it a law and in
being, else, I am sure, the Scotch and Irish members cannot
possibly have power to sit here. (fn. 5) I wonder any such person
should argue so, seeing they sit only upon that foot.
Either the Petition and Advice hath power and authority
in it, or it hath not. Consider that first, whether that be a
law. I pray, let no member sit here that hath no right to sit.
If Scotch and Irish members sit upon no right, it may afterwards reflect, to make void your law. I speak not against
their right in equity to sit here, (fn. 6) but only by way of argument's sake.
If then, the Petition and Advice be a law, before you go
any farther, you must consider of it as in being, and then
think how to limit and bound the Other House; and then
you must have their consent to the bounding of themselves.
These you may limit and bound; but if you declare the old
Lords' right, those you cannot limit. They will tell you,
they have and know the bounds already, they sit upon as
good a law as you do, and they will not be bounded by you.
Divide the lands of the nation into twelve parts. The
Peers at this day have scarce a twelfth part, when they had
two thirds; yet they must have a co-ordinate power with you.
It was reason that they had a co-ordination. The same
reason is not now. Many gentlemen now sit in this House
of Commons, that have as good estates as any of those Lords.
You shall find that forty-two of them have not forfeited. (fn. 7)
If you go this way, I doubt you will lay a foundation for
Charles Stuart's coming over. The other Lords you need not
fear. I would have in first place, what you mean by this Other
House, else you shoot at rovers. It is a vain thing to bound
them. You are bounding, and do not consider what it is you
would bound: till then you run but a loose bound.
Therefore, let us debate what this other House is we intend. If it be a Lords' House, say so. If it be the other
House now sitting, pray say so too.
Major Beake. Because the question is perplexed, something else ought to be previous. Let it be your question
before you bound, whether the old House of Lords be in
being, or whether this House now sitting have any evidence,
or the Other House shall be the House of Lords.
Captain Hatsell. We talk of going step by step; but, if
we vote in the old Lords' House, we do not only go by steps,
but we make a pair of stairs for Charles Stuart to run up to
the top, into the room of the single person.
I move, therefore, to bound in this House now sitting.
I would have it the first matter of your debate that the
Other House shall not be hereditary.
Mr. Nathaniel Bacon. You are not now constituting of
any House; but declaring limits and bounds of that Other
House which you intend shall be parliamentary with this.
You cannot make any bounds fit for all persons. If you
vote the persons first, you can never set their bounds, for they
must vary, according to the persons. If you respect the persons in the House now, you are led into a wilderness. It may
fit the persons now, and not fit them afterwards.
It has been propounded, as to the bounds, whether those
that sit in the Other House shall sit there hereditarily, or by
succession. I think fit to begin there. I would have you first
declare what rights the old Lords did legally exercise. Examine those powers.
I would have it considered, that which is propounded, that
it might not be hereditary. And, as to the first, I think the
old Lords never sat there hereditarily. They never sat by
birth, but according as they were called by the king's writ.
They were sometimes called, and sometimes left out. No Lord
could challenge a right to sit there, without a writ. It was
never intended that children, fools, and madmen, should sit
there. They were not called, for those that sat there were
called to advise, and they could not advise that were not qualified for it. Is every man fit to advise a king ? the writ says
"advise." It is against reason that unfit persons should be
called. Therefore, there was no power or right to sit there
by inheritance, but by election. It may be, they had it for
life; it may be, not so long. Some were called one Parliament, and left out another.
I would have them to be elective, and to be no longer than
for life, at the most. Therefore I shall propose, as the fittest
bounder, that they may sit by election.
Mr. Hanmer. I move, that as many as are now called by
his Highness may be approved on by this House, and that as
many of old ones as are capable be called in, and approved
likewise by this House.
Mr. Trevor. To the order of your proceedings.
You are pleased to order that the Parliament shall consist
of two Houses. This day you have ordered to bound it
The best rule to pursue is, what is for the safety and good of
the people, which should be the rule of this debate.
There is a necessity of bounding those powers which have
been formerly exercised, which did consist of two parts, the
judicial and legislative, that our late revolutions have awakened
us to care for. When our powers are agreed on, we shall best
know to what persons to fit them.
We are to consider first, how far it is bounded, and then
it is fit to consider what boundaries, in reference to the people's safety, should be given to them; and first begin with the
Mr. Knightley. When a point is before us, we may discourse upon something. So long as we are in a wide field,
and never a gap open, we shall ride round and round and never
I second Mr. Trevor's motion to begin with the power of
judicature in that House.
Colonel Thompson. That which is moved and seconded, is
that they shall not be hereditary. Though I was not at
taking away the House of Lords, yet I believe they are taken
You are told that they were formerly considerable, and had
once the greatest interest It is now told you that most of
their sand is run out into your glass. (fn. 8) The Lords' House
is melted down into the Commons. If you set them over
you as high as formerly, I doubt your sand may run into
But you are resolved of another House, and some would
have it hereditary. I would have it first considered if they
shall be hereditary; I am against that opinion; for they may
be unfit, by poverty or want of bread; and, being judges,
they may be corrupted. I would not have them to judge in any
thing between commoner and commoner, or that concerns a
commoner, until the cause be transmitted to them from hence,
as in writs of error, &c. I have known judgments suddenly
given in that House, against decrees in Chancery of sixteen
I would have the persons named by the Protector; and the
approbation of this House to every single person that is
named to sit in that House.
Mr. Jenkinson. I would begin with the judicial power.
There is less danger in that than in the legislative. It is
nearest to come to your end. But to begin with the hereditary is to begin with that which is not so dangerous.
I would have it referred to a Committee to consider and
provide you somewhat that may bound them in that point.
Sir William Wheeler. I am against referring it to a Committee. It is too great a work to be done by any but by
the House itself.
Lord Coke says, that any called to that House have a feesimple right to sit there. (fn. 9) Be he poor or weak, he may sit.
Therefore, first consider whether they shall be hereditary.
I am against their being hereditary. It will draw after it
all inconveniences and dependences that formerly attended
them. Three parts in four deserted in the last war. It is
for the safety of the nation to declare they shall not be hereditary.
Make that your first question.
Sir John Lenthall. In the beginning of the debate, I was
for opening the doors to such of the nobility as have been
faithful to you, and all persons of the Other House that were
capable. I am not convinced as yet of the contrary.
Their merits in ancient times were great. Great benefits
we have had by the old Lords. Magna Charta was obtained
by them, (fn. 10) in such a time when the Commons scarce durst
ask such a thing from the King. The assistance they gave
in the late wars, was likewise very memorable. I shall come
now to what they obtained from the late King, whereof Magna Charta was but a counterpart.
If this House be not hereafter so well qualified as it ought
to be, then will this screen (fn. 11) be of great use.
I am for another House; for suppose religion should be in
question, and if the single person be alone, he must pass it.
If men of strange religion should come in, and if there should
not be a screen, our religion were gone. (fn. 12) Our laws may be
also destroyed by the same rule. I move to examine the
power they have by the Petition and Advice. Let the limitations there be the rule; or, if those be not restrictive
enough, bound them farther.
Mr. Bodurda. To the order of proceeding.
I move to begin with the question, whether they shall be
Mr. Cartwright. It is not proper to bound the Other
House, until you say what it shall be.
I move to consider first, which of the Houses you will
have, and then fit the powers and bounds. Your powers,
haply, may not fit the old House of Lords. By the Petition
and Advice, the Other House have no legislative power given
them, and if you bound them upon that point, you will give
them something they never had.
Mr. Attorney-general. I move to make it the ground of
your debate, that they shall not be hereditary. The old
Lords had clearly an hereditary honour, but hereditary
right, as to session in Parliament, they had not, without
being called by writ. (fn. 13) Formerly, they had no stinted number. Anciently, three Lords made a House, and the absentees sent their votes by proxies.
Mr. Young. I am sorry to trouble you; but you are well
minded, first, to consider which of the Houses you will have,
old or new.
I am perplexed how to give my vote. If old Lords, it
may be, I shall give my vote that they may be hereditary,
and have a negative. But if the new Lords, that are your
creatures, I shall give them neither.
Sir Thomas Wroth. We are here come to make our condition better than it was before.
It was not so in Queen Elizabeth's time, that three made
a House of Lords. Of late there was packing a House of
Lords. They were the King's creatures. Let us go as far
from the old constitution as we can. Take in some of them
that are capable. Let us nourish the best flowers, and husband them for our best conveniency.
I would have the hereditary question go first, and then the
judicial. I am against hereditary lordship, for the reason
why his Highness refused king; (fn. 14) because he knew not what
he that came after him should be, a wise man or a fool. I
see plainly here is a great inclination to come round again.
It is to bring in old Lords by degrees, and then, consequently, one who I hope my eyes shall never live to see here. (fn. 15)
It is fit we should have a kind of check upon us. Many
laws passed, in the late Parliaments, very lame and imperfect.
On the other side, to have another House; that will be a
dishonour to the nation. I shall scorn it as much as any man
in the nation. If we have a House of mean people, we shall
contemn and despise them.
A poor judge is dangerous. It is hard for a poor man to
keep a good conscience in so high a place. A man has two
hands, to take from whom will give most.
Put the hereditary part first to debate.
Mr. Bodurda offered the question, whether the persons
called to that House shall transmit to their posterity an hereditary right of sitting in that House.
Colonel White. I move not to admit it that they now sit,
for that is a granting the other question.
Mr. Jenkinson. I move that the question be, if they shall
only have a right of sitting there for life.
Sir John Northcote. It is apparent the old Lords did not
sit by an hereditary right. (fn. 16) You may go upon your old
grounds and yet preserve that.
If you give them a negative, it will be clear that the single
person shall have two negatives; for he shall have them his
own. Put the question whether the other House shall consist
of the ancient nobility that have not forfeited their rights.
Mr. Raleigh. It appears not to me but the old Lords
had a right of sitting by inheritance. A letter was sent from
the Lord Keeper to a Lord —— (fn. 17) that was called to the
House of Lords, notwithstanding his writ, to forbear sitting;
but he prayed judgment if for any letter he ought to forbear.
It resolved he ought not, which proved it hereditary.
I would have it first put, if it shall be hereditary.
Mr. Knightley. A man may be worthy in one Parliament,
and unworthy in another Parliament. I am not able to give
a Yea or No to hereditary; but if you say that their claim is
not hereditary, I can give my vote. Some, I believe, in the
Other House would refuse hereditary, as they do a negative,
if it should be given them.
Mr. Onslow. I am afraid we are in a wood. No wonder
the nation is puzzled, when the wisdom of the nation is puzzled in this place. Once out of the way, we see how hard it is
to get in again.
Whether do we debate here upon a supposal that we are
boundless and without limits. I hope, while making limits
for others, we make not ourselves boundless. If so, we shall
leave them very little power. I know it was once esteemed
our right to vindicate our own privileges, not to take away
those of other men.
I shall not debate whether to have old or new peers. It is
enough that we do something to bar the old lords of their
rights. None of us are attornies or solicitors.
It is pressed, the King can do no wrong; I hope we shall
not do wrong to any, much less to a whole body of a House
of Peers, to take away their rights. You have a difficult
work in hand. Put no question that will involve us in a
wrong. We are with freedom ourselves.
We are called to consult with nobles and great men. We
have had no complaints from them. They cannot properly
complain to us. I suppose they complain to their own House
if any such thing be. I know not why we should take notice
of their privileges. You cannot create power. If any thing
amiss in their power, why may they not join with you, as formerly Peers have done, to limit themselves ? Why may we
not consider a House in being, and consult with them, in limiting and bounding their own persons and powers ?
Go on with your law, and then talk of limits and bounds.
Leave it to the law to interpret their bounds.
Sir Lislebone Long. This House is not so bound up, but
if any evil be in a constitution, this House certainly hath
power to remedy it.
I cannot understand their arguments that say the Lords
were not hereditary. Whether it be for the good of the
people that it should be so, or not, may be a question. I find
in some Parliaments a whole House called, and all left out
the next Parliament; but this was in times of troubles and
difference between York and Lancaster, when the nobles
were abroad in the wars.
The case cited was the Earl of Bristol's, and by judgment
of the House of Lords, he was admitted. (fn. 18)
Another was Lord de la Mare, disabled by Act of Parliament, and yet his son claimed it, and was admitted to his
right. (fn. 19)
I can by no means apprehend that you should first define
the Houses, and leave the powers to be determined by law
This is a leaving of fuel for posterity. You must determine
the powers. This may well come under this head, that the
power shall not be hereditary.
It is fit what power they shall have should be stated here.
They anciently claimed very large powers, and not all for the
good of the people. They have judged of the lives of the
Commoners and of property. It is not for your service that
they should have that power, or that the bounds should be so
Without declaring my own opinion in the case, make this
your question; that a member sitting there shall not give
his heir an hereditary right to sit here.
Where the old Peers were called, if there was no limitation
in it, they could not sit otherwise than pro hac vice; but if a
limitation were in the writ, then they might sit according to
Colonel Terrill. I am of opinion that the old Lords sitting
there, were not hereditary. They were called by writ as we
are, and could not sit longer than Parliament lasted; but
this happened where a patent was made to a Peer, and the
heirs male, of his body. Therefore the lords that claimed,
had a right, and whether that right were taken from them I
shall spare to speak of it, till the debate come properly before
Sir George Booth. I shall be bold to second this question:
to consider of the persons before you consider of the powers;
for what is more natural.
Those Lords that have done you service shall be no Lords,
and those that have done you no service shall be Lords. This
is somewhat hard.
Colonel Mildmay. The debate of this was waved before, and
you resolved to consider the powers first, and then the persons.
Mr. Manley. I hope you are so well founded, as to your
own sitting here, that you want all the blemishes that former
Parliaments have had.
Let us go on clear grounds, that every man's judgment and
conscience may be satisfied. We find another House, and if
his Highness had not called them, he had not done his duty.
Unless you bring them to be a House of Peers, I see no
power you have given that is affirmative, but only negative.
I would have you first assert their powers. I find them
not in the Petition and Advice. The debate has admitted
a right in this House to determine the powers. To follow
the tract of the law will lead you into many inconveniences.
The Petition and Advice is not large enough for you to
Mr. Turner. I know no way to proceed in this, than
as you did concerning the single person. The same must
I say now.
If it be upon old Peers, then I question whether it be
proper for you to bound them. If upon a new House, then
it is proper to bound them.
But declare first, whether you are upon a constitution
or a restitution. I doubt your vote looks back as well
as forward. The word, be, goes a great way.
Sir Richard Temple. I would neither look at one House
nor another; but would have it the matter of your debate
what these persons shall be, under such bounds and limitations as you shall agree them; what the persons shall be
that this House shall consist of, under such bounds, &c.,
as this House shall agree.
Colonel Cox. I have been always jealous of this other
House. It was, first, in the last Parliament, that the Protector should nominate, and we approve; but the approbation
slipped out, I know not how; which hath since made me
think of the tale in Æsop of the Fox, who desired only
to get in his head, and he would after bring in his body.
I am very well satisfied that there should be another
House; but not with your question, that the persons should
first be considered.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. If you would have us all of
one mind, your question must be as clear as may be. The first
question ought to be, whether there be a right or no; for,
where there is a right (in all the actions of a man's life), there
is a duty; and then matter of convenience or inconvenience
is out of doors. Two rights are offered to be in being; one
of the old Lords, the other of the other House, or new
Lords, who have already a vast power in their hands, and
dangerous to the people. Some tell you the right of one
House, some of another. I offer it to you that it is not
fit, and if it may not be dangerous to prejudge or preclude
either of their rights before you agree to the persons. If
there be a right, then all their boundaries must be offered to
them, whether they will pass them or not; and I have
seldom found men in power to part with it upon easy terms.
It is therefore necessary to be cleared, how far we are
to deliberate and restrain them in this point.
Seeing great rights are claimed on both sides, let me
be satisfied in that point, first, before I can give my vote.
The consideration of the persons is most natural.
One while it is argued for right, pro and con, and persons
differ; and then they fly off to conveniency.
Matter of right and of conveniency are two different
things. Therefore, now take into consideration these two
claims. Consider first, whether the old Lords or new Lords
have a right or no, and then go on to bound them.
Colonel Birch. I was loth to interrupt any worthy gentleman, though I might have done it. They speak against
your order; that you should first consider of the bounds.
I am still of the same mind, that you must proceed
upon the bounds. The matter of right will come in upon
I desire you to keep to your order; and lay it, whether
those that sit in the other House, shall sit there by an
The question was a question propounded upon hereditary.
Mr. Swinfen. I shall speak to your question. Scarce
any gentleman has spoken ad idem; because something is to
be cleared first. The same reason that led you before must
lead you now. There are two Houses in debate. It is,
therefore, necessary to have a previous question, whether the
Peers be excluded.
Those that da debate for old Lords, must say, hereditary;
those that are for the other House, must say it is not.
This must be cleared, else we cannot freely vote. I am for
the old Peerage, and they were as hereditary.
I would have your question to be upon, who shall be
members of the other House, and adjourn this debate,
because it is late.
Mr. Godfrey. I hope, without expense of time, you may
come to a question. I find the same difficulty upon you now
as was the other day, when you debated about the two Houses.
On one side the old peers, on the other, the other House, by
the Petition and Advice.
Here are two rocks,
1. The asserting the ancient Peers.
2. The asserting of the other House.
You then found out a prudential way to avoid both those
rocks, by neither excluding the one, nor asserting the other;
and your vote seemed to satisfy the sense of the House.
I see the same tenderness now, by a side vote, to exclude
the right of the old Peers, or assert the new, by the Petition
and Advice. You may word your question, to be the
subject of your debate, that it be a part of this bill to debate the persons sitting in the other House of Parliament,
to have an hereditary interest and right to sit and vote. By
this you neither exclude the right of any, nor assert the right
of any Parliament.
Mr. Goodrick. I hope, before you make your hedges,
you will set your stakes; that you will first declare whether
the old Peers have a right to sit there that have not forfeited
Mr. Speaker propounded that question, whether the ancient
Peers that have not forfeited, have right to sit in the other
Sir Walter Earle. We are all bound to maintain their
rights. If you lay that aside, you lay aside their inheritance. You bring them into a worse condition than the
poorest cottager in England, if you take away what is
their inheritance. That is your proper question. I question
the validity of that vote that called them useless. (fn. 20)
Mr. Gott. They found the unsuitableness and inconveniency of a Commonwealth with the constitution of the
people. Then they came to a single person and a Commonwealth; but neither of these were unius seculi. The ancient
constitution we are again come to; a single person and two
Houses of Parliament.
I do desire not to declare the persons now sitting in the
other House, nor exclude the old Peers. Leave yourselves
at large. A many great men are in the other House. I
would have some nobles. Our writ is to consult with great
men and nobles. There are some that have a good sword.
I would have some there that have a good purse; and both
together will make a good balance. Nature and necessity
oblige us to determine upon the persons; what persons the
other House shall consist of.
The question was propounded according to that motion.
Mr. Trevor. I am satisfied that the other question is not
clear. I am not bound to put such a question. When in my
conscience I am satisfied about the right, but not satisfied
about the practice, the consequence will go very far against
safety. I doubt if you let in that, that it will not be practicable.
If you please, adjourn the debate till Thursday.
Captain Hatsell. I am not ashamed to say, I am afraid,
when I am afraid. If you let in this question, the consequence
will be very dangerous. What hath the son of Lord Goring (fn. 21)
or Lord Capel (fn. 22) done, to forfeit their right. If you admit a
right, there is no keeping them out.
Mr. Knightley. If we be under a force, let us adjourn
ourselves, and sit no longer. Here is plain threatening.
Mr. Turner. This is a plain threat. I am not afraid to
do right. Let us go plainly to it. If it be their right, let
us not be ashamed to give it them. I have no fear upon me
Mr. Jones. I move to put the question as to the right of
the ancient Lords.
Mr. Disbrowe. I move to adjourn. I am not free to give
my vote upon this question of right, at present.
It seems the other party were at a loss, and prayed to adjourn the debate, and it was adjourned accordingly.
The House rose at one.
Afternoon at three.
The business of Mr. Streete and City of Worcester (fn. 23) was
taken into debate.
Mr. Finch (fn. 24) was counsel for Mr. Streete, and Mr. Latham
for Worcester. Mr. Streete and Mr. Finch sat together at
The petitions, on both sides, were read. The charge was
for delinquency and common swearing. A great many persons were present.
Asserit A, negat. B, point blank contrary.
Serjeant Waller in the chair, demanded whether they would
proceed upon the election, or against the person first.
Mr. Latham. We will proceed against the person first,
and that, inasmuch as he was a member. We expect we shall
prove it well. If he had only lived in the garrison, it had not
been enough; but we shall prove him in arms, and if my in
structions fail not, it is as pregnant proof as ever came before
Mr. Smith. I know Mr. Streete. When the city Was a
garrison, I have seen him, ride with gentlemen, well mounted,
with pistols and holster. This was in 45, when the garrison
was for the King. I believe those gentlemen were of the
King's party. I have seen him ride so, alone, to and out of
the town. I never saw him walk or talk with any persons
but those that were, and are disaffected. I think it was Sir
William Russel (fn. 25) he was in company of.
Mr. Finch. Under what captain was you listed, and
He said he could not remember.
Do you not contribute to prosecute against Mr. Streete ?
He answered, We are all as one man, but confessed upon
the matter, he doth bear part of the charge.
Mr. Knightley. Was this information ever given to Committees, or Major-generals, either upon decimation or sequestration?
Answer. I was never called nor moved to complain, nor
ever did complain. I never heard of any complaint. If he
had sate still, I believe he had never heard of it, but he was
puffed up with ambition.
Mr. Finch. Were the horse and arms his own?
Answer. He was able to have such a horse his own.
Did he do any duty as other of the King's soldiers did ?
What number were there that he rid out with ?
Were any quarters allotted him?
Whether rid they rank and file?
Of what age was he when he rid with this company?
Answer. Much about twenty.
Mr. Latham. If he was but sixteen, it is enough to bring
him under compass of sequestration: malitia supplebit
Mr. Finch. Did you not yourself ride, and in arms, with
Mr. Latham. It is not fit that he accuse himself.
Mr. Finch moved contra, that it was proper; for birds of a
feather might know more.
Mr. Finch released the question.
Witness saw him but twice in all, once in company, and
John Butler. In the time of the King's garrison, I have
seen him several times come on a good horse into the city,
from his own house, with pistols, holsters, and sword. I was
a prisoner. Several times, when the trumpet has sounded, I
have seen him amongst their company in the street. I cannot
justly remember time.
Thomas Eaton. I have seen Mr. Streete three miles from
Worcester, in the month of June, about the middle of the
war, before the great battle between Waller and Ashby. (fn. 26)
There was a great sickness at the time. On a Lord's day, I
saw Mr. Streete come to church as other officers did, with a
sword. It trailed on the ground. Sir Gilbert Gerrard was
governor. I have heard he had a house very near there. He
and his sister were there. No soldiers were there at that time.
John Harthfoorth. When Worcester was a garrison for
the King, my master sent me to the wall to clear my musket.
Mr. Streete, with several gentlemen, some of the King's
officers, coming by, he said, he would see this soldier let off
his musket. He threatened me, till I let off the musket.
I have several times seen him wear either sword, or rapier,
most commonly. I cannot say he had then a rapier or
Mr. Collins (a member) was produced to prove Mr.
Streete was taken a prisoner by the Parliament, and exchanged for another prisoner.
It was moved that they might withdraw, but offered that
the Colonel ought to be present to take examination. It was
fit all should hear that they may know how to answer.
Mr. Collins. In May, 46, we were commanded to march
under Colonel Morgan and Colonel Birch to Ombersley with
all the forces in Worcester. In our way we met Mr. Streete,
and other persons of the King's army, and took him prisoner.
He was exchanged for a kinsman of mine. We could not
have him released for two soldiers, but as soon as ever Mr.
Streete was taken, on their own accord, they sent to exchange
him, and my kinsman was released, and he released.
Mr. Finch being asked, if he did accept of the exchange,
answered, he did not accept of the exchange, and insisted still
he was not in arms. Mr. Collins was a Committee man, yet
did never prosecute against him.
Mr. Streete. I was a prisoner under Colonel Morgan, but
I could never accept of the exchange, for I always insisted
upon my innocency; I have testimonials under the officer's
Mr. Latham offered now to prove, that he kept company
with cavaliers; but that was taken off presently as a thing
not material. The counsel said they only offered that as
a circumstance. It may be all the town was disaffected.
Richard Duce. In September, 57, I heard Mr. Streete
swear, twice or thrice, by God, at his own house, without any
provocation at all. I came to demand money of him for
highway, as being overseer.
Thomas Duce, a minister. About December or November last, I heard him oftimes reiterate, by his faith and
by his troth. There were by, Mr. Moore and his son.
Mr. Simon Moore, a minister. (fn. 27) Some civil carriage has
been between Mr. Streete and me. Mr. Streete came to
give me a visit, where, in civil discourse, it was ordinary
with him to swear by his faith and by his troth.
I heard that Mr. Streete had a mind to stand. Some
Christians intreated me to interpose with Mr. Streete to prevent it. I denied it, but being prevailed with, I sent to a
special friend of Mr. Streete's to acquaint him that we wished
he would not stand. I said, I fear he will do himself
more harm than good. I heard one say he had been in
arms. The man that first accused him was an honest godly
man, Richard Hodgkins.
This Hodgkins told him all that I had said. That night
Mr. Streete came to my house to give me thanks, as he said,
for my civility. He told me he had never been in arms.
Then he swore by his Maker that he would sue and undo
that man that should give evidence against him.
Then he said he would steer by Mr. Collins's directions.
He was in the next room, and I said it is well, you may
meet; but as soon as he heard Mr. Collins was there, he
went away in an anger and would not hear him.
Mr. Moore gave an account of himself, that he had been
faithful from the beginning. He never prosecuted against
him for swearing. That is an ill way for a minister to take.
He has reproved him, and did not consent to his being chosen.
He bears no part of the charge to prosecute.
Mr. Richard Moore. I have heard him often, since
October last, usually swear by his faith and troth.
Mr. Latham. Though the law take off the punishment
in point of time, yet I hope it will not take off the crime
I shall offer nought at present to the election, but only rest
it here for the present.
1. As to his delinquency.
2. As to his swearing.
Mr. Finch. This gentleman stands impeached of the
highest crime that can be brought against any man in
The evidence ought to be very clear. We shall not need
to support ourselves by the weakness of their evidence. Yet
we shall not forgive it them.
I do not call Smith to an account for want of circumstance
as to listing and quartering; but as to the time of 45, and
Sir William Russel, I shall except his going to church
with a long sword with his sister. I hope that will not stick
When a man comes to demand a petty tax, I leave it to
your discretion whether a lawyer and discreet person will
swear himself out of double the tax.
If the words were at length, "By my faith and troth," it
will amount no farther then bonâ fide, or in veritate. The
angriest interpretation will not do it.
If, for this, a member should be thrown out, for such a slip
of frailty, it would be an easy thing to draw many members
to such a slip. I shall leave that to your wisdom.
I shall only answer what sticks most: the evidence of a
member. He was called from the University, to manage the
estate left him by his father, to this place, where we find him
thus prosecuted. We grant he wore a sword, both in the
town and out of town, but never employed it against the Parliament.
Going once out of this city, he light upon, or was rather
light upon by some soldiers of the Parliament. He refused
the exchange, and was constrained to live there.
He that dwells in Mesech, (fn. 28) must keep company with such;
yet Mr. Moore was pleased sometimes to keep him company.
I shall reserve my examination, as to matter of law, till afterwards.
He was but fourteen years old when the war began. I
must crave Mr. Moore's pardon to reflect a little upon him,
to disable his testimony. He was born in October 25.
Mr. Thomas Streete. About the year 41 or 42, he went to
Oxford. He came from Oxford in 44, his father was dead
before. His father and mother made him executor. He left
Oxford, as I have been informed, because he would not take
up arms there. I have inquired of two hundred that never
heard he was a soldier.
Mr. Purdo. I never heard that ever he was in arms against
Mr. George Streete, his brother. I have seen money disposed of that my brother had given to the Parliament soldiers.
He procured me a horse and furnished me with arms the year
before the Scots came to Worcester, and said that he would
assist me. He said, he would not come nigh that party that
came to Worcester, and advised me not to come near them;
for, he said, all that came to them would be proceeded
against as traitors.
Another witness. I have known him from his cradle, and
never knew him, nor heard of him, that he was in arms. I have
been often in his company and never heard him swear an oath.
Mr. Moore preached Job 27 last verse, and declared that the
people should clap their hands and hiss at them. They were
gone out like the snuff of a candle. Another witness said the
same that the other said of the minister, clap your hands, &c.
Mr. Finch. Take notice of this only; that he was
always a person well affected to the present government. All
our witnesses have been in arms for the Parliament.
Mr. Moore, after a long pause, of his own accord, explained
that he did preach on that text.
I was inciting all persons to be faithful to their trust, else
God would cast them out; but I named not the Parliament.
There are some worthy persons in this assembly that heard
Richard Hodgkins. Mr. Streete sent me to Mr. Moore,
who said, if Mr. Streete stand, I wish I had known two days
since, before I was otherwise engaged. I would have engaged all my friends, but rather than be a hindrance to him,
I will be out of town that day.
Mr.—— (fn. 29) . Mr. Streete sent me to Captain Collins.
He said he would not appear against any townsman; but
would take his horse and go out of town rather than hinder
him, and for aught he understood, Captain Collins did well
approve of his standing.
Mr. Finch produced the certificates; but Mr. Latham excepted that the House would not take that for evidence which
would not be accepted in any court.
Mr. Finch. It is but a concurring testimony to what Captain Collins has said.
Mr. Latham. You will not accept of paper evidence
against that, viva voce.
Mr. Knightley. The evidence you take here must either
be viva voce, or upon record. I would not, for danger of the
precedent, accept of paper certificates.
Mr. Finch. I am content to wave it. A petition of three
hundred against a petition of thirty-five, so we have vox populi along with us.
The witnesses are angry, and partakers of the charge. I
hope the testimony of one godly person will not carry all with
you. We have offered you something to prove him to be an
After Mr. Streete's being at Oxford, he retires to a garrison
for safeguard of his estate.
A man then, (fn. 30) to save his sustenance and estate, may be
found in evil company, and not be guilty.
How could a man demean himself more innocently. He
joins his devotion with the ministers that were praying for
you; comes with a sword, and therefore must be an enemy.
We cannot fear that a member heard by his peers, shall
not be found innocent.
We cannot pray other than that we may be dismissed with
costs, if you would discourage such as inform without cause;
that it may not only be exemplary in our acquittal, but in
Mr. Latham. This gentleman hath not only done the part
of an advocate, but of an exquisite orator, (fn. 31) and, under his
pardon, a judge too, to direct you what to do.
I hope you will not discourage persons that complain to
you, for the advantage of the public.
We are before you, as the proper judges.
If they had matter, they would have laid aside their deviations. I submit it, if it be not as full a proof as can be.
True, by the Act of Oblivion, they are pardoned, but it is
your law in being that does disenable; viz. the Petition and
Advice, and an Act of the Long Parliament.
The proof is as full as can be expected, unless we should
rake amongst those that have been your enemies.
We have proved him several times in arms.
An exchange is not usually offered for an adversary, but
for such as they know to be a friend.
It is notoriously known that no man durst wear a sword in
a garrison, but such as was a friend. He was seventeen years
old at Edgehill fight, and twenty years, when at Worcester.
He might at that age have done as great an offence, and been
punished as highly as if double his age.
As to the discharging the musquet, if he had not been a
friend to the garrison, he durst not have said so to a soldier.
The fact is plainly proved, to make him incapable.
For that of swearing. It is proved by godly men he had
fair admonition volenti non fit injuria. He may blame himself.
The reflection upon the minister must needs be the height
of envy and malice, and does not abate his testimony. The
person for all the reflection may go home as clear as he came
The evidence being thus summed up on both sides. The
counsel, witnesses, and Mr. Streete withdrew.
Lieutenant-general Ludlow moved against what Mr. Onslow
had moved that it may be, of what Mr. Moore had said in his
sermon something might be true. This might have been
forborne; such a reflection was ill said before strangers.
Sir Walter Earle. I never saw such disorder at a Committee.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move that we proceed no further in this business, other than to report the matter of fact
to the House. I wish the Chairman to read his notes, and
any member to take his examination, and the state of the
case being agreed to, report it so to the House.
He undertook to state it, but mistook in many things.
Mr. Goodrick and Mr. Knightley, and other good friends
of Mr. Streete corrected him.
I came away at seven. Query—what became of the business? I suppose the Chairman will report the whole matter.
Mr. Bodurda moved for a Sub-Committee.