Friday, March 18, 1668–9.
I came late.
Mr. Chaloner was saying, that if Moses, the greatest lawgiver, had been to read upon this law, he might have gone to
Mount Sinai— (fn. 1) . He concluded that the members should
withdraw. Mr. Nathaniel Bacon had spoken before, and
Captain Baynes said he had spoken, but Mr. Speaker vindicated him, for he had not spoken.
Sir Thomas Stanley. As to the withdrawing, it is urged on
one side that on necessity they ought not to withdraw; others,
on a formality, that they should withdraw; so that formality
ought to give way to necessity.
He said a great deal in defence of the necessity of not withdrawing; and happened to say that the gentleman that
moved for their withdrawing, (fn. 2) was, he hoped, by this time
convinced of his ignorance.
Mr. Reynolds was moving to except against the last words.
Mr. Speaker took it out of his mouth, and prayed such
reflections might be spared, that beget heat.
Sir Thomas Stanley stood up to explain, but
Sir Arthur Haslerigge was content to wave it, and pressed
that they might withdraw, after they had been heard all
they could say. None ought to sit in this House but on
a legal foot. They had none; but till they were withdrawn
divers were not free to speak.
Lord Lambert. I always wished a firm union; but this is
not the way. That which sticks most with me is, that they
are not here on a foot of law. If it be the opinion of the
House, no doubt but they will, and must withdraw. The
argument runs thus: if you be not united to Scotland, you
cannot be united. (fn. 3) I understand not this; you are a Parliament on a clear foundation of law. They that did confirm
the Act of Union (fn. 4) were no Parliament. It was a rule that the
King could not be deceived in his grant. You confirm a patent, and if you confirm that which was no law, the confirmation is void. The Parliament know nought of that law.
They never knew aught of it but the title, and copies may
The distribution is such a formality, that if it be not in
this House, whosoever shall be thought fit to be brought
within these walls may be brought in. There is as much difficulty and danger in this, to leave it to the Chief Magistrate,
as may be. It utterly overthrows the privileges of this
Compare the two clauses in the Petition and Advice
together, whereby it appears, that that law intended another
distribution than is in the Act of Union.
Again, his Highness is to govern in all things, where the
Petition and Advice is silent, according to the law. I demand
of any man to show where, in the Petition and Advice, any
distribution is made.
If it was a Parliament that confirmed it, whether was it
well done. A copy was but at best brought in, and that by
a single person, (fn. 5) without any directions of this House.
I should be glad to hear it answered, that they have any
foot of law to sit upon. I fear that there has not been a free
election there, that the people have been least concerned
I appeal to themselves, upon principles of reason and
prudence, if their liberties be not as much concerned as ours,
for them to go out. If there be no law, there is no room for
prudence. You ought so to clear your foundations, that
other ages may say it was done by a free representation of the
three nations. It is the undoubted right of this nation, that
none sit here as members, but those that are called in ac
cording to the laws of this Commonwealth, and by the consent
of this House.
My motion is, that before the question pass, the members
for Scotland and Ireland withdraw.
Mr. Bulkley. I have not troubled you in this debate.
It has been a great and long debate.
Two questions are before you, both as to right, and to withdrawing. You are a Parliament of England, Scotland, and
Ireland. If I had understood that you had been only a Parliament for England, I should have been the first that would
have moved their withdrawing; but I find the case otherwise.
The sense of the House cannot be known, but by a vote.
In my opinion, the sense of the House is, that they shall not
withdraw. If they withdraw, they must withdraw to Edinburgh, till there be a reunion, and that cannot be done, till in
another way. I hear none say they are strangers, but as
Scotchmen. If they be strangers, let them withdraw.
There is but only an excrementitious part wanting, as hair,
or nails, or such a like formality. All the exception is
the want of the formality of distribution. That is fully
answered by the Long Robe.
There is much difference between no legal right, and
not a full legal right. I cannot say a clear legal right is
made out to you. Admit a defect be in formality, yet
eguitas sequitur legem, in my opinion, though it is said there
is no room for prudence, because there is no law. You may
dispense with it, as to the strictness of it. Packer's case (fn. 6)
was before the Committee of Privileges. If that had come
before you, as it was moved, then all that sit on that foot
of non-freedom or non-residency, must have withdrawn, while
that was in debate.
But they will say, it has been overruled in Parliament.
Have not they sat here by judgment of right ? An equitable
right is clear to them by the Agreement and the Union. You
had not then reduced half Scotland. It conduced more to
peace and conquest than your sword did; brought down your
highlands to your lowlands; and now you are able with
a small handful to maintain your ground. The Protector and
Council, by the power or practice they then had, I may say
their power, did carry on this union, in the intervals of Parliament, even to a distribution. I wish they had never done
things more blameable. This was confirmed by Parliament.
If there be any defect in the distribution, either here or in
Scotland, or that the. Court have more influence on petty
boroughs, you will think fit to redress it. Here is no mitltum
You have two nations in one continent. If you are united
you cannot so easily be conquered. If France and Spain
should unite, would not you be stronger to defend yourselves ? If you shake them off, will not France be glad to
unite with them, and restore them to their ancient privileges,
which were very great ? If you do de novo treat with them,
you must treat with them as a conquered nation. Will
not this look like betraying them? Never lose the reputation of the English nation, which has never been yet
They are a nation that have the greatest face of religion of
any Protestant nation in the world. I would not have any
take offence at it. If it be but called a form, I wish we were
arrived at that. It is a good sign that the power of godliness is also there. Where I see a profession; I leave God
to judge the heart. I was never there; but a gentleman told
me, not one church where the word of God is not taught, &c.
You are very insignificant without them. What could
England do, before you were united? When they were
a spear in your side, you could not stir any way but they
were in upon you. If you exclude them, you can have no
return this Parliament of members from thence. Your army
are in arrears. (fn. 7) You cannot lay taxes on them, without them.
All the burthen will lie upon England.
My motion is, that you would, by a declaration, supply
this defect. Your votes and declaration, give me leave to
tell you, are very significant.
Instead of their withdrawing, declare their right. Otherwise, five parts of six must withdraw upon any petition
brought in against a single person upon the account of nonresidency, (fn. 8) which I would fain have answered.
Sir Henry Vane. This gentleman's discourse about the
Union has called me up. I shall represent the true state of
that Union. Admitting the premises agreed by the whole
House, I shall deny the conclusion that it is right, convenient,
or possible to admit them to a right, either in law or fact, to
Those that you sent to treat, (fn. 9) had their great aim to settlement and peace, and to lay aside all animosities. The difference arose about imposing a king upon us. We conquered
them, and gave them the fruit of our conquest in making
them free denizens with us.
He read the declaratory part, and acknowledged that to be
the Union, and stated the progress of it.
It is the interest of this nation to own and countenance that
union. None of my arguments shall weaken it. The Ordinance for Union (fn. 10) relates to this declaration. It was thus
brought back again by your members from Scotland; that
there should be one Parliament, by successive representatives.
This is your Union, and, when opened, none will deny it. To
the completing of this, accordingly, Commissioners attended
the Parliament. We agreed then, the number to be thirtyfive to represent Scotland. The Parliament accepted the result from ours and their Commissioners. A bill was prepared (fn. 11)
to pass, if that Parliament had not been broken up. In that
respect, the public faith of the nation was much concerned to
promote it. He that will deny it, departs from the very
cause we have managed.
It is to be confessed, the Union was perfected in the time of
last Parliament. It only wanted the last hand, which should
have changed the constitution of Parliament. There was no
foundation in law in the Long Parliament to receive them
from Scotland or Ireland, till we had settled our own constitution. The Committees that came from Scotland did not sit
here, but only treated with your Committee.
You must vary your own constitution as well to make you
fit to receive them, as for them to come, and therefore I moved
that the writs be read. It was the true meaning of the Petition and Advice to distribute it so, by reducing their own
number, to give place for Scotland and Ireland: This the
Long Parliament were about to do, to reduce themselves
from five hundred to four hundred. (fn. 12) This was not done, that
Parliament. I told you the reason. But this was done by
the providence of God, by the Instrument of Government, a
new constitution, which reduced our own constitution suitable
to that for Scotland and Ireland, and accordingly the Parliaments in 54 and 56 sat. This was reserved to be done by the
Petition and Advice; but prevented also by the providence
of God. It was left to no person to declare it but singly, as
that Parliament should declare. That was left unperfected. (fn. 13)
It is one thing for us to be united and incorporated;
another thing to be equally represented in. Parliament by a
right constitution. There is a great difference. As soon as
you are a representative of that Commonwealth, then must
the thirty be called and not before.
There being a failure in the Petition and Advice, as to the
distribution, they were fain to have recourse to the commonlaw and the old statutes. There being no Act of Parliament
for another distribution, they were forced to call you as we
left it in 1648.
Now the single question is, whether, by the Act of Union,
any right was created to any one shire or borough of Scotland. If they send them, you cannot receive them, without
overturning your own foundation.
You being thus called, upon the old bottom, when no law
was afoot to call Scotland or Ireland, your Commission is
clear. Otherwise, they were brought hither upon you, that
if you will see it, you may; if you will not, you may let it
I think you are bound in duty and conscience to perfect
this Union, both as to the distribution, and all other defects.
I assert two things, which I would gladly have answered.
1. That those gentlemen that are chosen from those shires
or boroughs, have no right to sit as members of the representative of England, either by statute, common-law, or agreement.
2. That there is no possibility of receiving them, till you
agree, by Act of Parliament, on the distribution, and other
things. To say the Chief Magistrate may do it, is expressly
against the Petition and Advice. He cannot do it, it being
neither in law, state, nor in the Commission.
Durham had as much a possessory right: (fn. 14) why was not his
oath broken as well in that as in this ? Haply he knew more
what the people of Durham would say, when it was applied to.
Honestly and uprightly make it your first business to settle your own constitution. It is said, you go slowly on.
Whose is the fault ? If no new commission had been sent
out, you might have gone on to have done a great deal of
good. This is an imposing upon you.
I would have this to be your first business. To lay foundations. Obstructions in the fountain are dangerous; that
body cannot live. There is no remedy, but to do that by
law, which cannot possibly be done without it. The single
person may as well send one hundred as thirty, and all for
one place, and so rule your debates as he pleases. This is
the highest breach that can be. Where are you, or posterity,
upon the account of prudence ? You see how the state of
your affairs is abroad: how the Swede is, since your mighty
debate. France and Spain are very likely speedily to agree. (fn. 15)
It is an ill time for any man to assume to rule without a Parliament. In this juncture of time, I believe the
Protector does not know the state of this business. If any
counsel him to the contrary, it will fall heavy upon them. I
hope you will not call it an excrementitious formality: (fn. 16) that
is the very essence and being of your privilege.
Put the question, whether they have by law a right to sit,
and that they may withdraw. If they do not, it is against
the law of nature and nations to deny it. If they have no
right by law to sit, none will insist upon it that they ought to
Mr. Solicitor-general. To ground aught upon what the
Long Parliament did, none will insist, as any foundation.
It was not perfect. That was indeed a ground for an union,
which I must call an Act of Union. By that, thirty were to
come and sit in every successive Parliament.
A great objection is, that there is no legal distribution. I
lay no stress upon that. The Petition and Advice is affirmed,
and does neither add nor diminish from the precedent law,
unless there were negative words. Nought so clear; for
if it alter it for Scotland, it alters it also for England.
I think it goes to neither.
A second objection is, that by common-law or state law, you
cannot. I expected much in this objection, but find it not.
The writ for England is the same as has been since
Henry IV.'s time. 7th Henry IV. there was a complaint that
knights of the shire were not duly chosen. Therefore,
that Jaw was made to remedy that inconveniency. Before
31 Edward II. there were no such words as secundum formam
statutorum. But as to the power of consulting.
Another objection is, why do you not send to Durham ?
The Act of Union is confirmed for Scotland; but the
Instrument of Government, as to Durham, is not confirmed.
I must deny that none can sit here without consent of this
House. I never heard it disputed by any, but the King
might send a writ to any borough. More sit here upon that
new erection, since Richard I.'s time, than those that sit
for Scotland and Ireland. Examine if Sir Henry Vane sit
not for such a borough. (fn. 17)
Calais sent, I know no Act of Parliament for it, 1 Edward VI., and in Queen Mary's time. I have the writs and
indentures here. Calais was lost after that time. (fn. 18) The same
writ went for Wales that did for England. There was no
new writ. No more needs for Scotland.
I think it is clear, thirty ought to be sent, and thirty to sit,
only different in the distribution. Will any judges say this
is a void law for want of a distribution ?
Several points I could urge. The law must not be made
We have admitted the distribution for two Parliaments,
de facto and justly. It were hard to turn them out. Quod
omnes tangit, ab omnibus debet approbare. You will tax
them, and yet not take in their consent. It is more just
for us to let them sit, till there be a law, than to put them out,
till that formality be perfected. That is the only question
before you. I cannot advise it to be well for you. The
Petition and Advice knows not how it can be a Parliament of
England, Scotland, and Ireland, if you have no Scotch and
Irish here. If you turn them out, you can make no law
to make them sit here. You break the union, and then must
you come to a new union.
It was never yet said that they were a conquered nation.
If they were so, it is not just to break your treaty with
them. You promised it to them, to take them into your
bosoms and make them one with you. The Romans never
did well till they did so. Because the Kings of France and
Spain are like to agree, and Sweden in an ill condition, I understand not why we should now break. It is more for bur
interest now to unite than ever.
Had you ever peace with Wales till you incorporated ?
Have you had it ever broken since ?
I wish Scotland may have benefit by this union.
The question will be now, whether you will turn them out,
not for admitting them, for they are admitted. The debate
was brought in against the orders of the House; but I shall
not now dispute of that.
Put the question, not upon their right. You have called
thirty. You have made a building, haply three stories high,
but the house is not well divided. Will you, for want of division, pull down the whole building ?
As to the argument, that the Act of Union is no good law;
this argument makes way for Charles Stuart. (fn. 19) Your judges
have judged upon it. This argument will confound all that
has been done.
Before 2 Henry V. Acts of Parliament were not thrice
read, but it went by way of petition. The King then took
what part he pleased. Then comes that law, and says the
King shall take all or none. When a law is on your rolls,
can any man except against it for a formality ?
He concluded that they might continue to sit.
Mr. Trevor moved to adjourn for an hour; and the House
and the debate was adjourned accordingly, at twelve, till two.
Afternoon, at half-past Three.
Serjeant Wylde stood up to speak. Some moved that he
had spoken, but leave was asked for him to speak, de bene esse,
till the House was full.
He mumbled on, and cited a great many cases, why they
Mr. Grove. I move much at his wisdom to cite so many
precedents for a case that never was heard of before. I doubt
the chair did not hear him. Otherwise, you would have been
careful of your time.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. He said what was very material. I move, therefore, that he be heard out.
Mr. Trevor. He is heard as amicus curiœ. I hope he will
consider your time accordingly.
Serjeant Wylde went on, and concluded that they ought to
withdraw. It seems, in the time of the Long Parliament, he
was always left speaking, and members went to dinner, and
found him speaking when they came again.
Mr. Drake. The point of withdrawing is a matter of
greater consequence than to be decided upon a bare motion,
on account of modesty. (fn. 20) It is not personal, but national. It
is hard for them to withdraw. It will be a dangerous case to
us. We stand in our own right, if we reject the Union; and
coming to Parliament is the greatest ratification that may be.
I move to wave the question of withdrawing. I know not
how it comes in. They are to plead for a nation. I move
that they neither withdraw from this House, nor from the
You see, by Sir Henry Vane, (fn. 21) what was the ground of the
Union; a foundation for a Commonwealth. I hope you will
consider it well.
Mr. Lockyer. I will not dip into the debate as to the
merit, but only to acquaint you with my thoughts, as that you
have arraigned the Scotch nation.
It was cried, he spoke, and Mr. Speaker would have taken
Dr. Clarges. He spoke to the Scotch and Irish together,
but never spoke since the question was divided.
Mr. Bodurda. One question gigs Out another. We shall
Sir Henry Vane. I move that he, or any that served for
that nation, may speak as often as he will.
Mr. Disbrowe. We all sit for the three nations. I pray,
not to be taken as a party: Till your sense be known in your
vote, I wish such expressions might be spared. I have not
yet spoke to the matter.
Mr. Lockyer. I intended not to speak one syllable to the
merit, only to withdrawing. We are in by a possessory
Colonel Birch said, this point of withdrawing has been
lapped up in the debate all along. Your debate will never
end, at this rate.
Mr. Annesley. I have not troubled you at all in this debate; though it has cost you a great deal of time, and the
sending away two Speakers.
Mr. Lockyer went on again, and concluded to put the
question for withdrawing. He will give his affirmative or
Mr. Lockyer, the younger. I grant that those ought
not to sit within these doors who have no right; but I will
invert the proposition. If they have a right, then they
ought to sit, which is dear they have. Their right is so
clear, that nought can be clearer. I shall so far vindicate
my modesty, as to declare that I am not free to withdraw.
The mutual contract between the nations was, that they
might have part of the legislature with you.
Mr. Trevor took him down, and said, that gentleman had
spoke to the merit of the business.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. I grant one ought not to
speak; but where a gentleman is concerned he may speak.
Sir Henry Vane seconded it.
Mr. Lockyer, the younger. I have taken an oath, that ties
me up. Any thirty members serve as much for that nation
as they do.
He did the debate a great deal of harm.
Mr. Disbrowe launched into the merit. The chair ought to
take notice of it. I would thank you an hundred times if
you would tell me of it.
Colonel White. I move that he be heard out, in regard
the question is now, whether he be a member of Parliament
Mr. Speaker was going to put the question upon withdrawing.
Colonel Terrill moved, that they withdraw before the
question is put, now you are at a non ultra.
Mr. Higgons. You may debate it to this time twelve
months, and still must it come to a vote; for how can you
know it, till the sense of the House be discovered in a vote ?
Sir Henry Vane. That is the way to make them judges
in their own case. It is to declare that they ought to be
Colonel Birch. I move that all members be called out of
Mr. Ross. Call your members for England out of the
Chambers. I hope there is no need of calling any of the
members for Scotland. I believe none of them had the ingenuity to withdraw. (fn. 22)
This caused altum risum.
The question was going to be put.
Lord Swinton said, he would not have spoke if he could
have held his tongue. He had been withdrawn these two or
three days from the debate.
He made a long narrative of the original transacting of
the Union; observed, that a difference was made between
making men citizens and. giving them suffrages; and said
something of assisting Charles Stuart.
By the Declaration, a right of suffrage is given to that
nation. It was their intention, as soon as ever they could
make it practicable. The Parliament of England surely intended to make it good. The Ordinance and Act of Union
did it. The power then in being held it out. We were not
bound to observe the law. of England, but the law of nations. The Protector and his Council was then the power in
being. Shall a foreign nation require that, when they
transact with you ?
I am fully satisfied, in my own conscience, that the Parliament of England intended an Union, and intended to make it
good, and that they are bona fide to make it practicable.
I understand not that ever the law of England was the law
of Scotland, so that our distribution should be ruled by the
law of England. Therefore, the rule must be, the transactions between the nations; the public faith of the nation
There is a great difference between the proportions that
they had before, and what they have now; yet this is the proportion they are content with. There is no complaint
The best way to save the nation of England is to keep your
faith. I would have your question to be, that they have
a right, and that they ought to continue. As for withdrawing, I hope it is not expected.
If you should be about to distribute an assessment upon
a county or a nation, must all the members that serve for
that county or nation withdraw ? If any argument prevail
with me, it shall because you desire it; and, it may be,
when the question is put, I may be in the next room.
Mr. Neville. I intended not to have troubled you in this
The manner of this Union has been fully related to you. I
was at the drawing of that declaration. The Union of that
nation was then calculated for a Commonwealth, and not for
a Monarchy. England was then, by the blessing of God, governed by its own representatives. (fn. 23)
I conceive you are not bound by that Union, and you, first,
ought to consider what constitution you will be at. You
invited them to the same constitution with yourselves, and
they received it.
As to the point of right. If they had right, and if writs
had not been sent, they might have demanded it at your
doors. Yet, if Edinburgh had come and demanded that
right, you would not have granted it.
It is agreed, on all hands, that the Chief Magistrate cannot
send writs to choose knights. Writs he may send to boroughs,
but must first grant a patent to make them boroughs.
As to prudence. It is dangerous, at this time of day, to
endow the Chief Magistrate with such a power to issue out
writs to what place he pleases, to send whom they please,
when you know not how you will bound him and limit him.
It cannot be prejudicial to that nation not to send members. It is much charge to them. They have a law which
cannot be applicable to our laws. They must not have Englishmen imposed upon them by letters (fn. 24) to enslave them and
us too. None can be chosen there (fn. 25) but of their own sheriffdom. It is absolutely to enslave and reduce them to a province. You are not ripe at this time to admit them; and
though I differ from that gentleman in the means, I shall
agree with him in the end, that the question be, whether, as
things now stand, they have a legal right to sit here ?
Colonel White stood up to speak.
Mr. Speaker took him down, for that he had spoken.
Sir James Harrington stood up to speak to their withdrawing.
Mr. Speaker and Mr. Poole took him down, so that he
concluded his motion, that they withdraw.
Mr. Manley. I shall speak to the main question. I hope
I have my liberty to speak, as well as another. I shall not
offer aught that has been said.
It is a fundamental law of this nation, that the Chief Magistrate may call whom he pleases to this Council, or to his
He cited the case of Malton, and offered a question, that
the members summoned by writ under the great seal, may be
admitted to sit in this present Parliament.
Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper. None have spoken to the legality of the Petition and Advice. It was demanded, but
had no positive answer. All that have spoken to it, have
fallen off, upon consequences. It was under force. If. a law
under force must bind, actum est de lege.
As to the Act of Union, it was well told you, it was for
another constitution that it was calculated.
They are persons very fit to be united to us; of the same
religion; the same continent. They have been faithful and
assisting to you. I am as much for the freedom of that nation
as any man; but he that wishes his son well, does not give him
his land till he come out of his guardian's hands. The case
of Wales is famous. Did you admit them to a legislature at
There are many complaints here, but not one from Scotland. I argue from thence, that they take no notice of the
Union. Make the Union so sure that you may be sure that
nation acquiesces in it.
I am as much for the Union as any man, and when they are
united, I would have them have as fair a legislature as may
be. They either come now on the account of their own interest, or upon the interest of the Chief Magistrate.
Put the question, if they have a right to sit.
Mr. Morrice. Union is a precious term, and Pliny tells
us, it came up from the sea, and was begotten from Heaven.
But as we must not make a burnt offering, so let us not
make a peace offering by robbery. (fn. 26) Let us not, in building
another's city, pull down our own. The Romans did never
give jus civitatis, but to those that were naturalized by a long
experienced union. I would have them naturalized. As
Paul said of Onesimus, that they may depart for a season that
we may receive them for ever. (fn. 27)
The question is not whether they shall be members, but
whether those now sent sit upon a legal foot. I can never
agree that to be law which is dissonant to reason. If we be
not judged, here, of reason, we sit here without reason.
One gentleman moved that there might not be one word of
law in the question. He well knew they had no law to sit.
Prudence becomes a judge, but prudence is not the law. By
that rule you will bring in all prudent men, if law be not the
judge. (fn. 28)
Examine by what number of men those were chosen.
When I see so many English faces, I suspect the natives do
not so much esteem this privilege.
I doubt you will hear, ere long, that this distribution is too
small. As one seeing a small army said, they were too many
to come as ambassadors, but too few as an army; so this number is too great for a conquered nation, and too small for an
Cæsar and Bibulus were consuls. (fn. 29) It will be like the
Athenian subsidies. They say it is but the Parliament of
England, Scotland, and Ireland, consisting of Englishmen.
It was the great policy of the Pope to include the western
and eastern patriarchs in his convention, who never saw it.
He only gave them the name of it.
Thirty of the senate at once did invade the purple robe. (fn. 30)
If you go about either manu forti or multitudine, to make
them one in your family, it will not be long till they turn
you out. It is fit they should withdraw, unless it can be
made out, either by the law of God, man, or nature, or nations, that a man ought to be judge in his own case. Cambyses once uncased a corrupt judge, and made a cushion of
his skin for his son to sit on. (fn. 31)
This House, which is a deity, make it not as an image.
The former work was the work of a carver, a great cast out.
This is the work of the plasterer.
Therefore, my motion is, that they be suspended while
the question is put.
Major Ashton. By the order of nature, the first question
debated ought to be put. That is to the right. This will
make the elder brother subscribe to the younger. If you
will do it, I desire to be heard.
He was taken down.
Sir Arthur Haslerigge. This gentleman, being concerned, (fn. 32)
ought to speak; but for any member to defend his not withdrawing, after he has been heard, I never knew it.
The question for withdrawing, was put in the affirmative.
Lieutenant-general Ludlow stood up, as was urged, before
the negative was put. He went on, and moved that this
question be put, and desired it might go in the affirmative.
He cited the case of Malton, where a burgess was denied audience in his own behalf. (fn. 33)
I did speak to the merit, but reserved myself to speak to
the point of withdrawing. There may be a force put upon a
House, as well by bringing in too many members, as by keeping them out.
Mr. Speaker stood up twice, and said, in his judgment, he
Sir Walter Earle. Let not your judgment be despised.
You have said he spoke, then why ought he to insist upon it ?
Serjeant Maynard. Any member ought to rest satisfied in
your opinion; else, there will be no end of debate.
The question was again put in the affirmative and negative.
Mr. Sadler stood up.
Mr. Speaker. I move that candles be called, if you sit it
Colonel Morley. While another speaks, you ought to sit
down, Mr. Speaker.
There was a great debate whether Mr. Sadler should be
heard. Some affirmed, he stood up between the negative and
the affirmative. Others affirmed, that he stood up, but sat
down again, with his hat on, before the negative was put.
Mr. Sadler. affirmed, that before the negative was put, he
did stand up, and say, Mr. Speaker. Then it was ruled, that
he ought to speak.
Serjeant Maynard moved for candles.
Sir Henry Vane moved for only two candles. (fn. 34)
The question being put, that candles be now brought in,
The House was divided. The Yeas went forth.
Yeas 187. Colonel Rossiter and Mr. Annesley, Tellers.
Noes 160. Mr. Brereton and Sir Arthur Haslerigge,
So it was resolved, that candles be now brought in.
The question being put, that the members returned for
Scotland do withdraw,
The House was divided. The Noes went forth.
Mr. Bulkeley and Mr. Grove, Tellers for the Noes.
Sir Henry Vane, and Lord Lambert, Tellers for the Yeas.
But the Noes being withdrawn, the question was yielded
by the Yeas.
So it passed with the negative.
Resolved, that this debate be adjourned till to-morrow
morning, and then proceeded in, and that nothing else do then