The Diary of Thomas Burton
5 April 1659

Sponsor

History of Parliament Trust

Publication

Author

John Towill Rutt (editor)

Year published

1828

Pages

Citation Show another format:

'The Diary of Thomas Burton: 5 April 1659', Diary of Thomas Burton esq, volume 4: March - April 1659 (1828), pp. 334-349. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=36948 Date accessed: 02 October 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Tuesday, April 5, 1659.

Prayers.

Mr. Annesley reported from the Committee appointed to go to his Highness, the Lord Protector, from this House, to communicate the vote of this House to him, for the payment of five hundred pounds to Mr. Vassall in part of his debt.

That the Committee did go unto his Highness from this House, and did communicate to him the said vote, accordingly; that his Highness's answer thereunto was, that what this House had ordered should be speedily done; and that his Highness immediately sent for one of the clerks of the signet, and gave him express order, forthwith, to prepare a Bill for his Highness's signature, to be passed under his Privy Seal, for the payment of five hundred pounds, forthwith, out of the receipt of the Exchequer, to Mr. Vassall, in part of his debt, accordingly.

The Declaration, ingrossed, for appointing the twelfth day of May next, to be set apart for a day of fasting and public humiliation, was this day read the third time.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. It is an impossible thing to take the other House into your legislature. It will make your laws disputable. You may give them what power you please, but a legislative authority you cannot give them. After-ages will tell us so. It is One thing to restore, another to create. The old Lords came in upon prescription. The other came in de novo. I am confident none of the Long Robe will deny this.

This way tends not to settlement. First, this should have been a Declaration, now it must be an Act. It does not please all abroad. I never knew any thing come in upon design, that did thrive here. I am not against transacting. Now you are upon the title, there wants in the Bill taking notice of the plague breaking out, which I hear is in Martin's Lane. (fn. 1)

We have not fully acknowledged his Highness's right. It will distaste the members of Scotland and the north of Ireland, who are on the same footing. It may haply be thought fit first to call an assembly of the three nations.

The speaking against the title, is against the whole Bill; for so, indeed, I would do. I had rather have it desired of his Highness, to set forth a proclamation, declaring the grounds. The last that was set out by the single person, did work very effectually. That was better kept for a long time, and did more good than this will do. It is so unfavourably penned, it will not please.

Opinions are not so rife, as eight or ten years ago. I hope they will every day be fewer. I except against that of decrying the light within them; and also that of the Chief Magistrate's care of the two tables.

It is said, this is to try them, the Lords' House, the other House, call them what you will. I would not have you try them with this. One reason of setting them up, was to prevent imposing upon consciences by the Commons. It is but a temporary law. It only is a law as it requires the minister to read it. It is but only as a trial. It will look more like imposing in expression, than you intend the Act. I appeal to every one that hears me, if this be for settlement. Will it not give a general distaste ? If they grant it not, then we transact no more with them. That is against our vote. If they grant it, they settle themselves. I hope they will never do it. It shows they are a check, as they were set up for.

I hope this House will not impose. A moderate Presbytery, will, I hope, not be disliked. Consider what a snake lies under this fair Declaration, to make a law for a fast, whereas, never was a law made for a fast; to yield up all by this Bill, before you have settled or bounded his Highness, or that other House. I pray to lay this wholly aside, and send some of your members to desire his Highness to put forth a proclamation for a fast on" the 18th of May next.

Mr. Stephens. I concur with this gentleman in part of his motion; but of his grounds, that which he excepts against, is an undoubted truth, viz. "setting, up the light in the hearts of sinful men as a guide of their actions, instead of the Scriptures." The Quakers deny the Scriptures to be the word of God, and say that Christ in them is their guide. (fn. 2)

Many Quakers are made Justices. There is one in my county that could lead out three or four hundred with him at any time. The Judges have complained, but could not get him out. I know not what hinders.

I was always against a rigid Presbytery. I would not have consciences imposed on, nor blasphemies and errors encouraged.

I do, indeed, except against the title going to the other House; It will but retard business. It will pass better from the knights, citizens, and burgesses, and his Highness, than to take in the other House, till you have agreed on the manner and sort of transaction, &c. It will not at all intrench upon their power. As to the length of time, the Declaration has a great way to get.

Colonel White. When you have passed this vote, you have done all that you have to do. In the Bill for Recognition you have promised to secure rights, liberties, and privileges. After this, there will be no salvo. I would have the Long Robe declare ingenuously with their brethren. When you have passed this, you leave the people to take what conditions the Chief Magistrate will give them. It is a full acknowledgment of him.

Lay this Bill aside, and take it up in due time after you have done right to the people and bounded your Chief Magistrate.

Mr. Annesley. I rise up to vindicate the Committee. You appointed them, not to bring in a Declaration of this House, but a Declaration of the Parliament. If the legislative be said to be in this House, it may be answered, by what law had ever this House alone a legislative power ?

It is not an Act. There is not an enacting word in it, only a Declaration. It is rightly moved, that you should not vary the title from the body of the Declaration. You can give it no other title than "of his Highness and of this Parliament." The particulars excepted against were spoken to.

As to that of transacting, I see not how you can now speak against it. It is already resolved, after fourteen days' debate about it, and carried by almost eighty votes. (fn. 3) I must say they are lords, being called by the old writ.

As to those matters of religion, there is nothing in it which any good Christian will deny.

Captain Baynes. I wish all were of one mind in matters of religion. Divers will not join with you in the fast Your brethren, in Scotland, probably, will not. Probably, if it come by way of desire, it will take better than by command; and it would come better if you should wave the other House in it.

I have had discourse with Quakers. I understand not that they deny scripture.

I am against transacting upon the Declaration. Let it go, alone, to his Highness; and, in the meantime, know whether your brethren in Scotland will join in it.

It would be better to lay it aside at present.

Mr. Jenkinson. I move to the orders of the House, to keep to one question. You have two or three before you.

Serjeant Wylde. We ought to be as careful in form, as in any thing: it has great authority. If I demur not to the jurisdiction of a court, I admit it. So does this pass it, by way of a conclusion or admittance, (as we say that have read the law,) to be a court. By this you will own them, as much as if you gave them a charter of manumission. You do it, actually, which is more than by Act of Parliament. A negative voice you give them, and what not.

I am not yet resolved to style them lords or princes, upon this new creation. I am against transacting.

Sir Henry Vane. If objections had been answered, I would not have spoken.

You admit a power both in them and the Chief Magistrate, which is yet but in you, and under a possessory right. You give them, by this, as much power as is in you to give. No bounds are given to this other House. You admit that office of Chief Magistrate. As much as in you lies, you leave the Chief Magistrate boundless. You admit the exercise of that power as fully as you can.

If the two of the three estates agree, they may act without you. Where you will be, if this pass now, prudent and wise men, they will consider. Thereby you put all out of your hands. It may very well be, that some gentlemen know there will be such condescending as that will answer all. We that know it not, must needs ponder these things. In every step you have yet gone, you give away all. Do something that may make you appear to be trustees indeed; and not in one moment give away all that you Have fought for.

I would have this laid aside for a while.

Mr. Swinfen. I think in the title, it must be expressed, "both Houses of Parliament." Otherwise, if it pass under the name of Lords, every time you will dispute what is meant by that word Parliament.

As to your going to his Highness alone, it is calling yourselves the Parliament, against your constitution. You have voted two Houses. It is fit you should transact in this with them. It is a law. As to bounding them, the same objection will lie against transacting with them, in bounding them, in regard you cannot bound them, without them.

To go to his Highness alone, is an imposing on his Highness, and against your constitution; and because it is agreeable to the body of the Declaration, I pray that this may be your title: "A Declaration of his Highness and both Houses of Parliament," &c.

Mr. Young. I would have the title agree with the body, and have it in the same words of Parliament, as Declarations and Acts have passed formerly, when three estates existed, nay, King, Lords Spiritual and Temporal.

I have had sad thoughts since I heard it, that this will exclude your bounding the Chief Magistrate. I was against transacting, and should be so again, if I had one hundred votes. I gave my affirmative for the word "Parliament," because I thought, if we must transact, we might as well transact upon this; but if all this be in it that it threatens, I desire my vote again, and shall not transact.

Mr. Attorney-general. I would have those that are so much for bounding, bring in a Bill for us to debate upon; and not be against all business in this manner.

Mr. Boscawen. I am as much for the body of the Declaration as any man. The title is not much, whether "two Houses of Parliament," "or Lords and Commons." You have given them a good boon, in voting to transact with them, and it is fit you should have something in lieu of it. I find a gentleman that was for, transacting does somewhat scruple this.

Sir Henry Vane. Put the question, whether the words "this Parliament" shall stand. For the question is, indeed, whether this present Parliament shall stand or fall.

This led into a debate, whether the question should be "both Houses of Parliament," or "present Parliament." The sense of the House inclined for preventing future debate; and, seeing it was stirred to have it, both "Houses of Parliament."

The question being put, that these words, "both Houses of Parliament," shall stand in the title

The House was divided.

Mr. Speaker declared for the Yeas.

Mr. Trevor declared for the Noes.

The Yeas went out.

Yeas 135. Mr. Trevor and Mr. Swinfen, Tellers.

Noes 96. Lord Falkland and Colonel White, Tellers.

Argyle and Swinton were withdrawn.

The main question was put for the title, in hæc verba, and twice read.

Resolved, that the title of the Declaration, be "A declaration of the Lord Protector and both Houses of Parliament, for a day of solemn fasting and humiliation, to be observed in all places, within the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, upon the 18th day of May, 1659."

The. title was written out in paper at the table, and twice read.

Resolved that this title be ingrossed.

The title was ingrossed upon the back-side of the first skin of the Declaration, at the table; and. after the ingrossment thereof, was read the third time.

Colonel Briscoe. I fear lest, after this pass, you cannot bound the other two estates.

Sir William Wheeler took him down, and said, he ought only to speak to the ingrossing the title.

Mr. Stephens. Gloucester gaol is very full. From danger of infection, and because the time of sending a commission of Oyer and Terminer is past, I would have a letter sent from this House to the justices, to deliver the gaol of as many as they may deliver by law.

Serjeant Wylde and Mr. Annesley seconded it.

Mr. Trevor and Mr. Attorney-general said, it was improperly moved, to interfere with a debate

Sir Arthur Haslerigge being in the gallery called, report; for those sitting there, hearing the. sound of a letter, thought it was meant to send that up by a letter. This caused altum risum.

Colonel Briscoe offered a proviso; that nothing was hereby intended to hinder this House from bounding the single person and the other House.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I move, though it was written in paper, yet the intention being good, that it be considered.

Mr. Chaloner sat next and hindered it.

The thing is good, but being written on the back-side of a letter, it is improper to affix it to the parchment.

I would know whether you will read the superscription.

This was a gross mistake in honest Colonel Briscoe. The Republicans would fain have retained it; but could not with any face, for the utter informality of it. Some cried, read it.

Mr. Henley was against the previous vote before it was read; therefore would not have it read. Altum risum.

Mr. Scot. I move against the Declaration itself. In it is complicated the whole quarrel, in point of imposition on conscience. There is a parenthesis, like writing the Lord's prayer on the breadth of a three-pence. (His speech was not so.)

I am glad that it is acknowledged that you will not transact with them if they deny this. It seems some think it yet in their power. I suppose they will not agree to it, because of the imposing clause.

Mr. Trevor moved to pass it and send it up.

Mr. Stephens I left speaking, and came to dinner at one.

When I came in again, I found the House divided upon a proviso to be ingrossed.

Colonel Terrill offered it, to the purpose that Colonel Briscoe had offered. (fn. 4) It was thrown out, by 123 to 73.

The tellers for the yeas were Mr. Morrice and Mr. Wallop; for the noes, Mr. Francis St. John and Mr. Darlington.

The question was going to be put to agree with this Declaration.

Mr. Grove moved it to be the question.

Mr. Speaker seemed to ask it.

Sir Henry Vane spoke against the Declaration, principally because of the clause touching toleration. (fn. 5) He spoke very high, as was usual; and said it was not so much sin in the Chief Magistrate to omit this, as for us to insert it.

You give away all at once, and may go home and say we have done for the single person's, and other's turns, and nothing for the people.

Mr. Jenkinson. That clause is the fly in the ointment. The assertion is disputable, and by holding out this you covenant with God never to do the like again, and to vindicate it, and punish all those that are against it. In the third paragraph of the twenty-third article of the Assembly of Divines you find this very clause. No text of the New Testament is there cited at all. If any thing could have been found, it would have passed. (fn. 6)

He launched out into a great debate about the power of the Chief Magistrate in religious matters.

The gospel holds forth another method, viz. excommunication and church censures. You put a great snare into the Chief Magistrate's hand. There is a time when a man rules to his own ruin. He may be surely fighting against God while he thinks he is doing his duty. I am unwilling to speak to reject it, but only to amend it.

He offered an addition, and "to publish those damnable doctrines."

Colonel Allured, while Sir Henry Vane was speaking, spoke to the orders of the House, that two gentlemen near him gave very uncivil words.

Mr. Hampden, who, it seems, was one, stood up and said a paper was offered him to deliver to another. He told him he could not command him. So the heat expired.

Mr. Gewen. We are careful of confessing too much. I doubt we confess too little. I would have the Bill pass as it is.

Colonel Allured offered a proviso to the same effect as was thrown out.

Mr. Speaker. I cannot take it, unless seconded.

Mr. Scot seconded it, and said it differed, inasmuch as the other said nothing of bounding the Chief Magistrate; and concluded, that he would denounce and renounce.

Mr. Speaker took these last words ill and said, they were a dishonour to a Parliament.

Mr. Bayles called him to explain.

Mr. Trevor. I would not raise heats, but I hope that gentleman has no privilege more than others to speak harder language than the House can bear. The intent of those provisos offered, is to put it in the power only of this one estate, to put what bounds they please upon the other two estates, without their consents. It is not ingenuous to offer such things by way of surprise. I would have things come in barefaced.

All or most of the republicans flocked out, either to dine, or not to be present at the question.

Mr.— (fn. 7) 1 move that this may not pass. It will re fleet on bis Highness that is gone, It will be against the minds of a whole nation, and many in this nation. It will not be honourable to pass it when such an inconsiderable number are in the House.

He was taken down.

Mr. Annesley moved that he might frame his language better.

Mr. Trevor moved the like, and not to call eight score an inconsiderable number.

Sir Walter Earle. I will not speak all my thoughts in this business. There are increasing endeavours of some to break us. I have known when a great seal has come to this House to adjourn it. They have laid it aside, and adjourned themselves. These words ought not to be used in Parliament.

Mr. Hobart. I looked on this declaration, when it first came in, as a message from heaven to reconcile us to God; but I found it rather a laying a yoke, than taking it off. The first day many tender souls abroad were for it, who are haply now praying against it. The second day you lost a whole nation. (fn. 8) It is sadly thought abroad that you will return back again to episcopacy. I will assure you it lies sadly on many men's hearts.

Query, how it lies on his own, known to be episcopal ?

Some of the Republicans came in again, but very few.

The question was put at half-an-hour after three: "That this House doth agree to this Declaration."

The House was divided. The yeas went out.

Yeas 94. Sir Thomas Barnardiston, and Mr. Fleetwood, Tellers.

Noes 34. Mr. Neville and Mr. Hobart, Tellers.

Mr. Godfrey. I move to adjourn till to-morrow, to consider in what manner you will carry this up.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I hear the old Speaker is well. I pray that he be sent for, to attend the chair in this great business.

Mr. Trevor. I wonder at this motion. You have deserved better from this house.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I am in a great strait. I hope I shall not be mistaken, if I tell you, you have done amiss.

He was taken down, and then went on.

I have heard, by report, that since you were Speaker you have been at court, which you ought not have done. You are the greatest man in England.

Sir Walter Earle and Major Beake took exception at the expression, and wished he might explain how the Speaker comes to be the greatest man in England; as we are all as one in this House, and moved to know if he charged it as a crime.

Sir Arthur Haslerigge. I charge it not as a crime, as to that of your being the greatest man in England. Next to the Speaker of the House of Lords, you always took place of all Peers. You represent all the Commons. I desire this may raise no Heat. Only make use of this. All the House ought to attend you, when you go.

Mr. Swinfen. That gentleman has been at dinner. Haply he has heard this report there. This is a baiting you with questions, which is not for the honour of this House, to cast reproach upon you by those questions. I would have you give no answer. I have never been at Court myself. I know not the Protector; but I know that you might go to Court, without breach of privilege.

Mr. Hewley. I move that he explain about that of your being the greatest man in the nation.

Mr. — (fn. 9) . I move that there be a vote thereon, justifying that you have discharged your duty with fidelity and integrity.

Sir Walter Earle. It has been usual for Speakers to go to Court. So long as there is no design in it, — (fn. 9) . In the Parliament of the 12 Caroli, a part of the members, about twelve, went up the back stairs, and told the King, if he would do so and so, they would undertake that the House would do well; but they were well checked, and called to the bar for it. (fn. 10)

Mr. Neville. I blush for that my grandfather was one of those. There were eighty of them; and it was to good purpose. They were men of the best estates. Sir John Widrington questioned them, but could fasten nothing on them, that they went to the Court.

Mr. Godfrey. It was a breach of privilege to bait you with those interrogations. I pray you, declare it a breach of privilege.

Mr. Neville laboured to excuse Sir Arthur Haslerigge, and said it was in anger.

He was mistaken, for the Speaker is in physic, and not fit yet for your service.

Colonel Cox. The honourable Lord (meaning Sir Arthur Haslerigge) said the Speaker was well. That gentleman says he is not. As it was a mistake, pass it by.

Mr. Starkey seconded him, to save heats.

Mr. Bodurda seconded Mr. Godfrey's mqtion; and, in an ironical way, said, "well moved."

Sir Henry Vane. First declare whether one may go to Court in that manner, without breach of privilege. You have, the notes of what men said, and of their names. He that went to Court formerly, made his opinion and advice less, always, in this House.

He laboured to justify or excuse what Sir Arthur Haslerigge had said.

Mr. Trevor. The motion for your removal, I can do no less than assert it a breach of privilege, and desire you would declare it so.

Some that spake against it, have received honours at Court, sitting a Parliament.

Mr. Bulkeley. To interrogate your Chair in that manner, is certainly a high breach of privilege, and you ought so to declare it.

The Speaker, in 54, was at Court oftener than once I fear those that go least to Court would be oftener there, if the gates were open. Strangeness breeds enmity. I came to bring Court and country together. When you have fully recognised his Highness, I hope you will send Committees to him, to create a better understanding.

I would have that worthy gentleman acknowledge a piece of rashness and indiscretion in him.

Mr. Bayles. It is not the first time that gentleman has caused laughter. I move that it he passed by, and go off with a laugh.

It seems that Sir Arthur Haslerigge had taken notice of his laughing.

Mr. Morrice. A little spark kindles a great fire. I would rather throw water upon it. Omne visible est.

Colonel Birch. It was a breach of privilege both in the one; (fn. 11) as also in that especially, of saying you were the greatest man in England. (fn. 12)

Sir Henry Vane. Sir Arthur Haslerigge said not that you were the best man in England; but said further, saving one; and would have gone on, if he had not been interrupted.

Mr. Speaker stood up to declare himself. Some cried yea, and some no; but the sense of the House was, that he should not speak, unless there were something charged.

Mr. Jenkinson moved the same; and so it fell asleep.

Mr. Neville. I move to take up the business of money to-morrow.

Mr. Swinfen. Vote that you desire the concurrence of the other House to this Declaration.

Sir Henry Vane. You are first to agree of the manner how you will transact.

Mr. Annesley. Appoint a Committee to consider of the manner of transacting, and to bring it in to-morrow.

Sir William Wheeler. I agree to that motion; but first vote to desire the concurrence of the other House.

The question was, "that this Declaration be carried up to the other House." Some said, underhand, "rather carry it down."

Mr. Trevor. I move not to bring it into question whether it be up-hill or down-hill; but to use the old phrase, "to desire the concurrence of the other House."

Mr. Neville. I move not to admit them at once; the other House, but the persons sitting in the other House.

Mr. Bethel. I move that the concurrence be desired of the other House, during this present Parliament. Altum risum.

Mr. Annesley. Of the Lords', because of the old Peers. Altum risum.

Mr. Scawen. That the other House be desired to agree with this Declaration.

Sir Robert Goodwin. Do nothing that justice may complain of, or reason repent: Do it regularly, and refer it all to a Committee.

Resolved, that the concurrence of the other House be desired to this Declaration.

Mr. Trevor. I know not to what purpose you appoint a Committee, to prepare your manner of transacting; unless it be to peruse the books, as to former precedents. They are a co-ordinate power with us; and if there have been formerly any difference, in point of ceremony, the inequality may be waved. I would have us all upon one footing as to that.

Mr. Godfrey. I know not what your Committee can do. Without directions no Committee will undertake it. I move to take this up to-morrow morning.

The debate was adjourned, till to-morrow morning, accordingly; and the House rose at five o'clock.

Resolved, that Mr. George Parker, one of the members of this House, have leave to go into the country for one month.

The Committee of Privileges sat, and heard three witnesses in Mr. Streete's business. (fn. 13) The business of Newcastle was called, and. counsel at the bar; but they were presently ordered to withdraw, and to attend on Thursday.

It was moved that the counsel on both sides, would agree of an issue, but they would not consent; so the Committee left them at large, to prepare on both sides, and to shorten the business against Thursday.

Footnotes

1 I have not found in the Diurnals any account of this alarm. The plague had frequently appeared during this century, prior to the awful visitation in 1665. (See vol. i. p. 412, note.) In 1603, there were buried in London 37,294, of whom had died of the plague 30,561. In 1625, the total of the burials is 51,758, of which 35,403 had died of the plague. In 1630, those who died of the plague, were 1317 out of 10,545 burials; and in 1636,10,400 out of 23,359. See "Natural and Political Observations, made upon the Bills of Mortality. By Captain John Graunt, F. R. S." (1665,) p. 173; Table. "June 1,1603, (1 Jac.) a person was whipped through the town, for going to court when his house was infected." Chron. Hist. (1747,) i. 94. On the visitation in 1625, Whitlock says:— "The plague still raged in London, so that in one week there died 5000 persons. It was also spread in many places in the country. In some families, both master and mistress, children and servants, were all swept away. For fear of infection, many persons who were to pay money, did first put it into a tub of water, and then it was taken forth by the party that was to receive it. "When the plague was somewhat assuaged, and there died in London but 2500 in a week, it, fell to Judge Whitlock to go to Westminster-Hall, to adjourn Michaelmas term from thence to Reading. Accordingly, he went from his house in Buckinghamshire, to Horton, near Colebrooke, and the next morning early to Hyde-Park-Corner, where he and his retinue dined on the ground, with such meat and drink as they brought in the coach with them. Afterwards, he drove fast through the streets, which were empty of people, and overgrown with grass, to Westminster-Hall; where the officers were ready, and the Judge and his company went straight to the King's Bench; adjourned the Court, returned to his coach and drove away, presently out of town." Memorials, (1732,) p. 2. "I was this year (1625,) sent by my father," says Mr. Evelyn, "to Lewes, in Sussex. The pestilence was so epidemical, that there dyed in London, 5000 a week; and I well remember the strict watches and examinations upon the ways, as we passed." Diary, (1827,) i. 7.
2 See Barclay's Apology. "On the Scriptures." Prop. iii.
3 See supra, p. 293.
4 "A proviso was tendered to be added to this Declaration, and was read by tbe gentleman that tendered it, as he stood up in his place; and afterwards brought up by him to the table, and there delivered; and was in these words. "Provided always, and this House doth declare, that it is not intended by this Declaration, that the House of Commons shall be hereby precluded or debarred, to add hereafter, such bounds and limitations, either to the single person or the other House, as may be required for the public safety and welfare of these nations." Journals.
5 See supra, p. 328, ad fin.
6 This speaker refers, I apprehend, to the following Sect. iii. in chapter xxiii. of the "Confession of Faith." "The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline, prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call Synods, to be present at them, and to provide for whatsoever is transacted in them, to be according to the mind of God." Instead of "no text of the New Testament" being "cited," the margin of the volume now before me has several, and a profusion from the Old Testament. See "The Confession of Faith, composed by the Reverend Assembly of Divines, at Westminster, presented to both Houses of Parliament, lately published, with the Scriptures at large, for the benefit of masters of families." 4to. p. 80.
7 Blank in the MS.
8 Scotland. See supra, p. 331, 332.
9 Blank in the MS.
10 I have not been able to discover to what transaction this speaker refers. There was no Parliament between 5 Caroli, 1629, and 16 Caroli, 1640.
11 The accusation.
12 See supra, p. 346.
13 See supra, p. 244.