But if any thing be spoken amiss, it must be questioned by the House, and in the House only, and that, presently, before any other debate intervene; yet not before such member hath fully concluded his speech; because, probably, what one shall speak in one part of a speech, he may either qualify or interpret, in another part.

But yet it was moved, for some men's securities, and to satisfy their jealousies and fears who received any umbrage from that Ordinance, that it might be declared by the House, that, notwithstanding that Ordinance, the House was free to debate the Government. But it was objected, that to question their freedom would be to lose it or to weaken it, and to question that which was never doubted, but attested by the known law and privilege of Parliament, and therefore, could not be strengthened by such a declaration as was desired. Which, if in truth any would offer to impeach, by violence from without, it could receive no sanctuary nor advantage at all from such a declaration. Therefore, after many hours' debate, that being put to the question, whether such a Declaration should be made by the House, it was carried in the negative by the major vote. The House being divided, above one hundred and eighty were for the negative, and about one hundred and thirty for the affirmative.*

That being settled, the House would have fallen upon putting the main point of the Government to the question, but that was overruled, in regard it had not received its full debate. Then it was pressed, that the debate might presently be entered into, but, in regard it was then three of the clock,† the House were of opinion to enter no further into the debate of it that day, but only so far as to possess the House, that so, when it should come on the next day, by adjournment, nothing might interpose to interrupt it. Which being agreed unto, and the question stated, naniely, whether the

* "Noes, 187. Colonel Fiennes and Lord President Lawrence, Tellers. Yeas, 130. Sir Arthur Haslerigge and Mr. Scot, Tellers." Journals. + See infra, p. 36, note.

Government by a single person and a Parliament, should be approved of, the House, for that day, adjourned.*

In the afternoon, at the Committee of Privileges, the case of the double election for Yarmouth was considered of; and the next day appointed them.

Thursday 7. This day, the House being met, it was propounded, that for the freer debate of the great question, stated the day before, the House might be turned iuto a Committee of the House, which was strongly opposed, and being put to the question, it was carried in the affirmative.+

Mr. Nathaniel Bacon had the chair, the House being resolved into a Grand Committee.

The debate of the main question was taken up and continued from eight or nine o'clock in the morning until about seven of the clock the same night, and adjourned over, until the

• "Some consideration," says Whitlock, (Sept. 6,) “was had in the House, touching the privilege of the Parliament in their freedom of debate. Then, the Lord Protector's speech to them was taken into consideration, and, amongst the particulars thereof, the foreign negociations were mentioned, and particularly that of Swedeland.

"Which caused me to make the following relation :

"After I had spoken, the House gave a general applause, and divers of them stood up and moved, that I might have the public thanks of the House, for the good service done, in this hazardous and important business.

"Then the Lord Broghill spake much in commendation of the treaty, and of the ambassador, and seconded the motion." Memorials, pp. 583— 587. See Parl. Hist. xx. 335-347.

This transaction is not mentioned in the Journals. In 1772 was published, in two volumes, quarto, "A Journal of the Swedish Ambassy, in the years MDCLIII. and MDCLIV. From the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Written by the Ambassador, the Lord Commissioner Whitelocke, with an Appendix of original papers."

+"Noes, 136. Sir Charles Wolseley and Mr. Strickland, Tellers. Yeas, 141. Serjeant Bradshaw and Colonel John Birch, Tellers. Journals.

"Many persons," says Ludlow, " of known virtue and integrity, were chosen to sit in this assembly, in particular the Lord President Bradshaw, Sir Arthur Haslerigge, Mr. Thomas Scot, Mr. Robert Wallop, and divers others." Memoirs, (1698,) ii. 498.

next morning. The Long Parliament, an Iron* Parliament, a Trading Parliament.

Much debate was about the word "approving" in the question, as if it were not Parliamentary, nor for the honour of the House, to approve of any thing which takes not its foundation and rise from themselves.

It was pressed, likewise, that there might be a transposition of some few words. Instead of "a single person and a Parliament," they would have" the Parliament" preferred, and the words stand, "that the Government should be in the Parliament of the people of England, &c.; and a single person, qualified with such instructions as the Parliament should think fit." Which last words were exceedingly pressed to be added; and plainly, the generality of voices and sense of the House seemed to incline that way.†

Friday 8. The House this morning, with great difficulty, adjourned itself into a Grand Committee, about the debate of the former question, Mr. Bacon being again called to the Chair. The arguments were high and hot; and plainly there was a receding from former principles on all hands.

Those who argued for the Parliament alone, and the freedom and privileges of Parliament, had been the greatest and highest infringers of the freedom and privileges of the Great and Long Parliament of any ;§ and those who argued highest for the single person, and the Parliament, were such, and almost only such, as had fought and aided the greatest things that ever were acted in this nation under the contrary principle; namely, under the power of the Parliament alone; and that not only when there was a king in being, and without his consent, but expressly contrary unto it.

But the differences seemed so wide, the contest so hot, and the struggling so violent on both sides, as there seemed

* "Epithets, probably, employed in this debate.

+ See vol. ii. p. 395, note.

Yet there was no division. See Journals.

In the margin, " Mr. Scot, Sir Arthur Haslerigge."

And, indeed, the

hitherto no hope of any fair agreement. soldiery and courtiers, by whom the single person's interest was chiefly carried on, did not forbear to speak it out; that there was a necessity for it; it must be so; and that though many fair words were given my Lord Protector, yet it could not be expected that he would lay down his sword, and subject himself to the will of a Parliament, wherein he should be denied equal power and co-ordination, or to that effect.

This debate having continued until seven of the clock in the evening, with an adjournment for an hour at noon to refresh ourselves, was then broke up; and the House adjourned until next morning, at eight of the clock.

Saturday 9. The House being met, with some dispute it was adjourned again into a Grand Committee; the Court party persisting hard to keep it in the House.*

It now began to be visible, that the interest of the single person did plainly lose ground; for not only the word "approved" was disrelished on all hands, but they began to break the question, and to distinguish the word " Government" into the legislative power and the executive power. The first was generally thought, with all the reason in the world, to be the right of the Parliament alone, without communicating the least part of it to any single person in the world. This they conceived was the ancient right and fundamental privilege of the people.+ But, as to the executive part of it, that was conceived communicable; and indeed, not exercisable by the Parliament.

Therefore, there seemed to be a general intimation, to invest that single person with that, and with such amplifications of honour and other qualifications, (though not without restrictions in that too,) as might render him very conspicuous to the world, and testify the great obligations which the English nation had to his virtues.

These words were extremely catching to the generality of the House, and seemed to have so much of reason with them,

* Yet no divison. See Journals.

+ See vol. ii. p. 451, note §. iii. 319, notes,

as could not rationally be gainsayed. Only, for the prevention of some few mischiefs, as perpetuating of Parliaments, and the present disposing of the militia, the Court party did conceive in these respects, it might be necessary to have a check, as they called it, upon a Parliament; and that some single person should be admitted into co-ordination, at least, in things with the Parliament, which seemed not then to be much opposed. So as the House, after having sat until eight of the clock at night, with an hour's refreshing at noon, adjourned, with some hopes and expectations of an agreement, until Monday morning. But then, it did appear, that to yield in any case gives advantage and heart to the adverse party.

Sunday 10. The parsons generally prayed for the Par liament to strengthen their hands and enlarge their hearts; to send them that had wisdom, zeal; and them that had zeal, wisdom; but not much concerning the single person, as was observed.

Monday 11. The House being met, and opportunity taken about something that fell from the parson that prayed this morning, it was moved that something should be done as to matter of religion. And, in order thereunto, it was resolved, that the several members of each county, should present the name of one godly and able minister of the Gospel for each county, to be approved of by the House, who should meet together, and present their advice to the Parliament, in such points only as the Parliament should propose to them; the names to be presented upon Friday

next.

The fast, which was appointed to be kept, as upon Wednes

"Sept. 4. Resolved that the governors of the school and alms. house of Westminster, do take care, that such of the morning lecturers, as preacheth on the respective days, do attend, each morning that they preach, to pray in this House." Journals.

+"Resolved, that the number of ministers to be named for Ireland, shall be eight, viz. for each province, two; for Scotland, eight, and that the members who serve for the Universities, have power to present the name of one for each University." Journals.