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.

1 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.*

66

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 Parliament 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 almshouse 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.

day next, both for the House, and the cities of London and Westminster, &c. and a Declaration ordered for that purpose, which had been prepared many days ago, and often tendered unto the House; but in regard of the great debate it could not be received, so as formal notice thereof could not be given abroad, as might be expected, was resolved to be kept by the House upon the same day. But liberty was left unto the city and all others, to do as they saw cause.

These things being settled, the House, not without some opposition, was resolved again into a Grand Committee to debate the former question; wherein the House did proceed with a great deal of ingenuity, modesty, and candour; and this cannot be denied, but fit to be remembered to all ages. It was agreed on all hands, even by the soldiers, courtiers, judges, Commissioners of the Seal, and generally, by all the Long Robe; that in the consideration of this question, two things were to be considered of, verum, et bonum.

The verum, that is, the truth of it was, that the legislative power was in the House of Commons, in Parliament alone, and so was acknowledged and settled. But for the bonum of it, whether it were now convenient or expedient, per hic et пипс. That was very advisable. The arguments on both sides, were rationally and prudentially urged.

They who were for the joining of a single person, in co-ordination with the Parliament, did it chiefly upon this ground of reason, that, if the supreme legislative power should rest only in the Parliament, they might have opportunities to perpetuate themselves as the old Parliament did;† upon which account, and for other things, much dirt and unsavoury speech was cast upon it. Besides, the Parliament, which judges all others, if it should offend, must be the only judge of its own offences. For those reasons, they thought it fit that there should be a check upon the Parliament; something to control it, which must be the negative voice of some single person, as it is in the Instrument of Government,

* In the margin, "Sir Thomas Widdrington." + See vol. iii. pp. 519, 520, note ‡.

See supra, p. xxv.

which negative voice was said to be not a positive negative. for there were only twenty days respite,* (as to most things,) which was only a time for deliberation and advice. Only as to the co-ordination of the single person, that was indeed absolute, as they said it ought to be, in regard it was the very foundation, and foundations were not to be altered or removed. That this was the natural constitution, and most suitable to the governing of the nation, and "other foundation could no man lay."+

Other arguments were used, as to matter of right, by those who argued on that side, as namely:

1. Divine Providence, which had set a stamp and seal upon this Government.

2. The sword, and present power, all being of God.

8. The addresses and approbation of the nation, from several counties and cities.

4. That the whole nation had concluded themselves and us from altering of it, by the sealing of the indenture of the return of the election.

And lastly, a necessity; wherein they did not forbear to tell us plainly, that it must be so; that my Lord Protector must not be thought, that ever he would part with that power which he conceived was so fully in him. At least, it was extremely convenient, that we should in this comply with his Highness, it being a foundation he had laid, and now not to be disputed.

The arguments on the other side, were,

First, upon reasons.

1. That the supreme power was originally in the people. 2. That to join any thing in co-ordination with it, would be to set up two supremes, that would always check one the other, and have several interests, and several affections, and ends, and, by consequence, would never be at peace.

8. That so great a power could no where be so safely trusted, as in a Parliament, which is the representative of the people.

• See infra, p. 21, note.

+1 Cor. iii. 11.