have been in arms, or otherwise aided, abetted," &c. (which in. cludes all the Preston, and all the Dunbar and Worcester people; with, however, a most unimportant exception)" except such as since the First day of March, 1651-2, have lived peaceably,”—as they might very well do, having been all smashed to powder, six months before, at Worcester Fight, and their "Chief Malignant,' whom they had set up as King, being now sent on his travels, somewhat in the style of a King of the Gipsies!' His Highness cannot but animadvert on this with some tartness.

With these exceptions, and one proviso for Ireland' to be speedily noticed, all Freeholders of Counties, according to the old definition, shall vote; and all Burgesses and Citizens of Towns, —nay, I think, there is in this latter department a tendency towards the Potwalloper System; but modified of course by the established custom of each several locality in that respect.

And now let us hear his Highness in regard to Paragraph Second, Article Fourth :]

In the Fourth Article and Second Paragraph, you have something that respects the calling of Members to Parliament' for Scotland.' You would not have those excluded that were under Duke Hamilton, and made that Invasion.* Because it hath been said to you, perhaps, that if you should exclude all 'such,' you would have no Members from that Nation? I hope there be persons of that Nation who will be ready to give a better testimony of their country than admit that argument! And I hope it is no argument: but if it be one, then truly, to meet with the least certainty as to qualifications, you should indeed exclude men of your own country upon better 'defined' crimes; you should hold them off upon stricter characters 'than those given!' It is thought, the qualification there which saith, of their "good testimony," That they are to be men who have given good testimony by their quiet living-Why, truly, for divers years, they have not been willing to do other; they have not had an easy possibility to do otherwise, than to live quietly! [Not since the taming they got at Worcester, your Highness!] Though perhaps at bottom' many of them have been the same men:-and yet ' certainly too' I know many of them are good men, worthy men.-And therefore whether it be not fit, in that place, to explain somewhat farther, and put some other characterf upon what may really be regarded as

• Which met its due at Preston.

† description.

good testimony" of their being otherwise minded, of their being now of another judgment? I confess I have not anything here to supply this defect with but certainly if the description so stand as it now is in your Article, those men, though they be never so indisposed, enemies and remain so, yet if they have "lived peaceably," where they could neither will nor choose 'to live otherwise,' they are to be admitted. I only tell you so, being without any amendment for it: and when done, I shal leave it all with yourselves. This is for the Second Paragraph.

[For the Second Paragraph his Highness is "without any amendment" of his own; offers us nothing to "supply the defect: indeed it is difficult to supply well, as that Nation stands and has stood. Besides they send but Fifty Members in all, poor creatures; it is no such vital matter! Paragraph Second remains unaltered. And now let the Moderns attend for an instant to Paragraph Third:

'Article Fourth, Paragraph Third: A proviso as to Ireland "that no English or Scotch Protestant in Ireland who before the First of March, 1649-50" (just about the time his now Highness, then Lord General, was quitting Ireland, having entirely demolished all chance of opposition there) "have borne arms for the Parliament or your Highness, or otherwise given signal testimony" &c., "shall be excluded." This also to his Highness seems worthy of animadversion.]

In the Third Paragraph of the same Article, whereas it is said, "That all persons in Ireland be made capable to elect or to be elected who, before the First of March, 1649, have borne arms for the Parliament, or otherwise given testimony of their good affections to the Parliament and continued faithful to the Parliament :"-and yet perhaps many of them are since revolted ' against us !'—Whether it be not necessary that this be more clearly expressed? For it seems to capacitate all those who revolted from the Parliament ;* if they have borne arms for the State before the First of March, 1649, it seems to restore them. But if since then they have revolted, as I doubt many of our English-Irish have done, why then the question is, Whether those men who latelyf have been angry and have flown to arms; Whether you will think their having borne arms formerly on the Parliament's side shall be an exemption to

The Ormonde Royalists almost all ;-Malignant enough many of them + in late years.

them? This is but tendered to you, for some worthy person here to give

an answer unto?

[Very rational and irrefragable. It is accordingly altered: 'Signal testimony of their good affection to the Commonwealth or your Highness, and continued, &c.-And now let us look at Paragraph Fifth concerning the last item of which his Highness has a word to say:

'Article Fourth, Paragraph Fifth. All who are atheistical, blasphemous," married to Popish wives," who train or shall train any child to be Popish, or consent that a son or daughter of theirs shall marry a Papist ;-who are scoffers of religion, or can be' proved to have scoffed any one for being religious; who deny the Scriptures to be God's Word; who deny Sacraments, Ministry or Magistracy to be ordinances of God (Harrison's set); who are Sabbath-breakers, swearers, haunters of taverns or ale-houses ;— in short demonstrably unchristian men. All who are Public Preachers too.' Concerning this latter clause his Highness has a remark to make.

'Following in the rear of which, in the same Third Paragraph, is an Article which still more merits consideration. For securing the "Freedom of Parliament as well as its Purity, there are to be Forty-one Commissioners appointed "by Act of Parliament with your Highness's consent," who are to examine and certify whether the Persons returned by these rules are, after all, qualified to sit.' So that it is not to be the Council of State henceforth, and by "Nathaniel Tayler Clerk of the Commonwealth in Chancery" with his Certificate in the Lobby, that Honorable Gentlemen are to be turned back at the door of the House, and sent to redact Protests, as in the case of this present Parliament! Forty-one Commissioners are now to do it. His Highness on this also will have a word to say.]

In the Fifth Paragraph of the same Article, you have incapacitated Public Preachers from sitting in Parliament. And truly I think your intention is 'of' such 'only' as have Pastoral Function; such as are actually real Ministers. For I must say to you, in behalf of our Army, -in the next place to their fighting they have been very good "Preachers:" and I should be sorry they should be excluded from serving the Com

monwealth because they have been accustomed to "preach" to their troops, companies and regiments-which I think has been one of the blessings upon them to the carrying on of the great Work. I think you do not mean so 'that they should be excluded:' but I tender it to you that, if you think fit, there may be a consideration had of it. There may be some of us, it may be, who have been a little guilty of that, who would be loath to be excluded from sitting in Parliament on account of it!' [“ I myself have been known, on occasion, to exhort my troops with Bible texts and considerations; to 'preach,' if you like to call it so! What has my whole Life been but a Sermon' of some emphasis; preached with tongue and sword, with head and heart and right hand, and soul and body and breeches-pocket,—not without results, one would venture to hope!"-This Clause, the Committee, expressly or tacitly, will modify as desired.]

6

In the same Paragraph, there is care taken for the nominating of Commissioners to try the Members who are chosen to sit in Parliament. And truly those Commissioners are uncertain Persons; and it is hard to say what may happen. I hope they will be always good men ;-but if they should be bad, then perhaps they will keep out good men! Besides we think,―truly, if you will give us leave to help as to the "freedom of Parliament," this 'of the Commissioners' will be something that may go rather harshly down than otherwise! Very many reasons might be given: but I do only tender it to you. I think, If there were no Commissioners, it might be never a whit the worse :-if you make qualifications for Membership,' and any man presume to sit without those quali fications, you may deal with him. A man without qualifications, sitting there, is as if he were not chosen; and if he sit without being chosen, without having qualification,—I am sure the old custom was to send him to the Tower [That will settle him!], to imprison such a one! If any sit there that have not right to sit,-if any stranger come in upon a pretended title of election, perhaps it is a different case,-but if any sit there upon a pretence of qualification in him, you may send him to prison without more ado. Whether you think fit to do so or no, is parliamentary business-I do but hint it to you. I believe, If any man had sat in former Parliaments without,' for instance,' taking the oaths, &c., that were prescribed, it would have been fault enough in him. I believe something of that kind instead of your Forty-one Commissioners, might be equivalent to any other way, if not better.

The Honorable House does not want any more concern with Nathaniel Tayler and his Certificates. This Paragraph remains unaltered. Forty-one Commissioners, Fifteen a quorum; future

Parliaments to name a future set when they like: the Examinations as to Members are to be by oath of informer in writing, with copies left, &c., and rigorous enough formalities.-Let us now glance at Article Fifth:

'Article Fifth relates to the "Other House;" a new House of Lords we are getting up. Not more than Seventy of them, not fewer than Forty: they are to be nominated by your Highness and approved by this House: all classes excluded by the preceding Article from our body are of course excluded from theirs.' His Highness has a remark to make on this also.]

In that Article, which I think is the Fifth Article [Yes], which concerns the Nomination of the Other House,—in the beginning of that Article it stands, That the House is to be nominated as you there design it,* and the approbation is to be from This House,-I would say from the Parliament. It stands so. But then now, if any shall be subsequently named, after the Other House is sat, upon any accidental removal or death,—you do not say 'How.' Though it seems to refer to the same 'rule' as the first 'original' selection doth; yet it doth not so clearly intimate this, That the nomination shall be, where it was, with the Chief Officer, and the approbation of the "Other House." If I do express clearly what you-Pardon me: but I think that is the aim of it; and it is not clearly expressed there;-as I think you will be able to judge whether it be or no.

[Article Fifth ruled as his Highness wishes. And now take Article Seventh :

'Article Seventh promises, but does not say how, that there shall be a yearly revenue of 1,300,0007.; one million for Navy and Army, 300,0007. for the support of the Government. No part of it by a Land-tax. Other temporary supplies to be granted by the Commons in Parliament,—and neither this Revenue nor any other charge whatever to be laid upon the subject except according to the Parliament's direction and sanction.' Such yearly Revenue the Parliament promises in this Petition and Advice, but does not specify in what way it shall be raised: which omission also his Highness fails not to comment on.]

In the Seventh Article, which concerns the Revenue, that is, the as you there design it:' polite for 'by me.' + Cannot say 'me'