had no mind to hear. Notwithstanding this, the great officers and bishops called out for the question of referring the bill to a committee; but the earl of Shaftsbury, a man of great abilities and knowledge in affairs, and one that, in all this variety of changes of this last age, was never known to be either bought or frighted out of his public principles, at large opened the mischievous and ill designs and consequences of the bill; which, as it was brought in, required all officers of church and state, and all members of both houses of parliament, to take this oath following.

"I A. B. do declare that it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take up arms against the king; and that I do abhor that traitorous position of taking arms by his authority, against his person, or against those that are commissioned by him in pursuance of such commission; and I do swear, that I will not at any time endeavour the alteration of the government, either in church or state. So help me, God."

The earl of Shaftsbury, and other lords, spake with such convincing reason, that all the lords, who were at liberty from court engagements, resolved to oppose, to the uttermost, a bill of so dangerous consequence; and the debate lasted five several days before it was committed to a committee of the whole house; which hardly ever happened to any bill before. All this, and the following debates, were managed chiefly by the lords, whose names you will find to the following protestations; the first whereof was as followeth :

"We, whose names are underwritten, being peers of this realm, do, according to our rights, and the ancient usage of parliaments, declare, that the question having been put whether the bill, entitled, An act to prevent the dangers which may arise from persons disaffected to the government,' doth so far intrench upon the privileges of this house, that it ought therefore to be cast out; it being resolved in the ne

gative, we do humbly conceive that any bill, which imposeth an oath upon the peers with a penalty, as this doth, that upon the refusal of that oath they shall be made incapable of sitting and voting in this house; as it is a thing unprecedented in former times, so is it, in our humble opinion, the highest invasion of the liberties and privileges of the peerage that possibly may be, and most destructive of the freedom which they ought to enjoy as members of parliament; because the privilege of sitting and voting in parliament is an honour they have by birth, and a right so inherent in them, and inseparable from them, as that nothing can take it away, but what by the law of the land must withal take away their lives, and corrupt their blood; upon which ground we do here enter our dissent from that vote, and our protestation against it.

The next protestation was against the vote of committing the bill, in the words following:

"The question being put, whether the bill, entitled 'An act to prevent the dangers which may arise from persons disaffected to the government,' should b committed; it being carried in the affirmative, and we, after several days debate, being in no measure satisfied, but still apprehending that this bill doth not only subvert the privileges and birthright of the peers, by imposing an oath upon them with the pe

nalty of losing their places in parliament, but also, as we humbly conceive, strike at the very root of government; it being necessary to all government to have freedom of votes and debates in those who have power to alter and make laws; and besides, the express words of this bill obliging every man to abjure all endeavours to alter the government in the church, without regard to any thing that rules of prudence in the government, or christian compassion to protestant dissenters, or the necessity of affairs at any time, shall or may require; upon these considerations, we humbly conceive it to be of dangerous consequence to have any bill of this nature so much as committed, and do enter our dissents from that vote, and protestation against it.

"BUCKINGHAM
WINTON

SALISBURY

DENBIGH

BRISTOL
HOWARD of
BERKS

CLARENDON
STAMFORD
SHAFTSBURY

WHARTON
MOHUN

DE LA MER."

Which protestation was no sooner entered and subscribed the next day, but the great officers and bishops raised a storm against the lords that had subscribed it; endeavouring not only some severe proceedings against their persons, if they had found the house would have borne it, but also to have taken away the very liberty But that was of entering protestations with reasons.

defended with so great ability, learning, and reason, by the Lord Holles, that they quitted the attempt; and the debate ran for some hours, either wholly to raze the protestation out of the books, or at least some part of it; the expression of "christian compassion to protestant dissenters," being that which gave them most offence. But both these ways were so disagreeable to the honour and privilege of the house, and the latter to common sense and right, that they despaired of carrying it, and contented themselves with having voted, "that

the reasons given, in the said protestation, did reflect upon the honour of the house, and were of dangerous consequence." And I cannot here forbear to mention the worth and honour of that noble lord Holles, suitable to all his former life; that whilst the debate was at the height, and the protesting lords in danger of the Tower, he begged the house to give him leave to put his name to that protest, and take his fortune with those lords, because his sickness had forced him out of the house the day before; so that, not being at the question, he could not, by the rules of the house, sign it. This vote against those twelve lords begat the next day the following protestation, signed by one and twenty:

"Whereas it is the undoubted privilege of each peer in parliament, when a question is past contrary to his vote and judgment, to enter his protestation against it; and that, in pursuance thereof, the bill, entitled 'An act to prevent the dangers which may arise from persons disaffected to the government,' being conceived by some lords to be of so dangerous a nature, as that it was not fit to receive the countenance of a commitment; those lords did protest against the commitment of the said bill; and, the house having taken exceptions at some expressions in their protestation, those lords, who were present at the debate, did all of them severally and voluntarily declare, that they had no intention to reflect upon any member, much less upon the whole house; which, as is humbly conceived, was more than in strictness did consist with that absolute freedom of protesting, which is inseparable from every member of this house, and was done by them merely out of their great respect to the house, and their earnest desire to give all satisfaction concerning themselves, and the clearness of their intentions; yet the house, not satisfied with this their declaration, but proceeding to a vote, That the reasons given in the said protestation do reflect upon the honour of the house, and are of dangerous consequence;' which is, in our humble opinion, a great discountenancing of the very liberty of protesting: we, whose names are underwritten, conceive ourselves

and the whole house of peers extremely concerned that this great wound should be given (as we humbly apprehend) to so essential a privilege of the whole peerage of this realm, as their liberty of protesting; do now (according to our unquestionable right) make use of the same liberty to enter this our dissent from, and protestation against, the said vote:

After this bill being committed to a committee of the whole house, the first thing insisted upon by the lords, against the bill, was, that there ought to be passed some previous votes to secure the rights of peerage, and privilege of parliament, before they entered upon the debate or amendments of such a bill as this. And at last two previous votes were obtained, which I need not here set down, because the next protestation hath them both in terminis:

"Whereas upon the debate on the bill, entitled, An act to prevent the dangers which may arise from persons disaffected to the government,' it was ordered by the house of peers, the 30th of April last, that no oath should be imposed, by any bill, or otherwise, upon the peers, with a penalty, in case of refusal, to lose their places, or votes in parliament, or liberty to debate therein: and whereas also, upon debate of the same, it was ordered, the third of this instant May, that there shall be nothing in this bill, which shall extend to deprive either of the houses of parliament, or any of their members, of their just, ancient