From the office of protector, the members proceeded to inquire into the constitution and powers of the other house; and this question, as it was intimately connected with the former, was debated with equal warmth and pertinacity.  The opposition appealed to the “engagement,” which many of the members had subscribed; contended that the right of calling a second house had been personal to the late protector, and did not descend to his successors; urged the folly of yielding a negative voice on their proceedings to a body of counsellors of their own creation; and pretended to foretel that a protector with a yearly income of one million three hundred thousand pounds, and a house of lords selected by himself, must inevitably become, in the course of a few years, master of the liberties of the people.  When, at the end of nine days, the speaker was going to put the question, Sir

[Footnote 1:  Journals, Feb. 1, 14.  Thurloe, 603, 609, 610, 615, 617.  Clar.  Pap. iii. 424, 426, 429.  In Burton’s Diary the debate occupies almost two hundred pages (iii. 87-287).]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1659.  Feb 14.]

Richard Temple, a concealed royalist, demanded that the sixty members from Scotland and Ireland, all in the interest of the court, should withdraw.[a] It was, he said, doubtful, from the illegality of their election, whether they had any right to sit at all; it was certain that, as the representatives of other nations, they could not claim to vote on a question of such high importance to the people of England.  Thus another bone of contention was thrown between the parties; eleven days were consumed before the Scottish and Irish members could obtain permission to vote,[b] and then five more expired before the question respecting the other house was determined.[c] The new lords had little reason to be gratified with the result.  They were acknowledged, indeed, as a house of parliament for the present; but there was no admission of their claim of the peerage, or of a negative voice, or of a right to sit in subsequent parliaments.  The Commons consented “to transact business with them” (a new phrase of undefined meaning), pending the parliament, but with a saving of the rights of the ancient peers, who had been faithful to the cause; and, in addition, a few days later,[d] they resolved that, in the transaction of business, no superiority should be admitted in the other house, nor message received from it, unless brought by the members themselves.[1]

In these instances, the recognition of the protector, and of the two houses, the royalists, with some exceptions, had voted in favour of the court, under the impression that such a form of government was

[Footnote 1:  Journals, Feb. 18, March 28, April 5, 6, 8.  Thurloe, 615, 626, 633, 636, 640, 647, Clar.  Pap. iii. 429, 432.  Burton’s Diary, iii. 317-369, 403-424, 510-594; iv. 7-41, 46-147, 163-243, 293, 351, 375.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1659.  March 10.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1659.  March 23.] [Sidenote c:  A.D. 1659.  March 28.] [Sidenote d:  A.D. 1659.  April 8.]