Three days after the great dinner in Whitehall, i.e. on Monday, Feb. 23, 1656-7, there was an incident in the House which turned all the future proceedings of this Second Parliament of the Protectorate into a new channel.  It is thus entered in the Journals:—­

" ...  Sir Christopher Pack [Ex-Mayor of London, knighted by Cromwell, Sept. 25, 1655, and now one of the members for the City] presented a Paper to the House, declaring it was somewhat come to his hand tending to the Settlement of the Nation and of Liberty and Property, and prayed it might be received and read; and, it being much controverted whether the same should be read without farther opening [preliminary explanation] thereof, the Question being propounded That this Paper, offered by Sir Christopher Pack, be further opened by him before it is read, and the Question being put That this Question be now put, it passed in the Negative.  The Question being propounded That this Paper, offered by Sir Christopher Pack, be now read, and the Question being put That that Question be now put, the House was divided.  The Noes went forth:—­Colonel Sydenham, Mr. Robinson, Tellers for the Noes—­with the Noes 54; Sir Charles Wolseley, Colonel Fitzjames, Tellers for the Yeas—­with the Yeas 144.  So it passed in the Affirmative.  And, the main Question being put, it was Resolved That this Paper, offered by Sir Christopher Pack, be now read. The said Paper was read accordingly, and was entitled ’The Humble Address and Remonstrance of the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, now assembled in the Parliament of this Commonwealth.’"[1]

[Footnote 1:  Commons Journals of date.]

The debate on the Paper was protracted to the evening “a candle” having been ordered in for the purpose; and it was then adjourned to the next day.  In fact, for the next four months, or through the whole remainder of the session, the House was to continue the debate, or questions arising out of it, and to do little else.  For, on the 24th of February, it was resolved by a majority of 100 to 44 (Lambert and Strickland tellers for the Minority) that the paper should be taken up and discussed in its successive parts, “beginning at the first Article after the Preamble;” and, though an attempt was made next day to throw the subject into Grand Committee, that was defeated by 118 to 63.  In evidence of the momentousness of the occasion, a whole Parliamentary day was set apart for “seeking the Lord” upon it, with prayers and sermons by Dr. Owen and others; and, when the House met again after that ceremonial (Feb. 28), it was resolved that no vote passed on any part of the Paper should be binding till all should be completed.[1]

[Footnote 1:  Commons Journals of dates.]