land, is as if the cook in the friars 1 should come to my lady Kent's kitchen, and take upon him to roast the meat there, because he is a cook in another place.

LXXXIII.

LORDS IN THE PARLIAMENT.

I. THE lords' giving protections is a scorn upon them. A protection means nothing actively, but passively. He

1 In the friars, H. original reading, with 'fayrs' written over it, and with

'friars' restored in the margin in a different hand] faires, H. 2; fayers, S.

prevented, and the prejudice and disparagement of the Peers and nobility of this kingdom be redressed.' Rushworth, Collections, i. 233. Among the reasons given in support of the petition is a statement that these Scotch and Irish Lords, whatever titles they bear, are 'in the eye of the Law no more than mere Plebeians.'

1. 1. cook in the friars] After the death of the Earl of Kent, Selden lived with the Countess Dowager, generally at her house in Whitefriars. The obtrusive 'cook in the Friars' may be understood therefore as the cook from some neighbour's house. The var. lec. 'fair' or 'fairs' seems to have been put in by some one who did not bear in mind where Selden had been domiciled.

1. 5. The lords' giving protections &c.] The effect of a protection was that the person holding it could not be arrested for debt. It was rightfully given to a servant of a member of either House, and was sought and obtained and used by many persons who had no rightful claim to it, and who used it to evade payment of their just debts.

In 1641 a petition was delivered to the Commons by divers citizens of London, against the abuses of Parliamentary protections, alleging that if there were not some speedy order for the calling in or regulating the same, they would occasion the undoing of many families. Rushworth, Collections, iv. 279.

It appears from the Lords' Journals that this petition was addressed to both Houses, and was considered by both. A few days afterwards a Committee of the House sat, and concluded that divers protections should be annulled, some being surreptitiously obtained, others procured by persons of ability, on purpose to defeat their creditors. iv. 282. This abuse of protections was felt by London tradesmen as a greater grievance than ship-money. iv. 396.

that is a servant to a parliament-man is thereby protected. What a scorn is it to a person of honour to put his hand and seal to two lies at once, that such a man is my servant, and employed by me; when haply he never saw the man in his life, nor before never heard of him!

2. The lords' protesting is foolish. To protest is properly to save to a man's self some right. But to protest as the lords protest, when they themselves are involved, 'tis no more than if I should go into Smithfield, and sell 10 my horse, and take the money; and yet when I have your

money, and you my horse, I should protest this horse is mine, because I love the horse, or I do not know why I do protest, because my opinion is contrary to the rest. Ridiculous! when they say the bishops anciently did

1.6. The lords' protesting is foolish]. The first formal protest of the Lords was on Sept. 9, 1641, against a resolution of the House for printing and publishing a former order concerning Divine Service, while a question was pending as to a conference between the two Houses on the subject. Six lords protested, and their protest of disassent to the vote was entered on the Journals of the House. Rogers, Protests of the Lords, vol. i. p. 7.

There were two more protests in that year, and several in the year following. Rogers defends the practice as being, at that time, a courageous avowal of sympathy with the Parliamentary party. He remarks, further, that under the old rules of the House of Lords, the division lists were entered on the Journals, but that in 1641 this had ceased to be done, so that a formal protest of dissent was then the only method by which an adverse vote could be recorded.

1. 14. when they say the bishops anciently did protest &c.] This perhaps refers to a speech which had been made by Hyde (better known as Lord Clarendon) in defence of Geoffrey Palmer. After the vote of the Commons in favour of the Remonstrance of 1641, and when the motion before the House was that the Remonstrance should be printed, Palmer, one of the minority, had, with others, claimed a right to protest, in the event of the motion being carried. He was called to account for this as a breach of privilege, and in the course of the debate on the matter Hyde said: 'He was not old enough to know the ancient customs of that House; but that he well knew it was a very ancient custom in the House of Peers, and leave was never there denied to any man who asked that he might protest, and enter his

protest, it was only dissenting, and that in the case of the pope.

LXXXIV.

MARRIAGE.

I. OF all actions of a man's life, his marriage does least concern other people; yet of all actions of our life, 'tis most meddled with by other people.

2. Marriage is nothing but a civil contract. 'Tis true 'tis an ordinance of God; so is every other contract; God commands me to keep it, when I have made it.

ΙΟ

3. Marriage is a desperate thing. The frogs in Esop 10 were extreme wise, they had a great mind to some water, but they would not leap into the well, because they could not get out again.

4. We single out particulars, and apply God's providence to them. Thus when two are married, and have undone one another, they cry it was God's providence we should come together, when God's providence does equally concur to everything.

LXXXV.

MARRIAGE OF COUSIN-GERMANS.

SOME men forbear to marry cousin-germans out of this 20 kind of scruple of conscience, because 'twas unlawful dissent against any judgment of the House to which he would not be understood to have given his consent.' Clarendon, Hist. vol. i. 489.

1. 21. because 'twas unlawful before the Reformation &c.] The more ancient prohibition of the Canon Law was to the seventh generation: 'De affinitate consanguinitatis per gradus cognationis, placuit usque ad septimam generationem observari. And the same was the law of the Church of England . . . But in the 4th Council of Lateran, which was held in the year of our Lord 1215, the prohibition was reduced to the fourth degree . . . which limitation was also the rule of the Church of

before the Reformation, and is still in the Church of Rome. And so by reason their grandfather, or their great grandfather did not do it, upon that old score they think they ought not to do it; as some men forbear flesh upon Friday, not reflecting upon the statute, which with us makes it unlawful, but out of an old score, because the Church of Rome forbids it, and their forefathers always forbore flesh upon that day. Others forbear it out of a natural consideration, because it is observed (for example) in beasts, if Io two couple of a near kin, the breed proves not so good. The same observation they make in plants and trees, which degenerate being grafted upon the same stock. And 'tis also farther observed, those matches between cousingermans seldom prove fortunate. But for the lawfulness, there is no colour but cousin-germans in England may marry, both by the law of God and man: for with us we have reduced all the degrees of marriage to those in the Levitical law, and 'tis plain there's nothing against it. As for that that is said, cousin-germans once removed may not 20 marry, and therefore, being a further degree may not, 'tis presumed a nearer should not1, no man can tell what it

means.

LXXXVI.

MEASURE OF THINGS.

1. WE measure from ourselves, and as things are for our use and purpose, so we approve them. Bring a pear to is inserted after 'being.' The rest is as in S.

1 And therefore being a further degree may not, tis presumed a nearer should not, S.] omitted in H. In H. 2 'it is'

England; as appears, not only by this Statute (i. e. by 32 Henry VIII, cap. 38, declaring as a new rule that all marriages are lawful if beyond the Levitical degrees) but also by the frequent dispensations for the fourth degree, and no further, which we meet with in our ecclesiastical records, as granted here by special authority from the see of Rome.' Gibson, Codex, p. 411.

MEASURE OF THINGS. — DIFFERENCE OF MEN. III

the table that is rotten, we cry it down, 'tis naught; but bring a medlar that is rotten, and 'tis a fine thing; and yet I warrant you, the pear thinks as well of itself as the medlar does.

2. We measure the excellency of other men, by some excellency we conceive to be in ourselves. Nash, a poet poor enough (as poets use to be), seeing an alderman with his gold chain, upon his great horse, said by way of scorn to one of his companions, Do you see yon fellow, how goodly, how big he looks? why that fellow cannot make a blank 10

verse.

3. Nay, we measure the excellency of God from ourselves. We measure his goodness, his justice, his wisdom, by something we call just, good, or wise in ourselves; and in so doing, we judge proportionably to the country-fellow in the play, who said, If he were a king, he would live like lord, and have peas and bacon every day, and a whip that cried slash.

LXXXVII.

DIFFERENCE OF MEN.

THE difference of men is very great. You would scarce 20 think them to be of the same species, and yet it consists more in the affection than in the intellect. For as in the strength of body, two men shall be of an equal strength, yet one shall appear stronger than the other, because he exercises, and puts forth his strength; the other will not stir nor strain himself. So 'tis in the strength of the brain; the one endeavours, and strains, and labours, and studies; the other sits still, and is idle, and takes no pains, and therefore he appears so much the inferior.

30