World History

6. Edward Nicholas Sir,

Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons, 1620–21,

II.

Pages 185–199.

[Nov. 21, 1621.] The Lord Keeper. . . . For the orm of imitation for this assembly, he saith that we should imitate the ancient times and form of Parliament, and avoid all long harangues, all ma licious or cunning diversions, that we should not attend our domestic business, till we had furnished and finished the business of the Palatinate, and provided first to send speedily thither some aid or supply.

[Nov. 23d.] Mr. Alford saith that the King hath commanded by two proclamations that none should meddle or talk of state business; and yet hath again commanded by the three lords that we should not meddle but with the business of the Palatinate. That this is a precedent wherein we are warily to proceed; for hereafter the King may else say we shall meddle only with this or that business, and not with other things, and so we lose the privilege of a free Parliament. He would that we should hasten to dispatch the business of the House; for hereafter if we shall touch on anything for the good of the commonwealth his Majesty may be incensed and so dissolve the Parliament. . . .

[The House took up the question of the privilege of one of its members, Sir Edwin Sandys, who had been imprisoned for his efforts to defeat intrigues against the Virginia Company. The Commons suspected that he was suffering for what he had said in Parliament.]

Sir Thomas Wentworth saith that he hath observed that this House hath ever used to debate with jealousy the privileges of this House, but we have ever done it with loss of our privileges rather than gain.

[On the 29th of November the Commons resolved to prepare a petition to be sent to the King. On December 1st the form of the petition was brought in by the subcommittee. That petition emphasized the danger from Spain, from the Pope, and especially from Catholic designs in England, and urged that the King should join with other Protestant states in supporting the Elector Palatine against Spain, and that Prince Charles should be married to one of his own religion. It was pointed out by the court party that such a petition dealing with war, marriage, and religion would incur the King’s displeasure, and the answer from the supporters of the petition was that there were abundant precedents, even in the time of Elizabeth, for dealing with such matters, and that the King by asking Parliament to speak freely of the grievances of the kingdom and by saying in his speech that there was no hope for peace, had invited such a discussion. After the petition had been adopted and a committee named to take it to the King, the Commons received a letter from the King as follows]:

Page 277.

[Dec. 4, 1621. The King to the Speaker of the House of Commons.]

We have heard by divers reports . . . that the far distance of our person at this time . . . hath emboldened some fiery and popular spirits in our House of Commons to debate and argue publicly in matters far beyond their reach or capacity; and so tending to our high dishonor and to the trenching upon our prerogative royal.

You shall therefore acquaint that House with our pleasure that none therein shall presume to meddle with anything concerning our government or mysteries of state, namely not to speak of our dearest son’s match with the daughter of Spain, nor to touch the honor of that King, or any other our friends or confederates: and also not to meddle with any men’s particulars which have their due motion in any of our ordinary courts of justice. And whereas we hear that they have sent a message to Sir Edwin Sandys¹ to know the reason of his late restraint, you shall in our name resolve them that it was not for any misdemeanor of his in Parliament. But to put them out of doubt of any question of that nature that may arise among them hereafter, you shall resolve them in our name that we think ourself very free and able to punish any man’s misdemeanors in Parliament, as well during their sitting as after; which we mean not to spare hereafter upon any occasion of any man’s insolent behavior there, that shall be ministered unto us. And if they have already touched any of these points, which we have forbidden, in any petition of theirs, which is to be sent unto us, it is our pleasure that you shall tell them, that, except they reform it before it comes to our hands, we will not deign the hearing or answering of it. . . .

Pages 279–283.

[Dec. 4, 1621.] Sir William Strode saith, he thinketh that our thoughts being now disturbed by this message from his Majesty, we are not fit or able to debate of anything, till we have considered of it and digested it; and therefore would have us now rise and not so suddenly debate of this business, it being of the greatest consequence for our privileges that ever came hither.

[Dec. 5th.] Mr. Delbridge (after a long silence in the House) rose up and said. . . . As for the privileges of this House, touching the Petition we prepared for the King, he had as willingly hang under the gallows as fry over a faggot. And therefore, the state of our religion standing as it doth, he would have us go to the King again and again with our petition. . . .

Sir Robert Phelips saith that now is the time to justify the affection of the people to the King and to defend the privileges of this House, which our ancestors have delivered us, and which we ought to preserve for our posterity:—That his ground and anchor-hold is the King’s word for our liberty of speech, delivered here in writing by Mr. Secretary . . . he saith he knoweth not what hath caused this soul-killing letter from the King. . . . And he desireth that there may be a committee appointed to consider what, on the like message from former Kings, the House hath done, and to consider what we may do to set us right in the King’s favor and to proceed without breach of our privileges and liberties, without which defence we are unworthy of our lives, and to look those in the face who sent us hither.

Mr. Hakewill . . . . He hath known three the like storms in this House: the first in 5 Eliz. when this House did press her to know her successor, which she would by no means declare or have spoken of; yet on a petition from this House, her Majesty did give us leave to treat of it. 2. That in the same Parliament there was a petition prepared as now, to beseech her to marry; and though she was much offended at it, yet by our temperance in that petition and on a second petition she did give us leave to treat and debate of her marriage here. 3. That the King heretofore, though at first he sent a sharp message to this House when it did begin to debate of impositions, yet on better information he did give us leave to debate thereof. . . .

[The House goes into committee. A long debate ensues.]

Pages 289–294.

[Dec. 6th. The Commons to the King.]

We . . . beseech your most excellent Majesty that the loyalty and dutifulness of as faithful and loving subjects as ever . . . lived . . . may not undeservedly suffer by the misinformation of uncertain reports. . . but that your Majesty would . . . first vouchsafe to understand from ourselves, and not from the partial informations of any others, what our humble declaration and petition, resolved on by the universal voice of the whole House, and proposed, with your gracious favor . . . doth contain . . . . And we humbly beseech your Majesty that you will not hereafter give credit to private reports against all or any of the members of our House, whom the whole have not censured, until your Majesty hath been truly informed thereof from ourselves . . . . When your Majesty had reassembled us in Parliament . . . and did vouchsafe by the mouths of three honorable lords to impart to us the weighty occasions moving your Majesty thereto, from them we did understand these particulars . . . . That your Majesty must either abandon your own children or engage yourself in a war. . . . And that out of these considerations we were called to a war, and forthwith to advise of a supply for keeping the forces in the Palatinate from disbanding. . . . We thereupon . . . did address ourselves to the service commended to us. And although we cannot conceive that the honor and safety of your Majesty . . . the patrimony of your children, invaded and possessed by their enemy, the welfare of religion and state of your kingdom, are matters at any time unfit for our deepest consideration in time of Parliament . . . we thought it our duty to provide for the present supply thereof and not only to turn our eyes on a war abroad, but to take care for the securing of our peace at home. . . . In the discourse whereof we did not assume to ourselves any power to determine of any part thereof, nor intended to encroach or intrude on the sacred bounds of your prerogative or regal authority to whom, and to whom only we humbly acknowledge that it doth belong to resolve of peace and war, and of the marriage of the noble prince your son. . . . Our humble suit to your Majesty . . . is that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to receive at the hands of these messengers our former humble declaration and petition. . . . And whereas your Majesty by the general words of your letter seemeth to restrain us from intermeddling with matters of government or particulars which have their motion in courts of justice . . . and whereas your Majesty’s letter doth seem to abridge us of the ancient liberty of Parliament for freedom of speech, jurisdiction, and just censure of the House. . . a liberty which we assure ourselves so wise and so just a King will not infringe (the same being our undoubted right and inheritance, received from our ancestors) . . . we are therefore now again enforced humbly to beseech your Majesty to renew and allow the same and thereby take away the doubts and scruples your Majesty’s late letter to our Speaker hath brought upon us. . . .

Page 303.

[Dec. 10th.] Sir Edward CORE saith that it is on this point with us now as it was in the time of some of the former kings of this realm. In the Parliament roll at Westminster in Sancti Hilarii, Anno secundo H. 4, No. II. 25 Jan., the House did petition the King that, because it might happen that some of the Commons, to please the King and advance themselves, might relate some things here debated of, before it was determined, discussed, or accorded of by the Commons, (that) it would please his Majesty to give no credit to such reports.¹ . . .

This record [with the King’s answer agreeing to the request] is delivered into the House, and it is Ordered that it shall be entered here in the House in French and English, and that every one that will shall have copies of it.

Pages 317–327.

[Dec. 14, 1621. His Majesty’s Answer to the Apologetic Petition of the House of Commons.]

. . . Now whereas. . . you tax us in fair terms of trusting uncertain reports and partial information concerning your proceedings, we wish you to remember that we are an old and experienced King, needing no such lessons, being in our conscience freest of any King alive from hearing or trusting idle reports. . . .

In the body of your petition you usurp upon our prerogative royal and meddle with things far above your reach, and then in conclusion, you protest the contrary. . . . And whereas ye pretend, that you were invited to this course by the speeches of three honorable lords, yet by so much as yourselves repeat of their speeches, nothing can be concluded but that we were resolved by war to regain the Palatinate, if otherwise we could not attain unto it; and you were invited to advise forthwith upon a supply for keeping the forces in the Palatinate from disbanding, and to foresee the means for the raising and maintaining, of the body of an army for that war. . . . Ye come after to a direct contradiction to the conclusion of your former petition, saying, "that the honor and safety of us and our posterity, and the patrimony of our children . . . the welfare of religion and state of our kingdom are matters at any time not unfit for your (sic) deepest considerations in Parliament." To this generality we answer with the logicians that where all things are contained nothing is omitted; so as this plenipotency of yours invests you in all power upon earth, lacking nothing but the Pope’s to have the keys also both of heaven and purgatory. . . .

And whereas ye excuse your touching upon the King of Spain . . . and yet affirm that it is without any touch to his honor, we cannot wonder enough that ye are so forgetful both of your words and writs. For in your former petition ye plainly affirm that he affects the temporal monarchy of the whole earth. . . . We omit the particular ejaculations of some foul-mouthed orators in your House against the honor of his crown and state. And touching your excuse of not determining anything concerning the match of our dearest son, but only to tell your opinions, and lay it down at our feet; first we desire to know how you could have presumed to determine in that point without committing of high treason; and next you cannot deny but your talking of his match after that manner was a direct breach of our commandment and declaration out of our own mouth at the first sitting down of this Parliament. . . .

These are unfit things to be handled in Parliament, except your King should require it of you: for who can have wisdom to judge of things of that nature, but such as are daily acquainted with the particulars of treaties. . . . And besides, the intermeddling in Parliament in matters of peace or war, and marriage of our dearest son, would be such a diminution to us and to our crown in foreign countries, as would make any prince neglect to treat with us . . . .

And although we cannot allow of the style, calling it "Your ancient and undoubted right and inheritance," but would rather have wished that ye had said, that your privileges were derived from the grace and permission of our ancestors and us (for most of them grow from precedents, which shows rather a toleration than inheritance) yet we are pleased to give our royal assurance, that, as long as you shall continue to contain yourselves within the limits of your duty and respect to us. . . . we will be as careful to preserve your lawful liberties and privileges, as ever any our predecessors were, nay, as to preserve our own royal prerogative: so as your House shall only need to beware to trench upon the prerogative of the crown, which would enforce us, or any just King to retrench them of their privileges.

Page 331.

[Dec. 15, 1621.] . . . Sir Francis Seymour saith. . . . That though we now decline the farther disputing of the match, the matter of religion and war, yet he would have it here expressed and declared, that the consideration of the religion of this kingdom, the safety of his Majesty’s person and this kingdom are not matters out of the cognizance of this House. . . .

Mr. Christopher Brook saith that we have our privileges and liberties by prescription, time out mind, and not by toleration. He would have a protestation entered in the House that we claim our privileges as an inheritance and not as granted from Kings to us. . . .

Sir Robert Phelips. . . . As for our privileges since his Majesty hath said we hold our liberties by the grace of princes, and not by a right descended unto us . . . he thinketh that we are now to do something more in this point than to let them thus rest. . . . He would have a select committee appointed for this purpose. . . .

Mr. Thomas Crewe. . . . That he thinketh the walls of this House would speak against us, if we should sit still and leave his Majesty in dislike of our styling our liberties our undoubted ancient right and inheritance. . . .

Sir Edward Coke. . . . That the liberties and privileges of Parliament are the mother and life of all laws, and laws are in Parliament in summo gradu [in the highest degree]. Whereas the King saith he liketh not our styling of our liberties our ancient inheritance, yet he will maintain and give us leave to enjoy the same, which indeed striketh at the root of all our privileges. Consuetucdo regni [the custom of the kingdom] is the law of the kingdom . . . .

Mr. Secretary saith it was never in his Majesty’s mind or opinion to question our privileges, but it was only the slip of a pen in the end of a long answer. That he would have a committee to consider hereof.

Pages 339–342.

Dec. 17, 1621. The King’s Letter to Mr. Secretary Calvert.]

. . . The plain truth is that we cannot with patience endure our subjects to use such anti-monarchical words to us, concerning their liberties, except they had subjoined that they were granted unto them by the grace and favor of our predecessors. But as for our intention herein, God knows we never meant to deny them any lawful privileges, that ever that House enjoyed in our predecessors’ times . . . for whatsoever liberties or privileges they enjoy by any law or statute shall be ever inviolably preserved by us, and we hope our posterity will imitate our footsteps therein. And whatsoever privileges they enjoy by long custom and uncontrolled and lawful precedents, we will likewise be as careful to preserve them. . . . Let them go on cheerfully in their businesses, rejecting the curious wrangling of lawyers upon words and syllables. . . .

Mr. Secretary saith that it is not strange that the business of the House (which is so commonly spoken of abroad in the town) doth come to his Majesty’s ear; and he thinketh whosoever hath informed his Majesty hereof, hath done a good office to the House. . . .

Sir Edward Coke saith that we have now by this last message (as he conceiveth) an allowance of our privileges, which indeed are ours by law, by custom, by precedent, and by act of Parliament. That he thinketh, if we did set down our privileges and liberties, it would clear us of all those rubs. . . .

Pages 359–360.

[Dec. 18, 1621. The Protestation.]

That the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England; and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the King, state and defence of the realm, and of the Church of England, and the making and maintenance of laws, and redress of mischiefs and grievances, which daily happen within this realm, are proper subjects and matter of counsel and debate in Parliament: and that in the handling and proceeding of those businesses every member of the House hath, and of right ought to have . . . liberty and freedom to treat of those matters, in such order, as in their judgments shall seem fittest . . . and that if any of the said members be complained of and questioned for anything said or done in Parliament, the same is to be showed to the King by the advice and consent of all the Commons assembled in Parliament, before the King give credence to any private information.

It is ordered . . . that this protestation shall be here entered forthwith in the book of the House, and there to remain as of record.

¹ The debates on the Sandys case have been omitted.

¹ See The Historical Setting, p. 165.