Source Problems in English History

Contents:

World History

4.

D’ewes’s Journals,

p. 176.

[April 21, 1571.] For the said Mr. Strickland having on Saturday the 14th day of this instant April, pressed very earnestly the reformation of the Book of Common Prayer, and some ceremonies of the Church, was, after the adjournment of the House of Commons on that day . . . called before her Majesty’s Council . . . and was commanded by them to forbear coming to the said House, in the mean season, and to attend their further pleasure. . . .

Pages 175—176.

[April 20, 1571.] Mr. Carleon . . . made signification how that a member of the House was detained from them (meaning Mr. Strickland) by whose commandment or for what cause he knew not. But for as much as he was not now a private man, but to supply the room, person, and place of a multitude specially chosen . . . he thought that neither in regard of the country, which was not to be wronged, nor for the liberty of the House, which was not to be infringed, we should permit him to be detained from us. But whatsoever the intendment of this offence might be, that he should be sent for to the bar of that House, there to be heard and there to answer.

Mr. Treasurer [Mildmay] . . . gave advertisement to be wary in our proceedings, and neither to venture further than our assured warrant might stretch nor to hazard our good opinion with her Majesty on any doubtful cause. . . . He further said that he [Mr. Strickland] was in no sort stayed for any word or speech by him in that place offered; but for the exhibiting of a bill into the House against the prerogative of the Queen, which was not to be tolerated. . . . And lastly he concluded that oft it had been seen that speeches have been examined and considered of. . . .

Mr. Yelverton. . . said the precedent was perilous, and though in this happy time of lenity, among so good and honorable personages, under so gracious a prince, nothing of extremity or injury was to be feared; yet the times might be altered, and what now is permitted, hereafter might be construed as of duty, and enforced even on this ground of the present permission. . . . He shewed it was fit for princes to have their prerogatives, but yet the same to be straitened within reasonable limits. . . . He further said that the speech uttered in that place, and the offer made of the bill, was not to be condemned as evil; for that if there were anything in the Book of Common Prayer, either Jewish, Turkish, or Popish, the same was to be reformed. . . .

Mr. Fleetwood1 . . . said then that of experience he could report of a man that was called to account of his speech in the 5th [year] of this Queen2 . . . what he had learned in the Parliament Rolls he thought convenient should be known and considered of. In the time of Henry IV. a bishop of the Parliament was committed to prison by commandment of the King; the Parliament resolved to be suitors for him.3 And in King Henry V. the Speaker himself was committed, and, with him another of the House;4 the House thereupon stayed, but remedy they had none, other than to be suitors to the King for them; whereupon he resolved, that the only and whole help of the House for ease of their grief in this case was to be humble suitors to his Majesty, and neither send for him, nor demand him of right.

During which speech the Council whispered together, and thereupon the Speaker moved that the House should make stay of any further consultation thereupon.

[April 21st.] . . . The above mentioned Mr. Strickland did this Forenoon, (upon an advertisement, as it should seem, from her Majesty’s Council) repair again to the said House, soon after it was set. And coming just upon the time, when the foregoing Bill for coming to Church and receiving the Communion, was in the referring to Committees, the said House did in witness of their joy for the restitution of one of their said members . . . presently nominate him one of the said committees. . . .

5. D’Ewes’s Journals, p. 236.

Pages 236–244.

[Feb. 8, 1576.] Peter Wentworth . . . was for unreverent and undutiful words uttered by him in this House of our sovereign lady the Queen’s Majesty sequestered, that the House might proceed to conference and consideration of his said speech.

Peter Wentworth’s Speech.

[Feb. 8, 1576.] I find written in a little volume these words. . . . Sweet is the name of liberty, but the thing itself a value beyond all inestimable treasure. So much the more it behoveth us to take care lest we contenting ourselves with the sweetness of the name, lose and forego the thing, being of the greatest value that can come unto this noble realm. . . . There is nothing so necessary for the preservation of the prince and state as free speech, and without it [it] is a scorn and mockery to call it a Parliament House. . . . Two things do great hurt in this place. . . the one is a rumour which runneth about the House and this it is, take heed what you do, the Queen’s Majesty liketh not such a matter; whosoever prefereth it, she will be offended with him. . . . The other: sometimes a message is brought into the House either of commanding or inhibiting, very injurious to the freedom of speech and consultation. I would to God, Mr. Speaker, that these two were buried in hell. . . .

The King ought not to be under man but under God and under the law, because the law maketh him a King1 . . . and thereunto was her Majesty sworn at her coronation, as I have heard learned men in this place sundry times affirm; unto the which I doubt not but her Majesty will for her honour and conscience sake have special regard; for free speech and conscience in this place are granted by a special law, as that without the which the prince and state cannot be preserved or maintained. . . .

A message Mr. Speaker brought the last sessions into the House, that we should not deal in any matters of religion, but first to receive from the bishops. Surely this was a doleful message. . . .

[Wentworth said many other things in criticism of the Queen and of her Councilors.]

Extract from Wentworth’s Examination before a Committee of the Commons, on the 8th of February for the speech made that day.

. . . And yet I will assure your Honours that twenty times and more, when I walked in my grounds revolving this speech to prepare against this day, my own fearful conceit did say unto me, that this speech would carry me to the place whither I shall now go, and fear would have moved me to have put it out; then I weighed whether in good conscience, and the duty of a faithful subject, I might keep myself out of prison, and not to warn my prince from walking in a dangerous course . . . herewith all I was made bold and went forward as your Honours heard, yet when I uttered those words in the House, that there was none without fault, no, not our noble Queen, I paused and beheld all your countenances and saw plainly that those words did amaze you all . . . and fear bade me to put out those words that followed, for your countenances did assure me that not one of you would stay me of my journey; yet the consideration of a good conscience and of a faithful subject did make me bold to utter it . . . and I praise God for it, and if it were to do again I would with the same mind speak it again.

[The Committee, if we may judge from its chairman, showed itself inclined to criticize Wentworth for his severe forms of expression, but seemed on the whole very friendly and markedly willing to admit his allegation in a general way. They were unable to secure from him any admission of a fault. In consequence they recommended that he be committed to the Tower to remain until "this House. should have further consideration of him."—C. J., I, p. 104.]

Page 244.

The said Mr. Wentworth was by the Queen’s special favour restored again to his liberty and place in the House on Monday the 12th day of March ensuing.

6. Commons Journal, I, p. 118.

[Jan. 20, 1580.] This day the House being assembled. . . and attending her Majesty’s coming to the Higher House, went then up with Mr. Speaker. . . . And my Lord Chancellor in his oration did amongst other things give a special admonition unto this House [Commons] not to deal with matters touching her Majesty’s person or estate or touching religion.

7. D’Ewes’s Journals.

Page 474.

[Feb. 26, 1593.] Mr. Morrice, Attorney of the Court of Wards, moveth the House touching the hard courses of the bishops and ordinaries and other ecclesiastical judges in their courts, used towards sundry learned and godly ministers and preachers of this realm by way of inquisition, subscription and binding absolution.

[Several speeches made about it.]

Then Sir Robert Cecil [of the Privy Council] spake and said. . . . What the bill containeth I am ignorant of; and whether to allow of it or not, I will suspend my opinion. To say the truth, the man that offered it was learned and wise, and one whom I love; yet a bill to be offered and enforced in this sort being of such effect, I know not how to allow of it. For her Majesty had straitly forbidden to meddle in such cases. . . . For the bill I protest I know it not; but it seemed to contain things needful. Wherefore it were fittest it should be commended to her Majesty, and so recommended unto us.

[The Speaker asks that it be committed to him to consider of it, and promises that he will keep it with all secrecy.]

Hereupon the House was in question whether it should be committed to the Speaker only, or to the Privy Council and him. . . . Therefore upon a motion made by Mr. Wroth, it was agreed that Mr. Speaker should have it.

[Feb. 28th.] Mr. Speaker stood up and said, that he had a message to deliver from her Majesty. [Says that he had two bills delivered to him yesterday to consider of.]

A little after I had perused the bills, I was sent for by a special messenger from her Majesty. Coming in her royal presence I was commanded to deliver these words from her most excellent Majesty unto the body of the realm. . . . Her Majesty’s pleasure being then [at the beginning of Parliament] delivered unto us by the Lord Keeper, it was not meant we should meddle with matters of state or causes ecclesiastical . . . she wondered that any could be of so high commandment to attempt (I use her own words) a thing so expressly contrary to that which she had forbidden. Wherefore with this she was highly offended. . . . Her Majesty’s present charge and express commandment is, that no bill touching the said matters of state or reformation in causes ecclesiastical be exhibited. And upon my allegiance I am commanded, if any such bill be exhibited not to read it.

1 Fleetwood was a few days later to be made Recorder of London, through Leicester’s influence, and no doubt in this speech was trying to please the Court.

2 This may refer to Paul Wentworth, who had been one of those most persistent in 1566 in discussing the question of succession, or it may refer to the very interesting case of James Dalton, whose case was referred to the Commons by Elizabeth the very day after her message of Nov. 25, 1566. Dalton had talked about the Queen of the Scots (see Cal. of the MSS. of the Marquis of Salisbury, I, p. 341, and Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1547–1580, p. 283).

3 This is an allusion to the case of Thomas Merke, Bishop of Carlisle, who was said on Henry IV.’s accession to have made a speech in the Lords in favor of Richard and to have been imprisoned for it. It is exceedingly doubtful if the bishop was imprisoned for any speech in Parliament; indeed, it is not certain that he made a speech.

4 This is undoubtedly a mistaken allusion to the imprisonment of Speaker Thorpe and William Rail in 1453 in the reign of Henry VI. The Commons were suitors for Thorpe’s release, but the privilege involved was freedom from arrest rather than freedom of speech. The Lords decided that Thorpe should remain in prison and the Commons elected a new Speaker.

1 Bracton, Bk. I, ch. VIII, p. 5. But the King himself ought not to be subject to man, but subject to the law, for the law makes the King.

Contents:

Download Options


Title: Source Problems in English History

Select an option:

*Note: A download may not start for up to 60 seconds.

Email Options


Title: Source Problems in English History

Select an option:

Email addres:

*Note: It may take up to 60 seconds for for the email to be generated.

Chicago: "D’ewes’s Journals,," Source Problems in English History in Source Problems in English History, ed. Albert Beebe White and Wallace Notestein (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1915), 192–200. Original Sources, accessed March 29, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YKJWPFV3BXU3JCK.

MLA: . "D’ewes’s Journals,." Source Problems in English History, in Source Problems in English History, edited by Albert Beebe White and Wallace Notestein, New York, Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1915, pp. 192–200. Original Sources. 29 Mar. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YKJWPFV3BXU3JCK.

Harvard: , 'D’ewes’s Journals,' in Source Problems in English History. cited in 1915, Source Problems in English History, ed. , Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, pp.192–200. Original Sources, retrieved 29 March 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YKJWPFV3BXU3JCK.