World History
9.
Notes of the Parliament of 1626
(Whitelocke).
[On May 8, 1626, the Commons instituted impeachment proceedings against the Duke of Buckingham, minister of Charles I., and asked for a conference with the Lords. In that conference eight members of the Commons were commissioned to be managers for the Lower Housc —i.e., to present the charges made by that House,
Sir Dudley Digges the first speaker unwisely mentioned the death of James I., who was believed by many people at that time to have died from the effects of a plaster administered to him, and alluded to Buckingham’s supposed part in that transaction. It was reported to the King that Digges had said "that he would therein spare the honor of the King." Sir John Eliot was the last speaker and made a very bitter attack upon Buckingham, comparing him to Sejanus, the minister of the Roman Emperor Tiberius. "If he is Sejanus " the King was reported to have said, "then I am Tiberius." Eliot had said many other hard things. When the Commons met on May 11th, Digges and Eliot were absent, and it was soon discovered that they had been called to the door and taken to the Tower.]
[May 12th.] Mr. Speaker put the House in mind where they left yesterday. The House cry, No.
Mr. Wilde. . . . Bewail the want of two whose excellent abilities, whose indefatigable labors for preserving these liberties have been fresh in our memories. The cause of their absence I cannot but be bold to desire to know. . . . Moves we may consider of some way of remonstrance or declaration to the King concerning this, and desire we may have our members again, and that we may punish them if they have done any offence within our cognizance. That we appoint a committee for this.
After long silence Mr. Speaker riseth and said, I am sorry to see so general sadness and silence. The House cry, sit down! But the Speaker goes On and repeats the motion.
[The] Vice-Chamberlain [Sir Dudley Carleton] . . . Our evils are the losses of some members of our House; the causes a high offence the King takes at . . . words that passed in that speech, some words in the prologue [spoken by Digges] "that he would then spare the honor of the King that is now living." . . . I cannot say these were the words but some strangers in our Court would say it, and this depends upon the point of true or false information. . . . This manner of Parliament hath been almost in every state in Christendom, but hath been altered by new counsels. To preserve this liberty the medium between right of prerogative and tumultuary liberty must be observed.1 Moves that the Speaker may leave this chair and we resolve ourselves into a committee for consideration of the remedies.
Resolved that we shall lay aside all other business till we are righted in our liberties. And the House shall presently resolve into a committee to consider of the ways and means to effect it.
Mr. Rolles takes the Chair.
Mr. Wandesford. I think this root hath sprung from the same root which all the rest have done, misinformation. . . .
Sir John Savile. I was committed out of this House sitting [in] Parliament, and being a member of this House, and after three weeks imprisonment I was at the Council Board and they asked me why I sued not for my liberty. I said I knew not why I was committed and they told me that if I would know I must ask the Queen, and so sent me back again to prison, but after in the Parliament, they only petitioned or made a remonstrance to the Queen and I was released. But they would not determine whether the privilege of Parliament was broken hereby, nor the cause of my commitment was not known to them.
Sir Thomas Hobby. That Sir John Savile was committed, before the Parliament sat, by the Council Table. . . . Our remonstrance must be that this is unprecedented, that we are grieved much at it and desire that if the commitment be for anything done at the Conference that we may examine it, and determine their punishment, if their fault be within our cognizance.
Sir John Savile. That he was committed fourteen days after the Parliament sat and taken as he was coming into the House.
Resolved that we shall present a remonstrance to the King touching the imprisonment of these two members.
[May 13th.] Mr. Rolles in the Chair.
Mr. Littleton reports from the Sub-committee. . . . The matter whereupon the King took offence at Sir Dudley Digges that he should say by the commandment of the House upon the particular the plaster applied to his late Majesty that he forbore to speak any further in regard of the King’s honor, or words to that effect. The Committee found this a matter of too great weight for their consideration. [They refer it to the Grand Committee of the Whole House.]
Mr. Littleton. I . . . protest before God and the body of the Commons by the faith of a Christian that I heard not these words nor any to this effect.
Resolved that there shall be a solemn protestation and [that] it shall be contained in the protestation that every man shall say whether he did consent that those words or any words to such effect should be spoken by Sir Dudley Digges, or did hear any such words spoken by him. . . .
Clerk shall call them by the book.
[May 15th.]
[A conference asked with the Lords on matters of "importance concerning the honor of both Houses."]
[May 16th.] Sir Dudley Digges, being at liberty and sitting in the House . . . gives thanks to the House for their care of him, a poor member, and makes his protestation that those words were never in his thoughts. . . .
Chancellor of the Exchequer [Sir Richard Weston] . . . In the case of Sir John Eliot, his business is something of another nature. His Majesty believes that he exceeded his commission of this House; charges him with some things that are extra-judicial to this House, and if he detain him somewhat longer, he hopes you will not take this as a breach of the privilege of this House and desires that you would proceed with the business of this House.
Sir John Strangeways moves that the word extrajudicial might be understood and explained.
Resolved to take the King’s message into consideration to-morrow morning.
[May 20th.] Sir John Eliot sent for. Comes in and takes his place.
Sir Peter Hayman moves that Sir John Eliot’s charges may be made known to us.
[The Vice-Chamberlain addresses the House on the charges. The Speaker puts the charges one by one and Eliot denies or explains them. Resolved by question that Sir John Eliot hath not exceeded his commission which he had from this House in anything which he spake at the Conference with the Lords concerning the impeachment of the Duke of Buckingham. The same kind of resolutions were voted about Digges.]
1 In another account (Parl. Hist., VII, 160) Carleton’s implications appear more clearly. "In all Christian kingdoms you know that Parliaments were in use anciently, by which their kingdoms were governed in a most flourishing manner until the monarchs began to show their own strength, and seeing the turbulent spirits of their Parliaments, at length they, little by little, began to stand upon their prerogatives, and at last overthrew the Parliaments, except here only with us." Carleton went on to compare the miserable state of foreign peasants with those in England "like so many ghosts and not men," and hinted that the same might come true in England, But the account here quoted is probably more nearly what Carleton said. (See Lonsdale MSS., p. 23.)