Source Problems in English History

Contents:

World History

3.

Commons Journals,

I, p. 431. (Petition to the Sovereign, May 23, 1610.)

Most gracious sovereign: . . . First we hold it an ancient, general, and undoubted right of Parliament to debate freely all matters which do properly concern the subject and his right or state; which freedom of debate being once foreclosed, the essence of the liberty of Parliament is withal dissolved.

And whereas in this case the subject’s right on the one side and your Majesty’s prerogative on the other cannot possibly be severed in debate of either; we allege that your Majesty’s prerogatives of that kind, concerning directly the subject’s right and interest are daily handled and discussed in all courts at Westminster, and have been ever freely debated upon all fit occasions both in this and all former Parliaments without restraint. . . .

We therefore your Highness’s loyal and dutiful Commons, not swerving from the approved steps of our ancestors, most humbly and instantly beseech your gracious Majesty that . . . we may, according to the undoubted right and liberty of Parliament, proceed in our intended course of a full examination of these new impositions. . . .

4(cont.). Parliamentary Debates, 1610, pp. 41–42.

[May 24th. The King’s Answer.] . . . He said his message was not absolutely to forbid us from treating of the impositions, but only until we heard his further pleasure; not with any intent for ever to restrain us. . . .

For our Petition he granted it as we had set it down ourselves.

[The Commons in 1614 ("Addled Parliament") were more unfavorable to James than in any preceding Parliament. It soon became evident they intended to vote no grant until the grievance of impositions was remedied. When Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, attacked them in the Lords for meddling with matters that did not belong to them and talked about seditious speeches they might utter if they should confer with the Lords, the Commons took umbrage. The Lords, after they had been given clear proofs of the Bishop’s speech, called upon him to explain. He declared that his meaning had been misunderstood. But the Commons, not fully satisfied with him, or with the Lords’ attitude in the affair, pressed the attack.]

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: "Commons 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), 207–208. Original Sources, accessed March 29, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QVRHLZKASIPLEKM.

MLA: . "Commons Journals,." Source Problems in English History, Vol. I, in Source Problems in English History, edited by Albert Beebe White and Wallace Notestein, New York, Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1915, pp. 207–208. Original Sources. 29 Mar. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QVRHLZKASIPLEKM.

Harvard: , 'Commons Journals,' in Source Problems in English History. cited in 1915, Source Problems in English History, ed. , Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, pp.207–208. Original Sources, retrieved 29 March 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QVRHLZKASIPLEKM.