these rocks: that, if we asked for too little, we should wrong ourselves; if too much or more than right, he should be forced to deny us, which he should be very loath to do.' This message from the King put an end, for the present, to any further proceeding upon this matter[1].—It is remarkable, that, notwithstanding the impartiality professed by the writers of the Parliamentary History[2], it does not appear that they take any notice of these debates, (although they are to be found upon the Journal, to which they pretend strictly to adhere) or of the proceedings of the House of Commons, in appointing a Committee, and Sub-Committee, "for free speech," of which Sir Edward Coke and Mr. Glanvylle were chairmen; nay, which is more extraordinary, they censure the biographer Wilson[3], and other Historians, for saying, "that after the dissolution of the last Parliament, several Members were committed for their behaviour in Parliament:" whereas the truth of this assertion appears from the debates[4], and that these Members were imprisoned, ' for speaking freely their consciences in the House of Commons, and for which being before questioned, they had been cleared by the House that they had spoken nothing but what was lawful and fitting, and for which they gave good reason and satisfaction to the House.' But this is only one of the many very glaring misrepresentations and omissions by the compilers of the Parliamentary History, which they will be found, upon examination, to have made in favour of the conduct of James I. and Charles I.
Page:Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons (4th ed, 1818, vol I).djvu/155
This page needs to be proofread.
chap. 3.]
End of the Parliament of 1628.
135
Notwithstanding
