6. It appears from the notes of speeches which are entered in the Journal of the beginning of the Session of 1620-1, (and from the debates which are published more at length in two volumes[1], from an original manuscript in Queen's College, Oxford) that, at the end of the last Session of Parliament in 1614[2], some Members had been committed for speeches they had uttered in Parliament. This matter being now taken up, though at so great a distance of time, and being discussed for several days, but without heat or passion, many motions and propositions were made, in what manner the House might best assert this Privilege of freedom of speech, whether by bill, as in Strode's Case, or by petition to the King; after long consideration, it was determined on the 15th of February, to proceed by message to the King, and not by petition in writing, 'to desire, that, if any of the House should speak in any undutiful manner, they may be censured here, and not be punished in or after the Parliament.' But during the debate upon this question, a message to the House was brought from the King, by Mr. Secretary Calvert, to say, 'that his Majesty did grant liberty and freedom of speech, in as ample manner as any of his predecessors ever did: and if any should speak undutifully, (as he hoped none would) he doubted not but we ourselves would be more forward to punish it, than he to require it; and he willed us to rest satisfied with this, rather than to trouble him with any petition or message, and so cast ourselves upon one of
- ↑ By my worthy and learned Predecessor, Mr. Tyrwhitt.
- ↑ Or of the last Convention, as it is more properly called in the debates; the King also in his commission for the dissolution, saying, that it was no Session, ‘pro eo quod nullus regalis assensus aut responsio, per nos, praestita fuit.’ Parliamentary History, Vol. V. p. 303.—See in the 2d Vol. of this Work, under title, "King calls the Parliament," what is there said respecting the question, "what constitutes a Session?"
