customs of that House; but he well knew it was a very ancient custom in the House of Peers. Leave was never denied there to any man who asked that he might protest, and enter his dissent, against any judgment of the House to which he would not be understood to have given his consent; and he did not understand any reason why a commoner should not have the same liberty, if he desired not to be involved in any vote which he thought might possibly be inconvenient to him. He had not offered his protestation against the Remonstrance, though he had opposed it all he could, because it remained still within those walls. He had only desired leave to protest against the printing it; which, he thought, was in many respects not lawful for them to do, and might prove very pernicious to the public peace.

This was listened to with some impatience, and at its close the member for Beeralston, always impetuous and forward on such occasions, was for having the House to call upon Mr. Hyde to withdraw, since he had confessed that he first proposed the protestation; but Mr. Strode's suggestion was disregarded, and not the least notice appears to have been taken of Mr. Hyde's own proposal to make a martyr of himself.

Mr. Hotham, the member for Scarborough, familiarly called Jack Hotham, the son of Sir John, and so soon to perish with him on a public scaffold for treason to the Parliament, rose now and said that the offence committed on Monday night which the House was called to visit with its severest censure, was committed by Mr. Geoffrey Palmer, the member for Stamford. A gentleman on that occasion had offered, with the leave of the House, to make a protestation, and another had seconded him; upon which the said Mr. Palmer had without leave cried out, I do protest, and, further encouraging men to cry out every man the same, had said that he protested "for himself and the rest." Many voices here interrupted Hotham, shouting out that Palmer's words were "all the rest." The speaker proceeded, and shewed that such words in the mouth of any

member tended to draw on a mutiny; and that if this were permitted in the house, any one might make himself the head of a faction therein, and there would soon then be an end of the liberty and privileges of parliament, and they might shut up their doors. He therefore desired that Mr. Palmer, not being in the house, might be sent for.

66

Several members of Hyde's party next rose, and objected to Palmer's being sent for; and some wished to know by what right Mr. Hotham had applied the word "faction to any section of members in that house. But, adds D'Ewes, "whilst we were in debate about sending for 'him, Mr. Palmer came in; and then Mr. Hotham laid "the same charge against him which he had done before, "for the substance thereof." Hereon, he continues, some would have had Mr. Palmer to make his answer, and then to withdraw into the Committee Chamber, that so they might proceed to censure; but others said, that either he had committed no fault to which he was to answer, or, if he had spoken anything amiss, he was to have been questioned for it at the time when he spake it, and not at this time, which was two days since the pretended words were uttered. "And this was maintained," says D'Ewes, "with great vehemence by those who spake for Mr. 66 Palmer."

Hyde and Culpeper were as usual the most vehement. Speaking to the orders of the House, Hyde said' the charge against Palmer was against the orders, being he was only charged with words, not with any ill carriage.

1 Clarendon's own account of his speech (Hist. ii. 48) is, that, upon Mr. Palmer being called upon to explain, "Mr. Hyde (who loved him much, "and had rather have suffered him"self, than that he should) spoke to "the order of the house, and said that "it was against the orders and "" practice of the house that any 66 man should be called upon to ex"plain, for anything he said in the "house two days before; when it

"could not be presumed that his "own memory could recollect all the "words he had used; or, that any"body else could charge him with "them; and appealed to the house "whether there was any precedent of "the like-and there is no doubt "there never had been; and it was "very irregular." The account of the speech in the text, however, is manifestly more correct than this notice of it preserved by its author.

This being so, and the words not having been excepted against at the time they were spoken, it was now no orderly charge. For, in that case, a man might be questioned for words spoken a month or a year ago, as well as for those spoken on Monday last. Words might be forged, too, and then how could a man answer for himself? It would take away the great privilege of freedom of speech. Culpeper went still further. Also speaking to the orders of the House, he took the objection, that the members assembled on that day, Wednesday the 24th, could not be competent judges of words spoken on Monday the 22d, because divers were on this occasion present who on the former were absent; although he did not deny that the House was the same in respect of the power of it. of it. And what could be more dangerous than for a man to be questioned for words spoken in the house after the time he should speak them; for might he not in such case be also questioned in another parliament after?

These confident opinions appear to have shaken some of the members present; the debate went on with increasing heat; and three hours had been so passed, when Denzil Holles got up, and declared that he would charge Mr. Palmer with a new charge, in making a pernicious motion. But now, Sir Simonds D'Ewes, fortified with precedents, advanced to the rescue; undertaking to prove that the original proposition to make Palmer responsible for the words he had uttered, was strictly in accordance with the usage, and no violation of the orders, of the Commons.

He began by saying he was sorry, with all his heart, that the House should already have lost so much time. about this business, and the more because it concerned a gentleman whom he had long known, and knew to be learned in his profession. But he wondered to see any member of that house, and much more (alluding to Hyde) any of the long robe, affirm that they could not question words spoken therein any day after they were spoken, unless exception to the words were taken at the time of

speaking. "I dare be bold to say," continued Sir Simonds, warming into confidence, as his well-beloved records and precedents came to him at need, "there "are almost precedents in every journal we have of the "House of Commons. Some I can remember upon the "sudden, as Mr. Copley, in the time of Queen Mary; "Mr. Peter Wentworth, in 35th Elizabeth;' and, in "43d and 44th of the same Queen, either one Hastings "took exception at Mr. Francis Bacon, or he to Hastings: "for I dare not trust an ill memory with the exact relation "of it upon the sudden. And all these were questioned "in this house after the day was past in which the words "were spoken. This, indeed, is the true, ancient, funda"mental right of parliament, that we should not be "questioned anywhere else for things spoken within "these walls. But that we should not have power here to 'question our own members for words spoken within "these walls, either at the time when the said words were "spoken, or at any time after also, were to destroy those very liberties and rights of parliament."

66

Having laid down thus clearly and boldly the undoubted parliamentary rule, D'Ewes went on to apply it to Palmer's case. Premising that the words spoken, and matter of fact in issue, must be stated exactly, he shewed that to resist any proposal to question the same, whether at the moment of delivery, or at any time after, would be to decline the justice of the House, which for his part he should never do, but should always be ready to answer, at any present or future time, to anythng he should there say. As for that which was objected, he continued, by the gentleman on the other side (and he pointed to Sir John Culpeper), that it were a dangerous thing for them to admit that a succeeding parliament might question what was done in a former, there was nothing more ordinary or more usual. There was no doubt what

"I was mistaken in the year," notes the particular D'Ewes in the margin of his Journal, "for it was

VOL. I.

"in" but alas! the correction is not legible to me.

G

ever but that a succeeding parliament might not only question any particular thing done by them, as, for example, what was in progress at that moment, but might also revoke and repeal all the acts and statutes which they had passed. And the reason thereof was evident and plain. For they sat not there in their own right, but were sent thither, and entrusted by the whole kingdom; the knights being chosen by the several counties, and the rest by the several cities and towns. And, for that which was objected by the same worthy gentleman opposite, that, there being divers others in the house who were not there when the words were spoken, therefore the House was not the same, he (Sir Simonds D'Ewes) said confidently that the House was the same to all intents and purposes, not only quoad potestatem, but quoad notionem also; for of course he assumed there must be a perfect agreement as to what the words were that were spoken, before they could proceed to a censure of them. Whereupon, as though remembering his own absence at the extraordinary scene, he thus proceeded:

66

66

66

66

66

"And truly they may well be excused that were absent out of this house at midnight, for it was about that time on Monday night last when these words were spoken; “and I do as much wonder that so many in this house "should object that the speaking of words is not an action, when that old verse assures us of the contrary"Quatuor et dentes et duo labra simul, &c.' And more strange it seems to me also, that when this worthy gentleman himself (and I pointed to Mr. Palmer) "hath so often stood up, himself, to speak, so many should "hinder him; for if they will not let him speak by way "of answering, yet let him speak by way of speaking."Some laughed at this, thinking I had been mistaken; "but I proceeded and told them, that I should be sorry to speak anything in that house which I could not make "good logic of; and therefore I still pressed, that if we "would not let him speak by way of answering, that is by coaction and as a delinquent, then let him speak by

66

66