v D'Ewes, p. 167.
Matters would probably have rested here, had not the queen been so
highly offended with Stricland's presumption in moving the bill for
reformation of the liturgy, that she summoned him before the council,
and prohibited him thenceforth from appearing in the house of
commons.[*] This act of power was too violent even for the submissive
parliament to endure. Carleton took notice of the matter; complained
that the liberties of the house were invaded; observed that Stricland
was not a private man, but represented a multitude: and moved that he
might be sent for, and if he were guilty of any offence, might answer
for it at the bar of the house, which he insinuated to be the only
competent tribunal.[**] Yelverton enforced the principles of liberty
with still greater boldness. He said, that the precedent was dangerous;
and though, in this happy time of lenity, among so many good and
honorable personages as were at present invested with authority, nothing
of extremity or injury was to be apprehended, yet the times might alter;
what now is permitted, might hereafter be construed as duty, and might
be enforced even on the ground of the present permission. He added, that
all matters not treasonable, or which implied not "too much" derogation
of the imperial crown, might, without offence, be introduced into
parliament; where every question that concerned the community must be
considered, and where even the right of the crown itself must finally be
determined. He remarked, that men sat not in that house in their private
capacities, but as elected by their country; and though it was proper
that the prince should retain his prerogative, yet was that prerogative
limited by law: as the sovereign could not of himself make laws, neither
could he break them merely from his own authority.[***]
* D'Ewes, p. 175.
** D'Ewes, p. 175.
*** D'Ewes, p. 175, 176.
These principles were popular, and noble, and generous; but the open
assertion of them was, at this time, somewhat new in England; and the
courtiers were more warranted by present practice, when they advanced
a contrary doctrine. The treasurer warned the house to be cautious in
their proceedings; neither to venture further than their assured warrant
might extend, nor hazard their good opinion with her majesty in any
doubtful cause. The member, he said, whose attendance they required,
was not restrained on account of any liberty of speec
|