Mr Speaker, I find written in a little volume these words in effect: Sweet is the name of liberty, but the thing itself a value beyond all inestimable treasure. So much the more it b ehoveth us to take care lest we, contenting ourselves with the sweetness of the name, lose and forego the thing, being of the greatest value that can come unto this noble realm. The inestimable treasure is the use of it in this House....
. . . Sometime it happeneth that a good man win in this place (for argument sake) prefer an evil cause, both for that he would have a doubtful truth to be opened and manifested, and also the evil prevented; so that to this point I conclude that in this House, which is termed a place of free speech, there is nothing so necessary for the preservation of the prince and state as free speech, and without, it is a scorn and mockery to call it a Parliament House, for in truth it is none, but a very school of flattery and diss imulation, and so a fit place to serve the devil and his angels in, and not to glorify God and benefit the commonwealth....
... Amongst other, Mr Speaker, two things do great hurt in this place, of the which I do mean to speak. The one is a rumour whic h runneth about the House, and this it is, 'Take heed that you do; the Queen's Majesty liketh not such a matter; whosoever preferreth it, she will be offended with him': or the contrary, 'Her Majesty liketh of such a matter; whosoever speaketh against it, she will be much offended with him.' The other: sometimes a message is brought into the House, either of commanding or inhibiting, very injurious to the freedom of speech and consultation. I would to God, Mr Speaker, that these two were buried in hell, I mean rumours and messages, for wicked undoubtedly they are; the reason is, the devil was the first author of them, from whom proceedeth nothing but wickedness....
... Now the other was a message Mr Speaker brought the last sessions into the House, tha t we should not deal in any matters of religion but first to receive from the bishops. Surely this was a doleful message, for it was as much as to say, Sirs, ye shall not deal in God's causes, no, ye shall in no wise seek to advance his glory.... Truly I assure you, Mr Speaker, there were divers of this House that said with grievous hearts immediately upon the message, that God of his justice could not prosper the session; ... God . . . was the last session shut out of doors. But what fell out of it, fo rsooth? His great indignation was therefore poured upon this House, for he did put into the Queen's Majesty's heart to refuse good and wholesome laws for her own preservation, the which caused many faithful hearts for grief to burst out with sorrowful te ars, and moved all papists, traitors to God and her Majesty in their sleeves to laugh all the whole Parliament House to scorn. . . . So certain it is, Mr Speaker, that none is without fault, no, not our noble Queen, since then her Majesty hath committed g reat fault, yea, dangerous faults to herself......
. . . . It is a dangerous thing in a prince unkindly to abuse his or her nobility and people, and it is a dangerous thing in a prince to oppose or bend herself against her nobility and people.... And ho w could any prince more unkindly intreat, abuse, oppose herself against her nobility and people than her Majesty did the last Parliament? ... And will not this her Majesty's handling, think you, Mr Speaker, make cold dealing in any of her Majesty's subjec ts toward her again? I fear it will. . .. And I beseech ... God to endue her Majesty with his wisdom, whereby she may discern faithful advice from traitorous, sugared speeches, and to send her Majesty a melting, yielding heart unto sound counsel, that wi ll may not stand for a reason; and then her Majesty will stand when her enemies are fallen, for no estate can stand where the prince will not be governed by advice. And I doubt not but that some of her Majesty's Council have dealt plainly and faithfully with her Majesty herein; ... I have heard from old Parliament-men that the banishment of the pope and popery and the restoring of true religion had their beginning from this House and not from the bishops.... And I do surely think, before God I speak it, that the bishops were the cause of that doleful message, and I will shew you what moveth me so to think: I was, amongst others, the last Parliament sent unto the bishop of Canterbury for the Articles of Religion that then passed this House. He asked us w hy we did put out of the book the articles for the homilies, consecrating of bishops, and such like? 'Surely, Sir,' said 1, 'because we were so occupied in other matters that we had no time to examine them how they agreed with the word of God.' 'What?' said he, "surely you mistook the matter; you will refer yourselves wholly to us therein?' 'No, by the faith I bear to God,' said I, 'we will pass nothing before we understand what it is; for that were but to make you popes.' 'Make you popes who list,' s aid 1, 'for we will make you none.' And sure, Mr Speaker, the speech seemed to me to be a pope-like speech, and I fear lest our bishops do attribute this of the pope's canons to themselves, Papa non potest errare....
D'Ewes, Journals, 236-40