2

showed that they knew their own strength and dignity.' The second remonstrance was couched in still stronger language than the first, and contained this plain-spoken bit of advice, viz: "that the voice of Bellona must be now heard, and not the voice of a turtle; that there was no hope of peace, and his Majesty must either abandon his children or else declare war." James sent a copious reply to the second remonstrance, again advising the Commons to keep to their proper sphere, and plainly telling them they had no title to interpose with their advice except when he was pleased to ask for it. Their privileges, he said, were derived from the grace and permission of his ancestors, and if they wished him to maintain and preserve their privileges they must contain themselves within the limits of their duty.3 Hardly had the Commons recovered from their consternation at this reply, before another letter of the King's, on the same subject, addressed to Secretary Calvert, was made known to them. This letter was of a very conciliatory nature, and modified, though it did not retract some of the pretensions he had arbitrarily laid claim to. In the debate that ensued on the reading of the King's letter in the House, on Monday December 17, Sir E. Cecil took a part, and in a short speech, said, “he would have them go on with the bills and business of the House, if it be but to show their thankfulness to his Majesty for his gracious message; but he would principally have them appoint a committee to consider of their privileges. He was glad to see by a precedent even now showed by Sir Edward Coke, that it had been an ancient use that on discontent the House hath use to be silent, and it was now no new thing."

Parliamentary History, i. p. 1353.

Sir Thomas Wentworth, Sir E. Coke, and other members had moved that the privileges of the House should be set down in writing by way of protestation. Their advice was followed, and a committee was formed to draw up the protestation of the House, and enter it in the journals of the House. This memorable protest asserted "that the liberties, franchises, privileges and jurisdictions of parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England."

When James was informed of this proceeding, he determined to dissolve Parliament. He came to Whitehall on December 30, and having sent for the journals of the House, he tore out the page recording the protestation, in the presence of the Privy Council and Judges. He then prorogued the Parliament, and soon after dissolved it by proclamation. Sir Edward Coke' and several leading members of the House were committed to prison, and others were sent to Ireland,2 ostensibly to act as commissioners, but in reality to get them out of the way for a time.

It would appear from a letter of Sir Edward Cecil's, written in the spring of this year, that he had a house at Chelsea, where he resided when in England. This letter has been reserved for the end of this chapter, as its contents are entirely irrelevant to any subject before treated of, but being a characteristic letter, and referring as it does to one of the most interesting churches in London, it would be a pity to omit it altogether. Space does not allow of the answer to this letter, or of Cecil's second letter on the subject, being given here, but it may be stated that the disputed matter was satisfactorily arranged.

Sir E. Coke had been created Chief Justice of the King's Bench in 1613, but having lost the favour of James by his opposition to the illegal exercise of the royal prerogative, he was displaced in 1616, and was returned to Parliament in 1621.

* Chamberlain to Carleton, March 9, 1621–2. –S. P. Dom.

"SIR,

SIR E. CECIL TO SIR JOHN Lawrence.1

"I received a letter from you wherein you tel me of exceptions you take at a pue I made in the Church at Chelsea, which I had then answered if your dwelling had beene so well knowne to mee as mine is to you. You pretend a claime of royaltie by inheritance unto it. I send you now an account of my self and my purpose touching your claime. When I came into the Church I found all men accommodated with pues, speciallie you and your house, sufficientlie becoming your person and qualitie. I intruded upon no man, but found out an unhandsome neglected corner, imployed in nothing but for the roome of an old rotten chest. Seeing everie man served, I thought it no iniurie to goe into that poore corner to serve God in. I have been at the charge of the pue in that place, which was never put to this use before. You take a rent for your owne, and make use of my charge. I know not what greatnes belonges unto you that you cannot content yourself with a reasonable proportion in so little a Church, nor what strange kind of malice it is you beare mee that you seeke to keepe mee out of a place in the Church that till my coming into it you never made account of to serve God in, and I believe not now, but to serve yo' owne humour in. In such a case there is a simile of a Dogge in a Manger that may not unfitly be applied unto it. Now for your authoritie and inheritance. I cannot understand the iustnes of it. In my minde these are thinges given in generall to the parish, especiallie when they concerne groundes that have not beene used and are to be disposed of by the Churchwardens. For my Grandfather and some other of my frends have made pues in St. Clementes,2 and St. Martine's,3 and wee their children can challenge no right but what the parish

1 Sir John Lawrence, Knt., of Chelsea and of Delaford in the parish of Iver, co. Bucks, was created a baronet in 1628. He married Grisel, daughter and one of the co-heirs, of Gervase Gibbons, by whom he had a son, John, afterwards Lord Mayor of London, who succeeded as second Bart. The elder Sir John died November 13, 1638, and was buried in the Lawrence chapel in Chelsea Church, where several members of this ancient family are buried. The title became extinct in 1734.

2 St. Clement's Danes in the Strand.

3 St. Martin's-in-the-Fields.

378 LIFE AND times of geneRAL SIR EDWARD CECIL.

will allow us. Therefore, I would wish you (Sir) to forbeare my pue, and not to valleu yourself at so great a rate, and mee at so little, as to possess it when you know I am in Chelsea, unless you wilbee content, as I shall find it, to take as great an affront as you have done me. I pray you consider with yourself what you have done, and what you will doe.

"Aprill y 29th, 1621."2

Add. "To my Worthie Friend,

Sir John Laurence

"Yr frend

"ED. CECILL.1

Knt., &c., &c."

1 Very few of Sir E. Cecil's letters are signed "Cecill," as he almost invariably spelt his name

Cecyll."

? This letter, which is in private hands, is published in Notes and Queries, xi. second series (January, 1861), pp. 13-4. Sir John Lawrence's answer, and a counter reply from Sir E. Cecil, will be found in same vol. pp., 14–5.

INDEX TO VOL. I.