"We must vindicate what?" demanded Wentworth; "new things? No; our

ancient, legal, and vital liberties, by enforcing the laws enacted by

our ancestors; by setting such a stamp upon them that no licentious

spirit shall dare henceforth to invade them." In the repeated debates

which followed, Sir Edward Coke particularly distinguished himself, old

as he was, by his powerful and undaunted speeches. He called upon the

members to stand by the ancient laws, and was seconded by other members,

who narrated the breaking of those laws by the abuses of raising money

by loans, by benevolences, and privy seals; by billeting soldiers,

by imprisonment of men for refusing these illegal demands, and by

withholding from them the benefit of _Habeas corpus_. In vain were the

speakers warned by the Court party to beware of distrusting the king,

who had been driven to these measures by necessity, and by others, who

declared that such was the king's goodness that it was next only to that

of God. But Coke cried out, "Let us work whilst we have time! I am

absolutely for giving supply to his majesty, but yet with some caution.

Let us not flatter ourselves. Who will give subsidies if the king may

impose what he will? I know he is a religious king, free from personal

vices, but he deals with other men's hands, and sees with other men's

eyes."

[Illustration: SIR JOHN ELIOT. (_From the Port Eliot Portrait._)]

This was approaching the subject of the favourite, which even the boldest

were afraid of touching, but which Coke soon after entered upon plainly,

and with all courage.

On the 8th of May the House passed the four following resolutions,

without a dissentient voice even from the courtiers--1st, That no freeman

ought to be restrained or imprisoned, unless some lawful cause of such

restraint or imprisonment be expressed; 2nd, That the writ of _Habeas

Corpus_ ought to be granted to every man imprisoned or restrained, though

it be at the command of the king or Privy Council, if he pray for the

same; 3rd, That when the return expresses no cause of commitment or

restraint, the party ought to be delivered or bailed; 4th, That it is

the ancient and undoubted right of every free man, that he hath a full

and absolute property in his goods and estates, and that no tax, loan,

or benevolence ought to be levied by the king or his ministers, without

common consent by Act of Parliament.

It was clear, from these resolutions, that unless Charles chose to forego

his illegal practices of raising money without consent of Parliament,

and of imprisoning subjects without any warrant but his own will, he

must abandon all idea of the five subsidies; but his necessities were

too great, and the difficulties in the way of continuing to plunder

people at his pleasure too formidable to allow him lightly to give up

the tempting offer. The Lords were less determined than the Commons, and

this gave him some encouragement. The matter was argued in the Commons

on his behalf by the Attorney-General and the King's Counsel, but they

found the leading members of the House too strong in their knowledge of

constitutional law to be moved from their grand propositions. In the

course of the debate the interference of Buckingham was felt, and the

brave Sir John Eliot did not let that pass without criticism. "I know

not," he said, "by what fatality or importunity it has crept in, but

I observe in the close of Mr. Secretary's relation, mention made of

_another_ in addition to his majesty, and that which hath been formerly

a matter of complaint, I find here still--a mixture with his majesty,

not only in business, but in name. Let me beseech you, sir, let no man

hereafter within these walls take this boldness to introduce it."

On the 28th of May the Commons presented to his majesty their celebrated

Petition of Right; a document destined to become celebrated, a

confirmation of Magna Charta, and the origin of the Bill of Rights

secured in 1688, on which rests all the fabric of our present liberties.

This Petition was based on the four resolutions. It commenced by

reminding the monarch of the great statutes passed by some of the

most illustrious of his ancestors, which he had been so long and

pertinaciously outraging; that the statute _De Tallagio non concedendo_,

made in the reign of Edward I., provided that no tallage nor aid could

be levied by the king without consent of Parliament; that by another

statute of the 25th year of Edward III., no person could be compelled to

make any loan to the king without such sanction; such loans being against

reason and the charters of the land. There could be no dispute here--the

king stood palpably convicted, and had he acted in ignorance, could do

so no longer. It then went on: "And by other laws of this realm, it is

provided that none shall be charged by any charge or imposition called a

benevolence, nor by such like charge; by which statutes before mentioned,

and the other good laws and statutes of the realm, your subjects have

inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute

to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge, not set by common

consent in Parliament: yet, nevertheless, of late, divers commissions,

directed to sundry commissioners, in several counties, with instructions,

have issued, by pretext whereof your people have been in divers places

assembled, and required to lend certain sums of money unto your majesty;

and many of them, upon their refusal to do so, have had an unlawful oath

administered unto them, not warrantable by the laws and statutes of this

realm, and have been constrained to become bound to make appearance and

give attendance before your Privy Council in other places; and others

of them have therefore been imprisoned, confined, and sundry other

ways molested and disquieted; and divers other charges have been laid

and levied upon your people in several counties, by lords-lieutenant,

commissioners for musters, justices of peace, and others, by command or

direction from your majesty or your Privy Council, against the laws and

free customs of this realm."

The Petition next set forth that divers persons refusing to pay these

impositions had been imprisoned without cause shown, and on being brought

up by _Habeas Corpus_ to have their cause examined, had been sent back to

prison without such fair trial and examination. From this it proceeded to

the fact that numbers of soldiers had been billeted in private houses,

contrary to the law, and persons tried by martial law in cases where

they were only amenable to the common law of the land; and moreover,

officers and ministers of the king had screened soldiers and sailors who

had committed robberies, murders, and other felonies, on the plea that

they were only responsible to military tribunals. All these breaches of

the statutes, the Petition prayed the king to cause to cease, as being

contrary to the rights and liberties of the subject, as secured by the

laws of the land.

The Petition was so clear, and the statutes quoted were so undeniable,

that Charles was puzzled what to do. To refuse the prayer of the Commons

was to forfeit the five tempting subsidies; to admit it simply and fully

was to confess that he had hitherto been altogether wrong, and to leave

himself no loop-hole of excuse for the future. Instead, therefore, of

adopting the established form of saying, in the old Norman words, "_Soit

droit fait comme il est désiré_," he wrote at the foot of the petition

this loose and most absurd assent--"The king willeth that right be done

according to the laws and customs of the realm; and that the statutes be

put in due execution, that his subjects may have no cause to complain of

any wrongs or oppressions, contrary to their just rights and liberties,

to the preservation whereof he holds himself in conscience as well

obliged as of his own prerogative."

This left the matter precisely where it was, for the king had always

contended that he did nothing but what was warranted by his prerogative.

The House felt this, and at once expressed their grievous disappointment.

To add to their chagrin, Charles sent a message to them, informing

them that he should dissolve Parliament on the 11th of June, it now

being the 5th. A deep and melancholy silence pervaded the House, which

locked the doors to prevent interruption, and debated the matter in all

earnestness. A second message from his majesty, commanding them not to

cast or lay aspersions on any minister of his majesty, added greatly

to the concern of the House. On the day but one before Sir John Eliot

had urged the necessity of a "declaration" to his majesty, showing the

decay and contempt of religion, and the insufficiency of his ministers,

the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had styled Sir John's speech

"strange language," and had declared that if Sir John went on, he would

go out; upon which the House told him plainly to take himself off. This

had brought down the king's second message. The debate went on amid tears

and deep emotion from strong and long-practised men; as if they perceived

that the great crisis of the nation was come, and foresaw the bloodshed

and misery which were to follow if they stood firm to their knowledge of

the right; the slavery and degradation of England if they did not.

Sir Robert Philips, interrupted by sobs and weeping, said:--"I perceive

that towards God and towards man there is little hope, after our humble

and careful endeavours, seeing our sins are many and so great. I consider

my own infirmities, and if ever my passions were wrought upon, it is now.

This message stirs me up, especially when I remember with what moderation

we have proceeded." These earnest and religious men feared that God was

hardening the heart of the king as he had done that of Pharaoh, in order

to punish the nation for its backslidings and wickedness. "Our sins,"

said Sir John Eliot, "are so exceeding great, that unless we speedily

turn to God, God will remove Himself farther from us. You know with what

affection and integrity we have proceeded hitherto, to gain his majesty's

heart; and, out of the necessity of our duty, were brought to that

course we were in: I doubt a misrepresentation to his majesty hath drawn

this mark of his displeasure upon us. I observe in the message, amongst

other sad particulars, it is conceived that we were about to lay some

aspersions upon the Government. Give me leave to protest that so clear

were our intentions, that we desire only to vindicate these dishonours

to our king and country. It is said also as if we cast some aspersions

on his majesty's ministers; I am confident no minister, how dear soever,

can----"

Eliot was interrupted by Sir John Finch, the Speaker, who had for some

time been more and more sidling away to the favour of the king, starting

up and exclaiming, "There is a command laid upon me, to interrupt any

that shall go about to lay an aspersion on the ministers of State." This

was a clear infringement of the privilege of Parliament, which the House

was not disposed to pass by. Sir John, thus snubbed, sat down, and there

remained a significant silence for some minutes. Then Sir Dudley Digges

rose and said, "Unless we may speak of these things, let us arise, and

begone, or sit still and do nothing." There was another deep silence, at

length broken by Sir Nathaniel Rich, who said, "We must now speak, or

for ever hold our peace. For us to be silent when king and kingdom are

in this calamity, is not fit. The question is, whether we shall secure

ourselves by our silence--yea or no? Let us go to the Lords and show our

dangers, that we may then go to the king together with our representation

thereof." Prynne, Coke, and others, spoke to the same effect, and Coke

was so overwhelmed with his feelings, grown old as he was, at the Bar, on

the Bench and in the House, that he was obliged to resume his seat.

The House resolved itself into a committee for more freedom of

discussion, and put Mr. Whitly into the chair. Finch, the Speaker,

begged leave, as he was quitting the chair, for half an hour's absence.

The House knew very well that he only wanted to run off and tell the

king what was going on, but they let him go, and away he bustled to

Whitehall. The House then passed an order, declaring that no man should

leave the House under penalty of being committed to the Tower. Then Mr.

Kirton rose, and declaring that the king in himself was as good a prince

as ever reigned, said "it was high time to find out the enemies of the

Commonwealth, who had so prevailed with him, and then he doubted not but

God would send them hearts, hands, and swords, to cut all their throats."

He added that the Speaker to desire to leave the House as he had done,

was unprecedented, and to his mind ominous. Sir Edward Coke once more

endeavoured to say what he had not been able to say before, but which

must be said, and none so proper as this veteran statesman to say it. "I

now see," he observed, "that God has not accepted our humble and moderate

carriages and fair proceedings; and I fear the reason is that we have

not dealt sincerely with the king, and made a true representation of the

causes of all these miseries. Let us take this to heart. In the time of

Edward III. had Parliament any doubt as to naming men that misled the

king? They accused John of Gaunt, the king's son, Lord Latimer, and Lord

Neville, for misadvising the king; and they went to the Tower for it.

And now, when there is such a downfall of the State, shall we hold our

tongues? Why," continued he, "may we not name those who are the cause of

all our evils?" And he added, "Let us palliate no longer; if we do, God

will not prosper us. I think the Duke of Buckingham is the cause, and

till the duke be informed thereof, we shall never go out with honour, nor

sit with honour here. That man is the grievance of grievances! Let us

set down the causes of all our disasters, and they will all reflect upon

him. As to going to the Lords, that is not _via regia_; our liberties are

now impeached; we are deeply concerned; it is not _via regia_, for the

Lords are not participant with our liberties. It is not the king but the

duke that saith, 'We require you not to meddle with state affairs, or the

ministers thereof.' Did not his majesty, when prince, attend the Upper

House in our prosecution of Lord Chancellor Bacon and the Lord Treasurer

Middlesex?"

The secret was out; the word was spoken! The name at which Charles and

the duke had trembled, lest it should come into discussion, was, in spite

of threats and messages, named; and the naming, and the charging with all

the disgraces and miseries of the nation, were received with sudden and

general acclamation of "Yea! yea! 'Tis he! 'tis he!" The day was come

that James had so solemnly warned both Charles and Buckingham of--when

they should have their bellyful of impeachments; having, as Coke now

reminded them, themselves set the ball rolling. Aldred, in the letter

just quoted, says:--"As when one good hound recovers the scent, the rest

come in with full cry, so one pursued it, and every one came home and

laid the blame where he thought the fault was, on the Duke of Buckingham,

to wit." The duke was speedily accused of treachery and incapacity, both

as High Admiral and Commander-in-Chief. All the disgraceful failures, at

Cadiz, at La Rochelle, on the Isle of Rhé, and even in Germany, were

charged upon his evil counsels or worse management.

Selden proposed a declaration to his majesty under four heads, expressive

of the dutiful devotion of the House, of the violation of the nation's

liberties, of the intentions of the House, and of the interference of

the duke to prevent inquiry. He declared that all this time they had

been casting a mantle over the accusation made against Buckingham, and

that it was time to revert to that. "At this moment," says Aldred, "as

we were putting the question, the Speaker, having been, not half an

hour, but three hours absent, and with the king, returned, bringing

this message--that the House should then rise--being about eleven

o'clock--adjourn till the morrow morning, and no committees to sit, or

other business to go on in the interim."

The next day the House met, when Finch apologised for his absence,

and his going to the king, declaring that he had communicated nothing

but what was to the honour of the House; and wishing that his tongue

might cleave to the roof of his mouth before he spoke a word to the

disparagement of any member. He informed them that his majesty had no

desire to fetter their deliberations, so that they did not interfere with

his ministers, and added words of courtesy from the king. The Commons

observed that they had no intention of charging anything on the king,

but must insist on inquiring when necessary into the conduct of his

ministers; and the words of Mr. Kirton being found fault with, which

intimated a hope that all those found guilty might have their throats

cut, the House resolved that "he had said nothing beyond the bounds of

duty and allegiance, and that they all concurred with him therein."

On the following day they went into committee, and commenced their

labours of inquiry into the proceedings of the executive. They examined

Burlemachi, a foreign speculator, as to a commission which he was alleged

to have, for engaging and bringing into this kingdom troops of German

horse. He confessed to such warrant, and to having received thirty

thousand pounds for this purpose; one thousand of these horse being,

as he admitted, already raised and armed, and waiting their passage in

Holland. "And the intention of bringing over these mercenaries," said

one of the members, "is to cut our throats, or to keep us in obedience!"

Another member declared that twelve of the commanders were already

arrived, and had been seen in St. Paul's. The House next fell upon a

new scheme of excise, which it was proposed to levy without consent of

Parliament, and voted that any member who had any information regarding

this new imposition and did not disclose it, was an enemy to the State,

and no true Englishman.

[Illustration: ASSASSINATION OF THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM. (_See p._ 535.)]

The danger which was obviously approaching Buckingham in the proceedings

of this Committee alarmed the king; and the same day, the 7th of June,

he commanded the Commons to meet him in the House of Lords, and then

observing that he thought he had given a full and specific answer to

their Petition of Right, but as they were not satisfied, he desired

them to read the Petition again, and he would give them an answer which

should satisfy them. Taking his seat on the throne, this was done, and

he then ordered the former answer to be cut off, and the following, in

the established form, to be inscribed--"Let right be done as is desired."

"Now," he added, "I have performed my part; wherefore, if this Parliament

have not a happy issue, the sin is yours. I am free of it."

Thus was passed the Petition of Right, the most important document

since the acquirement of Magna Charta. The rejoicing for this conquest,

this assurance of quieter days and secure firesides, sped through the

City, and thence over the kingdom, and was everywhere demonstrated by

acclamations, ringing of bells, and bonfires. On the 10th of June, three

days afterwards, the king, as if pleased with this public expression of

satisfaction, sent Sir Humphrey May to inform the House of Commons that

he was graciously pleased that their Petition of Right, with his answer,

should be recorded not only on the journals of Parliament, but in those

of the courts of Westminster, and should, moreover, be printed for his

honour and the content of the people. On the 12th the Commons showed

their content by voting the king the five subsidies, and hastening to

pass the Bill for five other subsidies granted by the clergy.

But the exultation over this great triumph did not prevent the Commons

from pursuing their labours of inquiry into abuses. They obtained a

judgment from the Lords against Dr. Mainwaring for his encouragement

of kingly absolutism in his sermons, and censured Laud and Neale of

Winchester, for licensing similar sermons; they then came to Buckingham

himself, and voted a strong remonstrance against his undue influence and

unconstitutional doings, which was presented by the Speaker to the king.

The House felt itself highly aggrieved by a speech which the favourite

was reported to have made at his own table--"Tush! it makes no matter

what the Commons or Parliament doth; for without my leave and authority,

they shall not be able to touch the hair of a dog." Buckingham protested

that he had never uttered such words, and called upon the House of Lords

to demand that the members of the Commons who had thus reported it should

be called in to prove it; but the duke was forced to content himself with

entering his protest on the journals of the Lords.

The Commons not having voted the tonnage and poundage, calculated that

the king would not hastily dissolve the House, and therefore prayed

him to remove Buckingham from his counsels, as the author of so many

calamities; and they took the opportunity to remind him that tonnage

and poundage could not be collected without their consent, as the

king's concession of the Petition of Right testified. This called forth

Charles again as hotly as ever. Though he had admitted, in granting

this Petition, that no kind of duty could be imposed without consent of

Parliament, he now sought to except the tonnage and poundage from this

condition. He therefore, on the 26th of June, suddenly went to the House

of Lords, and summoned the attendance of the Commons. The action had

been so impromptu, that the Lords had no notice of it, and neither he

nor they had time to robe themselves, when the Commons at nine o'clock

in the morning made their appearance. All unrobed as he was, Charles

seated himself on the throne, and lectured the Commons on their already

beginning to put false constructions on his passing the Petition of

Right. "As for the tonnage and poundage, it is a thing I cannot want,

and was never intended by you to ask, nor meant by me, I am sure, to

grant." And he called on them, but more especially the Lords, who were

the judges, to take notice of what he declared his meaning to be when he

granted the Petition.

The mischief had been done by former Parliaments granting this impost,

now called customs duties, for life; and though Parliament had never

altogether surrendered the power of voting it, nor had voted it for

life to Charles, he had come to consider it as merged into a matter of

prerogative, and not to be affected by his general concession just made.

The Commons, however, meant nothing less than that this, as well as

every other grant of taxes on the subject, should be void without their

assent. Here, therefore, as so often afterwards, they found themselves

just where they were with the king as matter of dispute, though they

had settled the question as matter of right. No man was ever so hard as

Charles I. to be made to see what he did not like. He therefore gave

his assent to the subsidies, and prorogued the Parliament till October;

and, as if to mark how far he was from intending to submit to what he

had thus so solemnly in the face of the whole nation bound himself to,

he proceeded to reward the men who had so shamefully advocated absolute

power in him. He made bishops of both Montague and Mainwaring, and

promoted Sibthorpe to coveted livings.

The king's attention was soon drawn from the battle with the Commons

to the demands of the unfortunate people of La Rochelle upon him. He

had solemnly pledged his honour to assist them, and they now sorely

needed it. Since Buckingham left them to their fate, La Rochelle had

been invested by the French army under the king and Richelieu, and the

besieged loudly called on the King of England to succour them according

to his promise. The Earl of Denbigh was despatched thither with a

numerous fleet, yet had done nothing; but having shown himself before

the town for seven days, returned, to the great mortification of the

Rochellais. Denbigh had been raised to his rank and title simply for

marrying a sister of Buckingham's, and the people murmured loudly at the

fleet being put into such incompetent hands. The hatred of the duke rose

higher and higher, and on the same day that he was pronounced by the

Commons the cause of all these national calamities, his physician, Dr.

Lambe, was murdered by a mob in London, and a placard was affixed on the

walls in these words:--"Who rules the kingdom?--The king. Who rules the

king?--The duke. Who rules the duke?--The devil. Let the duke look to it,

or he will be served as his doctor was served." A doggerel rhyme was in

the mouths of the common people:--

"Let Charles and George do what they can,

The duke shall die like Dr. Lambe."

The king was extremely concerned when the placard was shown him, and

added double guard at night; but the duke treated the whole with

contempt, and prepared to proceed himself with the fleet to relieve La

Rochelle. Charles went with him to Deptford to see the ships, and is

reported to have said to Buckingham on beholding them, "George, there are

those who wish that both these and thou may perish; but we will both

perish together, if thou dost." Buckingham proceeded to Portsmouth, where

he was to embark. Clarendon relates that the ghost of Buckingham's father

had appeared to an officer of the king's wardrobe three times, urging

him to go to his son and warn him to do something to abate the hatred

of the people, or that he would not be allowed to live long. Since the

demonstrations in London, it needed no ghost to show his danger. But he

was never gayer than on the eve of the verification of the omens and the

menaces.

The duke, on the 23rd of August, rose in high spirits, even dancing in

his gaiety, and went to breakfast with a great number of his officers.

Whilst he was at breakfast, M. Soubise, the envoy of the people of La

Rochelle, went to him, and was seen in earnest private conversation.

It is supposed that Soubise had come to the knowledge of certain

negotiations between England and France, in which, though both monarchs

showed every tendency to listen to an accommodation, neither had yet

ventured to propose it; but that it was the object of Buckingham rather

to treat than to fight when he got to La Rochelle. At that very moment

Mr. Secretary Carleton had arrived from the king with instructions to

Buckingham to open by some means a communication with Richelieu, and

thus, as it were, accidentally to bring about a treaty. Probably Soubise

had acquired hints of these things, for both he and many other Frenchmen

about Buckingham appeared greatly discontented, and vociferated and

gesticulated energetically. The duke, it is said, had been endeavouring

to persuade Soubise that La Rochelle was already relieved, which he was

too well informed to credit.

The duke now prepared to go out to his carriage, which was waiting at

the door, and as he went through the hall, still followed by the French

gentlemen, Colonel Friar whispered something in his ear. He turned to

listen, and at the same moment a knife was plunged into his heart, and

there left sticking. Plucking it out, with the word "Villain!" he fell,

covered with blood. His servants, who caught him as he was falling,

thought it was a stroke of apoplexy, but the blood, both from the wound

and his mouth, quickly undeceived them. Then an alarm was raised; some

ran to close the gates, and others rushed forth to spread the news. The

Duchess of Buckingham and her sister, the Countess of Anglesea, heard the

noise in their chamber, and ran into the gallery of the lobby, where

they saw the duke lying in his gore. He was only in his six-and-thirtieth

year.

The first suspicion fell upon the French, and they were in great danger

from the duke's people; but when a number of officers came rushing in,

crying out, "Where is the villain? Where is the butcher?" a man stepped

calmly forward, saying, "I am the man--here I am!" He had quietly

withdrawn into the kitchen as soon as he had done the deed, and might

have escaped had he so willed. On hearing him avow the murder the

officers drew their swords, and would have despatched him, but were

prevented by the Secretary Carleton, Sir Thomas Morton, and others, who

stood guard over him till a detachment of soldiers arrived and conveyed

him to the Governor's house.

The assassin turned out to be John Felton, a gentleman by birth and

education, who had been a lieutenant in the army during the expedition

to the Isle of Rhé. He had thrown up his commission because he could not

obtain the arrears of his pay, and had seen another at the same time

promoted over his head. He had, therefore, most likely, a personal grudge

against the duke, but had also been led on by religious fanaticism. He

was a stout, dark, military-looking man, from Suffolk; but according

to his own account, was first excited to the deed by reading the

remonstrance of the Parliament against the duke, when it seemed to him

that that remonstrance was a sufficient warrant for the act, and that

by ridding the country of him he should render a real service to it.

He described himself as walking in London on Tower Hill, when he saw a

broad hunting-knife on a cutler's stall, and that it was suggested to him

instantly to buy it for this purpose.

At Portsmouth one of the royal chaplains was sent to him in his dungeon,

where he lay heavily ironed; but Felton, supposing the chaplain sent to

draw something from him, rather than for his consolation, said, "Sir,

I shall be brief with you; I killed him for the cause of God and my

country!" The chaplain, to mislead him, told him what was not true, that

the surgeons gave hopes of his life; but Felton promptly replied, "That

is impossible! I had the power of forty men, assisted by Him who guided

my hand." On being removed to London, the people crowded to see him,

showering blessings on him as the deliverer of his country; and one old

woman at Kingston said, "Now, God bless thee, little David!" meaning that

he had killed Goliath. Felton was lodged in the Tower, and threatened

with the rack to make him confess his accomplices, but he steadfastly

replied that he had no accomplices or abettors but the remonstrance

of the Commons. The Earl of Dorset went to see him, accompanied, as

reported, by Laud, and menaced him with the rack if he would not reveal

his colleagues. Felton replied, "I am ready, but I must tell you that

I will then accuse you my lord of Dorset, and no one but you." Charles

urged his being racked, but the judges, who saw better than he did the

spirit that was abroad, refused to sanction it, declaring that torture,

however used, had always been contrary to the law of England. Felton

gloried in his deed, but at length, through the exertions of the clergy,

came to confess that he had been misled by a bad spirit; yet it has been

doubted whether he ever really abandoned inwardly the persuasion of

having done a great and patriotic deed. When the Attorney-General on the

trial lauded the virtues, the abilities, wisdom, and public services of

Buckingham to the skies, Felton, on being asked what he had to say why

judgment should not be passed on him, replied that if he had deprived his

majesty of so faithful a servant as Mr. Attorney-General described, he

was sorry, and extending his arm exclaimed, "This is the instrument that

did the deed, let it be cut off for it!" He was hanged at Tyburn, and

then gibbeted at Portsmouth, the scene of his crime.

In place of the duke, the Earl of Lindsay was ordered to take command of

the expedition for the relief of La Rochelle, and he was accompanied by

Walter Montague, the second son of the Earl of Manchester, who was to

open a negotiation with Richelieu. Montague was already a Catholic at

heart, and afterwards became so avowedly, and was made commendatory Abbot

of Pontoise, and a member of the Council of Anne of Austria. No doubt it

was from this known tendency that he had been chosen for this mission.

For five days the fleet manoeuvred before La Rochelle, and after two

ineffectual, and probably rather pretended than actual, endeavours to

force an entrance, returned to Spithead. Montague, meanwhile, had been

introduced to Louis, had hurried back to London, and was on the point

of returning, when the news came of the surrender of La Rochelle. This

event put an end to the dreams of a Protestant State in France, and

greatly consolidated the power of that country. To the Rochellais it was

a terrible lesson against putting faith in English kings. When they were

prevailed upon to surrender their peace and prosperity to the promises

of protection and religious liberty, the town contained fifteen thousand

souls; when they opened their gates to their own sovereign, they were

reduced to four thousand. All this misery was the work of Charles and

Buckingham.

[Illustration: TYBURN IN THE TIME OF CHARLES I.]

This event had greatly grieved the Protestants in England, and it was

whilst the public was brooding over these matters, and over fresh acts of

arbitrary oppression in the Star Chamber and Court of High Commission, as

well as by the continued levy of tonnage and poundage and other duties,

that Charles called together Parliament. It had been prorogued to the

20th of October, but met on the 20th of January, 1629. The king sent

the Commons a message, desiring them to proceed to vote the tonnage and

poundage without delay, this having been neglected by the Parliament

in the last Session; but the House insisted on going first into the

grievances. These were two-fold--such as related to the constitution, and

such as affected the faith of the nation. Charles had not only persisted

in the enforcement of revenue without Parliament, and dared to tamper

even with the Petition of Rights after he had granted it, but had issued

a new edition of the Articles of the Church, into which he had introduced

a clause to suit the intentions of himself and his great ecclesiastical

adviser, Laud. The Commons agreed to take the religious question first,

declaring that the business of the kings of this earth should give place

to the business of the King of Heaven.

Popery and Arminianism were the things which the Puritans held in almost

equal horror. In reference to Popery they inquired what was the reason

that the laws regarding it were relaxed? and why out of ten individuals

who had been arraigned for receiving ordination in the Church of Rome,

only one had been condemned, and the execution of that one respited? Two

Committees were appointed to inquire of the judges on what grounds they

had refused to receive evidence tendered against the recusants at their

trial, and of the Attorney-General by what authority he had discharged

the persons in question, on their giving bail for their re-appearance.

Every member was bound to give all the information to the House in his

power regarding the relaxation of the penal laws, and all attempts or

warrants to stay proceedings against the Papists.

But the growth and favour of Arminianism in high places was the most

absorbing subject of animadversion. Laud, now Bishop of London, was bent

not only on introducing Arminianism to its fullest extent, but ceremonies

and rites merging fast into Catholicism. Therefore the Puritans declared

the heresy of Arminianism to be the spawn of Popery. Laud had notions of

Church government as absolute as Charles had of civil government. All the

promotions by him were of Arminian clergymen. Montague was become Bishop

of Chichester, Mainwaring was a bishop, and all those who meant to get

preferment saw plainly that they must profess Arminianism, and the love

of gorgeous ceremonies and plenty of surplices.

There were difficulties, however, for the Articles drawn up in 1562,

under Elizabeth, stated:--"The Church hath power to decree rites and

ceremonies, and hath authority in matters of faith." Mr. Pym called upon

the House to take a covenant for the maintenance of their religious

rites, which were in danger; and both he and others denounced the

introduction of idolatrous ceremonies into the Church by Charles and

others. Sir John Eliot protested vehemently against the introduction of

the new clause into the Articles. He called on the House to enter not a

mere resolution but a "vow" on its Journals against it, which was done;

namely, "that the Commons of England claimed, professed, and avowed for

truth, that sense of the Articles of Religion which were established in

Parliament in the thirteenth year of Queen Elizabeth, which by the public

acts of the Church of England, and by the general and current exposition

of the writers of that Church, had been declared unto them, and that they

rejected the sense of the Jesuits, Arminians, and all others wherein they

differed from it."

The king sent the House a message, desiring them to leave matters of

religion, and proceed to pass the vote for tonnage and poundage. This

led to a sharp debate between the Court party and the Opposition. The

courtiers lauded the goodness of the king, and the enlargement of their

liberties which he had granted; but Mr. Coriton replied bluntly, "When

men speak here of neglect of duty towards his majesty, let them know

we know no such thing, nor what they mean. I see not how we neglect

the same. I see it is all our heart's desire to expedite the Bill of

tonnage and poundage in due time. Our business is still put back by their

messages, and the business in hand is God's. And his majesty's things are

certainly amiss, and every one sees it; but woe be unto us if we present

not the same to his majesty!" On the 2nd of February the House, instead

of the vote of tonnage and poundage, presented to the king "an apology"

for delaying that Bill, and containing a complaint of his majesty's

encroaching on the orders and privileges of their House by three messages

in two days, urging them to change inconveniently the orders of their

proceedings. Charles replied by a message through Secretary Coke that

he was as zealous for the faith as they were, but must again think it

strange that the business of religion should be an obstruction to his

business. He once more desired them to pass the vote for the tonnage and

poundage, adding one of his mischievous and most impolitic threats, of

quickening them by other means if they did not.

The House, resenting this ill-advised message, went on discussing the

affairs of the Church. Mr. Kirton, who had in the last Session talked

of cutting the throats of all traitorous Ministers, now declared Laud

and Neale, Bishop of Winchester, to be at the bottom of all the troubles

that were now come upon them and their religion. On the 11th of February,

in the Committee on Religion, Oliver Cromwell made his first appearance

as a speaker in that House, a circumstance of great mark, seeing what

the honourable member afterwards grew into. He said, "He had heard

by relation from one Dr. Beard that Dr. Alabaster had preached flat

Popery at Paul's Cross, and that the Bishop of Winchester had commanded

him, as his diocesan, that he should preach nothing to the contrary.

Mainwaring, so justly censured in this House for his sermons, was by the

same bishop's means preferred to a rich living. If these are the steps

to Church preferment, what are we to expect?" Whereupon the Committee

ordered Dr. Beard to be written to by Mr. Speaker, to come up and testify

against the bishop; "the order for Dr. Beard to be delivered to Mr.

Cromwell." After severe animadversions on Neale, who, Mr. Kirton said,

had leaped through many bishoprics, but always left Popery behind him,

the House passed to the consideration of the Petition of Right.

Selden called the attention of the House to this subject, and showed

that though Charles had promised that the Petition of Right should be

printed, and that the king's printer had struck off fifteen hundred

copies of that document, the king had sent for and destroyed them,

and had then had printed and circulated another copy, from which the

king's assent was removed, his first evasive answer restored, and his

sophistical explanation at the close of the Session, that it did not

apply to tonnage and poundage, introduced. This flagrant violation of

his word and of all the forms of Parliament, struck the House with

ominous doubts of ever binding the king by any law or by any principle.

They summoned the king's printer to their bar, and demanded by what

authority he had thus substituted a false for the true Petition. He

replied that the day after the Session the Attorney-General had sent for

him, and forbade him to publish the copy printed, as did also the Earl

of Worcester, Lord Privy Seal; and that he was sent for again to Court,

furnished with the new copy, and ordered to print and publish it in that

form.

The House was in the highest state of indignation and astonishment. Such

a deliberate falsification of a document passed by the House and ratified

by himself, branded the king as capable of any act of duplicity, and went

to destroy all confidence in not merely his word but his most solemn

legislative act. The chief speakers of the Commons expressed their horror

and disgust at the deed in no measured terms. Selden exclaimed, "For this

Petition of Right, we see how it has been invaded since our last meeting.

Our liberties of life, person, and freehold have been invaded; men have

been committed contrary to that Petition. No man ought to lose life or

limb but by the law, and hath not one lately lost his ears by order of

the Star Chamber? Next, they will take away our arms, and then our legs,

and so our lives. Let all see we are sensible of this. Evil customs creep

in upon us: let us make a just representation thereof to his majesty."

The case of a merchant and member of the House, Mr. Rolles, was then

related. His goods had been seized by the officers of the Customs for

refusing to pay the rates demanded, though he told them that whatever was

declared due by law, he would discharge. This case, amongst a multitude

of others, threw the House into a great ferment. "They knew the party was

a Parliament man," said Sir Robert Philips; "nay, they said if all the

Parliament was with him, or concerned in the goods, they would seize them

just the same."

The king, perceiving the storm he had raised, sent word by Secretary

Coke to stay further debate on that case till three o'clock the next

day, when he would speak with both Houses at Whitehall. Accordingly,

meeting them there, Charles, after complimenting the Lords at the expense

of the Commons, then said, addressing the members of the Lower House,

"The complaint of staying men's goods for tonnage and poundage may have

a short and easy conclusion. By passing the Bill as my ancestors have

had it, my past actions will be concluded, and my future proceedings

authorised. I take not these duties as appertaining to my hereditary

prerogative. It ever was, and still is, my meaning, by the gift of my

subjects to enjoy the same. In my speech of last Session I did not

challenge them as right, but showed you the necessity by which I was to

take them, till you had granted them, assuring myself that you wanted

only time, and not good will. So make good your professions, and put an

end to all questions arising from the subject."

These assertions were in direct contradiction to his declaration in that

very speech which we have already quoted, that the tonnage and poundage

was a thing that Parliament had nothing to do with. But the concession

gratified the Commons; still they did not grant the Customs duties, but

employed themselves strenuously in calling to account those who had been

concerned in furthering or executing the king's illegal orders. They

summoned to their bar Acton, the Sheriff of London, who had seized the

goods of Rolles and other merchants, and sent him to the Tower. They

summoned also the officers of the Customs who made the seizure, who

pleaded the king's warrant, and also his own express command; and the

king declared, through Secretary Coke, that he would defend them. This

caused loud outcries in the House, but did not check their proceedings,

for they sent messages to the Chancellor and Barons of the Exchequer, who

excused themselves by saying all those aggrieved had their remedy at law.

Thus they did not attempt to justify their proceedings.

On the 25th of February, two days later than these determined

inquisitions, showing that the Commons were assuming high and most

ominous ground, the Committee of Religion presented to the House a

report, entitled "Heads of Articles agreed upon, and to be insisted on by

the House." In these they complained that the bishops licensed books in

favour of Popery, and suppressed books opposed to Popery; that such books

as those of Mainwaring and Montague should be burnt, and some better

order taken for the licensing of books. They demanded that candlesticks

should be removed from the communion-tables, which were now impiously

styled high altars; that pictures, lights, images, should be taken away;

and crossing and praying towards the East forbidden; that more learned,

pious, and orthodox men should be put into livings, and that better

provision should be made for a good minister in every parish.

[Illustration: BROAD OF CHARLES I.]

Again Charles sent them an order to adjourn to the 2nd of March,

which they did, but only to assemble on that day in the same resolute

and unbending spirit. Sir John Eliot immediately denounced Neale of

Winchester, as a rank abettor of Arminianism, and thence passed on to

the Lord Treasurer Weston, whom he declared to be his grand supporter

in it. This Sir Richard Weston had been seeking his fortune at Court

many years, and had nearly spent a private fortune of his own before he

obtained any promotion. At last he got employed as ambassador to Archduke

Albert in Flanders, and afterwards to the court of Germany, in which he

discharged his trust so well that on his return he was made Chancellor of

the Exchequer, and a few months before the death of Buckingham, Charles

had removed the Earl of Marlborough from the office of Lord Treasurer,

and given it to him. Weston was highly elated, and devoted himself with

all his ardour to succeed to the place of favourite which Buckingham had

held. But though Charles showed him much favour, and eventually made him

Earl of Portland, he allowed Weston to succeed to the arbitrary offices

and public odium of the duke, but not to the ascendency which Buckingham

had possessed over him.

[Illustration: THREE POUND PIECE OF CHARLES I.]

Sir John Eliot now pointed out Weston's criminal subservience to the

worst designs of the king. "In his person," he said, "all evil is

concentrated, both for the innovation of religion, and the invasion of

our liberties. He is now the great enemy of the Commonwealth. I have

traced him in all his actions, and I find him building on those grounds

laid by his master, the great duke. He secretly is moving for this

interruption; and from this fear they go about to break Parliament, lest

Parliament should break them."

[Illustration: BRIOT SHILLING OF CHARLES I.]

This was tender ground, and Sir John Finch the Speaker, who was a regular

courtier, immediately said he had a command from his majesty to adjourn

the House till the following Tuesday week. Several members declared the

message to be vexatious and out of order, for that adjournment was a

function of their own; but since the Speaker had delivered the message

and that was sufficient, they would settle a few matters, and do as his

majesty desired. Sir John Eliot produced a remonstrance addressed to

the king against levying tonnage and poundage, and desired the Speaker

to read it; but he refused, saying the House was adjourned by the king.

Eliot then desired the Clerk of the House to read it, but he also

refused, and so Sir John read it himself; but the Speaker refused to put

it to the vote. Selden then told the Speaker that if he would not put

the question to the vote, they would all continue sitting still. The

Speaker, however, declared that he had his majesty's command immediately

to rise when he had delivered the message; whereupon he was rising, but

Holles, the son of the Earl of Clare, and Valentine, who had placed

themselves on each side of him for the purpose, held him down in his

chair. He made a great outcry and resistance: several of the courtiers

rushed to his assistance, but Holles swore that he should sit as long as

they pleased. The doors were locked, and there was a scuffle and blows,

but the Opposition members compelled the Speaker to continue sitting,

notwithstanding his struggles, tears, and entreaties.

[Illustration: JOHN SELDEN. (_From the Portrait by the Elder Mytens._)]

Selden delivered an address to the imprisoned Speaker on his duties and

his obedience owed to the House which sat under the Great Seal, and had

power of adjournment as the king had that of prorogation. Sir Peter

Hayman told him that he blushed at being his kinsman, that he was a blot

on his family, and would be held in scorn and contempt by posterity; and

concluded by recommending that if he would not do his duty, he should be

brought to the bar of the House, dismissed, and another chosen at once in

his place. Mr. Holles proceeded to read the following set of resolutions,

which were loudly cheered, and assented to by the House, namely:--1, That

whoever shall seek to bring in Popery, Arminianism, or other opinions,

disagreeing from the true and orthodox Church, shall be reputed a capital

enemy to this kingdom and Commonwealth; 2, Whoever shall advise the

taking of tonnage and poundage, not being granted by Parliament, or shall

be an actor or instrument therein, shall be reputed a capital enemy to

this kingdom and Parliament; 3, Whatever merchant or other person shall

pay tonnage and poundage, not being granted by Parliament, shall be

reputed a betrayer of the liberties of England, and an enemy to the same.

Whilst these extraordinary scenes were acting, the king had come down to

the House of Lords, but not finding the Speaker there as he expected,

sent a messenger to bring away the sergeant with his mace, without which

there could be no House. The doors were locked, and the messenger could

get no admittance. Charles then sent the Usher of the Black Rod to summon

the Commons to his presence, but he could no more obtain an entrance than

the messenger. On hearing this, in a transport of rage, the king ordered

the Captain of the Guard to break open the door; but this catastrophe

was prevented by the House just then adjourning to the 10th of March,

according to the king's message.

On the 10th of March the king went to the House of Lords, and, without

summoning the Commons, proceeded to dissolve Parliament. He then

addressed the Lords, complaining grievously of the conduct of the

Commons, which compelled him at that time to dissolve Parliament. He

expressed much comfort in the Lords, and conceded that there were in

the Commons many who were as dutiful and loyal subjects as any in the

world, but that they had some "vipers" amongst them that created all this

trouble. He intimated that these evil-disposed persons would meet with

their rewards, and bade the Lord Keeper do as he had commanded. Then the

Lord Keeper said, "My lords, and gentlemen of the Commons, the king's

majesty doth dissolve this Parliament;" though the Commons, with the

exception of a few individuals, were not there, nor represented by their

Speaker.

This question of the right of the Commons to determine their own

adjournment, and to deny to the king the right of preventing the Speaker

from putting any question from the Chair, was a vital one, and hitherto

undetermined. If the king could at any moment adjourn the Commons as well

as prorogue Parliament altogether, and could decide what topics should

be entertained by the House, there was an end of the existence of the

Commons as an independent branch of the Legislature: it sunk at once into

the mere creature of the Crown. There was a great battle for this as for

other popular rights, and the determined conduct of the members showed

that things were coming fast to a crisis. But at this moment Charles

was as resolved to conquer the Parliament, as Parliament was not to be

conquered.

No sooner did this unprecedented scene with the Speaker take place, than

he adopted measures to punish those most prominently concerned in it.

The compulsory detention of the Speaker took place on the 2nd of March;

on the 5th he issued warrants to arrest the "vipers"--Eliot, Selden,

Holles, Valentine, Hobart, Hayman, Coriton, Long, and Stroud--and commit

them to the Tower or other prisons. Stroud and Long were not immediately

caught, but on the issue of a proclamation for their apprehension they

surrendered. The houses of Eliot, Holles, Selden, Long, and Valentine

were forcibly entered, their desks broken open, and their papers seized.

On the first day of Michaelmas term they were brought into court, and

ordered to find bail, and also to give security for their good behaviour.

They were all ready to give bail, but all positively refused to give

security for good behaviour, as that implied the commission of some

crime, which they denied. They were then put upon their trial, but

excepted to the jurisdiction of the court, being amenable only to their

own high court of Parliament for what was done therein. But they were

told that their conduct had not been parliamentary, and that the common

law could deal with all offences there by word or deed, as well as

anywhere else. This was another attack on the privileges of Parliament,

which, if allowed, would have finished its independence; and these were

not the men to surrender any of the outworks and defences of Parliament.

They were then sentenced as follows:--Sir John Eliot to be imprisoned

in the Tower, the others in other prisons at the king's pleasure. None

of them were to be delivered out of prison till they had given security

for their good behaviour, acknowledged their offence, and paid the

following fines:--Sir John Eliot, as the ring-leader and chief offender,

two thousand pounds; Holles, one thousand marks; Valentine, five hundred

pounds. Long was not included in this trial, but was prosecuted in the

Star Chamber, on the plea that he had no business in Parliament, being

pricked for sheriff of his county, and by his oath was bound to have been

there. He was fined one thousand marks. This, however, deceived nobody:

every one knew that the offence for which he suffered was for his conduct

in Parliament. The prisoners lay in gaol for eighteen months. Sir John

Eliot never came out again. His noble conduct had made deadly enemies

of the king and his courtiers, and even when he was dying, in 1632,

after three years' confinement, they rejoiced in his melancholy fate and

refused all petitions for his release.

Charles called no more Parliaments till 1640, but went on for eleven

years fighting his way towards the block, through the most maniacal

attempts on the constitution and temper of the nation. Laud was in the

ascendant, and Wentworth, lately a member of the Opposition, who had

now changed sides from motives that it would be absurd not to call

conscientious, gave his great talents to the Court party. Laud was as

much a stickler for the power of the Church as Charles was of the State;

their views coincided, and Charles, Laud, and Wentworth, worked shoulder

to shoulder in governing without a Parliament. They invented a cant term

between them to express what they aimed at, and the means by which they

pursued it. It was "Thorough."

Laud had introduced a passage into the ceremonial even of the coronation,

which astonished the hearers, and showed even then that he aimed at an

ecclesiastical despotism: "Stand and hold fast from henceforth the place

to which you have been heir by the succession of your forefathers, being

now delivered to you by the authority of God Almighty, and by the hands

of us all, and all the bishops and servants of God. And as you see the

clergy to come nearer the altar than others, so remember that, in all

places convenient, you give them greater honour," etc. This haughty

prelate now promulgated such absolute doctrines of divine right of king

and priest, and began to run in ceremonies and Church splendour so fast

towards actual Popery, that the daughter of the Earl of Devonshire being

asked by him why she had turned Catholic replied, "Because I hate to

travel in a crowd. I perceive your Grace and many others are making haste

to Rome, and therefore, in order to prevent being crowded, I have gone

before you."

Under this undaunted leader, the pulpits now resounded with the most

flaming advocacy of divine right. A pamphlet was discovered by the

Reformers, which had been written for King James, and was now printed,

urging the king to do as Louis XI. of France had done--dispense with

Parliaments altogether, and secure his predominance by a standing army.

The queen's advice was precisely of this character: often crying up the

infinite superiority of the kings of her own country and family, whom

she styled real kings, while the English were only sham ones. But though

Charles was greatly soothed by these doctrines, and strengthened in his

resolve to trouble himself no more with Parliaments, he was careful to

strengthen his Government by inducing as many of the ablest men of the

Opposition as he could to join him. The first with whom he succeeded were

Wentworth and Sir John Savile. They were both from Yorkshire, and both

men of considerable property. Savile had been persuaded by Cottington the

Lord Chancellor, to desert his patriotic friends and professions at the

close of the second Parliament for a place in the Privy Council and the

office of Comptroller of the Household.

Sir Thomas Wentworth was a much more considerable man. He claimed

to be descended from the royal line of the Plantagenets, and had no

superior in ability in the House. The position which he had assumed

in the Parliamentary resistance to the royal encroachments had been

uncompromising and most effective. So much were his eloquence and

influence dreaded, that he had been, amongst others, appointed sheriff to

keep him out of the House. For his continual opposition he was deprived

of the office of Custos Rotulorum and thrown into prison. Yet, when

tempted by the offer of rank and power, he fell suddenly, utterly, and

hopelessly, and became one of the most unflinching advocates and actors

of absolutism that ever lived. On the 21st of July, 1628, Savile was

created a baron, and on the morrow Wentworth was raised to the same

dignity, as Baron Wentworth; and before the end of the year he was made

a viscount and Lord President of the Council of the North. From the

moment that Wentworth put his hand to the plough of despotism he never

looked back. He became as prominent and as resolute in the destruction of

liberty and the prosecution of his former colleagues as he had been for

its advancement and for their friendship.

The contagion of this conversion spread. Sir Dudley Digges had taken

a conspicuous part in the contests which we have described, and had

distinguished himself by his abilities in debate, sufficient to render

him worth purchasing. His colleagues had long felt, notwithstanding his

zeal, that he would not be proof to temptation. He was offered the post

of Master of the Rolls, and he at once accepted it. Noye and Littleton,

both lawyers, were as ready to advocate despotism as liberty, and the

offer of the Attorney-Generalship to Noye, and the Solicitor-Generalship

to Littleton, convinced them instantly that the Court was right, and

their old cause and companions were wrong. They testified their capacity

for seeing both sides of an argument, by persecuting their old opinions

and associates with the red hot zeal of proselytes.

The rest of Charles's ministers were the Lord Keeper Coventry, who,

though he appeared on several occasions as the instrument of Charles's

arbitrary measures, was thought not to approve very much of them, and

who therefore kept himself as much as possible from mixing in political

matters. The Earls of Holland and Carlisle, the pusillanimous Earl of

Montgomery, his brother the Earl of Pembroke, and the Earl of Dorset

were rather men of pleasure than of business, and attended the Council

without caring for office. The Earl of Arundel was Earl Marshal, a proud

and empty man, whom Clarendon the historian describes as living much

abroad, because the manners of foreign nations suited him better than

his own, and who "resorted sometimes to Court, because there only was a

greater man than himself, and went thither the seldomer because there

was a greater man than himself." He was careless of pleasing favourites,

and was therefore almost always in disgrace. Lord Weston, already

mentioned, was Lord Treasurer, and the Earl of Manchester Privy Seal.

Weston was an able lawyer, who succeeded Coke as Lord Chief Justice,

and then purchased the office of Lord Treasurer for twenty thousand

pounds, only to have it wrested from him again by Buckingham in about

twelve months; but he was courtier enough to suppress his resentment,

and had now again ascended to his present office, in which he was a very

pliant servant of the king. Besides these, Sir John Coke or Cooke, and

Sir Dudley Carleton, were Secretaries of State. Carleton had spent too

much time in foreign embassies to understand well the state of parties

at home, but he understood the will of the king, and took good care to

obey and promote it. Coke was "of narrow education, and narrower nature,"

says Clarendon, who adds that "his cardinal perfection was industry,

his most eminent infirmity covetousness." He knew as little of foreign

relations as Carleton did of domestic ones; but their office was one of

far less rank and importance than such office is now, their real business

being to enter the minutes and write the despatches of the Council, not

to participate in its discussions. Such were the instruments by which

Charles trusted to render Parliaments superfluous. By their aid, but far

more so by that of Laud and Wentworth, he soon raised the nation to a

state of exasperation, which was only appeased by the blood of all three.

During the violent transactions with his Parliament at home, Charles

had made peace with France. In fact, neither France nor Spain had shown

a disposition to prosecute the disputes which the King of England had

entered into with them. Louis sent home the prisoners he had taken in the

La Rochelle expedition, under the name of a present to his sister, and

Philip also released those who had been captured at Cadiz. Buckingham had

been at the bottom of both wars, and now that he was gone all differences

were soon arranged. Louis of France made a demand for the restoration

of a man-of-war, the _St. Esprit_, which had been illegally captured by

Sir Sackville Trevor; but he gave up the claim, and Charles was not very

importunate in his demands of protection for the French Protestants.

Richelieu, however, treated them far better than Charles treated the

Puritans in England. He took measures to prevent the possibility of

another coalition, by destroying the castles of the nobles and the

fortifications of the towns, prohibited the convention of deputies from

the churches, and abolished the military organisation of the Huguenots in

the South of France; but he left them the exercise of their worship, and

attached no disability to a profession of it. This peace was concluded in

the spring of 1629, and in the following year that with Spain was also

accomplished. The Queen Henrietta was violently opposed to this peace

with Spain, because France was still at war with that country and the

kindred House of Austria. When she found that she could not prevail on

Charles, she is said to have shed tears of vexation.

It is curious that the first overtures to this peace were made through

two Flemish painters; the celebrated Sir Peter Paul Rubens, and Gerbier,

a native of Antwerp, who had been Master of the Horse to Buckingham.

Cottington was despatched to Spain, in spite of the strenuous endeavours

of the queen and the French ambassador; and in November, 1630, Coloma

arrived as ambassador from Madrid. Philip accepted the same terms as

were proposed in 1604, pledging himself to restore such parts of the

Palsgrave's territory as were occupied by the troops of Spain--no very

important extent--and never to cease his endeavours to procure from the

Emperor the restitution of the whole. In consideration of this, Charles

once more agreed to that mysterious treaty against Holland which had

been in negotiation during the visit of Charles and Buckingham to Spain.

This was no other than to assist Philip to regain possession of the seven

United States of the Netherlands, which had cost Elizabeth so much to aid

in the establishment of their independence, and which had always been, as

Protestant States, so much regarded by the English public; with which a

great trade was, moreover, carried on. The knowledge of such a piece of

treachery on the part of Charles would have excited a terrible commotion

amongst the people. For his share of the booty he was to receive a

certain portion of the provinces, including the Island of Zealand.

Luckily for the king, his treason to Protestantism remained a profound

secret, and at length himself perceiving the difficulties and dilemmas

in which it would involve him, after Olivarez and Cottington had signed

the treaty he withheld his ratification. By this prudent act, however, he

forfeited all right to demand from Philip aid in regaining the patrimony

of the Prince Palatine.

[Illustration: SCENE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS: THE SPEAKER COERCED. (_See

p._ 541.)]

Whether prudence, a rare virtue in Charles, or other more congenial

motives, determined him in withdrawing from the compact with Spain

regarding Holland is doubtful, for in the very next year he was found

busily engaged with the Catholic States of Flanders and Brabant in a

project to drive thence his new ally Philip of Spain. France and Holland

were equally eager to assist in this design; but the people of Flanders

were suspicious of them, dreading to find in such powerful allies only

fresh masters. They therefore applied to the King of England, and a

correspondence took place in which Secretary Coke was at great pains to

show how much more to the advantage of the people of Flanders and Brabant

would be the alliance of England, than that of the ambitious French, or

of the Calvinistic farmers of Holland. In religion Coke was zealous to

prove that the Catholic and Anglican Churches were almost identical;

but his efforts ended, not in offering support in the coming struggle,

but in promising to protect them against everyone except the King of

Spain. Charles having recently made peace with the Spanish sovereign,

"it would be against honour and conscience to debauch his subjects from

their allegiance." But if what Coke proposed were not that very fact

of tampering with them, it would be difficult to imagine what could be;

and, moreover, it was just the King of Spain against whom they required

protection. Coke advised them to declare their independence, and then the

King of England, he told them, could help them as an independent State;

and Philip would not then have cause of offence from Charles, but ought

rather to be obliged to him for endeavouring to prevent the States from

falling into the hands of France, or some other of his powerful enemies.

This duplicity, however, was not by any means encouraging to revolt, and

in the meantime Philip, learning what was going on, settled the question

by sending into the Provinces an overwhelming force of soldiers.

But the war which ought to have excited the deepest interest in Charles

as a Protestant prince, and as the brother-in-law of the Protestant

Prince Palatine, was the great war--since called the Thirty Years'

War--which was raging in Germany. It was a war expressly of Catholicism

for the utter extirpation of Protestantism. The resistance had begun

in Bohemia: the Protestants had invited Frederick of the Palatinate to

become their king and defend them against the power of Austria and the

exterminating Catholic emperor. We have seen that Frederick had, without

weighing the hazards of the enterprise sufficiently, accepted the crown,

lost it immediately, together with his hereditary dominions; and that

all the efforts of England, Denmark, and of an allied host in Germany,

had failed to make head against Austria, Spain, and Bavaria. Germany was

overrun with the victorious troops of Austria, led on by the ruthless

and victorious Generals Wallenstein, Piccolomini, Tilly, and Pappenheim.

Horrible desolation had followed the march of their armies all over

Germany; the most important of its cities were sacked or plundered; its

fields were laid waste; its cultivation was stopped; its people were

destroyed or starving; and, with the exception of Saxony and Bavaria, the

power of the princes was prostrated, and they were thoroughly divided

amongst themselves, and therefore the more readily trodden upon by their

oppressors.

But at this moment relief came out of an unexpected quarter. Christian

IV. of Denmark had attempted a diversion in favour of the German

Protestant princes, and had not only been repulsed, but had drawn the

Austrian generals into his own kingdom with fire and sword. But in

Sweden had risen up a king, able, pious, earnestly desirous of the

restoration of Protestantism, and qualified by long military experience,

though yet a young man, to cope with any general of the age. Gustavus

Adolphus had mounted the Swedish throne at the age of eighteen, and was

now only seven-and-thirty; yet he had already maintained a seventeen

years' war against Poland, backed by the power of Austria. But now an

armistice of six years was settled with Poland. Wallenstein, the ablest

general of Austria, had been removed from the command, in consequence

of the universal outcry of the German princes, in an Imperial Council

at Ratisbon, against his cruelties and exactions; and the far-seeing

Richelieu, who was attacking the Spaniards in Italy and the Netherlands,

perceiving the immense advantage of such division in Germany, had offered

to make an alliance with the Swede.

On the 23rd of June, 1630, Gustavus embarked fifteen thousand of his

veteran troops, and crossed into Pomerania. On the 17th of September

the Swedish king gave battle to Tilly and Pappenheim before Leipsic,

and routed them with great slaughter. This turned the scale of war:

the cowed German princes once more raised their heads and entered into

league with Gustavus, who soon drove the Austrians from the larger part

of the country, took Hanau and Frankfort-on-the-Main, when Frederick

the Palsgrave joined him, hoping to be established by Gustavus in his

patrimony. But the brave Swedish king, who was highly incensed against

Charles for not joining at his earnest entreaty in this enterprise, in

which he himself was hazarding life, crown, and everything, of putting

down the Catholic intolerance, and placing a Protestant emperor on the

throne, though he received the Palsgrave kindly, gave him no immediate

hope of restoration. The English ambassador was there, pressing this

vehemently on Gustavus; but the Swede told him he regarded him only as

a Spaniard in disguise, and said bluntly, "Let the King of England make

a league with me against Spain. Let him send me twelve thousand men, to

be maintained at his own cost, and which shall be placed entirely at my

command, and I will engage to compel from both Spain and Bavaria full

restoration of the Palsgrave's rights."

Gustavus was perfectly right. Had Charles dealt honourably and wisely

with his Parliament and people, and husbanded his resources, here was the

great opportunity to have re-established his sister and brother-in-law,

and have had a glorious share in the victory of Protestantism on the

Continent. Gustavus recovered Darmstadt, Oppenheim, and Mainz, and

then took up his winter quarters. Meanwhile, the Saxon field-marshal,

Von Arnim, invaded Bohemia and took Prague; whilst the Landgrave of

Hesse-Cassel, and Duke Bernhard of Weimar, defeated several bodies of

Tilly's troops in Westphalia and the Upper Rhine lands.

This sweeping reverse compelled the Emperor to recall Wallenstein to

the chief command. Assembling forty thousand men at Znaim in Bohemia,

he marched on Prague, and drove the Saxons not only thence but out of

Bohemia altogether. Meanwhile Gustavus, issuing from his winter quarters

on the Rhine, directed his course to Nuremberg, and so to Donauwörth,

and at Rain on the Lech fought with Tilly and the Duke of Bavaria. Tilly

was killed (April 30, 1632); and Gustavus advanced and took Augsburg in

April, Munich on the 27th of May, and after in vain attacking Wallenstein

before Nuremberg, he encountered him at Lützen, in Saxony, and beat

him, but fell himself in the hour of victory (November 16, 1632). He

had, however, saved Protestantism. Wallenstein lost favour after his

defeat, was suspected by the emperor, and finally assassinated by his own

officers (February 25, 1634). The generals of Gustavus, under the orders

of Gustavus's great Minister Oxenstierna, continued the contest, and

enabled the German Protestant princes to establish their power and the

exercise of their religion, at the peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Charles, shamed into some degree of co-operation, had despatched the

Marquis of Hamilton with six thousand men to the assistance of Gustavus;

but the whole affair was so badly managed, the commissariat and general

care of the men were so miserable, that the little army speedily became

decimated by disease and was of no service. Hamilton returned home,

and the remains of his forces under the command of the Prince Charles

Louis, son of the Elector Frederick, were routed in Westphalia. Frederick

himself, deprived of all hope by the fall of Gustavus, only survived him

about a fortnight; and thus ended the dream of the restoration of the

Palatinate.

At home Charles had determined to rule without a Parliament, but this

necessarily drove him upon all those means of raising an income which

Parliament had protested against, and which must, therefore, continue to

exasperate the people. Between the dissolution of the Parliament in 1629,

and the summons of another in 1640, these proceedings had apparently

advanced the cause of despotism, but in reality they promoted the cause

of liberty; the nation had been scourged into a temper which left no

means but the sword of appeasing it. The first unceremonious violation

of his pledge to the public conveyed in the granting of the Petition of

Right was levying as unscrupulously as ever the duties of tonnage and

poundage; and the goods of all such as refused the illegal payment were

immediately distrained upon and sold.

The king next appointed a Committee to inquire into the encroachments on

the royal forests, a legitimate and laudable object if conducted in a

spirit of fairness and liberality. In every age gross encroachments have

been made on these Crown lands, and especially in the reckless reign of

James. But it would seem that the Commissioners proceeded in an arbitrary

spirit, and, relying on the power of the Crown, often ruined those who

resisted their decisions by the costs of law. The Earl of Holland--a

noted creature of the king's--was made head of this Commission, and

presided in a court established for the purpose. Under its operations

vast tracts were recovered to the Crown, and heavy fines for trespasses

levied. Rockingham Forest was enlarged from a circuit of six miles to one

of sixty, and the Earl of Southampton was nearly ruined by the king's

resumption of a large estate adjoining the New Forest. Even where these

recoveries were made with right, they exasperated the aristocracy, who

had been the chief encroachers, and injured the king in their goodwill.

Clarendon says, "To recompense the damage the Crown sustained by the

sale of old lands, and by the grant of new pensions, the old laws of

the forest are revived; by which not only great fines are imposed, but

great annual rents intended, and like to be settled by way of contract,

which burden lighted most upon persons of quality and honour, who thought

themselves above ordinary oppressions, and therefore like to remember it

with more sharpness."

Besides the tonnage and poundage, obsolete laws were revived, and other

duties imposed on merchants' goods; and all who resisted were prosecuted,

fined, and imprisoned. But a still more plausible scheme was hit upon

for extorting money. The old feudal practice, introduced by Henry III.

and Edward I., of compelling persons holding lands under the Crown worth

twenty pounds per annum, to receive knighthood, or to compound by a fine,

had been enforced by Elizabeth and James, and was not likely to be passed

over in this general inquisition after the means of income independent of

Parliament. All landed proprietors worth forty pounds a year were called

on to accept the title of knight and pay the fees, or were fined, and

in default of payment thrown into prison. "By this ill-husbandry," says

Clarendon, "which, though it was founded in right, was most grievous from

the mode of proceeding, vast sums were drawn from the subject. And no

less unjust projects of all kinds--many ridiculous, many scandalous, all

very grievous--were set on foot, the damage and reproach of which came to

the king, the profit to other men; inasmuch as of twenty thousand pounds

a year, scarcely one thousand five hundred pounds came to the king's use

or account."

A great commotion was raised by the king depriving many freeholders

arbitrarily of their lands to enlarge Richmond Park, and he saw the

necessity of making some compensation.

Another mode of raising money was by undoing in a great measure what the

Parliament had done by abolishing monopolies. True, Charles took care not

to grant these monopolies to individuals, but to companies; but this,

whilst it arrested the odium of seeing them in the hands of courtiers and

favourites, increased their mischief by augmenting the number and power

of the oppressors. These companies were enabled to dictate to the public

the price of the articles included in their patent, and restrain at their

pleasure their manufacture or sale. One of the most flagrant cases was

that of the Company of Soap-boilers, who purchased a monopoly of the

manufacture of soap for ten thousand pounds, and a duty of eight pounds

per ton on all the soap they made. The scheme was that of the renegade

Noye; and all who presumed to make soap for themselves, regardless of the

monopoly, were fined, the company being authorised to search the premises

of all soap-boilers, seize any made without a licence, and prosecute the

offender in the Star Chamber. There was a similar monopoly granted to

starch-makers.

King James had formed the idea that London was become too large, and that

its size was the cause of the prevalence of the plague and contagious

fevers. He had not penetrated the fact that the real cause lay in the

want of drainage and cleanliness, and he issued repeated proclamations

forbidding any more building of houses in the Metropolis. The judges

declared the proclamations illegal, and building went on as fast as

ever. Here was a splendid opportunity for putting on the screw. Charles

therefore appointed a Commission to inquire into the extent of building

done in defiance of his father's orders. Such persons who were willing to

compound for their offences, got off by paying a fine amounting to three

years' rental of the premises. Those who refused, pleaded in vain the

decision of the judges, for Charles had a court independent of all judges

but himself, namely, the Star Chamber; and those who escaped this fell

into another inquisition as detestable--the Court of the Earl Marshal.

Sturdy resisters, therefore, had their houses actually demolished, and

were then fleeced in those infamous courts to complete their ruin. A

Mr. Moore had erected forty-two houses of an expensive class, with

coach-houses and stables, near St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. He was fined

one thousand pounds, and ordered to pull them down before Easter, under

penalty of another thousand pounds, but refusing, the sheriffs demolished

the houses, and levied the money by distress. This terrified others, who

submitted to a composition, and by these iniquitous means one hundred

thousand pounds were brought into the Treasury.

Simultaneously with these proceedings, Laud, Bishop of London, pursued

the same course in the Church. He had long been the most abject flatterer

of the royal power, and now, supported by Wentworth, went on boldly to

reduce all England to the most complete slavery to Church and State. He

was supposed to have the intention of restoring the Papal power; but such

was far from his design. Neither Laud nor Charles dreamt for a moment

of returning to the union with Rome, for the simple reason that they

loved too well themselves the enjoyment of absolute power. Like Henry

VIII., they could tolerate no Pope but one disguised under the name of

an English king. Never did the Church more egregiously deceive itself

than by suspecting Laud or Charles of any design to put on again the yoke

of the Roman Pontiff. That spiritual potentate, deluded by such empty

imagination, offered Laud a cardinal's hat, which was rejected with scorn.

On the 29th of May, 1630, the queen gave birth to a son, afterwards

Charles II., who was baptised on the 2nd of July, the ceremony being

performed by Laud, who composed a prayer for the occasion.

Charles had issued a proclamation forbidding any one to introduce into

the pulpit any remarks bearing on the great Arminian controversy which

was raging in the kingdom--Laud and his party in the Church on one side,

the zealous Puritans on the other. Both sides were summoned with an air

of impartiality into the Star Chamber or High Commission Court, but came

out with this difference--that the orthodox divines generally confessed

their fault, and were dismissed with a reprimand; but the Puritan

ministers could not bend in that manner and sacrifice conscience to fear,

so they were fined, imprisoned, and deprived without mercy. Davenant

(Bishop of Salisbury), Dr. Burgess, Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Hall (Bishop of

Norwich, whose poetry and liberality of spirit will long be held in

honourable remembrance), and many others, were harassed because they did

not preach exactly to the mind of Charles and Laud; but the treatment

of Dr. Alexander Leighton, a Scottish Puritan preacher, was brutality

itself. He had published a pamphlet called "An Appeal to Parliament, or

Zion's Plea against Prelacy." It attracted the notice of the Government,

which in June, 1630, had him dragged before the Star Chamber, where

he was condemned to the following horrible punishment, than which the

records of the Inquisition preserve nothing more infernal:--That he

should be imprisoned for life, should pay a fine of ten thousand pounds,

be degraded from his ministry, whipped, set in the pillory, have one

of his ears cut off, one side of his nose slit, and be branded on the

forehead with a double S.S., as a "sower of sedition." He was then to

be carried back to prison, and after a few days to be pilloried again,

whipped, have the other side of his nose slit, the other ear cut off, and

shut up in his dungeon, to be released only by death.

[Illustration: INTERIOR OF OLD ST. PAUL'S.]