PARLIAMENT OF THE YEAR 1621.
We already know the antipathy of James to the Parliament, which had
become a power to which, as soon as it was manifested in a newly
assembled House, the power of the King was obliged to bend. James had
already often felt the ascendancy of Parliament. The schemes of union
with Scotland, which filled his soul with ambition, had been shattered
by the resistance of that body. The exclusively Protestant disposition
which prevailed there had made it impossible for him to give a legal
sanction to the favour which he entertained for the Catholics, and
which his views of policy naturally disposed him to show. He had been
obliged to desist from the attempt to secure financial independence by
surrendering the feudal privileges of the crown. The Parliament raised
claims which the King regarded as attacks on the prerogative of the
crown: even his advances to it had been met by a stubborn resistance.
In the ordinary course of things he would never again have summoned
Parliament together.
This complication in foreign affairs then arose. All parties,
including even the King himself, were convinced that England must step
forth armed among the contending powers of the world: and that, not in
the fashion of the last expedition, so little in keeping with the
situation, when private support and tacit sympathy found the means,
but on a large scale, as the position of the kingdom among the great
powers demanded. But without Parliamentary grants this was impossible.
The summoning of a new Parliament was therefore an incontestable
necessity.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1621.]
But on the other hand there was not wanting reasons for hesitation,
for it could not be disguised that concessions would be inevitable.
King James saw that as plainly as any one, and declared himself
beforehand ready to make them. In contradiction to his former
assertions he gave out that he would this time allow grievances to be
freely alleged, and would give his best assistance in removing them.
He said that he wished to meet Parliament half way, and that it should
find him an honourable man. From the investigation of abuses the less
was feared because the late opposition was ascribed to a factious
resistance to Somerset's administration. But that favourite had since
fallen: and of the leaders of that opposition several had gone over to
the government, and some had died.[407] The declared purpose of arming
for the reconquest of the Palatinate was in accordance with the
feelings of the nation and of the Protestants: no doubt was felt that
it would win universal sympathy.
This was in fact the case. The most favourable impression was produced
when the King in his speech from the throne (January 30, 1621), which
was principally taken up with this subject, declared his resolution to
defend the hereditary claim of his grandchildren to the territories of
the Palatine Electorate, and the free profession of Protestantism; to
compel peace if it were necessary sword in hand; for which objects he
claimed the assistance of the country. Parliament did not hesitate for
an instant to express its concurrence with him in these designs. Two
subsidies were granted on the spot, and the resolution was carried
into effect during the continuance of the debates, a step which was
altogether unprecedented. The King thanked the Parliament for this
extraordinary readiness, which would, he said, increase his importance
both at home and abroad.
But this did not prevent Parliament on the other hand from bringing
forward its claims with all possible energy. The power of granting
money was the sinew of all its powers. The necessity of asking
assistance from Parliament in urgent embarrassments, which the Tudors
had avoided as far as possible, now appeared as pressing as ever. Was
it not to be expected that demands should call forth counter-demands?
And the opposition in the previous Parliament rested on a far wider
basis than that of hostility to Somerset: at the present election also
the candidates of the government were rejected in most of the counties
and towns.[408]
The commission appointed for the investigation of abuses did not deal
only with those which were acknowledged to be such. The principal
question rather concerned the competence of the crown to confer such
privileges as those out of which the abuses originated. Under the lead
of Edward Coke, the great lawyer, Parliament adopted a principle which
secured for it a firm standing ground.
Coke, who moreover did not think it necessary to ask the King's
consent for liberty of speech, because this was, he thought, an
independent right of Parliament, vindicated the position that no royal
proclamation had validity if it contradicted an act of Parliament or
an existing law. He took his stand on the times of the later
Plantagenet and of the Lancastrian kings: and he considered that the
form which the relation between the government and Parliament then
assumed was the only legal form. But the government of James I had
granted extraordinarily obnoxious privileges--for instance, the right
of setting up taverns with a restriction on the entertainment of
guests by private individuals, or by the old inns; and again the right
of arresting acknowledged vagrants. But the most obnoxious grants were
those of patents for the monopoly of some trade, which were annoying
to the whole mercantile class, and brought profit only to a few
favoured individuals. Coke argued that the patents were either in
themselves illegal, or injurious in their enforcement, or both
together. While he proved to Parliament its forgotten or disregarded
rights, Coke won the full confidence of both Houses alike: the Upper
and the Lower House made common cause. Thus the system of government
as it had been developed under the Tudors and continued under the
Stuarts was encountered face to face by another system, which rested
upon other precedents and principles.
And people were not content with merely declaring the patents invalid;
they called those to account who had got possession of them, and even
the high officials who had contributed to issue them. A general
commotion ensued: every day fresh information came in and fresh
complaints were drawn up.[409]
The Lord Chancellor Bacon had been already brought into danger by this
affair. He had assisted in introducing monopolies of different
manufactures under the pretence that work would be found for the poor
by means of them. It was well known that in matters of this sort he
had for the most part followed the suggestions of the Prime Minister.
While Bacon was defending the ideal mission of the monarchy, he had
the weakness to identify himself too closely with the accidental form
which authority just at that particular moment took. In return he
found on the other hand that the attacks really aimed at the
government recoiled in the first instance upon him. In reality they
were directed principally against Buckingham. In order to save him
from destruction, suggestions had been made to the King that he might
prefer to dissolve Parliament, as it seemed plain that he had far more
reason to expect harm from the attacks than advantage from the grants
made by that body. Buckingham saved himself only by coming forward
against the monopolies himself, in accordance with the advice of his
ecclesiastical confidant, Dean Williams. Claims had been made against
two of his brothers also on account of the monopolies. Far from taking
them under his protection, he said on the contrary that his father had
still a third son who was determined to root out abuses; and that not
until the present proceedings had been taken had he recognised the
advantages of parliamentary government. Upon this, the leading men
with whom Williams had formed a connexion, desisted from attacking the
First Minister. It even came about that a person of high rank,
accused at the bar of the House of Lords, who had let fall an
expression, comparing Buckingham to old favourites of hateful memory,
was obliged to retract it with considerable ceremony. But a victim was
required: one was found in the Lord Chancellor Bacon.
Although condemned by law and morality, an evil practice still
prevailed of receiving presents of money in official transactions. The
sums were known and have been registered, by means of which Gondomar
retained the services of a number of statesmen in the interest of
Spain. How many similar abuses in the control of the Treasury had been
brought to light only a short time before! Even the great philosopher,
who in his writings is so zealous against bribes, contracted during
his administration the stain of receiving them. That he might stand on
an equality with the great lords, he incurred inordinate expenses,
which these bribes assisted him to meet. Edward Coke was wholly in the
right when he exclaimed that a corrupt judge was 'the grievance of
grievances.'[410] Two-and-twenty cases were proved in which the
supreme judge, the Lord Chancellor of England, had taken presents from
the parties concerned. Lord Bacon made no attempt to justify his
conduct; he only affirmed--and this appears in fact to have been the
case--that in his decisions he never was influenced by the presents
that had been made him. When he was called to account for them, he
acquiesced himself in the justice of the proceeding, for he allowed
that a reform was necessary, and only deemed himself unfortunate in
being the person with whom it began. The Lords pronounced sentence
upon him that he should never again fill an official position, nor be
capable of sitting in Parliament, and that he should be banished from
the precincts of the court.
Apart from its importance as affecting individuals, this event is
very important in the history of the constitution, which now returned
to its former paths. That the Lower House again as in old times was
able to procure the fall of one of the highest officials, is an
evidence of its growing power. That the First Minister and favourite
allowed his intimate friend to fall is a proof of the weakness of the
highest authority, which moreover ought itself to have attacked abuses
of this kind. Bacon justly remarked that reform would soon reach
higher regions.
But while Parliament, which the government had no inclination to
withstand openly, thus obtained the ascendancy in domestic matters, it
was also already turning its eyes in the direction of foreign affairs.
These were times in which a warm religious sympathy was awakened by
the advance which the counter-reformation was making in the hereditary
dominions of Austria, as well as in France, and by the persecutions
which befell the Protestants in both countries. The Spaniards were
again engaging in war for the subjugation of the Netherlands. In
Parliament, on the other hand, it was thought necessary to combine
with the Republic, and to equip a fleet to assist the Huguenots, and
even to attack Spain, in order thus to make a diversion in favour of
the Palatinate. At the very time of the opening of Parliament the ban
of the empire was pronounced against Frederick Elector Palatine amid
the sound of trumpets and drums in the Palace at Vienna. This was
regarded in the whole Protestant world as an injustice, for it was
thought that Ferdinand II had been injured by Frederick only as King
of Bohemia, and not as Emperor: and on the same grounds the English
Parliament was of opinion that the execution of the ban ought to be
hindered by force of arms; and it showed itself dissatisfied that the
King sought to meet the evil only by demonstrations and embassies.
We can easily understand that the attitude of Parliament aroused the
anxiety of the King. He caused the debates on the war to be put a stop
to, remarking that they infringed his prerogative, for which great
affairs of this kind were exclusively reserved. And yet, so
extraordinary was the complication of affairs that the declarations
made in Parliament were not altogether displeasing to him. In June he
adjourned Parliament, without formally proroguing it. What was the
reason of this? Because Parliament had brought in a new bill
containing the severest enactments against Jesuits and Catholic
recusants. The King refused to accept it, as by this means the
persecution of Protestants in Catholic countries would receive a new
impulse. But he was also unwilling to express his refusal in a final
shape, because he knew that the wish to hinder the adoption of harsh
measures against the Catholics would exercise an influence upon the
Spaniards in their negotiations with him.[411] If he had proceeded to
a prorogation, he would have been obliged to reject the laws; and he
preferred to keep the prospect of them still open, which he was able
to do by resorting to the form of an adjournment. He made it a merit
in the eyes of the Spaniards that, far from increasing the severity of
the penal laws, he did not even enforce them in their existing form,
when moreover, if enforced, they would bring him in a large sum. But
he was glad to see that people feared that he might do at some future
time what at present he had refrained from doing. When he promised the
Parliament on his royal word, that he would call it together again
without fail in the autumn, he was also influenced by the
consideration that he intended the Spaniards to look forward with fear
to the resolution which might then be taken. He was greatly pleased
that Parliament before dispersing drew up an energetic remonstrance
against the persecutions of the Protestants all over the world, and
especially against the oppression of his children. Not that he wished
to give effect to it: on the contrary he adhered to the policy of
assisting his son-in-law only by means of diplomacy: but he desired
that the Spaniards should fear a war with England, and he thought that
anxiety on this point would induce them and their friends to show
themselves conciliatory and respectful.
Sir John Digby, who was commissioned with the negotiations at the
Spanish court, was referred by that power to Brussels and Vienna; and
in fact he received favourable answers, not only from the Infanta
Isabella in the former, but even from the Emperor himself in the
latter city. The Emperor held out to him the hope that the matter
would be reconsidered at a future assembly of the Estates of the
Empire, which he intended to convene at Ratisbon. But meanwhile
warlike operations and the execution of the ban held their course
undisturbed. In Bohemia the counter-reformation was carried through
with extreme severity. Four-and-twenty Protestant nobles and leaders
were executed, and their heads with hoary beards were seen exposed on
the Bridge at Prague. Silesia hastened to make its peace with the
Emperor: the Princes of the Union laid down their arms, but they did
not yet make their peace by this means. Tilly took possession of the
Upper Palatinate, and then turned with his victorious army to the
Lower Palatinate in order to complete the subjugation of this
province, notwithstanding all the protection of England. On the Lower
Rhine the forces of the Spaniards and of the States General confronted
each other in arms. Under these circumstances the Princes, who were
invited, refused to appear at an Assembly of the Empire,[412] for none
of them thought that he could leave his home without incurring evident
danger. The Infanta Isabella too in Brussels declined to conclude the
truce which Sir John Digby proposed.
While affairs were in this position, Parliament resumed its
interrupted sittings in November 1621. Dean Williams, who after
Bacon's fall had received the Great Seal, opened the session with a
request for the immediate grant of new subsidies, which he said would
be required even before Christmas. He promised that in the coming
February, when they resumed their sittings, the other affairs should
be brought under discussion.[413]
On this occasion as on a previous one, the King wished for nothing
more than a renewed and stronger demonstration. Even now he lived and
moved in a policy of compromise between opposite views. While his
son-in-law was being robbed of his country in the interest of Spain,
he adhered to the wish of marrying his son to a Spanish Infanta: he
thought that he would bring about the restoration of the Palatinate
most easily by the influence which this new alliance would confer. But
he thought that his friendly advances should also be accompanied by
threats, and he wished to be placed by the grants of Parliament in a
position to arm more effectually than before. It would have been in
accordance with his views, if Parliament had repeated its former
declarations, according to which it was ready to put forth all its
power in his behalf, in order to place him in a position to compel by
force of arms what might be refused to his peaceful negotiations.
It is worth noticing in all this that James not only met the wishes of
Parliament because he required support, but that he also encouraged
the disposition which it showed in favour of Protestantism, in order
to avail himself of it: he thought that he would always be able to
control it. But how often has a policy been shipwrecked, which has
thought to avail itself of great interests and great passions for some
end immediately in view!
How could it be expected that while religious parties on the continent
were meeting in a struggle for life and death, the English Parliament
would approve of the wavering policy of James I, which aimed at
compromise and had hitherto been without results?[414] Quite the
contrary: starting with the view that England was the centre of
Protestantism and must avert the dangers which assailed it, Parliament
declared itself ready, it is true, to pay the King new subsidies, but
not until the following year, and on the presumption that he should
have accepted and ratified the bills for the welfare of the people
which had passed the House.[415] They thought that the common danger
to religion arising from the alliance between the Pope and the King of
Spain had been brought upon England also by the indulgence hitherto
shown to the recusants. Parliament invited the King to draw the sword
without further circumlocution for the rescue of the foreign
Protestants; in the first instance to break with the power whose army
had carried on the war in the Palatinate, but above all to marry the
Prince his successor to a lady of the Protestant faith.
The King wished to avoid war because he was anxious lest he should be
constantly compelled by Parliament, owing to his repeated want of
subsidies, to make fresh concessions, which would affect and diminish
the substance of his authority. The Parliament wished for war because
it expected that such a proceeding would furnish it with great
opportunities for establishing its power.
As soon as the rival powers encountered each other on this ground, all
agreement between them was at an end. Parliament interfered still more
vigorously than before with the affairs which the King reserved for
himself: it wished to induce him to adopt those very measures which he
was resolved to avoid. He was expected to break with that power with
which it was his principal ambition to become most closely connected.
He was expected to take the sword in order to defend the common cause
of Protestantism. He was expected to put an end to the indulgence
which he had hitherto shown to his Catholic subjects; to do what ran
counter to all the expectations which he had raised at Rome and
Madrid; and what perhaps, considering the strength of the Catholic
element in England, was not without danger to the maintenance of quiet
at home. Meanwhile the payment of the subsidies, which he required at
once in order to maintain his political position, was indefinitely
deferred. Although it was not actually stated, yet it was quite clear
that Parliament made the validity of its grants dependent on his
compliance with its advice. And on what important matters was that
advice offered! The King complained that his prerogative was openly
infringed by it; that Parliament wished to decide on his alliances
with other sovereigns, and to dictate to him how to conduct the war;
that it brought under debate questions of religion and state, and the
marriage of his son: what portion of the sovereign power, he asked,
was left to him? On the competence which Parliament claimed as its
hereditary right, he remarked that it had to thank the favour of his
ancestors and himself for this: that he would protect Parliament, but
only in proportion to the regard which it showed for the prerogative
of his crown.
If we had to specify the moment in which the quarrel between the
Parliament and the Crown once more found its full expression, we
should choose this.[416] The Parliament, which had dissolution in
immediate prospect, employed its last moments in making a protest, in
which it again affirmed that its liberties and privileges were a
birthright and heirloom of the subjects of the English crown, that it
certainly was within its power to bring under debate public matters
affecting the King, the State, the Church, and the defence of the
country; and that full liberty of speech without any subsequent
molestation on that account must be secured to every member in the
exercise of these rights.
The King would not forego the satisfaction of punishing by arrest a
number of members who were peculiarly hateful to him; he declared the
protestation null and void, and struck it out of the clerks' book with
his own hand. In a detailed exposition of his view of these
transactions, in which he gives the assurance that he will still
henceforth continue to summon Parliament, he emphatically repudiates
this protestation, which he affirms to be drawn up in such terms that
the inalienable rights of the crown are called in question by it,
rights in the possession of which the crown had found itself in the
times of Queen Elizabeth of glorious memory. He affirms that as King
he cannot tolerate any such pretensions.
Parliament demanded the policy of Queen Elizabeth; King James demanded
her rights. The privileges accorded to the crown and the opposition to
Spain had formerly gone together: the surrender of the latter under
King James served to supply Parliament on its part with a motive for
making an attack upon the former.
The cause of Parliament was of great importance, even when it stood
alone: deeper impulses and fresh life and vigour were first imparted
to it by its combination with foreign policy and with religion.
NOTES:
[407] From a letter of Bacon to Buckingham.
[408] Lando, Relatione: 'Se bene procurò S. M. di ristringere e
captivare fino l'autorità, che hanno li communi d'eleggere li
deputati, benche in qualche citta e provincia gli è riuscito,
nell'universale non ha potuto, rifiutati i privati del favorito e dei
consiglieri li lei.' Lando describes the Parliament as 'republica
altretanto mal pratica, quanto molto pretendente.'
[409] Chamberlain to Carleton, March 24: 'They find it more than
Hercules' labour purgare hoc stabulum Augiae of monopolies, patents
and the like.' (St. P. O.)
[410] Chamberlain to Carleton: 'All men approve E. Coke, who upon
discovery of those matters exclaimed that a corrupt judge is the
grievance of grievances.' Chamberlain relates that an officer of the
Court of Chancery, when accused on account of various irregularities,
exclaimed 'that he would not sink alone, but draw others after him.'
[411] Buckingham on one occasion very aptly characterises his policy
and its danger: 'So long as you waver between the Spaniards and your
subjects, to make your advantage of both, you are sure to do with
neither.' Hardwicke Papers i. 466.
[412] 'The princes denied their appearance.' (Digby, Recital of his
Speech, Parl. Hist. v. 483.) So that the notice by Struv, rejected by
Senkenberg (Fortsetzung Häberlins xxv. § 80) is nevertheless correct.
[413] A gap in Williams' speech at this part, occurring in the
Journals and in both Parliamentary Histories, is to a certain extent
filled up by a letter of Chamberlain to Carleton of Nov. 24;
'intimating that they should forbear needless and impertinent
discourses, long and extravagant orations which the king would not
indure.'
[414] Lando, Relatione: 'Non potendosi accordare con spiriti
discordanti dei proprii impressi di non lasciarsi levare un punto
dell'autorita.'
[415] John Locke to Carleton, Nov. 29: 'They have put up a petition,
that this may be a session and laws enacted, that the laws made
against recusants may be executed, so that the promise of the subsidy
seemeth yet to be conditional.'
[416] Chamberlain to Carleton on December 22. The Parliament, on
receiving a message enjoining the speedy continuance of their
business, answered the King two hours after it had been brought before
them: 'but with all for fear of surprise gave order to the speaker and
the whole house to meet at four o'clock: where they conceived sat down
and entered this proposition enclosed which is nothing pleasing above
and for preventing where of there came a commission next morning to
adjourn the Parliament.' Cf. the Commons' protestation: Parl. Hist. v.
513.