BEGINNING OF THE REIGN OF CHARLES I, AND HIS FIRST AND SECOND
PARLIAMENT.
The prince who now ascended the throne was in the bloom of life: he
had just completed his twenty-fifth year. He had been weak and
delicate in childhood: among the defects from which he suffered was
that of stammering, which he did not get over throughout life; but he
had grown up stronger in other ways than had been expected. He looked
well on horseback: men saw him govern with safety horses that were
hard to manage: he was expert in knightly exercises: he was a good
shot with the cross-bow, as well as with the gun, and even learned how
to load a cannon. He was hardly less unweariedly devoted to the chase
than his father. He could not vie with him in intelligence and
knowledge, nor with his deceased brother Henry in vivacious energy and
in popularity of disposition; but he had learnt much from his father,
at whose feet he loved to sit; and his brother's tastes for the arts
and for the experimental sciences, especially the former, had passed
to him. In moral qualities he was superior to both. He was one of
those young men of whom it is said that they have no fault. His strict
propriety of demeanour bordered on maiden bashfulness: a serious and
temperate soul spoke from his calm eyes. He had a natural gift for
apprehending even the most complicated questions, and he was a good
writer. From his youth he shewed himself economical; not profuse, but
at the same time not niggardly; in all matters precise. All the world
had been wearied by the frequent proofs which his father had given of
his untrustworthiness, and by the unfathomable mystery in which he
enveloped his ever-wavering intentions: they expected from the son
more openness, uprightness, and consistency. They asked if he would
not also be more decidedly Protestant. He showed, at least at first,
that he had a more sensitive feeling with regard to his princely
honour.[446] He had expected that his personal suit for the hand of
the Infanta would remove all difficulties on the part of the
Spaniards, even those of a political character, which obstructed the
marriage. They had paid him every attention suitable to his rank, but
in the business which was under discussion they had not given way a
hair's breadth: it rather appeared as if they wished to avail
themselves of his presence to impose harder conditions upon him. He
was deeply affronted at this. When he found himself again among his
countrymen on board an English ship, he expressed his astonishment
that he had not been detained after he had been so ill-treated.[447]
Quiet and taciturn by nature, he knew while in Spain how to disguise
his real feelings by appearing to feel differently: but we have seen
how on his return his whole attitude with regard to affairs in
general, both foreign and domestic, in matters which concerned his
father and the Parliament alike, assumed an altered character which
corresponded to the general feeling of the nation far more closely
than the policy previously pursued.
In the last days of James doubts had still been felt whether he would
ever allow a marriage to take place between his son and a French
princess, and large sums had been wagered on the issue. Charles I at
once put an end to all hesitation. He did not allow himself to be
induced to defer his marriage even by the death of his father, or by a
pestilential sickness which then prevailed, or by the lack of the
desirable preparations in the royal palaces. He wished to show the
world that he adhered to his policy of opposition to Spain. He even
allowed the privateering, which his father had formerly suppressed
with so much zeal, to begin again. The royal navy, for the
improvement of which Buckingham actively exerted himself, was put in a
complete state of efficiency, and the money granted by Parliament was
principally employed for this purpose.
But to enable him to undertake war in earnest he required fresh
grants. It was almost the first thought of the King after his
accession to the throne to call a Parliament for this purpose, and
that the same Parliament which had last sat in the reign of his
father.[448] He bent, although unwillingly, to the necessity, imposed
by the constitution, of ordering new elections to be proceeded with,
for he would rather have avoided all delay: but he entertained no
doubt that the Parliament, as it was composed after the elections,
would give him its full support. After what had taken place he
considered this almost a matter of course.
On June 18/28, 1625, Charles I opened his first Parliament at
Westminster. He reminded the members that his father had been induced
by the advice of the Parliament, whose wishes he had himself
represented to the King, to break off all further negotiations with
Spain. He said that this was done in their interest: that on their
instigation he had embarked on the affair as a young man joyfully and
with good courage: that this had been his first undertaking: what a
reproach would it be both for himself and for them if they now refused
him the support which he necessarily required for bringing to a
successful issue the quarrel which had already begun!
And certainly if war with Spain had been the only question, he might
have reckoned upon abundant grants: but the matter was not quite so
simple. Parliament thought above all of its own designs, which it had
not been possible to effect in the lifetime of James I, but which
Charles had advocated in the last session. If the new King inferred
the obligation of Parliament to furnish the money required for a
foreign war from the share it had had in the counsels which had led
to that war, Parliament also considered that he was no less bound on
his part to fulfil the wishes that had been expressed in regard to
internal policy. In the very first debate which preceded the election
of the Speaker, this point of view was very distinctly put forward.
The King was told that in the last session he had sought to remove all
differences between Parliament and his father, and to induce the
latter to grant the petitions of Parliament: that if he had not
succeeded then, that result had been due only to his want of power;
but now he had power as well as inclination: what he before had only
been able to will, he now was enabled to effect, and everything
depended solely on him.[449] It had been especially the execution of
the Acts of Parliament directed against the Catholics which the
Parliament demanded, and which the Prince in his ardour against Spain
had then thought advisable. His father had refused to grant this: it
was now expected that he should grant it himself. They expected this
from him as much as he expected from them a subsidy sufficient for
carrying on the war. It may be asked, however, whether it was possible
for him to give ear to their wishes. The complication in his fortunes
arose from his inability to comply.
If Charles I, when Prince of Wales, had wished to identify his cause
entirely with the aims of Parliament, he would have been obliged to
marry the daughter of a Protestant prince. But this was prevented by
the political danger which would then have arisen in the event of a
breach with Spain. Neither James nor Charles I believed that they
could withstand this great monarchy without an alliance with France.
Political and dynastic interests had led to the marriage which had
just been concluded. But by this a relation with the Catholic world
had again been contracted which rendered impossible a purely
Protestant system of government such as Queen Elizabeth desired to
establish. A dispensation from Rome had been required which expressed
even without any disguise the hope that the French princess would
convert the King and his realm to the old faith.[450] The marriage
could not have been concluded without entering into obligations which
were in open contradiction to the Acts of Parliament. Those
obligations were not yet fully known, but what was learnt of them
caused great agitation. Charles was reminded of a promise, which he
was said to have given at an earlier time, to agree to no conditions
on his marriage which might be prejudicial to the Church existing in
England. Men asked how that promise had been fulfilled; and why any
secret was made of the compact which had been concluded. Would not the
Queen's chapel, they asked, now serve to unite the Catholics of
England; or would they be forbidden to hear mass there? In a forcible
petition Parliament asked for the execution of the laws issued against
Papists and recusants.[451]
Charles I was not in a position to be able to regard it. It was not
that he had any thought of curtailing the rights of the English Church
or of entering on any other course in great questions of general
policy than that which had been laid down in conjunction with
Parliament. His marriage also was a preparation for the conflict with
Spain; but if it was not so decidedly opposed to the common feeling of
the country as a Spanish marriage, yet it was far from being in
accordance with it. The pledges which had been given on that occasion
prevented the King from adopting exclusively Protestant points of
view, and from identifying himself completely with his people.
But there was another reason for the King's adherence to his
agreement. He was as little inclined as his father had been to allow
the Parliament to exercise any influence on ecclesiastical affairs.
Much unpleasant surprise was created at that time by the writings of
Dr. Montague, in which he treated the Roman Church with forbearance,
and Puritanism with scorn and hatred. Parliament wished to institute
proceedings against the author. The King did not take him under his
protection; but on the request of some dignitaries of the English
Church he transferred the matter to his own tribunal. He regarded it
moreover as an undoubted element of his prerogative to dispense with
the statutes passed by Parliament, so that the concessions which were
expressed in the marriage compact appeared to him quite justifiable.
We see how closely this affected the most important question of
English constitutional law. The universal competence of Parliament is
here opposed to the authority of the King, strengthened by his
ecclesiastical functions. And we understand how Parliament, in spite
of the urgent need created by itself, hesitated to fulfil the
expectations of the King.
It could not absolutely refuse to make any grant: it offered him two
subsidies, 'fruits of its love' as they were termed. But the King had
expected a far stronger proof of devotion. What importance could be
attached to such an insignificant sum in prospect of so tremendous an
undertaking as a war against Spain? The grant itself implied a sort of
refusal.
But the Lower House also attempted to introduce a most extensive
innovation in regard to finance. The customs formed one of the main
sources of the revenue of the crown, without which it could not be
supported. They had been increased by the last government on the
ground of its right to tonnage and poundage, although, as we saw, not
without opposition.[452] The constitutional question was whether the
customs were properly to be regarded as a tax, and accordingly
dependent on the grant of Parliament, or whether they were absolutely
appropriated to the crown by right derived from long prescription: for
since the time of Edward IV, tonnage and poundage had been granted to
every king for the whole period of his reign. The controversies
arising on the subject under James had brought to light the daily
increasing importance conferred by the growth of commerce on this
source of revenue, which certainly assured to the crown, if not for
extraordinary undertakings, yet for the conduct of the ordinary
business of the state, a certain independence of the grants of
Parliament. The Lower House was now disinclined, both on principle and
under the painful excitement of the moment, to renew the grant on
these terms: it therefore conferred the right to tonnage and poundage
on the King only for a year. But the import of this restriction was
plain enough. The popular leaders were not satisfied with granting the
King very inadequate support for the war, but they sought to make him
dependent even in time of peace on the goodwill of the Lower House.
The resolution was rejected by the Upper House, and it appeared to the
King himself as an affront. For why should he be refused what had been
secured to his predecessors during a century and a half? The granting
of supplies for life he regarded as a mere form, which after such long
prescription was not even necessary. He thought himself entitled, even
without such a grant, to have the duties levied in his own name as
before.
These were differences of the most thoroughgoing character, which had
descended to Charles I with the crown itself from the earlier kings
and from his father. The change of government, and certain previous
occurrences caused these differences to come into greater prominence
than ever; but they received their peculiar character from something
in his personal relations which had also been transmitted from the
father to the son.
Or rather, we may say, James I would certainly have been inclined to
get rid of Buckingham as he had formerly got rid of Somerset: under
Charles I this favourite occupied a still stronger position than he
had held before.
Between the two men personally there was a great contrast. In the
favourite there was nothing of the precision, calmness, and moral
behaviour of the King. Buckingham was dissolute, talkative, and vain.
His appearance had made his fortune, and he endeavoured to add to it
by a splendour of attire, which later times would have allowed only
in women. Jewels were displayed in his ears, and precious stones
served as buttons for his doublet. It was affirmed that on his journey
to France, which preceded the marriage of the King, he had taken with
him about thirty different suits, each more costly than the last. It
was for him as much an affair of ambition as of sensual pleasure to
make an impression upon women, and to achieve what are called
conquests in the highest circles. He revelled in the enjoyment of
successes in society. Moments of lassitude followed, when those who
had to speak with him on business found him extended upon his couch,
without giving them a sign of interest or attention, especially when
their proposals were not altogether to his mind. Immediately
afterwards however he would pass from this state to one of the most
highly-strained activity, for which he by no means wanted ability: he
then knew neither rest nor weariness. He was spurred on most of all by
the necessity of making head alternately against such powerful and
active rivals as the two ministers who at that time conducted the
affairs of France and Spain. He was bound to Charles I by a common
interest in one or two of those employments which fill up daily life,
for instance by fondness for art and art collections, but principally
by the companionship into which they had been thrown, first in the
cabinet of James I, who weighed his conclusions by their assistance,
and afterwards in their journey to Spain. The Spaniards, who were
accustomed to treat persons of the highest rank with respect and
reverence, were greatly scandalised to see how entirely Buckingham
indulged his own humours in the presence of the Prince. He allowed
himself to use playful nicknames, such as might have been often
applied in the hunting-seats of James or in letters to him, but which
at other times appeared very much out of place. He remained sitting
when the Prince was standing: in his presence he had indeed the
audacity to consult his ease by stretching his legs on another chair.
The Prince appeared to find this quite proper: Buckingham was for him
not so much a servant as an equal and intimate friend. It would have
been impossible to say which of the two was the chief cause of the
alienation which arose between them and the Spaniards. Rumour made the
favourite responsible for this estrangement: better informed people
traced it to the Prince himself. The intimacy formed during their
previous association had been made still closer by the policy which
they pursued since their return from Spain. Many persons hoped
notwithstanding that, in spite of appearances to the contrary, an
alteration would take place with the change of government. But on the
first entry of Charles I into London, Buckingham was seen sitting by
him in his carriage in the usual intimate proximity. His share in the
marriage of the King increased their friendship: they both equally
agreed even in the subsequent change of policy. Buckingham had allied
himself most closely with the leaders of the Puritan opposition in
Parliament: by their support principally he had broken up the party
favourable to Spain. But in return for these services he had now not
the least intention of doing justice to their claims. If it had
depended on him, still greater concessions would afterwards have been
granted in favour of the Catholics than in fact were made; for
Catholic sympathies were very strongly represented in his family: he
himself had far less feeling in favour of Anglican orthodoxy than the
King. And when the rights of the prerogative were called in question,
he again espoused them most zealously, seeing that his own power
rested on their validity. He looked at the Parliamentary constitution
from the point of view of a holder of power, who wishes to avail
himself of it for the end before him without deeming himself bound by
it, so soon as it becomes inconvenient to him. He cared only for
success in his immediate object: all means of obtaining it seemed
fair.
The continuance of the session in London was at that time rendered
impossible by the pestilential sickness already referred to, which
every day increased in severity. Buckingham, who although pliant and
adroit yet had no regard whatever for others, wished to keep
Parliament sitting until it had made satisfactory grants. While the
members, and even the Privy Council, wished for a prorogation, he
urged with success that the sitting should only be transferred to
Oxford. Thither the two Houses very unwillingly went, for there also
symptoms of the plague were already showing themselves; and each
member would have preferred to be at home with his family. And when
Buckingham came before them at Oxford with his proposal for a further
grant, the ill-humour of the assembly openly broke out. He was
reproached with the illegality of his conduct in asking for a grant of
subsidies more than once in a session; the members said that if this
was the object of their meeting they might well have been at
home.[453] But they were not content with rejecting the proposal: they
said that if they must remain together, they would, according to
former precedent, bring under debate the prevailing abuses and their
removal.
Buckingham had been warned that by now changing his demeanour he would
run the risk of forfeiting those sympathies of Parliament, which he
had won by his Protestant attitude. In the very first session at
Oxford an event took place which set religious passions in agitation.
Before the departure of the Parliament from London Lord Keeper
Williams had promised in the King's name that the laws against
Catholic priests should be observed. Immediately after the Speaker had
taken his seat at Oxford, a complaint was made that an order for the
pardon of six priests had been since issued. Williams had had no share
in it; he had refused to seal it. It had been necessary to complete it
in the presence of the King, who was induced at the urgent request of
Buckingham to give his assent in pursuance of the conditions of the
agreement executed with France. This conduct however, the failure to
execute laws that had been ratified, especially after a renewed
promise to the contrary, appeared to the Parliament an attack upon its
rights and upon the constitution of the country. The ill-feeling was
directed against Buckingham, whose exceptional position was now the
general object of public and private hatred.
This was a time in which the power of a first minister in France, who
came forward as the representative of the monarchy, was winning its
way amid the strife of factions, and above all in opposition to the
claims of aristocratic independence. What Concini and Luynes had
begun, Richelieu with a strong arm carried systematically into effect.
Something similar seemed to be at hand in England also. It had been
the fashion of James I to give effect to his will in the state by
means of a minister, to whom he confided the most important affairs,
and whom he wished to be dependent solely on the King himself; and
Charles I, in this as in other matters, followed his father's example.
Buckingham became more powerful under him than ever. At the meetings
of the Privy Council the King hardly allowed any one else to speak:
without taking the votes of the members he accepted Buckingham's
opinion as conclusive. And yet it was apparent at the same time that
this opinion did not deserve preference from any worth of its own. The
public administration, so far as it was influenced by him, and his
special department, the Admiralty, furnished much occasion for just
censure; and the general policy on which he embarked appeared
questionable and dangerous. He was coarsely compared to a mule which
took its rider into a wrong road. Oxford suggested to men's minds the
recollection of the opposition which the great nobles had once offered
to Henry III. People said that they might perhaps have been to blame
in form, but not in substance. It was wished that Charles I might also
govern the state by the help of his wise and dignified councillors,
and not with the aid of a single young man. Parliament, the great men
of the country, and those who filled the highest offices, were almost
unanimous against Buckingham. The Lord Keeper Williams told the King
openly at a meeting of the Privy Council at Oxford, that nothing would
quiet the apprehensions of his Parliament but an assurance 'that in
actions of importance and in the disposition of what sums of money the
people should bestow upon him, he would take the advice of a settled
and constant council.'[454] The misconduct of the favourite in not
applying the money granted to the objects for which it was voted, was
exactly the ground of the complaint urged against him. Not only the
real importance of the points in dispute, but also the intention of
driving Buckingham from his position, led Parliament to reject all his
proposals.
The King's adherence to his resolution of supporting his minister
greatly affected the state of affairs in England, which even at that
time presupposed and required an agreement between the Crown and the
Parliament.
Buckingham attributed the rejection of his proposals in Parliament to
personal enmity; and this he thought he could certainly overcome.
Williams, who in the time of James I had been entirely in the
confidence of the King, was after a time dismissed, not without
harshness, and was replaced by Thomas Coventry. The post of Lord
Keeper was again filled by a lawyer who troubled himself less about
political affairs. Parliament was not prorogued, as the rest of the
members of the Privy Council wished: the King agreed with Buckingham
that it must be dissolved. The Duke hoped that new elections, held
under his influence, would give better results. He did not doubt that
another Parliament might be hurried away to make extensive grants
under the pressure of the great interest opposed to Spain. But in
order to effect this object it appeared to him necessary to exclude
from the Lower House its most active members, who were his personal
antagonists. He adopted the odious means of advancing them to offices
which could not be held compatible with a seat in Parliament. In this
way Edward Coke, who revived and found arguments for the
constitutional claims of Parliament, was nominated sheriff of
Buckinghamshire, and Thomas Wentworth High Sheriff of Yorkshire.
Francis Seymour, Robert Phillips, and some others, had a similar
fate.[455] When the lists were submitted as usual the King
unexpectedly announced these nominations. Some peers, whose views
inspired no confidence, were not summoned to attend the sittings of
the Upper House.
Perhaps too much weight has been attributed to the circumstance--but
yet it proves the discontent which was widely spreading--that at the
coronation of the King, which took place during these days, the
traditional question addressed from four sides of the tribune to the
surrounding multitude, asking whether they approved, was not answered
from one side at least with the joyful readiness usually
displayed.[456]
On February 6, 1626, the new Parliament was opened at Westminster. It
made no great objection to the exclusion of some of the former
members, as the means by which this had been effected could not be
regarded as exactly illegal. Among the members assembled an ambition
was rather felt to prove that their opinions and resolutions were not
dependent on the influence of some few men. For all Buckingham's
efforts to prevent it, on this occasion also those opinions were in
the ascendant which he wished to oppose. In the place of the members
excluded others arose, and at times they were the very men from whom
he feared nothing. A great impression was made when a personal friend
of Buckingham, his vice-admiral in Devonshire, John Eliot, came
forward as his decided political opponent. He first brought under
discussion the mismanagement of the money granted, which was laid to
the charge of the First Minister. With this was connected a
transaction of great importance which affected the general relation
between the Parliament and the Crown.
In the year 1624 a council of war, consisting of seven members, had
been nominated to manage the money then granted. They were now
summoned to account for it. Although this measure appeared an
innovation, yet the government could do nothing against it--it had
even consented to it: but Parliament at the same time submitted to the
members the invidious question, whether their advice for the
attainment of the ends in view had always been followed. King James
had said on a former occasion, that if Parliament granted him
subsidies, he had to account to it for their disposal as little as to
a merchant from whom he received money; for he loved to lay as much
emphasis upon his prerogative as possible. How entirely opposed to the
prerogative were the claims which Parliament now advanced! It is clear
that if the members of the council should make the communications they
were asked for, all freedom of action on the part of the minister and
of the King himself would be called in question.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1626.]
The members of the new council for war were thrown into great
embarrassment. They answered that they must first consult the lawyers
on the subject, and the King conveyed to them his approval of this
declaration. He informed them that he had had the Act of Parliament
laid before him: that they were bound to submit to questions only
about the application of the money, but about nothing else: he even
threatened them with his displeasure if they should go beyond this.
The president of the council for war, George Carew, called his
attention to the probability that the grant of the subsidies which he
demanded from Parliament might be hindered by such an answer: it would
be better, he said, that the Council should be sent to the Tower,--for
it would come to this,--than that the good relations between the King
and the Parliament should be impaired, and the payment of the
subsidies hindered. Charles I said that it was not merely a question
of money, and that gold might be bought too dear. He thanked them for
the regard which they had shown to him; but he added that Parliament
was aiming not at them but at himself.[457]
The controversy about tonnage and poundage coincided with this
quarrel. The grant, as has been mentioned, had been obtained only for
a short period. Parliament was incensed, that after this had expired,
the King had the customs levied just as before. 'How,' it was said,
'did the King wish to raise taxes that had never been voted? Was not
this altogether contrary to the form of government of the country?
Whoever had counselled the King to this step, he was without doubt the
sworn enemy of King and country.'
Parliament declared to the King that if he insisted on those subsidies
which were absolutely necessary, it would support him as fully as ever
a prince had been supported by a Parliament, but in Parliamentary
fashion, or, as they expressed it, 'via parlamentaria.'[458] The
claims of Parliament included both the right of granting money in its
widest extent, and the supervision of its application when granted.
The King considered that a grant was not necessary in respect of every
source of revenue--for instance, not in respect to tonnage and
poundage, and was determined to keep the management entirely in his
own hands, and to submit to no kind of control over it.
Many other questions, in which wide interests were involved, were
brought forward for discussion in Parliament, especially in regard to
ecclesiastical matters: the proceedings of the High Commission were
attacked again. But the question of the widest range of all was the
decided attempt to alter the government and to overthrow the great
minister, which gave perhaps the greatest employment to the
assembly.[459] It was directed against the favourite personally, for
he had now incurred universal hatred, but at bottom there also lay the
definite intention of confirming the doctrine of ministerial
responsibility by a new and signal example.
How quickly was Buckingham overtaken by Nemesis; that is to say, in
this, as in so many other instances, how soon was he visited by the
consequences which in the nature of things attended his actions!
First, owing to his influence the establishment of that council for
war had been granted which now gave occasion to the demand for
Parliamentary control: and next, he had allowed the fall of Bacon, and
had most deliberately overthrown Cranfield by the help of Parliament.
These were just the transactions which endangered his own existence by
the consequences of the principles involved in both cases alike.
The King was certainly moved by personal inclination to take the part
of his minister; but he was also moved by anxiety about the
application of these principles. He complained that without actually
established facts forthcoming, on the strength of general rumour,
people wished to attack the man on whom he bestowed his confidence:
but Parliament, he said, was altogether overstepping its competence.
It was wishing to inspect the books of the royal officers, to pass
judgment upon the letters of his secretary of state, nay, even upon
his own: it permitted and sheltered seditious speeches within its
bosom. There never had been a king, he affirmed, who was more inclined
to remove real abuses, and to observe a truly Parliamentary course;
but also there had never been one who was more jealous of his royal
honour. The more violently Buckingham was attacked, the more it
appeared to the King a point of honour to take him under his
protection against charges which he considered futile.
The Lower House did not take up all the points in dispute which the
King proposed for discussion. It excused some things which had
occurred to the prejudice of the royal dignity, but in the principal
matter it was immovable. It asserted, and adhered to its assertion,
that it was the constant undoubted right of Parliament, exercised as
well under the most glorious of former reigns as under the last, to
hold all persons accountable, however high their rank, who should
abuse the power transferred to them by their sovereign and oppress the
commonwealth. They maintained that without this liberty no one would
ever venture to say a word against influential men, and that the
common-weal would be forced to languish under their violence.
The impeachment was drawn up in regular form by eight members, among
whom we find the names of Selden, Glanvil, Pym, and Eliot. On the 8th
of May it was carried by 225 votes to 116 to send up to the Lords a
proposal for the arrest of Buckingham.
In the Upper House, the members of which were by no means more
favourable to the Duke, and feared the nomination of a large number of
peers, Lord Bristol independently brought an accusation against
Buckingham relating to the failure of the Spanish marriage. The
conduct of which he is accused may rather have shown ambition and
foolish assumption than any real criminality; and Buckingham's defence
is not without force. The Lower House, to whom it was communicated,
nevertheless expressed their opinion that a formal prosecution must
take place. It seemed that Buckingham must surely but sink under the
combined weight of various complaints.
But the King would not allow matters to go so far. Without paying any
regard to the wish of the Lords to the contrary, he proceeded to
dissolve this Parliament also (June 15, 1626). In the declaration
which he issued on the subject, he said that he recognised Joab's hand
in these estrangements: but in spite of them he would fulfil his duty
as king of this great nation, and would himself redress their
grievances and defend them with the sword against foreign enemies.
The opposition between Parliament and the Crown did not develop by
slow degrees. In its main principles at least it appears immediately
after the accession of Charles I as a historical necessity.
NOTES:
[446] Lando, Relatione 1622: 'Tiene presenza veramente regia fronte,
sopraciglio grave, negli occhi e nelli movimenti del corpo gratia
notabile, indicante prudente temperanza--di pensieri maniere costumi
commendabilissimi attrahenti la benevolenza et l'amore universale.'
[447] Thus Kensington states to the Queen-mother in France: 'He was
used ill, not in his entertainment, but in their frivolous delayes,
and in the unreasonable conditions which they propounded and pressed
upon the advantage they had of his princely person.' Cabala 289.
[448] Consultation at St. James's on the day after he ascended the
throne (March 28). 'That which was much insisted upon was a
parliament, H. Majesty being so forward to have it sit that he did
both propound and dispute it to have no writs go forth to call a new
one.' Hacket, Life of Williams ii. 4.
[449] Speech of Sir Thomas Edwards, St. P. O. (not mentioned in the
Parliamentary Histories). It is there said 'He did not only become a
continual advocate to his deceased father for the favourable graunting
of our petitions, but also did interpose his mediation for the
pacefying and removing of all misunderstandings. God having now added
the posse to the velle, the kingly power to the willing mind, enabled
him to execute what before he could but will.'
[450] Letter from the Pope to the Princess, Dec. 28, 1624: 'Cogitans
ad quorum triumphorum gloriam vadis, fruere interim expectatione tui.'
[451] 'Some spare not to say that all goes backward since this
connivance in religion came in, both in all wealth valour honour and
reputation.' Letter of Chamberlain, June 25, 1625.
[452] 'Tonnage, a duty upon all wines imported; poundage, a duty
imposed ad valorem on all other merchandises whatsoever.' Blackstone,
Commentaries i. 315.
[453] 'Whosoever gave the counsel (of the meeting in Oxford) had the
intention to set the king and his people at variance.' Nethersole to
Carleton, Aug. 9, 1625: a circumstantial and very instructive document
(St. P. O.).
[454] Hacket ii. 20.
[455] Arthur Ingram to Wentworth, Nov. 1625 (Strafford Papers, i. 29),
names besides Guy Palmer, Edward Alford, and a seventh, who had not
had a seat in the last Parliament, Sir W. Fleetwood.
[456] Ewis in Ellis, i. 3, 217. The Dutch ambassador present in
England, Joachimi, to whose letter I referred, does not seem to have
mentioned it.
[457] A memorial of what passed in speech from H. M. to the Earl of
Totness, March 8, 1625-26; St. P. O. The King says 'Let them doe what
they list: you shall not go to the Tower. It is not you that they aim
at, but it is me, upon whom they make inquisition. And for subsidies
that will not hinder it; gold may be bought too dear.'
[458] Correro: 'Questo termino di via parlamentaria vuol dire libere
concessioni secondo la loro dispositione e di haver cognitione in
qualche maniera delli impieghi.'
[459] 'Ils disent' (so it is said in Ruszdorf, Negotiations i. 596)
'que tout alloit mal, que les deniers qu'ils ont contribué ont été mal
employés: il falloit toujours et avant toutes choses redresser et
regler le gouvernement de l'état.'