ASSASSINATION OF BUCKINGHAM. SESSION OF 1629.
For some years nothing had surprised foreigners who came to England so
much as the wide severance between the government and the nation. Upon
the one side they saw the King, the favourite, and his adherents; upon
the other every one else. The King had lost much of the popularity
which he had enjoyed when he ascended the throne; but a genuine hatred
was directed against the arbitrary government of the Duke. Although it
had been repressed out of regard to the King, it had again broken
loose: the less practical result it produced, the more it filled all
hearts.
Burdened with this hatred, and with the ground shaking under him,
Buckingham was nevertheless revolving the largest enterprises in his
brain. He repelled with scorn the charge of still keeping up an
intercourse with Spain; that was contrary to his obligations to the
Protestants. He himself, so he said, had concluded the alliances
between England and Denmark and the States-General; and he wished also
to abide by them. Without doubt overtures had been made on the part of
Spain, and had been responded to on the part of England; but their
relations had in fact been such as had led to no result. On the
contrary, negotiations with France, which certainly offered some
prospect of success, had been opened through the mediation of the
Venetian ambassadors resident at the two courts. The English were
ready to waive all other points at issue if the other side would
resolve to show some indulgence, especially if they would conclude
some tolerable arrangement with Rochelle. The forces of both powers
would then undertake the war against the Spanish monarchy, and
against the advance of the Emperor in Germany. The French army would
turn its steps to Italy; the English fleet would go to the aid of the
Danes: it was expected that these attacks would exert an enormous
influence in all directions.[483] Buckingham was still engrossed with
designs against Spain, in spite of secret but only pretended overtures
to that power. He intended to attack the Spanish monarchy at the
source of its greatness, in the West Indies; and by a combination of
forces on the Continent to wrest the Palatinate from it, and thereby
to destroy the position which it had won on the Middle Rhine. A
strange ambition, although in keeping with the age and with his
personal character, appears to have been connected with this design.
It had entered into his head to marry his daughter to the Electoral
Prince Palatine, and perhaps to give his daughter the appearance of a
higher rank by getting himself declared independent prince of some
West Indian conquest--Jamaica had attracted his ambition[484]:--a hope
not altogether chimerical; for he was still all-powerful with Charles.
Foreigners were astonished that he undertook the most extensive
negotiations before he had given his sovereign notice of them. Not
unlike James I he cherished the hope that the threatening attitude
which he took up, even if he did not strike a blow, would dispose the
French to make concessions and would restore the former understanding
between them. If this were not the case, he was determined to
undertake the relief of Rochelle with all his energies.
The condition of the English navy was such that he might reasonably
promise himself success. We have credible information according to
which Buckingham had made it half as large again as it had been in the
time of Elizabeth. He had increased it from 14,000 tons burden to
22,000: he had put the dockyards and magazines at Chatham, Deptford,
Woolwich, and Portsmouth into good repair; and a number of large
vessels had been built under his orders. Already in May an English
squadron had made an attempt to relieve Rochelle: but the commanders
on that occasion would not undertake the responsibility of exposing
the ships entrusted to them, to the great danger which threatened them
if they made the attempt: they were apprehensive of being called to
account. Buckingham was not fettered by considerations of this kind.
He had had engines of extraordinary dimensions constructed, which it
was expected would rend with irresistible power the mole in front of
the harbour, by which Rochelle was cut off.[485] And who shall say
that success would have been impossible?
Buckingham felt the hatred which men entertained towards him, but
thought that he should still turn it into admiration. He wished to
atone for the faults of his youth, and, as he said, to enter on new
paths traced on the lines of the ancient maxims and ancient policy of
England, in order to bring back better days.[486] He had to a certain
extent made himself the centre of Protestant interests. Every one
expected that he would proceed without delay to the relief of
Rochelle, for which all preparations had been made. The destinies of
the world seemed to hang upon his resolutions. And he had just
received better tidings from that town: no one had ever seen him
fuller of strength and energy. At this culminating point of his life
he was smitten by a sudden and horrible death. As he stepped out of
the dressing-room in his lodging at Portsmouth, and was crossing the
hall, in order to mount his carriage and drive to the King, he was
murdered by a stroke from a dagger.
The murderer might easily have escaped, for the house was full of men,
among them many Frenchmen, on whom the first suspicion fell. While all
were crying out for the villain who had murdered the Duke, the
murderer said, 'No villain did it, but an honourable man. I am the
man.' Men saw before them a lean man with red hair, and dark
melancholy features. His name was Felton: he had served in the last
maritime expeditions, and had formerly been passed over when there was
a vacancy for promotion. He could not endure to be placed below men
who had never borne arms, merely because they were in the Duke's
favour. The strongest impression had been produced on him by the
Remonstrance,[487] which censured similar transactions, and at the
same time represented the Duke as the enemy of religion and his
country. Felton was one of these men, who from the way in which they
combine religious and political opinions are capable of anything. In
this respect he may be compared with the assassins of William of
Orange, Henry III, and Henry IV; except that he came forward in behalf
of the opposite side, and in his case there is no mention of any
participation of a minister of religion. A paper was found on him in
which he pronounced that man cowardly and base who was not ready to
sacrifice his life for the cause of his God, his king, and his
country. In his lodging there was another, on which he had put down
some principles, which he seemed to have drawn from one or two books,
and which make his intentions somewhat clearer. It is there said that
a man has no relations which place him under greater obligations than
those which he has with his country; that the welfare of the people is
the highest law, and that 'God himself has enacted this law, that
whatsoever is for the profit or benefit of the commonwealth should be
accounted to be lawful.'[488] He was believed, and rightly, when he
affirmed that he had no accomplices: the slight put upon him, he said,
had inspired him with the thought, the Remonstrance had strengthened
him in it: 'On my soul,' he repeated, 'nothing but the Remonstrance.
He thought that he might remove the man out of the way who obstructed
the public welfare. And he looked with some feeling of sarcasm at
those who testified their horror of him when he was led by: 'In your
hearts,' he cried out, 'you rejoice in my deed.' There were some in
fact who really displayed such a feeling: the crews, who had once
already wished to mutiny, disguised their sentiments least; over their
beer and pipes they gave the assassin a cheer. Others lamented most
that an Englishman should have been capable of assassination. Felton
himself was afterwards convinced that his principles were false. He
was told that a man had other still nearer and deeper obligations to
God, and to his own soul, than to his country; that no one should do
the smallest evil for the sake of the greatest good,[489] much less
then a monstrous crime like his in behalf of a cause which to his
blinded eyes appeared good. He at last thanked his instructors for
their lesson, and only asked in mercy to be allowed before his
execution to do penance in sackcloth with ashes on his head, and a
cord round his neck, in presence of all the world.
In public King Charles never lost his calmness of demeanour for a
moment. He appeared to accept the event as a dispensation of Heaven;
but afterwards he shut himself up for two whole days, and gave way to
his sorrow.
The expedition against Rochelle now put to sea under the command of
the Earl of Lindsay. But the captains did not properly obey their
chief: orders which had been planned and issued remained unexecuted:
the fire-ships, which were intended to break through the defences of
the enemy, were ill-managed. The intention was then formed of waiting
for a higher tide, in order to attempt another attack; but meanwhile
the very last resources of the town were exhausted, and it found
itself obliged to capitulate. England's position in the world was
immeasurably lowered when Rochelle was conquered by Richelieu. What
further schemes of maritime supremacy had Buckingham latterly
connected with the maintenance of this town! The ideas of Buckingham
vanished as completely as if they had never been: the ideas of
Richelieu became the foundation of a new order in the world.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1629.]
Krempe also fell, which had hitherto been deemed impregnable, the spot
which, with Gluckstadt, was still the principal stay of Danish
independence, and to which Buckingham's attention had been constantly
directed. It is thought that about 8000 men would have sufficed to
relieve it, but as they were not forthcoming, the fortress fell into
the hands of the enemy in November 1628.
And Charles I, instead of placing himself in a position to repair
these losses of his allies, embarked on a new domestic quarrel with
the Parliament.
As the customs had not been fixed by the advice of Parliament, and
tonnage and poundage had not been regularly granted at all, some
London merchants had refused to satisfy the Custom House. On this the
Lords of the Treasury laid their property under seizure. Of course the
persons affected declared this proceeding also illegal, and filled the
country with their complaints. On this occasion it was not, as almost
always hitherto, the want of an immediate subsidy, but the necessity
of removing this constitutional difficulty, which caused Parliament to
be assembled in January 1629. People might flatter themselves that
after the death of Buckingham, who had been the object of the
principal hostility of that body, an agreement would be more easily
effected.
The plan drawn up by the Privy Council was in the first instance of a
conciliatory nature. The right of granting money in general was to be
acknowledged, even in the case of tonnage and poundage: the levying of
this tax up to the present time, however, was to be justified, on the
ground that other kings had collected it before it had been granted.
If Parliament, after this general acknowledgement of its right, should
still persist in refusing the present King what former kings had
enjoyed, he would be exculpated: not the government, but Parliament
would in that case have to bear the blame of the breach which would
arise in consequence.[490]
This was the tenor of the King's speech at the opening of the
discussion on January 23, 1629. He asked for tonnage and poundage,
less on the strength of his hereditary right to it, than on the plea
of custom and necessity. He would always consider it as a gift of his
people; but after their scruples had been removed by this declaration,
he expected that an end would be put to all difficulties by a grant
such as had been made to his ancestors. It was offensive to him that
any one contested his title to a tax, without which his state could
not be kept up. In the assembled Privy Council he declared that a
temporary grant was derogatory to his honour. He said that he would no
longer live from hand to mouth: he had as little disposition to suffer
from want, or to allow the privileges of his crown to be wrested from
him, as he had had thought of infringing the liberties of his
people.[491] Secretary Coke, a member of the House, brought in the
requisite bill without delay, and proposed the first reading.
The assembly, however, consisted of the very men who had thought that
through the Petition of Right they had set up a fundamental law for
ever, but had since then become conscious how little they had effected
by that means.
An unpleasant impression had already been made on them by the printing
of the Petition of Right without the expression of simple approval,
but with the restrictive declarations which the King had at first
made.[492] But besides this it was seen how little the King intended
to be bound to the literal meaning of his words, for arrests without
definite assignment of the reason had again taken place. The Star
Chamber, which was already regarded as a court of doubtful legality,
had imposed harsh and arbitrary penalties which awakened loud murmurs.
The political opinions of one or two clergymen had caused general
agitation. A preacher named Roger Manwaring gave utterance to extreme
Royalist views. He defended forced loans, and contested the
unconditional right of Parliament to grant taxes. From some passages
of Scripture he deduced the absolute power of the sovereign, so that
properly speaking no contract at all could, in his opinion, be made
between king and people.[493] Parliament had called him to account for
this, and had punished him by fine and suspension; but the King
remitted the sentence. Another clergyman of kindred views, Montague,
whom we have already mentioned, had been advanced by the King to the
bishopric of Chichester, though, as deserves to be noticed, not
without encountering opposition. For at the elections the old forms
were still observed. Before the commissary of the Archbishop confirmed
the election, which had taken place at the King's commands, he invited
those present, if they knew anything in the life and conduct of the
bishop-elect which could hinder his confirmation, to declare it. What
had never been done on any other occasion was done then. An objection
against Montague was presented in writing on the ground that doctrines
occurred in his books which were irreconcilable with the existing
institutions of England. The matter was brought before a court of
justice, which, however, dismissed the objection as proceeding from a
man who did not belong to the diocese of Chichester. The royal
confirmation had then followed.[494] But must it not have been
irritating to Parliament that the very men were promoted about whom it
had complained? Its complaints seemed rather to serve as a
recommendation.
Besides this a Jesuit institution had been discovered in the immediate
neighbourhood of London, and had then not been prosecuted with all the
severity which Parliament thought requisite. People complained that
the number of Papists was increasing every day; that in the counties,
where before there had been none, they were now reckoned by thousands.
Mainly at the instigation of Sir John Eliot, the Lower House issued a
declaration, that it desired to hold the Articles of the English
Church in the sense in which they were understood by the writers,
whose authority was recognised in that Church, and not in the sense of
the Jesuits and Arminians, which was repudiated.
The question of tonnage and poundage came before the House while it
was labouring under the irritation kindled by this discussion. What
the government desired, the establishment of this tax on a legal
footing, was also the wish of Parliament; but Parliament wished the
matter to be settled in a way different from that intended by the
King. Parliament desired to make the right of granting taxes a genuine
reality, and henceforward to fix the duties in detail. The first
reading of the bill brought forward by the government was rejected, on
the formal ground that tonnage and poundage were subsidies, for
granting which a resolution must be taken before a bill on the subject
could be brought in.[495] Parliament espoused the cause of the London
merchants, who had certainly suffered in support of its claims, and
demanded that the proceedings of the Treasury should be reversed. For
they maintained that the collection of tonnage and poundage was as
much a breach of the fundamental principles of the realm, as the
raising of any other tax that had not been granted would be. Or could
any one, they asked, grant what he did not possess? If tonnage and
poundage already belonged to the King, he did not need to have it
granted him. The arrangement proposed by the government was rejected
altogether: and everything else which was inconsistent with the
literal meaning of the petition was also declared illegal.
The King was incensed at the political, as well as at the religious
attitude of the Lower House. A treatise in his own handwriting is
extant, in which he expresses himself on the latter subject. 'You take
to yourselfs,' he says, 'the interpretation of articles of religion,
the deciding of which in doctrinal points only appartaines to the
clergy and convocation.'[496] He added that His Majesty--for he loved
to speak of himself in the third person--had a short time before
announced his intention of maintaining the integrity of the religion
of the English Church, and its unity, and that after much reflection,
in agreement with the Privy Council and with the bishops: that as the
Commons had the same object in view, he was surprised that they were
not content with this announcement, and that they did not at all
events state wherein the King's declaration did not content them: for
that the King was the supreme governor of the English Church after
God.
At this very time an order was issued to the Treasury, and to the
collectors of customs at the ports that tonnage and poundage should be
henceforth levied, just as it had been in the latter years of James I;
and that every one who refused payment should be punished.
In this way the King embarked afresh on a course of the most
unequivocal hostility towards his Parliament. But that body did not
intend to give way. It would not be deterred from drawing up a fresh
remonstrance, in which it made use of the strongest expressions to
give point to its claims. In this it was said, that whoever furthered
Popery or Arminianism, whoever collected or helped to collect tonnage
and poundage before it was granted, or who even paid it, the same was
an enemy of the English realm and of English liberty. This was a
strange combination of ecclesiastical and financial grievances and
pretensions. But the course of the transactions had established an
intimate relation between them. In regard to both the Commons again
took up as hostile an attitude towards the ministers of that day, as
they had formerly taken up towards the Duke of Buckingham. The Lord
Treasurer Weston was the special object of their hatred on both
accounts. For it was said that he was a rebellious Papist--nay even a
Jesuit:--did not his nearest kinsmen belong to that order?--and that
he was now giving the King pernicious advice, hostile to the rights of
the country and the dignity of Parliament. Proceeding on the principle
that the collection of tonnage and poundage was a breach of the
constitution, preparations were made for calling to account the
officers engaged in this process. Nor would men have been content to
stop at the subordinates; they would have reached even the highest.
In this session the moderation which had been for some time exhibited
in the former dropped out of sight: the contempt shown to the Petition
of Right had called forth a spirit of bitter, violent, and unbounded
opposition. When the King, in order to prevent the formal passing of
the Remonstrance, proceeded in the first instance to have the session
adjourned, a scene of tumult and violence was witnessed, to which the
annals of former Parliaments offered no parallel.
The Speaker of the House, Sir John Finch, one of those men who had
passed over from the side of the Commons to that of the King,
announced to the assembled members after the opening of the sitting on
the 2nd of March, that the King adjourned the House till the 10th. But
this was the very hour when Sir John Eliot, who had drawn up the new
Remonstrance had with his friends intended to carry it through
Parliament. The House declared it illegal for the Speaker to make
himself the mouthpiece of the royal will: and when he tried to
withdraw, he was held on his chair by a couple of strong and resolute
members. The Usher of the Black Rod, whose business it was to declare
the House adjourned, had already appeared in the ante-room; but the
doors of the hall were shut. In this tumult the Remonstrance had to be
read and voted on. The Speaker refused to have anything to do with it,
although it was declared 'to be his duty to put it to the vote. Sir
John Eliot and Denzil Holles must have delivered the sense of the
Remonstrance orally, rather than read it properly through: but even in
this fashion the majority of the House made known their assent, and in
this way the immediate object was attained, as well as the
circumstances allowed. On a threat that the doors should be broken
through, they were now opened, and the members left the chamber.[497]
An extraordinary act of disobedience, considering that it was intended
to be the means of securing the legal forms of Parliament! It was the
last step in this stage of the proceedings. It involved an open breach
between the two authorities.
In later times the responsibility for this act has been thrown on the
King. Contemporaries of moderate views, and who favoured the
Parliament, were of opinion however that the responsibility rather lay
with those fiery and crafty men who had possessed themselves of the
control of Parliament. For they thought that the King had seriously
striven to compose the quarrel: that people might well have accepted
his first declaration, and that the greater part of the members had
been inclined to do so; but that the seeming zeal of some few for the
liberties of the country had, unfortunately for England, prevented
them from yielding.[498] It is difficult to suppose that the strength
and depth of the opposition would any longer have permitted an
adjustment. It was now fully apparent at all events that the King and
the Lower House could no longer work together.
In the Privy Council the opinion was once more expressed, that
Parliament should be treated with indulgence. This was the wish of the
Lord Keeper Coventry: but the Treasurer recommended the strict
enforcement of the prerogative, and the King sided with this view. Not
only was the dissolution of Parliament pronounced, but just as Henry
VIII and Elizabeth had done, Charles I proceeded to punish the members
who had offended against his dignity in their speeches. He first of
all decided not to call Parliament together again. He declared that he
had now abundantly proved that he loved to rule by the help of
Parliament; that he had been compelled against his wish by the last
proceedings to desist from the attempt, and that he would not renew it
until his people had learnt to know him better. He said that he should
consider it presumption if any time were prescribed to him for
reassembling Parliament; that Parliament ought to be summoned, held,
and dissolved, solely at the discretion of the King.
The great advantage of Parliament in this conflict consisted in its
ability to appeal to legal precedents of past centuries in its favour.
What had once rendered the continuance of the ascendancy of
Parliament impossible, the danger into which it had plunged the common
interests of the kingdom, was now forgotten. The laws of those times
had not been repealed, but had only been modified and curtailed in its
own favour by the sovereign power, which had grown strong since that
time. Every position, new or unusual at the moment, which Parliament
maintained was, if not laid down in former ordinances, yet at all
events so logically inferred from them, that it appeared customary and
in accordance with primitive law. If on the contrary Charles I
maintained the prerogative which his father had exercised, and which
Queen Elizabeth and the House of Tudor in general had possessed, he
was placed in the awkward position of appearing to act without the
countenance of the laws. He now resolved to govern, at least for a
time, without the aid of Parliament. Many of his ancestors had done
exactly the same; but since their time attachment to parliamentary
government had become part of the national feeling. It now appeared
not only to represent fully the liberties, but also especially the
most popular religious tendencies of the country.
Whether under these circumstances the King would have succeeded in
giving effect to his ideas, even if more peaceful times had ensued,
was from the beginning extremely doubtful.[499]
NOTES:
[483] Al. Contarini, Aug. 14, 1628. 'Carleton mi soggionse che
certamente la flotta si volgerebbe in ajuto del re di Danimarca,
quando Più non fosse necessaria in Francia.'
[484] The first intimation of this design occurs in an anonymous
letter to the King, which probably belongs to the year 1623: Cabala
223. In the correspondence of the ambassadors the project is assumed
as certain.
[485] Ruszdorf: 'Magnos apparatus instituit, quibus sperat structuram
et molem rumpere'
[486] From the letter of Dudley Viscount Dorchester, in Bruce's
Calendar.
[487] 'The remonstrance in the last Parliament and that the duke was
the cause of the public grievances, it came into his mind that it
would be a good service to God and the Commonwealth to take him away.'
Relation of the Duke of Buckingham's death. (St. P. O.)
[488] From the report of Duppa (St. P. O.), which admirably
supplements that which is given in the State Trials iii. 370.
[489] 'That the common good could no way be a pretense to a particular
mischief.'
[490] Rushworth i. 654: 'To avow a breach upon just cause given, not
sought by the King.'
[491] Fragmentary memoranda of a sitting of the Privy Council at the
beginning of February 1628-29. (St P. O.)
[492] Statement of the printer. Parliamentary History viii. 247.
[493] His declaration before the Lords. Parliamentary History viii.
208.
[494] We learn this from a letter of Nethersole to the queen of
Bohemia, Jan. 28. (St. P. O.)
[495] Nethersole to the Queen of Bohemia: 'That what at the first
propounding seemed a very reasonable motion--was at last upon this
reason that the bill is in truth and is intituled a bill of subsidy.'
[496] Holograph declaration of Charles I. (St. P. O.)
[497] Information in Star Chamber. Rushworth i. 675.
[498] Autobiography of Sir Symond d'Ewes i. 405: 'Being only misled by
some Machiavellian politics who seemed zealous for the liberty of the
common wealth.'
[499] Observation of Contarini, March 16, 1629. 'Quello che importa è
il parlamento si è conservato nell'intero possesso dei suoi privilegi,
senza cader un tantino: il re per queste due volte ha ceduto sempre
qualche cosa.'
END OF VOL. I.
* * * * *
Transcribers note:
The section header 'The Conquest' in Book I Chapter II
is missing from the original table of contents.