CHARLES I.
{1628.} There was reason to apprehend some disorder or insurrection
from the discontents which prevailed among the people in England.
Their liberties, they believed, were ravished from them; illegal taxes
extorted; their commerce which had met with a severe check from the
Spanish, was totally annihilated by the French war; those military
honors transmitted to them from their ancestors, had received a grievous
stain by two unsuccessful and ill-conducted expeditions; scarce an
illustrious family but mourned, from the last of them, the loss of a
son or brother; greater calamities were dreaded from the war with these
powerful monarchies, concurring with the internal disorders under which
the nation labored. And these ills were ascribed, not to the refractory
disposition of the two former parliaments, to which they were partly
owing, but solely to Charles's obstinacy in adhering to the counsels of
Buckingham, a man nowise entitled by his birth, age, services, or merit,
to that unlimited confidence reposed in him. To be sacrificed to the
interest, policy, and ambition of the great, is so much the common lot
of the people, that they may appear unreasonable who would pretend to
complain of it: but to be the victim of the frivolous gallantry of a
favorite, and of his boyish caprices, seemed the object of peculiar
indignation.
In this situation, it may be imagined the king and the duke dreaded,
above all things, the assembling of a parliament; but so little
foresight had they possessed in their enterprising schemes, that
they found themselves under an absolute necessity of embracing that
expedient. The money levied, or rather extorted, under color of
prerogative, had come in very slowly, and had left such ill humor in the
nation, that it appeared dangerous to renew the experiment. The absolute
necessity of supply, it was hoped, would engage the commons to forget
all past injuries; and, having experienced the ill effects of former
obstinacy, they would probably assemble with a resolution of making some
reasonable compliances. The more to soften them, it was concerted,
by Sir Robert Cotton's advice,[*] that Buckingham should be the first
person that proposed in council the calling of a new parliament.
Having laid in this stock of merit, he expected that all his former
misdemeanors would be overlooked and forgiven; and that, instead of a
tyrant and oppressor, he should be regarded as the first patriot in the
nation.
The views of the popular leaders were much more judicious and profound.
When the commons assembled, they appeared to be men of the same
independent spirit with their predecessors, and possessed of such
riches, that their property was computed to surpass three times that
of the house of peers;[**] they were deputed by boroughs and counties,
inflamed all of them by the late violations of liberty; many of the
members themselves had been cast into prison, and had suffered by the
measures of the court; yet, notwithstanding these circumstances, which
might prompt them to embrace violent resolutions, they entered upon
business with perfect temper and decorum. They considered that the king,
disgusted at these popular assemblies, and little prepossessed in favor
of their privileges, wanted but a fair pretence for breaking with them,
and would seize the first opportunity offered by any incident, or any
undutiful behavior of the members. He fairly told them in his first
speech, that, "If they should not do their duties in contributing to the
necessities of the state, he must, in discharge of his conscience, use
those other means which God had put into his hands, in order to save
that which the follies of some particular men may otherwise put in
danger. Take not this for a threatening," added the king, "for I scorn
to threaten any but my equals; but as an admonition from him who,
by nature and duty, has most care of your preservation and
prosperity."[***] The lord keeper, by the king's direction, subjoined,
"This way of parliamentary supplies as his majesty told you, he hath
chosen, not as the only way, but as the fittest; not because he is
destitute of others, but because it is most agreeable to the goodness
of his own most gracious disposition, and to the desire and weal of his
people. If this be deferred, necessity and the sword of the enemy make
way for the others. Remember his majesty's admonition. I say, remember
it."[****]
* Franklyn, p. 230.
** Sanderson, p. 106. Walker, p. 339
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 477. Franklyn, p. 233.
**** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 479. Franklyn, p. 234
From these avowed maxims, the commons foresaw that, if the least handle
were afforded, the king would immediately dissolve them, and would
thenceforward deem himself justified for violating, in a manner still
more open, all the ancient forms of the constitution. No remedy could
then be looked for but from insurrections and civil war, of which the
issue would be extremely uncertain, and which must, in all events,
prove calamitous to the nation. To correct the late disorders in the
administration required some new laws, which would, no doubt, appear
harsh to a prince so enamored of his prerogative; and it was requisite
to temper, by the decency and moderation of their debates, the rigor
which must necessarily attend their determinations. Nothing can give us
a higher idea of the capacity of those men who now guided the commons,
and of the great authority which they had acquired, than the forming and
executing of so judicious and so difficult a plan of operations.
The decency, however, which the popular leaders had prescribed to
themselves, and recommended to others, hindered them not from making the
loudest and most vigorous complaints against the grievances under which
the nation had lately labored. Sir Francis Seymour said, "This is the
great council of the kingdom; and here with certainty, if not here only,
his majesty may see, as in a true glass, the state of the kingdom. We
are called hither by his writs, in order to give him faithful counsel;
such as may stand with his honor: and this we must do without flattery.
We are also sent hither by the people, in order to deliver their just
grievances: and this we must do without fear. Let us not act like
Cambyses's judges, who, when their approbation was demanded by the
prince to some illegal measure, said, that 'Though there was a written
law, the Persian kings might follow their own will and pleasure.' This
was base flattery, fitter for our reproof than our imitation; and as
fear, so flattery, taketh away the judgment. For my part, I shall shun
both; and speak my mind with as much duty as any man to his majesty,
without neglecting the public.
"But how can we express our affections while we retain our fears; or
speak of giving, till we know whether we have any thing to give? For if
his majesty may be persuaded to take what he will, what need we give?
"That this hath been done, appeareth by the billeting of soldiers, a
thing nowise advantageous to the king's service, and a burden to the
commonwealth: by the imprisonment of gentlemen for refusing the loan,
who, if they had done the contrary for fear, had been as blamable as the
projector of that oppressive measure. To countenance these proceedings,
hath it not been preached in the pulpit, or rather prated, that 'All we
have is the king's by divine right'? But when preachers forsake their
own calling, and turn ignorant statesmen, we see how willing they are to
exchange a good conscience for a bishopric.
"He, I must confess, is no good subject, who would not willingly and
cheerfully lay down his life, when that sacrifice may promote the
interests of his sovereign, and the good of the commonwealth. But he is
not a good subject, he is a slave, who will allow his goods to be taken
from him against his will, and his liberty against the laws of the
kingdom. By opposing these practices, we shall but tread in the steps
of our forefathers, who still preferred the public before their private
interest, nay, before their very lives. It will in us be a wrong done
to ourselves, to our posterities, to our consciences, if we forego this
claim and pretension."[*]
* Franklyn p. 243. Rushworth, vol. i, p. 499.
"I read of a custom," said Sir Robert Philips, "among the old Romans,
that once every year they held a solemn festival, in which their slaves
had liberty, without exception, to speak what they pleased, in order to
ease their afflicted minds; and, on the conclusion of the festival, the
slaves severally returned to their former servitudes.
"This institution may, with some distinction, well set forth our present
state and condition. After the revolution of some time, and the grievous
sufferance of many violent oppressions, we have now at last, as those
slaves, obtained, for a day, some liberty of speech; but shall not, I
trust, be hereafter slaves: for we are born free. Yet what new illegal
burdens our estates and persons have groaned under, my heart yearns to
think of, my tongue falters to utter.----
"The grievances by which we are oppressed, I draw under two heads; acts
of power against law, and the judgments of lawyers against our liberty."
Having mentioned three illegal judgments passed within his memory; that
by which the Scots, born after James's accession, were admitted to all
the privileges of English subjects;[** semi-colon inserted, not in scan]
that by which the new impositions had been warranted; and the late one,
by which arbitrary imprisonments were authorized; he thus proceeded:--
"I can live, though another, who has no right, be put to live along with
me; nay, I can live, though burdened with impositions beyond what at
present I labor under: but to have my liberty, which is the soul of
my life, ravished from me to have my person pent up in a jail, without
relief by law, and to be so adjudged,--O, improvident ancestors!
O, unwise forefathers! to be so curious in providing for the quiet
possession of our lands, and the liberties of parliament; and at the
same time to neglect our personal liberty, and let us lie in prison, and
that during pleasure, without redress or remedy! If this be law, why
do we talk of liberties? why trouble ourselves with disputes about a
constitution, franchises, property of goods, and the like? What may any
man call his own, if not the liberty of his person?
"I am weary of treading these ways; and therefore conclude to have
a select committee, in order to frame a petition to his majesty for
redress of these grievances. And this petition, being read, examined,
and approved, may be delivered to the king; of whose gracious answer we
have no cause to doubt, our desires being so reasonable, our intentions
so loyal, and the manner so dutiful. Neither need we fear that this is
the critical parliament, as has been insinuated; or that this is the way
to distraction: but assure ourselves of a happy issue. Then shall the
king, as he calls us his great council, find us his true council, and
own us his good council."[*]
* Franklyn, p. 245. Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 363. Rushworth,
vol i. p. 502.
The same topics were enforced by Sir Thomas Wentworth. After mentioning
projectors and ill ministers of state, "These," said he, "have
introduced a privy council, ravishing at once the spheres of all ancient
government; destroying all liberty; imprisoning us without bail or bond.
They have taken from us--What shall I say? Indeed, what have they left
us? By tearing up the roots of all property, they have taken from us
every means of supplying the king, and of ingratiating ourselves by
voluntary proofs of our duty and attachment towards him.
"To the making whole all these breaches I shall apply myself, and to all
these diseases shall propound a remedy. By one and the same thing have
the king and the people been hurt, and by the same must they be cured.
We must vindicate--what? New things? No: our ancient, legal, and vital
liberties; by reënforcing the laws enacted by our ancestors; by setting
such a stamp upon them, that no licentious spirit shall dare henceforth
to invade them. And shall we think this a way to break a parliament? No:
our desires are modest and just. I speak both for the interest of king
and people. If we enjoy not these rights, it will be impossible for us
to relieve him. Let us never, therefore, doubt of a favorable reception
from his goodness."[*]
These sentiments were unanimously embraced by the whole house. Even the
court party pretended not to plead, in defence of the late measures,
any thing but the necessity to which the king had been reduced by the
obstinacy of the two former parliaments. A vote, therefore, was
passed, without opposition, against arbitrary imprisonments and forced
loans.[**] And the spirit of liberty having obtained some contentment
by this exertion, the reiterated messages of the king, who pressed for
supply, were attended to with more temper. Five subsidies were voted
him; with which, though much inferior to his wants, he declared himself
well satisfied; and even tears of affection started in his eye when
he was informed of this concession. The duke's approbation too was
mentioned by Secretary Coke; but the conjunction of a subject with the
sovereign was ill received by the house.[***] Though disgusted with the
king, the jealousy which they felt for his honor was more sensible than
that which his unbounded confidence in the duke would allow even himself
to entertain.
* Franklyn, p 243. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 500.
** Franklyn, p. 251. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 513. Whitlocke,
p. 9
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 526, Whitlocke, p. 9.
The supply, though voted, was not as yet passed into a law; and the
commons resolved to employ the interval in providing some barriers to
their rights and liberties so lately violated. They knew that their
own vote, declaring the illegality of the former measures, had not, of
itself, sufficient authority to secure the constitution against future
invasion. Some act to that purpose must receive the sanction of the
whole legislature; and they appointed a committee to prepare the model
of so important a law. By collecting into one effort all the dangerous
and oppressive claims of his prerogative, Charles had exposed them to
the hazard of one assault and had further, by presenting a nearer view
of the consequences attending them, roused the independent genius of
the commons. Forced loans, benevolences, taxes without consent of
parliament, arbitrary imprisonments, the billeting of soldiers, martial
law; these were the grievances complained of, and against these an
eternal remedy was to be provided. The commons pretended not, as they
affirmed, to any unusual powers or privileges: they aimed only at
securing those which had been transmitted them from their ancestors: and
their law they resolved to call a Petition of Right; as implying that
it contained a corroboration or explanation of the ancient constitution,
not any infringement of royal prerogative, or acquisition of new
liberties.
While the committee was employed in framing the petition of right, the
favorers of each party, both in parliament and throughout the nation,
were engaged in disputes about this bill, which, in all likelihood, was
to form a memorable era in the English government.
That the statutes, said the partisans of the commons, which secure
English liberty, are not become obsolete, appears hence, that the
English have ever been free, and have ever been governed by law and a
limited constitution. Privileges in particular, which are founded on
the Great Charter, must always remain in force, because derived from
a source of never-failing authority, regarded in all ages as the most
sacred contract between king and people. Such attention was paid to this
charter by our generous ancestors, that they got the confirmation of it
reiterated thirty several times; and even secured it by a rule which,
though vulgarly received, seems in the execution impracticable. They
have established it as a maxim "That even a statute which should be
enacted in contradiction to any article of that charter, cannot have
force or validity." But with regard to that important article which
secures personal liberty, so far from attempting at any time any legal
infringement of it, they have corroborated it by six statutes, and put
it out of all doubt and controversy. If in practice it has often been
violated, abuses can never come in the place of rules; nor can any
rights or legal powers be derived from injury and injustice. But the
title of the subject to personal liberty not only is founded on ancient,
and, therefore, the most sacred laws; it is confirmed by the whole
analogy of the government and constitution. A free monarchy in which
every individual is a slave, is a glaring contradiction: and it is
requisite, where the laws assign privileges to the different orders of
the state, that it likewise secure the independence of the members.
If any difference could be made in this particular, it were better to
abandon even life or property to the arbitrary will of the prince; nor
would such immediate danger ensue, from that concession, to the laws
and to the privileges of the people. To bereave of his life a man not
condemned by any legal trial, is so egregious an exercise of tyranny,
that it must at once shock the natural humanity of princes, and convey
an alarm throughout the whole commonwealth. To confiscate a man's
fortune, besides its being a most atrocious act of violence, exposes the
monarch so much to the imputation of avarice and rapacity, that it will
seldom be attempted in any civilized government. But confinement, though
a less striking, is no less severe a punishment; nor is there any spirit
so erect and independent, as not to be broken by the long continuance
of the silent and inglorious sufferings of a jail. The power of
imprisonment, therefore, being the most natural and potent engine of
arbitrary government, it is absolutely necessary to remove it from a
government which is free and legal.
The partisans of the court reasoned after a different manner. The true
rule of government, said they, during any period, is that to which the
people, from time immemorial, have been accustomed, and to which they
naturally pay a prompt obedience. A practice which has ever struck their
senses, and of which they have seen and heard innumerable precedents,
has an authority with them much superior to that which attends maxims
derived from antiquated statutes and mouldy records. In vain do the
lawyers establish it as a principle, that a statute can never be
abrogated by opposite custom; but requires to be expressly repealed by
a contrary statute: while they pretend to inculcate an axiom peculiar to
English jurisprudence, they violate the most established principles of
human nature; and even by necessary consequence reason in contradiction
to law itself, which they would represent as so sacred and inviolable. A
law, to have any authority must be derived from a legislature which has
right. And whence do all legislatures derive their right, but from long
custom and established practice? If a statute contrary to public good
has at any time been rashly voted and assented to, either from the
violence of faction or the inexperience of senates and princes, it
cannot be more effectually abrogated by a train of contrary precedents,
which prove, that by common consent it has been tacitly set aside, as
inconvenient and impracticable. Such has been the case with all those
statutes enacted during turbulent times, in order to limit royal
prerogative, and cramp the sovereign in his protection of the public,
and his execution of the laws. But above all branches of prerogative,
that which is most necessary to be preserved, is the power of
imprisonment. Faction and discontent, like diseases, frequently arise in
every political body; and during these disorders, it is by the salutary
exercise alone of this discretionary power, that rebellions and civil
wars can be prevented. To circumscribe this power, is to destroy its
nature: entirely to abrogate it, is impracticable; and the attempt
itself must prove dangerous, if not pernicious to the public. The
supreme magistrate, in critical and turbulent times, will never,
agreeably either to prudence or duty, allow the state to perish, while
there remains a remedy which, how irregular soever, it is still in his
power to apply. And if, moved by a regard to public good, he employs any
exercise of power condemned by recent and express statute, how greedily,
in such dangerous times, will factious leaders seize this pretence of
throwing on his government the imputation of tyranny and despotism! Were
the alternative quite necessary, it were surely much better for human
society to be deprived of liberty than to be destitute of government.
Impartial reasoners will confess that this subject is not, on both
sides, without its difficulties. Where a general and rigid law is
enacted against arbitrary imprisonment, it would appear that government
cannot, in times of sedition and faction, be conducted but by temporary
suspensions of the law; and such an expedient was never thought of
during the age of Charles.[**period inserted] The meetings of parliament
were too precarious, and their determinations might be too dilatory, to
serve in cases of urgent necessity. Nor was it then conceived, that the
king did not possess of himself sufficient power for the security
and protection of his people, or that the authority of these popular
assemblies was ever to become so absolute, that the prince must always
conform himself to it, and could never have any occasion to guard
against their practices, as well as against those of his other subjects.
Though the house of lords was not insensible to the reasons urged in
favor of the pretensions of the commons, they deemed the arguments
pleaded in favor of the crown still more cogent and convincing. That
assembly seems, during this whole period, to have acted, in the main, a
reasonable and a moderate part; and if their bias inclined a little
too much, as is natural, to the side of monarchy, they were far from
entertaining any design of sacrificing to arbitrary will the liberties
and privileges of the nation. Ashley, the king's serjeant, having
asserted, in pleading before the peers, that the king must sometimes
govern by acts of state as well as by law, this position gave such
offence, that he was immediately committed to prison, and was not
released but upon his recantation and submission.[*] Being, however,
afraid lest the commons should go too far in their projected petition,
the peers proposed a plan of one more moderate, which they recommended
to the consideration of the other house. It consisted merely in a
general declaration, that the Great Charter, and the six statutes
conceived to be explanations of it, stand still in force, to all intents
and purposes; that, in consequence of the charter and the statutes, and
by the tenor of the ancient customs and laws of the realm, every subject
has a fundamental property in his goods, and a fundamental liberty of
his person; that this property and liberty are as entire at present as
during any former period of the English government; that in all common
cases, the common law ought to be the standard of proceedings: "And in
case that, for the security of his majesty's person, the general safety
of his people, or the peaceable government of the kingdom, the king
shall find just cause, for reasons of state, to imprison or restrain
any man's person, he was petitioned graciously to declare that, within
a convenient time, he shall and will express the cause of the commitment
or restraint, either general or special, and, upon a cause so expressed,
will leave the prisoner immediately to be tried according to the common
law of the land."[**]
* Whitlocke, p. 10.
** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 187. Rushworth, vol. i. p.
548.
Archbishop Abbot was employed by the lords to recommend, in a
conference, this plan of a petition to the house of commons. The
prelate, as was no doubt foreseen, from his known principles, was not
extremely urgent in his applications; and the lower house was fully
convinced that the general declarations signified nothing, and that
the latter clause left their liberties rather in a worse condition than
before. They proceeded, therefore, with great zeal, in framing, the
model of a petition which should contain expressions more precise, and
more favorable to public freedom.
The king could easily see the consequence of these proceedings. Though
he had offered, at the beginning of the session, to give his consent to
any law for the security of the rights and liberties of the people, he
had not expected that such inroads would be made on his prerogative. In
order, therefore, to divert the commons from their intention, he sent
a message, wherein he acknowledged past errors, and promised that
hereafter there should be no just cause of complaint. And he added,
"That the affairs of the kingdom press him so, that he could not
continue the session above a week or two longer: and if the house be not
ready by that time to do what is fit for themselves, it shall be their
own fault."[*] On a subsequent occasion, he asked them, "Why demand
explanations, if you doubt not the performance of the statutes according
to their true meaning? Explanations will hazard an encroachment upon the
prerogative; and it may well be said, What need a new law to confirm an
old, if you repose confidence in the declarations which his majesty
made to both houses?"[**] The truth is, the Great Charter and the old
statutes were sufficiently clear in favor of personal liberty: but as
all kings of England had ever, in cases of necessity or expediency, been
accustomed at intervals to elude them; and as Charles, in a complication
of instances, had lately violated them; the commons judged it requisite
to enact a new law, which might not be eluded or violated by any
interpretation, construction, or contrary precedent. Nor was it
sufficient, they thought, that the king promised to return into the way
of his predecessors. His predecessors in all times had enjoyed too much
discretionary power; and by his recent abuse of it, the whole world had
reason to see the necessity of entirely retrenching it.
The king still persevered in his endeavors to elude the petition. He
sent a letter to the house of lords, in which he went so far as to make
a particular declaration, "That neither he nor his privy council
shall or will, at any time hereafter, commit or command to prison, or
otherwise restrain, any man for not lending money, or for any other
cause which, in his conscience,[**joined-up though no hyphen] he thought
not to concern the public good, and the safety of king and people." And
he further declared, "That he never would be guilty of so base an action
as to pretend any cause of whose truth he was not fully satisfied."[***]
But this promise, though enforced to the commons by the recommendation
of the upper house, made no more impression than all the former
messages.
* State Trials, vol. vii. p. 193.
** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 196. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 556
*** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 198. Rushworth, vol. i. p.
560, Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 111.
Among the other evasions of the king, we may reckon the proposal of
the house of peers, to subjoin to the intended petition of right the
following clause: "We humbly present this petition to your majesty, not
only with a care of preserving our own liberties, but with due regard to
leave entire that sovereign power with which your majesty is intrusted
for the protection, safety, and happiness of your people."[*] Less
penetration than was possessed by the leaders of the house of commons,
could easily discover how captious this clause was, and how much it was
calculated to elude the whole force of the petition.
These obstacles, therefore, being surmounted, the petition of right
passed the commons, and was sent to the upper house.[**] [2] The peers,
who were probably well pleased in secret that all their solicitations
had been eluded by the commons, quickly passed the petition without any
material alteration; and nothing but the royal assent was wanting to
give it the force of a law. The king accordingly came to the house of
peers; sent for the commons; and, being seated in his chair of state,
the petition was read to him. Great was now the astonishment of all men,
when, instead of the usual concise and clear form by which a bill is
either confirmed or rejected Charles said, in answer to the petition,
"The king willeth, that right be done according to the laws and customs
of the realm, and that the statutes be put into execution; that his
subjects may have no cause to complain of any wrong or oppression,
contrary to their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof
he holds himself in conscience as much obliged as of his own
prerogative."[***]
* State Trials, vol. vii. p. 199. Ruskworth, vol. i. p. 561.
Parl Hist. vol. viii. p. 116. Whitlocke, p. 10.
** See note B, at the end of the volume.
*** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 212. Rushworth, vol. i. p.
500.
It is surprising that Charles, who had seen so many instances of the
jealousy of the commons, who had himself so much roused that jealousy
by his frequent evasive messages during this session, could imagine that
they would rest satisfied with an answer so vague and undeterminate. It
was evident, that the unusual form alone of the answer must excite their
attention; that the disappointment must inflame their anger; and that
therefore it was necessary, as the petition seemed to bear hard on royal
prerogative, to come early to some fixed resolution, either gracefully
to comply with it, or courageously to reject it.
It happened as might have been foreseen. The commons returned in very
ill humor. Usually, when in that disposition, their zeal for religion,
and their enmity against the unfortunate Catholics, ran extremely high.
But they had already, in the beginning of the session, presented their
petition of religion and had received a satisfactory answer; though they
expected that the execution of the laws against Papists would, for the
future, be no more exact and rigid than they had hitherto found it.
To give vent to their present indignation, they fell with their utmost
force on Dr. Manwaring.
There is nothing which tends more to excuse, if not to justify,
the extreme rigor of the commons towards Charles, than his open
encouragement and avowal of such general principles as were altogether
incompatible with a limited government. Manwaring had preached a sermon
which the commons found, upon inquiry, to be printed by special command
of the king;[*] and when this sermon was looked into, it contained
doctrines subversive of all civil liberty. It taught, that, though
property was commonly lodged in the subject, yet, whenever any exigency
required supply, all property was transferred to the sovereign; that the
consent of parliament was not necessary for the imposition of taxes;
and that the divine laws required compliance with every demand, how
irregular soever, which the prince should make upon his subjects[**] For
these doctrines the commons impeached Manwaring. The sentence pronounced
upon him by the peers was, that he should be imprisoned during the
pleasure of the house, be fined a thousand pounds to the king, make
submission and acknowledgment of his offence, be suspended during three
years, be incapable of holding any ecclesiastical dignity or secular
office, and that his book be called in and burnt.[***]
* Parliament. Hist. vol. viii. p. 206.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 585, 594. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p.
168, 169, 170, etc. Welwood, p. 44.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 65. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 212.
It may be worthy of notice, that no sooner was the session ended, than
this man, so justly obnoxious to both houses received a pardon, and was
promoted to a living of considerable value.[*] Some years after, he was
raised to the see of St. Asaph. If the republican spirit of the commons
increased beyond all reasonable bounds, the monarchical spirit of the
court, this latter, carried to so high a pitch, tended still further to
augment the former. And thus extremes were every where affected, and the
just medium was gradually deserted by all men.
From Manwaring, the house of commons proceeded to censure the conduct
of Buckingham, whose name hitherto they had cautiously forborne to
mention.[**] In vain did the king send them a message, in which he told
them that the session was drawing near to a conclusion; and desired that
they would not enter upon new business, nor cast any aspersions on his
government and ministry.[***] Though the court endeavored to explain and
soften this message by a subsequent message,[****] as Charles was apt
hastily to correct any hasty step which he had taken, it served
rather to inflame than appease the commons; as if the method of their
proceedings had here been prescribed to them. It was foreseen that a
great tempest was ready to burst on the duke; and in order to divert
it, the king thought proper, upon a joint application of the lords and
commons,[v] to endeavor giving them satisfaction with regard to the
petition of right. He came, therefore, to the house of peers, and
pronouncing the usual form of words, "Let it be law, as is desired,"
gave full sanction and authority to the petition. The acclamations
with which the house resounded, and the universal joy diffused over the
nation, showed how much this petition had been the object of all men's
vows and expectations[v*]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 635. Whitlocke, p. 11.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 607.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 605.
**** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 610. Parl. Hist vol. viii. p.
197.
v Rushworth, vol. i. p. 613, Journ. 7th June, 1628. Parl.
Hist. vol. viii. p. 201.
v* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 613.
It may be affirmed, without any exaggeration, that the king's assent to
the petition of right produced such a change in the government, as was
almost equivalent to a revolution; and by circumscribing, in so
many articles, the royal prerogative gave additional security to the
liberties of the subject. Yet were the commons far from being satisfied
with this important concession. Their ill humor had been so much
irritated by the king's frequent evasions and delays, that it could not
be presently appeased by an assent which he allowed to be so reluctantly
extorted from him. Perhaps, too, the popular leaders, implacable and
artful, saw the opportunity favorable; and, turning against the king
those very weapons with which he had furnished them, resolved to pursue
the victory. The bill, however, for five subsidies, which had been
formerly voted, immediately passed the house; because the granting of
that supply was, in a manner, tacitly contracted for, upon the royal
assent to the petition; and had faith been here violated, no further
confidence could have subsisted between king and parliament. Having
made this concession, the commons continued to carry their scrutiny
into every part of government. In some particulars, their industry was
laudable; in some, it may be liable to censure.
A little after writs were issued for summoning this parliament, a
commission had been granted to Sir Thomas Coventry, lord keeper, the
earl of Marlborough, treasurer, the earl of Manchester, president of the
council, the earl of Worcester, privy seal, the duke of Buckingham, high
admiral, and all the considerable officers of the crown; in the whole,
thirty-three. By this commission, which, from the number of persons
named in it, could be no secret, the commissioners were empowered to
meet, and to concert among themselves the methods of levying money by
impositions, or otherwise; "Where form and circumstance," as expressed
in the commission, "must be dispensed with, rather than the substance
be lost or hazarded."[*] In other words, this was a scheme for finding
expedients which might raise the prerogative to the greatest height, and
render parliaments entirely useless. The commons applied for cancelling
the commission;[**] and were, no doubt, desirous that all the world
should conclude the king's principles to be extremely arbitrary,
and should observe what little regard he was disposed to pay to the
liberties and privileges of his people.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 614. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 214.
** Journ. 13th June, 1628.
A commission had likewise been granted, and some money remitted, in
order to raise a thousand German horse, and transport them into England.
These were supposed to be levied in order to support the projected
impositions or excises, though the number seems insufficient for such a
purpose,[*] The house took notice of this design in severe terms: and no
measure, surely, could be projected more generally odious to the whole
nation. It must, however, be confessed, that the king was so far
right, that he had now at last fallen on the only effectual method for
supporting his prerogative. But at the same time, he should have been
sensible that, till provided with a sufficient military force, all his
attempts in opposition to the rising spirit of the nation, must in
the end prove wholly fruitless; and that the higher he screwed up the
springs of government, while he had so little real power to retain them
in that forced situation, with more fatal violence must they fly out,
when any accident occurred to restore them to their natural action.
The commons next resumed their censure of Buckingham's conduct and
behavior, against whom they were implacable. They agreed to present
a remonstrance to the king, in which they recapitulated all national
grievances and misfortunes, and omitted no circumstance which could
render the whole administration despicable and odious. The compositions
with Catholics, they said, amounted to no less than a toleration,
hateful to God, full of dishonor and disprofit to his majesty, and of
extreme scandal and grief to his good people: they took notice of the
violations of liberty above mentioned, against which the petition of
right seems to have provided a sufficient remedy: they mentioned the
decay of trade, the unsuccessful expeditions to Cadiz and the Isle
of Rhé, the encouragement given to Arminians, the commission for
transporting German horse, that for levying illegal impositions; and all
these grievances they ascribed solely to the ill conduct of the duke of
Buckingham.[**] This remonstrance was, perhaps, not the less provoking
to Charles, because, joined to the extreme acrimony of the subject,
there were preserved in it, as in most of the remonstrances of that age,
an affected civility and submission in the language. And as it was the
first return which he met with for his late beneficial concessions, and
for his sacrifices of prerogative,--the greatest by far ever made by an
English sovereign,--nothing could be more the object of just and natural
indignation.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 612.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 619. Parl. Hist. vol viii. p. 219,
220, etc.
It was not without good grounds that the commons were so fierce and
assuming. Though they had already granted the king the supply of five
subsidies, they still retained a pledge in their hands, which they
thought insured them success in all their applications. Tonnage and
poundage had not yet been granted by parliament; and the commons had
artfully, this session, concealed their intention of invading that
branch of revenue, till the royal assent had been obtained to the
petition of right, which they justly deemed of such importance. They
then openly asserted, that the levying of tonnage and poundage without
consent of parliament, was a palpable violation of the ancient liberties
of the people, and an open infringement of the petition of right, so
lately granted.[*] The king, in order to prevent the finishing and
presenting this remonstrance, came suddenly to the parliament, and ended
this session by a prorogation.[**]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 628. Journ. 18th 20th June, 1628.
** Journ, 26th June, 1628.
Being freed for some time from the embarrassment of this assembly,
Charles began to look towards foreign wars, where all his efforts were
equally unsuccessful as in his domestic government. The earl of Denbigh,
brother-in-law to Buckingham, was despatched to the relief of Rochelle,
now closely besieged by land, and threatened with a blockade by sea: but
he returned without effecting any thing; and having declined to attack
the enemy's fleet, he brought on the English arms the imputation either
of cowardice or ill conduct. In order to repair this dishonor, the duke
went to Portsmouth, where he had prepared a considerable fleet and army,
on which all the subsidies given by parliament had been expended. This
supply had very much disappointed the king's expectations. The same
mutinous spirit which prevailed in the house of commons had diffused
itself over the nation; and the commissioners appointed for making the
assessments had connived at all frauds which might diminish the supply,
and reduce the crown to still greater necessities. This national
discontent, communicated to a desperate enthusiast, soon broke out in an
event which may be considered as remarkable.
There was one Felton, of a good family, but of an ardent, melancholic
temper, who had served under the duke in the station of lieutenant.
His captain being killed in the retreat at the Isle of Rhé, Felton
had applied for the company; and when disappointed, he threw up his
commission, and retired in discontent from the army. While private
resentment was boiling in his sullen, unsociable mind, he heard the
nation resound with complaints against the duke; and he met with the
remonstrance of the commons, in which his enemy was represented as the
cause of every national grievance, and as the great enemy of the public.
Religious fanaticism further inflamed these vindictive reflections; and
he fancied that he should do Heaven acceptable service, if at one blow
he despatched this dangerous foe to religion and to his country.[*] Full
of these dark views, he secretly arrived at Portsmouth at the same time
with the duke, and watched for an opportunity of effecting his bloody
purpose.
* May's Hist. of the Parliament, p. 12.
Buckingham had been engaged in conversation with Soubize and other
French gentlemen; and a difference of sentiment having arisen, the
dispute, though conducted with temper and decency, had produced some of
those vehement gesticulations and lively exertions of voice, in which
that nation, more than the English, are apt to indulge themselves. The
conversation being finished, the duke drew towards the door; and in that
passage, turning himself to speak to Sir Thomas Friar, a colonel in the
army, he was on the sudden, over Sir Thomas's shoulder, struck upon the
breast with a knife. Without uttering other words than, "The villain has
killed me," in the same moment pulling out the knife, he breathed his
last.
No man had seen the blow, nor the person who gave it, but in the
confusion every one made his own conjecture; and all agreed that the
murder had been committed by the French gentlemen whose angry tone of
voice had been heard, while their words had not been understood by the
bystanders. In the hurry of revenge, they had instantly been put to
death, had they not been saved by some of more temper and judgment,
who, though they had the same opinion of their guilt, thought proper to
reserve them for a judicial trial and examination.
Near the door there was found a hat, in the inside of which was sewed a
paper, containing four or five lines of that remonstrance of the commons
which declared Buckingham an enemy to the kingdom; and under these lines
was a short ejaculation, or attempt towards a prayer. It was easily
concluded that this hat belonged to the assassin: but the difficulty
still remained, who that person should be; for the writing discovered
not the same; and whoever he was, it was natural to believe that he had
already fled far enough not to be found without a hat.
In this hurry, a man without a hat was seen walking very composedly
before the door. One crying out, "Here is the fellow who killed the
duke;" every body ran to ask, "Which is he?" The man very sedately
answered, "I am he." The more furious immediately rushed upon him with
drawn swords: others, more deliberate, defended and protected him: he
himself, with open arms, calmly and cheerfully exposed his breast to the
swords of the most enraged; being willing to fall a sudden sacrifice to
their anger, rather than be reserved for that public justice which he
knew must be executed upon him.
He was now known to be that Felton who had served in the army. Being
carried into a private room, it was thought proper so far to dissemble
as to tell him, that Buckingham was only grievously wounded, but not
without hopes of recovery. Felton smiled, and told them, that the duke,
he knew full well, had received a blow which had terminated all their
hopes. When asked at whose instigation he had performed the horrid deed,
he replied, that they needed not to trouble themselves in that inquiry;
that no man living had credit enough with him to have disposed him to
such an action; that he had not even intrusted his purpose to any one;
that the resolution proceeded only from himself, and the impulse of
his own conscience; and that his motives would appear, if his hat were
found; for that, believing he should perish in the attempt, he had there
taken care to explain them.[*]
When the king was informed of this assassination, he received the
news in public with an unmoved and undisturbed countenance; and the
courtiers, who studied his looks, concluded, that secretly he was
not displeased to be rid of a minister so generally odious to the
nation.[**]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 27, 20.
** Warwick, p. 34.
But Charles's command of himself proceeded entirely from the gravity and
composure of his temper. He was still as much as ever attached to
his favorite; and during his whole life he retained an affection for
Buckingham's friends, and a prejudice against his enemies. He urged too,
that Felton should be put to the question, in order to extort from him a
discovery of his accomplices; but the judges declared, that though that
practice had formerly been very usual, it was altogether illegal: so
much reasoners, with regard to law, had they become from the jealous
scruples of the house of commons.
Meanwhile the distress of Rochelle had risen to the utmost extremity.
That vast genius of Richelieu, which made him form the greatest
enterprises, led him to attempt their execution by means equally great
and extraordinary. In order to deprive Rochelle of all succor, he had
dared to project the throwing across the harbor a mole of a mile's
extent in that boisterous ocean; and having executed his project, he now
held the town closely blockaded on all sides. The inhabitants, though
pressed with the greatest rigors of famine, still refused to submit;
being supported, partly by the lectures of their zealous preachers,
partly by the daily hopes of relief from England. After Buckingham's
death, the command of the fleet and army was conferred on the earl of
Lindesey; who, arriving before Rochelle, made some attempts to break
through the mole, and force his way into the harbor: but by the delays
of the English, that work was now fully finished and fortified; and
the Rochellers, finding their last hopes to fail them, were reduced
to surrender at discretion, even in sight of the English admiral.
Of fifteen thousand persons shut up in the city, four thousand alone
survived the fatigues and famine which they had undergone.[*]
* Rushworth, vol. 1. p. 636.
This was the first necessary step towards the prosperity of France.
Foreign enemies, as well as domestic factions, being deprived of this
resource, that kingdom began now to shine forth in its full splendor. By
a steady prosecution of wise plans, both of war and policy, it gradually
gained an ascendant over the rival power of Spain; and every order of
the state, and every sect, were reduced to pay submission to the lawful
authority of the sovereign. The victory, however, over the Hugonots, was
at first pushed by the French king with great moderation. A toleration
was still continued to them; the only avowed and open toleration which
at that time was granted in any European kingdom.
{1629.} The failure of an enterprise in which the English nation,
from religious sympathy, so much interested themselves, could not but
diminish the king's authority in the parliament during the approaching
session: but the commons, when assembled, found many other causes of
complaint. Buckingham's conduct and character with some had afforded a
reason, with others a pretence, for discontent against public measures
but after his death there wanted not new reasons and new pretences for
general dissatisfaction. Manwaring's pardon and promotion were taken
notice of: Sibthorpe and Cosins, two clergymen, who, for like reasons,
were no less obnoxious to the commons, had met with like favor from
the king: Montague, who had been censured for moderation towards
the Catholics, the greatest of crimes, had been created bishop of
Chichester. They found likewise, upon inquiry, that all the copies of
the petition of right which were dispersed, had, by the king's orders,
annexed to them the first answer, which had given so little satisfaction
to the commons;[*] an expedient by which Charles endeavored to persuade
the people that he had nowise receded from his former claims and
pretensions, particularly with regard to the levying of tonnage and
poundage. Selden also complained in the house, that one Savage, contrary
to the petition of right, had been punished with the loss of his ears,
by a discretionary or arbitrary sentence of the star chamber:[**] so apt
were they, on their part, to stretch the petition into such consequences
as might deprive the crown of powers which, from immemorial custom, were
supposed inherent in it.
But the great article on which the house of commons broke with the king,
and which finally created in Charles a disgust to all parliaments,
was their claim with regard to tonnage and poundage. On this occasion,
therefore, it is necessary to give an account of the controversy.
The duty of tonnage and poundage, in more ancient times, had been
commonly a temporary grant of parliament; but it had been conferred
on Henry V., and all the succeeding princes, during life, in order to
enable them to maintain a naval force for the defence of the kingdom.
The necessity of levying this duty had been so apparent, that each king
had ever claimed it from the moment of his accession; and the first
parliament of each reign had usually by vote conferred on the prince
what they found him already in possession of. Agreeably to the
inaccurate genius of the old constitution, this abuse, however
considerable, had never been perceived nor remedied; though nothing
could have been easier than for the parliament to have prevented
it.[***]
* State Trials, vol. vii. p. 216. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 643.
** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 216. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p.
246.
*** Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 339, 343.
By granting this duty to each prince during his own life, and for a
year after his demise to the successor, all inconveniencies had been
obviated; and yet the duty had never for a moment been levied without
proper authority. But contrivances of that nature were not thought of
during those rude ages; and as so complicated and jealous a government
as the English cannot subsist without many such refinements, it is easy
to see how favorable every inaccuracy must formerly have proved to
royal authority, which, on all emergencies, was obliged to supply, by
discretionary power, the great deficiency of the laws.
The parliament did not grant the duty of tonnage and poundage to Henry
VIII. till the sixth of his reign: yet this prince, who had not then
raised his power to its greatest height, continued during that whole
time to levy the imposition; the parliament, in their very grant, blame
the merchants who had neglected to make payment to the crown; and though
one expression of that bill may seem ambiguous, they employ the plainest
terms in calling tonnage and poundage the king's due, even before that
duty was conferred on him by parliamentary authority.[*] Four reigns,
and above a whole century, had since elapsed; and this revenue had
still been levied before it was voted by parliament: so long had the
inaccuracy continued, without being remarked or corrected.
During that short interval which passed between Charles's accession and
his first parliament, he had followed the example of his predecessors;
and no fault was found with his conduct in this particular. But what was
most remarkable in the proceedings of that house of commons, and what
proved beyond controversy that they had seriously formed a plan for
reducing their prince to subjection, was, that instead of granting this
supply during the king's lifetime, as it had been enjoyed by all his
immediate predecessors, they voted it only for a year; and, after that
should be elapsed, reserved to themselves the power of renewing or
refusing the same concession.[**] But the house of peers, who saw that
this duty was now become more necessary than ever to supply the growing
necessities of the crown, and who did not approve of this encroaching
spirit in the commons, rejected the bill; and the dissolution of that
parliament followed so soon after, that no attempt seems to have been
made for obtaining tonnage and poundage in any other form.[***] [3]
* 6 Henry VIII. cap. 14.
** Journ. 5th July, 1625.
*** See note C, at the end of the volume.
Charles, meanwhile, continued still to levy this duty by his own
authority, and the nation was so accustomed to that exertion of royal
power, that no scruple was at first entertained of submitting to it. But
the succeeding parliament excited doubts in every one. The commons
took there some steps towards declaring it illegal to levy tonnage and
poundage without consent of parliament; and they openly showed their
intention of employing this engine, in order to extort from the crown
concessions of the most important nature. But Charles was not yet
sufficiently tamed to compliance; and the abrupt dissolution of that
parliament, as above related, put an end, for the time, to their further
pretensions.
The following interval between the second and third parliament, was
distinguished by so many exertions of prerogative, that men had little
leisure to attend to the affair of tonnage and poundage, where the abuse
of power in the crown might seem to be of a more disputable nature. But
after the commons, during the precedent session, had remedied all these
grievances by means of their petition of right, which they deemed
so necessary, they afterwards proceeded to take the matter into
consideration, and they showed the same intention as formerly,
of exacting, in return for the grant of this revenue, very large
compliances on the part of the crown. Their sudden profulgation
prevented them from bringing their pretensions to a full conclusion.
When Charles opened this session, he had foreseen that the same
controversy would arise; and he therefore took care very early, among
many mild and reconciling expressions, to inform the commons, "That
he had not taken these duties as appertaining to his hereditary
prerogative; but that it ever was, and still is, his meaning to enjoy
them as a gift of his people: and that, if he had hitherto levied
tonnage and poundage he pretended to justify himself only by the
necessity of so doing, not by any right which he assumed."[*]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 644 Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 256,
346.
This concession, which probably arose from the king's moderate temper,
now freed from the impulse of Buckingham's violent counsels, might have
satisfied the commons, had they entertained no other view than that of
ascertaining their own powers and privileges. But they carried their
pretensions much higher. They insisted, as a necessary preliminary, that
the king should once entirely desist from levying these duties; after
which they were to take it into consideration, how far they would
restore, him to the possession of a revenue of which he had clearly
divested himself. But, besides that this extreme rigor had never
been exercised towards any of his predecessors, and many obvious
inconveniencies must follow from the intermission of the customs, there
were other reasons which deterred Charles from complying with so hard
a condition. It was probable, that the commons might renew their former
project of making this revenue only temporary, and thereby reducing
their prince to perpetual dependence; they certainly would cut off the
new impositions which Mary and Elizabeth, but especially James, had
levied, and which formed no despicable part of the public revenue:
and they openly declared, that they had at present many important
pretensions, chiefly with regard to religion; and if compliance were
refused, no supply must be expected from the commons.
It is easy to see in what an inextricable labyrinth Charles was now
involved. By his own concessions, by the general principles of the
English government, and by the form of every bill which had granted this
duty, tonnage and poundage was derived entirely from the free gift of
the people; and, consequently, might be withdrawn at their pleasure. If
unreasonable in their refusal, they still refused nothing but what was
their own. If public necessity required this supply, it might be thought
also to require the king's compliance with those conditions which were
the price of obtaining it. Though the motive for granting it had been
the enabling of the king to guard the seas, it did not follow, that
because he guarded the seas, he was therefore entitled to this revenue
without further formality: since the people had still reserved to
themselves the right of judging how far that service merited such a
supply. But Charles, notwithstanding his public declaration, was
far from assenting to this conclusion in its full extent. The plain
consequence, he saw, of all these rigors, and refinements, and
inferences, was, that he, without any public necessity, and without any
fault of his own, must of a sudden, even from his accession, become a
magistrate of a very different nature from any of his predecessors, and
must fall into a total dependence on subjects over whom former kings,
especially those immediately preceding, had exercised an authority
almost unlimited. Entangled in a chain of consequences which he could
not easily break, he was inclined to go higher, and rather deny the
first principle, than admit of conclusions which to him appeared so
absurd and unreasonable. Agree-* to the ideas hitherto entertained both
by natives and foreigners, the monarch he esteemed the essence and
soul of the English government: and whatever other power pretended to
annihilate or even abridge, the royal authority, must necessarily, he
thought, either in its nature or exercise, be deemed no better than a
usurpation. Willing to preserve the ancient harmony of the constitution,
he had ever intended to comply as far as he easily could, with the
ancient forms of administration; but when these forms appeared to him,
by the inveterate obstinacy of the commons, to have no other tendency
than to disturb that harmony, and to introduce a new constitution, he
concluded that, in this violent situation, what was subordinate must
necessarily yield to what was principal, and the privileges of the
people, for a time, give place to royal prerogative. From the rank of
a monarch, to be degraded into a slave of his insolent, ungrateful
subjects, seemed of all indignities the greatest; and nothing, in his
judgment, could exceed the humiliation attending such a state, but the
meanness of tamely submitting to it, without making some efforts to
preserve the authority transmitted to him by his predecessors.
Though these were the king's reflections and resolutions before the
parliament assembled, he did not immediately break with them upon their
delay in voting him this supply. He thought that he could better justify
any strong measure which he might afterwards be obliged to take, if he
allowed them to carry to the utmost extremities their attacks upon his
government and prerogative.[*] He contented himself, for the present,
with soliciting the house by messages and speeches. But the commons,
instead of hearkening to his solicitations proceeded to carry their
scrutiny into his management of religion,[**] which was the only
grievance to which, in their opinion, they had not as yet, by their
petition of right, applied a sufficient remedy.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 642.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 651. Whitlocke, p. 12.
It was not possible that this century, so fertile in religious sects
and disputes, could escape the controversy concerning fatalism and free
will, which, being strongly interwoven both with philosophy and theology
had, in all ages, thrown every school and every church into such
inextricable doubt and perplexity. The first reformers in England, as
in other European countries, had embraced the most rigid tenets of
predestination and absolute decrees, and had composed upon that, system
all the articles of their religious creed. But these principles having
met with opposition from Arminius and his sectaries, the controversy
was soon brought into this island and began here to diffuse itself. The
Arminians, finding more encouragement from the superstitious spirit
of the church than from the fanaticism of the Puritans, gradually
incorporated themselves with the former; and some of that sect, by the
indulgence of James and Charles, had attained the highest preferments in
the hierarchy. But their success with the public had not been altogether
answerable to that which they met with in the church and the court.
Throughout the nation, they still lay under the reproach of innovation
and heresy. The commons now levelled against them their formidable
censures, and made them the objects of daily invective and declamation.
Their protectors were stigmatized; their tenets canvassed; their views
represented as dangerous and pernicious. To impartial spectators surely,
if any such had been at that time in England, it must have given great
entertainment to see a popular assembly, inflamed with faction
and enthusiasm, pretend to discuss questions to which the greatest
philosophers, in the tranquillity of retreat, had never hitherto been
able to find any satisfactory solution.
Amidst that complication of disputes in which men were then involved,
we may observe, that the appellation "Puritan" stood for three parties,
which, though commonly united, were yet actuated by very different
views and motives. There were the political Puritans, who maintained
the highest principles of civil liberty; the Puritans in discipline, who
were averse to the ceremonies and Episcopal government of the church;
and the doctrinal Puritans, who rigidly defended the speculative system
of the first reformers. In opposition to all these stood the court
party, the hierarchy, and the Arminians; only with this distinction,
that the latter sect, being introduced a few years before, did not
as yet comprehend all those who were favorable to the church and to
monarchy. But, as the controversies on every subject grew daily warmer,
men united themselves more intimately with their friends, and separated
themselves wider from their antagonists; and the distinction gradually
became quite uniform and regular.
This house of commons, which, like all the preceding, during the reigns
of James and Charles, and even of Elizabeth, was much governed by the
Puritanical party, thought that they could not better serve their cause
than by branding and punishing the Arminian sect, which, introducing an
innovation in the church, were the least favored and least powerful of
all their antagonists. From this measure, it was easily foreseen, that,
besides gratifying the animosity of the doctrinal Puritans, both the
Puritans in discipline and those in politics would reap considerable
advantages. Laud, Neile, Montague, and other bishops, who were the chief
supporters of Episcopal government, and the most zealous partisans of
the discipline and ceremonies of the church, were all supposed to be
tainted with Arminianism. The same men and their disciples were the
strenuous preachers of passive obedience, and of entire submission to
princes; and if these could once be censured, and be expelled the church
and court, it was concluded, that the hierarchy would receive a mortal
blow, the ceremonies be less rigidly insisted on, and the king, deprived
of his most faithful friends, be obliged to abate those high claims of
prerogative on which at present he insisted.
But Charles, besides a view of the political consequences which must
result from a compliance with such pretensions, was strongly determined,
from principles of piety and conscience, to oppose them. Neither the
dissipation incident to youth, nor the pleasures attending a high
fortune, had been able to prevent this virtuous prince from embracing
the most sincere sentiments of religion: and that character, which in
that religious age should have been of infinite advantage to him, proved
in the end the chief cause of his ruin; merely because the religion
adopted by him was not of that precise mode and sect which began to
prevail among his subjects. His piety, though remote from Popery, had a
tincture of superstition in it; and, being averse to the gloomy
spirit of the Puritans, was represented by them as tending towards the
abominations of Antichrist. Laud also had unfortunately acquired a great
ascendant over him; and as all those prelates obnoxious to the commons,
were regarded as his chief friends and most favored courtiers, he was
resolved not to disarm and dishonor himself by abandoning them to the
resentment of his enemies. Being totally unprovided with military
force, and finding a refractory, independent spirit to prevail among the
people, the most solid basis of his authority, he thought consisted in
the support which he received from the hierarchy.
In the debates of the commons, which are transmitted to us, it is
easy to discern so early some sparks of that enthusiastic fire which
afterwards set the whole nation in combustion. One Rouse made use of
an allusion which, though familiar seems to have been borrowed from the
writings of Lord Bacon.[*] "If a man meet a dog alone," said he, "the
dog is fearful, though ever so fierce by nature: but if the dog have
his master with him, he will set upon that man from whom he fled before.
This shows, that lower natures, being backed by higher, increase in
courage and strength; and certainly man, being backed with Omnipotency,
is a kind of omnipotent creature. All things are possible to him
that believes; and where all things are possible, there is a kind of
omnipotency. Wherefore, let it be the unanimous consent and resolution
of us all, to make a vow and covenant henceforth to hold fast our God
and our religion; and then shall we henceforth expect with certainty
happiness in this world."[**]
Oliver Cromwell, at that time a young man of no account in the nation,
is mentioned in these debates, as complaining of one who, he was told,
preached flat Popery.[***] It is amusing to observe the first words of
this fanatical hypocrite correspond so exactly to his character.
The inquiries and debates concerning tonnage and poundage went hand in
hand with these theological or metaphysical controversies. The officers
of the custom-house were summoned before the commons, to give an account
by what authority they had seized the goods of merchants who had
refused to pay these duties: the barons of the exchequer were questioned
concerning their decrees on that head.[****] One of the sheriffs of
London was committed to the Tower for his activity in supporting the
officers of the custom-house: the goods of Rolles, a merchant, and
member of the house, being seized for his refusal to pay the duties,
complaints were made of this violence as if it were a breach of
privilege:[v] Charles supported his officers in all these measures;
and the quarrel grew every day higher between him and the commons.[v*]
Mention was made in the house of impeaching Sir Richard Weston the
treasurer;[v**] and the king began to entertain thoughts of finishing
the session by a dissolution.
* Essay of Atheism.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 646. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 260.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 655. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p.
289.
**** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 654. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p.
301.
v Rushworth, vol. i. p. 653.
v* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 659.
v** Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 326.
Sir John Elliot framed a remonstrance against levying tonnage and
poundage without consent of parliament, and offered it to the clerk to
read. It was refused. He read it himself. The question being then called
for, the speaker, Sir John Finch, said, "That he had a command from the
king to adjourn, and to put no question;"[*] upon which he rose and left
the chair. The whole house was in an uproar. The speaker was pushed back
into the chair, and forcibly held in it by Hollis and Valentine, till a
short remonstrance was framed, and was passed by acclamation rather than
by vote. Papists and Arminians were there declared capital enemies to
the commonwealth. Those who levied tonnage and poundage were branded
with the same epithet. And even the merchant who should voluntarily pay
these duties, were denominated betrayers of English liberty, and public
enemies. The doom, being locked, the gentleman usher of the house of
lords, who was sent by the king, could not get admittance till this
remonstrance was finished. By the king's order, he took the mace from
the table, which ended their proceedings,[**] and a few days after the
parliament was dissolved.
The discontents of the nation ran high, on account of this violent
rupture between the king and parliament. These discontents Charles
inflamed by his affectation of a severity which he had not power, nor
probably inclination, to carry to extremities. Sir Miles Hobart, Sir
Peter Heyman, Selden, Coriton, Long, Strode, were committed to prison on
account of the last tumult in the house, which was called sedition.[***]
* The king's power of adjourning, as well as proroguing the
parliament, was and is never questioned. In the nineteenth
of the late king, the judges determined, that the
adjournment by the king kept the parliament in statu quo
until the next sitting, but that then no committees were to
meet; but if the adjournment be by the house then the
committees and other matters do continue. Parl. Hist, vol v.
p. 466.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 660. Whitlocke, p. 12.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 661, 681. Parl. Hist. vol. viii.
p. 354 May, p. 13
With great difficulty, and after several delays, they were released; and
the law was generally supposed to be wrested in order to prolong their
imprisonment. Sir John Elliot, Hollis, and Valentine, were summoned to
their trial in the king's bench, for seditious speeches and behavior in
parliament; but refusing to answer before an inferior court for their
conduct as members of a superior, they were condemned to be imprisoned
during the king's pleasure, to find sureties for their good behavior,
and to be fined, the two former a thousand pounds apiece, the latter
five hundred.[*] This sentence, procured by the influence of the
crown, served only to show the king's disregard to the privileges
of parliament, and to acquire an immense stock of popularity to the
sufferers who had so bravely, in opposition to arbitrary power, defended
the liberties of their native country. The commons of England, though
an immense body, and possessed of the greater part of national property,
were naturally somewhat defenceless, because of their personal
equality, and their want of leaders: but the king's severity, if these
prosecutions deserve the name, here pointed out leaders to them, whose
resentment was inflamed, and whose courage was nowise daunted, by the
hardships which they had undergone in so honorable a cause.
So much did these prisoners glory in their sufferings, that, though they
were promised liberty on that condition, they would not condescend even
to present a petition to the king, expressing their sorrow for having
offended him.[**] They unanimously refused to find sureties for their
good behavior, and disdained to accept of deliverance on such easy
terms. Nay, Hollis was so industrious to continue his meritorious
distress, that when one offered to bail him, he would not yield to the
rule of court, and be himself bound with his friend. Even Long, who
had actually found sureties in the chief justice's chamber, declared in
court that his sureties should no longer continue.[***] Yet because Sir
John Elliot Happened to die while in custody, a great clamor was raised
against the administration; and he was universally regarded as a martyr
to the liberties of England.[****]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 684, 691.
** Whitlocke, p. *13.
*** Kennet vol. iii. p. 49.
**** Rushworth, vol. v. p. 440.