A.D. 1628-9. The king, not contented with committing the members, carried his severity to a greater length, by detaining them in prison, contrary to the laws of the land; for some of them being brought upon their habeas corpus to the King's Bench, applied by their counsel to be discharged upon bail. The judges, who trembled at the slightest whisper of royal displeasure, hesitated to grant what they knew they had no right to refuse. They remanded back the prisoners till the court were ready to give judgment. But on the appointed day the prisoners could not be produced, having been sent to other prisons, the evening before, by the king's particular warrant. The court were glad of the excuse, and refused to deliver their opinion in the absence of the prisoners. The king, the day before, had sent a letter to the judges of that bench," that he had resolved none of the prisoners should be brought before them until they had given him cause to believe they would behave themselves better." What still more aggravated this conduct was, that he had three hours before sent a letter to the judges, wherein he consented" that Mr. Selden and Mr. Valentine should appear before them." By these means the members were still kept in confine ment. What security could the people depend 21 on for their liberties, when the king so openly overruled the proceedings of the judges, and the judges so servilely submitted to his orders! The attorney-general afterwards exhibited an information against them in the King's Bench, to which they put in a plea to the jurisdiction of the court: for their offences being supposed to be done in parliament, they ought not to be punished but in parliament; and, as they would not put in any other plea, the court gave judgment " for continuing them in prison during the king's pleasure,” and for fining some of them, particularly Sir John Elliot, in the sum of two thousand pounds. They were kept in prison many years, some of them till the writs were issued for a new parliament in 66 A. D. 1628-9. 1640; and Sir John Elliot, who had proved him- A.D. 1629. self an active, disinterested, and worthy member of parliament, (and therefore an obnoxious one,) died in the Tower.* * During his illness, he presented several petitions that the severity of his imprisonment 21" I was soundly chidden by his majesty for my former vote, and will not destroy myself for any man's sake," was the cool reply of Lord Finch upon the trial of Bishop Williams, when upbraided for his inconsistency and ingratitude.-Hacket's Life of Williams.-Finch only avowed a motive which, with a few noble exceptions, all the others acted upon. A.D. 1629. Upon the dissolution of the parliament, the public were highly discontented; which appeared in the boldness of their speeches, and their universal complaints, that if a parliament were not presently called again, all things would be unsettled and out of order; that trading would fail, and contests would perpetually arise about tonnage and poundage. Hereupon the king published a proclamation on the 27th of March, "That he neither could nor would dispense with the duties his father had received; and that he should not call a new parliament till those who had interrupted the last had received their condign punishment; and those who were misled by them should come to a better understanding of his majesty and themselves." his physicians subscribed their imminent danger, they could not prevail for obtaining it. 22 This case affords us another instance of the extent of that moderation and mercy so often attributed to Charles the First. We learn, from Rushworth, that upon consulting the judges he was exceedingly disappointed to find that the opposition of these members could not be tortured into a capital offence.Rushworth, vol.i.-Poor Elliot's death should never be forgotten when we speak of this man's character. CHAPTER III. Review of King Charles's conduct continued, from the dissolution of the parliament, March 10, 1628-9, to the meeting of the Long Parliament. A.D. 1629. a co duct of Bad con foreign affairs. WHILST the king was indulging his anger against French protestants deserted. A.D. 1629. best terms which they could for themselves; to Duke of Rohan's letter to the king. the ruin of the protestant interest in France, and to the dishonour of England. They had, for the maintenance of their religion, acted with the greatest resolution, and suffered the most extreme hardships that men could bear. They had been reduced, in Rochelle, during the siege of it, to such want and misery, that for above fourteen months they had subsisted on hides and parchments, and even the bones of the dead had yielded them sustenance, until, despairing of that succour from England which they had so long expected, they were obliged to surrender the place in October 1628. The Duke of Rohan, head of the protestant party in France, not knowing that King Charles had dissolved his parliament, implored his aid in behalf of the reformed churches of France, in a letter dated the 12th of March * SIR, * THE deplorable accident of the loss of Rochelle, which God hath pleased to permit, to humble us under his hand, hath redoubled in the spirit of our enemies the passion which they have for our ruin, and the hopes to obtain thereunto; but it hath not taken away from those churches of the provinces that courage, or affection of opposing, by a just and vigorous defence, to their unjust designs. This is that which hath made them take up a resolution, and assemble themselves together; and to stand in a body amidst these commotions, to assist me with their good counsel, and provide with me means for their deli |