212 IMPEACHMENT OF MIDDLESEX. CHAP. VI. impeachment of the earl of Middlesex, actually lord-treasurer of England, for bribery and other misdemeanors. It is well known that the prince of Wales and duke of Buckingham instituted this prosecution, to gratify the latter's private pique, against the wishes of the king, who warned them they would live to have their fill of parliamentary impeachment. It was conducted by managers on the part of the commons in a very regular form, except that the depositions of witnesses were merely read by the clerk; that fundamental rule of English law which insists on the vivâ voce examination being as yet unknown, or dispensed with in political trials. Nothing is more worthy of notice in the proceedings upon this impeachment than what dropped from sir Edwin Sandys, in speaking upon one of the charges. Middlesex had laid an imposition of £3 per tun on French wines, for taking off which he received a gratuity. Sandys commenting on this offense, protested, in the name of the commons, that they intended not to question the power of imposing claimed by the king's prerogative: this they touched not upon now; they continued only their claim, and, when they should have occasion to dispute it, would do so with all due regard to his majesty's state and revenue. Such cautious and temperate language, far from indicating any disposition to recede from their pretensions, is rather a proof of such united steadiness and discretion as must insure their success. Middlesex was unanimously convicted by the peers. His impeachment was of the highest moment to the commons, as it restored forever that salutary constitutional right which the single precedent of lord Bacon might have been insufficient to establish against the ministers of the crown. § 32. The last two parliaments had been dissolved without passing a single act, except the subsidy bill of 1621. An interval of legislation for thirteen years was too long for any civilized country. Several statutes were enacted in the present session, but none so material as that for abolishing monopolies for the sale of merchandise, or for using any trade. This is of a declaratory nature, and recites that they are already contrary to the ancient and fundamental laws of the realm. Scarce any difference arose between the crown and the commons. This singular calm might probably have been interrupted had not the king put an end to the session. They expressed some little dissatisfaction at this step, and presented a list of grievances, one only of which is sufficiently considerable to deserve notice; namely, the proclamations already mentioned in restraint of building about London, whereof they complain in very gentle terms, considering their obvious illegality and violation of private right. The commons had now been engaged for more than twenty years in a struggle to restore and to fortify their own and their fellow-subjects' liberties. They had obtained in this period but one legislative measure of importance, the late declaratory act against monopolies. But they had rescued from disuse their ancient right of impeachment. They had placed on record a protestation of their claim to debate all matters of public concern. They had remonstrated against the usurped prerogatives of binding the subject by proclamation, and of levying customs at the outports. They had secured beyond controversy their exclusive privilege of determining contested elections of their members. Of these advantages some were evidently incomplete, and it would require the most vigorous exertions of future parliaments to realize them. But such exertions the increased energy of the nation gave abundant cause to anticipate. A deep and lasting love of freedom had taken hold of every class except perhaps the clergy, from which, when viewed together with the rash pride of the court and the uncertainty of constitutional principles and precedents, collected through our long and various history, a calm by-stander might presage that the ensuing reign would not pass without disturbance, nor perhaps end without confusion. ON THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I. TO THE DISSOLUTION OF HIS THIRD PARLIAMENT. Its Dissolution. § 2. Another Parliament called. § 1. Parliament of 1625. Prosecution of Buckingham. § 3. Arbitrary Proceedings toward the Earls of Arundel and Bristol. 4. Loan demanded by the King. Several committed for refusal to contribute. They sue for a Habeas Corpus. 5. Arguments on this Question, which is decided against them. § 6. A Parliament called in 1628. Petition of Right. § 7. Tonnage and Poundage disputed. King dissolves Parliament. S. Religious Differences. Prosecution of Puritans by Bancroft. $9. Growth of High-Church Tenets. 10. Differences as to the Observance of Sunday. § 11. Arminian Controversy. 12. State of Catholics under James. Jealousy of the Court's Favor toward them. § 13. Unconstitutional Tenets promulgated by the High-Church Party. 14. General Remarks. § 1. CHARLES I. had much in his character very suitable to the times in which he lived, and to the spirit of the people he was to rule; a stern and serious deportment, a disinclination to all licentiousness, and a sense of religion that seemed more real than in his father. These qualities we might suppose to have raised some expectation of him, and to have procured at his accession some of that popularity which is rarely withheld from untried princes. Yet it does not appear that he enjoyed even this first transient sunshine of his subjects' affection. Solely intent on retrenching the excesses of prerogative, and well aware that no sovereign would voluntarily recede from the possession of power, they seem to have dreaded to admit into their bosoms any sentiments of personal loyalty which might enervate their resolution. And Charles took speedy means to convince them that they had not erred in withholding their confidence. Elizabeth in her systematic parsimony, James in his averseness to war, had been alike influenced by a consciousness that want of money alone could render a parliament formidable to their power. None of the irregular modes of supply were ever productive enough to compensate for the clamor they occasioned; after impositions and benevolences were exhausted, it had always been found necessary, in the most arbitrary times of the Tudors, to fall back on the representatives of the people. But Charles succeeded to a war, at least to the preparation of a war, rashly undertaken through his own weak compliance, the arrogance of his favorite, and the generous or fanatical zeal of the last parliament. He would have perceived it to be manifestly impossible, if he had been capable of understanding his own position, to continue this war without the constant assistance of the house of commons, or to obtain that assistance without very costly sacrifices of his royal power. It was not the least of this monarch's imprudences, or rather of his blind compliances with Buckingham, to have not only commenced hostilities against Spain which he might easily have avoided,' and persisted in them for four years, but entered on a fresh war with France, though he had abundant experience to demonstrate the impossibility of defraying its charges. The first pårliament of this reign has been severely censured on account of the penurious supply it doled out for the exigencies of a war in which its predecessors had involved. the king. I will not say that this reproach is wholly unfounded. A more liberal proceeding, if it did not obtain a reciprocal concession from the king, would have put him more in the wrong. But, according to the common practice. and character of all such assemblies, it was preposterous to expect subsidies equal to the occasion until a foundation of confidence should be laid between the crown and parliament. The commons had begun probably to repent of their hastiness in the preceding year, and to discover that Buckingham and his pupil, or master (which shall we say ?), had conspired to deceive them. They were not to forget that none of the chief grievances of the last reign were yet redressed, and that supplies must be voted slowly and conditionally if they would hope for reformation. Hence they made their grant of tonnage and poundage to last but for a year instead of the king's life, as had for two centuries been the practice; on which account the upper house rejected the bill. Nor would they have refused a further supply, beyond the two subsidies (about £140,000) which they had granted, had some tender of redress been made by the crown; and were actually in debate upon the matter when interrupted by a sudden dissolution. § 2. Nothing could be more evident, by the experience of the late reign as well as by observing the state of public spirit, than that hasty and premature dissolutions or prorogations of parliament served but to aggravate the crown's embarrassments. Every successive house of commons inher 1 War had not been declared at Charles's accession, nor at the dissolution of the first parliament. In fact, he was much more set upon it than his subjects. Hume and all his school kept this out of sight. 216 PROSECUTION OF BUCKINGHAM CHAP. VII. ited the feelings of its predecessor, without which it would have ill represented the prevalent humor of the nation. The same men, for the most part, came again to parliament more irritated and desperate of reconciliation with the sovereign than before. Even the politic measure, as it was fancied to be, of excluding some of the most active members from seats in the new assembly, by nominating them sheriffs for the year, failed altogether of the expected success; as it naturally must in an age when all ranks partook in a common enthusiasm. Hence the prosecution against Buckingham, to avert which Charles had dissolved his first parliament, was commenced with redoubled vigor in the second. It was too late, after the precedents of Bacon and Middlesex, to dispute the right of the commons to impeach a minister of state. The king, however, anticipating their resolutions, after some sharp speeches only had been uttered against his favorite, sent a message that he would not allow any of his servants to be questioned among them, much less such as were of eminent place and near unto him. He saw, he said, that some of them aimed at the duke of Buckingham, whom, in the last parliament of his father, all had combined to honor and respect, nor did he know what had happened since to alter their affections; but he assured them that the duke had done nothing without his own special direction and appointment. This haughty message so provoked the commons, that, having no express testimony against Buckingham, they came to a vote that common fame is a good ground of proceeding either by inquiry or presenting the complaint to the king or lords; nor did a speech from the lord-keeper, severely rating their presumption, tend to pacify or to intimidate the assembly. The duke was accordingly impeached at the bar of the house of peers on eight articles, many of them probably well founded; yet, as the commons heard no evidence in support of them, it was rather unreasonable in them to request that he might be committed to the Tower. §3. In the conduct of this impeachment, two of the managers, sir John Eliot and sir Dudley Digges, one the most illustrious confessor in the cause of liberty whom that time produced, the other a man of much ability and a useful supporter of the popular party, though not free from some oblique views toward promotion, gave such offense by words spoken, or alleged to be spoken, in derogation of his majesty's honor, that they were committed to the Tower. The commons of course resented this new outrage. They resolved to do no more business till they were righted in their |