1625-1649. Resolutions of the lords on their from imprison ment. body to make a resolution 12, "That no lord of parliament, CHARLES I. the parliament sitting, or within the usual times of privilege of parliament, is to be imprisoned or restrained without sentence or order of the House, unless it be for treason, or felony, personal freedom or for refusing to give surety for the peace;" and they insisted upon the release of the Earl of Arundel, who was illegally confined in the Tower, on account of a marriage which his son had made with a lady of royal blood 13; and also insisted that a writ of summons should be forwarded, as a matter of right, to the Earl of Bristol, which had been withheld, in order to screen Buckingham from the just complaints which the earl had against him: the writ was forwarded, but with a private order from the king not to take his seat. The earl forwarded the order to the House of Lords; but the king more effectually interposed, by ordering the attorney-general to exhibit charges against the earl, and who was subsequently committed to the Tower's: the indecency of this active interference by the king, his subsequent tampering with the lords, and his prohibition to the judges not to answer certain legal questions, in order to secure the conviction of Bristol 18, requires no commentary. Nothing, perhaps, rendered the commons more inflexible in the prosecution of their policy, than their being threatened by the king that, if they did not furnish him with supplies, he should be obliged to try new counsels, and which message was followed up by a speech from Sir Dudley Carleton, the vicechamberlain,-"I pray you consider," said he, "what these new counsels are or may be; I fear to declare those that I conceive. In all Christian kingdoms, you know that parliaments were in use anciently, by which those kingdoms were governed in a most flourishing manner, until the monarchs began to know their own strength, and, seeing the turbulent spirits of their parliaments, at length they, by little and little, began to stand on their prerogatives, and at last overthrew the 12 Hatsell, 141. 2 Parl. Hist. N. E. 125. 13 3 Lords' Journ. 526, 528, 552, 558, 562, 564, 566, 580, 581, 594, 630, 646, 650-655. 2 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. 168. 7 Old Parl. Hist. 284. 199. Sanderson, 58. 1 Rushworth, 195. 14 3 Lords' Journ. 537, 544, 563, 567, 578, 582, 632. 15 Ibid. 592, 655-663, 682. 6 Lingard, 255. 16 2 Parl. Hist. N. E. 97, 98, 132. 17 Ibid. 103, 106. Franklyn, 18 Vide Bristol's Defence, 1 Rushworth, 269. 7 Old Parl. Hist. 21. 2 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. 134. 1 Hardwick's Col. Howell's Familiar Letters, The commons the king, that he should be obliged threatened by to try new coun sels. 1625-1649. CHARLES I. parliaments, throughout Christendom, except here only with us. Let us be careful, then, to preserve the king's good opinion of parliaments, which bringeth such happiness to this nation, and makes us envied of all others, while there is this sweetness between his majesty and the commons; lest we lose the repute of a free people by our turbulency in parliament1" Measures of the court justified opposition. Tyrannical con mons. After such language, the people would have been lost to all sense of honorable independence, if they had not required their representatives to oppose the measures of the court, and to erect such barriers, as would preclude any tyrant from destroying their constitutional liberties. But the commons acted in a manner almost equally tyranduct of the com- nical. Thus they thought it a sufficient reason for disqualifying any one from holding an office, that his wife, relations, or companions were papists, though he himself were a conformist20; they claimed the execution of the penal laws against Catholics, and presented to the king a list of official personages, who were convicted or suspected recusants, in order to their removal"; they prepared a remonstrance against the levying of tonnage and poundage without consent of parliament"; and also intended to present a petition, which would then have been equivalent to a demand, for removing Buckingham from his majesty's person and council. But to prevent the execution of these projects, the king, contrary to the advice of the House of Lords", and in opposition to the privy council 25, dissolved the parliament. Impolicy of dissolving the commons. However incensed the king might have been, this dissolution was an impolitic measure, as every House, for a considerable period, had successively imbibed a more deep-rooted hatred and defiance of the crown, and, from such conduct, acquired proportionate popularity with the numerical portion of the country. 19 1 Rushworth, 359. Whitlocke, 6. 20 6 Hume, 220. 21 Com. Journ. Feb. 15, 21. March 7, 9. May 3, 11, 23. June 6, 1626. Franklyn, 195. 6 Lingard, 247. 22 6 Hume, 220-222. 23 1 Rushworth, 400. Franklyn, 199. 24 1 Rushworth, 398. Sanderson's Life of Charles I. 58. 25 Mede's Letters, cited 1 Hallam's Const. Hist. 520. 4. Illegal Taxation. 1625-1649. Such were the inflated notions relative to kingly prerogative, CHARLES I. and the contempt for national rights, which Charles had imbibed, that had he been able to subdue the people, either by corruption or brute force, it would have been used, and parliaments annihilated; but the only policy he could pursue in Despotic policy order to recruit his finances, was to adopt the precedents of of the king. the House of Tudor, and such resources as his own fertile imagination might suggest. Catholics. A commission was granted to compound with the Roman Composition Catholics, and to agree for dispensing with the penal laws with the Roman enacted against them'; from the nobility he required assistance, but which was sparingly afforded; from London a loan of 100,000l. was demanded, but which was refused; from the maritime towns, and adjacent counties, a specified number of armed vessels were required in order to equip a fleet, Exaction of loans a course which Elizabeth had adopted; and loans and benevolences were exacted from all persons. and benevolences. The foreign policy of the country having unexpectedly experienced sad reverses, the crown was reduced to the extreme of necessity; and the ministry finding it impossible to persuade the nation that, because subsidies had been voted in the House of Commons, they should not refuse to pay them, though no bill had been passed for that purpose, issued an act of council, ordering a "general loan" from the subject, as assessed in the Rolls of the last proposed, but not enacted, Act of council, subsidy; and it was stated, that the sums so to be exacted, were not to be called "subsidies," but "loans "." The commissioners were enjoined,—" If any shall refuse to lend, and shall make delays or excuses, and persist in his obstinacy, that they examine him upon oath, whether he has been dealt with to deny, or refuse to lend, or make an excuse for not lending? who has dealt with him, and what speeches or persuasions were used to that purpose? and that they also shall charge every such person, in his majesty's name, upon 11 Rushworth, 413. Whitlocke, 7. 6 Hume, 224. 2 1 Rushworth, 415-421. Franklyn, 206. 3 1 Rushworth, 415. 18 Rymer, 730, 7, 9, 41, 55, 71, 86. 1 Rushworth, 416, et seq. 6 Lingard, 256. 5 Mede's Letters, cited 1 Hallam's Const. Hist. 521. Harleian MSS. 37, fol. 192. 6 Ibid. ordering a general loan. Injunctions issued to the commissioners. CHARLES I. his allegiance, not to disclose to any one what his answer 1625-1649. Doctrine of passive obedience. National reluctance from arbitrary taxation. Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Tampering with the judges. was "." 66 To support these proceedings, Sibthorpe and Manwaring, by command of the king, inculcated from the pulpit the doctrine of passive obedience;" the whole authority of the state was represented as belonging to the king alone, and all limitations of law and constitution were rejected as seditious and impious'; and Archbishop Abbot, who refused to license such doctrines, was suspended from the exercise of his office, banished from London, and confined to one of his country seats 10. Unless the nation were steeped in infamy and cowardice, it was not to be supposed they could tacitly submit to such measures, although the council had determined to enforce their ordinances. Many refused to pay the sums for which they had been assessed; and for such contumacy, were either impressed for the navy, committed to prison, or had soldiers billeted upon them "; amongst those who had been so committed, were Sir Thomas Darnel, Sir John Corbet, Sir Walter Earl, Sir John Heveningham, and Sir Edmond Hambden, who demanded immediate releasement, not as a favour, but as a legal birthright, and sued out a writ of habeas corpus 12. The return made to the writ was, that the warrant assigned no cause for their commitment, but that their detention was commanded by the king and council; to which it was pleaded that this was not sufficient cause for refusing bail or releasement to the prisoners. The crown, in order to secure a favourable judgment, removed Sir Randolf Crew from, and appointed Sir Nicholas Hyde to, the office of chief justice and although the prisoners demanded their release under the twenty-ninth section of Magna Charta, which provides that "no free man shall be taken or imprisoned, unless by lawful judgment of his peers, or the law of the land;" and also, under Stat. 25 Edward III., that "no one shall be taken by petition or suggestion to the 8 7 1 Rushworth, 419. Franklyn, 207. 18 Rymer, 835–842. 18 Rymer, 764. Bibliotheca Regia, 298-305. 4 Wilkins' Con. 471. Heylin's Life of Laud, 161 et seq. Laud's Diary. 1 Rushworth, 422. Franklyn, 208. 10 1 Rushworth, 431. 6 Hume, 226. 1625-1649. king or his council, unless it be (i.e., but only,) by indictment CHARLES I. or presentment, or by writ original at the common law," the court were so base, as to act upon similar principles to those by which their timorous and corrupt predecessors had been influenced in 34 Elizabeth, as to order a general judgment to be entered, that no bail could be granted upon a commitment by the king in council 13. summoned. The money of which the people were robbed, under the Parliament plea of "prerogative," was insufficient to conduct the government in its domestic and foreign relations; and such was the universal discontent, that to continue its exaction was physically impossible: it was therefore imperative to call a parliament, and the dislike of Charles to that assembly was exemplified at the council-table, when some proposing a parliament, the king said," he did abominate the name ". 5. The Parliament of 1628. 14.99 Upon its assembling, it was found to consist of men who justly held in abhorrence the conduct of the crown,—and, moreover, were possessed of such riches, that their property was computed to surpass three times that of the House of Peers'; and although many of the members had been cast The court in a into prison, and all of them had suffered by the royal despotism, their deliberations were not intemperate, but were conducted with discretion and firmness, being aware that the executive had every inclination to invade their essential privileges, either in speech, person, or estate. The king, as if to establish another proof of his indiscretion, acquainted the House, 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 other men may otherwise hazard to lose. Take not this as a threatening," added his majesty, "for I scorn to threaten any but my equals; but an admonition from him, that both out of nature and duty, hath most care of your preservations and prosperities." 137 State Trials, 147. Vide ante 270, 271. 14 Mede's Letters, Sept. 30, 1626. 1 Sanderson, 106. Walker, 339. 23 Lords' Journ. 687. 1 Rushworth, 477. Franklyn, 233. 6 Lingard, 272. minority. Indiscreet lan guage of the king to the commons. |