← catalogue

The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part E.

by David Hume · English · Gutenberg #19215 · 1,386,559 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part E.
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part E.

Author: David Hume


        
Release date: September 8, 2006 [eBook #19215]
                Most recently updated: November 27, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19215

Credits: David Widger and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND IN THREE VOLUMES, VOL. I., PART E. ***




THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND

FROM THE INVASION OF JULIUS CÆSAR

TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF JAMES THE SECOND,


BY DAVID HUME, ESQ.

1688



London: James S. Virtue, City Road and Ivy Lane
New York: 26 John Street
1860

And

Philadelphia:
J. B. Lippincott & Co.
March 17, 1901



In Three Volumes:

VOLUME ONE: The History Of England From The Invasion Of Julius Cæsar To
The End Of The Reign Of James The Second............ By David Hume, Esq.

VOLUME TWO: Continued from the Reign of William and Mary to the Death of
George II........................................... by Tobias Smollett.

VOLUME THREE: From the Accession of George III. to the Twenty-Third Year
of the Reign of Queen Victoria............... by E. Farr and E.H. Nolan.




VOLUME ONE

Part E.

From Charles I. to Cromwell




CHAPTER L.

[Illustration: 1-597-charles1a.jpg  CHARLES I.]




CHARLES I.

{1625.} No sooner had Charles taken into his hands the reins of
government, than he showed an impatience to assemble the great council
of the nation; and he would gladly, for the sake of despatch, have
called together the same parliament which had sitten under his father,
and which lay at that time under prorogation. But being told that
this measure would appear unusual, he issued writs for summoning a new
parliament on the seventh of May; and it was not without regret that
the arrival of the princess Henrietta, whom he had espoused by proxy,
obliged him to delay, by repeated prorogations, their meeting till the
eighteenth of June, when they assembled at Westminster for the despatch
of business. The young prince, unexperienced and impolitic, regarded as
sincere all the praises and caresses with which he had been loaded while
active in procuring the rupture with the house of Austria. And besides
that he labored under great necessities, he hastened with alacrity to a
period when he might receive the most undoubted testimony of the dutiful
attachment of his subjects. His discourse to the parliament was full of
simplicity and cordiality. He lightly mentioned the occasion which he
had for supply.[*] He employed no intrigue to influence the suffrages of
the members. He would not even allow the officers of the crown, who
had seats in the house, to mention any particular sum which might be
expected by him Secure of the affections of the commons, he was
resolved that their bounty should be entirely their own deed; unasked,
unsolicited; the genuine fruit of sincere confidence and regard.

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 171. Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 346.
     Franklyn, p. 108.

The house of commons accordingly took into consideration the business of
supply. They knew that all the money granted by the last parliament
had been expended on naval and military armaments; and that great
anticipations were likewise made on the revenues of the crown. They were
not ignorant that Charles was loaded with a large debt, contracted by
his father, who had borrowed money both from his own subjects and from
foreign princes. They had learned by experience, that the public revenue
could with difficulty maintain the dignity of the crown, even under the
ordinary charges of government. They were sensible, that the present
war was very lately the result of their own importunate applications
and entreaties, and that they had solemnly engaged to support their
sovereign in the management of it. They were acquainted with the
difficulty of military enterprises directed against the whole house of
Austria; against the king of Spain, possessed of the greatest riches and
most extensive dominions of any prince in Europe; against the emperor
Ferdinand, hitherto the most fortunate monarch of his age, who had
subdued and astonished Germany by the rapidity of his victories. Deep
impressions they saw must be made by the English sword, and a vigorous
offensive war be waged against these mighty potentates, ere they would
resign a principality which they had now fully subdued, and which they
held in secure possession, by its being surrounded with all their other
territories.

To answer, therefore, all these great and important ends; to satisfy
their young king in the first request which he made them; to prove
their sense of the many royal virtues, particularly economy, with which
Charles was endued; the house of Commons, conducted by the wisest and
ablest senators that had ever flourished in England, thought proper to
confer on the king a supply of two subsidies, amounting to one hundred
and twelve thousand pounds.[*]

     * A subsidy was now fallen to about fifty-six thousand
     pounds Cabala, p. 224, 1st edit.

This measure, which discovers rather a cruel mockery of Charles, than
any serious design of supporting him, appears so extraordinary, when
considered in all its circumstances, that it naturally summons up our
attention, and raises an inquiry concerning the causes of a conduct
unprecedented in an English parliament. So numerous an assembly,
composed of persons of various dispositions, was not, it is probable,
wholly influenced by the same motives; and few declared openly their
true reason. We shall, therefore, approach nearer to the truth, if we
mention all the views which the present conjuncture could suggest to
them.

It is not to be doubted, but spleen and ill will against the duke of
Buckingham had an influence with many. So vast and rapid a fortune, so
little merited, could not fail to excite public envy; and however men's
hatred might have been suspended for a moment, while the duke's conduct
seemed to gratify their passions and their prejudices, it was impossible
for him long to preserve the affections of the people. His influence
over the modesty of Charles exceeded even that which he had acquired
over the weakness of James; nor was any public measure conducted but
by his counsel and direction. His vehement temper prompted him to raise
suddenly, to the highest elevation, his flatterers and dependants; and
upon the least occasion of displeasure, he threw them down with equal
impetuosity and violence. Implacable in his hatred, fickle in his
friendships, all men were either regarded as his enemies, or dreaded
soon to become such. The whole power of the kingdom was grasped by his
insatiable hand; while he both engrossed the entire confidence of his
master, and held invested in his single person the most considerable
offices of the crown.

However the ill humor of the commons might have been increased by these
considerations, we are not to suppose them the sole motives. The last
parliament of James, amidst all their joy and festivity, had given him
a supply very disproportioned to his demand, and to the occasion. And as
every house of commons which was elected during forty years, succeeded
to all the passions and principles of their predecessors, we ought
rather to account for this obstinacy from the general situation of the
kingdom during that whole period, than from any circumstances which
attended this particular conjuncture.

The nation was very little accustomed at that time to the burden of
taxes, and had never opened their purses in any degree for supporting
their sovereign. Even Elizabeth, notwithstanding her vigor and
frugality, and the necessary wars in which she was engaged, had reason
to complain of the commons in this particular; nor could the authority
of that princess, which was otherwise almost absolute, ever extort from
them the requisite supplies. Habits, more than reason, we find in every
thing to be the governing principle of mankind. In this view, likewise,
the sinking of the value of subsidies must be considered as a loss to
the king. The parliament, swayed by custom, would not augment their
number in the same proportion.

The Puritanical party, though disguised, had a great authority over the
kingdom; and many of the leaders among the commons had secretly embraced
the rigid tenets of that sect. All these were disgusted with the court,
both by the prevalence of the principles of civil liberty essential to
their party, and on account of the restraint under which they were held
by the established hierarchy. In order to fortify himself against the
resentment of James, Buckingham had affected popularity, and entered
into the cabals of the Puritans: but, being secure of the confidence of
Charles, he had since abandoned this party; and on that account was
the more exposed to their hatred and resentment. Though the religious
schemes of many of the Puritans, when explained, appear pretty
frivolous, we are not thence to imagine that they were pursued by none
but persons of weak understandings. Some men of the greatest parts and
most extensive knowledge that the nation at this time produced, could
not enjoy any peace of mind, because obliged to hear prayers offered up
to the Divinity by a priest covered with a white linen vestment.

The match with France, and the articles in favor of Catholics which were
suspected to be in the treaty, were likewise causes of disgust to this
whole party: though it must be remarked, that the connections with that
crown were much less obnoxious to the Protestants, and less agreeable to
the Catholics, than the alliance formerly projected with Spain, and were
therefore received rather with pleasure than dissatisfaction.

To all these causes we must yet add another, of considerable moment. The
house of commons, we may observe, was almost entirely governed by a set
of men of the most uncommon capacity and the largest views; men who were
now formed into a regular party, and united, as well by fixed aims
and projects, as by the hardships which some of them had undergone in
prosecution of them. Among these we may mention the names of Sir Edward
Coke, Sir Edwin Sandys, Sir Robert Philips, Sir Francis Seymour, Sir
Dudley Digges, Sir John Elliot, Sir Thomas Wentworth, Mr. Selden, and
Mr. Pym. Animated with a warm regard to liberty, these generous patriots
saw with regret an unbounded power exercised by the crown, and were
resolved to seize the opportunity which the king's necessities offered
them, of reducing the prerogative within more reasonable compass.
Though their ancestors had blindly given way to practices and precedents
favorable to kingly power, and had been able, notwithstanding, to
preserve some small remains of liberty, it would be impossible, they
thought, when all these pretensions were methodised, and prosecuted by
the increasing knowledge of the age, to maintain any shadow of popular
government, in opposition to such unlimited authority in the sovereign.
It was necessary to fix a choice; either to abandon entirely the
privileges of the people, or to secure them by firmer and more precise
barriers than the constitution had hitherto provided for them. In this
dilemma, men of such aspiring geniuses, and such independent fortunes,
could not long deliberate: they boldly embraced the side of freedom,
and resolved to grant no supplies to their necessitous prince, without
extorting concessions in favor of civil liberty. The end they esteemed
beneficent and noble; the means, regular and constitutional. To grant or
refuse supplies was the undoubted privilege of the commons. And as all
human governments, particularly those of a mixed frame, are in continual
fluctuation, it was as natural, in their opinion, and allowable, for
popular assemblies to take advantage of favorable incidents, in order
to secure the subject, as for monarchs, in order to extend their own
authority. With pleasure they beheld the king involved in a foreign war,
which rendered him every day more dependent on the parliament; while at
the same time the situation of the kingdom, even without any military
preparations, gave it sufficient security against all invasion from
foreigners. Perhaps, too, it had partly proceeded from expectations of
this nature, that the popular leaders had been so urgent for a rupture
with Spain; nor is it credible, that religious zeal could so far have
blinded all of them, as to make them discover, in such a measure, any
appearance of necessity, or any hopes of success.

But, however natural all these sentiments might appear to the country
party, it is not to be imagined that Charles would entertain the same
ideas. Strongly prejudiced in favor of the duke, whom he had heard so
highly extolled in parliament, he could not conjecture the cause of
so sudden an alteration in their opinions. And when the war which
they themselves had so earnestly solicited, was at last commenced,
the immediate desertion of their sovereign could not but seem very
unaccountable. Even though no further motive had been suspected, the
refusal of supply in such circumstances would naturally to him appear
cruel and deceitful: but when he perceived that this measure proceeded
from an intention of encroaching on his authority, he failed not to
regard these aims as highly criminal and traitorous. Those lofty ideas
of monarchical power which were very commonly adopted during that age,
and to which the ambiguous nature of the English constitution gave so
plausible an appearance, were firmly rivetted in Charles; and however
moderate his temper, the natural and unavoidable prepossessions
of self-love, joined to the late uniform precedents in favor of
prerogative, had made him regard his political tenets as certain
and uncontroverted. Taught to consider even the ancient laws and
constitution more as lines to direct his conduct, than barriers to
withstand his power; a conspiracy to erect new ramparts, in order
to straiten his authority, appeared but one degree removed from open
sedition and rebellion. So atrocious in his eyes was such a design, that
he seems even unwilling to impute it to the commons; and though he was
constrained to adjourn the parliament by reason of the plague, which at
that time raged in London, he immediately reassembled them at Oxford,
and made a new attempt to gain from them some supplies in such an urgent
necessity.

Charles now found himself obliged to depart from that delicacy which he
had formerly maintained. By himself or his ministers he entered into a
particular detail, both of the alliances which he had formed, and of the
military operations which he had projected.[*]

     * Dugdale, p. 25, 26.

He told the parliament, that, by a promise of subsidies, he had engaged
the king of Denmark to take part in the war; that this monarch intended
to enter Germany by the north, and to rouse to arms those princes who
impatiently longed for an opportunity of asserting the liberty of the
empire; that Mansfeldt had undertaken to penetrate with an English army
into the Palatinate, and by that quarter to excite the members of the
evangelical unions that the states must be supported in the unequal
warfare which they maintained with Spain; that no less a sum than seven
hundred thousand pounds a year had been found, by computation, requisite
for all these purposes; that the maintenance of the fleet, and the
defence of Ireland, demanded an annual expense of four hundred thousand
pounds; that he himself had already exhausted and anticipated, in the
public service, his whole revenue, and had scarcely left sufficient
for the daily subsistence of himself and his family;[*] that on his
accession to the crown, he found a debt of above three hundred thousand
pounds, contracted by his father in support of the palatine; and that
while prince of Wales, he had himself contracted debts, notwithstanding
his great frugality, to the amount of seventy thousand pounds, which he
had expended entirely on naval and military armaments. After mentioning
all these facts, the king even condescended to use entreaties. He said,
that this request was the first that he had ever made them: that he was
young, and in the commencement of his reign; and if he now met with kind
and dutiful usage, it would endear to him the use of parliaments, and
would forever preserve an entire harmony between him and his people.[**]

To these reasons the commons remained inexorable. Notwithstanding that
the king's measures, on the supposition of a foreign war, which they had
constantly demanded, were altogether unexceptionable, they obstinately
refused any further aid. Some members, favorable to the court, having
insisted on an addition of two fifteenths to the former supply, even
this pittance was refused;[***] though it was known that a fleet and
army were lying at Portsmouth, in great want of pay and provisions;
and that Buckingham, the admiral, and the treasurer of the navy, had
advanced on their own credit near a hundred thousand pounds for the sea
service.[****]

     * Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 396.

     ** Rush, vol. i. p. 177, 178, etc. Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p.
     399. Franklyn, p. 108, 109. Journ. 10th Aug. 1625.

     *** Rush, vol. i. p. 190.

     **** Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 390.

Besides all their other motives, the house of commons had made a
discovery, which, as they wanted but a pretence for their refusal,
inflamed them against the court and against the duke of Buckingham. When
James deserted the Spanish alliance, and courted that of France, he had
promised to furnish Lewis, who was entirely destitute of naval force,
with one ship of war, together with seven armed vessels hired from
the merchants. These the French court had pretended they would employ
against the Genoese, who, being firm and useful allies to the Spanish
monarchy, were naturally regarded with an evil eye, both by the king of
France and of England. When these vessels, by Charles's orders, arrived
at Dieppe, there arose a strong suspicion that they were to serve
against Rochelle. The sailors were inflamed. That race of men, who are
at present both careless and ignorant in all matters of religion, were
at that time only ignorant. They drew up a remonstrance to Pennington,
their commander, and signing all their names in a circle, lest he should
discover the ringleaders, they laid it under his prayer-book. Pennington
declared that he would rather be hanged in England for disobedience,
than fight against his brother Protestants in France. The whole squadron
sailed immediately to the Downs. There they received new orders from
Buckingham, lord admiral, to return to Dieppe. As the duke knew that
authority alone would not suffice, he employed much art and many
subtleties to engage them to obedience; and a rumor which was spread,
that peace had been concluded between the French king and the Hugonots,
assisted him in his purpose. When they arrived at Dieppe, they found
that they had been deceived. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who commanded one of
the vessels, broke through and returned to England. All the officers and
sailors of all the other ships, notwithstanding great offers made them
by the French, immediately deserted. One gunner alone preferred duty
towards his king to the cause of religion; and he was afterwards killed
in charging a cannon before Rochelle.[*] The care which historians have
taken to record this frivolous event, proves with what pleasure the news
was received by the nation.

     * Franklyn, p. 09. Rush. vol. i. p. 175, 176, etc., 325,
     326, etc.

The house of commons, when informed of these transactions, showed the
same attachment with the sailors for the Protestant religion; nor was
their zeal much better guided by reason and sound policy. It was not
considered that it was highly probable the king and the duke themselves
had here been deceived by the artifices of France, nor had they any
hostile intention against the Hugonots; that, were it otherwise yet
might their measures be justified by the most obvious and most received
maxims of civil policy; that, if the force of Spain were really so
exorbitant as the commons imagined, the French monarch was the only
prince that could oppose its progress, and preserve the balance of
Europe; that his power was at present fettered by the Hugonots, who,
being possessed of many privileges, and even of fortified towns, formed
an empire within his empire, and kept him in perpetual jealousy and
inquietude; that an insurrection had been at that time wantonly and
voluntarily formed by their leaders, who, being disgusted in some court
intrigue, took advantage of the never failing pretence of religion,
in order to cover their rebellion, that the Dutch, influenced by these
views, had ordered a squadron of twenty ships to join the French fleet
employed against the inhabitants of Rochelle;[*] that the Spanish
monarch, sensible of the same consequences, secretly supported the
Protestants in France; and that all princes had ever sacrificed to
reasons of state the interests of their religion in foreign countries.
All these obvious considerations had no influence. Great murmurs and
discontents still prevailed in parliament. The Hugonots, though they had
no ground of complaint against the French court, were thought to be as
much entitled to assistance from England, as if they had taken arms in
defence of their liberties and religion against the persecuting rage
of the Catholics. And it plainly appears from this incident, as well
as from many others, that, of all European nations, the British were
at that time, and till long after, the most under the influence of that
religious spirit which tends rather to inflame bigotry than increase
peace and mutual charity.

On this occasion, the commons renewed their eternal complaints against
the growth of Popery, which was ever the chief of their grievances, and
now their only one.[**] They demanded a strict execution of the penal
laws against the Catholics, and remonstrated against some late pardons
granted to priests.[***] They attacked Montague, one of the king's
chaplains, on account of a moderate book which he had lately published,
and which, to their great disgust, saved virtuous Catholics, as well as
other Christians, from eternal torments.[****]

     * Journ. 18th April, 1626.

     ** Franklyn, p. 3, etc.

     *** Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 374. Journ. 1st Aug. 1625.

     **** Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 353 Journ. 7th July 1625.

Charles gave them a gracious and a compliant answer to all their
remonstrances. He was, however, in his heart, extremely averse to these
furious measures. Though a determined Protestant, by principle as well
as inclination, he had entertained no violent horror against Popery: and
a little humanity, he thought, was due by the nation to the religion
of their ancestors. That degree of liberty which is now indulged to
Catholics, though a party much more obnoxious than during the reign of
the Stuarts, it suited neither with Charles's sentiments nor the humor
of the age to allow them. An abatement of the more rigorous laws was all
he intended; and his engagements with France, notwithstanding that their
regular execution had never been promised or expected, required of him
some indulgence. But so unfortunate was this prince, that no measure
embraced during his whole reign, was ever attended with more unhappy and
more fatal consequences.

The extreme rage against Popery was a sure characteristic of Puritanism.
The house of commons discovered other infallible symptoms of the
prevalence of that party. They petitioned the king for replacing
such able clergy as had been silenced for want of conformity to the
ceremonies.[*] They also enacted laws for the strict observance of
Sunday, which the Puritans affected to call the Sabbath, and which they
sanctified by the most melancholy indolence.[**] It is to be remarked,
that the different appellations of this festival were at that time known
symbols of the different parties.

The king, finding that the parliament was resolved to grant him no
supply, and would furnish him with nothing but empty protestations of
duty,[***] or disagreeable complaints of grievances, took advantage of
the plague,[****] which began to appear at Oxford, and on that pretence
immediately dissolved them. By finishing the session with a dissolution,
instead of a prorogation, he sufficiently expressed his displeasure at
their conduct.

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 281.

     ** 1 Car. I. cap. 1. Journ. 21st June, 1625.

     *** Franklyn, p. 113. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 190.

     **** The plague was really so violent, that it had been
     moved in the house, at the beginning of the session, to
     petition the king to adjourn them. (Journ. 21st June, 1625.)
     So it was impossible to enter upon grievances, even if there
     had been any. The only business of the parliament was to
     give supply, which was so much wanted by the king, in order
     to carry on the war in which they had engaged him.

To supply the want of parliamentary aids, Charles issued privy seals
for borrowing money from his subjects.[*] The advantage reaped by this
expedient was a small compensation for the disgust which it occasioned.
By means, however, of that supply, and by other expedients, he was,
though with difficulty, enabled to equip his fleet. It consisted of
eighty vessels, great and small; and carried an board an army of ten
thousand men. Sir Edward Cecil, lately created Viscount Wimbleton, was
intrusted with the command. He sailed immediately for Cadiz, and found
the bay full of Spanish ships of great value. He either neglected to
attack these ships or attempted it preposterously. The army was landed,
and a fort taken; but the undisciplined soldiers, finding store of wine,
could not be restrained from the utmost excesses. Further stay appearing
fruitless, they were reëmbarked; and the fleet put to sea with an
intention of intercepting the Spanish galleons. But the plague having
seized the seamen and soldiers, they were obliged to abandon all hopes
of this prize, and return to England. Loud complaints were made against
the court for intrusting so important a command to a man like Cecil,
whom, though he possessed great experience, the people, judging by the
event, esteemed of slender capacity,[**]

{1626.} Charles, having failed of so rich a prize, was obliged again to
have recourse to a parliament. Though the ill success of his enterprises
diminished his authority, and showed every day more plainly the
imprudence of the Spanish war; though the increase of his necessities
rendered him more dependent, and more exposed to the encroachments
of the commons, he was resolved to try once more that regular and
constitutional expedient for supply. Perhaps, too, a little political
art, which at that time he practised, was much trusted to. He had named
four popular leaders, sheriffs of counties; Sir Edward Coke, Sir Robert
Philips, Sir Thomas Wentworth, and Sir Francis Seymour; and, though the
question had been formerly much contested,[***] he thought that he had
by that means incapacitated them from being elected members. But his
intention, being so evident, rather put the commons more upon their
guard. Enow of patriots still remained to keep up the ill humor of the
house; and men needed but little instruction or rhetoric to recommend to
them practices which increased their own importance and consideration.
The weakness of the court, also, could not more evidently appear, than
by its being reduced to use so ineffectual an expedient, in order to
obtain an influence over the commons.

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 192. Parl. Hist, vol. vi. p. 407.

     ** Franklyn, p. 113. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 196.

     *** It is always an express clause in the writ of summons,
     that no sheriff shall be chosen; but the contrary practice
     had often prevailed D'Ewes, p. 38. Yet still great doubts
     were entertained on this head. See Journ. 9th April, 1614.

The views, therefore, of the last parliament were immediately adopted;
as if the same men had been every where elected, and no time had
intervened since their meeting. When the king laid before the house
his necessities, and asked for supply, they immediately voted him three
subsidies and three fifteenths; and though they afterwards added one
subsidy more, the sum was little proportioned to the greatness of the
occasion, and ill fitted to promote those views of success and glory,
for which the young prince, in his first enterprise, so ardently longed.
But this circumstance was not the most disagreeable one. The supply
was only voted by the commons. The passing of that vote into a law was
reserved till the end of the session.[*] A condition was thereby made,
in a very undisguised manner, with their sovereign. Under color of
redressing grievances, which during this short reign could not be very
numerous, they were to proceed in regulating and controlling every part
of government which displeased them; and if the king either cut them
short in this undertaking, or refused compliance with their demands, he
must not expect any supply from the commons. Great dissatisfaction
was expressed by Charles at a treatment which he deemed so harsh and
undutiful.[**] But his urgent necessities obliged him to submit; and he
waited with patience, observing to what side they would turn themselves.

The duke of Buckingham, formerly obnoxious to the public, became every
day more unpopular, by the symptoms which appeared both of his want
of temper and prudence, and of the uncontrolled ascendant which he had
acquired over his master.[***]

     * Journ. 27th March, 1626.

     ** Parliamentary History, vol. vi. p. 449. Rushworth, vol. i.
     p. 224.

     *** His credit with the king had given him such influence,
     that he had no less than twenty proxies granted him this
     parliament by so many peers; which occasioned a vote, that
     no peer should have above two proxies. The earl of
     Leicester, in 1585, had once ten proxies D'Ewes, p. 314.

Two violent attacks he was obliged this session to sustain, one from the
earl of Bristol, another from the house of commons.

As long as James lived, Bristol, secure of the concealed favor of that
monarch, had expressed all duty and obedience; in expectation that an
opportunity would offer of reinstating himself in his former credit and
authority. Even after Charles's accession he despaired not. He submitted
to the king's commands of remaining at his country seat, and of
absenting himself from parliament. Many trials he made to regain
the good opinion of his master; but finding them all fruitless, and
observing Charles to be entirely governed by Buckingham, his implacable
enemy, he resolved no longer to keep any measures with the court. A new
spirit he saw, and a new power arising in the nation; and to these he
was determined for the future to trust for his security and protection.

When the parliament was summoned, Charles, by a stretch of prerogative,
had given orders that no writ, as is customary, should be sent to
Bristol.[*] That nobleman applied to the house of lords by petition; and
craved their good offices with the king for obtaining what was his due
as a peer of the realm. His writ was sent him, but accompanied with
a letter from the lord keeper Coventry, commanding him, in the king's
name, to absent himself from parliament. This letter Bristol conveyed
to the lords, and asked advice how to proceed in so delicate a
situation.[**] The king's prohibition was withdrawn, and Bristol took
his seat. Provoked at these repeated instances of vigor, which the court
denominated contumacy, Charles ordered his attorney-general to enter an
accusation of high treason against him. By way of recrimination, Bristol
accused Buckingham of high treason. Both the earl's defence of himself
and accusation of the duke remain;[***] and, together with some original
letters still extant, contain the fullest and most authentic account
of all the negotiations with the house of Austria. From the whole, the
great imprudence of the duke evidently appears, and the sway of his
ungovernable passions; but it would be difficult to collect thence any
action which, in the eye of the law, could be deemed a crime, much less
could subject him to the penalty of treason.

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 236.

     ** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 237. Franklyn, p. 120, etc.

     *** Rushworth, vol. i. p.[**inserted '.'] 256, 262, 263,
     etc. Franklyn, p. 123, etc

The impeachment of the commons was still less dangerous to the duke,
were it estimated by the standard of law and equity. The house, after
having voted, upon some queries of Dr. Turner's, "that common fame was
a sufficient ground of accusation by the commons,"[*] proceeded to frame
regular articles against Buckingham. They accused him of having united
many offices in his person; of having bought two of them; of neglecting
to guard the seas, insomuch that many merchant ships had fallen into the
hands of the enemy; of delivering ships to the French king in order to
serve against the Hugonots; of being employed in the sale of honors and
offices; of accepting extensive grants from the crown; of procuring many
titles of honor for his kindred; and of administering physic to the late
king without acquainting his physicians. All these articles appear, from
comparing the accusation and reply, to be either frivolous or false,
or both.[**] The only charge which could be regarded as important, was,
that he had extorted a sum of ten thousand pounds from the East India
company, and that he had confiscated some goods belonging to French
merchants, on pretence of their being the property of Spanish. The
impeachment never came to a full determination; so that it is difficult
for us to give a decisive opinion with regard to these articles: but it
must be confessed that the duke's answer in these particulars, as in all
the rest, is so clear and satisfactory, that it is impossible to refuse
our assent to it.[***] His faults and blemishes were, in many respects,
very great; but rapacity and avarice were vices with which he was
entirely unacquainted.

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 217. Whitloeke, p. 5.

     ** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 306, etc., 375, etc. Journ. 25th
     March, 1626.

     *** Whitlocke, p. 7.

It is remarkable that the commons, though so much at a loss to
find articles of charge against Buckingham, never adopted Bristol's
accusation, or impeached the duke for his conduct in the Spanish treaty,
the most blamable circumstance in his whole life. He had reason to
believe the Spaniards sincere in their professions; yet, in order to
gratify his private passions, he had hurried his master and his
country into a war pernicious to the interests of both. But so rivetted
throughout the nation were the prejudices with regard to Spanish deceit
and falsehood, that very few of the commons seem as yet to have been
convinced that they had been seduced by Buckingham's narrative: a
certain proof that a discovery of this nature was not, as is imagined by
several historians, the cause of so sudden and surprising a variation in
the measures of the parliament.[*] [1]

While the commons were thus warmly engaged against Buckingham, the king
seemed desirous of embracing every opportunity by which he could express
a contempt and disregard for them. No one was at that time sufficiently
sensible of the great weight which the commons bore in the balance of
the constitution. The history of England had never hitherto afforded one
instance where any great movement or revolution had proceeded from
the lower house. And as their rank, both considered in a body and as
individuals, was but the second in the kingdom, nothing less than fatal
experience could engage the English princes to pay a due regard to the
inclinations of that formidable assembly.

The earl of Suffolk, chancellor of the university of Cambridge, dying
about this time, Buckingham, though lying under impeachment was yet, by
means of court interest, chosen in his place. The commons resented and
loudly complained of this affront; and the more to enrage them, the king
himself wrote a letter to the university, extolling the duke, and giving
them thanks for his election.[**]

The lord keeper, in the king's name, expressly commanded the house not
to meddle with his minister and servant, Buckingham; and ordered them to
finish, in a few days, the bill which they had begun for the subsidies,
and to make some addition to them; otherwise they must not expect to sit
any longer.[***] And though these harsh commands were endeavored to
be explained and mollified, a few days after, by a speech of
Buckingham's,[****] they failed not to leave a disagreeable impression
behind them.

     * See note A, at the end of the volume.

     ** Rush worth, vol. i. p. 371.

     *** Parliament. Hist. vol. vi. p. 444.

     **** Parliament. Hist. vol. vi. p 451. Rushworth. vol. i. p.
     225. Franklyn, p. 118.

Besides a more stately style which Charles in general affected to
this parliament than to the last, he went so far, in a message, as to
threaten the commons that, if they did not furnish him with supplies, he
should be obliged to try new "counsels." This language was sufficiently
clear: yet lest any ambiguity should remain, Sir Dudley Carleton,
vice-chamberlain, took care to explain it. "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 spirit of their parliaments, at length they,
by little and little, began to stand on their prerogatives, and at last
overthrew the 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 parliament."[*] These imprudent suggestions rather gave
warning than struck terror. A precarious liberty, the commons thought,
which was to be preserved by unlimited complaisance, was no liberty
at all. And it was necessary, while yet in their power, to secure the
constitution by such invincible barriers, that no king or minister
should ever, for the future, dare to speak such a language to any
parliament, or even entertain such a project against them.

Two members of the house, Sir Dudley Digges and Sir John Elliot, who
had been employed as managers of the impeachment against the duke, were
thrown into prison.[**] The commons immediately declared, that they
would proceed no further upon business till they had satisfaction
in their privileges. Charles alleged, as the reason of this measure,
certain seditious expressions, which, he said, had, in their accusation
of the duke, dropped from these members. Upon inquiry, it appeared that
no such expressions had been used.[***] The members were released; and
the king reaped no other benefit from this attempt than to exasperate
the house still, and to show some degree of precipitancy and
indiscretion.

Moved by this example, the house of peers were roused from their
inactivity; and claimed liberty for the earl of Arundel, who had been
lately confined in the Tower. After many fruitless evasions, the king,
though somewhat ungracefully, was at last obliged to comply.[****] And
in this incident it sufficiently appeared, that the lords, how little
soever inclined to popular courses, were not wanting in a just sense of
their own dignity.

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 359. Whitlocke, p. 6.

     ** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 356.

     *** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 358, 361. Franklyn, p. 180.

     **** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 363, 364, etc. Franklyn, p. 181.

The ill humor of the commons, thus wantonly irritated by the court, and
finding no gratification in the legal impeachment of Buckingham, sought
other objects on which it might exert itself. The never-failing cry of
Popery here served them in stead. They again claimed the execution of
the penal laws against Catholics; and they presented to the king a list
of persons intrusted with offices, most of them insignificant who were
either convicted or suspected recusants.[*] In this particular they had,
perhaps, some reason to blame the king's conduct. He had promised to the
last house of commons a redress of this religious grievance: but he was
apt, in imitation of his father, to imagine that the parliament, when
they failed of supplying his necessities, had, on their part, freed him
from the obligation of a strict performance. A new odium, likewise, by
these representations, was attempted to be thrown upon Buckingham. His
mother, who had great influence over him, was a professed Catholic; his
wife was not free from suspicion: and the indulgence given to Catholics
was of course supposed to proceed entirely from his credit and
authority. So violent was the bigotry of the times, that it was thought
a sufficient reason for disqualifying any one from holding an office,
that his wife, or relations, or companions were Papists, though he
himself were a conformist.[**]

It is remarkable, that persecution was here chiefly pushed on by laymen;
and that the church was willing to have granted more liberty than would
be allowed by the commons. The reconciling doctrines, likewise, of
Montague failed not anew to meet with severe censures from that zealous
assembly.[***]

     * Franklyn, p. 195. Rushworth.

     ** See the list in Franklyn and Rushworth.

     *** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 209.

The next attack made by the commons, had it prevailed, would have proved
decisive. They were preparing a remonstranace against the levying
of tonnage and poundage without consent of parliament. This article,
together with the new impositions laid on merchandise by James,
constituted near half of the crown revenues; and by depriving the king
of these resources, they would have reduced him to total subjection
and dependence. While they retained such a pledge, besides the supply
already promised, they were sure that nothing could be refused them.
Though, after canvassing the matter near three ninths, they found
themselves utterly incapable of fixing any legal crime upon the duke,
they regarded him as an unable, and perhaps a dangerous minister;
and they intended to present a petition, which would then have been
equivalent to a command, for removing him from his majesty's person and
councils.[*]

The king was alarmed at the yoke which he saw prepared for him.
Buckingham's sole guilt, he thought, was the being his friend and
favorite.[**]

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 400 Franklyn, p. 199.

     ** Franklyn, p. 178.

All the other complaints against him were mere pretences. A little
before, he was the idol of the people. No new crime had since been
discovered. After the most diligent inquiry, prompted by the greatest
malice, the smallest appearance of guilt could not be fixed upon him.
What idea, he asked, must all mankind entertain of his honor, should he
sacrifice his innocent friend to pecuniary considerations? What further
authority should he retain in the nation, were he capable, in the
beginning of his reign, to give, in so signal an instance, such matter
of triumph to his enemies, and discouragement to his adherents? To-day
the commons pretend to wrest his minister from him: to-morrow they
will attack some branch of his prerogative. By their remonstrances, and
promises, and protestations, they had engaged the crown in a war.
As soon as they saw a retreat impossible, without waiting for new
incidents, without covering themselves with new pretences, they
immediately deserted him, and refused him all reasonable supply. It
was evident, that they desired nothing so much as to see him plunged in
inextricable difficulties, of which they intended to take advantage. To
such deep perfidy, to such unbounded usurpations, it was necessary to
oppose a proper firmness and resolution. All encroachments on supreme
power could only be resisted successfully on the first attempt. The
sovereign authority was, with some difficulty, reduced from its ancient
and legal height, but when once pushed downwards, it soon became
contemptible, and would easily, by the continuance of the same effort,
now encouraged by success, be carried to the lowest extremity.

Prompted by these plausible motives, Charles was determined immediately
to dissolve the parliament. When this resolution was known, the house
of peers, whose compliant behavior entitled them to some authority with
him, endeavored to interpose;[*] and they petitioned him, that he would
allow the parliament to sit some time longer. "Not a moment longer,"
cried the king hastily;[**] and he soon after ended the session by a
dissolution.

As this measure was foreseen, the commons took care to finish and
disperse their remonstrance, which they intended as a justification of
their conduct to the people. The king likewise, on his part, published
a declaration, in which he gave the reasons of his disagreement with
the parliament, and of their sudden dissolution, before they had time to
conclude any one act.[***] These papers furnished the partisans on
both sides with ample matter of apology or of recrimination. But all
impartial men judged, "that the commons, though they had not as yet
violated any law, yet, by their unpliableness and independence, were
insensibly changing, perhaps improving, the spirit and genius, while
they preserved the form of the constitution and that the king was acting
altogether without any plan; running on in a road surrounded on all
sides with the most dangerous precipices, and concerting no proper
measures, either for submitting to the obstinacy of the commons, or for
subduing it."

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 398.

     ** Sanderson's Life of Charles I., p. 58.

     *** Franklyn, p. 203, etc Parliament. Hist. vol. vii p. 300

After a breach with the parliament, which seemed so difficult to repair,
the only rational counsel which Charles could pursue, was immediately to
conclude a peace with Spain, and to render himself, as far as possible,
independent of his people, who discovered so little inclination to
support him, or rather who seemed to have formed a determined resolution
to abridge his authority. Nothing could be more easy in the execution
than this measure, nor more agreeable to his own and to national
interest. But, besides the treaties and engagements which he had entered
into with Holland and Denmark, the king's thoughts were at this time
averse to pacific counsels. There are two circumstances in Charles's
character, seemingly incompatible, which attended him during the whole
course of his reign, and were in part the cause of his misfortunes: he
was very steady, and even obstinate in his purpose; and he was easily
governed, by reason of his facility, and of his deference to men much
inferior to himself both in morals and understanding. His great ends
he inflexibly maintained; but the means of attaining them he readily
received from his ministers and favorites, though not always fortunate
in his choice. The violent, impetuous Buckingham, inflamed with a desire
of revenge for injuries which he himself had committed, and animated
with a love of glory which he had not talents to merit, had at
this time, notwithstanding his profuse licentious life, acquired an
invincible ascendant over the virtuous and gentle temper of the king.

The "new counsels," which Charles had mentioned to the parliament, were
now to be tried, in order to supply his necessities. Had he possessed
any military force on which he could rely, it is not improbable, that
he had at once taken off the mask, and governed without any regard to
parliamentary privileges: so high an idea had he received of kingly
prerogative, and so contemptible a notion of the rights of those popular
assemblies, from which, he very naturally thought, he had met with such
ill usage. But his army was new levied, ill paid, and worse disciplined;
nowise superior to the militia, who were much more numerous, and who
were in a great measure under the influence of the country gentlemen.
It behoved him, therefore, to proceed cautiously, and to cover his
enterprises under the pretence of ancient precedents, which, considering
the great authority commonly enjoyed by his predecessors, could not be
wanting to him.

A commission was openly granted to compound with the Catholics, and
agree for dispensing with the penal laws enacted against them.[*] By
this expedient, the king both filled his coffers, and gratified his
inclination of giving indulgence to these religionists; but he could
not have employed any branch of prerogative which would have been
more disagreeable, or would have appeared more exceptionable to his
Protestant subjects.

From the nobility he desired assistance: from the city he required a
loan of one hundred thousand pounds. The former contributed slowly; but
the latter, covering themselves under many pretences and excuses, gave
him at last a flat refusal.[**]

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 413. Whitlocke, p. 7.

     ** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 415. Franklyn, p. 206.

In order to equip a fleet, a distribution, by order of council, was
made to all the maritime towns; and each of them was required, with
the assistance of the adjacent counties, to arm so many vessels as were
appointed them.[*] The city of London was rated at twenty ships. This
is the first appearance, in Charles's reign, of ship-money; a taxation
which had once been imposed by Elizabeth, but which afterwards, when
carried some steps further by Charles, created such violent discontents.

Of some, loans were required:[**] to others the way of benevolence was
proposed: methods supported by precedent, but always invidious, even in
times more submissive and compliant. In the most absolute governments,
such expedients would be regarded as irregular and unequal.

These counsels for supply were conducted with some moderation; till news
arrived, that a great battle was fought between the king of Denmark
and Count Tilly, the imperial general; in which the former was totally
defeated. Money now more than ever, became necessary, in order to repair
so great a breach in the alliance, and to support a prince who was so
nearly allied to Charles, and who had been engaged in the war chiefly by
the intrigues, solicitations, and promises of the English monarch. After
some deliberation, an act of council was passed, importing, that as the
urgency of affairs admitted not the way of parliament, the most speedy,
equal, and convenient method of supply was by a "general loan" from the
subject, according as every man was assessed in the rolls of the last
subsidy. That precise sum was required which each would have paid, had
the vote of four subsidies passed into a law: but care was taken
to inform the people, that the sums exacted were not to be called
subsidies, but loans.[***] Had any doubt remained, whether forced loans,
however authorized by precedent, and even by statute, were a violation
of liberty, and must, by necessary consequence, render all parliaments
superfluous, this was the proper expedient for opening the eyes of the
whole nation. The example of Henry VIII., who had once, in his arbitrary
reign, practiced a like method of levying a regular supply, was
generally deemed a very insufficient authority.

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 415.

     ** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 416.

     *** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 418. Whitlocke, p. 8.

The commissioners appointed to levy these loans, among other articles
of secret instruction, 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
his allegiance, not to disclose to any one what his answer was."[*] So
violent an inquisitorial power, so impracticable an attempt at secrecy,
were the objects of indignation, and even, in some degree, of ridicule.

That religious prejudices might support civil authority, sermons were
preached by Sibthorpe and Manwaring, in favor of the general loan; and
the court industriously spread them over the kingdom. Passive obedience
was there recommended in its full extent, the whole authority of
the state was represented as belonging to the king alone, and all
limitations of law and a constitution were rejected as seditious and
impious.[**] So openly was this doctrine espoused by the court, that
Archbishop Abbot, a popular and virtuous prelate, was, because he
refused to license Sibthorpe's sermon, suspended from the exercise of
his office, banished from London, and confined to one of his country
seats.[***] Abbot's principles of liberty, and his opposition to
Buckingham, had always rendered him very ungracious at court, and had
acquired him the character of a Puritan. For it is remarkable, that
this party made the privileges of the nation as much a part of their
religion, as the church party did the prerogatives of the crown: and
nothing tended further to recommend among the people, who always take
opinions in the lump, the whole system and all the principles of the
former sect. The king soon found by fatal experience, that this
engine of religion, which with so little necessity was introduced into
politics, falling under more fortunate management, was played with the
most terrible success against him.

While the king, instigated by anger and necessity, thus employed the
whole extent of his prerogative, the spirit of the people was far from
being subdued. Throughout England, many refused these loans; some were
even active in encouraging their neighbors to insist upon their common
rights and privileges. By warrant of the council, these were thrown into
prison.[****]

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419. Franklyn, p. 207.

     ** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 422. Franklyn, p. 208.

     *** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 431.

     **** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 429. Franklyn, p. 210.

Most of them with patience submitted to confinement, or applied by
petition to the king, who commonly released them. Five gentlemen
alone, Sir Thomas Darnel, Sir John Corbet, Sir Walter Earl, Sir John
Heveningham, and Sir Edmond Hambden, had spirit enough, at their own
hazard and expense, to defend the public liberties, and to demand
releasement, not as a favor from the court, but as their due, by the
laws of their country.[*] No particular cause was assigned of their
commitment. The special command alone of the king and council was
pleaded. And it was asserted, that, by law, this was not sufficient
reason for refusing bail or releasement to the prisoners.

[Illustration: 1-623-hampden.jpg Sir Edmond Hambden]

This question was brought to a solemn trial, before the king's bench;
and the whole kingdom was attentive to the issue of a cause which was of
much greater consequence than the event of many battles.

By the debates on this subject, it appeared, beyond controversy, to the
nation, that their ancestors had been so jealous of personal liberty,
as to secure it against arbitrary power in the crown, by six[**] several
statutes, and by an article[***] of the Great Charter itself, the
most sacred foundation of the laws and constitution. But the kings of
England, who had not been able to prevent the enacting of these laws,
had sufficient authority, when the tide of liberty was spent, to
obstruct their regular execution; and they deemed it superfluous
to attempt the formal repeal of statutes which they found so many
expedients and pretences to elude.

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 458. Franklyn, p. 224. Whitlocke, p.
     8.

     ** 25 Edw. III. cap. 4. 28 Edw. III. cap, 3. 37 Edw. III.
     cap. 18 88 Edw. III. cap. 9 42 Edw. III. cap. 3. 1 Richard
     II. cap. 12.

     *** Chap. 29

Turbulent and seditious times frequently occurred, when the safety of
the people absolutely required the confinement of factious leaders;
and by the genius of the old constitution, the prince, of himself,
was accustomed to assume every branch of prerogative which was found
necessary for the preservation of public peace and of his own authority.
Expediency, at other times, would cover itself under the appearance of
necessity; and, in proportion as precedents multiplied, the will alone
of the sovereign was sufficient to supply the place of expediency, of
which he constituted himself the sole judge. In an age and nation where
the power of a turbulent nobility prevailed, and where the king had no
settled military force, the only means that could maintain public peace,
was the exertion of such prompt and discretionary powers in the crown;
and the public itself had become so sensible of the necessity, that
those ancient laws in favor of personal liberty, while often violated,
had never been challenged or revived during the course of near three
centuries. Though rebellious subjects had frequently, in the open field,
resisted the king's authority, no person had been found so bold, while
confined and at mercy, as to set himself in opposition to regal power,
and to claim the protection of the constitution against the will of
the sovereign. It was not till this age, when the spirit of liberty
was universally diffused, when the principles of government were nearly
reduced to a system, when the tempers of men, more civilized, seemed
less to require those violent exertions of prerogative, that these five
gentlemen above mentioned, by a noble effort, ventured, in this national
cause, to bring the question to a final determination. And the king was
astonished to observe, that a power exercised by his predecessors almost
without interruption, was found, upon trial, to be directly opposite to
the clearest laws, and supported by few undoubted precedents in courts
of judicature. These had scarcely in any instance refused bail upon
commitments by special command of the king, because the persons
committed had seldom or never dared to demand it, at least to insist on
their demand.

{1627.} Sir Randolf Crew, chief justice, had been displaced, as
unfit for the purposes of the court: Sir Nicholas Hyde, esteemed more
obsequious, had obtained that high office: yet the judges, by his
direction, went no further than to remand the gentlemen to prison, and
refuse the bail which was offered.[*] Heathe, the attorney-general,
insisted that the court, in imitation of the judges in the thirty-fourth
of Elizabeth,[**] should enter a general judgment, that no bail could
be granted upon a commitment by the king or council.[***] But the judges
wisely declined complying. The nation, they saw, was already to the last
degree exasperated. In the present disposition of men's minds, universal
complaints prevailed, as if the kingdom were reduced to slavery. And
the most invidious prerogative of the crown, it was said, that of
imprisoning the subject, is here openly, and solemnly, and in numerous
instances, exercised for the most invidious purpose; in order to extort
loans, or rather subsidies, without consent of parliament.

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 462.

     ** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 147.

     *** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 161.

But this was not the only hardship of which the nation thought they had
reason to complain. The army which had made the fruitless expedition to
Cadiz, was dispersed throughout the kingdom; and money was levied upon
the counties for the payment of their quarters.[*]

The soldiers were billeted upon private houses, contrary to custom,
which required that, in all ordinary cases, they should be quartered in
inns and public houses.[**]

Those who had refused or delayed the loan, were sure to be loaded with a
great number of these dangerous and disorderly guests.

Many too, of low condition, who had shown a refractory disposition, were
pressed into the service, and enlisted in the fleet or army,[***] Sir
Peter Hayman, for the same reason, was despatched on an errand to the
Palatinate.[****] Glanville, an eminent lawyer, had been obliged,
during the former interval of parliament, to accept of an office in the
navy.[v]

The soldiers, ill paid and undisciplined, committed many crimes and
outrages, and much increased the public discontents. To prevent these
disorders, martial law, so requisite to the support of discipline, was
exercised upon the soldiers. By a contradiction which is natural when
the people are exasperated, the outrages of the army were complained
of; the remedy was thought still more intolerable.[v*] Though the
expediency, if we are not rather to say the necessity, of martial law
had formerly been deemed of itself a sufficient ground for establishing
it, men, now become more jealous of liberty, and more refined reasoners
in questions of government, regarded as illegal and arbitrary every
exercise of authority which was not supported by express statute or
uninterrupted precedent.

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419.

     ** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419.

     *** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 422.

     **** Rushworth, vol i. p. 481.

     v    Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 310.

     v**  Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419. Whitlocke, p. 7.

It may safely be affirmed, that, except a few courtiers or
ecclesiastics, all men were displeased with this high exertion of
prerogative, and this new spirit of administration. Though ancient
precedents were pleaded in favor of the king's measures, a considerable
difference, upon comparison, was observed between the cases. Acts of
power, however irregular, might casually, and at intervals, be exercised
by a prince, for the sake of despatch or expediency, and yet liberty
still subsist in some tolerable degree under his administration.
But where all these were reduced into a system, were exerted without
interruption, were studiously sought for, in order to supply the
place of laws, and subdue the refractory spirit of the nation, it was
necessary to find some speedy remedy, or finally to abandon all hopes of
preserving the freedom of the constitution. Nor did moderate men esteem
the provocation which the king had received, though great, sufficient
to warrant all these violent measures. The commons as yet had nowise
invaded his authority: they had only exercised, as best pleased them,
their own privileges. Was he justifiable, because from one house of
parliament he had met with harsh and unkind treatment, to make, in
revenge, an invasion on the rights and liberties of the whole nation?

But great was at this time the surprise of all men, when Charles,
baffled in every attempt against the Austrian dominions, embroiled with
his own subjects, unsupplied with any treasure but what he extorted
by the most invidious and most dangerous measures; as if the half of
Europe, now his enemy, were not sufficient for the exercise of military
prowess; wantonly attacked France, the other great kingdom in his
neighborhood, and engaged at once in war against these two powers, whose
interests were hitherto deemed so incompatible that they could never,
it was thought, agree either in the same friendships or enmities. All
authentic memoirs, both foreign and domestic, ascribe to Buckingham's
counsels this war with France, and represent him as actuated by motives
which would appear incredible, were we not acquainted with the violence
and temerity of his character.

The three great monarchies of Europe were at this time ruled by young
princes, Philip, Louis, and Charles, who were nearly of the same
age, and who had resigned the government of themselves, and of their
kingdoms, to their creatures and ministers, Olivarez, Richelieu, and
Buckingham. The people, whom the moderate temper or narrow genius of
their princes would have allowed to remain forever in tranquillity, were
strongly agitated by the emulation and jealousy of the ministers. Above
all, the towering spirit of Richelieu, incapable of rest, promised an
active age, and gave indications of great revolutions throughout all
Europe.

This man had no sooner, by suppleness and intrigue, gotten possession of
the reins of government, than he formed at once three mighty projects;
to subdue the turbulent spirits of the great, to reduce the rebellious
Hugonots, and to curb the encroaching power of the house of Austria.
Undaunted and implacable, prudent and active, he braved all the
opposition of the French princes and nobles in the prosecution of his
vengeance; he discovered and dissipated all their secret cabals and
conspiracies. His sovereign himself he held in subjection, while
he exalted the throne. The people, while they lost their liberties,
acquired, by means of his administration, learning, order, discipline,
and renown. That confused and inaccurate genius of government, of which
France partook in common with other European kingdoms, he changed into
a simple monarchy; at the very time when the incapacity of Buckingham
encouraged the free spirit of the commons to establish in England a
regular system of liberty.

However unequal the comparison between these ministers, Buckingham had
entertained a mighty jealousy against Richelieu; a jealousy not founded
on rivalship of power and politics, but of love and gallantry; where the
duke was as much superior to the cardinal, as he was inferior in every
other particular.

At the time when Charles married by proxy the princess Henrietta,
the duke of Buckingham had been sent to France, in order to grace the
nuptials, and conduct the new queen into England. The eyes of the French
court were directed by curiosity towards that man who had enjoyed the
unlimited favor of two successive monarchs, and who, from a private
station, had mounted, in the earliest youth, to the absolute government
of three kingdoms. The beauty of his person, the gracefulness of his
air, the splendor of his equipage, his fine taste in dress, festivals,
and carousals, corresponded to the prepossessions entertained in his
favor: the affability of his behavior, the gayety of his manners,
the magnificence of his expense, increased still further the general
admiration which was paid him. All business being already concerted, the
time was entirely spent in mirth and entertainments; and during those
splendid scenes among that gay people, the duke found himself in a
situation where he was perfectly qualified to excel.[*]

     * Clarendon, vol. i. p. 38.

But his great success at Paris proved as fatal as his former failure
at Madrid. Encouraged by the smiles of the court, he dared to carry
his ambitious addresses to the queen herself; and he failed not to
make impression on a heart not undisposed to the tender passions. That
attachment at least of the mind, which appears so delicious, and is so
dangerous, seems to have been encouraged by the princess; and the
duke presumed so far on her good graces, that, after his departure, he
secretly returned upon some pretence, and, paying a visit to the queen,
was dismissed with a reproof which savored more of kindness than of
anger.[*]

Information of this correspondence was soon carried to Richelieu. The
vigilance of that minister was here further roused by jealousy. He, too,
either from vanity or politics, had ventured to pay his addresses to
the queen. But a priest, past middle age, of a severe character, and
occupied in the most extensive plans of ambition or vengeance, was
but an unequal match, in that contest, for a young courtier, entirely
disposed to gayety and gallantry. The cardinal's disappointment strongly
inclined him to counterwork the amorous projects of his rival. When the
duke was making preparations for a new embassy to Paris, a message was
sent him from Louis, that he must not think of such a journey. In a
romantic passion he swore, "That he would see the queen, in spite of
all the power of France;" and, from that moment, he determined to engage
England in a war with that kingdom.[**]

He first took advantage of some quarrels excited by the queen of
England's attendants; and he persuaded Charles to dismiss at once
all her French servants, contrary to the articles of the marriage
treaty.[***] He encouraged the English ships of war and privateers to
seize vessels belonging to French merchants; and these he forthwith
condemned as prizes, by a sentence of the court of admiralty. But
finding that all these injuries produced only remonstrances and
embassies, or at most reprisals, on the part of France, he resolved to
second the intrigues of the duke of Soubize, and to undertake at once a
military expedition against that kingdom.

     * Mémoires de Mad. de Motteville.

     ** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 38

     *** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 423, 424.

Soubize, who, with his brother, the duke of Rohan, was the leader of
the Hugonot faction, was at that time in London, and strongly solicited
Charles to embrace the protection of these distressed religionists. He
represented, that after the inhabitants of Rochelle had been repressed
by the combined squadrons of England and Holland, after peace was
concluded with the French king under Charles's mediation, the ambitious
cardinal was still meditating the destruction of the Hugonots: that
preparations were silently making in every province of France for the
suppression of their religion; that forts were erected in order to
bridle Rochelle, the most considerable bulwark of the Protestants; that
the reformed in France cast their eyes on Charles as the head of their
faith, and considered him as a prince engaged by interest, as well as
inclination, to support them; that so long as their party subsisted,
Charles might rely on their attachment as much as on that of his own
subjects; but if their liberties were once ravished from them, the power
of France, freed from this impediment, would soon become formidable to
England, and to all the neighboring nations.

Though Charles probably bore but small favor to the Hugonots, who so
much resembled the Puritans in discipline and worship, in religion
and politics, he yet allowed himself to be gained by these arguments,
enforced by the solicitations of Buckingham. A fleet of a hundred sail,
and an army of seven thousand men, were fitted out for the invasion of
France, and both of them intrusted to the command of the duke, who
was altogether unacquainted both with land and sea service. The fleet
appeared before Rochelle; but so ill concerted were Buckingham's
measures, that the inhabitants of that city shut their gates and refused
to admit allies of whose coming they were not previously informed.[*]
All his military operations showed equal incapacity and inexperience.
Instead of attacking Oleron, a fertile island, and defenceless, he bent
his course to the Isle of Rhé, which was well garrisoned and fortified:
having landed his men, though with some loss, he followed not the blow,
but allowed Toiras, the French governor, five days' respite, during
which St. Martin was victualled and provided for a siege.[**]

     * Rushworth, vol i. p. 426.

     ** Whitlocke, p. 8. Sir Philip Warwick, p. 25.

He left behind him the small fort of Prie, which could at first have
made no manner of resistance: though resolved to starve St. Martin, he
guarded the sea negligently, and allowed provisions and ammunition to
be thrown into it: despairing to reduce it by famine, he attacked it
without having made any breach, and rashly threw away the lives of
the soldiers: having found that a French army had stolen over in small
divisions, and had landed at Prie, the fort which he had at first
overlooked, he began to think of a retreat; but made it so unskilfully,
that it was equivalent to a total rout; he was the last of the army that
embarked; and he returned to England, having lost two thirds of his
land forces; totally discredited both as an admiral and a general; and
bringing no praise with him, but the vulgar one of courage and personal
bravery.

The duke of Rohan, who had taken arms as soon as Buckingham appeared
upon the coast, discovered the dangerous spirit of the sect, without
being able to do any mischief; the inhabitants of Rochelle, who had at
last been induced to join the English, hastened the vengeance of their
master, exhausted their provisions in supplying their allies, and were
threatened with an immediate siege. Such were the fruits of Buckingham's
expedition against France.





CHAPTER LI.




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.





CHAPTER LII




CHARLES I.

{1629.} There now opens to us a new scene. Charles naturally disgusted
with parliaments, who, he found, were determined to proceed against him
with unmitigated rigor, both in invading his prerogative and refusing
him all supply, resolved not to call any more, till he should see
greater indications of a compliant disposition in the nation. Having
lost his great favorite, Buckingham, he became his own minister and
never afterwards reposed in any one such unlimited confidence. As
he chiefly follows his own genius and disposition, his measures
are henceforth less rash and hasty; though the general tenor of his
administration still wants somewhat of being entirely legal, and perhaps
more of being entirely prudent.

We shall endeavor to exhibit a just idea of the events which followed
for some years, so far as they regard foreign affairs, the state of
the court, and the government of the nation. The incidents are neither
numerous nor illustrious; but the knowledge of them is necessary for
understanding the subsequent transactions which are so memorable.

Charles, destitute of all supply, was necessarily reduced to embrace a
measure which ought to have been the result of reason and sound policy:
he made peace with the two crowns against which he had hitherto waged
a war, entered into without necessity, and conducted without glory.
Notwithstanding the distracted and helpless condition of England, no
attempt was made either by France or Spain to invade their enemy nor did
they entertain any further project than to defend themselves against the
feeble and ill-concerted expeditions of that kingdom. Pleased that the
jealousies and quarrels, between king and parliament had disarmed so
formidable a power, they carefully avoided any enterprise which might
rouse either the terror or anger of the English, and dispose them to
domestic union and submission. The endeavors to regain the good will of
the nation were carried so far by the king of Spain, that he generously
released and sent home all the English prisoners taken in the expedition
against Cadiz. The example was imitated by France after the retreat of
the English from the Isle of Rhé. When princes were in such
dispositions, and had so few pretensions on each other, it could not be
difficult to conclude a peace. The treaty was first signed with
France.[*] The situation of the king's affairs did not entitle him to
demand any conditions for the Hugonots, and they were abandoned to the
will of their sovereign.

{1630.} Peace was afterwards
concluded with Spain, where no conditions were made in favor of the
palatine, except that Spain promised in general to use their good
offices for his restoration.[**] The influence of these two wars on
domestic affairs, and on the dispositions of king and people, was of the
utmost consequence; but no alteration was made by them on the foreign
interests of the kingdom.

     * Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 23, 24.

     ** Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 75. Whitlocke, p. 14.

Nothing more happy can be imagined than the situation in which England
then stood with regard to foreign affairs. Europe was divided between
the rival families of Bourbon and Austria, whose opposite interests, and
still more, their mutual jealousies, secured the tranquillity of this
island. Their forces were so nearly counterpoised, that no apprehensions
were entertained of any event which could suddenly disturb the balance
of power between them. The Spanish monarch, deemed the most powerful,
lay at greatest distance; and the English, by that means, possessed the
advantage of being engaged by political motives into a more intimate
union and confederacy with the neighboring potentate. The dispersed
situation of the Spanish dominions rendered the naval power of England
formidable to them, and kept that empire in continual dependence. France,
more vigorous and more compact, was every day rising in policy and
discipline; and reached at last an equality of power with the house of
Austria; but her progress, slow and gradual, left it still in the power
of England, by a timely interposition, to check her superiority.
And thus Charles, could he have avoided all dissensions with his own
subjects, was in a situation to make himself be courted and respected by
every power in Europe; and, what has scarcely ever since been attained
by the princes of this island, he could either be active with dignity,
or neutral with security.

A neutrality was embraced by the king; and during the rest of his reign,
he seems to have little regarded foreign affairs, except so far as he
was engaged by honor and by friendship for his sister and the palatine,
to endeavor the procuring of some relief for that unhappy family. He
joined his good offices to those of France, and mediated a peace between
the kings of Sweden and Poland, in hopes of engaging the former to
embrace the protection of the oppressed Protestants in the empire. This
was the famed Gustavus, whose heroic genius, seconded by the wisest
policy, made him in a little time the most distinguished monarch of the
age, and rendered his country, formerly unknown and neglected, of great
weight in the balance of Europe. To encourage and assist him in his
projected invasion of Germany, Charles agreed to furnish him with six
thousand men; but, that he might preserve the appearance of neutrality,
he made use of the marquis of Hamilton's name.[*]

     * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 46, 53, 62. 83.

That nobleman entered into an engagement with Gustavus; and enlisting
these troops in England and Scotland, at Charles's expense, he landed
them in the Elbe. The decisive battle of Leipsic was fought soon after,
where the conduct of Tilly and the valor of the imperialists were
overcome by the superior conduct of Gustavus and the superior valor of
the Swedes. What remained of this hero's life was one continued series
of victory, for which he was less beholden to fortune than to those
personal endowments which he derived from nature and from industry. That
rapid progress of conquest which we so much admire in ancient history,
was here renewed in modern annals; and without that cause to which,
in former ages, it had ever been owing. Military nations were not now
engaged against an undisciplined and unwarlike people; nor heroes set in
opposition to cowards. The veteran troops of Ferdinand, conducted by the
most celebrated generals of the age, were foiled in every encounter; and
all Germany was overrun in an instant by the victorious Swede. But by
this extraordinary and unexpected success of his ally, Charles failed
of the purpose for which he framed the alliance. Gustavus, elated by
prosperity, began to form more extensive plans of ambition; and in
freeing Germany from the yoke of Ferdinand, he intended to reduce it
to subjection under his own. He refused to restore the palatine to his
principality, except on conditions which would have kept him in total
dependence.[*] And thus the negotiation was protracted, till the battle
of Lutzen, where the Swedish monarch perished in the midst of a complete
victory which he obtained over his enemies.

We have carried on these transactions a few years beyond the present
period, that we might not be obliged to return to them, nor be
henceforth interrupted in our account of Charles's court and kingdoms.

     * Franklyn, vol. i. p. 415.

When we consider Charles as presiding in his court, as associating
with his family, it is difficult to imagine a character at once more
respectable and more amiable. A kind husband, an indulgent father, a
gentle master, a steadfast friend; to all these eulogies his conduct
in private life fully entitled him. As a monarch too, in the exterior
qualities, he excelled; in the essential, he was not defective.
His address and manner, though perhaps inclining a little towards
stateliness and formality, in the main corresponded to his high rank,
and gave grace to that reserve and gravity which were natural to him.
The moderation and equity which shone forth in his temper seemed to
secure him against rash and dangerous enterprises: the good sense which
he displayed in his discourse and conversation, seemed to warrant his
success in every reasonable undertaking. Other endowments likewise he
had attained, which, in a private gentleman, would have been highly
ornamental, and which, in a great monarch, might have proved extremely
useful to his people. He was possessed of an excellent taste in all
the fine arts; and the love of painting was in some degree his favorite
passion. Learned beyond what is common in princes, he was a good judge
of writing in others, and enjoyed himself no mean talent in composition.
In any other age or nation, this monarch had been secure of a prosperous
and a happy reign. But the high idea of his own authority which he had
imbibed, made him incapable of giving way to the spirit of liberty which
began to prevail among his subjects. His politics were not supported
by such vigor and foresight as might enable him to subdue their
pretensions, and maintain his prerogative at the high pitch to which
it had been raised by his predecessors. And, above all, the spirit of
enthusiasm, being universally diffused, disappointed all the views
of human prudence, and disturbed the operation of every motive which
usually influences society.

 But the misfortunes arising from these
causes were yet remote. Charles now enjoyed himself in the full
exercise of his authority, in a social intercourse with his friends
and courtiers, and in a moderate use of those pleasures which he most
affected.

After the death of Buckingham, who had somewhat alienated Charles from
the queen, she is to be considered as his chief friend and favorite.
That rustic contempt of the fair sex which James affected, and which,
banishing them from his court, made it resemble more a fair or
an exchange than the seat of a great prince, was very wide of the
disposition of this monarch. But though full of complaisance to the
whole sex, Charles reserved all his passion for his consort, to whom he
attached himself with unshaken fidelity and confidence. By her sense
and spirit, as well as by her beauty, she justified the fondness of
her husband; though it is allowed that, being somewhat of a passionate
temper, she precipitated him into hasty and imprudent measures. Her
religion likewise, to which she was much addicted, must be regarded as
a great misfortune; since it augmented the jealousy which prevailed
against the court, and engaged her to procure for the Catholics some
indulgences which were generally distasteful to the nation.[*]

In the former situation of the English government, when the sovereign
was in a great measure independent of his subjects, the king chose
his ministers either from personal favor, or from an opinion of their
abilities, without any regard to their parliamentary interest or
talents. It has since been the maxim of princes, wherever popular
leaders encroach too much on royal authority, to confer offices on them,
in expectation that they will afterwards become more careful not to
diminish that power which has become their own. These politics were now
embraced by Charles; a sure proof that a secret revolution had happened
in the constitution, and had necessitated the prince to adopt new maxims
of government.[**]

     * May, p 21.

     ** Sir Edw. Walker, p. 328.

But the views of the king were at this time so repugnant to those of
the Puritans, that the leaders whom he gained, lost from that moment
all interest with their party, and were even pursued as traitors with
implacable hatred and resentment. This was the case with Sir Thomas
Wentworth, whom the king created, first a baron, then a viscount, and
afterwards earl of Strafford; made him president of the council of
York, and deputy of Ireland; and regarded him as his chief minister and
counsellor. By his eminent talents and abilities, Strafford merited
all the confidence which his master reposed in him: his character
was stately and austere; more fitted to procure esteem than love:
his fidelity to the king was unshaken; but as he now employed all his
counsels to support the prerogative, which he had formerly bent all his
endeavors to diminish his virtue seems not to have been entirely pure,
but to have been susceptible of strong impressions from private interest
and ambition. Sir Dudley Digges was about the same time created master
of the rolls; Noy, attorney-general; Littleton, solicitor-general. All
these had likewise been parliamentary leaders, and were men eminent in
their profession.[*]

     * Whitlocke, p. 13. May, p. 20.

[Illustration: 1-647-strafford.jpg EARL OF STRAFFORD]

In all ecclesiastical affairs, and even in many civil, Laud, bishop of
London, had great influence over the king. This man was virtuous, if
severity of manners alone, and abstinence from pleasure, could deserve
that name. He was learned, if polemical knowledge could entitle him
to that praise. He was disinterested; but with unceasing industry he
studied to exalt the priestly and prelatical character, which was his
own. His zeal was unrelenting in the cause of religion; that is, in
imposing by rigorous measures his own tenets and pious ceremonies on
the obstinate Puritans, who had profanely dared to oppose him.
In prosecution of his holy purposes, he overlooked every human
consideration; or, in other words, the heat and indiscretion of his
temper made him neglect the views of prudence and rules of good manners.
He was in this respect happy, that all his enemies were also imagined
by him the declared enemies to loyalty and true piety, and that every
exercise of his anger by that means became in his eyes a merit and
a virtue. This was the man who acquired so great an ascendant over
Charles, and who led him, by the facility of his temper, into a conduct
which proved so fatal to himself and to his kingdoms.

The humor of the nation ran at that time into the extreme opposite to
superstition; and it was with difficulty that the ancient ceremonies
to which men had been accustomed, and which had been sanctified by the
practice of the first reformers, could be retained in divine service:
yet was this the time which Laud chose for the introduction of new
ceremonies and observances. Besides that these were sure to displease
as innovations, there lay, in the opinion of the public, another very
forcible objection against them. Laud, and the other prelates who
embraced his measures, were generally well instructed in sacred
antiquity, and had adopted many of those religious sentiments which
prevailed during the fourth and fifth centuries; when the Christian
church, as is well known, was already sunk into those superstitions
which were afterwards continued and augmented by the policy of Rome. The
revival, therefore, of the ideas and practices of that age, could not
fail of giving the English faith and liturgy some resemblance to the
Catholic superstition, which the kingdom in general, and the Puritans in
particular, held in the greatest horror and detestation. Men also were
apt to think, that, without some secret purpose, such insignificant
observances would not be imposed with such unrelenting zeal on the
refractory nation; and that Laud's scheme was, to lead back the English
by gradual steps to the religion of their ancestors. They considered
not, that the very insignificancy of these ceremonies recommended them
to the superstitious prelate, and made them appear the more peculiarly
sacred and religious, as they could serve to no other purpose. Nor was
the resemblance to the Romish ritual any objection, but rather a merit
with Laud and his brethren; who bore a much greater kindness to
the mother church, as they called her, than to the sectaries and
Presbyterians, and frequently recommended her as a true Christian
church; an appellation which they refused, or at least scrupled to give
to the others.[*] So openly were these tenets espoused, that not only
the discontented Puritans believed the church of England to be relapsing
fast into Romish superstition: the court of Rome itself entertained
hopes of regaining its authority in this island; and, in order to
forward Laud's supposed good intentions, an offer was twice made him in
private of a cardinal's hat, which he declined accepting.[**] His answer
was, as he says himself, "That something dwelt within him, which would
not suffer his compliance, till Rome were other than it is."[***]

     * May, p. 25.

     ** Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 190. Welwood, p. 61.

     *** Rushworth, vol. iii. p. 1327. Whitlocke, p. 97.

A court lady, daughter of the earl of Devonshire, having turned
Catholic, was asked by Laud the reason of her conversion: "'Tis
chiefly," said she, "because I hate to travel in a crowd." The meaning
of this expression being demanded, she replied, "I perceive your grace
and many others are making haste to Rome; and therefore, in order to
prevent my being crowded, I have gone before you." It must be confessed,
that though Laud deserved not the appellation of Papist, the genius of
his religion was, though in a less degree, the same with that of
the Romish: the same profound respect was exacted to the sacerdotal
character, the same submission required to the creeds and decrees of
synods and councils; the same pomp and ceremony was affected in
worship; and the same superstitious regard to days, postures, meats, and
vestments. No wonder, therefore, that this prelate was every where among
the Puritans regarded with horror, as the forerunner of Antichrist.

As a specimen of the new ceremonies to which Laud sacrificed his own
quiet and that of the nation, it may not be amiss to relate those which
he was accused of employing in the consecration of St. Catharine's
church, and which were the object of such general scandal and offence.

On the bishop's approach to the west door of the church, a loud voice
cried, "Open, open, ye everlasting doors, that the king of glory may
enter in!" Immediately the doors of the church flew open, and the bishop
entered. Falling upon his knees, with eyes elevated and arms expanded,
he uttered these words: "This place is holy; the ground is holy: in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I pronounce it holy."

Going towards the chancel, he several times took up from the floor
some of the dust, and threw it in the air. When he approached, with his
attendants, near to the communion table, he bowed frequently towards
it; and on their return, they went round the church, repeating, as they
marched along, some of the psalms; and then said a form of prayer, which
concluded with these words: "We consecrate this church, and separate it
unto thee as holy ground, not to be profaned any more to common uses."

After this, the bishop, standing near the communion table solemnly
pronounced many imprecations upon such as should afterwards pollute that
holy place by musters of soldiers, or keeping in it profane law-courts,
or carrying burdens through it. On the conclusion of every curse, he
bowed towards the east, and cried, "Let all the people say, Amen."

The imprecations being all so piously finished, there were poured out
a number of blessings upon such as had any hand in framing and building
that sacred and beautiful edifice, and on such as had given, or should
hereafter give to it, any chalices, plate, ornaments, or utensils. At
every benediction he in like manner bowed towards the east, and cried,
"Let all the people say, Amen."

The sermon followed; after which the bishop consecrated and administered
the sacrament in the following manner.

As he approached the communion table, he made many lowly reverences;
and coming up to that part of the table where the bread and wine lay, he
bowed seven times. After the reading of many prayers, he approached the
sacramental elements, and gently lifted up the corner of the napkin in
which the bread was placed. When he beheld the bread, he suddenly let
fall the napkin, flew back a step or two, bowed three several times
towards the bread; then he drew nigh again, opened the napkin, and bowed
as before.

Next he laid his hand on the cup, which had a cover upon it, and was
filled with wine. He let go the cup, fell back, and bowed thrice towards
it. He approached again; and lifting op the cover, peeped into the
cup. Seeing the wine, he let fall the cover, started back, and bowed as
before. Then he received the sacrament, and gave it to others. And many
prayers being said, the solemnity of the consecration ended. The walls,
and floor, and roof of the fabric were then supposed to be sufficiently
holy.[*]

Orders were given, and rigorously insisted on, that the communion table
should be removed from the middle of the area where it hitherto stood in
all churches, except in cathedrals.[**] It was placed at the east end,
railed in, and denominated an "altar;" as the clergyman who officiated
received commonly the appellation of "priest." It is not easy to imagine
the discontents excited by this innovation, and the suspicions which it
gave rise to.

     * Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 76, 77. Welwood, p. 275. Franklyn,
     p. 386.

     ** Rushworth, vol ii. p. 207. Whitlocke, p. 24.

The kneeling at the altar, and the using of copes, a species of
embroidered vestment, in administering the sacrament, were also known
to be great objects of scandal, as being Popish practices; but the
opposition rather increased than abated the zeal of the prelate for the
introduction of these habits and ceremonies.

All kinds of ornament, especially pictures, were necessary for
supporting that mechanical devotion which was purposed to be raised in
this model of religion: but as these had been so much employed by the
church of Rome, and had given rise to so much superstition, or what
the Puritans called idolatry it was impossible to introduce them into
English churches without exciting general murmurs and complaints. But
Laud possessed of present authority, persisted in his purpose, and made
several attempts towards acquiring these ornaments. Some of the pictures
introduced by him were also found, upon inquiry, to be the very same
that might be met with in the mass-book. The crucifix too, that eternal
consolation of all pious Catholics, and terror to all sound Protestants,
was not forgotten on this occasion.[*]

It was much remarked, that Sheffield, the recorder of Salisbury, was
tried in the star chamber, for having broken, contrary to the bishop of
Salisbury's express injunctions, a painted window of St. Edmond's
church in that city. He boasted that he had destroyed these monuments
of idolatry: but for this effort of his zeal, he was fined five
hundred pounds, removed from his office, condemned to make a public
acknowledgment, and be bound to his good behavior.[**]

Not only such of the clergy as neglected to observe every ceremony were
suspended and deprived by the high commission court: oaths were, by many
of the bishops, imposed or the churchwardens; and they were sworn
to inform against any one who acted contrary to the ecclesiastical
canons.[***] Such a measure, though practised during the reign of
Elizabeth, gave much offence, as resembling too nearly the practice of
the Romish inquisition.

To show the greater alienation from the churches reformed after the
Presbyterian model, Laud advised that the discipline and worship of the
church should be imposed on the English regiments and trading companies
abroad.[****] All foreigners of the Dutch and Walloon congregations were
commanded to attend the established church; and indulgence was granted
to none after the children of the first denizens.[v]

     * Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 272, 273.

     ** Rushworth, Vol. ii. p. 152. State Trials, vol. v. p 46.
     Franklyn, p. 410, 411, 412.

     *** Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 186.

     **** Rushworth, vol, ii. p. 249. Franklyn, p. 451.

     v    Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 272

Scudamore, too, the king's ambassador at Paris, had orders to withdraw
himself from the communion of the Hugonots. Even men of sense were apt
to blame this conduct, not only because it gave offence in England, but
because, in foreign countries, it lost the crown the advantage of being
considered as the head and support of the reformation.[*]

On pretence of pacifying disputes, orders were issued from the council,
forbidding on both sides all preaching and printing with regard to
the controverted points of predestination and free will. But it was
complained of, and probably with reason that the impartiality was
altogether confined to the orders, and that the execution of them was
only meant against the Calvinists.

In return for Charles's indulgence towards the church, Laud and his
followers took care to magnify, on every occasion, the regal authority,
and to treat with the utmost disdain or detestation all Puritanical
pretensions to a free and independent constitution. But while these
prelates were so liberal in raising the crown at the expense of public
liberty, they made no scruple of encroaching, themselves, on the royal
rights the most incontestable, in order to exalt the hierarchy, and
procure to their own order dominion and independence. All the doctrines
which the Romish church had borrowed from some of the fathers, and which
freed the spiritual from subordination to the civil power, were now
adopted by the church of England, and interwoven with her political
and religious tenets. A divine and apostolical charter was insisted on,
preferably to a legal and parliamentary one.[**]

     * State Papers collected by the earl of Clarendon, p 338.

     ** Whitlocke, p. 22.

The sacerdotal character was magnified as sacred and indefeasible: all
right to spiritual authority, or even to private judgment in spiritual
subjects, was refused to profane laymen: ecclesiastical courts were held
by the bishops in their own name, without any notice taken of the king's
authority: and Charles, though extremely jealous of every claim in
popular assemblies, seemed rather to encourage than repress those
encroachments of his clergy. Having felt many sensible inconveniencies
from the independent spirit of parliaments, he attached himself entirely
to those who professed a devoted obedience to his crown and person;
nor did he foresee, that the ecclesiastical power which he exalted, not
admitting of any precise boundary, might in time become more dangerous
to public peace, and no less fatal to royal prerogative, than the other.

So early as the coronation, Laud was the person, according to general
opinion, that introduced a novelty which, though overlooked by Charles,
made a deep impression on many of the bystanders. After the usual
ceremonies, these words were recited to the king: "Stand and hold fast,
from henceforth the place to which you have been heir by the succession
of your forefathers, being now delivered to you by the authority of
Almighty God, and by the hands of us and all the bishops and servants of
God. And, as you see the clergy to come nearer the altar than others,
so remember that, in all places convenient, you give them greater honor;
that the Mediator of God and man may establish you on the kingly throne,
to be a mediator betwixt the clergy and the laity; and that you may
reign forever with Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords."
[*]

The principles which exalted prerogative, were not entertained by the
king merely as soft and agreeable to his royal ears; they were also put
in practice during the time that he ruled without parliaments. Though
frugal and regular in his expense, he wanted money for the support of
government; and he levied it, either by the revival of obsolete laws, or
by violations, some more open, some more disguised, of the privileges of
the nation. Though humane and gentle in his temper, he gave way to a
few severities in the star chamber and high commission, which seemed
necessary in order to support the present mode of administration, and
repress the rising spirit of liberty throughout the kingdom. Under these
two heads may be reduced all the remarkable transactions of this reign
during some years; for, in peaceable and prosperous times, where
a neutrality in foreign affairs is observed, scarcely any thing is
remarkable, but what is in some degree blamed or blamable. And, lest the
hope of relief or protection from parliament might encourage opposition,
Charles issued a proclamation, in which he declared, "That whereas, for
several ill ends, the calling again of a parliament is divulged; though
his majesty has shown, by frequent meetings with his people, his love to
the use of parliaments: yet the late abuse having for the present driven
him unwillingly out of that course; he will account it presumption
for anyone to prescribe to him any time for the calling of that
assembly."[**]

     * Franklyn, p. 114. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 201.

     ** Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 389. Rush. vol. ii. p. 3.

This was generally construed as a declaration, that during this reign no
more parliaments were intended to be summoned.[*] And every measure of
the king's confirmed a suspicion so disagreeable to the generality of
the people.

Tonnage and poundage continued to be levied by the royal authority
alone. The former additional impositions were still exacted. Even new
impositions were laid on several kinds of merchandise.[**]

The custom-house officers received orders from the council to enter into
any house, warehouse, or cellar; to search any trunk or chest; and to
break any bulk whatever; in default of the payment of customs.[***]

In order to exercise the militia, and to keep them in good order, each
county, by an edict of the council, was assessed in a certain sum, for
maintaining a muster-master, appointed for that service.[****]

Compositions were openly made with recusants, and the Popish religion
became a regular part of the revenue. This was all the persecution which
it underwent during the reign of Charles.[v]

A commission was granted for compounding with such as were possessed of
crown lands upon defective titles; and on this pretence some money was
exacted from the people.[v*]

There was a law of Edward II.,[v**] that whoever was possessed of twenty
pounds a year in land, should be obliged, when summoned, to appear and
to receive the order of knighthood. Twenty pounds at that time, partly
by the change of denomination, partly by that in the value of money,
were equivalent to two hundred in the seventeenth century; and it seemed
just that the king should not strictly insist on the letter of the law,
and oblige people of so small revenue to accept of that expensive honor.
Edward VI,[v***] and Queen Elizabeth,[v****] who had both of them made
use of this expedient for raising money, had summoned only those who
were possessed of forty pounds a year and upwards to receive knighthood,
or compound for their neglect; and Charles imitated their example, in
granting the same indulgence.

     * Clarendon, vol. i. p. 4. May, p. 14.

     ** Rush. vol. ii. p. 8. May, p. 16.

     *** Rush. vol. ii. p. 9.

     **** Rush. vol. ii. p. 10.

     v     Rush. vol. ii. p. 11, 12, 13, 247.

     v*    Rush. vol. ii: p. 49.

     v**   Statutum de militibus.

     v***  Rymer, tom. xv. p. 124.

     v**** Rymer, tom. xv. p. 493, 504.

Commissioners were appointed for fixing the rates of composition; and
instructions were given to these commissioners not to accept of a less
sum than would have been due by the party upon a tax of three subsidies
and a half.[*] Nothing proves more plainly how ill disposed the people
were to the measures of the crown, than to observe that they loudly
complained of an expedient founded on positive statute, and warranted
by such recent precedents. The law was pretended to be obsolete; though
only one reign had intervened since the last execution of it.

Barnard, lecturer of St. Sepulchre's, London, used this expression in
his prayer before sermon: "Lord, open the eyes of the queen's majesty,
that she may see Jesus Christ, whom she has pierced with her infidelity,
superstition, and idolatry." He was questioned in the high commission
court for this insult on the queen; but, upon his submission,
dismissed.[**] Leighton, who had written libels against the king, the
queen, the bishops, and the whole administration, was condemned by
a very severe, if not a cruel sentence; but the execution of it was
suspended for some time, in expectation of his submission.[***] All
the severities, indeed, of this reign were exercised against those
who triumphed in their sufferings, who courted persecution, and braved
authority; and on that account their punishment may be deemed the more
just, but the less prudent. To have neglected them entirely, had it been
consistent with order and public safety, had been the wisest measure
that could have been embraced; as perhaps it had been the most severe
punishment that could have been inflicted on these zealots.

{1631.} In order to gratify the clergy with a magnificent fabric,
subscriptions were set on foot for repairing and rebuilding St. Paul's;
and the king, by his countenance and example, encouraged this laudable
undertaking.[****] By order of the privy council, St. Gregory's
church was removed, as an impediment to the project of extending and
beautifying the cathedral. Some houses and shops likewise were pulled
down, and compensation was made to the owners.[v]

     * Rush. vol. ii. p. 70, 71, 72. May, p. 16.

     ** Rush vol. ii. p. 32.

     *** Kennets Complete Hist. vol. iii. p. 60. Whitlocke, p.
     15.

     **** Whitlocke, p. 17.

     v    Rush. vol. ii. p. 88, 89, 90, 207, 462 718.

As there was no immediate prospect of assembling a parliament, such acts
of power in the king became necessary; and in no former age would the
people have entertained any scruple with regard to them. It must be
remarked, that the Puritans were extremely averse to the raising of
this ornament to the capital. It savored, as they pretended, of Popish
superstition.

A stamp duty was imposed on cards; a new tax, which of itself was liable
to no objection, but appeared of dangerous consequence when considered
as arbitrary and illegal.[*]

Monopolies were revived; an oppressive method of levying money, being
unlimited, as well as destructive of industry. The last parliament of
James, which abolished monopolies, had left an equitable exception in
favor of new inventions; and on pretence of these, and of erecting
new companies and corporations, was this grievance now renewed. The
manufacture of soap was given to a company who paid a sum for their
patent.[**] Leather, salt, and many other commodities, even down to
linen rags, were likewise put under restrictions.

It is affirmed by Clarendon, that so little benefit was reaped from
these projects, that of two hundred thousand pounds thereby levied on
the people, scarcely one thousand five hundred came into the king's
coffers. Though we ought not to suspect the noble historian of
exaggerations to the disadvantage of Charles's measures, this fact, it
must be owned, appears somewhat incredible. The same author adds, that
the king's intention was to teach his subjects how unthrifty a thing it
was to refuse reasonable supplies to the crown: an imprudent project:
to offend a whole nation under the view of punishment: and to hope
by acts of violence to break their refractory spirits, without being
possessed of any force to prevent resistance.

{1632.} The council of York had been first erected, after a rebellion,
by a patent from Henry VIII., without any authority of parliament; and
this exercise cf power, like many others, was indulged to that arbitrary
monarch. This council had long acted chiefly as a criminal court; but,
besides some innovations introduced by James, Charles thought proper
some time after Wentworth was made president, to extend its powers,
and to give it a large civil jurisdiction, and that in some respects
discretionary.[***]

     * Rush. vol. ii. p. 103.

     ** Rush. vol. ii. p. 136, 142, 189, 252.

     *** Rush. vol. ii. p, 158, 159, etc. Franklyn, p. 412.

It is not improbable, that the king's intention was only to prevent
inconveniencies, which arose from the bringing of every cause, from
the most distant parts of the kingdom, into Westminster Hall: but the
consequence, in the mean time, of this measure, was the putting of
all the northern counties out of the protection of ordinary law, and
subjecting them to an authority somewhat arbitrary. Some irregular acts
of that council were this year complained of.[*]

{1633.} The court of star chamber extended its authority; and it was
matter of complaint that it encroached upon the jurisdiction of the
other courts; imposing heavy fines and inflicting severe punishment,
beyond the usual course of justice. Sir David Foulis was fined
five thousand pounds, chiefly because he had dissuaded a friend
from compounding with the commissioners of knighthood.[**]

     * Rush. vol. ii. p. 202, 203.

     ** Rush, vol. ii. p. 215, 216, etc.

Prynne, a barrister of Lincoln's Inn, had written an enormous quarto of
a thousand pages, which he called Histrio-Mastyx. Its professed purpose
was to decry stage-plays, comedies, interludes, music, dancing; but
the author likewise took occasion to declaim against hunting, public
festivals, Christmas-keeping, bonfires, and may-poles. His zeal against
all these levities, he says, was first moved by observing that plays
sold better than the choicest sermons, and that they were frequently
printed on finer paper than the Bible itself. Besides, that the players
were often Papists, and desperately wicked; the play-houses, he affirms,
are Satan's chapels; the play-haunters little better than incarnate
devils; and so many steps in a dance, so many paces to hell. The chief
crime of Nero, he represents to have been his frequenting and acting of
plays; and those who nobly conspired his death, were principally moved
to it, as he affirms, by their indignation at that enormity. The rest of
his thousand pages is of a like strain. He had obtained a license from
Archbishop Abbot's chaplain; yet was he indicted in the star chamber as
a libeller. It was thought somewhat hard that general invectives against
plays should be interpreted into satires against the king and queen,
merely because they frequented these amusements, and because the
queen sometimes acted a part in pastorals and interludes which were
represented at court. The author, it must be owned, had, in plainer
terms, blamed the hierarchy, the ceremonies, the innovations in
religious worship, and the new superstitions introduced by Laud;[*]
and this, probably, together with the obstinacy and petulance of his
behavior before the star chamber, was the reason why his sentence was so
severe. He was condemned to be put from the bar; to stand on the pillory
in two places, Westminster and Cheapside; to lose both his ears, one
in each place; to pay five thousand pounds' fine to the king; and to be
imprisoned during life.[**]

This same Prynne was a great hero among the Puritans; and it was
chiefly with a view of mortifying that sect, that though of an honorable
profession, he was condemned by the star chamber to so ignominious a
punishment. The thorough-paced Puritans were distinguishable by the
sourness and austerity of their manners, and by their aversion to
all pleasure and society.[***] To inspire them with better humor was
certainly, both for their own sake and that of the public, a laudable
intention in the court; but whether pillories, fines and prisons were
proper expedients for that purpose, may admit of some question.

Another expedient which the king tried, in order to infuse cheerfulness
into the national devotion, was not much more successful. He renewed his
father's edict for allowing sports and recreations on Sunday to such
as attended public worship; and he ordered his proclamation for that
purpose to be publicly read by the clergy after divine service.[****]
Those who were Puritanically affected refused obedience, and were
punished by suspension or deprivation. The differences between the
sects were before sufficiently great; nor was it necessary to widen them
further by these inventions.

Some encouragement and protection which the king and the bishops gave
to wakes, church ales, bride ales, and other cheerful festivals of the
common people, were the objects of like scandal to the Puritans.[v]

     * Rush. vol. ii. p. 223.

     ** Rush. vol. ii. p. 220, 221, etc.

     *** Dugdale, p. 2.

     **** Rush, vol. ii. p. 193, 459. Whitlocke, p. 16, 17.
     Franklyn, p. 431*.

     v    Rush. vol. ii. p. 191, 192. May, p. 2.

The music in the churches he affirmed not to be the noise of men, but a
bleating of brute beasts; choristers bellow the tenor, as it were oxen;
bark a counterpart, as it were a kennel of dogs; roar out a treble, as
it were a sort of bulls; and grunt out a bass, as it were a number of
hogs: Christmas, as it is kept, is the devil's Christmas: and Prynne
employed a great number of pages to persuade men to affect the name
of "Puritan," as if Christ had been a Puritan; and so he saith in his
index.

This year, Charles made a journey to Scotland, attended by the court,
in order to hold a parliament there, and to pass through the ceremony of
his coronation. The nobility and gentry of both kingdoms rivalled each
other in expressing all duty and respect to the king, and in showing
mutual friendship and regard to each other. No one could have suspected,
from exterior appearances, that such dreadful scenes were approaching.

One chief article of business, (for it deserves the name,) which the
king transacted in this parliament, was, besides obtaining some supply,
to procure authority for ordering the habits of clergymen.[*] The act
did not pass without opposition and difficulty. The dreadful surplice
was before men's eyes, and they apprehended, with some reason, that
under sanction of this law, it would soon be introduced among them.
Though the king believed that his prerogative entitled him to a power,
in general, of directing whatever belonged to the exterior government
of the church, this was deemed a matter of too great importance to be
ordered without the sanction of a particular statute.

Immediately after the king's return to England, he heard of Archbishop
Abbot's death; and, without delay, he conferred that dignity on his
favorite, Laud; who, by this accession of authority, was now enabled to
maintain ecclesiastical discipline with greater rigor, and to aggravate
the general discontent of the nation.

Laud obtained the bishopric of London for his friend Juxon: and, about
a year after the death of Sir Richard Weston, created earl of Portland,
had interest enough to engage the king to make that prelate high
treasurer. Juxon was a person of great integrity, mildness, and
humanity, and endued with a good understanding.[**] Yet did this last
promotion give general offence. His birth and character were deemed too
obscure for a man raised to one of the highest offices of the crown.
And the clergy, it was thought, were already too much elated by former
instances of the king's attachment to them, and needed not this further
encouragement to assume dominion over the laity.[***] The Puritans,
likewise, were much dissatisfied with Juxon, notwithstanding his eminent
virtues, because he was a lover of profane field sports and hunting.

     * Bushworth, vol. ii. p. 183.

     ** Whitlocke, p. 23. Clarendon, vol. i. p. 99.

     *** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 97. May, p. 23.

{1634.} Ship money was now introduced. The first writs of this kind had
been directed to seaport towns only: but ship money was at this time
levied on the whole kingdom; and each county was rated at a particular
sum, which was after wards assessed upon individuals.[*] The amount of
the whole tax was very moderate, little exceeding two hundred thousand
pounds: it was levied upon the people with equality: the money was
entirely expended on the navy, to the great honor and advantage of the
kingdom: as England had no military force, while all the other powers of
Europe were strongly armed, a fleet seemed absolutely necessary for her
security; and it was obvious, that a navy must be built and equipped at
leisure, during peace; nor could it possibly be fitted out on a sudden
emergence, when the danger became urgent; yet all these considerations
could not reconcile the people to the imposition. It was entirely
arbitrary: by the same right any other tax might be imposed: and men
thought a powerful fleet, though very desirable both for the credit and
safety of the kingdom, but an unequal recompense for their liberties,
which, they apprehended, were thus sacrificed to the obtaining of it.

England, it must be owned, was in this respect unhappy in its present
situation, that the king had entertained a very different idea of the
constitution, from that which began in general to prevail among his
subjects. He did not regard national privileges as so sacred and
inviolable, that nothing but the most extreme necessity could justify an
infringement of them. He considered himself as the supreme magistrate,
to whose care Heaven, by his birthright, had committed his people; whose
duty it was to provide for their security and happiness, and who was
vested with ample discretionary powers for that salutary purpose. If the
observance of ancient laws and customs was consistent with the present
convenience of government, he thought himself obliged to comply with
that rule, as the easiest, the safest, and what procured the most prompt
and willing obedience. But when a change of circumstances, especially
if derived from the obstinacy of the people, required a new plan of
administration, national privileges, he thought, must yield to supreme
power; nor could any order of the state oppose any right to the will of
the sovereign, directed to the good of the public.[**]

     * Rush. vol. ii. p. 257, 258, etc.

     ** Rush. vol. iv p 535, 542.

That these principles of government were derived from the uniform tenor
of the English laws, it would be rash to affirm. The fluctuating nature
of the constitution, the impatient humor of the people, and the variety
of events, had, no doubt, in different ages, produced exceptions and
contradictions. These observations alone may be established on both
sides, that the appearances were sufficiently strong in favor of the
king to apologize for his following such maxims; and that public liberty
must be so precarious under this exorbitant prerogative, as to render an
opposition not only excusable, but laudable in the people.[*] [4]

Some laws had been enacted, during the reign of Henry VII., against
depopulation, or the converting of arable lands into pasture. By a
decree of the star chamber, Sir Anthony Roper was fined four thousand
pounds for an offence of that nature.[**] This severe sentence was
intended to terrify others into composition; and above thirty thousand
pounds were levied by that expedient.[***] Like compositions, or, in
default of them, heavy fines, were required for encroachments on the
king's forests, whose bounds, by decrees deemed arbitrary, were extended
much beyond what was usual.[****] The bounds of one forest, that
of Rockingham, were increased from six miles to sixty.[v] The same
refractory humor which made the people refuse to the king voluntary
supplies, disposed them, with better reason, to murmur against these
irregular methods of taxation.

Morley was fined ten thousand pounds for reviling, challenging, and
striking, in the court of Whitehall, Sir George Theobald, one of the
king's servants.[v*] This fine was thought exorbitant; but whether it
was compounded, as was usual in fines imposed by the star chamber, we
are not informed.

     * See note D, at the end of the volume.

     ** Rush. vol. ii. p. 270; vol. iii. App. p. 106.

     *** Rush. vol. iii. p. 333. Franklyn, p. 478.

     **** May, p. 16.

     v Strafford's Letters and Despatches, vol. ii. p. 117.

     v* Rush. vol. ii. p. 270.

Allison had reported, that the archbishop of York had incurred the
king's displeasure, by asking a limited toleration for the Catholics,
and an allowance to build some churches for the exercise of their
religion. For this slander against the archbishop, he was condemned in
the star chamber to be fined one thousand pounds, to be committed to
prison, to be bound to his good behavior during life, to be whipped,
and to be set on the pillory at Westminster, and in three other towns in
England. Robins, who had been an accomplice in the guilt, was condemned
by a sentence equally severe.[*] Such events are rather to be considered
as rare and detached incidents, collected by the severe scrutiny of
historians, than as proofs of the prevailing genius of the king's
administration which seems to have been more gentle and equitable than,
that of most of his predecessors: there were, on the whole, only five
or six such instances of rigor during the course of fifteen years,
which elapsed before the meeting of the long parliament. And it is also
certain, that scandal against the great, though seldom prosecuted at
present, is, however, in the eye of the law, a great crime, and subjects
the offender to very heavy penalties.

There are other instances of the high respect paid to the nobility and
to the great in that age, when the powers of monarchy, though disputed,
still maintained themselves in their pristine vigor. Clarendon[**] tells
us a pleasant incident to this purpose: a waterman, belonging to a man
of quality, having a squabble with a citizen about his fare, showed his
badge, the crest of his master, which happened to be a swan; and thence
insisted on better treatment from the citizen. But the other replied
carelessly, that he did not trouble his head about that goose. For
this offence, he was summoned before the marshal's court; was fined, as
having opprobriously defamed the nobleman's crest, by calling the swan a
goose; and was in effect reduced to beggary.

Sir Richard Granville had thought himself ill used by the earl of Suffolk
in a lawsuit; and he was accused before the star chamber of having said
of that nobleman, that he was a base lord. The evidence against him was
somewhat lame; yet for this slight offence, insufficiently proved, he
was condemned to pay a fine of eight thousand pounds; one half to the
earl, the other to the king.[***]

     * Bush. vol. u. p, 269.

     ** Life of Clarendon, vol. i. p. 72.

     *** Lord Lansdown, p. 514.

Sir George Markham, following a chase where Lord Darcy's huntsman was
exercising his hounds, kept closer to the dogs than was thought proper
by the huntsman, who, besides other rudeness, gave him foul language,
which Sir George returned with a stroke of his whip. The fellow
threatened to complain to his master: the knight replied, "If his master
should justify such insolence, he would serve him in the same manner;" or
words to that effect. Sir George was summoned before the Star chamber,
and fined ten thousand pounds: "So fine a thing was it in those days to
be a lord!"--a natural reflection of Lord Lansdown's in relating
this incident.[*] The people, in vindicating their liberties from the
authority of the crown, threw off also the yoke of the nobility. It is
proper to remark that this last incident happened early in the reign of
James. The present practice of the star chamber was far from being an
innovation; though the present dispositions of the people made them
repine more at this servitude.

{1635.} Charles had imitated the example of Elizabeth and James, and had
issued proclamations forbidding the landed gentlemen and the nobility
to live idly in London, and ordering them to retire to their country
seats.[**] For disobedience to this edict, many were indicted by
the attorney-general, and were fined in the star chamber.[***] This
occasioned discontents; and the sentences were complained of as illegal.
But if proclamations had authority, of which nobody pretended to doubt,
must they not be put in execution? In no instance I must confess, does
it more evidently appear, what confused and uncertain ideas were during
that age entertained concerning the English constitution.

Ray, having exported fuller's earth, contrary to the king's
proclamation, was, besides the pillory, condemned in the star chamber
to a fine of two thousand pounds.[****] Like fines were levied on
Terry, Eman, and others, for disobeying a proclamation which forbade
the exportation of gold.[v] In order to account for the subsequent
convulsions, even these incidents are not to be overlooked as frivolous
or contemptible. Such severities were afterwards magnified into the
gre

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/19215