Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER VII.

ON THE ENGLISH

CONSTITUTION FROM THE ACCESSION OF

CHARLES I. TO THE DISSOLUTION OF HIS THIRD PAR-
LIAMENT.

CHAP.
VII.

Charles I.

1625-29.

Parliament of 1625-Its Dissolution-Another Parliament called-Prosecution of Buckingham-Arbitrary Proceedings towards the Earls of Arundel and BristolLoan demanded by the King-Several committed for Refusal to contribute―They sue for a Habeas Corpus-Arguments on this Question, which is decided against them-A Parliament called in 1628-Petition of Right-King's Reluctance to grant it-Tonnage and Poundage disputed-King dissolves Parliament-Religious Differences-Prosecution of Puritans by Bancroft-Growth of High-Church TenetsDifferences as to the Observance of Sunday—Arminian Controversy-State of Catholics under James-Jealousy of the Court's Favour towards them-Unconstitutional Tenets promulgated by the High-Church party-General Remarks.

CHARLES the First had much in his character very suitable to the times in which he lived, and to the spirit of the people he was to rule; a stern and serious deportment, a disinclination to all licentiousness, and a sense of religion that seemed more real than in his father*. These qualities we might suppose to have raised some expectation of him, and to have procured at his accession some of that popularity, which is rarely withheld from untried princes. Yet it does not appear that he enjoyed even this first

*The general temperance and chastity of Charles, and the effect those virtues had in reforming the outward face of the court, are attested by many writers, and especially by Mrs. Hutchinson, whose good word he would not have undeservedly obtained. Mem. of Col. Hutchinson, p. 65. I am

I am

aware that he was not the perfect saint as well as martyr which his panegyrists represent him to have been; but it is an unworthy office, even for the purpose of throwing ridicule on exaggerated praise, to turn the microscope of history on private life.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND

405

VII.

power, Charles I.

1625-29.

transient sunshine of his subjects' affection. Solely intent on CHAP. retrenching the excesses of prerogative, and well aware that no sovereign would voluntarily recede from the possession of they seem to have dreaded to admit into their bosoms any sentiments of personal loyalty, which might enervate their resolution. And Charles took speedy pains to convince them that they had not erred in withholding their confidence.

Elizabeth in her systematic parsimony, James in his averseness to war, had been alike influenced by a consciousness, that want of money alone could render a parliament formidable to their power. None of the irregular modes of supply were ever productive enough to compensate for the clamour they occasioned; after impositions and benevolences were exhausted, it had always been found necessary, in the most arbitrary times of the Tudors, to fall back on the representatives of the people. But Charles succeeded to a war, at least to the preparation of a war, rashly undertaken through his own weak compliance, the arrogance of his favourite, and the generous or fanatical zeal of the last parliament. He would have perceived it to be manifestly impossible, if he had been capable of understanding his own position, to continue this war without the constant assistance of the house of commons, or to obtain that assistance without very costly sacrifices of his royal power. It was not the least of this monarch's imprudences, or rather of his blind compliances with Buckingham, to have not only commenced hostilities against Spain, which he might easily have avoided*, and persisted in them for four years, but entered on a fresh war with France, though he had abundant experience to demonstrate the impossibility of defraying its charges.

The first parliament of this reign has been severely censured on account of the penurious supply it doled out for the exigencies.

* War had not been declared at Charles's accession, nor at the dissolution of the first parliament. In fact, he was

much more set upon it than his subjects.
Hume, and all his school, keep this out of
sight,

VII.

1625-29.

CHAP. of a war in which its predecessors had involved the king. I will not say that this reproach is wholly unfounded. A more liberal Charles I proceeding, if it did not obtain a reciprocal concession from the king, would have put him more in the wrong. But according to the common practice and character of all such assemblies, it was preposterous to expect subsidies equal to the occasion, until a foundation of confidence should be laid between the crown and parliament. The commons had begun probably to repent of their hastiness in the preceding year, and to discover that Buckingham and his pupil, or master, which shall we say? had conspired to deceive them*. They were not to forget that none of the chief grievances of the last reign were yet redressed, and that supplies must be voted slowly and conditionally if they would hope for reformation. Hence they made their grant of tonnage and poundage to last but for a year instead of the king's life, as had for two centuries been the practice; on which account the upper house rejected the bill†. Nor would they have refused a further supply, beyond the two subsidies (about £140,000) which they had granted, had some tender of redress been made by the crown; and were actually in debate upon the matter, when interrupted by a sudden dissolution‡.

Nothing could be more evident, by the experience of the late reign, as well as by observing the state of public spirit, than that hasty and premature dissolutions or prorogations of parliament served but to aggravate the crown's embarrassments. Every successive house of commons inherited the feelings of its predecessor, without which it would have ill represented the prevalent

* Hume has disputed this, but with little success, even on his own showing. He observes, on an assertion of Wilson, that Buckingham lost his popularity after Bristol arrived, because he proved that the former, while in Spain, had professed himself a papist, that it is false, and was never said by Bristol. It is singular, that Hume should know so positively what Bristol did

not say in 1624, when it is notorious that
he said in parliament what nearly comes to
the same thing in 1626. See a curious
letter in Cabala, p. 224, showing what a
combination had been formed against Buck-
ingham, of all descriptions of malcontents.
+ Parl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 6.
‡ Id. 33.

VII.

1625-29.

humour of the nation. The same men, for the most part, came CHAP. again to parliament more irritated and desperate of reconciliation with the sovereign than before. Even the politic measure, as it Charles I. was fancied to be, of excluding some of the most active members from seats in the new assembly, by nominating them sheriffs for the year, failed altogether of the expected success, as it naturally must in an age when all ranks partook in a common enthusiasm *. Hence the prosecution against Buckingham, to avert which Charles had dissolved his first parliament, was commenced with redoubled vigour in the second. It was too late, after the precedents of Bacon and Middlesex, to dispute the right of the commons to impeach a minister of state. The king, however, anticipating their resolves, after some sharp speeches only had been uttered against his favourite, sent a message that he would not allow any of his servants to be questioned among them, much less such as were of eminent place, and near unto him. He saw, he said, that some of them aimed at the duke of Buckingham, whom, in the last parliament of his father, all had combined to honour and respect, nor did he know what had happened since to alter their affections; but he assured them, that the duke had done nothing without his own special direction and appointment. This haughty message so provoked the commons, that, having no express testimony against Buckingham, they came to a vote that common fame is a good ground of proceeding, either by inquiry, or presenting the complaint to the king or lords; nor did a speech from the lord-keeper, severely rating their presumption, and requiring on the king's behalf that they should

The language of lord keeper Coventry in opening the session was very ill calculated for the spirit of the commons: "If we consider aright, and think of that incomparable distance between the supreme height and majesty of a mighty monarch and the submissive awe and lowliness of loyal subjects, we cannot but receive exceeding comfort and contentment in the frame and constitution of this highest court,

wherein not only the prelates, nobles, and
grandees, but the commons of all degrees
have their part; and wherein that high
majesty doth descend to admit, or rather
to invite, the humblest of his subjects to
conference and counsel with him," &c. He
gave them a distinct hint afterwards, that
they must not expect to sit long. Parl.
Hist. 39.

VII.

Charles I. 1625-29.

CHAP. punish two of their members who had given him offence by insolent discourses in the house, lest he should be compelled to use his royal authority against them; nor one from the king himself, bidding them remember that parliaments were altogether in his power for their calling, sitting and dissolution; therefore, as he found the fruits of them good or evil, they were to continue to be or not to be*, tend to pacify or to intimidate the assembly. They addressed the king in very decorous language, but asserting "the ancient, constant, and undoubted right and usage of parliaments to question and complain of all persons, of what degree soever, found grievous to the commonwealth, in abusing the power and trust committed to them by their sovereign*." The duke was accordingly impeached at the bar of the house of peers on eight articles, many of them probably well-founded; yet as the commons heard no evidence in support of them, it was rather unreasonable in them to request that he might be committed to the Tower.

In the conduct of this impeachment, two of the managers, sir John Eliot and sir Dudley Digges, one the most illustrious confessor in the cause of liberty whom that time produced, the other, a man of much ability, and a useful supporter of the popular party, though not exempt from some oblique views towards promotion, gave such offence by words spoken, or alleged

*Parl. Hist. 60. I know of nothing under the Tudors of greater arrogance than this language. Sir Dudley Carleton, accustomed more to foreign negotiations than to an English house of commons, gave very just offence by descanting on the misery of the people in other countries. "He cautioned them not to make the king out of love with parliaments, by incroaching on his prerogative; for in his messages he had told them, that he must then use new councils. In all Christian kingdoms there were parliaments anciently, till the monarchs seeing their turbulent spirits, stood upon their prerogatives, and overthrew them all,

except with us. In foreign countries the people look not like ours, with store of flesh on their backs, but like ghosts, being nothing but skin and bones, with some thin cover to their nakedness, and wearing wooden shoes on their feet; a misery beyond expression, and that we are yet free from; and let us not lose the repute of a free-born nation by our turbulency in parliament." Rushworth.

This was a hint, in the usual arrogant style of courts, that the liberties of the people depended on favour, and not on their own determination to maintain them.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »