Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER IX.

FROM THE MEETING OF THE LONG PARLIAMENT TO THE

BEGINNING OF THE CIVIL WAR.

CHAP.
IX.

1640-42.

Character of Long Parliament-Its salutary Measures—Triennial Bill—Other beneficial Laws-Observations—Impeachment of Strafford-Discussion of its JusticeAct against Dissolution of Parliament without its Consent-Innovations meditated in the Church-Schism in the Constitutional Party-Remonstrance of November 1641Suspicions of the King's Sincerity-Question of the Militia-Historical Sketch of Military Force in England-Incroachments of the Parliament-Nineteen Propositions -Discussion of the respective Claims of the two Parties to Support-Faults of both.

We are now arrived at that momentous period in our history, which no Englishman ever regards without interest, and few withCharles I. out prejudice; the period, from which the factions of modern times trace their divergence; which, after the lapse of almost two centuries, still calls forth the warm emotions of party-spirit, and affords a test of political principles; at that famous parliament, the theme of so much eulogy and of so much reproach; that synod of inflexible patriots with some, that conclave of traitorous rebels with others; that assembly, we may more truly say, of unequal virtue and chequered fame, which, after having acquired a higher claim to our gratitude, and effected more for our liberties, than any that had gone before or that has followed, ended by subverting the constitution it had strengthened, and by sinking in its decrepitude, and amidst public contempt, beneath a usurper it had blindly elevated to power. It seems agreeable to our plan, first to bring together those admirable provisions by which this parliament restored and consolidated the shattered fabric of our constitution, before we advert to its measures of more equivocal

IX.

benefit, or its fatal errors; an arrangement not very remote from CHAP. that of mere chronology, since the former were chiefly completed within the first nine months of its session, before the king's journey Charles I. to Scotland in the summer of 1641.

It must, I think, be admitted by every one who concurs in the representation given in this work, and especially in the last chapter, of the practical state of our government, that some new securities of a more powerful efficacy than any which the existing laws held forth were absolutely indispensable for the preservation of English liberties and privileges. These, however sacred in name, however venerable by prescription, had been so repeatedly transgressed, that to obtain their confirmation, as had been done in the petition of right, and that as the price of large subsidies, would but expose the commons to the secret derision of the court. The king, by levying ship-money in contravention of his assent to that petition, and by other marks of insincerity, had given too just cause for suspicion, that though very conscientious in his way, he had a fund of casuistry at command that would always release him from any obligation to respect the laws. Again, to punish delinquent ministers was a necessary piece of justice; but who could expect that any such retribution would deter ambitious and intrepid men from the splendid lures of power? Whoever, therefore, came to the parliament of November 1640, with serious and steady purposes for the public weal, and most, I believe, except mere courtiers, entertained such purposes according to the measure of their capacities and energies, must have looked to some essential change in the balance of government, some important limitations of royal authority, as the primary object of his attendance.

Nothing could be more obvious, than that the excesses of the late unhappy times had chiefly originated in the long intermission of parliaments. No lawyer would have dared to suggest ship-money, with the terrors of a house of commons before his eyes. But the king's known resolution to govern without parlia

1640-42.

1640-42.

[ocr errors]

66

CHAP. ments gave bad men more confidence of impunity. This resoluIX. tion was not likely to be shaken by the unpalatable chastisement Charles I. of his servants and redress of abuses, on which the present parliament was about to enter. A statute as old as the reign of Edward III. had already provided, that parliaments should be held every year, or oftener, if need be *." But this enactment had in no age been respected. It was certain, that in the present temper of the administration, a law simply enacting that the interval between parliaments should never exceed three years, would prove wholly ineffectual. In the famous act therefore for triennial parliaments, the first fruits of the commons' laudable zeal for reformation, such provisions were introduced, as grated harshly on the ears of those who valued the royal prerogative above the liberties of the subject, but without which the act itself might have been dispensed with. Every parliament was to be ipso facto dissolved, at the expiration of three years from the first day of its session, unless actually sitting at the time, and, in that case, at its first adjournment or prorogation. The chancellor or keeper of the great seal to be sworn to issue writs for a new parliament within three years from the dissolution of the last, under pain of disability to hold his office, and further punishment; in case of his failure to comply with this provision, the peers were enabled and enjoined to meet at Westminster, and to issue writs to the sheriffs; the sheriffs themselves, should the peers not fulfil this duty, were to cause elections to be duly made; and in their default, at a prescribed time the electors themselves were to proceed to choose their representatives. No future parliament was to be dissolved, or adjourned without its own consent, in less than fifty days from the opening of its session. It is more reasonable to doubt whether even these provisions would have afforded an adequate security for the periodical assembling of parliament,

4. E. 3. c. 14. It appears by the Journals, 30 Dec. 1640, that the Triennial Bill was originally for the yearly holding of

parliaments. It seems to have been altered in the committee; at least we find the title changed, Jan. 19.

IX.

1640-42.

whether the supine and courtier-like character of the peers, the CHAP. want of concert and energy in the electors themselves, would not have enabled the government to set the statute at nought, than Charles I. to censure them as derogatory to the reasonable prerogative and dignity of the crown. To this important bill the king, with some apparent unwillingness, gave his assent *. It effected, indeed, a strange revolution in the system of his government. The nation set a due value on this admirable statute, the passing of which they welcomed with bonfires and every mark of joy.

After laying this solid foundation for the maintenance of such laws as they might deem necessary, the house of commons proceeded to cut away the more flagrant and recent usurpations of the crown. They passed a bill declaring ship-money illegal, and annulling the judgment of the exchequer chamber against Mr. Hampdent. They put an end to another contested prerogative, which, though incapable of vindication on any legal authority, had more support from a usage of fourscore years, the levying of customs on merchandize. In an act granting the king tonnage and poundage, it is declared and enacted, that it is and hath been the ancient right of the subjects of this realm, that no subsidy, custom, impost or other charge whatsoever, ought or may be laid or imposed upon any merchandize exported or imported by subjects, denizens or aliens, without common consent in parliament This is the last statute that has been found necessary to restrain the crown from arbitrary taxation, and may be deemed the complement of those numerous provisions which the virtue of ancient times had extorted from the first and third Edwards.

c. 1.

Yet these acts were hardly so indispensable, nor wrought so

* Parl. Hist. 702. 717. Stat. 16 Car. 1. bill to be prepared, granting it to him from
the commencement of his reign. Parl.
+ C. 14.
Hist. 533. See preface to Hargrave's Col-
lection of Law Tracts, p. 195, and Rymer,
xx. 118, for what Charles did with respect
to impositions on merchandize. The long
parliament called the farmers to account.

C. 8. The king had professed, in lord-keeper Finch's speech on opening the parliament of April 1640, that he had only taken tonnage and poundage de facto, without claiming it as a right, and had caused a

IX.

1640-42.

CHAP. essential a change in the character of our monarchy, as that which abolished the Star-chamber. Though it was evident how little the Charles I. statute of Henry VII. could bear out that over-weening power it had since arrogated, though the statute-book and parliamentary records of the best ages were irrefragable testimonies against its usurpations, yet the course of precedents under the Tudor and Stuart families was so invariable, that nothing more was at first intended than a bill to regulate that tribunal. A suggestion, thrown out, as Clarendon informs us, by one not at all connected with the more ardent reformers, led to the substitution of a bill for taking it altogether away*. This abrogates all exercise of jurisdiction, properly so called, whether of a civil or criminal nature, by the privy-council, as well as the Star-chamber. The power of examining and committing persons charged with offences is by no means taken away; but, with a retrospect to the language held by the judges and crown lawyers in some cases that have been mentioned, it is enacted, that every person committed by the council or any of them, or by the king's special command, may have his writ of habeas corpus; in the return to which, the officer in whose custody he is shall certify the true cause of his commitment, which the court, from whence the writ has issued, shall within three days examine, in order to see whether the cause thus certified appear to be just and legal or not, and do justice accordingly by delivering, bailing, or remanding the party. Thus fell the great court of Star-chamber; and with it, the whole

*16 Car. 1. c. 10. The abolition of the Star-chamber was first moved, March 5th, 1641, by lord Andover, in the house of lords, to which he had been called by writ. Both he and his father, the earl of Berkshire, were zealous royalists during the subsequent war. Parl. Hist. 722. But he is not, I presume, the person to whom Clarendon alludes. This author insinuates that the act for taking away the Starchamber passed both houses without suf

ficient deliberation, and that the peers did not venture to make any opposition; whereas there were two conferences between the houses on the subject, and several amendments and provisos made by the lords, and agreed by the commons. Scarce any bill, during this session, received so much attention. The king made some difficulty about assenting to the bills taking away the Star-chamber and high-commission courts, but soon gave way. Parl. Hist. 853.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »