2. The Petition of Right, 1628. It was hoped by the Commons, that the Lords would second them in the matter of the above resolutions; this, however, they were not altogether prepared to do. Conferences took place, and as the Lords were anxious for some security against arbitrary imprisonment, a petition was drawn up, celebrated as the second Great Charter of English liberties, and known as the Petition of Right. It began by enumerating several abuses of the sovereign authority contrary to Magna Charta and other statutes:-1. That freemen had been required to lend sums of money to the king, and on refusing to do so, were made to appear before the privy council, or were imprisoned. or in other ways molested and disquieted: and that divers other charges had been laid and levied on the people, against the laws and free customs of the realm. 2. That contrary to the statutes, several persons had been imprisoned without any cause showed, and when brought before the judges by writs of Habeas Corpus, were remanded to prison, without being charged with anything to which they might make answer according to law. 3. That in many places soldiers and mariners had been billetted in the houses of the people, who were compelled to receive them, and there to suffer them to sojourn, though against the laws and customs of this realm. 4. That certain persons had been empowered by royal commissions, to punish by the summary process of martial law, offences committed by soldiers, mariners, and persons connected with them, though such offences ought to have been dealt with in the usual courts of law.

The Petition concludes with the following prayer:-"They do therefore humbly pray your most excellent majesty, that no man hereafter may be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or suchlike charge, without common consent by act of parliament; and that none be called to make answer or take such oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise molested or disquieted concerning the same or for refusal hereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is before mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; and that your majesty would be pleased to remove the said soldiers and mariners, and that your people may not be burdened in time to come; and that the aforesaid commissions for proceeding by martial law may be revoked and annulled; and that hereafter no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or persons whatever to be executed as aforesaid, lest by color of them any of your majesty's subjects be destroyed or put to death contrary to the laws and franchise of the land." It was further prayed that the king would declare that the awards, doings, and proceedings to the prejudices of his subjects, in any of the premises, should not be drawn into conse

quence or example; and that the king would further declare, that in the things aforesaid, his officers and ministers shall serve according to the laws and statutes of the realm.

Charles much disliked the demand made upon him, for the power of arresting and imprisoning by council warrant, without intention of trial, was to him one of the most potent instruments of government. Yet to refuse his assent would be to forfeit the five subsidies; an evasive answer was determined on, in lieu of the accustomed form. The first answer therefore ran thus: "The king willeth that right be done according to the laws and customs of the realm". (June 2.) The Commons though perplexed, were not discouraged, and resolved to present a remonstrance to the king. Two days later, Charles forbade them thenceforth to meddle with affairs of state. This raised a storm which alarmed. the court, for the Lords as well as the Commons had petitioned for a more explicit answer. On the 7th of June, the king came down to the House of Lords, and ordered the first answer to be cut off, and a second answer to be subscribed-"Let right be done, as is desired." It was no small victory, that the Commons had at last achieved the solemn recognition of the liberties of the people. Within a week they passed the bill for granting the five subsidies, about £350,000-the purchase money really for the Petition of Rights.

3. Further remonstrances presented to the king, 1628. Proceedings were now taken against Dr. Mainwaring, for political sermons preached before the king, in which he maintained that "those who refused to pay the loan offended against the law of God"; and that the authority of parliaments was not necessary for the raising of aids and subsidies. At the instance of the Commons, the Lords sentenced Roger Mainwaring to imprisonment, a fine of a thousand pounds, suspension for three years, and to be deemed incapable of holding any office. The Dr.'s sermons were suppressed by proclamation, but Charles gave him an additional rectory, and subsequently made him bishop of St. David's.

After long debate, a remonstrance was presented to the king, showing that religion was being undermined by popery and Arminianism; that the honor and resources of the country were being sacrificed by inglorious expeditions; and that the principal cause was the power exercised and abused by Buckingham: the Commons therefore submitted to his majesty, whether the Duke should be allowed to hold office, or remain near the royal person. As the vote of tunnage and poundage had not yet passed, it was supposed that the king would submit, rather than forfeit the most productive part of his revenue. And to remind the king that by

the Petition of Right, it was no longer lawful to levy these duties without previous consent of parliament, a second address was prepared. Charles however hastened down to the House, and at nine in the morning the Commons were summoned to attend. The king told them-"as for tunnage and poundage, it is a thing I cannot want, and was never intended for you to ask, and never meant, I am sure, by me to grant". The parliament was instantly prorogued. (June 26.) Thus ended this memorable session, one of the most memorable in our history. It is indeed true that these liberties were subsequently invaded--that again and again they were trampled in the dust. But the Petition of Right survived, to bear evidence against the encroachments of the prerogative. To it the people always appealed: to it the crown was ultimately compelled to submit."

66

4. Parliament re-assembles: Charles surrounded with new counsellors. Two months after the prorogation of parliament, Buckingham was assassinated; this, which the people expected would prove their deliverance, proved otherwise, for the king at once showered his favors on the opponents of the country party. Montague was made bishop of Chichester; Mainwaring received a rich benefice; and Laud, already famous for his devotion to the principle of high power in king and church, was promoted to the see of London, when he became in fact primate, as Abbot was under suspension for refusing, as it was said, to license Dr. Sibthorp's political sermon. The king had moreover succeeded in winning over from the popular party one of its most efficient leaders, Sir Thomas Wentworth, who was almost immediately raised to the peerage, and appointed lord-president of the North. Other defections followed: Saville, Digges, Littleton, and Noy; the two latter made respectively solicitor and attorney-general. The parliament re-assembled Jan. 20th, 1629.

5. Committees of religion and grievances appointed, 1629. The House met with an embittered spirit by reason of the failure at Rochelle, and the evasion of the laws against papists. Complaint was made that Arminianism-little removed, as they thought, from popery itself was patronised by the court; Montague, an Arminian, had been raised to a bishopric, Laud promoted to the see of London, and Charles, as head of the church, had published an authorised edition of the Articles of the Church of England, containing the much-disputed clause, "the church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and hath authority in matters of faith". It was also complained of, that idolatrous ceremonies had of late been introduced into the church. The king was petitioned to order a general fast, to which he replied, it was a custom but lately begun, and he was not satisfied there was

now a necessity for it. Subsequently the Commons entered a resolution on their journals, to the effect that they held for truth the articles of religion as established by parliament in the 13th of Elizabeth, and utterly rejected the sense of Jesuits and Arminians, alluding to an order by Charles that the Article on Justification should not be taken in any other than the literal and grammatical sense. It was during these debates that Cromwell for the first time addressed the House. "I have heard", said the clownish and slovenly-looking speaker, "from one Dr. Beard, that Dr. Alabaster hath preached flat popery at St. Paul's Cross, and that the bishop of Winchester (Dr. Neile,) commanded him, as his diocesan, to preach nothing to the contrary. And Dr. Mainwaring, so justly censured for his sermons in this House, has been by this bishop's means, preferred to a rich living. If these are steps to church preferment, what may we not expect ?"

The attention of the House was further directed to the fact, that the king had ordered the first printed copies of the Petition of Right to be destroyed, and had substituted others in which, the first and evasive answer given by him, was preserved, and to which was added the king's explanation given in the House of Lords. This artifice, as Lingard justly observes, "was unworthy of an honest man and branded his character with the stigma of duplicity; it taught his subjects to distrust his words, even in his legislative capacity". The House was indignant at this double dealing. Selden, in a speech, said:" For the Petition of Right, we know how it has been evaded since our last meeting. Our liberties of life, person, and freehold have been evaded. No man ought to lose life or limb but by the law, and hath not one lately lost his ears by order of the Star Chamber? Next, they will take away our arms, and then our legs, and so our lives". The House was further inflamed by the case of Rolles, a merchant and a member of the parliament, whose goods had been seized by the officers of the customs, for refusing to pay what the law did not require. Charles, to quiet the House, explained that he had not taken tunnage and poundage by virtue of his hereditary prerogative, but of necessity, as the House had failed to grant them, only for want of time, and not good will. This speech produced a momentary calm, and there was a disposition to make the grant, providing that first reparation were made to the merchant, whose goods had been seized. But the Commons were informed that the king would not suffer his servants to be punished for executing his commands. The House was indignant, and immediately adjourned.

6. The Speaker held in the chair, and a protest read by Hollis, 1629. When the House again met, while Eliot was

speaking against the whole system of government, they were interrupted by an order of adjournment; the Speaker refused to put a remonstrance to the vote, and rose to leave the House. He was however forced back into the chair by Hollis and Valentine, the court party came to his aid, and blows followed; when quiet was in a measure restored, Eliot finished his speech, after which Hollis read for the approbation of the House, this protest: -"1. Whoever shall seek to bring in popery, Arminianism, or other opinions disagreeing from the true and orthodox church, shall be reputed a capital enemy of this kingdom and commonwealth. 2. Whosoever shall advise the taking of tunnage and poundage, not being granted by parliament, or shall be an actor or instrument therein, shall be reputed a capital enemy to this kingdom and government. 3. Whatever merchant or other person shall pay tunnage and poundage, not being granted by parliament, shall be reputed a betrayer of the liberties of England, and an enemy to the same". While this tumult was taking place, the king had come to the Lords, and the usher not being able to gain admittance to the Commons, the captain of the guard was ordered to break open the door, but it was needless, the members were gone, the House having adjourned to the 10th of March. When that day arrived, the king went down to the Lords and dissolved the parliament, without having desired the attendance of the Commons. Charles now formed his resolution to govern alone, and on the 22nd of March announces that intention by proclamation :--“We have showed by our frequent meeting our people, our love to the use of parliaments: yet the late abuse having for the present driven us unwillingly out of that course, we shall account it presumption for any to prescribe any time unto us for parliaments, the calling, continuing, and dissolving of which is always in our power, and shall be more inclinable to meet in parliament again, when our people shall see more clearly into our interests and actions."

7. The leaders of the country party imprisoned, 1629. Before the dissolution of the parliament, Eliot, Hollis, Valentine, Coriton, Hobard, Hayman, Long, and Stroud, were summoned before the privy council and committed, for the part they had taken in the late tumultous proceeding in the Commons. Having sued for their Habeas Corpus, they were brought before the King's Bench, where they demanded to be discharged or admitted to bail, in conformity with the Petition of Right. Charles prevented a decision being given, by changing the custody of the prisoners, and forbidding the lieutenant of the Tower, to present them in court. On the first day in Michaelmas term, the members being brought into court, were informed that they might be