« PreviousContinue »
such as are of eminent place and near unto me.” Hist. Stu. p. 83.—Rapin, Vol. x. p. 47, 48. “ Wonders at the FOOLISH IMPUDENCE of any man that can think he should be drawn to offer such a sacrifice, much unworthy the greatness of a king, and master of SUCH A SERVANT. (Buckingham, an extremely insolent, corrupt, oppressive, and most obnoxious prime minister."*)Hist. Stu. p. 84. But Lord Clarendon owns, “ That for the sovereign power to interpose, and shelter the accused servant from answering, does not only seem an obstruction of justice, and lay an imputation upon the prince of being privy to the offence; but leaves so great a scandal upon the party himself, that he is generally concluded guilty of whatever he is charged with.”—-Clarend. Vol. 1. p. 7.
In another speech he tells them,—" That if they should not do their duties, in contributing what the state needed, he must use other means which God had put into his hands :” (i. e. if they would not give, he would take it by force, as he quickly did.) “ Take not this as a threatning," his Majesty adds," for I scorn to threaten any but my equals."— Rapin, Vol. x. p. 128.–Again, “ I desire you will hasten my supply, or else it will be
* Whitelock observes, “ that there were in this house many persons of extraordinary parts and abilities (Selden, Pym, Glanville, Herbert, &c.) and as to their estates, one may make a judgment by what H. L'Estrange says of the next parliament, consisting in a manner of the same members, viz. Their estates, modestly estimated, were able to buy the peers, the king ercepted, though an hundred and eighteen, thrice over. A proper assembly this to bear the insults of a weak and imperious administration!"- Hist. Stu.p. 85. “ Neither Rome nor Athens, says a learned historian, could ever glory in such an assembly as the commons of this parliament were, for their virtue and learning ; nor any age produce such a number of men of the like integrity to their country, and humble obedience to their prince."--Coke Det. p. 57.
worse for yourselves.”—Echard, p. 426. his command was, that without any further delay, they should proceed in the business of supply; that he would not accept of less than was proportionable to the greatness and goodness of the cause.”—Coke Det. p. 32. “ A privy counsellor's speech intimated, that in case they did not content the king they would run the risk of being the cause that there would be no more parliaments in ENGLAND, This threat so often hinted, one while by the king himself, another while by the lord keeper, now again by the members of the house, known to be devoted to the court, sometimes in dark, sometimes in plain terms, begot a quite contrary effect to what the king expected. Instead of terrifying the commons, it made them sensible how watchful they ought to be of the king's proceedings, lest their condescension or even silence should authorise some things very prejudicial to the liberties of the nation whom they represented."—Rapin, Vol. x. p. 141, 142.
However, before they entered upon grievances, they voted the king five entire subsidies, which was the greatest tax ever before given to any king of England at once, and to be paid in the shortest time. This parliament with which the king quarrelled had obsequiously and unanimously gratified bim, above what any other house of commons ever did to any king of England before.”—Coke Det. p. 58, Ibid. p. 76.
Note. These outrages upon his parliaments, as well as those which follow, were committed in the former and the peaceful part of his reign ; long before matters caine to any extremity betwixt them.
He seized and sent to the Tower two of the leading members of the house of commons, Sir D. Diggs and Sir John Elliot, for their liber ty
of speech in impeaching the Duke of Buckingham,
contrary to the opinion of the judges, that their RESTRAINT was an ARREST of the whole body.”— Hist. Stu. p. 87. “This imprisonment made a terrible impression upon the house of Commons, who considered it as an express breach of their privileges.—Unluckily, there was nothing of truth in what was ascribed to these two members.Thirty-six lords who were present at the conference, where the impeachment was brought in, attested under their hands, that they did not hear Sir D. Diggs speak any such words (as those for which the king had committed him) and the commons cleared their two members by declaring publicly, that neither of them had erceeded his commission."--Rap. Vol. x. p. 74, 75.
“The troubles and jealousies of this parliament, (Anno 1626,) Archdeacon Echard observes, were not confined to the commons, but took their turns also in the house of Lords. They thought it an intrenchment on the liberties of peerage, as well as a breach into the legislature, that writs were not issued to some of their fellowpeers; and when by importunity obtained, were still attended with express orders that they should not appear.”—Echard, p. 427. In open violation of their rights also, “ He committed the Earl of Arundel to the Tower in the time of parliament without expressing the cause. The lords entered into a grand debate concerning their pri. vileges, and unanimously ordered a remonstrance or petition, claiming privileges from arrests." They drew up a first, then a second, at length a third very dutiful petition to the king; but they were at first trifled with and delayed, and at last huffed, and sent away in disgust, with this answer,
“ That he little looked for such a message from the house; therefore when he received a
message fit to come from them to their soveREIGN, they should receive an answer. However, their lordships still pursued their petitions, till the earl was restored to his liberty; but with so much reluctance, that the favour was rather despised, than duly acknowledged.”—Ibid.
LIBERTY of speaking was, contrary to their fundamental right, denied to the house of com
“ Sir John Elliot standing up to speak, and beginning so as made it expected he was going to fall upon the favourite (Buckingham) and ministry, the SPEAKER started up from his chair and said, there is a command laid upon me that I must COMMAND you not to proceed. Whereupon Elliot sat down."--Rapin, Vol. x. p. 177. -"Sir D. Diggs cried out in great concern, Must we not proceed? Let us sit in silence! We are miserable
, and know not what to do.—Another said, We must now speak, or for ever after hold our peace.”—Hist. Stu. p. 98.
Upon the important debate on the case of Mr. Rolls, “ it was voted that the seizing his goods was a breach of privilege. The SPEAKER being called upon to put the question proposed, said, He durst not, for the king had commanded the contrary.-The house in some disturbance adjourned to a day; being then met again, they wish the Speaker to put the former question; he refused, and said, he had á command to adjourn the house."-Whitelock, p. 12.
“ It was easy to see what the consequence might be of the king's being able to adjourn the house, and to prevent the speaker, by his sole authority, to put the question when required : it would be in his power to put a stop to all the debates of either house, by adjourning them whenever they took into consideration any matters displeasing to him.”—Rapin, Vol. x. p. 219.
“ Warrants were the next day directed from the council to nine leading members; Denzil Hollis, Esq.; Sir Miles Hobart, Sir John Elliot, Sir Peter Hayman, John Selden, Esq.; Will. Coriton, Walter Long, and Benjamin Valentine, Esqrs. commanding their personal appearance the following day: at which time Hollis, Elliot, Coriton and Valentine appearing, and refusing to answer out of parliament, for what was said and done in parliament, were committed close prisoners to the Tower; and warrants were given for sealing up the studies of Mr. Hollis, Mr. Selden, and Sir John Elliot, the three most formidable members, and proclamations issued out for the apprehending of others who did not appear.Échard, p. 444.--Note. The parliament not being yet dissolved, these men were still actually members of parliament when this violence was committed upon them. “ They were kept in prison seven months without being tried, and without being able to obtain the benefit of the Habeas Corpus; and were sentenced to be imprisoned during the king's pleasure : moreover Elliot was fined 2000 pounds, Hollis 1000 marks, and Valentine 500 pounds."--Rapin, Vol. x. p. 217,Ibid. p. 222. “ All of them were imprisoned till they should pay their fines; which imprisonment was accompanied with some arbitrary severities; for these gentlemen were denied not only pen, ink and paper, but their wives in their sicknesses were refused admittance. Sir John Elliot, after many years confinement, sunk and died under the oppression.” Hist. Stu. p. 107.
If these great patriots sometimes expressed themselves with uncommon spirit and ardour in their speeches in parliament, Lord Clarendon owns, “That whoever considers the acts of power and injustice of some of the ministers, in the in