expedition to Cadiz could not but excite the Spaniards to reprisals. Another opportunity for still more extended operations shortly presented itself. Upon the defeat of the King of Denmark at the battle of Lutter (August 1626), a general loan was ordered. It was at the rate of cent. per cent. on landed property, though somewhat less upon goods. The instructions given to the judges upon whom the duty of collecting this loan devolved show the spirit in which it was levied. They were directed to choose their first victims from among those most likely to be frightened into paying; never to address themselves to bodies of men, to whom numbers might give courage, but to deal separately with each individual, and to send up to the Council the names of all those who refused to lend. It would seem govern without plain, from this gathering of troops and money, that the idea had already entered into the minds of the King and his Court of ruling altogether without Parliament. This is rendered almost certain by the enlistment of a considerable body of German horse. Attempt to Parliament. Arminian preaching. Dr. Sibthorpe's sermon. 1627. Nor were other signs wanting of the arbitrary tendencies of the Government. The Arminian and High Church clergy began to speak quite openly. In the course of 1627, sermons were preached advocating the absolute prerogative of the King in the plainest language. Thus Dr. Sibthorpe, preaching on the text "Render therefore to all their dues," asserted that "the Prince doth whatsoever pleaseth him. If princes command anything which subjects may not perform because it is against the laws of God or nature, or impossible, yet subjects are bound to undergo the punishment without either resistance or railing, and so to yield a passive obedience where they cannot exhibit an active one." This Sibthorpe was the cause of the disgrace of two important clergymen. He brought information against Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, for allowing Puritans in his diocese; and Abbot, the Archbishop, fell into disfavour for refusing to license the sermon above quoted, a duty which Laud, at that time Bishop of Bath and Wells, and who was now rising in importance, performed for him. Again, Dr. Manwaring preached that "the King is not bound to observe the laws of the realm concerning the subject's rights and liberties, but that his royal will and command in imposing loans and taxes without common consent in Parliament doth oblige the subject's conscience on pain of eternal damnation." No wonder such doctrines as these from the pulpit excited uneasiness. Nor was the dread of the reintroduction of Catholicism so absurd as Dr. Manwaring's sermon. 1627] INCREASE OF DISCONTENT reaction. 619 it now seems. A reaction had set in throughout Europe, supported by the great successes of the imperial arms under Wallen- Danger of a stein and Tilly. In every instance that reaction had Catholic sprung from very small beginnings, and been carried out by the Jesuits. There was every appearance of the same process having been begun in England. The Queen's chapels were constantly crowded. It was becoming a fashionable thing to attend mass there. It seemed by no means improbable, especially in the presence of the growing High Church tendencies of the clergy, that the same success would attend the efforts of the Jesuits in England as abroad. On this point, however, we may fairly acquit Charles. He loved the High Church chiefly because it supported his prerogative, but he was firmly attached to the Church of England. At this very time he refused all applications for the increase of church room for the Catholics. "If the Queen's chapel was not big enough, she might hold her service in the hall. If the hall was not big enough, there was the park." However, illegal taxation, the gathering of armed men, the apparent growth of Catholicism, and the open assertion of the doctrine of passive obedience, excited grave discontent. These dis Discontent of those who refused to contents were brought to a head by the imprisonment of increases. many important gentlemen who refused to pay the loan. The King was much incensed at their refusal. "None dare," we are Imprisonment told, " move the King on behalf of any gentleman refuser, for his heart is so inflamed in this business that he vows pay the loan. a perpetual remembrance as well as present punishment." The gentry who were apprehended were confined, some of them to certain districts, and others distributed among the prisons. The poorer class were ordered to assemble in London, and were thrust into the army. Five of the imprisoned gentlemen, Corbett, Darnell, Earle, Edward Hampden, and Heaveningham, demanded a writ of Habeas Corpus. This is a writ directed to the gaoler, ordering him to produce his prisoner for trial, and to state the cause of his detention. On this occasion, the return made to the writ stated no cause of imprisonment, alleging that the prisoners were detained by special command of the King, signified by warrant of the Privy Council. Upon this return the prisoners were produced, and the legality of their deten- Its legality tion argued. The point at issue was a very important questioned. one. The right of every man to be tried when detained in prison rests on the 29th section of the Magna Charta: "No free man shall be taken and imprisoned unless by lawful judgment of his peers, or the law of the land." This enactment had been frequently overruled by the King's Council, which claimed extraordinary powers, a grievance which was provided against in the 25th of Edward III.: "No one shall be taken by petition or suggestion to the King, unless it be by indictment or presentment, or by writ original at the common law." It seems, however, to have been unquestioned that the Privy Council were allowed to commit a man to prison, and the real point to be decided was, Were they not, like any other magistrate, bound to show cause for such committal? To this it was replied that these prisoners were committed by special command of the King, and that that altered the case. All old precedents led to the belief that it was impossible for the King to supersede law, yet the decision of the judges was in favour of the Crown. The authority on which the Chief-Justice, Sir Nicholas Hyde, rested, was a petition or declaration of the judges in the thirty-fourth year of Elizabeth, addressed to Hatton and Cecil, which seemed to imply that if the committal were made at the King's special command the ordinary course Judges decide for the Crown. of law was overruled: "We think that if any person shall be committed by her Majesty's special commandment or by order from the Council Board, is good cause for the same Court (the King's Bench) to leave the said person in custody." The sentence being ungrammatical, is not very clear, but such as it is it formed the chief basis of a judgment which virtually annihilated one of the most important clauses of the great Charter. War with While this great trial was pending, the money and troops which the King had collected had been employed. The expedition directed against a new enemy had been as disastrous as its predecessor. Not content with having a war with Spain upon his hands, as well as his domestic difficulties, Charles had plunged into a war with France, and sent a great armament against the Isle of Rhé. The junction between France and England had been a mere whim of Charles and Buckingham, but they had found that the hopes it held out of a Protestant policy had brought them popularity. Unable to understand the great views of Richelieu, the necessity under which he was of establishing domestic unity, and the importance to the general cause of Protestantism of united action, and bent solely upon the acquisition of popularity at home, Huguenots. the King and his Minister had been rapidly estranged from the French Court. The Treaty of Monçon, which appeared to them a desertion, gave the first blow to their friendship. Disappointed Charles's reasons for helping the 1628] THE THIRD PARLIAMENT 621 at the failure of the negotiations between Louis and the Protestants, which they had been mainly instrumental in setting on foot, and vexed at finding themselves after all compelled to bear the unpopularity which attended the loan of the ships, Charles and Buckingham had lent a willing ear to the persuasions of the Huguenot envoys. They had more than once interfered in no very conciliatory manner on behalf of the Protestants; and now, believing that an open support of that party would secure their immediate popularity, did not shrink from an entire reversal of their late policy. Private reasons made them the more ready to adopt this line of action. Buckingham quarrelled with Richelieu, as he had quarrelled with Olivarez, and is said to have insulted the French by his vanity in aspiring to the love of the Queen. Charles had found his wife's household so disagreeable, so inclined to make mischief between himself and his wife, and in their ostentatious Catholicism so repulsive to the nation, that he had felt himself compelled, after several stormy scenes, to drive them ignominiously from the country. The great fleet and army therefore, which was nominally intended for an attack upon the Algerines, directed its course towards La Rochelle. No step could have been devised more injurious to the Protestant interests; it drove France and Spain for the moment to lay aside their enmity, and to join to uphold the Catholic cause. Nor had proper measures been taken for the reception of the fleet at La Rochelle. Unable to understand so sudden a change of policy on the part of England, the inhabitants at first refused admission to the fleet, and were only after much persuasion induced to assume a position of open rebellion. Meanwhile Buckingham Disastrous had attempted to secure a basis of operations by con- expedition quering the Isle of Rhé. The open country was easily mastered, but Toyras, the governor, retired to the strong fortress of St. Martin, and when a blockade of eleven weeks was rendered futile by the revictualling of the fort, Buckingham found himself compelled to withdraw his troops. He re-embarked them, after a disastrous action in which he lost more than 1200 men; and this second expedition of the reign returned home with as little success as the one which had preceded it. Its arrival added fresh difficulties to the King, fresh grievances to the people. Honour forbade that the Huguenots should be thus deserted. Without money any renewed effort was impossible. It became necessary to summon a new Parliament. Meanwhile the nation felt bitterly its loss of honour, and the country groaned under the outrages of the mutinous and unsaid soldiery. to Rhé. Third March 18, 1628. The third Parliament of the reign assembled March 18, 1628. The King did what he could to secure a favourable election. More than seventy gentry who had been imprisoned for refusing the loan were liberated. Arundel and Bristol, who had been restored to confinement after the last Parliament, with Abbot the Archbishop, whose Puritan tendencies had brought him into disgrace, were allowed to take their seats in the House of Lords. These steps were taken in vain. Many of the released prisoners were returned to the Parliament. Even in Westminster the opposition candidates were elected, and all the four members for London were men who had suffered for refusing the loan. The King's opening speech was not conciliatory. "Take not this for threatening," he said, "I scorn to threaten any but my equals." The Lord Keeper Coventry, who had succeeded Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, on his disgrace in that office, added, "His Majesty is resolved that his affairs cannot permit him to expect aid over long." Unmoved by these admonitions, the House at once proceeded to consider grievances, and following the tactics they had already adopted, they promised five subsidies, but refused to pass the Bill granting them till grievances were redressed. The first point brought forward was naturally the late trial with reference to the Habeas Corpus. The discussion was long, and frequently interrupted by messages from the Crown to hasten supply. With an ill-judged assumption of power, the King declared there should be no Easter holidays. This was a flagrant breach of Parliamentary privileges. "This House," said Coke "always adjourns itself.” A fresh message demanded that a day should be appointed for the completion of the five subsidies. Then Sir Thomas Wentworth moved, in plain words, that "grievances and supplies should go hand in hand." On this the House acted; a succession of petitions were sent up against grievances, which were ultimately incorporated in one great petition, known as the Petition of Right. The points of that petition were four, meeting the great grievances under which the nation was at that time suffering. (1) That no man be compelled to pay loan, benevolence, or tax, without consent of Parliament, or be molested or disquieted for the refusal of it. (2) That no subject should be imprisoned without cause shown. (3) That soldiers and mariners should not be billeted on the people without their will. (4) That no commission should be issued in time of peace to try subjects by martial law. It was usual, when the King gave his consent to a petition, to use the words, "Let right be done as is desired." Instead of this comprehensive formula, the King The Petition of Right. May 28. |