there to suffer them to sojourne against the lawes and the customes of this realme, and to the great greivance and vexacion of the people," — the petition prayed "that your Majestie would be pleased to remove the said souldiers and marriners, and that your people may not be soe burthened in tyme to come." 4. And finally, after reciting at length how many subjects and proceedings had been tried and put to death in times of peace by commis- under sioners armed "with power and authoritie to proceed within martial law. the land, according to the justice of martiall lawe," the petition prayed "that the aforesaid commissions, for proceeding by martial lawe, may be revoked and annulled: and that hereafter no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or persons whatsoever to be executed as aforesaid, lest by colour of them any of your Majestie's subjects be destroyed or put to death contrary to the lawes and franchise of the land." Thus did the house define its conception of those vital parts of the constitution which were intended to protect the subject against forced loans of every kind, against arbitrary imprisonments, against martial law, and the billeting of soldiers upon the householder without his consent. The petition was Petition brought brought in by Selden on the 8th of May, and the lords were in May 8, at once asked to set a day for a conference upon it. Then it and lords was that Charles began the struggle against the new yoke conference; that had been prepared for him, by attempting to save the right of arbitrary imprisonment which it proposed to abolish. asked for a clause pro posed by In order to aid the king in that design, a new clause was pro- a saving posed by Arundel,2 and adopted by the lords on the 17th of May, which ran as follows: "We humbly present this petition Arundel; to your Majesty, not only with a care of preserving our own liberties, but with due regard to leave entire that sovereign power wherewith your Majesty is trusted for the protection, safety, and happiness of your people." To the eagle eye of Pym the purpose of that vague saving clause was obvious, and he was quick to say, "I am not able to speak to this question. I know not what it is. All our petition is for the laws of England, and this power seems to be another distinct power from 2 It was brought in by Weston, who claimed its authorship. See Elsing's Notes. 1 Whereupon the resolution granting the five subsidies was reported to the house. Commons' Journals, vol. i. p. 894. petition then adopted in its original form; the law. I know how to add sovereign to his person, but not to his power. Also we cannot leave to him sovereign power, rejected by for we never were possessed of it."1 After Alford and Coke the house; had spoken to the same effect, the house unanimously rejected the insidious amendment. In a short time the lords gave way, and on the 28th of May the petition was there adopted in its original form without further discussion. But Charles' power of resistance was by no means exhausted. Hoping still to retain his right of arbitrary imprisonment, he submitted a series of questions to the judges in order to elicit from them an indication of the construction which they would put upon the petition in that respect; and, after receiving from them answers more or less satisfactory,2 it was agreed in council that the king should depart from the usual custom and give a vague and evasive assent to the petition that would be practically worthless.3 The house, however, was in no mood to be thwarted by such a device. It firmly refused to receive such a reply, and after the lords had joined in the contention that there should be a clear answer to the petition, Charles yielded, assented in and on the 7th of June he gave his assent in the terms of the ancient formula, "Soit droit fait comme est desiré." As soon as it was known that the petition was to be enrolled like any other statute, the subsidy bill was passed and sent to the lords, and there were such demonstrations of joy "as were never seen but upon his Majesty's return from Spain.” after the house had refused to accept an evasive answer, Charles the usual form; a subsidy bill then passed. Condemnation of doctrine Bate's case; When the commons rejected the lords' amendment to the Petition of Right, whereby they attempted to save "entire asserted in that sovereign power wherewith your Majesty is trusted for the protection, safety, and happiness of your people," they intended to set the seal of their disapproval to that pernicious doctrine of unbridled prerogative, which had been asserted in Bate's case, by the barons, Fleming, and Clarke. And in order to impress the Laudian clergy with the fact that they could not preach from their pulpits the doctrine that the king had a divine right to obedience apart from the laws of the land, the absolutist theory in ecclesiastical form, the commons on the for such the attack 9th of June sent articles of impeachment to the lords against Manwaring Manwaring, who was there promptly convicted and sentenced impeached to fine and imprisonment.1 Speaking through the mouth of preaching Pym, to whom the accusation of Manwaring was intrusted, doctrine ; the house set forth its theory of the constitution, the essence of which was the responsibility of the crown to the nation asserted in the preceding parliament in the abortive attempt to impeach Buckingham. Returning now under the leadership of Eliot to that all-important subject, a remonstrance was finally Eliot voted on the 11th of June, which, after demanding the enforce- renewed ment of the penal laws against the catholics, and denouncing upon Buck ingham; the Arminian clergy, attributed the maladministration from which the kingdom was suffering to "the excessive power of the duke of Buckingham, and the abuse of that power; and we humbly submit to your Majesty's excellent wisdom, whether it be safe for yourself or your kingdoms that so great a power as rests in him by sea and land should be in the hands of any one subject whatsoever." To this resolution, which in modern times would be called a vote of a want of confidence, Charles was prompt to reply that under no circumstances would he give up his chief minister and favorite. The only thing that the house had to withhold was tonnage and poundage, which had tonnage not yet been voted. A second remonstrance was therefore poundage presented on that subject on June 25, the essence of which withheld; was that these customs duties should not be imposed by the crown without the assent of parliament, a contention which they said was supported by the terms of the recent Petition of Right. In order to prevent the presentation of “any more remonstrances to which I must give a harsh answer," Charles hastened to the house of lords, without taking time to put on the usual robes, and there, after an emphatic speech explaining "the true intent and meaning of what " had been granted in the petition, ended the session by prorogation on the 26th prorogued of June. 5 It was certainly a doubtful question whether the right to 1 The king was also asked to call in all his books, that they might be burned. Parl. Hist., vol. ii. pp. 388, 410. The king instead gave him an additional rectory, and finally made him bishop of St. David's. 2 See the interesting extracts printed 8 Rushworth, vol. i. pp. 613-622. and parliament June 26, 1628. Did the Petition of customs? the merchants not impose customs duties was embraced in that portion of the Right Petition of Right that provided "that no man hereafter be embrace the compelled to make or yeild any guift, loane, benevolence, taxe, or such like charge, without common consent by Acte of Parliament," as the word "taxe," which was usually applied to direct payments only, was the only term sufficiently general to be made to embrace the customs.1 In view of the doubt thus existing, Charles clearly indicated in the hurried speech made at the close of the session that he would not yield the point, but reserve it for the judges to whom "under me, belongs the interpretation of laws." As the house in its last remonstrance had exhorted the merchants to resist the payment resisted all of all duties not imposed by parliament, it was not long before such duties the question was brought to a practical test. As soon as the imposed by resistance thus encountered began, the council, after a solemn parliament; declaration from the king that the right to make impositions was his "by a solemn and legal judgment," issued orders for the seizure of the goods of all importers who attempted to land them without paying duties. When, on September 28, some of the resisting merchants were brought before the council, Chambers' Richard Chambers, who was one of them, ventured to declare that "merchants are in no part of the world so screwed as in England. In Turkey they have more encouragement;' whereupon he was committed to the Marshalsea for contempt. After he had sued out his habeas corpus, a return was promptly made setting forth the cause of his detention, as commanded by the Petition of Right, and on October 23 he was bailed. In November another group of merchants, including John Rolle, a member of the house of commons, attempted to recover by replevying goods which had been seized for nonpayment of duties. When that course was resisted by the case; Rolle's case; 1 The house declared in their remonstrance of June 25, "that the receiving of tonnage and poundage and other impositions not granted by parliament, is a breach of the fundamental liberties of this kingdom, and contrary to your Majesty's answer to their late Petition of Right." On the other hand the king said in his concluding speech: "But as for tonnage and poundage, it is a thing I cannot want, and was never intended by you to ask, - never meant, I am sure, by me to grant." 2 Council Register, July 20, August 13; Rushworth, vol. i. p. 639. 8 Rushworth, vol. i. p. 672. 4 This was the first case that had arisen since its adoption. 5 On November 6, an information was presented against Chambers, in the star chamber. See Court and Times, vol. i. p. 429. declined real attorney-general, the court of exchequer held on November 27 that replevin was not the proper remedy for taking "goods out of His Majesty's own possession."1 Upon the great question of substance involved in the proceedings the judges had judges declined to pass a fortnight before; they then said that it was to pass "only for the parliament now shortly to be reassembled, there upon the to be finally settled, as the desire of His Majesty and the dis- question; creeter sort of merchants is it should be." Shortly before the culmination of this vexatious controversy, the dagger of Felton had put an end to the career of Buckingham at Portsmouth Buckingon the 23d of August, an event that forced the king to assume sinated for the moment the personal direction of the machinery of August 23. government, to every part of which the dead favorite had given inspiration. ham assas reassem 1629; as to of Right; in the Such was the condition of things when the second session Parliament of Charles' third parliament met on January 20, 1629, whose bled first business it was to complain that the speech in which the January 20, king had claimed tonnage and poundage as his due at the close of the last session had been enrolled with the Petition of Right; complaint and that a printed copy of that great statute had been circu- enrolment lated, not only with the final answer and speech in which the of Petition king had expounded it, but also with the ambiguous answer which had been rejected as worthless.2 Passing then to the case of John Rolle, the member whose goods had been seized Rolle's case for his refusal to pay tonnage and poundage, and upon the house; merits of which the judges had refused to pass because the question involved was "only fit for parliament," the house, ignoring the greater issue involving the right of the king to levy duties without the consent of parliament, proceeded to deal with the matter upon the narrower ground that it was a breach of privilege to seize the goods of a member during his the attendance at Westminster. In two out of the three cases question of that had occurred before the accession of James, the exemption had been limited to such goods only as the member required during his attendance and on his way home, while the exact time before and after each session during which the 1 Attorney-General v. Rolle, Orders and Decrees in the Exchequer, November 13, 27, 4 Charles I. fol. 254, 262; Gardiner, vol. vii. pp. 3-6. 2 State Papers, Dom., cxxxiii. 4. Such is the statement contained in Nethersole's letter to Elizabeth, queen of Bohemia. privilege involved; |