and received the formal and elaborate approval of the king. The commons, then, after a stormy debate, in which Eliot took his usual warm and vigorous part 1, sent to crave audience of his majesty "about serious business concerning all the commons of the land." The king returned answer, that they should hear from him the next day. They did hear from him: the next day they were dissolved 2; and the rash monarch proceeded to try the effect of those "new counsels" which he and his servants had so often threatened. These "new counsels" appeared in the shape of a naked despotism. Every thing short of the absolute surrender of the subject to the muskets of the soldiery was resorted to; and we learn, from a remarkable passage in Hume's history, good reason why the new counsels fell short of that. "Had he possessed any military force," says the philosophical apologist of Charles, "on which he could depend, 'tis not improbable that he had, at once, taken off the mask, and governed without any regard to parliamentary privileges. * * * But his army was new levied, ill paid, and worse disciplined; nowise superior to the militia, who were much more numerous, and who were, in a great measure, under the influence of the country gentlemen." 3 As it was, the mask was very clumsily kept on. The first thing attempted under it was to cover, by a bungling imposition, an outrageous stretch of power. The people were instructed by the agents of government that, as It was he who proposed, and had the chief hand in framing, the celebrated remonstrance (Rushworth, vol. i. p. 400.) which every member of the house held in his possession on the day of the dissolution of this parliament. A proclamation was subsequently issued against it by the king. See Rushworth, vol. i. p. 411. 2 See also Sanderson's account in his Life of Charles, p. 58.; and Rushworth, vol. i. p. 398. 3 History, vol. v. p. 151. Clarendon's account may be subjoined to this: - "Upon every dissolution, such as had given any offence were imprisoned, or disgraced; new projects were every day set on foot for money, which served only to offend and incense the people, and brought little supplies to the king's occasions; yet raised a great stock for expostulation, murmur, and complaint, to be exposed when other supplies should be required. And many persons of the best quality and condition under the peerage were committed to several prisons, with circumstances unusual and unheard of, for refusing to pay money required by these extraordinary ways." - Hist. of Rebellion, vol. i. p. 22. subsidies had been voted in the last house of commons, they could not legally refuse to pay them, though parliament had been dissolved before the bill embodying them had passed; and they were levied accordingly! A commission to improve the revenues of crown lands went forth next on a mission of the grossest tyranny; and, following this, a commission to force the most enormous penalties against religious recusants. Privy seals for the loan of money were at the same time issued, in all directions, to men of reputed property, and an immediate advance of an hundred and twenty thousand pounds was insolently demanded from the city of London. Lastly, a levy of ships was ordered from the port towns and counties adjoining - a forecast of the memorable tax of ship money. 1 As men grieved and wondered at these things, the news arrived of the defeat of the king of Denmark at the bloody battle of Luttern; and Charles seized the advantages of this disaster to his ally, to execute a measure he had long meditated, and of which all these oppressions we have named were but even the feeble foreshadowing. He sent commissioners into every quarter of the kingdom, with the most frightfully inquisitorial powers, to execute a GENERAL FORCED LOAN. 2 He issued an elaborate proclamation at the same time, excusing these new counsels by the exigence of the moment; and, in private instructions to the clergy, ordered them to use the pulpit in advancement of his monstrous projects.1 Reverend doctors, with an obedient start, straightway preached illimitable obedience, on pain of eternal damnation.2 Imprisonment of various sorts compensated for the inefficacy of religious anathemas. The poor who could not, or would not, pay were pressed into the army or the navy; substantial tradesmen were dragged from their families; men of rank even were ordered into the palatinate; large batches of country gentlemen were lodged in custody 1; and as a punishment to some, more aggravated and horrible, probably, than any we have named, the remains of the disgraced and infamous troops that had survived the affair at Cadiz were quartered upon their houses, in the midst of their wives and children! 2 And as these crimes had been sanctioned by the ministers of religion, so the vile slaves who sat in the seats of justice were ordered to confirm them by law. A voice or two that had hinted from the bench a feeble utterance of opposition were instantly stifled, and the conclave of judges remanded five recusants, who had brought their habeas corpus.1 1 Rushworth, vol. i. pp. 411-472. Rymer, xviii. pp. 730-842. Whitelocke, pp. 7-9. In these authorities ample information will be found. See also Parl. Hist. vol. vii. pp. 320-338. In connection with these accounts it may be amusing to quote an anecdote from the office book of the master of the revels, "here entered," as he observes, "for ever, to be remembered by my son, and those who cast their eyes on it, in honour of king Charles my master." The king, reading a manuscript play of Massinger's, had stumbled on the following: "Monies! we'll raise supplies what ways we please, and, in the disgust of the moment, wrote a halting line against it: Truly, nothing should be so disgusting to us, as a hideous likeness of ourselves! 2 It is worth while giving an extract from the private instructions of these commissioners. They were "to treat apart with every one of those who are to lend, and not in the presence, or hearing, of any other, unless they see cause to the contrary; and, if any shall refuse to lend, and shall make delay, or excuses, and persist in their obstinacy, that they examine such persons upon oath, whether they have been dealt withal to deny, or refuse to lend, or make an excuse for not lending; - who hath dealt so with them, or what speeches or persuasions he or they have used to him, tending to that purpose? And that they shall also charge every such person in his majesty's name, upon his allegiance, not to declare to any other what his answer was." - Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419. 1 Laud, now bishop of Bath and Wells, drew these instructions up in the name of the king. (See Heylin's Life, p. 161. et seq.; and Laud's Diary.) "The dextrous performance of which service," says Heylin, "as it raised 'Laud higher in his majesty's good opinion of him, so it was recompensed with a place of greater nearness to him than before he had." 2 Sibthorp, vicar of Brackley, in Northamptonshire, and Manwaring, a king's chaplain and vicar of St. Giles's, made themselves most notorious in this slavish and criminal service. Extracts from the sermons of these men, of the most atrocious description, will be found in Rushworth, vol. i. pp. 422, 423. They had excellent imitators. I find among the Sloane MSS. a letter descriptive of a sermon preached by the dean of Canterbury, from which the reader may take an extract: - " It was the speech of a man renowned for wisdom in our age, that if he was commanded to put forth to sea in a ship that had neither mast nor tackling he would do it. And being asked what wisdom that were, replied, the wisdom must be in him that hath power to command, not in him that conscience binds to obey." The question of the licensing these sermons for publication led to the suspension of Abbot from the see of Canterbury. Abbot, however, was no better than his brother Laud, probably a little worse, since the conduct of the former was at least intelligible. See History, from Mackintosh, vol. v. p. 70. The archbishop's Narrative in Rushworth, vol. i. pp. 434-457. Walpole's Royal and Noble Authors, art. Northampton, note by Park. Hallam's Const. Hist. vol. i. p. 570. note. 3 There is something so extremely natural and forcible in sir Peter Hayman's sturdy account of his experience in this particular, that I cannot forbear quoting it. After parliament had assembled, a debate arose on "Designation to Foreign Employment," whereupon sir Peter Hayman got upon his legs: "I have not forgot my employment into the palatinate. I was called before the lords of the council, for what I knew not, but I heard it was for not lending on a privy seal. I told them, if they will take my estate, let them; I would give it up; lend I would not. When I was before the lords of the council, they laid to my charge my unwillingness to serve the king. I said, I had my life and my estate to serve my country and my religion. They told me, that if I did not pay I should be put upon an employment of service. I was willing. After ten weeks waiting, they told me I was to go with a lord into the palatinate, and that I should have employment there, and means befitting. I told them I was a subject, and desired means. Some put on very eagerly, some dealt nobly. They said, I must go on my own purse. I told them nemo militat suis expensis. Some told me, I must go. I began to think, what, must I? None were ever sent out in that way. Lawyers told me I could not be so sent. Having this assurance I demanded means, and was resolved not to stir but upon those terms; and, in silence and duty, I denied. Upon this, having given me a command to go, after twelve days they told me they would not send me as a soldier, but to attend on an ambassador. I knew that stone would hit me, therefore I settled my troubled estate, and addressed myself to that service." Eliot's comments on this usage were appropriately bitter. Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 403. 1 Some were brought up to London, and committed to rigorous confinement in the Fleet, the Gatehouse, the Marshalsea, and the New Prison. Eliot was one of these. The rest, as sir Thomas Wentworth and others, were subjected to confinement, strict, but much less rigorous, in va. rious counties. Hampden had been thrown into the Gatehouse at first, but was afterwards released and sent into Hampshire. One anecdote will illustrate the numberless instances of quiet and forbearing fortitude, practised by men recollected no longer, but who at this time shed lustre on the English character. George Catesby, of Northamptonshire, being committed to the Gatehouse as a recusant, alleged, among other reasons for his non-compliance, that he considered "that this loan might become a precedent; and that every precedent, he was told by the lord president, was a flower of the prerogative." The lord president told him that "he lied!" Catesby merely shook his head, observing, "I come not here to contend with your lordship, but to suffer." Lord Suffolk then interposed to entreat the lord president not too far to urge his kinsman, Mr. Catesby. The latter, however, waived any kindness he might owe to kindred, declaring that "he would remain master of his own purse." D'Israeli's Commentaries, vol. ii. p. 9. 2 See a letter in Strafford's State Papers, vol. i. p. 40., and Rushworth, vol. i. pp. 418-420. "There were frequent robberies," says the collector, "burglaries, rapes, rapines, murders, and barbarous cruelties. Unto some places they were sent as a punishment, and wherever they came, there was a general outcry." From his place in parliament, sir Thomas Wentworth afterwards denounced this: "They have sent from us the light of our eyes; enforced companies of guests worse than the ordinances of France; vitiated our wives and daughters before our faces; brought the crown to greater want than ever it was, by anticipating the revenue! And can the shepherd be thus smitten, and the flock not be scattered?” -Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 370. Sir John Eliot, at this moment, lay a prisoner in the Gatehouse. He had been foremost to refuse the loan, was arrested in Cornwall, brought before the council table, and thence committed to prison. In prison, and before the council table, as in his place in the house of commons, Eliot had the unfailing resource of fearlessness, and a composed vigour. Wherever circumstances placed him, he knew that, so long as they left him life, they left him able to perform its duties. From the Gatehouse, he forwarded to the king an able argument against the loan, which he concluded by a request, urged with a humble but brave simplicity, for his own immediate release. This document has been preserved. It commences with a protest against the supposition that "stubbornness and will" have been the motives 1 The case of sir Thomas Darnel, sir John Corbet, sir Walter Earl, sir John Heveringham, and sir Everard Hampden, which is reported at great length in the State Trials, is an admirable illustration, among other things, of the character of the crown lawyers and judges of the time. There is an abridgment of the proceedings in Rushworth, pp. 458-462. Sir Randolph Crew, immediately before this case was argued, having, as Rushworth expresses it, "showed no zeal," (i. 420.) was removed to make way for sir Nicholas Hyde; and it is quite clear that two of the judges (Jones and Doddridge) who sat with the latter, having shown a decided leaning towards the prisoners during the argument, were brought to a better understanding with sir Nicholas before the decision. When the case was afterwards sent before the house of lords, and the judges were, so to speak, put upon their trial, judge Whitelock betrayed the secret. "The commons," he said, "do not know what letters and commands we receive." Beyond all praise was the conduct of the counsel employed for the prisoners on this occasion. The most undaunted courage exalted the profoundest knowledge. The sober grandeur of Selden, and the rough energy of Noy, must have struck with an ominous effect on the court councils. It was here that Selden threw out, in a parenthesis, those remarkable words which, it has been judiciously observed (History, from Mackintosh, vol. v. p. 77.) are applicable to periods much later and of more pretension to liberty than that of Charles. They are yet, in fact, to be expounded. "If Magna Charta were fully executed, as it ought to be, every man would enjoy his liberty better than he doth." In connection with this remarkable case, too, sir Edward Coke (who argued it before the lords) presented, for the first time, to his astonished profession, the highest vigour of a noble and liberal thought, issuing, as it were, even out of the most formal technicalities of law. "Shall I have an estate for lives or for years in England, and be tenant at will for my liberty? A freeman, to be tenant at will for his freedom! There is no such tenure in all Littleton!" The excited state of the public mind, during the arguments on this question, is vividly conveyed in a letter I have found among the Harleian MSS. "The gentlemen's counsel for habeas corpus, Mr. Selden, Mr. Noy, Sergeant Bramsten, and Mr. Colthrop, pleaded yesterday with wonderful applause, even of shouting and clapping of hands: which is unusual in that place." |