The result, after many committees on the liberty of the subject, was a resolution to prepare the memorable petition of right. Sir John Eliot took part in all the debates; lifted them to the most vigorous and passionately determined tone; and now acted in all respects as the great leader of the house. Charles's attempts to get hold of the subsidies continued to be unceasing, and every art was resorted to by his ministers. Buckingham, meanwhile, covered with his recent failures and disgraces, had hitherto kept himself out of view; and it is another proof of the noble policy we have characterised in every movement of the popular leaders at this time, that, intent upon their grander objects, they passed the subdued favourite, so long as he was not intruded before them, in contemptuous silence. The court party, however, rarely failed to misconstrue conduct of this sort; and now, with a fatal preciptancy, presumed upon this silence. Cooke, the king's secretary, by way of an inducement to suffer him to touch the subsidies, assured the house that the king was very grateful for their vote; and, moreover, that Buckingham had implored his majesty to grant all the popular desires. An extract from a manuscript letter of the time will convey the most lively notion of what followed. "Sir John Eliot instantly leapt up, and taxed the secretary for intermingling a subject's speech with the king's message. It could not become any subject to bear himself in such a fashion, as if no grace ought to descend from the king to the people, nor any loyalty ascend from the people to the king, but through him only. Whereunto many in the house made an exclamation, Well spoken, sir John Eliot!'"2 From a more detailed report I will give an extract of this speech, happily characteristic of Eliot's style, of the dignified phrase, not unmixed with a composed sarcasm, with which in the present instance the sharpness of his rebuke was tempered. My joy at this message is not without trouble, which must likewise be declared. I must disburthen this affliction, or I cannot, otherwise, so lively and so faithfully express my devotion to the service of this house as I had resolved. I know not by what fatality or infortunity it has crept in, but I observe, in the close of the secretary's relation, mention made of another in addition to his majesty; and that which hath been formerly a matter of complaint, I find here still-a mixture with his majesty, not only in his business, but in name. Is it that any man conceives the mention of others, of what quality soever, can add encouragement or affection to us, in our duties and loyalties towards his majesty, or give them greater latitude or extent than naturally they have? Or is it supposed that the power or interest of any man can add more once every year they held a solemn feast for their slaves, at which they had liberty, without exception, to speak what they would, thereby to ease their afflicted minds; which, being finished, they severally returned to their former servitude. This may, with some resemblance and distinction, well set forth our present state; when now, after the revolution of some time, and grievous suffering of many violent oppressions, we have, as those slaves had, a day of liberty of speech; but shall not, I trust, be hereafter slaves, for we are free. Yet what new illegal proceedings our states and persons have suffered under, my heart yearns to think, my tongue falters to utter! I can live," passionately Philips continued, "although another, who has no right, be put to live with me; nay, I can live although I pay excises and impositions more than I do. But to have my liberty, which is the soul of my life, taken from me by power! and to have my body pent up in a gaol, without remedy by law, and to be so adjudged! O improvident ancestors! O unwise forefathers! to be so curious in providing for the quiet possession of our laws, and the liberties of parliament, and to neglect our persons and bodies, and to let them lie in prison, and that, durante beneplacito, remediless! If this be law, why do we talk of liberties? Why do we trouble ourselves with a dispute about law, franchises, property of goods, and the like? What may any man call his own, if not the liberty of his person?" Sir Benjamin Rudyard followed. "This is the crisis of parliaments," he said; "by this we shall know whether parliaments will live or die!" To him succeeded the dark and doubtful energy of Wentworth, and the undimmed clearness of the venerable sir Edward Coke. "I'll begin," said the latter, after approving the proposed supplies, "with a noble record. It cheers me to think of it! It is worthy to be written in letters of gold ! Loans against the will of the subject are against reason and the franchises of the land, and they desire restitution. Franchise! What a word is that 'franchise!"" - Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 363. et seq. These men were indeed capable of the great duties that fell to them. 1 The grievances detailed before these committees were reduced to six heads: attendance at the council board - imprisonment - confinementdesignation to foreign employment - martial law - undue proceedings in matters of judicature. These were severally debated, and Eliot spoke upon all of them with characteristic energy. The portions that remain of his speeches are sufficient to indicate this. - Parl. Hist. vol. vii. pp.399-405. &c. 1 Parl: Hist. vol. vii. p. 431. 2 Sloane MSS., 4177. Letter from Mr. Pory. Another account will be found among these manuscripts, in a letter from Mr. Mead, dated April 12. 1 Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 433. In this speech also Eliot, referring to the king's thankful recognition of the vote of subsidies, and the honeyed words he had addressed to them through Cooke, expressive of his sense of their claims, threw out a remark in which there appears an ominous union of sarcasm and sternness. " I presume we have all received great satisfaction from his majesty in his present gracious answer and resolution for the business of this house; in his answer to our petition for religion, so particularly made; in his resolution in that other consideration concerning the point, ALREADY SETTLED HERE, in declaration of our liberties; and for the parliament in general." readiness to his majesty, in his gracious inclination towards us, than his own goodness gives him? I cannot believe it! But, sir, I am sorry there is occasion that these things should be argued; or that this mixture, which was formerly condemned, should appear again. I beseech you, sir, let it not be hereafter; let no man take this boldness within these walls, to introduce it! It is contrary to the custom of our fathers, and the honour of our times. I desire that such interposition may be let alone, and that all his majesty's regards and goodnesses towards this house may spring alone from his confidence of our loyalty and affections." 1 The secretary remained silent, but the court remembered that rebuke bitterly. Equally firm, however, against its threatening and cajoling, the commons persisted in their great purpose. Resolutions were passed declaratory of the rights of the people; and a conference appointed with the lords that they might concur in a petition to the throne -founded upon magna charta and other statutes; directed to the security of the person, as the foremost of all securities; strengthened on that point by twelve direct and thirty-one indirect precedents; completed by certain resolutions of their own, reducing those precedents to a distinct unity of purpose 2; and to be called a petition of right, because requiring nothing, save the recognition and direction of violated laws. The lords and commons met, and the constititutional lawyers stated their case with a startling clearness. "It lies not under Mr. attorney's cap," exclaimed sir Edward Coke, "to answer any one of our arguments." "With my own hand," said Selden, "I have written out all the records from the Tower, the exchequer, and the king's bench, and I will engage my head Mr. attorney shall not find in all these archives a single precedent omitted." 1 The close of the conference elicited from the lords a series of counter-resolutions, which were immediately rejected by Eliot and his friends, as nothing more than an ingenious subterfuge. These resolutions, in point of fact, if agreed to, would, after recognising the legality of the precedents urged, have left the matter precisely where it The king's word was to be the chief security.2 The lords, in truth, had been tampered with; and the court heedlessly betrayed this by proposing, a few days after, in a royal message, precisely the same security, with the addition of a piece of advice that one 2 These resolutions were four in number, and had for their object the security of the subject from those infamous pretences of the court lawyers and court judges, which had been so remarkably exhibited in the case of the five members. See them in Rushworth, vol. i. p. 513. Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 407. The profound skill and judgment of the leaders of the commons, by sealing down the old statutes thus, at once shut out every possible plea of silence or evasion from the corrupt judges, and struck from under them their old resource to antagonist enactments, judicial precedents, and exercises of prerogative. was. 1 See the reports of the conference in the Journals. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 527. et seq.; and Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 409. et seq. The legal research and vast ability displayed by the popular leaders in this conference, determined the lords to hear counsel for the crown. One of these, however, serjeant Ashley, having argued in behalf of the prerogative in the high tone of the last reign, was ordered into custody by their lordships, who at the same time assured the commons that he had no authority from them for what he had said. (See Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 47. for the offensive argument; and afterwards, p. 53. and p. 68.) This was a somewhat strong step to take against a king's counsel, employed at a free conference; and Mr. Hallam urges it (Const. Hist. vol. i. p. 533.) as a "remarkable proof of the rapid growth of popular principles." It is a compliment to the growing influence of the lower house, but certainly no proof of the popular principles of a body of men who, the very moment after they had thus seemed to condemn arbitrary doctrines, proposed to grant to the king in extraordinary cases, the necessity of which he was to determine, a power of commitment without showing cause! This was robbing Peter to pay Paul with a vengeance! See their five propositions, in Rushworth, vol. i. p. 546. An anecdote of one of their lordships, which occurred at this time, is worth subjoining. As the earl of Suffolk was passing froin the conference into the committee chamber of the house, he insolently swore at one of the members of the commons, and said Mr. Selden deserved to be hanged, for that he had rased a record. This was immediately noised about, and came to the ears of Eliot. He took up the matter with great warmth, in vindication of his regard for Selden, had the circumstances investigated by a committee, and proposed some stringent resolutions against the earl, "which were agreed unto by the whole house." See Commons' Journals, April 17. 1628; and Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 452. 2 See Rushworth, vol. i. p. 546. regrets to see so evidently wasted. It would have been hailed with nods of such profuse delight by a parcel of Chinese mandarins. "The wrath of a king is like the roaring of a lion; and all laws, with his wrath, are of no effect: but the king's favour is like the dew upon the grass; there all will prosper!1 Undoubtedly this was lost upon the present audience. Eliot, who was well read in literature, might probably have reminded Philips or Selden of the leonine propen.. sities of the Athenian weaver, who aggravated his voice, however, to such an extent in roaring, that at last he came to roar as gently as a dove or a nightingale. Certainly no other notice was taken. The commons returned to their house, and quietly, and without a single dissentient, ordered their lawyers to throw the matter of their petition into the shape of a bill, that the responsibility of openly rejecting it might fall on the lords and the king. Message succeeded message, but still the commons proceeded. Briefly and peremptorily, at last, Charles desired, through his secretary, to know decidedly whether the house would or would not rest upon his royal word? "Upon this there was silence for a good space." 2 Pym was the first to break it; and Eliot hastened to relieve Pym from the personal dilemma in which his fearless acuteness threatened to place him. " I move," said he, "that this proposition be put to the question, because they that would have it do urge us to that point." 3 The question was rejected. Charles instantly sent down another message peremptorily warning them not "to encroach on that sove 1 See Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 81. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 551. Aikin's Court of Charles, vol. i. p. 206. 2 Rushworth, vol. i. p. 553. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 95. 3 There is no mention of this in the debates, but I have it on the authority of a manuscript letter in the collection of Dr. Birch. I may take this opportunity of stating that that learned person had with his own hand transcribed for publication, from the Harleian and various other collections, a vast number of letters, illustrative of the reigns of James I. and Charles I.; but which remain to this day on the shelves of the Sloane collection, as the transcriber left them. Their arrangement and publication would confer a valuable service on history; yet I fear there is no prevailing encouragement for undertakings of this sort. It is to be regretted. |