Page images
PDF
EPUB

1625-1649.

The king, to prevent the delivery of their remonstrance, CHARLES I. prorogued the parliament; and acquainted them, tonnage and poundage he had never meant to give away, nor could possibly Prorogation of

do without.

Notwithstanding the declaration of the commons as to tonnage and poundage, that impost was enforced, although it was in the first instance resisted, and the question of its legality submitted to the judges, who held that the king's right had been recognised in Bates's case".

6. The Parliament of 1629.

parliament.

customs, &c.

Theological and metaphysical controversies, and the ques- Officers of the tion of tonnage and poundage, engrossed the attention of the summoned before House upon its re-assembling. The officers of the customs the House. were summoned before the commons, to justify seizing the goods of merchants who had refused to pay tonnage and poundage; the barons of the exchequer were questioned concerning their decrees'; and one of the sheriffs of London was committed to the Tower for his activity in supporting the officers of the customs. But the king upheld the acts of all those who had assisted in its assessment and levy.

A remonstrance was then framed by the commons against levying" tonnage and poundage" without the consent of parliament; and upon the question being called for, the speaker said," that he had a command from the king to adjourn, and to put no question :" upon which he left the chair. A disgraceful scene of confusion was the result: during which a remonstrance was approved of, declaring papists and Arminians capital enemies to the commonwealth; those who levied tonnage and poundage were branded with the same epithet; and if the merchants voluntarily paid such duties, they were to be stigmatised as betrayers of English liberty, and public enemies. And under such excited feelings the House was prorogued, and then dissolved".

Levies of ton

nage and pound

age, declared by the commons to

be illegal.

19

1 Rushworth, 409. 2 5 Parl. Hist. 466.

1

8 Parl. Hist. 301. 1 Rushworth, 654. 3 6 Hume, 275. 6 Lingard, 290, 291.

CHARLES I. 1625-1649.

Determination

of Charles to

try without par

liaments.

7. Declaration of the King to goverh without Parliaments; and other Unconstitutional Proceedings.

Charles had now determined to govern the country without the intervention of parliament', having issued a proclamation which declared he should account it presumption for any govern the coun- to prescribe a time to him for parliament, the calling, continuing, or dissolving of which, was always in his own power; and he should be more inclinable to meet parliament again, when his people should see more clearly into his intents and actions, when such as have bred this interruption shall have received their condign punishment. He also declared that he would "not overcharge his subjects by any more burdens, but satisfy himself with those duties that were received by his father, which he neither could nor would dispense with; but should esteem them unworthy of his protection, who should deny them."

Committal of the members of the opposition.

Informations in the Court of

King's Bench.

The king, with his accustomed impolicy, committed to prison those members of the commons who had recently taken the most prominent part in opposing his views, and seized their papers; thereupon they sued out a writ of habeas corpus, to which it was returned, that they were detained for notable contempts, and for stirring up sedition, alleged in a warrant under the king's sign manual".

It was contended that this return was insufficient under the "Petition of Right;" to support its validity, the king's prerogative of arbitrary imprisonment was relied upon, and that a petition in parliament " is no law, yet it was for the honour and dignity of the king to observe it faithfully, but it is the duty of the people not to stretch it beyond the words and intention of the king. And no other construction can be made of the petition, than that it is a confirmation of the ancient liberties and rights of the subject. So that the prerogative remained in the same quality and degree, as it was before the petition."

The judges, equally fearful of the Star Chamber as of a

13 Millar's Eng. Gov. 204. 8 Parl. Hist. 389.

19 Rymer, 62. Vide etiam ibid. 33. 7 Parl. Hist. 389. 2 Rushworth, 3. 6 Lingard, 293.

3

1 Rushworth, 661, 681. 7 Parl. Hist. 354. May,

13.

1625-1649.

future parliamentary impeachment, acquainted the king they CHARLES I. were bound to bail the prisoners, but requested his directions to do so1. The king not only refused his permission, but prevented the prisoners from appearing before the court in order to receive judgment; and did not release them until they had been imprisoned for some months :-thus were the laws of England protected by this "amiable monarch."

An information in the King's Bench was also exhibited against three of these prisoners, for seditious speeches and tumults in parliament; they refused to answer for such acts before an inferior court, but the private influence of the king with the judges, united with their perfidy, secured a conviction; the court holding that they had jurisdiction though the alleged offences were committed in parliament, that the privileges of parliament did not extend to breaches of the peace, and that all offences against the crown were punishable in the Court of King's Bench; the defendants were then sentenced to imprisonment during the king's pleasure,—that they should not be released without sureties for their good behaviour and making submission,-and that two of the defendants should be respectively fined for the tumult 1000l., the other defendant for the seditious words 5007.5

The effect of these despotic proceedings greatly increased the power and popularity of the commons, and, in an inverse ratio, the weakness and unpopularity of the court.

Despotic mea

sures of the king,

and perversion

of justice.

taxation.

In order to procure pecuniary supplies, various expedients Unconstitutional were pursued. Tonnage and poundage continued to be levied under the royal authority, and new impositions were laid on several kinds of merchandise; and the officers received orders from the council to enter into any house, warehouse, or cellar, to search any trunk or chest, and to break any bulk whatever, on default of the payment of customs".

Compositions were made with recusants; so likewise with composition those who had neglected to receive the order of knighthood";

* 1 Rushworth, 661, 681. 7 Parl. Hist. 354 May, 13. Whitlocke's Mem. 14. 2 Parl. Hist. N. E. 869, 876.

5 1 Rushworth, 674-680, 689-701. Whitelock, 14. 2 Hallam's Const.Hist. 3-8. 6 Lingard, 291-293.

62 Rushworth, 8. May, 16.

8 Ibid. 11, 12, 13, 247.

9 Statutum de Militibus.

7 2 Rushworth, 9.

15 Rymer, 124, 493, 504. 2 Rushworth, 70

-72. May, 16. 2 Inst. 593. 2 Parl. Hist. 948. 2 Brodie, 282. 2 Macauley, 107. 2 Hallam, 13. 6 Hume, 294.

with recusants.

CHARLES I. and such as were possessed of crown lands under defective titles 1o.

1625-1649.

The grant of monopolies.

10

Although monopolies had been abolished under James I., there was an exceptive proviso as to new inventions; and on pretence of these, and of erecting new companies and corporations, this grievance was renewed. The manufacture of soap was given to a company, who paid a sum for their patent"; leather, salt, and many other commodities, even down to linen rags, were likewise put under restrictions", and a stamp duty was for the first time imposed upon cards 13. Proclamations, enforced by the Star Chamber, were issued, interfering with which directly interfered with the rights of persons and of property, whenever a political object, personal caprice, or pecuniary rapacity, were sought to be acquired.

Proclamations

the rights of persons and pro

perty.

No man should be deprived of his honour or

property, until after an impartial investigation.

The nobility and gentry were ordered to quit London for their country seats"; prices of provisions were regulated "; tradesmen and artificers could not trade without having been admitted into some mercantile corporation ; houses were ordered to be destroyed by the sheriff of London, to show St. Paul's cathedral to advantage "; all shops in Cheapside and Lombard Street, except those of goldsmiths, were directed to be closed, so that the avenue to St. Paul's might be grander 18; and, in 1637, Cromwell, Pym, Hambden, and all others of the puritans, were prohibited from quitting England"; and persons quitting the country, were subjected to an inquisitorial oath 2o

[ocr errors]

8. The Court of Star Chamber.

In all political governments, the life of the meanest subject should be deemed precious; no man should be stripped of his

10 2 Rushworth, 49. 1 Clarendon, 176. 2 Strafford's Letters, 117. 20 Rymer, 585.

11 19 Rymer, 323.

Kennet, 64. 2 Rushworth, 132. 1 Strafford's

Letters, 446. Laud's Diary, 51.

12 20 Rymer, 340. 6 Hume, 296.

13

2 Rushworth, 103.

15 19 Rymer, 512.

17 2 Rushworth, 79.

14 Ibid. 144.

16 20 Rymer, 113, 157. 6 Lingard, 300–302.

18 Ibid. 313.

19 Ibid. 409, 418. Mather's Hist. of New England, book i. 1 Hutchin

son's Hist. of Massachusetts Bay, 42.

20 19 Rymer, 699. 2 Hallam's Const. Hist. 38.

1625-1649.

honour or property, but after an impartial and strict inquiry; CHARLES I. and no man should be bereft of life, until his very country has attacked him-an attack that should never be made without leaving him all possible means of making his defence-the ultimate end of all governments being the positive good of the people for whose sake they were made, and without whose consent they could not have been made. In fact, equal laws, and their impartial administration, are to the collective body, what health is to every individual body; without health, no pleasure can be tasted by man; without equal laws, and their impartial administration, no happiness can be enjoyed by society. But under the dominion of Charles I. and the Commonwealth, these principles were contemned.

The Court of Star Chamber extended its authority by encroachments on the jurisdiction of the other courts; and although it could not adjudge the punishment of death, yet it arbitrarily exercised the powers of fine, imprisonment, pillory, whipping, branding, and cutting off the ears.

The Court of Star Chamber on the jurisdic

encroaches

tion of the other

courts.

The mode of process was sometimes of a summary nature; Its mode of the accused being privately examined, and his examination process. read in the court. If he was thought to have confessed sufficient to deserve sentence, it was immediately awarded without any formal trial or written process. But the more regular course was by information filed at the suit of the attorney-general, or in certain cases of a private relator. The party was brought before the court by writ of subpœna; and having given bond with sureties not to depart without leave, was to put in his answer upon oath, as well to the matters contained in the information, as to special interrogatories. Witnesses were examined upon interrogatories, and their depositions read in court. But it appears that the Court of Star Chamber could not sentence to punishment on the deposition of an eye witness, a rule which did not prevent their receiving the most imperfect and inconclusive testimony'.

The criminal jurisdiction was that which made this court so dreaded; for severity and iniquity were its predominant principles under the Tudors and Stuarts. It took cognizance of forgery, perjury, riot, maintenance, fraud, libel, and conspiracy, and all other misdemeanors for which the law had not provided

1 2 Hallam's Const. Hist. 45. Harl. MSS. 142, &c. 2 Rushworth Abr.

The criminal exercised with severity and

jurisdiction

iniquity.

« PreviousContinue »