1649-1685. CHARLES II. questioned by the courts of law, unless confirmed by a parliament legally constituted, and the king, not expecting to derive any additional benefit from its continuance, commanded a dissolution'. Impolitic measures of parliament. The negative voice, and the command of the rights in the crown. The first proofs which the new parliament gave of its impolitic spirit, was by ordering the solemn league and covenant; with the acts for erecting a high court of justice for the trial of Charles Stuart; for subscribing the engagement; for establishing a commonwealth; for renouncing the title of the present king; and for the security of the protector's person; to be burned by the common hangman': and although they passed, in consequence of the royal interposition, the late Act of Indemnity, without new exceptions, it was in direct opposition to their expressed inclinations3. It was affirmed that the negative voice, and the command of the army, were rights inherent in the crown: to devise any army, inherent bodily harm to the king, and to distinguish between his person and his office, were made treason; to call the king a heretic, or a papist, was declared to incapacitate the offender from holding any office in church or state; and the penalties of præmunire were enacted against all who should assert that the parliament of 1641 was not dissolved, or that both Houses or either House, possessed legislative authority, independently of the sovereign*. Severe restrictions on the press. Restoration of the bishops. At the same time, severe restrictions were imposed upon the press, to prevent the publication of books maintaining opinions contrary to the Christian faith, or the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England, or tending to the defamation of church or state, or of the governors thereof, or of any person whomsoever. The bishops were restored to their legislative seats, in the House of Lords, and the treasonable proceedings which had attended their exclusion, were productive of a statute which, after reciting that it had been found, by sad experience, that remonstrances and declarations, and other addresses to the king, or to both or either Houses of Parliament, for alterations of matters established by law, for the redress of pretended 1 Life of Clarendon, 74; vide etiam 6 Parl. Hist. 145, 147. 2 Com. Journ. May 17, 1661. 3 Life of Clarendon, 71. Com. Journ. June 14, 1661. 6 Parl. Hist. 209. 2 Hallam's Const. Hist. 439. * Stat. 13 Charles II. cc. 1 and 6. 5 Clarendon, 181. 7 Lingard, 368. Stat. 13 Charles II. c. 2. 1649-1685. Petition for re dress of griev ances. grievances in church or state, had been made use of to serve CHARLES II. the ends of factious and seditious persons, gotten into power, to the violation of the public peace, provided that no petition or address should be presented to the king, or either House of Parliament, by more than ten persons; nor that any one should procure above twenty persons to consent or set their hands to any petition for alteration of matters established by law, in church or state, unless with the previous order of three justices of the county, or the major part of the grand jury", under the liability of being fined 1007. and imprisoned for three months. 7. Punishment of the Regicides. The political parties still regarded each other with suspicion, reports of treasonable conspiracies were circulated against the nonconformists, and the denounced were arrested, convicted, and executed; and parliament, "eager for prey," directed their attention to those surviving regicides who were confined in prison. The Lord Monson, Sir Henry Mildmay, and Robert Wallop, Execution of the were pinioned upon hurdles, and drawn through the streets regicides. with halters round their necks, to the gallows at Tyburn'; and those who had been excepted from the penalty of death, enjoying titles of honour, were degraded. A bill for the execution of those regicides who had surrendered themselves in consequence of the royal proclamation, was passed by the commons, and carried to the lords, who, after having had it once read, and examined the prisoners at their bar, refrained, by the secret commands of the king, from pursuing any ultimate proceedings. Allusion has been made to that statute' which gave indemnity to all persons obeying a king for the time being, however defective his title: and, as a constitutional principle, established the duty of allegiance to the existing government. The commons, in order to wreak their vengeance, disregarded the inclinations of the king3, by instituting a criminal 7 Stat. 13 Charles II. c. 5. 1 7 Lingard, 370. 2 Clarendon's Notes in Clar. Pap. iii. App. xlvi. 3 Com. Journ. July 1, 1661; Jan. 27, Feb. 1, 3, 1662. 11 Lords' Journ. 375, 380. 1 Pepys, 243. + Vide ante. 154, 155. 5 Com. Journ. July 1, Nov. 22, 1661; Jan. 10, Feb. 19, 1662. The regicides who had sur rendered them selves under the royal proclamation. Duty of allegiance to the exist ing government.. 1649-1685. CHARLES II. process against Vane and Lambert, and though the convention parliament had refused to except them from the penalty of death, yet, on account of the declaration from Breda, had recommended them to mercy in case of their conviction, which recommendation had been favourably received". Execution of Justification, by Vane, of his conduct. Charles II. declared by the judges to have been a king de facto from the death of his father. They were indicted for overt acts of high treason against Charles II., by their exercise of civil and military functions under the commonwealth; though not, as far as appears, expressly directed against the king's authority, and certainly not against his person'. The question was not whether a right to the crown descended according to the laws of inheritance; but whether such a right, divested of possession, could challenge allegiance as a bounden duty, by the law of England,-but it is clear a king, "that hath right, and is out of possession," is not within the statutes of treasons. Vane urged, in justification of his conduct, that by the statute which rendered the Long Parliament indissoluble without its own consent, the two Houses were raised to a power equal and co-ordinate with that of the king, and possessed a right to restrain oppression and tyranny: by the war which followed between these equal authorities, the people were placed in a new and unprecedented situation, to which the former laws of treason could not apply: after the decision by the sword, “a decision given by that God, who, being judge of the whole world, does right, and cannot do otherwise," the parliament became, de facto, in possession of the sovereign authority, and whatever he had done in obedience to that authority was justifiable, by the principles of civil government, and the statute of 11 Henry VII. The judges, however, determined that Charles, in virtue of the succession, had been king de facto, as well as de jure, from the moment of his father's death, though "kept out of the exercise of his royal authority by traitors and rebels:" and as he was the only person then claiming kingly power, he was to be considered as a king in possession, and in the actual exercise of his authority'. "Com. Journ. Aug. 28, Sept. 5, 1660. 11 Lords' Journ. 156. 7 Lingard, 370. 7 2 Hallam's Const. Hist. 440, 441. 83 Inst. 7. Bagot's Case, 9 Edward IV. Constitution. 2 Hallam's Const. Hist. 442. 9 Higden's View of the English 6 State Trials, 119-186. 7 Lingard, 373. 7 Hume, 381. Parliament being determined to immolate a victim, sentence CHARLES II. of death was passed and executed upon Vane; but Lambert 1649-1685. was confined, as a prisoner, in Guernsey, for thirty years 10,thus affording an additional instance that law, justice, or a sense of honour, are practically held by popular assemblies in utter scorn, where a party object is to be obtained, or where a political enemy is to be butchered. 8. The Corporation Act. Although the courtiers, who were desirous of extending the powers of the crown, were predominant in parliament, yet it was impossible for them to be absolute as long as the presbyterians retained possession of the corporate and borough offices; accordingly the "Corporation Act" was introduced, to eject the latter from such local authority. By that statute, commissioners were appointed, with the power of removing at discretion every individual holding office in or under any corporation in the kingdom; and that all persons retaining their situations should qualify themselves, by renouncing the solemn league and covenant, by taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and by declaring upon oath their belief of the unlawfulness of taking up arms against the king on any pretence whatsoever, and their abhorrence of the traitorous doctrine, that arms might be taken up by his authority against his person, or against those that were commissioned by him; and that no future officer should be eligible who had not, within the year preceding his election, taken the sacrament according to the rite of the Church of England. Enactments contained in Stat. 13 Charles II. c. 1, sess. 2. In an abstract sense, this act was most unjust, because its objects of the effect was to destroy the political power of the presbyterians, Corporation Act. who had been instrumental in effecting the Restoration; and by the Act of Uniformity, their ecclesiastical influence was annihilated. municipal insti This statute likewise produced great change in the consti- Alterations tution of many of the boroughs, and vested the municipal effected in the franchises in non-residents, whose rights to exercise either the tutions. parliamentary or municipal franchises, arose from political depravity. 10 Com. Journ. Aug. 28, 1660. 11 Lords' Journ. Sept. 5, 1662. CHARLES II. 1649-1685. Unconstitutional address of the king to parliament, in 1664. Repeal of the 9. The Triennial Act. The absolute notions of the king were exemplified from his conduct in effecting the repeal of the Triennial Act, in which he, in effect, avowed a design forcibly to prevent the execution of the laws. It was generally thought that no parliament, under that act, could sit for more than three years; but the king, on opening the parliamentary session of 1664, stated that he had often read over that bill, and, though there was no colour for the fancy of the determination of the parliament, yet he would not deny that he had always expected them to consider the wonderful clauses in that bill, which passed in a time very uncareful for the dignity of the crown, or the security of the people. He requested them to look again at it. For himself, he loved parliaments; he was much beholden to them; he did not think the crown could ever be happy without frequent parliaments. "But assure yourselves," he concluded, "if I should think otherwise, I would never suffer a parliament to come together by the means prescribed by that bill"." Notwithstanding this language, parliament passed a bill for the repeal of that which had been unanimously enacted, in 1641, as the basis of constitutional monarchy; the preamble reciting, that the Triennial Act was "in derogation of his majesty's just rights and prerogative inherent in the imperial crown of this realm, for the calling and assembling of parliaments3;" and then repeals every clause and article. But the opposition were sufficiently powerful to have a proviso inserted, that parliaments should not, in future, be intermitted for above three years at the most; so that, in principle, the Triennial Act still subsisted, but without security to enforce its observance; and the necessity of such securities was thus evinced, that nearly four years elapsed between the dissolution of Charles's last parliament and his death. 1 Vide ante, 393. 3 Com. Journ. March 28, 1664. c. 1. 2 Hallam's Const. Hist. 448. 2 11 Lords' Journ. 582. Clarendon, 281. Stat. 16 Charles II. |