<63>The opposition which the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Courts had raised amongst the judges must have made Salisbury Parliament summoned.anxious as to the success of the appeal which he was about to address to the House of Commons, which was, as he well knew, animated by a still stronger dislike to those courts. All other means, however, of restoring the finances to a sound condition having been exhausted, it was determined to summon Parliament to meet early in 1610. Unusual precautions were taken to obtain a majority in favour of the scheme which the Lord Treasurer had in preparation. During Elections to vacancies.the long interval which had passed since the last session several vacancies had occurred. To four, at least, of the constituencies which had seats at their disposal Salisbury made applications in favour of nominees of his own. The answers which he received throw some light upon the manner in which elections were at that time conducted. The bailiffs of Eye said that they had already selected a candidate at the nomination of a neighbouring gentleman, but that he had consented to waive his claim, when he heard that a letter had been received from Salisbury.[138] Another of the Treasurer’s letters was sent down to Bossiney. It was carried by the mayor to a gentleman named Hender, who wrote to Salisbury, telling him that he had held the nomination for more than twenty years, but that, on this occasion, he was willing to place it at <64>the disposal of the Government.[139] The bailiffs of Boroughbridge answered a similar request by saying that they would rather die than refuse to elect Salisbury’s nominee.[140] The corporation of Ludlow alone refused to elect the person designated, as they were bound to choose no one who was not a resident in their town. They would, however, take care that their new member should vote entirely according to the wishes of the Government.[141]
The session commenced on February 9. At a conference on the 15th, Salisbury laid before the House of Commons an 1610.Meeting of Parliament.exposition of the condition of the Treasury. As was only natural, he laid far more stress on the necessities of the King than on the prodigality by which they had, in a great measure, been caused. Nor did he fail to draw attention to the exertions by which the debt had been reduced to a sum of 300,000l., and the revenue had been brought to within 46,000l.[142] of the regular expenses, although the King would need much more to supply his extraordinary expenditure. He begged the Commons not to allow the ship of State to be wrecked at the entrance of the port. He was obliged, in noticing the objection that the King had been too prodigal of his bounty, to fall back upon commonplaces on the necessity of rewarding merit, and to quote the example of other princes whose expenditure had been equally profuse. If the House would consent to assist the King in his need, he would, on his part, be ready to redress all just grievances.[143]
In taking the Treasurer’s speech into consideration, the Commons decided upon Feb. 18.Supply and support.postponing the question of the supply to be granted for the payment of the debt, until they had determined upon some regular support by which the revenue itself might be permanently increased.
<65>Various proposals were made. Amongst others, Thomas Wentworth, the member for the city of Oxford, and son of the Peter Wentworth who had been committed to the Tower by Elizabeth, for the boldness of his language in the House, proposed that the King should be asked to reduce his expenditure. The House, however, was Feb. 21.not prepared for so strong a measure, and the whole question was referred to the Committee of Grievances. The Committee proposed that the Lords should be requested to state precisely what the King was willing to do. If the Lords refused to do this, the Commons were to ask for leave to treat with the King for the abolition of the feudal tenures, and especially of the whole system of wardship.
It was plain that there was a difference in the manner in which the matter in hand was regarded by those who were principally concerned. Salisbury considered it to be the duty of the Commons to supply the wants of the King, and looked upon the redress of grievances as a favour which was to be granted to them if they performed their duty. With the Commons, on the other hand, the first object was that grievances should be redressed.
In the conference which ensued, Salisbury plainly put forward the demands of the Government. He asked for a supply of 600,000l., Feb. 24.half of which was to pay off the debt, whilst 150,000l. was to be employed in meeting the extraordinary expenses of the navy, and the remainder was to be laid by to be used on any emergency which might arise. He also asked for a permanent support of 200,000l. a year, which would give the King an annual income of 660,000l., a sum nearly 50,000l. in excess of his whole annual expenditure,[144] provided that that expenditure continued at its present rate, and that his income was not diminished by the concessions which he was prepared to make to the demands of the nation. He was answered, that the supply could only be given by means of subsidies, and that the Lower House always kept such questions <66>in its own hands. With respect to the permanent support, the Commons would consider of it. As Salisbury made no proposal to redress grievances, he was distinctly asked whether the Lords would join in requesting the King to give them leave to treat for the surrender of those rights connected with The Commons ask to treat for tenures.the feudal tenures which were felt to be so oppressive to the subject. He answered that he could not reply without first consulting the Lords. He mentioned, however, several points in which the King’s prerogative trenched upon the ease of the subject. He proposed that they should consider whether these might not form part of the contract with the King. Among them was one of the old subjects of dispute, the right of purveyance.
The Lords appointed a Committee to wait upon the King, for the purpose of asking him whether he was willing to treat on the tenures. James told them that he must take time to consider upon a question of such importance.[145]
Meanwhile the Commons were busy with a book which had been published rather more than two years before. It was Dr. Cowell’s book.a law dictionary entitled The Interpreter. The author, Dr. Cowell, was the Reader on Civil Law at the University of Cambridge. His work had been brought out under the patronage of Bancroft, and for that reason, if for no other, it was likely to be subjected to minute criticism by the partisans of the common law. It was said — and it is by no means improbable — that the inquiry which was made by the House of Commons was set on foot at the instigation of Coke. The opinions which were contained in the book were such as no House of Commons could fail in pronouncing unconstitutional. If in some places the author took pains to state that he did not put forth these opinions as unquestionable truths, he left no doubt in the minds of his readers to which side his own ideas inclined. Thus, after declaring that he left it for wiser men to decide whether it was binding upon the King to require the consent of Parliament to the enactment of laws, he asserted that the King of England was undoubtedly an absolute King, and <67>proceeded to quote authorities in support of the doctrine that to make laws was part of the prerogative of such a King.[146] In another place he stated this opinion still more forcibly. “Of these two,” he wrote, “one must needs be true, that either the King is above the Parliament, that is, the positive laws of his kingdom, or else that he is not an absolute King. … And, therefore, though it be a merciful policy, and also a politic mercy (not alterable without great peril), to make laws by consent of the whole realm, because so no one part shall have cause to complain of a partiality, yet simply to bind a prince to or by those laws were repugnant to the nature and constitution of an absolute monarchy.”[147] In a similar spirit, he put it forth as an opinion held by some, ‘that subsidies were granted by Parliament in consideration of the King’s goodness in waiving his absolute power to make laws without their consent.’[148]
The Commons requested the Lords to join them in calling the King’s attention to the book. Before, however, the Lords had Interference of the King.time to take any steps in the matter, they were told by Salisbury that the King had summoned Cowell before him, and that he wished him to inform the Commons that he was much displeased with the book. He considered that it impugned the Common Law of England, and the fundamental grounds of the constitution of Parliament, and that in opposing the prerogative to the law the author had attacked both King and Parliament together. If the book had been brought before the King’s notice earlier, he would have taken order with it; as it was, he would take immediate steps for suppressing it. Salisbury also reported that the King had acknowledged that although he derived his title from his ancestors, ‘yet the law did set the crown upon his head,’ ‘and that he was a King by the Common Law of the land.’ He ‘had no power to make laws of himself, or to exact any subsidies de jure without the consent of his three estates, and, <68>therefore, he was so far from approving the opinion, as he did hate those that believed it.’[149]
Soon afterwards, a proclamation appeared commanding the suppression of the book. The House received the news with pleasure, Suppression of the book.and ordered that thanks should be given to the King for the promptness with which their wishes had been met.
A few days after the King’s disavowal of the opinions contained in Cowell’s book, Bacon, in the name of the Commons, once more March 8.Bacon’s speech on tenures.brought the subject of tenures before the Lords at a conference. He begged them to assure the King that, in asking for leave to treat, the Lower House had never intended in any way to diminish the Royal revenues. It was a mistake to suppose that the dignity of the Crown would be in any way affected by the concessions the King was asked to make. The right of wardship was by no means peculiar to Royalty. It was no longer by the feudal tenures that men were under obligations to serve the Crown. The soldiers who had followed the English captains in the late wars had been bound by very different ties from those which compelled a vassal to hold himself in readiness to defend his lord. When the musters were held in the counties of England, men never dreamed of asking whose tenants they were, or how they held their land. All they remembered was that they were the subjects of the King, and this they would never forget if all the tenures in existence were swept away at a stroke. If the change would deprive the King of the right of protecting those who had hitherto been his wards, he must remember that he would only relinquish his claim in favour of the nearest relations of the orphans, who were, above all others, most likely to care for their welfare. Nor would there be the slightest difficulty in providing means by which the misuse of authority by harsh or avaricious relatives might be kept in check. He concluded by requesting the Lords to join the Commons in petitioning the King to give his answer as soon as he conveniently could. The work before them was <69>one of great importance, and would require long deliberation. Solomon’s temple, he reminded them, was made without noise, but it was not built in one day.[150]
On March 12, the Commons received a favourable answer from the King to their demand. On the 26th, the Committee to which The Commons receive leave to treat on tenures.the subject had been referred, proposed that the King should give up all the emoluments resulting from the feudal tenures, with the exception of the aids, which were due upon the knighting of the King’s eldest son, and upon the marriage of his eldest daughter. For this, and for the remission of the claims which Salisbury had proposed to abandon, They offer 100,000l.they offered no more than 100,000l. Such an offer was not likely to be acceptable to the King. The concessions he was required to make would probably be equivalent to a deduction of more than 40,000l. from his revenue,[151] and he would be left with a total income of 520,000l. Such a sum was certainly insufficient to meet an expenditure of 600,000l. The Commons, however, believed that much of this expenditure was unnecessary, and they had not realised the impossibility of any sovereign coming after Elizabeth being as economical as she had been. Their view of the cast, however, was not likely to meet with acceptance at court. Salisbury told them that so far from 100,000l. being sufficient, the King would not now accept even 200,000l. unless they also made up to him the loss which his revenue would sustain if he yielded to their demands. He may perhaps have thought that he had more chance of getting what he wanted by asking more than he expected to get.[152] On May 4, however, the Commons disappointed him by refusing his terms; and the negotiations were, in consequence, brought to an end for the time.
A few days before the Great Contract, as it was called, was thus broken off, The Petition of Grievances.Sandys reported on behalf of the Committee which had been occupied ever since the beginning of the session in drawing up the Petition <70>of Grievances, that they had arrived at the question of the impositions which had been passed over so unceremoniously in the last session. He asked that search might be made for precedents bearing on the subject. Accordingly, on the following day, certain members, amongst whom was the well-known antiquary Sir Robert Cotton, were named for the purpose. The Commons forbidden to discuss the impositions.On May 11, however, before they had made their report, the Speaker informed the House that he had received a message from the King, to the effect that if they intended only to take into consideration the inconveniences alleged to result from any particular imposition, he would readily hear their complaints; but that if they were about to discuss his right to levy impositions in general, they must remember that the Court of Exchequer had given a judgment in his favour. He therefore commanded them to refrain from questioning his prerogative.[153]
As soon as the Speaker had finished, Sir William Twisden, who knew that the King had been absent from London for a week, asked him who gave him the message. The Speaker confessed that he had not received it from the King, but from the Council. Upon this a resolution was passed, that what had just been heard should not be received as a message from the King. James was at first greatly displeased, but, upon further consideration, he forbore to press the point. Scarcely had this episode come to an end, when both Houses were summoned to Whitehall, to meet the King, who had come back to London upon hearing of the resistance with which his message had been received.[154] May 21.The King’s speech.He began by reminding them that they had been now sitting for fourteen weeks, and had as yet done nothing towards the relief of his necessities. As for the impositions, he was perfectly justified in what he had done. He would, however, engage not to lay any more, at any future time, without hearing <71>what both Houses had to say respecting the proposed increase of taxation. But he refused to be bound by any opinion which they might then express. The Kings of Spain, France, and Denmark had the right of levying impositions, and why should he not do as they did? He would not have his prerogative called in question.
Next morning the House met in high dudgeon.[155] Sir Francis Hastings declared that the King might as well have claimed May 22.A committee appointed to consider the King’s speech.a right to dispose of all their properties. He therefore moved for a Committee to consider how they might obtain satisfaction. It was in vain that Sir Julius Cæsar, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, advised that they should be content to take the law from the judges. The motion for the appointment of a Committee was carried without a division. The Committee met in the afternoon. Fuller and Wentworth maintained the right of Parliament to discuss all questions which concerned the commonwealth. Bacon answered by quoting precedents from the time of the late Queen, in which the House had undoubtedly allowed its discussions to be interfered with by the sovereign. He said that the House might always discuss matters which concerned the interest of the subject, but not matters which related to the prerogative. He therefore recommended that the impositions should be complained of as grievances, but that the King’s power to impose should not be called in question. Those who answered him were not very successful in dealing with Bacon’s precedents, as it was difficult to get rid of the fact, that Elizabeth had often prevented the House from meddling with her prerogative. But on the general merits of the case, their reply was unanswerable. They argued, that if they had a right to discuss grievances which bore hardly upon individuals, much more had they a right to discuss a grievance which bore hardly upon the whole commonwealth.
A petition of right was accordingly drawn up, in which the Commons declared that they could not be prevented from <72>debating on any matter which concerned the rights and interests of the subject. A petition of right.They had no intention of impugning the King’s prerogative; but it was necessary for them to ascertain what were its true limits, as there was a general apprehension that upon the same arguments as those upon which the judgment in the Exchequer had been founded, the whole property of the subject might be confiscated at the will of the sovereign. Accordingly, they prayed to be allowed to proceed in their inquiries, in order that the matter being settled once for all, they might be able to pass on to his Majesty’s business.[156]
A deputation was sent with this petition to the King at Greenwich. He received the members most affably. He had found that May 24.The King gives way.he had gone too far, and he was anxious to draw back. He pretended that in the message delivered by the Speaker he had only intended that the House should not debate on the impositions till he returned to London. His own speech had been misunderstood. He meant to warn them against impugning his prerogative, which they now declared that they had no intention of doing. He had no wish to abridge any of their privileges, and he gave them full liberty to consider the whole question. He only hoped that they would not forget his wants, and that they did not intend to take with one hand what they gave with the other.[157]
The Commons were well satisfied with this answer, and at once agreed to take the contract into further consideration. For the moment, however, The contract resumed.they were occupied with other matters. News had arrived of the murder of Henry IV. by the fanatic Ravaillac. For this atrocious crime the English Catholics Murder of Henry IV.were to pay the penalty. The House saw in it an attempt similar to that by which their own lives and that of their sovereign had been endangered five years before, and they dreaded its influence upon the minds of those who might be prepared to imitate the <73>example of the assassin. They knew of no other way to meet the danger than that which had long been tried in vain. The Commons petition against recusants.They accordingly petitioned the King to put in execution the laws against recusants. In this they were joined by the Upper House. James thanked them, and promised to comply with their wishes. An Act was also passed, ordering that all English subjects without exception should take the oath of allegiance, and for the first time imposing a penalty upon married women who were recusants. If they refused to take the Sacrament in the Church of England they were to be imprisoned, unless their husbands were willing to pay 10l. a month for their liberty.
The House was proceeding to debate the contract, when they were again interrupted to witness a ceremony which must have come like Creation of the Prince of Wales.a burst of sunshine in the midst of these unsatisfactory disputations. On June 4, in the presence of both Houses, Prince Henry was solemnly created Prince of Wales. He was now in his eighteenth year, and he had already won the heart of the whole nation. In his bright young face old men saw a prospect of a return to the Elizabethan glories of their youth. His mind was open to all noble influences, and, if he had lived, he would have been able to rule England, because he would have sympathised, as his father never did, with all that was good and great in the English character. No doubt there was much which was wanting to make him a perfect ruler. Prudence and circumspection are not the qualities which manifest themselves in boyhood; but these would have come in time. His thoughts, even in his childhood, had been filled with images which presaged a stirring life. There was nothing prematurely old about him, as there had been in his father’s earlier years. When he first came to England, he talked of imitating the Plantagenets when he should be a man, and of leading armies to the conquest of France. These dreams passed away, and he threw himself heart and soul into the tales of maritime adventure which were so rife in England. In everything that concerned ships and ship-building he took a peculiar interest. Nothing, however, marks the soundness of his character more <74>than the steadfastness with which he remained constant to those whom he admired. Alone, in his father’s court, he continued to profess his admiration of the unfortunate Raleigh. No man but his father, he used to say, would keep such a bird in a cage. The man to whom he owed the greater part of his knowledge of shipping was Phineas Pett, one of the King’s shipwrights. On one occasion a complaint was made against Pett, and he was examined in the presence of the King. During the whole of the examination the Prince stood by his side to encourage him, and when he was pronounced innocent of the charge which had been brought against him, was the first to congratulate him on his success, and to give utterance to a boyish wish that his accusers might be hanged.[158] We can readily imagine that, as long as the Prince lived, the House of Commons were able to look with hope to the future, and that the ceremony which they were called to witness must have inclined them not to deal harshly with the King’s demands, in the hope that the crown would sooner or later rest upon a worthier head.
On June 11, Salisbury addressed the Commons on the subject of the contract. He proposed that they should at once Salisbury demands a supply.grant a supply to pay off the debt, and to meet the deficit caused by the current expenditure. The support was to be deferred till the next session, which would commence in October. The annual sum jequired by the King was now distinctly stated to be 240,000l., which, allowing for the loss he expected to suffer, was equal to the 200,000l. which he had originally demanded. He also wished them to defer the presentation of their grievances to the following session. He told them that the impositions had been examined, and that several had been altogether remitted, at a yearly loss to the Crown of 20,000l.[159]
The proposal that the presentation of the Petition of Grievances should be postponed met with little favour in the House of Commons. In spite of messages sent by the King, <75>assuring them that he would hear their grievances, and give them an answer before the prorogation, they steadily refused to vote any money till they had completed their petition.
On June 23 the House resolved itself into a Committee, in order to consider the question of the impositions. The debate, which The debate on impositions based upon precedents.lasted for four days, was left almost entirely in the hands of the lawyers. Even Sandys, who was usually heard on every important occasion, sat silent. The speakers on both sides seem to have had a horror of general reasoning. The Crown lawyers repeatedly called upon their antagonists to remember that they were debating a question of law and fact, into which they had no right to introduce political arguments. The popular speakers readily followed them upon this ground, and carefully fortified their case with quotations of statutes and precedents. If they ever strayed away into a wider field, it was only after they had completed the structure of their main defences, and were provoked to reply to some dangerous assertion of their antagonists. The line of argument, which was thus adopted at the commencement of the great constitutional battle, was steadily maintained during a struggle extending over a period of eighty years. Those who made use of it have obtained much unmerited praise, and have incurred much unmerited obloquy. Englishmen are too often inclined to represent the course taken by their ancestors as an example which should be invariably followed by other nations, and have been ready to sneer at statesmen who have adopted, under totally different circumstances, a totally different system of political reasoning. French writers, on the other hand, are continually tempted to look down upon an opposition which contented itself with appealing to the practice of former ages, and with investigating the laws of one particular nation, but which shrank from putting forth general principles, which might be a guide to all nations for all time. In fact, English Conservatism was as much the consequence as the cause of political success. Our ancestors did not refer to precedents merely because they were anxious to tread in the steps of those who went before <76>them, but because it was their settled belief that England had always been well governed and prosperous. They quoted a statute not because it was old, but because they knew that ninety-nine times out of every hundred, their predecessors had passed good laws. From this feeling grew up the attachment which Englishmen have ever shown to the law of the land. Knowing that, whatever defects it might have, those defects were as nothing in comparison to its merits, they took their stand upon it, and appealed to it on every occasion. It was an attachment not so much to law in general as to the particular law under which they lived.
It must not, however, be supposed that the two parties were quarrelling about the mere letter of the law. The letter of the old statutes Difficulty of interpreting the precedents.was singularly confused and uncertain, and could only be rightly interpreted by those who entered into the spirit of the men who had drawn them up. Differences of opinion on the form of government which was most suited for the seventeenth century were sure to reappear in differences of opinion on the form of government which had actually existed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and would make themselves felt in any attempt to educe a true meaning from the early statutes. These differences were none the less felt because they did not on either side find their expression in any well-defined system of political opinion. Both parties agreed that there were certain definite functions which belonged to the King alone, and that there were other definite functions which belonged only to the House of Commons. But the great majority of the Lower House were beginning to feel that when any difference of opinion arose on Opposite views of constitutional law.any important subject between the King and the Commons, it was for the King, and not for themselves, to give way. A few, however, with Bacon at their head, thought that the King ought to be, at least in a great measure, independent of the House of Commons. In looking back to the past history of their country, both parties allowed their view of the old constitution to be tinged with colours which were derived from their own political opinions. As might be expected, when such a history as that of England <77>was in question, those who were the best politicians proved also to have the most accurate knowledge of history. Both parties, indeed, made one mistake. It is impossible to read the arguments which were used in the long debate without perceiving that all the speakers agreed in attributing to the constitution of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries far more of a settled character than it in reality possessed. They all seem to have imagined that on important points there was some fixed rule to which all had assented, the contravention of which was known to be a breach of constitutional law.[160] They failed to seize the true character of the epoch as a time of struggle during which the idea of law was gradually evolving itself in the midst of a conflict of opposing wills. But the popular party had the better of their adversaries in this, that what it alleged to have been the acknowledged law of that period was in reality the system upon which the constitution was finally moulded after the conclusion of the struggle, and towards which, during its continuance, every step taken in advance was constantly tending; whereas the powers claimed for the Crown had gradually sunk under the unintermitted protests of the nation, and had been finally, by universal consent, either explicitly given up or tacitly abandoned, till they had been in part regained under very different circumstances during the reigns of the Sovereigns of the House of Tudor.
If the popular party was right in its interpretation of the spirit of English history, it would have been strange if they had been unable to meet their opponents on merely technical grounds. Careless as the early Parliaments had been of laying down general principles, it would have been very remarkable if in the course of a century and a half they had not dropped some words which could be understood as a bar to all future attempts of the King to exercise the right of laying impositions in <78>general, although at the time they were only occupied in defeating certain particular exactions.
The two statutes upon which the greatest weight was justly placed were the Confirmation of the Charters by Edward I., and Statutes quoted.another Act passed in the reign of his grandson, The Act of Edward I. declared, ‘that for so much as the more part of the Commonalty of the Realm find themselves sore grieved with the maltolt of wools, that is, to wit, a toll of forty shillings for every sack of wool, and have made petition to us to release the same; we at their request have clearly released it, and have granted for us and our heirs that we will not take such things without their common assent and good-will, saving to us and our heirs the custom of wools, skins, and leather granted by the Commonalty aforesaid.’[161] Bacon, and those who followed on the same side, urged that this statute did not take away the original right of the Crown, because the words, ‘such things’ were applicable only to the wool mentioned at the beginning of the sentence. He was answered by Hakewill, who argued that if the words were meant to apply to wool alone, it would have been absurd to insert a clause saving the customs on skins and leather. The other statute[162] stated that the Commons having petitioned against the duties which had lately been imposed upon lead, tin, leather, and woolfells, the King prayed the Parliament to grant him certain duties for a limited time, and promised that, at the expiration of the term, he would only exact the old custom on the wool and leather. Bacon argued, from the King’s silence regarding lead and tin, that the imposition upon these articles was intended to continue. Fortunately, Hakewill was able to quote from a later paragraph that ‘the King hath promised not to charge, set, or assess upon the custom but in the manner aforesaid.’
Even as an interpretation of the mere letter of the statute, Bacon’s view of the case is manifestly inferior to that of Hakewill; but if the Acts are read in the spirit of the times in which they were drawn up, the superiority of the popular party <79>becomes still more undoubted. The words in which these old contracts between the Kings of England and their Parliaments were drawn up were undoubtedly loose, but their intention was manifest. If the Commons only spoke of the impositions on wools, woolfells, and leather, from which they suffered, there could not be the slightest doubt that they would have had equally invincible objections to any other form of imposition. That after a long struggle the King gave up the point, and did not attempt to shift the duties from wool to some other articles of commerce, plainly shows that he understood the meaning of the words that were used better than the lawyers who attempted two hundred years afterwards to fix their own sense upon them.
Among the many speakers on the popular side, Hakewill has the credit of having been the first to establish that the Commons were technically in the right. He was Argument on the King’s prerogative of regulating trade.no less successful in meeting an argument which was drawn from the supposed necessity of the case. It was said, that if foreign princes laid burdens upon English commerce, it would be necessary to retaliate by laying similar burdens upon the importations into England of the produce of their dominions. This must be done at once, and there would be no time to summon a Parliament.[163] Hakewill[164] answered by denying that it was likely that the negotiations, which were sure to be entered upon when the quarrel first arose, would be so quickly despatched as to allow no time for summoning Parliament. But the answer of Whitelocke,[165] a member who had entered Parliament for the first time in this session, went straight to the point. “This strain of policy,” he said, “maketh nothing to the point of right. Our rule is, in this plain commonwealth of ours, that no man ought to be wiser than the laws. If there be an inconvenience, it is fitter to have it removed by a lawful means than by an unlawful. But this is rather a mischief than an inconvenience, that is, a prejudice in presenti of some few, but not hurtful to the commonwealth. And it is more tolerable to suffer a hurt to some few for <80>a short time, than to give way to the breach and violation of the right of the whole nation — for that is the true inconvenience; neither need it be so difficult or tedious to have the consent of Parliament, if they were held as they ought or might be.”
Another argument had been put forth by Bacon, which was hardly likely to meet with acceptance. The King, he reasoned,[166] had Argument on the King’s right to restrain merchants,power to restrain goods from entering the ports, and if he might prohibit their entrance, he might continue the prohibition until a certain sum was paid. This reasoning was adopted by Yelverton, who made it the main staple of his speech. He had lately given offence to the King by some words which he had uttered in the course of the last session, but he had sought forgiveness, and had received a promise of the royal favour. He now came forward as the most thoroughgoing advocate of the prerogative in the House. The law of England, he told the astonished Commons,[167] extended only to low-water mark. Beyond that, everything was subject to the law of nations, which knew nothing of either statute or common law. All things upon the sea being thus within the King’s immediate jurisdiction, he had a right to restrain them from approaching the shore. Bate’s imposition was consequent upon a restraint of this kind. He was told, “You shall bring no currants; if you do, you shall pay so much.” He concluded by repudiating a doctrine which had been maintained by those who had spoken on the same side. It was not true, he said, that, if the impositions were excessive, the judges might interfere. No man could meddle with them but the King himself.
Yelverton was answered by Martin, the member for Christchurch, who told him that Englishmen ‘were, by the constitution of’ the kingdom, answered by Martin and Whitelocke.entitled to be judged by the law of England. The merchants’ liberty and riches were ‘upon the sea.’ He had as ‘good right to plough the sea as the ploughman had to plough the land. The common law’ extended ‘as far as the power of the King.’ It <81>was ‘as the soul in the body. The liberty of the seas’ was ‘parcel of the liberty of the subject.’
Whitelocke, who had shown that he could quote precedents to better purpose than any of the Crown lawyers, grounded his opposition on higher principles than any which they could allege in their defence. With them the King was the possessor of certain definite rights, which he might enforce without considering whether the country suffered from them or no. With Whitelocke, on the other hand, the King only held them in trust for the commonwealth, in the interest of which those rights must be interpreted. ‘The premises of the arguments of his opponents,’ he said, ‘are of a power in the King only fiduciary, and in point of trust and government;’ but their conclusion inferred ‘a right of interest and gain.’ If the King had the custody of the ports, it was in order that he might ‘open and shut upon consideration of public good to the people and state, but not to make gain and benefit by it.’ “The ports,” he added, “in their own nature are public, free for all to go in and out, yet for the common good this liberty is restrainable by the wisdom and policy of the Prince, who is put in trust to discern the times when this natural liberty shall be restrained… In point of government and common good of the realm he may restrain the person. But to conclude therefore he may take money not to restrain, is to sell government, trust, and common justice, and most unworthy the divine office of a King.”[168]
There could be no doubt which opinion would carry the day within the walls of the House of Commons. Not only were the arguments of The House almost unanimous against the Crown.those who opposed the claim of the King far superior to those of their adversaries, but the House instinctively felt, as soon as the question was fairly put before it, that its whole future existence was bound up with the arguments of the popular speakers. If the King was justified in what he had done, he might in future raise far larger sums in a similar manner, and obtain a revenue which would make it unnecessary for him, except on rare occasions, to consult his Parliament. Bacon <82>and his friends did not divide the House. A Committee was appointed to draw up a petition which was to be inserted in the general petition of grievances.
On July 7, the grievances were presented to the King.[169] James, on catching sight of the long roll of parchment upon which The petition of grievances.they were written, called out that it was large enough to serve for a piece of tapestry. He promised to give an answer in a few days. Accordingly, on the 10th, in the presence of both Houses, after Salisbury had given an account of the manner in which the impositions had been set, and had justified himself with regard to the part which he had taken in the matter, James gave his answers to some of the grievances, reserving the others for a future day. With most of his answers the Commons were well satisfied. On the subject of the impositions he proposed a compromise. He would retain those which had been already set, but he would give his consent to an Act by which he should be prohibited from levying any similar exactions for the future.
The next day, the House resolved to grant a supply; but in spite of all the exertions of the Court party, they refused to give Grant of a subsidy.more than one subsidy and one fifteenth. This would be sufficient to meet the most pressing necessities of the Government, and they were anxious not to give too liberally till the points in dispute between them and the King were finally settled. It would be well that, at the commencement of the following session, the King should still feel it necessary to look to them for the payment of his debts. In the course of the debate, one member was heard whispering to his neighbour, that the limitation of the supply would do the King good, and would serve as a subpoena to bring him to answer for himself when he was wanted.
In accordance with the King’s wishes, a Bill[170] was brought in, enacting that The Bill on impositions.no imposition should hereafter be laid without the consent of Parliament, other <83>than those which were already in existence. This Bill was dropped in the House of Lords: probably, in order that it might stand over till the next session, when it would form a part of a general settlement of all questions pending between the Crown and the House of Commons.
The Lower House now set itself to work upon the contract. On June 26, Salisbury announced that the King was ready to accept 220,000l.[171] On July 13, The contract concluded.the Commons answered by proposing to give 180,000l. Salisbury was indefatigable in attempting to bring the King and the House to terms.[172] At last he succeeded in inducing both to give way. The Commons consented to advance their offer to 200,000l.,[173] which James agreed to accept. As, however, they had now included in the concessions for which they asked the purveyance and other matters which had been originally put forward by Salisbury, the actual increase of the King’s revenue, after accounting for the late diminution in the impositions, would have amounted to about 100,000l.,[174] giving him, in all, about 560,000l. a year, an amount which ought to have been sufficient for his wants, though it was considerably less than the sums which he had lately been spending.
A memorial was accordingly drawn up, in which the Commons promised to give the sum upon which the parties to the contract had finally determined. In whatever way they might agree to raise it, it ‘should have these two qualities: one, that it should be a revenue firm and stable; another, that it should not be difficult in the levy.’ They were, however, determined that not a penny should be laid upon the food of the people. A list was also drawn up of the concessions which were to be granted by the King, in which, in addition to the <84>tenures and wardships, were named a considerable number of points in which the law or the prerogative pressed hardly upon the subject. Parliament was to meet in October to decide upon the mode in which the required sum was to be levied.
Regarded from a merely financial point of view, the arrangement was excellent. It is difficult to say which of the two parties to the bargain would have gained most if it had been finally carried out. To the King, it would have brought an increase of income of about 100,000l.,[175] and with the exercise of some economy, might have enabled him to meet his expenditure for some time to come. Yet the tax-payers would have gained even more than the sum which the King lost by his concessions. An enormous amount of money was intercepted by the lawyers, in consequence of the disputes which constantly turned on questions connected with rights now to be abandoned for ever; and the annoyance caused by these disputes was almost as bad as the loss of the money actually spent upon them.
The memorial was presented to the House of Lords on July 21. Two days later, the King came down to prorogue Parliament. Before he did so The King’s answer to the grievances read.he ordered that the clerk should read his answer to those grievances which he had reserved for further consideration. Upon this answer, in all probability, the future fate of the contract depended. If the King gave way on the points of which the Commons complained, every cause of variance between him and the House would have been at once removed, and he would have found no opposition to his demands during the next session. The Commons seem to have taken it for granted that they would receive a favourable answer, for they inserted in the memorial, as an argument by which they hoped to convince their constituents of the wisdom of their course in assenting to the contract, that they had obtained a gracious answer to their grievances.
Unfortunately, the main question in dispute was not of a nature to render an agreement probable. Was it likely that, after a steady refusal during so many years to alter the existing <85>system of ecclesiastical government, James would give way at last? Nothing less than this would content the Commons. They knew the importance of their demand, and, until it was granted, they could never be expected to render a hearty support to the Crown.
To their request that the deprived ministers might again be allowed to preach, provided that they abstained from criticising the institutions of the Church, Ecclesiastical grievances.James at once refused to listen. No Church, he said, had ever existed which allowed ministers to preach who refused to subscribe to its doctrine and discipline. If there were any particular cases where he could, without injury to the Church, reverse the sentence which had been pronounced, he should be glad to hear of them. To the old grievance of pluralities and non-residence he answered that it was impossible to do everything at once, but that he would order the Bishops to see that every minister who had two benefices supplied a preacher to instruct the people in his absence. To the complaint that excommunications were inflicted for trifling offences, he replied that the Bishops had agreed not to excommunicate for contumacy as soon as the Parliament would pass a statute inflicting some other punishment upon that offence. He said that he would himself examine into the working of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and would take measures for preventing the recurrence of any irregularity which might have occurred. They knew how anxious he had been to settle the vexed question of prohibitions, and he hoped to bring the matter to a final settlement, in which the rights of the temporal courts should not be neglected.
It is evident that these answers were intended to be conciliatory, and that James imagined that he had done his utmost to satisfy the Commons; but it is also evident that he had yielded nothing which they were likely to accept. What they required was, that the exercise of the power of the Ecclesiastical Courts should be limited by statute, so that a barrier might be raised against any future encroachments of the clergy. What he offered was, that he would himself see that no abuses were committed. Even if they could trust him to decide rightly <86>on such complicated questions, what assurance had they that all the restrictions which he might place upon the courts might not at any moment be swept away?
Two other grievances related to civil affairs. There had long been a complaint that the inhabitants of the four counties The four shires.which bordered upon Wales had been subjected to the jurisdiction of the President and Council of Wales. The gentlemen of these counties had protested vigorously, as they were thereby deprived of the influence which, in other parts of the kingdom, they were accustomed to exercise in courts of justice. There was some doubt whether the statute under which the jurisdiction was exercised really bore the interpretation which had been put upon it. To the demand of the Commons that he would exempt the four counties from the jurisdiction of the Council, James answered that he must make further inquiries before he could determine upon a subject of such difficulty.[176]
The other grievance was of greater constitutional importance. Since the accession of James, proclamations had been issued far more frequently Proclamations.than had been the custom in the preceding reign. Nor were they confined to the simple enunciation of the duty of the subject to obey the law. Some of them, as the Commons with justice complained, condemned actions which were forbidden by no existing law; others imposed penalties greater than those which were authorised by law, or prescribed that the accused persons should be brought before courts which had no right to try the offence. If these proceedings were not checked, the powers of legislation would, to all intents and purposes, fall into the hands of the King. James promised to be more careful in future, but he claimed a right of still issuing proclamations which went beyond the law, in cases of emergency, when no Parliament was sitting which could remedy the inconvenience. He engaged, however, to consult his Council and the judges on the subject, and to cause the proclamations already issued to be amended.
<87>Immediately after these answers had been given, Parliament was prorogued, and the members dispersed to their several constituencies, The members give an account of their conduct to the constituencies.to give an account of their conduct, and to ask the support of the nation in the measures which it would be necessary to take in apportioning the new burdens which were to be laid upon the country.
Of these conferences, excepting in one single instance, we know nothing. The electors of Leicestershire expressed their readiness to see the contract carried into effect, provided that the bill for abolishing impositions were passed, and a more satisfactory answer were given to the petition of grievances.[177] It is likely enough that in other parts more stress was laid upon the removal of grievances, and less upon the fulfilment of the contract. Partly through the fault of Salisbury, but still more through the fault of James, the Government and the country had lost touch, and the attempt to settle the King’s revenue by bargain only brought out into stronger relief the separation of feeling which divided the nation from its rulers. When once attention had been directed, not to the necessity of furnishing the King with the means of carrying out national objects, but to the largeness of his personal expenses, the inevitable consequence was that the eyes of the constituents would be directed in the first place to the fact that the King would gain more than he gave, and this would be in itself sufficient to make the contract the theme of disparaging remarks in every quarter of the country.
[138] Bailiffs of Eye to Salisbury, Oct. 16, S. P. Dom. xlviii. 109.
[139] Hender to Salisbury, Oct. 21, S. P. Dom. xlviii. 116.
[140] Bailiffs of Boroughbridge to Salisbury, Nov. 5, S. P. Dom. xlix. 10.
[141] Corporation of Ludlow to Salisbury, Dec. 1, S. P. Dom. l. 1.
[142] So he said. The difference in the estimate, which is printed in Parl. Deb. in 1610, Introd. p. xii., and which is fixed by internal evidence in the beginning of 1610, is 49,000l. A few months later it was 56,000l.
[143] Parl. Deb. in 1610, p. 1. Harl. MSS. 777, fol. 1.
[144] The extraordinary expenses were calculated to amount to about 100,000l. But there can be little doubt that this was putting them far higher than was at all necessary.
[145] L. J. ii. 558.
[146] Article ‘Prerogative,’ ed. 1607.
[147] Article ‘Parliament.’ The article ‘King’ contains similar doctrines.
[148] Article ‘Subsidy.’
[149] Parl. Deb. in 1610, p. 24. It is curious that no care was taken to record this admission in the journals.
[150] Letters and Life of Bacon, iv. 163.
[151] Sir J. Cæsar estimated the King’s loss at 44,000l. (Parl. Deb. in 1610, p. 164).
[152] Parl. Deb. in 1610, p. 146.
[153] Cott. MSS. Tit. F. iv. fol. 255. See also C. J. i. 427, and Parl. Deb. in 1610, p. 32.
[154] Abstract of the King’s Speech, S. P. Dom. liv. 65. Parl. Deb. in 1610, p. 34. Harl. MSS. 777, fol. 27 a.
[155] The debate in the House in the morning is reported in C. J. i. 430. The afternoon debate in Committee will be found in Parl. Deb. in 1610, p. 36.
[156] C. J. i. 431.
[157] Ibid. i. 432. Report of the King’s Answer, S. P. Dom. liv. 73. Parl. Deb. in 1610, p. 41.
[158] Birch, Life of Henry, Prince of Wales, p. 157.
[159] Parl. Deb. in 1610, pp. 52, 154, 165. See the Commission to draw up a new book of rates, Sept. 5. Patent Rolls, 8 James I., part 30.
[160] Besides the notes in Parl. Deb. in 1610, we have in the State Trials (ii. 395) part of Bacon’s speech, with the speeches of Hakewill and Whitelocke, the latter erroneously attributed to Yelverton; and in Cott. MSS. Tit. F. v. fol. 244, Doderidge’s speech; and at fol. 242 a speech of Crompton’s which was probably delivered on this occasion.
[161] 25 Ed. I. Confirm. Cart. cap. 7.
[162] 14 Ed. III. stat. i. cap. 21.
[163] Carleton’s argument, Parl. Deb. in 1610, 61.
[164] State Trials, ii. 476.
[165] Ibid. ii. 518.
[166] Letters and Life, iv. 199.
[167] Parl. Deb. in 1610, 85.
[168] Parl. Deb. in 1610, 153.
[169] Parl. Deb. 1610, 123. The whole petition is in Petyt’s Jus Parliamentarium, 318. The reprint in the State Trials is imperfect.
[170] Parl. Deb. in 1610, 162. The Bill there printed is from the draft made at its reintroduction in the next session.
[171] C. J. i. 444.
[172] Aston to ———, July 24, S. P. Dom. lvi. 42.
[173] C. J. i. 451.
[174] Cæsar makes it only 85,000l. before deducting the 20,000l. for the decrease in the impositions; but this appears to be much too little (Parl. Deb. in 1610, p. 164). The King valued the Purveyance and the Wards at 80,000l., which would have left 120,000l. if no other concessions had been made. — C. J. i. 444. This 80,000l. represents rather what might be made of these sources of revenue, than what they actually produced.
[175] L. J. ii. 660.
[176] The whole question is treated at some length by Mr. Heath in his introduction to the ‘Argument on the Jurisdiction of the Marches,’ in vol. vii. of Bacon’s Works.
[177] Parl. Deb. in 1610, p. 130.