gravated 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!* 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.†

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. Whereever 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 rigorous confinement in the Fleet, the Gatehouse, the Mar- his own immediate release. This document shalsea, and the New Prison. Eliot was one of these. The has been preserved. It commences with a rest, as Sir Thomas Wentworth and others, were subjected to confinement, strict, but much less rigorous, in various protest against the supposition that "stubbornCounties. Hampden had been thrown into the Gatehouse ness and will" have been the motives of the at first, but was afterward released and sent into Hamp- writer's recent recusancy. "With a sad, yet shire. One anecdote will illustrate the numberless instances of quiet and forbearing fortitude, practised by men recollecta faithful heart," Eliot continues, "he now ed no longer, but who at this time shed lustre on the English presumes to offer up the reasons that induced character. George Catesby, of Northamptonshire, being him. The rule of justice he takes to be the committed to the Gatehouse as a recusant, alleged, among other reasons for his non-compliance, that he considered law; impartial arbiter of government and obe"that this loan might become a precedent; and that every dience; the support and strength of majesty; precedent, he was told by the lord president, was a flower the observation of that justice by which subof the prerogative." The lord president told him that "hejection is commanded." Through a series of 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.

See a letter in Strafford's State Papers, vol. i., p. 40; and Rushworth, vol. i., p. 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 afterward 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.

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, p. 458462. Sir Randolph Crew, immediately before this case was argued, having, as Rushworth expresses it, "showed no zeal" (1., 420), was removed to make room 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 afterward 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 connexion 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 formidable 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,

illustrious examples the writer then advances to his position of strict obedience to the laws, in the duty of resisting their outrage. "He could not, as he feared, without pressure to these immunities, become an actor in this loan, which by imprisonment and restraint was urged, contrary to the grants of the great charter, by so many glorious and victorious kings so many times confirmed. Though he was Well assured by your majesty's promise that it should not become a precedent during the happiness of your reign, yet he conceived from thence a fear that succeeding ages might thereby take occasion for posterity to strike at the property of their goods." He concludes by assuring the king that he will never consent to "inconveniences in reason," or to the dispensation, violation, or impeachment of the laws. "No factious humour, nor disaffection led on by stubbornness and will, hath herein stirred or moved him, but the just obligation of his conscience, which binds him to the service of your majesty, in the observance of your laws; and he is hopeful that your majesty will be pleased to restore him to your favour, and his liberty, and to afford him the benefit of those laws which, in all humility, he craves."* Eliot probably never expected that this petition would be granted. Its publication effected his purpose in strengthening the resolutions of the people; and he quietly waited in his prison for the day of a new Parliament.

This was precipitated by the insolent fury of Buckingham, who had consummated the desperate condition of affairs by a new and unprovoked war with France. At the suggestion of the duke's outraged vanity,† Charles Sergeant Bramsten, and Mr. Colthorp, pleaded yesterday with wonderful applause, even of shouting and clapping of hands which is unusual in that place."

*Rushworth, vol. i., p. 429. Whitelocke says, that "Sir John Eliot took this way to inform the king what his coun cil did not."-Memorials, p. 8. Anthony Wood oddly converts this into a statement that Eliot was obliged to write in this way to the king, because his (Eliot's) "counsel would not assist him otherwise."

+ Clarendon distinctly assigns this as the motive: "In his embassy in France, where his person and presence was

Unprecedented excitement prevailed at the elections.* Sir John Eliot was triumphantly returned for Cornwall, and every country gentleman that had refused the loan was sent to the House of Commons. "We are, without question, undone !" exclaimed a court prophet; and the king, agitated by fear and rage, prepared himself to "lift the mask." Secret orders were transmitted to the Low Countries for the levy of 1000 German horse, and the purchase of 10,000 stand of arms, immediately to be conveyed to England.†

had dismissed the French servants of his young | at liberty, and writs for a new Parliament were queen; she herself had been insulted; the issued. remonstrances of the French court answered by a seizure of French ships; and an expedition for the relief of Rochelle undertaken by the very court whose treachery had so lately assisted to reduce it. Recollecting the bitter sarcasm of Eliot,† Buckingham undertook the command of the present expedition in person; and, having concerted measures so wretchedly as to be obliged to disembark on the adjacent Isle of Rhée he there suffered his army to be baffled by an inferior force, and to be at length overtaken in a situation where valour was of no avail, and where death destroyed them dreadfully, without even the agency of an enemy The result of this was in all respects frightful; mutiny proved the least of the dangers that followed; and the financial difficulties of the court became so urgent that the last desperate and dreaded resource forced itself upon the king. The loan recusants were set

wonderfully admired and esteemed (and, in truth, it was a wonder in the eyes of all men), and in which he appeared with all the lustre the wealth of England could adorn him with, and outshined all the bravery that court could dress itself in, and over-acted the whole nation in their own most peralar vanities, he had the ambition to fix his eyes upon, and to dedicate his most violent affection to, a lady of a very abhme quality." But I will cut short the reader's impatence, and this interminable sentence, by saying at once that Bockingham fell violently in love with the young Queen of France, Anne of Austria, declared his passion, and was Istened to with anything but resentment. With what success the duke might ultimately have urged his suit, it ld be impossible to say, since great authorities differ; but it is certain that his purpose was abruptly foiled by the interference of Cardinal Richelieu, in whom he suddenly discovered a formidable rival. The mad desire to foil this peat statesman and most absurd lover, and to be able to retara to Anne of Austria in all the triumphs of a conqueror, wow urged him to these extremities against France. The thing is scarcely credible, but so it certainly appears to have been What is to be said of the wretched weakness of Charles See Mémoires inédits du Comte de Brienne, i., Eclaircissements. Madame de Motteville, Mémoires d'Anne CAutriche. Aikin's Court of Charles, vol. i., p. 67. Brodie's Hof British Empire, vol. ii., p. 139. Lingard's History, 1, p. 361. Clarendon, vol. i., p. 31. Čarte (vol. iv., p. 132 has attempted to throw discredit on it by the procortion of dates from the Mercure François, but unsuccess

T

This is not an occasion to notice the personal disputes of the king and queen, nor the way in which, for his own purposes, they were secretly inflamed by Buckingham. Charles, like most unfaithful and decorous husbands, suspeted his wife; and his wife, a woman of energy and spirred sense, despised him. Buckingham's insults to the queen described by Clarendon, vol. i., p. 31, and other writers. See History, from Mackintosh, vol. v., p. 62. I may add, the the account of the young queen's reception of the news of the dismissal of her servants, as given in a letter of the dar, as extremely characteristic of a quick temper redeemera ready self-command. "It is said, also, the queene, www the understood the designe, grew very impatient, and rue the glasse windows with her little fiste; but since I bare her rage is appeased, and the king and shee, since fary went together to Nonsuche, have been very jocund topher.”—Hari. MSS., 383. Ellis's Original Letters, vol. See p. 13, of this memoir. : See a letter of Denzil Hollis to Wentworth. Strafford Papers, vol. 1., p. 42. Rushworth, vol. i., p. 465. Carte, 7. p. 176, et seq. Many curious particulars, and esaly the letters of Charles to Buckingham, connected wth this affair, will be found in Hardwicke's State Papers, 13, et seq. I shall have to advert to it again in azing one of Eliot's speeches. *S Robert Cotton was consulted by the lords of the estari, and his advice is said to have determined the mat

.239.

It is melancholy to see, however, that this great scholtempted on this occasion (see his Paper in Rush❤rb, Fil. i., p. 467) into concessions extremely unworthy It is probable that a rumour of this, coupled with se on the affair of the loan, led to his defeat at the *ter election. Eliot was warmly attached to him. was at the meetings held at his house, where all the em

This famous third Parliament was opened by the king at Westminster, on the 17th of March, 1628. in a speech of insolent menace. If they did not do their duty, he told them, "I must use those other means which God hath put into my hands, to save that which the follies of other men may otherwise hazard to lose. Take not this as threatening; I scorn to threaten any but my equals." Wonderful was the temper and decorum with which the great leaders of that powerful house listened to this pitiful display.

The imagination rises in the contemplation of the profound statesmanship which distinguished every movement of these men, and it is difficult to describe it in terms of appropriate praise. Conscious of the rigour of the duties they had to perform, for these they reserved their strength. Not a word was wasted before the time of action came-not an energy fell to the ground as too great for the occasion. A resolved composure, a quiet confidence steadily shone from their slightest preparation; and the court, who had looked to inent men of the day assembled, that Eliot's intimate friendship with Selden most probably commenced. See the Cottonian MSS., Jul. C., iii.

An extract from a manuscript letter, dated March 8, 1627, will present a lively notion of this excitement. It has quite a modern air: "There was a turbulent election of burgesses at Westminster, whereof the duke (Buckingham), being steward, made account he should, by his authority and vicinity, have put in Sir Robert Pye. It continued three days, and when Sir Robert Pye's party cried 'A Pye! a Pye! a Pye the adverse party would cry A pudding! a pudding a pudding! and others, 'A lie! a lie! a lie! In fine, Bradshaw, a brewer, and Maurice, a grocer, carried it from him by about a thousand voices, they passing by also Sir Robert Cotton, besides our man and Mr. Hayward, who were their last burgesses, because, as it is said, they had discontented their neighbours in urging the payment of the loan. It is feared (saith mine author), because such patriots are chosen everywhere, the Parliament will not last above eight days. You hear of our famous election in Essex, where Sir Francis Barrington and Sir Harbottle Grimston had all the voices of 16,500 men."-Sloane MSS.

†There is no doubt of this. The pretence afterward assigned was to defend the kingdom from invasion (Carte, iv., p. 183); but the real object was to overawe the House of Commons. See Rushworth, vol. i., p. 474. A commission was issued at the same time (concurrent with the issuing of the election writs!) to certain privy councillors, to consider of raising money by impositions, or otherwise, "wherein form and circumstances must be dispensed with, rather than the substance be lost." These schemes were all defeated, but their discovery necessarily exasperated the Commons.-Rushworth, vol. i., p. 614.

Rushworth, vol. i., p. 477. The men to whom this foolish impertinence was addressed are thus described in a manuscript letter of the time by a very moderate politician: "The House of Commons was both yesterday and to-day as full as one could sit by another; and they say it is the most noble and magnanimous assembly that ever these walls contained. And I heard a lord intimate they were able to buy the Upper House (his majesty only excepted) thrice over, notwithstanding there be of lords temporal to the number of 118: and what lord in England would be followed by so many freeholders as some of these are ?"-Letter, dated March 21, 1628, in Sloane's MSS.

strengthen themselves by the provocation of The result, after many committees on the outrage, were lost in a mixed feeling of won-liberty of the subject, was a resolution to preder and doubt, perhaps of even hope. "Waspare the memorable petition of right.* Sir it possible that the new counsels' had cooled John Eliot took part in all the debates; lifted the fire of patriotism?" Finch, a man known them to the most vigorous and passionately deto be favourably affected to the court, was cho-termined tone; and now acted in all respects sen speaker. "Was the expediency of some as the great leader of the House. compromise recognised at last!" A resolution Charles's attempts to get hold of the subsiwas passed to grant a supply, no less than five dies continued to be unceasing, and every art subsidies, and to be paid within twelve months! was resorted to by his ministers. Buckingham, "Was all this possible?" "Were these the meanwhile, covered with his recent failures men who had been sent from every quarter of and disgraces, had hitherto kept himself out of the country to oppose the court, to resent the view; and it is another proof of the noble polwrongs of their constituents, and to avenge icy we have characterized in every movement their own?" Old Secretary Cooke hurried of the popular leaders at this time, that, intent down with feeble haste to grasp at the subsi- upon their grander objects, they passed the dies. He was then quietly told that they could subdued favourite, so long as he was not innot be paid; that the bill for collecting them, truded before them, in contemptuous silence. indeed, should not be framed until certain ne- The court party, however, rarely failed to miscessary securities were given by the king for construe conduct of this sort; and now, with the future enjoyment of liberty and property a fatal precipitancy, presumed upon this siamong the subjects of the kingdom. The crest-lence. Cooke, the king's secretary, by way of fallen ministers resorted to their hypocritical arts of evasion and refusal; the patriot leaders prepared for action. The consummate policy we have described had resolved the dispute into the clearest elements of right and wrong; and the position of the Commons against the court was firmly and immoveably determined.* What they had resolved to do could now be done; and, the court policy once openly betrayed, the passionate eloquence of Eliot was heard, opening up to the public abhorrence the wounds that had lately been inflicted upon the liberties and laws.t

I refer the reader, for the only exact account of the proceedings of this Parliament, to the journals and debates. Dr. Lingard has described the conduct of the leaders of the country party very faithfully. "They advanced step by step; first resolving to grant a supply, then fixing it at the tempting amount of five subsidies, and, lastly, agreeing that the whole should be paid within the short space of twelve months. But no art, no entreaty could prevail on them to pass their resolution in the shape of a bill. It was held out as a lure to the king; it was gradually brought nearer and nearer to his grasp, but they still refused to surrender their hold; they required, as a previous condition, that he should give his assent to those liberties which they claimed as the birthright of Englishmen."-History, vol. ix., p. 379. See, also, Hume, vol. v., p. 160.

"Sir John Eliot," says the writer of the Ephemeris Parliamentaria, "did passionately and rhetorically set forth our late grievances; he misliked much the violating of our laws." This speech is, unfortunately, lost. "What pity it is," observes Mr. Brodie, "that no copy has been preserved of Sir John Eliot's speech upon the grievances! He appears to have been the most eloquent man of his time." Echoing his regret, I am surprised that Mr. Brodie should have passed without mention a most remarkable speech of Eliot, which I shall have immediate occasion to allude to, delivered by him on the same subject in the present session, and admirably handed down to us from the MSS. of Napier. He had noble seconders on the occasion referred to in the text. "I read of a custom," said Sir Robert Philips (rising after Eliot had ceased), "among the old Romans, that 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 jail, without remedy by law, and to be so adjudged! O improv

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 leaped 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 !'"+ 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 reident 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. [Such specimens of eloquence as these go far to illustrate the opinion of the great orator of our country, that the finest bursts of parliamentary eloquence on record are to be found in the debates of the Parliaments in the reign of Charles I.-C.]

The grievances detailed before these committees were reduced to six heads: attendance at the council board, imprisonment, confinement, designation 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., p. 399-405, &c.

† Parl. Hist., vol. vii., p. 431.

Sloane MSS., 4177. Letter from Mr. Pory. Another account will be found among these manuscripts, in a letter from Mr. Mead, dated April 12, 1628.

buke was tempered: "My joy at this message | Attorney's cap," exclaimed Sir Edward Coke, is not without trouble, which must likewise be "to answer any one of our arguments." "With declared. I must disburden this affliction, or my own hand," said Selden, "I have written I cannot, otherwise, so lively and so faithfully out all the records from the Tower, the Exexpress my devotion to the service of this chequer, and the King's Bench, and I will enHouse as I had resolved. I know not by what gage my head Mr. Attorney shall not find in all fatality or infortunity it has crept in, but I ob- these archives a single precedent omitted."* serve, in the close of the secretary's relation, The close of the conference elicited from the mention made of another in addition to his maj- Lords a series of counter-resolutions, which esty; and that which hath been formerly a were immediately rejected by Eliot and his matter of complaint I find here still-a mix- friends, as nothing more than an ingenious ture with his majesty, not only in his business, subterfuge. These resolutions, in point of but in name. Is it that any man conceives the fact, if agreed to, would, after recognising the mention of others, of what quality soever, can legality of the precedents urged, have left the add encouragement or affection to us, in our matter precisely where it was. The king's duties and loyalties towards his majesty, or word was to be the chief security.+ 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 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."* 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; 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 constitutional lawyers stated their case with a startling clearness. "It lies not under Mr.

• 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 gracions 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 consideratim concerning the point, ALREADY SETTLED HERE, in declaration of our liberties; and for the Parliament in generai."

+ These resolutions were four in number, and had for their object the security of the subject from those infamous retences 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., Tol. v., 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 evaon from the corrupt judges, and struck from under them their old resource to antagonist enactments, judicial precedents, and exercises of prerogative.

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 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 !" 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 propensities 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 See the reports of the conference in the Journals. Rushworth, vol. 1., 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, Sergeant 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 afterward, p. 53 and p. 68.) This sel, employed at a free conference; and Mr. Hallam urges was a somewhat strong step to take against a king's counit (Const. Hist., vol. i., p. 533) as a "remarkable proof of the rapid growth of popular principles." It is a compli ment 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 from 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." Commons' Journals, April 17, 1628; and Parl. Hist., vol. vii., p. 452.

† See Rushworth, vol. i., p. 546.

See

See Parl. Hist., vol. viii., p. 81. Rushworth, vol. i., p. 551. Aikin's Court of Charles, vol. i., p. 206.

Commons proceeded. Briefly and peremptori- | re-enforcing the laws enacted by our ancestors, ly, at last, Charles desired, through his secre- by setting such a seal upon them as no licentary, to know decidedly whether the House tious spirit shall dare hereafter to enter upon would or would not rest upon his royal word. them!" "I assent," said Charles, unworthily "Upon this there was silence for a good at the same moment seeking to evade this seal, space."* Pym was the first to break it; and "but so as that Magna Charta and the other Eliot hastened to relieve Pym from the per- six statutes alluded to may be without addisonal dilemma in which his fearless acuteness tions, paraphrases, or explanations."* The threatened to place him. "I move," said he, Commons had not had time to spurn the prof"that this proposition be put to the question, fered deceit, when, with a childish imbecility, because they that would have it do urge us to the king sent down another message, desiring that point."+ The question was rejected. that they should take his word. The House Charles instantly sent down another message, was at this moment sitting in committee. peremptorily warning them not "to encroach Secretary Cooke, who brought the message, on that sovereignty or prerogative which God concluded with an earnest desire that "the hath put into our hands," and threatening to debate upon it should be done before the House, end the session on Tuesday sennight at the and not before the committee." He had good farthest. "Whereupon," say the Journals, reasons for this; for he knew what arguments "Sir John Eliot rose and spoke." He com- might possibly be urged, and that the court had plained bitterly of the proposed shortness of at least one security against them, in the sethe session. 66 Look," he exclaimed, "how cret commands which the king had already many messages we have! Interruptions, mis- placed upon the timid speaker. Sir John Elreports, and misrepresentations produce these iot, conscious of the weakness of Finch, saw messages. I fear," continued Eliot, "his maj- through the secretary's purpose, and effectualesty yet knows not what we go about. Let us ly foiled it. With great energy he urged promake some enlargement, and put it again be- ceeding in committee as more likely to be honfore him." An address for this purpose was ourable and advantageous. "That way," he instantly agreed to by the House, was present- said, "leads most to truth. It is a more open ed by the speaker, and again the king found way. Every man may there add his reasons, himself completely baffled. It would be too and make answer upon the hearing of other painful to follow his windings and doublings men's reasons and arguments." The House through their long and mean course, but that assented; the debate proceeded with closed at every turn some new evidence arrests us of doors; and the result was a plain and deterthe brilliant powers and resources of the great mined resolution by the Commons that they statesman whose character we seek to illus- could only take the king's word in a parliamenttrate. ary way. They passed their bill, and sent it up to the Lords.

So clear and decisive was the last statement of the Commons, that Charles fancied he had no resource now but to intimate his assent to the proposed bill; yet, even in doing this, he sought, by an insidious restriction, to withhold from the old statutes and precedents that unity and directness of purpose which the cementing resolutions of the House were, for the first time, about to give to them. "We vindicate," Wentworth had said, "what? new things? No! our ancient, legal, and vital liberties-by

To the Lords the king now addressed a letter, stating that he could not, without the overthrow of his sovereignty, part with the power of committing the subject, but promising, in all ordinary cases, to obey Magna Charta, and not to imprison, for the future," any man for refusing a loan, nor for any cause which, in his judgment and conscience, he did not conceive necessary for the public good." This letter was instantly sent to the Lower House, and all the notice we find of it in their journals is given Not in four words-"They laid it aside."** So the Lords, who, with customary pliancy, founded upon it a saving clause to reserve his

* Rushworth, vol. i., p. 553. Parl. Hist., vol. viii., p. 95. + 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 * Speech of the lord-keeper, Parl. Hist, vol. ii., p. 98. I. and Charles I.; but which remain to this day on the Rushworth, vol. i., p. 557. The miserable fatuity of conshelves of the Sloane collection as the transcriber left them.senting thus to their proceeding by bill, while he robs them Their arrangement and publication would confer a valuable of all the advantages they sought to achieve by that mode service on history, yet I fear there is no prevailing encour-of procedure, is too apparent. agement for undertakings of this sort. It is to be regretted.

Parl. Hist., vol. viii., p. 99. Rushworth, vol. i., p. 555. In the address which was voted in consequence of Eliot's proposition, the king is advised distinctly of the nature of the resolutions they had passed, as I have above explained them. "They have not the least thought of straining or enlarging the former laws; the bounds of their desires extend no farther than to some necessary explanation of that which is truly comprehended within the just sense and meaning of those laws, with some moderate provision for execution and performance."-Parl. Hist., vol. viii., p. 102. Sir Benjamin Rudyard expressed the matter, in the course of the debate on this address, in a more homely way. "For my own part," he said, "I should be very glad to see that good, old, decrepit law of Magna Charta, which hath been so long kept in-lain bedrid, as it wereI should be glad, I say, to see it walk abroad again, with new vigour and lustre." The conclusion of his speech was a covered rebuke to Charles, "No man is bound to be rich or great-no, nor to be wise: but every man is bound to be honest."

Rushworth, vol. i., p. 557. Parl. Hist., vol. viii., p. 103. The secretary's wriggling method of delivering this message was curious and instructive.

Finch had already commenced his bargain for promotion by promising the king to discountenance, as much as possible, any aspersion of his ministers, and, more especially, of Buckingham. I have already suggested the only motive the Commons could have had in electing this man as their speaker. They appear to have desired to impress the court, on their first meeting, with a sense of how little they were disposed to be actuated in their duties by any violent temper, or the resentment of individual wrongs. They committed an error, but a generous one. ◊ Parl. Hist., vol. viii., p. 104.

In the interval between this and the first assent of Charles, the affair of Dr. Mainwaring was brought before the House. I shall have to allude to it in the biography of Pym.

The Lords' Journals, May 12. Rushworth, vol. i., p. 560. Parl. Hist., vol. viii., p. 110. **Rushworth, vol. i., p. 561. Parl. Hist., vol. viii., p 112.