violent counsels, but wanting firmness to persevere in them finding he had acted with too much precipitancy, ordered the members to be set at liberty". Thus irritated, but not intimidated, by a prince who had discovered his weakness or imprudence, or both, the commons, regardless of the public necessities, continued their inquiries into the conduct of Buckingham. But not being able to fix any crime upon him, that could be legally brought under the article of high treason, they drew up a petition for removing him from his majesty's person and councils, as an unwise and dangerous minister8. The affectionate and respectful style of that petition leaves great room to believe, that if Charles had complied with the request of the commons, by renouncing all future connection with Buckingham, a good understanding might yet have been established between the king and parliament, and all the horrors of civil war prevented; for if the pretensions of the commons afterwards exceeded the line of the constitution, these extravagant pretensions were first roused by the arbitrary proceedings of the crown, which excited a hatred against royal authority, and a desire of recrimination, which at last proved fatal to the monarchy. It may indeed be urged, on the other side, that the arbitrary proceedings of the crown were occasioned by the obstinacy of the parliament: that Charles had no desire of oppressing his subjects, how high soever his ideas of prerogative might be, and would never have attempted any unconstitutional measure, if the commons had furnished him with the necessary and reasonable supplies. Both parties were therefore to blame, and perhaps equally; yet I cannot help believing the commons were sincere, when they made this solemn declaration to the king, in the close of a remonstrance that followed their petition. 7. Rushworth, voi. i. 8. Parl, Hist. vol. vii. "We profess, in the presence of Almighty God, the "searcher of all hearts, that you are as highly esteemed ❝ and beloved as ever any of your predecessors were!" And, after entreating him to dismiss Buckingham from his presence, they thus apologize for their parsimony: "We protest to your majesty, and to the whole world, that until this great person be removed from intermeddling with "the great affairs of state, we are out of hope of any "good success; and do fear, that any mony we shall ❝or can give, will, through his misemployment, be turn"ed rather to the prejudice of this your kingdom than other"wise, as by lamentable experience we have found, in those "large supplies formerly and lately given. But no sooner "shall we receive redress and relief in this, which, of all "others, is our most insupportable grievance, but we shall "forthwith proceed to accomplish your majesty's own de"sire for supply; and likewise, with all cheerfulness, apply "ourselves to the perfecting of divers other great things, "such as we think no one parliament in one age can paral lel, tending to the stability, wealth, strength, and honour "of this your kingdom, and the support of your friends " and allies abroad." Enraged at this second attempt to deprive him of his minister and favourite, Charles paid no regard to the prayer of the commons, or to his loss of supply, the necessary' consequence of denying it, but immediately prepared to dissolve the parliament, in order to avoid any farther importunity on a subject so ungrateful to his ear. "What "idea," said he, "must all mankind entertain of' my ho"nour, should I sacrifice my innocent friend to pecuniary "considerations?" But allowing this friend and servant to have been more innocent, and even more able, than we find him, it was the king's duty, as well as his interest, to dismiss his minister from all public employments, at the request of the representative body of his subjects. For, as the com 9 Parl. Hist. vol. vii. mons mons very justly observed in their remonstrance, "the rela"tions between a sovereign and his people do far transcend, "and are more prevalent and binding than any relation of 66 a master towards a servant: and consequently to hear and "satisfy the just and necessary desires of his people is more "honourable to a prince, than any expression of grace to a "servant1." Instead of listening to such respectful arguments, Charles, by persevering in his support of Buckingham, involved himself, in the opinion of the nation, in all his favourite's crimes, whether real or imputed. Among these was a charge of having applied a plaster to the late king's side, without the knowledge of his physicians, and which was supposed to have been the cause of his death; an accusation which, if Charles had believed to be just, would have loosened all the ties of affection to Buckingham, and which he would have prosecuted to the utmost. Yet werethere people wicked enough to suppose, from the king's blind attachment to the duke, that he had been privy to such an atrocious crime. His adherence to this worthless man was indeed so strong as to exceed all belief; when the house of peers, whose compliant behaviour surely entitled them to some influence with him, requested that he would let the parliament sit a little longer, he hastily replied, "not a moment longer!" and instantly ended the session, by a dissolution. In this alarming crisis of his affairs, as he did not choose to resign his minister, the only rational counsel which Charles could pursue, was immediately to conclude a peace with Spain; and, by that prudent measure, to render himself as independent as possible of the parliament, which seemed determined to take advantage of his necessities, in order to abridge his authority. Nothing could be more easy, more consistent with national interest, or more agreeable to his own. 10. Id. ibid. 11. Sanderson's Life of Charles I. wish; but the violent and impetuous Buckingham, inflamed with a desire of revenge, for injuries which he himself had committed, and animated with a love of glory, which he wanted talents to acquire, persuaded his too facile master to continue the war, though he had not been able to procure him the constitutional means of supporting it. Those new counsels, which Charles had mentioned to the parliament, were therefore now to be tried, in order to supply his exigencies and so high an idea had he conceived of kingly power, and so contemptible an opinion of the rights of national assemblies, that, if he had possessed a military force on which he could have depended, there is reason to believe he would at once have laid aside all reserve, and attempted to govern without any regard to parliamentary privileges12. But being destitute of such a force, he was obliged to cover his violences under the sanction of ancient precedents, collected from all the tyrannical reigns since the Norman conquest. The people, however, were too keen-sighted not to perceive, that examples can never alter the nature of injustice. They therefore complained loudly of the benevolences, and loans, which were extorted from them under various forms; and these complaints were increased by a commission, which was openly issued, for compounding with popish recusants, and dispensing for a sum of money, with the penal laws enacted against them'3. While the nation was in this dissatisfied humour, intelligence arrived of the defeat of the Protestants in Germany, by the Imperial forces. A general loan from the subject was now exacted, equal to the four subsidies and three fifteenths voted last parliament; and many respectable persons were thrown into prison for refusing to pay their assessments. Most of them patiently submitted. to confinement, or applied by petition to the king, who ge 12. This is the opinion of Mr. Hume, who will not be suspected of traducing the character of Charles. 13. Rushworth, vol, i, nerally released them. Five gentlemen alone, namely, sir Thomas Darnel, sir John Corbet, sir Walter Earl, sir John Evingham, and sir Edmund Hambden, had resolution enough to demand their release, not as a favour from the prince, but as their right by the laws of their country14. On examination it was found, that these gentlemen had been arbitrarily committed, at the special command alone of the king and council, without any cause being assigned for such commitment. This they asserted was not a sufficient ground for detaining them in custody. The question was brought to a solemn trial before the court of King's-Bench; and in the course of the debates, it appeared incontestibly to the nation, that our ancestors had been so jealous of personal liberty, as to secure it against absolute power in the prince, not only by an article in the GREAT CHARTER itself, the sacred basis of the laws and constitution, but by six several statutes besides'5. Precedents, however, were numerous of the violation of those statutes: so A. D. 1627. that the judges, obsequious to the court, refused to release the prisoners, or to admit them to bail1.. The cry was now loud, that the nation was reduced to slavery. The liberty of the subject was violated, for refusing to submit to an illegal imposition! Nor was this the only arbitrary measure of which the people had reason to complain. The troops that had returned from the fruitless expedition against Cadiz were dispersed over the kingdom, and billetted upon private families, contrary to established custom, which required that they should be quartered at inns and public houses. And all persons of substance, who had refused or delayed the loan, were sure to be loaded with a disproportionate number of those disorderly guests; while people of inferior condition, who had shewn a refractory disposition, 14. Rushworth, vol. i. 15. 25. Edw. III. cap. iv. 28. Edw. III. cap. iii. 37. Edw. III. cap. xviii. 38. F.dw. III. cap. ix. 42. Edw. III. cap. iii. 1 Richard II. cap. xii. 16. Rushworth, vol. i. were |