Cassell's History of England, Vol. 2 (of 8) / From the Wars of the Roses to the Great Rebellion

by Anonymous

In the midst of this state of things James was compelled to call a Parliament. This assembled on the 19th of March, 1604. It was one of the most remarkable Parliaments in our history, for it came together, on the part of both King and Commons, prepared to contest the great principles of absolutism and constitutional liberty; a contest which never again ceased till the people had triumphed over the Crown, and prescribed for it those limits within which it continues still to exist. The Tudors had made themselves absolute, but rather by acting than talking. They had willed, but had only occasionally boasted of the supremacy of their will. Whenever they had done so, especially in the person of Elizabeth, they received a protest so spirited from Parliament, that they wisely again veiled their pretensions. But James, possessing all their personal vanity and love of unlimited power, had not the policy to keep his pretensions in the background. He obtruded them on the public notice; he vaunted his towering belief of his earthly divinity, declaring that as God killed or made alive, so had He ordained kings to do the same at pleasure. Years before he came to England, he published these imperious and imprudent doctrines in a discourse "On the True Law of Free Monarchies; or, the Reciprogue and Mutual Duty betwixt a Free King and his Natural Subjects." He was, in short, a firm believer in the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, which had taken such a firm root in Europe.

In the proclamation calling this Parliament, James took care to set forth the supremacy of his prerogative, and commanded the sheriffs and other officers to make no returns of members but such as were wholly agreeable to his views; there were to be no "persons noted for their superstitious blindness in religion one way, or for their turbulent humour the other." That is, neither Puritans nor Catholics were to be elected. Instructions were sent down to the various counties and boroughs, naming such persons for candidates as were agreeable to the Court. But the Puritans were in no humour to comply with such unconstitutional orders. They were justly filled with resentment at the treatment of their representatives at Hampton Court, and put forward their own men and returned them in great numbers in defiance of the Government. One case led to a direct and vehement collision between the Crown and the House of Commons. Sir John Fortescue, a member of the Privy Council, had been named by the Court as a member for the county of Buckingham. The people of Buckinghamshire, afterwards so conspicuous in the struggles between the Stuarts and Parliament, elected Sir Francis Goodwin. The clerk of the Crown refused to receive the return, and sent it back to the sheriff as contrary to the proclamation; for Goodwin had formerly been outlawed, and James had forbidden the return of outlaws. A second writ was issued, and under it Sir John Fortescue was elected. But the Commons refused to admit him, declaring that as Goodwin's outlawry had been reversed, the proclamation did not apply to him, and that his return was good and should stand.

THE OLD PALACE, WESTMINSTER, IN THE TIME OF CHARLES I.

(Showing the Hall, Parliament House, Painted Chamber, and St. Stephen's Chapel.)

The Government, in the name of the Lords, proposed to the Commons that there should be a conference between the two Houses on the subject before any other business was proceeded with; but the Commons, with a clear insight into their privileges, where the constitution and functions of their own body were concerned, replied that it did not consist with the honour of their House to give an account of their proceedings and doings. On this they received a second message, in which they were informed, through Coke, that his majesty being apprised of their objection, conceived that his honour was touched, and desired that there should be some conference between the Houses. On this the Commons sent a deputation of their members, headed by the Speaker, to represent to the king why they could not confer with the Lords on any subject. The king was exceedingly high, and let them know that they held all their privileges by the royal favour; but the members stoutly denied that doctrine, as the House at large had already this session denied it, saying "that new laws could not be instituted, nor imperfect laws reformed, nor inconvenient laws abrogated, by any other power than that of the High Court of Parliament, that is, by the agreement of the Commons, the accord of the Lords, and the assent of the Sovereign; that to him belonged the right either negatively to frustrate, or affirmatively to ratify, but that he could not institute; every bill must pass through the two Houses before it could be submitted to his pleasure."

This was a doctrine that clashed disagreeably with James's absolute notions, and he upbraided the Commons with their presumption. But they stood firmly to their position and, what was extremely humiliating to the new monarch, excused his unconstitutional ideas through ignorance or misinformation of the custom and laws of England; the privileges of their house, they said, were the birthright of Englishmen and could not be surrendered. James claimed that all disputed matters should be referred to his court of chancery; but they claimed to settle all such themselves, as the essential to the government of their estate.

When James found that nothing would induce the Commons to confer with the Lords, he ordered them to confer with the judges, and this command the deputation carried back to the House. But the House, after a warm debate, unanimously refused to refer the question to the judges; they drew up an answer to all the king's arguments, and sent it to the Lords, requesting them to present it to his majesty, and be mediators between them. James, now finding that he could make no impression by express command, sent for the Speaker and endeavoured to coax him over to his views; but that being unsuccessful, he ordered him to deliver to the House his command, "as an absolute king," to confer with the judges. This was a direct challenge to the popular element to try its strength with the royal one—language which was sure to put a high-spirited people on its mettle: the first utterance of that language, which no warning, no experience could teach a Stuart to abandon, till the utterance was quenched in blood.

When the Speaker delivered this command, there fell a profound silence on the House—an augury and foreboding, as it were, of the gigantic struggle which was commencing. At length the ominous silence was broken by a member starting up and exclaiming that "the prince's command was like a thunderbolt; his command over our allegiance," he said, "is like the roaring of a lion! To his command there is no contradiction; but how, or in what manner we should proceed to perform obedience, that will be the question." It was finally agreed to send a deputation to confer with the judges in the presence of the king and Council. At the conference there appeared no better prospect of success, when the king happily proposed that both Goodwin and Fortescue should be set aside, and a new writ issued. The Commons gladly acceded to this proposal. The House was rejoiced at this solution of the difficulty, but out of doors those they represented were far from satisfied, and reproached the House with having yielded the right which they had boldly claimed. But in reality, the Commons had done no such thing, for they proceeded, by their Speaker's warrant, to issue the new writ themselves, and they have ever since exercised the right which they then assumed, of deciding all cases of contested elections.

The king, on his part, was as little satisfied as the people. He laboured under no mistake as to where the victory lay: he felt keenly that he was defeated in his soaring claims of prerogative, and the Commons went on to let him know that they were resolved on an exercise of power still greater. They attacked the monopolies which James had declared by proclamation that he would abolish, but towards which not a step was taken. They complained of the continuance of the feudal grievances of assarts, wardships, aids for royal marriages, and purveyance. The right of guardianship of minors of estate continued a source of vast emolument to the Crown, which received the proceeds of these estates and rendered no account. This was, moreover, a source of equal peculation to the minister for the time being, and Cecil was thought to draw enormous wealth from this abuse; and as for purveyance, it seems to have been as recklessly and insolently pursued as under any of the kings of York or Lancaster. The royal purveyors seized the property of the subject just as they pleased; took horses, carts, carriages, and provisions at will; called out men to labour for the royal pleasure, paying or not as suited them, felling trees, and committing sundry other depredations.