and in 1593; of state but such as should be propounded unto them, and to occupy themselves in other matters concerning the commonwealth," a warning which was restated in a more positive form in the answer given to a like request made by the speaker, Sir Edward Coke, at the opening of parliament in 1593: "Privilege of speech is granted, but you must know what privilege ye have; not to speak every one what he listeth, or what cometh into his brain to utter; your privilege is imprison- 'aye' or 'no.'"2 Regardless of the warning, Peter Wentworth Wentworth and Sir Henry Bromley, on the first day of the session, venand tured to reopen the question of the succession by the presentation of a petition and bill upon the subject, for which presumption they were promptly taken in hand by the council and imprisoned.8 ment of Bromley. Henry VIII.'s assumptions siastical he drafted and proposed The break with Rome, and the almost entire suspension of the functions of convocation as a legislative body which folas to eccle- lowed the submission of the clergy, cast upon the king as the legislation; supreme head a set of new ecclesiastical duties, as to whose discharge there were no precedents. In order to definitely settle all such difficulties, Henry VIII. assumed that as the real government of the church belonged to the crown, it was its exclusive right to draft and submit to parliament for its ratification all necessary ecclesiastical legislation. In that way was proposed and ratified the famous series of statutes enacted by the Reformation Parliament. That Elizabeth firmly adhered parliament to her father's theory was put beyond all question when in 1571 the commons, who were then entirely under the control of the Puritan element, attempted to assume the initiative in resisted the church affairs by the enactment of a number of bills for the modification of the religious compromise, which at the queen's suggestion had passed into law. In the course of the conbills flict that ensued, the speaker was directed to say, after a bill the ritual; touching church rules and ceremonies had been read a third the Reformation statutes which ratified; Elizabeth attempt of the commons to pass concerning 1 D'Ewes, p. 141. 2 Parl. Hist., vol. iv. p. 349. 8 Parl. Hist., vol. iv. p. 365. 4 For summary of these acts, see above, p. 83. 5 "No fewer than seven bills, for a further reformation, were introduced into the lower house."- Lingard, vol. vi. p. 248. land's time, that "No bills concerning religion shall be proposed or received into this house, unless the same be first considered. by the clergy;" and Mr. Strickland, "a grave and ancient Strickman," who seems to have been the main author of the obnox- reprimand; ious measures, was summoned before the council, reprimanded, and ordered not to appear again in the house, for the reason that the part he had taken was a direct assault upon the royal prerogative. In the midst, however, of the cry of privi- the queen yielded to lege which at once arose, the queen gave way to the extent the cry of of withdrawing her inhibition against Strickland's return to privilege; his place in the house.1 In 1588 another attempt to initiate fate of Mr. Cope's bill ecclesiastical reform was made by Mr. Cope, who introduced to introduce a sweeping measure for the abolition of the existing system, "of common which he proposed to supersede by a new form of common prayer; prayer contained in a book annexed to his bill. Under a command from the queen the speaker attempted to stop the read a new book forced to bill and book; questions liament's right of de ing of the bill, and after discussion of the matter he was forced the speaker to deliver up both bill and book to her majesty. As a counter- deliver up blast to this assault upon the right of parliament to legislate of its own motion upon all subjects touching the interests of the commonwealth, Peter Wentworth insisted that a series of Wentworth questions should be read to the house by the speaker, of the propounded following import: "Whether this council was not a place for as to par any member of the same, freely and without control, by bill unlimited or speech, to utter any of the griefs of this commonwealth? liberation, Whether there be any council that can make, add, or diminish from the law of the realm, but only this council of parliament ? Whether it be not against the orders of this council to make secret or matter of weight, which is here on hand, known to the prince or any other without consent of the house? Whether the speaker may overrule the house in any matter or cause in question? Whether the prince and state can continue and stand and be maintained, without this council of parliament, except by altering the government of the state?" For propounding these mighty questions, which outlined the for which entire attack to be made by parliament in the next age upon others were the conciliar system, Wentworth and his supporters, including impris Cope, were committed to the Tower, where they were permitted to remain until the dissolution of parliament, which 1 D'Ewes, pp. 156, 175, 176. he and oned; fate of Morice, took place three weeks thereafter. When in 1593 Morice, who the attorney of the court of wards, attempted to repeat Cope's attempted experiment by offering a bill for the reform of the practice of the practice the ecclesiastical courts, he received more serious punishment to reform of the church courts. In spite of privileges of the commons grew under crown to control commerce and trade; special through royal orders which not only forbade the speaker to read his bill, but also consigned him to prison, deprived him of his office as attorney in the court of wards, and disabled him from practising as a barrister.2 And yet, in spite of the failure of the commons to maintain reverses the its right to initiate such legislation as it deemed necessary for the reform of the church and for the settlement of the successteadily sion, in spite of the rarity of its assemblings and the persistent Elizabeth; assaults made upon its right to freedom of discussion, its privileges steadily grew and its powers widened, until at the close of Elizabeth's reign it was able to win its first great victory within a forbidden domain, always considered as the special right of the province of the king in council. From the earliest times the crown had asserted a broad and undefined jurisdiction over commerce and trade, by virtue of which it claimed the right to coin money, to regulate weights and measures, to make special rules for the government of foreign merchants, to appoint privileges certain towns as staples possessed of the exclusive right to sell certain kinds of merchandise, to authorize the holding of fairs and markets, and to declare what places should be entitled to the privileges of a port. And in addition to the right to bestow such special immunities upon particular cities and towns, the crown also undertook to grant valuable commercial privileges privileges to individuals and corporations, under patents which granted to conferred upon the holders the exclusive right to deal in a individuals; multitude of articles, many of them the common necessaries of life. So great was the abuse that arose out of the grant of such monopolies to favored individuals, generally courtiers, during the reign of Elizabeth, that in the parliament of 157. questioning Mr. Bell called the attention of the house to the subject. But nopolies ; the startling rebuke promptly administered by the council o 1 D'Ewes, p. 410; Parl. Hist., vol. iv. plaint in and out of parliament. $7 p. 316. Correspondence, pp. 25, 26. upon certain cities and towns; valuable commercial Mr. Bell rebuked for such mo 2 D'Ewes, p. 478; Parl. Hist., vol. iv. p. 396; Townsend, p. 60. 8 For a general statement, see Dicey, The Privy Council, pp. 53-62. 4 It was the leading subject of com 5 After his admonition, he returne to the house "with such an am countenance that it daunted all the rest."-D'Ewes, p. 159. 1597; commons attacked olies in the offending member was so efficacious that the question was not again reopened until 1597, when the commons presented it in an address, to which the queen made answer through the lord keeper, expressing the hope that "her dutiful and loving the queen's subjects would not take away her prerogative, which is the plea for her prerogative choicest flower in her garden, and the principal and head pearl made in in her crown and diadem."1 In spite, however, of such an appeal from such a source, the abuse, which had become unbearable, was made the subject of a bill introduced in the commons the in 1601, "for the explanation of the common law in certain cases neverthe of letters patent," which gave rise to a long and angry debate, less whose stern spirit of protest seems to have received a hearty the monopresponse from the people at large. So great was the pressure 1601; thus brought to bear upon the crown that Elizabeth, with that Elizabeth consummate tact which always taught the Tudors how to yield gracefully, yielded at the critical moment, sent a message to the house with the promise that as to such patents as were "grievous to her subjects, some should be presently repealed, some superseded, and none put in execution, but such as should first have a trial, according to the law, for the good of the people." For this and concession the house returned an address of thanks, in reply to which the queen assured them that she had never put her pen to any patent, "but upon pretext and semblance made to me, that it was both good and beneficial to the subjects in general, though a private profit to some of my ancient servants who had deserved well." 2 Despite, however, the loyal and affec- the crown tionate spirit in which this memorable transaction thus ended, the first the fact remained that the conciliar system had lost the first battle in battle in that prolonged struggle through which was finally struggle reëstablished the all-important principle that the supreme powers of the state are vested not in the king in council, but in the king in parliament. 1 She added a promise " to examine all patents and to abide the touchstone of the law." - D'Ewes, p. 547. 2 D'Ewes, vol. ii. pp. 644-654; Townsend, pp. 224, 230, 248; Parl. Hist., vol. iv. p. 480. received the thanks of the house; thus lost the great now begun. BOOK V. THE STUARTS AND THE PURITAN REVOLUTION OF 1640. Title of the house of Stuart; CHAPTER I. JAMES I. AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT. 1. THE house of Tudor, whose right to the throne really rested upon a parliamentary title, never deemed it either becoming or expedient to revive the Yorkist theory of indefeasible hereditary right. Henry VIII., while admitting the principle that the "royal dignity ought to descend from ancestor to heir in a certain established course of descent," was the right of careful to emphasize the fact "that this course of descent is succession; subject to the control of the legislature," by the approval of Tudor theory of made by Henry VIII.'s statutes the three famous enactments in which he as often regulated the succession according to his convenience. The last of those acts, after affirming the right of Edward and his heirs, put in the entail next after them first Mary and then Elizabeth, subject to such conditions as Henry by his last will or letters settlement patent might appoint.1 Under this power to add a further limitation by will, the king simply supplemented the arrangement which parliament had made by the provision that in the event of failure of issue of his three children, the crown should pass to the heirs of his younger sister Mary, who had married the duke of Suffolk, to the detriment of the heirs of his elder sister Margaret, who had married James IV. of Scotland. Elizabeth, after asking a fresh confirmation of her title at the hands of her first parliament, resolutely refused throughout her long reign to disturb in any way the course of descent which her and will undisturbed by Elizabeth; 1 See above, p. 107. 2 Fœdera, vol. xv. pp. 114-117. 81 Eliz. c. 3. As to the peculiar terms of that act, see above, p. 156. |