his close alliance with Laud, but his ostentatious bestowal of promotion upon those of the clergy who had rendered themselves notorious, and incurred the animosity of the House of Commons, by their simultaneous advocacy of anti-Calvinistic doctrines in the Church and of the divine right of kings in the State. Dr. Montague, whose Appello Caesarem in 1625 had been condemned by the Commons as containing matters contrary to the Thirty-nine Articles, and who in 1627 had been foremost in inculcating the duty of paying the forced loan, was promoted by the King to a bishopric shortly after the prorogation of Parliament in 1628; and at the same time Dr. Mainwaring, who had but recently been impeached by the Commons and condemned by the Lords for his advocacy, in the pulpit and the press, of the right of the King to tax his subjects without the consent of Parliament, was rewarded with a rich living, and ultimately advanced to the bishopric of St. David's. Toleration The idea of toleration and religious liberty was as yet unthought of by King, or unthought of by either King or Parliament, and the Commons, having declared their interpretation of the articles of religion to be the only true one, proceeded to summon the authors of the ceremonial innovations to answer at the bar of the House.

Parliament.

Question of tonnage and poundage resumed.

who had

In the meantime the question of tonnage and poundage was again taken up, and, contrary to the advice of Pym, who wished the matter to be dealt with on the broad national basis of the illegality of taxation without consent, the Commons resolved to give prominence to the breach The officers of privilege in Rolle's case, and accordingly summoned the custom-house officers who had seized that member's goods to appear and answer for their contempt. The King refused to allow his officers to be questioned for obedience to his orders, and directed the House to adjourn for a few allow them days until the 2nd of March. During the short recess to be questioned, and attempts were made to come to some private arrangement with the leaders of the Commons, but these failing, the

seized

Rolle's

goods sum. moned. The King refuses to

orders the

House to adjourn.

1 Supra, p. 521.

Gardiner, Pers. Gov. of Ch. I., i. 89.

adjournment

mons refuse.

House, at its re-assembling on March 2, was informed by A further the Speaker, Sir John Finch, that the King again required ordered. them to adjourn, this time to the 10th. The right of the King to order an adjournment, which had always been admitted by the Lords in reference to their own house, had never been acquiesced in by the Commons, who, while complying with the king's wishes, had always been careful to make their adjournment their own formal act. When The Comthe question of adjournment was now put by the Speaker, a chorus of Noes resounded from every side. Sir John Eliot, who, anticipating the adjournment and speedy dissolution of Parliament by the King, had prepared a protestation on the subjects of religion and taxation, which, if only passed by the House before its adjournment, would go forth to the country as an appeal against the King's arbitrary proceedings, rose speak. He was interrupted by the Tumult in Speaker, who, saying he had the absolute command of the the House. King to leave the chair if any one should attempt to address the House, rose also, but was at once thrust back into his seat by Holles and Valentine. The whole House was now in an uproar. Some of the privy councillors present rushed to the assistance of the Speaker, who broke away for a moment, but only to be again seized and forced into the chair. God's wounds,' exclaimed Holles, 'you shall sit till we please to rise.' At the order of the House the door was locked by Sir Miles Hobart, who placed the key in his pocket. Eliot proposed that three resolutions, the substance of which he explained, should be formally put to the vote. Both the Speaker and the clerk refused. A confused and stormy debate ensued, and Eliot, despairing of getting the resolutions passed, had thrown them into the fire, when, just as the king's guard was approaching the House to effect a forcible entry, Holles, who had hastily rewritten the resolutions from memory, read them to the House. They were carried by acclamation, and the House, having voted its own adjournment, the door was thrown open.1

6

1 Nicholas' Notes of the Session of 1629; State Papers, Domestic, cxxxviii.

The three resolutions.

Parliament dissolved, 10 March.

The three resolutions declared: (1) that the introducers of innovation in religion, or of Popery, or Arminianism, or other opinions disagreeing from the true and orthodox Church; and (2) all who should counsel or advise the taking and levying of the subsidies of tonnage and poundage, not being granted by Parliament, or should be actors or instruments therein, should be reputed capital enemies to the kingdom and commonwealth; and (3) that all merchants or others who should voluntarily pay the said subsidies, should be reputed betrayers of the liberties of England, and enemies to the same.

The House at its rising had adjourned to the 10th of March. On that day the King dissolved Parliament in person, with an angry reference to the disobedient carriage of the Lower House,' and a threat that the vipers amongst them should meet with their reward.'1

6, 7; Archeologia, xxxviii. 237. The various accounts of the proceedings of this memorable day have been harmonized by Mr. Gardiner, in his Pers. Gov. of Ch. I., i. 90-99.

1 Parl. or Const. Hist. viii. 333.

CHAPTER XIV.

THE STEWART PERIOD.

II. FROM THE PETITION OF RIGHT TO THE RESTORATION.

(A.D. 1629-1660.)

tion of

out a Parlia

tion, 27 Mar.

On the dissolution of his third Parliament, Charles I. Determinaappears to have come to a settled determination to over- Charles I. to throw the old parliamentary constitution of England by govern with governing, for the future, without the intervention of the ment, National Council, so long as that Council should presume to claim an independent, and, as the representative of the collective Nation in opposition to the individual King, a preponderating, voice in the government of the State. In an arrogant Proclamation, referring to certain false intimated in rumours that he was about again to call a Parlia-proclamament, he announced that 'the late abuse having for the 1629. present driven him unwillingly out of that course, he should account it presumption for any to prescribe any time unto him for Parliaments, the calling, continuing, and dissolving of which was always in his own power. He should be more inclinable to meet a Parliament again, when his people should see more clearly into his intents and actions, and when such as had bred this interruption should have received their condign punishment.'1 Even before the actual dissolution, the King had hastened to take vengeance on the opposition 'vipers.' Sir John ImprisonEliot, Selden, Holles, Long, Valentine, Strode, and other ment of Sir John Eliot, eminent members of the Commons, were summoned before Selden, and the Council and committed to prison. Against Eliot, bers of the Holles, and Valentine an information was filed in the Commons.

1 Rymer, xix. 62.

other mem

King's Bench. On suing out their writ of habeas corpus they were by the King's order removed to the Tower, so as to elude the judgment of the court. On being required to plead to the information, they demurred to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that as their alleged offences had been committed in Parliament, they were not punishable in any other place. This demurrer, which raised the great question of Parliamentary privilege, was overruled; and as the defendants persisted in their refusal to plead, judgment was given that they should be imprisoned during the king's pleasure, and not released until each had given surety for good behaviour and had made submission. In addition, Eliot, as the ringleader, was fined £2,000, Holles, Some of the £1,000, and Valentine, 500. Other distinguished leaders popular of the opposition had been brought over to the king's side by the gift of office. Sir Dudley Digges was made Master of the Rolls; Noy, Attorney-General; and Littleton, Solicitor-General; Wentworth, created first a baron, then a viscount, and subsequently Earl of Strafford, was made President of the Council of the North, and afterwards Lord Deputy of Ireland.

party accept office.

e

Eleven years

government.

Surroundød by these new counsellors, and guided chiefly of despotic by the advice of Laud and Wentworth, Charles now entered upon a carcer of despotism which he maintained for eleven years. This period of personal government, during which the King governed without the Parliament, was, constitutionally speaking, as much a revolutionary period as that during which, later on, Parliament governed without the King. It should always be borne in mind that it was the aggression of Charles which provoked the counter aggression of the Parliament.

Expedients to raise a revenue.

To raise a revenue, Charles had recourse to various exactions, many of which were clearly illegal, and nearly

1 Eliot died in prison some years afterwards (27 Nov. 1632), universally regarded as a martyr in the cause of liberty. (See supra, p. 323, and Forster's Life of Sir John Eliot.) The animosity of Charles was continued even after Eliot's death. He refused permission to transport his body to Port Eliot. 'Let Sir John Eliot,' was the King's reply, be buried in the church of that parish where he died.' S. R. Gardiner, Pers. Gov. of Charles I., i. 274.