V. 1629. CHAP. with the violence which had thus manifested itself. It is certain that the plan of governing without a parliament, to which he may have been somewhat disposed by circumstances, but much more by natural inclination, had never been contemplated with the same deliberation and firmness.* Dissolution of parlia ment. On dismissing the parliament, Charles assured the lords, that the pleasure which he had derived from their dutiful conduct, equalled the distaste excited by the very different proceedings of the lower house, in which certain "vipers" had too well succeeded in leading the unsuspecting astray. An extended proclamation was then sent through the kingdom, professing to state the causes which had induced the king to adopt an altered policy. In this paper, the opposition to the court, in the house of commons, is said to be limited to " a few ill affected persons." The conduct, however, of this unimportant faction is noticed as the chief reason for dissolving the great council of the nation. This error of attributing to a few men what belonged more properly to the age, will be found to run through all the reasoning of Charles and his predecessor, respecting the constitution and government of England. Individuals can never possess much importance, except as borne onward by the tide of popular sentiment. The royal proclamation is therefore chiefly worthy of notice, as showing the king's views with respect to the general conduct of the patriots, and his determination to resist them to the uttermost. The lower house is described as having lost the modesty which for * Rushworth, I. 655–672. Whitelocke, 12. et seq. Parl. Hist. 435–491. V. 1629. ages had distinguished it, as meddling with ques- CHAP. tions of government and law, in a manner hitherto unknown, and as seizing on the necessities of the sovereign to enforce a submission, " "on conditions incompatible with monarchy." While, therefore, great care would be taken to preserve the church of England, equally discountenancing "popery and schism," and to perpetuate the ancient and just immunities of the subject, it was announced as the king's expectation, that the obedience shown to the greatest of his predecessors, should in all things be rendered to his authority. The factious were moreover cautioned against supposing that there would be any failure of means to enforce the claims of an office received from that invisible Power, to which alone princes are bound to give account of their actions.* Rushworth, I. Appendix, 1-11. Charles began this proclamation by reminding his subjects of his statements at the opening of the late parliament. "We declared," he observes, "the afflicted state of those of the reformed religion in Germany, France, and other parts of Christendom-that beside the pope and the house of Austria, and their ancient confederates, the French king professed the rooting out of the protestant religion, for which, and other important motives, we propounded a speedy supply of treasure." But it is added that "causeless jealousies" had rendered the noble effort to frustrate this conspiracy a disgraceful failure. The notion, that Charles was really concerned about the interests of the reformed churches, was contradicted by so many circumstances, that patriots and puritans were alike incredulous about it. Charles remarks further, that the patriots, observing "that many honest and religious minds, in that house, did complain of those dangers that did threaten the church, they likewise took the same word in their mouth, and their cry likewise was, Templum Domini, Templum Domini, when the true care of the church never came into their hearts; and what the one did out of zeal unto religion, the other took up as a plausible theme to deprave our government." This is the view of the patriotic party, that is so constantly occurring in the pages of Hume. But what unprejudiced man will admit it, while referring to such men as Coke, and Selden, and Eliot, and Seymour, and Phillips? That there were men in that house capable of this artifice, may be true; but those men were not its leaders in 1628. Charles concludes with affirming, that his servants shall not be considered responsible to any but himself; and declares that the bold proceedings of the last parliament shall never be submitted to again. CHAP. VI. VIOLENCE OF THE COURT. IMPRISONMENT OF MEMBERS. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM.-SENTENCE VI. 1629. Imprisonment of members, March 5. CHAP. CHARLES resolved that this language should not appear to be an empty threat. Two days later, nine of the principal members, who had been active in the late opposition, were called before the council. The charge against them was that of disobeying the message of the sovereign, which had required an immediate adjournment of the house. Hollis, Eliot, Hobart, and Hayman, were committed close prisoners to the Tower. Selden, Valentine, Corington, Long, and Stroud, were consigned to other prisons, and the study of Selden, and those of Eliot and Hollis, were sealed by the royal officers. This last circumstance was meant to be followed by an examination of all the private papers in the possession of these parties. The king, in his proclamation, had promised to observe the provisions of the Petition of Right, and the prisoners, on the ground of that petition, appeared, by the writ of habeas corpus, at the bar of the king's bench, demanding their acquittal, or to VI. 1629. against be admitted to bail. Their commitment was said CHAP. to be for sedition, and for notable contempt of the king and his government. The counsel for the prisoners prayed that the opinion of the court on the law of the case might be delivered. To avoid compliance with this inconvenient request, Charles suddenly removed the offenders into new custody. June 24. This was an artifice frequently resorted to, when the object was to detain an accused party in longer confinement, as every such removal put off the decision of the case until the next term. Before Proceedings that term had commenced, in this instance, the them. king had leisure to deliberate, and to profit by the caution of the judges, who advised that the prisoners should be bailed, on finding security for their more proper conduct in future. But the sufferers were not men to profess a repentance which they did not feel, or to avow themselves sorrowful on account of actions which their principles taught them to consider as among the most honourable of their life. Yet, because they refused to accept of freedom on the "easy terms" of hypocrisy and lying, they have been artfully represented as men who actually courted a continuance of their injuries, in the hope of thereby augmenting their popularity. It is of such men as Selden, that Hume has presumed thus to write; for it was that distinguished lawyer and patriot who advised his companions to adopt this course of proceeding, and who set them the example. ⚫ Whitelocke, 14. This writer remarks, that, by being removed thus "from pursuivant to pursuivant," an offender might be deprived through any period of "the benefit of the law." CHAP. 1629. Sentence passed on Eliot, Valentine. But Eliot, Hollis, and Valentine were to appear a second time in the court of king's bench. It was in vain that they objected to the jurisdiction of that court, as not extending to the conduct of subjects Hollis, and assembled in parliament. The judges pretended to create a distinction between what they were pleased to call parliamentary and extra-parliamentary conduct; and on the plea that the actions of the accused were of the latter description, proceeded to visit them with punishment. Eliot was fined 20007. Valentine 500l. and Hollis 1000 marks, and the three were to suffer imprisonment during the king's pleasure, and to obtain no discharge without making suitable acknowledgment of their errors. Death of Eliot. Hume concludes his cold and partial account of this struggle, by noticing as the climax of its absurdities, that "because sir John Eliot happened to die while in custody, a great clamour was raised against the administration, and he was universally regarded as a martyr to the liberties of England!" It is certain, that if such was the universal sentiment of that age, it was, like many other prevalent sentiments, not more general than true. † * Whitelocke, 14. Rushworth, 674-701. Eliot took up his residence in the Tower, with no expectation of a speedy enlargement. His upholsterer was sent "to trim up convenient lodgings." But he described his personal substance as consisting of " two cloaks, two suits, two pair of boots and golashes, and a few books;" and, alluding to his fine, he remarked, that “if they could pick up two thousand pounds out of that, much good might it do them." He further states, that on his commitment to the Tower, no time was lost in issuing a commission to the high sheriff of the county of Cornwall, and to five other commissioners, his capital enemies, to inquire into the state of his lands and goods, and to seize upon them for the king; but they returned a nihil. His property, however, was considerable; but the hazard to which it |