Bishop Laud in answer to this protestation, has several remarks. "Is there by this act (says his lordship) any in"terpretation of the articles or not? If none, to what end is the act? If a sense or interpretation be declared, what authority have laymen to make it? for interpretation of 'an article belongs to them only that have power to make "it." To which it might be answered, that the commons made no new interpretation of the articles, but avowed for truth the current sense of expositors before that time, in opposition to the modern interpretation of jesuits and arminians. But what authority have LAYMEN to make it? Answer. The same that they had in the 13th of Elizabeth to establish them, as the doctrine of the church of England ; unless we will say with Mr. Collyer, that neither the sense of the articles, nor the articles themselves, were established in that parliament or in any other.* If so, they are no part of the legal constitution, and men may subscribe the words without putting any sense upon them at all: an admirable way to prevent diversity of opinions in matters of faith! But his lordship adds, " That it is against the king's "declaration, which says, we must take the GENERAL MEAN"ING of them, and not draw them aside any way, but take 'them in the literal and grammatical sense." Has the king then a power, without convocation or parliament, to interpret and determine the sense of the articles for the whole body of the clergy? By the general meaning of the articles the declaration seems to understand no one determined sense at all. Strange! that so learned and wise a body of clergy and laity, in convocation and parliament, should establish a number of articles with this title, for the avoiding of diversity of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion, without any one determined sense! The bishop goes on, and excepts against the current sense of expositors, " because they may, and perhaps do go against the literal sense." Will his lordship then abide by the literal and grammatical sense? No, but "if 'an article bear more senses than onc, a man may choose 'what sense his judgment directs him to, provided it be a SENSE, according to the analogy of faith, till the church determine a [particular] SENSE; but 'tis the wisdom of the * Eccles. Hist. p. 747. + Prynne Cant. Doom. p. 164. church to require consent to articles in general as much as 'may be, and not require assent to particulars." His lordship had better have spoken out, and said, that it would be the wisdom of the church to require no subscriptions at all. To what straits are men driven to comply with the laws, when their sentiments differ from the literal and grammatical sense of the articles of the church! Mr. Collyer says, they have no established sense; King Charles, in his declaration, that they are to be understood in a general sense, but not to be drawn aside to a particular determined sense; bishop Laud thinks, that if the words will bear more senses than one, a man may choose what sense his judgment directs him to, provided it be a SENSE, according to the analogy of faith, and all this for avoiding diversity of opinions! But I am afraid this reasoning is too wonderful for the reader. While the parliament were expressing their zeal against arminianism and popery, a new controversy arose, which provoked his majesty to dissolve them, and to resolve to govern without parliaments for the future; for though the king had so lately signed the petition of right in full parliament, he went on with levying money by his royal prerogative. A bill was depending in the house to grant his majesty the duties of tonnage and poundage; but before it was passed, the custom-house officers seized the goods of three eminent merchants, Mr. Rolls, Mr. Chambers, and Mr. Vassal, for non-payment. Mr. Chambers, was fined two thousand pounds, besides the loss of his goods, and suffered six years imprisonment: Mr. Rolls's, werehouses were locked up, and himself taken out of the house of commons and imprisoned. This occasioned some warm speeches against the custom-house officers and farmers of the revenues; but the king took all the blame on himself, and sent the house word, that what the officers had done, was by his special direction and command, and that it was not so much their act as his own. This was a new way of covering the unwarrantable proceedings of corrupt ministers,and was said to be the advice of the bishops Laud and Neile ; a contrivance that laid the foundation of his majesty's ruin. It is a maxim in law, that the king can do no wrong, and that all mal-administrations are chargeable upon his minis ters; yet now, in order to screen his servants, his majesty will make himself answerable for their conduct. So that if the parliament will defend their rights and properties, they must charge the king personally, who in his own o pinion was above law, and accountable for his actions to none but God. It was moved in the house, that notwithstanding the king's answer, the officers of the customs should be proceeded against, by separating their interests from the king's: But when the speaker, Sir John Finch, was desired to put the question, he refused, saying the king had commanded the contrary.* Upon which the house immediately adjourned to Jan. 25, and were then adjourned by the king's order to March 2, when meeting again, and requiring the speaker to put the former question, he again refused, and said he had the king's order to adjourn them to March 16, but they detained him in the chair, not without some tumult and confusion, till they made the following protestation. 1. "Whosoever shall by favor or countenance, seem to extend or introduce popery or arminianism, shall be re'puted a capital enemy of the kingdom. 2. "Whosoever shall advise the levying the subsidies of 'tonnage and poundage, not being granted by parliament, shall be reputed a capital enemy. 3. "If any merchant shall voluntarily pay those duties, he shall be reputed a betrayer of the liberties of England, and an enemy of the same."+ The next day warrants were directed to Denzil Hollis, Sir John Elliot, William Coriton, Benjamin Valentine, John Selden, esqrs. and four more of the principal members of the house to appear before the council on the morrow: Four of them appeared accordingly, (viz.) Mr. Hollis, Elliot Coriton, and Valentine; who refusing to answer out of parliament for what was said in the house, were committed close prisoners to the tower. The studies of the rest were ordered to be sealed up, and a proclamation issued for apprehending them; though the parliament not being dissolved, they were actually members of the house. On the 10th of March, • Whitelocke's Memorial, p. 12, Rushworth, vol. 1. p. 669. + Rushworth, vol. i. p. 670. the king came to the house of lords, and without sending for the commons or passing one single act, dissolved the parliament, with a very angry speech against the leading members of the lower house, whom he called vipers, that cast a mist of undutifulness over most of their eyes: "and as those vipers (says his majesty) must look for their re'ward of punishment; so you, my lords, must justly expect 'from me that favor that a good king oweth to his loving and faithful nobility."* The undutifulness of the commons was only their keeping the speaker in the chair, after he had signified that the king had adjourned them, which his majesty had no power of doing, and no king before king James I. pretended to adjourn parliaments, and when he claimed that power, it was complained of as a breach of privilege. It is one thing to prorogue or dissolve a parliament, and another to adjourn it, the latter being the act of the house itself, and the consequence of vesting such a power in the crown might be very fatal; for if the king may adjourn the house in the midst of their debates, or forbid the speaker to put a question when required, it is easy to forsee the whole business of parliament must be under his direction.† The members abovementioned were sentenced to be imprisoned during the king's pleasure; and were accordingly kept under close confinement many years, where Sir John Elliot died a martyr to the liberties of his country. Mr. Hollis was fined a thousand marks, Sir John Elliot two thousand pounds, Valentine five hundred pounds, and Long two thousand marks. Great were the murmurings of the people upon this occasion; libels were dispersed against the prime minister Laud; one of which says, Laud, look to thyself, be assured thy life * Rushworth, vol. i. p. 672. +Rapin, vol. ii. p. 279, folio edit. "An affecting portrait of this gentleman is now in the possession of lord Elliot. He is drawn pale, languishing, and emaciated; but disdaining to make the abject submission required of him by the tyrant, he expired under the excessive rigors of his confinement, leaving the portrait as a legacy and memento to his posterity, and to mankind; who, in the contemplation of such enormities, have reason to rejoice VOL. II. When vengeance in the lucid air 'Lifts her red arm expos'd and bare." Belsham's Memoirs of the house of Brunswick 28 is sought. As thou art the fountain of wickedness, repent of thy monstrous sins before thou be taken out of this world; and assure thyself. neither God nor the world can endure such a vile counsellor or whisperer to live. But to justify these proceedings to the world, his majesty published a declaration of the causes of dissolving the last parliament. The declaration vindicates the king's taking the duties of tonnage and poundage, from the examples of some of his predecessors, and as agreeable to his kingly honor. It justifies the silencing the predestinarian controversy, and lays the blame of not executing the laws against papists, upon subordinate officers and ministers in the country: "we pro'fess (says his majesty) that as it is our duty, so it shall be our care to command and direct well; but it is the part of 'others to perform the ministerial office; and when we have 'done our office, we shall account ourself, and all charita'ble men will account us innocent, both to God and men ; ' and those that are negligent, we will esteem culpable, both to God and us." The declaration concludes with a profession that "the king will maintain the true religion of the church of England, without conniving at popery or schism that he will maintain the rights and liberties of his subjects, provided they do not misuse their liberty, by turning it to licentiousness, wantonly and frowardly re'sisting our lawful and necessary authority; for we do ex'pect our subjects should yield as much submission to our royal prerogative, and as ready obedience to our authority and commandments, as has been performed to the great'est of our predecessors. We will not have our ministers 'terrified by harsh proceedings against them; for as we 'expect our ministers should obey us, they shall assure themselves we will protect them."t This declaration not quieting the people, was followed by a proclamation, which put an end to all prospects of recovering the constitution for the future. The proclamation declares his majesty's royal pleasure, "That spreaders of 'false reports shall be severely punished; that such as cheerfully go on with their trades, shall have all good encour *Rushworth, vol. i. p. 672. † Ibid. vol. ii. Appen. p. 3-10. |