The good understanding, however, was of short duration, for the King, receiving very bad advice from Coventry and other courtiers, insisted on his authority to levy tonnage and poundage by his prerogative alone; and the Commons resumed with fresh ardour the impeachment of Buckingham. To put an end to these proceedings, the King came to the House of Lords one morning at nine o'clock, without his crown or his robes, the Peers likewise being unrobed. Mounting the throne, he ordered the Black Rod to summon the Commons, who had met at eight, and were framing a remonstrance to remind him that by the Petition of Right he was precluded from levying duties on merchandise without the previous consent of parliament.

When they had come to the bar he made a speech, trying to explain away the Petition of Right, which, he said, he had been told, would not interfere with his lawful prerogative; and he insisted on his inherent and hereditary title to tonnage and poundage. He then gave the royal assent to the subsidy and other Bills which had passed, and the Lord Keeper, by his orders, prorogued the parliament.*

Coventry's conduct during the session had given so much satisfaction to the Court, that he was now raised to the peerage by the title of Baron Coventry, of Aylesborough, in the county of Worcester.

A few weeks after, his position was considerably altered by the assassination of Buckingham, to whom he owed his elevation ; and, till the apostasy and rise of Wentworth under a new name, which followed after no long interval, he was himself the most influential adviser of the Crown. Unhappily, instead of checking Charles's arbitrary propensities, he zealously encouraged and abetted them.

In the beginning of the following year the same parliament reassembled; but all confidence in the sincerity [JAN. 20, 1629.] of Charles, and the honesty or prudence of the [JAN. 20, 1629.] Lord Keeper and his other ministers, was gone, by the disgraceful artifice resorted to of circulating, as by authority, copies of the Petition of Right, with the evasive answer to it which had first been pronounced.

The Lord Keeper was strongly suspected of being the author of this proceeding; and a direct attack was made upon him along with the Barons of the Exchequer, for having decided in their Courts that tonnage and poundage might be lawfully levied without an act of parliament. Charles, when it was too late, tried to conciliate, by declaring that he did not challenge tonnage and poundage as a right, and that he was willing that an act should to confer them upon him. The Commons threatened to punpass ish the officers who had levied these duties unlawfully,-when Secretary Cook declared that the King would not separate the

* 2 Parl. Hist.

obedience of his servants from his own acts, nor suffer them to be punished for executing his commands.

This led to the famous resolutions, "that whosoever shall advise the taking of tonnage and poundage, not being [MARCH 2.] granted by parliament, shall be reputed a capital enemy to this kingdom and government; and that whatever merchant or other person shall pay tonnage and poundage, not being granted by parliament, shall be reputed a betrayer of the liberties of England."*

Finch, the Speaker, refusing to put these resolutions, and wishing to leave the House, was forcibly held in the [A. D. 1629.] chair till they were carried. Meanwhile the King was in the House of Lords, impatient to put an end to these proceedings by a dissolution, and (the Lord Keeper standing by his side) he ordered the Usher of the Black Rod to summon the Commons to attend his Majesty at the bar forthwith. This officer went, with the emblem of his office in his hand, and knocked at the door of the House of Commons, but was barred out, and obliged to report on his return that he could not procure admittance. The Captain of the Guard, in a little time, was ordered [MARCH 10.] to break the door open; but going for that purpose, he found that the Commons had adjourned. On the day of the adjournment the King again went to the House of Lords; and the Lord Keeper, without asking the attendance of the Commons, dissolved the Parliament.

This was the last time that Coventry ever appeared in the House of Lords; for an interval followed of near twelve years without a Parliament, and before another met he was snatched away from the impending troubles.

A settled resolution was now formed to establish despotism in England, and, but for the formidable insurrection which broke out in Scotland, there is scarcely a doubt that the scheme would have succeeded, and that "parliament" would have been read of in our history as an obsolete institution, showing that our ancestors were free. I must consider Lord Keeper Coventry the most culpable of the conspirators, although from the wariness of his nature and the mediocrity of his talents, he has escaped the full measure of indignation which his conduct deserved. Charles himself was an absolutist par métier (as Frederick the Great said of himself), and, considering the notions of Divine right which he inherited from his father, and which were assiduously inculcated by the ministers of religion around him, we need not wonder that after the three attempts he had made to hold parliaments, his conscience was satisfied with the conviction that, being useless and mischievous, they might be safely superseded by prerogative. Laud, a narrow-minded priest, looked with such horror upon the Puritans, that he mixed up their love of freedom with their dis

*2 Parl. Hist, 490.

like of episcopacy, and might excusably think that he was promoting both the temporal and spiritual interests of the community by assisting in obtaining supreme power for the pious Head of the Church. Strafford, with great genius, had been educated only as a country gentleman, and passing, with the zeal of a renegade, from the popular to the prerogative side, he perhaps incurred less moral blame than if he had been regularly trained in a familiar acquaintance with the laws and constitution of his country. Noy, the Attorney General, and Littleton, the Solicitor General, who had gone over along with him, thought they were little to blame while they imitated the example and received the warm applauses of the head of their profession,-a Peer of parliament and in possession of the Great Seal. Lord Coventry had not even the poor apology set up for Lord Bacon, that he was acting under the uncontrollable influence of an imperious minister. After the death of Buckingham, Charles thought for himself, and was open to any advice that might be offered to him by any of his counsellors. There can be no doubt, therefore, that Coventry might have interposed effectively to deprecate the unconstitutional, illegal, cruel, and oppressive measures which were now resorted to: but, instead of this, in a cool, quiet, and cunning manner he suggested them, he executed them, and he defended them. Thinking that the time of retribution might possibly arrive, he studied as far as he could, to avoid the appearance of taking a prominent part at the council-table or in the Star Chamber; but his were the orders, his were the proclamations, is were the prosecutions, and his were the sentences which marked the next eleven years of arbitrary rule, and which, if he had succeeded in his enterprise, might have made him be celebrated as another Richelieu.

As soon as parliament was dissolved the popular leaders of the House of Commons were summoned before the Council, and being examined by the Lord Keeper respecting their conduct at the conclusion of the session-particularly in keeping the Speaker in the chair, and forcing him to put the question on the resolution against taxing without the authority of parliament, they were all committed to prison by warrants which did not express the cause of commitment. The legality of such warrants had been denied ; and if they could be established, a great step was gained, for thereafter no redress could be obtained by an appeal to the ordina ry legal tribunals.

Some apprehension was entertained respecting the firmness of Sir Randolph Crew, the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, a very learned lawyer, who had gone considerable lengths in supporting the measures of the Government, but was supposed not to be entirely free from principle, or the dread of the House of Commons, if there should ever be another parliament. He was therefore unceremoniously dismissed from his office by the Lord Keeper, and Sir Nicholas Hyde, in whom the event showed that entire confidence was rightly placed, was appointed his successor.

The Lord Keeper then directed certain questions to be put to the Judges, with the view of for ever extinguishing freedom of speech in parliament, and subjecting refractory members to the jurisdiction of the King's Judges for their words and conduct as representatives of the people. These venerable sages, who it is contended ought constitutionally to have been considered the arbiters of parliamentary privileges, unanimously returned for answer, "that freedom of speech only extends to things debated in parliament in a parliamentary course, and that a parliament man, committing an offence against the King or Council in parliament, not in a parliament way, may be punished for it after the parliament ended; for the parliament shall not give privilege to any one contra morem parliamentarium exceeding the bounds of his place and duty," whereof the Courts were necessarily to be the sole judges.*

Writs of habeas corpus were sued out in vain, and Sir John Eliot and others were convicted and sentenced for what they had done in the House of Commons. No writ of error could then be brought, as parliament was not allowed to sit; but the judgment was reversed after the death of Lord Coventry and many years after the defendants had suffered the punishment so unjustly inflicted upon them.†

In Chambers's case, the Lord Keeper was supposed to show commendable moderation for those times. The defendant, an eminent Turkey merchant, being required to pay exorbitant duties on goods not imposed by parliament, had the temerity to say that “merchants are in no part of the world so screwed as in England, and that in Turkey they had more encouragement." Being prosecuted for this seditious speech in the Star Chamber, he was of course found guilty, and Laud and several others were for fining him 30007.; but the Lord Keeper mildly proposed 15007., and the fine was at last fixed at 20007., the defendant likewise being ordered to read an acknowledgment of his great offence, dictated by the Attorney General.‡

In the next case, which was a prosecution against Dr. Alexander Leighton, a Scotch divine, for slandering prelacy, [A. D. 1630.] there was no division of opinion, and the Lord Keeper pronounced sentence in which all concurred, "that the defendant should be imprisoned in the Fleet during life, should be fined 10,000%.,—and after being degraded from holy orders by the High Commissioners, should be set in the pillory in Westminster, -should there be whipt,-should after being whipt again be set in the pillory,-should have one of his ears cut off-should have

* It should however be recollected to the credit of the Judges, that the year before, in Felton's case, there being abundant evidence to convict him, and neither the King, the Lord Keeper, nor the Attorney General pressing them for a contrary opinion, "they agreed that he ought not to be tortured by the rack, for no such punishment is known or allowed by our law."-3 St. Tr. 371.

† 3 St. Tr. 331.

‡ Ibid. 380.

his nose slit,should be branded in the face with a double S. S. for a Sower of Sedition,-should afterwards be set in the pillory in Cheapside and there whipt, and after being whipt be again set in the pillory, and have his other ear cut off."*

A book was now industriously circulated, entitled "A proposition for his Majesty's Service to bridle the Impertinency of Parliaments," recommending that after the fashion of France and other Continental states, all the towns in England should be fortified and garrisoned; that all highways [A. D. 1630.] should lead through these towns; that no one should be allowed to enter them without a passport, showing whence he came and whither he was going, and that the gates be shut all night, the keys being kept by the Mayor or Governor; that innkeepers be required to deliver in the names of all strangers who come to their houses; that the ruined castles to be found near most cities should be repaired, bulwarks and ramparts for ordnance being added according to the rules of fortification; that an oath should be required, acknowledging that the King is as absolute as any other Christian Prince, and may by proclamation either make or reverse laws without consent of parliament; that the example of Louis XI. should be followed, who found the like opposition from popular assemblies, and effectually suppressed them; that instead of parliamentary subsidies, a tax, to be called "a decimation," should be imposed by the King, importing the tenth of all subjects' estates to be paid as a yearly rent to their Prince; that the monopoly of the sale of salt should be assumed by the King, as in foreign countries; that 51. per cent. on the value of all property in litigation be demanded by the Crown, and for recompence thereof to limit all lawyers' fees and gettings (so excessive in England), whereby the subject should save more in fees and charges than he would give in this new gabella, reckoned to bring in 50,000%. a year; that there should likewise be imposed a gabella, as in Tuscany, on all cattle, horses, flesh, fish, and other victuals, bread excepted; and, lastly, that the King should strictly enforce the keeping of fast days, granting a dispensation to those willing to pay for it, which it was calculated would yield 100,000l. a year, without any disgust, because it would be every one's choice to give it or no. Thus was the King of England for ever after to be powerful, rich, and independent, and without distraction to exercise a paternal rule over his dutiful and loving subjects!

But the scheme caused much scandal, being considered a plain proof that the King was avowedly aiming at despotic sway, and it excited such dangerous discontents, that the Lord Keeper thought

* Laud's Journal shows that this sentence was rigorously carried into exccution. After minutely describing the punishment at Westminster, he says, "on that day sevennight his sores upon his back, ear, nose, aad face being not cured, he was whipt again at the pillory in Cheapside, and there had the remainder of his sentence executed upon him by cutting off the other ear, slitting the other side of the nose, and branding the other cheek."