Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

serted by Laud, in a new edition of those articles, to the effect that "the church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and hath authority in matters of faith." * Sir John Eliot, in urging this protest, warned the House of an insidious design, not only to disturb the religious faith of the people, but also to enslave the persons and consciences of free men. He denounced the clause as a trick by which to secure to the heads of the church of England the exclusive power of introducing Arminianism and popery, under pretence of explaining the ancient articles; and concluded as follows: "I give this for testimony, and thus far do I express myself against all the power and opposition of these men. Whensoever any opposition shall be, I trust we shall maintain the religion we profess, for in that we have been born and bred; nay, sir, if cause be, in that I hope to die. Some of these, sir, you know, are masters of ceremonies, and they labour to introduce new ceremonies into the church. Some ceremonies are useful. Give me leave to join in one that I hold necessary and commendable, that at the repetition of the creed we should stand up, to testify the resolution of our hearts that we would defend the religion we profess. In some churches, it is added, that they do not only stand upright with their bodies, but with their swords drawn! And if cause were, I hope,-to defend our prince, country, and religion, we should draw our swords against all opposers."

Such was the spirit of these men. Their zeal was not according to knowledge; but no friend of liberty

* This clause had no place in the articles published in the reign of Edward the Sixth, nor in the edition sanctioned by parliament in 1571.

can refuse his sympathy, considering the dangerous crisis at which the nation had arrived. It would have been better if they had sought to lay the axe to the root of the tree whose fruit was so bitter; but these vigorous attempts to lop off the poison-bearing branches are not to pass without the meed of praise.

After this, the popular leaders took into consideration the seizure of merchants' goods, and the levy of tonnage and poundage by the king's officers, contrary to the provisions of the Bill of Rights.* The king interfered to prevent further proceedings, and addressed a speech to both Houses, on the 24th of January, in which he rebuked the Commons, and complimented the Lords. The former, however, were not to be turned aside from their purpose. The sheriff who had seized the merchants' goods was called to the bar of the House, and afterwards sent to the Tower. Several officers of the customs were made to answer for a similar offence; and the barons of the exchequer were called upon to explain their conduct in aiding and abetting. On the 25th of February a report was presented to the House, of "heads of articles to be insisted on." These articles, relating to religion and the alterations introduced by Laud and his party, alarmed the monarch, who sent a command to both Houses to adjourn to the 26th of March. On the speaker's delivering the command, he was reminded that it was not his business to deliver any such message, and that adjournment was a matter for the House alone to determine. Instead of adjourning,

* Three merchants -- Richard Chambers, Samuel Vassal, and John Rolls-had submitted to a seizure of their goods, rather than pay the tax collected under the names of tonnage and poundage. The last named merchant was a member of the House.

therefore, they determined on a remonstrance, to the effect that the receiving of tonnage and poundage, and other impositions not granted by parliament, were "a breach of the fundamental liberties of this kingdom, and of the royal answer to the petition of right." Sir John Eliot, also, prepared a protestation in three articles, the two last of which related to tonnage and poundage, and the first of which was as follows:"Whoever shall bring in innovation in religion, or by favour, seek to extend or introduce popery or Arminianism, or other opinions disagreeing from the true and orthodox church, shall be reputed a capital enemy to this kingdom and commonwealth."

On the 2nd of March, 1629, these resolutions were proceeded with. As soon as prayers were ended, Eliot rose, with the air of one prepared to submit to any sacrifice rather than shrink from the discharge of his duty. He denounced the Bishop of Winchester, and the lord treasurer Weston, as enemies of the commonwealth.* He described the latter as employing his secret influence with the king for the abolition of parliaments; and expressing his fears that this influence would be too successful, concluded by declaring his own determination, if parliament were adjourned, to begin again on its re-assembling at the matter where he now left off, until the liberties of the people were fully confirmed. Then advancing to the speaker, he requested him to read the remonstrance he had prepared for the king, that it might be put to the vote. Thereupon ensued one of the most remarkable scenes ever witnessed in that House. The speaker,

* Weston was a papist, and had lately been promoted by Charles. It is doubtful, however, whether at this time he had made any avowal of his religion.

fearing the consequences, refused to read the protest.* Eliot then requested the clerk at the table to read it. The clerk also refused. Eliot then, undismayed and fully resolved, read the document himself, and demanded of the speaker to put it to the vote. The speaker excused himself, stating that "he was commanded otherwise by the king." Selden reminded him of the paramount duties of his office. The speaker replied that he had an express command from his majesty to deliver the message of adjournment, and then to vacate the chair. He was rising to do so, when Holles, Valentine, and several other members, advanced, and forced him back to his seat. Some of the privy council came to the rescue; but in vain. Holles swore the speaker should be seated until it was the pleasure of the House that he should rise. With tears in his eyes, he implored that he might be permitted to withdraw. His tears were unavailing; the Commons had a great duty to perform, and that might be their last opportunity for some time. Sir Peter Hayman, a kinsman of the speaker, renounced him as a disgrace to a noble family, and reproached him for his pusillanimity in such a crisis. After the disorder had somewhat abated, Eliot placed the three articles of protest in the hands of Holles, and Holles

*The speaker's name was Finch. On a previous occasion he had shown himself unfit for his office, by interrupting Sir John Eliot in the middle of his speech. Eliot was proceeding to refer to Buckingham, who was then living, when Finch started from his chair, and with tears in his eyes said, "There is a command upon me to interrupt any that should go about to lay an aspersion on the ministers of state." Eliot submitted to the interference then ;

but he had had time to reflect period, and was wiser now. continued, vol. v. p. 94-96.

on the duties of a speaker since that See Mackintosh's Hist. of England

read and put them to the vote. Meanwhile, a message was sent from the king, commanding the serjeant-atarms to terminate the session by bringing away his

mace.

The serjeant was detained by the House, and the door locked. The usher of the black rod came next, knocking at the door in the king's name. All entrance was refused. In a transport of rage, Charles sent his guard to force open the door. But the resolutions had by this time been carried amidst loud acclamations, together with a motion of adjournment to the 10th of March following; the doors were thrown open; and the members had dispersed before the guard arrived.

Such was the termination of this parliament. On the 10th of March the king formally dissolved it, after a speech in which he pointedly referred to the patriot members of the House of Commons as "vipers" who should have their "reward of punishment." The threat was immediately carried into effect. Eliot, Holles, Selden, Valentine, Coryton, Hobart, Hayman, Long, and Stroud, were cited before the privy council, and committed to the Tower. A declaration was issued explaining the reasons for the dissolution, followed by a proclamation announcing the determination of the king to govern the nation without parliaments, and forbidding the mention of them. The die was now cast. Charles had deliberately made up his mind to rule by prerogative. Notwithstanding the experience he had acquired respecting the temper of the Commons, and of the people who so largely sympathized with them, he was fully resolved upon a course that would inevitably lead to his own ruin. The infatuated king, blinded by wounded pride, would not see the danger to which

« AnteriorContinuar »