Beginning of the Struggle with Parliament

Before his accession, Charles had promised the parliament of 1624 that, in arranging the terms of his marriage with Henrietta Maria of France, he would not consider any proposition favoring the Roman Catholics of England. But when the marriage took place, May, 1625, it was found that he had broken his promise. Parliament desired the alliance with France, in order to carry on war against Spain, but it did not wish to pay the price of concessions to the Catholics. When, therefore, a new parliament was summoned, trouble at once began. Charles asked for a large grant of supplies, and parliament showed its want of confidence in the king and Buckingham, both by voting but a small amount of money for the war with Spain, and by settling upon the king the tonnage and poundage; that is, the customs duties,

for one year only, instead of for life, as had been the custom hitherto.

The wisdom of parliament in so acting became apparent when the king sent his first important expedition against Spain. Buckingham believed that he could do what Drake had done thirty years before; capture Cadiz and carry off a Spanish treasure ship. But both leaders and men were wanting; for the commander, Edward Cecil, was not a second Drake, and the sailors lacked the spirit of the earlier period. The Spanish treasure ship eluded the English; the English sailors, drunk with Spanish wine, refused to fight; and the expedition ended in inglorious failure.

Parliament at once impeached Buckingham. But the king refused to recognize their right, saying, “I must let you know that I will not allow any of my servants to be questioned among you, much less such as are of eminent place and near me." Again the question was debated as to whether or not the king's ministers were responsible to parliament. By impeaching Buckingham, parliament maintained that they were; but the king, in his message, maintained that they were not, and immediately dissolved parliament (1626).

Events leading to the Petition of Right

The king's position was becoming exceedingly awkward. Charles had no money, for Parliament had been dissolved so hastily that a grant had not been made. Besides, having quarrelled with Louis XIII about the marriage treaty, he was in danger of becoming involved in war, not only with Spain, but with France also. He saw the need of desperate remedies, and between 1626 and 1628 used every device to raise money. He made illegal exactions of the customs revenues; levied a forced loan of £300,000 to be repaid in eighteen months; and planned a general assessment of all the people, just as if parliament had granted a subsidy. When the judges denied the legality of the loan, he caused them to be imprisoned ; when individuals refused to pay it, he imprisoned them if rich, and if poor impressed them in the navy or quartered soldiers upon them.

Even these arbitrary methods failed to supply the king with money sufficient for his purposes. Charles was called upon to aid the German Protestants in their war against the Austro-Spanish house; but having no money, he was unable to send subsidies. Moreover, having quarrelled with France, he wished to aid the Huguenots, who were fighting for their political independence. But the expedition sent to La Rochelle, under Buckingham, in 1627, resulted more disastrously than had that to Cadiz. Thus the need of money to carry on the wars with France and Spain compelled the king to summon his third parliament (1628).

The new body was quick to seize its opportunity. Under the leadership of Wentworth and Chief Justice Coke, it at once appointed a committee of grievances, which drew up a declaration of the rights of the English people.

The Petition of Right

This famous document differs from the Apology in that it was drafted as a bill to be passed, and not merely as a statement of principles to be placed on record. It thus required the assent of the king as well as of parliament. When it was presented to Charles for his approval, he hardly knew what to do, for parliament was in a serious mood, and refused to grant supplies unless its grievances were redressed. Affairs were not going well abroad. Reverses had taken place in Germany, and the expeditions to succor La Rochelle had failed. To gain the subsidies that he so grievously needed, King Charles knew that he would have to submit; but he did so most unwillingly. At first he tried to evade the question by making a general promise. But the House of Commons refused to accept this and demanded his assent to the petition, threatening to impeach the duke of Buckingham if the king refused. The House of Lords, too, showed its sympathy with the Commons, and insisted that the king assent to the petition. The latter did not dare to resist both bodies, and on June 7, 1628, gave the desired approval.

The House of Commons had now gained a great victory. Taxing without the consent of parliament, imprisoning arbitrarily, billeting soldiers upon the inhabitants against their wills, and exercising martial law in time of peace were all declared illegal by the Petition. From this time forward the law of the land forbade the king or his government to do any of these four things. The joy of the people was everywhere manifest. "The steeples of the city churches rang out their merriest peals. As the dusk deepened into darkness, bonfires were lighted up amidst rejoicing crowds. Since the day when Charles had returned from Spain, no such signs of public happiness had been seen."'

The Parliament of 1629

The passage of the Petition of Right marks the beginning of a great struggle for religious and constitutional rights. Yet at this early date an agreement might easily have been reached, for the best men in the House of Commons, such as Pym and Eliot, were anxious that king and parliament should work in harmony. But even before the close of the parliament of 1628 a question had arisen which showed that harmony was impossible. The king declared that he had the right to levy tonnage and poundage, that is, custom dues, without the assent of parliament; but parliament, resting its case upon the word "tax" in the Petition of Right, asserted that this would be a breach of the new law.

A serious difficulty arose on January 20, 1629, when the members assembled for a new session. The king said that the Anglican bishops were the true interpreters of the Thirty-nine Articles, and that all people must accept their interpretation;' but the Puritan members of parliament denied that the bishops had any such authority. A deadlock ensued. Finally, when the king adjourned the house for the second time (March 2, 1629), a group of members, led by Eliot, Strode, Selden, Valentine, and Holles, held the speaker by force in the chair while a series of resolutions was adopted, as a kind of appeal to the country against the king and the bishops. These resolutions declared that whoever should introduce "innovations" or should seem to bring in popery or Arminianism, or should uphold the king's right to levy tonnage or poundage without a grant by parliament, or should pay tonnage and poundage under these circumstances, should be declared " a capital enemy to kingdom and commonwealth."' Immediately after this defiant action, the king dissolved parliament, and sent the live leaders to the Tower. There, after a confinement of three years, Eliot died, a martyr to the cause of parliamentary liberty.

The Personal Rule of Charles I

Charles, having discovered that he could not work with parliament, determined to get along without it. For eleven years he governed England in the way that seemed to him best. He stood alone, for Buckingham had been assassinated by a discontented officer named Felton, just before parliament had assembled in 1629. His government was not all bad, as has too frequently been concluded, for it accomplished a great deal that was good for England; but the methods were bad and illegal, and brought the work of the king and his advisers into discredit. Charles believed in a paternal government that should do all it could to benefit the people and the kingdom, but at the same time he would not tolerate the interference of the people or their representatives with what he deemed his special rights as king. He considered all who did not agree with him or his methods as misguided or evil-minded persons, and believed it was his duty to bring their opinions into accord with his own. Such facts show how little Charles understood the history or temper of the English people.

The chief advisers of the king during this period were Wentworth and Archbishop Laud. Wentworth, who was the real author of the Petition of Right, had soon found himself out of touch with Eliot and the Puritans. Satisfied with the correction of the abuses named in the Petition, in 1628 he had given his support to the cause of the king. Laud, the representative of the high church party among the Anglicans, had come into favor with the king, and was guiding his ecclesiastical policy. Neither Wentworth nor Laud desired anything but the good of England; but each was intolerant and uncompromising, and insisted that his system be applied without regard for the opposition it met on every side. The good that they did has been forgotten, and only the evil remembered. They accomplished their purposes through the Privy Council, the Star Chamber, the Court of High Commission, and the Council of the North; and by the methods employed, made these bodies more hateful to the people than they had been in the days of Elizabeth.