1621 THE LORDS AS JUDGES. 125 them at all. It was by giving us at once a body of independent judges, and a House of Commons which was strong enough to control the Executive Government, that the Revolution of 1688 introduced a new state of feeling, which before long virtually put an end to parliamentary impeachments.1 May 30. Bishop The Lords had still two cases to dispose of. With the Bishop of Llandaff they dealt mercifully. It was proved that he had taken from Edward Egerton a recognisance for 6,000l. upon a promise to do his best to procure for him the good-will of the Chancellor. But the money had never been paid, and no service had been rendered in return. Such arguments would have availed Floyd but little. A member of the House of Lords was not likely to appeal to the Peers in vain. They contented themselves with handing over the offender to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who promised to admonish him publicly in convocation. He did not, however, take the admonition seriously to heart, for the first thing that he did after the Houses ceased to sit was to implore Buckingham to promote him to a better bishopric.2 May 31. Sir John Bennett was still to be kept in suspense. and of Sir Time would not allow a complete investigation of his case, and he was released on bail, with orders to prepare a reply to the depositions against him.3 J. Bennett. Whilst the Lords had been mainly occupied with judicial business, the other House had not been idle. Patents for the May. Several patents condemned by the Commons. sole engrossing of wills, for the levying of lighthouse tolls, for the importation of salmon and lobsters, for the making of gold-leaf, and for the manufacture of glass were voted to be grievances. A monopoly bill had been passed by which the decision of the question, whether the protected manufacture was a new invention or not, would from henceforth be left to the ordinary tribunals. There had been long and anxious debates upon the alleged decline of 1 The case of Warren Hastings was an exception, as a question of Indian, not of English government. 2 Field to Buckingham, June (?), Harl. MSS. 7,000, fol. 57. 3 Lords' Journals, iii. 143, 148. trade, which seems to have been suffering temporarily from the effects of the war in Germany; and many rash and unwise restrictions were proposed in a vain hope that, with their aid, commerce might be restored to a flourishing condition. There had been an attempt also to set on foot an inquiry into the state of Ireland, which had been promptly checked by the King, who held that this was a subject with which he was himself perfectly competent to deal. May 28. The King directs an adjournment. On May 28, however, in the very midst of their toils, the Commons were startled by a royal message directing them to bring their labours to an end within a week. The gentry, they were told, were wanted in their own neighbourhoods; the lawyers were wanted in Westminster Hall. Yet the House need not fear that their time had been wasted. There should be no prorogation to compel them to recommence their work at their next meeting. There would be a simple adjournment, and they would thus be able to resume their business at the stage at which they had left it. The House was taken by surprise. There could be little doubt that more was intended than had been said. It may be either that James was nettled at the contemptuous silence with which his demand for a fresh subsidy had been met, and at the pretensions of the Commons in their claim to jurisdiction over Floyd, or that he wished to hinder any renewed legislation upon recusancy. Rumour, too, was busy in bringing to his ear news of the proceedings of the opposition party in the Upper House. Their ill-will against Buckingham, it was told, had not relaxed, and suspicious meetings had been held at Southampton's house in Holborn, to which members of the House of Commons had been invited. It was even said that a scheme had been concocted for diverting future subsidies from the Exchequer, by sending them over directly to the fugitive King of Bohemia.1 1 Compare the examinations in the Appendix to Proceedings and Debates, with a letter by Ashley to Buckingham, May 12, Cabala, 2. How anyone, in the face of this letter, can maintain that Buckingham had taken part, except from timidity, in the overthrow of Bacon, I am unable to understand. . 1621 May 29. PROPOSED ADJOURNMENT. 127 In vain the Commons appealed to the Peers to aid them in obtaining a change in the King's intentions. All that James allowed the Lords to say was, that if the Lower Proposal of House wished to get ready a few bills by the end of prorogation. the week the King would give his assent to them, an act which, according to the notions of the day, would bring the session to a close, thus involving a prorogation instead of an adjournment. Such an offer, in truth, was entirely illusory. There was not time to give a thorough discussion to the bills upon which the Commons had set their hearts. The statement made by the Lords was received with open disconTongues were loosed which had for four "The country," Dissatisfaction of the Commons. tent. months been placed under strict restraint. said Sandys, "is in a dangerous state. Our religion is rooted out of Bohemia and Germany. It will soon be rooted out of France. Sandys then moved that nothing more should be done that day. Their hearts, he said, were full of grief and fear. Perhaps time might temper their passions. After this Cranfield tried to speak, but the House refused to listen to him, and Sandys's motion was adopted. May 30. Reflection in this case did not bring a change of mood. The next morning Phelips painted in mournful colours the evil estate of religion abroad and at home, and urged that one more appeal should be made to the House of Lords. The Lords listened, but could give no hope whatever of inducing the King to prolong their sittings. They would do what they could. They would agree to the passing of an Act declaring that, in this case at least, the royal assent to a few selected bills should not prevent the resumption of business, when they next met, at the stage at which it had been left. But the Commons would not hear of such a compromise. To an offer made by James to close the session after prolonging their sittings for a week or ten days, they were equally deaf. There was no time, they thought, left to do anything worthy of the name of a session. They would prefer the adjournment originally proposed.1 153. 1 Proceedings and Debates, ii. 118-159; Lords' Journals, iii. 140, 148, June 4. The last Yet the last advances of James towards the Commons had not been wholly thrown away. Their temper had been ruffled, but only for a moment. They resolved to return thanks to the King for his offer of an additional week.1 At their last sitting they listened with evident satisfaction to Cranfield's assurances that the burdens under which trade was suffering should have the immediate attention of the Government. sitting. There were those, however, present who felt that this was not a fitting conclusion to the labours of the House. In the stormy discussions of the past week words had again been heard on that subject which the vast majority of the members had most deeply at heart, but they had not been always spoken wisely. For three months the House had disciplined itself into silence, by its earnest determination to act if possible in unison with the King. Carried away by the feelings of the moment, Sandys and Phelips had let fall expressions by which Gondomar might be led to imagine that England would no longer present a united front to the enemy. A few moments only now remained to wipe away such a conception. Accordingly, whilst there was yet time, Sir John Perrot rose, in the midst of a discussion upon the mode of levying customs at the ports. It was Perrot who, at the commencement of the session, had moved that the Commons should partake of the Communion together as 'a means of reconciliation,' and as 'a touchstone to try their faith.' 2 In a similar spirit he now addressed them. The House he said, had shown itself careful of the ports; but there was something still more necessary, namely, to provide for that port which would be the surest resting-place, and which would procure for them a perpetual rest when the merchandise, trade, and traffic of this life would have an end. True religion must be maintained. Abroad it was in sad case. At home it was in danger. At the beginning of the Parliament the King had declared that if the Palatinate could not be recovered by treaty, he would adventure his blood and life in its cause. Let them therefore, before they separated, make a public declaration that, 1 Proceedings and Debates, ii. 161. Perrot's motion. 2 Commons' Journals, i. 508. 1621 DECLARATION OF THE COMMONS. 129 if the treaty failed, they would upon their return be ready to adventure their lives and estates for the maintenance of the cause of God and of his Majesty's royal issue. It is received with acclamation. When Perrot sat down it was evident that he had touched the right chord in the hearts of his hearers. "This declaration," said Cecil, (6 comes from Heaven. It will do more for us than if we had ten thousand soldiers on the march." The motion was put and assented to amidst universal acclamation. "It was entertained," says one who took part in the scene,1 "with much joy and a general consent of the whole House, and sounded forth with the voices of them all, withal lifting up their hats in their hands as high as they could hold them, as a visible testimony of their unanimous consent, in such sort that the like had scarce ever been seen in Parliament.” 2 A committee was at once appointed to prepare the declaration. In a few minutes its work was done. "The Commons The Commons' declaration. assembled in Parliament," so ran the manifesto, "taking into consideration the present estate of the King's children abroad, and the general afflicted estate of the true professors of the same Christian religion professed by the Church of England and other foreign parts; and being troubled with a true sense and fellow-feeling of their distresses as members of the same body, do, with one unanimous consent of themselves and of the whole body of the kingdom whom they do represent, declare unto the whole world their hearty grief and sorrow for the same; and do not only join with them in their humble and devout prayers to Almighty God to protect his true Church, and to avert the dangers now threatened, but also with one heart and voice do solemnly protest that, if his Majesty's pious endeavours by treaty to procure their peace and safety shall not take that good effect he desireth, in the treaty whereof they humbly beseech his Majesty to make no long delay; that then, upon the signification of his pleasure in Parliament, they shall be ready, to the uttermost of their powers, both with their lives and fortunes, to assist him; so 1 Edward Nicholas. VOL. IV. 2 Proceedings and Debates, ii. 170. K |