variety of instances, and those of no smalk

tradicted, as I know of, to this day, it certainly shews that Charles was not a man of his word.-But we have still stronger and more glaring proofs of his want of openness and sincerity. Mr. Hume, speaking of the commons claiming the execution of the penal laws against catholics in the year 1626, observes, “that in this particular they had, no doubt, some reason to blame the king's conduct. He had promised to the last house of commons a redress of this religious grievance: but he was too apt, in imitation of his father, to consider these promises as temporary expedients, which, after the dissolution of the parliament, he was not any farther to regard." And yet, as we shall presently see, probity and honour are, in the judgment of this writer, to be placed among his most shining qualities!

In the third year of his reign, the commons taking into consideration the grievances and hardships of the subject, and the illegal commitments by the privy council, as well as many other things, after many debates, came to several resolutions, which were inserted in the Bill of Rights, and passed into a law. Charles was very loth to give his assent to it, and made use of a variety of artifices in order to quash it. The lords sent propositions to the commons, in which the prerogative was preserved, and power had an opportunity of oppression, under pretence of reason of state. The lord-keeper assured them, that his majesty had commanded him to let them know, that he held the statute of Magna Charta, and the other six statutes insisted on, for the subjects' liberty, to be all in force; and assured them, that he would maintain all his subjects in the just freedom of their persons,

a History of Great Britain, p. 156.

importance; and contradicted his speech by

and safety of their estates; that he would govern them according to the laws and statutes of this realm; and that they should find as much security in his majesty's royal word and promise, as in the strength of any law they could make; so that, hereafter, they should have no cause to complain. This would not do: the king therefore sent them a message by Mr. secretary Cook, to know, whether the house would rest on his royal word, declared to them by the lord-keeper? which if they do, he assures them it shall be royally performed. But the commons adhered firmly to their resolution of having a public remedy, as there had been a public violation of the laws and the subjects' liberties, and so, by their speaker, they declared to the king; who then, in no very agreeable manner, by the keeper, told them, "he was content a bill was drawn for a confirmation of Magna Charta, and the other six statutes insisted on for the subjects liberties, if he shall chuse that as the best way, but so as it may be without additions, paraphrases, or explanations." One would have imagined now the bill should have met with no more delays. But the commons were again pressed, by Mr. secretary, to rely on the royal word. The king himself writ a letter to the upper house, in which he declares," that, without the overthrow of sovereignty, he could not suffer the power of commitment, without shewing cause, to be impeached;" and the lords were for adding a saving to the sovereign power, which was to remain intire. This produced a conference between the houses, who at length agreed; and the petition of Right, June 2, 1628, was read; and the king's answer was thus delivered unto it: "The king willeth, that right be done according to the laws and customs of the realm; and that the statutes be put in due execution, that his subjects may have no cause to complain of any

his actions: whereby such an opinion was

wrong or oppressions, contrary to their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof, he holds himself in conscience as well obliged, as of his prerogative."This answer no way satisfied the commons, who were very sensible it would render of little use all that they had been doing. But the king sent them word, that he would not alter his answer: though after he was petitioned by both houses, he anwered, Soit droit comme il est desiré; which, says Whitlock, satisfied the commons, and all good men. We see here a deal of artifice, craft, dissimulation, and falsehood in this whole affair: and nothing of openness and probity. However, the petition of right being passed into a law, one would have expected the king should have observed it; yet nothing is more certain, than that he not only endeavoured to evade it, but acted directly contrary to it. He called in 1500 copies of the petition, with his answer, which had been printed; and suffered none to be sold that had not additions. He levied the subsidies of tonnage and poundage, though not granted him by parliament; and committed several very eminent men to prison, by warrant of his council, for their speeches in the house. These things were diametrically opposite to what he had just passed into a law, and consequently could not proceed from ignorance or inexperience, but from a disregard to his word and most solemn promises.-Lord Clarendon, speaking of the bill for taking away the bishops' votes, has dropped an hint, which may shew how little Charles's most solemn acts were to be relied "Male posita est lex, quæ tumultuarie posita est, was one of those positions of Aristotle, which hath never since

on.

1

Whitlock, p. 10. and Rushworth, vol. I. p. 613. petition of right among the statutes.

See the

raised in the minds of his adversaries, of

been contradicted; and was an advantage, that, being well managed, and stoutly insisted upon, would, in spite of all their machinations, which were not yet firmly and solidly formed, have brought them to a temper of being treated with. But I have some cause to believe, that even this argument, which was unanswerable for the rejecting that bill was applied for the confirming it; and an opinion that the violence, and force, used in procuring it, rendered it absolutely invalid and void, made the confirmation of it less considered, as not being of strength to make that act good, which was in itself null. And I doubt this logick had an influence upon other acts of no less moment." This passage did not escape the diligence of Rapin, who, after citing it, adds, "Let the reader judge after this, if we may boast of king Charles's sincerity, since even in passing acts of parliament, which is the most authentic and solemn promise a king of England can make, he gave his assent, merely in an opinion, that they were void in themselves, and consequently he was not bound by this engagement "."— There is a notable passage in a letter of this king to his queen, dated Oxford, 2 Jan. 1645. "As for my calling those at London a parliament, I shall refer thee to Digby for particular satisfaction, this in general; if there had been but two (besides myself) of my opinion, I had not done it; and the argument that prevailed with me was, that the calling did no ways acknowledge them to be a parliament, upon which condition and construction I did it, and no otherways, and accordingly it is registered in the council-books, with the council's unanimous approbation; but thou wilt b History of England, vol. II.

a Clarendon, vol. II. p. 430. p. 571. fol. Lond. 1733.

his want of veracity, as rendered them in

find that it was my misfortune, not neglect, that thou hast been no sooner advertised of it "."

In a letter from Algernon earl of Northumberland to Robert earl of Leicester, dated London, Dec. 10, 1640, we find the following words: "The king is not very well satisfied with Northumberland, because he will not perjure himself for lord lieutenant [Strafford]."

What shall I say more? The king's character was so well established for dissimulation, and want of faith, that we find the parliament, in the remonstrance of May 19, 1642, publicly declaring, that "although they never desired to encourage his majesty to such replies as might produce any contestation between him and his parliament, of which they never found better effect than loss of time, and hindrance of the public affairs; yet they had been far from telling him of how little value his words would be with them, much less when they were accompanied with actions of love and justice. They said, he had more reason to find fault with those wicked counsellors, who had so often bereaved him of the honour, and his people of the fruit of so many gracious speeches which he had made to them, such as those in the end of the last parliament; that, on the word of a king, and as he was a gentleman, he would redress the grievances of his people, as well out of parliament as in it. They asked, if the searching the studies and chambers, yea the pockets of some, both of the nobility and commons, the very next day; the commitment of Mr. Bellasis, Sir John Hotham, and Mr. Crew; the continued oppressions by ship-money, coat and conductmoney; with the manifold imprisonments, and other vexations thereupon, and other ensuing violations of b Sidney's State-papers, vol. II. p. 665.

King's Cabinet, p. 4.