his judges. A judgment in the opinion of succeeding parliaments illegal, and against the freedom and privilege of parliament.

All these violations of the rights and pri

upon it: the speaker being called upon to put the question proposed, said he durst not; for the king had commanded the contrary. The house in some disturbance adjourn to a day; and then being met again, they wish the speaker to put the former question; but he refused, and said he had a command to adjourn the house "."-Upon the dissolution of the parliament, "warrants of the council issued for Hollis, Selden, Hobart, Elliott, and other parliament-men [nine in number], to appear before them: Hollis, Curriton, Elliott, and Valentine appeared; and refusing to answer out of parliament, for what was said and done in parliament, they were committed close prisoners to the Tower; and a proclamation for apprehending others went out, and some of their studies sealed up. Informations were exhibited by the attorney-general against these gentlemen in the Star-chamber, and in the King's Bench; in the latter of which judgment was given against them, That they should be imprisoned, and not delivered till they had given security for their good behaviour, and make a submission and acknowledgment of their offences: and they were also fined c." Elliott was fined 2000l. Hollis 1000 marks, and Valentine 5001d." Elliott, refusing to give security, was detained many years in prison, where he ended his days, and was looked on as a martyr by the people. This judgment was declared afterwards by the parliament, in 1641, to be against law and privilege of

* Whitlock, p. 12. b Id. p. 13. * Id. p. 14. Rushworth, vol. I. p. 691; Croke's Reports, part 3d. p. 182. fol. Lond. 1683.

vileges of the legislative body, were offered in about three years after Charles ascended the throne. In this period three parliaments being dissolved by him, he issued a

parliament; and very handsome sums were ordered to be paid out of the public money to the confessors for public liberty. But by a strain of generosity uncommon, Mr. Hollis refused the 50007. voted him, and said he would not receive a penny till the public debts were paid. He only received 1000 marks fine imposed on him, which he had laid down in ready money, and this only because his whole estate had been kept from him in the west for three years. Some of the other gentlemen refused to receive what was given them". It were to be wished our modern patriots inherited a like public spirit.

It is very remarkable, that this judgment given against Hollis, &c. was, by the lords and commons in parliament assembled, in Dec. 1667, also declared "to be an illegal judgment, and against the freedom and privilege of parliament. And it was ordered by the lords, That Denzil Hollis, then lord Hollis, be desired to cause the roll of the court of King's Bench, wherein the said judgment is recorded, to be brought before the lords in parliament by a writ of error, to the end that such further judgment may be given upon the said case, as this house shall find meet: which being by him accordingly done, the judgment was reversed ".". Nor were the privileges of the commons alone violated by this prince. Such of the house of peers as were displeasing to him, or his favourite, suffered very great oppressions. Williams, bishop of Lincoln, was not

* Memoirs of Denzil Lord Hollis, p. 140. 8vo. Lond. 1699. Reports, part 3d. p. 604–610.

• Croke's

proclamation for suppressing false rumours touching parliaments, in which he declared, "he should count it presumption for any to prescribe any time to him for parlia

summoned to parliament till he had complained thereof to the king, who then granted it; but for fear of displeasing he appointed a proxy. And in the next parliament the lord keeper Coventry, by order, writ to him to dissuade him from appearing at it, with which he thought not proper then to comply 2, though if he had, he might possibly have escaped some of his after-troubles from the court. "The earl of Bristol's writ was stopped, after he had been confined to his house two years; who thereupon petitioned the lords for his right of peerage, to have a writ to attend the house, and that he might be brought to his tryal in parliament. Whereupon the lords prayed the king, that Bristol, and other lords, whose writs were stopped, might have their writs; and they had them: but Bristol by petition to the lords, acquainted them, that he had received his writ to attend the parliament; but withal a letter missive from the lord keeper, signifying his majestie's pleasure, that he should forbear coming to the parliament.-And the lords were discontented at the commitment of the earl of Arundel, about his son's marriage with the duke of Lenox his sister; and with breaches of their priviledges; and upon the release of Sir Dudley Diggs and Sir John Elliott, the lords petitioned the king for the earl of Arundel's release. The king sent a message that he was committed for personal misdemeanours against the king, and not for any matters of parliament. The earl of Arundel had five proxies, which were lost by his imprisonment, and no precedent

a Phillips's Life of Williams, p. 193.

b Whitlock, p. 4.

ments; the calling, continuing, and dissolving of which, says he, is always in our own power." From this time the sub

ject underwent a thousand oppressions

50

was found of any peer committed, sitting the parliament, except that of the bishop of Winchester, in Edward the Third's time. The house of lords voted (nemine contradicente), That no lord ought to be committed, sitting the parliament, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. And in pursuance hereof they voted a remonstrance to the king to declare their right, and to his majesty to release the earl of Arundel. But they petitioned and petitioned in vain, till at length the king, finding them bent on the earl's liberty, discharged him "."-Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, also, having been long slighted at court, fell under the king's "high displeasure, for refusing to license Sibthorp's sermon; and not long after he was sequestred from his office, and a commission was granted to five bishops, one of which was Laud, to execute archiepiscopal jurisdiction."

b

Some other flagrant instances of the violation of the privileges of parliament, I shall have occasion hereafter to take notice of: at present these shall suffice.

50 From this time the subject underwent a thousand oppressions.] Charles, from the commencement of his reign, had been guilty of great acts of oppression, as will appear from the following passages in a most unexceptionable writer.

"In the year 1625, he sent out his letters to the lord lieutenants of counties, touching a general loan of money to him "." And in 1626, And in 1626," the king required a

d

Loans and benevolences were exacted without pretence of law, and gentlemen of distinction were imprisoned, and otherwise ill treated, for refusing to contribute to them.

loan of money, and sent to London and the port-towns to furnish ships for guard of the seas.-London being rated twenty ships, desired an abatement: the council denied it; and in answer to their precedents, said, That the precedents in former times were obedience, and not direction. A benevolence was likewise required. To the imposing of loans was added the billeting of soldiers; martial law was executed, and the soldiers committed great outrages. Sir Randal Crew, chiefjustice, not favouring the loan, was put out of his place. -Some who refused to lend money to the king, were forced to serve in the king's ships then going forth; and refusers in the country, were some of them committed, and the meaner sort pressed to serve as soldiers. The gentlemen here, who refused to pay the loan, were confined in other counties, and in close imprisonment, and some of them in common gaols: Sir John Elliott, one of them, in a petition to the king, sets forth the illegality of the loan, or of any tax, without parliament; taking this way to inform the king what his council did not; and he alledgeth his conscience not to submit to it, and prays his liberty; but could not obtain it. Sir Peter Haiman, another refuser, was sent upon an errand, as far as the Palatinate." And lord Haughton, in a letter to Sir Thomas Wentworth, dated St. Bartlemews, May 19, 1627, writes, "Sir Harbottle Grimstone of Essex was laid up last week: his neighbours of Chelmsford, the six poor tradesmen, stand out stiffly, notwithstanding the many