II. May. CHAP. everyday importance. No statute had come into existence for fourteen years, and it was understood 1624. that James was willing to give his assent to the passing of many bills which had been prepared in 1610 and 1614, with the object of limiting the prerogative of the Crown in pecuniary matters. Above all, the question of the monopolies was by this time ripe for legislation. The Lords were ready to withdraw their objection against tying the King's hands for the future, upon which the Monopoly Bill of the last session had been wrecked, and the Commons, on the other hand, agreed to except from the operation of the Bill some of the principal monopolies already in existence. Changes effected by it. Impositions not touched on. The great change effected Great as the importance of this Act has been, it cannot be said to have been founded on any principle not recognised before. That a monopoly for a limited time should be granted to those by whom new processes of manufacture were introduced had long been accepted as the general rule. was the rendering the rule more definite, and the entrusting its application to the Common Law Judges, who would be far more likely than Privy Councillors or Commissioners to apply a strictly judicial solution to any question which might arise, without being drawn aside by political or economical considerations. On the question of impositions the Commons had maintained a discreet silence, although there had been debates on commercial matters which might fairly have suggested it to them. Under these circumstances it 1 Mr. Forster (Sir J. Eliot, 2nd edit. i. 89) has printed extracts from a speech of Eliot's on this subject, alleged to have been delivered in this session. From enquiries which he has kindly made for me at Port Eliot, it appears that the speech is not to be found in this place, and therefore, if spoken at all, it must have been spoken at some other time. There is no trace of it in any reports that I have seen of any of the four Parliaments with which this work is concerned. On the 20th of May, PARLIAMENT PROROGUED. But 69 CHAP. 1624. May. May 28. vances. might have been expected that the King and the Lower House would have parted in kindness. James was no longer in a kindly mood. He had parted with some of his prerogatives, and he knew that he had been little better than a cypher in the resolutions which had been taken. On May 28 he The grielistened with composure to the grievances presented to him, and answered that the lawyers must consider them before he could give an answer. Then he began to scold the House for the bills which they had laid before him. His tone was so exasperating that the Commons refused to enter the Royal Speech on their journals. The next day Parliament was prorogued. James had fresh criticism for the bills presented for his consent. He made merry over one, for the better observance of the Sabbath,' as allowing 'no recreation to the poor men that labour hard all the week long, to ease themselves on the Sunday,' and he entirely refused to pass the bill for enforcing more strictly the penalties on recusancy. He then proceeded to express his annoyance at the impeachment of Middlesex, which he had not been bold enough to prevent. It was for him, he said, to re-examine the evidence, and to remit the penalties if he saw fit. No one in future was to complain in Parliament of any of his servants, without first asking his leave. He was master in his own household, and was well able to redress any grievance arising from the conduct of his Ministers. It was not by words unaccompanied by deeds that the rising power of Parliament was to be beaten back. For the present, however, all questions about the Conway (S. P. Dom., clxv. 4) writes to Calvert that the House might probably fall upon 'questions concerning impositions,' and Calvert replies (ibid. 11) that all had gone well. May 29. tion of Par Proroga liament. James to amend threatens the Subsidy Bill. CHAP. II. 1624. May 29. Dissatisfaction of the Commons. Proceedings against Bristol. extent of the prerogative were subordinate to the great question about the management of the war. At the beginning of his speech James had protested his continued care for the Palatinate, and had assured the Houses that if they met again with the same resolution as they had cherished in the past session, it would be the happiest Parliament known in history. Before he ended he remembered that he had attempted in vain to induce the Commons to insert into the Subsidy Bill a clause naming the recovery of the Palatinate as one of the objects of the grant.1 Whereas, he said, they had made the preamble without his advice, and so as it might be prejudicial to him for some reasons of state, he must be forced to alter it, and set his marginal note upon it.' At this extraordinary and unexpected declaration the usual respect for the Royal person was for an instant forgotten, and those who were present gave vent to their dissatisfaction in murmurs and gesticulations. "And thus," wrote an eye-witness of the scene, "parted we from his Majesty, with much more discontent and fear of the success of this Parliament than when we came together at the beginning with hope and good and happy prosecution."2 James's intemperance was always greater in word than in action. The Subsidy Act was left untouched; and Middlesex, though his fine was subsequently reduced to 20,000l., never saw the King's face again. Nor did James, in the face of the opposition of his favourite and his son, venture to admit Bristol to his presence. Both Buckingham and Charles, indeed, were preparing future difficulties for themselves by their conduct to the man whose influence with the King 1 Locke to Carleton, May 17; S. P. Dom., clxiv. 92. Report by E. Nicholas; ibid. clxv. 61. BRISTOL'S FIRMNESS. He II. 1624. July 10. 71 they most dreaded. A long series of interrogatories CHAP. were sent to Bristol bearing on the whole of his past diplomacy. Bristol answered them all with care. was able to show that on all doubtful points he had acted by his master's orders, and that he had given such advice as he believed at the time to be the best for the King's service. Many of the Commissioners appointed to conduct the investigation expressed themselves fully satisfied, and James too sent word to Bristol that he was now ready to see him. ham sug mise. July 24. An interview between Bristol and the King was Buckingthe very thing to which Buckingham most strongly ob- gests a jected. Hinting that there were further questions still comproto be put, he made use of the delay thus obtained to convey a suggestion to Bristol that he should surrender his Vice-Chamberlainship, and retire to his countryhouse at Sherborne, on the condition that all further proceedings against him should be dropped. Buckingham little knew the character of the man with whom he was dealing. Bristol's reply was that if his honesty and fidelity were declared to be unquestioned he was quite ready to acknowledge that he might have erred from weakness or want of ability. If not, he was ready to answer any further questions that might be sent to him. "For," he wrote, "in matter of my fidelity and loyalty towards his Majesty, the Prince, and my country, I hope I shall never see that come into compromise, but shall rather lose my life and fortunes than admit the least stain to remain upon me or mine in that kind." Bristol refuses it. st Sherborne. Bristol's position was logically unassailable. If he Bristol at was supposed to have done anything worthy of punishment, let his case be investigated. If not, why was he under restraint? Buckingham could not answer an argument like this. But he could continue to act in CHAP. 1624. July 24. 1620. The Eng Portuguese defiance of it. Bristol was left at Sherborne untried and uncondemned. If he came into the King's presence he might say things about Buckingham's connexion with the Prince's visit to Madrid which would not conduce to raise him in his master's opinion. But, to do Buckingham justice, it was not mere personal enmity by which he was actuated. If Bristol was to be kept at a distance, it was that James, and England through James, might be kept from falling back into the evil Spanish alliance. Even when Buckingham was engaged in an apparently personal quarrel, he had usually great public ends in view. The interests of his country were so completely bound up with his own preferences and jealousies, that he came to think of himself and England as inextricably combined. The disregard, not only of legal forms but of comlish and the mon justice, which had been shown in Buckingham's in the East. treatment of Bristol, marked another proceeding in which the King had to take a far more active part, and for which no pretext of public good could be alleged. In the far East as in the far West, it was almost, if not quite, impossible to bring the relations between European merchants under the laws which regulated commerce in the settled societies of Europe. In pursuit of the dazzling prize the subjects of each nation struggled and fought with their rivals, careless of treaties made at home. An attempt made by the English East India Company in 1620 to open a trade with Persia had been met with fierce opposition from the Portuguese subjects of Spain established at Ormuz, who regarded the whole commerce of that part of the world as their own. The English, beaten at first, had returned with superior forces, and had established a station at Jask. The report of the prowess of the new 1621. |