CHAPTER V.

RISE OF THE OPPOSITION. (1588-1640.)

SECTION 1.-Last Years of Elizabeth. (1588-1603.) THE destruction of the Spanish Armada, 1588, marks the beginning of a new period in the history of the Parliament, which may be described as the rise of the Opposition and the defeasance of the Tudor despotism. The Tudors had played their part in the history of the country successfully. Their strong hands had steered England through the difficult and dangerous crisis of the early Reformation period, at a time when no class was strong enough to assume the government of the country, when the people had lost their old leaders, and knew not as yet where to look for fresh ones. Exceptional dangers, and panic thereby induced, enabled the Tudor dynasty to grasp exceptional powers with the full consent of the people, who saw in the exercise of these powers the sole hope of safety. Unusual stretches of authority and outrageous acts of oppression were winked at, nay, even condoned, in order that the hands of the Government might not be weakened. Opposition of any kind was rarely offered, was conciliated by the slightest concession, was willing to be cajoled with extraordinary facility. The Tudors, moreover, were possessed of wonderful tact; they always knew how to trim their sails to the popular blast, to yield at the right time with a grace that disarmed opposition at once, and enabled them to resume the old course at will, unfettered by any fears of the consequences. Even under Elizabeth, the strictures of the Wentworths and other parliamentary critics were not directed against Elizabeth's principle of government in general-that was recognized to be as yet the only one possible.

With the destruction of the Armada, however, this exceptional state of things came to an end, and it was felt that the

exceptional mode of government should terminate as well. The crisis had been successfully tided over, the danger of a Spanish invasion and a Catholic league against England was averted, the "state of siege " was concluded, and a return to constitutional and ordinary methods seemed the natural result. This, however, neither Elizabeth nor her successors understood, nor was it unnatural that they should not. Elizabeth's wonderful feminine tact, however, enabled her to avoid any direct quarrel with the growing forces of the opposition; but the utterly impracticable character of the first two Stuarts fostered the rising discontent, and fanned the smouldering embers to angry flames, till the whole realm took fire.

The change was apparent almost directly in the Parliament of 1588-1589. It was still more so in the Parliament of 1593. For though the Crown assumed in the latter a higher tone than it had ever done before on the subject of freedom of speech, this did not prevent the succession question from being mooted with great determination by Peter Wentworth, nor reforms of the ecclesiastical courts being proposed by Mr. Morice. Wentworth and Morice were both imprisoned, but this was the last victory which Elizabeth was to win in Parliament by the old violent tactics. This session was also remarkable for a contest in which the Commons successfully maintained against the Crown and the Lords their sole right to the initiation of money-bills.

It was in the Parliament of 1601 that the first great battle of the Opposition was fought and its victory won. The struggle arose on the question of monopolies, which had become a great abuse. Attempts had been made in previous Parliaments to deal with the question, but without success. In 1597 they were protested against unsuccessfully. In 1601, however, a list was made out, and it was proposed to abolish them by law. An eager debate followed. Robert Cecil, the Secretary, and Francis Bacon strongly upheld prerogative, in language dimly foreshadowing the absurd hyperbole of later days. Mr. Davis declared that "God hath given that power to absolute princes which he attributes to himself." Sergeant Heyle roundly asserted that the queen could take what she pleased from the subject, of right.

The opponents of the monopolies, however, were firm, and Elizabeth at last wisely ended the question by voluntarily offering to surrender them.

In minor matters, moreover, the Commons showed their determination to maintain their privileges. They complained to the Lords in 1597 that they had received a message from the Commons at their bar without rising from their place or uncovering. This, however, the Lords proved from precedents to be the proper procedure in the case of messages. The Commons also remonstrated against amendments being sent down on paper instead of parchment, though this would be hardly worth recording but for the growing determination which it shows on their part to resist all encroachments on their rights.

SECTION 2.-James I. (1603-1625.)

James I. came to the throne at a very critical period of our history. The Puritan opposition was now organized and powerful, and though Elizabeth's tact and popularity had postponed till her death the impending struggle between liberty and prerogative, the advent of her successor was naturally looked forward to with considerable eagerness. Voluntary concessions were expected at his hands; or, in default, there was a settled determination to resist all attempted infringements of the privileges of Parliament and the liberties of the subject. Much therefore depended on James's character and policy. Skilful management and a gracious demeanor might have averted the contest. Unfortunately, or perhaps we should rather say fortunately, James was imbued with the mistaken notion that the crown of the Tudors descended to him by "divine right," that their powers and prerogatives came to him as part of an indefeasible inheritance, and that resistance to his divinely gifted authority was little short of impiety. By the side of such majestic claims the privileges of Parliament and the liberties of the subject were dwarfed to nothingness, and the whole body of the common law itself was but so many acres of discolored parchment when subjected to the overruling influence of the extraordinary prerogative which James asserted to reside in the Crown. There was no hope of

!

concession, no chance of compromise, no possibility of agreement. The triumph of either side, moreover, was not compatible with anything short of a complete surrender on the part of the other. Parliament must either acknowledge to the full that the king's power was twofold, ordinary and extraordinary the former being subject to the restrictions of the common law; and the latter, the exercise of which would be left wholly to the king's discretion, being entirely uncontrolled: or else Parliament must resist to the uttermost, must maintain every tittle of their own claims, must resent the smallest infringement of their privileges, must refurbish up all the old weapons in the constitutional arsenal, and must even venture on the dangerous task of forging new ones. The whole tendency of parliamentary history during the preceding century was in the direction of unqualified resistance, and there was no longer any imminent danger which had made men fear to weaken the government, even when they disapproved of its action. The constitutional path lay broad and white before the feet of the Commons, and if its end were lost as yet in the dim mists of the future, the marks by the wayside were drawn clear and distinct enough at starting.

The House of Commons was divided at the accession of James into two distinct parties—the Government and the Opposition. The former included a number of officials and a large body of Crown nominees; the latter consisted of two classes-country gentlemen of wealth and local influence sent by the freeholders of their counties to represent them in Parliament, and men of ability, who supplied their lack of local influence by the favor and help of some great landed proprietor, or the recommendation of a knot of influential men, or the admiration or corruption of some small constituency. Among the last class of members was a considerable body of lawyers, who became known to the electors by their talents displayed at the bar, and whose entrance into Parliament was rendered possible by the defeasance of the restrictions which had insisted on residence as a qualification for membership.* "The services which this

* v. p. 21.

class of men rendered to the cause of freedom were," says Professor Gardiner, "incalculable. The learning of the ablest lawyers in the sixteenth century may have been small in comparison with the stores of knowledge which may be acquired in our own day; but relatively to the general level of education, it stood far higher. A few years later a race of parliamentary statesmen would arise among the country gentlemen; but as yet almost all pretension to statesmanship was confined to the council-table and its supporters. For the present, the burden of the conflict in the Commons lay upon the lawyers, who at once gave to the struggle against the Crown that strong legal character which it never afterwards lost."

"Between the Crown and the House of Commons," continues Professor Gardiner, "the House of Lords could only play a subordinate part. It had no longer sufficient power to act independently of both." It was at present entirely in sympathy with the king and the prerogative. There is no trace of any opposition in its ranks in the first years of James I.

The first note of battle was sounded by the king. In January, 1604, a proclamation was issued calling upon the constituencies to send up members to Parliament, declaring that the elections should be made freely, and recommending the choice of suitable men. The proclamation further ordered that all returns should be made to the Chancery, where, if any should be found to be made contrary to the proclamation," they were to be rejected as unlawful and insufficient. This last clause, involving an infringement of a much-cherished privilege, was sure to provoke the most violent opposition.

On March 19 Parliament met, and it was noticed that there was an unusually full attendance. It might also have been remarked, as a sign of the times, that the Crown was only represented in the Commons by inferior men. There were no Privy-Councillors, no Secretary as in Elizabeth's days; only an under-secretary and some other minor officials. Evidently the new king did not attach much importance to the difficult task of conciliating the good-will of the House of Commons.