of fact, this was not effectualy done until the close of the reign of Henry VI (about 1461). Then the Commons
succeeded in obtaining the right to present proposed laws in the form of regular bils instead of petitions. These
bils when enacted became statues or acts of Parliament, as we know them to-day. This change was a most
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
294/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
important one, since it made it impossible for the King with the Lords to fraudulently defeat the expressed wil of
the Commons after they had once assented to the legislation which the Commons desired.
Meanwhile the Commons gained, for the first time (1376), the right of impeaching such ministers of the Crown as
they had reason to believe were unfaithful to the interests of the people. This, of course, put an immense
restraining power in their hands, since they could now make the ministers responsible, in great measure, for the
King.[1]
[1] But after 1450 the Commons ceased to exercise the right of impeachment until 1621, when they impeached
Lord Bacon and others.
Next (1406), the Commons insisted on having an account rendered of the money spent by the King; and at times
they even limited[2] their appropriations of money to particular purposes. Finaly, in 1407, the Commons took
the most decided step of al. They boldly demanded and obtained *the exclusive right of making al grants of
money* required by the Crown.[3]
[3] This right the Commons never surrendered.
In future the King, unless he violated the law, had to look to the Commons—that is, to the direct representation
of the mass of the people—for his chief supplies. This made the wil of the Commons more powerful than it had
ever been.
14. Religious Legislation; Emancipation of the Vileins; Disfranchisement of County Electors.
The Parliament of Merton had already (1236) refused to introduce the canon or ecclesiatical law (S265). In the
next century two very important statutes relating to the Church were enacted,—that of Provisors (1350)[4] and
the Great Act of Praemunire, 1393,[1]—limiting the power of the Pope over the English Church. On the other
hand, the rise of the Lolards had caused a statute to be passed (1401) against heretics, and under it the first
martyr had been burned in England. During this period the vileins had risen in insurrection (1381) (SS250-252),
and were gradualy gaining their liberty. Thus a very large body of people who had been practicaly excluded
from political rights now began to slowly acquire them.[2] But, on the other hand, a statute was enacted (1430)
which prohibited al persons having an income of less than forty shilings a year—or what would be equal to forty
pounds at the present value of money— from voting for knights of the shire (S297). The consequence was that
the poorer and humbler classes in the country were no longer directly represented in the House of Commons.
[4] Provisors: this was a law forbidding the Pope to provide any person (by anticipation) with a position in the
English Church until the death of the incumbent. [1] Praemunire: see Constitutional Documents, p. xxxi. Neither
the law of Provisors nor of Praemunire was strictly enforced until Henry VIII's reign. [2] Vileins appear,
however, to have had the right of voting for knights of the shire until the statute of 1430 difranchised them.
15. Wars of the Roses; Decline of Parliament; Partial Revival of its Power under Elizabeth.
The Civil Wars of the Roses (1455-1485) gave a decided check to the further development of parliamentary
power. Many noble families were ruined by the protracted struggle, and the new nobles created by the King
were pledged to uphold the interests of the Crown. Furthemore, numerous towns absorbed in their own local
affairs ceased to elect members to the Commons. Thus, with a House of Lords on the side of royal authority,
and with a House of Commons diminished in numbers and in influence, the decline of the independent attitude of
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
295/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
Parliament was inevitable.
The result of these changes was very marked. From the reign of Henry VI to that of Elizabeth, a period of nearly
a hundred and forty years, "the voice of Parliament was rarely heard." The Tudors practicaly set up a new or
"personal monarchy," in which their wil rose above both Parliament and the constitution;[3] and Henry VII,
instead of asking the Commons for money, extorted it by fines enforcedby his Court of Star Chamber, or
compeled his wealthy subjects to grant it to him in "benevolences" (S330)—those "loving contributions," as the King caled them, "lovingly advanced"!
[3] Theoreticaly Henry VII's power was restrained by certain checks (see S328, note 1), and even Henry VIII
generaly ruled according to the letter of the law, however much he may have violated its spirit. It is noticable,
too, that it was under Henry VIII (1541) that Parliament first formaly claimed freedom of speech as one of its
"undoubted privieges."
During this period England laid claim to a new continent, and Henry VIII, repudiating the authority of the Pope,
declared himself the "supreme head" (1535) of the English Catholic Church. In the next reign (Edward VI) the Catholic worship, which had existed in England for nearly a thousand years, was abolished (1540), and the
Protestant faith became henceforth—except during Mary's short reign—the established religion of the kingdom.
It was enforced by two Acts of Uniformity (1549, 1552). One effect of the overthrow of Catholicism was to
change the character of the House of Lords, by reducing the number of spiritual lords from a majority to a
minority, as they have ever since remained (S406, note 2).
At the beginning of Elizabeth's reign the Second Act of Supremacy (1559) shut out al Catholics from the House
of Commons (S382), Protestantism was fuly and finaly established as the state religion,[1] embodied in the
creed known as the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563); and by the Third Act of Uniformity (1559) very severe
measures were taken against al—whether Catholics or Puritans—who refused to conform to the Episcopal
mode of worship. The High Commission Court was organized (1583) to try and to to punish heretics—whether
Catholics or Puritans. The great number of paupers caused by the destruction of the monasteries under Henry
VIII and the gradual decay of relations of feudal service caused the passage of the first Poor Law (1601)
(S403), and so brought the Government face to face with a problem which has never yet been satisfactorily
settled; namely, what to do with habitual paupers and tramps.
[1] By the Third Act of Uniformity and the establishment of the High Commission Court (S382). The First and
Second Acts of Uniformity were enacted under Edward VI (S362).
The closing part of Elizabeth's reign marks the revival of parliamentary power. The House of Commons now had
many Puritan members, and they did not hesitate to assert their right to advise the Queen on al questions of
national importance. Elizabeth sharply rebuked them for presuming to meddle with questions of religion, or for
urging her either to take a husband or to name a successor to the throne; but even she did not venture to run
directly counter to the wil of the people. When the Commons demanded (1601) that she should put a stop to
the pernicious practice of granting trading monopolies (S388) to her favorites, she was obliged to yield her
assent.
16. James I; the Divine Right of Kings; Struggle with Parliament.
James began his reign by declaring that kings rule not by the wil of the people, but by "divine right." "God makes the King," said he, "and the King makes the law" (S419). For this reason he demanded that his proclamations www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
296/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
should have al the force of acts of Parliament. Furthermore, since he appointed the judges, he could generaly
get their decisions to support him; thus he made even the courts of justice serve as instruments of his wil. In his
arrogance he declared that neither Parliament nor the people had any right to discuss matters of state, whether
foreign or domestic, since he was resolved to reserve such questions for the royal intelect to deal with. By his
religious intolerance he maddened both Puritans and Catholics, and the Pilgrim Fathers fled from England to
escape his tyranny.
But there was a limit set to his overbearing conceit. When he dictated to the Commons (1604) what persons
should sit in that body, they indignantly refused to submit to any interference on his part, and their refusal was so
emphatic that James never brought the matter up again.
The King, however, was so determined to shut out members whom he did not like that he attempted to gain his
ends by having such persons seized on charges of debt and thrown into prison. The Commons, on the other
hand, not only insisted that their ancient privilege of exemption from arrest in such cases should be respected, but
they passed a special law (1604) to clinch the privilege.
Ten years later (1614) James, pressed for money, caled a Parliament to get supplies. He had taken precautions
to get a majority of members elected who would, he hoped, vote for him what he wanted. But to his dismay the
Commons declined to grant him a penny unless he would promise to cease imposing ilegal duties on
merchandise. The King angrily refused and dissolved the so-caled "Addled Parliament."[1]
[1] This Parliament was nicknamed the "Addled Parliament," because it did not enact a single law, though it most effectualy "addled" the King's plans (S424).
Finaly, in order to show James that it would not be trifled with, a later Parliament (1621) revived the right of
impeachment, which had not been resorted to since 1450.[2] The Commons now charged Lord Chancelor
Bacon, judge of the High Court of Chancery, and "keeper of the King's conscience," with accepting bribes.
Bacon held the highest office in the gift of the Crown, and the real object of the impeachment was to strike the
King through the person of his chief official and supporter. Bacon confessed his crime, saying, "I was the justest judge that was in England these fifty years, but it was the justest censure in Parliament that was these two
hundred years."
[2] See S13 of this Summary
James tried his best to save his servile favorite, but it was useless, and Bacon was convicted, disgraced, and
partialy punished (S425).
The Commons of the same Parliament petitioned the King against the aleged growth of the Catholic religion in
the knigdom, and especialy against the proposed marriage of the Prince of Wales to a Spanish Catholic
princess. James ordered the Commons to let mysteries of the state alone. They claimed liberty of speech. The
King asserted that they had no liberties except such as the royal power saw fit to grant. Then the Commons
drew up their famous Protest, in which they declared that their liberties were not derived from the King, but were
"the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the people of England." In his rage James ordered the journal of the Commons to be brought to him, tore out the Protest with his own hand, and sent five of the
members of the House to prison (S419). This rash act made the Commons more determined than ever not to
yield to arbitrary power. James died three years later, leaving his unfortunate son Charles to settle the angry
controversy he had raised. Macaulay remarks that James seems to have been sent to hasten the coming of the
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
297/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
Civil War.
17. Charles I; Forced Loans; the Petition of Right.
Charles I came to the throne ful of his father's lofty ideas of the Divine Right of Kings to govern as they pleased.
In private life he was conscientious, but in his public policy he was a man "of dark and crooked ways."
He had married a French Catholic princess, and the Puritans, who were now very strong in the House of
Commons, suspected that the King secretly sympathized with the Queen's religion. This was not the case; for
Charles, after his peculiar fashion, was a sincere Protestant, though he favored the introduction into the English
Church of some of the ceremonies peculiar to Catholic worship.
The Commons showed their distrust of the King by voting him the tax of tonnage and poundage (certain duties
levied on wine and merchandise), for a single year only, instead of for life, as had been their custom. The Lords
refused to assent to such a limited grant,[1] and Charles deliberately colected the tax without the authority of
Parliament. Failing, however, to get a sufficient supply in that way, the King forced men of property to grant him
"benevolences," and to loan him large sums of money with no hope of its return. Those who dared to refuse were thrown into prison on some pretended charge, or had squads of brutal soldiers quartered in their houses.
[1] See Taswel-Langmead (revised edition), p. 557, note.
When even these measures failed to supply his wants, Charles was forced to summon a Parliament, and ask for
help. Instead of granting it, the Commons drew up the Petition of Right[2] of 1628, as an indignant
remonstrance, and as a safeguard against further acts of tyranny. This Petition has been caled the "Second Great
Charter of the Liberties of England." It declared: (1) That no one should be compeled to pay any tax or to
supply the King with money, except by order of act of Parliament. (2) That neither soldiers nor sailors should be
quartered in private houses.[3] (3) That no one should be imprisoned or punished contrary to law. Charles was
forced by his need of money to assent to this Petition, which thus became a most important part of the English
constitution. But the King did not keep his word. When Parliament next met (1629), it refused to grant money
unless Charles would renew his pledge not to violate the law. The King made some concessions, but finaly
resolved to adjourn Parliament. Several members of the Commons held the Speaker in the chair by force,—thus
preventing the adjournment of the House,—until resolutions offered by Sir John Eliot were passed (S434). These
resolutions were aimed directly at the King. They declared: (1) that he is a traitor who attempts any change in the
established religion of the kingdom;[4] (2) who levies any tax not voted by Parliament; (3) or who voluntarily
pays such a tax. Parliament then adjourned.
[2] Petition of Right: see S432, and Constitutional Documents, p.xxx. [3] The King was also deprived of the
power to press citizens into the army and navy. [4] The Puritans had come to believe that the King wished to
restore the Catholic religion as the Established Church of England, but in this idea they were mistaken.
18. "Thorough"; Ship Money; the "Short Parliament."
The King swore that "the vipers" who opposed him should have their reward. Eliot was thrown into prison and
kept there til he died. Charles made up his mind that, with the help of Archbishop Laud in Church matters, and
of Lord Strafford in affairs of state, he would rule without Parliaments. Strafford urged the King to adopt the
policy of "Thorough"[1] (S435); in other words, to folow the bent of his own wil without consulting the wil of the nation. This, of course, practicaly meant the overthrow of parliamentary and constitutional government.
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
298/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
Charles heartily approved of this plan for setting up what he caled a "beneficent despotism" based on "Divine Right."
[1] "Thorough": Strafford wrote to Laud, "You may govern as you please….I am confident that the King is able to carry any just and honorable action thorough [i.e. through or against] al imaginable opposition." Both
Strafford and Laud used the word "thorough," in this sense to designate their tyrannical policy.
The King now resorted to various unconstitutional means to obtain supplies. The last device he hit upon was that
of raising ship money. To do this, he levied a tax on al the counties of England,— inland as wel as seaboard,—
on the pretext that he purposed building a neavy for the defense of the kingdom. John Hampden refused to pay
the tax, but Charles's servile judges decided against him, when the case was brought into court (S436).
Charles ruled without a Parliament for eleven years. He might, perhaps, have gone on in this way for as many
more, had he not provoked the Scots to rebel by attempting to force a modified form of the English Prayer Book
on the Church of that country (S438). The necessities of the war with the Scots compeled the King to cal a
Parliament. It declined to grant the King money to carry on the war unless he would give some satisfactory
guarantee of governing according to the wil of the people. Charles refused to do this, and after a three weeks'
session he dissolved what was known as the "Short Parliament."
19. The "Long Parliament"; the Civil War.
But the war gave Charles no choice, and before the year was out he was obliged to cal the famous "Long
Parliament" of 1640.[2] That body met with the firm determination to restore the liberties of Englishmen or to
perish in the attempt. (1) It impeached Strafford and Laud, and sent them to the scaffold as traitors.[3] (2) It
swept away those instruments of royal oppression, the Court of Star Chamber and the High Commission Court
(SS330, 382). (3) It expeled the bishops from the House of Lords. (4) It passed the Triennial Bil, compeling
the King to summon a Parliament at least once in three years.[4] (5) It also passed a law declaring that the King
could not suspend or dissolve Parliament without its consent. (6) Last of al, the Commons drew up the Grand
Remonstrance (S439), enunciating at great length the grievances of the last sixteen years, and vehemently
appealing to the people to support them in their attempts at reform. The Remonstrance was printed and
distributed throughout England.[1]
[2] The "Long Parliament": it sat from 1640 to 1653, and was not finaly dissolved until 1660. [3] Charles
assured Strafford that Parliament should not touch "a hair of his head"; but to save himself the King signed the Bil of Attainder (see p.xxxi), which sent his ablest and most faithful servant to the block. Wel might Strafford
exclaim, "Put not your trust in princes." [4] The Triennial Act was repealed in 1664 and reenacted in 1694. In 1716 the Septennial Act increased the limit of three years to seven. This act is stil in force. [1] The press soon
became, for the first time, a most active agent of political agitation, both for and against the King (S443).
About a month later (1642) the King, at the head of an armed force, undertook to seize Hampden, Pym, and
three other of the most active members of the Commons on a charge of treason (S449). The attempt failed.
Soon afterwards the Commons passed the Militia Bil, and thus took the command of the national militia and of
the chief fortresses of the realm, "to hold," as they said, "for King and Parliament." The act was unconstitutional; but, after the attempted seizure of the five members, the Commons felt certain that if they left the command of the
militia in the King's hands, they would simply sign their own death warrant.
In resentment of this action, Charles now (1642) began the great Civil War. It resulted in the execution of the
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
299/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
King, and in the temporary overthrow of the monarchy, the House of Lords, and the Established Episcopal
Church (SS450, 451). In place of the monarchy, the party in power set up a short-lived Puritan Republic. This
was folowed by the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwel (which claimed to be republican in spirit) and by that of his
son Richard (SS455, 463).
20. Charles II; Abolition of Feudal Tenure; Establishment of a Standing Army.
In 1660 the people, weary of the Protectorate form of government, welcomed the return of Charles II. His
coming marks the restoration of the monarchy, of the House of Lords, and of the National Episcopal Church.
A great change was now effected in the source of the King's revenue. Hitherto it had sprung largely from feudal
dues. These had long been difficult to colect, because the Feudal System had practicaly died out. The feudal
land tenure with its dues was now abolished,—a reform, says Blackstone, greater even than that of Magna
Carta,—and in their place a tax was levied for a fixed sum (S482). This tax should in justice have falen on the
landowners, who profited by the change; but they managed to evade it in great measure, and by getting it levied
on beer and some other liquors, they forced the working classes to shoulder the chief part of the burden, which
they carried until very recently.[2]
[2] See S34 of this Summary.
Parliament now restored the command of the militia to the Kign;[3] and, for the first time in English history, it also gave him the command of a standing army of five thousand men,—thus, in one way, making him more powerful
than ever before (S467).
[3] See Militia Bil, S19 of this Summary.
On the other hand, Parliament revived the practice of limiting its appropriations of money to specific purposes.[4]
It furthermore began to require an exact account of how the King spent the money,—a most embarrassing
question for a man like Charles II to answer. Again, Parliament did not hesitate to impeach and remove the
King's ministers whenever they forfeited the confidence of that body.[1]
[4] See S13 of this Summary. [1] See S13 of this Summary (Impeachment).
The religious legislation of this period marks the strong reaction from Puritanism which had set in. (1) The
Corporation Act (1661) excluded al persons who did not renounce the Puritan Covenant and partake of the
Sacrament according to the Church of England, from holding municipal or other corporate offices (S472). (2)
The Fourth Act of Uniformity (1662)[2] required al clergymen to accept the Book of Common Prayer of the
Church of England (S472). The result of this law was that no less than two thousand Puritan ministers were
driven from their pulpits in a single day. (3) The Conventicle Act (S472) folowed (1664). It forbade the
preaching or hearing of Puritan doctrines, under severe penalties. (4) The Five-Mile Act (1665) (S472) [3]
prohibited non-conforming clergymen from teaching, or from coming within five miles of any corporate town
(except when traveling).
[2] The First and Second Acts of Uniformity date from Edward VI (1549, 1552), the Third from Elizabeth
(1559) (SS362, 382, 472). [3] The Five-Mile Act (1665) excepted those clergymen who took the oath of
nonresistance to the King, and who swore not to attempt to alter the constitution of Church or State. See
Halam's "Constitutional History of England."
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
300/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
21. Charles II's Cabinet; the Secret Treaty of Dover; the Test Act; the Habeas Corpus Act; Rise of Cabinet
Government.
Charles II made a great and most important change with respect to the Privy Council. Instead of consulting the
entire Council on matters of state, he established the custom of inviting only a few to meet with him in his cabinet,
or private room. This limited body of confidential advisers was caled the "Cabal," or secret council (S476).
Charles's great ambition was to increase his standing army, to rule independently of Parliament, and to get an
abundance of money to spend on his extravagant pleasures and vices.
In order to accomplish these three ends he made a secret and shameful treaty with Louis XIV of France, 1670
(S476). Louis wished to crush the Dutch Protestant Republic of Haland, to get possession of Spain, and to
secure, if possible, the ascendancy of Catholicism in England as wel as throughout Europe. Charles, who was
destitute of any religious principle,—or, in fact, of any sense of honor,—agreed to publicly declare himself a
Catholic, to favor the propagation of that faith in England, and to make war on Holand in return for very liberal
grants of money, and for the loan of six thousand French troops by Louis, to help him put down any opposition
in England. Two members of the "Cabal" were acquainted with the terms of this secret Treaty of Dover. Charles made a second secret treaty with Louis XIV in 1678.
Charles did not dare to openly avow himself a convert—or pretended
convert—to the Catholic religion; but he issued a Declaration of
Indulgence, 1672, suspending the harsh statutes against the English
Catholics (S477).
Parliament took the alarm and passed the Test Act, 1673, by which al Catholics were shut out from holding any
government office or position (S477). This act broke up the "Cabal," by compeling a Catholic nobleman, who
was one of its leading members, to resign. Lather, Parliament further showed its power by compeling the King to
sign the Act of Habeas Corpus, 1679 (S482), which put an end to his arbitrarily throwing men into prison, and
keeping them there, in order to stop their free discussion of his plots against the constitution.[1]
[1] See Habeas Corpus Act in Constitutional Documents, p.xxxi.
But though the "Cabal" had been broken up, the principle of a limited private council survived, and long after the Revolution of 1688 it was revived and the Cabinet, under the lead of Sir Robert Walpole, the first Prime
Minister,[2] in 1721, became responsible for th epolicy of the sovereign.[3] At present, if the Commons
decidedly oppose that policy, the Prime minister,[2] in 1721, became responsible for the policy of the sovereign.
[3] At present, if the Commons decidedly oppose that policy, the Prime Minister, with his Cabinet, either resigns,
and a new Cabinet is chosen, or the Minister appeals to the