Читать книгу A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days - Joseph Grego - Страница 25

Table of Contents

(PRINTED FOR B. T. 1681.)

Parliaments have been wont to take up some space at the first Meetings to settle the House, and to determine of unlawful elections, and in this point they never had greater cause to be circumspect than at this time: For by an abuse lately crept in, there is introduced a custom, which, if it be not seen and prevented, will be a great derogation of the honour, and a weakening of the power of your House, where the law giveth a freedom to Corporations to elect Burgesses, and forbiddeth any indirect course to be taken in their Elections, many of the Corporations are so base-minded and timorous, that they will not hazard the indignation of a Lord Lieutenant’s letter, who, under-hand, sticks not to threaten them, if he hath not the Election of the Burgesses, and not they themselves.

And commonly those that the Lords recommend are such as desire it for protection, or are so ignorant of the place they serve for, as that there being occasion to speak of the Corporation for which they are chosen, they have asked their neighbours sitting by, whether it were a sea or a land town?

The next thing that is required is Liberty of Speech, without which Parliaments have little force or power; speech begets doubts, and resolves them; and doubts in speeches beget understanding; he that doubts much, asketh often, and learns much; and he that fears the worst, soonest prevents a mischief.

This privilege of speech is anciently granted by the testimony of Philip Cominus, a stranger,24 who prefers our parliaments, and the freedom of the subject in them, above all other Assemblies; which Freedom, if it be broken or diminished, is negligently lost since the days of Cominus.

If Freedom of Speech should be prohibited, when men with modesty make repetition of the grievances and enormities of the kingdom; when men shall desire Reformation of the wrongs and injuries committed, and have no relation of evil thoughts to his Majesty, but with open heart and zeal, express their dutiful and reverent respect to him and his service; I say, if this kind of Liberty of Speech be not allowed in time of Parliaments, they will extend no farther than to Quarter-Sessions, and their Meetings and Assemblies will be unnecessary, for all means of disorder now crept in, and all remedies and redresses will be quite taken away.

As it is no manners to contest with the King in his Election of his Councillors and servants (for Kings obey no men, but their laws), so it were a great negligence, and part of Treason, for a subject not to be free in speech against the abuses, wrongs, and offences that may be occasioned by Persons in authority. What remedy can be expected from a prince to a subject, if the enormities of the kingdom be concealed from him? or what King so religious and just in his own nature, that may not hazard the loss of the hearts of his subjects, without this Liberty of Speech in Parliament? For such is the misfortune of most princes, and such is the happiness of subjects where Kings’ affections are settled, and their loves so far transported to promote servants, as they only trust and credit what they shall inform.

In this case, what subject dares complain? or what subject dares contradict the words or actions of such a servant, if it be not warranted by Freedom of a Parliament, they speaking with humility? for nothing obtaineth favour with a King, so much as diligent obedience.

The surest and safest way betwixt the King and his people, which hath the least scandal of partiality, is, with indifference, and integrity, and sincerity, to examine the grievances of the Kingdom, without touching the person of any man, further than the cause giveth the occasion: for otherwise, you shall contest with him that hath the prince’s ears open to hearken to his enchanting tongue, he informs secretly, when you shall not be admitted to excuses, he will cast your deserved malice against him, to your contempt against the King; and so will make the prince the shield of his revenge.

These are the sinister practices of such servants to deceive their Sovereigns; when our grievances shall be authentically proved, and made manifest to the world by your pains to examine and freedom to speak. No prince can be so affectionate to a servant, or such an enemy to himself, as not to admit of this indifferent proceeding: if his services be allowable and good, they will appear with glory; if bad, your labour shall deserve thanks both of Prince and country.

When justice shall thus shine, people will be animated to serve their King with integrity; for they are naturally inclined to imitate their princes in good or bad.

If any man shall pervert this good meaning and motion of yours, and inform his Majesty, ’Tis a Derogation from his Honour to yield to his subjects upon Conditions, his Majesty shall have good cause to prove such men’s eyes malicious and unthankful, and thereby to disprove them in all their outer actions; for what can it lessen the reputation of a Prince whom the subject only and wholly obeyeth, that a Parliament which his Majesty doth acknowledge to be his highest Council, should advise him, and he follow the advice of such a Council? What dishonour rather were it to be advised and ruled by one Councillor alone, against whom there is just one exception taken of the whole Commonwealth?

Marcus Portio saith, that that Commonwealth is everlasting, where the Prince seeks to get obedience and love, and the subjects to gain the affection of the Prince; and that Kingdom is unhappy where their Prince is served out of ends and hope of reward, and hath no other assurance of them but their service.”

The substitution of Oxford, “the hot-bed of Toryism,” for Westminster as the place of assembly for what proved Charles II.’s last parliament, was violently opposed by the members, who naturally resented this royal manœuvre of cutting off the representatives from the protection of the citizens. A petition remonstrating against the change was presented by Essex and sixteen other Peers; this darkly set forth dangers to the Crown, and reminded the king of the disasters which had always followed similar departures from the rule of London parliaments. Charles frowned, but took no heed. The parliament, forced into submission, attended at Oxford, Shaftesbury and other adherents taking with them a body-guard of armed retainers, citizens of London, wearing the Association green ribbons, with the legend, “No Popery: no Slavery!”

“Who was ’t gave out, that a thousand Watermen

Had all conspir’d to Petition, when

The parliament to Oxford were conven’d,

That they might sit at Westminster for them;

But ne’er were heard of more than Smith and Ben?25 Who was ’t endeavour’d all that preparations To guard the City Members in their stations To Oxford; which look’d far more Arbitrary Than Forty-One, or absolute Old Harry.”

The doctors were dispossessed from their seats to make way for the legislators:—

“The safety of the King and ’s Royal Throne

Depends on those five hundred Kings alone.”

Parliament met March 21, 1681. Of its short existence of eight days, three were consumed in formalities, the choice of a Speaker, and other preliminaries. The course of the action of the members was predetermined. They were to insist on the banishment and exclusion of the Duke of York from the succession. The impeachment was to be proceeded with of Fitz-Harris, who was imprisoned and awaiting trial, on an information of Everard, for being the author of a treasonable libel; it was understood, or at least expected, that the Duchess of Portsmouth and others of the Court would be implicated in his confession. The Lords voted that he should be proceeded against at Common Law, by which decision the Commons were craftily involved in a struggle for privilege and power with the Peers, who were also less impatient than themselves to carry the Exclusion Bill, the Lower House resolving that “it is the undoubted right of the Commons in parliament assembled to impeach before the Lords in parliament any Peer or Commoner for treason or any other crime or misdemeanour; and that the refusal of the Lords to proceed in parliament upon such impeachment is a denial of justice and a violation of the constitution.”26

This squabble between the two branches of the legislature exactly answered the king’s occasions; he made this a pretence for again dissolving the parliament, thus saving his brother and the Duchess of Portsmouth from the designs of the Commons. As it was, Charles coolly dismissed them as impracticable and useless, telling them, “he perceived there were great heats between the Lords and Commons, and their beginnings had been such as he could expect no good success of this parliament, and therefore thought fit to dissolve them.” This was on the 28th of March. On this point the Rev. J. W. Ebsworth, M.A., who has edited the “Bagford Ballads,” which illustrate the last years of the Stuarts, remarks—

“Had they been in London, there can be no doubt they would have resisted, calling the City to support them, and voted themselves permanent, to the defiance of the King and a commencement of civil war. He saw their plan, and conquered them.”

It was the lesson of “forty-one” to be taught again, as was prophetically hinted by “the ghost of the late Parliament to the New One to meet at Oxford.” In reference to the tyranny of the Commons, as opposed to the absolutism of the Crown, we find a Loyal Poem, entitled—