upper house. Among the former, Sir Edward Coke, and Sir Robert Philips, were committed to the Tower; Mr. Selden, Mr. Pym, and Mr. Mallory, to other prisons. Some, as a lighter punishment, were sent out of the kingdom, upon pretence of executing public business, which employments they were not permitted to refuse*.

In the fourth and last parliament of James, which was called in the year 1623, there occurred no dispute with the crown. The treaty with Spain, to which neither the influence of the national assembly, nor the voice of the people, could produce the least interruption, was at length broken off by the caprice of his favourite, Buckingham; and as this occasioned a war with which the nation was highly satisfied until the real ground of the quarrel was discovered, the king found no difficulty in procuring the necessary supplies.

Besides the two leading articles abovementioned, there were other subjects of importance which attracted the notice of par

* Parliamentary History.

liament, and became the ground of contro

versy.

The king, as the superior of trading towns, and the patron of their commerce and manufactures, had early assumed the power of creating royal boroughs, and of erecting, in each of those communities, inferior corporations of particular trades. By an easy transition, he had thence been led to grant, in particular branches of trade, exclusive privileges to individuals, or to trading companies. These monopolies, in the infancy of trade, had been accounted necessary, or at least beneficial, for carrying on extensive and hazardous undertakings; but, in proportion to the advancement of commerce, such extraordinary encouragements, from the increase of mercantile capitals, became less needful; at the same time that they were found more inconvenient, by narrowing the field of free competition among traders. The king was, besides, under the temptation of abusing his power of granting these monopolies, by bestowing them for money, or obtaining a share in the profit of the trade which they were intended to encourage. Complaints of

1

such abuses had been made in the reign of queen Elizabeth; they became still more

frequent in that of James, when the wants of the crown had left no expedient unattempted for procuring money; but at length, by the vigorous interposition of parliament, the sovereign was prevailed upon to limit the disposal of those grants, and several important regulations upon this point were introduced*.

From the manner in which the legislative business was conducted, a bill, being originally conceived in the form of a petition to the king, required the approbation of parliament before it could be presented to his majesty for the royal assent. Hence it became unusual, and was at length regarded as irregular, that the king should take notice of any bill, while it was depending before either house. At what time the uniformity of practice, in this respect, may be considered as having established an invariable rule in the constitution, it is difficult to determine;

* Parliamentary History, vol. v. and vi.

though it is clear that queen Elizabeth did not conceive herself to be precluded from stopping bills in parliament at any stage of their progress. In the year 1607, James objected to a petition laid before parliament concerning Popish recusants; and it was insisted that the petition should not be read: to which it was answered, "that this would "be a great wound to the gravity and liberty "of the house." The speaker replied, " that "there be many precedents in the late

66

queen's time, where she restrained the "house from meddling in petitions of divers "kinds." Upon this a committee was appointed, "to search and consider of such

66

precedents, as well of ancient as of later "times, which do concern any messages from "the sovereign magistrate, king or queen of "this realm, during the time of parliament,

66

touching petitions offered to the house of "commons." Two days thereafter, the petition, by the king's consent, was read; and the following declaration appears on the record: "that his majesty hath no meaning to infringe our privileges by any message; but

66

"that his desire is, we should enjoy them with "all freedom*" It should seem that henceforward no monarch of England has ventured to dispute this privilege of parlia

ment.

During the whole reign of James, the behaviour of the commons was calm, steady, and judicious, and does great honour to the integrity and abilities of those eminent patriots by whom the determinations of that assembly were chiefly directed. Their apprehensions concerning the prevalence of popery were, perhaps, greater than there was any good reason to entertain; but this proceeded from the prejudice of the times; and to judge fairly of the spirit with which, in this particular, the members of parliament were animated, we must make allowance for the age and country in which they lived, and for the occurrences which were still fresh in their memory. Though placed in circumstances that were new and critical, though heated by

* See the Journals of the house of commons, on the 16th and 18th of June, 1607.