Page images
PDF
EPUB

Parliament took up the same grievances, and made money grants conditional upon their redress. Neither king nor Commons would yield, and the Stuarts, in desperate need of money, resorted to all manner of illegal taxation to obtain it. Refusal to pay was met by conviction and punishment at the hands of judges, bribed or terrified into subservience to the crown. Never before, in English history, had corruption been so widespread, so brazenfaced. The decision of the judges in Darnel's, or the five knights' case, gave the king the right of arbitrary imprisonment, and practically annihilated the 29th clause of Magna Charta; i. e. "No free man shall be taken and imprisoned unless by lawful judgment of his peers, or the law of the land." The Court of Star Chamber and the High Commission Court became the deeply-hated instruments of royal tyranny and extortion, and were finally swept away by the Long Parliament in 1640, when "ship money, tonnage and poundage, and all impositions levied without consent of Parliament were declared illegal.""

Civil war brought victory to the constitutional party, the execution of King Charles as a traitor to his country, and the establishment of Presbyterianism as the state religion. But the melancholy tyranny of the new discipline, the unrest, insecurity and uncertainty of the times, brought inevitable reaction and the restoration of Charles II. His reign was noteworthy for its "good laws and bad government," for the triumph of vice and sensuality, for the terrible persecutions of non-conformists. Renewed despotism under James II., in 1 See discussion of the Bates case in Parliament, 1610, and many subsequent petitions and remonstrances.

'See Pym's speech against Strafford in the Commons. Rushworth, iv, 200. 3 Hallam, i, 358.

State Trials, iii, I.

Rushworth, ii, 475; Hallam, i, 349–50; ii, 9-10, 31.

Rushworth, iv, 88; Traill, iv, 14.

230

Traitors and Non-Conformists

his attempt to reintroduce the Roman Catholic religion, contrary to the laws of the land, brought the great revolution of 1688, the dethronement of the king, and the final establishment of a constitutional and Protestant monarchy. There were three successful revolutions in less than half a century; and as either party rose to power, it used the strong arm of the law to punish, as the worst of criminals, those who attempted to overthrow the established order of society. Punishment of traitors, libelers and non-conformists was frightfully severe, and constantly enforced.' Even after toleration had been granted to all Protestant sectarians, in the reign of William and Mary, penalties against Roman Catholics were made more severe."

Criminal statutes were ready weapons against political and religious enemies within the state: weapons which each triumphant party was compelled to use for the safe-guarding of the new social development for which it stood. Many of these penal laws were of temporary service only, and have since been repealed. Some aided the nation's upward progress, some were reactionary and retrogressive, but all were intended to support the true life of society as seen by that part of the nation then supporting the government; and the criminals of the seventeenth century are mainly political and religious offenders against these statutes, similar laws of previous reigns, and the multitude of prohibitions created or resurrected by decisions of the Court of Star Chamber and the High Commission Court.

Early in the seventeenth century the House of Commons reasserted its long disused right of impeachment, and Parliament became once more a high court of justice, holding the powerful ministers of state responsible to the nation for their stewardship. Shameless corruption had made its way through all departments of official life during the reign of 21 Will. and Mary, c. 9 and c. 15.

1 State Trials.

James I. Lord Chancellor Bacon was convicted on impeachment by the Commons, and fined £40,000 for receiving bribes from suitors. The Earl of Middlesex, Lord Treasurer, was unanimously convicted of bribery and other offences. Other impeachments were those of Mompesson and Michell, both convicted and punished; Field, Bishop of Llandaff, censured for bribery, and Sir John Bennet, judge, for corruption in office.3 Under Charles I., Mainwaring was impeached, fined £1,000, and declared ineligible for any dignity in the Church, for proclaiming the absolute authority of the king in his sermons; but Charles quickly pardoned him and advanced him to a bishopric. In 1640, Strafford was impeached and executed for high treason 5 against the state, and later Archbishop Laud shared his fate. Evidently Parliament was very earnest to put down official corruption, and defend the constitutional rights of Englishmen against the supporters of royal despotism. The end of the great tragedy witnessed the trial and execution of Charles Stuart, King of England, as a "tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy."7

The supporters of the Divine Right of Kings were still more active in punishing their political and religious opponents as criminals. Both executive and judicial authority were largely in their hands, and through the Court of Star Chamber, with its branches, and the Court of High Commission, they used their powers mercilessly. The Earl of Oxford, Sir Edward Coke, Sir Robert Philips, Mr. Pym, and a few other members of Parliament were sent to the Tower or other prisons during the reign of James I., " on pretence of having spoken words against the king," or other similar

[blocks in formation]

8

Ibid., ii, 1184 and 1250 (1624). Rushworth, i, 423; State Trials, iii, 335. 6 Ibid., iv, 202.

5 Rushworth, viii, and iv, 267–9. 1 State Trials, iv, 1128.

Rushworth, ii, 475.

232

Unjust Judicial Decisions

offences. Under Charles I. the Earl of Arundel was sent to the Tower for a marriage displeasing to the king, and Sir John Eliot, Hollis, Selden, Long, Hobart, Stroud, and other eminent members of the Commons, were committed, some to the Tower, some to the King's Bench prison, and their papers seized, "for notable contempt and for stirring up sedition, in a warrant under the King's Sign Manual."2 "The court was unanimous in declaring they had jurisdiction, although the alleged offences were committed in Parliament."3 Refusing to contribute to a "benevolence" for the king was made a crime by decisions of the Court of Star Chamber, early in the 17th century. Thus, Mr. Oliver St. John was fined "£5000 and imprisonment during pleasure" for such a refusal and for putting legal reasons for his action into a letter. Later, Mr. Richard Chambers was fined £2000 and sent to prison for a like offence. Many other gentry were thus imprisoned, while common people who refused to aid the king by contributing to a "general loan" were impressed for service in the navy."

The utter tyranny and contempt of the High Commission Court for the laws and liberties of Englishmen were glaringly shown in the case of Mr. Fuller, lawyer, imprisoned till he died for moving the release from prison of two Puritans, committed by this court for refusing to take the ex-officio oath. Fuller's plea was that "the High Commissioners were not empowered by law to imprison or to fine any of his majesty's subjects." This was punished as "an unpardonable crime." The State Trials of this period furnish many

1 Hallam, i, 368.

Rushworth, ii, 79; State Trials, iii, 235 and 293; Hallam, ii, 2. Eliot was also fined £2000, and died in prison.

Hallam, ii, 5.

State Trials, ii, 899.

Rushworth, i, 426 (1626); Hallam, i, 383 and 416. 'Neal, ii, 39 (1610); Fuller, iii, 243

Ibid., iii, 373

instances of the utterly illegal punishments of both men and women. Thus, Lady Shrewsbury was fined £20,000 and discretionary imprisonment for refusing to answer damaging questions,' and Peacham was found guilty of high treason (compassing the king's death) for merely having in his possession a sermon, never preached nor intended to be preached, severely censuring the king and government.' He " was examined before torture, in torture, between torture and after torture" (Jan. 19th, 1614) for this offence, and, though no confession was secured, he was condemned, but not finally executed.3

The principal offences within the jurisdiction of the court of Star Chamber were: maintenance, riot, forgery, perjury, fraud, libel and conspiracy; but this court also established its right to enquire into and punish "every misdemeanor," especially those of public importance, "for which the law, as then understood, had provided no sufficient punishment,"4 The decisions of this court created many new crimes; some of them very wrongly chosen because the acts punished were helpful to the public welfare, but others the true crimes of the age because thoroughly injurious to social life, at that stage of its development. Thus, "corruption, breach of trust, malfeasance in public affairs," and all "attempts at felony" were non-indictable by the common law, and practically not crimes until the Star Chamber made them so.5 The evil that it did largely perished with it, in 1640, but the good work accomplished by its authority was permanent and

1 State Trials, ii, 769.

2 Ibid., ii, 869.

Ibid., ii, 871. See also cases of Arabella Stuart (Winwood, iii, 201, 279); Whitlock (State Trials, ii, 765); Thomas Owen (Ibid., ii, 879), and Williams, convicted of high treason for predicting the king's death in 1621. Also, Sir Walter Raleigh (State Trials, ii, 1.)

Hallam, ii, 31.

Hallam, ii, 31. The highest officers of state had been held responsible by Parliament for malfeasance in office during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

« PreviousContinue »