heads and raise them again. After the peace with Spain privateering was no longer a school for seamanship, and piracy passed over to the Dunkirkers and Algerine rovers, while the Dutch bore off much of the fishing and carrying trade.

In default of the subsidies expected from parliament, Charles tried to raise money by forced loans never intended to be repaid. What he could raise was spent upon fitting out an expedition against Cadiz, in the hopes of the spoils of the shipping in the harbour. Though a whole summer had been passed in preparations, it was October before they were ready to sail, and never did a fleet leave an English port in a sorrier condition. Leaky vessels, old sails, rotten cordage newly tarred over, sailors impressed, unpaid, ready to desert, "fed on food that a dog would not eat," the men dying daily, the survivors mutinous. The officers, most of whom had gained their places through bribes or court favour, found the ships rolled too much for their comfort in rough weather and knew not how to handle their vessels in any sea. The fleet sailed with no orderly plan, the ships colliding with one another, or chasing one another in mistake for Spaniards. In such state the armament managed to get to Cadiz after twenty-one days, where, owing to the unprepared state of the enemy, they might have taken the town and shipping had the incapacity of the officers on land not been as deplorable as those on the sea. The wretched fleet straggled ignominiously back in mid-winter to the western ports of England and Ireland, a danger to the country which sent them forth, for infection went and came with the crews.

SAILORS LEFT TO STARVE

15

"It almost seemed," writes Oppenheim,' "as though the naval service was disintegrating, and that such organisation as it had attained was to be broken up, since the shipwrights and labourers at the dockyards were also unpaid, although they did not find it so difficult to obtain credit. Pennington was now almost despairing, and said that, having kept the men together by promises as long as he could, only immediate payment would prevent them deserting en masse, and it would grieve any man's heart to hear their lamentations, to see their wants and nakedness, and not to be able to help them."

"There is a curious resemblance between these words and those used nearly forty years before by Nottingham in describing the condition of the men who had saved England from the Armada, and who were likewise left to starve and die, their work being done. But any comparison is, within certain limits, in favour of Charles and Buckingham. Elizabeth had money, but all through her life held that men were cheaper than gold."

The English people at first threw the blame of this failure upon the Duke of Buckingham, who engrossed most of the high offices of the realm. A new parliament had to be summoned (February 1626). The same members were returned, who at once impeached the favourite, although the king was threatening in his behalf.

Charles now offended the House of Lords, from whom he might have hoped for farther support by refusing a writ to the Earl of Bristol, the adversary of Buckingham, who took his seat in defiance of the 1 Op. cit., p. 225.

prohibition, and by imprisoning the Earl of Arundel for a private offence, without a trial.

He also imprisoned Sir John Eliot for some free speeches which the popular leader had made when on a committee to confer with the peers about the impeachment of the favourite. The Commons demanded the release of Eliot, and the Lords that of Arundel, and the king had to yield.

Hearing that the Commons were preparing a remonstrance against the illegalities of his reign, Charles abruptly dissolved his second parliament. He then tried by threats and compulsion to extract the subsidies which the Commons had promised, but not granted. War was declared against France, and a fleet and army were sent to relieve Rochelle, the last stronghold of the French Protestants. Had this been accomplished it would have gone far to gain the favour of the people; but entrusted to Buckingham, it ended in a disgraceful defeat.

The increasing resistance of the people to the forced loans and monopolies constrained the king to call a third parliament. Notwithstanding the full influence of the court unscrupulously exerted, all these men imprisoned for refusing the loan who presented themselves for election were returned; few royal candidates got in save from pocket boroughs.

On the 17th of March 1628 a parliament assembled more determined than ever in its opposition to the unconstitutional methods of the Stuart king. Charles on his side thought he would help the matter by threatening that he would use other means if they would not do their duty in contributing what the state needed. The Commons, though retaining the usual

THE PETITION OF RIGHTS

17

subservient language, were determined not to yield subsidies without an express admission from the king of the liberties which they claimed and which he had denied. The king declared that they ought to be content with his royal word given in his own terms, to which he might attach his own interpretation. He was willing to confirm the Magna Charta and the old statutes. Pym said that they had his coronation oath, which was surely as good as his word. The Commons drew up the famous Petition of Rights, which in unmistakable terms defined the liberties of parliament and condemned recent infringements. The peers tried to help the king by proposing an amendment, that the bill should be adopted with due regard to leave entire the sovereign power wherewith his majesty was entrusted for the protection, safety, and happiness of the people. The Commons would not hear of this. Alford asked what sovereign power was? Bodin had said that it was a power free from any conditions. Were they to acknowledge a regal as well as a legal power? For his own part he was for giving the king what the law gave him, and no more.

Pym followed: "All our petition is for the laws of England, and this power seems to be another power distinct from the power of the law. I know how to add sovereign to the king's person, but not to his power, for he was never possessed of it." "If we admit of this addition," said Sir Thomas Wentworth, "we shall leave the subject worse than we found him, and we shall have little thanks for our labour when we reach our homes. Let us leave all power to his majesty to punish malefactors. These laws are not acquainted with sovereign power.

We desire no new

B

thing. We do not offer to trench on his majesty's prerogative. From this our petition, we may not recede, either in part or in whole."

Selden gave the authority of his learning to the debate in all the great statutes which he had pored over he found none which had yielded liberties to the subject and saved their operation.

A few days after, Wentworth was gained over by the court and supported the amendment which he had opposed, introduced in another form, a device which was promptly exposed by Sir John Eliot.

answer.

On the 28th May the bill was presented to the king. After five days he returned an unmeaning The Commons, justly suspicious, prepared a general remonstrance, refusing in the meantime to grant any subsidies. The Duke of Buckingham was inveighed against as the evil counsellor of his majesty by those who still shrank from blaming the king directly. After sharp messages and conferences Charles yielded and gave his consent to the Petition of Rights, which the Commons hailed as a solemn acknowledgment of the liberties of the people of England, and it was resolved that the Petition should be printed with the king's formal consent and circulated all over the kingdom. The news of the king's concession was received with joy; but the Commons, not content with getting it defined what the law was, went on to exercise their privileges; they remonstrated against Buckingham, and refused to sanction Charles's claim to the tonnage and poundage which the king regarded as an unalienable right. Finding that his insincere concessions did not improve his position,