Part 9

To what a miserable state the queen was reduced may be seen in the following extract from De Retz’s Memoirs, (vol. 1. p. 261.) “Four or five days before the king removed from Paris, I went to visit the queen of England, whom I found in her daughter’s chamber, who hath been since Duchess of Orleans. At my coming in she said, ‘You see I am come to keep Henrietta company. The poor child could not rise to-day for want of a fire.’ The truth is, that the cardinal for six months together had not ordered her any money towards her pension; that no trades-people would trust her for any thing; and that there was not at her lodgings in the Louvre one single billet. You will do me the justice to suppose that the princess of England did not keep her bed the next day for want of a faggot; but it was not this which the Princess of Conde meant in her letter. What she spoke about was, that some days after my visiting the queen of England, I remembered the condition I had found her in, and had strongly represented the shame of abandoning her in that manner, which caused the Parliament to send 40,000 livres to her Majesty. Posterity will hardly believe that a Princess of England, grand-daughter of Henry the Great, hath wanted a faggot in the month of January, to get out of bed in the Louvre, and in the eyes of a French court. We read in histories, with horror, of baseness less monstrous than this; and the little concern I have met with about it in most people’s minds, has obliged me to make, I believe, a thousand times this reflection—that examples of times past move men beyond comparison more than those of their own times. We accustom ourselves to what we see; and I have sometimes told you, that I doubted whether Caligula’s horse being made a consul would have surprized us so much as we imagine.”

As for the relative situations of the king (Charles II.) and Lord Jermyn, (afterwards St. Alban’s) Lord Clarendon (Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. 3. p. 2) says that the “Marquis of Ormond was compelled to put himself in prison, with other gentlemen, at a pistole a week for his diet, and to walk the streets a-foot, which was no honourable custom in Paris, whilst the Lord Jermyn kept an excellent table for those who courted him, and had a coach of his own, and all other accommodations incident to the most full fortune; and if the king had the most urgent occasion for the use but of twenty pistoles, as sometimes he had, he could not find credit to borrow it, which he often had experiment of.”

The Lord St. Alban’s above mentioned was Henry Jermyn, second son of Thomas Jermyn, of Rushbrooke, near Bury St. Edmund’s, in Suffolk. In 1644 he was created Lord Jermyn, with limitation of the honour to the heirs male of his elder brother Thomas. In 1660 he was further advanced to the dignity of Earl of St. Alban’s, and Baron of St. Edmund’s Bury, but on his death in 1683, the earldom became extinct. The barony of Jermyn devolved on Thomas (son of his elder brother Thomas) who became second Lord Jermyn: he died unmarried in 1703.—Lord St. Alban’s was master of the horse to Queen Henrietta Maria, and one of the privy council to Charles the second. In July 1660 he was sent ambassador to the court of France, and in 1671 was made Lord Chamberlain of his majesty’s household.—“He was a man of no great genius,” says Grammont, “he raised himself a considerable fortune from nothing, and by losing at play, and keeping a great table, made it appear greater than it was.” “It is well known what a table the good man kept at Paris, while the king his master was starving at Brussels, and the queen dowager his mistress, lived not over well in France.”

This earl lived in London at _Jermyn house_, which stood at the head of St. Alban’s-street, Pallmall, which street and Jermyn-street had their names from him.

LAST MOMENTS OF PHILIP MELANCTHON.[34]

The nineteenth of April, 1560, was the last day of the mortal existence of this great reformer and pious christian. After the usual medical inquiries of the morning, he adverted to the calamitous state of the church of Christ, but intimated his hope that the genuine doctrine of the gospel would ultimately prevail, exclaiming, “If GOD be for us who can be against us.” After this he presented fervent supplications to heaven for the welfare of the church, and in the intervals of sleep conversed principally upon this subject with several of his visiting friends.

Soon after eight in the morning awaking from a tranquil sleep, he distinctly, though with a feeble voice, repeated a form of prayer which he had written for his own daily use. An interval of repose having elapsed after repeating this prayer, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and turning to his son-in-law, he said, “I have been in the power of death, but the LORD has graciously delivered me.” This was supposed to refer to some deep conflicts of mind, as he repeated the expression to others. When one of the persons who visited him said, “There is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,” he soon added, “Christ is made to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.” “Let him that glorieth glory in the LORD.”

The coldness of death was now creeping over him, but his mental faculties continued unimpaired to the very last breath of mortal existence. Having expressed a wish to hear some passages from the Old and New Testaments, his ministerial attendants read the 24th, 25th and 26th Psalms: the 53d chapter of Isaiah; the 7th chapter of John, the 5th of the Romans, and many other passages. The saying of John respecting the son of God, he said was perpetually in his mind, “the world knew him not ... but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of GOD, even to them that believe on his name.”

Upon being asked by his son-in-law if he would have any thing else, he replied in these emphatic Words, “NOTHING ELSE—BUT HEAVEN!” and requested that he might not be any further interrupted. Soon afterwards he made a similar request, begging those around him, who were endeavouring with officious kindness to adjust his clothes, “not to disturb his delightful repose.” After some time his friends united with the Minister present in solemn prayer, and several passages of scripture, in which he was known always to have expressed peculiar pleasure were read, such as “Let not your heart be troubled, ye believe in GOD, believe also in me.”—“In my Father’s house are many mansions.”—“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;” particularly the fifth chapter of Romans, and the triumphant close of the eighth chapter, commencing “If GOD be for us, who can be against us?” Many other parts of scripture were recited, and the last word he uttered was the German particle of affirmation, _Ia_, in reply to one of his friends, who had inquired if he understood him while reading. The last motion which his friends who surrounded him to the number of at least twenty, could discern, was a slight motion of the countenance which was peculiar to him when deeply affected with religious joy!—“Mark the perfect man and behold the upright, for the end of that man is peace!”

At length, “in the midst of solemn vows and supplications,” at a quarter before seven, in the evening, at the age of sixty-three, he gently breathed his last. No distractions of mind, no foreboding terrors of conscience agitated this attractive scene. His chamber was “privileged beyond the common walks of virtuous life—quite in the verge of heaven”—and he expired, like a wave scarcely undulating to the evening zephyr of an unclouded summer sky. It was a “DEPARTURE”—a “SLEEP”—“the earthly house of this tabernacle was dissolved.”

Footnote 34:

Melancthon was born at Brette, a village of the Palatinate, on the 16th of February, 1497. In his childhood he made an astonishing progress in the acquisition of languages. Luther, and his doctrines, appeared about this time, and Melancthon stood forward as one of their most strenuous supporters; indeed the Lutheran system was in a great measure planned by him, and the famous instrument by which it was publicly declared, called the Confession of Augsburg, was the production of his pen. Melancthon was the intimate friend of Erasmus, and Erasmus the patron of Holbein. This connection will account for his appearance in a Collection of Portraits, drawn by Holbein, of the principal personages in the Court of Henry the Eighth, though Melancthon never was in this country. An engraving of him is among the Holbein Heads, published by Mr. Chamberlaine, and there is a full-length portrait of this great Reformer, with a fac-simile of his writing, in his Life, published by the Rev. F. A. Cox, London, 1815, 8vo.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

A considerable number of treatises were written in the middle and latter end of the seventeenth century, and a few in the beginning of the eighteenth, respecting the period at which the House of Commons asserted that independence which it is so material to the security and happiness of the country it should possess, and obtained that share in the legislature it now enjoys; but the writers on both sides,[35] eager in the maintenance of the cause they espoused, and taking advantage of the scanty means the public had of knowing what was contained in the early Rolls of Parliament[36] and other ancient records, suppressed from partiality and interested zeal, much of the information themselves possessed, which rendered of little use to the public an inquiry that might otherwise have been attended with considerable advantage.

It might be supposed indeed, that when men so remarkable for diligence and learning, as Prynne and Petyt, (who were both keepers of the records in the Tower, among which are most of the Rolls of Parliament, and all the Claus Rolls) took opposite sides of the controversy, about the time when the Commons first formed a part of the legislature, whatever could have made for or against either side of the question would have been produced. And yet with all their opportunities and their eagerness for research, those who have attentively looked through the Rolls of Parliament, will find amongst them much matter of importance respecting the questions those writers discussed at different periods, to which neither of them referred, either in support of his own, or in contradiction to his opponent’s argument. Rymer was equally zealous in supporting the side he took, in the beginning of the last century. Any thing therefore having been brought to light by the publication of the Rolls of Parliament, which appears to have escaped the industry and research of such men, is a strong proof of the utility of printing those valuable documents.

As early as the 46th of Edward the third, a statute was made, ordaining that all persons should be entitled to search for, and have exemplifications of records, as well such as proved contrary to the interest of the king, as such as were favourable to it.

Great and eminent men, however, not more distinguished by their high stations, than for their talents and research, stated opinions, some on points of magnitude, in the pursuit of mere legal investigations, different from those which are probably entertained by such as have carefully perused the Parliamentary Records, which were printed during the reign of his late Majesty.

In corroboration of this assertion, it may be sufficient to mention two opinions of Lord Coke’s.

The first that the Lords and Commons sat together late in the reign of king Edward the third[37] and until the Commons had a perpetual Speaker. The direct contrary of this opinion it is thought is evident from the Rolls of Parliament. It does not appear from any Records that the two Houses ever sat for deliberation in the same assembly, from the time the Commons were regularly summoned in their representative capacity to Parliament.

On the contrary, so early as the 18th of Edward the first,[38] (Rolls of Par. vol. 1. p. 25, a. the earliest Roll extant) there is a Grant[39] to the king for the marriage of his eldest daughter, by several Peers named, “et cæteri Magnates et Proceres tunc in Parliamento existentes, pro se et Communitate totius Regni Angliæ quantum in ipsis est;” that is, “and other Lords and Nobles for themselves and the Community of the whole kingdom of England, as much as they were able.” In the 19th of Edward the second (p. 351. a.) there is a grant to the king for carrying on the war with Scotland, by the Citizens, Burgesses, and Knights for counties, of a fifteenth of the moveables of the Citizens, Burgesses, and men of the counties, cities, and towns.

In the 14th of Edward the second (p. 371.) complaint was made by the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses of felonies for which they besought a remedy: and the Record concludes “Et Concordatum est per Dominum Regem de Consilio Prelatorum, Comitum, Baronum, et aliorum Peritorum, in dicto Parliamento existentium quod,” &c. that is, “and it was agreed between our Lord the king and the council of Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other great men in the said Parliament assembled, &c.”

The Entries in the sixth of Edward the third, 1331, (to the Parliament Rolls of which year Lord Coke particularly refers for proof of the Lords and Commons then sitting together) which appear to bear on the point in question, are in vol. ii. p. 66. At the first meeting at Westminster, the Prelates by themselves, and the Knights for counties by themselves, deliberated on the business opened to them at the beginning of the Parliament, and answered by advising the king not to go in person to Ireland to quell the rebellion there. And in the third meeting in that year at York, when a statement was made by Geoffrey le Scroop, in the presence of the king, and “de touz les Grantz en plein Parlement,” of all the Lords in full Parliament; and afterwards it was agreed by the king and the whole in full Parliament, that certain Bishops and Peers named, should meet on the business in discussion by themselves, the other Prelates, Earls and Barons, and the Proxies by themselves; and the Knights of the shire and Commons by themselves. The business was discussed accordingly during some days; after which the Commons had leave to return to their counties, and the Prelates, Earls, and Barons, were to remain till the day following.

In the 13th of Edward the third (vol. 2. p. 104.) a grant was made to the king, “par les Grantz,” of a tenth of the grain of their demesne lands, and of their fleeces, with certain reservations. The Commons, however, after representing their having heard the statement of the king’s necessities, the extent of which they were aware of, and were willing to relieve as they had always done; said, that as the aid must be a great one they dared not assent to it without consulting with “les Communes de leur Pais,” the Commons of their counties. And they desired another Parliament to be summoned. At which subsequent meeting, in the same year, (p. 107. b.) the occasion of summoning the Parliament was explained to the Commons, on which they said they would deliberate. They afterwards proposed to grant 30,000 sacks of wool on certain conditions, which if not agreed to by the king, the aid was to be withheld. The Earls and Barons the same day granted for themselves and the Peers of the land who held by Barony, the tenth sheaf, the tenth fleece, and the tenth lamb.

In the 14th of Edward the third, (p. 112, a.) grants were made by the Prelates, Earls, and Barons, for themselves and all their tenants, and by the Knights of shires for themselves, and for the commons of the land, of the ninth sheaf, the ninth fleece, and the ninth lamb; and by the Citizens and Burgesses of a real ninth of their property; and merchants not inhabiting cities and towns, and other people who reside in forests and wastes, and who do not live by their gains or their flocks, a fifteenth of all their property according to the true value.

In the 15th of Edward the third (p. 127, a.) on occasion of a Grant made to the king in a former Parliament, to enable him to purchase friends and allies for the recovery of his rights, having not been as available as it ought to have been, it was proposed that consideration should be had, “par touz les Grantz et Communes,” “by all the Lords and Commons,” how the grant should be made most profitable to the king, and least burthensome to the people, “les Grantz de par eux, et les Chivalers des Counteez, Citeyens, et Burgeys de par eux,” that is, “the Lords by themselves, and the Knights for counties, Citizens and Burgesses by themselves.”

In the 17th of Edward the third, (p. 136, a.) “les ditz Prelatz et Grantz assemblez en la Chambre Blanche (the court of requests) responderent,” &c. (p. 136, 6.) “Et pour vindrent les Chivalers des Counteez et les Communes et responderent par Monsieur William Trussell en la dite Chambre Blanche qi’ en Presence de nostre Signeur le Roi et les ditz Prelates,” &c. that is, “on which day the said Prelates and Lords assembled in the _Chambre Blanche_, answered,” &c. “And then came the Knights for counties, and the Commons, and answered by Monsieur William Trussell in the said _Chambre Blanche_, and in the presence of our Lord the king, and the said Prelates,” &c.

There can be little doubt but that this William Trussell was Speaker of the House of Commons. He is styled by Higden, who wrote in the reign of Edward the third, in his “Polychronicon,” “Procurator of the Parliament,” when he, in the name of all the men in the land of England, renounced allegiance to king Edward the second, in the last year of that king’s reign.

The Speaker of the Commons was indeed styled “Parlour and Procurator,” so late as the first of Henry the fourth. (Rolls of Parl. vol. 3. p. 424, b.)

In the 18th of Edward the third, when the king was going-to France for the recovery of his rights, the grants by the Lords and Commons were quite distinct; the former to accompany him in the war, “les ditz grantz granterent de passer et lour aventurer ovesque lui;” the Commons granted, for the same cause, two fifteenths of the commonalty, and two tenths of the cities and boroughs. (Rolls of Parl. vol. 2. p. 150, b.)

There are other grants in this reign by the Commons; 20th of Edward the third, (p. 159, b.) and 21st of Edward the third, (p. 166.) In the 22d of Edward the third, (p. 200.) the Commons grant an aid, after several days consideration, but under certain conditions. In the 29th of Edward the third, (p. 265, b.) there is a separate grant by the Commons.

In the 40th of Edward the third, after the occasion of summoning the Parliament had been explained, the Lords and Commons were directed to depart, and to meet again on the day following, the Lords “en la Chambre Blanche,” and the Commons in the painted Chamber. (Vol. 2. p. 289.)

In the 42d of Edward the third (p. 227, a.) a Petition of the Commons, and the answers thereto, were read in the Court of Requests, in the presence of the King, Lords, and Commons; and a statement was made to the king in this Parliament “par les Grantz et Communes,” by the Lords and Commons, all the former and many of the latter having dined with the king; after which John de la Lee was put on his defence before them in the said place.

In the 50th of Edward the third, (p. 283.) the Commons profess the utmost loyalty and goodwill to the king; but add, that if he had faithful ministers about him, he must be rich enough to do without subsidies, especially considering the sums of money brought into the kingdom by the ransoms of the king of France, the king of Scotland, &c. They then proceed to the impeachment of a considerable number of persons.

And in the 51st of Edward the third, (p. 363.) on the opening of the Parliament, the Commons were directed by the king to retire to their ancient place of meeting, in the Chapter House of the abbey of Westminster. To this record Lord Coke himself refers.

It will be seen in the note p. 146, that Sir Thomas Hungerford is mentioned as Speaker of the House of Commons; and in the first of Richard the second, that Peter de la Mare was Speaker of the Commons.

The second opinion of Lord Coke’s to which allusion has already been made, is, that if an act mentions only that the king enacts, and the Lords assent, without naming the Commons, the omission cannot be supplied by any intendment. Lord Coke expressly says, if an act be penned, that “the king with the assent of the Lords,” or “with the assent of the Commons,” it is no act of Parliament, for three ought to assent to it, the King, the Lords, and the Commons; or otherwise it is not an act of Parliament; and by the record of the act it is expressed which of them gave their assent; and that excludes all other intendments that any other gave their assent. (Lord Coke, 8th Report, p. 20, b.)

How dangerous it would be to decide on the validity of our statutes, on such ground, will be seen by a single instance.

The act of the first of Edward the sixth against exporting horses without a licence, after the recital in the preamble, runs thus; “For remedy whereof, be it therefore enacted by our sovereign lord the king, and by the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same,”—the Lords being not once mentioned in the statute, which is accurately printed from the original act.

Now it appears by the Lords’ Journals, (vol. 1. p. 303, a,) that this act had not only the assent of the House of Lords, but that it had its origin in that House, where it passed unanimously, (p. 306, a.) was returned from the Commons with a proviso, which was agreed to by the Lords, (p. 312, a.) and is in the Journals among the acts passed that session. (p. 313, a.)

There has not been found in the Records, the slightest foundation for an opinion, that there was any election of representatives of the Commons earlier than the 49th of Henry the third, 1265, except in the entry respecting the borough of St. Alban’s, so often referred to by different writers. It is, however, certain that those who held _in capite_ of the king, were a necessary part of the great council, as early as king John’s time, when aids and escuage were to be granted to the sovereign.

In the 52d of Henry the third, 1268, a parliament, or more properly a great council, of Barons only, was held at Marlborough, where the great charter was confirmed. The members of this parliament or council were such of the great Barons and Tenants _in capite_, as the king pleased to summon thereto.

King Edward the first, at Easter, 1276, held a parliament at Westminster, of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and _Commons_, wherein many excellent laws were made, called the Statutes of Westminster the first. It is proper to mention that the _Commons_ here spoken of, were not Knights of shires, or Burgesses, but the smaller Tenants who held in chief of the king, or Tenants _in capite_.

It is generally said by our Historians, that the first time that any Citizens, or Burgesses were summoned to parliament by the king’s authority, was in the 23d year of king Edward the first, 1294, but the editors of the Parliamentary History (vol. 1. p. 87,) have shewn that the same king, in the eleventh year of his reign, 1283, called a parliament to be holden at Shrewsbury, on occasion of taking prisoner, David, brother of Llewellyn, prince of Wales, the latter having lately been killed in battle.

The king in summoning this Parliament was more explicit than he had ever been before. The writs of summons are still extant. The first is directed to the Barons to meet the king at Shrewsbury, on the 30th of September. The second writ is directed to the sheriffs of every county in England, to cause to be chosen two Knights for the commonalty of the county, as also a third directed to the several cities and boroughs mentioned, and a fourth writ to the Judges.