GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY DEMANDED. 273 VIII. look into the estate and government, and, finding that CHAP. which is amiss, make this Parliament the reformer of the Commonwealth." 1625. Aug. 5. There was more in Phelips's words than even Effect of distrust of Buckingham's ability or honesty. Both Buck- this speech. ingham and Charles had failed to recognise the importance of the fact that neither the French alliance nor the intervention in Germany had ever received the approbation of the House of Commons. It was enough for them that they judged this policy to be right, and that they promised to themselves great results in the future from it. They would tell the House what they had done, and ask for the means to carry out their designs, but they would not so far demean themselves as to consult it upon the direction which their policy was to take. To this Phelips's somewhat ironical answer was decisive. The responsibility must fall upon those by whom that policy had been originated. The Commons would give no support to a course of action which they were unable to understand. They would confine themselves to those internal affairs which were within the compass of their intelligence, and would content themselves with criticising the administration of the laws, and the financial and political arrangements of the Govern ment. Weston Such a speech was an historical event. If Charles Speeches of could not make up his mind to discuss with the and Coke. Commons the policy which he had adopted with such headlong rashness, it was useless for Weston, who followed, to try to persuade them that success might still be looked for if money enough were voted, or to frighten them with a prospect of dissolution by saying that, if they refused to give, beyond that day there was no place for counsel.' Nor was the speech of Sir Edward Coke much more to the point, as he СНАР. VIII. 1625. Aug. 5. Heath's offers on the part of ment. contented himself with calling attention to the minor causes of the financial embarrassment of the Treasury, without touching upon the question really at issue. The House was all the more attentive when Heath, the Solicitor-General, rose to speak, because he had had the Govern- time to receive instructions from Buckingham since Phelips sat down, and because he was far too able a man, and had too good an acquaintance with the temper of the House, to fail in giving full weight to any concessions which the Government might be disposed to make. He began by placing the engagement of the Parliament of 1624 on its proper footing. The House, he argued, was bound to follow the King unless he propounded anything to which it was impossible to consent. As they were not engaged to everything, let there be no misunderstanding. Let them ask the King against what enemy he was prepared to fight. He was sure that the King was ready to take measures against the Catholics, that they might not be able to do hurt.' It had been said that places were filled by men who wanted experience. He was under great obligations to the person to whom allusion had been made, but if there was anything against him he hoped that it would be examined in such a way as that the public good might not suffer. Let the blame, if blame there was, light upon himself, not upon the Commonwealth. Alford says never pro 6 Heath had done his best to open the way to a better the House understanding. But the speaker who followed him, mised to Edward Alford,1 struck at once at the weak point of Palatinate. the case, the fact that objection was taken not merely recover the to Buckingham's management of the war, but to the dimensions which the war was assuming in his hands. "We are not engaged," he said, "to give for the recovery of the Palatinate. For when it was in the Act 1 Camden Debates, 88, 135. BUCKINGHAM'S HESITATION. of Parliament, as it was first penned, it was struck out by the order of the House, as a thing unfit to engage the House for the recovery of the Palatinate, and if possible, yet not without great charge and difficulty." The full truth was out at last. The House did not mean to support Mansfeld and the King of Denmark, and Buckingham and the King would have to reconcile themselves to the fact. 275 СНАР. 1625. Aug. 5. afternoon. That afternoon Buckingham's agents were busy Discussions amongst the knots of members who were gathering innoon. everywhere to discuss the morning's debate. The greater part had already taken sides, the majority against the Court. Some few alone were accessible to influence. But besides the scenes which were passing in the streets or in the members' lodgings, another scene, it can hardly be doubted, was passing in Buckingham's apartments. There were men who wished him well, whilst they disliked his policy, and who were anxious to induce him to give way to the strength of Parliamentary opinion. What was said we do not know, probably shall never know. But no one who reads with attention the course of the next day's debate can doubt that an effort was being made on the part of his friends to save him from the consequences of his own self-conceit. Suggested tion be Bucking the House. The next morning, after a brisk passage on a pro- Aug. 6. tection accorded by Conway to a Roman Catholic lady reconciliain Dorsetshire, the great debate was resumed. The tween course which it took was altogether different from that g of the preceding day. The 5th had been given up to a conflict between the ministers of the Crown and the men who, in modern political language, would be termed the advanced wing of the opposition. On the 6th all is changed. Phelips, Coke, and Seymour are as silent as Weston, Heath, and Edmondes. It looks СНАР. 1625. Aug. 6. Mildmay's proposal. speech. as if both parties had come to a tacit agreement to allow a body of mediators to declare the terms on which an understanding might yet be effected. Sir Henry Mildmay, who spoke first, was Master of the King's Jewel House, and was on friendly terms with Buckingham. He proposed that the House should ask what sum would be sufficient to complete the equipment of the fleet, and that that sum should be granted, not by way of subsidy, but by some other mode of collection, apparently in order that it might be at once brought into the exchequer. Such a course of raising money, he added, being taken in Parliament, will be a Parliamentary course.1 Mildmay had quietly thrown overboard all the Coryton's King's continental alliances. He was followed by Coryton, Eliot's friend, who was ready to supply the King, if there was a necessity,' but suggested that the state of the King's revenue should be examined, the question of impositions sifted, and a Committee appointed to debate of these things,2 and especially for religion.' Eliot's argument. Eliot followed. It was his last appearance as a mediator. But it is plain that he had already ceased as completely as Phelips and Seymour to feel any confidence in Buckingham. The war, he said, 'extendeth to Denmark, Savoy, Germany, and France.' "If he shall deal truly, he is diffident and distrustful of these things, and we have had no fruit yet but shame and dishonour over all the world. This great preparation is now on the way; he prayeth it may have a prospe 1 This speech is substantially the same in the Journals and in the Camden Debates. But see especially the report in the appendix to the latter, 136. 2 "And everyone may contribute his reasons which may do much good," probably means this. Camden Debates, 139. ATTEMPTED COMPROMISE. rous going forth, and a more prosperous return." He did not believe there was any necessity for more money than had been voted at Westminster, and he could not see why, if the seamen were pressed in April and the landsmen in May, the fleet had not been at sea long ago. That the delay had been caused, in part at least, by Buckingham's project of diverting the enterprise to the coast of Flanders, was of course unknown to Eliot. But though he had spoken thus strongly of the proceedings of the Government, he went on to acquit Buckingham of all personal blame about the fleet. If anything had gone wrong it was the fault of the Commissioners of the Navy. 27.7 CHAP. 1625. Aug. 6. tions. The attack upon the Commissioners called up Sir John Coke, who protested loudly against this imputation upon the office which he held. Strode then followed, supporting1 Mildmay's proposal that the money should be raised in some other way than by subsidy, by asking how subsidies payable more than a year hence could supply a fleet which was to go out in a fortnight. After a few words from Sir John Stradling, Sir Nathaniel Rich's five Rich, who even more than Mildmay represented in proposithe House that section of the Duke's friends which objected to his late proceedings, rose to put Mildmay's proposal in a more definite form. He proceeded to lay down five propositions, which had probably been accepted by Buckingham the evening before. In the first place, he said they must ask the King for an answer to their petition on religion. In the second place, his Majesty must declare the enemy against whom he meant to fight, so that the object of the war might be openly discussed, though the special design 1 This at least seems to me to be the obvious interpretation of Strode's question. Mr. Forster, if I understand him rightly (Sir J. Eliot, i. 226), regards it as an argument against the grant of supply. |