The Petition of Right

The Petition of Right

Sir Edward Coke	Sir John Eliot	John Selden	Thomas Wentworth

The Background to the Petition

During February and early March 1628, elections for parliament were held. Charles did not repeat the expedient of naming his opponents as sheriffs, and the enthusiasm with which men who had refused the Forced Loan were elected boded badly for the Crown.

Parliament assembled 17 March. Although its leaders agreed not to repeat the attack on Buckingham, they were determined to obtain redress of their many grievances.

"Upon this dispute not alone our lands and goods are engaged, but all that we call ours. These rights, these privileges, which made our fathers freemen, are in question."

(Sir John Eliot, March 1628)

The House of Commons began to consider voting taxation, but dropped this topic and began complaining about the Forced Loan and the treatment of its refusers.

The billeting of troops was also roundly condemned.

	One leader of the opposition to Charles was Sir John Eliot - long-time enemy of Buckingham. He was joined by Sir Thomas Wentworth, a local rival of the Buckingham faction in Yorkshire. Prevented from sitting in the 1626 Parliament by selection as a sheriff, Wentworth made up for lost time in the Parliament of 1628 by his fierce attacks on Charles I's advisors and recent policies.
	Two important legal theorists - Sir Edward Coke and John Selden - played an important role in confirming in MPs' minds the illegality of Charles' strategies for government.

The Petition

A Committee of the House entirely denied the crown's emergency power to imprison without cause. Another resolution outlawed all extra-parliamentary taxation.

The House of Commons summarized its objections in a petition that denounced the Forced Loan, imprisonment without cause shown and martial law. The restrictions on martial law aroused complaints from Civil Lawyers and those concerned about the need to raise and discipline soldiers. However, most of the clauses passed without dissent.

The Petition of Right - as it was called to emphasize that its provisions were rights that already existed, not new enactments - was sent by the Commons to the Lords in early May 1628.

Many in the House of Lords - both bishops and lay peers - immediately expressed their doubts about the Petition's denial of all discretionary power of imprisonment to the king. They suggested inserting a clause to "leave entire that sovereign power" needed by the king to defend the state.

The Commons promptly rejected this saving clause as effectively undermining the essence of the Petition. "We cannot admit of these words with safety. They are applicable to all the parts of our petition", stated John Pym.

At the suggestion of the Earl of Arundel, the House of Lords backed down. In place of the clause saving the royal sovereignty, the Lords inserted a vague statement that no prejudice to the king's prerogative was intended.

The Petition was adopted by the Lords (28 May 1628) and presented to Charles. On 2 June, Charles tried to palm off the Commons with an ambiguous expression of good intentions, but the House simply blamed the rejection of the Petition on Buckingham, and renewed their attack on him.

"I think the Duke of Buckingham is the cause of all our miseries, and till the King be informed thereof, we shall never go out with honor, or sit with honor here. That man is the grievance of grievances. Let us set down the causes of all our disasters and they will all reflect upon him."

(Sir Edward Coke, 5 June 1628)

On 7 June, Charles suddenly consented to the Petition of Right. It seemed like a complete surrender, but Charles - even as he confirmed the Petition - expressed the view that the Commons "neither mean nor can hurt my prerogative". Charles believed that his power was from God and could not be restricted by mere humans. His consultations with the Judges gave him good reason to believe that they would still endorse discretionary measures. He therefore agreed in words to the Petition, but had no more intention than earlier of abiding by law as the Commons' saw it.

"... on Saturday last the King gave a full and satisfactory answer to our petition concerning the liberty of the subject and propriety, and exemption of his person and estate from any illegal courses; which caused such expression of joy in general, as, where tongue left, bells and bonfires began; and the proceeding with the subsidies, which were till then at a stand, followed the next day in Parliament, and are ready to be passed entirely within two or three days."

(Thomas Meautys to Lady Jane Corwallis, 12 June)

After the Petition

	Despite the general jubilation at the Petition's acceptance, the House of Commons continued its attacks on Charles adherents. In particular, the Commons began the impeachment of Roger Maynwaring for his sermons in support of the Forced Loan.
	The impeachment - confirmed by the Lords - fined Maynwaring, barred him from all offices clerical and secular, forbad him to preach and fined him £1,000.
	On 16 June, the Commons at last voted the taxation for which Charles was so desperate. However, they still refused to grant Charles tonnage and poundage for life, and to complain that the collection of these dues without parliamentary sanction was illegal.
	Charles - still insisting on his ancient customary right to levy tonnage and poundage - finally ended the session on 26 June.