The origins of the petition of right reconsidered

The Historical Journal

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 1982, Pages 289-312

  Guy, J A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84972477407     PISSN: 0018246X     EISSN: 14695103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0018246X82000017     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. I am most grateful to Miss Sheila Lambert, Professor G. R. Elton, Professor Conrad Russell and Mr Peter Salt for most valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.
2. For discussion of the issues raised in 1628 see especially S. R. Gardiner, History of England from the accession of James I to the outbreak of the civil war, 1603-1642 (London, 1886), vi, 213-326; F. H. Relf, The petition of right (Minneapolis, 1917); M. A. Judson, The crisis of the constitution, 1603-1645 (New Brunswick, 1949), pp. 240-69; M. F. S. Hervey, The life, correspondence and collections of Thomas Howard, earl of Arundel (Cambridge, 1921), pp. 260-4, 279-80; I. H. C. Fraser, ‘Sir Robert Heath’ (University of Bristol M. Litt. thesis, 1954), pp. 93-127; E. R. Adair, ‘The petition of right’, History, v (1921), 99-103; S. Reed Brett, John Pym (London, 1940), pp. 89-102; H. Hulme, The life of Sir John Eliot, 1592-1632 (London, 1957), pp. 184-229; see also his article, ‘Opinion in the house of commons on the proposal for a petition of right, 6 May 1628’, English Historical Review, l (1935), 302-6; C.V. Wedgwood, Thomas Wentworth, first earl of Strafford, 1593-1641 (London, 1961), pp. 61-71; W.J. Jones, Politics and the bench (London, 1971), pp. 70-5; C. Thompson, ‘The origins of the politics of the parliamentary middle group, 1625-1629’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, xxii (1972), 71-86; E. R. Foster, ‘The painful labour of Mr Elsyng’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, new series, lxii, part 8 (1972), 27-35; see also her article, ‘Petitions and the petition of right’, Journal of British Studies, xiv (1974), 21-45; J.H. Hexter, ‘Power struggle, parliament and liberty in early Stuart England’, Journal of Modem History, l (1978), 1-50; S. D. White, Sir Edward Coke and the grievances of the commonwealth, 1621-1628 (Chapel Hill, 1979), pp. 213-76; C. S. R. Russell, Parliaments and English politics, 1621-1629 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 323-89; see also his articles, ‘Parliamentary history in perspective, 1604-1629’, History, lxi (1976), 1-27, and ‘The parliamentary career of John Pym, 1621-9’ in The English commonwealth, 1547-1640 (ed. P. Clark et al.; Leicester, 1979), pp. 147-65; D. Hirst, ‘Parliament, law and war in the 1620s’, Historical Journal, xxm, 2 (1980), 455-61. Faction and parliament (ed. K. Sharpe; Oxford, 1978) contains three essays bearing on 1628: D. Hirst, ‘Court, country and politics before 1629'; J. N. Ball, ‘Sir John Eliot and parliament, 1624-1629'; and K. Sharpe, ‘The earl of Arundel, his circle and the opposition to the duke of Buckingham, 1618-1628’.
3. Most writers rely on Relf, Petition of right, pp. 1-19.
4. J. H. Hexter. see G. R. Elton, Studies in Tudor and Stuart politics and government (Cambridge, 1974), 2, 3-18.
5. M. F. Bond, Guide to the records of parliament (London, 1971); 1509-1953’, E.H.R. Lxxiii (1968), 78-85; S. Lambert, 1600-1640’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xliii (1970), 215-31; xcv (1980), 753-81. For 1628, Commons debates 1628 (ed. R. C. Johnson, M. F. Keeler et al.; New Haven, 1977-Q; hereafter cited as CD 1628).
6. The official sources upon which this paper is based are (1) Public Record Office, King's Bench records: KB 21/9 (rule book, unfoliated); KB 145/15/3 (Recorda files, Michaelmas and Hilary terms 1627-8); KB 29/276 (controlment roll); KB 27/1558-61 (coram rege rolls, Rex side). All references to MSS in this paper are to documents in the P.R.O., unless otherwise stated. (2) Journals at the House of Lords Record Office: Journals of the house of lords (London, 1864-), iii; Journal of the house of commons for 1628 (MS 18), printed in CD 1628. (3) ‘Scribbled books’ and draft journals of the house of lords in 1628 at H.L.R.O. and elsewhere (see below). The’ scribbled books’ were the original central record of proceedings in the house of lords, written at the table during sittings of the house. The draft journals represented the intermediate stage which existed in the seventeenth century between the ‘scribbled books’ and the final Journals. Despite the inclination of historians to neglect these records in favour of the printed Journals, both sources contain much invaluable information not preserved in the Journals, e.g. membership of committees, reports of proceedings at conferences between the houses, and (for 1621-8) summaries of actual speeches; they also express more accurately than the Journals the precise order and format in which business was taken. In this paper, the ‘scribbled books’ and draft journals are preferred to the printed Journals. Four ‘scribbled books’ are extant for 1628: H.L.R.O., Minutes of Proceedings in the House of Lords (‘Manuscript Minutes’), vol. 5 covers the period 17 March-20 Oct. (hereafter cited as MM, vol. 5); British Library, Additional MS 40091 covers 17 March-26 June; Inner Temple, Petyt MS 538-7 covers 17 March-30 April; Bodleian Library, Rawlinson MS A. 106 covers 1-31 May. These MSS have been haphazardly edited by F. H. Relf, Notes of the debates in the house of lords (Camden Society; 3rd series; 1929). She chose as her main texts the Petyt and Rawlinson MSS; in footnotes were added extracts from MM, vol. 5 (cited by Relf as ‘B’), and B.L., Add. MS 40091 (cited by Relf as ‘A’). The main texts are good enough to be used here from Relf's edition, provided it is realized that there are substantial lacunae; the footnotes from MM, vol. 5 and B.L., Add. MS 40091 are a fraction of those important sources, and MM, vol. 5 (which throws valuable light on the origins of the petition) is used here from the original MS. I am most grateful to Mr D. S. Mansfield for the loan of four microfilms. Two draft journals are extant for the house of lords in 1628: H.L.R.O., Braye MS 14 covers the period 17 March-30 April; H.L.R.O., Braye MS 15 covers 1 May-26 June.
7. A complete collection of state trials (ed. T. B. Howell), iii, 59.
8. See above n. 5 for KB references. 8 KB 21/9 (Mich., 3 Car. I). 9.
9. Acts of the prim council of England, 1627-8 (London, 1940), p. 131.; see H. R. Trevor-Roper, Archbishop Laud, 1573-1645 (2nd edn; London, 1962), p. 80.
10. KB 21/9 (Mich., 3 Car. 1).
11. KB 145/15/3 (Hilary, 3 Car. I); KB 21/9 (Mich., 3 Car. I).
12. SP 16/85/53 (full report of the five knights’ case in Heath's hand).
13. KB 21/9 (Mich., 3 Car. I). The rule book also establishes that the date of the decision was 27 November 1627 (dies Martis proxime post quindenam Sancti Martini). The chronology of the case given in State trials is typically inaccurate. (See the interpretations in parliament in 1628 of Solicitor-general Shelton and the King's Bench judges, CD 1628, 11, 155, 159, 162; Relf, Notes of debates, pp. 100, 105, 112.) But such advice could only ‘ (CD 1628, 11, 174, 180). (Relf, Notes of debates, pp. 100, 102, 107; see also below, pp. 300-1.
14. KB 145/10/19.
15. The reports of Sir John Spelman (ed. J. H. Baker; 2 vols., London, 1977-9), 1 183-4. Unfortunately, it is not clear from Spelman's report whether the cause in question had to be specific, or whether it could be general (i. e. per speciale mandatum domini regis).
16. CD 1628, 1, 106. Some M.P.s (11, 229, 233). 1603-1642, vi, 244-5). (see also Gardiner, History of England
17. The judges’ dependence on their legal ‘knowledge’ was emphasized by Justice Whitlocke when speaking to the house of lords on 14 April 1628: Relf,.Notes of debates, p. 100.
18. See below, pp. 296-7.
19. KB 145/15/3 (Hilary, 3 Car. I). For a description of the King's Bench files see C. A. F. Meekings, ‘King's bench files’, in Legal records and the historian (ed. J. H. Baker; London, 1978), pp. 97-139. 22 KB 29/276, ro. 80.
20. Justice Doddridge later explained that there was some clerical laxity in this matter (Relf, Notes of debates, p. 107). The rules representing the adjournments of Darnel's case (13 Nov. 1627) and those of the other four knights on 22 Nov. 1627 were remittitur (KB 21/9 [Mich., 3 Car. I]).
21. Relf, Notes of debates, p. 101. John Selden was not correct when he told the commons on 28 March 1628 that remittitur quousque, etc. was substantively different from remittitur in King's Bench practice (CD 1628, 11, 174, 180, 183); what he meant was that remittitur quousque, etc. in the five knights’ case was in practical terms final, because the knights would not obtain release from gaol without the consent of the Crown (see above, n. 15).
22. CD 1628, ii, 146-52.
23. CD 1628, ii, 173-4, 176, 180-1.
24. CD 1628, ii, 211-12
25. CD 1628, 11, 229.
26. CD 1628, 11, 212. 30 CD 1628, 11, 213, 218, 221.
27. CD 1628, 11, 219 (my italics).
28. To wilfully raze, remove, avoid, vacate or constructively pervert the legal records of the superior courts was a felony by 8 Henry VI, c. 12.
29. CD 1628, 11, 213, 232.
30. CD 1628, 11, 213, 219, 229, 230.
31. CD 1628, 11, 229-41.
32. CD 1628, 1, 106; 11, 229-30, 232-3, 235-6. See also above, n. 18.
33. CD 1628, 11, 231, 238-9, 276.
34. CD 1628, 11, 231, 276.
35. CD 1628, 1, 106, 128, 133
36. See below, p. 306.
37. Selden's claim that the resolutions were ‘resolutions of law, and no man can make question of them’ (26 April 1628) was tendentious; CD 1628, ra, 96. I am grateful to Professor Elton for advice on this point.
38. CD 1628, 11, 277, 296. 43 CD 1628, 11, 332-42, 356-8.
39. CD 1628, 11, 342-56. 45 CD 1628, 11, 297, 302-3.
40. On the background to parliamentary judicature in early Stuart England, see L. O. Pike, A constitutional history of the house of lords (London, 1894), pp. 279-304. C. G. C. Tite's analysis of Impeachment and parliamentary judicature in early Stuart England (London, 1974) is somewhat undermined by his failure to notice that the tract Of the judicature in parliaments, published as Selden's work in 1681, was in fact written by Henry Elsyng senior (see Foster, ‘The painful labour of Mr Elsyng’, pp. 42-6).
41. MM, vol. 5, fo. 27v. 48 MM, vol. 5, fo. 32v.
42. MM, vol. 5, fo. 32v.
43. MM, vol. 5, fo. 33v.
44. MM, vol. 5, fo. 33v.
45. MM, vol. 5, fo. 34; Relf, Notes of debates, pp. 99-100. Buckingham's argument was, in any case, bad, because the five knights had not committed a crime. 53 MM, vol. 5, fo. 32.
46. Relf, Notes of debates, p. 93.
47. MM, vol. 5, fos. 33-8; Relf, Notes of debates, pp. 100-1, 104-7, 111-12. For the exact technical status of the rule of 27 November 1627, see above, n. 15.
48. MM, vol. 5, fos. 34-8; Braye MS 14, fos. 69v-72; Relf, Notes of debates, pp. 100-2, 104-9.
49. See above, p. 203 and n. 15; Relf, Notes of debates, p. 100.
50. MM, vol. 5, fos. 38-9v.
51. MM, vol. 5, fos. 39v-46v; CD 1628, 11, 490-503, 524-38.
52. Journals of the house of lords, in, 746-7, 753-63; CD 1628, 11, 527-33; MM, vol. 5, fos. 44v-8.
53. Braye MS 14, fo. 902v.
54. Relf, Notes of debates, p. 124.
55. Relf, Notes of debates, p. 130.
56. MM, vol. 5, fo. 51.
57. MM, vol. 5, fo. 51v.
58. MM, vol. 5, fo. 52; Relf, Notes of debates, pp. 131-4.
59. MM, vol. 5, fo. 52v. 68 MM, vol. 5, fo. 53v. 69 MM, vol. 5, fo. 54.
60. MM, vol. 5, fo. 54v; Braye MS 14, fo. 96. 71 CD 1628, III, 60-2.
61. MM, vol. 5, fos. 54v-6v; Braye MS 14, fos. 98v-100.
62. Braye MS 14, fos. 100-1; CD 1628, iii, 74-5. 74 CD 1628, iii, 94-119.
63. CD 1628, iii, 94-6. Cf. Russell, Parliaments and English politics, pp. 353-4.
64. CD 1628, iii, 97. 77 CD 1628, iii, 125.
65. The bishop of Exeter, Joseph Hall, sent a letter to the commons on 28 April in which he exhorted them to accept Charles's word alone. H.L.R.O., Braye MS 89, fo. 91; CD 1628, iii, 125 n. 26. 79 CD 1628, hi, 128. 80 CD 1628, 11, 297; see above, p. 299.
66. CD 1628, III, 123-4, 149; Relf, Petition of right, appendix B.
67. CD 1628, III, 149-68, 172-3, 175-82, 187-8. 83 CD 1628, III, 172.
68. CD 1628, III, 173. 85 CD 1628, III, 188. 84 CD 1628, III, 188-9.
69. CD 1628, III, 191-2.
70. CD 1628, III, 210-12, 215-16, 219-21, 224, 225, 227-8, 229, 234-5, 237, 239, 240-1, 247, 248-9. 253-4, 271-3.
71. CD 1628, 11, 65; iii, 201, 203. See also Hirst, ‘Parliament, law and war in the 1620s’, p. 460.
72. CD 1628, III, 189. 91 CD 1628, III, 211.
73. CD 1628, III, 212-13. 93 CD 1628, iii, 253-4.
74. CD 1628, III, 254. 95 CD 1628, III, 254. 96 CD 1628, III, 269.
75. CD 1628, III, 269-70, 275-6, 280-1. 98 CD 1628, III, 269-70, 275.
76. CD 1628, III, 270.
77. CD 1628, iii, 270, 275, 276. 101 CD 1628, iii, 270-2.
78. CD 1628, iii, 271-2, 276-7, 281-3. 103 CD 1628, iii, 271, 276, 281-2.
79. CD 1628, iii, 270-1. 105 CD 1628, iii, 271.
80. CD 1628, iii, 271-2 (where the reading of MSS 8-12 seems to make best sense).
81. For the background to petitioning and the petition of right as a formal document, see Mrs Foster's article, ‘Petitions and the petition of right’, pp. 21-45.
82. CD 1628, iii, 272-3, 277-8, 282-4, 286-7, 290-1, 293-4
83. CD 1628, iii, 273, 278.
84. C.f. CD 1628. iii. 98 (26 April 1628). Sir Thomas Wentworth, pp. 28-9, 31-2, 33-5; see also her article, ‘Printing the petition of right’, Huntington Library Quarterly, xxxviii, 1 (1974), 81-3.
85. See above, p. 309.
86. CD 1628, iii, 268, 274.
87. CD 1628, III, 98, 102-3, 108, 11.
88. CD 1628, III, 273, 278, 284. The