Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:44:19.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Petitions and the Petition of Right

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Elizabeth Read Foster
Elizabeth Read Foster*
Affiliation:
Bryn Mawr College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Proceedings of parliament, said Sir Edward Coke in 1624, are of four sorts: by bill, judicature, petition of grace and petition of right. The purpose of this paper is to explore certain aspects of procedure by petition in the reigns of James I and Charles I and to consider the Petition of Right of 1628 in relation to other petitions which preceded it.

The substance of the Petition of Right is well known. It stated that contrary to the laws of the realm, men had been required under duress to grant loans and pay other charges to the crown which had not been voted by parliament. They had been imprisoned without cause shown, tried by martial law in time of peace, and forced to receive into their homes soldiers and mariners billeted upon them. The Petition asked that these practices, which contravened the rights and liberties of the kingdom, should cease.

The form of the Petition, together with its answer, is less well understood than its substance and is often considered unique. It has sometimes been regarded as a declaratory act, sometimes compared to a private bill, or to the petition, also called a petition of right, by which an individual initiated action against the crown. To discover what the Petition meant to men of the seventeenth century, it may be useful first to look at the events that surrounded Charles' several answers to it, and then to examine the petition as a normal form of procedure, of which the Petition of Right was a dramatic example.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , November 1974 , pp. 21 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. BM, Diary of Sir Walter Erle, Add. MSS, 18597, Feb. 27, 1624. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized in all quotations. I have used the transcripts of unpublished accounts for 1624 and 1628 at the Yale Center for Parliamentary History. They are described in Johnson, Robert C., “Parliamentary Diaries of the Early Stuart Period,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XLIV, (1971) 293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Earl of Bridgewater's notes of proceedings in 1628 are at the Huntington Library: Ellesmere Manuscripts 7717, 7785, 7786.

2. See William Prynne's “reading,” discussed below; Hargrave, Francis, ed., The Jurisdiction of the Lords House … By Lord Chief Justice Hale (London, 1796)Google Scholar, Introduction, p. lv; Relf, Frances Helen, The Petition of Right (Minneapolis, 1917), pp. 33-37, 45, 49, 54Google Scholar. For the petition of right by which a subject might seek remedy against the crown, see SirStaunford, William, An Exposition of the Kinges Prerogative (London, 1577), fols. 72b-73bGoogle Scholar.

3. On April 22, 1628, Nethersole had written, “I pray God make us more wise, and moderate tomorrow then we have been hitherto, else we are all lost, and your Majesty in the first place.” PRO, SP 16/101, #54, fol. 119v; SP 16/106, #55, fols. 127, 131v (see also Secretary Conway to Secretary Coke, SP 16/106, #71, fol. 161). In the House of Commons, there had been complaints concerning Richard Montagu, “for that he had on the Saturday night before on which the King yielded to the Petition spurned out the bonfires in Windsor Castle and forbad them to ring their bells.” PRO SP 16/102, #57, fol. 107.

4. Rushworth, John, Historical Collections … (London, 1659), I, 613Google Scholar; Journals of the House of Lords (London, 1846-), III, 843–44Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Lords Journals.

5. PRO, SP 16/106, #71, fols. 160v-161.

6. Ibid., #55, fol. 228; #71, fol. 160.

7. Relf, , Petition of Right, pp. 51–53Google Scholar; PRO, SP 16/106, #55, fols. 128-30; BM, Stowe MSS, 366, June 3, 1628.

8. PRO, SP 16/106, #55, fol. 130v

9. Relf, Frances Helen, (ed.), Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords … 1621, 1625, 1628 [Camden Society, third series] (London, 1929), pp. 123–24Google Scholar.

10. PRO, SP 16/106, #55, fol. 131; #71, fol. 160v.

11. BM, Stowe MSS, 366, June 7, 1628; Relf, , Debates in the House of Lords, p. 217Google Scholar. “Mr. Speaker … declared his opinion that if we desired a better answer to our Petition we might have it. But the House thought it not fit to do so, because that could not be done without shewing the defects of that was already given, wch would make it worse if a better should not come afterwards”. PRO, SP 16/106, #55, fol. 131.

12. For Prynne's reading, see Inner Temple, Petyt MSS, 538/32, fols. 1-9. More legible copies are Petyt MSS 538/16, fols. 2-48, and in BM, Hargrave MSS, 98, fols. 31-55v.

13. Petyt MSS, 538/16, fols. 17-22v, 26-28.

14. Petyt MSS, 538/16, fols. 34-34v, 46v. Harbottle Grimston had spoken to the same point in the Short Parliament: “… the charter of our liberties called Magna Charta was granted unto us by King John which was but a renovation and restitution of the ancient laws of the kingdom … And in the third year of his Majesty's reign that now is we had more than a confirmation of it, for we had an act declaratory passed and that to put it out of all question and dispute for the future, his Majesty by his gracious answer soit droit fait come est desira invested with the title of Petition of Right”. Harvard University, Eng. MSS, 982, fols. 22-22v. (I owe this reference to Esther Cope.)

15. Petyt MSS, 538/16, fol. 34v

16. Relf, , Petition of Right, pp. 64–67Google Scholar; see also PRO, SP 16/103, #44, fol. 81, (said to be in the hand of Sir Robert Heath), which proposes that the cause of imprisonment shall be stated within a certain number of months. In 1629, the King asserted that the answer was “framed in the form by themselves desired” (see Rushworth, , Historical Collections, I, Appendix, 2Google Scholar). Arundel, in the House of Lords, suggested “Le Roy le reult,” the usual form for a public bill (Relf, , Debates in the House of Lords, p. 170Google Scholar).

17. Sir Peter Heyman had complained that the Petition with the first answer “cometh not home” (Sir Richard Grosvenor's diary, Trinity College, Dublin, MSS, E. 5.33-36, June 6, 1628). See also Relf, , Debates in the House of Lords, p. 217Google Scholar.

18. On this point, see Relf, , Petition of Right, pp. 47–50Google Scholar.

19. Ibid., pp. 31-35; see also Hulme, Harold, “Opinion in the House of Commons on the Proposal for a Petition of Right,” English Historical Review, L (April 1935), pp. 302–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the debate whether to go by bill or by petition, see May 6 and May 7, 1628, when the question was raised a second time (Stowe MSS, 366; PRO, SP 16/97).

20. For 1610: see my Proceedings in Parliament 1610 (New Haven, 1966), II, 119Google Scholar. For 1621; Notestein, Wallace, Relf, Frances Helen, Simpson, Hartley, (eds.), Commons Debates 1621 (New Haven, 1935), V, 458–60Google Scholar. For 1624: Rushworth, , Historical Collections. I, 141–42Google Scholar. For 1625: ibid., 181-82. For 1623: ibid., 515-19.

21. Journals of the House of Commons (London, 1803-), I, 190Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Commons Journals.

22. Ibid., p. 223.

23. Ibid., p. 179.

24. Sims, Catherine Strateman, (ed.), Expedicio Billarum Antiquitus … by Henry Elsyng (Louvain, 1954), p. 65Google Scholar.

25. Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559-1581 (London, 1953), pp. 349–53Google Scholar. See also Neale, J. E., “The Commons' privilege of free speech in parliament,” Tudor Studies, ed. Seton-Watson, R. W. (London, 1924), pp. 280–81Google Scholar: “The Queen's whole endeavor, in fact, where her prerogative was concerned, was to re-establish the old procedure by genuine petition …” For petitions to the Queen to marry and provide for the succession, see SirD'Ewes, Simonds, The Journals of all the Parliaments during the reign of Queen Elizabeth … (London, 1682), pp. 45, 75ffGoogle Scholar; Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559-1581, pp. 105-07, 141-49, 361Google Scholar. For petitions concerning Mary Stuart, see D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 215, 379–82Google Scholar. Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559-1581, pp. 268–69Google Scholar; Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1584-1601 (London, 1957), p. 115Google Scholar; Lords Journals, II, 124–25Google Scholar. For petitions concerning ecclesiastical affairs, see Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559-1581, pp. 398-404, 415Google Scholar; D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 251, 257Google Scholar; Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1584-1601, pp. 235–39Google Scholar; D'Ewes, , Journals, p. 344Google Scholar.

26. Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559-1581, pp. 220–21Google Scholar.

27. Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1584-1601, pp. 214–15Google Scholar.

28. Ibid., p. 354.

29. Ibid., pp. 379, 385; D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 645–46Google Scholar.

30. Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559-1581, pp. 189-90, 349–53Google Scholar.

31. For example, for permission to proceed with a bill concerning the Court of Exchequer, D'Ewes, , Journals, p. 443Google Scholar.

32. Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559-1581, pp. 105, 278, 349-53, 361, 414–15Google Scholar; Elizabeth and Her Parliaments, 1584-1601, pp. 235-39; D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 80, 83, 454–55Google Scholar.

33. Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments 1559-1581, pp. 268–69Google Scholar.

34. Ibid., pp. 349-53.

35. D'Ewes, , Journals, p. 340Google Scholar.

36. Ibid., pp. 344-45.

37. Ibid., pp. 397-98; Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1584-1601, p. 114Google Scholar.

38. Commons Journals, I, 63, 99Google Scholar; Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559-1581, pp. 105, 278–79Google Scholar. Drafts submitted by members to the Speaker have survived.

39. Ibid., pp. 349-51; Commons Journals, I, 110Google Scholar.

40. D'Ewes, , Journals, p. 265Google Scholar.

41. Ibid., pp. 344-45, 379, 399. Neale, J. E., “Proceedings in Parliament relative to … Mary Queen of Scots,” English Historical Review, XXXV (January, 1920), p. 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 570, 573Google Scholar; Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1584-1601, p. 354Google Scholar.

43. Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559-1584, pp. 105, 273Google Scholar; D'Ewes, , Journals, p. 83Google Scholar; Commons Journals, I, 98Google Scholar. For the presentation of the petition of 1586, see Neale, , “Proceedings … relative to Mary Queen of Scots,” p. 110Google Scholar.

44. D'Ewes, , Journals, p. 257Google Scholar; Commons Journals, I, 98, 113Google Scholar; Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559-1584, pp. 269-73, 353, 415Google Scholar.

45. Neale, , “Proceedings … relative to Mary Queen of Scots,” pp. 110–13Google Scholar.

46. D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 399–400Google Scholar; Lords Journals, II, 124–25Google Scholar. The clerk of the lower House, D'Ewes tells us, left a space to enter the Queen's answer, but failed to do so (D'Ewes, p. 402).

47. Neale, , “Proceedings … relative to Mary Queen of Scots,” pp. 103–13Google Scholar. This is the one example since the accession of Elizabeth of the enrollment of a petition until the enrollment of the petitions of 1625 and 1628. A motion had been made to enroll the petition of grievances with the King's answer in 1621; but the petition was not completed, [Nicholas , Edward], Proceedings and Debates in the House of Commons in 1620 and 1621 (Oxford, 1766), II, 248Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Nicholas, 1621.

48. D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 656–57Google Scholar; Neale, , Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1594-1601, p. 387Google Scholar.

49. Commons Journals, I, 153–56Google Scholar. In the same way in 1610, they requested permission to “treat of tenures” (see my Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 15Google Scholar).

50. For some examples, see 1604: Commons Journals, I, 240-41. 1605–1606Google Scholar: Spedding, James, Ellis, Robert Leslie, Heath, Douglas Denon, (eds.), The Letters and Life of Francis Bacon (London, 1868), III, 264–66Google Scholar. 1610: Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, II, 254–57Google Scholar.

51. See above, note 20.

52. Nicholas, 1621, II, 261-67, 269-76; Commons Debates 1621, II, 495–99Google Scholar; Rushworth, , Historical Collections, I, 40–44Google Scholar.

53. Lords Journals, III, 209-10, 247-48, 250Google Scholar; Commons Journals, I, 677Google Scholar.

54. Ibid., I, 171-72, 946, 176-77, 185, 187, 190-93; Spedding, et al., Bacon, III, 181–87Google Scholar.

55. Commons Journals, I, 285, 307Google Scholar.

56. Ibid., I, 266, 267, 295, 297-99, 307, 308. Willson, David Harris, (ed.), The Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer 1606-1607 (Minneapolis, 1931), p. 33Google Scholar.

57. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, II, 253–75Google Scholar.

58. See my “The Procedure of the House of Commons against Patents and Monopolies, 1621-1624,” in Aiken, William Appleton, Henning, Basil D., (eds.), Conflict in Stuart England (New York, 1960), pp. 67–76Google Scholar.

59. For drafts of the petition and the directions for the clerk, see PRO, SP 14/165, #s53 & 54.

60. Commons Debates 1621, III, 367Google Scholar.

61. Elsyng, Henry, The Manner of Holding Parliaments in England (London, 1768), pp. 173–74Google Scholar.

62. Commons Debates 1621, II, 17, 24, 25Google Scholar; IV, 17; V, 438. See the King's message of February 15 which made the point that “if we asked too little we should wrong ourselves, if for too much he must deny us.” Ibid., II, 84.

63. Ibid., II, 83-84; V, 462.

64. For the original petition, see PRO, SP 14/193, #18. Commons Journals, I, 431–32Google Scholar; Notestein, Wallace, The House of Commons 1604-1610 (New Haven, 1971), pp. 327–31Google Scholar.

65. For the original, engrossed on parchment, see PRO, SP 16/24, #31. Rushworth, , Historical Collections, I, 223, 243–46Google Scholar. T. B. Clendenin and Vernon F. Snow have discussed proposals in 1624 concerning freedom of debate in “Prelude to the Petition of Right,” as yet unpublished.

66. Elsyng, , Manner of Holding Parliaments, pp. 192–242Google Scholar; Historical Manuscripts Commission. Report on the Manuscripts of the Duke of Buccleuch & Queensberry preserved at Montagu House, Whitehall. Vol. III. The Montagu Papers (London, 1926), pp. 273-75, 279-80, 289-91, 299Google Scholar (hereafter cited as HMC Buccleuch); Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, (ed.), Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords … 1624 and 1626 [Camden Society, new series] (London, 1879), pp. 142-45, 187-91, 210, 213–14Google Scholar; Lords Journals, III, 562Google Scholar.

67. Commons Debates 1621, II, 58–59Google Scholar.

68. “No petition, bill, or other thing, to be treated in parliament, ought to be originally delivered into the House, ready engrossed, but in paper” (Commons Journals, I, 187Google Scholar). Before being presented to the sovereign, the petition of 1586 had been engrossed (D'Ewes, , Journals, p. 400Google Scholar), and in 1624, the grievances were “put to be engrossed”. PRO, SP 14/165, #48.

69. See the description of the petitions in 1610 (Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, II, 253Google Scholar). The petition of 1624 was described as “two very long and tedious scrolls”, McClure, Norman Egbert, (ed.), The Letters of John Chamberlain, (Philadelphia, 1939), II, 561Google Scholar; see also PRO, SP 14/167, #32. The original Petition of Right (1628) is on display in the Library of the House of Lords. Other original petitions are among the state papers at the Public Record Office. 1610: PRO, SP 14/20, #57; SP 14/56, part 2; SP 14/193, #18. 1626: SP 16/24, #31. 1628: SP 16/100, #82. They were not kept by the clerk of the parliaments as acts were kept, nor filed with the main papers in the archive of parliament.

70. The Speaker frequently presented petitions in Elizabeth's reign (see Neale, , Elizabeth and Her Parliaments, 1559-1581, p. 105Google Scholar; D'Ewes, , Journals, p. 83Google Scholar). Later, the House resolved that the Speaker's duty was “to speak and not to read.” He should not, therefore, deliver written communications (Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, II, 99-100, 113, 371Google Scholar). In 1626 and 1628, when the whole House waited on the King to present petitions, the Speaker made preliminary remarks. Stowe MSS, 366, April 10, 1628; Commons Journals, I, 881Google Scholar. The petition to break the Spanish treaties in 1624 was presented by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a joint petition in 1625 was presented by Viscount Mandeville, Lord President of the Council. Lords Journals, III, 250Google Scholar; Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, (ed.), Debates in the House of Commons in 1625, [Camden Society, new series], (London, 1873), p. 61Google Scholar.

71. Commons Journals, I, 314, 316–18Google Scholar.

72. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 129–34Google Scholar; II, 273-75, 294-95; Lords Journals, II, 658–60Google Scholar.

73. PRO, SP 14/165, #61; Commons Journals, I, 798Google Scholar.

74. Commons Debates, 1621, II, 495–96Google Scholar.

75. Nicholas, 1621, II, 248.

76. Aiken, et al., Conflict in Stuart England, p. 85, note 116Google Scholar; Commons Debates 1625, pp. 37-42; Commons Journals, I, 802Google Scholar.

77. Ibid., I, 800; BM, Add. MSS, 48091, fols. 6v-7.

78. Ibid., fol. 11v.

79. Members supplied copies (Commons Journals, I, 465-66, 469, 491Google Scholar). One member even asked for the usual fees for doing so (Ibid., I, 469).

80. In 1641, when John Hampden wanted a copy of the 1625 petition concerning religion, he obtained it from the clerk of the parliaments. Notestein, Wallace, (ed.), The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Eives, (New Haven, 1923), p. 494Google Scholar. D'Ewes maintained that the King's answer to this petition in 1625 “made it a session” and that petition and answer should be printed as an act of parliament (ibid.). For the King's answer and his agreement to the enrollment desired by the Commons, see Lords Journals, III, 479–81Google Scholar; Commons Journals, I, 813Google Scholar; Rushworth, , Historical Collections, I, 180Google Scholar. For the parliament roll, see PRO, C65/189; Foster, Elizabeth Read, The Painful Labour of Mr. Elsyng (Philadelphia, 1972), p. 31Google Scholar.

81. See the messages on April 12 and Charles' speech of April 14 (Stowe MSS, 366).

82. PRO, SP 16/97 and Stowe MSS, 366 (March 26, April 1, 3, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 1628); Commons Journals, I, 878–879Google Scholar.

83. PRO, SP 16/97, April 8, 1628.

84. Ibid., May 6, 1628.

85. Commons Journals, I, 890Google Scholar.

86. Stowe MSS, 366, May 1 and 2, 1628.

87. PRO, SP 16/97, May 3, 1628.

88. Stowe MSS, 366, May 5, 1628; Ephemeris Parliamentaria (London, 1654), p. 173Google Scholar.

89. PRO, SP 16/97, May 6, 1628.

90. Ibid.; Rushworth, , Historical Collections, I, 558Google Scholar; BM, Harleian MSS, 161, fol. 210: “not to provide for the greatest grievances by bill but by petition of right to declare the grievances of most necessary weight and to show the illegality of them by the charters and statutes and to pray the King that no more such mischiefs be suffered.”

91. BM, Harleian MSS, 5324, May 6, 1628.

92. Ibid.; PRO, SP 16/97, May 6, 1628. At the opening of Parliament in 1628, the Speaker in his ceremonial address to the throne said, “It is a gracious favor of your Majesty, and our former kings, (which I have thought on) that when both Houses are humble suitors for anything, they are never denied” (Rushworth, , Historical Collections, I, 483Google Scholar). For debate in the House of Lords on the importance of a joint petition, see Relf, , Debates in the House of Lords, pp. 200–203Google Scholar.

93. See Lords Journals, III, 717-31, 761-63, 803Google Scholar.

94. PRO, SP 16/102, #57: “8th May … The Lords House would have it a petition of grace …” See the debate on April 26 and on May 20-23 in the House of Commons on changes proposed by the Lords first in their bill and then in the Petition (Stowe MSS, 366; PRO, SP 16/97; Lords Journals, III, 813–18Google Scholar).

95. PRO, SP 16/97 and Stowe MSS, 366, May 6, 1628.

96. Lords Journals, III, 843, 862Google Scholar. The printed version was disappointing. See my “The Printing of the Petition of Right,” Huntinglon Library Quarterly, XXXVIII, No. 14 (November, 1974)Google Scholar. The order to enter Petition and answer in the journal of the House of Lords was not carried out (Foster, , The Painful Labour of Mr. Elsyng, p. 29Google Scholar).

97. Adair, E. R., “The Petition of Right,” History, V (July 1920), p. 101Google Scholar.

98. Commons Debates 1621, IV, 17Google Scholar; II, 495-96.

99. The reply is given as “Soit droit fait come est desiré par le Petition” in Ephemeris Parliamentarian p. 204.

100. Rushworth, , Historical Collections, I, 631Google Scholar; IV, 440. In August 1641, a statute was passed, declaring “that all and every the particulars prayed or desired in the … Petition of Right shall from henceforth be put in execution” (17 Car. I, c. 14).

101. Kenyon, J. P., The Stuart Constitution (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 197–205Google Scholar.

102. Historical Manuscripts Commission. Report on the Manuscripts of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu (London, 1900), p. 130 (May 8, 1641)Google Scholar.

103. Kenyon, , Stuart Constitution, pp. 244, 21-23, 350–357Google Scholar.

104. One proposal had been to vote the Declaration illegal. Others suggested, “it might be done with more respect to his Majesty, and with more full security of what we desired by a petition than it could be done by a vote …” Henning, Basil Duke, (ed.), The Parliamentary Diary of Sir Edward Dering, (New Haven, 1940), pp. 116–17Google Scholar. For reasons why the lower House on this occasion proceeded alone, rather than with the Lords as had been the case in 1628, see ibid., p. 120.

105. Kenyon, , Stuart Constitution, pp. 409–10Google Scholar.