1624 END OF THE SESSION. 235 beginning of his speech James had protested that he had never ceased to care for the Palatinate, and had assured the Houses that if they met again with the same resolution as they had cherished in the past session, it would be the happiest Parliament known in history. Before he ended he remembered that he had attempted in vain to induce the Commons to insert into the Subsidy Bill a clause naming the recovery of the Palatinate as one of the objects of the grant. Whereas, he said, they 'had made the preamble without his advice, and so as it might be prejudicial to him for some reasons of state, he must be forced to alter it, and set his marginal note upon it.' At this extraordinary and unexpected declaration the usual respect for the Royal person was for an instant forgotten, and those who were present gave vent to their dissatisfaction in murmurs and gesticulations. "Thus," wrote an eye-witness of the scene, "parted we from his Majesty, with much more discontent and fear of the success of this Parliament than when we came together at the beginning with hope of a good and happy prosecution." 2 Dissatisfaction of the Commons. The session which thus came to an end was one of no slight importance in the development of our Parliamentary constitution. Headed by the Prince of Wales, the House of Commons appeared suddenly to have become the first power in the State. What was wanting to it was the virtue of self-restraint which springs from experience, and that knowledge of the limitations of power which is seldom acquired except by those who have a practical acquaintance with the handling of affairs. Leaders who could teach them how to walk warily amongst the pitfalls around them these men had none, and it was only too probable that before long they would visit with a just retribution those who had flattered their weaknesses and abused their confidence. The dissatisfaction of the House with James's last speech was not entirely justified by his subsequent acts. against His intemperance was always greater in word than in action. The Subsidy Act was left untouched; and Middlesex, though his fine was subsequently reduced to 'Locke to Carleton, May 17, S. P. Dom. clxiv. 92. 2 Report by E. Nicholas, ibid. clxv. 61. Proceedings Bristol. July 10. Questions put to him. 20,000l., never saw the King's face again.. Nor did James, in presence of the opposition of his favourite and his son, venture to admit Bristol to his presence. Both Buckingham and Charles, indeed, were preparing future difficulties for themselves by their conduct towards the man whose influence with the King they most dreaded. A long series of interrogatories was sent to Bristol, bearing on the whole of his past diplomacy. Bristol answered them all with care. He was able to show that on all doubtful points he had acted by his master's orders, and that he had given such advice as he believed at the time to be the best for the King's service. Many of the Commissioners appointed to conduct the investigation expressed themselves fully satisfied, and James at last sent word to Bristol that he was now ready to see him. suggests a An interview between Bristol and the King was the very thing to which Buckingham most strongly objected. Hinting that there were further questions still to be put, he Buckingham made use of the delay thus obtained to convey a compromise. suggestion to Bristol that he should surrender his Vice-Chamberlainship, and retire to his country-house at Sherborne, on the condition that all further proceedings against him should be dropped. Buckingham little knew the character of the man with whom he was dealing. Bristol's reply was that, if his honesty and fidelity were declared to be unquestioned, he was quite ready to acknowledge that he might have erred from weakness or want of ability. If not, he was ready to answer any further questions that might be sent to him. "For," he wrote, " in matter of my fidelity and loyalty towards his Majesty, the Prince, and my country, I hope I shall never see that come into compromise, but shall rather lose my life and fortunes than admit the least stain to remain upon me or mine in that kind.” July 24. Bristol refuses it. Bristol at Bristol's position was logically unassailable. If he was supposed to have done anything worthy of punishment, let his case be investigated. If not, why was he under restraint? Though Buckingham could not answer an argument like this, he could continue to act in defiance of it. Bristol was left at Sherborne untried and uncondemned. If he came into Sherborne. 1624 THE EAST INDIES. 237 the King's presence he might say things about the Prince's visit to Madrid which would not conduce to raise Buckingham in his master's opinion. But, to do Buckingham justice, it was not mere personal enmity by which he was actuated. If Bristol was to be kept at a distance, it was that James, and England through James, might be kept from falling back into the evil Spanish alliance. Even when Buckingham was engaged in an apparently personal quarrel, he had often great public ends in view. The interests of his country were so completely bound up in his mind with his own preferences and jealousies, that he came to think of himself and England as inextricably combined. 1620. and the Portuguese in the East. The disregard, not only of legal forms but of common justice, which had been shown in Buckingham's treatment of Bristol, marked another proceeding in which the The English King had to take a far more active part, and for which no pretext of public good could be alleged. In the far East as in the far West, it was almost, if not quite, impossible to bring the relations between European merchants under the laws which regulated commerce in the settled societies of Europe. In pursuit of the dazzling prize the subjects of each nation struggled and fought with their rivals, careless of treaties made at home. An attempt made by the English East India Company in 1620 to open a trade with Persia had been met with fierce opposition from the Portuguese subjects of Spain established at Ormuz, who regarded the whole 1621. commerce of that part of the world as their own. The English, beaten at first, had returned with superior forces, and had established a station at Jask. The report of the prowess of the new-comers was not thrown away upon the Shah, who had a quarrel with the Portuguese. He assured the English merchants that he would not allow them to place a bale of goods on board their ships unless they would Capture of join him in an attack upon Ormuz. With real or affected reluctance, they consented, and Ormuz was soon reduced to capitulate.' 1622. Ormuz. 1 1 Bruce, Annals of the East India Company, i. 229 ; Purchas, ii, 1785. ✨ 1623. April. Spanish complaints. To the complaints of the Spaniards, preferred whilst the Prince was still at Madrid,' James does not seem to have paid much attention; but there was another side of the question to which he was more alive. Sending for the governor of the East India Company, he told him that it would be a graceful act to make a present to Buckingham in his absence for his services in the negotiation with the Dutch of the year before. The Company, thus urged, and considering that 'this business of Ormuz may find a strong opposition,' voted 2,000l. for the purpose.❜ July. The East India Company's present to Buckingham. His claims When Buckingham returned, with his heart full of ill-will towards all Spanish subjects, there was of course no thought of satisfying the Portuguese; but, much to the surprise against the of the Company, the Duke began to make claims Company. upon them on his own account. The machinery of the Court of Admiralty was put in motion to collect evidence that by the capture of Ormuz and by the seizure of Portuguese vessels in the East, they had realised, or ought to have realised, 100,000l.—a calculation which, as far as can be at presen ascertained, appears to have been grossly exaggerated.3 As soon, however, as the preliminary inquiry was complete, Buckingham claimed 10,000l., a tenth of the sum named, as due to him as Lord High Admiral, as though the captures had been made by privateers sailing under ordinary letters of marque in European waters. 1624. Feb. 28. The Com The Company was at first disposed to resist the Duke's claim. They obtained a legal opinion to the effect that, as no letters of marque had been granted, no tenths were due; but they were not willing to contend with my Lord.' What to do they hardly knew. A petition was drawn up, and then abandoned as likely pany remonstrates. 16, 17, ' Consultas of the Councils of Portugal and of State, April 1623, Egerton MSS. 1131, fol. 169. 26, 27, • East India Company's Court Minutes, July 23, 1623, vi. 24. Bruce, Annals of the East India Company, i. 242; Examinations, S. P. East Indies. 1624 THE ORMUZ PRIZE-MONEY. 239 to give offence. At last a committee was appointed to remonstrate as cautiously as possible.1 March 1. Stay of the East India fleet. It was dangerous to remonstrate, however cautiously, with Buckingham. The day after his interview with the committee he drew the attention of the House of Lords, on behalf of a committee of which he was the reporter, to the fact that the Company's fleet was about to sail to the East Indies, and proposed that it should be detained for service against Spain. On the same day a similar motion was made in the Commons by Sir Edward Seymour, a member who was supposed to possess the confidence of Buckingham. A deputation from the Company at once waited on the Duke. He received them graciously, and assured them that the stay of the ships had not originated with him. Having heard,' he said, 'the motion with much earnestness in the Upper House of Parliament, he could do no less than give the order.' He would only be too happy to advocate their cause with the Lords, and would, upon his own responsibility, allow the ships to drop as far as Tilbury.2 March 10. The Company It is possible that the first suggestion that the fleet should be arrested had proceeded from some independent member of the Lords' Committee; but the coincidence of the motions in the two Houses made it hard to persuade charged with the Company that this was the case. A few days later piracy. Buckingham struck another blow in the quarrel. To the argument that no tenths were due because there had been no letters of marque, the rejoinder was easy, that if there had been no letters of marque there had been an act of piracy. A suit was accordingly commenced against the Company in the joint names of Buckingham and the King. The damages were East India Company's Court Minutes, Feb. 18, 23, 27, 28, vi. 412, 425, 430, 435. 2 Elsing's Notes, 1624-26, 14; Commons' Journals, i. 676; East India Company's Court Minutes, March 5, vi. 439. The motion made by Buckingham is given by Elsing as part of a report from a committee. The notice of the fleet may therefore have been taken in the committee by some other person. |