Petition of Right V (1628)
Bill Long 1/13/05
The Text of the Petition--June 1628
The final form of the Petition, signed by Charles I in June 1628 with the traditional words "Soit drot fait comme it est desire...Let right be done as is desired," consisted of 11 paragraphs. The purpose of this mini-essay is to describe the flow of the Petition and to highlight its major points.
The Petition as Petition of Right
Recall that what the Commons wanted to accomplish in this document was a recognition of long-standing rights rather than a declaration of new rights or royal approval of rights. In other words, the Commons wanted Charles to say that the rights outlined in the petition were rights ab initio, so to speak, or were rights of such hoary antiquity and excellent attestation that the King should just recognize them as such.
When we realize that this is the purpose of the document, the language of the various clauses of Chapter (paragraph) 11 makes sense. For example, in the first clause the petitioners pray of these matters "as their rights and liberties," while in the last clause they ask that Charles would be "graciously pleased" to instruct his officers and ministers to "serve you according to the laws and statuttes of this realm." Note that the petitioners do not Charles to be "graciously pleased" to "grant" them rights; Charles' gracious pleasure is reserved to the enforcement of the rights. Personal rights, therefore, are above the Crown; the law is above the supposed fountain-head of the law. The petition therefore directly contradicts the theory of the Attorney General's case, which carried the day, in the Five Knights Case of 1627.
The Flow and Substance of the Petition
The Petition dealt expressly with five rights. Some of the rights are buttressed by quotation of statute law or Magna Carta, much like a preacher might support his/her case by Scriptural quotations. In addition, the rights are articulated in the context of royal violations of these rights. The five rights for which the petitioners prayed recognition are: 1) No taxation without parliamentary approval; 2) No imprisonment without cause shown; 3) No denial of habeas corpus without certified cause; 4) No quartering of troops in people's homes without approval; and 5) No imposition of martial law, which led to imprisonments and even executions, unless the convictions were based on the customs of the realm or acts of parliament. The rights are spelled out with varying degress of clarity and citation to authority.
Taxation/Forced Loans
Paragraphs 1-2 discuss this right. The petition begins with citation of authority: statutes from 25 E 1 and 25 E 3 and then "other laws of the realm" (unspecified) say that it is illegal to levy a tax ("tallage or aid") without the "good will and assent" of various nobles, or that forced "loans" or "benevolences" are illegal. Then, the grievance is brought in: "Yet nevertheless of late divers commisions directed to sundry commissioners....by means whereof you people have been in divers places assembled, and required to lend certain sums of money unto your Majesty..." This is "against the laws and free customs of the realm.
Imprisonment
The people who were gathered together at "divers" places often refused to "loan" money to the King, thus hurting his ability to finance his continental wars. As a result, many were imprisoned or, in the lawyerly language of the Petition, "imprisoned, confined, and sundry other ways molested and disquieted." Paragraphs 3-5 deal with this reality. The petitioners first quote the sonorous words of "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England" (Magna Carta), a document that was only being resurrected in the 17th century after lying relatively unused for hundreds of years. For example, Shakespeare's play King John (John signed the Charter in 1215) has nary a mention of the Charter. Shakespeare was writing one generation previous to the Petition of Right; had it been considered a "cornerstone" of the "rights of Englishmen," certainly Shakespeare would have given a nod to it.
The famous paragraph from the MC quoted #29 (39 in the 1215 version, but 29 in the officially accepted version of 1225), to the effect that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold or liberties....but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. After another statute from 3 E 28 is quoted (the phrase "due process of law" first appears in English in this law), and then, in paragraph 5, the twofold indictment of Charles is given:
"Nevertheless, against the tenor of said statutes.....divers of your subjects have of late been imprioned without any cause showed; and when for their deliverance they were brought before your justices by your Majesty's writs of habeas corpus...no cause was certified."
Arbitrary arrest and violation of habeas corpus, therefore, are envisioned in these paragraphs.
Quartering of Troops and Martial Law
Because Charles had little money to pay his troops, he ordered them to be quartered in the homes of his subjects, at citizen expense. In addition, these troops would go "snooping around" the affairs of the town, arresting people at will and imposing the King's summary "justice" where they saw fit. And so, the Petition (in paragraphs 6-9) appeals to 3 E 25, which provided that "no man shall be forejudged of life or limb against hte form of the Great Charter and the law of the land..." It then details some of the ways that the King's "officers and ministers of justice" have summarily proceeded against so-called offenders "upon pretense that the said offenders were punishable only by martial law."
Conclusion
Just as severe personal distress often brings in its wake a questioning of hitherto accepted authorities and beliefs, so a national distress triggers not simply introspection but a desire to clarify and codify rights long taken for granted or even ignored. Thus, we can be thankful for Charles I in some ways--because his high-handed actions as a relatively youthful king (he was born in 1600) led to the clarification of individual rights which are prized in America. Yet, these rights must be vigilantly guarded and fought for, lest governments think that they can, in the name of "national security" (a 20th-21st century term) or "reasons of state" (a 17th century term), redefine or limit them. A piece of paper is never so alive as when its principles are also in the hearts of the people.
Copyright © 2004-2008 William R.Long |