This article is about the English constitutional document created in 1628. For the pre-1947 contractual remedy against the Crown, see petition of right.
The Petition Exhibited to His Majestie by the Lordes Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in this present Parliament assembled concerning divers Rightes and Liberties of the Subjectes: with the Kinges Majesties Royall Aunswere thereunto in full Parliament.[lower-alpha 2]
Following a series of disputes with Parliament over granting taxes, in 1627 Charles I imposed "forced loans", and imprisoned those who refused to pay, without trial. This was followed in 1628 by the use of martial law, forcing private citizens to feed, clothe and accommodate soldiers and sailors, which implied the king could deprive any individual of property, or freedom, without justification. It united opposition at all levels of society, particularly those elements the monarchy depended on for financial support, collecting taxes, administering justice etc, since wealth simply increased vulnerability.
A Commons committee prepared four "Resolutions", declaring each of these illegal, while re-affirming Magna Carta and habeas corpus. Charles previously depended on the House of Lords for support against the Commons, but their willingness to work together forced him to accept the Petition. It marked a new stage in the constitutional crisis, since it became clear many in both Houses did not trust him, or his ministers, to interpret the law.
The pro-Spanish policy pursued by James prior to 1623 had been unpopular, inefficient and expensive, and there was widespread support for declaring war. However, money granted by Parliament for this purpose was spent on the royal household, while they also objected to the use of indirect taxes and customs duties. Charles' first Parliament wanted to review the entire system, and as a temporary measure while doing so, the Commons granted Tonnage and Poundage for twelve months, rather than the entire reign, as was customary.[3]
Charles instructed the House of Lords to reject the bill, and adjourned Parliament on 11 July, but needing money for the war, recalled it on 1 August.[4] However, the Commons began investigating Charles' favourite and military commander, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, notorious for inefficiency and extravagance. When they demanded his impeachment in return for approving taxes, Charles dissolved his first parliament on 12 August 1625.[5] The disastrous Cádiz expedition forced him to recall Parliament in 1626, but once again they demanded the impeachment of Buckingham before providing funds to finance the war, Charles adopted "forced loans"; those who refused to pay would be imprisoned without trial, and if they continued to resist, sent before the Privy Council.[6]
The judges avoided the issue by denying bail, on the grounds that as there were no charges, "the [prisoners] could not be freed, as the offence was probably too dangerous for public discussion".[9] A clear defeat, Charles decided not to pursue charges; since his opponents included the previous Chief Justice, and other senior legal officers, the ruling meant the loans would almost certainly be deemed illegal.[10] So many now refused payment, the reduction in projected income forced him to recall Parliament in 1628, while the controversy returned "a preponderance of MPs opposed to the King".[11]
To fund his army, Charles resorted to martial law. This was a process employed for short periods by his predecessors, specifically to deal with internal rebellions, or imminent threat of invasion, clearly not the case here.[12] Intended to allow local commanders to try soldiers or insurgents outside normal courts, it was now extended to require civilians to feed, house and clothe military personnel, known as 'Coat and conduct money.' As with forced loans, this deprived individuals of personal property, subject to arbitrary detention if they protested.[13]
In a society that valued stability, predictability, and conformity, the parliament assembled in March claimed to be confirming established and customary law, implying both James and Charles had attempted to alter it. On 1 April, a Commons committee began preparing four resolutions, led by Edward Coke, a former Chief Justice, and most respected lawyer of the age.[14] One protected individuals from taxation not authorised by Parliament, like forced loans, the other three summarised rights in place since 1225, and later enshrined in the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. They stipulated individuals could not be imprisoned without trial, deprived of habeas corpus, whether by king or Privy Council, or detained until charged with a crime.[15]
Passage
Edward Coke, former Chief Justice who led the Committee that drafted the Petition, and the strategy that passed it
Despite being unanimously accepted by the Commons on 3 April, the Resolutions had no legal power and were rejected by Charles.[16] He presented an alternative; a bill confirming Magna Carta and six other liberty-related statutes, on condition it contained "no enlargement of former bills". The Commons refused, since Charles was only confirming established rights, which he had already shown willing to ignore, while it would still allow him to decide what was legal.[17]
After conferring with his supporters, Charles announced Parliament would be prorogued on 13 May, but was now out-manoeuvred by his opponents. Since he refused a public bill, Coke suggested the Commons and Lords pass the resolutions as a Petition of Right, and then have it "exemplified under the great seal".[18] An established element of Parliamentary procedure, this had not been expressly prohibited by Charles, allowing them to evade his restrictions, but avoid direct opposition.[19]
The Committee redrafted the content as a 'Petition', which was accepted by the Commons on 8 May, and presented the same day to the Lords by Coke, with a bill approving subsidies to encourage acceptance.[20] After several days of debate, they approved it, but attempted to "sweeten" the wording; they then received a message from Charles, claiming he must retain the right to decide whether to detain someone.[18]
Despite protestations on both sides, in an age when legal training was considered part of a gentleman's education, significant elements within both Commons and Lords did not trust Charles to interpret the law. The Commons ignored both the request, and alterations proposed by the Lords to appease him; by now, there was a clear majority in both houses for the Petition as originally submitted. On 26 May, the Lords unanimously voted to join with the Commons on the Petition of Right, with the minor addition of an assurance of their loyalty, approved by the Commons on 27 May.[21]
Charles now ordered John Finch, the Speaker of the Commons, to prevent "insult", or criticism of any Minister of State. He specifically named Buckingham, and in response, John Selden moved the Commons demand his removal from office.[22] Needing money for his war effort, Charles finally accepted the Petition, but first increased the level of mistrust on 2 June by trying to qualify it.[lower-alpha 3] Both houses now demanded "a clear and satisfactory answer by His Majesty in full Parliament", and on 7 June, Charles capitulated.[24]
Provisions
After setting out a list of individual grievances and statutes that had been broken, the Petition of Right declares that Englishmen have various "rights and liberties", and provides that no person should be forced to provide a gift, loan or tax without an Act of Parliament, that no free individual should be imprisoned or detained unless a cause has been shown, and that soldiers or members of the Royal Navy should not be billeted in private houses without the free consent of the owner.[25]
In relation to martial law, the Petition first repeated the due process chapter of Magna Carta, then demanded its repeal.[lower-alpha 4] This clause was directly addressed to the various commissions issued by Charles and his military commanders, restricting the use of martial law except in war or direct rebellion and prohibiting the formation of commissions. A state of war automatically activated martial law; as such, the only purpose for commissions, in their view, was to unjustly permit martial law in circumstances that did not require it.[27]
Charles' acceptance was greeted with widespread public celebrations, including ringing of church bells and lighting of bonfires throughout the country.[28] However, in August, Buckingham was assassinated by a disgruntled former soldier, while the surrender of La Rochelle in October effectively ended the war, and Charles' need for taxes. He dissolved Parliament in 1629, ushering in eleven years of Personal Rule, in which he attempted to regain all the ground lost.[29]
For the rest of his reign, Charles used the same tactics; refusing to negotiate until forced, with concessions seen as temporary and reversed as soon as possible, by force if needed.[30] Once Parliament adjourned, he resumed the policy of imposing unauthorised taxes, then prosecuting opponents using the non-jury Star Chamber. When Parliament and the normal courts quoted the Petition in support of objections to the tax, and the detention of Selden and John Eliot, Charles responded it was not a legal document.[31]
↑ These words are printed against this Act in the second column of Schedule 2 to the Statute Law Revision Act 1948, which is headed "Title".
↑ "The King willeth that right be done according to the laws and customs of the realm; and that the statutes be put in due execution, that the subject may have no just cause of complaint for any wrong or oppression, contrary to their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof he holds himself in conscience as well obliged of his just prerogative.[23]
↑ Neverthelesse of late tyme divers Commissions under your Majesties great Seale have issued forth, by which certaine persons have been assigned and appointed Commissioners with power and authoritie to proceed within the land according to the Justice of Martiall Lawe against such Souldiers or Marriners or other dissolute persons joyning with them as should comitt any murther [sic: murder] robbery felony mutiny or other outrage or misdemeanor whatsoever, and by such sumary course and order as is agreeable to Martiall Lawe and as is used in Armies in tyme of warr to proceed to the tryall and condemnacion of such offenders, and them to cause to be executed and putt to death according to the Lawe Martiall.... They doe therefore humblie pray your most Excellent Majestie,... that the aforesaid Commissions for proceeding by Martiall Lawe may be revoked and annulled. And that hereafter no Commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or persons whatsoever to be executed as aforesaid, lest by colour of them any of your Majesties Subjects be destroyed or put to death contrary to the Lawes and Franchise of the Land.[26]
Related Research Articles
Magna Carta Libertatum, commonly called Magna Carta or sometimes Magna Charta, is a royal charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Stephen Langton, to make peace between the unpopular king and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift and impartial justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. As neither side stood by their commitments, the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War.
The Bill of Rights 1689 is an Act of the Parliament of England that set out certain basic civil rights and clarified who would be next to inherit the Crown. It remains a crucial statute in English constitutional law.
Due process of law is application by the state of all legal rules and principles pertaining to a case so all legal rights that are owed to a person are respected. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.
Sir Matthew Hale was an influential English barrister, judge and jurist most noted for his treatise Historia Placitorum Coronæ, or The History of the Pleas of the Crown.
The constitution of the United Kingdom is an uncodified constitution made up of various statutes, judicial precedents, convention, treaties and other sources. Beginning in the Middle Ages, the constitution developed gradually in response to various crises. By the 20th century, the British monarchy had become a constitutional and ceremonial monarchy, and Parliament developed into a representative body exercising parliamentary sovereignty.
Sir Edward Coke was an English barrister, judge, and politician. He is often considered the greatest jurist of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras.
John Hampden was an English politician from Oxfordshire, who was killed fighting for Parliament in the First English Civil War. An ally of Parliamentarian leader John Pym, and a cousin of Oliver Cromwell, he was one of the Five Members whom Charles I of England tried to arrest in January 1642, a significant step in the outbreak of fighting in August. All five are commemorated at the State Opening of Parliament each year.
The Parliament of England was the legislature of the Kingdom of England from the 13th century until 1707 when it was replaced by the Parliament of Great Britain. Parliament evolved from the great council of bishops and peers that advised the English monarch. Great councils were first called Parliaments during the reign of Henry III. By this time, the king required Parliament's consent to levy taxation.
In the 1760s William Blackstone described the Fundamental Laws of England in Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the First – Chapter the First : Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals as "the absolute rights of every Englishman" and traced their basis and evolution as follows:
The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 is an Act of Parliament in England during the reign of King Charles II. It was passed by what became known as the Habeas Corpus Parliament to define and strengthen the ancient prerogative writ of habeas corpus, which required a court to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention and thus prevent unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment.
The phrase law of the land is a legal term, equivalent to the Latin lex terrae, or legem terrae in the accusative case. It refers to all of the laws in force within a country or region, including statute law and case-made law.
Roger Maynwaring, variously spelt Mainwaring or Manwaring, was a bishop in the Church of England, censured by Parliament in 1628 for sermons seen as undermining the law and constitution.
The Five Knights' case (1627) 3 How St Tr 1, is a case in English law, and now United Kingdom constitutional law, fought by five knights in 1627 against forced loans placed on them by King Charles I in a common law court.
The constitution of the United Kingdom comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no official attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.
Robert Sibthorpe or Sibthorp was an English clergyman who gained notoriety during the reign of King Charles I of England for his outspoken defense of the divine right of kings.
A bill of rights, sometimes called a declaration of rights or a charter of rights, is a list of the most important rights to the citizens of a country. The purpose is to protect those rights against infringement from public officials and private citizens.
Sir Nicholas Fuller was an English barrister and Member of Parliament. After studying at Christ's College, Cambridge, Fuller became a barrister of Gray's Inn. His legal career there began prosperously—he was employed by the Privy Council to examine witnesses—but was hampered later by his representation of the Puritans, a religious tendency which did not conform with the established Church of England. Fuller was repeatedly in contention with the ecclesiastical courts, including the Star Chamber and Court of High Commission, and was once expelled for the zeal with which he defended his client. In 1593 he was returned as the Member of Parliament for St Mawes, where he campaigned against the extension of recusancy laws. Outside of Parliament, he successfully brought a patents case which not only undermined the right of the Crown to issue patents but accurately predicted the attitude taken by the Statute of Monopolies two decades later.
The history of equity and trusts concerns the origin of the body of rules known as Equity, Uses, English trust law and their development into the modern body of trust law that spread with the Common law to the Commonwealth and the United States.
The 3rd Parliament of King Charles I was summoned by King Charles I of England on 31 January 1628 and first assembled on 17 March 1628. The elected Speaker of the House of Commons was Sir John Finch, the Member of Parliament for Canterbury.
Sir Edmund Hampden was an English landowner, at the centre of a celebrated state legal case in the reign of Charles I of England, known as the Five Knights' Case or Darnell's Case.
Arnold-Baker, Charles (2015) [1996]. The Companion to British History. Routledge. ISBN978-1-1389-2883-1.
Bachmann, Steve (2000). "Starting again with the Mayflower...England's Civil War and America's Bill of Rights". Quinnipiac Law Review. 20 (2). ISSN1073-8606.
Braddick, Michael J (1996). The Nerves of State: Taxation and the Financing of the English State, 1558–1714. Manchester University Press. ISBN978-0-7190-3871-6.
Cust, Richard (1985). "Charles I, the Privy Council, and the Forced Loan". Journal of British Studies. 24 (2): 208–235. doi:10.1086/385832. JSTOR175703. S2CID143537267.
Samaha, Joel (2005). Criminal Justice (7thed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN978-0-5346-4557-1.
Schwoerer, Lois G (1974). 'No Standing Armies!': The Antiarmy Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN978-0-8018-1563-8.
Wedgwood, CV (1958). The King's War, 1641–1647 (2001ed.). Penguin Classics. ISBN978-0-1413-9072-7.
White, Stephen D. (1979). Sir Edward Coke and the Grievances of the Commonwealth. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN0-8078-1335-4.
The Petition of Right [1627]. "The Petition of Right [1627]". legislation.gov.uk. The National Archives. Retrieved 21 September 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Petition of Right at Wikisource 
