from the
Speaker, that they must indeed grant subsidies to the King; but that
at the same time they must maintain the undoubted rights of the
country. Francis Seymour, who had now again been returned to
Parliament, at once expressed himself to the same effect. While he
acknowledged that every one must make sacrifices for king and country,
he shewed at the same time that it was a sacred duty to cling to their
ancestral laws. He proceeded to say that these laws had been
transgressed, their liberties infringed, their own selves personally
ill-treated, and their property, with which they might have supported
the King, exhausted. He proposed therefore to secure the rights, laws,
and liberties transmitted from their ancestors by means of a petition
to the King.[471]

Whatever be the tone of opposition which this language betrays, it
fell far short of that adopted in the former Parliament. Men had come
to an opinion that certainly no money should be granted unless
securities could be obtained for their ancient liberties; but at the
same time that the King should not be induced to grasp directly at
absolute power, for that this would lead at once to a rebellion of
uncertain issue.[472] Men were resolved to avoid questions which could
rouse old passions. This time it was not insisted that the penal laws
against the Catholics should be made more severe: Parliament waived
its claim to alter the constitution of the Admiralty, and to appoint
treasurers to manage the money granted to the King: it showed
deference for the King, and said nothing of the Duke. But a commission
was appointed to take into consideration the rights which subjects
ought to have over their persons and property. Already on April 3
resolutions were proposed to the House, by which it was intended that
some of the most obnoxious grievances which had lately arisen should
be made for ever impossible, such as the collection of taxes that had
not been granted, and restraints imposed on personal liberty in
consequence of refusal to pay.[473]

Charles I also now took up this question. Through Coke his Secretary
of State, who was also a member of the House, he issued an invitation
to them not to allow themselves to be deterred by any anxiety about
liberty or property from making those grants, on which, as he said,
the welfare of Christendom depended; 'upon assurance,' Coke proceeds
to add, 'that we shall enjoy our rights and liberties, with as much
freedom and securit