CHAPTER VII.
Debates by the Commons.
After the Commons had resumed their sittings on the 20th of October, the difference which had arisen amongst the Puritan members became very apparent. The very next day, Sir Edward Dering questioned the legality of the recent order of the House respecting Divine worship; and the day after that, he indicated a still wider divergence from the policy of his former political friends. Upon a new bill being then introduced for excluding Bishops from Parliament—a bill which was, in fact, a reproduction of the old measure which the Lords had rejected—the Commons resolved to have a conference with the Upper House, respecting the thirteen accused prelates, and to request that the other occupants of the episcopal bench should be prevented from voting on this particular question, which so vitally affected their own personal interests. All this so alarmed the member for Kent that he hastily rose, and delivered a speech indicative of a still more decided veering toward the conservative point of the compass; for he went so far as to say that he did not conceive the House to be competent and fit to pronounce upon questions of Divinity. It seemed to him, he remarked, a thing unheard of, that soldiers, lawyers, and merchants should decide points which properly belonged to theologians. Laymen, he considered, should maintain only those doctrines which were authorized and established, and should leave the exposition and advocacy of what was new to a regularly constituted ecclesiastical assembly, in short, "a synod of Divines chosen by Divines." Whether or not he was animated in his retrograde course by cheers which came from the conservative benches, Sir Edward the following day bewailed the miseries of the Church between "Papism" on the one hand, and "Brownism" on the other; and instead of dwelling, as he had been wont to do, on "Puritan sufferings," his sympathies were now entirely bestowed on the opposite party. He related a story of two clergymen who had preached thousands of excellent sermons, but who now, like other deserving men, saw their infected sheep, after long pastoral vigilance, straggling from the fold, and mingling with the sects. Government, he complained, had begun to permit a loose liberty of religion; and, amidst varieties of opinion, and the perils of unity, what, he asked, could be thought of but a council—"a free, learned, grave, religious synod?"[223] Such a style of address seems strangely at variance with the speaker's earlier speeches in this very Parliament, and also with proceedings which the House had adopted in accordance with his own impetuous appeals. The course which he now pursued was in decided opposition to his conduct when he spoke from the gallery of the House on behalf of the bill for the abolition of Episcopacy; and subsequent proceedings by this gentleman, in the same new direction, are yet to come under our notice. But, after all, the lapse of four months had not essentially altered his character. He was in October only the same versatile and impetuous, but well-meaning person, which he had shewn himself to be in May.
1641, September.
Another member, who expressed his alarm at the distractions of the times, was Mr. Smith, of the Middle Temple. While denouncing the "Book of Sports" and the persecutions inflicted by the Anglican party, he deplored existing differences of religious opinion, and besought his countrymen to worship God with one mind, and not go every one a way by himself. In the stilted euphuism of the day, he lamented that uncertainty staggers the unresolved soul, and leads it into such a labyrinth, that, not knowing where to fix for fear of erring, it adheres to nothing, and so dies ere it performs that for which it was made to live. Uniformity in religious worship, he proceeded to say, is that which pleaseth God, and, if we will thus serve Him, we may expect His protection; and then, passing over to the constitutional question, the orator declared both prerogative and liberty to be necessary, and that like the sun and moon they gave a lustre to the nation, so long as they walked at proper distances. But, he added, when one ventures into the other's orbit, like planets in conjunction, they then occasion a deep eclipse. "What shall be the compass, then, by which these two must steer? Why, nothing but the same by which they subsist—the law, which if it might run in the free current of its purity, without being poisoned by the venomous spirits of ill-affected dispositions, would so fix the King to his crown that it would make him stand like a star in the firmament, for the neighbour world to behold and tremble at."[224] Smith did not plunge into that ecclesiastical reaction which had carried Dering completely away; but he contended for some measure of uniformity and for the suppression of increasing sects, whilst in political matters he recommended a course of moderation.
Debates by the Commons.
Another individual—far different from this pedantic adviser, and incapable of the tergiversations of the representative for Kent, though he is not to be confounded with reckless revolutionists—was still inflexibly pushing forward those ecclesiastical and political reforms which he had inaugurated by the blow he struck at Strafford, the patron and upholder of arbitrary power. Pym supported the new bill against Bishops, and managed the conference respecting the impeachment of the obnoxious thirteen prelates, and the prevention of the remaining occupants of the Bench from voting upon this question. He asked whether those who had made the hateful canons, who had endeavoured to deprive the subject of his liberties, and who were accused of sedition, were fit to be continued as legislators? St. John, the Solicitor General, and "dark-lantern man," supported Pym, and supplied an erudite legal argument to shew that bishops did not sit in the Upper House as representatives of the clergy; and that their right of peerage differed from the claim of temporal lords—they having no vote in judgments touching life and death, and their consent not being essential to the integrity of an Act of Parliament.[225]
1641, October.
Change and reaction went on. There had long been much talk about some "Grand Remonstrance," and a committee had been appointed as soon as Parliament assembled, to draw up such a document. In April the committee had been directed to collect a list of grievances, and on the 22nd of November the long delayed paper came before the House, to be "briskly debated." This remarkable production deals largely with ecclesiastical affairs; and the intimate connection between the religion and the politics of the times is apparent throughout its various contents. In a series of numbered propositions, amounting altogether to 206, the history of arbitrary government is carefully traced from the beginning of Charles' reign; religious grievances are made distinct and prominent; complaints appear of Papists, bishops, and courtiers, who had aimed at suppressing the purity and power of religion, and who had cherished Arminian sentiments; prelates and the rest of the clergy are depicted as triumphing in the degradation of painful and learned ministers; and the High Commission Court is compared to the Romish Inquisition. The vexatiousness of episcopal tribunals shares in the general censure, and the exile and depression of Puritans are noticed with the deepest sorrow;—preaching up the prerogative, sympathy with Papists, superstitious innovations, the late canons, the toleration of Papists, and the permission of a Papal nuncio at court, are all deplored as very great evils, whilst an opinion is expressed that there is little hope of amendment so long as Bishops and recusant Lords remain numerous, and continue to misrepresent the designs of the patriots.[226]
Debates by the Commons.
Yet it is affirmed that there exists no intention of loosing the golden reins of discipline, and of leaving to private persons and particular congregations the right to take up what Divine service they pleased. Horror respecting a general toleration is plainly confessed, and the remonstrants advocate Conformity "to that order which the laws enjoin according to the Word of God," even while they are desirous of unburdening the conscience from superstitious ceremonies and are taking away the monuments of idolatry. A general synod is suggested as the remedy for ecclesiastical evils, and care is advised to be taken for the advancement of learning, and the preaching of the Gospel. The two Universities are referred to as fountains of knowledge which should be made clear and pure.
The sting of the Remonstrance is found in its head, not in its tail. In the petition prefixed, the King is asked to concur with his subjects in depriving the bishops of their votes in Parliament, in abridging their power over the clergy and people, in staying the oppression of religion, in uniting loyal Protestants together against disaffected Papists, and in removing unnecessary ceremonies, which were a burden to weak and scrupulous consciences. Such requests were opposed to his Majesty's ideas of the constitution of the Church, though the remonstrants were prepared to rebut the charge of there being anything whatever revolutionary in their proposals and requests.
Looking at the current of Parliamentary debates for the last twelve months, the Remonstrance may be regarded as presenting to us the sentiments of the patriotic party. Sir Edward Dering, in May, had gone beyond this remonstrance, far beyond it; but Sir Edward Dering, in November, though the same character that he ever was, had become another kind of politician. The same remarks will apply to others. He now disputed some of the statements in this famous political instrument, vindicated several of the accused bishops and clergy, protested against the spoliation of ecclesiastical estates, and intimated his apprehension of the perilous consequences which would follow the changes now set on foot. Other members pronounced the measure to be unnecessary and unreasonable, because several of the grievances now complained of were already redressed; and they declared that the King, after his concessions, ought not on his return from Scotland to be received by his loyal subjects with ungrateful reproaches.
1641, November.
More was lying underneath the Remonstrance than appeared upon the surface. Looking at the character of the King, his obvious want of sincerity, and his manifest intention to recover what he had lost of arbitrary power whenever he should have the opportunity; considering also the reinvigorated spirit of the party opposed to constitutional reforms; further, taking into account the reaction going on, which had withdrawn from the remonstrants certain active confederates; and pondering, too, the unsettled and disturbed condition of the country at large—the authors of this important measure foresaw that matters could not rest where they were, and that more must be done, or everything would be lost. Breaches made in the Constitution by its enemies, rendered extraordinary efforts necessary for the preservation of popular freedom. Calculating, therefore, on further and more serious struggles, the advanced party determined to make their instrument in question a manifesto, to which they might afterwards appeal in self-justification when that day of battle should come, which appeared to them then, both so likely and so near. This must be remembered, or the Remonstrance will not be understood.
Debates by the Commons.
Regarded by its supporters as their palladium, it was strenuously opposed by courtiers and reactionists. The debate upon the measure, which took place on Monday, November the 22nd, lasted beyond midnight. After lights had been brought in, the members—amidst the gloom of St. Stephen's chapel and the glimmer of a few candles—continued hotly to dispute respecting this great question, with looks of sternest resolution; very distinct to us even now, although upon the darkness made visible, there also rest the shadows of two centuries and a half. Puritans and High Churchmen that night uttered sharp words against each other, as they stood face to face and foot to foot in conflict. A division arose on the clause for reducing the power of Bishops, when 161 voted for it and 147 against it. On the grand division soon afterwards, respecting the Remonstrance itself, 159 voted that it should pass, 148 took the opposite side. This gave but a scant majority. Immediately on the announcement of the result, there arose a discussion as to the printing of the document—a discussion which became more violent than the former ones.[227] The printing of the Remonstrance at once, prior to its being adopted by the Upper House, and prior to its being presented to the Sovereign, could not but be regarded as a step indicative of the elements of the English Constitution being thrown into a state of lamentable derangement. Hyde declared that he was sure the printing of it would be mischievous, and also unlawful: and then proceeded to assert for himself the right of protest, which, in a member of the Lower House, was an act as irregular as even the printing of the Remonstrance could be. Up started Jeffrey Palmer, "a man of great reputation," and likewise claimed that he might protest "Protest, protest," rung in wrathful tones from other lips; and some members, in the storm of their excitement, were on the point of bringing dishonour upon themselves and upon the House. "We had catched at each other's locks," says Sir Philip Warwick, "and sheathed our swords in each other's bowels, had not the sagacity and calmness of Mr. Hampden, by a short speech, prevented it, and led us to defer our angry debate until next morning."[228]
1641, November.
In corroboration of this general statement, and for the filling up of this graphic outline, happily we can turn to the journal of D'Ewes, the Puritan, who, like Warwick, was present, but who took the other side in the controversy. In answer to a question, as to who claimed the right of protest, there were loud cries of "All! All!!" This reporter, who took part with the patriots, goes on to say: "And some waved their hats over their heads, and others took their swords in their scabbards out of their belts, and held them by the pummels in their hands, setting the lower part on the ground, so as if God had not prevented it, there was very great danger that mischief might have been done. All those who cried, 'All! all!' and did the other particulars, were of the number of those that were against the Remonstrance."[229] Whether or not D'Ewes was right in attributing these acts of warlike defiance exclusively to his opponents—in the faint rays of the candle-light he could not have seen very distinctly all which was going on—he certainly substantiates the account given by Warwick of extensive violent confusion, a Parliamentary tempest in short, calmed by the wisdom and moderation of John Hampden. Before the Commons broke up, on that memorable night, it was resolved by 124 against 101, that the declaration should "not be printed without the particular order of the House," a conclusion which left the publication of the Remonstrance open for the present.
Debates by the Commons.
"The chimes of St. Margaret's were striking two in the morning," as Oliver Cromwell came down stairs, and, according to rumour, recorded by Clarendon, met Lord Falkland, and whispered in his ear, "that if the Remonstrance had been rejected, he would have sold all he had the next morning, and never have seen England more; and he knew there were many other honest men of the same resolution."[230]
