FOOTNOTES:
[193] Memorial, in the Hardwicke State Papers ii. 168.
[194] Unfortunately the petition, like so many other documents, is very badly printed. In the Record Office copy it is not ‘grievances, which your poor petitioners lie under,’ but more correctly, ‘which your people lies under.’ The concluding words run, ‘The uniting [not ‘the continuance,’ which makes little sense] of both your kingdoms against the common enemy of their [not ‘the’] reformed religion.’ The thing most wanted for this history is a trustworthy critical edition of the chief authorities. Even the signatures are not certain. The Record copy gives at the head the name of Rutland, which is wanting in the rest. In the same copy the name of Bristol is wanting, which undoubtedly appears wrongly in most editions. It was wanting also in the copy on which the Clarendon Papers were based. Windebank says that he was present, Clarendon Papers ii. 115.
[195] Protocol: Bedford was very shy of doing anything without those by whom he was authorised.
[196] So says the Protocol, which is extant in the State Paper Office, and well deserves to be printed. We find especially ‘the end and conclusion very strange, to desire the Scots to joyne in the reformation of religion.’ Windebank on the same day furnished a report to the King: some points he added, and omitted others.
[197] Forster, Statesmen iii. 126.
[198] Giustiniano 12/22 Sett: ‘Il tenore di queste artificiose lettere che si va da per tutto spargendo, accresce motivo d’alteratione contro ministri et a ribelli sostenta il favore delli primi applausi.’
[199] ‘Honoured from all antiquitie with the title of his majesty’s own chambre.’ Letter of the Privy Council, 11 Sept. in Rushworth iii. 1262.
[200] Windebank to the King, 18 Sept. Clarendon Papers ii. 116.
[201] We see from Giustiniano, 15 Sept., that the rumour was, that in a memorial to the King the formal threat had been expressed, ‘di chiamarlo (il parlamento) da se stessi.’
[202] ‘Di tale ardita resolutione—penetrate dalla regina e da ministri le piu particolari notitie ha mandati in diligenza gli avvisi al re consigliandolo a ridursi celeremente in questa citta per divertire quei pregiuditti che ben grandi gli sono irreparabilmente minacciati, quando non si disponga di convocare senza intervallo di momenti il parlamento.’ (Giustiniano, ib). Montereuil (4 Oct.) also heard of the Queen’s influence (‘que la reine y ait fort porté’) on the summoning of Parliament.
[203] ‘These things made such impression on them, that we discerned as they satt, how well they were disposed—so that we came about.’ So it is stated in the report of the Lord Privy Seal and Chamberlain, dated October 3, in the State Paper Office, a document which is the more welcome since Windebank’s letter about these proceedings, to which he himself refers, is not in the Clarendon collection.
[204] The obscure words of the protocol in Hardwicke, State Papers ii. 247, are explained by the note of Sir Henry Vane, p. 196.
[205] Pamphlet of 1643 on the elections of 1640: ‘We elected such as were not known to us by any virtue, but only by crossness to superiors.’ Montereuil reports about the same time that the elections had begun ‘par le choix des personnes, que l’on croit moins portées à favoriser le roi d’Angleterre.’
CHAPTER II.
THE FIRST SITTINGS OF THE LONG PARLIAMENT.
On the morning of November 3, 1640, the Lord Steward appeared in the vestibule of St. Stephen’s chapel, which since the Reformation had served as the place of meeting for the Lower House. The clerk of the crown called over the names of the members, who took the oaths of allegiance and supremacy at the hands of the Lord Steward or his deputies appointed for the purpose. An hour after midday the King, who had come in a barge from Whitehall, landed close to Westminster bridge. After hearing a sermon in the Abbey, he opened Parliament with a speech in the House of Lords, which the Commons attended. When the latter had returned to their own house, and taken their seats, the Treasurer of the King’s household nominated as Speaker a young barrister, named William Lenthall. He was accepted with general acclamation, and then conducted by the Treasurer and one of the secretaries to his chair, a few feet in front of the chapel window, opposite the places of the members, which rose in two ranks one behind the other[206]. The government had at an earlier period thought of designating as Speaker one of their own supporters, but in spite of all their efforts had failed to secure his election. It may be assumed that the hearty reception accorded to the new Speaker did not so much apply to him, since he was as yet little known, as express a sense of the advantage gained through the rejection of the other.
It was remarked with displeasure and dissatisfaction that the King came to the opening of Parliament, not with the pomp of a splendid cavalcade, but in a plain barge, just as if A.D. 1640. a session were being opened after a prorogation[207], and in fact this corresponded with his feelings and language. He referred in his speech to the previous Parliament, and now as then entered immediately on the questions of the Scottish war, and the redress of grievances. The difference however between the two occasions was most marked and complete. The King no longer claimed precedence for the question of supplies for the war: he left it to Parliament to decide which of the two subjects it would take up first. But it was his wish and hope to direct their attention before everything to getting rid of the Scots from English territory: for the pressure which weighed on the northern counties, the welfare and honour of the whole country, rendered this absolutely necessary. To the same effect spoke the Lord Keeper Finch; he brought vividly forward the innovations of the Scots, which were opposed to the fundamental laws of the realm, and to monarchical institutions. As it had excited some remark that the King had directly called the Scots rebels, he deemed it advisable, a couple of days later, to explain himself in a second speech[208], without however withdrawing what he had said. On this second occasion he expressed again his expectation that the Lords would help him to bring his Scottish subjects to reason—for such in any case they were, though rebels so long as they were in England—and to send them back into their own country, whether they would or no. The Lords seemed to assent to this. The Scottish commissioners had come to London, and a conference between the Lords and the Lower House would shortly be necessary, in order, as they requested, to settle in Parliament terms of accommodation with them. After a few A.D. 1640. days the Lords actually proposed such a conference, but the Commons declared that they were at present too busy with other weighty matters.
Among the latter the King roused at once the liveliest opposition when he urged in harsh language the removal of the Scots. It was through the attitude of the Commons in the last Parliament that the expedition of the Scots had been undertaken. The whole course of events, the convocation of another Parliament, originated in the advance of the Scots into England. How could the Lower House, which held the Scottish cause to be its own, have declared against them?
Without paying any attention to the King’s wish to undertake or to decide on some measure against the Scots, the Commons, as soon as they had despatched the first formal business, began the discussion of grievances, with the intention not merely of removing them, but also of punishing their authors. The first sitting in which this took place, that of November 7, is specially remarkable for the feelings then exhibited.
First, John Hampden submitted a complaint about the cruelties which had been perpetrated in consequence of a refusal to pay ship-money, for which he made the Lord Chief Justice and Judges of the King’s Bench answerable. Next was mentioned the far grosser ill-treatment which Bastwick and Burton had suffered at the hands of the spiritual tribunal. The reply which the King’s servants made, that this was a matter of State, in which they must first enquire of the King, was met by a reminder that the King had already given them leave to enquire into abuses. It was resolved that Burton and Bastwick should be summoned before Parliament to plead their own cause. Then the member for Hertford presented a petition from that county, in which the chief grievances that had come before the last Parliament were repeated. The county prayed not merely for the removal of them, but for the discovery and punishment of their authors. Harbottle Grimstone, member for Colchester, who had once expiated in prison his resistance to a loan for Charles I, called to remembrance the disappointments which had befallen the members of the last Parliament. A.D. 1640. ‘But what good,’ cried he, ‘have our complaints or our petitions ever done? The judges have overthrown the law, and the bishops religion.’ The same tone was adopted by men of generally moderate opinions. Benjamin Rudyard inveighed against the King’s counsellors, who, while they talked of his service, really sought nothing but their own interest; who by their conduct caused confusion, and then used that very confusion as a pretext for measures seven times worse than the previous ones. Francis Seymour, the brother of Hertford, added that no man could any longer endure the present state of things, without being false to the duty which he owed not merely to the King but also to his country. The assembly had thus been brought into such a state of violent agitation coupled with self-confidence, as might naturally result from the knowledge of having suffered wrongs, and of being in a position to terminate them, when John Pym, who had already spoken once, rose for the second time to make a general reply.
John Pym belonged to the school of Coke and Cotton, which desired to see the parliamentary rights that had been won in Plantagenet times re-established in England. In previous Parliaments he had appeared as one of the leading opponents of monopolies, and other exercises of prerogative. James I had remarked with dislike his imperious and unyielding spirit. Moreover he like others was actuated by Calvinistic zeal for that exclusive Protestantism which he regarded as the only form of religion tolerated by law in England. He had at all times contended not only against financial extortion, but also against the favour which Catholic tendencies found, and had more than once had to encounter the King’s vengeance in consequence. When Parliaments were no more held, and judicial decisions legalised ship-money, the hope of accomplishing any good in England seems to have failed in him as in others: we find his name among those who were directing their gaze to the shores beyond the Atlantic, and the colonies to be planted there. It does not appear certain whether he or his friends had actually formed the purpose of emigrating; but there is no doubt that he, and other like-minded members of the nobility A.D. 1640. and gentry, took part in the commercial intercourse with Providence, and had acquired possessions in Massachusetts. George Fenwick, the agent of Lords Say and Brooke, for a long time would allow no settlement in their districts; he kept them vacant for the owners, who might at any moment be expected to arrive[209]. Then came the troubles in Scotland. The same sentiments which drove Winthrop and his friends to America, now kept Pym and his associates in England. The former gave way when the ecclesiastical tyranny of Laud became unendurable to them: the latter, when the first commotion began, seized on the hope of freeing England also from it. The ideas of the Scots were of a very similar type: rigid Calvinism in doctrine pervaded all, together with demands for independence in the Church, and a political constitution which should secure this. The English and Scottish movements and the emigration to America sprang from one and the same source. Among those who promoted the union between England and Scotland John Pym stands foremost. Through him above all men it came to pass that the Parliament of the spring of 1640, instead of voting subsidies against Scotland, brought into prominent notice the English grievances of like character. Thereupon followed the rising in arms of the Scots, and a general ferment in England. John Pym instigated the popular petitions demanding a Parliament: he prepared and directed the elections: he was in fact often pointed out as the author of this Parliament. At all times a declared enemy of Spain, he had no objection to enter into alliance with the French, whose interests were identical with those of England[210]. His peculiar talent lay in combining opposites, and directing towards one end movements which were remote from one another. Pym was no rigorous Puritan: he loved cheerful conviviality: occasionally, in street ballads or violent lampoons, he is accused of irregularities of conduct. But from the time when he reached the point which made political influence A.D. 1640. possible for him, he gave his whole heart to the task he had set himself. Personal considerations swayed him not; the interests of his family were of no weight with him; he died in debt: from earliest dawn till late into the night he laboured for his end. Other men could but follow him, or hate him from the bottom of their hearts[211]. Through the force of the ideas of which he was the champion, he is for all time a man of great historical importance: through the zeal and good fortune with which he acted, he gained an unique political position. He was the representative of the opposition in the old Parliament, and of the alliance with the Scots which characterised the new. He could reckon on producing a great impression by every word he spoke.
In parliamentary assemblies the most influential speeches will be, not those which approach most nearly to the ideal of classical eloquence, but those which best correspond to the education and mental tendencies prevalent at the time. Pym’s speeches, as has been observed, move in the fetters of scholastic distinctions: but that was the form in which men of that epoch were wont to think, in consequence of the style and method of teaching then in vogue. They are solid, energetic, and altogether calculated to win acceptance for the conclusions to which they point. On this occasion he entered in more detail than before into the source and nature of the evils from which England was suffering. He attributed them to the violence of the spiritual and perversion of the temporal courts, above all to the contempt for the privileges of Parliament and the favour shown to Papists, even in military employment. He illustrated each of his positions by quoting piquant, pertinent, and sensational particulars, in order to support the conclusion that a plan had been formed for altering and destroying piecemeal, not merely the established religion, but also the constitutional form of government. This, he said, was not only treason, but the greatest of all imaginable treasons: it touched alike the King and the kingdom[212]. A.D. 1640. To direct the general zeal towards the discovery and punishment of the authors of these treasons and their accomplices was the special object of his words, and he attained it fully.
The majority of the Lower House besides was strongly inclined to exclusiveness. They would endure no one in the House who had shared in the exaction of the last imposts, no monopolist, no projector, above all no one who was prevented by his creed from joining in the Eucharist according to the Anglican ritual. The Lower House could not be regarded as an assembly of lawgivers who intended to establish the principles of equal justice for all: their hostility to the royal prerogative led them rather to endeavour to renew, with other laws, those statutes against the Catholics which had been passed in the hottest times of the religious contest. All breaches of positive law, according to their understanding of it, they were resolved to punish as offences, without any regard to royal prerogative. Everything breathed a decidedly aggressive spirit. In parliamentary meetings of the leading members this course was systematically planned, and the resolution taken that the Lower House should act as a sort of high court of enquiry for the kingdom. While it was thought expedient to combine all grounds of complaint in one great remonstrance, it was generally agreed to spare the King, to ignore his personal share, and always to mention his name with respect[213]. All the blame was to be cast on his advisers. They went through the list of men who had most participated in the misgovernment, in the Privy Council, on the episcopal and judicial benches, finding many who might be held criminally responsible, and ending with the special confidential advisers of the King, the junta by which affairs had been managed hitherto, and against which both kingdoms had common grounds of complaint. Hence one of the hardest and weightiest questions of parliamentary life came again to the front. When James I and Charles raised their favourites to the highest posts, so that men who were their mere personal dependants wielded the whole power of the State, we have seen already how often and how zealously both Lords and Commons resisted such A.D. 1640. inclinations. Charles I was always extremely sensitive on this point: more than once parliaments were dissolved because they harped on this topic. For a long time Charles I had ceased to have any personal favourites, but the leading members of his government identified themselves with his absolutist and anti-parliamentary policy. It must be left undecided whether the schemes of the administration originated chiefly with the King or his ministers: they were agreed in the idea of a government to be carried on essentially through prerogative. This intimate connexion between the royal authority and the holders of administrative power decided the leaders of the Parliament to begin operations by an attack on the ministers. Not that they were convinced that the ministers had in fact acted independently of the King, and merely covered with his name their own wills and purposes; but a few great examples would re-establish the right which Parliament had enjoyed in early centuries, and sometimes exercised in later times, to bring men of the highest position before its tribunal, to subject the administration to its control, and render it responsible. On this very ground King Charles had avoided convoking parliaments, because he feared the reappearance of this demand, which touched the very sources of his power, the means by which the general direction of affairs devolve on the crown. Now however in the course of events a Parliament was assembled in which his opponents had the upper hand: what was to prevent a return to the policy of earlier Parliaments? No one as yet entertained, at any rate consciously, the purpose of overthrowing the monarchy; but it was intended to confine its operations within narrow limits, and to ensure the preponderance of the parliamentary over the royal authority. They wished too to destroy the ministers, to take vengeance on those whom they had hitherto been compelled to fear, from whom they had suffered personal wrongs: it was now the ministers’ turn to experience a reverse of fortune, and feel the power of their enemies.
No one was better qualified to lead the attack than John Pym, who had himself announced it in the above-mentioned speech. As in former years he had contended against Cranfield A.D. 1640. at the side of Buckingham, then against the latter himself, so too it was well remembered, at least by members of Parliament, with what effect he had battled against Montague and Manwaring[214].
At the time that Wentworth deserted the popular party, Pym is said to have told him that he was going headlong to destruction. This was the man who now for a long time had most thoroughly personified royalist tendencies: on him the first and decisive attack must be made. Pym had for some time been preparing to bring about the fulfilment of his own prediction. When therefore, at the beginning of the appointment of committees, Pym proposed that the affairs of Ireland should be debated in a committee of the whole house, every one saw what his object was. The friends of the Viceroy demanded a separate committee. But the majority on which Pym could reckon when it came to actual impeachment, were on his side in the preliminary question also: by a trifling majority, but still in legal form, the resolution was adopted that the whole house should form the committee on Irish affairs.
It has always excited surprise that Wentworth Earl of Strafford appeared in Parliament at all. For even if he could have deceived himself so far as not to believe that impeachment and danger to his life awaited him, yet obviously he would have been much safer with the army, or in Ireland, or abroad. It has been said that he represented the whole case to the King[215], but that the latter, who still thought himself strong enough to protect his friends under all circumstances, reassured him, and requested his presence on the ground that A.D. 1640 he could not dispense with his advice. We need not however believe that Strafford trusted to this assurance. He knew full well, and avowed the knowledge, that there was a necessity which overruled the King’s good-will, for owing to the presence of the Scottish army he was in a measure at the mercy of the Puritans. But his friends implored him to come, in order to prevent blunders and follies such as had already been committed. Very unwillingly he tore himself away from Wodehouse, his country seat: but he desired to obey the King’s wish, and not to be untrue to his party. Moreover he had some confidence in his cause: it is asserted that he had in his hands proofs of an alliance between his enemies and the Scots which could be construed as treason, and that he intended to found thereon an impeachment against them.
Accusation against accusation: but the one depended on the notions of old English loyalty; the other had as its motive and aim the idea of parliamentary government: the former treated as high treason the alliance with the Scots, the latter the war against them. Their opposition corresponded to that between the chief combatants, and the principles embraced by each. Had the King obtained the upper hand in the field, perhaps the first might have prevailed: but after he had sustained a political defeat, the success of the second became more probable.
Strafford came to London on November 10, and that evening had an audience at Whitehall: next morning he appeared in the Upper House to take his seat, and then repaired again to Whitehall. There he was informed that the Commons were busy with an impeachment against him: he replied that he would look his enemies in the face. On this morning, the 11th, the chamber in which the Commons assembled was closed and the key laid on the table, in order that no one might absent himself, and no stranger might come into the house. All other business was set aside, in order that the house might devote itself to the impeachment of Strafford. A committee of seven members, among whom were Pym and Hampden, was deputed to draw it up: after their draft had been approved, Pym himself was appointed to carry it to the Upper House. At the head of about three hundred members he appeared A.D. 1640 before them: ‘My Lords,’ said he, ‘in the name of the Commons of Parliament and of the country I impeach Thomas Earl of Strafford, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, of high treason. I am commissioned to request that he be removed from Parliament and committed to prison.’ The Lords had come to no conclusion when Strafford, with haughty and lowering demeanour, entered the house and went towards his seat. In the morning he had been received by every one with respect, now a hollow murmur greeted him. He might have intended to take part in the debate, and so have the opportunity of at once taking his own line, but he was obliged to retire into the antechamber until a resolution was taken respecting him. The Upper House could not well do otherwise than assent to the request of the Commons. The Viceroy, who in the morning was regarded by most men as lord and master of the executive power of England, was seen in the afternoon to kneel at the bar of the Upper House, and in obedience to the commands which he there received, follow the gentleman-usher to his house as a prisoner[216].
Prosecution was now of necessity directed also against the man whom the English and Scottish Puritans regarded as the source of those torrents of destruction which had overflowed the Church, Archbishop Laud. On December 18 an impeachment for high treason against him was laid before the Upper House, and his arrest ordered. Rising from prayer in his chapel, he entered the barge which was to carry him to the Tower: he was confident of so defending himself before Parliament as to make the justice of his cause obvious; but had this been more irreproachable than it was, he had as little chance of making it prevail, before a Parliament such as was then assembled, as the Puritans had had before his own spiritual tribunals.
Inferior in external dignity, but not less important in fact, was the office of Secretary Windebank, who, as his letters show, exercised much influence over the King, and enjoyed the confidence of the Queen: he was not only favourable to Spain, like Strafford, but also inclined towards Catholicism. A.D. 1640 The chief articles of an impeachment against him were already drawn up. His impending arrest was a danger not merely to himself, but to all who were associated with him: it was feared that in the proceedings against Strafford and Laud he would be compelled to give evidence which would destroy them utterly. With one of his subordinates who knew as much as himself, he avoided arrest by flight into France: he had a pass from the King[217]. The French minister hastened to warn his government against him, as a very suspicious person.
Meanwhile the impeachment against John Lord Finch had been prepared by examination of the judges, over whom he had exercised illegitimate influence in the matter of ship-money. His friends prevailed so far that he was first heard once more in his defence. Quitting the woolsack in the Upper House, in his official dress, the great seal of the kingdom, with the bag which held it, in his hand, he appeared before the Commons. The excuses which he alleged were not positively false: moreover he was able to plead some attempts to defend and shelter the preachers. These actions, the beauty and eloquence of his language, and his tone of submission, won him a certain amount of sympathy. Nevertheless impeachment and imprisonment would undoubtedly have been his lot, had not his friends succeeded in interposing sufficient delay to allow of his also taking to flight. He sent the great seal secretly to the king, and took ship for Holland[218].
Thus the men to whose hands had been committed all the chief offices of state in the army, the Church, the law, foreign affairs, were banished or imprisoned: in one way or another Parliament proceeded further to make sure of the most interested judges, the most confidential friends of Strafford, the most active bishops. All those who had taken a consenting and active part in the government saw themselves A.D. 1640 personally threatened. Not only a change of persons, but an alteration of the mode of government had to be achieved: there was a complete and systematic revolution of principles. It was now definitely established that Parliamentary privilege was the fundamental law of the realm, and that every infringement of it, although with the King’s approval, should be punished as a crime. Henceforth there was a change in the power, an offence against which constituted high treason: formerly it was the King, now it was the entire Parliamentary body. In their hands was the sword of vengeance: the victims of the Star Chamber were set free, the members of the tribunal impeached.
Sundry resolutions corresponding to this idea were adopted by Parliament; for instance, in relation to ship-money[219], which was declared contrary to the laws of the realm, to the private rights of subjects, and to previous statutes. Care was taken to restore to those who had paid them the last raised contributions, which were still in the hands of the sheriffs. This gave the bench of judges greater security against arbitrary dismissal. But as the chief source of the evil was seen to lie in the long intermission of Parliaments and their abrupt dissolution, the most special care was directed towards making this impossible. The general feeling was that they could never long reckon on the good behaviour of the ministers unless the rod of responsibility was always hung over them, that otherwise their arbitrary power would in a short time grow again like Samson’s hair, and that the only means of keeping good ministers lay in the frequent repetition of Parliaments[220]. Demands similar to those of which the Scots had set the example, were made in England also, that Parliament should meet every three years. Neither the power to convoke nor the power to dissolve it was to be left entirely to the King’s pleasure. It was resolved that if the King had not summoned a Parliament before September 3 of the third year, the peers of the realm were to issue the necessary writs in the King’s name: should they prove dilatory, the sheriffs of the A.D. 1641 counties and mayors of the towns were to order the elections: and in case even these did nothing, the burgesses and freeholders might come to the poll unsummoned. On the same principle Parliament was neither to be dissolved nor prorogued until the session had lasted fifty days, without the assent of both Houses.
These proposed enactments met with some opposition from the Lords: but as they involved interests common to both Houses, they passed that House also. We are assured that the King was fully sensible of the injurious effect which these measures must have on himself[221]: he foresaw that the censorship to which his ministers and himself would be subjected every three years must destroy the freedom of his designs, and limit his authority over the people. When the bill was presented to him he showed himself extremely unwilling to accept it. But an outspoken refusal once before had stopped all further negotiations: moreover there was a feeling at court that it would have been better for the King himself if his ministers had had no option in this respect. Charles I was induced to give way on February 16; the clerk of the Parliament was instructed to utter the old Norman formula, ‘Le roi le veut.’
Among those who originally were doomed to destruction was Hamilton: but at the crisis when the Scots penetrated into England a change of policy was observed in him. Though formerly he had recommended extreme measures, he was not prepared to risk his life for them. He now recommended the King to grant the demands of the Scots, and entered into an alliance with their leaders, his former opponents, and with the lords of the opposition party. By his mediation the most conspicuous of the latter, Bedford and Hertford, Essex, Mandeville, Saville, Say, as well as Bristol, were admitted into the Privy Council, thereby obtaining a certain share in the administration. It was generally believed at the time that this suggestion proceeded from the Scots, who desired to see their friends in the King’s council, in order to ensure A.D. 1641 the granting of their demands. The court based on it the prospect of a better understanding with the Parliament. Hamilton had at first some difficulty, but ultimately the King once more obeyed the voice to which for some years he had been wont to pay special attention[222].
On the whole we may suppose that the King under this influence cherished the idea of conducting a Parliamentary government, and, since his late ministers had fallen, of trying to work it through members of the opposition. But circumstances were such that very little could be achieved by means of a mere change of ministry. The restraints imposed on the King meant far more than mere alterations in form: the principle from which they sprang touched the vital point of his power. And the tendencies of a totally different nature and extent which were exhibited in the spirit both of members of Parliament and of the people were such that no accommodation with them was possible.