FOOTNOTES:
[206] Journal of the House of Commons ii.
[207] Giustiniano, Nov. 9. ‘Risolutione la quale—palesa a sudditi, d’avere acconsentito alla convocatione costretto delle sole violenze dell’ inimico.’ Clarendon, Reb. Book ii. Guizot, Book iii.
[208] The editing of these speeches in Rushworth and in the Parliamentary History leaves much to be desired. In the second speech the King is made to say, ‘when I called my Lords and Great ones at York,’ although ‘Great ones’ is not an English political phrase. The King really said ‘when I called the lords of my great counsel to York:’ he accuses the Scots, because they ‘did cavil a delay,’ not merely ‘delay.’ As has before been said, all these important documents require to be better edited.
[209] Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay i. 64. Garrard to Strafford, December 1637. Letters ii. 191.
[210] Montereuil: ‘J’ay entretenu longtems le Sr. Pimme: il me doit tenir bien informé de tout qui se passera au parlement, où il m’a témoigné qu’il seroit bien aise de servir en même temps son pais et la France, dont il reconnoit que les interêts sont unis.’
[211] ‘All men who knew him either loved or hated him in extremity.’
[212] ‘Their designs walk on four feet.’ He added a fifth foot, like the Assyrian monsters. The outline of his speech was known already from Nalson i. 495. There is now also the information from D’Ewes’ Journal, in Sanford’s Illustrations.
[213] Narrative in Sanford, 307. There is a notice in May to the same effect.
[214] Montereuil speaks of him as ‘fort éloquent et de grand credit parmi le peuple, un de ceux qui parlèrent avec plus de hardiesse dans de dernier parlement.’
[215] The information comes from Whitelocke’s Memorials, not a really independent authority for these years. It is chiefly compiled from Sanderson, from which Whitelocke has extracted at this place the notice of the evil omen derived from the choice of the day. Sanderson is silent about Strafford’s letter, which Whitelocke quotes. On the contrary, he makes him confer with his friends on the way, and form his determination on the ground that he intended to impeach his opponents. ‘He himself had digested his intelligence into the form of an impeachment.’ Strafford’s frame of mind is shown in a letter of Nov. 5. Fairfax, Correspondence ii. 52.
[216] Contemporary narrative, in Sanford 312.
[217] State Trials iv. 44. Montereuil: ‘Deux raisons l’ont obligé à sortir d’Angleterre, l’une pour se sauver du danger qui le menaçoit, l’autre pour ne point contribuer à la perte de ses amis, l’archevesque de Canterbury et le Lieutenant d’Irlande, comme il eut fait asseurement, s’il cust été obligé de déposer contre eux.’
[218] From a narrative proceeding from Clarendon, but afterwords not inserted by him in his historical work, given by Seward and in the State Trials iv. 18.
[219] Parliamentary History ix. 42.
[220] Lord Digby’s Speech for frequent Parliaments. Parl. Hist. ix. 157.
[221] Giustiniano, 11 Gennaio: ‘Vivamente s’impiega per divertire la riuscita di cosi ardito disegno, che colpisce nel piu vivo la di lui sovranita reale.’
[222] Baillie i. 305: ‘The first motion of it was bitterlie rejected by the King; yet the Marqueis by his wisdome brought him unto it.’
CHAPTER III.
PROGRESS OF AGGRESSIVE TENDENCIES IN THE LOWER HOUSE.
Debates on Episcopacy.
Attempts have been made to separate the good which the Long Parliament did from the errors of which it was guilty. The former is seen in the abolition of the excesses of the royal prerogative, the latter in its vehement prosecution of its opponents and the attack made on the constitution of the Church. From the point of view rendered possible by later events such a separation has its truth: but historically it cannot be made as regards either time or intention: the good was inextricably mingled with the evil. If we consider the close connexion between English and Scottish affairs, the importance of Church matters in Scotland, and the preponderance which the same views had obtained in England among those who were at the head of affairs or were active in lower spheres, we shall see that, when once the united oppositions of the two countries had won a common victory, nothing else was to be expected but that the acts hostile to Episcopacy in Scotland would be repeated in England. When the Scottish deputies came to London they expected to find friends, but they found something more: they were themselves amazed at the deference and admiration lavished on them and their country. On the first fast-day appointed by Parliament all the pulpits rang with praises of the Scots, who had been set apart by God to put an end to idolatry and tyranny in the English Church. The language of many English preachers seemed to the Scottish deputies A.D. 1641 very extraordinary[223]: they scorned Episcopacy and the Liturgy, and called for a Covenant. It was probably Pym through whom a new and increased influence was opened to public opinion, by the introduction and authorisation of the practice of popular petitions to Parliament. One of the first petitions for which this right was used was also one of the most comprehensive and far-reaching that ever was presented: it was directed against the continuance of Episcopacy in England. It dwelt chiefly on the late violent measures of the bishops, by which so many good and true subjects were driven into exile for conscience’ sake; on the number of books that had been forbidden in which true religion was taught, while many others were published by their authority in which doctrines tending to Popery were inculcated; on the fact that every argument on which the bench of bishops depended was equally valid in favour of the Papacy; on the desire of all Papists for the maintenance of their power. The conclusion was thence drawn that the order of bishops and prelates must be destroyed totally, as the phrase went, ‘root and branch.’ The petition was supported by fifteen thousand signatures. Alderman Pennington said, that if a show of hands might be taken as a sufficient sign of assent, they might reckon fifteen times fifteen thousand supporters for it.
Now however arose a difficulty peculiar to England. In Scotland the power of the Presbyterian Church had repressed every movement which went beyond Presbyterianism: the abolition of Episcopacy in Scotland was exclusively its work. In England Presbyterianism was neither established nor yet the only prevalent creed among the enemies of Episcopacy. Many other separatist sects had sprung up in mysterious darkness, and, as soon as Laud’s hand was withdrawn, suddenly emerged into daylight—Brownists, Independents, Formalists, Adamites, Anabaptists, all sorts of names, differing in most respects, but all agreed in one, that the union of ecclesiastical and political power, as it had hitherto existed in England, must come to an end. In the signatures to the petition these sects had as great a share as the Presbyterians.
A.D. 1641
It was never for a moment lost sight of that there existed between them and the Presbyterians a deeply-rooted difference of opinion. Lords Say and Brooke, and some conspicuous members of the Lower House who belonged to the one party, agreed with the leaders of the other to make common cause against the common enemy, to work together for the overthrow of the episcopal establishment, so as first to clear the ground, and then to see about erecting a new edifice[224]. It was understood that when it came to setting up a Presbyterian establishment, toleration was to be granted to the separatists[225]. As two powers which are making joint preparations for war are wont to agree beforehand on the arrangements that are to be made after the victory, so these two religious parties came to an agreement on the relations which were to subsist between them after the fall of their common enemy. They already contemplated a great Church conference which should then be held.
United they had the multitude entirely on their side. Those who had been persecuted or exiled by Laud were conducted back into the city with endless rejoicings. Bastwick was met by a thousand horsemen: wherever he passed he was greeted by triumphant trumpet-blasts. His return was a victory over the hated power of the bishops and the spiritual courts, which men now hoped to destroy for ever.
This scheme, regarded from the historical point of view, appears totally subversive of both Church and State in England. For there was this difference between England and the other Protestant countries, that she alone retained Episcopacy with its claims to apostolic succession. A movement in the episcopal order had, as we have shown, if not actually A.D. 1641 caused the Reformation, at any rate effectually promoted it. Consequently England had remained much nearer not merely to the ecclesiastical institutions, but also to the general conditions of the middle ages, than the other Protestant countries. In them the change was made in open war with the prelates: in Germany, through an alliance of the lower clergy with the territorial authorities, which were invested with power enough for the purpose throughout the empire; in Switzerland by the independent action of the people at large: this in Scotland had gone so far as to frame a new ecclesiastical establishment. Just as the Stuart kings, in attempting to reduce the Scottish Church under the dominion of bishops, were running counter to its historical principles, so the attempt to destroy Episcopacy in England was an attack on the recognised foundations of the Anglican Church. There might be more justification for those who were induced by political considerations to attempt to set aside the bishops: for in England as elsewhere the alliance of Episcopacy with the crown had undoubtedly gone too far in the way of strengthening the royal authority: but when it came to overthrowing and annihilating Episcopacy altogether, or even to destroying its hold on the constitution and the country, the very bases of English society were assailed. Pym certainly thought that, since Parliament had formerly demolished monastic institutions, it was within its authority to treat Episcopacy in the same fashion. The objection was that the dissolution of the monasteries had not destroyed one of the chief branches of the legislative authority, and that the prelates at the time of the Reformation had co-operated heartily with Parliament, and though once in danger had been saved by the fact of their intimate connexion with the entire constitution of the country. Obviously this would be materially affected by their removal, and the preponderance of the Lower House finally secured, for what opposition could the Upper House without the bishops offer to its measures?
There were two distinct views as to the changes which ought to be undertaken in relation to prelacy. In January, 1641, the English clergy of Presbyterian sentiments, seven hundred in number, placed beside the root and branch petition one of A.D. 1641 their own, which aimed not at the abolition but at a reform of the English episcopate. They desired to confine the bishops to their spiritual functions, and further to limit these, especially in respect to ordination and ecclesiastical censure, and to deprive them of a part of their revenues, and of their influence in the State, namely, their seat and voice in Parliament. In reference to the constitution of the legislative authority in the realm, there was no difference between the two programmes: but the latter did not interfere so fundamentally with the conditions of daily life. The relegation of the episcopate to its original functions was sure to meet with wider assent than its entire abolition.
Among the existing committees was one for ecclesiastical affairs: the first debate of the Lower House on this subject (Feb. 9) was on the question whether the two petitions, or only one of them, should be referred for consideration to this committee. The most conspicuous speakers were Lord Digby and Nathaniel Fiennes.
Digby remarked, that any one who looked merely at the abuses might very likely be disposed to cry out with the fifteen thousand petitioners, ‘Down with the bishops!’ but that in the great council of the nation men ought not to be thus swayed by passion. He recalled the services which the episcopal order had rendered since the Reformation, and the good repute which it enjoyed abroad even among the Protestants, as he had himself often observed. To try to establish in England a Presbyterian system would be a rash, an impracticable, an Utopian undertaking. He repeated what the King had already openly declared, that he could never assent to the abolition of Episcopacy, with the addition that the crown could not possibly spare the bishops. This was of course a reason why its opponents should not tolerate it. Fiennes rejected Episcopacy chiefly because its jurisdiction was opposed to the secular courts, and its natural policy hostile to that of Parliament. The sees and chapters with their dependencies he likened to old trees in a forest, which by their roots and wide-spreading branches prevent the young growth from coming up: if they are felled and uprooted the young trees will obtain fresh air, and there will be valuable timber also for the church and A.D. 1641 kingdom. For already the idea was gaining favour of using the spiritual revenues to defray both earlier expenses and also those still being incurred for the maintenance of the two armies. Fiennes however met with considerable opposition. After the matter had been debated a whole day the vote seemed likely to go against him. Meanwhile however the question had been eagerly discussed in the city: although here both views found supporters, yet public opinion, as Baillie observed, was in favour of Episcopacy being rooted out totally and entirely. The petitioners were not going to be defeated at the first step. Next day they mustered at Westminster some two thousand strong, to lend support to their suit, as they said. And so great was the impression in fact produced by this demonstration, that a majority of about thirty-five declared for the reference of both petitions to the committee, which was at the same time completed in a corresponding manner, Nathaniel Fiennes and the younger Vane being added to it. Of the proceedings of the committee unfortunately but few fragments are preserved to us; by way of specimen, the questions about the authority claimed by the bishops were discussed with much ecclesiastical learning. Selden in particular, who already enjoyed a great reputation, defended Episcopacy with great earnestness and success. The committee however did not decide in favour of abolishing the constitution itself, conformably to the London petition. On the other hand, the views of the preachers found much favour: not only was it resolved that the exclusion of the bishops from temporal affairs was advisable, but their authority in certain spiritual functions was disputed, and the retention of the rich revenues of the chapters called in question[226]. On March 9 the committee reported to the Lower House to this effect. In conformity with the report the House two days later passed a resolution that the legislative and judicial authority of the bishops in the House of Peers, as well as their participation in temporal courts, was a hindrance to the discharge of their spiritual duties and generally injurious to the commonwealth, A.D. 1641 and that these powers might and should be taken from them by bill[227]. We see the wide scope of this resolution, which severely shook one of the chief foundations of the English constitutional edifice, as it had been framed in the course of centuries; it corresponded to the political tendencies of the time, but yet in contrast to the popular views of the day appeared altogether too moderate. The city mob, which saw itself checked in its course, was little contented therewith. The Scots saw in the resolution only a beginning of the good work: at present, said they, you are stripping off the roof, another time you will pull down the walls. They did not hesitate to address to the Upper House, before which the matter was now to come, a document drawn up by Henderson, in which they declared against Episcopacy altogether.
In the same paper the other affair was also referred to, which the Upper House had before it, and which was soon to concentrate on itself the almost exclusive attention of all men.
The Proceedings against Strafford.
The Commons had impeached the Viceroy of Ireland for high treason because he had attempted to overthrow the fundamental laws of England and to introduce arbitrary government. On January 30 they laid before the Upper House the grounds of the impeachment in twenty-eight articles[228]. When Strafford read the articles he took courage. He wrote to his wife that there was not a capital offence in any one of them: he hoped that these storm clouds would soon disperse, and that they should live to spend calm days together. It is an indication of his opinion, that he sought and obtained the King’s leave to mention in his defence the A.D. 1641 deliberations which had taken place in the Privy Council, in spite of the oath which he had sworn to observe secrecy.
The commencement of the proceedings before the Lords in Westminster Hall was delayed till March 22. Then the Lords took their seats in their proper order of precedence on the platform which had been erected on the floor of the Hall. The members of the Lower House sat on each side on benches rising in the form of an amphitheatre. Spectators’ galleries had been erected, especially one for the King and Queen, who appeared there with their attendants. At 9 a.m. Strafford entered. The manly expression of his countenance was heightened by the marks of illness under which he was suffering: his whole bearing breathed confidence in his cause, gravity, and dignity.
The proceedings of the next few days related especially to Irish affairs. Not without a certain emotion Strafford replied to the accusations made by the Irish Parliament, which were given in evidence against him, that he thought to have earned the thanks of the nation. Among other charges was one of having taken the sum of £24,000 from the Irish treasury: he pointed out that he had been authorised by the King to spend Irish money to the amount of £40,000, and repeated with emphasis that he was an honourable man. Among the heaviest accusations was one of having kept a sentence of death suspended over a great Irish noble, Lord Mountnorris. Strafford was able to show that the sentence was pronounced without his participation, under the existing martial law, and at his prayer had remained unexecuted: he had wished merely to show the power of the State to the refractory. Many of the things laid to his charge the Privy Council had ordered, some the King had expressly dictated. He was accused of having desired to attach as much authority to the resolutions of the Irish Privy Council as to the acts of the Parliament there: he replied that a greater authority had always been allowed to the Privy Council in Ireland than in England, and that among a nation so little civilised it must be so. His defence, which was based on the distinction between the circumstances of England and Ireland, had in general more truth than the prosecution, which treated Irish A.D. 1641 events in the same way as if they had happened in England. It was not everything that Strafford could or would justify: but he pointed out that the things which could justly be imputed to him could only be reckoned as slight offences: the sum of all these misdemeanours did not amount to one felony, and a hundred felonies were yet no treason, the three things being altogether distinct from one another.
With redoubled vehemence the prosecution attacked his influence over English affairs, in relation to which the violent measures that he had counselled in his speeches, the furious threats which he had employed against the citizens of London on their refusal of a loan, and above all the advice given by him to the King to dissolve the last Parliament, were imputed as crimes. Strafford calculated that none of this could be proved against him. But after some delay a private document was produced, which seemed to admit of no answer: it was the protocol of the sitting of May 5, already mentioned, in the hand of Sir Henry Vane. The younger Vane, who belonged to the separatist party, had found it among his father’s papers, and without much hesitation had handed it to Stafford’s enemies. According to this paper Strafford had on that day, in his eagerness to induce the King to make war on Scotland, reminded him of the Irish troops, of which he could dispose, and that certainly in language which might perhaps apply to England also[229]. We will not discuss the question whether Strafford would not have brought the Irish army into England had need arisen: his disposition renders it not improbable, but as a matter of legal evidence it did not follow from the words of the protocol, and he himself gave it an unqualified denial. What will be the end of it, he added, if words which are spoken in the King’s Privy Council, half understood or misunderstood by its members, are to be turned into crimes; no one will any longer have the courage to speak out his opinion plainly to the King.
A.D. 1641
There was no mistaking the fact that the whole produced a great impression on the Lords: the general voice inclined to the side of Strafford. The skill and unconquerable energy with which he defended himself against a whole multitude of enemies had influenced in his favour the feelings of the women especially, some of whom copied down the heads of his defence. Stafford’s closing speech, in which he summed up all these, produced a deep impression on both friend and foe. It must in fact be reckoned as a remarkable piece of forensic eloquence, for its thorough discussion of single points, united with high and proud pathos. After it there seemed little probability of the accused being condemned by the Lords. The lawyers declared it to be unjustifiable, since nothing was treason except what was declared to be so by the express words of the Statute of 25 Edward III. They would not hear of a constructive proof, of which men spoke: even if it could be proved that Strafford had contemplated the overthrow of the law, that would after all be only felony and not treason.
Already it had been proposed in the Commons to try another way to their end. It was recollected that in earlier times men who had been impeached, and could not be convicted under the ordinary forms, had been declared guilty by the sentence of the legislative power, by a law in parliamentary form (Bill of Attainder). And this proceeding was deemed perfectly just, since Parliament was competent to make laws to meet every possible case, and could at all times define high treason[230]. On the introduction of the supplementary protocol, the Lords seemed inclined to accede to Strafford’s request that he on his side should be allowed to bring forward new points. But the Commons thought they saw in this undue favour to the accused: one morning they quitted Westminster Hall with shouts of stormy impatience. When they met in the afternoon for their sitting the proposal to try that other course, which had already been prepared, and was at once proceeded with, met with a favourable reception: the Bill of Attainder was read for the first time. They did not A.D. 1641 blind themselves to the danger of thus offending the Lords, and causing a breach between the two Houses; but the sense of their own strength was already so fully aroused that they did not shrink from this: they rather let it appear that though the Commons were not Strafford’s peers, but his accusers, they meant to pass sentence upon him; they would declare him and all his adherents to be traitors[231].
On Monday, the 12th, the debate on the second reading of the bill came on in the Lower House. On that occasion the initiative was taken by members of republican sentiments, like Haslerig and Martin. Neither Pym nor Hampden, the leaders hitherto, were as yet for this course; they were unwilling to break with the Upper House, which was very much irritated, and still trusted to its proving pliable. A final conclusion was not reached on this occasion. The second reading was agreed to, and took place at the next sitting two days later: but after further long and close debate it was resolved that the House, as committee, should be present to hear the arguments of Strafford’s counsel with respect to the applicability of the existing laws to his case.
These were delivered on April 17. Attorney-General Lane argued that the Statute of Edward III, by which all the cases that can be treated as high treason are defined, was not applicable to the present case, either in itself or constructively. The Commons had chiefly relied on the proviso appended to the statute, according to which everything which Parliament might hereafter pronounce to be treason was punishable as such. The Attorney-General pointed out that this definition, after having entailed very opposite consequences through changes of parliamentary faction, had been altogether repealed in the first year of Henry IV, every one having felt that it was like a sword hanging over his head. This last argument appeared to the Lords conclusive: they decided that they had no right whatever to go beyond the letter of the Statute of Edward III.
The Commons heard this in silence; but they derived A.D. 1641 from it the impression that if Strafford was to be condemned it must be by their own action. When they came back to their bill, they at once entered on the question whether in fact the intention to overthrow the laws could be regarded as treason. Selden observed that according to the statute there was only one intention, that namely of killing the king, which could be treated as high treason. Even the purpose of taking up arms against him was legally not high treason: how then could an attempt to overthrow the laws be so regarded? In reply it was urged, among other points, that the reason why the intention to kill the king was treason was that it implied the overthrow of the laws. Finally it was resolved that the attempt to overthrow the laws should be treated as treason. Once more the actual charges against Strafford were discussed. The Commons took as sufficiently proven his acts of violence in Ireland, his support of the war against the Scots, finally his expressions about the dissolution of the last Parliament. But in general they did not attach much importance to legal evidence on the separate points. As a member said, we do not ask how many inches are required that a man should be called big or little—the sight determines that: so it is in the present case, we do not enquire how many unlawful acts will establish a charge of high treason, we all know that it has been committed. Once more Lord Digby, at an earlier period one of Strafford’s bitterest opponents, rose to defend him. Once more he declared him to be the most dangerous man in England, and his intention to introduce arbitrary government into the country to be undoubted; but the intention imputed to him, of subjugating England with Irish troops, was unproved, and he could not fairly be condemned as a traitor. He ventured to say that this would be to commit a judicial murder. With all his eloquence he only succeeded in rendering himself an object of suspicion. By 204 votes against 59 the Bill of Attainder passed the Lower House[232].
Extremely remarkable are the grounds for this proceeding as put forward by Oliver St. John, on April 29, in a great conference with the Upper House, at which the King was A.D. 1641 present. He urged especially the absolute legislative power of Parliament, in virtue of which it was not bound, like inferior tribunals, by existing laws, but was justified in making new ones to suit circumstances: its only guide should be care for the public weal: it was the political body, embracing all, from the king to the beggar, and could deal with individuals for the good of the whole, could open a vein to let out the corrupted blood. It had been said that the law must precede the offence; that where no law was there could be no transgression: but that plea could not avail for the man who had desired to overthrow all laws: there might be rules for the hunting of hares, wolves were slain wherever they were found. Strafford had well known that the Lower House had the power of life and death[233]. Strafford had thought to be judged by the existing laws, and had always taken the most careful precautions to avoid acting towards them in such a manner that a capital charge could be brought against him. But now there was a power set in motion against him which did not consider itself bound by the letter of the statutes, and held itself fully justified in punishing not only his acts but his intentions.
When he heard St. John’s speech he saw that he was lost: he raised his hands above his head, as if to implore the mercy of heaven. His case was not yet finally decided, but in order that he might be rescued events must have happened, and courses have been tried, which lay outside all regular government. In the violent agitation produced by the great questions involved, there was actually once a moment in which such a turn of events might possibly have been expected: this arose from the inner complications of the state and court.