History for ready reference, Volume 2, El Dorado to Greaves

by J. N. Larned

than a great political change. The exigencies of royal
passion, and the dubious impulses of statecraft, seem its
moving and really powerful springs. But, regarded more
closely, we recognise a significant train both of religious
and critical forces at work. The lust and avarice of Henry,
the policy of Cromwell, and the vacillations of the leading
clergy, attract prominent notice; but there may be traced
beneath the surface a wide-spread evangelical fervour amongst
the people, and, above all, a genuine spiritual earnestness
and excitement of thought at the universities.
{830}
These higher influences preside at the first birth of the
movement. They are seen in active operation long before the
reforming task was taken up by the Court and the bishops."
J. Tulloch,
Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy
in England in the 17th Century,
volume 1, chapter 2.
"The miserable fate of Anne Boleyn wins our compassion, and
the greatness to which her daughter attained has been in some
degree reflected back upon herself. Had she died a natural
death, and had she not been the mother of Queen Elizabeth, we
should have estimated her character at a very low value
indeed. Protestantism might still, with its usual unhistorical
partizanship, have gilded over her immoralities; but the
Church of England must ever look upon Anne Boleyn with
downcast eyes full of sorrow and shame. By the influence of
her charms, Henry was induced to take those steps which ended
in setting the Church of England free from an uncatholic yoke:
but that such a result should be produced by such an influence
is a fact which must constrain us to think that the land was
guilty of many sins, and that it was these national sins which
prevented better instruments from being raised up for so
righteous an object."
J. H. Blunt,
The Reformation of the Church of England,
pages 197-198.
"Cranmer's work might never have been carried out, there might
have been no English Bible, no Ten Articles or 'Institution,'
no reforming Primers, nor Proclamations against Ceremonies,
had it not been for the tact, boldness and skill of Thomas
Crumwell, who influenced the King more directly and constantly
than Cranmer, and who knew how to make his influence
acceptable by an unprincipled confiscation and an absurd
exaggeration of the royal supremacy. Crumwell knew that in his
master's heart there was a dislike and contempt of the clergy.
... It is probable that Crumwell's policy was simply
irreligious, and only directed towards preserving his
influence with the King; but as the support of the reforming
part of the nation was a useful factor in it, he was thus led
to push forward religious information in conjunction with
Cranmer. It has been before said that purity and
disinterestedness are not to be looked for in all the actors
in the English Reformation. To this it may be added that
neither in the movement itself nor in those who took part in
it is to be found complete consistency. This, indeed, is not
to be wondered at. Men were feeling their way along untrodden
paths, without any very clear perception of the end at which
they were aiming, or any perfect understanding of the
situation. The King had altogether misapprehended the meaning
of his supremacy. A host of divines whose views as to the
distinction between the secular and the spiritual had been
confused by the action of the Popes, helped to mislead him.
The clergy, accustomed to be crushed and humiliated by the
Popes, submitted to be crushed and humiliated by the King; and
as the tide of his autocratic temper ebbed and flowed, yielded
to each change. Hence there was action and reaction throughout
the reign. But in this there were obvious advantages for the
Church. The gradual process accustomed men's thoughts to a
reformation which should not be drastic or iconoclastic, but
rather conservative and deliberate."
G. G, Perry,
History of the Reformation in England,
chapter 5.
"With regard to the Church of England, its foundations rest
upon the rock of Scripture, not upon the character of the King
by whom they were laid. This, however, must be affirmed in
justice to Henry, that mixed as the motives were which first
induced him to disclaim the Pope's authority, in all the
subsequent measures he acted sincerely, knowing the importance
of the work in which he had engaged, and prosecuting it
sedulously and conscientiously, even when most erroneous. That
religion should have had so little influence upon his moral
conduct will not appear strange, if we consider what the
religion was wherein he was trained up;--nor if we look at the
generality of men even now, under circumstances immeasurably
more fortunate than those in which he was placed. Undeniable
proofs remain of the learning, ability, and diligence, with
which he applied himself to the great business of weeding out
superstition, and yet preserving what he believed to be the
essentials of Christianity untouched. This praise (and it is
no light one) is his due: and it is our part to be thankful to
that all-ruling Providence, which rendered even his passions
and his vices subservient to this important end."
R. Southey,
The Book of the Church,
chapter 12.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.
The suppression of the Monasteries.
"The enormous, and in a great measure ill-gotten, opulence of
the regular clergy had long since excited jealousy in every
part of Europe. ... A writer much inclined to partiality
towards the monasteries says that they held [in England]
one-fifth part of the kingdom; no insignificant patrimony. ...
As they were in general exempted from episcopal visitation,
and intrusted with the care of their own discipline, such
abuses had gradually prevailed and gained strength by
connivance as we may naturally expect in corporate bodies of
men leading almost of necessity useless and indolent lives,
and in whom very indistinct views of moral obligations were
combined with a great facility of violating them. The vices
that for many ages had been supposed to haunt the monasteries,
had certainly not left their precincts in that of Henry VIII.
Wolsey, as papal legate, at the instigation of Fox, bishop of
Hereford, a favourer of the Reformation, commenced a
visitation of the professed as well as secular clergy in 1523,
in consequence of the general complaint against their manners.
... Full of anxious zeal for promoting education, the noblest
part of his character, he obtained bulls from Rome suppressing
many convents (among which was that of St. Frideswide at
Oxford), in order to erect and endow a new college in that
university, his favourite work, which after his fall was more
completely established by the name of Christ Church. A few
more were afterwards extinguished through his instigation; and
thus the prejudice against interference with this species of
property was somewhat worn off, and men's minds gradually
prepared for the sweeping confiscations of Cromwell [Thomas
Cromwell, who succeeded Wolsey as chief minister of Henry
VIII.]. The king indeed was abundantly willing to replenish
his exchequer by violent means, and to avenge himself on those
who gainsayed his supremacy; but it was this able statesman
who, prompted both by the natural appetite of ministers for
the subjects' money and by a secret partiality towards the
Reformation, devised and
carried on with complete success, if not with the utmost
prudence, a measure of no inconsiderable hazard and
difficulty. ...
{831}
It was necessary, by exposing the gross corruptions of
monasteries, both to intimidate the regular clergy, and to
excite popular indignation against them. It is not to be
doubted that in the visitation of these foundations, under the
direction of Cromwell, as lord vice-gerent of the king's
ecclesiastical supremacy, many things were done in an
arbitrary manner, and much was unfairly represented. Yet the
reports of these visitors are so minute and specific that it
is rather a preposterous degree of incredulity to reject their
testimony whenever it bears hard on the regulars. ... The
dread of these visitors soon induced a number of abbots to
make surrenders to the king; a step of very questionable
legality. But in the next session the smaller convents, whose
revenues were less than £200 a year, were suppressed by act of
parliament, to the number of 376, and their estates vested in
the crown. This summary spoliation led to the great northern
rebellion soon afterwards," headed by Robert Ask, a gentleman
of Yorkshire, and assuming the title of a Pilgrimage of Grace.
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 2.
"Far from benefiting the cause of the monastic houses, the
immediate effect of the Pilgrimage of Grace was to bring ruin
on those monasteries which had as yet been spared. For their
complicity or alleged complicity in it, twelve abbots were
hanged, drawn and quartered, and their houses were seized by
the Crown. Every means was employed by a new set of
Commissioners to bring about the surrender of others of the
greater abbeys. The houses were visited, and their pretended
relics and various tricks to encourage the devotion of the
people were exposed. Surrenders went rapidly on during the
years 1537 and 1538, and it became necessary to obtain a new
Act of Parliament to vest the property of the later surrenders
in the Crown. ... Nothing, indeed, can be more tragical than
the way in which the greater abbeys were destroyed on
manufactured charges and for imaginary crimes. These houses
had been described in the first Act of Parliament as 'great
and honourable,' wherein 'religion was right well kept and
observed.' Yet now they were pitilessly destroyed. A revenue
of about £131,607 is computed to have thus come to the Crown,
while the movables are valued at £400,000. How was this vast
sum of money expended?
(1) By the Act for the suppression of the greater monasteries
the King was empowered to erect six new sees, with their deans
and chapters, namely, Westminster, Oxford, Chester,
Gloucester, Bristol and Peterborough. ...
(2) Some monasteries were turned into collegiate churches, and
many of the abbey churches ... were assigned as parish
churches.
(3) Some grammar schools were erected.
(4) A considerable sum is said to have been spent in making
roads and in fortifying the coasts of the Channel.
(5) But by far the greater part of the monastic property
passed into the hands of the nobility and gentry, either by
purchase at very easy rates, or by direct gift from the Crown.
...
The monks and nuns ejected from the monasteries had small
pensions assigned to them, which are said to have been
regularly paid; but to many of them the sudden return into a
world with which they had become utterly unacquainted, and in
which they had no part to play, was a terrible hardship, ...
greatly increased by the Six Article Law, which ... made the
marriage of the secularized 'religious' illegal under heavy
penalties."
G. G. Perry,
History of the Reformation in England,
chapter 4.
"The religious bodies, instead of uniting in their common
defence, seem to have awaited singly their fate with the
apathy of despair. A few houses only, through the agency of
their friends, sought to purchase the royal favour with offers
of money and lands; but the rapacity of the king refused to
accept a part when the whole was at his mercy."
J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 6, chapter 4.
Some of the social results of the suppression "may be summed
up in a few words. The creation of a large class of poor to
whose poverty was attached the stigma of crime; the division
of class from class, the rich mounting up to place and power,
the poor sinking to lower depths; destruction of custom as a
check upon the exactions of landlords; the loss by the poor of
those foundations at schools and universities intended for
their children, and the passing away of ecclesiastical tithes
into the hands of lay owners."
F. A. Gasquet,
Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries,
volume 2, page 523.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1536-1543.
Trial and execution of Anne Boleyn.
Her successors, the later wives of Henry VIII.
Anne Boleyn had been secretly married to the king in January,
1533, and had been crowned on Whitsunday of that year. "The
princess Elizabeth, the only surviving child, was born on the
7th of September following. ... The death of Catherine, which
happened at Kimbolton on the 29th of January, 1536, seemed to
leave queen Anne in undisturbed possession of her splendid
seat." But the fickle king had now "cast his affections on
Jane Seymour, the daughter of Sir John Seymour, a young lady
then of the Queen's bed-chamber, as Anne herself had been in
that of Catherine." Having lost her charms in the eyes of the
lustful despot who had wedded her, her influence was gone--
and her safety. Charges were soon brought against the
unfortunate woman, a commission (her own father included in
it) appointed to inquire into her alleged misdeeds, and "on
the 10th of May an indictment for high treason was found by
the grand jury of Westminster against the Lady Anne, Queen of
England; Henry Norris, groom of the stole; Sir Francis Weston
and William Brereton, gentlemen of the privy chamber; and Mark
Smeaton, a performer on musical instruments, and a person 'of
low degree,' promoted to be a groom of the chamber for his
skill in the fine art which he professed. It charges the queen
with having, by all sorts of bribes, gifts, caresses, and
impure blandishments, which are described with unblushing
coarseness in the barbarous Latinity of the indictment,
allured these members of the royal household into a course of
criminal connection with her, which had been carried on for
three years. It included also George Boleyn viscount Rochford,
the brother of Anne, as enticed by the same lures and snares
with the rest of the accused, so as to have become the
accomplice of his sister, by sharing her treachery and
infidelity to the king. It is hard to believe that Anne could
have dared to lead a life so unnaturally dissolute, without
such vices being more early and very generally known in a
watchful and adverse court.
{832}
It is still more improbable that she should in every instance
be the seducer. ... Norris, Weston, Brereton, and Smeaton were
tried before a commission of oyer and terminer at Westminster,
on the 12th of May, two days after the bill against them was
found. They all, except Smeaton, firmly denied their guilt to
the last moment. On Smeaton's confession it must be observed
that we know not how it was obtained, how far it extended, or
what were the conditions of it. ... On the 12th of May, the
four commoners were condemned to die. Their sentence was
carried into effect amidst the plaints of the bystanders. ...
On the 15th of May, queen Anne and her brother Rochford were
tried." The place of trial was in the Tower, "which concealed
from the public eye whatever might be wanting in justice."
Condemnation duly followed, and the unhappy queen was executed
May 19, 1536. The king lost little time in wedding Jane
Seymour. "She died in childbed of Edward VI. on the 13th of
October, 1537. The next choice made by or for Henry, who
remained a widower for the period of more than two years," was
the "princess Anne, sister of the duke of Cleves, a
considerable prince on the lower Rhine. ... The pencil of
Holbein was employed to paint this lady for the king, who,
pleased by the execution, gave the flattering artist credit
for a faithful likeness. He met her at Dover, and almost
immediately betrayed his disappointment. Without descending
into disgusting particulars, it is necessary to state that,
though the marriage was solemnised, the king treated the
princess of Cleves as a friend." At length, by common action
of an obsequious parliament and a more obsequious convocation
of the church, the marriage was declared to be annulled, for
reasons not specified. The consent of the repudiated wife was
"insured by a liberal income of £3,000 a year, and she lived
for 16 years in England with the title of princess Anne of
Cleves. ... This annulment once more displayed the triumph of
an English lady over a foreign princess." The lady who now
captivated the brutally amorous monarch was lady Catherine
Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, who became queen on the
8th of August, 1540. In the following November, the king
received such information of lady Catherine's dissolute life
before marriage "as immediately caused a rigid inquiry into
her behaviour. ... The confessions of Catherine and of lady
Rochford, upon which they were attainted in parliament, and
executed in the Tower on the 14th of February, are not said to
have been at any time questioned. ... On the 10th of July,
1543, Henry wedded Catherine Parr, the widow of Lord Latimer,
a lady of mature age," who survived him.
Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of England (L. L. C.),
volume 2, chapters 7-8.
ALSO IN:
P. Friedmann,
Ann Boleyn.
H. W. Herbert,
Memoirs of Henry VIII. and his Six Wives.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.
The Reformation checked.
The Six Articles.
"Yielding to the pressure of circumstances, he [Henry VIII.]
had allowed the Reformers to go further than he really
approved. The separation from the Church of Rome, the
absorption by the Crown of the powers of the Papacy, the unity
of authority over both Church and State centred in himself, had
been his objects. In doctrinal matters he clung to the Church
of which he had once been the champion. He had gained his
objects because he had the feeling of the nation with him. In
his eagerness he had even countenanced some steps of doctrinal
reform. But circumstances had changed. ... Without detriment
to his position he could follow his natural inclinations. He
listened, therefore, to the advice of the reactionary party,
of which Norfolk was the head. They were full of bitterness
against the upstart Cromwell, and longed to overthrow him as
they had overthrown Wolsey. The first step in their triumph
was the bill of the Six Articles, carried in the Parliament of
1539. These laid down and fenced round with extraordinary
severity the chief points of the Catholic religion at that
time questioned by the Protestants. The bill enacted, first,
'that the natural body and blood of Jesus Christ were present
in the Blessed Sacrament,' and that 'after consecration there
remained no substance of bread and wine, nor any other but the
substance of Christ'; whoever, by word or writing, denied this
article was a heretic, and to be burned. Secondly, the
Communion in both kinds was not necessary, both body and blood
being present in each element; thirdly, priests might not
marry; fourthly, vows of chastity by man or woman ought to be
observed; fifthly, private masses ought to be continued;
sixthly, auricular confession must be retained. Whoever wrote
or spoke against these ... Articles, on the first offence his
property was forfeited; on the second offence he was a felon,
and was put to death. Under this 'whip with six strings' the
kingdom continued for the rest of the reign. The Bishops at
first made wild work with it. Five hundred persons are said to
have been arrested in a fortnight; the king had twice to
interfere and grant pardons. It is believed that only
twenty-eight persons actually suffered death under it."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
volume 2, page 411.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Blunt,
Reformation of the Church of England,
volume 1, chapter 8-9.
S. H. Burke,
Men and Women of the English Reformation,
volume 2, pages 17-24.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1542-1547.
Alliance with Charles V. against Francis I.
Capture and restoration of Boulogne.
Treaty of Guines.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
The wooing of Mary Queen of Scots.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1547.
Accession of King Edward VI.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1547-1553.
The completing of the Reformation.
Henry VIII., dying on the 28th of January, 1547, was succeeded
by his son Edward,--child of Jane Seymour,--then only nine
years old. By the will of his father, the young king (Edward
VI.) was to attain his majority at eighteen, and the
government of his kingdom, in the meantime, was entrusted to a
body of sixteen executors, with a second body of twelve
councillors to assist with their advice. "But the first act of
the executors and counsellors was to depart from the
destination of the late king in a material article. No sooner
were they met, than it was suggested that the government would
lose its dignity for want of some head who might represent the
royal majesty." The suggestion was opposed by none except the
chancellor, Wriothesley,--soon afterwards raised to the
peerage as Earl of Southampton. "It being therefore agreed to
name a protector, the choice fell of course on the Earl of
Hertford [afterwards Duke of Somerset], who, as he was the
king's maternal uncle, was strongly interested in his safety."
{833}
The protector soon manifested an ambition to exercise his
almost royal authority without any constraint, and, having
found means to remove his principal opponent, Southampton,
from the chancellorship, and to send him into disgrace, he
procured a patent from the infant king which gave him
unbounded power. With this power in his hand he speedily
undertook to carry the work of church reform far beyond the
intentions of Henry VIII. "The extensive authority and
imperious character of Henry had retained the partisans of
both religions in subjection; but upon his demise, the hopes
of the Protestants, and the fears of the Catholics began to
revive, and the zeal of these parties produced every where
disputes and animosities, the usual preludes to more fatal
divisions. The protector had long been regarded as a secret
partisan of the reformers; and being now freed from restraint,
he scrupled not to discover his intention of correcting all
abuses in the ancient religion, and of adopting still more of
the Protestant innovations. He took care that all persons
intrusted with the king's education should be attached to the
same principles; and as the young prince discovered a zeal for
every kind of literature, especially the theological, far
beyond his tender years, all men foresaw, in the course of his
reign, the total abolition of the Catholic faith in England;
and they early began to declare themselves in favour of those
tenets which were likely to become in the end entirely
prevalent. After Southhampton's fall, few members of the
council seemed to retain any attachment to the Romish
communion; and most of the counsellors appeared even sanguine
in forwarding the progress of the reformation. The riches
which most of them had acquired from the spoils of the clergy,
induced them to widen the breach between England and Rome; and by
establishing a contrariety of speculative tenets, as well as
of discipline and worship, to render a coalition with the
mother church altogether impracticable. Their rapacity, also,
the chief source of their reforming spirit, was excited by the
prospect of pillaging the secular, as they had already done
the regular clergy; and they knew, that while any share of the
old principles remained, or any regard to the ecclesiastics,
they could never hope to succeed in that enterprise. The
numerous and burdensome superstitions with which the Romish
church was loaded had thrown many of the reformers, by the
spirit of opposition, into an enthusiastic strain of devotion;
and all rites, ceremonies, pomp, order, and extreme
observances were zealously proscribed by them, as hindrances
to their spiritual contemplations, and obstructions to their
immediate converse with heaven."
D. Hume,
History of England,
volume 3, chapter 34.
"'This year' [1547] says a contemporary, 'the Archbishop of
Canterbury [Cranmer] did eat meat openly in Lent in the hall
of Lambeth, the like of which was never seen since England was
a Christian country.' This significant act was followed by a
rapid succession of sweeping changes. The legal prohibitions
of Lollardry were removed; the Six Articles were repealed; a
royal injunction removed all pictures and images from the
churches; priests were permitted to marry; the new communion
which had taken the place of the mass was ordered to be
administered in both kinds, and in the English tongue; an
English Book of Common Prayer, the Liturgy, which with slight
alterations is still used in the Church of England, replaced
the missal and breviary, from which its contents are mainly
drawn; a new catechism embodied the doctrines of Cranmer and
his friends; and a Book of Homilies compiled in the same sense
was appointed to be read in churches. ... The power of
preaching was restricted by the issue of licenses only to the
friends of the Primate. ... The assent of the nobles about the
Court was won by the suppression of chantries and religious
guilds, and by glutting their greed with the last spoils of
the Church. German and Italian mercenaries were introduced to
stamp out the wider popular discontent which broke out in the
East, in the West, and in the Midland counties. ... The rule
of the upstart nobles who formed the Council of Regency became
simply a rule of terror. 'The greater part of the people,' one
of their creatures, Cecil, avowed, 'is not in favour of
defending this cause, but of aiding its adversaries, the
greater part of the nobles who absent themselves from court,
all the bishops save three or four, almost all the judges and
lawyers, almost all the justices of the peace, the priests who
can move their flocks any way; for the whole of the commonalty
is in such a state of irritation that it will easily follow
any stir towards change.' But with their triumph over the
revolt, Cranmer and his colleagues advanced yet more boldly in
the career of innovation. ... The Forty-two Articles of
Religion, which were now [1552] introduced, though since
reduced by omissions to thirty-nine, have remained to this day
the formal standard of doctrine in the English Church."
J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 7, section 1.
ALSO IN:
J. Strype,
Memorials of Cranmer,
book 2.
G. Burnet,
History of the Reformation of Church of England,
volume 2, book 1.
L. Von Ranke,
History of England,
book 2, chapter 6.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1548.
First Act for encouragement of Newfoundland fisheries.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
The right of succession to the throne,
on the death of Edward VI.
"If Henry VII. be considered as the stock of a new dynasty, it
is clear that on mere principles of hereditary right, the
crown would descend, first, to the issue of Henry VIII.;
secondly, to those of [his elder sister] Margaret Tudor, queen
of Scots; thirdly, to those of [his younger sister] Mary
Tudor, queen of France. The title of Edward was on all
principles equally undisputed; but Mary and Elizabeth might be
considered as excluded by the sentence of nullity, which had
been pronounced in the case of Catharine and in that of Anne
Boleyn, both which sentences had been confirmed in parliament.
They had been expressly pronounced to be illegitimate
children. Their hereditary right of succession seemed thus to
be taken away, and their pretensions rested solely on the
conditional settlement of the crown on them, made by their
father's will, in pursuance of authority granted to him by act
of parliament. After Elizabeth Henry had placed the
descendants of Mary, queen of France, passing by the progeny
of his eldest sister Margaret. Mary of France, by her second
marriage with Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, had two
daughters,--lady Frances, who wedded Henry Grey, marquis of
Dorset, created duke of Suffolk; and lady Elinor, who espoused
Henry Clifford, earl of Cumberland.
{834}
Henry afterwards settled the crown by his will on the heirs of
these two ladies successively, passing over his nieces
themselves in silence. Northumberland obtained the hand of
lady Jane Grey, the eldest daughter of Grey duke of Suffolk,
by lady Frances Brandon, for lord Guilford Dudley, the
admiral's son. The marriage was solemnised in May, 1553, and
the fatal right of succession claimed by the house of Suffolk
devolved on the excellent and unfortunate lady Jane."
Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of England,
volume 2, chapter 9.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
Accession of Queen Mary.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.
The doubtful conflict of religions.
"Great as was the number of those whom conviction or self
interest enlisted under the Protestant banner, it appears
plain that the Reformation moved on with too precipitate a
step for the majority. The new doctrines prevailed in London,
in many large towns, and in the eastern counties. But in the
north and west of England, the body of the people were
strictly Catholics. The clergy, though not very scrupulous
about conforming to the innovations, were generally averse to
most of them. And, in spite of the church lands, I imagine
that most of the nobility, if not the gentry, inclined to the
same persuasion. ... An historian, whose bias was certainly
not unfavourable to Protestantism [Burnet, iii. 190, 196]
confesses that all endeavours were too weak to overcome the
aversion of the people towards reformation, and even intimates
that German troops were sent for from Calais on account of the
bigotry with which the bulk of the nation adhered to the old
superstition. This is somewhat an humiliating admission, that
the protestant faith was imposed upon our ancestors by a
foreign army. ... It is certain that the re-establishment of
popery on Mary's accession must have been acceptable to a
large part, or perhaps to the majority, of the nation."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 2.
"Eight weeks and upwards passed between the proclaiming of
Mary queen and the Parliament by her assembled; during which
time two religions were together set on foot, Protestantism
and Popery; the former hoping to be continued, the latter
labouring to be restored. ... No small justling was there
betwixt the zealous promoters of these contrary religions. The
Protestants had possession on their side, and the protection
of the laws lately made by King Edward, and still standing in
free and full force unrepealed. ... The Papists put their
ceremonies in execution, presuming on the queen's private
practice and public countenance. ... Many which were neuters
before, conceiving to which side the queen inclined, would not
expect, but prevent her authority in alteration: so that
superstition generally got ground in the kingdom. Thus it is
in the evening twilight, wherein light and darkness at first
may seem very equally matched, but the latter within little
time doth solely prevail."
T. Fuller,
Church History of Britain,
book 8, section 1, ¶ 5.
ALSO IN:
J. II. Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England,
volume 1; chapters 8-9.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1554.
Wyat's Insurrection.
Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain was opposed with
great bitterness of popular feeling, especially in London and
its neighborhood. Risings were undertaken in Kent, Devonshire,
and the Midland counties, intended for the frustration of the
marriage scheme; but they were ill-planned and soon
suppressed. That in Kent, led by Sir Thomas Wyat, threatened
to be formidable at first, and the Queen's troops retreated
before it. Wyat, however, lost his opportunity for securing
London, by delays, and his followers dispersed. He was taken
prisoner and executed. "Four hundred persons are said to have
suffered for this rebellion."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 36.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.
The restoration of Romanism.
The persecution of Protestants by Queen Mary.
"An attempt was made, by authority of King Edward's will, to
set aside both his sisters from the succession, and raise Lady
Jane Grey to the throne, who had lately been married to one of
Northumberland's sons. This was Northumberland's doing; he was
actuated by ambition, and the other members of the government
assented to it, believing, like the late young King, that it
was necessary for the preservation of the Protestant faith.
Cranmer opposed the measure, but yielded. ... But the
principles of succession were in fact well ascertained at that
time, and, what was of more consequence, they were established
in public opinion. Nor could the intended change be supported
on the ground of religion, for popular feeling was decidedly
against the Reformation. Queen Mary obtained possession of her
rightful throne without the loss of a single life, so
completely did the nation acknowledge her claim; and an after
insurrection, rashly planned and worse conducted, served only
to hasten the destruction of the Lady Jane and her husband.
... If any person may be excused for hating the Reformation,
it was Mary. She regarded it as having arisen in this country
from her mother's wrongs, and enabled the King to complete an
iniquitous and cruel divorce. It had exposed her to
inconvenience, and even danger, under her father's reign, to
vexation and restraint under her brother; and, after having
been bastardized in consequence of it, ... an attempt had been
made to deprive her of the inheritance, because she continued
to profess the Roman Catholic faith. ... Had the religion of
the country been settled, she might have proved a good and
beneficent, as well as conscientious, queen. But she delivered
her conscience to the direction of cruel men; and, believing
it her duty to act up to the worst principles of a persecuting
Church, boasted that she was a virgin sent by God to ride and
tame the people of England. ... The people did not wait till
the laws of King Edward were repealed; the Romish doctrines
were preached, and in some places the Romish clergy took
possession of the churches, turned out the incumbents, and
performed mass in jubilant anticipation of their approaching
triumph. What course the new Queen would pursue had never been
doubtful; and as one of her first acts had been to make
Gardiner Chancellor, it was evident that a fiery persecution
was at hand. Many who were obnoxious withdrew in time, some
into Scotland, and more into Switzerland and the Protestant
parts of Germany. Cranmer advised others to fly; but when his
friends entreated him to preserve himself by the like
precaution, he replied, that it was not fitting for him to
desert his post. ... The Protestant Bishops were soon
dispossessed of their sees; the marriages which the Clergy and
Religioners had contracted were declared unlawful, and their
children bastardized.
{835}
The heads of the reformed Clergy, having been brought forth to
hold disputations, for the purpose rather of intimidating than
of convincing them, had been committed to different prisons,
and after these preparatories the fiery process began."
R. Southey,
Book of the Church,
chapter 14.
"The total number of those who suffered in this persecution,
from the martyrdom of Rogers, in February, 1555, to September,
1558, when its last ravages were felt, is variously related,
in a manner sufficiently different to assure us that the
relaters were independent witnesses, who did not borrow from
each other, and yet sufficiently near to attest the general
accuracy of their distinct statements. By Cooper they are
estimated at about 290. According to Burnet they were 284.
Speed calculates them at 274. The most accurate account is
probably that of Lord Burleigh, who, in his treatise called
'The Execution of Justice in England,' reckons the number of
those who died in that reign by imprisonment, torments, famine
and fire, to be near 400, of which those who were burnt alive
amounted to 290. From Burnet's Tables of the separate years,
it is apparent that the persecution reached its full force in
its earliest year."
Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of England,
volume 2, chapter 11.
"Though Pole and Mary could have laid their hands on earl and
baron, knight and gentleman, whose heresy was notorious,
although, in the queen's own guard, there were many who never
listened to a mass, they durst not strike where there was
danger that they would be struck in return. ... They took the
weaver from his loom, the carpenter from his workshop, the
husbandman from his plough; they laid hands on maidens and
boys 'who had never heard of any other religion than that
which they were called on to abjure'; old men tottering into
the grave, and children whose lips could but just lisp the
articles of their creed; and of these they made their
burnt-offerings; with these they crowded their prisons, and
when filth and famine killed them, they flung them out to
rot."
J. A. Froude,
History of England,
chapter 24.
Queen Mary's marriage with Philip of Spain and his arbitrary
disposition, "while it thoroughly alienated the kingdom from
Mary, created a prejudice against the religion which the
Spanish court so steadily favoured. ... Many are said to have
become Protestants under Mary who, at her coming to the
throne, had retained the contrary persuasion."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
J. Collier,
Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
part 2, book 5.
J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 7, chapter 2-3.
J. Fox,
Book of Martyrs.
P. Heylyn,
Ecclesia Restaurata,
volume 2.
J. Strype,
Memorials of Cranmer,
book 3.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1557-1559.
Involved by the Spanish husband of Queen Mary in war with France.
Loss of Calais.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558.
Accession of Queen Elizabeth.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1588.
The Age of Elizabeth:
Recovery of Protestantism.
"The education of Elizabeth, as well as her interest, led her
to favour the reformation; and she remained not long in
suspense with regard to the party which she should embrace.
But though determined in her own mind, she resolved to proceed
by gradual and secure steps, and not to imitate the example of
Mary, in encouraging the bigots of her party to make
immediately a violent invasion on the established religion.
She thought it requisite, however, to discover such symptoms
of her intentions as might give encouragement to the
Protestants, so much depressed by the late violent
persecutions. She immediately recalled all the exiles, and
gave liberty to the prisoners who were confined on account of
religion. ... Elizabeth also proceeded to exert, in favour of
the reformers, some acts of power, which were authorized by
the extent of royal prerogative during that age. Finding that
the Protestant teachers, irritated by persecution, broke out
in a furious attack on the ancient superstition, and that the
Romanists replied with no less zeal and acrimony, she
published a proclamation, by which she inhibited all preaching
without a special licence; and though she dispensed with these
orders in favour of some preachers of her own sect, she took
care that they should be the most calm and moderate of the
party. She also suspended the laws, so far as to order a great
part of the service, the litany, the Lord's prayer, the creed,
and the gospels, to be read in English. And, having first
published injunctions that all churches should conform
themselves to the practice of her own chapel, she forbad the
host to be any more elevated in her presence: an innovation
which, however frivolous it may appear, implied the most
material consequences. These declarations of her intentions,
concurring with preceding suspicions, made the bishops
foresee, with certainty, a revolution in religion. They
therefore refused to officiate at her coronation; and it was
with some difficulty that the Bishop of Carlisle was at last
prevailed on to perform the ceremony. ... Elizabeth, though
she threw out such hints as encouraged the Protestants,
delayed the entire change of religion till the meeting of the
Parliament, which was summoned to assemble. The elections had
gone entirely against the Catholics, who seem not indeed to
have made any great struggle for the superiority; and the
Houses met, in a disposition of gratifying the queen in every
particular which she could desire of them. ... The first bill
brought into Parliament, with a view of trying their
disposition on the head of religion, was that for suppressing
the monasteries lately erected, and for restoring the tenths
and first-fruits to the queen. This point being gained without
much difficulty, a bill was next introduced, annexing the
supremacy to the crown; and though the queen was there
denominated governess, not head, of the church, it conveyed
the same extensive power, which, under the latter title, had
been exercised by her father and brother. ... By this act, the
crown, without the concurrence either of the Parliament or
even of the convocation, was vested with the whole spiritual
power; might repress all heresies, might establish or repeal
all canons, might alter every point of discipline, and might
ordain or abolish any religious rite or ceremony. ... A law
was passed, confirming all the statutes enacted in King
Edward's time with regard to religion; the nomination of
bishops was given to the crown without any election of the
chapters. ... A solemn and public disputation was held during
this session, in presence of Lord Keeper Bacon, between the
divines of the Protestant and those of the Catholic communion.
The champions appointed to defend the religion of the
sovereign were, as in all former instances, entirely
triumphant; and the popish disputants, being pronounced
refractory and obstinate, were even punished by imprisonment.
{836}
Emboldened by this victory, the Protestants ventured on the
last and most important step, and brought into Parliament a
bill for abolishing the mass, and re-establishing the liturgy
of King Edward. Penalties were enacted as well against those
who departed from this mode of worship, as against those who
absented themselves from the church and the sacraments. And
thus, in one session, without any violence, tumult, or
clamour, was the whole system of religion altered, on the very
commencement of a reign, and by the will of a young woman,
whose title to the crown was by many thought liable to great
objections."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 38, pages 375-380 (volume 3).
"Elizabeth ascended the throne much more in the character of a
Protestant champion than her own convictions and inclinations
would have dictated. She was, indeed, the daughter of Ann
Boleyn, whom by this time the Protestants were beginning to
regard as a martyr of the faith; but she was also the child of
Henry VIII., and the heiress of his imperious will. Soon,
however, she found herself Protestant almost in her own
despite. The Papacy, in the first pride of successful
reaction, offered her only the alternative of submission or
excommunication, and she did not for a moment hesitate to
choose the latter. Then commenced that long and close alliance
between Catholicism and domestic treason which is so differently
judged as it is approached from the religious or the political
side. These seminary priests, who in every various disguise
come to England, moving secretly about from manor-house to
manor-house, celebrating the rites of the Church, confirming
the wavering, consoling the dying, winning back the lapsed to
the fold, too well acquainted with Elizabeth's prisons, and
often finding their way to her scaffolds,--what are they but
the intrepid missionaries, the self-devoted heroes, of a
proscribed faith? On the other hand, the Queen is
excommunicate, an evil woman, with whom it is not necessary to
keep faith, to depose whom would be the triumph of the Church,
whose death, however compassed, its occasion: how easy to
weave plots under the cloak of religious intercourse, and to
make the unity of the faith a conspiracy of rebellion! The
next heir to the throne, Mary of Scotland, was a Catholic,
and, as long as she lived, a perpetual centre of domestic and
European intrigue: plot succeeded plot, in which the
traitorous subtlety was all Catholic--the keenness of
discovery, the watchfulness of defence, all Protestant. Then,
too, the shadow of Spanish supremacy began to cast itself
broadly over Europe: the unequal struggle with Holland was
still prolonged: it was known that Philip's dearest wish was
to recover to his empire and the Church the island kingdom
which had once unwillingly accepted his rule. It was thus the
instinct of self-defence which placed Elizabeth at the head of
the Protestant interest in Europe: she sent Philip Sidney to
die at Zutphen: her sailor buccaneers, whether there were
peace at home or not, bit and tore at everything Spanish upon
the southern main: till at last, 1588, Philip gathered up all
his naval strength and hurled the Armada at our shores.
'Afflavit Deus, et dissipati sunt.' The valour of England did
much; the storms of heaven the rest. Mary of Scotland had gone
to her death the year before, and her son had been trained to
hate his mother's faith. There could be no question any more
of the fixed Protestantism of the English people."
C. Beard,
Hibbert Lectures, 1883: The Reformation,
lecture 9.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.
The Age of Elizabeth:
The Queen's chief councillors.
"Sir William Cecil, afterwards Lord Burleigh, already
officially experienced during three reigns, though still
young, was the queen's chief adviser from first to last--that
is to say, till he died in 1598. Philip II., who also died in
that year, was thus his exact contemporary; for he mounted the
Spanish throne just when Elizabeth and her minister began
their work together. He was not long in discovering that there
was one man, possessed of the most balanced judgment ever
brought to the head of English affairs, who was capable of
unwinding all his most secret intrigues; and, in fact, the two
arch-enemies, the one in London and the other in Madrid, were
pitted against each other for forty years. Elizabeth had also
the good sense to select the wisest and most learned
ecclesiastic of his day, Matthew Parker, for her Primate and
chief adviser in Church affairs. It should be noted that both
of these sages, as well as the queen herself, had been
Conformists to the Papal obedience under Mary--a position far
from heroic, but not for a moment to be confused with that of
men whose philosophical indifference to the questions which
exercised all the highest minds enabled them to join in the
persecution of Romanists and Anglicans at different times with
a sublime impartiality. ... It was under the advice of Cecil
and Parker that Elizabeth, on coming to the throne, made her
famous settlement or Establishment of religion."
M. Burrows,
Commentaries on the History of England,
book 2, chapter 17.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
The Age of Elizabeth: Parliament.
"The house of Commons, upon a review of Elizabeth's reign, was
very far, on the one hand, from exercising those
constitutional rights which have long since belonged to it, or
even those which by ancient precedent they might have claimed
as their own; yet, on the other hand, was not quite so servile
and submissive an assembly as an artful historian has
represented it. If many of its members were but creatures of
power, ... there was still a considerable party, sometimes
carrying the house along with them, who with patient
resolution and inflexible aim recurred in every session to the
assertion of that one great privilege which their sovereign
contested, the right of parliament to inquire into and suggest
a remedy for every public mischief or danger. It may be
remarked that the ministers, such as Knollys, Hatton, and
Robert Cecil, not only sat among the commons, but took a very
leading part in their discussions; a proof that the influence
of argument could no more be dispensed with than that of
power. This, as I conceive, will never be the case in any
kingdom where the assembly of the estates is quite subservient
to the crown. Nor should we put out of consideration the
manner in which the commons were composed. Sixty-two members
were added at different times by Elizabeth to the
representation; as well from places which had in earlier times
discontinued their franchise, as from those to which it was
first granted; a very large proportion of them petty boroughs,
evidently under the influence of the crown or peerage. The
ministry took much pains with ejections, of which many proofs,
remain.
{837}
The house accordingly was filled with placemen, civilians, and
common lawyers grasping at preferment. The slavish tone of
these persons, as we collect from the minutes of D'Ewes, is
strikingly contrasted by the manliness of independent
gentlemen. And as the house was by no means very fully
attended, the divisions, a few of which are recorded, running
from 200 to 250 in the aggregate, it may be perceived that the
court, whose followers were at hand, would maintain a
formidable influence. But this influence, however pernicious
to the integrity of parliament, is distinguishable from that
exertion of almost absolute prerogative which Hume has assumed
as the sole spring of Elizabeth's government, and would never
be employed till some deficiency of strength was experienced
in the other."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.
The Age of Elizabeth: Literature.
"The age of Elizabeth was distinguished beyond, perhaps, any
other in our history by a number of great men, famous in
different ways, and whose names have come down to us with
unblemished honours: statesmen, warriors, divines, scholars,
poets, and philosophers; Raleigh, Drake, Coke, Hooker,
and--high and more sounding still, and still more frequent in
our mouths--Shakespear, Spenser, Sidney, Bacon, Jonson,
Beaumont, and Fletcher, men whom fame has eternised in her
long and lasting scroll, and who, by their words and acts,
were benefactors of their country, and ornaments of human
nature. Their attainments of different kinds bore the same
general stamp, and it was sterling; what they did had the mark
of their age and country upon it. Perhaps the genius of Great
Britain (if I may so speak without offence or flattery) never
shone out fuller or brighter, or looked more like itself, than
at this period. Our writers and great men had something in
them that savoured of the soil from which they grew: they were
not French; they were not Dutch, or German, or Greek, or
Latin; they were truly English. They did not look out of
themselves to see what they should be; they sought for truth
and nature, and found it in themselves. There was no tinsel,
and but little art; they were not the spoilt children of
affectation and refinement, but a bold, vigorous, independent
race of thinkers, with prodigious strength and energy, with
none but natural grace, and heartfelt, unobtrusive delicacy.
... For such an extraordinary combination and development of
fancy and genius many causes may be assigned; and we may seek
for the chief of them in religion, in politics, in the
circumstances of the time, the recent diffusion of letters, in
local situation, and in the character of the men who adorned
that period, and availed themselves so nobly of the advantages
placed within their reach. ... The first cause I shall
mention, as contributing to this general effect, was the
Reformation, which had just then taken place. This event gave
a mighty impulse and increased activity to thought and
inquiry, and agitated the inert mass of accumulated prejudices
throughout Europe. ... The translation of the Bible was the
chief engine in the great work. It threw open, by a secret
spring, the rich treasures of religion and morality, which had
been there locked up as in a shrine. It revealed the visions
of the prophets, and conveyed the lessons of inspired teachers
(such they were thought) to the meanest of the people. It gave
them a common interest in the common cause. Their hearts burnt
within them as they read. It gave a mind to the people, by
giving them common subjects of thought and feeling. ... The
immediate use or application that was made of religion to
subjects of imagination and fiction was not (from an obvious
ground of separation) so direct or frequent as that which was
made of the classical and romantic literature. For much about
the same time, the rich and fascinating stores of the Greek
and Roman mythology, and those of the romantic poetry of Spain
and Italy, were eagerly explored by the curious, and thrown
open in translations to the admiring gaze of the vulgar. ...
What also gave an unusual impetus to the mind of man at this
period, was the discovery of the New World, and the reading of
voyages and travels. Green islands and golden sands seemed to
arise, as by enchantment, out of the bosom of the watery
waste, and invite the cupidity, or wing the imagination of the
dreaming speculator. Fairyland was realised in new and unknown
worlds. ... Again, the heroic and martial spirit which
breathes in our elder writers, was yet in considerable
activity in the reign of Elizabeth. The age of chivalry was
not then quite gone, nor the glory of Europe extinguished
forever. ... Lastly, to conclude this account: What gave a
unity and common direction to all these causes, was the
natural genius of the country, which was strong in these

writers in proportion to their strength. We are a nation of
islanders, and we cannot help it, nor mend ourselves if we
would. We are something in ourselves, nothing when we try to
ape others. Music and painting are not our forte: for what we
have done in that way has been little, and that borrowed from
others with great difficulty. But we may boast of our poets
and philosophers. That's something. We have had strong heads
and sound hearts among us. Thrown on one side of the world,
and left to bustle for ourselves, we have fought out many a
battle for truth and freedom. That is our natural style; and
it were to be wished we had in no instance departed from it.
Our situation has given us a certain cast of thought and
character; and our liberty has enabled us to make the most of
it. We are of a stiff clay, not moulded into every fashion,
with stubborn joints not easily bent. We are slow to think,
and therefore impressions do not work upon us till they act in
masses. ... We may be accused of grossness, but not of
flimsiness; of extravagance, but not of affectation; of want
of art and refinement, but not of a want of truth and nature.
Our literature, in a word, is Gothic and grotesque; unequal
and irregular; not cast in a previous mould, nor of one
uniform texture, but of great weight in the whole, and of
incomparable value in the best parts. It aims at an excess of
beauty or power, hits or misses, and is either very good
indeed, or absolutely good for nothing. This character applies
in particular to our literature in the age of Elizabeth, which
is its best period, before the introduction of a rage for
French rules and French models."
W. Hazlitt,
Lectures on the Literature of the Age of Elizabeth,
lecture 1.
{838}
"Humanism, before it moulded the mind of the English, had
already permeated Italian and French literature. Classical
erudition had been adapted to the needs of modern thought.
Antique authors had been collected, printed, annotated, and
translated. They were fairly mastered in the south, and
assimilated to the style of the vernacular. By these means
much of the learning popularised by our poets, essayists, and
dramatists came to us at second-hand, and bore the stamp of
contemporary genius. In like manner, the best works of
Italian, French, Spanish, and German literature were
introduced into Great Britain together with the classics. The
age favoured translation, and English readers before the close
of the sixteenth century, were in possession of a cosmopolitan
library in their mother tongue, including choice specimens of
ancient and modern masterpieces. These circumstances
sufficiently account for the richness and variety of
Elizabethan literature. They also help to explain two points
which must strike every student of that literature--its native
freshness, and its marked unity of style. Elizabethan
literature was fresh and native, because it was the utterance
of a youthful race, aroused to vigorous self-consciousness
under conditions which did not depress or exhaust its
energies. The English opened frank eyes upon the discovery of
the world and man, which had been effected by the Renaissance.
They were not wearied with collecting, collating, correcting,
transmitting to the press. All the hard work of assimilating
the humanities had been done for them. They had only to survey
and to enjoy, to feel and to express, to lay themselves open
to delightful influences, to con the noble lessons of the
past, to thrill beneath the beauty and the awe of an authentic
revelation. Criticism had not laid its cold, dry finger on the
blossoms of the fancy. The new learning was still young enough to
be a thing of wonder and entrancing joy."
J. A. Symonds,
A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry
(Fortnightly Rev., volume 45, page 56).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.
The Act of Supremacy, the Act of Uniformity, and the Court of
High Commission.
"When Elizabeth's first Parliament met in January 1559,
Convocation, of course, met too. It at once claimed that the
clergy alone had authority in matters of faith, and proceeded
to pass resolutions in favour of Transubstantiation, the Mass,
and the Papal Supremacy. The bishops and the Universities
signed a formal agreement to this effect. That in the
constitution of the English Church, Convocation, as
Convocation, has no such power as this, was proved by the
steps now taken. The Crown, advised by the Council and
Parliament, took the matter in hand. As every element, except
the Roman, had been excluded from the clerical bodies, a
consultation was ordered between the representatives of both
sides, and all preaching was suspended till a settlement had
been arrived at between the queen and the Three Estates of the
realm. The consultation broke upon the refusal of the Romanist
champions to keep to the terms agreed upon; but even before it
took place Parliament restored the Royal Supremacy, repealed
the laws of Mary affecting religion, and gave the queen by her
own desire, not the title of 'Supreme Head,' but 'Supreme
Governor,' of the Church of England."
M. Burrows,
Commentaries on the History of England,
book 2, chapter 17.
This first Parliament of Elizabeth passed two memorable acts
of great importance in English history,--the Act of Supremacy
and the Act of Uniformity of Common Prayer. "The former is
entitled 'An act for restoring to the crown the ancient
jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual; and
for abolishing foreign power.' It is the same for substance
with the 25th of Henry VIII. ... but the commons incorporated
several other bills into it; for besides the title of 'Supreme
Governor in all causes Ecclesiastical and Temporal,' which is
restored to the Queen, the act revives those laws of King
Henry VIII. and King Edward VI. which had been repealed in the
late reign. It forbids all appeals to Rome, and exonerates the
subjects from all exactions and impositions heretofore paid to
that court; and as it revives King Edward's laws, it repeals a
severe act made in the late reign for punishing heresy. ...
'Moreover, all persons in any public employs, whether civil or
ecclesiastical, are obliged to take an oath in recognition of
the Queen's right to the crown, and of her supremacy in all
causes ecclesiastical and civil, on penalty of forfeiting all
their promotions in the church, and of being declared
incapable of holding any public office.' ... Further, 'The act
forbids all writing, printing, teaching, or preaching, and all
other deeds or acts whereby any foreign jurisdiction over
these realms is defended, upon pain that they and their
abettors, being thereof convicted, shall for the first offence
forfeit their goods and chattels; ... spiritual persons shall
lose their benefices, and all ecclesiastical preferments; for
the second offence they shall incur the penalties of a
præmunire; and the third offence shall be deemed high
treason.' There is a remarkable clause in this act, which gave
rise to a new court, called 'The Court of High Commission.'
The words are these, 'The Queen and her successors shall have
power, by their letters patent under the great seal, to
assign, name, and authorize, as often as they shall think
meet, and for as long a time as they shall please, persons
being natural-born subjects, to use, occupy, and exercise,
under her and them, all manner of jurisdiction, privileges,
and preeminences, touching any spiritual or ecclesiastical
jurisdiction within the realms of England and Ireland, &c., to
visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all errors,
heresies, schisms, abuses, contempts, offences and enormities
whatsoever. Provided, that they have no power to determine
anything to be heresy, but what has been adjudged to be so by
the authority of the canonical scripture, or by the first four
general councils, or any of them; or by any other general
council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express
and plain words of canonical scripture; or such as shall
hereafter be declared to be heresy by the high court of
parliament, with the assent of the clergy in convocation.'
Upon the authority of this clause the Queen appointed a
certain number of 'Commissioners' for ecclesiastical causes,
who exercised the same power that had been lodged in the hands
of one vicegerent in the reign of King Henry VIII. And how
sadly they abused their power in this and the two next reigns
will appear in the sequel of this history. They did not
trouble themselves much with the express words of scripture,
or the four first general councils, but entangled their
prisoners with oaths ex-officio, and the inextricable mazes of
the popish canon law. ... The papists being vanquished, the
next point was to unite the reformed among themselves. ...
Though all the reformers were of one faith, yet they were far
from agreeing about discipline and ceremonies, each party
being for settling the church according to their own model. ...
{839}
The Queen ... therefore appointed a committee of divines to
review King Edward's liturgy, and to see if in any particular
it was fit to be changed; their names were Dr. Parker,
Grindal, Cox, Pilkington, May, Bill, Whitehead, and Sir Thomas
Smith, doctor of the civil law. Their instructions were, to
strike out all offensive passages against the pope, and to
make people easy about the belief of the corporal presence of
Christ in the sacraments; but not a word in favour of the
stricter protestants. Her Majesty was afraid of reforming too
far; she was desirous to retain images in churches, crucifixes
and crosses, vocal and instrumental music, with all the old
popish garments; it is not therefore to be wondered, that in
reviewing the liturgy of King Edward, no alterations were made
in favour of those who now began to be called Puritans, from
their attempting a purer form of worship and discipline than
had yet been established. ... The book was presented to the
two houses and passed into a law. ... The title of the act is
'An act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the
Church, and administration of the Sacraments.' It was brought
into the House of Commons April 18th, and was read a third
time April 20th. It passed the House of Lords April 28th, and
took place from the 24th of June 1559."
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 1, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
G. Burnet,
History of the Reformation of the Church of England.,
volume 2, book 3.
P. Heylyn,
Ecclesia Restaurata: Elizabeth, Anno 1.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566.
Puritanism taking form.
"The Church of England was a latitudinarian experiment, a
contrivance to enable men of opposing creeds to live together
without shedding each others' blood. It was not intended, and
it was not possible, that Catholics or Protestants should find
in its formulas all that they required. The services were
deliberately made elastic; comprehending in the form of
positive statement only what all Christians agreed in
believing, while opportunities were left open by the rubric to
vary the ceremonial according to the taste of the
congregations. The management lay with the local authorities
in town or parish: where the people were Catholics the
Catholic aspect could be made prominent; where Popery was a
bugbear, the people were not disturbed by the obtrusion of
doctrines which they had outgrown. In itself it pleased no
party or section. To the heated controversialist its chief
merit was its chief defect. ... Where the tendencies to Rome
were strongest, there the extreme Reformers considered
themselves bound to exhibit in the most marked contrast the
unloveliness of the purer creed. It was they who furnished the
noble element in the Church of England. It was they who had
been its martyrs; they who, in their scorn of the world, in
their passionate desire to consociate themselves in life and
death to the Almighty, were able to rival in self-devotion the
Catholic Saints. But they had not the wisdom of the serpent,
and certainly not the harmlessness of the dove. Had they been
let alone--had they been unharassed by perpetual threats of
revolution and a return of the persecutions--they, too, were
not disinclined to reason and good sense. A remarkable
specimen survives, in an account of the Church of Northampton,
of what English Protestantism could become under favouring
conditions. ... The fury of the times unhappily forbade the
maintenance of this wise and prudent spirit. As the power of
evil gathered to destroy the Church of England, a fiercer
temper was required to combat with them, and Protestantism
became impatient, like David, of the uniform in which it was
sent to the battle. It would have fared ill with England had
there been no hotter blood there than filtered in the sluggish
veins of the officials of the Establishment. There needed an
enthusiasm fiercer far to encounter the revival of Catholic
fanaticism; and if the young Puritans, in the heat and glow of
their convictions, snapped their traces and flung off their
harness, it was they, after all, who saved the Church which
attempted to disown them, and with the Church saved also the
stolid mediocrity to which the fates then and ever committed
and commit the government of it."
J. A. Froude,
History of England,
volume 10, chapter 20.
"The compromise arranged by Cranmer had from the first been
considered by a large body of Protestants as a scheme for
serving two masters, as an attempt to unite the worship of the
Lord with the worship of Baal. In the days of Edward VI. the
scruples of this party had repeatedly thrown great
difficulties in the way of the government. When Elizabeth came
to the throne, those difficulties were much increased.
Violence naturally engenders violence. The spirit of
Protestantism was therefore far fiercer and more intolerant
after the cruelties of Mary than before them. Many persons who
were warmly attached to the new opinions had, during the evil
days, taken refuge in Switzerland and Germany. They had been
hospitably received by their brethren in the faith, had sate
at the feet of the great doctors of Strasburg, Zurich and
Geneva, and had been, during some years, accustomed to a more
simple worship, and to a more democratical form of church
government, than England had yet seen. These men returned to
their country, convinced that the reform which had been
effected under King Edward had been far less searching and
extensive than the interests of pure religion required. But it
was in vain that they attempted to obtain any concession from
Elizabeth. Indeed, her system, wherever it differed from her
brother's, seemed to them to differ for the worse. They were
little disposed to submit, in matters of faith, to any human
authority. ... Since these men could not be convinced, it was
determined that they should be persecuted. Persecution
produced its natural effect on them. It found them a sect: it
made them a faction. ... The power of the discontented
sectaries was great. They were found in every rank; but they
were strongest among the mercantile classes in the towns, and
among the small proprietors in the country. Early in the reign
of Elizabeth they began to return a majority of the House of
Commons. And doubtless, had our ancestors been then at liberty
to fix their attention entirely on domestic questions, the
strife between the crown and the Parliament would instantly
have commenced. But that was no season for internal
dissensions. ... Roman Catholic Europe and reformed Europe
were struggling for death or life. ... Whatever might be the
faults of Elizabeth, it was plain that, to speak humanly, the
fate of the realm and of all reformed churches was staked on
the security of her person and on the success of her
administration. ...
{840}
The Puritans, even in the depths of the prisons to which she
had sent them, prayed, and with no simulated fervour, that she
might be kept from the dagger of the assassin, that rebellion
might be put down under her feet, and that her arms might be
victorious by sea and land."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
volume 1, chapter 1.
"Two parties quickly evolved themselves out of the mass of
Englishmen who held Calvinistic opinions; namely those who
were willing to conform to the requirements of the Queen, and
those who were not. To both is often given indiscriminately by
historians the name of Puritan; but it seems more correct, and
certainly is more convenient, to restrict the use of the name
to those who are sometimes called conforming Puritans. ... To
the other party fitly belongs the name of Nonconformist. ...
It was against the Nonconformist organization that Elizabeth's
efforts were chiefly directed. ... The war began in the
enforcement by Archbishop Parker in 1565 of the Advertisements
as containing the minimum of ceremonial that would be
tolerated. In 1566 the clergy of London were required to make
the declaration of Conformity which was appended to the
Advertisements, and thirty-seven were suspended or deprived
for refusal. Some of the deprived ministers continued to
conduct services and preach in spite of their deprivation, and
so were formed the first bodies of Nonconformists, organized
in England."
H. O. Wakeman,
The Church and the Puritans,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
J. Tulloch,
English Puritanism and its Leaders,
introduction.
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 1, chapter 4.
D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
chapters 8-10 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1562-1567.
Hawkins' slave-trading voyages to America.
First English enterprise in the New World.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1564-1565 (?).
The first naming of the Puritans.
"The English bishops, conceiving themselves empowered by their
canons, began to show their authority in urging the clergy of
their dioceses to subscribe to the Liturgy, ceremonies and
discipline of the Church; and such as refused the same were
branded with the odious name of Puritans. A name which in this
notion first began in this year [A. D. 1564]; and the grief
had not been great if it had ended in the same. The
philosopher banisheth the term, (which is Polysæmon), that is
subject to several senses, out of the predicaments, as
affording too much covert for cavil by the latitude thereof.
On the same account could I wish that the word Puritan were
banished common discourse, because so various in the
acceptations thereof. We need not speak of the ancient Cathari
or primitive Puritans, sufficiently known by their heretical
opinions. Puritan here was taken for the opposers of the
hierarchy and church service, as resenting of superstition.
But profane mouths quickly improved this nickname, therewith
on every occasion to abuse pious people; some of them so far
from opposing the Liturgy, that they endeavoured (according to
the instructions thereof in the preparative to the Confession)
'to accompany the minister with a pure heart,' and laboured
(as it is in the Absolution) 'for a life pure and holy.' We
will, therefore, decline the word to prevent exceptions;
which, if casually slipping from our pen, the reader knoweth
that only nonconformists are thereby intended."
T. Fuller,
Church History of Britain,
book 9, section 1.
"For in this year [1565] it was that the Zuinglian or
Calvinian faction began to be first known by the name of
Puritans, if Genebrard, Gualter, and Spondanus (being all of
them right good chronologers) be not mistaken in the time.
Which name hath ever since been appropriate to them, because
of their pretending to a greater purity in the service of God
than was held forth unto them (as they gave out) in the Common
Prayer Book; and to a greater opposition to the rites and
usages of the Church of Rome than was agreeable to the
constitution of the Church of England."
P. Heylyn,
Ecclesia Restaurata: Elizabeth,
Anno 7, section 6.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1568.
Detention and imprisonment of Mary Queen of Scots.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1569.
Quarrel with the Spanish governor of the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1580.
Drake's piratical warfare with Spain and his famous voyage.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.
Queen Elizabeth's treatment of the Roman Catholics.
Persecution of the Seminary Priests and the Jesuits.
"Camden and many others have asserted that by systematic
connivance the Roman Catholics enjoyed a pretty free use of
their religion for the first fourteen years of Elizabeth's
reign. But this is not reconcilable to many passages in
Strype's collections. We find abundance of persons harassed
for recusancy, that is, for not attending the protestant
church, and driven to insincere promises of conformity. Others
were dragged before ecclesiastical commissions for harbouring
priests, or for sending money to those who had fled beyond
sea. ... A great majority both of clergy and laity yielded to
the times; and of these temporizing conformists it cannot be
doubted that many lost by degrees all thought of returning to
their ancient fold. But others, while they complied with
exterior ceremonies, retained in their private devotions their
accustomed mode of worship. ... Priests ... travelled the
country in various disguises, to keep alive a flame which the
practice of outward conformity was calculated to extinguish.
There was not a county throughout England, says a Catholic
historian, where several of Mary's clergy did not reside, and
were commonly called the old priests. They served as chaplains
in private families. By stealth, at the dead of night, in
private chambers, in the secret lurking places of an
ill-peopled country, with all the mystery that subdues the
imagination, with all the mutual trust that invigorates
constancy, these proscribed ecclesiastics celebrated their
solemn rites, more impressive in such concealment than if
surrounded by all their former splendour. ... It is my
thorough conviction that the persecution, for it can obtain no
better name, carried on against the English Catholics, however
it might serve to delude the government by producing an
apparent conformity, could not but excite a spirit of
disloyalty in many adherents of that faith. Nor would it be
safe to assert that a more conciliating policy would have
altogether disarmed their hostility, much less laid at rest
those busy hopes of the future, which the peculiar
circumstances of Elizabeth's reign had a tendency to produce."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3.
{841}
"The more vehement Catholics had withdrawn from the country,
on account of the dangers which there beset them. They had
taken refuge in the Low Countries, and there Allen, one of the
chief among them, had established a seminary at Douay, for the
purpose of keeping up a supply of priests in England. To Douay
numbers of young Englishmen from Oxford continually flocked.
The establishment had been broken up by Requescens, and
removed to Rheims, and a second college of the same
description was established at Rome. From these two centres of
intrigue numerous enthusiastic young men constantly repaired
to England, and in the disguise of laymen carried on their
priestly work and attempted to revive the Romanist religion.
But abler and better disciplined workmen were now wanted.
Allen and his friends therefore opened negotiations with
Mercuriano, the head of the Jesuit order, in which many
Englishmen had enrolled themselves. In 1580, as part of a
great combined Catholic effort, a regular Jesuit mission,
under two priests, Campion and Parsons, was despatched to
England. ... The new missionaries were allowed to say that
that part of the Bull [of excommunication issued against
Elizabeth] which pronounced censures upon those who clung to
their allegiance applied to heretics only, that Catholics
might profess themselves loyal until the time arrived for
carrying the Bull into execution; in other words, they were
permitted to be traitors at heart while declaring themselves
loyal subjects. This explanation of the Bull was of itself
sufficient to justify severity on the part of the government.
It was impossible henceforward to separate Roman Catholicism
from disloyalty. Proclamations were issued requiring English
parents to summon their children from abroad, and declaring
that to harbour Jesuit priests was to support rebels. ...
Early in December several priests were apprehended and closely
examined, torture being occasionally used for the purpose. In
view of the danger which these examinations disclosed,
stringent measures were taken. Attendance at church was
rendered peremptorily necessary. Parliament was summoned in
the beginning of 1581 and laws passed against the action of
the Jesuits. ... Had Elizabeth been conscious of the full
extent of the plot against her, had she known the intention of
the Guises [then dominant in France] to make a descent upon
England in co-operation with Spain, and the many ramifications
of the plot in her own country, it is reasonable to suppose
that she would have been forced at length to take decided
measures. But in ignorance of the abyss opening before her
feet, she continued for some time longer her old temporizing
policy." At last, in November, 1583, the discovery of a plot
for the assassination of the queen, and the arrest of one
Throgmorton, whose papers and whose confession were of
startling import, brought to light the whole plan and extent
of the conspiracy. "Some of her Council urged her at once to
take a straightforward step, to make common cause with the
Protestants of Scotland and the Netherlands, and to bid
defiance to Spain. To this honest step, she as usual could not
bring herself, but strong measures were taken in England.
Great numbers of Jesuits and seminary priests were apprehended
and executed, suspected magistrates removed, and those
Catholic Lords whose treachery might have been fatal to her
ejected from their places of authority and deprived of
influence."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, pages 546-549.
"That the conspiracy with which these men were charged was a
fiction cannot be doubted. They had come to England under a
prohibition to take any part in secular concerns, and with the
sole view of exercising the spiritual functions of the
priesthood. ... At the same time it must be owned that the
answers which six of them gave to the queries were far from
satisfactory. Their hesitation to deny the opposing power (a
power then indeed maintained by the greater number of divines
in Catholic kingdoms) rendered their loyalty very
problematical, in case of an attempt to enforce the bull by
any foreign prince. It furnished sufficient reason to watch
their conduct with an eye of jealousy ... but could not
justify their execution for an imaginary offence."
J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 8, chapter 3.
"It is probable that not many more than 200 Catholics were
executed, as such, in Elizabeth's reign, and this was ten
score too many. ... 'Dod reckons them at 191; Milner has
raised the list to 204. Fifteen of these, according to him,
suffered for denying the Queen's supremacy, 126 for exercising
their ministry, and the rest for being reconciled to the
Romish church. Many others died of hardships in prison, and
many were deprived of their property. There seems,
nevertheless [says Hallam], to be good reason for doubting
whether anyone who was executed might not have saved his life
by explicitly denying the Pope's power to depose the Queen.'"
J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapter 17, with foot-note.
ALSO IN:
J. Foley,
Records of the English Province of the Society of
Jesus.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1574.
Emancipation of villeins on the royal domains.
Practical end of serfdom.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1575.
Sovereignty of Holland and Zealand offered to Queen Elizabeth,
and declined.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1581.
Marriage proposals of the Duke of Anjou declined by Queen
Elizabeth.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1583.
The expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1584-1590.
Raleigh's colonizing attempts in America.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1586.
Leicester in the Low Countries.
Queen Elizabeth's treacherous dealing with the
struggling Netherlanders.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.
Mary Queen of Scots and the Catholic conspiracies.
Her trial and execution.
"Maddened by persecution, by the hopelessness of rebellion
within or deliverance from without, the fiercer Catholics
listened to schemes of assassination, to which the murder of
William of Orange lent at the moment a terrible significance.
The detection of Somerville, a fanatic who had received the
host before setting out for London 'to shoot the Queen with
his dagg,' was followed by measures of natural severity, by
the flight and arrest of Catholic gentry, by a vigourous
purification of the Inns of Court, where a few Catholics
lingered, and by the dispatch of fresh batches of priests to
the block. The trial and death of Parry, a member of the House
of Commons who had served in the Queen's household, on a
similar charge, brought the Parliament together in a transport
of horror and loyalty.
{842}
All Jesuits and seminary priests were banished from the realm
on pain of death. A bill for the security of the Queen
disqualified any claimant of the succession who had instigated
subjects to rebellion or hurt to the Queen's person from ever
succeeding to the crown. The threat was aimed at Mary Stuart.
Weary of her long restraint, of her failure to rouse Philip or
Scotland to aid her, of the baffled revolt of the English
Catholics and the baffled intrigues of the Jesuits, she bent
for a moment to submission. 'Let me go,' she wrote to
Elizabeth; 'let me retire from this island to some solitude
where I may prepare my soul to die. Grant this and I will sign
away every right which either I or mine can claim.' But the
cry was useless, and her despair found a new and more terrible
hope in the plots against Elizabeth's life. She knew and
approved the vow of Anthony Babington and a band of young
Catholics, for the most part connected with the royal
household, to kill the Queen; but plot and approval alike
passed through Walsingham's hands, and the seizure of Mary's
correspondence revealed her guilt. In spite of her protests, a
commission of peers sat as her judges at Fotheringay Castle;
and their verdict of 'guilty' annihilated, under the
provisions of the recent statute, her claim to the crown. The
streets of London blazed with bonfires, and peals rang out
from steeple to steeple, at the news of her condemnation; but,
in spite of the prayer of Parliament for her execution, and
the pressure of the Council, Elizabeth shrank from her death.
The force of public opinion, however, was now carrying all
before it, and the unanimous demand of her people wrested at
last a sullen consent from the Queen. She flung the warrant
signed upon the floor, and the Council took on themselves the
responsibility of executing it. Mary died [February 8, 1587]
on a scaffold which was erected in the castle hall at
Fotheringay, as dauntlessly as she had lived. 'Do not weep,'
she said to her ladies, 'I have given my word for you.' 'Tell
my friends,' she charged Melville, 'that I die a good
Catholic.'"
J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 7, section 6.
"'Who now doubts,' writes an eloquent modern writer, 'that it
would have been wiser in Elizabeth to spare her life?' Rather,
the political wisdom of a critical and difficult act has never
in the world's history been more signally justified. It cut
away the only interest on which the Scotch and English
Catholics could possibly have combined. It determined Philip
upon the undisguised pursuit of the English throne, and it
enlisted against him and his projects the passionate
patriotism of the English nobility."
J. A. Froude,
History of England,
volume 12, chapter 34.
ALSO IN:
A. De Lamartine,
Mary Stuart,
chapter 31-34.
L. S. F. Buckingham,
Memoirs of Mary Stuart,
volume 2, chapter 5-6.
L. von Ranke,
History of England,
book 3, chapter 5.
J. D. Leader,
Mary Queen of Scots in Captivity.
C. Nau,
History of Mary Stuart.
F. A. Mignet,
History of Mary Queen of Scots,
chapters 9-10.
England: A. D. 1587-1588.
The wrath of Catholic Europe.
Spanish vengeance and ambition astir.
"The death of Mary [Queen of Scots] may have preserved England
from the religious struggle which would have ensued upon her
accession to the throne, but it delivered Elizabeth from only
one, and that the weakest of her enemies; and it exposed her
to a charge of injustice and cruelty, which, being itself well
founded, obtained belief for any other accusation, however
extravagantly false. It was not Philip [of Spain] alone who
prepared for making war upon her with a feeling of personal
hatred: throughout Romish Christendom she was represented as a
monster of iniquity; that representation was assiduously set
forth, not in ephemeral libels, but in histories, in dramas,
in poems, and in hawker's pamphlets; and when the king of
Spain equipped an armament for the invasion of England,
volunteers entered it with a passionate persuasion that they
were about to bear a part in a holy war against the wickedest
and most inhuman of tyrants. The Pope exhorted Philip to
engage in this great enterprize for the sake of the Roman
Catholic and apostolic church, which could not be more
effectually nor more meritoriously extended than by the
conquest of England; so should he avenge his own private and
public wrongs; so should he indeed prove himself most worthy
of the glorious title of Most Catholic King. And he promised,
as soon as his troops should have set foot in that island, to
supply him with a million of crowns of gold towards the
expenses of the expedition. ... Such exhortations accorded
with the ambition, the passions, and the rooted principles of
the king of Spain. The undertaking was resolved."
R. Southey,
Lives of the British Admirals,
volume 2, page 319.
"The succours which Elizabeth had from time to time afforded
to the insurgents of the Netherlands was not the only cause of
Philip's resentment and of his desire for revenge. She had
fomented the disturbances in Portugal, ... and her captains,
among whom Sir Francis Drake was the most active, had for many
years committed unjustifiable depredations on the Spanish
possessions of South America, and more than once on the coasts
of the Peninsula itself. ... By Spanish historians, these
hostilities are represented as unprovoked in their origin, and
as barbarous in their execution, and candor must allow that
there is but too much justice in the complaint."
S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 4, section 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. A. Froude,
History of England,
volume 12, chapter 35.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
The Spanish Armada.
"Perhaps in the history of mankind there has never been a vast
project of conquest conceived and matured in so protracted and
yet so desultory a manner, as was this famous Spanish
invasion. ... At last, on the 28th, 29th and 30th May, 1588,
the fleet, which had been waiting at Lisbon more than a month
for favourable weather, set sail from that port, after having
been duly blessed by the Cardinal Archduke Albert, viceroy of
Portugal. There were rather more than 130 ships in all,
divided into 10 squadrons. ... The total tonnage of the fleet
was 59,120: the number of guns was 3,165. Of Spanish troops
there were 19,295 on board: there were 8,252 sailors and 2,088
galley-slaves. Besides these, there was a force of noble
volunteers, belonging to the most illustrious houses of Spain,
with their attendants, amounting to nearly 2,000 in all. ...
The size of the ships ranged from 1,200 tons to 300. The
galleons, of which there were about 60, were huge
round-stemmed clumsy vessels, with bulwarks three or four feet
thick, and built up at stem and stern, like castles.
{843}
The galeasses--of which there were four--were a third larger
than the ordinary galley, and were rowed each by 300
galley-slaves. They consisted of an enormous towering fortress
at the stern, a castellated structure almost equally massive
in front, with seats for the rowers amidships. At stem and
stern and between each of the slaves' benches were heavy
cannon. These galeasses were floating edifices, very wonderful
to contemplate. They were gorgeously decorated. There were
splendid state-apartments, cabins, chapels, and pulpits in
each, and they were amply provided with awnings, cushions,
streamers, standards, gilded saints and bands of music. To
take part in an ostentatious pageant, nothing could be better
devised. To fulfil the great objects of a war-vessel--to sail
and to fight--they were the worst machines ever launched upon
the ocean. The four galleys were similar to the galeasses in
every respect except that of size, in which they were by
one-third inferior. All the ships of the fleet--galeasses,
galleys, galleons, and hulks--were so encumbered with
top-hamper, so over-weighted in proportion to their draught of
water, that they could bear but little canvas, even with
smooth seas and light and favourable winds. ... Such was the
machinery which Philip had at last set afloat, for the purpose
of dethroning Elizabeth and establishing the inquisition in
England. One hundred and forty ships, 11,000 Spanish veterans,
as many more recruits, partly Spanish, partly Portuguese, 2,000
grandees, as many galley slaves, and 300 barefooted friars and
inquisitors. The plan was simple. Medina Sidonia [the
captain-general of the Armada] was to proceed straight from
Lisbon to Calais roads: there he was to wait for the Duke of
Parma [Spanish commander in the Netherlands], who was to come
forth from Newport, Sluys, and Dunkirk, bringing with him his
17,000 veterans, and to assume the chief command of the whole
expedition. They were then to cross the channel to Dover, land
the army of Parma, reinforced with 6,000 Spaniards from the
fleet, and with these 23,000 men Alexander was to march at
once upon London. Medina Sidonia was to seize and fortify the
Isle of Wight, guard the entrance of the harbours against any
interference from the Dutch and English fleets, and--so soon
as the conquest of England had been effected--he was to
proceed to Ireland. ... A strange omission had however been
made in the plan from first to last. The commander of the
whole expedition was the Duke of Parma: on his head was the
whole responsibility. Not a gun was to be fired--if it could
be avoided--until he had come forth with his veterans to make
his junction with the Invincible Armada off Calais. Yet there
was no arrangement whatever to enable him to come forth--not
the slightest provision to effect that junction. ... Medina
could not go to Farnese [Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma],
nor could Farnese come to Medina. The junction was likely to
be difficult, and yet it had never once entered the heads of
Philip or his counsellors to provide for that difficulty. ...
With as much sluggishness as might have been expected from
their clumsy architecture, the ships of the Armada consumed
nearly three weeks in sailing from Lisbon to the neighbourhood
of Cape Finisterre. Here they were overtaken by a tempest. ...
Of the squadron of galleys, one was already sunk in the sea,
and two of the others had been conquered by their own slaves.
The fourth rode out the gale with difficulty, and joined the
rest of the fleet, which ultimately reassembled at Coruña; the
ships having, in distress, put in first at Vivera, Ribadeo,
Gijon, and other northern ports of Spain. At the Groyne--as
the English of that day were accustomed to call Coruña--they
remained a month, repairing damages and recruiting; and on the
22d of July (N. S.) the Armada set sail. Six days later, the
Spaniards took soundings, thirty leagues from the Scilly
Islands, and on Friday, the 29th of July, off the Lizard, they
had the first glimpse of the land of promise presented them by
Sixtus V. of which they had at last come to take possession.
On the same day and night the blaze and smoke of ten thousand
beacon-fires from the Land's End to Margate, and from the Isle
of Wight to Cumberland, gave warning to every Englishman that
the enemy was at last upon them."
J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapter 19.
ALSO IN:
J. A. Froude,
History of England,
volume 12, chapter 36.
J. A. Froude,
The Spanish Story of the Armada.
R. Southey,
Lives of British Admirals,
volume 2, pages 327-334.
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
5th series, chapter 27.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
The Destruction of the Armada.
"The great number of the English, the whole able-bodied
population being drilled, counterbalanced the advantage
possessed, from their universal use of firearms, by the
invaders. In all the towns there were trained bands (a civic
militia); and, either in regular service or as volunteers,
thousands of all ranks had received a military training on the
continent. The musters represented 100,000 men as ready to
assemble at their head-quarters at a day's notice. It was, as
nearly always, in its military administration that the
vulnerable point of England lay. The fitting-out and
victualling of the navy was disgraceful; and it is scarcely an
excuse for the councillors that they were powerless against
the parsimony of the Queen. The Government maintained its
hereditary character from the days of Ethelred the Unready,
and the arrangements for assembling the defensive forces were
not really completed by them until after the Armada was
destroyed. The defeat of the invaders, if they had landed,
must have been accomplished by the people. The flame of
patriotism never burnt purer: all Englishmen alike, Romanists,
Protestant Episcopalians, and Puritans, were banded together
to resist the invader. Every hamlet was on the alert for the
beacon-signal. Some 15,000 men were already under arms in
London; the compact Tilbury Fort was full, and a bridge of
boats from Tilbury to Gravesend blocked the Thames. Philip's
preparations had been commensurate with the grandeur of his
scheme. The dockyards in his ports in the Low Countries, the
rivers, the canals, and the harbours of Spain, Portugal,
Naples, and Italy, echoed the clang of the shipwrights'
hammers. A vast armament, named, as if to provoke Nemesis, the
'Invincible Armada,' on which for three years the treasures of
the American mines had been lavished, at length rode the seas,
blessed with Papal benedictions and under the patronage of the
saints. It comprised 65 huge galleons, of from 700 to 1,300
tons, with sides of enormous thickness, and built high like
castles; four great galleys, each carrying 50 guns and 450
men, and rowed by 300 slaves; 56 armed merchantmen, and 20
pinnaces. These 129 vessels were armed with 2,430 brass and
iron guns of the best manufacture, but each gun was furnished
only with 50 rounds.
{844}
They carried 5,000 seamen: Parma's army amounted to 30,000
men--Spaniards, Germans, Italians and Walloons; and 19,000
Castilians and Portuguese, with 1,000 gentlemen volunteers,
were coming to join him. To maintain this army after it had
effected a landing, a great store of provisions--sufficient
for 40,000 men for six months--was placed on board. The
overthrow of this armament was effected by the navy and the
elements. From the Queen's parsimony the State had only 36
ships in the fleet; but the City of London furnished 33
vessels; 18 were supplied by the liberality of private
individuals; and nearly 100 smaller ships were obtained on
hire; so that the fleet was eventually brought up to nearly
30,000 tons, carrying 16,000 men, and equipped with 837 guns.
But there was sufficient ammunition for only a single day's
fighting. Fortunately for Elizabeth's Government, the
Spaniards, having been long driven from the channel by
privateers, were now unacquainted with its currents; and they
could procure, as the Dutch were in revolt, only two or three
competent pilots. The Spanish commander was the Duke of
Medina-Sidonia, an incapable man, but he had under him some of
the ablest of Philip's officers. When the ships set out from
the Tagus, on the 29th May, 1588, a storm came on, and the
Armada had to put into Coruña to refit. From that port the
Armada set out at the beginning of July, in lovely weather,
with just enough wind to wave from the mastheads the red
crosses which they bore as symbols of their crusade. The Duke
of Medina entered the Channel on the 18th July, and the rear
of his fleet was immediately harassed by a cannonade from the
puny ships of England, commanded by Lord Howard of Effingham
(Lord High Admiral), with Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher, Winter,
Fenner, and other famous captains. With the loss of three
galleons from fire or boarding, the Spanish commander, who was
making for Flanders to embark Parma's army, anchored in Calais
roads. In the night fire-ships--an ancient mode of warfare
which had just been reintroduced by the Dutch--passed in among
the Armada, a fierce gale completed their work, and morning
revealed the remnant of the Invincible Armada scattered along
the coast from Calais to Ostend. Eighty vessels remained to
Medina, and with these he sailed up the North Sea, to round
the British Isles. But the treacherous currents of the Orkneys
and the Hebrides were unknown to his officers, and only a few
ships escaped the tempests of the late autumn. More than
two-thirds of the expedition perished, and of the remnant that
again viewed the hills of Spain all but a few hundreds
returned only to die."
H. R. Clinton,
From Crécy to Assye,
chapter 7.
In the fighting on the 23d of July, "the Spaniards' shot flew
for the most part over the heads of the English, without doing
execution, Cock being the only Englishman that died bravely in
the midst of his enemies in a ship of his own. The reason of
this was, that the English ships, being far less than the
enemy's, made the attack with more quickness and agility; and
when they had given a broadside, they presently sheered off to
a convenient distance, and levelled their shot so directly at
the bigger and more unwieldy ships of the Spaniards, as seldom
to miss their aim; though the Lord Admiral did not think it
safe or proper to grapple with them, as some advised, with
much more heat than discretion, because that the enemy's fleet
carried a considerable army within their sides, whereas ours had
no such advantage. Besides their ships far exceeded ours in
number and bulk, and were much stronger and higher built;
insomuch that their men, having the opportunity to ply us from
such lofty hatches, must inevitably destroy those that were
obliged, as it were, to fight beneath them. ... On the 24th
day of the month there was a cessation on both sides, and the
Lord Admiral sent some of his smaller vessels to the nearest
of the English harbours, to fetch a supply of powder and
ammunition; then he divided the fleet into four squadrons, the
first of which he commanded himself, the second he committed
to Drake, the third to Hawkins, and the fourth to Frobisher.
He likewise singled out of the main fleet some smaller vessels
to begin the attack on all sides at once, in the very dead of
the night; but a calm happening spoiled his design." On the
26th "the Spanish fleet sailed forward with a fair and soft
gale at southwest and by south; and the English chased them
close at the heels; but so far was this Invincible Armada from
alarming the sea-coasts with any frightful apprehensions, that
the English gentry of the younger sort entered themselves
volunteers, and taking leave of their parents, wives, and
children, did, with incredible cheerfulness, hire ships at
their own charge; and, in pure love to their country, joined
the grand fleet in vast numbers. ... On the 27th of this month
the Spanish Fleet came to an anchor before Calais, their
pilots having acquainted them that if they ventured any
farther there was some danger that the force of the current
might drive them away into the Northern Channel. Not far from
them came likewise the English Admiral to an anchor, and lay
within shot of their ships. The English fleet consisted by
this time of 140 sail; all of them ships of force, and very
tight and nimble sailors, and easily manageable upon a tack.
But, however, the main brunt of the engagement lay not upon
more than 15 or 16 of them. ... The Lord Admiral got ready
eight of his worst ships the very day after the Spaniards came
to an anchor; and having bestowed upon them a good plenty of
pitch, tar, and rosin, and lined them well with brimstone and
other combustible matter, they sent them before the wind, in
the dead time of the night, under the conduct of Young and
Prowse, into the midst of the Spanish fleet. ... The Spaniards
reported that the duke, upon the approach of the fire-ships,
ordered the whole fleet to weigh anchor and stand to sea, but
that when the danger was over every ship should return to her
station. This is what he did himself, and he likewise
discharged a great gun as a signal to the rest to do as he
did; the report, however, was heard but by very few, by reason
their fears had dispersed them at that rate that some of them
ventured out of the main ocean, and others sailed up the
shallows of Flanders. In the meantime Drake and Fenner played
briskly with their cannon upon the Spanish fleet, as it was
rendezvousing over against Graveling. ... On the last day of
the month the wind blew hard at north-west early in the
morning, and the Spanish fleet attempting to get back again to
the Straits of Calais, was driven toward Zealand.
{845}
The English then gave over the chase, because, in the
Spaniards' opinion, they perceived them making haste enough to
their own destruction. For the wind, lying at the W. N. W.
point, could not choose but force them on the shoals and sands
on the coast of Zealand. But the wind happening to come about
in a little time to Southwest and by West they went before the
wind. ... Being now, therefore, clear of danger in the main
ocean, they steered northward, and the English fleet renewed
the chase after them. ... The Spaniards having now laid aside
all the thoughts and hopes of returning to attempt the
English, and perceiving their main safety lay in their flight,
made no stay or stop at any port whatever. And thus this
mighty armada, which had been three whole years fitting out,
and at a vast expense, met in one month's time with several
attacks, and was at last routed, with a vast slaughter on
their side, and but a very few of the English missing, and not
one ship lost, except that small vessel of Cock's. ... When,
therefore, the Spanish fleet had taken a large compass round
Britain, by the coasts of Scotland, the Orcades, and Ireland,
and had weathered many storms, and suffered as many wrecks and
blows, and all the inconveniences of war and weather, it made
a shift to get home again, laden with nothing but shame and
dishonour. ... Certain it is that several of their ships
perished in their flight, being cast away on the coasts of
Scotland and Ireland, and that above 700 soldiers were cast on
shore in Scotland. ... As for those who had the ill fortune to
be drove upon the Irish shore, they met with the most
barbarous treatment; for some of them were butchered by the
wild Irish, and the rest put to the sword by the Lord Deputy."
W. Camden,
History of Queen Elizabeth.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
Historical Biographies: Drake.
E. S. Creasy,
Fifteen Decisive Battles,
chapter 10.
C. Kingsley,
Westward Ho!
chapter 31.
R. Hakluyt,
Principal Navigations, &C.
(E. Goldsmid's ed.), volume 7.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1596.
Alliance with Henry IV. of France against Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593--1598.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1596.
Dutch and English expedition against Cadiz.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1596.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1597.
Abolition of the privileges of the Hanse merchants.
See HANSA TOWNS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1600.
The first charter to the East India Company.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1601.
The first Poor Law.
See POOR LAWS, THE ENGLISH.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.
Accession of King James I.
The Stuart family.
On the death of Queen Elizabeth, in 1603, James VI. of
Scotland became also the accepted king of England (under the
title of James I.), by virtue of his descent from that
daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII., Margaret
Tudor, who married James IV. king of Scots. His grandfather
was James V.; his mother was Marie Stuart, or Mary, Queen of

Scots, born of her marriage with Lord Darnley. He was the
ninth in the line of the Scottish dynasty of the Stuarts, or
Stewarts, for an account of the origin of which see SCOTLAND:
A. D. 1370. He had been carefully alienated from the religion
of his mother and reared in Protestantism, to make him an
acceptable heir to the English throne. He came to it at a time
when the autocratic spirit of the Tudors, making use of the
peculiar circumstances of their time, had raised the royal
power and prerogative to their most exalted pitch; and he
united the two kingdoms of Scotland and England under one
sovereignty. "The noble inheritance fell to a race who,
comprehending not one of the conditions by which alone it was
possible to be retained, profligately misused until they lost
it utterly. The calamity was in no respect foreseen by the
statesman, Cecil, to whose exertion it was mainly due that
James was seated on the throne: yet in regard to it he cannot
be held blameless. He was doubtless right in the course he
took, in so far as he thereby satisfied a national desire, and
brought under one crown two kingdoms that with advantage to
either could not separately exist; but it remains a reproach
to his name that he let slip the occasion of obtaining for the
people some ascertained and settled guarantees which could not
then have been refused, and which might have saved half a
century of bloodshed. None such were proposed to James. He was
allowed to seize a prerogative, which for upwards of fifty
years had been strained to a higher pitch than at any previous
period of the English history; and his clumsy grasp closed on
it without a sign of question or remonstrance from the leading
statesmen of England. 'Do I mak the judges? Do I mak the
bishops?' he exclaimed, as the powers of his new dominion
dawned on his delighted sense: 'Then, God's wauns! I mak what
likes me, law and gospel!' It was even so. And this license to
make gospel and law was given, with other far more
questionable powers, to a man whose personal appearance and
qualities were as suggestive of contempt, as his public acts
were provocative of rebellion. It is necessary to dwell upon
this part of the subject; for it is only just to his not more
culpable but far less fortunate successor to say, that in it
lies the source and explanation of not a little for which the
penalty was paid by him. What is called the Great Rebellion
can have no comment so pregnant as that which is suggested by
the character and previous career of the first of the Stuart
kings."
J. Forster,
Historical and Biographical Essays,
p.227.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
The Hampton Court Conference.
James I. "was not long seated on the English throne, when a
conference was held at Hampton Court, to hear the complaints
of the puritans, as those good men were called who scrupled to
conform to the ceremonies, and sought a reformation of the
abuses of the church of England. On this occasion, surrounded
with his deans, bishops, and archbishops, who breathed into
his ears the music of flattery, and worshipped him as an
oracle, James, like king Solomon, to whom he was fond of being
compared, appeared in all his glory, giving his judgment on
every question, and displaying before the astonished prelates,
who kneeled every time they addressed him, his polemic powers and
theological learning. Contrasting his present honours with the
scenes from which he had just escaped in his native country,
he began by congratulating himself that, 'by the blessing of
Providence, he was brought into the promised land, where
religion was professed in its purity; where he sat among
grave, learned, and reverend men; and that now he was not, as
formerly, a king without state and honour, nor in a place
where order was banished, and beardless boys would brave him
to his face.'
{846}
After long conferences, during which the king gave the most
extraordinary exhibitions of his learning, drollery, and
profaneness, he was completely thrown off his guard by the
word presbytery, which Dr. Reynolds, a representative of the
puritans, had unfortunately employed. Thinking that he aimed
at a 'Scotch presbytery,' James rose into a towering passion,
declaring that presbytery agreed as well with monarchy as God
and the devil. 'Then,' said he, 'Jack and Tom, and Will and
Dick, shall meet, and at their pleasures censure me and my
council, and all our proceedings. Then Will shall stand up and
say, It must be thus: Then Dick shall reply, and say, Nay
marry, but we will have it thus. And, therefore, here I must
once reiterate my former speech, Le Roy s'avisera (the king
will look after it). Stay, I pray you, for one seven years
before you demand that of me; and if you then find me pursy
and fat, and my wind-pipes stuffed, I will perhaps hearken to
you; for let that government be once up, I am sure I shall be
kept in breath; then we shall all of us have work enough, both
our hands full. But, Dr. Reynolds, till you find that I grow
lazy, let that alone." Then, putting his hand to his hat, 'My
lords the bishops,' said his majesty, 'I may thank you that
these men plead for my supremacy; they think they can't make
their party good against you, but by appealing unto it. But if
once you are out, and they in place, I know what would become
of my supremacy; for no bishop, no king, as I said before.'
Then rising from his chair, he concluded the conference with,
'If this be all they have to say, I'll make them conform, or
I'll harry them out of this land, or else do worse.' The
English lords and prelates were so filled with admiration at
the quickness of apprehension and dexterity in controversy
shown by the king, that, as Dr. Barlow informs us, 'one of
them said his majesty spoke by the instinct of the Spirit of
God; and the lord chancellor, as he went out, said to the dean
of Chester, I have often heard that Rex est mixta persona cum
sacerdote (that a king is partly a priest), but I never saw
the truth thereof till this day!' In these circumstances,
buoyed up with flattery by his English clergy, and placed
beyond the reach of the faithful admonitions of the Scottish
ministry, we need not wonder to find James prosecuting, with
redoubled ardour, his scheme of reducing the church of
Scotland to the English model."
T. McCrie,
Sketches of Scottish Church History,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 1, sections 3.
G. G. Perry,
History of the Church of England,
volume 1, chapter 2.
T. Fuller,
Church History of Britain,
book 10, section 1 (volume 3).
England: A. D. 1605.
The Gunpowder Plot.
"The Roman Catholics had expected great favour and indulgence
on the accession of James, both as he was descended from Mary,
whose life they believed to have been sacrificed to their
cause, and as he himself, in his early youth, was imagined to
have shown some partiality towards them. ... Very soon they
discovered their mistake; and were at once surprised and
enraged to find James, on all occasions, express his intention
of strictly executing the laws enacted against them, and of
persevering in all the rigorous measures of Elizabeth.
Catesby, a gentleman of good parts and of an ancient family,
first thought of a most extraordinary method of revenge; and
he opened his intention to Piercy, a descendant of the
illustrious house of Northumberland. In vain, said he, would
you put an end to the king's life: he has children. ... To
serve any good purpose, we must destroy, at one blow, the
king, the royal family, the Lords, the Commons, and bury all
our enemies in one common ruin. Happily, they are all
assembled on the first meeting of Parliament, and afford us
the opportunity of glorious and useful vengeance. Great
preparations will not be requisite. A few of us, combining,
may run a mine below the hall in which they meet, and choosing
the very moment when the king harangues both Houses, consign over
to destruction these determined foes to all piety and
religion. ... Piercy was charmed with this project of Catesby;
and they agreed to communicate the matter to a few more, and
among the rest to Thomas Winter, whom they sent over to
Flanders, in quest of Fawkes, an officer in the Spanish
service, with whose zeal and courage they were all thoroughly
acquainted. ... All this passed in the spring and summer of
the year 1604; when the conspirators also hired a house in
Piercy's name, adjoining to that in which the Parliament was
to assemble. Towards the end of that year they began their
operations. ... They soon pierced the wall, though three yards
in thickness; but on approaching the other side they were
somewhat startled at hearing a noise which they knew not how
to account for. Upon inquiry, they found that it came from the
vault below the House of Lords; that a magazine of coals had
been kept there; and that, as the coals were selling off, the
vault would be let to the highest bidder. The opportunity was
immediately seized; the place hired by Piercy; thirty-six
barrels of powder lodged in it; the whole covered up with
faggots and billets; the doors of the cellar boldly flung
open, and everybody admitted, as if it contained nothing
dangerous. ... The day [November 5, 1605], so long wished for,
now approached, on which the Parliament was appointed to
assemble. The dreadful secret, though communicated to above
twenty persons, had been religiously kept, during the space of
near a year and a half. No remorse, no pity, no fear of
punishment, no hope of reward, had as yet induced any one
conspirator, either to abandon the enterprise or make a
discovery of it." But the betrayal was unwittingly made, after
all, by one in the plot, who tried to deter Lord Monteagle
from attending the opening session of Parliament, by sending
him a mysterious message of warning. Lord Monteagle showed the
letter to Lord Salisbury, secretary of state, who attached
little importance to it, but who laid it before the king. The
Scottish Solomon read it with more anxiety and was shrewdly
led by some expressions in the missive to order an inspection
of the vaults underneath the parliamentary houses. The
gunpowder was discovered and Guy Fawkes was found in the
place, with matches for the firing of it on his person. Being
put to the rack he disclosed the names of his accomplices.
They were seized, tried and executed, or killed while
resisting arrest.
D. Hume,
History of England,
volume 4, chapter 46.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
History of England,
chapter 6, (volume 1).
J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 9, chapter 1.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
The chartering of the Virginia Company, with its London and
Plymouth branches.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.
{847}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
The Monopoly granted to the Council for New England.
See NEW ENGLAND: A.. D. 1620-1623.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
The exodus of the Pilgrims and the planting of their colony at
New Plymouth.
See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1621.
Claims in North America conflicting with France.
Grant of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1638.
The grants in Newfoundland to Baltimore and Kirke.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
The Protestant Alliance in the Thirty Years War.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
The gains of Parliament in the reign of James I.
"The commons had now been engaged [at the end of the reign of
James I.], for more than twenty years, in a struggle to
restore and to fortify their own and their fellow subjects'
liberties. They had obtained in this period but one
legislative measure of importance, the late declaratory act
against monopolies. But they had rescued from disuse their
ancient right of impeachment. They had placed on record a
protestation of their claim to debate all matters of public
concern. They had remonstrated against the usurped
prerogatives of binding the subject by proclamation, and of
levying customs at the out-ports. They had secured beyond
controversy their exclusive privilege of determining contested
elections of their members. They had maintained, and carried
indeed to an unwarrantable extent, their power of judging and
inflicting punishment, even for offences not committed against
their house. Of these advantages some were evidently
incomplete; and it would require the most vigorous exertions
of future parliaments to realize them. But such exertions the
increased energy of the nation gave abundant cause to
anticipate. A deep and lasting love of freedom had taken hold
of every class except perhaps the clergy; from which, when
viewed together with the rash pride of the court, and the
uncertainty of constitutional principles and precedents,
collected through our long and various history, a calm
by-stander might presage that the ensuing reign would not pass
without disturbance, nor perhaps end without confusion."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 6.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1625.
Marriage of Charles with Henrietta Maria of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624--1626.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1625-1628.
The accession of Charles I.
Beginning of the struggle of King and Parliament.
"The political and religious schism which had originated in
the 16th century was, during the first quarter of the 17th
century, constantly widening. Theories tending to Turkish
despotism were in fashion at Whitehall. Theories tending to
republicanism were in favour with a large portion of the House
of Commons. ... While the minds of men were in this state, the
country, after a peace of many years, at length engaged in a
war [with Spain, and with Austria and the Emperor in the
Palatinate] which required strenuous exertions. This war
hastened the approach of the great constitutional crisis. It
was necessary that the king should have a large military
force. He could not have such a force without money. He could
not legally raise money without the consent of Parliament. It
followed, therefore, that he either must administer the
government in conformity with the sense of the House of
Commons, or must venture on such a violation of the
fundamental laws of the land as had been unknown during
several centuries. ... Just at this conjuncture James died
[March 27, 1625]. Charles I. succeeded to the throne. He had
received from nature a far better understanding, a far
stronger will, and a far keener and firmer temper than his
father's. He had inherited his father's political theories,
and was much more disposed than his father to carry them into
practice. ... His taste in literature and art was excellent,
his manner dignified though not gracious, his domestic life
without blemish. Faithlessness was the chief cause of his
disasters, and is the chief stain on his memory. He was, in
truth, impelled by an incurable propensity to dark and crooked
ways. ... He seems to have learned from the theologians whom
he most esteemed that between him and his subjects there could
be nothing of the nature of mutual contract; that he could
not, even if he would, divest himself of his despotic
authority; and that, in every promise which he made, there was
an implied reservation that such promise might be broken in
case of necessity, and that of the necessity he was the sole
judge. And now began that hazardous game on which were staked
the destinies of the English people. It was played on the side
of the House of Commons with keenness, but with admirable
dexterity, coolness and perseverance. Great statesmen who
looked far behind them and far before them were at the head of
that assembly. They were resolved to place the king in such a
situation that he must either conduct the administration in
conformity with the wishes of his Parliament, or make
outrageous attacks on the most sacred principles of the
constitution. They accordingly doled out supplies to him very
sparingly. He found that he must govern either in harmony with
the House of Commons, or in defiance of all law. His choice
was soon made. He dissolved his first Parliament, and levied
taxes by his own authority. He convoked a second Parliament
[1626] and found it more intractable than the first. He again
resorted to the expedient of dissolution, raised fresh taxes
without any show of legal right, and threw the chiefs of the
opposition into prison. At the same time a new grievance,
which the peculiar feelings and habits of the English nation
made insupportably painful, and which seemed to all discerning
men to be of fearful augury, excited general discontent and
alarm. Companies of soldiers were billeted on the people; and
martial law was, in some places, substituted for the ancient
jurisprudence of the realm. The king called a third Parliament
[1628], and soon perceived that the opposition was stronger
and fiercer than ever. He now determined on a change of
tactics. Instead of opposing an inflexible resistance to the
demands of the commons, he, after much altercation and many
evasions, agreed to a compromise which, if he had faithfully
adhered to it, would have averted a long series of calamities.
The Parliament granted an ample supply. The King ratified, in
the most solemn manner, that celebrated law which is known by
the name of the Petition of Right, and which is the second
Great Charter of the liberties of England."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. R. Green,
History of the English People,
book 7, chapter 5 (volume 3).
F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution,
book 1.
{848}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1627-1628.
Buckingham's war with France and expedition to La Rochelle.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
The Petition of Right.
"Charles had recourse to many subterfuges in hopes to elude
the passing of this law; rather perhaps through wounded pride,
as we may judge from his subsequent conduct, than much
apprehension that it would create a serious impediment to his
despotic schemes. He tried to persuade them to acquiesce in
his royal promise not to arrest anyone without just cause, or
in a simple confirmation of the Great Charter and other
statutes in favour of liberty. The peers, too pliant in this
instance to his wishes, and half receding from the patriot
banner they had lately joined, lent him their aid by proposing
amendments (insidious in those who suggested them, though not
in the body of the house) which the commons firmly rejected.
Even when the bill was tendered to him for that assent which
it had been necessary, for the last two centuries, that the
king should grant or refuse in a word, he returned a long and
equivocal answer, from which it could only be collected that
he did not intend to remit any portion of what he had claimed
as his prerogative. But on an address from both houses for a
more explicit answer, he thought fit to consent to the bill in
the usual form. The commons, of whose harshness towards Charles
his advocates have said so much, immediately passed a bill for
granting five subsidies, about £350,000; a sum not too great
for the wealth of the kingdom or for his exigencies, but
considerable according to the precedents of former times, to
which men naturally look. ... The Petition of Right, ... this
statute is still called, from its not being drawn in the
common form of an act of parliament." Although the king had
been defeated in his attempt to qualify his assent to the
Petition of Right, and had been forced to accede to it
unequivocally, yet "he had the absurd and audacious
insincerity (for we can use no milder epithets), to circulate
1,500 copies of it through the country, after the prorogation,
with his first answer annexed; an attempt to deceive without
the possibility of success. But instances of such ill-faith,
accumulated as they are through the life of Charles, render
the assertion of his sincerity a proof either of historical
ignorance or of a want of moral delicacy."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 7.
The following is the text of the Petition of Right:
"To the King's Most Excellent Majesty. Humbly show unto our
Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons in Parliament assembled, that whereas it is declared
and enacted by a statute made in the time of the reign of King
Edward the First, commonly called, 'Statutum de Tallagio non
concedendo,' that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by
the King or his heirs in this realm, without the goodwill and
assent of the Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights,
Burgesses, and other the freemen of the commonalty of this
realm: and by authority of Parliament holden in the five and
twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is
declared and enacted, that from thenceforth no person shall be
compelled to make any loans to the King against his will,
because such loans were against reason and the franchise of
the land; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that
none should be charged by any charge or imposition, called a
Benevolence, or by such like charge, by which the statutes
before-mentioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this
realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they
should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage,
aid, or other like charge, not set by common consent in
Parliament: Yet nevertheless, of late divers commissions
directed to sundry Commissioners in several counties with
instructions have issued, by means whereof your people have
been in divers places assembled, and required to lend certain
sums of money unto your Majesty, and many of them upon their
refusal so to do, have had an oath administered unto them, not
warrantable by the laws or statutes of this realm, and have
been constrained to become bound to make appearance and give
attendance before your Privy Council, and in other places, and
others of them have been therefore imprisoned, confined, and
sundry other ways molested and disquieted: and divers other
charges have been laid and levied upon your people in several
counties, by Lords Lieutenants, Deputy Lieutenants,
Commissioners for Musters, Justices of Peace and others, by
command or direction from your Majesty or your Privy Council,
against the laws and free customs of this realm: And where
also by the statute called, 'The Great Charter of the
Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted, that no
freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his
freeholds or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or
exiled; or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment
of his peers, or by the law of the land: And in the eight and
twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it was
declared and enacted by authority of Parliament, that no man
of what estate or condition that he be, should be put out of
his lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor
disherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer
by due process of law: Nevertheless, against the tenor of the
said statutes, and other the good laws and statutes of your
realm, to that end provided, divers of your subjects have of
late been imprisoned without any cause showed, and when for
their deliverance they were brought before your Justices, by
your Majesty's writs of Habeas Corpus, there to undergo and
receive as the Court should order, and their keepers commanded
to certify the causes of their detainer; no cause was
certified, but that they were detained by your Majesty's
special command, signified by the Lords of your Privy Council,
and yet were returned back to several prisons, without being
charged with anything to which they might make answer
according to the law: And whereas of late great companies of
soldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers counties
of the realm, and the inhabitants against their wills have
been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to
suffer them to sojourn, against the laws and customs of this
realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people:
And whereas also by authority of Parliament, in the 25th year
of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared and
enacted, that no man shall be forejudged of life or limb
against the form of the Great Charter, and the law of the
land:
{849}
and by the said Great Charter and other the laws and statutes
of this your realm, no man ought to be adjudged to death; but
by the laws established in this your realm, either by the
customs of the same realm or by Acts of Parliament: and
whereas no offender of what kind soever is exempted from the
proceedings to be used, and punishments to be inflicted by the
laws and statutes of this your realm: nevertheless of late
divers commissions under your Majesty's Great Seal have issued
forth, by which certain persons have been assigned and
appointed Commissioners with power and authority to proceed
within the land, according to the justice of martial law
against such soldiers and mariners, or other dissolute persons
joining with them, as should commit any murder, robbery,
felony, mutiny, or other outrage or misdemeanour whatsoever,
and by such summary course and order, as is agreeable to
martial law, and is used in armies in time of war, to proceed
to the trial and condemnation of such offenders, and them to
cause to be executed and put to death, according to the law
martial: By pretext whereof, some of your Majesty's subjects
have been by some of the said Commissioners put to death, when
and where, if by the laws and statutes of the land they had
deserved death, by the same laws and statutes also they might,
and by no other ought to have been, adjudged and executed: And
also sundry grievous offenders by colour thereof, claiming an
exemption, have escaped the punishments due to them by the
laws and statutes of this your realm, by reason that divers of
your officers and ministers of justice have unjustly refused,
or forborne to proceed against such offenders according to the
same laws and statutes, upon pretence that the said offenders
were punishable only by martial law, and by authority of such
commissions as aforesaid, which commissions, and all other of
like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said laws
and statutes of this your realm: They do therefore humbly pray
your Most Excellent Majesty, that no man hereafter be
compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax,
or such like charge, without common consent by Act of
Parliament; and that none be called to make answer, or take
such oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise
molested or disquieted concerning the same, or for refusal
thereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is
before-mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; and that your
Majesty will be pleased to remove the said soldiers and
mariners, and that your people may not be so burdened in time
to come; and that the foresaid commissions for proceeding by
martial law, 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 Majesty's subjects be destroyed or
put to death, contrary to the laws and franchise of the land.
All which they most humbly pray of your Most Excellent
Majesty, as their rights and liberties according to the laws
and statutes of this realm: and that your Majesty would also
vouchsafe to declare, that the awards, doings, and proceedings
to the prejudice of your people, in any of the premises, shall
not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example: and that
your Majesty would be also graciously pleased, for the further
comfort and safety of your people, to declare your royal will
and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers
and ministers shall serve you, according to the laws and
statutes of this realm, as they tender the honour of your
Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom. [Which Petition
being read the 2nd of June 1628, the King's answer was thus
delivered unto it. 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 his subjects may have
no cause to complain of any wrong or oppressions, contrary to
their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof
he holds himself as well obliged as of his prerogative. On
June 7 the answer was given in the accustomed form, 'Soit
droit fait comme il est désiré.']"
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
History of England,
chapter 63 (volume 6).
S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
page 1.
J. L. De Lolme,
The English Constitution,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.
Assassination of Buckingham.
"While the struggle [over the Petition of Right] was going on,
the popular hatred of Buckingham [the King's favourite, whose
influence at court was supreme] showed itself in a brutal
manner. In the streets of London, the Duke's physician, Dr.
Lambe, was set upon by the mob, called witch, devil, and the
Duke's conjuror, and absolutely beaten to death. The Council
set inquiries on foot, but no individual was brought before
it, and the rhyme went from mouth to mouth--'Let Charles and
George do what they can, The Duke shall die like Doctor
Lambe.' ... Charles, shocked and grieved, took his friend in
his own coach through London to see the ten ships which were
being prepared at Deptford for the relief of Rochelle. It was
reported that he was heard to say, 'George, there are some
that wish that both these and thou might perish. But care not
thou for them. We will both perish together if thou dost.'
There must have been something strangely attractive about the
man who won and kept the hearts of four personages so
dissimilar as James and Charles of England, Anne of Austria,
and William Laud. ... In the meantime Rochelle held out." One
attempt to relieve the beleaguered town had failed. Buckingham
was to command in person the armament now in preparation for
another attempt. "The fleet was at Portsmouth, and Buckingham
went down thither in high spirits to take the command. The
King came down to Sir Daniel Norton's house at Southwick. On
the 23d of August Buckingham rose and 'cut a caper or two'
before the barber dealt with his moustache and lovelocks. Then
he was about to sit down to breakfast with a number of
captains, and as he rose he received letters which made him
believe that Rochelle had been relieved. He said he must tell
the King instantly, but Soubise and the other refugees did not
believe a word of it, and there was a good deal of disputing
and gesticulation between them. He crossed a lobby, followed
by the eager Frenchmen, and halted to take leave of an
officer, Sir Thomas Fryar. Over the shoulder of this
gentleman, as he bowed, a knife was thrust into Buckingham's
breast. There was an effort to withdraw it; a cry 'The
Villain!' and the great Duke, at 36 years old, was dead. The
attendants at first thought the blow came from one of the
noisy Frenchmen, and were falling on them." But a servant had
seen the deed committed, and ran after the assassin, who was
arrested and proved to be one John Felton, a soldier and a man
of good family. He had suffered wrongs which apparently
unhinged his mind.
{850}
C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
6th series, chapter 17.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 65.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1628-1632.
Conquest and brief occupation of Canada and Nova Scotia.
See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1635.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The royal charter granted to the Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay.
See: MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
The King's Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
Tonnage and Poundage.
The tumult in Parliament and the dissolution.
Charles' third Parliament, prorogued on the 26th of June,
1628, reassembled on the 20th of January, 1629. "The
Parliament Session proved very brief; but very energetic, very
extraordinary. Tonnage and Poundage, what we now call
Customhouse duties, a constant subject of quarrel between
Charles and his Parliaments hitherto, had again been levied
without Parliamentary consent; in the teeth of old 'Tallagio
non concedendo,' nay even of the late solemnly confirmed
Petition of Right; and naturally gave rise to Parliamentary
consideration. Merchants had been imprisoned for refusing to
pay it; Members of Parliament themselves had been 'supoena'd':
there was a very ravelled coil to deal with in regard to
Tonnage and Poundage. Nay the Petition of Right itself had
been altered in the Printing; a very ugly business too. In
regard to Religion also, matters looked equally ill. Sycophant
Mainwaring, just censured in Parliament, had been promoted to
a fatter living. Sycophant Montague, in the like
circumstances, to a Bishopric: Laud was in the act of
consecrating him at Croydon, when the news of Buckingham's
death came thither. There needed to be a Committee of
Religion. The House resolved itself into a Grand Committee of
Religion; and did not want for matter. Bishop Neile of
Winchester, Bishop Laud now of London, were a frightfully
ceremonial pair of Bishops; the fountain they of innumerable
tendencies to Papistry and the old clothes of Babylon. It was
in this Committee of Religion, on the 11th day of February,
1628-9, that Mr. Cromwell, Member for Huntingdon, stood up and
made his first speech, a fragment of which has found its way
into History. ... A new Remonstrance behoves to be resolved
upon; Bishops Neile and Laud are even to be 'named' there.
Whereupon, before they could get well 'named' ... the King
hastily interfered. This Parliament, in a fortnight more, was
dissolved; and that under circumstances of the most
unparalleled sort. For Speaker Finch, as we have seen, was a
Courtier, in constant communication with the King: one day,
while these high matters were astir, Speaker Finch refused to
'put the question' when ordered by the House! He said he had
orders to the contrary; persisted in that;--and at last took
to weeping. What was the House to do? Adjourn for two days;
and consider what to do! On the second day, which was
Wednesday, Speaker Finch signified that by his Majesty's
command they were again adjourned till Monday next. On Monday
next, Speaker Finch, still recusant, would not put the former
nor indeed any question, having the King's order to adjourn
again instantly. He refused; was reprimanded, menaced; once
more took to weeping; then started up to go his ways. But
young Mr. Holles, Denzil Holles, the Earl of Clare's second
son, he and certain other honourable members were prepared for
that movement: they seized Speaker Finch, set him down in his
chair, and by main force held him there! A scene of such
agitation as was never seen in Parliament before. 'The House
was much troubled.' 'Let him go,' cried certain Privy
Councillors, Majesty's Ministers as we should now call them,
who in those days sat in front of the Speaker, 'Let Mr.
Speaker go!' cried they imploringly. 'No!' answered Holles;
'God's wounds, he shall sit there till it please the House to
rise!' The House in a decisive though almost distracted
manner, with their Speaker thus held down for them, locked
their doors; redacted Three emphatic Resolutions, their
Protest against Arminianism, Papistry, and illegal Tonnage and
Poundage; and passed the same by acclamation; letting no man
out, refusing to let even the King's Usher in; then swiftly
vanishing so soon as the resolutions were passed, for they
understood the soldiery was coming. For which surprising
procedure, vindicated by Necessity the mother of Invention,
and supreme of Lawgivers, certain honourable gentlemen, Denzil
Holles, Sir John Eliot, William Strode, John Selden, and
others less known to us, suffered fine, imprisonment, and much
legal tribulation: nay Sir John Eliot, refusing to submit, was
kept in the Tower till he died. This scene fell out on Monday,
2d of March, 1629."
T. Carlyle,
Introduction to Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
J. Forster,
Sir John Eliot: a Biography,
book 10, section 6-8 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1630.
Emigration of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
with their royal charter.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1631.
Aid to Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
ENGLAND: A. D: 1632.
Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.
See NOVA SCOTIA (ACADIA): A. D. 1621-1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1632.
The Palatine grant of Maryland to Lord Baltimore.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.
The Ecclesiastical despotism of Laud.
"When Charles, having quarreled with his parliament, stood
alone in the midst of his kingdom, seeking on all sides the
means of governing, the Anglican clergy believed this day [for
establishing the independent and uncontrolled power of their
church] was come. They had again got immense wealth, and
enjoyed it without dispute. The papists no longer inspired
them with alarm. The primate of the church, Laud, possessed
the entire confidence of the king and alone directed all
ecclesiastical affairs. Among the other ministers, none
professed, like lord Burleigh under Elizabeth, to fear and
struggle against the encroachments of the clergy. The
courtiers were indifferent, or secret papists. Learned men
threw lustre over the church. The universities, that of Oxford
more especially, were devoted to her maxims. Only one
adversary remained--the people, each day more discontented
with uncompleted reform, and more eager fully to accomplish
it. But this adversary was also the adversary of the throne;
it claimed at the same time, the one to secure the other,
evangelical faith and civil liberty.
{851}
The same peril threatened the sovereignty of the crown and of
episcopacy. The king, sincerely pious, seemed disposed to
believe that he was not the only one who held his authority
from God, and that the power of the bishops was neither of
less high origin, nor of less sacred character. Never had so
many favourable circumstances seemed combined to enable the
clergy to achieve independence of the crown, dominion over the
people. Laud set himself to work with his accustomed
vehemence. First, it was essential that all dissensions in the
bosom of the church itself should cease, and that the
strictest uniformity should infuse strength into its
doctrines, its discipline, its worship. He applied himself to
this task with the most unhesitating and unscrupulous
resolution. Power was exclusively concentrated into the hands
of the bishops. The court of high commission, where they took
cognizance of and decided everything relating to religious
matters, became day by day more arbitrary, more harsh in its
jurisdiction, its forms and its penalties. The complete
adoption of the Anglican canons, the minute observance of the
liturgy, and the rites enforced in cathedrals, were rigorously
exacted on the part of the whole ecclesiastical body. A great
many livings were in the hands of nonconformists; they were
withdrawn from them. The people crowded to their sermons; they
were forbidden to preach. ... Persecution followed and reached
them everywhere. ... Meantime, the pomp of catholic worship
speedily took possession of the churches deprived of their
pastors; while persecution kept away the faithful,
magnificence adorned the walls. They were consecrated amid
great display, and it was then necessary to employ force to
collect a congregation. Laud was fond of prescribing minutely
the details of new ceremonies--sometimes borrowed from Rome,
sometimes the production of his own imagination, at once
ostentatious and austere. On the part of the nonconformists,
every innovation, the least derogation from the canons or the
liturgy, was punished as a crime; yet Laud innovated without
consulting anybody, looking to nothing beyond the king's
consent, and sometimes acting entirely upon his own authority.
... And all these changes had, if not the aim, at all events
the result, of rendering the Anglican church more and more
like that of Rome. ... Books were published to prove that the
doctrine of the English bishops might very well adapt itself
to that of Rome; and these books, though not regularly
licensed, were dedicated to the king or to Laud, and openly
tolerated. ... The splendour and exclusive dominion of
episcopacy thus established, at least so he flattered himself,
Laud proceeded to secure its independence. ... The divine
right of bishops became, in a short time, the official
doctrine, not only of the upper clergy, but of the king
himself. ... By the time things had come to this pass, the
people were not alone in their anger. The high nobility, part
of them at least, took the alarm. They saw in the progress of
the church far more than mere tyranny; it was a regular
revolution, which, not satisfied with crushing popular
reforms, disfigured and endangered the first reformation; that
which kings had made and the aristocracy adopted."
F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution of 1640,
book 2.
ALSO IN:
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 2, chapters 4-6.
G. G. Perry,
History of the Church of England,
chapters 13-16 (volume l).
P. Bayne,
The Chief Actors of the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 3.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
Hostile measures against the Massachusetts Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
Ship-money.
"The aspect of public affairs grew darker and darker. ... All
the promises of the king were violated without scruple or
shame. The Petition of Right, to which he had, in
consideration of moneys duly numbered, given a solemn assent,
was set at naught. Taxes were raised by the royal authority.
Patents of monopoly were granted. The old usages of feudal
times were made pretexts for harassing the people with
exactions unknown during many years. The Puritans were
persecuted with cruelty worthy of the Holy Office. They were
forced to fly from the country. They were imprisoned. They
were whipped. Their ears were cut off. Their noses were slit.
Their cheeks were branded with red-hot iron. But the cruelty
of the oppressor could not tire out the fortitude of the
victims. ... The hardy sect grew up and flourished, in spite
of everything that seemed likely to stunt it, struck its roots
deep into a. barren soil, and spread its branches wide to an
inclement sky. ... For the misgovernment of this disastrous
period, Charles himself is principally responsible. After the
death of Buckingham, he seemed to have been his own prime
minister. He had, however, two counsellors who seconded him,
or went beyond him, in intolerance and lawless violence; the
one a superstitious driveller, as honest as a vile temper
would suffer him to be; the other a man of great valour and
capacity, but licentious, faithless, corrupt, and cruel. Never
were faces more strikingly characteristic of the individuals
to whom they belonged than those of Laud and Strafford, as
they still remain portrayed by the most skilful hand of that
age. The mean forehead, the pinched features, the peering eyes
of the prelate suit admirably with his disposition. They mark
him out as a lower kind of Saint Dominic. ... But
Wentworth--whoever names him without thinking of those harsh
dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the
majesty of an antique Jupiter! ... Among the humbler tools of
Charles were Chief-Justice Finch, and Noy, the
attorney-general. Noy had, like Wentworth, supported the cause
of liberty in Parliament, and had, like Wentworth, abandoned that
cause for the sake of office. He devised, in conjunction with
Finch, a scheme of exaction which made the alienation of the
people from the throne complete. A writ was issued by the
king, commanding the city of London to equip and man ships of
war for his service. Similar writs were sent to the towns
along the coast. These measures, though they were direct
violations of the Petition of Right, had at least some show of
precedent in their favour. But, after a time, the government
took a step for which no precedent could be pleaded, and sent
writs of ship-money to the inland counties. This was a stretch
of power on which Elizabeth herself had not ventured, even at
a time when all laws might with propriety have been made to
bend to that highest law, the safety of the state. The inland
counties had not been required to furnish ships, or money in
the room of ships, even when the Armada was approaching our
shores.
{852}
It seemed intolerable that a prince, who, by assenting to the
Petition of Right, had relinquished the power of levying
ship-money even in the outports, should be the first to levy
it on parts of the kingdom where it had been unknown, under
the most absolute of his predecessors. Clarendon distinctly
admits that this tax was intended, not only for the support of
the navy, but 'for a spring and magazine that should have no
bottom, and for an everlasting supply on all occasions.' The
nation well understood this; and from one end of England to
the other, the public mind was strongly excited.
Buckinghamshire was assessed at a ship of 450 tons, or a sum
of £4,500. The share of the tax which fell to Hampden was very
small [twenty shillings]; so small, indeed, that the sheriff
was blamed for setting so wealthy a man at so low a rate. But,
though the sum demanded was a trifle, the principle of the
demand was despotism. Hampden, after consulting the most
eminent constitutional lawyers of the time, refused to pay the
few shillings at which he was assessed; and determined to
incur all the certain expense and the probable danger of
bringing to a solemn hearing this great controversy between
the people and the crown. ... Towards the close of the year
1636, this great cause came on in the Exchequer Chamber before
all the judges of England. The leading counsel against the
writ was the celebrated Oliver St. John; a man whose temper
was melancholy, whose manners were reserved, and who was as
yet little known in Westminster Hall; but whose great talents
had not escaped the penetrating eye of Hampden. The arguments
of the counsel occupied many days; and the Exchequer Chamber
took a considerable time for deliberation. The opinion of the
bench was divided. So clearly was the law in favour of
Hampden, that though the judges held their situations only
during the royal pleasure, the majority against him was the
least possible. Four of the twelve pronounced decidedly in his
favour; a fifth took a middle course. The remaining seven gave
their voices in favour of the writ. The only effect of this
decision was to make the public indignation stronger and
deeper. 'The judgment,' says Clarendon, 'proved of more
advantage and credit to the gentleman condemned than to the
king's service.' The courage which Hampden had shown on this
occasion, as the same historian tells us, 'raised his
reputation to a great height generally throughout the
kingdom.'"
Lord Macaulay,
Essays,
volume 2 (Nugent's Memorials of Hampden).
ALSO IN:
J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Hampden.
S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 74 (volume 7),
and chapters 77 and 82 (volume 8);
ALSO
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
pages 37-53, and 115.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
Presbyterianism of the Puritan party.
Rise of the independents.
"It is the artifice of the favourers of the Catholic and of
the prelatical party to call all who are sticklers for the
constitution in church or state, or would square their actions
by any rule, human or divine, Puritans."
J. Rushworth,
Historical Collection,
volume 2, 1355.
"These men [the Puritan party], at the commencement of the
civil war, were presbyterians: and such had at that time been
the great majority of the serious, the sober, and the
conscientious people of England. There was a sort of
imputation of laxness of principles, and of a tendency to
immorality of conduct, upon the adherents of the
establishment, which was infinitely injurious to the episcopal
church. But these persons, whose hearts were in entire
opposition to the hierarchy, had for the most part no
difference of opinion among themselves, and therefore no
thought of toleration for difference of opinion in others.
Their desire was to abolish episcopacy and set up presbytery.
They thought and talked much of the unity of the church of
God, and of the cordial consent and agreement of its members,
and considered all sects and varieties of sentiment as a
blemish and scandal upon their holy religion. They would put
down popery and episcopacy with the strong hand of the law,
and were disposed to employ the same instrument to suppress
all who should venture to think the presbyterian church itself
not yet sufficiently spiritual and pure. Against this party,
which lorded it for a time almost without contradiction,
gradually arose the party of the independents. ... Before the
end of the civil war they became almost as strong as the party
of the presbyterians, and greatly surpassed them in abilities,
intellectual, military and civil."
W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 2).
See, also,
INDEPENDENTS; ENGLAND:
A. D. 1643 (JULY) and (JULY-SEPTEMBER),
A. D. 1646 (MARCH),
A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST),
and A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.
The First Bishops' War in Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
The Short Parliament and the Second Bishops' War.
The Scots Army in England.
"His Majesty having burnt Scotch paper Declarations 'by the
hands of the common hangman,' and almost cut the Scotch
Chancellor Loudon's head off, and being again resolute to
chastise the rebel Scots with an Army, decides on summoning a
Parliament for that end, there being no money attainable
otherwise. To the great and glad astonishment of England;
which, at one time, thought never to have seen another
Parliament! Oliver Cromwell sat in this Parliament for
Cambridge; recommended by Hampden, say some; not needing any
recommendation in those Fen-countries, think others. Oliver's
Colleague was a Thomas Meautys, Esq. This Parliament met, 13th
April, 1640: it was by no means prompt enough with supplies
against the rebel Scots; the king dismissed it in a huff, 5th
May; after a Session of three weeks: Historians call it the
Short Parliament. His Majesty decides on raising money and an
Army 'by other methods': to which end Wentworth, now Earl
Strafford and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who had advised that
course in the Council, did himself subscribe £20,000.
Archbishop Laud had long ago seen 'a cloud rising' against the
Four surplices at Allhallowtide; and now it is covering the
whole sky in a most dismal and really thundery-looking manner.
His Majesty by 'other methods,' commission of array, benevolence,
forced loan, or how he could, got a kind of Army on foot, and
set it marching out of the several Counties in the South
towards the Scotch Border; but it was a most hopeless Army.
The soldiers called the affair a Bishops' War; they mutinied
against their officers, shot some of their officers: in
various Towns on their march, if the Clergyman were reputed
Puritan, they went and gave him three cheers; if of
Surplice-tendency, they sometimes threw his furniture out of
the window.
{853}
No fighting against poor Scotch Gospellers was to be hoped for
from these men. Meanwhile the Scots, not to be behindhand, had
raised a good Army of their own; and decided on going into
England with it, this time, 'to present their grievances to
the King's Majesty.' On the 20th of August, 1640, they cross
the Tweed at Coldstream; Montrose wading in the van of them
all. They wore uniform of hodden gray, with blue caps; and
each man had a moderate haversack of oatmeal on his back.
August 28th, the Scots force their way across the Tyne, at
Newburn, some miles above Newcastle; the King's Army making
small fight, most of them no fight; hurrying from Newcastle,
and all town and country quarters, towards York again, where
his Majesty and Strafford were. The Bishops' War was at an
end. The Scots, striving to be gentle as doves in their
behaviour, and publishing boundless brotherly Declarations to
all the brethren that loved Christ's Gospel and God's Justice
in England,--took possession of Newcastle next day; took
possession gradually of all Northumberland and Durham,--and
stayed there, in various towns and villages, about a year. The
whole body of English Puritans looked upon them as their
saviours. ... His Majesty and Strafford, in a fine frenzy at
the turn of affairs, found no refuge, except to summon a
'Council of Peers,' to enter upon a 'Treaty' with the Scots;
and alas, at last, summon a New Parliament. Not to be helped

in any way. ... A Parliament was appointed for the 3d of
November next;--whereupon London cheerfully lent £200,000; and
the Treaty with the Scots at Ripon, 1st October, 1640, by and
by transferred to London, went peaceably on at a very
leisurely pace. The Scotch Army lay quartered at Newcastle,
and over Northumberland and Durham, on an allowance of £850 a
day; an Army indispensable for Puritan objects; no haste in
finishing its Treaty. The English army lay across in
Yorkshire; without allowance except from the casualties of the
King's Exchequer; in a dissatisfied manner, and occasionally
getting into 'Army-Plots.' This Parliament, which met on the
3d of November; 1640, has become very celebrated in History by
the name of the 'Long Parliament.'"
T. Carlyle,
Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 1: 1640.
ALSO IN:
J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford.
S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 91-94.
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 72-73 (volume 7).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
Acquisition and settlement of Madras.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.
The Long Parliament and the beginning of its work.
Impeachment and Execution of Strafford.
"The game of tyranny was now up. Charles had risked and lost
his last stake. It is impossible to trace the mortifications
and humiliations which this bad man now had to endure without
a feeling of vindictive pleasure. His army was mutinous; his
treasury was empty; his people clamoured for a Parliament;
addresses and petitions against the government were presented.
Strafford was for shooting those who presented them by martial
law, but the king could not trust the soldiers. A great
council of Peers was called at York, but the king would not
trust even the Peers. He struggled, he evaded, he hesitated,
he tried every shift rather than again face the
representatives of his injured people. At length no shift was
left. He made a truce with the Scots, and summoned a
Parliament. ... On the 3d of November, 1640--a day to be long
remembered--met that great Parliament, destined to every
extreme of fortune--to empire and to servitude, to glory and
to contempt;--at one time the sovereign of its sovereign, at
another time the servant of its servants, and the tool of its
tools. From the first day of its meeting the attendance was
great, and the aspect of the members was that of men not
disposed to do the work negligently. The dissolution of the
late Parliament had convinced most of them that half measures
would no longer suffice. Clarendon tells us that 'the same men
who, six months before, were observed to be of very moderate
tempers, and to wish that gentle remedies might be applied,
talked now in another dialect both of kings and persons; and
said that they must now be of another temper than they were
the last Parliament.' The debt of vengeance was swollen by all
the usury which had been accumulating during many years; and
payment was made to the full. This memorable crisis called
forth parliamentary abilities, such as England had never
before seen. Among the most distinguished members of the House
of Commons were Falkland, Hyde, Digby, Young, Harry Vane, Oliver
St. John, Denzil Hollis, Nathaniel Fiennes. But two men
exercised a paramount influence over the legislature and the
country--Pym and Hampden; and, by the universal consent of
friends and enemies, the first place belonged to Hampden."
Lord Macaulay,
Nugent's Memorials of Hampden
(Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2).
"The resolute looks of the members as they gathered at
Westminster contrasted with the hesitating words of the king,
and each brought from borough or county a petition of
grievances. Fresh petitions were brought every day by bands of
citizens or farmers. Forty committees were appointed to
examine and report on them, and their reports formed the
grounds on which the Commons acted. One by one the illegal
acts of the Tyranny were annulled. Prynne and his fellow
'martyrs' recalled from their prisons, entered London in
triumph, amid the shouts of a great multitude who strewed
laurel in their path. The civil and criminal jurisdiction of
the Privy Council, the Star Chamber, the Court of High
Commission, the irregular jurisdictions of the Council of the
North, of the Duchy of Lancaster, the County of Chester, and a
crowd of lesser tribunals, were summarily abolished.
Ship-money was declared illegal, and the judgment in Hampden's
case annulled. A statute declaring 'the ancient right of the
subjects of this kingdom that no subsidy, custom, impost, or
any charge whatsoever, ought or may be laid or imposed upon
any merchandize exported or imported by subjects, denizens or
allies, without common consent of Parliament,' put an end
forever to all pretensions to a right of arbitrary taxation on
the part of the crown. A Triennial Bill enforced the Assembly
of the Houses every three years, and bound the sheriff and
citizens to proceed to election if the Royal writ failed to
summon them. Charles protested, but gave way. He was forced to
look helplessly on at the wreck of his Tyranny, for the Scotch
army was still encamped in the north. ... Meanwhile the
Commons were dealing roughly with the agents of the Royal
system. ...
{854}
Windebank, the Secretary of State, with the Chancellor, Finch,
fled in terror over sea. Laud himself was flung into prison.
... But even Laud, hateful as he was to all but the poor
neighbours whose prayers his alms had won, was not the centre
of so great and universal a hatred as the Earl of Strafford.
Strafford's guilt was more than the guilt of a servile
instrument of tyranny--it was the guilt of 'that grand
apostate to the Commonwealth who,' in the terrible words which
closed Lord Digby's invective, 'must not expect to be pardoned
in this world till he be dispatched to the other.' He was
conscious of his danger, but Charles forced him to attend the
Court.' He came to London with the solemn assurance of his
master that, "while there was a king in England, not a hair of
Strafford's head should be touched by the Parliament."
Immediately impeached of high treason by the Commons, and sent
to the Tower, he received from the king a second and more
solemn pledge, by letter, that, "upon the word of a king, you
shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune." But the "word of
a king" like Charles Stuart, had neither honor nor gratitude, nor
a decent self respect behind it. He could be false to a friend
as easily as to an enemy. When the Commons, fearing failure on
the trial of their impeachment, resorted to a bill of
attainder, Charles signed it with a little resistance, and
Strafford went bravely and manfully to the block. "As the axe
fell, the silence of the great multitude was broken by a
universal shout of joy. The streets blazed with bonfires. The
bells clashed out from every steeple."
J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 6.
The king "was as deeply pledged to Strafford as one man could
be to another; he was as vitally concerned in saving the life
and prolonging the service of incomparably his ablest servant
as was ever any sovereign in the case of any minister; yet it
is clear that for some days past, probably ever since the
first signs of popular tumult began to manifest themselves, he
had been wavering. Four days before the Bill passed the Lords,
Strafford as is well known, entreated the king to assent to
it. There is no reason to doubt the absolute sincerity with
which, at the moment of its conception, the prisoner penned
his famous letter from the Tower. That passionate chivalry of
loyalty, which has never animated any human heart in equal
intensity since Strafford's ceased to beat, inspires every
line. ... Charles turned distractedly from one adviser to
another, not so much for counsel as for excuse. He did not
want his judgment guided, but his conscience quieted; and his
counsellors knew it. They had other reasons, too, for urging
him to his dishonour. Panic seems to have seized upon them
all. The only man who would not have quailed before the fury
of the populace was the man himself whose life was trembling
in the balance. The judges were summoned to declare their
opinion, and replied, with an admirable choice of
non-committing terms, that 'upon all that which their
Lordships have voted to be proved the Earl of Strafford doth
deserve to undergo the pains and forfeitures of high treason.'
Charles sent for the bishops, and the bishops, with the
honourable exception of Juxon, informed him that he had two
consciences,--a public and a private conscience,--and that
'his public conscience as a king might not only dispense with,
but oblige him to do, that which was against his conscience as
a man.' What passed between these two tenants in common of the
royal breast during the whole of Sunday, May 9th, 1641, is
within no earthly knowledge; but at some time on that day
Charles's public conscience got the better of its private
rival. He signed a commission for giving the royal assent to
the Bill, and on Monday, May 10th, in the presence of a House
scarcely able to credit the act of betrayal which was taking
place before them, the Commissioners pronounced the fatal Le
roi le veult over the enactment which condemned his Minister
to the block. Charles, of course, might still have reprieved
him by an exercise of the prerogative, but the fears which
made him acquiesce in the sentence availed to prevent him from
arresting its execution."
H. D. Traill,
Lord Stafford,
pages 195-198.
"It is a sorry office to plant the foot on a worm so crushed
and writhing as the wretched king ... [who abandoned
Strafford] for it was one of the few crimes of which he was in
the event thoroughly sensible, and friend has for once
cooperated with foe in the steady application to it of the
branding iron. There is in truth hardly any way of relieving
the 'damned spot' of its intensity of hue even by distributing
the concentrated infamy over other portions of Charles's
character. ... When we have convinced ourselves that this
'unthankful king' never really loved Strafford; that, as much
as in him lay, he kept the dead Buckingham in his old
privilege of mischief, by adopting his aversions and abiding
by his spleenful purposes; that, in his refusals to award
those increased honours for which his minister was a
petitioner, on the avowed ground of the royal interest, may be
discerned the petty triumph of one who dares not dispense with
the services thrust upon him, but revenges himself by
withholding their well-earned reward;--still does the
blackness accumulate to baffle our efforts. The paltry tears
he is said to have shed only burn that blackness in. If his
after conduct indeed had been different, he might have availed
himself of one excuse,--but that the man, who, in a few short
months, proved that he could make so resolute a stand
somewhere, should have judged this event no occasion for
attempting it, is either a crowning infamy or an infinite
consolation, according as we may judge wickedness or weakness
to have preponderated in the constitution of Charles I. ... As
to Strafford's death, the remark that the people had no
alternative, includes all that it is necessary to urge. The
king's assurances of his intention to afford him no further
opportunity of crime, could surely weigh nothing with men who
had observed how an infinitely more disgusting minister of his
will had only seemed to rise the higher in his master's
estimation for the accumulated curses of the nation. Nothing
but the knife of Felton could sever in that case the weak head
and the wicked instrument, and it is to the honour of the
adversaries of Strafford that they were earnest that their
cause should vindicate itself completely, and look for no
adventitious redress. Strafford had outraged the people--this
was not denied. He was defended on the ground of those
outrages not amounting to a treason against the king. For my
own part, this defence appears to me decisive, looking at it
in a technical view, and with our present settlement of
evidence and treason.
{855}
But to concede that point, after the advances they had made,
would have been in that day to concede all. It was to be shown
that another power had claim to the loyalty and the service of
Strafford--and if a claim, then a vengeance to exact for its
neglect. And this was done. ... One momentary emotion ...
escaped ... [Strafford] when he was told to prepare for death.
He asked if the king had indeed assented to the bill.
Secretary Carleton answered in the affirmative; and Strafford,
laying his hand on his heart, and raising his eyes to heaven,
uttered the memorable words,--'Put not your trust in princes,
nor in the sons of men, for in them there is no salvation.'
Charles's conduct was indeed incredibly monstrous."
R. Browning,
Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford
(Eminent British Statesmen, by John Forster, volume 2,
pages 403-406).
ALSO IN:
J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Strafford; Pym.
Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 3 (volume 1).
Lord Nugent,
Memorials of Hampden.
parts 5-6 (volumes 1-2).
Lady T. Lewis,
Life of Lord Falkland.
The following are the Articles of Impeachment under which
Strafford was tried and condemned:
"Articles of the Commons, assembled in Parliament, against
Thomas Earl of Strafford, in Maintenance of their Accusation,
whereby he stands charged with High Treason.
I. That he the said Thomas earl of Strafford hath traiterously
endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws and government of
the realms of England and Ireland, and, instead thereof, to
introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government, against law,
which he hath declared by traiterous words, counsels, and
actions, and by giving his majesty advice, by force of arms,
to compel his loyal subjects to submit thereunto.
II. That he hath traiterously assumed to himself regal power
over the lives, liberties of persons, lands, and goods of his
majesty's subjects, in England and Ireland, and hath exercised
the same tyrannically, to the subversion and undoing of many,
both peers and others, of his majesty's liege people.
III. The better to inrich, and enable himself to go through
with his traiterous designs, he hath detained a great part of
his majesty's revenue, without giving any legal accounts; and
hath taken great sums of money out of the exchequer,
converting them to his own use, when his majesty was
necessitated for his own urgent occasions, and his army had
been a long time unpaid.
IV. That he hath traiterously abused the power and authority
of his government, to the increasing, countenancing, and
encouraging of Papists, that so he might settle a mutual
dependence and confidence betwixt himself and that party, and
by their help prosecute and accomplish his malicious and
tyrannical designs.
V. That he hath maliciously endeavoured to stir up enmity and
hostility between his majesty's subjects of England and those
of Scotland.
VI. That he hath traiterously broken the great trust reposed
in him by his majesty, of lieutenant general of his Army, by
wilfully betraying divers of his majesty's subjects to death,
his majesty's Army to a dishonourable defeat by the Scots at
Newborne, and the town of Newcastle into their hands, to the
end that, by effusion of blood, by dishonour, by so great a
loss as of Newcastle, his majesty's realm of England might be
engaged in a national and irreconcilable quarrel with the
Scots.
VII. That, to preserve himself from being questioned for these
and other his traiterous courses, he laboured to subvert the
right of parliaments, and the ancient course of parliamentary
proceedings, and, by false and malicious slanders, to incense
his maj. against parliaments.--By which words, counsels, and
actions, he hath traiterously, and contrary to his allegiance,
laboured to alienate the hearts of the king's liege people
from his maj. to set a division between them, and to ruin and
destroy his majesty's kingdoms, for which they do impeach him
of High Treason against our sovereign lord the king, his crown
and dignity. And he the said earl of Strafford was lord deputy
of Ireland, or lord lieutenant of Ireland, and lieutenant
general of the Army there, under his majesty, and a sworn
privy counsellor to his maj. for his kingdoms both of England
and Ireland, and lord president of the North, during the time
that all and every of the crimes and offences before set forth
were done and committed; and he the said earl was lieutenant
general of his majesty's Army in the North parts of England,
during the time that the crimes and offences in the 5th and
6th Articles set forth were done and committed.--And the said
commons, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of
exhibiting at any time hereafter any other Accusation or
Impeachment against the said earl, and also of replying to the
Answer that he the said earl shall make unto the said
Articles, or to any of them, and of offering proof also of the
premises, or any of them, or of any other Accusation or
Impeachment that shall be by them exhibited, as the case
shall, according to the course of parliaments, require; and do
pray that the said earl may be put to answer to all and every
the premises; and that such proceedings, examination, trial,
and judgment, may be upon every of them had and used, as is
agreeable to law and justice."
Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
volume 2, pages 737-739.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (March-May).
The Root and Branch Bill.
"A bill was brought in [March, 1641], known as the Restraining
Bill, to deprive Bishops of their rights of voting in the
House of Lords. The opposition it encountered in that House
induced the Commons to follow it up [May 27] with a more
vehement measure, 'for the utter abolition of Archbishops,
Bishops. Deans, Archdeacons, Prebendaries and Canons,' a
measure known by the title of the Root and Branch Bill. By the
skill of the royal partisans, this bill was long delayed in
Committee."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2 (volume 2), page 650.
ALSO IN:
D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 2, book 2, chapter 3.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (October).
Roundheads and Cavaliers.
The birth of English parties.
"After ten months of assiduous toil, the Houses, in September,
1641, adjourned for a short vacation and the king visited
Scotland. He with difficulty pacified that kingdom, by
consenting not only to relinquish his plans of ecclesiastical
reform, but even to pass, with a very bad grace, an act
declaring that episcopacy was contrary to the word of God. The
recess of the English Parliament lasted six weeks. The day on
which the houses met again is one of the most remarkable
epochs in our history. From that day dates the corporate
existence of the two great parties which have ever since
alternately governed the country. ...
{856}
During the first months of the Long Parliament, the
indignation excited by many years of lawless oppression was so
strong and general that the House of Commons acted as one man.
Abuse after abuse disappeared without a struggle. If a small
minority of the representative body wished to retain the Star
Chamber and the High Commission, that minority, overawed by
the enthusiasm and by the numerical superiority of the
reformers, contented itself with secretly regretting
institutions which could not, with any hope of success, be
openly defended. At a later period the Royalists found it
convenient to antedate the separation between themselves and
their opponents, and to attribute the Act which restrained the
king from dissolving or proroguing the Parliament, the
Triennial Act, the impeachment of the ministers, and the
attainder of Strafford, to the faction which afterwards made
war on the king. But no artifice could be more disingenuous.
Everyone of those strong measures was actively promoted by the
men who were afterwards foremost among the Cavaliers. No
republican spoke of the long misgovernment of Charles more
severely than Colepepper. The most remarkable speech in favour
of the Triennial Bill was made by Digby. The impeachment of
the Lord Keeper was moved by Falkland. The demand that the
Lord Lieutenant should be kept close prisoner was made at the
bar of the Lords by Hyde. Not till the law attainting
Strafford was proposed did the signs of serious disunion
become visible. Even against that law, a law which nothing but
extreme necessity could justify, only about sixty members of
the House of Commons voted. It is certain that Hyde was not in
the minority, and that Falkland not only voted with the
majority, but spoke strongly for the bill. Even the few who
entertained a scruple about inflicting death by a
retrospective enactment thought it necessary to express the
utmost abhorrence of Strafford's character and administration.
But under this apparent concord a great schism was latent; and
when, in October 1641, the Parliament reassembled after a
short recess, two hostile parties, essentially the same with
those which, under different names, have ever since contended,
and are still contending, for the direction of public affairs,
appeared confronting each other. During some years they were
designated as Cavaliers and Roundheads. They were subsequently
called Tories and Whigs; nor does it seem that these
appellations are likely soon to become obsolete."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1.
It was not until some months later, however, that the name of
Roundheads was applied to the defenders of popular rights by
their royalist adversaries.
See ROUNDHEADS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (November).
The Grand Remonstrance.
Early in November, 1641, the king being in Scotland, and news
of the insurrection in Ireland having just reached London, the
party of Pym, Hampden, and Cromwell "resolved on a great
pitched battle between them and the opposition, which should
try their relative strengths before the king's return; and
they chose to fight this battle over a vast document, which
they entitled 'A Declaration and Remonstrance of the State of
the Kingdom,' but which has come to be known since as The
Grand Remonstrance. ... The notion of a great general document
which, under the name of 'A Remonstrance,' should present to
the king in one view a survey of the principal evils that had
crept into the kingdom in his own and preceding reigns, with a
detection of their causes, and a specification of the
remedies, had more than once been before the Commons. It had
been first mooted by Lord Digby while the Parliament was not a
week old. Again and again set aside for more immediate work, it
had recurred to the leaders of the Movement party, just before
the king's departure for Scotland, as likely to afford the
broad battle-ground with the opposition then becoming
desirable. 'A Remonstrance to be made, how we found the
Kingdom and the Church, and how the state of it now stands,'
such was the description of the then intended document (August
7). The document had doubtless been in rehearsal through the
Recess, for on the 8th of November the rough draft of it was
presented to the House and read at the clerk's table. When we
say that the document in its final form occupies thirteen
folio pages of rather close print in Rushworth, and consists
of a preamble followed by 206 articles or paragraphs duly
numbered, one can conceive what a task the reading of even the
first draft of it must have been, and through what a storm of
successive debates over proposed amendments and additions it
reached completeness. There had been no such debates yet in
the Parliament."
D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 2, book 2, chapter 6.
"It [The Grand Remonstrance] embodies the case of the
Parliament against the Ministers of the king. It is the most
authentic statement ever put forth of the wrongs endured by
all classes of the English people, during the first fifteen
years of the reign of Charles I.; and, for that reason, the
most complete justification upon record of the Great
Rebellion." The debates on The Grand Remonstrance were begun
November 9 and ended November 22, when the vote was taken:
Ayes, 159.--Noes, 148.--So evenly were the parties in the
great struggle then divided.
J. Forster,
History and Biographical Essays,
volume 1: Debates on the Grand Remonstrance.
The following is the text of "The Grand Remonstrance," with
that of the Petition preceding it:
"Most Gracious Sovereign: Your Majesty's most humble and
faithful subjects the Commons in this present Parliament
assembled, do with much thankfulness and joy acknowledge the
great mercy and favour of God, in giving your Majesty a safe
and peaceable return out of Scotland into your kingdom of
England, where the pressing dangers and distempers of the
State have caused us with much earnestness to desire the
comfort of your gracious presence, and likewise the unity and
justice of your royal authority, to give more life and power
to the dutiful and loyal counsels and endeavours of your
Parliament, for the prevention of that eminent ruin and
destruction wherein your kingdoms of England and Scotland are
threatened. The duty which we owe to your Majesty and our
country, cannot but make us very sensible and apprehensive,
that the multiplicity, sharpness and malignity of those evils
under which we have now many years suffered, are fomented and
cherished by a corrupt and ill-affected party, who amongst
other their mischievous devices for the alteration of religion
and government, have sought by many false scandals and
imputations, cunningly insinuated and dispersed amongst the
people, to blemish and disgrace our proceedings in this
Parliament, and to get themselves a party and faction amongst
your subjects, for the better strengthening themselves in
their wicked courses; and hindering those provisions and
remedies which might, by the wisdom of your Majesty and
counsel of your Parliament, be opposed against them.
{857}
For preventing whereof, and the better information of your
Majesty, your Peers and all other your loyal subjects, we have
been necessitated to make a declaration of the state of the
kingdom, both before and since the assembly of this
Parliament, unto this time, which we do humbly present to your
Majesty, without the least intention to lay any blemish upon
your royal person, but only to represent how your royal
authority and trust have been abused, to the great prejudice
and danger of your Majesty, and of all your good subjects. And
because we have reason to believe that those malignant
parties, whose proceedings evidently appear to be mainly for
the advantage and increase of Popery, is composed, set up, and
acted by the subtile practice of the Jesuits and other
engineers and factors for Rome, and to the great danger of
this kingdom, and most grievous affliction of your loyal
subjects, have so far prevailed as to corrupt divers of your
Bishops and others in prime places of the Church, and also to
bring divers of these instruments to be of your Privy Council,
and other employments of trust and nearness about your
Majesty, the Prince, and the rest of your royal children. And
by this means have had such an operation in your counsel and
the most important affairs and proceedings of your government,
that a most dangerous division and chargeable preparation for
war betwixt your kingdoms of England and Scotland, the
increase of jealousies betwixt your Majesty and your most
obedient subjects, the violent distraction and interruption of
this Parliament, the insurrection of the Papists in your
kingdom of Ireland, and bloody massacre of your people, have
been not only endeavoured and attempted, but in a great
measure compassed and effected. For preventing the final
accomplishment whereof, your poor subjects are enforced to
engage their persons and estates to the maintaining of a very
expensive and dangerous war, notwithstanding they have already
since the beginning of this Parliament undergone the charge of
£150,000 sterling, or thereabouts, for the necessary support
and supply of your Majesty in these present and perilous
designs. And because all our most faithful endeavours and
engagements will be ineffectual for the peace, safety and
preservation of your Majesty and your people, if some present,
real and effectual course be not taken for suppressing this
wicked and malignant party:--We, your most humble and obedient
subjects, do with all faithfulness and humility beseech your
Majesty,
1. That you will be graciously pleased to concur with the
humble desires of your people in a parliamentary way, for the
preserving the peace and safety of the kingdom from the
malicious designs of the Popish party:
For depriving the Bishops of their votes in Parliament, and
abridging their immoderate power usurped over the Clergy,
and other your good subjects, which they have perniciously
abused to the hazard of religion, and great prejudice and
oppression of the laws of the kingdom, and just liberty of
your people:
For the taking away such oppressions in religion, Church
government and discipline, as have been brought in and
fomented by them;
For uniting all such your loyal subjects together as join
in the same fundamental truths against the Papists, by
removing some oppressions and unnecessary ceremonies by
which divers weak consciences have been scrupled, and seem
to be divided from the rest, and for the due execution of
those good laws which have been made for securing the
liberty of your subjects.
2. That your Majesty will likewise be pleased to remove from
your council all such as persist to favour and promote any of
those pressures and corruptions wherewith your people have
been grieved, and that for the future your Majesty will
vouchsafe to employ such persons in your great and public
affairs, and to take such to be near you in places of trust,
as your Parliament may have cause to confide in; that in your
princely goodness to your people you will reject and refuse
all mediation and solicitation to the contrary, how powerful
and near soever.
3. That you will be pleased to forbear to alienate any of the
forfeited and escheated lands in Ireland which shall accrue to
your Crown by reason of this rebellion, that out of them the
Crown may be the better supported, and some satisfaction made
to your subjects of this kingdom for the great expenses they
are like to undergo [in] this war. Which humble desires of
ours being graciously fulfilled by your Majesty, we will, by
the blessing and favour of God, most cheerfully undergo the
hazard and expenses of this war, and apply ourselves to such
other courses and counsels as may support your real estate
with honour and plenty at home, with power and reputation
abroad, and by our loyal affections, obedience and service,
lay a sure and lasting foundation of the greatness and
prosperity of your Majesty, and your royal prosperity in
future times.
The Commons in this present Parliament assembled, having with
much earnestness and faithfulness of affection and zeal to the
public good of this kingdom, and His Majesty's honour and
service for the space of twelve months, wrestled with great
dangers and fears, the pressing miseries and calamities, the
various distempers and disorders which had not only assaulted,
but even overwhelmed and extinguished the liberty, peace and
prosperity of this kingdom, the comfort and hopes of all His
Majesty's good subjects, and exceedingly weakened and
undermined the foundation and strength of his own royal
throne, do yet find an abounding malignity and opposition in
those parties and factions who have been the cause of those
evils, and do still labour to cast aspersions upon that which
hath been done, and to raise many difficulties for the
hindrance of that which remains yet undone, and to foment
jealousies between the King and Parliament, that so they may
deprive him and his people of the fruit of his own gracious
intentions, and their humble desires of procuring the public
peace, safety and happiness of this realm. For the preventing
of those miserable effects which such malicious endeavours may
produce, we have thought good to declare the root and the
growth of these mischievous designs: the maturity and ripeness
to which they have attained before the beginning of the
Parliament: the effectual means which have been used for the
extirpation of those dangerous evils, and the progress which
hath therein been made by His Majesty's goodness and the
wisdom of the Parliament: the ways of obstruction and
opposition by which that progress hath been interrupted: the
courses to be taken for the removing those obstacles, and for
the accomplishing of our most dutiful and faithful intentions
and endeavours of restoring and establishing the ancient
honour, greatness and security of this Crown and nation.
{858}
The root of all this mischief we find to be a malignant and
pernicious design of subverting the fundamental laws and
principles of government, upon which the religion and justice
of this kingdom are firmly established. The actors and
promoters hereof have been:
1. The Jesuited Papists, who hate the laws, as the obstacles
of that change and subversion of religion which they so much
long for.
2. The Bishops, and the corrupt part of the Clergy, who
cherish formality and superstition as the natural effects and
more probable supports of their own ecclesiastical tyranny and
usurpation.
3. Such Councillors and Courtiers as for private ends have
engaged themselves to further the interests of some foreign
princes or states to the prejudice of His Majesty and the
State at home. The common principles by which they moulded and
governed all their particular counsels and actions were these:
First, to maintain continual differences and discontents
between the King and the people, upon questions of prerogative
and liberty, that so they might have the advantage of siding
with him, and under the notions of men addicted to his
service, gain to themselves and their parties the places of
greatest trust and power in the kingdom. A second, to suppress
the purity and power of religion, and such persons as were
best affected to it, as being contrary to their own ends, and
the greatest impediment to that change which they thought to
introduce. A third, to conjoin those parties of the kingdom
which were most propitious to their own ends, and to divide
those who were most opposite, which consisted in many
particular observations. To cherish the Arminian part in those
points wherein they agree with the Papists, to multiply and
enlarge the difference between the common Protestants and
those whom they call Puritans, to introduce and countenance
such opinions and ceremonies as are fittest for accommodation
with Popery, to increase and maintain ignorance, looseness and
profaneness in the people; that of those three parties,
Papists, Arminians and Libertines, they might compose a body
fit to act such counsels and resolutions as were most
conducible to their own ends. A fourth, to disaffect the King
to Parliaments by slander and false imputations, and by
putting him upon other ways of supply, which in show and
appearance were fuller of advantage than the ordinary course
of subsidies, though in truth they brought more loss than gain
both to the King and people, and have caused the great
distractions under which we both suffer. As in all compounded
bodies the operations are qualified according to the
predominant element, so in this mixed party, the Jesuited
counsels, being most active and prevailing, may easily be
discovered to have had the greatest sway in all their
determinations, and if they be not prevented, are likely to
devour the rest, or to turn them into their own nature. In the
beginning of His Majesty's reign the party began to revive and
flourish again, having been somewhat damped by the breach with
Spain in the last year of King James, and by His Majesty's
marriage with France; the interests and counsels of that State
being not so contrary to the good of religion and the
prosperity of this kingdom as those of Spain; and the Papists
of England, having been ever more addicted to Spain than
France, yet they still retained a purpose and resolution to
weaken the Protestant parties in all parts, and even in
France, whereby to make way for the change of religion which
they intended at home.
1. The first effect and evidence of their recovery and
strength was the dissolution of the Parliament at Oxford,
after there had been given two subsidies to His Majesty, and
before they received relief in any one grievance many other
more miserable effects followed.
2. The loss of the Rochel fleet, by the help of our shipping,
set forth and delivered over to the French in opposition to
the advice of Parliament, which left that town without defence
by sea, and made way, not only to the loss of that important
place, but likewise to the loss of all the strength and
security of the Protestant religion in France.
3. The diverting of His Majesty's course of wars from the West
Indies, which was the most facile and hopeful way for this
kingdom to prevail against the Spaniard, to an expenseful and
successless attempt upon Cadiz, which was so ordered as if it
had rather been intended to make us weary of war than to
prosper in it.
4. The precipitate breach with France, by taking their ships
to a great value without making recompense to the English,
whose goods were thereupon imbarred and confiscated in that
kingdom.
5. The peace with Spain without consent of Parliament,
contrary to the promise of King James to both Houses, whereby
the Palatine's cause was deserted and left to chargeable and
hopeless treaties, which for the most part were managed by
those who might justly be suspected to be no friends to that
cause.
6. The charging of the kingdom with billeted soldiers in all
parts of it, and the concomitant design of German horse, that
the land might either submit with fear or be enforced with
rigour to such arbitrary contributions as should be required
of them.
7. The dissolving of the Parliament in the second year of His
Majesty's reign, after a declaration of their intent to grant
five subsidies.
8. The exacting of the like proportion of five subsidies,
after the Parliament dissolved, by commission of loan, and
divers gentlemen and others imprisoned for not yielding to pay
that loan, whereby many of them contracted such sicknesses as
cost them their lives.
9. Great sums of money required and raised by privy seals.
10. An unjust and pernicious attempt to extort great payments
from the subject by way of excise, and a commission issued
under the seal to that purpose.
11. The Petition of Right, which was granted in full
Parliament, blasted, with an illegal declaration to make it
destructive to itself, to the power of Parliament, to the
liberty of the subject, and to that purpose printed with it,
and the Petition made of no use but to show the bold and
presumptuous injustice of such ministers as durst break the
laws and suppress the liberties of the kingdom, after they had
been so solemnly and evidently declared.
12. Another Parliament dissolved 4 Car., the privilege of
Parliament broken, by imprisoning divers members of the House,
detaining them close prisoners for many months together,
without the liberty of using books, pen, ink or paper; denying
them all the comforts of life, all means of preservation of
health, not permitting their wives to come unto them even in
the time of their sickness.
{859}
13. And for the completing of that cruelty, after years spent
in such miserable durance, depriving them of the necessary
means of spiritual consolation, not suffering them to go
abroad to enjoy God's ordinances in God's House, or God's
ministers to come to them to minister comfort to them in their
private chambers.
14. And to keep them still in this oppressed condition, not
admitting them to be bailed according to law, yet vexing them
with informations in inferior courts, sentencing and fining
some of them for matters done in Parliament; and extorting the
payments of those fines from them, enforcing others to put in
security of good behaviour before they could be released.
15. The imprisonment of the rest, which refused to be bound,
still continued, which might have been perpetual if necessity
had not the last year brought another Parliament to relieve
them, of whom one died [Sir John Eliot] by the cruelty and
harshness of his imprisonment, which would admit of no
relaxation, notwithstanding the imminent danger of his life,
did sufficiently appear by the declaration of his physician,
and his release, or at least his refreshment, was sought by
many humble petitions, and his blood still cries either for
vengeance or repentance of those Ministers of State, who have
at once obstructed the course both of His Majesty's justice
and mercy.
16. Upon the dissolution of both these Parliaments, untrue and
scandalous declarations were published to asperse their
proceedings, and some of their members unjustly; to make them
odious, and colour the violence which was used against them;
proclamations set out to the same purpose; and to the great
dejecting of the hearts of the people, forbidding them even to
speak of Parliaments.
17. After the breach of the Parliament in the fourth of His
Majesty, injustice, oppression and violence broke in upon us
without any restraint or moderation, and yet the first project
was the great sums exacted through the whole kingdom for
default of knighthood, which seemed to have some colour and
shadow of a law, yet if it be rightly examined by that
obsolete law which was pretended for it, it will be found to
be against all the rules of justice, both in respect of the
persons charged, the proportion of the fines demanded, and the
absurd and unreasonable manner of their proceedings.
18. Tonnage and Poundage hath been received without colour or
pretence of law; many other heavy impositions continued
against law, and some so unreasonable that the sum of the
charge exceeds the value of the goods.
19. The Book of Rates lately enhanced to a high proportion,
and such merchants that would not submit to their illegal and
unreasonable payments, were vexed and oppressed above measure;
and the ordinary course of justice, the common birthright of
the subject of England, wholly obstructed unto them.
20. And although all this was taken upon pretence of guarding
the seas, yet a new unheard-of tax of ship-money was devised,
and upon the same pretence, by both which there was charged
upon the subject near £700,000 some years, and yet the
merchants have been left so naked to the violence of the
Turkish pirates, that many great ships of value and thousands
of His Majesty's subjects have been taken by them, and do
still remain in miserable slavery.
21. The enlargements of forests, contrary to 'Carta de
Foresta,' and the composition thereupon.
22. The exactions of coat and conduct money and divers other
military charges.
23. The taking away the arms of trained bands of divers
counties.
24. The desperate design of engrossing all the gunpowder into
one hand, keeping it in the Tower of London, and setting so
high a rate upon it that the poorer sort were not able to buy
it, nor could any have it without licence, thereby to leave
the several parts of the kingdom destitute of their necessary
defence, and by selling so dear that which was sold to make an
unlawful advantage of it, to the great charge and detriment of
the subject.
25. The general destruction of the King's timber, especially
that in the Forest of Deane, sold to Papists, which was the
best store-house of this kingdom for the maintenance of our
shipping.
26. The taking away of men's right, under the colour of the
King's title to land, between high and low water marks.
27. The monopolies of soap, salt, wine, leather, sea-coal, and
in a manner of all things of most common and necessary use.
28. The restraint of the liberties of the subjects in their
habitation, trades and other interests.
29. Their vexation and oppression by purveyors, clerks of the
market and saltpetre men.
30. The sale of pretended nuisances, as building in and about
London.
31. Conversion of arable into pasture, continuance of pasture,
under the name of depopulation, have driven many millions out
of the subjects' purses, without any considerable profit to
His Majesty.
32. Large quantities of common and several grounds hath been
taken from the subject by colour of the Statute of
Improvement, and by abuse of the Commission of Sewers, without
their consent, and against it.
33. And not only private interest, but also public faith, have
been broken in seizing of the money and bullion in the mint,
and the whole kingdom like to be robbed at once in that
abominable project of brass money.
34. Great numbers of His Majesty's subjects for refusing those
unlawful charges, have been vexed with long and expensive
suits, some fined and censured, others committed to long and
hard imprisonments and confinements, to the loss of health in
many, of life in some, and others have had their houses broken
up, their goods seized, some have been restrained from their
lawful callings.
35. Ships have been interrupted in their voyages, surprised at
sea in a hostile manner by projectors, as by a common enemy.
36. Merchants prohibited to unlade their goods in such ports
as were for their own advantage, and forced to bring them to
those places which were much for the advantage of the
monopolisers and projectors.
{860}
37. The Court of Star Chamber hath abounded in extravagant
censures, not only for the maintenance and improvement of
monopolies and other unlawful taxes, but for divers other
causes where there hath been no offence, or very small;
whereby His Majesty's subjects have been oppressed by grievous
fines, imprisonments, stigmatisings, mutilations, whippings,
pillories, gags, confinements, banishments; after so rigid a
manner as hath not only deprived men of the society of their
friends, exercise of their professions, comfort of books, use
of paper or ink, but even violated that near union which God
hath established between men and their wives, by forced and
constrained separation, whereby they have been bereaved of the
comfort and conversation one of another for many years
together, without hope of relief, if God had not by His
overruling providence given some interruption to the
prevailing power, and counsel of those who were the authors
and promoters of such peremptory and heady courses.
38. Judges have been put out of their places for refusing to
do against their oaths and consciences; others have been so
awed that they durst not do their duties, and the better to
hold a rod over them, the clause 'Quam diu se bene gesserit'
was left out of their patents, and a new clause 'Durante bene
placito' inserted.
39. Lawyers have been checked for being faithful to their
clients; solicitors and attorneys have been threatened, and
some punished, for following lawful suits. And by this means
all the approaches to justice were interrupted and forecluded.
40. New oaths have been forced upon the subject against law.
41. New judicatories erected without law. The Council Table
have by their orders offered to bind the subjects in their
freeholds, estates, suits and actions.
42. The pretended Court of the Earl Marshal was arbitrary and
illegal in its being and proceedings.
43. The Chancery, Exchequer Chamber, Court of Wards, and other
English Courts, have been grievous in exceeding their
jurisdiction.
44. The estate of many families weakened, and some ruined by
excessive fines, exacted from them for compositions of
wardships.
45. All leases of above a hundred years made to draw on
wardship contrary to law.
46. Undue proceedings used in the finding of offices to make
the jury find for the King.
47. The Common Law Courts, feeling all men more inclined to
seek justice there, where it may be fitted to their own
desire, are known frequently to forsake the rules of the
Common Law, and straying beyond their bounds, under pretence
of equity, to do injustice.
48. Titles of honour, judicial places, sergeantships at law,
and other offices have been sold for great sums of money,
whereby the common justice of the kingdom hath been much
endangered, not only by opening a way of employment in places
of great trust, and advantage to men of weak parts, but also
by giving occasion to bribery, extortion, partiality, it
seldom happening that places ill-gotton are well used.
49. Commissions have been granted for examining the excess of
fees, and when great exactions have been discovered,
compositions have been made with delinquents, not only for the
time past, but likewise for immunity and security in offending
for the time to come, which under colour of remedy hath but
confirmed and increased the grievance to the subject.
50. The usual course of pricking Sheriffs not observed, but
many times Sheriffs made in an extraordinary way, sometimes as
a punishment and charge unto them; sometimes such were pricked
out as would be instruments to execute whatsoever they would
have to be done.
51. The Bishops and the rest of the Clergy did triumph in the
suspensions, ex-communications, deprivations, and degradations
of divers painful, learned and pious ministers, in the
vexation and grievous oppression of great numbers of His
Majesty's good subjects.
52. The High Commission grew to such excess of sharpness and
severity as was not much less than the Romish Inquisition, and
yet in many cases by the Archbishop's power was made much more
heavy, being assisted and strengthened by authority of the
Council Table.
53. The Bishops and their Courts were as eager in the country;
although their jurisdiction could not reach so high in rigour
and extremity of punishment, yet were they no less grievous in
respect of the generality and multiplicity of vexations, which
lighting upon the meaner sort of tradesmen and artificers did
impoverish many thousands.
54. And so afflict and trouble others, that great numbers to
avoid their miseries departed out of the kingdom, some into
New England and other parts of America, others into Holland.
55. Where they have transported their manufactures of cloth,
which is not only a loss by diminishing the present stock of
the kingdom, but a great mischief by impairing and endangering
the loss of that particular trade of clothing, which hath been
a plentiful fountain of wealth and honour to this nation.
56. Those were fittest for ecclesiastical preferment, and
soonest obtained it, who were most officious in promoting
superstition, most virulent in railing against godliness and
honesty.
57. The most public and solemn sermons before His Majesty were
either to advance prerogative above law, and decry the
property of the subject, or full of such kind of invectives.
58. Whereby they might make those odious who sought to
maintain the religion, laws and liberties of the kingdom, and
such men were sure to be weeded out of the commission of the
peace, and out of all other employments of power in the
government of the country.
59. Many noble personages were councillors in name, but the
power and authority remained in a few of such as were most
addicted to this party, whose resolutions and determinations
were brought to the table for countenance and execution, and
not for debate and deliberation, and no man could offer to
oppose them without disgrace and hazard to himself.
60. Nay, all those that did not wholly concur and actively
contribute to the furtherance of their designs, though
otherwise persons of never so great honour and abilities, were
so far from being employed in any place of trust and power,
that they were neglected, discountenanced, and upon all
occasions injured and oppressed.
61. This faction was grown to that height and entireness of
power, that now they began to think of finishing their work,
which consisted of these three parts.
62. I. The government must be set free from all restraint of
laws concerning our persons and estates.
{861}
63. II. There must be a conjunction between Papists and
Protestants in doctrine, discipline and ceremonies; only it
must not yet be called Popery.
64. III. The Puritans, under which name they include all those
that desire to preserve the laws and liberties of the kingdom,
and to maintain religion in the power of it, must be either
rooted out of the kingdom with force, or driven out with fear.

65. For the effecting of this it was thought necessary to
reduce Scotland to such Popish superstitions and innovations
as might make them apt to join with England in that great
change which was intended.
66. Whereupon new canons and a new liturgy were pressed upon
them, and when they refused to admit of them, an army was
raised to force them to it, towards which the Clergy and the
Papists were very forward in their contribution.
67. The Scots likewise raised an army for their defence.
68. And when both armies were come together, and ready for a
bloody encounter, His Majesty's own gracious disposition, and
the counsel of the English nobility and dutiful submission of
the Scots, did so far prevail against the evil counsel of
others, that a pacification was made, and His Majesty returned
with peace and much honour to London.
69. The unexpected reconciliation was most acceptable to all
the kingdom, except to the malignant party; whereof the
Archbishop and the Earl of Strafford being heads, they and
their faction begun to inveigh against the peace, and to
aggravate the proceedings of the states, which so increased
[incensed?] His Majesty, that he forthwith prepared again for
war.
70. And such was their confidence, that having corrupted and
distempered the whole frame and government of the kingdom,
they did now hope to corrupt that which was the only means to
restore all to a right frame and temper again.
71. To which end they persuaded His Majesty to call a
Parliament, not to seek counsel and advice of them, but to
draw countenance and supply from them, and to engage the whole
kingdom in their quarrel.
72. And in the meantime continued all their unjust levies of
money, resolving either to make the Parliament pliant to their
will, and to establish mischief by a law, or else to break it,
and with more colour to go on by violence to take what they
could not obtain by consent. The ground alleged for the
justification of this war was this,
73. That the undutiful demands of the Parliaments in Scotland
was a sufficient reason for His Majesty to take arms against
them, without hearing the reason of those demands, and
thereupon a new army was prepared against them, their ships
were seized in all ports both of England and Ireland, and at
sea, their petitions rejected, their commissioners refused
audience.
74. The whole kingdom most miserably distempered with levies
of men and money, and imprisonments of those who denied to
submit to those levies.
75. The Earl of Strafford passed into Ireland, caused the
Parliament there to declare against the Scots, to give four
subsidies towards that war, and to engage themselves, their
lives and fortunes, for the prosecution of it, and gave
directions for an army of eight thousand foot and one thousand
horse to be levied there, which were for the most part
Papists.
76. The Parliament met upon the 13th of April, 1640. The Earl
of Strafford and Archbishop of Canterbury, with their party,
so prevailed with His Majesty, that the House of Commons was
pressed to yield a supply for maintenance of the war with
Scotland, before they had provided any relief for the great
and pressing grievances of the people, which being against the
fundamental privilege and proceeding of Parliament, was yet in
humble respect to His Majesty, so far admitted as that they
agreed to take the matter of supply into consideration, and
two several days it was debated.
77. Twelve subsidies were demanded for the release of
ship-money alone, a third day was appointed for conclusion,
when the heads of that party begun to fear the people might
close with the King, in falsifying his desires of money; but
that withal they were like to blast their malicious designs
against Scotland, finding them very much indisposed to give
any countenance to that war.
78. Thereupon they wickedly advised the King to break off the
Parliament and to return to the ways of confusion, in which
their own evil intentions were most likely to prosper and
succeed.
79. After the Parliament ended the 5th of May, 1640, this
party grew so bold as to counsel the King to supply himself
out of his subjects' estates by his own power, at his own
will, without their consent.
80. The very next day some members of both Houses had their
studies and cabinets, yea, their pockets searched: another of
them not long after was committed close prisoner for not
delivering some petitions which he received by authority of
that House.
81. And if harsher courses were intended (as was reported) it
is very probable that the sickness of the Earl of Strafford,
and the tumultuous rising in Southwark and about Lambeth were
the causes that such violent intentions were not brought to
execution.
82. A false and scandalous Declaration against the House of
Commons was published in His Majesty's name, which yet wrought
little effect with the people, but only to manifest the
impudence of those who were authors of it.
83. A forced loan of money was attempted in the City of
London.
84. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen in their several wards,
enjoined to bring in a list of the names of such persons as
they judged fit to lend, and of the sums they should lend. And
such Aldermen as refused to do so were committed to prison.
85. The Archbishop and the other Bishops and Clergy continued
the Convocation, and by a new commission turned it into a
provincial Synod, in which, by an unheard-of presumption, they
made canons that contain in them many matters contrary to the
King's prerogative, to the fundamental laws and statutes of
the realm, to the right of Parliaments, to the property and
liberty of the subject, and matters tending to sedition and of
dangerous consequence, thereby establishing their own
usurpations, justifying their altar-worship, and those other
superstitious innovations which they formerly introduced
without warrant of law.
{862}
86. They imposed a new oath upon divers of His Majesty's
subjects, both ecclesiastical and lay, for maintenance of
their own tyranny, and laid a great tax on the Clergy, for
supply of His Majesty, and generally they showed themselves
very affectionate to the war with Scotland, which was by some
of them styled 'Bellum Episeopale,' and a prayer composed and
enjoined to be read in all churches, calling the Scots rebels,
to put the two nations in blood and make them irreconcilable.
87. All those pretended canons and constitutions were armed
with the several censures of suspension, excommunication,
deprivation, by which they would have thrust out all the good
ministers, and most of the well-affected people of the
kingdom, and left an easy passage to their own design of
reconciliation with Rome.
88. The Popish party enjoyed such exemptions from penal laws
as amounted to a toleration, besides many other encouragements
and Court favours.
89. They had a Secretary of State, Sir Francis Windebanck, a
powerful agent for speeding all their desires.
90. A Pope's Nuncio residing here, to act and govern them
according to such influences as he received from Rome, and to
intercede for them with the most powerful concurrence of the
foreign princes of that religion.
91. By his authority the Papists of all sorts, nobility,
gentry, and clergy were convocated after the manner of a
Parliament.
92. New jurisdictions were erected of Romish Archbishops,
taxes levied, another state moulded within this state
independent in government, contrary in interest and affection,
secretly corrupting the ignorant or negligent professors of
our religion, and closely uniting and combining themselves
against such as were found in this posture, waiting for an
opportunity by force to destroy those whom they could not hope
to seduce.
93. For the effecting whereof they were strengthened with arms
and munitions, encouraged by superstitious prayers, enjoined
by the Nuncio to be weekly made for the prosperity of some
great design.
94. And such power had they at Court, that secretly a
commission was issued out, or intended to be issued to some
great men of that profession, for the levying of soldiers, and
to command and employ them according to private instructions,
which we doubt were framed for the advantage of those who were
the contrivers of them.
95. His Majesty's treasure was consumed, his revenue
anticipated.
96. His servants and officers compelled to lend great sums of
money.
97. Multitudes were called to the Council Table, who were
tired with long attendances there for refusing illegal
payments.
98. The prisons were filled with their commitments; many of
the Sheriffs summoned into the Star Chamber, and some
imprisoned for not being quick enough in levying the
ship-money; the people languished under grief and fear, no
visible hope being left but in desperation.
99. The nobility began to weary of their silence and patience,
and sensible of the duty and trust which belongs to them: and
thereupon some of the most ancient of them did petition His
Majesty at such a time, when evil counsels were so strong,
that they had occasion to expect more hazard to themselves,
than redress of those public evils for which they interceded.
100. Whilst the kingdom was in this agitation and distemper,
the Scots, restrained in their trades, impoverished by the
loss of many of their ships, bereaved of all possibility of
satisfying His Majesty by any naked supplication, entered with
a powerful army into the kingdom, and without any hostile act
or spoil in the country they passed, more than forcing a
passage over the Tyne at Newburn, near Newcastle, possessed
themselves of Newcastle, and had a fair opportunity to press
on further upon the King's army.
101. But duty and reverence to His Majesty, and brotherly love
to the English nation, made them stay there, whereby the King
had leisure to entertain better counsels.
102. Wherein God so blessed and directed him that he summoned
the Great Council of Peers to meet at York upon the 24th of
September, and there declared a Parliament to begin the 3d of
November then following.
103. The Scots, the first day of the Great Council, presented
an humble Petition to His Majesty, whereupon the Treaty was
appointed at Ripon.
104. A present cessation of arms agreed upon, and the full
conclusion of all differences referred to the wisdom and care
of the Parliament.
105. At our first meeting, all oppositions seemed to vanish,
the mischiefs were so evident which those evil counsellors
produced, that no man durst stand up to defend them: yet the
work itself afforded difficulty enough.
106. The multiplied evils and corruption of fifteen years,
strengthened by custom and authority, and the concurrent
interest of many powerful delinquents, were now to be brought
to judgment and reformation.
107. The King's household was to be provided for:--they had
brought him to that want, that he could not supply his
ordinary and necessary expenses without the assistance of his
people.
108. Two armies were to be paid, which amounted very near to
eighty thousand pounds a month.
109. The people were to be tenderly charged, having been
formerly exhausted with many burdensome projects.
110. The difficulties seemed to be insuperable, which by the
Divine Providence we have overcome. The contrarieties
incompatible, which yet in a great measure we have reconciled.
111. Six subsidies have been granted and a Bill of poll-money,
which if it be duly levied, may equal six subsidies more, in
all £600,000.
112. Besides we have contracted a debt to the Scots of
£220,000, yet God hath so blessed the endeavours of this
Parliament, that the kingdom is a great gainer by all these
charges.
113. The ship-money is abolished, which cost the kingdom about
£200,000 a year.
114. The coat and conduct-money, and other military charges
are taken away, which in many countries amounted to little
less than the ship-money.
115. The monopolies are all suppressed, whereof some few did
prejudice the subject, above £1,000,000 yearly.
116. The soap £100,000.
117. The wine £300,000.
118. The leather must needs exceed both, and salt could be no
less than that.
{863}
119. Besides the inferior monopolies, which, if they could be
exactly computed, would make up a great sum.
120. That which is more beneficial than all this is, that the
root of these evils is taken away, which was the arbitrary
power pretended to be in His Majesty of taxing the subject, or
charging their estates without consent in Parliament, which is
now declared to be against law by the judgment of both Houses,
and likewise by an Act of Parliament.
121. Another step of great advantage is this, the living
grievances, the evil counsellors and actors of these mischiefs
have been so quelled.
122. By the justice done upon the Earl of Strafford, the
flight of the Lord Finch and Secretary Windebank.
123. The accusation and imprisonment of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, of Judge Berkeley; and
124. The impeachment of divers other Bishops and Judges, that
it is like not only to be an ease to the present times, but a
preservation to the future.
125. The discontinuance of Parliaments is prevented by the
Bill for a triennial Parliament, and the abrupt dissolution of
this Parliament by another Bill, by which it is provided it
shall not be dissolved or adjourned without the consent of
both Houses.
126. Which two laws well considered may be thought more
advantageous than all the former, because they secure a full
operation of the present remedy, and afford a perpetual spring
of remedies for the future.
127. The Star Chamber.
128. The High Commission.
129. The Courts of the President and Council in the North were
so many forges of misery, oppression and violence, and are all
taken away, whereby men are more secured in their persons,
liberties and estates, than they could be by any law or
example for the regulation of those Courts or terror of the
Judges.
130. The immoderate power of the Council Table, and the
excessive abuse of that power is so ordered and restrained,
that we may well hope that no such things as were frequently
done by them, to the prejudice of the public liberty, will
appear in future times but only in stories, to give us and our
posterity more occasion to praise God for His Majesty's
goodness, and the faithful endeavours of this Parliament.
131. The canons and power of canon-making are blasted by the
votes of both Houses.
132. The exorbitant power of Bishops and their courts are much
abated, by some provisions in the Bill against the High
Commission Court, the authors of the many innovations in
doctrine and ceremonies.
133. The ministers that have been scandalous in their lives,
have been so terrified in just complaints and accusations,
that we may well hope they will be more modest for the time to
come; either inwardly convicted by the sight of their own
folly, or outwardly restrained by the fear of punishment.
134. The forests are by a good law reduced to their right
bounds.
135. The encroachments and oppressions of the Stannary Courts,
the extortions of the clerk of the market.
136. And the compulsion of the subject to receive the Order of
Knighthood against his will, paying of fines for not receiving
it, and the vexatious proceedings thereupon for levying of
those fines, are by other beneficial laws reformed and
prevented.
137. Many excellent laws and provisions are in preparation for
removing the inordinate power, vexation and usurpation of
Bishops, for reforming the pride and idleness of many of the
clergy, for easing the people of unnecessary ceremonies in
religion, for censuring and removing unworthy and unprofitable
ministers, and for maintaining godly and diligent preachers
through the kingdom.
138. Other things of main importance for the good of this
kingdom are in proposition, though little could hitherto be
done in regard of the many other more pressing businesses,
which yet before the end of this Session we hope may receive
some progress and perfection.
139. The establishing and ordering the King's revenue, that so
the abuse of officers and superfluity of expenses may be cut
off, and the necessary disbursements for His Majesty's honour,
the defence and government of the kingdom, may be more
certainly provided for.
140. The regulating of courts of justice, and abridging both
the delays and charges of lawsuits.
141. The settling of some good courses for preventing the
exportation of gold and silver, and the inequality of
exchanges between us and other nations, for the advancing of
native commodities, increase of our manufactures, and well
balancing of trade, whereby the stock of the kingdom may be
increased, or at least kept from impairing, as through neglect
hereof it hath done for many years last past.
142. Improving the herring-fishing upon our coasts, which will
be of mighty use in the employment of the poor, and a
plentiful nursery of mariners for enabling the kingdom in any
great action.
143. The oppositions, obstructions and other difficulties
wherewith we have been encountered, and which still lie in our
way with some strength and much obstinacy, are these: the
malignant party whom we have formerly described to be the
actors and promoters of all our misery, they have taken heart
again.
144. They have been able to prefer some of their own factors
and agents to degrees of honour, to places of trust and
employment, even during the Parliament.
145. They have endeavoured to work in His Majesty ill
impressions and opinions of our proceedings, as if we had
altogether done our own work, and not his; and had obtained
from him many things very prejudicial to the Crown, both in
respect of prerogative and profit.
146. To wipe out this slander we think good only to say thus
much: that all that we have done is for His Majesty, his
greatness, honour and support, when we yield to give £25,000 a
month for the relief of the Northern Counties; this was given
to the King, for he was bound to protect his subjects.
147. They were His Majesty's evil counsellors, and their ill
instruments that were actors in those grievances which brought
in the Scots.
148. And if His Majesty please to force those who were the
authors of this war to make satisfaction, as he might justly
and easily do, it seems very reasonable that the people might
well be excused from taking upon them this burden, being
altogether innocent and free from being any cause of it.
{864}
149. When we undertook the charge of the army, which cost
above £50,000 a month, was not this given to the King? Was it
not His Majesty's army? Were not all the commanders under
contract with His Majesty, at higher rates and greater wages
than ordinary?
150. And have not we taken upon us to discharge all the
brotherly assistance of £300,000, which we gave the Scots? Was
it not toward repair of those damages and losses which they
received from the King's ships and from his ministers?
151. These three particulars amount to above £1,100,000.
152. Besides, His Majesty hath received by impositions upon
merchandise at least £400,000.
153. So that His Majesty hath had out of the subjects' purse
since the Parliament began, £1,500,000 and yet these men can
be so impudent as to tell His Majesty that we have done
nothing for him.
154. As to the second branch of this slander, we acknowledge
with much thankfulness that His Majesty hath passed more good
Bills to the advantage of the subjects than have been in many
ages.
155. But withal we cannot forget that these venomous councils
did manifest themselves in some endeavours to hinder these
good acts.
156. And for both Houses of Parliament we may with truth and
modesty say thus much: that we have ever been careful not to
desire anything that should weaken the Crown either in just
profit or useful power.
157. The triennial Parliament for the matter of it, doth not
extend to so much as by law we ought to have required (there
being two statutes still in force for a Parliament to be once
a year), and for the manner of it, it is in the King's power
that it shall never take effect, if he by a timely summons
shall prevent any other way of assembling.
158. In the Bill for continuance of this present Parliament,
there seems to be some restraint of the royal power in
dissolving of Parliaments, not to take it out of the Crown,
but to suspend the execution of it for this time and occasion
only: which was so necessary for the King's own security and
the public peace, that without it we could not have undertaken
any of these great charges, but must have left both the armies
to disorder and confusion, and the whole kingdom to blood and
rapine.
159. The Star Chamber was much more fruitful in oppression
than in profit, the great fines being for the most part given
away, and the rest stalled at long times.
160. The fines of the High Commission were in themselves
unjust, and seldom or never came into the King's purse. These
four Bills are particularly and more specially instanced.
161. In the rest there will not be found so much as a shadow
of prejudice to the Crown.
162. They have sought to diminish our reputation with the
people, and to bring them out of love with Parliaments.
163. The aspersions which they have attempted this way have
been such as these:
164. That we have spent much time and done little, especially
in those grievances which concern religion.
165. That the Parliament is a burden to the kingdom by the
abundance of protections which hinder justice and trade; and
by many subsidies granted much more heavy than any formerly
endured.
166. To which there is a ready answer; if the time spent in
this Parliament be considered in relation backward to the long
growth and deep root of those grievances, which we have
removed, to the powerful supports of those delinquents, which
we have pursued, to the great necessities and other charges of
the commonwealth for which we have provided.
167. Or if it be considered in relation forward to many
advantages, which not only the present but future ages are
like to reap by the good laws and other proceedings in this
Parliament, we doubt not but it will be thought by all
indifferent judgments, that our time hath been much better
employed than in a far greater proportion of time in many
former Parliaments put together; and the charges which have
been laid upon the subject, and the other inconveniences which
they have borne, will seem very light in respect of the
benefit they have and may receive.
168. And for the matter of protections, the Parliament is so
sensible of it that therein they intended to give them
whatsoever ease may stand with honour and justice, and are in
a way of passing a Bill to give them satisfaction.
169. They have sought by many subtle practices to cause
jealousies and divisions betwixt us and our brethren of
Scotland, by slandering their proceedings and intentions
towards us, and by secret endeavours to instigate and incense
them and us one against another.
170. They have had such a party of Bishops and Popish lords in
the House of Peers, as hath caused much opposition and delay
in the prosecution of delinquents, hindered the proceedings of
divers good Bills passed in the Commons' House, concerning the
reformation of sundry great abuses and corruptions both in
Church and State.
171. They have laboured to seduce and corrupt some of the
Commons' House to draw them into conspiracies and combinations
against the liberty of the Parliament.
172. And by their instruments and agents they have attempted
to disaffect and discontent His Majesty's army, and to engage
it for the maintenance of their wicked and traitorous designs;
the keeping up of Bishops in votes and functions, and by force
to compel the Parliament to order, limit and dispose their
proceedings in such manner as might best concur with the
intentions of this dangerous and potent faction.
173. And when one mischievous design and attempt of theirs to
bring on the army against the Parliament and the City of
London, hath been discovered and prevented;
174. They presently undertook another of the same damnable
nature, with this addition to it, to endeavour to make the
Scottish army neutral, whilst the English army, which they had
laboured to corrupt and envenom against us by their false and
slanderous suggestions, should execute their malice to the
subversion of our religion and the dissolution of our
government.
175. Thus they have been continually practising to disturb the
peace, and plotting the destruction even of all the King's
dominions; and have employed their emissaries and agents in
them, all for the promoting their devilish designs, which the
vigilancy of those who were well affected hath still
discovered and defeated before they were ripe for execution in
England and Scotland.
{865}
176. Only in Ireland, which was farther off, they have had
time and opportunity to mould and prepare their work, and had
brought it to that perfection that they had possessed
themselves of that whole kingdom, totally subverted the
government of it, routed out religion, and destroyed all the
Protestants whom the conscience of their duty to God, their
King and country, would not have permitted to join with them,
if by God's wonderful providence their main enterprise upon
the city and castle of Dublin, had not been detected and
prevented upon the very eve before it should have been
executed.
177. Notwithstanding they have in other parts of that kingdom
broken out into open rebellion, surprising towns and castles,
committed murders, rapes and other villainies, and shaken off
all bonds of obedience to His Majesty and the laws of the
realm.
178. And in general have kindled such a fire, as nothing but
God's infinite blessing upon the wisdom and endeavours of this
State will be able to quench it.
179. And certainly had not God in His great mercy unto this
land discovered and confounded their former designs, we had
been the prologue to this tragedy in Ireland, and had by this
been made the lamentable spectacle of misery and confusion.
180. And now what hope have we but in God, when as the only
means of our subsistence and power of reformation is under Him
in the Parliament?
181. But what can we the Commons, without the conjunction of
the House of Lords, and what conjunction can we expect there,
when the Bishops and recusant lords are so numerous and
prevalent that they are able to cross and interrupt our best
endeavours for reformation, and by that means give advantage
to this malignant party to traduce our proceedings?
182. They infuse into the people that we mean to abolish all
Church government, and leave every man to his own fancy for
the service and worship of God, absolving him of that
obedience which he owes under God unto His Majesty, whom we
know to be entrusted with the ecclesiastical law as well as
with the temporal, to regulate all the members of the Church
of England, by such rules of order and discipline as are
established by Parliament, which is his great council in all
affairs both in Church and State.
183. We confess our intention is, and our endeavours have
been, to reduce within bounds that exorbitant power which the
prelates have assumed unto themselves, so contrary both to the
Word of God and to the laws of the land, to which end we
passed the Bill for the removing them from their temporal
power and employments, that so the better they might with
meekness apply themselves to the discharge of their functions,
which Bill themselves opposed, and were the principal
instruments of crossing it.
184. And we do here declare that it is far from our purpose or
desire to let loose the golden reins of discipline and
government in the Church, to leave private persons or
particular congregations to take up what form of Divine
Service they please, for we hold it requisite that there
should be throughout the whole realm a conformity to that
order which the laws enjoin according to the Word of God. And
we desire to unburden the consciences of men of needless and
superstitious ceremonies, suppress innovations, and take away
the monuments of idolatry.
185. And the better to effect the intended reformation, we
desire there may be a general synod of the most grave, pious,
learned and judicious divines of this island; assisted with
some from foreign parts, professing the same religion with us,
who may consider of all things necessary for the peace and
good government of the Church, and represent the results of
their consultations unto the Parliament, to be there allowed
of and confirmed, and receive the stamp of authority, thereby
to find passage and obedience throughout the kingdom.
186. They have maliciously charged us that we intend to
destroy and discourage learning, whereas it is our chiefest
care and desire to advance it, and to provide a competent
maintenance for conscionable and preaching ministers
throughout the kingdom, which will be a great encouragement to
scholars, and a certain means whereby the want, meanness and
ignorance, to which a great part of the clergy is now subject,
will be prevented.
187. And we intended likewise to reform and purge the
fountains of learning, the two Universities, that the streams
flowing from thence may be clear and pure, and an honour and
comfort to the whole land.
188. They have strained to blast our proceedings in
Parliament, by wresting the interpretations of our orders from
their genuine intention.
189. They tell the people that our meddling with the power of
episcopacy hath caused sectaries and conventicles, when
idolatrous and Popish ceremonies, introduced into the Church
by the command of the Bishops have not only debarred the
people from thence, but expelled them from the kingdom.
190. Thus with Elijah, we are called by this malignant party
the troublers of the State, and still, while we endeavour to
reform their abuses, they make us the authors of those
mischiefs we study to prevent.
191. For the perfecting of the work begun, and removing all
future impediments, we conceive these courses will be very
effectual, seeing the religion of the Papists hath such
principles as do certainly tend to the destruction and
extirpation of all Protestants, when they shall have
opportunity to effect it.
192. It is necessary in the first place to keep them in such
condition as that they may not be able to do us any hurt, and
for avoiding of such connivance and favour as hath heretofore
been shown unto them.
193. That His Majesty be pleased to grant a standing
Commission to some choice men named in Parliament, who may
take notice of their increase, their counsels and proceedings,
and use all due means by execution of the laws to prevent all
mischievous designs against the peace and safety of this
kingdom.
194. Thus some good course be taken to discover the
counterfeit and false conformity of Papists to the Church, by
colour whereof persons very much disaffected to the true
religion have been admitted into place of greatest authority
and trust in the kingdom.
{866}
195. For the better preservation of the laws and liberties of
the kingdom, that all illegal grievances and exactions be
presented and punished at the sessions and assizes.
196. And that Judges and Justices be very careful to give this
in charge to the grand jury, and both the Sheriff and Justices
to be sworn to the due execution of the Petition of Right and
other laws.
197. That His Majesty be humbly petitioned by both Houses to
employ such counsellors, ambassadors and other ministers, in
managing his business at home and abroad as the Parliament may
have cause to confide in, without which we cannot give His
Majesty such supplies for support of his own estate, nor such
assistance to the Protestant party beyond the sea, as is
desired.
198. It may often fall out that the Commons may have just
cause to take exceptions at some men for being councillors,
and yet not charge those men with crimes, for there be grounds
of diffidence which lie not in proof.
199. There are others, which though they may be proved, yet
are not legally criminal.
200. To be a known favourer of Papists, or to have been very
forward in defending or countenancing some great offenders
questioned in Parliament; or to speak contemptuously of either
Houses of Parliament or Parliamentary proceedings.
201. Or such as are factors or agents for any foreign prince
of another religion; such are justly suspected to get
councillors' places, or any other of trust concerning public
employment for money; for all these and divers others we may
have great reason to be earnest with His Majesty, not to put
his great affairs into such hands, though we may be unwilling
to proceed against them in any legal way of charge or
impeachment.
202. That all Councillors of State may be sworn to observe
those laws which concern the subject in his liberty, that they
may likewise take an oath not to receive or give reward or
pension from any foreign prince, but such as they shall within
some reasonable time discover to the Lords of His Majesty's
Council.
203. And although they should wickedly forswear themselves,
yet it may herein do good to make them known to be false and
perjured to those who employ them, and thereby bring them into
as little credit with them as with us.
204. That His Majesty may have cause to be in love with good
counsel and good men, by shewing him in an humble and dutiful
manner how full of advantage it would be to himself, to see
his own estate settled in a plentiful condition to support his
honour; to see his people united in ways of duty to him, and
endeavours of the public good; to see happiness, wealth, peace
and safety derived to his own kingdom, and procured to his
allies by the influence of his own power and government."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY).
The King's attempt against the Five Members.
On the 3d of January, "the king was betrayed into ... an
indiscretion to which all the ensuing disorders and civil wars
ought immediately and directly to be ascribed. This was the
impeachment of Lord Kimbolton and the five members. ...
Herbert, attorney-general, appeared in the House of Peers,
and, in his majesty's name, entered an accusation of high
treason against Lord Kimbolton and five commoners, Hollis, Sir
Arthur Hazlerig, Hambden, Pym, and Strode. The articles were,
That they had traitorously endeavoured to subvert the
fundamental laws and government of the kingdom, to deprive the
king of his regal power, and to impose on his subjects an
arbitrary and tyrannical authority; that they had endeavoured,
by many foul aspersions on his majesty and his government, to
alienate the affections of his people, and make him odious to
them; that they had attempted to draw his late army to
disobedience of his royal commands, and to side with them in
their traitorous designs; that they had invited and encouraged
a foreign power to invade the kingdom; that they had aimed at
subverting the rights and very being of Parliament; that, in
order to complete their traitorous designs, they had
endeavoured, as far as in them lay, by force and terror, to
compel the Parliament to join with them, and to that end had
actually raised and countenanced tumults against the king and
Parliament; and that they had traitorously conspired to levy,
and actually had levied, war against the king. The whole world
stood amazed at this important accusation, so suddenly entered
upon, without concert, deliberation or reflection. ... But men
had not leisure to wonder at the indiscretion of this measure:
their astonishment was excited by new attempts, still more
precipitate and imprudent. A sergeant at arms, in the king's
name, demanded of the House the five members, and was sent
back without any positive answer. Messengers were employed to
search for them and arrest them. Their trunks, chambers, and
studies, were sealed and locked. The House voted all these
acts of violence to be breaches of privilege, and commanded
everyone to defend the liberty of the members. The king,
irritated by all this opposition, resolved next day to come in
person to the House, with an intention to demand, perhaps
seize, in their presence, the persons whom he had accused.
This resolution was discovered to the Countess of Carlisle,
sister to Northumberland, a lady of spirit, wit, and intrigue.
She privately sent intelligence to the five members; and they
had time to withdraw, a moment before the king entered. He was
accompanied by his ordinary retinue, to the number of above
two hundred, armed as usual, some with halberts, some with
walking swords. The king left them at the door, and he himself
advanced alone through the hall, while all the members rose to
receive him. The speaker withdrew from his chair, and the king
took possession of it. The speech which he made was as
follows: 'Gentlemen, I am sorry for this occasion of coming to
you. Yesterday, I sent a sergeant at arms, to demand some,
who, by my order, were accused of high treason. Instead of
obedience, I received a message. ... Therefore am I come to
tell you, that I must have these men wheresoever I can find
them. Well, since I see all the birds are flown, I do expect
that you will send them to me as soon as they return. But I
assure you, on the word of a king, I never did intend any
force, but shall proceed against them in a fair and legal way,
for I never meant any other.' ... When the king was looking
around for the accused members, he asked the speaker, who
stood below, whether any of these persons were in the House?
The speaker, falling on his knee, prudently replied: 'I have,
sir, neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, in this place,
but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am.
{867}
And I humbly ask pardon, that I cannot give any other answer
to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me.' The Commons
were in the utmost disorder; and when the king was departing,
some members cried aloud so as he might hear them, Privilege!
Privilege! and the House immediately adjourned till next day.
That evening, the accused members, to show the greater
apprehension, removed into the city, which was their fortress.
The citizens were the whole night in arms. ... When the House
of Commons met, they affected the greatest dismay; and
adjourning themselves for some days, ordered a committee to
sit in Merchant-Tailors' hall in the city. ... The House again
met, and after confirming the votes of their committee, instantly
adjourned, as if exposed to the most imminent perils from the
violence of their enemies. This practice they continued for
some time. When the people, by these affected panics, were
wrought up to a sufficient degree of rage and terror, it was
thought proper, that the accused members should, with a
triumphant and military procession, take their seats in the
House. The river was covered with boats, and other vessels,
laden with small pieces of ordnance, and prepared for fight.
Skippon, whom the Parliament had appointed, by their own
authority, major-general of the city militia, conducted the
members, at the head of this tumultuary army, to
Westminster-hall. And when the populace, by land and by water,
passed Whitehall, they still asked, with insulting shouts,
What has become of the king and his cavaliers? And whither are
they fled? The king, apprehensive of danger from the enraged
multitude, had retired to Hampton-court, deserted by all the
world, and overwhelmed with grief, shame, and remorse for the
fatal measures into which he had been hurried."
D. Hume,
History of England,
volume 5, chapter 55, pages 85-91.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 6, section 5.
S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapter 103 (volume 10).
J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Pym; Hampden.
L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Cent.,
book 8, chapter 10 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
Preparations for war.
The marshalling of forces.
The raising of the King's standard.
"January 10th. The King with his Court quits Whitehall; the
Five Members and Parliament proposing to return tomorrow, with
the whole City in arms round them. He left Whitehall; never
saw it again till he came to lay down his head there.
March 9th. The King has sent away his Queen from Dover, 'to be
in a place of safety,'--and also to pawn the Crown-jewels in
Holland, and get him arms. He returns Northward again,
avoiding London. Many messages between the Houses of
Parliament and him: 'Will your Majesty grant us Power of the
Militia; accept this list of Lord-Lieutenants?' On the 9th of
March, still advancing Northward without affirmative response,
he has got to Newmarket; where another Message overtakes him,
earnestly urges itself upon him: 'Could not your Majesty
please to grant us Power of the Militia for a limited time?'
'No, by God!' answers his Majesty, 'not for an hour.'
On the 19th of March he is at York; where his Hull Magazine,
gathered for service against the Scots, is lying near; where a
great Earl of Newcastle, and other Northern potentates, will
help him; where at least London and its Puritanism, now grown
so fierce, is far off. There we will leave him; attempting
Hull Magazine, in vain; exchanging messages with his
Parliament; messages, missives, printed and written Papers
without limit: Law-pleadings of both parties before the great
tribunal of the English Nation, each party striving to prove
itself right and within the verge of Law: preserved still in
acres of typography, once thrillingly alive in every fibre of
them; now a mere torpor, readable by few creatures, not
rememberable by any."
T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, preliminary.
"As early as June 2 a ship had arrived on the North English
coast, bringing the King arms and ammunition from Holland,
purchased by the sale of the crown-jewels which the Queen had
taken abroad. On the 22d of the same month more than forty of
the nobles and others in attendance on the King at York had
put down their names for the numbers of armed horse they would
furnish respectively for his service. Requisitions in the
King's name were also out for supplies of money; and the two
Universities, and the Colleges in each, were invited to send
in their plate. On the other hand, the Parliament had not been
more negligent. There had been contributions or promises from
all the chief Parliamentarian nobles and others; there was a
large loan from the city; and hundreds of thousands, on a
smaller scale, were willing to subscribe. And already, through
all the shires, the two opposed powers were grappling and
jostling with each other in raising levies. On the King's side
there were what were called Commissions of Array, or powers
granted to certain nobles and others by name to raise troops
for the King. On the side of Parliament, in addition to the
Volunteering which had been going on in many places (as, for
example, in Cambridgeshire, where Oliver Cromwell was forming
a troop of Volunteer horse ... ), there was the Militia
Ordinance available wherever the persons named in that
ordinance were really zealous for Parliament, and able to act
personally in the districts assigned them. And so on the 12th
of July the Parliament had passed the necessary vote for
supplying an army, and had appointed the Earl of Essex to be
its commander-in-chief, and the Earl of Bedford to be its
second in command as general of horse. It was known, on the
other side, that the Earl of Lindsey, in consideration of his
past experience of service both on sea and land, was to have
the command of the King's army, and that his master of horse
was to be the King's nephew, young Prince Rupert, who was
expected from the Continent on purpose. Despite all these
preparations, however, it was probably not till August had
begun that the certainty of Civil War was universally
acknowledged. It was on the 9th of that month that the King
issued his proclamation 'for suppressing the present Rebellion
under the command of Robert, Earl of Essex,' offering pardon
to him and others if within six days they made their
submission. The Parliamentary answer to this was on the 11th;
on which day the Commons resolved, each man separately rising
in his place and giving his word, that they would stand by the
Earl of Essex with their lives and fortunes to the end. Still,
even after that, there were trembling souls here and there who
hoped for a reconciliation.
{868}
Monday the 22d of August put an end to all such fluttering:
--On that day, the King, who had meanwhile left York, and come
about a hundred miles farther south, into the very heart of
England, ... made a backward movement as far as the town of
Nottingham, where preparations had been made for the great
scene that was to follow. ... This consisted in bringing out
the royal standard and setting it up in due form. It was about
six o'clock in the evening when it was done. ... A herald read
a proclamation, declaring the cause why the standard had been
set up, and summoning all the lieges to assist his Majesty.
Those who were present cheered and threw up their hats, and,
with a beating of drums and a sounding of trumpets, the
ceremony ended. ... From that evening of the 22d of August,
1642, the Civil War had begun."
D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
John Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Pym; Hampden.
S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1642,
chapters 104-105 (volume 10).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
The nation choosing sides.
"In wealth, in numbers, and in cohesion the Parliament was
stronger than the king. To him there had rallied most of the
greater nobles, many of the lesser gentry, some proportion of
the richer citizens, the townsmen of the west, and the rural
population generally of the west and north of England. For the
Parliament stood a strong section of the peers and greater
gentry, the great bulk of the lesser gentry, the townsmen of
the richer parts of England, the whole eastern and home
counties, and lastly, the city of London. But as the Civil War
did not sharply divide classes, so neither did it
geographically bisect England. Roughly speaking, aristocracy
and peasantry, the Church, universities, the world of culture,
fashion, and pleasure were loyal: the gentry, the yeomanry,
trade, commerce, morality, and law inclined to the Parliament.
Broadly divided, the north and west went for the king; the
south and east for the Houses; but the lines of demarcation
were never exact: cities, castles, and manor-houses long held
out in an enemy's county. There is only one permanent
limitation. Draw a line from the Wash to the Solent. East of
that line the country never yielded to the king; from first to
last it never failed the Parliament. Within it are enclosed
Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Bedford,
Bucks, Herts, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Sussex. This was the
wealthiest, the most populous, and the most advanced portion
of England. With Gloucester, Reading, Bristol, Leicester, and
Northampton, it formed the natural home of Puritanism."
F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 4.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
Edgehill--the opening battle of the war.
The Eastern Association.
Immediately after the raising of his standard at Nottingham,
the King, "aware at last that he could not rely on the
inhabitants of Yorkshire, moved to Shrewsbury, at once to
collect the Catholic gentry of Lancashire and Cheshire, to
receive the Royalist levies of Wales, and to secure the valley
of the Severn. The movement was successful. In a few days his
little army was increased fourfold, and he felt himself strong
enough to make a direct march towards the capital. Essex had
garrisoned Northampton, Coventry and Warwick, and lay himself
at Worcester; but the King, waiting for no sieges, left the
garrisoned towns unmolested and passed on towards London, and
Essex received peremptory orders to pursue and interpose if
possible between the King and London. On the 22nd of October
he was close upon the King's rear at Keynton, between
Stratford and Banbury. But his army was by no means at its
full strength; some regiments had been left to garrison the
West, others, under Hampden had not yet joined him. But delay
was impossible, and the first battle of the war was fought on
the plain at the foot of the north-west slope of Edgehill,
over which the royal army descended, turning back on its
course to meet Essex. Both parties claimed the victory. In
fact it was with the King. The Parliamentary cavalry found
themselves wholly unable to withstand the charge of Rupert's
cavaliers. Whole regiments turned and fled without striking a
blow; but, as usual, want of discipline ruined the royal
cause. Rupert's men fell to plundering the Parliamentary
baggage, and returned to the field only in time to find that
the infantry, under the personal leading of Essex, had
reestablished the fight. Night closed the battle [which is
sometimes named from Edgehill and sometimes from Keynton]. The
King's army withdrew to the vantage-ground of the hills, and
Essex, reinforced by Hampden, passed the night upon the field.
But the Royalist army was neither beaten nor checked in its
advance, while the rottenness of the Parliamentary troops had
been disclosed." Some attempts at peace-making followed this
doubtful first collision; but their only effect was to
embitter the passions on both sides. The King advanced,
threatening London, but the citizens of the capital turned out
valiantly to oppose him, and he "fell back upon Oxford, which
henceforward became the centre of their operations. ... War
was again the only resource, and speedily became universal.
... There was local fighting over the whole of England. ...
The headquarters of the King were constantly at Oxford, from
which, as from a centre, Rupert would suddenly make rapid
raids, now in one direction, now in another. Between him and
London, about Reading, Aylesbury, and Thame, lay what may be
spoken of as the main army of Parliament, under the command of
Lord-General Essex. ... The other two chief scenes of the war
were Yorkshire and the West. In Yorkshire the Fairfaxes,
Ferdinando Lord Fairfax and his son Sir Thomas, made what head
they could against what was known as the Popish army under the
command of the Earl, subsequently Marquis of Newcastle, which
consisted mainly of the troops of the Northern counties, which
had become associated under Newcastle in favour of Charles.
Newark, in Nottinghamshire, was early made a royal garrison,
and formed the link of connection between the operations in
Yorkshire and at Oxford. In the extreme South-west, Lord
Stamford, the Parliamentary General, was making a somewhat
unsuccessful resistance against Sir Ralph, afterwards Lord
Hopton. Wales was wholly Royalist, and one of the chief
objects of Charles's generals was to secure the Severn valley,
and thus connect the war in Devonshire with the central
operations at Oxford. In the Eastern counties matters assumed
rather a different form. The principle of forming several
counties into an association ... was adopted by the

Parliament, and several such associations were formed, but
none of these came to much except that of the Eastern
counties, which was known by way of preeminence as 'The
Association.' Its object was to keep the war entirely beyond
the borders of the counties of which it consisted. The reason
of its success was the genius and energy of Cromwell."
J. F. Bright,
History of England, period 2,
page 659.
{869}
"This winter there arise among certain Counties 'Associations'
for mutual defence, against Royalism and plunderous Rupertism;
a measure cherished by the Parliament, condemned as
treasonable by the King. Of which 'Associations,' countable to
the number of five or six, we name only one, that of Norfolk,
Suffolk, Essex, Cambridge, Herts; with Lord Gray of Wark for
Commander; where and under whom Oliver was now serving. This
'Eastern Association' is alone worth naming. All the other
Associations, no man of emphasis being in the midst of them,
fell in a few months to pieces; only this of Cromwell
subsisted, enlarged itself, grew famous;--and kept its own
borders clear of invasion during the whole course of the War."
T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, preliminary.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapters 2-4 (volume l).
W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
chapter 2 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (May).
Cromwell's Ironsides.
"It was ... probably, a little before Edgehill, that there
took place between Cromwell and Hampden the memorable
conversation which fifteen years afterwards the Protector
related in a speech to his second Parliament. It is a piece of
autobiography so instructive and pathetic that it must be set
forth in full in the words of Cromwell himself:
'I was a person who, from my first employment, was suddenly
preferred and lifted up from lesser trusts to greater; from my
first being Captain of a Troop of Horse. ... I had a very
worthy friend then; and he was a very noble person, and I know
his memory was very grateful to all,--Mr. John Hampden. At my
first going out into this engagement, I saw our men were
beaten at every hand. ... Your troops, said I, are most of
them old decayed serving-men, and tapsters, and such kind of
fellows; and, said I, their troops are gentlemen's sons,
younger sons and persons of quality: do you think that the
spirits of such base mean fellows will ever be able to
encounter gentlemen, that have honour and courage and
resolution in them? Truly I did represent to him in this
manner conscientiously; and truly I did tell him: You must get
men of a spirit: and take it not ill what I say,--I know you
will not,--of a spirit that is likely to go on as far as
gentlemen will go: or else you will be beaten still. I told
him so; I did truly. He was a wise and worthy person; and he
did think that I talked a good notion, but an impracticable
one. ... I raised such men as had the fear of God before them,
as made some conscience of what they did; and from that day
forward, I must say to you, they were never beaten, and
wherever they were engaged against the enemy they beat
continually.' ... The issue of the whole war lay in that word.
It lay with 'such men as had some conscience in what they
did.' 'From that day forward they were never beaten.' ... As
for Colonel Cromwell,' writes a news-letter of May, 1643, 'he
hath 2,000 brave men, well disciplined; no man swears but he
pays his twelve-pence; if he be drunk, he is set in the
stocks, or worse; if one calls the other roundhead he is
cashiered: insomuch that the countries where they come leap
for joy of them, and come in and join with them. How happy
were it if all the forces were thus disciplined!' These were
the men who ultimately decided the war, and established the
Commonwealth. On the field of Marston, Rupert gave Cromwell
the name of Ironside, and from thence this famous name passed
to his troopers. There are two features in their history which
we need to note. They were indeed 'such men as had some
conscience in their work'; but they were also much more. They
were disciplined and trained soldiers. They were the only body
of 'regulars' on either side. The instinctive genius of
Cromwell from the very first created the strong nucleus of a
regular army, which at last in discipline, in skill, in
valour, reached the highest perfection ever attained by
soldiers either in ancient or modern times. The fervour of
Cromwell is continually pressing towards the extension of this
'regular' force. Through all the early disasters, this body of
Ironsides kept the cause alive: at Marston it overwhelmed the
king: as soon as, by the New Model, this system was extended
to the whole army, the Civil War was at an end."
F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
The King calls in the Irish.
"To balance the accession of power which the alliance with
Scotland brought to the Parliament, Charles was so unwise, men
then said so guilty, as to conclude a peace with the Irish
rebels, with the intent that thus those of his forces which
had been employed against them, might be set free to join his
army in England. No act of the King, not the levying of
ship-money, not the crowd of monopolies which enriched the
court and impoverished the people, neither the extravagance of
Buckingham, the tyranny of Strafford nor the prelacy of Laud, not
even the attempted arrest of the five members, raised such a
storm of indignation and hatred throughout the kingdom, as did
this determination of the King to withdraw (as men said), for
the purpose of subduing his subjects, the force which had been
raised to avenge the blood of 100,000 Protestant martyrs. ...
To the England of the time this act was nauseous, was
exasperating to the highest degree, while to the cause of the
King it was fatal; for, from this moment, the condition of the
Parliamentary party began to mend."
N. L. Walford,
Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
chapter 2.
"None of the king's schemes proved so fatal to his cause as
these. On their discovery, officer after officer in his own
army flung down their commissions, the peers who had fled to
Oxford fled back again to London, and the Royalist reaction in
the Parliament itself came utterly to an end."
J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 7.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapter 11 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY).
Meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
At the beginning of July, 1643, "London was astir with a new
event of great consequence in the course of the national
revolution. This was the meeting of the famous Westminster
Assembly. The necessity of an ecclesiastical Synod or
Convocation, to cooperate with the Parliament, had been long
felt.
{870}
Among the articles of the Grand Remonstrance of December 1641
had been one desiring a convention of 'a General Synod of the
most grave, pious, learned, and judicious divines of this
island, assisted by some from foreign parts,' to consider of
all things relating to the Church and report thereon to
Parliament. It is clear from the wording of this article that
it was contemplated that the Synod should contain
representatives from the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
Indeed, by that time, the establishment of a uniformity of
Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship between the Churches of
England and Scotland was the fixed idea of those who chiefly
desired a Synod. ... In April, 1642 ... it was ordered by the
House, in pursuance of previous resolutions on the subject,
'that the names of such divines as shall be thought fit to be
consulted with concerning the matter of the Church be brought
in tomorrow morning,' the understood rule being that the
knights and burgesses of each English county should name to
the House two divines, and those of each Welsh county one
divine, for approval. Accordingly, on the 20th, the names were
given in. ... By the stress of the war the Assembly was
postponed. At last, hopeless of a bill that should pass in the
regular way by the King's consent, the Houses resorted, in
this as in other things, to their peremptory plan of Ordinance
by their own authority. On the 13th of May, 1643, an Ordinance
for calling an Assembly was introduced in the Commons; which
Ordinance, after due going and coming between the two Houses,
came to maturity June 12, when it was entered at full length
in the Lords' Journals. 'Whereas, amongst the infinite
blessings of Almighty God upon this nation,'--so runs the
preamble of the Ordinance,--'none is, or can be, more dear to
us than the purity of our religion; and for as much as many
things yet remain in the discipline, liturgy and government of
the Church which necessarily require a more perfect
reformation: and whereas it has been declared and resolved, by
the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, that the
present Church Government by Archbishops, Bishops, their
Chancellors, Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters,
Archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical officers depending on
the hierarchy, is evil and justly offensive and burdensome to
the kingdom, and a great impediment to reformation and growth
of religion, and very prejudicial to the state and government
of this kingdom, and that therefore they are resolved the same
shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be
settled in the Church as may be agreeable to God's Holy Word,
and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church
at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and
other reformed Churches abroad. ... Be it therefore ordained,
&c.' What is ordained is that 149 persons, enumerated by name
in the Ordinance ... shall meet on the 1st of July next in
King Henry VII.'s Chapel at Westminster; ... 'to confer and
treat among themselves of such matters and things, concerning
the liturgy, discipline and government of the Church of
England ... as shall be proposed by either or both Houses of
Parliament, and no other.' ... Notwithstanding a Royal
Proclamation from Oxford, dated June 22, forbidding the
Assembly and threatening consequences, the first meeting duly
took place on the day appointed--Saturday, July 1, 1643; and
from that day till the 22d of February, 1648-9, or for more
than five years and a half, the Westminster Assembly is to be
borne in mind as a power or institution in the English realm,
existing side by side with the Long Parliament, and in
constant conference and cooperation with it. The number of its
sittings during these five years and a half was 1,163 in all;
which is at the rate of about four sittings every week for the
whole time. The earliest years of the Assembly were the most
important."
D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
A. F. Mitchell,
The Westminster Assembly,
lectures 4-5.
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 3, chapters 2 and 4.
SEE, also, INDEPENDENTS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
The Solemn League and Covenant with the Scottish nation.
"Scotland had been hitherto kept aloof from the English
quarrel. ... Up to this time the pride and delicacy of the
English patriots withheld them, for obvious reasons, from
claiming her assistance. Had it been possible, they would
still have desired to engage no distant party in this great
domestic struggle; but when the present unexpected crisis
arrived ... these considerations were laid aside, and the
chief leaders of the Parliament resolved upon an embassy to
the North, to bring the Scottish nation into the field. The
conduct of this embassy was a matter of the highest difficulty
and danger. The Scots were known to be bigoted to their own
persuasions of narrow and exclusive church government, while
the greatest men of the English Parliament had proclaimed the
sacred maxim that every man who worshipped God according to
the dictates of his conscience was entitled to the protection
of the State. But these men, Vane, Cromwell, Marten and St.
John, though the difficulties of the common cause had brought
them into the acknowledged position of leaders and directors
of affairs, were in a minority in the House of Commons, and
the party who were their superiors in numbers were as bigoted
to the most exclusive principles of Presbyterianism as the
Scots themselves. Denzil Holies stood at the head of this
inferior class of patriots. ... The most eminent of the
Parliamentary nobility, particularly Northumberland, Essex and
Manchester belonged also to this body; while the London
clergy, and the metropolis itself, were almost entirely
Presbyterian. These things considered, there was indeed great
reason to apprehend that this party, backed by the Scots, and
supported with a Scottish army, would be strong enough to
overpower the advocates of free conscience, and 'set up a
tyranny not less to be deplored than that of Laud and his
hierarchy, which had proved one of the main occasions of
bringing on the war.' Yet, opposing to all this danger only
their own high purposes and dauntless courage, the smaller
party of more consummate statesmen were the first to propose
the embassy to Scotland. ... On the 20th of July, 1643, the
commissioners set out from London. They were four; and the man
principally confided in among them was Vane [Sir Henry, the
younger]. He, indeed, was the individual best qualified to
succeed Hampden as a counsellor in the arduous struggle in
which the nation was at this time engaged. ... Immediately on
his arrival in Edinburgh the negotiation commenced, and what
Vane seems to have anticipated at once occurred. The Scots
offered their assistance heartily on the sole condition of an
adhesion to the Scottish religious system on the part of
England.
{871}
After many long and very warm debates, in which Vane held to
one firm policy from the first, a solemn covenant was
proposed, which Vane insisted should be named a solemn league
and covenant, while certain words were inserted in it on his
subsequent motion, to which he also adhered with immovable
constancy, and which had the effect of leaving open to the
great party in England, to whose interests he was devoted,
that last liberty of conscience which man should never
surrender. ... The famous article respecting religion ran in
these words;
'That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the
grace of God, endeavour, in our several places and callings,
the preservation of the Reformed religion in the Church of
Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government,
against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the
kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government, according to the Word of God, and
the example of the best Reformed churches; and we shall
endeavour to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms
to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
confessing of faith, form of church government directory for
worship and catechizing; that we and our posterity after us,
may as brethren live in faith and love, and the Lord may
delight to dwell in the midst of us. That we shall in like
manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation
of popery, prelacy (that is, church government by archbishops,
bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deans, deans and
chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers
depending on that hierarchy).' Vane, by this introduction of
'according to the Word of God,' left the interpretation of
that word to the free conscience of every man. On the 17th of
August, the solemn league and covenant was voted by the
Legislature and the Assembly of the Church at Edinburgh. The
king in desperate alarm, sent his commands to the Scotch
people not to take such a covenant. In reply, they 'humbly
advised his majesty to take the covenant himself.' The
surpassing service rendered by Vane on this great occasion to
the Parliamentary cause, exposed him to a more violent hatred
from the Royalists than he had yet experienced, and Clarendon
has used every artifice to depreciate his motives and his
sincerity. ... The solemn league and covenant remained to be
adopted in England. The Scottish form of giving it authority
was followed as far as possible. It was referred by the two
Houses to the Assembly of Divines, which had commenced its
sittings on the 1st of the preceding July, being called
together to be consulted with by the Parliament for the
purpose of settling the government and form of worship of the
Church of England. This assembly already referred to,
consisted of 121 of the clergy; and a number of lay assessors
were joined with them, consisting of ten peers, and twenty
members of the House of Commons. All these persons were named
by the ordinance of the two Houses of Parliament which gave
birth to the assembly. The public taking of the Covenant was
solemnized on the 25th of September, each member of either
House attesting his adherence by oath first, and then by
subscribing his name. The name of Vane, subscribed immediately
on his return, appears upon the list next to that of
Cromwell."
J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Vane.
ALSO IN:
J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 8.
A. F. Mitchell,
The Westminster Assembly,
lectures 5-6.
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 3, chapter 2.
S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
page 187.
The following is the text of the Solemn League and Covenant:
"A solemn league and covenant for Reformation and defence of
religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace
and safety of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and
Ireland. We noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens,
burgesses, ministers of the Gospel, and commons of all sorts
in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, by the
providence of God living under one King, and being of one
reformed religion; having before our eyes the glory of God,
and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, the honour and happiness of the King's Majesty
and his posterity, and the true public liberty, safety and
peace of the kingdoms, wherein everyone's private condition is
included; and calling to mind the treacherous and bloody
plots, conspiracies, attempts and practices of the enemies of
God against the true religion and professors thereof in all
places, especially in these three kingdoms, ever since the
reformation of religion; and how much their rage, power and
presumption are of late, and at this time increased and
exercised, whereof the deplorable estate of the Church and
kingdom of Ireland, the distressed estate of the Church and
kingdom of England, and the dangerous estate of the Church and
kingdom of Scotland, are present and public testimonies: we
have (now at last) after other means of supplication,
remonstrance, protestations and sufferings, for the
preservation of ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and
destruction, according to the commendable practice of these
kingdoms in former times, and the example of God's people in
other nations, after mature deliberation, resolved and
determined to enter into a mutual and solemn league and
covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for
himself, with our hands lifted up to the most high God, do
swear,
I. That we shall sincerely, really and constantly, through the
grace of God, endeavour in our several places and callings,
the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of
Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government,
against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the
kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship,
discipline and government, according to the Word of God, and
the example of the best reformed Churches; and we shall
endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms
to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion,
confession of faith, form of Church government, directory for
worship and catechising, that we, and our posterity after us,
may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may
delight to dwell in the midst of us.
II. That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons,
endeavour the extirpation of Popery, prelacy (that is, Church
government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and
Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, and all
other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy),
superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness and whatsoever shall
be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of
godliness lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be
in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may
be one, and His name one in the three kingdoms.
{872}
III. We shall with the same sincerity, reality and constancy,
in our several vocations, endeavour with our estates and lives
mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the
Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms, and to
preserve and defend the King's Majesty's person and authority,
in the preservation and defence of the true religion and
liberties of the kingdoms, that the world may bear witness
with our consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no
thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majesty's just power
and greatness.
IV. We shall also with all faithfulness endeavour the
discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries,
malignants or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation
of religion, dividing the King from his people, or one of the
kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties
amongst the people, contrary to the league and covenant, that
they may be brought to public trial and receive condign
punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or
deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms
respectively, or others having power from them for that
effect, shall judge convenient.
V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these
kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, is by the
good providence of God granted to us, and hath been lately
concluded and settled by both Parliaments: we shall each one
of us, according to our places and interest, endeavour that
they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all
posterity, and that justice may be done upon the wilful
opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent
articles.
VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in
this common cause of religion, liberty and peace of the
kingdom, assist and defend all those that enter into this
league and covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof;
and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by
whatsoever combination, persuasion or terror, to be divided
and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether
to make defection to the contrary part, or give ourselves to a
detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause, which so
much concerneth the glory of God, the good of the kingdoms,
and the honour of the King; but shall all the days of our
lives zealously and constantly continue therein, against all
opposition, and promote the same according to our power,
against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and what we are
not able ourselves to suppress or overcome we shall reveal and
make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed: all
which we shall do as in the sight of God. And because these
kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against God,
and His Son Jesus Christ, as is too manifest by our present
distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof: we profess and
declare, before God and the world, our unfeigned desire to be
humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms;
especially that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable
benefit of the Gospel; that we have not laboured for the
purity and power thereof; and that we have not endeavoured to
receive Christ in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of Him in our
lives, which are the causes of other sins and transgressions
so much abounding amongst us, and our true and unfeigned
purpose, desire and endeavour, for ourselves and all others
under our power and charge, both in public and in private, in
all duties we owe to God and man, to amend our lives, and each
one to go before another in the example of a real reformation,
that the Lord may turn away His wrath and heavy indignation,
and establish these Churches and kingdoms in truth and peace.
And this covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God, the
Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the
same, as we shall answer at that Great Day when the secrets of
all hearts shall be disclosed: most humbly beseeching the Lord
to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless
our desires and Proceedings with such success as may be a
deliverance and safety to His people, and encouragement to the
Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the yoke of
Anti-Christian tyranny, to join in the same or like
association and covenant, to the glory of God, the enlargement
of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquility
of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (August-September).
Siege of Gloucester and first Battle of Newbury.
"When the war had lasted a year, the advantage was decidedly
with the Royalists. They were victorious, both in the western
and in the northern counties. They had wrested Bristol, the
second city in the kingdom, from the Parliament. They had won
several battles, and had not sustained a single serious or
ignominious defeat. Among the Roundheads, adversity had begun
to produce dissension and discontent. The Parliament was kept
in alarm, sometimes by plots and sometimes by riots. It was
thought necessary to fortify London against the royal army,
and to hang some disaffected citizens at their own doors.
Several of the most distinguished peers who had hitherto
remained at Westminster fled to the court at Oxford; nor can
it be doubted that, if the operations of the Cavaliers had, at
this season, been directed by a sagacious and powerful mind,
Charles would soon have marched in triumph to Whitehall. But
the King suffered the auspicious moment to pass away; and it
never returned. In August, 1643, he sate down before the city
of Gloucester. That city was defended by the inhabitants and
by the garrison, with a determination such as had not, since
the commencement of the war, been shown by the adherents of
the Parliament. The emulation of London was excited. The
trainbands of the City volunteered to march wherever their
services might be required. A great force was speedily
collected, and began to move westward. The siege of Gloucester
was raised. The Royalists in every part of the kingdom were
disheartened; the spirit of the parliamentary party revived;
and the apostate Lords, who had lately fled from Westminster
to Oxford, hastened back from Oxford to Westminster."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1.
After accomplishing the relief of Gloucester, the
Parliamentary army, marching back to London, was intercepted
at Newbury by the army of the king, and forced to fight a
battle, September 20, 1643, in which both parties, as at
Edgehill, claimed the victory. The Royalists, however, failed
to bar the road to London, as they had undertaken to do, and
Essex resumed his march on the following morning.
{873}
"In this unhappy battle was slain the lord viscount Falkland;
a person of such prodigious parts of learning and knowledge,
of that inimitable sweetness and delight in conversation, of
so flowing and obliging a humanity and goodness to mankind,
and of that primitive sincerity and integrity of life, that if
there were no other brand upon this odious and accursed war
than that single loss, it must be most infamous and execrable
to all posterity."
Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 7, section 217.
This lamented death on the royal side nearly evened, so to
speak, the great, unmeasured calamity which had befallen the
better cause three months before, when the high-souled patriot
Hampden was slain in a paltry skirmish with Rupert's horse, at
Chalgrove Field, not far from the borders of Oxfordshire. Soon
after the fight at Newbury, Charles, having occupied Reading,
withdrew his army to Oxford and went into winter quarters.
N. L. Walford,
Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
Sir E. Cust,
Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
part 2.
S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapter 10 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (January).
Battle of Nantwich and siege of Lathom House.
The Irish army brought over by King Charles and landed in
Flintshire, in November, 1643, under the command of Lord
Byron, invaded Cheshire and laid siege to Nantwich, which was
the headquarters of the Parliamentary cause in that region.
Young Sir Thomas Fairfax was ordered to collect forces and
relieve the town. With great difficulty he succeeded, near the
end of January, 1644, in leading 2,500 foot-soldiers and
twenty-eight troops of horse, against the besieging army,
which numbered 3,000 foot and 1,800 horse. On the 28th of
January he attacked and routed the Irish royalists completely.
"All the Royalist Colonels, including the subsequently
notorious Monk, 1,500 soldiers, six pieces of ordnance, and
quantities of arms, were captured." Having accomplished this
most important service, Sir Thomas, "to his great annoyance,"
received orders to lay siege to Lathom House, one of the
country seats of the Earl of Derby, which had been fortified
and secretly garrisoned, with 300 soldiers. It was held by the
high-spirited and dauntless Countess of Derby, in the absence
of her husband, who was in the Isle of Man. Sir Thomas Fairfax
soon escaped from this ignoble enterprise and left it to be
carried on, first, by his cousin, Sir William Fairfax, and
afterwards by Colonel Rigby. The Countess defended her house
for three months, until the approach of Prince Rupert forced
the raising of the siege in the following spring. Lathom House
was not finally surrendered to the Roundheads until December
6, 1645, when it was demolished.
C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 13.
ALSO IN:
Mrs. Thompson,
Recollections of Literary Characters and Celebrated Places,
volume 2, chapter 2.
E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
page 2, chapter 4.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (January-July).
The Scots in England.
The Battle of Marston Moor.
"On the 19th of January, 1644, the Scottish army entered
England. Lesley, now earl of Leven, commanded them. ... In the
meantime, the parliament at Westminster formed a council under
the title of 'The Committee of the Two Kingdoms,' consisting
of seven Lords, fourteen members of the Commons, and four
Scottish Commissioners. Whatever belongs to the executive
power as distinguished from the legislative devolved upon this
Committee. In the spring of 1644 the parliament had five
armies in the field, paid by general or local taxation, and by
voluntary contributions. Including the Scottish army there
were altogether 56,000 men under arms; the English forces
being commanded, as separate armies, by Essex, Waller,
Manchester, and Fairfax. Essex and Waller advanced to blockade
Oxford. The queen went to Exeter in April, and never saw
Charles again. The blockading forces around Oxford had become
so strong that resistance appeared to be hopeless. On the
night of the 3d of June the king secretly left the city and
passed safely between the two hostile armies. There had again
been jealousies and disagreements between Essex and Waller.
Essex, supported by the council of war, but in opposition to
the committee of the two kingdoms, had marched to the west.
Waller, meanwhile, went in pursuit of the king into
Worcestershire, Charles suddenly returned to Oxford; and then
at Copredy Bridge, near Banbury, defeated Waller, who had
hastened back to encounter him. Essex was before the walls of
Exeter, in which city the queen had given birth to a princess.
The king hastened to the west. He was strong enough to meet
either of the parliamentary armies thus separated. Meanwhile
the combined English and Scottish armies were besieging York.
Rupert had just accomplished the relief of Lathom House, which
had been defended by the heroic countess of Derby for eighteen
weeks, against a detachment of the army of Fairfax. He then
marched towards York with 20,000 men. The allied English and
Scots retired from Hessey Moor, near York, to Tadcaster.
Rupert entered York with 2,000 cavalry. The Earl of Newcastle
was in command there. He counselled a prudent delay. The
impetuous Rupert said he had the orders of the king for his
guidance, and he was resolved to fight. On the 2nd of July,
having rested two days in and near York, and enabled the city
to be newly provisioned, the royalist army went forth to
engage. They met their enemy on Marston Moor. The issue of the
encounter would have been more than doubtful, but for
Cromwell, who for the first time had headed his Ironsides in a
great pitched battle. The right wing of the parliamentary army
was scattered. Rupert was chasing and slaying the Scottish
cavalry. ... The charges of Fairfax and Cromwell decided the
day. The victory of the parliamentary forces was so complete
that the Earl of Newcastle left York, and embarked at
Scarborough for the continent. Rupert marched away also, with
the wreck of his army, to Chester. Fifteen hundred prisoners,
all the artillery, more than 100 banners, remained with the
victors; 4,150 bodies lay dead on the plain."
C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 25.
ALSO IN:
T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, letter 8.
B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 7.
W. Godwin, History of the Commonwealth, chapter 12,
(volume 1).
E. Warburton, Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the
Cavaliers, volume 2, chapter 4.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (August-September).
Essex's surrender.
The second Battle of Newbury.
{874}
"The great success at Marston, which had given the north to
the Parliament, was all undone in the south and west through
feebleness and jealousies in the leaders and the wretched
policy that directed the war. Detached armies, consisting of a
local militia, were aimlessly ordered about by a committee of
civilians in London. Disaster followed on disaster. Essex,
Waller, and Manchester would neither agree amongst themselves
nor obey orders. Essex and Waller had parted before Marston
was fought; Manchester had returned from York to protect his
own eastern counties. Waller, after his defeat at Copredy, did
nothing, and naturally found his army melting away. Essex,
perversely advancing into the west, was out-manœuvred by
Charles, and ended a campaign of blunders by the surrender of
all his infantry [at Fowey, in Cornwall, September 2, 1644].
By September 1644 throughout the whole south-west the
Parliament had not an army in the field. But the Committee of
the Houses still toiled on with honourable spirit, and at last
brought together near Newbury a united army nearly double the
strength of the King's. On Sunday, the 29th of October, was
fought the second battle of Newbury, as usual in these
ill-ordered campaigns, late in the afternoon. An arduous day
ended without victory, in spite of the greater numbers of the
Parliament's army, though the men fought well, and their
officers led them with skill and energy. At night the King was
suffered to withdraw his army without loss, and later to carry
off his guns and train. The urgent appeals of Cromwell and his
officers could not infuse into Manchester energy to win the
day, or spirit to pursue the retreating foe."
F. Harrison, Oliver Cromwell, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapters 7.
S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapters 19 and 21.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
The Self-denying Ordinance.
"Cromwell had shown his capacity for organization in the
creation of the Ironsides; his military genius had displayed
itself at Marston Moor. Newbury first raised him into a
political leader. 'Without a more speedy, vigorous and
effective prosecution of the war,' he said to the Commons
after his quarrel with Manchester, 'casting off all lingering
proceedings, like those of soldiers of fortune beyond sea to
spin out a war, we shall make the kingdom weary of us, and
hate the name of a Parliament.' But under the leaders who at
present conducted it a vigorous conduct of the war was
hopeless. They were, in Cromwell's plain words, 'afraid to
conquer.' They desired not to crush Charles, but to force him
back, with as much of his old strength remaining as might be,
to the position of a constitutional King. ... The army, too,
as he long ago urged at Edgehill, was not an army to conquer
with. Now, as then, he urged that till the whole force was new
modeled, and placed under a stricter discipline, 'they must
not expect any notable success in anything they went about.'
But the first step in such a reorganization must be a change
of officers. The army was led and officered by members of the
two Houses, and the Self-renouncing [or Self-denying]
Ordinance, which was introduced by Cromwell and Vane, declared
the tenure of civil or military offices incompatible with a
seat in either. In spite of a long and bitter resistance,
which was justified at a later time by the political results
which followed this rupture of the tie which had hitherto
bound the army to the Parliament, the drift of public opinion
was too strong to be withstood. The passage of the Ordinance
brought about the retirement of Essex, Manchester, and Waller;
and the new organization of the army went rapidly on under a
new commander-in-chief, Sir Thomas Fairfax, the hero of the
long contest in Yorkshire, and who had been raised into fame
by his victory at Nantwich and his bravery at Marston Moor."
J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 7.
ALSO IN:
W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
chapter 15 (volume l).
J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 11.
J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 10.
J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Vane.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (January-February).
The attempted Treaty of Uxbridge.
A futile negotiation between the king and Parliament was
opened at Uxbridge in January, 1645. "But neither the king nor
his advisers entered on it with minds sincerely bent on peace;
they, on the one hand, resolute not to swerve from the utmost
rigour of a conqueror's terms, without having conquered; and
he though more secretly, cherishing illusive hopes of a more
triumphant restoration to power than any treaty could be
expected to effect. The three leading topics of discussion
among the negotiators at Uxbridge were, the church, the
militia, and the state of Ireland. Bound by their unhappy
covenant, and watched by their Scots colleagues, the English
commissioners on the parliament's side demanded the complete
establishment of a presbyterian polity, and the substitution
of what was called the directory for the Anglican liturgy.
Upon this head there was little prospect of a union."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10, part 1.
ALSO IN:
Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 8, sections 209-252 (volume 3).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (January-April).
The New Model of the army.
The passage of the Self-denying Ordinance was followed, or
accompanied, by the adoption of the scheme for the so-called
New Model of the army. "The New Model was organised as
follows:
10 Regiments of Cavalry of 600 men, 6,000;
10 Companies of Dragoons of 100 men, 1,000;
10 Regiments of Infantry of 1,400 men, 14,000:
Total, 21,000 men.
All officers were to be nominated by Sir Thomas Fairfax, the
new General, and (as was insisted upon by the Lords, with the
object of excluding the more fanatical Independents) every
officer was to sign the covenant within twenty days of his
appointment. The cost of this force was estimated at £539,460
per annum, about £1,600,000 of our money. ... Sir Thomas
Fairfax having been appointed Commander-in-Chief by a vote of
both Houses on the 1st of April [A. D. 1645], Essex,
Manchester and others of the Lords resigned their commissions
on the 2nd. ... The name of Cromwell was of course, with those
of other members of the Commons, omitted from the original
list of the New Model army; but with a significance which
could not have escaped remark, the appointment of
lieutenant-general was left vacant, while none doubted by whom
that vacancy would be filled."
N. L. Walford,
The Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
Sir E. Cust,
Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
part. 2: Fairfax.
{875}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE).
The Battle of Naseby.
"Early in April, Fairfax with his new army advanced westward
to raise the siege of Taunton, which city Goring was
besieging. Before that task was completed he received orders
to enter on the siege of Oxford. This did not suit his own
views or those of the Independents. They had joined their new
army upon the implied condition that decisive battles should
be fought. It was therefore with great joy that Fairfax
received orders to proceed in pursuit of the royal forces,
which, having left Worcester, were marching apparently against
the Eastern Association, and had just taken Leicester on their
way. Before entering on this active service, Fairfax demanded
and obtained leave for Cromwell to serve at least for one
battle more in the capacity of Lieutenant-General. He came up
with the king in the neighbourhood of Harborough. Charles
turned back to meet him, and just by the village of Naseby the
great battle known by that name was fought. Cromwell had
joined the army, amid the rejoicing shouts of the troops, two
days before, with the Association horse. Again the victory
seems to have been chiefly due to his skill. In detail it is
almost a repetition of the battle of Marston Moor."
J. F. Bright,
History of England, period 2,
page 675.
"The old Hamlet of Naseby stands yet, on its old hill-top,
very much as it did in Saxon days, on the Northwestern border
of Northamptonshire; nearly on a line, and nearly midway,
between that Town and Daventry. A peaceable old Hamlet, of
perhaps five hundred souls; clay cottages for laborers, but
neatly thatched and swept; smith's shop, saddler's shop,
beer-shop all in order; forming a kind of square, which leads
off, North and South, into two long streets; the old Church
with its graves, stands in the centre, the truncated spire
finishing itself with a strange old Ball, held up by rods; a
'hollow copper Ball, which came from Boulogne in Henry the
Eighth's time,'--which has, like Hudibras's breeches, 'been
at the Siege of Bullen.' The ground is upland, moorland,
though now growing corn; was not enclosed till the last
generation, and is still somewhat bare of wood. It stands
nearly in the heart of England; gentle Dullness, taking a turn
at etymology, sometimes derives it from 'Navel'; 'Navesby,
quasi Navelsby, from being, &c.' ... It was on this high
moor-ground, in the centre of England, that King Charles, on
the 14th of June, 1645, fought his last Battle; dashed
fiercely against the New-Model Army which he had despised till
then: and saw himself shivered utterly to ruin thereby.
'Prince Rupert, on the King's right wing, charged up the hill,
and carried all before him'; but Lieutenant-General Cromwell
charged down hill on the other wing, likewise carrying all
before him,--and did not gallop off the field to plunder, he.
Cromwell, ordered thither by the Parliament, had arrived from
the Association two days before, 'amid shouts from the whole
Army': he had the ordering of the Horse this morning. Prince
Rupert, on returning from his plunder, finds the King's
Infantry a ruin; prepares to charge again with the rallied
Cavalry; but the Cavalry too, when it came to the point,
'broke all asunder,'--never to reassemble more. ... There were
taken here a good few 'ladies of quality in carriages';--and
above a hundred Irish ladies not of quality, tattery
camp-followers 'with long skean-knives about a foot in
length,' which they well knew how to use; upon whom I fear the
Ordinance against Papists pressed hard this day. The King's
Carriage was also taken, with a Cabinet and many Royal
Autographs in it, which when printed made a sad impression
against his Majesty,--gave in fact a most melancholy view of
the veracity of his Majesty, 'On the word of a King.' All was
lost!"
T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, letter 29.
ALSO IN:
Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 9, sections 30-42 (volume 4).
E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
volume 3, chapter 1.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
Glamorgan's Commissions, and other perfidies of the King
disclosed.
"At the battle of Naseby, copies of some letters to the queen,
chiefly written about the time of the treaty of Uxbridge, and
strangely preserved, fell into the hands of the enemy and were
instantly published. No other losses of that fatal day were
more injurious to [the king's] cause. ... He gave her [the
queen] power to treat with the English catholics, promising to
take away all penal laws against them as soon as God should
enable him to do so, in consideration of such powerful
assistance as might deserve so great a favour, and enable him
to affect it. ... Suspicions were much aggravated by a second
discovery that took place soon afterwards, of a secret treaty
between the earl of Glamorgan and the confederate Irish
catholics, not merely promising the repeal of the penal laws,
but the establishment of their religion in far the greater
part of Ireland. The marquis of Ormond, as well as lord Digby,
who happened to be at Dublin, loudly exclaimed against
Glamorgan's presumption in concluding such a treaty, and
committed him to prison on a charge of treason. He produced
two commissions from the king, secretly granted without any
seal or the knowledge of any minister, containing the fullest
powers to treat with the Irish, and promising to fulfil any
conditions into which he should enter. The king, informed of
this, disavowed Glamorgan. ... Glamorgan, however, was soon
released, and lost no portion of the king's or his family's
favour. This transaction has been the subject of much
historical controversy. The enemies of Charles, both in his
own and later ages, have considered it as a proof of his
indifference, at least, to the protestant religion, and of his
readiness to accept the assistance of Irish rebels on any
conditions. His advocates for a long time denied the
authenticity of Glamorgan's commissions. But Dr. Birch
demonstrated that they were genuine; and, if his dissertation
could have left any doubt, later evidence might be adduced in
confirmation."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapters 39 and 44 (volume 2).
T. Carte,
Life of James, Duke of Ormond,
book 4 (volume 3).
J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 10, chapter 3.
{876}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-AUGUST).
The Clubmen.
"When Fairfax and Cromwell marched into the west [after Naseby
fight], they found that in these counties the country-people
had begun to assemble in bodies, sometimes 5,000 strong, to
resist their oppressors, whether they fought in the name of
King or Parliament. They were called clubmen from their arms,
and carried banners, with the motto--'If you offer to plunder
our cattle, Be assured we will give you battle.' The clubmen,
however, could not hope to control the movements of the
disciplined troops who now appeared against them. After a few
fruitless attempts at resistance they dispersed."
B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 8.
"The inexpugnable Sir Lewis Dives (a thrasonical person known
to the readers of Evelyn), after due battering, was now soon
stormed; whereupon, by Letters found on him it became apparent
how deeply Royalist this scheme of Clubmen had been:
'Commissions for raising Regiments of Clubmen'; the design to
be extended over England at large, 'yea into the Associated
Counties': however, it has now come to nothing."
T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, letter 14.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
The storming of Bridgewater and Bristol.
"The continuance of the civil war for a whole year after the
decisive battle of Naseby is a proof of the King's
selfishness, and of his utter indifference to the sufferings
of the people. All rational hope was gone, and even Rupert
advised his uncle to make terms with the Parliament. Yet
Charles, while incessantly vacillating as to his plans,
persisted in retaining his garrisons, and required his
adherents to sacrifice all they possessed in order to prolong
a useless struggle for a few months. Bristol, therefore, was
to stand a siege, and Charles expected the garrison to hold
out, without an object, to the last extremity, entailing
misery and ruin on the second commercial city in the kingdom.
Rupert was sent to take the command there, and when the army
of Sir Thomas Fairfax approached, towards the end of August,
he had completed his preparations." Fairfax had marched
promptly and rapidly westward, after the battle of Naseby. He
had driven Goring from the siege of Taunton, had defeated him
in a sharp battle at Langport, taking 1,400 prisoners, and had
carried Bridgewater by storm, July 21, capturing 2,000 prisoners,
with 36 pieces of artillery and 5,000 stand of arms. On the
21st of August he arrived before Bristol, which Prince Rupert
had strongly fortified, and which he held with an effective
garrison of 2,300 men. On the morning of the 10th of September
it was entered by storm, and on the following day Rupert, who
still occupied the most defensible forts, surrendered the
whole place. This surrender so enraged the King that he
deprived his nephew of all his commissions and sent him a pass
to quit the kingdom. But Rupert understood, as the King would
not, that fighting was useless--that the royal cause was lost.
C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 21-22.
ALSO IN.
Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 9.
W. Hunt,
Bristol,
chapter 7.
E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
volume 3, chapter 1.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (SEPTEMBER).
Defeat of Montrose at Philiphaugh.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH).
Adoption of Presbyterianism by Parliament.
"For the last three years the Assembly of Divines had been
sitting almost daily in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster
Abbey. ... They were preparing a new Prayer-book, a form of
Church Government, a Confession of Faith, and a Catechism; but
the real questions at issue were the establishment of the
Presbyterian Church and the toleration of sectarians. The
Presbyterians, as we know, desired to establish their own form
of Church government by assemblies and synods, without any
toleration for non-conformists, whether Catholics,
Episcopalians, or sectarians. But though they formed a large
majority in the assembly, there was a well-organized
opposition of Independents and Erastians, whose union made it
no easy matter for the Presbyterians to carry every vote their
own way. ... After the Assembly had sat a year and a half, the
Parliament passed an ordinance for putting a directory,
prepared by the divines, into force, and taking away the
Common Prayer-book (3rd January, 1645). The sign of the cross
in baptism, the ring in marriage, the wearing of vestments,
the keeping of saints' days, were discontinued. The communion
table was ordered to be set in the body of the church, about
which the people were to stand or sit; the passages of
Scripture to be read were left to the minister's choice; no
forms of prayer were prescribed. The same year a new directory
for ordination of ministers was passed into an ordinance. The
Presbyterian assemblies, called presbyteries, were empowered
to ordain, and none were allowed to enter the ministry without

first taking the covenant (8th November, 1645). This was
followed by a third ordinance for establishing the
Presbyterian system of Church government in England by way of
trial for three years. As originally introduced into the
House, this ordinance met with great opposition, because it
gave power to ministers of refusing the sacrament and turning
men out of the Church for scandalous offences. Now, in what,
argued the Erastians, did scandalous offences consist? ... A
modified ordinance accordingly was passed; scandalous
offences, for which ministers might refuse the sacrament and
excommunicate, were specified; assemblies were declared
subject to Parliament, and leave was granted to those who
thought themselves unjustly sentenced, to appeal right up from
one Church assembly after another to the civil power--the
Parliament (16th March, 1646). Presbyterians, both in England
and Scotland, felt deeply mortified. After all these years'
contending, then, just when they thought they were entering on
the fruits of their labours, to see the Church still left
under the power of the State--the disappointment was intense
to a degree we cannot estimate. They looked on the
Independents as the enemies of God; this 'lame Erastian
Presbytery' as hardly worth the having. ... The Assembly of
Divines practically came to an end in 1649, when it was
changed into a committee for examining candidates for the
Presbyterian ministry. It finally broke up without any formal
dismissal on the dispersion of the Rump Parliament in March,
1653."
B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War.
chapter 40 (volume 2).
A. F. Mitchell,
The Westminster Assembly,
lectures 7, 9, 13.
Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly.
See, also, INDEPENDENTS.
{877}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
The King in the hands of the Scots.
His duplicity and his intrigues.
The Scots surrender him.
"On the morning of May 6th authentic news came that the King
had ridden into the Scottish army, and had entrusted to his
northern subjects the guardianship of his royal person.
Thereupon the English Parliament at once asserted their right
to dispose of their King so long as he was on English soil;
and for the present ordered that he be sent to Warwick Castle,
an order, however, which had no effect. Newark, impregnable
even to Ironsides, was surrendered at last by royal order; and
the Scots retreated northwards to Newcastle, carrying their
sovereign with them. ... Meantime the City Presbyterians were
petitioning the House to quicken the establishment of the
godly and thorough reformation so long promised; and they were
supported by letters from the Scottish Parliament, which, in
the month of February, 1646, almost peremptorily required that
the Solemn League and Covenant should be carried out in the
Scottish sense of it. ... The question as to the disposal of
the King's person became accidentally involved in the issues
between Presbyterianism and the sects. For if the King had
been a man to be trusted, and if he had frankly accepted the
army programme of free religion, a free Parliament, and
responsible advisers, there is little doubt that he might have
kept his crown and his Anglican ritual--at least for his own
worship--and might yet have concluded his reign prosperously
as the first constitutional King of England. Instead of this,
he angered the army by making their most sacred purposes mere
cards in a game, to be played or held as he thought most to
his own advantage in dealing with the Presbyterian Parliament.
On July 11th, 1646, Commissioners from both Houses were
appointed to lay certain propositions for peace before the
King at Newcastle. These of course involved everything for
which the Parliament had contended, and in a form developed
and exaggerated by the altered position of affairs. All armed
forces were to be absolutely under the control of Parliament
for a period of 20 years. Speaking generally, all public acts
done by Parliament, or by its authority, were to be confirmed;
and all public acts done by the King or his Oxford
anti-Parliament, without due authorisation from Westminster,
were to be void. ... On August 10th the Commissioners who had
been sent to the King returned to Westminster. ... The King
had given no distinct answer. It was a suspicious circumstance
that the Duke of Hamilton had gone into Scotland, especially
as Cromwell learned that, in spite of an ostensible order from
the King, Montrose's force had not been disbanded. The
labyrinthine web of royal intrigue in Ireland was beginning to
be discovered. ... The death of the Earl of Essex on September
14th increased the growing danger of a fatal schism in the
victorious party. The Presbyterians had hoped to restore him
to the head of the army, and so sheathe or blunt the terrible
weapon they had forged and could not wield. They were now left
without a man to rival in military authority the commanders
whose exploits overwhelmed their employers with a too complete
success. Not only were the political and religious opinions of
the soldiers a cause of anxiety, but the burden of their
sustenance and pay was pressing heavily on the country. ... No
wonder that the City of London, always sensitive as to public
security, began to urge upon the Parliament the necessity for
diminishing or disbanding the army in England. ... The
Parliament, however, could not deal with the army, for two
reasons; First, the negotiations with the Scotch lingered; and
next, they could not pay the men. The first difficulty was
overcome, at least for the time, by the middle of January,
1647, when a train of wagons carried £200,000 to Newcastle in
discharge of the English debt to the Scottish army. But the
successful accomplishment of this only increased the remaining
difficulty of the Parliament--that of paying their own
soldiers. We need not notice the charge made against the
Scotch of selling their King further than to say, that it is
unfairly based upon only one subordinate feature of a very
complicated negotiation. If the King would have taken the
Covenant, and guaranteed to them their precious Presbyterian
system, his Scottish subjects would have fought for him almost
to the last man. The firmness of Charles in declining the
Covenant for himself is, no doubt, the most creditable point
in his resistance. But his obstinacy in disputing the right of
two nations, in their political establishment of religion, to
override his convictions by their own, illustrates his entire
incapacity to comprehend the new light dawning on the
relations of sovereign and people. The Scots did their best
for him. They petitioned him, they knelt to him, they preached
to him. ... But to have carried with them an intractable man
to form a wedge of division amongst themselves, at the same
time that he brought against them the whole power of England,
would have been sheer insanity. Accordingly, they made the
best bargain they could both for him and themselves; and,
taking their wages, they left him with his English subjects,
who conducted him to Holdenby House, in Northamptonshire, on
the 6th of February, 1647."
J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 13.
ALSO IN:
S. R. Gardiner,
The First two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 7, section 4.
S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapter 3845 (volume 2).
W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth, book 1,
chapters 24-27, and book 2,
chapter 1-6 (volume 2).
Earl of Clarendon,
History of chapter Rebellion,
book 9, section 161-178,
and book 10 (volume 3).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).
The Army takes things in hand.
The King was surrendered to Parliament, and all now looking
toward peace, the Presbyterians were uppermost, discredit
falling upon the Army and its favorers. Many of the Recruiters
[i. e., the new members, elected to fill vacancies in the
Parliament], who at first had acted with the Independents,
inclined now to their opponents. The Presbyterians, feeling
that none would dare to question the authority of Parliament,
pushed energetically their policy as regards the Army, of
sending to Ireland, disbanding, neglecting the payment of
arrears, and displacing the old officers. But suddenly there
came for them a rude awakening. On April 30, 1647, Skippon,
whom all liked, whom the Presbyterians indeed claimed, but who
at the same time kept on good terms with the Army and
Independents, rose in his place in St. Stephens and produced a
letter, brought to him the day before by three private
soldiers, in which eight regiments of horse expressly refused
to serve in Ireland, declaring that it was a perfidious design
to separate the soldiers from the officers whom they
loved,--framed by men who, having tasted of power, were
degenerating into tyrants. Holles and the Presbyterians were
thunder-struck, and laying aside all other business summoned
the three soldiers to appear at once. ...
{878}
A violent tumult arose in the House. The Presbyterians
declared that the three sturdy Ironsides standing there, with
their buff stained from their corselets, ought to be at once
committed; to which it was answered, that if there were to be
commitment, it should be to the best London tavern, and sack
and sugar provided. Cromwell, leaning over toward Ludlow, who
sat next to him, and pointing to the Presbyterians, said that
those fellows would never leave till the Army pulled them out
by the ears. That day it became known that there existed an
organization, a sort of Parliament, in the Army, the officers
forming an upper council and the representatives of the rank
and file a lower council. Two such representatives stood in
the lower council for each squadron or troop, known as
'Adjutators,' aiders, or 'Agitators.' This organization had
taken upon itself to see that the Army had its rights. ... At
the end of a month, there was still greater occasion for
astonishment. Seven hundred horse suddenly left the camp, and
appearing without warning, June 2, at Holmby House, where
Charles was kept, in charge of Parliamentary commissioners,
proposed to assume the custody of the King. A cool, quiet
fellow, of rank no higher than that of cornet, led them and
was their spokesman, Joyce. 'What is your authority?' asked
the King. The cornet simply pointed to the mass of troopers at
his back. ... So bold a step as the seizure of the King made
necessary other bold steps on the part of the Army. Scarcely a
fortnight had passed, when a demand was made for the exclusion
from Parliament of eleven Presbyterians, the men most
conspicuous for extreme views. The Army meanwhile hovered,
ever ominously, close at hand, to the north and east of the
city, paying slight regard to the Parliamentary prohibition to
remain at a distance. The eleven members withdrew. ... But if
Parliament was willing to yield, Presbyterian London and the
country round about were not, and in July broke out into sheer
rebellion. ... The Speakers of the Lords and Commons, at the
head of the strength of the Parliament, fourteen Peers and one
hundred Commoners, betook themselves to Fairfax, and on August
2 they threw themselves into the protection of the Army at
Hounslow Heath, ten miles distant. A grand review took place.
The consummate soldier, Fairfax, had his troops in perfect
condition, and they were drawn out 20,000 strong to receive
the seceding Parliament. The soldiers rent the air with shouts
in their behalf, and all was made ready for a most impressive
demonstration. On the 6th of August, Fairfax marched his
troops in full array through the city, from Hammersmith to
Westminster. Each man had in his hat a wreath of laurel. The
Lords and Commons who had taken flight were escorted in the
midst of the column; the city officials joined the train. At
Westminster the Speakers were ceremoniously reinstalled, and
the Houses again put to work, the first business being to
thank the General and the veterans who had reconstituted them.
The next day, with Skippon in the centre and Cromwell in the
rear, the Army marched through the city itself, a heavy tramp
of battle-seasoned platoons, at the mere sound of which the
war-like ardor of the turbulent youths of the work-shops and
the rough watermen was completely squelched. Yet the soldiers
looked neither to the right nor left; nor by act, word, or
gesture was any offence given."
J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 24.
T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 3, letter 26.
W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
book 2, chapter 7-11.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
The King's "Game" with Cromwell and the army,
and the ending of it.
After reinstating the Parliament at Westminster, "the army
leaders resumed negotiations with the King. The indignation of
the soldiers at his delays and intrigues made the task hourly
more difficult; but Cromwell ... clung to the hope of
accommodation with a passionate tenacity. His mind,
conservative by tradition, and above all practical in temper,
saw the political difficulties which would follow on the
abolition of Royalty, and in spite of the King's evasions, he
persisted in negotiating with him. But Cromwell stood almost
alone; the Parliament refused to accept Ireton's proposals as
a basis of peace, Charles still evaded, and the army then grew
restless and suspicious. There were cries for a wide reform,
for the abolition of the House of Peers, for a new House of
Commons, and the Adjutators called on the Council of Officers
to discuss the question of abolishing Royalty itself. Cromwell
was never braver than when he faced the gathering storm, forbade
the discussion, adjourned the Council, and sent the officers
to their regiments. But the strain was too great to last long,
and Charles was still resolute to 'play his game.' He was, in
fact, so far from being in earnest in his negotiations with
Cromwell and Ireton, that at the moment they were risking
their lives for him he was conducting another and equally
delusive negotiation with the Parliament. ... In the midst of
his hopes of an accommodation, Cromwell found with
astonishment that he had been duped throughout, and that the
King had fled [November 11, 1647]. ... Even Cromwell was
powerless to break the spirit which now pervaded the soldiers,
and the King's perfidy left him without resource. 'The King is
a man of great parts and great understanding,' he said at
last, 'but so great a dissembler and so false a man that he is
not to be trusted.' By a strange error, Charles had made his
way from Hampton Court to the Isle of Wight, perhaps with some
hope from the sympathy of Colonel Hammond, the Governor of
Carisbrooke Castle, and again found himself a prisoner. Foiled
in his effort to put himself at the head of the new civil war, he
set himself to organize it from his prison; and while again
opening delusive negotiations with the Parliament, he signed a
secret treaty with the Scots for the invasion of the realm.
The rise of Independency, and the practical suspension of the
Covenant, had produced a violent reaction in his favour north
of the Tweed. ... In England the whole of the conservative
party, with many of the most conspicuous members of the Long
Parliament at its head, was drifting, in its horror of the
religious and political changes which seemed impending, toward
the King; and the news from Scotland gave the signal for
fitful insurrections in almost every quarter."
J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 8.
ALSO IN:
F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution of 1640,
books 7-8.
L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 10, chapter 4.
W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth.
G. Hillier,
Narrative of attempted Escapes of Charles I. from
Carisbrooke Castle, &c.
{879}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (April-August).
The Second Civil War.
Defeat of the Scots at Preston.
"The Second Civil War broke out in April, and proved to be a
short but formidable affair. The whole of Wales was speedily
in insurrection; a strong force of cavaliers were mustering in
the north of England; in Essex, Surrey, and the southern
counties various outbreaks arose; Berwick, Carlisle, Chester,
Pembroke, Colchester, were held for the king; the fleet
revolted; and 40,000 men were ordered by the Parliament of
Scotland to invade England. Lambert was sent to the north;
Fairfax to take Colchester; and Cromwell into Wales, and
thence to join Lambert and meet the Scotch. On the 24th of May
Cromwell reached Pembroke, but being short of guns, he did not
take it till 11th July. The rising in Wales crushed, Cromwell
turned northwards, where the northwest was already in revolt,
and 20,000 Scots, under the Duke of Hamilton, were advancing
into the country. Want of supplies and shoes, and sickness,
detained him with his army, some 7,000 strong, 'so extremely
harassed with hard service and long marches, that they seemed
rather fit for a hospital than a battle.' Having joined
Lambert in Yorkshire he fought the battle of Preston on 17th
of August. The battle of Preston was one of the most decisive
and important victories ever gained by Cromwell, over the most
numerous enemy he ever encountered, and the first in which he
was in supreme command. ... Early on the morning of the 17th
August, Cromwell, with some 9,000 men, fell upon the army of
the Duke of Hamilton unawares, as it proceeded southwards in a
long, straggling, unprotected line. The invaders consisted of
17,000 Scots and 7,000 good men from northern counties. The
long ill-ordered line was cut In half and rolled back northward
and southward, before they even knew that Cromwell was
upon them. The great host, cut into sections, fought with
desperation from town to town. But for three days it was one
long chase and carnage, which ended only with the exhaustion
of the victors and their horses. Ten thousand prisoners were
taken. 'We have killed we know not what,' writes Cromwell,
'but a very great number; having done execution upon them
above thirty miles together, besides what we killed in the two
great fights.' His own loss was small, and but one superior
officer. ... The Scottish invaders dispersed, Cromwell
hastened to recover Berwick and Carlisle, and to restore the
Presbyterian or Whig party in Scotland."
F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 74 (volume 7).
Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 11 (volume 4).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
The Treaty at Newport.
"The unfortunate issue of the Scots expedition under the duke
of Hamilton, and of the various insurrections throughout
England, quelled by the vigilance and good conduct of Fairfax
and Cromwell, is well known. But these formidable
manifestations of the public sentiment in favour of peace with
the king on honourable conditions, wherein the city of London,
ruled by the presbyterian ministers, took a share, compelled
the house of commons to retract its measures. They came to a
vote, by 165 to 90, that they would not alter the fundamental
government by king, lords, and commons; they abandoned their
impeachment against seven peers, the most moderate of the
upper house and the most obnoxious to the army: they restored
the eleven members to their seats; they revoked their
resolutions against a personal treaty with the king, and even
that which required his assent by certain preliminary
articles. In a word the party for distinction's sake called
presbyterian, but now rather to be denominated constitutional,
regained its ascendancy. This change in the counsels of
parliament brought on the treaty of Newport. The treaty of
Newport was set on foot and managed by those politicians of
the house of lords, who, having long suspected no danger to
themselves but from the power of the king, had discovered,
somewhat of the latest, that the crown itself was at stake,
and that their own privileges were set on the same cast.
Nothing was more remote from the intentions of the earl of
Northumberland, or lord Say, than to see themselves pushed
from their seats by such upstarts as Ireton and Harrison; and
their present mortification afforded a proof how men reckoned
wise in their generation become the dupes of their own
selfish, crafty, and pusillanimous policy. They now grew
anxious to see a treaty concluded with the king. Sensible that
it was necessary to anticipate, if possible, the return of
Cromwell from the north, they implored him to comply at once
with all the propositions of parliament, or at least to yield
in the first instance as far as he meant to go. They had not,
however, mitigated in any degree the rigorous conditions so
often proposed; nor did the king during this treaty obtain any
reciprocal concession worth mentioning in return for his
surrender of almost all that could be demanded."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10, part 2.
The utter faithlessness with which Charles carried on these
negotiations, as on all former occasions, was shown at a later
day when his correspondence came to light. "After having
solemnly promised that all hostilities in Ireland should
cease, he secretly wrote to Ormond (October 10): 'Obey my
wife's orders, not mine, until I shall let you know I am free
from all restraint; nor trouble yourself about my concessions
as to Ireland; they will not lead to anything;' and the day on
which he had consented to transfer to parliament for twenty
years the command of the army (October 9), he wrote to sir
William Hopkins: 'To tell you the truth, my great concession
this morning was made only with a view to facilitate my
approaching escape; without that hope, I should never have
yielded in this manner. If I had refused, I could, without
much sorrow, have returned to my prison; but as it is, I own
it would break my heart, for I have done that which my escape
alone can justify.' The parliament, though without any exact
information, suspected all this perfidy; even the friends of
peace, the men most affected by the king's condition, and most
earnest to save him, replied but hesitatingly to the charges
of the independents."
F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution of 1640,
book 8.
ALSO IN:
Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 11, sections 153-190 (volume 4).
I. Disraeli,
Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles I.,
volume 2, chapters 39-40.
{880}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
The Grand Army Remonstrance and Pride's Purge.
The Long Parliament cut down to the Rump.
On the 20th of November, 1648, Colonel Ewer and other officers
presented to the house of commons a remonstrance from the Army
against the negotiations and proposed treaty with the king.
This was accompanied by a letter from Fairfax, stating that it
had been voted unanimously in the council of officers, and
entreating for it the consideration of parliament. The
remonstrance recommended an immediate ending of the treaty
conferences at Newport, demanded that the king be brought to
justice, as the capital source of all grievances, and called
upon parliament to enact its own dissolution, with provision
for the electing and convening of future annual or biennial
parliaments. Ten days passed without attention being given to
this army manifesto, the house having twice adjourned its
consideration of the document. On the first of December there
appeared at Newport a party of horse which quietly took
possession of the person of the king, and conveyed him to
Hurst Castle, "a fortress in Hampshire, situated at the
extreme point of a neck of land, which shoots into the sea
towards the isle of Wight." The same day on which this was
done, "the commissioners who had treated with the king at
Newport made their appearance in the two houses of parliament;
and the two following days were occupied by the house of
commons in an earnest debate as to the state of the
negotiation. Vane was one of the principal speakers against
the treaty; and Fiennes, who had hitherto ranked among the
independents, spoke for it. At length, after the house had sat
all night, it was put and carried, at five in the morning of
the 5th, by a majority of 129 to 83, that the king's answers
to the propositions of both houses were a ground for them to
proceed upon, to the settlement of the peace of the kingdom.
On the same day this vote received the concurrence of the
house of lords." Meantime, on the 30th of November, the
council of the army had voted a second declaration more fully
expressive of its views and announcing its intention to draw
near to London, for the accomplishment of the purposes of the
remonstrance. "On the 2d of December Fairfax marched to
London, and quartered his army at Whitehall, St. James's, the
Mews, and the villages near the metropolis. ... On the 5th of
December three officers of the army held a meeting with three
members of parliament, to arrange the plan by which the sound
members might best be separated from those by whom their
measures were thwarted, and might peaceably be put in
possession of the legislative authority. The next morning a
regiment of horse, and another of foot were placed as a guard
upon the two houses, Skippon, who commanded the city-militia,
having agreed with the council of the army to keep back the
guard under his authority which usually performed that duty. A
part of the foot were ranged in the Court of Requests, upon
the stairs, and in the lobby leading to the house of commons.
Colonel Pride was stationed near the door, with a list in his
hand of the persons he was commissioned to arrest; and
sometimes one of the door-keepers, and at others Lord Grey of
Groby, pointed them out to him, as they came up with an
intention of passing into the house. Forty-one members were
thus arrested. ... On the following day more members were
secured, or denied entrance, amounting, with those of the day
before, to about one hundred. At the same time Cromwell took
his seat; and Henry Marten moved that the speaker should
return him thanks for his great and eminent services performed
in the course of the campaign. The day after, the two houses
adjourned to the 12th. During the adjournment many of the
members who had been taken into custody by the military were
liberated. ... Besides those who were absolutely secured, or
shut out from their seats by the power of the army, there were
other members that looked with dislike on the present
proceedings, or that considered parliament as being under
force, and not free in their deliberations, who voluntarily
abstained from being present at their sittings and debates."
W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
book 2, chapters 23-24 (volume 2).
"The famous Pride's Purge was accomplished. By military force
the Long Parliament was cut down to a fraction of its number,
and the career begins of the mighty 'Rump,' so called in the
coarse wit of the time because it was 'the sitting part.'"
J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 13.
"This name [the Rump] was first given to them by Walker, the
author of the History of Independency, by way of derision, in
allusion to a fowl all devoured but the rump."
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 1, foot-note.
ALSO IN:
C. R Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 28.
D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
book 4, chapters 1 and 3 (volume 3).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (JANUARY).
The trial and execution of the King.
"During the month in which Charles had remained at Windsor
[whither he had been brought from Hurst Castle on the 17th of
December], there had been proceedings in Parliament of which
he was imperfectly informed. On the day he arrived there, it
was resolved by the Commons that he should be brought to
trial. On the 2nd of January, 1649, it was voted that, in
making war against the Parliament, he had been guilty of
treason; and a High Court was appointed to try him. One
hundred and fifty commissioners were to compose the Court,--
peers, members of the Commons, aldermen of London. The
ordinance was sent to the Upper House, and was rejected. On
the 6th, a fresh ordinance, declaring that the people being,
after God, the source of all just power, the representatives
of the people are the supreme power in the nation; and that
whatsoever is enacted or declared for law by the Commons in
Parliament hath the force of a law, and the people are
concluded thereby, though the consent of King or Peers be not
had thereto. Asserting this power, so utterly opposed either
to the ancient constitution of the monarchy, or to the
possible working of a republic, there was no hesitation in
constituting the High Court of Justice in the name of the
Commons alone. The number of members of the Court was now
reduced to 135. They had seven preparatory meetings, at which
only 58 members attended. 'All men,' says Mrs. Hutchinson,
'were left to their free liberty of acting, neither persuaded
nor compelled; and as there were some nominated in the
commission who never sat, and others who sat at first but
durst not hold on, so all the rest might have declined it if
they would, when it is apparent they should have suffered
nothing by so doing.' ... On the 19th of January, major
Harrison appeared ... at Windsor with his troop. There was a
coach with six horses in the court-yard, in which the King
took his seat; and, once more, he entered London, and was
lodged at St. James's palace.
{881}
The next day, the High Court of Justice was opened in
Westminster-hall. ... After the names of the members of the
court had been called, 69 being present, Bradshaw, the
president, ordered the serjeant to bring in the prisoner.
Silently the King sat down in the chair prepared for him. He
moved not his hat, as he looked sternly and contemptuously
around. The sixty-nine rose not from their seats, and remained
covered. ... The clerk reads the charge, and when he is
accused therein of being tyrant and traitor, he laughs in the
face of the Court. 'Though his tongue usually hesitated, yet
it was very free at this time, for he was never discomposed in
mind,' writes Warwick. ... Again and again contending against
the authority of the Court, the King was removed, and the
sitting was adjourned to the 22nd. On that day the same scene
was renewed; and again on the 23rd. A growing sympathy for the
monarch became apparent. The cries of 'Justice, justice,'
which were heard at first, were now mingled with 'God save the
King.' He had refused to plead; but the Court nevertheless
employed the 24th and 25th of January in collecting evidence
to prove the charge of his levying war against the Parliament.
Coke, the solicitor-general, then demanded whether the Court
would proceed to pronouncing sentence; and the members
adjourned to the Painted Chamber. On the 27th the public
sitting was resumed. ... The Court, Bradshaw then stated, had
agreed upon the sentence. Ludlow records that the King'
desired to make one proposition before they proceeded to
sentence; which he earnestly pressing, as that which he
thought would lead to the reconciling of all parties, and to
the peace of the three kingdoms, they permitted him to offer
it; the effect of which was, that he might meet the two Houses
in the Painted Chamber, to whom he doubted not to offer that
which should satisfy and secure all interests.' Ludlow goes on
to say, 'Designing, as I have since been informed, to propose
his own resignation, and the admission of his son to the
throne upon such terms as should have been agreed upon.' The
commissioners retired to deliberate, 'and being satisfied,
upon debate, that nothing but loss of time would be the
consequence of it, they returned into the Court with a
negative to his demand.' Bradshaw then delivered a solemn
speech to the King. ... The clerk was lastly commanded to read
the sentence, that his head should be severed from his body;
'and the commissioners,' says Ludlow, 'testified their
unanimous assent by standing up.' The King attempted to speak;
'but being accounted dead in law, was not permitted.' On the
29th of January, the Court met to sign the sentence of
execution, addressed to 'colonel Francis Hacker, colonel
Huncks, and lieutenant-colonel Phayr, and to every one of
them.' ... There were some attempts to save him. The Dutch
ambassador made vigorous efforts to procure a reprieve, whilst
the French and Spanish ambassadors were inert. The ambassadors
from the States nevertheless persevered; and early in the day
of the 30th obtained some glimmering of hope from Fairfax.
'But we found,' they say in their despatch, 'in front of the
house in which we had just spoken with the general, about 200
horsemen; and we learned, as well as on our way as on reaching
home, that all the streets, passages, and squares of London were
occupied by troops, so that no one could pass, and that the
approaches of the city were covered with cavalry, so as to
prevent anyone from coming in or going out; ... The same day,
between two and three o'clock, the King was taken to a
scaffold covered with black, erected before Whitehall.' To
that scaffold before Whitehall, Charles walked, surrounded by
soldiers, through the leafless avenues of St. James's Park. It
was a bitterly cold morning. ... His purposed address to the
people was delivered only to the hearing of those upon the
scaffold, but its purport was that the people mistook the
nature of government; for people are free under a government,
not by being sharers in it, but by due administration of the
laws of it.' His theory of government was a consistent one. He
had the misfortune not to understand that the time had been
fast passing away for its assertion. The headsman did his
office; and a deep groan went up from the surrounding
multitude."
Charles Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 4, chapter 7.
"In the death-warrant of 29th January 1649, next after the
President and Lord Grey, stands the name of Oliver Cromwell.
He accepted the responsibility of it, justified, defended it
to his dying day. No man in England was more entirely
answerable for the deed than he, 'I tell you,' he said to
Algernon Sidney, 'we will cut off his head with the crown upon
it.' ... Slowly he had come to know--not only that the man,
Charles Stuart, was incurably treacherous, but that any
settlement of Parliament with the old Feudal Monarchy was
impossible. As the head of the king rolled on the scaffold the
old Feudal Monarchy expired for ever. In January 1649 a great
mark was set in the course of the national life--the Old Rule
behind it, the New Rule before it. Parliamentary government,
the consent of the nation, equality of rights, and equity in
the law--all date from this great New Departure. The Stuarts
indeed returned for one generation, but with the sting of the
Old Monarchy gone, and only to disappear almost without a
blow. The Church of England returned; but not the Church of
Laud or of Charles. The peers returned, but as a meek House of
Lords, with their castles razed, their feudal rights and their
political power extinct. It is said that the regicides killed
Charles I. only to make Charles II. king. It is not so, They
killed the Old Monarchy; and the restored monarch was by no
means its heir, but a royal Stadtholder or Hereditary
President."
F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 7.
"Respecting the death of Charles it has been pronounced by
Fox, that 'it is much to be doubted whether his trial and
execution have not, as much as any other circumstance, served
to raise the character of the English nation in the opinion of
Europe in general.' And he goes on to speak with considerable
favour of the authors of that event. One of the great
authorities of the age having so pronounced, an hundred and
fifty years after the deed, it may be proper to consider for a
little the real merits of the actors, and the act. It is not
easy to imagine a greater criminal than the individual against
whom the sentence was awarded. ... Liberty is one of the
greatest negative advantages that can fall to the lot of a
man; without it we cannot possess any high degree of
happiness, or exercise any considerable virtue. Now Charles,
to a degree which can scarcely be exceeded, conspired against
the liberty of his country, to assert his own authority
without limitation, was the object of all his desires and all
his actions, so far as the public was concerned.
{882}
To accomplish this object he laid aside the use of a
parliament. When he was compelled once more to have recourse
to this assembly, and found it retrograde to his purposes, he
determined to bring up the army, and by that means to put an
end to its sittings. Both in Scotland and England, the scheme
that he formed for setting aside all opposition, was by force
of arms. For that purpose he commenced war against the English
parliament, and continued it by every expedient in his power
for four years. Conquered, and driven out of the field, he did
not for that, for a moment lose sight of his object and his
resolution. He sought in every quarter for the materials of a
new war; and, after an interval of twenty months, and from the
depths of his prison, he found them. To this must be added the
most consummate insincerity and duplicity. He could never be
reconciled; he could never be disarmed; he could never be
convinced. His was a war to the death, and therefore had the
utmost aggravation that can belong to a war against the
liberty of a nation. ... The proper lesson taught by the act
of the thirtieth of January, was that no person, however high
in station, however protected by the prejudices of his
contemporaries, must expect to be criminal against the welfare
of the state and community, without retribution and
punishment. The event however sufficiently proved that the
condemnation and execution of Charles did not answer the
purposes intended by its authors. It did not conciliate the
English nation to republican ideas. It shocked all those
persons in the country who did not adhere to the ruling party.
This was in some degree owing to the decency with which
Charles met his fate. He had always been in manners, formal,
sober and specious. ... The notion was every where prevalent,
that a sovereign could not be called to account, could not be
arraigned at the bar of his subjects. And the violation of
this prejudice, instead of breaking down the wall which
separated him from others, gave to his person a sacredness
which never before appertained to it. Among his own partisans
the death of Charles was treated, and was spoken of, as a sort
of deicide. And it may be admitted for a universal rule, that
the abrupt violation of a deep-rooted maxim and persuasion of
the human mind, produces a reaction, and urges men to hug the
maxim closer than ever. I am afraid, that the day that saw
Charles perish on the scaffold, rendered the restoration of
his family certain."
W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth of England
to the Restoration of Charles II.,
book 2, chapter 26 (volume 2).
"The situation, complicated enough already, had been still
further complicated by Charles's duplicity. Men who would have
been willing to come to terms with him, despaired of any
constitutional arrangement in which he was to be a factor; and
men who had long been alienated from him were irritated into
active hostility. By these he was regarded with increasing
intensity as the one disturbing force with which no
understanding was possible and no settled order consistent. To
remove him out of the way appeared, even to those who had no
thought of punishing him for past offences, to be the only
possible road to peace for the troubled nation. It seemed that
so long as Charles lived deluded nations and deluded parties
would be stirred up, by promises never intended to be
fulfilled, to fling themselves, as they had flung themselves
in the Second Civil War, against the new order of things which
was struggling to establish itself in England."
S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
1642-1649, chapter 71 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
John Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Henry Marten.
S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
pages 268-290.
The following is the text of the Act which arraigned the King
and constituted the Court by which he was tried:
"Whereas it is notorious that Charles Stuart, the now king of
England, not content with the many encroachments which his
predecessors had made upon the people in their rights and
freedom, hath had a wicked design totally to subvert the
antient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and
in their place to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical
government; and that, besides all other evil ways and means to
bring his design to pass, he hath prosecuted it with fire and
sword, levied and maintained a civil war in the land, against
the parliament and kingdom; whereby this country hath been
miserably wasted, the public treasure exhausted, trade
decayed, thousands of people murdered, and infinite other
mischiefs committed; for all which high and treasonable
offences the said Charles Stuart might long since have justly
been brought to exemplary and condign punishment: whereas also
the parliament, well hoping that the restraint and imprisonment
of his person after it had pleased God to deliver him into
their hands, would have quieted the distempers of the kingdom,
did forbear to proceed judicially against him; but found, by
sad experience, that such their remissness served only to
encourage him and his accomplices in the continuance of their
evil practices and in raising new commotions, rebellions, and
invasions: for prevention therefore of the like or greater
inconveniences, and to the end no other chief officer or
magistrate whatsoever may hereafter presume, traiterously and
maliciously, to imagine or contrive the enslaving or
destroying of the English nation, and to expect impunity for
so doing; be it enacted and ordained by the [Lords] and
commons in Parliament assembled, and it is hereby enacted and
ordained by the authority thereof, That the earls of Kent,
Nottingham, Pembroke, Denbigh, and Mulgrave; the lord Grey of
Warke; lord chief justice Rolle of the king's bench, lord
chief justice St. John of the common Pleas, and lord chief
baron Wylde; the lord Fairfax, lieutenant general Cromwell,
&c. [in all about 150,] shall be, and are hereby appointed and
required to be Commissioners and Judges, for the Hearing,
Trying, and Judging of the said Charles Stuart; and the said
Commissioners, or any 20 or more of them, shall be, and are
hereby authorized and constituted an High Court of Justice, to
meet and sit at such convenient times and place as by the said
commissioners, or the major part, or 20 or more of them, under
their hands and seals, shall be appointed and notified by
public Proclamation in the Great Hall, or Palace Yard of
Westminster; and to adjourn from time to time, and from place
to place, as the said High Court, or the major part thereof,
at meeting, shall hold fit; and to take order for the charging
of him, the said Charles Stuart, with the Crimes and Treasons
above-mentioned, and for receiving his personal Answer
thereunto, and for examination of witnesses upon oath, (which
the court hath hereby authority to administer) or otherwise,
and taking any other Evidence concerning the same; and
thereupon, or in default of such Answer, to proceed to final
Sentence according to justice and the merit of the cause; and
such final Sentence to execute, or cause to be executed,
speedily and impartially.--
{883}
And the said court is hereby and required to chuse and
appoint all such officers, attendants, and other circumstances
as they, or the major part of them, shall in any sort judge
necessary or useful for the orderly and good managing of the
premises; and Thomas lord Fairfax the General, and all
officers and soldiers, under his command, and all officers of
justice, and other well-affected persons, are hereby
authorized and required to be aiding and assisting unto the
said court in the due execution of the trust hereby committed
unto them; provided that this act, and the authority hereby
granted, do continue in force for the space of one month from
the date of the making hereof, and no longer."
Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
volume 3, pages 1254-1255.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
The Commonwealth established.
"England was now a Republic. The change had been virtually
made on Thursday, January 4, 1648-9, when the Commons passed
their three great Resolutions, declaring
(1) that the People of England were, under God, the original
of all just power in the State,
(2) that the Commons, in Parliament assembled, having been
chosen by the People, and representing the People, possessed
the supreme power in their name, and
(3) that whatever the Commons enacted should have the force of
a law, without needing the consent of either King or House of
Peers.
On Tuesday, the 30th of January, the theory of these
Resolutions became more visibly a fact. On the afternoon of
that day, while the crowd that had seen the execution in front
of Whitehall were still lingering round the scaffold, the
Commons passed an Act 'prohibiting the proclaiming of any
person to be King of England or Ireland, or the dominions
thereof.' It was thus declared that Kingship in England had
died with Charles. But what of the House of Peers? It was
significant that on the same fatal day the Commons revived
their three theoretical resolutions of the 4th, and ordered
them to be printed. The wretched little rag of a House might
then have known its doom. But it took a week more to convince
them." On the 6th of February it was resolved by the House of
Commons, "'That the House of Peers in Parliament is useless
and dangerous, and ought to be abolished, and that an Act be
brought in to that purpose.' Next day, February 7, after
another long debate, it was further resolved 'That it hath
been found by experience, and this House doth declare, that
the office of a King in this realm, and to have the power
thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burdensome, and
dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the
People of this nation, and therefore ought to be abolished,
and that an Act be brought in to that purpose.' Not till after
some weeks were these Acts deliberately passed after the
customary three readings. The delay, however, was matter of
mere Parliamentary form. Theoretically a Republic since Jan.
4, 1648-9, and visibly a Republic from the day of Charles's
death, England was a Republic absolutely and in every sense
from February 7, 1648-9." For the administration of the
government of the republican Commonwealth, the Commons
resolved, on the 7th of February, that a Council of State be
erected; to consist of not more than forty persons. On the
13th, Instructions to the intended Council of State were
reported and agreed to, "these Instructions conferring almost
plenary powers, but limiting the duration of the Council to
one year." On the 14th and 15th forty-one persons were
appointed to be members of the Council, Fairfax, Cromwell,
Vane, St. John, Whitlocke, Henry Marten, and Colonels
Hutchinson and Ludlow being in the number; nine to constitute
a quorum, and no permanent President to be chosen.
D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 4, book 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume. 10, chapter 5.
A. Bisset,
Omitted Chapters of History of England,
chapter 1.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).
The Eikon Basilike.
"A book, published with great secrecy, and in very mysterious
circumstances, February 9, 1648-9, exactly ten days after the
late King's death, had done much to increase the Royalist
enthusiasm.
'Eikon Basilike: The True Portraicture of His Sacred Majestie
in his Solitudes and Sufferings.--Romans viii. More than
conquerour, &c.--Bona agere et mala pati Regium est.
MDCXLVIII':
such was the title-page of this volume (of 269 pages of text,
in small octavo), destined by fate, rather than by merit, to
be one of the most famous books of the world. ... The book, so
elaborately prepared and heralded, consists of twenty-eight
successive chapters, purporting to have been written by the
late King, and to be the essence of his spiritual
autobiography in the last years of his life. Each chapter,
with scarcely an exception, begins with a little narrative, or
generally rather with reflections and meditations on some
passage of the King's life the narrative of which is supposed
to be unnecessary, and ends with a prayer in italics
appropriate to the circumstances remembered. ... Save for a
few ... passages ... , the pathos of which lies in the
situation they represent, the Eikon Basilike is a rather dull
performance, in third-rate rhetoric, modulated after the
Liturgy; and without incision, point, or the least shred of
real information as to facts. But O what a reception it had!
Copies of it ran about instantaneously, and were read with
sobs and tears. It was in vain that Parliament, March 16, gave
orders for seizing the book. It was reprinted at once in
various forms, to supply the constant demand--which was not
satisfied, it is said, with less than fifty editions within a
single year; it became a very Bible in English Royalist
households. ... By means of this book, in fact, acting on the
state of sentiment which it fitted, there was established,
within a few weeks after the death of Charles I., that
marvellous worship of his memory, that passionate recollection
of him as the perfect man and the perfect king, the saint, the
martyr, the all but Christ on earth again, which persisted
till the other day as a positive religious cultus of the
English mind, and still lingers in certain quarters."
D. Masson,
Life and Times of John Milton,
volume 4, book 1, chapter 1.
{884}
"I struggled through the Eikon Basilike yesterday; one of the
paltriest pieces of vapid, shovel-hatted, clear-starched,
immaculate falsity and cant I have ever read. It is to me an
amazement how any mortal could ever have taken that for a
genuine book of King Charles's. Nothing but a surpliced
Pharisee, sitting at his ease afar off, could have got up such
a set of meditations. It got Parson Gauden [John Gauden,
Bishop of Exeter and Worcester, successively, after the
Restoration, and who is believed to have been the author of
the Eikon Basilike] a bishopric."
T. Carlyle,
History of his Life in London,
by Froude, volume 1, chapter 7, November 26, 1840.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (APRIL-MAY).
Mutiny of the Levellers.
See LEVELLERS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
Cromwell's campaign in Ireland.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (JULY).
Charles II. proclaimed King in Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).
War with the Scots and Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1651 (SEPTEMBER).
The Scots and Charles II. overthrown at Worcester.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1653.
The Army and the Rump.
"'Now that the King is dead and his son defeated,' Cromwell
said gravely to the Parliament, 'I think it necessary to come
to a settlement.' But the settlement which had been promised
after Naseby was still as distant as ever after Worcester. The
bill for dissolving the present Parliament, though Cromwell
pressed it in person, was only passed, after bitter
opposition, by a majority of two; and even this success had
been purchased by a compromise which permitted the House to
sit for three years more. Internal affairs were simply at a
dead lock. ... The one remedy for all this was, as the army
saw, the assembly of a new and complete Parliament in place of
the mere 'rump' of the old; but this was the one measure which
the House was resolute to avert. Vane spurred it to a new
activity. ... But it was necessary for Vane's purposes not
only to show the energy of the Parliament, but to free it from
the control of the army. His aim was to raise in the navy a
force devoted to the House, and to eclipse the glories of
Dunbar and Worcester by yet greater triumphs at sea. With this
view the quarrel with Holland had been carefully nursed. ...
The army hardly needed the warning conveyed by the
introduction of a bill for its disbanding to understand the
new policy of the Parliament. ... The army petitioned not only
for reform in Church and State, but for an explicit
declaration that the House would bring its proceedings to a
close. The Petition forced the House to discuss a bill for 'a
New Representative,' but the discussion soon brought out the
resolve of the sitting members to continue as a part of the
coming Parliament without re-election. The officers, irritated
by such a claim, demanded in conference after conference an
immediate dissolution, and the House as resolutely refused. In
ominous words Cromwell supported the demands of the army. 'As
for the members of this Parliament, the army begins to take
them in disgust. I would it did so with less reason.' ... Not
only were the existing members to continue as members of the
New Parliament, depriving the places they represented of their
right of choosing representatives, but they were to constitute
a Committee of Revision, to determine the validity of each

election, and the fitness of the members returned. A
conference took place [April 19, 1653] between the leaders of
the Commons and the officers of the army. ... The conference
was adjourned till the next morning, on an understanding that
no decisive step should be taken; but it had no sooner
reassembled, than the absence of the leading members confirmed
the news that Vane was fast pressing the bill for a new
Representative through the House. 'It is contrary to common
honesty,' Cromwell angrily broke out; and, quitting Whitehall,
he summoned a company of musketeers to follow him as far as
the door of the House of Commons."
J. R Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 9.
ALSO IN:
J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell.
J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 22.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1672.
The Navigation Acts and the American colonies.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672;
also, NAVIGATION LAWS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654.
War with the Dutch Republic.
"After the death of William, Prince of Orange, which was
attended with the depression of his party and the triumph of
the Dutch republicans [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650], the
Parliament thought that the time was now favourable for
cementing a closer confederacy with the states. St. John,
chief justice, who was sent over to the Hague, had entertained
the idea of forming a kind of coalition between the two
republics, which would have rendered their interests totally
inseparable; ... but the states, who were unwilling to form a
nearer confederacy with a government whose measures were so
obnoxious, and whose situation seemed so precarious, offered
only to renew 'the former alliances with England; and the
haughty St. John, disgusted with this disappointment, as well
as incensed at many affronts which had been offered him, with
impunity, by the retainers of the Palatine and Orange
families, and indeed by the populace in general, returned into
England and endeavoured to foment a quarrel between the
republics. .... There were several motives which at this time
induced the English Parliament to embrace hostile measures.
Many of the members thought that a foreign war would serve as
a pretence for continuing the same Parliament, and delaying
the new model of a representative, with which the nation had
so long been flattered. Others hoped that the war would
furnish a reason for maintaining, some time longer, that
numerous standing army which was so much complained of. On the
other hand, some, who dreaded the increasing power of
Cromwell, expected that the great expense of naval armaments
would prove a motive for diminishing the military
establishment. To divert the attention of the public from
domestic quarrels towards foreign transactions, seemed, in the
present disposition of men's minds, to be good policy. ... All
these views, enforced by the violent spirit of St. John, who
had great influence over Cromwell, determined the Parliament
to change the purposed alliance into a furious war against the
United Provinces. To cover these hostile intentions, the
Parliament, under pretence of providing for the interests of
commerce, embraced such measures as they knew would give
disgust to the states. They framed the famous act of
navigation, which prohibited all nations from importing into
England in their bottoms any commodity which was not the
growth and manufacture of their own country. ... The minds of
men in both states were every day more irritated against each
other; and it was not long before these humours broke forth
into action."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 60 (volume 5).
{885}
"The negotiations ... were still pending when Blake, meeting
Van Tromp's fleet in the Downs, in vain summoned the Dutch
Admiral to lower his flag. A battle was the consequence, which
led to a declaration of war on the 8th of July (1652). The
maritime success of England was chiefly due to the genius of
Blake, who having hitherto served upon shore, now turned his
whole attention to the navy. A series of bloody fights took
place between the two nations. For some time the fortunes of
the war seemed undecided. Van Tromp, defeated by Blake, had to
yield the command to De Ruyter. De Ruyter in his turn was
displaced to give way again to his greater rival. Van Tromp
was reinstated in command. A victory over Blake off the Naze
(November 28) enabled him to cruise in the Channel with a
broom at his mast-head, implying that he had swept the English
from the seas. But the year 1653 again saw Blake able to fight
a drawn battle of two days' duration between Portland and La
Hogue; while at length, on the 2d and 3d of June, a decisive
engagement was fought off the North Foreland, in which Monk
and Deane, supported by Blake, completely defeated the Dutch
Admiral, who, as a last resource, tried in vain to blow up his
own ship, and then retreated to the Dutch coast, leaving
eleven ships in the hands of the English. In the next month,
another victory on the part of Blake, accompanied by the death
of the great Dutch Admiral, completed the ruin of the naval
power of Holland. The States were driven to treat. In 1654 the
treaty was signed, in which Denmark, the Hanseatic towns, and
the Swiss provinces were included. ... The Dutch acknowledged
the supremacy of the English flag in the British seas; they
consented to the Navigation Act."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, page 701.
ALSO IN:
W. H. Dixon,
Robert Blake, Admiral and General at Sea,
chapters 6-7.
D. Hannay,
Admiral Blake,
chapters 6-7.
J. Campbell,
Naval History of Great Britain,
chapter 15 (volume 2).
G. Penn,
Memorials of Sir William Penn,
chapter 4.
J. Corbett,
Monk,
chapter 7.
J. Geddes,
History of the Administration of John De Witt,
volume 1, books 4-5.
See, also, NAVIGATION LAWS, ENGLISH: A. D. 1651.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (APRIL).
Cromwell's expulsion of the Rump.
"In plain black clothes and gray worsted stockings, the
Lord-General came in quietly and took his seat [April 20], as
Vane was pressing the House to pass the dissolution Bill
without delay and without the customary forms. He beckoned to
Harrison and told him that the Parliament was ripe for
dissolution, and he must do it. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'the
work is very great and dangerous.'--'You say well,' said the
general, and thereupon sat still for about a quarter of an
hour. Vane sat down, and the Speaker was putting the question
for passing the Bill. Then said Cromwell to Harrison again,
'This is the time; I must do it.' He rose up, put off his hat,
and spoke. Beginning moderately and respectfully, he presently
changed his style, told them of their injustice, delays of
justice, self interest, and other faults; charging them not to
have a heart to do anything for the public good, to have
espoused the corrupt interest of Presbytery and the lawyers,
who were the supporters of tyranny and oppression, accusing
them of an intention to perpetuate themselves in power. And
rising into passion, 'as if he were distracted,' he told them
that the Lord had done with them, and had chosen other
instruments for the carrying on His work that were worthy. Sir
Peter Wentworth rose to complain of such language in
Parliament, coming from their own trusted servant. Roused to
fury by the interruption, Cromwell left his seat, clapped on
his hat, walked up and down the floor of the House, stamping
with his feet, and cried out, 'You are no Parliament, I say
you are no Parliament. Come, come, we have had enough of this;
I will put an end to your prating. Call them in!' Twenty or
thirty musketeers under Colonel Worsley marched in onto the
floor of the House. The rest of the guard were placed at the
door and in the lobby. Vane from his place cried out, 'This is
not honest, yea, it is against morality and common honesty.'
Cromwell, who evidently regarded Vane as the breaker of the
supposed agreement, turned on him with a loud voice, crying,
'O Sir Henry Vane, Sir Henry Vane, the Lord deliver me from
Sir Henry Vane.' Then looking upon one of the members, he
said, 'There sits a drunkard;' to another he said, 'Some of
you are unjust, corrupt persons, and scandalous to the
profession of the Gospel.' 'Some are whoremasters,' he said,
looking at Wentworth and Marten. Going up to the table, he
said, 'What shall we do with this Bauble? Here, take it away!'
and gave it to a musketeer. 'Fetch him down,' he cried to
Harrison, pointing to the Speaker. Lenthall sat still, and
refused to come down unless by force. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'I
will lend you my hand,' and putting his hand within his, the
Speaker came down. Algernon Sidney sat still in his place.
'Put him out,' said Cromwell. And Harrison and Worsley put
their hands on his shoulders, and he rose and went out. The
members went out, fifty-three in all, Cromwell still calling
aloud. To Vane he said that he might have prevented this; but
that he was a juggler and had not common honesty. 'It is you,'
he said, as they passed him, 'that have forced me to do this,
for I have sought the Lord night and day, that He would rather
slay me than put me on the doing of this work.' He snatched
the Bill of dissolution from the hand of the clerk, put it
under his cloak, seized on the records, ordered the guard to
clear the House of all members, and to have the door locked,
and went away to Whitehall. Such is one of the most famous
scenes in our history, that which of all other things has most
heavily weighed on the fame of Cromwell. In truth it is a
matter of no small complexity, which neither constitutional
eloquence nor boisterous sarcasm has quite adequately
unravelled. ... In strict constitutional right the House was
no more the Parliament than Cromwell was the king. A House of
Commons, which had executed the king, abolished the Lords,
approved the 'coup d'état' of Pride, and by successive
proscriptions had reduced itself to a few score of extreme
partisans, had no legal title to the name of Parliament. The
junto which held to Vane was not more numerous than the junto
which held to Cromwell; they had far less public support; nor
had their services to the Cause been so great.
{886}
In closing the House, the Lord-General had used his office of
Commander-in-Chief to anticipate one 'coup d'état' by another.
Had he been ten minutes late, Vane would himself have
dissolved the House; snapping a vote which would give his
faction a legal ascendancy. Yet, after all, the fact remains
that Vane and the remnant of the famous Long Parliament had
that 'scintilla juris,' as lawyers call it, that semblance of
legal right, which counts for so much in things political."
F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
part 3, chapter 17.
F. P. Guizot,
History of Oliver Cromwell,
book 4 (volume l).
L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th century,
book 11, chapter 5 (volume 3).
W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
volume 3, chapters 27-29.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
The Barebones, or Little Parliament.
Six weeks after the expulsion of the Rump, Cromwell, in his
own name, and upon his own authority, as "Captain-General and
Commander-in-Chief," issued (June 6) a summons to one hundred
and forty "persons fearing God and of approved fidelity and
honesty," chosen and "nominated" by himself, with the advice
of his council of officers, requiring them to be and appear at
the Council Chamber of Whitehall on the following fourth day
of July, to take upon themselves "the great charge and trust"
of providing for "the peace, safety, and good government" of
the Commonwealth, and to serve, each, "as a Member for the
county" from which he was called. "Of all the Parties so
summoned, 'only two' did not attend. Disconsolate Bulstrode
says: 'Many of this Assembly being persons of fortune and
knowledge, it was much wondered by some that they would at
this summons, and from such hands, take upon them the Supreme
Authority of this Nation; considering how little right
Cromwell and his Officers had to give it, or those Gentlemen
to take it.' My disconsolate friend, it is a sign that Puritan
England in general accepts this action of Cromwell and his
Officers, and thanks them for it, in such a case of extremity;
saying as audibly as the means permitted: Yea, we did wish it
so. Rather mournful to the disconsolate official mind. ... The
undeniable fact is, these men were, as Whitlocke intimates, a
quite reputable Assembly; got together by anxious
'consultation of the godly Clergy' and chief Puritan lights in
their respective Counties; not without much earnest revision,
and solemn consideration in all kinds, on the part of men
adequate enough for such a work, and desirous enough to do it
well. The List of the Assembly exists; not yet entirely gone
dark for mankind. A fair proportion of them still recognizable
to mankind. Actual Peers one or two: founders of Peerage
Families, two or three, which still exist among us,--Colonel
Edward Montague, Colonel Charles Howard, Anthony Ashley
Cooper. And better than King's Peers, certain Peers of Nature;
whom if not the King and his pasteboard Norroys have had the
luck to make Peers of, the living heart of England has since
raised to the Peerage and means to keep there,--Colonel Robert
Blake the Sea-King, for one. 'Known persons,' I do think; 'of
approved integrity, men fearing God'; and perhaps not entirely
destitute of sense anyone of them! Truly it seems rather a
distinguished Parliament,--even though Mr. Praisegod Barbone,
'the Leather merchant in Fleet-street,' be, as all mortals
must admit, a member of it. The fault, I hope, is forgivable.
Praisegod, though he deals in leather, and has a name which
can be misspelt, one discerns to be the son of pious parents;
to be himself a man of piety, of understanding and
weight,--and even of considerable private capital, my witty
flunkey friends! We will leave Praisegod to do the best he
can, I think. ... In fact, a real Assembly of the Notables in
Puritan England; a Parliament, Parliamentum, or
Speaking-Apparatus for the now dominant Interest in England,
as exact as could well be got,--much more exact, I suppose,
than any ballot-box, free hustings or ale-barrel election
usually yields. Such is the Assembly called the Little
Parliament, and wittily Bare-bone's Parliament; which meets on
the 4th of July. Their witty name survives; but their history
is gone all dark."
T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 7, speech. 1.
The "assembly of godly persons" proved, however, to be quite
an unmanageable body, containing so large a number of erratic
and impracticable reformers that everything substantial among
English institutions was threatened with overthrow at their
hands. After five months of busy session, Cromwell was happily
able to bring about a dissolution of his parliament, by the
action of a majority, surrendering back their powers into his
hands,--which was done on the 10th of December, 1653.
F. P. Guizot,
History of Oliver Cromwell,
book 5 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 23.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (December).
The Establishment and Constitution of the Protectorate.
The Instrument of Government.
"What followed the dissolution of the Little Parliament is
soon told. The Council of Officers having been summoned by
Cromwell as the only power de facto, there were dialogues and
deliberations, ending in the clear conclusion that the method
of headship in a 'Single Person' for his whole life must now
be tried in the Government of the Commonwealth, and that
Cromwell must be that 'Single Person.' The title of King was
actually proposed; but, as there were objections to that,
Protector was chosen as a title familiar in English History
and of venerable associations. Accordingly, Cromwell having
consented, and all preparations having been made, he was, on
Friday, December 16, in a great assembly of civic, judicial
and military dignities, solemnly sworn and installed in the
Chancery Court, Westminster Hall, as Lord Protector of the
Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. There were some
of his adherents hitherto who did not like this new elevation
of their hero, and forsook him in consequence, regarding any
experiment of the Single Person method in Government 'as a
treason to true Republicanism, and Cromwell's assent to it as
unworthy of him. Among these was Harrison. Lambert, on the
other hand, had been the main agent in the change, and took a
conspicuous part in the installation-ceremony. In fact, pretty
generally throughout the country and even among the
Presbyterians, the elevation of Cromwell to some kind of
sovereignty had come to be regarded as an inevitable necessity
of the time, the only possible salvation of the Commonwealth from
the anarchy, or wild and experimental idealism, in matters
civil and religious, which had been the visible drift at last
of the Barebones or Daft Little Parliament. ... The powers and
duties of the Protectorate had been defined, rather elaborately,
in a Constitutional Instrument of forty-two Articles, called
'The Government of the Commonwealth' [more commonly known as
The Instrument of Government] to which Cromwell had sworn
fidelity at his installation."
{887}
D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 4, book 4, chapters 1 and 3.
ALSO IN:
J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell.
L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 12, chapter 1 (volume 3).
S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
introduction, section 4 and pages 314-324.
Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England,
volume 3, pages 1417-1426.
The following is the text Of the Instrument of Government:
The government of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and
Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging.
I. That the supreme legislative authority of the Commonwealth
of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto
belonging, shall be and reside in one person, and the people
assembled in Parliament; the style of which person shall be
the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland,
and Ireland.
II. That the exercise of the chief magistracy and the
administration of the government over the said countries and
dominions, and the people thereof, shall be in the Lord
Protector, assisted with a council, the number whereof shall
not exceed twenty-one, nor be less than thirteen.
III. That all writs, processes, commissions, patents, grants,
and other things, which now run in the name and style of the
keepers of the liberty of England by authority of Parliament,
shall run in the name and style of the Lord Protector, from
whom, for the future, shall be derived all magistracy and
honours in these three nations; and have the power of pardons
(except in case of murders and treason) and benefit of all
forfeitures for the public use; and shall govern the said
countries and dominions in all things by the advice of the
council, and according to these presents and the laws.
IV. That the Lord Protector, the Parliament sitting, shall
dispose and order the militia and forces, both by sea and
land, for the peace and good of the three nations, by consent
of Parliament; and that the Lord Protector, with the advice
and consent of the major part of the council, shall dispose
and order the militia for the ends aforesaid in the intervals
of Parliament."
V. That the Lord Protector, by the advice aforesaid, shall
direct in all things concerning the keeping and holding of a
good correspondency with foreign kings, princes, and states;
and also, with the consent of the major part of the council,
have the power of war and peace.
VI. That the laws shall not be altered, suspended, abrogated,
or repealed, nor any new law made, nor any tax, charge, or
imposition laid upon the people, but by common consent in
Parliament, save only as is expressed in the thirtieth
article.
VII. That there shall be a Parliament summoned to meet at
Westminster upon the third day of September, 1654, and that
successively a Parliament shall be summoned once in every
third year, to be accounted from the dissolution of the
present Parliament.
VIII. That neither the Parliament to be next summoned, nor any
successive Parliaments, shall, during the time of five months,
to be accounted from the day of their first meeting, be
adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved, without their own consent.
IX. That as well the next as all other successive Parliaments,
shall be summoned and elected in manner hereafter expressed;
that is to say, the persons to be chosen within England,
Wales, the Isles of Jersey, Guernsey, and the town of
Berwick-upon-Tweed, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall be,
and not exceed, the number of four hundred. The persons to be
chosen within Scotland, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall
be, and not exceed, the number of thirty; and the persons to
be chosen to sit in Parliament for Ireland shall be, and not
exceed, the number of thirty.
X. That the persons to be elected to sit in Parliament from
time to time, for the several counties of England, Wales, the
Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, and the town of
Berwick-upon-Tweed, and all places within the same
respectively, shall be according to the proportions and
numbers hereafter expressed: that is to say,
Bedfordshire, 5;
Bedford Town, 1;
Berkshire, 5;
Abingdon, 1;
Reading, 1;
Buckinghamshire, 5;
Buckingham Town, 1;
Aylesbury, 1;
Wycomb, 1;
Cambridgeshire, 4;
Cambridge Town, 1;
Cambridge University, 1;
Isle of Ely, 2;
Cheshire, 4;
Chester, 1;
Cornwall, 8;
Launceston, 1;
Truro, 1;
Penryn, 1;
East Looe and West Looe, 1;
Cumberland, 2;
Carlisle, 1;
Derbyshire, 4;
Derby Town, 1;
Devonshire, 11;
Exeter, 2;
Plymouth, 2
Clifton, Dartmouth, Hardness, 1;
Totnes, 1;
Barnstable, 1;
Tiverton, 1;
Honiton, 1;
Dorsetshire, 6;
Dorchester, 1;
Weymouth and Melcomb-Regis, 1;
Lyme-Regis, 1;
Poole, 1;
Durham, 2;
City of Durham, 1;
Essex, 13;
Malden, 1;
Colchester, 2;
Gloucestershire, 5;
Gloucester, 2;
Tewkesbury, 1;
Cirencester, 1;
Herefordshire, 4;
Hereford, 1;
Leominster, 1;
Hertfordshire, 5;
St. Alban's, 1:
Hertford, 1;
Huntingdonshire, 3;
Huntingdon, 1;
Kent, 11;
Canterbury, 2;
Rochester, 1
Maidstone, 1;
Dover, 1;
Sandwich, 1;
Queenborough, 1;
Lancashire, 4;
Preston, 1;
Lancaster, 1;
Liverpool, 1;
Manchester, 1;
Leicestershire, 4
Leicester, 2;
Lincolnshire, 10;
Lincoln, 2;
Boston, 1;
Grantham, 1;
Stamford, 1;
Great Grimsby, 1;
Middlesex, 4;
London, 6;
Westminster, 2;
Monmouthshire, 3;
Norfolk 10;
Norwich, 2;
Lynn-Regis, 2
Great Yarmouth, 2
Northamptonshire, 6;
Peterborough, 1;
Northampton, 1;
Nottinghamshire, 4;
Nottingham, 2;
Northumberland, 3;
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1;
Berwick, 1;
Oxfordshire, 5;
Oxford City, 1;
Oxford University, 1;
Woodstock, 1;
Rutlandshire, 2;
Shropshire, 4;
Shrewsbury, 2;
Bridgnorth, 1;
Ludlow, 1;
Staffordshire, 3;
Lichfield, 1;
Stafford, 1;
Newcastle-under-Lyne, 1;
Somersetshire, 11;
Bristol, 2;
Taunton, 2;
Bath, 1;
Wells, 1;
Bridgwater, 1;
Southamptonshire, 8;
Winchester, 1;
Southampton, 1
Portsmouth, 1;
Isle of Wight, 2;
Andover, 1;
Suffolk, 10;
Ipswich, 2;
Bury St. Edmunds, 2;
Dunwich, 1;
Sudbury, 1;
Surrey, 6;
Southwark, 2;
Guildford, 1;
Reigate, 1;
Sussex, 9;
Chichester, 1;
Lewes, 1;
East Grinstead, 1;
Arundel, 1;
Rye, 1;
Westmoreland, 2;
Warwickshire, 4;
Coventry, 2;
Warwick, 1;
Wiltshire, 10;
New Sarum, 2;
Marlborough, 1;
Devizes, 1;
Worcestershire, 5;
Worcester, 2.
YORKSHIRE.
West Riding, 6;
East Riding, 4;
North Riding, 4;
City of York, 2
Kingston-upon-Hull, 1;
Beverley, 1;
Scarborough, 1;
Richmond, 1;
Leeds, 1;
Halifax, 1.
{888}
WALES.
Anglesey, 2:
Brecknoekshire, 2;
Cardiganshire, 2;
Carmarthenshire, 2;
Carnarvonshire, 2;
Denbighshire, 2;
Flintshire, 2;
Glamorganshire, 2;
Cardiff, 1;
Merionethshire, 1;
Montgomeryshire, 2;
Pembrokeshire, 2;
Haverfordwest, 1;
Radnorshire, 2.
The distribution of the persons to be chosen for Scotland and
Ireland, and the several counties, cities, and places therein,
shall be according to such proportions and number as shall be
agreed upon and declared by the Lord Protector and the major
part of the council, before the sending forth writs of summons
for the next Parliament.
XI. That the summons to Parliament shall be by writ under the
Great Seal of England, directed to the sheriffs of the several
and respective counties, with such alteration as may suit with
the present government to be made by the Lord Protector and
his council, which the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of
the Great Seal shall seal, issue, and send abroad by warrant
from the Lord Protector. If the Lord Protector shall not give
warrant for issuing of writs of summons for the next
Parliament, before the first of June, 1654, or for the
Triennial Parliaments, before the first day of August in every
third year, to be accounted as aforesaid; that then the
Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal for the
time being, shall, without any warrant or direction, within
seven days after the said first day of June, 1654, seal,
issue, and send abroad writs of summons (changing therein what
is to be changed as aforesaid) to the several and respective
sheriffs of England, Scotland, and Ireland, for summoning the
Parliament to meet at Westminster, the third day of September
next; and shall likewise, within seven days after the said
first day of August, in every third year, to be accounted from
the dissolution of the precedent Parliament, seal, issue, and
send forth abroad several writs of summons (changing therein
what is to be changed) as aforesaid, for summoning the
Parliament to meet at Westminster the sixth of November in
that third year. That the said several and respective
sheriffs, shall, within ten days after the receipt of such
writ as aforesaid, cause the same to be proclaimed and
published in every market-town within his county upon the
market-days thereof, between twelve and three of the clock;
and shall then also publish and declare the certain day of the
week and month, for choosing members to serve in Parliament for
the body of the said county, according to the tenor of the
said writ, which shall be upon Wednesday five weeks after the
date of the writ; and shall likewise declare the place where
the election shall be made: for which purpose he shall appoint
the most convenient place for the whole county to meet in; and
shall send precepts for elections to be made in all and every
city, town, borough, or place within his county, where
elections are to be made by virtue of these presents, to the
Mayor, Sheriff, or other head officer of such city, town,
borough, or place, within three days after the receipt of such
writ and writs; which the said Mayors, Sheriffs, and officers
respectively are to make publication of, and of the certain
day for such elections to be made in the said city, town, or
place aforesaid, and to cause elections to be made
accordingly.
XII. That at the day and place of elections, the Sheriff of
each county, and the said Mayors, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, and
other head officers within their cities, towns, boroughs, and
places respectively, shall take view of the said elections,
and shall make return into the chancery within twenty days
after the said elections, of the persons elected by the
greater number of electors, under their hands and seals,
between him on the one part, and the electors on the other
part; wherein shall be contained, that the persons elected
shall not have power to alter the government as it is hereby
settled in one single person and a Parliament.
XIII. That the Sheriff, who shall wittingly and willingly make
any false return, or neglect his duty, shall incur the penalty
of 2,000 marks of lawful English money; the one moiety to the
Lord Protector, and the other moiety to such person as will
sue for the same.
XIV. That all and every person and persons, who have aided,
advised, assisted, or abetted in any war against the
Parliament, since the first day of January 1641 (unless they
have been since in the service of the Parliament, and given
signal testimony of their good affection thereunto) shall be
disabled and incapable to be elected, or to give any vote in
the election of any members to serve in the next Parliament,
or in the three succeeding Triennial Parliaments.
XV. That all such, who have advised, assisted, or abetted the
rebellion of Ireland, shall be disabled and incapable for ever
to be elected, or give any vote in the election of any member
to serve in Parliament; as also all such who do or shall
profess the Roman Catholic religion.
XVI. That all votes and elections given or made contrary, or
not according to these qualifications, shall be null and void;
and if any person, who is hereby made incapable, shall give
his vote for election of members to serve in Parliament, such
person shall lose and forfeit one full year's value of his
real estate, and one full third part of his personal estate;
one moiety thereof to the Lord Protector, and the other moiety
to him or them who shall sue for the same.
XVII. That the persons who shall be elected to serve in
Parliament, shall be such (and no other than such) as are
persons of known integrity, fearing God, and of good
conversation, and being of the age of twenty-one years.
XVIII. That all and every person and persons seised or
possessed to his own use, of any estate, real or personal, to
the value of £200, and not within the aforesaid exceptions,
shall be capable to elect members to serve in Parliament for
counties.
XIX. That the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the
Great Seal, shall be sworn before they enter into their
offices, truly and faithfully to issue forth, and send abroad,
writs of summons to Parliament, at the times and in the manner
before expressed: and in case of neglect or failure to issue
and send abroad writs accordingly, he or they shall for every
such offence be guilty of high treason, and suffer the pains
and penalties thereof.
XX. That in case writs be not issued out, as is before
expressed, but that there be a neglect therein, fifteen days
after the time wherein the same ought to be issued out by the
Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal; that
then the Parliament shall, as often as such failure shall
happen, assemble and be held at Westminster, in the usual
place, at the times prefixed, in manner and by the means
hereafter expressed; that is to say, that the sheriffs of the
several and respective counties, sheriffdoms, cities,
boroughs, and places aforesaid, within England, Wales,
Scotland, and Ireland, the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars
of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the Mayor and
Bailiffs of the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and other
places aforesaid respectively, shall at the several courts and
places to be appointed as aforesaid, within thirty days after
the said fifteen days, cause such members to be chosen for
their said several and respective counties, sheriffdoms,
universities, cities, boroughs, and places aforesaid, by such
persons, and in such manner, as if several and respective
writs of summons to Parliament under the Great Seal had issued
and been awarded according to the tenor aforesaid: that if the
sheriff, or other persons authorized, shall neglect his or
their duty herein, that all and every such sheriff and person
authorized as aforesaid, so neglecting his or their duty,
shall, for every such offence, be guilty of high treason, and
shall suffer the pains and penalties thereof.
{889}
XXI. That the clerk, called the clerk of the Commonwealth in
Chancery for the time being, and all others, who shall
afterwards execute that office, to whom the returns shall be
made, shall for the next Parliament, and the two succeeding
Triennial Parliaments, the next day after such return, certify
the names of the several persons so returned, and of the
places for which he and they were chosen respectively, unto
the Council; who shall peruse the said returns, and examine
whether the persons so elected and returned be such as is
agreeable to the qualifications, and not disabled to be
elected: and that every person and persons being so duly
elected, and being approved of by the major part of the
Council to be persons not disabled, but qualified as
aforesaid, shall be esteemed a member of Parliament, and be
admitted to sit in Parliament, and not otherwise.
XXII. That the persons so chosen and assembled in manner
aforesaid, or any sixty of them, shall be, and be deemed the
Parliament of England, Scotland, and Ireland; and the supreme
legislative power to be and reside in the Lord Protector and
such Parliament, in manner herein expressed.
XXIII. That the Lord Protector, with the advice of the major
part of the Council, shall at any other time than is before
expressed, when the necessities of the State shall require it,
summon Parliaments in manner before expressed, which shall not
be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved without their own
consent, during the first three months of their sitting. And
in case of future war with any foreign State, a Parliament
shall be forthwith summoned for their advice concerning the
same.
XXIV. That all Bills agreed unto by the Parliament, shall be
presented to the Lord Protector for his consent; and in case
he shall not give his consent thereto within twenty days after
they shall be presented to him, or give satisfaction to the
Parliament within the time limited, that then, upon
declaration of the Parliament that the Lord Protector hath not
consented nor given satisfaction, such Bills shall pass into
and become laws, although he shall not give his consent
thereunto; provided such Bills contain nothing in them
contrary to the matters contained in these presents.
XXV. That [Henry Lawrence, esq.; Philip lord vise. Lisle; the
majors general Lambert, Desborough, and Skippon; lieutenant
general Fleetwood; the colonels Edward Montagu, Philip Jones,
and Wm. Sydenham; sir Gilbert Pickering, sir Ch. Wolseley, and
sir Anth. Ashley Cooper, Barts., Francis Rouse, esq., Speaker
of the late Convention, Walter Strickland, and Rd. Major,
esqrs.]--or any seven of them, shall be a Council for the
purposes expressed in this writing; and upon the death or
other removal of any of them, the Parliament shall nominate
six persons of ability, integrity, and fearing God, for
everyone that is dead or removed; out of which the major part
of the Council shall elect two, and present them to the Lord
Protector, of which he shall elect one; and in case the
Parliament shall not nominate within twenty days after notice
given unto them thereof, the major part of the Council shall
nominate three as aforesaid to the Lord Protector, who out of
them shall supply the vacancy; and until this choice be made,
the remaining part of the Council shall execute as fully in
all things, as if their number were full. And in case of
corruption, or other miscarriage in any of the Council in
their trust, the Parliament shall appoint seven of their
number, and the Council six, who, together with the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal
for the time being, shall have power to hear and determine
such corruption and miscarriage, and to award and inflict
punishment, as the nature of the offence shall deserve, which
punishment shall not be pardoned or remitted by the Lord
Protector; and, in the interval of Parliaments, the major part
of the Council, with the consent of the Lord Protector, may,
for corruption or other miscarriage as aforesaid, suspend any
of their number from the exercise of their trust, if they
shall find it just, until the matter shall be heard and
examined as aforesaid.
XXVI. That the Lord Protector and the major part of the
Council aforesaid may, at any time before the meeting of the
next Parliament, add to the Council such persons as they shall
think fit, provided the number of the Council be not made
thereby to exceed twenty-one, and the quorum to be
proportioned accordingly by the Lord Protector and the major
part of the Council.
XXVII. That a constant yearly revenue shall be raised,
settled, and established for maintaining of 10,000 horse and
dragoons, and 20,000 foot, in England, Scotland and Ireland,
for the defence and security thereof, and also for a
convenient number of ships for guarding of the seas; besides
£200,000 per annum for defraying the other necessary charges
of administration of justice, and other expenses of the
Government, which revenue shall be raised by the customs, and
such other ways and means as shall be agreed upon by the Lord
Protector and the Council, and shall not be taken away or
diminished, nor the way agreed upon for raising the same
altered, but by the consent of the Lord Protector and the
Parliament.
XXVIII. That the said yearly revenue shall be paid into the
public treasury, and shall be issued out for the uses
aforesaid.
XXIX. That in case there shall not be cause hereafter to keep
up so great a defence both at land or sea, but that there be
an abatement made thereof, the money which will be saved
thereby shall remain in bank for the public service, and not
be employed to any other use but by consent of Parliament, or,
in the intervals of Parliament, by the Lord Protector and
major part of the Council.
{890}
XXX. That the raising of money for defraying the charge of the
present extraordinary forces, both at sea and land, in respect
of the present wars, shall be by consent of Parliament, and
not otherwise: save only that the Lord Protector, with the
consent of the major part of the Council, for preventing the
disorders and dangers which might otherwise fall out both by
sea and land, shall have power, until the meeting of the first
Parliament, to raise money for the purposes aforesaid; and
also to make laws and ordinances for the peace and welfare of
these nations where it shall be necessary, which shall be
binding and in force, until order shall be taken in Parliament
concerning the same.
XXXI. That the lands, tenements, rents, royalties,
jurisdictions and hereditaments which remain yet unsold or
undisposed of, by Act or Ordinance of Parliament, belonging to
the Commonwealth (except the forests and chases, and the
honours and manors belonging to the same; the lands of the
rebels in Ireland, lying in the four counties of Dublin, Cork,
Kildare, and Carlow; the lands forfeited by the people of
Scotland in the late wars, and also the lands of Papists and
delinquents in England who have not yet compounded), shall be
vested in the Lord Protector, to hold, to him and his
successors, Lords Protectors of these nations, and shall not
be alienated but by consent in Parliament. And all debts,
fines, issues, amercements, penalties and profits, certain and
casual, due to the Keepers of the liberties of England by
authority of Parliament, shall be due to the Lord Protector,
and be payable into his public receipt, and shall be recovered
and prosecuted in his name.
XXXII. That the office of Lord Protector over these nations
shall be elective and not hereditary; and upon the death of
the Lord Protector, another fit person shall be forthwith
elected to succeed him in the Government; which election shall
be by the Council, who, immediately upon the death of the Lord
Protector, shall assemble in the Chamber where they usually
sit in Council; and, having given notice to an their members
of the cause of their assembling, shall, being thirteen at
least present, proceed to the election; and, before they
depart the said Chamber, shall elect a fit person to succeed
in the Government, and forthwith cause proclamation thereof to
be made in an the three nations as shall be requisite; and the
person that they, or the major part of them, shall elect as
aforesaid, shall be, and shall be taken to be, Lord Protector
over these nations of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the
dominions thereto belonging. Provided that none of the
children of the late King, nor any of his line or family, be
elected to be Lord Protector or other Chief Magistrate over
these nations, or any the dominions thereto belonging. And
until the aforesaid election be past, the Council shall take
care of the Government, and administer in an things as fully
as the Lord Protector, or the Lord Protector and Council are
enabled to do.
XXXIII. That Oliver Cromwell, Captain-General of the forces of
England, Scotland and Ireland, shall be, and is hereby
declared to be, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England,
Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging, for
his life.
XXXIV. That the Chancellor, Keeper or Commissioners of the
Great Seal, the Treasurer, Admiral, Chief Governors of Ireland
and Scotland, and the Chief Justices of both the Benches,
shall be chosen by the approbation of Parliament; and, in the
intervals of Parliament, by the approbation of the major part
of the Council, to be afterwards approved by the Parliament.
XXXV. That the Christian religion, as contained in the
Scriptures, be held forth and recommended as the public
profession of these nations; and that, as soon as may be, a
provision, less subject to scruple and contention, and more
certain than the present, be made for the encouragement and
maintenance of able and painful teachers, for the instructing
the people, and for discovery and confutation of error,
hereby, and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine; and until
such provision be made, the present maintenance shall not be
taken away or impeached.
XXXVI. That to the public profession held forth none shall be
compened by penalties or otherwise; but that endeavours be
used to win them by sound doctrine and the example of a good
conversation.
XXXVII. That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ
(though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship or
discipline publicly held forth) shall not be restrained from,
but shall be protected in, the profession of the faith and
exercise of their religion; so as they abuse not this liberty
to the civil injury of others and to the actual disturbance of
the public peace on their parts: provided this liberty be not
extended to Popery or Prelacy, nor to such as, under the
profession of Christ, hold forth and practice licentiousness.
XXXVIII. That all laws, statutes and ordinances, and clauses
in any law, statute or ordinance to the contrary of the
aforesaid liberty, shall be esteemed as null and void.
XXXIX. That the Acts and Ordinances of Parliament made for the
sale or other disposition of the lands, rents and
hereditaments of the late King, Queen, and Prince, of
Archbishops and Bishops, &c., Deans and Chapters, the lands of
delinquents and forest-lands, or any of them, or of any other
lands, tenements, rents and hereditaments belonging to the
Commonwealth, shall nowise be impeached or made invalid, but
shall remain good and firm; and that the securities given by
Act and Ordinance of Parliament for any sum or sums of money,
by any of the said lands, the excise, or any other public
revenue; and also the securities given by the public faith of
the nation, and the engagement of the public faith for
satisfaction of debts and damages, shall remain firm and good,
and not be made void and invalid upon any pretence whatsoever.
XL. That the Articles given to or made with the enemy, and
afterwards confirmed by Parliament, shall be performed and
made good to the persons concerned therein; and that such
appeals as were depending in the last Parliament for relief
concerning bills of sale of delinquent's estates, may be heard
and determined the next Parliament, anything in this writing
or otherwise to the contrary notwithstanding.
{891}
XLI. That every successive Lord Protector over these nations
shall take and subscribe a solemn oath, in the presence of the
Council, and such others as they shall call to them, that he
will seek the peace, quiet and welfare of these nations, cause
law and justice to be equally administered; and that he will
not violate or infringe the matters and things contained in
this writing, and in all other things will, to his power and
to the best of his understanding, govern these nations
according to the laws, statutes and customs thereof.
XLII. That each person of the Council shall, before they enter
upon their trust, take and subscribe an oath, that they will
be true and faithful in their trust, according to the best of
their knowledge; and that in the election of every successive
Lord Protector they shall proceed therein impartially, and do
nothing therein for any promise, fear, favour or reward.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1654.
Re-conquest of Acadia (Nova Scotia).
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1654 (April).
Incorporation of Scotland with the Commonwealth.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.
The Protector, his Parliaments and his Major-Generals.
The Humble Petition and Advice.
Differing views of the Cromwellian autocracy.
"Oliver addressed his first Protectorate Parliament on Sunday,
the 3d of September. ... Immediately, under the leadership of
old Parliamentarians, Haslerig, Scott, Bradshaw, and many
other republicans, the House proceeded to debate the
Instrument of Government, the constitutional basis of the
existing system. By five votes, it decided to discuss 'whether
the House should approve of government by a Single Person and
a Parliament.' This was of course to set up the principle of
making the Executive dependent on the House; a principle, in
Oliver's mind, fatal to settlement and order. He acted at
once. Calling on the Lord Mayor to secure the city, and
disposing his own guard round Westminster Hall, he summoned
the House again on the 9th day. ... Members were called on to
sign a declaration, 'not to alter the government as settled in
a Single Person and a Parliament.' Some, 300 signed; the
minority--about a fourth--refused and retired. ... The
Parliament, in spite of the declaration, set itself from the
first to discuss the constitution, to punish heretics,
suppress blasphemy, revise the Ordinances of the Council; and
they deliberately withheld all supplies for the services and
the government. At last they passed an Act for revising the
constitution de novo. Not a single bill had been sent up to
the Protector for his assent. Oliver, as usual, acted at once.
On the expiration of their five lunar months, 22d January
1655, he summoned the House and dissolved it, with a speech
full of reproaches."
F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 11.
"In 1656, the Protector called a second Parliament. By
excluding from it about a hundred members whom he judged to be
hostile to his government, he found himself on amicable terms
with the new assembly. It presented to him a Humble Petition
and Advice, asking that certain changes of the Constitution
might be agreed to by mutual consent, and that he should
assume the title of King. This title he rejected, and the
Humble Petition and Advice was passed in an amended form on
May 25, 1657, and at once received the assent of the
Protector. On June 26, it was modified in some details by the
Additional Petition and Advice. Taking the two together, the
result was to enlarge the power of Parliament and to diminish
that of the Council. The Protector, in turn, received the
right of appointing his successor, and to name the
life-members of 'the other House,' which was now to take the
place of the House of Lords. ... In accordance with the
Additional Petition and Advice, the Protector summoned
'certain persons to sit in the other House.' A quarrel between
the two Houses broke out, and the Protector [February 4, 1658]
dissolved the Parliament in anger."
S. R. Gardiner,
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution,
pages lxiii-lxiv., and 334-350.
"To govern according to law may sometimes be an usurper's
wish, but can seldom be in his power. The protector [in 1655]
abandoned all thought of it. Dividing the kingdom into
districts, he placed at the head of each a major-general as a
sort of military magistrate, responsible for the subjection of
his prefecture. These were eleven in number, men bitterly
hostile to the royalist party, and insolent towards all civil
authority. They were employed to secure the payment of a tax
of 10 per cent., imposed by Cromwell's arbitrary will on those
who had ever sided with the king during the late wars, where
their estates exceeded £100 per annum. The major-generals, in
their correspondence printed among Thurloe's papers, display a
rapacity and oppression beyond their master's. ... All
illusion was now gone as to the pretended benefits of the
civil war. It had ended in a despotism, compared to which all
the illegal practices of former kings, all that had cost
Charles his life and crown, appeared as dust in the balance.
For what was ship-money, a general burthen, by the side of the
present decimation of a single class, whose offence had long
been expiated by a composition and effaced by an act of
indemnity? or were the excessive punishments of the
star-chamber so odious as the capital executions inflicted
without trial by peers, whenever it suited the usurper to
erect his high court of justice? ... I cannot ... agree in the
praises which have been showered upon Cromwell for the just
administration of the laws under his dominion. That, between
party and party, the ordinary civil rights of men were fairly
dealt with, is no extraordinary praise; and it may be admitted
that he filled the benches of justice with able lawyers,
though not so considerable as those of the reign of Charles
II.; but it is manifest that, so far as his own authority was

concerned, no hereditary despot, proud in the crimes of a
hundred ancestors, could more have spurned at every limitation
than this soldier of a commonwealth."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10, part 2.
"Cromwell was, and felt himself to be, a dictator called in by
the winning cause in a revolution to restore confidence and
secure peace. He was, as he said frequently, 'the Constable
set to keep order in the Parish.' Nor was he in any sense a
military despot. ... Never did a ruler invested with absolute
power and overwhelming military force more obstinately strive
to surround his authority with legal limits and Parliamentary
control."
F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 11.
"To this condition, then, England was now reduced. After the
gallantest fight for liberty that had ever been fought by any
nation in the world, she found herself trampled under foot by
a military despot. All the vices of old kingly rule were
nothing to what was now imposed upon her."
J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth:
Cromwell.
{892}
"His [Cromwell's] wish seems to have been to govern
constitutionally, and to substitute the empire of the laws for
that of the sword. But he soon found that, hated as he was,
both by Royalists and Presbyterians, he could be safe only by
being absolute. ... Those soldiers who would not suffer him to
assume the kingly title, stood by him when he ventured on acts
of power as high as any English king has ever attempted. The
government, therefore, though in form a republic, was in truth
a despotism, moderated only by the wisdom, the sobriety and
the magnanimity of the despot."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1.
England: A. D. 1655-1658.
War with Spain, alliance with France.
Acquisition of Dunkirk.
"Though the German war ['the Thirty Years' War,' concluded in
1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia] was over, the struggle
between France and Spain was continued with great animosity,
each country striving to crush her rival and become the first
power in Europe. Both Louis XIV. and Philip IV. of Spain were
bidding for the protector's support. Spain offered the
possession of Calais, when taken from France; France the
possession of Dunkirk when taken from Spain (1655). Cromwell
determined to ally himself with France against Spain. ... It
was in the West Indies that the obstructive policy of Spain
came most into collision with the interests of England. Her
kings based their claims to the possession of two continents
on the bull of Pope Alexander VI., who in 1493 had granted
them all lands they should discover from pole to pole, at the
distance of 100 leagues west from the Azores and Cape Verd
Islands. On the strength of this bull they held that the
discovery of an island gave them the right to the group, the
discovery of a headland the right to a continent. Though this
monstrous claim had quite broken down as far as the North
American continent was concerned, the Spaniards, still
recognizing 'no peace beyond the line,' endeavoured to shut
all Europeans but themselves out of any share in the trade or
colonization of at least the southern half of the New World.
... While war was now proclaimed with Spain, a treaty of peace
was signed between France and England, Louis XIV. agreeing to
banish Charles Stuart and his brothers from French territory
(October 24, 1655). This treaty was afterwards changed into a
league, offensive and defensive (March 23, 1657), Cromwell
undertaking to assist Louis with 6,000 men in besieging
Gravelines, Mardyke, and Dunkirk, on condition of receiving
the two latter towns when reduced by the allied armies. By the
occupation of these towns Cromwell intended to control the
trade of the Channel, to hold the Dutch in check, who were
then but unwilling friends, and to lessen the danger of
invasion from any union of Royalists and Spaniards. The war
opened in the year 1657 [Jamaica, however, had already been
taken from the Spaniards and St. Domingo attacked], with
another triumph by sea." This was Blake's last exploit. He
attacked and destroyed the Spanish bullion fleet, from Mexico,
in the harbor of Santa Cruz, island of Teneriffe, and silenced
the forts which guarded it. The great sea-captain died on his
voyage home, after striking this blow. The next spring "the
siege of Dunkirk was commenced (May, 1658). The Spaniards
tried to relieve the town, but were completely defeated in an
engagement called the Battle of the Dunes from the sand hills
among which it was fought; the defeat was mainly owing to the
courage and discipline of Oliver's troops, who won for
themselves the name of 'the Immortal Six Thousand.' ... Ten
days after the battle Dunkirk surrendered, and the French had
no choice but to give over to the English ambassador the keys
of a town they thought 'unsi bon morceau' ['a good ...'] (June
25)."
B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
book 9, speech 5 and book 10, letters 152-157.
J. Campbell,
Naval History of Great Britain,
chapter 15 (volume 2).
J. Waylen,
The House of Cromwell and the Story of Dunkirk,
pages 173-272.
W. H. Dixon,
Robert Blake,
chapters 9-10.
D. Hannay,
Admiral Blake,
chapter 9-11.
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.
The fall of the Protectorate and Restoration of the Stuarts.
King Charles II.
When Oliver Cromwell died, on the 3d day of September,
1658--the anniversary of his victories at Dunbar and at
Worcester--his eldest son Richard, whom he had nominated, it
was said, on his death-bed, was proclaimed Protector, and
succeeded him "as quietly as any King had ever been succeeded
by any Prince of Wales. During five months, the administration
of Richard Cromwell went on so tranquilly and regularly that
all Europe believed him to be firmly established on the chair
of state." But Richard had none of his father's genius or
personal power, and the discontents and jealousies which the
former had rigorously suppressed soon tossed the latter from
his unstable throne by their fierce upheaval. He summoned a
new Parliament (January 27, 1659), which recognized and
confirmed his authority, though containing a powerful
opposition, of uncompromising republicans and secret
royalists. But the army, which the great Protector had tamed
to submissive obedience, was now stirred into mischievous
action once more as a political power in the state,
subservient to the ambition of Fleetwood and other commanders.
Richard Cromwell could not make himself the master of his
father's battalions. "He was used by the army as an instrument
for the purpose of dissolving the Parliament [April 22], and
was then contemptuously thrown aside. The officers gratified
their republican allies by declaring that the expulsion of the
Rump had been illegal, and by inviting that assembly to resume
its functions. The old Speaker and a quorum of the old members
came together [May 9] and were proclaimed, amidst the scarcely
stifled derision and execration of the whole nation, the
supreme power in the Commonwealth. It was at the same time
expressly declared that there should be no first magistrate
and no House of Lords. But this state of things could not
last. On the day on which the Long Parliament revived, revived
also its old quarrel with the army. Again the Rump forgot that
it owed its existence to the pleasure of the soldiers, and
began to treat them as subjects. Again the doors of the House
of Commons were closed by military violence [October 13]; and
a provisional government, named by the officers, assumed the
direction of affairs." The troops stationed in Scotland, under
Monk, had not been consulted, however, in these transactions,
and were evidently out of sympathy with their comrades in
England. Monk, who had never meddled with politics before, was
now induced to interfere.
{893}
He refused to acknowledge the military provisional government,
declared himself the champion of the civil power, and marched
into England at the head of his 7,000 veterans. His movement
was everywhere welcomed and encouraged by popular
demonstrations of delight. The army in England lost courage
and lost unity, awed and paralyzed by the public feeling at
last set free. Monk reached London without opposition, and was
the recognized master of the realm. Nobody knew his
intentions--himself, perhaps, as little as any--and it was
not until after a period of protracted suspense that he
declared himself for the convening of a new and free
Parliament, in the place of the Rump--which had again resumed
its sittings--for the settlement of the state. "The result of
the elections was such as might have been expected from the
temper of the nation. The new House of Commons consisted, with
few exceptions, of persons friendly to the royal family. The
Presbyterians formed the majority. ... The new Parliament,
which, having been called without the royal writ, is more
accurately described as a Convention, met at Westminster
[April 26, 1660]. The Lords repaired to the hall, from which
they had, during more than eleven years, been excluded by
force. Both Houses instantly invited the King to return to his
country. He was proclaimed with pomp never before known. A
gallant fleet convoyed him from Holland to the coast of Kent.
When he landed [May 25, 1660], the cliffs of Dover were
covered by thousands of gazers, among whom scarcely one could
be found who was not weeping with delight. The journey to
London was a continued triumph."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1.
The only guarantee with which the careless nation took back
their ejected kings of the faithless race of Stuarts was
embodied in a Declaration which Charles sent over from "Our
Court at Breda" in April, and which was read in Parliament
with an effusive display of respect and thankfulness. In this
Declaration from Breda, "a general amnesty and liberty of
conscience were promised, with such exceptions and limitations
only as the Parliament should think fit to make. All delicate
questions, among others the proprietorship of confiscated
estates, were in like manner referred to the decision of
Parliament, thus leaving the King his liberty while
diminishing his responsibility; and though fully asserting the
ancient rights of the Crown, he announced his intention to
associate the two Houses with himself in all great affairs of
State."
F. P. Guizot,
History of Richard Cromwell and the Restoration,
book 4 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 2, 1660-61.
Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 16 (volume 6).
D. Masson,
Life of Milton,
volume 5, book 3.
J. Corbett,
Monk,
chapter 9-14.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1685.
The Merry Monarch.
"There never were such profligate times in England as under
Charles the Second. Whenever you see his portrait, with his
swarthy ill-looking face and great nose, you may fancy him in
his Court at Whitehall, surrounded by some of the very worst
vagabonds in the kingdom (though they were lords and ladies),
drinking, gambling, indulging in vicious conversation, and
committing every kind of profligate excess. It has been a
fashion to call Charles the Second 'The Merry Monarch.' Let me
try to give you a general idea of some of the merry things
that were done, in the merry days when this merry gentleman
sat upon his merry throne, in merry England. The first merry
proceeding was--of course--to declare that he was one of the
greatest, the wisest, and the noblest kings that ever shone,
like the blessed sun itself, on this benighted earth. The next
merry and pleasant piece of business was, for the Parliament,
in the humblest manner, to give him one million two hundred
thousand pounds a year, and to settle upon him for life that
old disputed 'tonnage and poundage' which had been so bravely
fought for. Then, General Monk, being made Earl of Albemarle,
and a few other Royalists similarly rewarded, the law went to
work to see what was to be done to those persons (they were
called Regicides) who had been concerned in making a martyr of
the late King. Ten of these were merrily executed; that is to
say, six of the judges, one of the council, Colonel Hacker and
another officer who had commanded the Guards, and Hugh Peters,
a preacher who had preached against the martyr with all his
heart. These executions were so extremely merry, that every
horrible circumstance which Cromwell had abandoned was revived
with appalling cruelty. ... Sir Harry Vane, who had furnished
the evidence against Stratford, and was one of the most
staunch of the Republicans, was also tried, found guilty, and
ordered for execution. ... These merry scenes were succeeded
by another, perhaps even merrier. On the anniversary of the
late King's death, the bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Ireton, and
Bradshaw, "Were torn out of their graves in 'Westminster
Abbey, dragged to Tyburn, hanged there on a gallows all day
long, and then beheaded. Imagine the head of Oliver Cromwell
set upon a pole to be stared at by a brutal crowd, not one of
whom would have dared to look the living Oliver in the face
for half a moment! Think, after you have read this reign, what
England was under Oliver Cromwell who was torn out of his
grave, and what it was under this merry monarch who sold it,
like a merry Judas, over and over again. Of course, the
remains of Oliver's wife and daughter were not to be spared,
either, though they had been most excellent women. The base
clergy of that time gave up their bodies, which had been
buried in the Abbey, and--to the eternal disgrace of
England--they were thrown into a pit, together with the
mouldering bones of Pym, and of the brave and bold old Admiral
Blake. ... The whole Court was a great flaunting crowd of
debauched men and shameless women; and Catherine's merry
husband insulted and outraged her in every possible way, until
she consented to receive those worthless creatures as her very
good friends, and to degrade herself by their companionship. A
Mrs. Palmer, whom the King made Lady Castlemaine, and
afterwards Duchess of Cleveland, was one of the most powerful
of the bad women about the Court, and had great influence with
the King nearly all through his reign. Another merry lady
named Moll Davies, a dancer at the theatre, was afterwards her
rival. So was Nell Gwyn, first an orange girl and then an
actress, who really had good in her, and of whom one of the
worst things I know is, that actually she does seem to have
been fond of the King. The first Duke of St. Albans was this
orange girl's child. In like manner the son of a merry
waiting-lady, whom the King created Duchess of Portsmouth,
became the Duke of Richmond.
{894}
Upon the whole it is not so bad a thing to be a commoner. The
Merry Monarch was so exceedingly merry among these merry
ladies, and some equally merry (and equally infamous) lords
and gentlemen, that he soon got through his hundred thousand
pounds, and then, by way of raising a little pocket-money,
made a merry bargain. He sold Dunkirk to the French King for
five millions of livres. When I think of the dignity to which
Oliver Cromwell raised England in the eyes of foreign powers,
and when I think of the manner in which he gained for England
this very Dunkirk, I am much inclined to consider that if the
Merry Monarch had been made to follow his father for this
action, he would have received his just deserts."
C. Dickens,
Child's History of England,
chapter 35.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1661.
Acquisition of Bombay.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1661.
The Savoy Conference.
"The Restoration had been the joint work of Episcopalian and
Presbyterian; would it be possible to reconcile them on this
question too [i. e., of the settlement of Church government]?
The Presbyterian indeed was willing enough for a compromise,
for he had an uneasy feeling that the ground was slipping from
beneath his feet. Of Charles's intentions he was still in
doubt; but he knew that Clarendon was the sworn friend of the
Church. The Churchman on the other hand was eagerly expecting
the approaching hour of triumph. It soon appeared that as King
and Parliament, so King and Church were inseparable in the
English mind; that indeed the return of the King was the
restoration of the Church even more than it was the
restoration of Parliament. In the face of the present
Presbyterian majority however it was necessary to temporise.
The former incumbents of Church livings were restored, and the
Commons took the Communion according to the rites of the
Church; but in other respects the Presbyterians were carefully
kept in play; Charles taking his part in the elaborate farce
by appointing ten of their leading ministers royal chaplains,
and even attending, their sermons." In October, 1660, Charles
"took the matter more completely into his own hands by issuing
a Declaration. Refusing, on the ground of constraint, to admit
the validity of the oaths imposed upon him in Scotland, by
which he was bound to uphold the Covenant, and not concealing
his preference for the Anglican Church, as 'the best fence God
hath yet raised against popery in the world,' he asserted that
nevertheless, to his own knowledge, the Presbyterians were not
enemies to Episcopacy or a set liturgy, and were opposed to
the alienation of Church revenues. The Declaration then went
on to limit the power of bishops and archdeacons in a degree
sufficient to satisfy many of the leading Presbyterians, one
of whom, Reynolds, accepted a bishopric. Charles then proposed
to choose an equal number of learned divines of both
persuasions to discuss alterations in the liturgy; meanwhile
no one was to be troubled regarding differences of practice.
The majority in the Commons at first welcomed the Declaration,
... and a bill was accordingly introduced by Sir Matthew Hale
to turn the Declaration into a law. But Clarendon at any rate
had no intention of thus baulking the Church of her revenge.
Anticipating Hale's action, he had in the interval been busy
in securing a majority against any compromise. The Declaration
had done its work in gaining time, and when the bill was
brought in it was rejected by 183 to 157 votes. Parliament was
at once (December 24) dissolved. The way was now open for the
riot of the Anglican triumph. Even before the new House met
the mask was thrown off by the issuing of an order to the
justices to restore the full liturgy. The conference indeed
took place in the Savoy Palace. It failed, like the Hampton
Court Conference of James I., because it was intended to fail.
Upon the two important points, the authority of bishops and
the liturgy, the Anglicans would not give way an inch. Both
parties informed the King that, anxious as they were for
agreement, they saw no chance of it. This last attempt at
union having fallen through, the Government had their hands
free; and their intentions were speedily made plain."
O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 7.
"The Royal Commission [for the Savoy Conference] bore date the
25th of March. It gave the Commissioners authority to review
the Book of Common Prayer, to compare it with the most ancient
Liturgies, to take into consideration all things which it
contained, to consult respecting the exceptions against it,
and by agreement to make such necessary alterations as should
afford satisfaction to tender consciences, and restore to the
Church unity and peace; the instrument appointed 'the Master's
lodgings in the Savoy' as the place of meeting. ... The
Commissioners were summoned to meet upon the 15th of April.
... The Bill of Uniformity, hereafter to be described,
actually passed the House of Commons on the 9th of July, about
a fortnight before the Conference broke up. The proceedings of
a Royal Commission to review the Prayer Book, and make
alterations for the satisfaction of tender consciences were,
by this premature act, really treated with mockery, a
circumstance which could not but exceedingly offend and annoy
the Puritan members, and serve to embitter the language of
Baxter as the end of these fruitless sittings approached."
J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in English,
volume 3, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
E. Calamy,
Nonconformists' Memorial,
introduction, section 3.
W. Orme,
Life and Times of Richard Baxter,
chapter 7.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
The sale of Dunkirk.
"Unable to confine himself within the narrow limits of his
civil list, with his favorites and mistresses, he [Charles
II.] would have sought even in the infernal regions the gold
which his subjects measured out to him with too parsimonious a
hand. ... [He] proposed to sell to France Dunkirk and its
dependencies, which, he said, cost him too much to keep up. He
asked twelve million francs; he fell at last to five millions,
and the treaty was signed October 27, 1662. It was time; the
Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, informed of the
negotiation, had determined to offer Charles II. whatever he
wished in behalf of their city not to alienate Dunkirk.
Charles dared not retract his word, which would have been, as
D'Estrades told him, to break forever with Louis XIV., and on
the 2d of December Louis joyfully made his entry into his good
city, reconquered by gold instead of the sword."
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
translated by M. L. Booth, chapter 4 (volume 1).
{895}
England: A. D. 1662-1665.
The Act of Uniformity and persecution of the Nonconformists.
The failure of the Savoy Conference "was the conclusion which
had been expected and desired. Charles had already summoned
the Convocation, and to that assembly was assigned the task
which had failed in the hands of the commissioners at the
Savoy. ... The act of uniformity followed [passed by the
Commons July 9, 1661; by the Lords May 8, 1662; receiving the
royal assent May 19, 1662], by which it was enacted that the
revised Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordination of Ministers,
and no other, should be used in all places of public worship;
and that all beneficed clergymen should read the service from
it within a given time, and, at the close, profess in a set
form of words, their 'unfeigned assent and consent to
everything contained and prescribed in it.' ... The act of
uniformity may have been necessary for the restoration of the
church to its former discipline and doctrine; but if such was
the intention of those who framed the declaration from Breda,
they were guilty of infidelity to the king and of fraud to the
people, by putting into his mouth language which, with the aid of
equivocation, they might explain away, and by raising in them
expectations which it was never meant to fulfil."
J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 11, chapter. 4.
"This rigorous act when it passed, gave the ministers, who
could not conform, no longer time than till Bartholomewday,
August 24th, 1662, when they were all cast out. ... This was
an action without a precedent: The like to this the Reformed
church, nay the Christian world, never saw before. Historians
relate, with tragical exclamations, that between three and
four score bishops were driven at once into the island of
Sardinia by the African vandals; that 200 ministers were
banished by Ferdinand, king of Bohemia; and that great havock
was, a few years after, made among the ministers of Germany by
the Imperial Interim. But these all together fall short of the
number ejected by the act of uniformity, which was not less
than 2,000. The succeeding hardships of the latter were also
by far the greatest. They were not only silenced, but had no
room left for any sort of usefulness, and were in a manner
buried alive. Far greater tenderness was used towards the
Popish clergy ejected at the Reformation. They were suffered
to live quietly; but these were oppressed to the utmost, and
that even by their brethren who professed the same faith
themselves: not only excluded preferments, but turned out into
the wide world without any visible way of subsistence. Not so
much as a poor vicarage, not an obscure chapel, not a school
was left them. Nay, though they offered, as some of them did,
to preach gratis, it must not be allowed them. ... The ejected
ministers continued for ten years in a state of silence and
obscurity. ... The act of uniformity took place August the
24th, 1662. On the 26th of December following, the king
published a Declaration, expressing his purpose to grant some
indulgence or liberty in religion. Some of the Nonconformists
were hereupon much encouraged, and waiting privately on the
king, had their hopes confirmed, and would have persuaded
their brethren to have thanked him for his declaration; but
they refused, lest they should make way for the toleration of
the Papists, whom they understood the king intended to include
in it. ... Instead of indulgence or comprehension, on the 30th
of June, an act against private meetings, called the
Conventicle Act, passed the House of Commons, and soon after
was made a law, viz.: 'That every person above sixteen years
of age, present at any meeting, under pretence of any exercise
of religion, in other manner than is the practice of the
church of England, where there are five persons more than the
household, shall for the first offence, by a justice of peace
be recorded, and sent to gaol three months, till he pay £5,
and for the second offence six months, till he pay £10, and
the third time being convicted by a jury, shall be banished to
some of the American plantations, excepting New England or
Virginia." ... In the year 1665 the plague broke out"--and
the ejected ministers boldly took possession for the time of
the deserted London pulpits. "While God was consuming the
people by this judgment, and the Nonconformists were labouring
to save their souls, the parliament, which sat at Oxford, was
busy in making an act [called the Five Mile Act] to render
their case incomparably harder than it was before, by putting
upon them a certain oath ['that it is not lawful, upon any
pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king,' &c.],
which, if they refused, they must not come (unless upon the
road) within five miles of any city or corporation, any place
that sent burgesses to parliament, any place where they had
been ministers, or had preached after the act of oblivion. ...
When this act came out, those ministers who had any
maintenance of their own, found out some place of residence in
obscure villages, or market-towns, that were not
corporations."
E. Calamy,
The Nonconformist's Memorial,
introduction, sections 4-6.
ALSO IN:
J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 3, chapters 6-9.
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 6-7.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
The King's charter to Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1664.
The conquest of New Netherland (New York).
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1664-1665.
The first refractory symptoms in Massachusetts.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1665.
The grant of New Jersey to Carteret and Berkeley.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1665-1666.
War with Holland renewed.
The Dutch fleet in the Thames.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
The Triple Alliance with Holland and Sweden against Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1668.
Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.
The secret Catholicism and the perfidy of the King.
His begging of bribes from Louis XIV.
His betrayal of Holland.
His breaking of the Triple Alliance.
In 1668, the royal treasury being greatly embarrassed by the
king's extravagances, an attempt was made "to reduce the
annual expenditure below the amount of the royal income. ...
But this plan of economy accorded not with the royal
disposition, nor did it offer any prospect of extinguishing
the debt. Charles remembered the promise of pecuniary
assistance from France in the beginning of his reign; and,
though his previous efforts to cultivate the friendship of
Louis had been defeated by an unpropitious course of events,
he resolved to renew the experiment.
{896}
Immediately after the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, Buckingham
opened a negotiation with the duchess of Orleans, the king's
sister, in France, and Charles, in his conversations with the
French resident, apologised for his conduct in forming the
triple alliance, and openly expressed his wish to enter into a
closer union, a more intimate friendship, with Louis. ...
About the end of the year the communications between the two
princes became more open and confidential; French money, or
the promise of French money, was received by the English
ministers; the negotiation began to assume a more regular
form, and the most solemn assurances of secrecy were given,
that their real object might be withheld from the knowledge,
or even the suspicion, of the States. In this stage of the
proceedings Charles received an important communication from
his brother James. Hitherto that prince had been an obedient
and zealous son of the Church of England; but Dr. Heylin's
History of the Reformation had shaken his religious credulity,
and the result of the inquiry was a conviction that it became
his duty to reconcile himself with the Church of Rome. He was
not blind to the dangers to which such a change would expose
him; and he therefore purposed to continue outwardly in
communion with the established church, while he attended at
the Catholic service in private. But, to his surprise, he
learned from Symonds, a Jesuit missionary, that no
dispensation could authorise such duplicity of conduct: a
similar answer was returned to the same question from the
pope; and James immediately took his resolution. He
communicated to the king in private that he was determined to
embrace the Catholic faith; and Charles without hesitation
replied that he was of the same mind, and would consult with
the duke on the subject in the presence of lord Arundell, lord
Arlington, and Arlington's confidential friend, sir Thomas
Clifford. ... The meeting was held in the duke's closet.
Charles, with tears in his eyes, lamented the hardship of
being compelled to profess a religion which he did not
approve, declared his determination to emancipate himself from
this restraint, and requested the opinion of those present, as
to the most eligible means of effecting his purpose with
safety and success. They advised him to communicate his
intention to Louis, and to solicit the powerful aid of that
monarch. Here occurs a very interesting question,--was Charles
sincere or not? ... He was the most accomplished dissembler in
his dominions; nor will it be any injustice to his character
to suspect that his real object was to deceive both his
brother and the king of France. ... Now, however, the secret
negotiation proceeded with greater activity; and lord
Arundell, accompanied by sir Richard Bellings, hastened to the
French court. He solicited from Louis the present of a
considerable sum, to enable the king to suppress any
insurrection which might be provoked by his intended
conversion, and offered the co-operation of England in the
projected invasion of Holland, on the condition of an annual
subsidy during the continuation of hostilities." On the advice
of Louis, Charles postponed, for the time being, his intention
to enter publicly the Romish church and thus provoke a
national revolt; but his proposals were otherwise accepted,
and a secret treaty was concluded at Dover, in May, 1670,
through the agency of Charles' sister, Henrietta, the duchess
of Orleans, who came over for that purpose. "Of this treaty,
... though much was afterwards said, little was certainly
known. All the parties concerned, both the sovereigns and the
negotiators, observed an impenetrable secrecy. What became of
the copy transmitted to France is unknown; its counterpart was
confided to the custody of sir Thomas Clifford, and is still
in the keeping of his descendant, the lord Clifford of
Chudleigh. The principal articles were:
1. That the king of England should publicly profess himself
a Catholic at such time as should appear to him most
expedient, and subsequently to that profession should join
with Louis in a war against the Dutch republic at such time
as the most Christian king should judge proper.
2. That to enable the king of England to suppress any
insurrection which might be occasioned by his conversion,
the king of France should grant him an aid of 2,000,000 of
livres, by two payments, one at the expiration of three
months, the other of six months, after the ratification of
the treaty, and should also assist him with an armed force
of 6,000 men, if ... necessary. ...
4. That if, eventually, any new rights on the Spanish
monarchy should accrue to the king of France, the king of
England should aid him with all his power in the
acquisition of those rights. 5. That both princes should
make war on the united provinces, and that neither should
conclude peace or truce with them without the advice and
consent of his ally.".
J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 11, chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11.
O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 16.
G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 2 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.
The Cabal.
"It was remarked that the committee of council, established
for foreign affairs, was entirely changed; and that Prince
Rupert, the Duke of Ormond, Secretary Trevor, and Lord-keeper
Bridgeman, men in whose honour the nation had great
confidence, were never called to any deliberations. The whole
secret was intrusted to five persons, Clifford, Ashley
[afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury], Buckingham, Arlington, and
Lauderdale. These men were known by the appellation of the
Cabal, a word which the initial letters of their names
happened to compose. Never was there a more dangerous ministry
in England, nor one more noted for pernicious counsels."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter. 65 (volume 6).
See, also, CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.
The Declaration of Indulgence and the Test Act.
"It would have been impossible to obtain the consent of the
party in the Royal Council which represented the old
Presbyterians, of Ashley or Lauderdale or the Duke of
Buckingham, to the Treaty of Dover. But it was possible to
trick them into approval of a war with Holland by playing on
their desire for a toleration of the Nonconformists. The
announcement of the King's Catholicism was therefore deferred.
... His ministers outwitted, it only remained for Charles to
outwit his Parliament. A large subsidy was demanded for the
fleet, under the pretext of upholding the Triple Alliance, and
the subsidy was no sooner granted than the two Houses were
adjourned.
{897}
Fresh supplies were obtained by closing the Exchequer, and
suspending--under Clifford's advice--the payment of either
principal or interest on loans advanced to the public
treasury. The measure spread bankruptcy among half the
goldsmiths of London; but it was followed in 1672 by one yet
more startling--the Declaration of Indulgence. By virtue of
his ecclesiastical powers, the King ordered 'that all manner
of penal laws on matters ecclesiastical against whatever sort
of Nonconformists or recusants should be from that day
suspended,' and gave liberty of public worship to all
dissidents save Catholics, who were allowed to practice their
religion only in private houses. ... The Declaration of
Indulgence was at once followed by a declaration of war
against the Dutch on the part of both England and France. ...
It was necessary in 1673 to appeal to the Commons [for war
supplies], but the Commons met in a mood of angry distrust.
... There was a general suspicion that a plot was on foot for
the establishment of Catholicism and despotism, and that the
war and the Indulgence were parts of the plot. The change of
temper in the Commons was marked by the appearance of what was
from that time called the Country party, with Lords Russell
and Cavendish and Sir William Coventry at its head--a party
which sympathized with the Nonconformists, but looked on it as
its first duty to guard against the designs of the Court. As to
the Declaration of Indulgence, however, all parties in the
House were at one. The Commons resolved 'that penal statutes
in matters ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by consent
of Parliament,' and refused supplies till the Declaration was
recalled. The King yielded; but the Declaration was no sooner
recalled than a Test Act was passed through both Houses
without opposition, which required from everyone in the civil
and military employment of the State the oaths of allegiance
and supremacy, a declaration against transubstantiation, and a
reception of the sacrament according to the rites of the
Church of England. Clifford at once counseled resistance, and
Buckingham talked flightily about bringing the army to London,
but Arlington saw that all hope of carrying the 'great plan'
through was at an end, and pressed Charles to yield. ...
Charles sullenly gave way. No measure has ever brought about
more startling results. The Duke of York owned himself a
Catholic, and resigned his office as Lord High Admiral. ...
Clifford, too, ... owned to being a Catholic, and ... laid
down his staff of office. Their resignation was followed by
that of hundreds of others in the army and the civil service
of the Crown. ... The resignations were held to have proved
the existence of the dangers which the Test Act had been
passed to meet. From this moment all trust in Charles was at
an end."
J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 9, section 3.
"It is very true that the [Test Act] pointed only at
Catholics, that it really proposed an anti-Popish test, yet
the construction of it, although it did not exclude from
office such Dissenters as could occasionally conform, did
effectually exclude all who scrupled to do so. Aimed at the
Romanists, it struck the Presbyterians. It is clear that, had
the Nonconformists and the Catholics joined their forces with
those of the Court, in opposing the measure, they might have
defeated it; but the first of these classes for the present
submitted to the inconvenience, from the horror which they
entertained of Popery, hoping, at the same time, that some
relief would be afforded for this personal sacrifice in the
cause of a common Protestantism. Thus the passing of an Act,
which, until a late period, inflicted a social wrong upon two
large sections of the community, is to be attributed to the
course pursued by the very parties whose successors became the
sufferers."
J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 3, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 8, and volume 5, chapter 1.
J. Collier,
Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,
part 2, book 9 (volume 8).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1674.
Alliance with Louis XIV. of France in war with Holland.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1673.
Loss of New York, retaken by the Dutch.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1674.
Peace with the Dutch.
Treaty of Westminster.
Recovery of New York.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1675-1688.
Concessions to France in Newfoundland.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.
The Popish Plot.
"There was an uneasy feeling in the nation that it was being
betrayed, and just then [August, 1678] a strange story caused
a panic throughout all England. A preacher of low character,
named Titus Oates, who had gone over to the Jesuits, declared
that he knew of a plot among the Catholics to kill the king
and set up a Catholic Government. He brought his tale to a
magistrate, named Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, and shortly
afterwards [October 17] Godfrey was found murdered in a ditch
near St. Pancras Church. The people thought that the Catholics
had murdered him to hush up the 'Popish plot,' and when
Parliament met a committee was appointed to examine into the
matter. Some papers belonging to a Jesuit named Coleman
alarmed them, and so great was the panic that an Act was
passed shutting out all Catholics, except the Duke of York,
from Parliament. After this no Catholic sat in either House
for a hundred and fifty years. But worse followed. Oates
became popular, and finding tale-bearing successful, he and
other informers went on to swear away the lives of a great
number of innocent Catholics. The most noted of these was Lord
Stafford, an upright and honest peer, who was executed in
1681, declaring his innocence. Charles laughed among his
friends at the whole matter, but let it go on, and
Shaftesbury, who wished to turn out Lord Danby, did all he
could to fan the flame."
A. B. Buckley,
History of England for Beginners,
chapter 19.
"The capital and the whole nation went mad with hatred and
fear. The penal laws, which had begun to lose something of
their edge, were sharpened anew. Everywhere justices were
busied in searching houses and seizing papers. All the gaols
were filled with Papists. London had the aspect of a city in a
state of siege. The train bands were under arms all night.
Preparations were made for barricading the great
thoroughfares. Patroles marched up and down the streets.
Cannon were planted round Whitehall. No citizen thought
himself safe unless he carried under his coat a small flail
loaded with lead to brain the Popish assassins."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter. 2 (volume 1).
{898}
"It being expected that printed Bibles would soon become rare,
or locked up in an unknown tongue, many honest people, struck
with the alarm, employed themselves in copying the Bible into
short-hand that they might not be destitute of its
consolations in the hour of calamity. ... It was about the
year 1679 that the famous King's Head Club was formed, so
named from its being held at the King's Head Tavern in Fleet
Street. ... They were terrorists and spread alarm with great
effect. It was at this club that silk armour, pistol proof,
was recommended as a security against assassination at the
hands of the Papists; and the particular kind of
life-preserver of that day, called a Protestant flail, was
introduced."
G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 5 (volume 1).
"And now commenced, before the courts of justice and the upper
house, a sombre prosecution of the catholic lords Arundel,
Petre, Stafford, Powis, Bellasis, the Jesuits Coleman,
Ireland, Grieve, Pickering, and, in succession, all who were
implicated by the indefatigable denunciations of Titus Oates
and Bedloe. Unhappily, these courts of justice, desiring, in
common with the whole nation, to condemn rather than to
examine, wanted neither elements which might, if strictly
acted upon, establish legal proof of conspiracy against some
of the accused, nor terrible laws to destroy them when found
guilty. And it was here that a spectacle, at first imposing,
became horrible. No friendly voice arose to save those men who
were guilty only of impracticable wishes, of extravagant
conceptions. The king, the duke of York, the French
ambassador, thoroughly acquainted as they were with the real
nature of these imputed crimes, remained silent; they were
thoroughly cowed."
A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
part 1, chapter 4.
"Although, ... upon a review of this truly shocking
transaction, we may be fairly justified ... in imputing to the
greater part of those concerned in it, rather an extraordinary
degree of blind credulity than the deliberate wickedness of
planning and assisting in the perpetration of legal murders;
yet the proceedings on the popish plot must always be
considered as an indelible disgrace upon the English nation,
in which king, parliament, judges, juries, witnesses,
prosecutors, have all their respective, though certainly not
equal, shares."
C. J. Fox,
History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
introduction, ch.
"In this dreadful scene of wickedness, it is difficult not to
assign the pre-eminence of guilt to Anthony Ashley Cooper,
earl of Shaftesbury. If he did not first contrive, he
certainly availed himself of the revelations of Oates, to work
up the nation to the fury which produced the subsequent
horrors. ... In extenuation of the delusion of the populace,
something may be offered. The defamation of half a century had
made the catholics the objects of protestant odium and
distrust: and these had been increased by the accusation,
artfully and assiduously fomented, of their having been the
authors of the fire of the city of London. The publication,
too, of Coleman's letters, certainly announced a considerable
activity in the catholics to promote the catholic religion;
and contained expressions, easily distorted to the sense, in
which the favourers of the belief of the plot wished them to
be understood. Danby's correspondence, likewise, which had
long been generally known, and was about this time made
public, had discovered that Charles was in the pay of France.
These, with several other circumstances, had inflamed the
imaginations of the public to the very highest pitch. A
dreadful something (and not the less dreadful because its
precise nature was altogether unknown), was generally
apprehended. ... For their supposed part in the plot, ten
laymen and seven priests, one of whom was seventy, another
eighty, years of age, were executed. Seventeen others were
condemned, but not executed. Some died in prison, and some
were pardoned. On the whole body of catholics the laws were
executed with horrible severity."
C. Butler,
Historical Memoirs of the English Catholics,
chapter 32, section 3 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapter 89 (volume 3).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (May).
The Habeas Corpus Act.
"Arbitrary imprisonment is a grievance which, in some degree,
has place in almost every government, except in that of Great
Britain; and our absolute security from it we owe chiefly to
the present Parliament; a merit which makes some atonement for
the faction and violence into which their prejudices had, in
other particulars, betrayed them. The great charter had laid
the foundation of this valuable part of liberty; the petition
of right had renewed and extended it; but some provisions were
still wanting to render it complete, and prevent all evasion
or delay from ministers and judges. The act of habeas corpus,
which passed this session, served these purposes. By this act
it was prohibited to send anyone to a prison beyond sea. No
judge, under severe penalties, must refuse to any prisoner a
writ of habeas corpus, by which the gaoler was directed to
produce in court the body of the prisoner (whence the writ has
its name), and to certify the cause of his detainer and
imprisonment. If the gaol lie within twenty miles of the
judge, the writ must be obeyed in three days; and so
proportionably for greater distances; every prisoner must be
indicted the first term after his commitment, and brought to
trial in the subsequent term. And no man, after being enlarged
by order of court, can be recommitted for the same offence."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 67 (volume 6).
"The older remedies serving as a safeguard against unlawful
imprisonment, were--
1. The writ of Mainprise, ensuring the delivery of the accused
to a friend of the same, who gave security to answer for his
appearance before the court when required, and in token of
such undertaking he held him by the hand ('le prit par le
main').
2. The writ 'De odio et atiâ,' i. e., of hatred and malice,
which, though not abolished, has long since been antiquated.
... It directed the sheriff to make inquisition in the county
court whether the imprisonment proceeded from malice or not.
...
3. The writ 'De homine replegiando,' or replevying a man, that
is, delivering him out on security to answer what may be
objected against him.
A writ is, originally, a royal writing,
either an open patent addressed to all to whom it may come,
and issued under the great seal; or, 'litteræ clausæ,' a
sealed letter addressed to a particular person; such writs
were prepared in the royal courts or in the Court of Chancery.
The most usual instrument of protection, however, against
arbitrary imprisonment is the writ of 'Habeas corpus,' so
called from its beginning with the words, 'Habeas corpus ad
subjiciendum,' which, on account of its universal application
and the security it affords, has, insensibly, taken precedence
of all others.
{899}
This is an old writ of the common law, and must be prayed for
in any of the Superior courts of common law. ... But this writ
. . . proved but a feeble, or rather wholly ineffectual
protection against the arbitrary power of the sovereign. The
right of an English subject to a writ of habeas corpus, and to
a release from imprisonment unless sufficient cause be shown
for his detention, was fully canvassed in the first years of
the reign of Charles I. ... The parliament endeavoured to
prevent such arbitrary imprisonment by passing the 'Petition
of Right,' which enacted that no freeman, in any such manner
... should be imprisoned or detained. Even this act was found
unavailing against the malevolent interpretations put by the
judges; hence the 16 Charles I., c. 10, was passed, which
enacts, that when any person is restrained of his liberty by
the king in person, or by the Privy Council, or any member
thereof, he shall, on demand of his counsel, have a writ of
habeas corpus, and, three days after the writ, shall be
brought before the court to determine whether there is ground
for further imprisonment, for bail, or for his release.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the immunity of English
subjects from arbitrary detention was not ultimately
established in full practical efficiency until the passing of
the statute of Charles II., commonly called the 'Habeas Corpus
Act.'"
E. Fischel,
The English Constitution,
book 1, chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England,
book 3, chapter 8.
H. J. Stephen,
Commentaries,
book 5, chapter 12, section 5 (volume 4).
The following is the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679:
I. Whereas great Delays have been used by Sheriffs, Gaolers
and other Officers, to whose Custody any of the King's
Subjects have been committed, for criminal or supposed
criminal Matters, in making Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus
to them directed, by standing out an Alias and Pluries Habeas
Corpus, and sometimes more, and by other Shifts, to avoid
their yielding Obedience to such Writs, contrary to their
Duty, and the known Laws of the Land, whereby many of the
King's Subjects have been, and hereafter may be long detained
in Prison, in such cases where by Law they are bailable, to
their great Charges and Vexation.
II. For the Prevention whereof, and the more speedy Relief of
all Persons imprisoned for any such Criminal, or supposed
Criminal Matters: (2.) Be it Enacted by the King's most
Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the Authority thereof, that
whensoever any Person or Persons shall bring any Habeas Corpus
directed unto any Sheriff, or Sheriffs, Gaoler, Minister, or
other Person whatsoever, for any Person in his or their
Custody, and the said Writ shall be served upon the said
Officer, or left at the Gaol or Prison, with any of the under
Officers, under Keepers, or Deputy of the said Officers or

Keepers, that the said Officer or Officers, his or their Under
Officers, Under Keepers or Deputies, shall within three Days
after the Service thereof, as aforesaid (unless the Commitment
aforesaid were for Treason or Felony, plainly and specially
expressed in the Warrant of Commitment), upon Payment or
Tender of the Charges of bringing the said Prisoner, to be
ascertained by the Judge or Court that awarded the same, and
endorsed upon the said Writ, not exceeding Twelve-pence per
Mile, and upon Security given by his own Bond, to pay the
Charges of carrying back the Prisoner, if he shall be remanded
by the Court or Judge, to which he shall be brought, according
to the true Intent of this present Act, and that he will not
make any Escape by the way, make Return of such Writ. (3.) And
bring or cause to be brought the Body of the Party so
committed or restrained, unto or before the Lord Chancellor,
or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England for the time
being, or the Judges or Barons of the said Court from whence
the said Writ shall Issue, or unto and before such other
Person or Persons before whom the said Writ is made
returnable, according to the Command thereof. (4.) And shall
then likewise certifie the true causes of his Detainer, or
Imprisonment, unless the commitment of the said party be in
any place beyond the Distance of twenty Miles from the Place
or Places where such Court or Person is, or shall be residing;
and if beyond the Distance of twenty Miles, and not above One
Hundred Miles, then within the Space of Ten Days, and if
beyond the Distance of One Hundred Miles, then within the
space of Twenty Days, after such Delivery aforesaid, and not
longer.
III. And to the Intent that no Sheriff, Gaoler or other
Officer may pretend Ignorance of the Import of any such Writ,
(2.) Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all such
Writs shall be marked in this manner, Per Statutum Tricesimo
Primo Caroli Secundi Regis, and shall be signed by the Person
that awards the same. (3.) And if any Person or Persons shall
be or stand committed or detained, as aforesaid, for any
Crime, unless for Felony or Treason, plainly expressed in the
Warrant of Commitment, in the Vacation-time, and out of Term,
it shall and may be lawful to and for the Person or Persons so
committed or detained (other than Persons convict, or in
Execution by legal Process) or anyone on his or their Behalf,
to appeal, or complain to the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
or anyone of His Majesty's Justices, either of the one Bench,
or of the other, or the Barons of the Exchequer of the Degree
of the Coif. (4.) And the said Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper,
Justices, or Barons, or any of them, upon View of the Copy or
Copies of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment and Detainer,
or otherwise upon Oath made, that such Copy or Copies were
denied to be given by such Person or Persons in whose custody
the Prisoner or Prisoners is or are detained, are hereby
authorized and required, upon Request made in Writing by such
Person or Persons, or any on his, her, or their Behalf,
attested and subscribed by two Witnesses, who were present at
the Delivery of the same, to award and grant an Habeas Corpus
under the Seal of such Court, whereof he shall then be one of
the Judges, (5.) to be directed to the Officer or Officers in
whose Custody the Party so committed or detained shall be,
returnable immediate before the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord
Keeper, or such Justice, Baron, or any other Justice or Baron,
of the Degree of the Coif, of any of the said Courts. (6.) And
upon Service thereof as aforesaid, the Officer or Officers,
his or their under Officer or under Officers, under Keeper or
under Keepers, or their Deputy, in whose Custody the Party is
so committed or detained, shall within the times respectively
before limited, bring such Prisoner or Prisoners before the
said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or such Justices, Barons,
or one of them, before whom the said Writ is made returnable,
and in case of his Absence, before any of them, with the
Return of such Writ, and the true Causes of the Commitment and
Detainer.
{900}
(7.) And thereupon within two Days after the Party shall be
brought before them the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper,
or such Justice or Baron, before whom the Prisoner shall be
brought as aforesaid, shall discharge the said Prisoner from
his Imprisonment, taking his or their Recognizance, with one
or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum, according to their
Discretions, having regard to the Quality of the Prisoner, and
Nature of the Offence, for his or their Appearance in the
Court of King's Bench the Term following, or at the next
Assizes, Sessions, or general Gaol-Delivery, of and for such
County, City or Place, where the Commitment was, or where the
Offence was committed, or in such other Court where the said
Offence is properly cognizable, as the Case shall require, and
then shall certify the said Writ with the Return thereof, and
the said Recognizance or Recognizances into the said Court,
where such Appearance is to be made. (8.) Unless it shall
appear unto the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or
Justice, or Justices, or Baron or Barons, that the Party so
committed is detained upon a legal Process, Order, or Warrant
out of some Court that hath Jurisdiction of Criminal Matters,
or by some Warrant signed and sealed with the Hand and Seal of
any of the said Justices or Barons, or some Justice or
Justices of the Peace, for such Matters or Offences, for the
which by the Law, the Prisoner is not bailable.
IV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person
shall have wilfully neglected by the Space of two whole Terms
after his Imprisonment to pray a Habeas Corpus for his
Enlargement, such Person so wilfully neglecting, shall not
have any Habeas Corpus to be granted in Vacation-time in
Pursuance of this Act.
V. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That
if any Officer or Officers, his or their under Officer, or
under Officers, under Keeper or under Keepers, or Deputy,
shall neglect or refuse to make the Returns aforesaid, or to
bring the Body or Bodies of the Prisoner or Prisoners,
according to the Command of the said Writ, within the
respective times aforesaid, or upon Demand made by the
Prisoner, or Person in his Behalf, shall refuse to deliver, or
within the Space of six Hours after Demand shall not deliver,
to the Person so demanding, a true Copy of the Warrant or
Warrants of Commitment and Detainer of such Prisoner, which he
and they are hereby required to deliver accordingly; all and
every the Head Gaolers and Keepers of such Prisons, and such
other Person, in whose Custody the Prisoner shall be detained,
shall for the first Offence, forfeit to the Prisoner, or Party
grieved, the Sum of One Hundred Pounds. (2.) And for the
second Offence, the Sum of Two Hundred Pounds, and shall and
is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said Office.
(3.) The said Penalties to be recovered by the Prisoner or
Party grieved, his Executors or Administrators, against such
Offender, his Executors or Administrators, by any Action of
Debt, Suit, Bill, Plaint or Information, in any of the King's
Courts at Westminster, wherein no Essoin, Protection,
Priviledge, Injunction, Wager of Law, or stay of Prosecution,
by Non vult ulterius prosequi, or otherwise, shall be admitted
or allowed, or any more than one Imparlance. (4.) And any
Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of any Party grieved, shall
be a sufficient Conviction for the first Offence; and any
after Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of a Party grieved, for
any Offence after the first Judgment, shall be a sufficient
Conviction to bring the Officers or Person within the said
Penalty for the Second Offence.
VI. And for the Prevention of unjust Vexation, by reiterated
Commitments for the same offence; (2.) Be it enacted by the
Authority aforesaid, That no Person or Persons, which shall be
delivered or set at large upon any Habeas Corpus, shall at any
time hereafter be again imprisoned or committed for the same
Offence, by any Person or Persons whatsoever, other than by
the legal Order and Process of such Court wherein he or they
shall be bound by Recognizance to appear, or other Court
having Jurisdiction of the Cause. (3.) And if any other Person
or Persons shall knowingly, contrary to this Act, recommit or
imprison, or knowingly procure or cause to be recommitted or
imprisoned for the same Offence, or pretended Offence, any
Person or Persons delivered or set at large as aforesaid, or
be knowingly aiding or assisting therein, then he or they
shall forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of
Five Hundred Pounds; any colourable Pretence or Variation in
the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment notwithstanding, to be
recovered as aforesaid.
VII. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if any
Person or Persons shall be committed for High Treason or
Felony, plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of
Commitment, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court the
first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer
and Terminer, or general Gaol Delivery, to be brought to his
Tryal, shall not be indicted sometime in the next Term,
Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery after
such Commitment, it shall and may be lawful to and for the
Judges of the Court of King's Bench, and Justices of Oyer and
Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, and they are hereby
required, upon Motion to them made in open Court the last Day
of the Term, Sessions or Gaol-Delivery, either by the
Prisoner, or anyone in his Behalf, to set at Liberty the
Prisoner upon Bail, unless it appear to the Judges and
Justices upon Oath made, that the Witnesses for the King could
not be produced the same Term, Sessions, or general
Gaol-Delivery. (2.) And if any Person or Persons committed as
aforesaid, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court, the
first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer
and Terminer, and general Gaol-Delivery, to be brought to his
Tryal, shall not be indicted and tryed the second Term,
Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, after
his Commitment, or upon his Tryal shall be acquitted, he shall
be discharged from his Imprisonment.
VIII. Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall extend
to discharge out of Prison, any Person charged in Debt, or
other Action, or with Process in any Civil Cause, but that
after he shall be discharged of his Imprisonment for such his
criminal Offence, he shall be kept in Custody, according to
the Law for such other Suit.
{901}
IX. Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, That if any Person or Persons, Subjects of this
Realm, shall be committed to any Prison, or in Custody of any
Officer or Officers whatsoever, for any Criminal or supposed
Criminal Matter, that the said Person shall not be removed
from the said Prison and Custody, into the Custody of any
other Officer or Officers. (2.) Unless it be by Habeas Corpus,
or some other legal Writ; or where the Prisoner is delivered
to the Constable or other inferiour Officer, to carry such
Prisoner to some common Gaol. (3.) Or where any Person is sent
by Order of any Judge of Assize, or Justice of the Peace, to
any common Workhouse, or House of Correction. (4.) Or where
the Prisoner is removed from one Prison or Place to another
within the same County, in order to his or her Tryal or
Discharge in due Course of Law. (5.) Or in case of sudden
Fire, or Infection, or other Necessity. (6.) And if any Person
or Persons shall after such Commitment aforesaid, make out and
sign, or countersign, any Warrant or Warrants for such Removal
aforesaid, contrary to this Act, as well he that makes or
signs, or countersigns, such Warrant or Warrants, as the
Officer or Officers, that obey or execute the same, shall
suffer & incur the Pains & Forfeitures in this Act
before-mentioned, both for the 1st & 2nd Offence,
respectively, to be recover'd in manner aforesaid, by the
Party grieved.
X. Provided also, and be it further enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful to and for any
Prisoner & Prisoners as aforesaid, to move, and obtain his or
their Habeas Corpus, as well out of the High Court of
Chancery, or Court of Exchequer, as out of the Courts of
King's Bench, or Common Pleas, or either of them. (2.) And if
the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or any Judge or
Judges, Baron or Barons for the time being, of the Degree of
the Coif, of any of the Courts aforesaid, in the Vacation
time, upon view of the Copy or Copies of the Warrant or
Warrants of Commitment or Detainer, or upon Oath made that
such Copy or Copies were denied as aforesaid, shall deny any
Writ of Habeas Corpus by this Act required to be granted,
being moved for as aforesaid, they shall severally forfeit to
the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds,
to be recovered in manner aforesaid.
XI. And be it declared and enacted by the Authority aforesaid,
That an Habeas Corpus according to the true Intent and meaning
of this Act, may be directed, and run into any County
Palatine, the Cinque Ports, or other priviledged Places,
within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of
Berwick upon Tweed, and the Isles of Jersey or Guernsey, any
Law or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
XII. And for preventing illegal Imprisonments in Prisons
beyond the Seas; (2.) Be it further enacted by the Authority
aforesaid, That no Subject of this Realm that now is, or
hereafter shall be, an Inhabitant or Resiant of this Kingdom
of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed,
shall or may be sent Prisoner into Scotland, Ireland, Jersey,
Guernsey, Tangier, or into Parts, Garrisons, Islands, or
Places beyond the Seas, which are, or at any time hereafter
shall be within or without the Dominions of his Majesty, his
Heirs or Successors. (3.) And that every such Imprisonment is
hereby enacted and adjudged to be illegal. (4.) And that if
any of the said Subjects now is, or hereafter shall be so
imprisoned, every such Person and Persons so imprisoned, shall
and may for every such Imprisonment, maintain by Virtue of
this Act, an Action or Actions of False Imprisonment, in any
of his Majesty's Courts of Record, against the Person or
Persons by whom he or she shall be so committed, detained,
imprisoned, sent Prisoner or transported, contrary to the true
meaning of this Act, and against all or any Person or Persons,
that shall frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any
Warrant or Writing for such Commitment, Detainer, Imprisonment
or Transportation, or shall be advising, aiding or assisting
in the same, or any of them. (5.) And the Plaintiff in every
such Action, shall have judgment to recover his treble Costs,
besides Damages; which Damages so to be given, shall not be
less than Five Hundred Pounds. (6.) In which Action, no Delay,
Stay, or Stop of Proceeding, by Rule, Order or Command, nor no
Injunction, Protection, or Priviledge whatsoever, nor any more
than one Imparlance shall be allowed, excepting such Rule of
the Court wherein the Action shall depend, made in open Court,
as shall be thought in justice necessary, for special Cause to
be expressed in the said Rule. (7.) And the Person or Persons
who shall knowingly frame, contrive, write, seal or
countersign any Warrant for such Commitment, Detainer, or
Transportation, or shall so commit, detain, imprison, or
transport any Person or Persons contrary to this Act, or be
any ways advising, aiding or assisting therein, being lawfully
convicted thereof, shall be disabled from thenceforth to bear
any Office of Trust or Profit within the said Realm of
England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, or
any of the Islands, Territories or Dominions thereunto
belonging. (8.) And shall incur and sustain the Pains,
Penalties, and Forfeitures, limited, ordained, and Provided in
and by the Statute of Provision and Premunire made in the
Sixteenth Year of King Richard the Second. (9.) And be
incapable of any Pardon from the King, his Heirs or
Successors, of the said Forfeitures, Losses, or Disabilities,
or any of them.
XIII. Provided always, That nothing in this Act shall extend
to give Benefit to any Person who shall by Contract in
Writing, agree with any Merchant or Owner, of any Plantation,
or other Person whatsoever, to be transported to any part
beyond the Seas, and receive Earnest upon such Agreement,
altho' that afterwards such Person shall renounce such
Contract.
XIV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person or
Persons, lawfully convicted of any Felony, shall in open Court
pray to be transported beyond the Seas, and the Court shall
think fit to leave him or them in Prison for that Purpose,
such Person or Persons may be transported into any Parts
beyond the Seas; This Act, or any thing therein contained to
the contrary notwithstanding.
XV. Provided also, and be it enacted, That nothing herein
contained, shall be deemed, construed, or taken to extend to
the Imprisonment of any Person before the first Day of June,
One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy and Nine, or to any thing
advised, procured, or otherwise done, relating to such
Imprisonment; Any thing herein contained to the contrary
notwithstanding.
{902}
XVI. Provided also, That if any Person or Persons, at any time
resiant in this Realm, shall have committed any Capital
Offence in Scotland or Ireland, or any of the Islands, or
foreign Plantations of the King, his Heirs or Successors,
where he or she ought to be tryed for such Offence, such
Person or Persons may be sent to such Place, there to receive
such Tryal, in such manner as the same might have been used
before the making this Act; Any thing herein contained to the
contrary notwithstanding.
XVII. Provided also, and be it enacted, That no Person or
Persons, shall be sued, impleaded, molested or troubled for
any Offence against this Act, unless the Party offending be
sued or impleaded for the same within two Years at the most
after such time wherein the Offence shall be committed, in
Case the Party grieved shall not be then in Prison; and if he
shall be in Prison, then within the space of two Years after
the Decease of the Person imprisoned, or his, or her Delivery
out of Prison, which shall first happen.
XVIII. And to the Intent no Person may avoid his Tryal at the
Assizes, or general Gaol Delivery, by procuring his Removal
before the Assizes at such time as he cannot be brought back
to receive his Tryal there; (2.) Be it enacted, That after the
Assizes proclaimed for that County where the Prisoner is
detained, no Person shall be removed from the Common Gaol upon
any Habeas Corpus granted in pursuance of this Act, but upon
any such Habeas Corpus shall be brought before the Judge of
Assize in open Court, who is thereupon to do what to Justice
shall appertain.
XIX. Provided nevertheless, That after the Assizes are ended,
any Person or Persons detained may have his or her Habeas
Corpus, according to the Direction and Intention of this Act.
XX. And be it also enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if
any Information, Suit or Action, shall be brought or exhibited
against any Person or Persons, for any Offence committed or to
be committed against the Form of this Law, it shall be lawful
for such Defendants to plead the general Issue, that they are
not guilty, or that they owe nothing, and to give such special
Matter in Evidence to the Jury, that shall try the same, which
Matter being pleaded, had been good and sufficient matter in
Law to have discharged the said Defendant or Defendants
against the said Information, Suit or Action, and the said
Matter shall be then as available to him or them, to all
Intents and Purposes, as if he or they had sufficiently
pleaded, set forth, or alleged the same Matter in Bar, or
Discharge of such Information, Suit or Action.
XXI. And because many times Persons charged with Petty-Treason
or Felony, or as Accessaries thereunto, are committed upon
Suspicion only, whereupon they are bailable or not, according
as the Circumstances making out that Suspicion are more or
less weighty, which are best known to the Justices of Peace
that committed the Persons, and have the Examinations before
them, or to other Justices of the Peace in the County; (2.) Be
it therefore enacted, That where any Person shall appear to be
committed by any Judge, or Justice of the Peace, and charged
as necessary before the Fact, to any Petty-Treason or Felony,
or upon Suspicion thereof, or with Suspicion of Petty-Treason
or Felony, which Petty-Treason or Felony, shall be plainly and
specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, that such
Person shall not be removed or bailed by Virtue of this Act,
or in any other manner than they might have been before the
making of this Act.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (June).
The Meal-tub Plot.
"Dangerfield, a subtle and dexterous man, who had gone through
all the shapes and practices of roguery, and in particular was
a false coiner, undertook now to coin a plot for the ends of
the papists. He ... got into all companies, and mixed with the
hottest men of the town, and studied to engage others with
himself to swear that they had been invited to accept of
commissions, and that a new form of government was to be set
up, and that the king and the royal family were to be sent
away. He was carried with this story, first to the duke, and
then to the king, and had a weekly allowance of money, and was
very kindly used by many of that side; so that a whisper run
about town, that some extraordinary thing would quickly break
out: and he having some correspondence with one colonel
Mansel, he made up a bundle of seditious but ill contrived
letters, and laid them in a dark corner of his room: and then
some searchers were sent from the custom house to look for
some forbidden goods, which they heard were in Mansel's
chamber. There were no goods found: but as it was laid, they
found that bundle of letters: and upon that a great noise was
made of a discovery: but upon inquiry it appeared the letters
were counterfeited, and the forger of them was suspected; so
they searched into all Dangerfield's haunts, and in one of
them they found a paper that contained the scheme of this
whole fiction, which, because it was found in a meal-tub, came
to be called the meal-tub plot. ... This was a great disgrace
to the popish party, and the king suffered much by the
countenance he had given him."
G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 3, 1679.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1679-1681.
The Exclusion Bill.
"Though the duke of York was not charged with participation in
the darkest schemes of the popish conspirators, it was evident
that his succession was the great aim of their endeavours, and
evident also that he had been engaged in the more real and
undeniable intrigues of Coleman. His accession to the throne,
long viewed with just apprehension, now seemed to threaten
such perils to every part of the constitution as ought not
supinely to be waited for, if any means could be devised to
obviate them. This gave rise to the bold measure of the
exclusion bill, too bold, indeed, for the spirit of the
country, and the rock on which English liberty was nearly
shipwrecked. In the long parliament, full as it was of
pensioners and creatures of court influence, nothing so
vigorous would have been successful. ... But the zeal they
showed against Danby induced the king to put an end [January
24, 1679] to this parliament of seventeen years' duration; an
event long ardently desired by the popular party, who foresaw
their ascendancy in the new elections. The next house of
commons accordingly came together with an ardour not yet
quenched by corruption; and after reviving the impeachments
commenced by their predecessors, and carrying a measure long
in agitation, a test which shut the catholic peers out of
parliament, went upon the exclusion bill [the second reading
of which was carried, May 21, 1679, by 207 to 128].
{903}
Their dissolution put a stop to this; and in the next
parliament the lords rejected it [after the commons had passed
the bill, without a division, October, 1680]. ... The bill of
exclusion ... provided that the imperial crown of England
should descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons
successively during the life of the duke of York as would have
inherited or enjoyed the same in case he were naturally dead.
... But a large part of the opposition had unfortunately other
objects in view." Under the contaminating influence of the
earl of Shaftesbury, "they broke away more and more from the
line of national opinion, till a fatal reaction involved
themselves in ruin, and exposed the cause of public liberty to
its most imminent peril. The countenance and support of
Shaftesbury brought forward that unconstitutional and most
impolitic scheme of the duke of Monmouth's succession. [James,
duke of Monmouth, was the acknowledged natural son of king
Charles, by Lucy Walters, his mistress while in exile at the
Hague.] There could hardly be a greater insult to a nation
used to respect its hereditary line of kings, than to set up
the bastard of a prostitute, without the least pretence of
personal excellence or public services, against a princess of
known virtue and attachment to the protestant religion. And
the effrontery of this attempt was aggravated by the libels
eagerly circulated to dupe the credulous populace into a
belief of Monmouth's legitimacy."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
part 2, chapter 1.
G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 4-8 (volume 1).
G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 3, 1679-81.
Sir W. Temple,
Memoirs,
part 3 (Works, volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1680.
Whigs and Tories acquire their respective names.
"Factions indeed were at this time [A. D. 1680] extremely
animated against each other. The very names by which each
party denominated its antagonist discover the virulence and
rancour which prevailed. For besides petitioner and abhorrer,
appellations which were soon forgotten, this year is
remarkable for being the epoch of the well-known epithets of
Whig and Tory, by which, and sometimes without any material
difference, this island has been so long divided. The court
party reproached their antagonists with their affinity to the
fanatical conventiclers in Scotland, who were known by the
name of Whigs: the country party found a resemblance between
the courtiers and the popish banditti in Ireland, to whom the
appellation of Tory was affixed: and after this manner these
foolish terms of reproach came into public and general use."
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 68 (volume 6).
"The definition of the nickname Tory, as it originally arose,
is given in 'A New Ballad' (Narcissus Luttrell's
Collection):--
The word Tory's of Irish Extraction,
'Tis a Legacy that they have left here
They came here in their brogues,
And have acted like Rogues,
In endeavouring to learn us to swear."
J. Grego,
History of Parliamentary Elections,
page 36.
ALSO IN:
G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 1, chapter 2.
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 2.
For the origin of the name of the 'Whig party,
See WHIGS (WIGGAMORS); also, RAPPAREES.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.
The Tory reaction and the downfall of the Whigs.
The Rye-house Plot.
"Shaftesbury's course rested wholly on the belief that the
penury of the Treasury left Charles at his mercy, and that a
refusal of supplies must wring from the King his assent to the
exclusion. But the gold of France had freed the King from his
thraldom. He had used the Parliament [of 1681] simply to
exhibit himself as a sovereign whose patience and conciliatory
temper was rewarded with insult and violence; and now that he
saw his end accomplished, he suddenly dissolved the Houses in
April, and appealed in a Royal declaration to the justice of
the nation at large. The appeal was met by an almost universal
burst of loyalty. The Church rallied to the King; his
declaration was read from every pulpit; and the Universities
solemnly decided that 'no religion, no law, no fault, no
forfeiture' could avail to bar the sacred right of hereditary
succession. ... The Duke of York returned in triumph to St.
James's. ... Monmouth, who had resumed his progresses through
the country as a means of checking the tide of reaction, was
at once arrested. ... Shaftesbury, alive to the new danger,
plunged desperately into conspiracies with a handful of
adventurers as desperate as himself, hid himself in the City,
where he boasted that ten thousand 'brisk boys' were ready to
appear at his call, and urged his friends to rise in arms. But
their delays drove him to flight. ... The flight of
Shaftesbury proclaimed the triumph of the King. His wonderful
sagacity had told him when the struggle was over and further
resistance useless. But the Whig leaders, who had delayed to
answer the Earl's call, still nursed projects of rising in
arms, and the more desperate spirits who had clustered around
him as he lay hidden in the City took refuge in plots of
assassination, and in a plan for murdering Charles and his
brother as they passed the Rye-house house, so-called] on their road from London to Newmarket. Both
the conspiracies were betrayed, and, though they were wholly
distinct from one another, the cruel ingenuity of the Crown
lawyers blended them into one. Lord Essex, the last of an
ill-fated race, saved himself from a traitor's death by
suicide in the Tower. Lord Russell, convicted on a charge of
sharing in the Rye-house Plot, was beheaded in Lincoln Inn
Fields. The same fate awaited Algernon Sidney. Monmouth fled
in terror over sea, and his flight was followed by a series of
prosecutions for sedition directed against his followers. In 1683
the Constitutional opposition which had held Charles so long
in check lay crushed at his feet. ... On the very day when the
crowd around Russell's scaffold were dipping their
handkerchiefs in his blood, as in the blood of a martyr, the
University of Oxford solemnly declared that the doctrine of
passive obedience, even to the worst of rulers, was a part of
religion." During the brief remainder of his reign Charles was
a prudently absolute monarch, governing without a Parliament,
coolly ignoring the Triennial Act, and treating on occasions
the Test Act, as well as other laws obnoxious to him, with
contempt. He died unexpectedly, early in February, 1685, and
his brother, the Duke of York, succeeded to the throne, as
James II., with no resistance, but with much feeling opposed
to him.
J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 9, sections 5-6.
{904}
ALSO IN:
G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth;
chapters 8-10 (volume 1).
D. Hume,
History of England,
chapters 68-69 (volume 6).
G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 1, chapters 6-11.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685.
Accession of James II.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (February).
The new King proclaims his religion.
"The King [James II.] early put the loyalty of his Protestant
friends to the proof. While he was a subject, he had been in
the habit of hearing mass with closed doors in a small oratory
which had been fitted up for his wife. He now ordered the
doors to be thrown open, in order that all who came to pay
their duty to him might see the ceremony. When the host was
elevated there was a strange confusion in the antechamber. The
Roman Catholics fell on their knees: the Protestants hurried
out of the room. Soon a new pulpit was erected in the palace;
and, during Lent, a series of sermons was preached there by
Popish divines."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 4 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (May-July).
Monmouth's Rebellion.
"The Parliament which assembled on the 22nd of May ... was
almost entirely Tory. The failure of the Rye-House Plot had
produced a reaction, which for a time entirely annihilated the
Whig influence. ... The apparent triumph of the King and the
Tory party was completed by the disastrous failure of the
insurrection planned by their adversaries. A knot of exiled
malcontents, some Scotch, some English, had collected in
Holland. Among them was Monmouth and the Earl of Argyle, son
of that Marquis of Argyle who had taken so prominent a part on
the Presbyterian side in the Scotch troubles of Charles I.'s
reign. Monmouth had kept aloof from politics till, on the
accession of James, he was induced to join the exiles at
Amsterdam, whither Argyle, a strong Presbyterian, but a man of
lofty and moderate views, also repaired. National jealousy
prevented any union between the exiles, and two expeditions
were determined on,--the one under Argyle, who hoped to find
an army ready to his hand among his clansmen in the West of
Scotland, the other under Monmouth in the West of England.
Argyle's expedition set sail on the 2nd of May [1685]. ...
Argyle's invasion was ruined by the limited authority
intrusted to him, and by the jealousy and insubordination of
his fellow leaders. ... His army disbanded. He was himself
taken in Renfrewshire, and, after an exhibition of admirable
constancy, was beheaded. ... A week before the final
dispersion of Argyle's troops, Monmouth had landed in England
[at Lyme, June 11]. He was well received in the West. He had
not been twenty-four hours in England before he found himself
at the head of 1,500 men; but though popular among the common
people, he received no support from the upper classes. Even
the strongest Whigs disbelieved the story of his legitimacy,
and thought his attempt ill-timed and fraught with danger. ...
Meanwhile Monmouth had advanced to Taunton, had been there
received with enthusiasm, and, vainly thinking to attract the
nobility, had assumed the title of King. Nor was his reception
at Bridgewater less flattering. But difficulties already began
to gather round him; he was in such want of arms, that,
although rustic implements were converted into pikes, he was
still obliged to send away many volunteers; the militia were
closing in upon him in all directions; Bristol had been seized
by the Duke of Beaufort, and the regular army under Feversham
and Churchill were approaching." After feebly attempting
several movements, against Bristol and into Wiltshire,
Monmouth lost heart and fell back to Bridgewater. "The
Royalist army was close behind him, and on the fifth of July
encamped about three miles from Bridgewater, on the plain of
Sedgemoor." Monmouth was advised to undertake a night
surprise, and did so in the early morning of the 6th. "The
night was not unfitting for such an enterprise, for the mist
was so thick that at a few paces nothing could be seen. Three
great ditches by which the moor was drained lay between the
armies; of the third of these, strangely enough, Monmouth knew
nothing." The unexpected discovery of this third ditch, known
as "the Bussex Rhine," which his cavalry could not cross, and
behind which the enemy rallied, was the ruin of the
enterprise. "Monmouth saw that the day was lost, and with the
love of life which was one of the characteristics of his soft
nature, he turned and fled. Even after his flight the battle
was kept up bravely. At length the arrival of the King's
artillery put an end to any further struggle. The defeat was
followed by all the terrible scenes which mark a suppressed
insurrection. ... Monmouth and Grey pursued their flight into
the New Forest, and were there apprehended in the
neighbourhood of Ringwood." Monmouth petitioned abjectly for
his life, but in vain. He was executed on the 15th of July.
"The failure of this insurrection was followed by the most
terrible cruelties. Feversham returned to London, to be
flattered by the King and laughed at by the Court for his
military exploits. He left Colonel Kirke in command at
Bridgewater. This man had learned, as commander at Tangier,
all the worst arts of cruel despotism. His soldiery in bitter
pleasantry were called Kirke's 'Lambs,' from the emblem of
their regiment. It is impossible to say how many suffered at
the hands of this man and his brutal troops; 100 captives are
said by some to have been put to death the week after the
battle. But this military revenge did not satisfy the Court."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, pages 764-768.
The number of Monmouth's men killed is computed by some at
2,000, by others at 300; a disparity, however, which may be
easily reconciled by supposing that the one account takes in
those who were killed in battle, while the other comprehends
the wretched fugitives who were massacred in ditches,
cornfields, and other hiding places, the following day."
C. J. Fox,
History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II.,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapters 13-28 (volumes 1-2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (September).
The Bloody Assizes.
"Early in September, Jeffreys [Sir George Jeffreys, Chief
Justice of the Court of King's Bench], accompanied by four
other judges, set out on that circuit of which the memory will
last as long as our race and language. ... At Winchester the
Chief Justice first opened his commission. Hampshire had not
been the theatre of war; but many of the vanquished rebels
had, like their leader, fled thither." Two among these had
been found concealed in the house of Lady Alice Lisle, a widow
of eminent nobility of character, and Jeffreys' first proceeding
was to arraign Lady Alice for the technical reason of the
concealment.
{905}
She was tried with extraordinary brutality of manner on the
part of the judge; the jury was bullied into a verdict of
guilty, and the innocent woman was condemned by the fiend on
the bench to be burned alive. By great exertion of many
people, the sentence was commuted from burning to beheading.
No mercy beyond this could be obtained from Jeffreys or his
fit master, the king. "In Hampshire Alice Lisle was the only
victim: but, on the day following her execution, Jeffreys
reached Dorchester, the principal town of the county in which
Monmouth had landed, and the judicial massacre began. The
court was hung, by order of the Chief Justice, with scarlet;
and this innovation seemed to the multitude to indicate a
bloody purpose. ... More than 300 prisoners were to be tried.
The work seemed heavy; but Jeffreys had a contrivance for
making it light. He let it be understood that the only chance
of obtaining pardon or respite was to plead guilty.
Twenty-nine persons, who put themselves on their country and
were convicted, were ordered to be tied up without delay. The
remaining prisoners pleaded guilty by scores. Two hundred and
ninety-two received sentence of death. The whole number hanged
in Dorsetshire amounted to seventy-four. From Dorchester
Jeffreys proceeded to Exeter. The civil war had barely grazed
the frontier of Devonshire. Here, therefore, comparatively few
persons were capitally punished. Somersetshire, the chief seat
of the rebellion, had been reserved for the last and most
fearful vengeance. In this county two hundred and thirty-three
prisoners were in a few days hanged, drawn and quartered. At
every spot where two roads met, on every market place, on the
green of every large village which had furnished Monmouth with
soldiers, ironed corpses clattering in the wind, or heads and
quarters stuck on poles, poisoned the air, and made the
traveller sick with horror. ... The Chief Justice was all
himself. His spirits rose higher and higher as the work went
on. He laughed, shouted, joked, and swore in such a way that
many thought him drunk from morning to night. ... Jeffreys
boasted that he had hanged more traitors than all his
predecessors together since the Conquest. ... Yet those rebels
who were doomed to death were less to be pitied than some of
the survivors. Several prisoners to whom Jeffreys was unable
to bring home the charge of high treason were convicted of
misdemeanours and were sentenced to scourging not less
terrible than that which Oates had undergone. ... The number
of prisoners whom Jeffreys transported was eight hundred and
forty-one. These men, more wretched than their associates who
suffered death, were distributed into gangs, and bestowed on
persons who enjoyed favour at court. The conditions of the
gift were that the convicts should be carried beyond sea as
slaves, that they should not be emancipated for ten years, and
that the place of their banishment should be some West Indian
island. ... It was estimated by Jeffreys that, on an average,
each of them, after all charges were paid, would be worth from
ten to fifteen pounds. There was therefore much angry
competition for grants. ... And now Jeffreys had done his
work, and returned to claim his reward. He arrived at Windsor
from the West, leaving carnage, mourning and terror behind
him. The hatred with which he was regarded by the people of
Somersetshire has no parallel in our history. ... But at the
court Jeffreys was cordially welcomed. He was a judge after
his master's own heart. James had watched the circuit with
interest and delight. ... At a later period, when all men of
all parties spoke with horror of the Bloody Assizes, the
wicked Judge and the wicked King attempted to vindicate
themselves by throwing the blame on each other."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
Sir James Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution
in England, chapter 1.
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapter 100 (volume 3).
G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 29-31 (volume 2).
See, also, TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1686.
Faithless and tyrannical measures against
the New England colonies.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687;
and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1689.
The Despotism of James II. in Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
The Court of High Commission revived.
"James conceived the design of employing his authority as head
of the Church of England as a means of subjecting that church
to his pleasure, if not of finally destroying it. It is hard
to conceive how he could reconcile to his religion the
exercise of supremacy in an heretical sect, and thus sanction
by his example the usurpations of the Tudors on the rights of
the Catholic Church. ... He, indeed, considered the
ecclesiastical supremacy as placed in his hands by Providence
to enable him to betray the Protestant establishment. 'God,'
said he to Barillon, 'has permitted that all the laws made to
establish Protestantism now serve as a foundation for my
measures to re-establish true religion, and give me a right to
exercise a more extensive power than other Catholic princes
possess in the ecclesiastical affairs of their dominions.' He
found legal advisers ready with paltry expedients for evading
the two statutes of 1641 and 1660 [abolishing, and
re-affirming the abolition of the Court of High Commission],
under the futile pretext that they forbade only a court vested
with such powers of corporal punishment as had been exercised
by the old Court of High Commission; and in conformity to
their pernicious counsel, he issued, in July, a commission to
certain ministers, prelates, and judges, to act as a Court of
Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes. The first purpose of
this court was to enforce directions to preachers, issued by
the King, enjoining them to abstain from preaching on
controverted questions."
Sir James Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 5, chapter 3.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
The consolidation of New England under a royal
Governor-General.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1687.
Riddance of the Test Act by royal dispensing power.
"The abolition of the tests was a thing resolved upon in the
catholic council, and for this a sanction of some kind or
other was required, as they dared not yet proceed upon the
royal will alone. Chance, or the machinations of the
catholics, created an affair which brought the question of the
tests under another form before the court of king's bench.
{906}
This court had not the power to abolish the Test Act, but it
might consider whether the king had the right of exempting
particular subjects from the formalities. ... The king ...
closeted himself with the judges one by one, dismissed some,
and got those who replaced them, 'ignorant men,' says an
historian, 'and scandalously incompetent,' to acknowledge his
dispensing power. ... The judges of the king's bench, after a
trial, ... declared, almost in the very language used by the
crown counsel:
1. That the kings of England are sovereign princes;
2. That the laws of England are the king's laws;
3. That therefore it is an inseparable prerogative in the
kings of England to dispense with penal laws in particular
cases, and upon particular necessary reasons;
4. That of those reasons, and those necessities, the king
himself is sole judge; and finally, which is consequent
upon all,
5. That this is not a trust invested in, or granted to the
king by the people, but the ancient remains of the
sovereign power and prerogative of the kings of England,
which never yet was taken from them, nor can be.
The case thus decided, the king thought he might rely upon the
respect always felt by the English people for the decisions of
the higher courts, to exempt all his catholic subjects from
the obligations of the test. And upon this, it became no
longer a question merely of preserving in their commissions
and offices those whose dismissal had been demanded by
parliament. ... To obtain or to retain certain employments, it
was necessary to be of the same religion with the king.
Papists replaced in the army and in the administration all
those who had pronounced at all energetically for the
maintenance of the tests. Abjurations, somewhat out of credit
during the last session of parliament, again resumed favour."
A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 4, chapter 4.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
Declarations of Indulgence.
Trial of the Seven Bishops.
"Under pretence of toleration for Dissenters, James
endeavoured, under another form, to remove obstacles from
Romanists. He announced an Indulgence. He began in Scotland by
issuing on the 12th of February, 1687, in Edinburgh, a
Proclamation granting relief to scrupulous consciences. Hereby
he professed to relieve the Presbyterians, but the relief of
them amounted to nothing; to the Romanists it was complete.
... On the 18th of March, 1687, he announced to the English
Privy Council his intention to prorogue Parliament, and to
grant upon his own authority entire liberty of conscience to
all his subjects. Accordingly on the 4th of April he published
his Indulgence, declaring his desire to see all his subjects
become members of the Church of Rome, and his resolution
(since that was impracticable) to protect them in the free
exercise of their religion; also promising to protect the
Established Church: then he annulled a number of Acts of
Parliament, suspended all penal laws against Nonconformists,
authorised Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to
perform worship publicly, and abrogated all Acts of Parliament
imposing any religious test for civil or military offices.
This declaration was then notoriously illegal and
unconstitutional. James now issued a second and third
declaration for Scotland, and courted the Dissenters in
England, but with small encouragement. ... On the 27th of
April, 1688, James issued a second Declaration of Indulgence
for England. ... On the 4th of May, by an order in Council, he
directed his Declaration of the 27th of April to be publicly
read during divine service in all Churches and Chapels, by the
officiating ministers, on two successive Sundays--namely, on
the 20th and 27th of May in London, and on the 3d and 10th of
June in the country; and desired the Bishops to circulate this
Declaration through their dioceses. Hitherto the Bishops and
Clergy had held the doctrine of passive obedience to the
sovereign, however bad in character or in his measures--now
they were placed by the King himself in a dilemma. Here was a
violation of existing law, and an intentional injury to their
Church, if not a plan for the substitution of another. The
Nonconformists, whom James pretended to serve, coincided with
and supported the Church. A decided course must be taken. The
London Clergy met and resolved not to read the Declaration. On
the 12th of May, at Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop of
Canterbury and other Prelates assembled. They resolved that
the Declaration ought not to be read. On Friday, the 18th of
May, a second meeting of the Prelates and eminent divines was
held at Lambeth Palace. A petition to the King was drawn up by
the Archbishop of Canterbury in his own handwriting,
disclaiming all disloyalty and all intolerance, ... but
stating that Parliament had decided that the King could not
dispense with Statutes in matters ecclesiastical--that the
Declaration was therefore illegal--and could not be solemnly
published by the petitioners in the House of God and during
divine service. This paper was signed by Sancroft, Archbishop
of Canterbury, Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, Turner of Ely, Lake
of Chichester, Ken of Bath and Wells, White of Peterborough,
and Trelawny of Bristol. It was approved by Compton, Bishop of
London, but not signed, because he was under suspension. The
Archbishop had long been forbidden to appear at Court,
therefore could not present it. On Friday evening the six
Bishops who had signed were introduced by Sunderland to the
King, who read the document and pronounced it libellous [and
seditious and rebellious], and the Bishops retired. On Sunday,
the 20th of May, the first day appointed, the Declaration was
read in London only in four Churches out of one hundred. The
Dissenters and Church Laymen sided with the Clergy. On the
following Sunday the Declaration was treated in the same
manner in London, and on Sunday, the 3d of June, was
disregarded by Bishops and Clergy in all parts of England.
James, by the advice of Jeffreys, ordered the Archbishop and
Bishops to be indicted for a seditious libel. They were, on
the 8th of June, conveyed to the Tower amidst the most
enthusiastic demonstrations of respect and affection from all
classes. The same night the Queen was said to have given birth
to a son; but the national opinion was that some trick had
been played. On the 29th of June the trial of the seven
Bishops came on before the Court of King's Bench. ... The
Jury, who, after remaining together all night (one being
stubborn) pronounced a verdict of not guilty on the morning of
the 30th June, 1688."
W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 2.
{907}
"The court met at nine o'clock. The nobility and gentry
covered the benches, and an immense concourse of people filled
the Hall, and blocked up the adjoining streets. Sir Robert
Langley, the foreman of the jury, being, according to
established form, asked whether the accused were guilty or not
guilty, pronounced the verdict 'Not guilty.' No sooner were
these words uttered than a loud huzza arose from the audience
in the court. It was instantly echoed from without by a shout
of joy, which sounded like a crack of the ancient and massy
roof of Westminster Hall. It passed with electrical rapidity
from voice to voice along the infinite multitude who waited in
the streets. It reached the Temple in a few minutes. ... 'The
acclamations,' says Sir John Reresby, 'were a very rebellion
in noise.' In no long time they ran to the camp at Hounslow,
and were repeated with an ominous voice by the soldiers in the
hearing of the King, who, on being told that they were for the
acquittal of the bishops, said, with an ambiguity probably
arising from confusion, 'So much the worse for them.'"
Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England in 1688,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
A. Strickland,
Lives of the Seven Bishops.
R. Southey,
Book of the Church,
chapter 18.
G. G. Perry,
History of the Church of England,
chapter 30 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (July).
William and Mary of Orange the hope of the nation.
"The wiser among English statesmen had fixed their hopes
steadily on the succession of Mary, the elder daughter and
heiress of James. The tyranny of her father's reign made this
succession the hope of the people at large. But to Europe the
importance of the change, whenever it should come about, lay
not so much in the succession of Mary as in the new power
which such an event would give to her husband, William, Prince
of Orange. We have come, in fact, to a moment when the
struggle of England against the aggression of its King blends
with the larger struggle of Europe against the aggression of