[144] No traces of Pym's speech are found in Rushworth, Nalson, or Parliamentary Debates. It is not mentioned in Forster's Life of the Great Statesmen, or in Sanford's Illustrations. The extract I have given is from A Just Vindication of the questioned part of the reading of Edward Bagshawe, Esq., 1660, p. 2-4. The tract states that Pym's speech was delivered when the petition was read and debated in the House. Hanbury's Memorials, ii. 141.
[145] Rushworth, iv. 170-187.
[146] 9th Feb., 1641.
[147] Quoted in Studies and Illustrations, by Sanford, 319.
[148] Mr. Godwin, in his History of the Commonwealth, i. 58, interprets the resolution as meaning "we are not yet decided to maintain Episcopacy." The debate, and even the words themselves, seem to me inconsistent with that view.
[149] These particulars are taken from the Journal of Sir Ralph Verney, a member of the Committee. Lord Nugent, in his Life of Hampden, gives some account of this MS.; but Mr. Bruce has published the entire notes in a volume of the Camden Society, with many valuable remarks.
[150] The following extract from the Lords' Journals is an illustration:
"Mr. Etheridge, minister, and Mr. Carter, the curate, and William Till, clerk of the parish, Ben Parsons, Tho. Chadwick, were examined at the bar, concerning the riot lately committed in the church of Halstead, in the county of Essex; as striking the Book of Common Prayer out of the curate's hand as he was baptizing a child at the fount, and kicking it up and down the church, and for taking the clerk by the throat, forcing him to deliver unto them the hood and surplice, which they immediately rent and tore in pieces; and other misdemeanours and outrages were committed in the said church, on Simon and Jude's day last, in divine service, by Jonathan Poole and Grace his wife." 10th December, 1640.
Certain Nonconformists of St. Saviour's parish were complained of to the House for illegally assembling for worship. The House directed they should be left to the ordinary proceedings of justice, according to the course of law. Journals of the Lords, January 16th. See also 19th and 21st.
[151] As the accounts of this committee given by Fuller, Neal, and Cardwell, are incomplete in consequence of the writers having neglected to consult the Journals of the House of Lords, I subjoin the following entries relating to this business:—