We must observe that the Remonstrance had also a certain connexion with foreign affairs. The Queen had expected much from the arrival of the new French ambassador La Ferté Imbault. In June 1641 he appeared, bringing her assurances of friendship from the King of France and Cardinal Richelieu, which pleased her greatly. La Ferté followed nevertheless in the footsteps of Bellièvre: he connected himself with Lord Holland, who, without being himself conspicuous in Parliament, exercised some influence over the direction and management of affairs[282]. He was present when the lords of the minority met at Holland House, and did not hesitate to maintain also an intimate connexion with the members of the Lower House: he kept company with them, though far below him in rank according to the social ideas of the age[283]. He assured the Queen that these alliances would give him power to serve her; and she declared herself satisfied: she seems at the least to have reckoned that the influence of the ambassador would check the violence of hatred against her, but in fact he entered into close confederation with her opponents. The Queen was most anxious to support A.D. 1641. her Catholic co-religionists: the ambassador found that they were as a body inclined to Spain[284], and in consequence did little or nothing for them.
On the other hand the leading men in Parliament were enemies of Spain. The idea had dawned upon them of making a new attempt on the West Indies, hostile to that power: the English sailors and soldiers in the Spanish service were summoned to quit it under heavy penalties. Hence the French ambassador was their ally. One day he made an offer to the King of French assistance in Ireland, but this was not done without a previous understanding with his friends in Parliament, who approved because the insurgents represented the Spanish and Catholic interest. Both parties thought that the King favoured Spain and the Catholics: just at the moment they were afraid, in consequence of the presence of an imperial plenipotentiary, of the renewal of an understanding between England and Spain, in which the Netherlands should participate; the members promised the ambassador to try and induce the King to break with Spain, and conclude at last the often talked of alliance with France[285].
In the Remonstrance were described the counsellors whom the King was not to endure: these were not merely those to whom actual crimes could be imputed, but also favourers of Popery, friends of foreign powers of other creeds, all who spoke contemptuously of Parliament, or sheltered great offenders. So ran the official document. In the speeches however the offensive persons were actually named; the chief of them were Bristol and his son Digby, as they themselves well knew. The same men were also regarded, and doubtless rightly, as supporters of the leanings towards Spain; they were said to be forming a new Spanish cabal[286]. The Remonstrance contained almost a personal vote of want of confidence against them.
A.D. 1641.
The one decisive question with relation to all matters both domestic and foreign was now whether the Remonstrance would obtain a majority in the Lower House or not. On this it depended whether England would maintain the regal and parliamentary forms after the ancient fashion, together with episcopacy and substantial power vested in the crown, or whether it would change to the system adopted in Scotland, and unite with Presbyterianism the complete preponderance of Parliament. Existing circumstances, old associations, the intuitive and habitual inclination of the people, pointed to the one: the great agitation of the last year, the attempt once undertaken, urged men strongly towards the other. The clauses of the Remonstrance were first discussed singly, and one or two were opposed, but without any practical result. The final debate took place on November 22. Its importance is illustrated by the words of Oliver Cromwell, that on its issue depended the question whether or not he could stay in England. Only if the majority accepted the Remonstrance could he see any future for himself in England. Many others held similar opinions. The rejection of the Remonstrance would have driven to America the champions of the ideas expressed in it.
Edward Hyde opened the debate by declaring a phrase in the Remonstrance inconsistent with the King’s dignity: he added the remark that the defence of their liberties was not opposed to the existence of the crown. ‘We will not be subjects of a contemptible king, any more than he be king of contemptible subjects.’ Lord Falkland approached more nearly to the questions at issue. He specially defended the bishops, who were unfairly accused of Popish tendencies, and even charged with having promoted idolatry. Then he referred to the proposal that the King’s nominations should be subject to the approval of Parliament, which he characterised as impracticable and ludicrous. Edmund Waller, who had already broken several lances with Pym, added that in this he was going against the laws: for that the Lower House was chosen by the freeholders to make the laws, not to see that the King’s counsellors were appointed according to their pleasure. Edward Dering asserted that the wishes A.D. 1641. of the people had now been satisfied, and that they desired no accusations for the past, nor yet promises for the future, such as the Remonstrance contained. John Colepepper declared that they had no right, without the concurrence of the Lords, to publish this Remonstrance, for that the Lower House was chosen to transact business with the King and the Lords, not to issue declarations to the people; moreover that the hostility of the people would very soon be shown if they meddled with episcopacy.
Pym and Hampden took the chief part in defending the Remonstrance. Pym justified the harsh expressions against the bishops, on the ground that the reverence paid to the altars was in fact idolatrous, and the pretension in regard to the King’s advisers, on the ground that the wicked designs against which they had had to fight originated in the immediate neighbourhood of the King. He said that the heart of the people would be won when they ascertained how the Lower House was treated: as for seeking the assent of the Lords to the Remonstrance, it was a contradiction in terms, as it contained complaints against the Lords themselves. Hampden declared that they were only doing what was natural; the Lower House had been loaded with reproaches, and these they repelled: evil counsellors were close at hand and very powerful, and these they exposed. The attacks made on their new church policy he retorted with a text from the Apocalypse predicting the victory of the true church, and the fall of all other worship[287].
Thus reasons and counter-reasons were urged without any one being able clearly to pronounce in which way the scale inclined. At last the opponents of the Remonstrance must have begun to fear that they should be in the minority: they determined to resist as long as possible, and if that failed, to proceed to a protest. It was midnight before they could come to a decision. It was resolved first of all to settle the text of the Remonstrance, and then take the final vote: at last A.D. 1641. the question was put whether the Remonstrance as amended be agreed to or not. On this the House divided; the votes in its favour were 159, those against it 148. It had passed by a majority of eleven.
Still the affair was not ended. A new agitation was aroused by the motion that the Remonstrance should forthwith be printed. The royalist party thought this unendurable, as setting this document before the populace would be an act of hostility against the King. Edward Hyde declared that the House had no authority to do it without having consulted with the Lords: he added that if it passed he should pray for leave to enter his protest. His cautious expression shows that he regarded the right as dubious. But a step was taken which rendered an immediate demonstration possible. Geoffrey Palmer, a lawyer, rose to ask for the appointment of a day on which the right to a protest might be enquired into: meanwhile the names might be taken of those who would sign such a protest in case of its being pronounced legal. He seemed to ask who was prepared for this; a great crowd rose to their feet, with the cry ‘All, all.’ Was not this however in fact a protest, in spite of the doubtful legality? Inevitably it excited immense agitation. The steadfast zeal of the one party balanced the enthusiasm of the other. They waved their hats above their heads, knocked on the ground with their swords; it seemed as if they must come to hand-to-hand fighting. As they sat or stood opposite each other they felt that they could plunge their weapons into one another’s bodies, like Abner’s and Joab’s young men at Hilkath Hazzurim. In that narrow, crowded, dimly lighted room of the chapel, men felt almost as in the valley of the shadow of death[288]. A few conciliatory words from Hampden availed to recall them to their senses. The proposed resolution was in fact not put. Without bloodshed, but in the utmost excitement, they separated late at night.
A.D. 1641.