[Note 13], [p. 47].—The moderation of Pym in this part of his speech will appear evident to every one at all familiar with the course of events under the influence of Laud. A brief but excellent account of the influence of that prelate’s policy is given by Guizot, Eng. Rev., Bohn ed., pp. 49–59.
[Note 14], [p. 50].—The particular privileges here enumerated were all contrary to the statute passed in the reign of Elizabeth. The significance of the tolerance of Catholics was chiefly in the fact that during the same time the Protestant Nonconformist was subjected to every indignity for refusing to bow his conscience to the prescribed formula of doctrine and ceremony. Laud’s favor toward the Catholics was so marked that the Pope offered him a Cardinal’s hat. Laud’s “Diary,” p. 49.
[Note 15], [p. 51].—The most notorious cases were Dr. Montague and Dr. Mainwaring, who both received rich benefices and afterwards became Catholics. A daughter of the Duke of Devonshire entered the Catholic Church. When Laud asked for her reasons she responded: “I hate to be in a crowd, and as I perceive your Grace and many others are hastening toward Rome, I want to get there comfortably by myself before you.”
[Note 16], [p. 52].—The Crown and the Archbishop regarded Sunday “simply as one of the holidays of the Church,” and encouraged the people in pastimes and recreations. A “Book of Sports” had been issued in the time of James I., pointing out the amusements the people might properly indulge in. Laud now ordered that every minister should read the declaration in favor of Sunday pastimes from the pulpit. Some refused. One had the wit to obey, and to close his reading with the declaration: “You have heard read, good people, both the commandment of God and the commandment of man. Obey which you please.” As the result of disobeying the command, however, many were silenced or deposed. In the diocese of Norwich alone, thirty clergymen were expelled from their cures. See Green: “Hist. of Eng. Peo.,” Eng. ed., iii., 160.
[Note 17], [p. 54].—Of this part of Pym’s speech Mr. Forster says: “A more massive document was never given to history. It has all the solidity, weight, and gravity of a judicial record, while it addresses itself equally to the solid good sense of the masses of the people, and to the cultivated understandings of the time. The deliberative gravity, the force, the broad, decided manner of this great speaker, contrast forcibly with those choice specimens of awkward affectations and labored extravagances, that have not seldom passed in modern times for oratory.” “Life of Pym,” p. 99.
[Note 18], [p. 58].—The seventh and twelfth of James I. were 1610 and 1615.
[Note 19], [p. 58].—The Thirty Years’ War in the Palatinate in which the sons-in-law of James I. were the representative of the Protestant cause.
[Note 20], [p. 62].—A partial list of fines imposed between 1629 and 1640 is given in Guizot, Eng. Rev., 445. The list includes “Hillyard, for having sold saltpetre, £5,000”; “John Averman, for not having followed the King’s orders in the fabrication of soap, £13,000”; “Morley, for having struck Sir George Thesbold within the precinct of the Court, £10,000”; and a vast number of other similar ones.
[Note 21], [p. 64].—The tax known as ship money, which had its origin in the necessity of universal defence when the country was threatened with invasion was attempted by Charles but resisted by John Hampden. The case went to trial, and the judges by a bare majority decided in favor of the legality of the tax. The decision is, however, not now regarded as having been correct. The case is reviewed in Hallam, “Con. Hist.,” i., 430.
[Note 22], [p. 65].—The “bounds and perambulations” were the boundary marks and legally established roads and paths. This was at a time when there were very few, if any, inclosures. The possibilities of dispute were taken advantage of by the Government in a way that was enormously oppressive. For example, the Earl of Salisbury was fined £20,000 for “encroachments,” Westmorland £19,000, etc. Guizot: Eng. Rev., 445.