|
THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND
FROM THE INVASION OF JULIUS CAESAR
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF JAMES THE SECOND,
BY DAVID HUME, ESQ.
1688
London: James S. Virtue, City Road and Ivy Lane
New York: 26 John Street
1860
And
Philadelphia:
J. B. Lippincott & Co.
March 17, 1901
In Three Volumes:
VOLUME ONE: The History Of England From The Invasion Of Julius Caesar To
The End Of The Reign Of James The Second............ By David Hume, Esq.
VOLUME TWO: Continued from the Reign of William and Mary to the Death of
George II........................................... by Tobias Smollett.
VOLUME THREE: From the Accession of George III. to the Twenty-Third Year
of the Reign of Queen Victoria............... by E. Farr and E.H. Nolan.
VOLUME ONE
Part E.
From Charles I. to Cromwell
CHAPTER L.
[Illustration: 1-597-charles1a.jpg CHARLES I.]
CHARLES I.
{1625.} No sooner had Charles taken into his hands the reins of
government, than he showed an impatience to assemble the great council
of the nation; and he would gladly, for the sake of despatch, have
called together the same parliament which had sitten under his father,
and which lay at that time under prorogation. But being told that
this measure would appear unusual, he issued writs for summoning a new
parliament on the seventh of May; and it was not without regret that
the arrival of the princess Henrietta, whom he had espoused by proxy,
obliged him to delay, by repeated prorogations, their meeting till the
eighteenth of June, when they assembled at Westminster for the despatch
of business. The young prince, unexperienced and impolitic, regarded as
sincere all the praises and caresses with which he had been loaded while
active in procuring the rupture with the house of Austria. And besides
that he labored under great necessities, he hastened with alacrity to a
period when he might receive the most undoubted testimony of the dutiful
attachment of his subjects. His discourse to the parliament was full of
simplicity and cordiality. He lightly mentioned the occasion which he
had for supply.[*] He employed no intrigue to influence the suffrages of
the members. He would not even allow the officers of the crown, who
had seats in the house, to mention any particular sum which might be
expected by him Secure of the affections of the commons, he was
resolved that their bounty should be entirely their own deed; unasked,
unsolicited; the genuine fruit of sincere confidence and regard.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 171. Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 346.
Franklyn, p. 108.
The house of commons accordingly took into consideration the business of
supply. They knew that all the money granted by the last parliament
had been expended on naval and military armaments; and that great
anticipations were likewise made on the revenues of the crown. They were
not ignorant that Charles was loaded with a large debt, contracted by
his father, who had borrowed money both from his own subjects and from
foreign princes. They had learned by experience, that the public revenue
could with difficulty maintain the dignity of the crown, even under the
ordinary charges of government. They were sensible, that the present
war was very lately the result of their own importunate applications
and entreaties, and that they had solemnly engaged to support their
sovereign in the management of it. They were acquainted with the
difficulty of military enterprises directed against the whole house of
Austria; against the king of Spain, possessed of the greatest riches and
most extensive dominions of any prince in Europe; against the emperor
Ferdinand, hitherto the most fortunate monarch of his age, who had
subdued and astonished Germany by the rapidity of his victories. Deep
impressions they saw must be made by the English sword, and a vigorous
offensive war be waged against these mighty potentates, ere they would
resign a principality which they had now fully subdued, and which they
held in secure possession, by its being surrounded with all their other
territories.
To answer, therefore, all these great and important ends; to satisfy
their young king in the first request which he made them; to prove
their sense of the many royal virtues, particularly economy, with which
Charles was endued; the house of Commons, conducted by the wisest and
ablest senators that had ever flourished in England, thought proper to
confer on the king a supply of two subsidies, amounting to one hundred
and twelve thousand pounds.[*]
* A subsidy was now fallen to about fifty-six thousand
pounds Cabala, p. 224, 1st edit.
This measure, which discovers rather a cruel mockery of Charles, than
any serious design of supporting him, appears so extraordinary, when
considered in all its circumstances, that it naturally summons up our
attention, and raises an inquiry concerning the causes of a conduct
unprecedented in an English parliament. So numerous an assembly,
composed of persons of various dispositions, was not, it is probable,
wholly influenced by the same motives; and few declared openly their
true reason. We shall, therefore, approach nearer to the truth, if we
mention all the views which the present conjuncture could suggest to
them.
It is not to be doubted, but spleen and ill will against the duke of
Buckingham had an influence with many. So vast and rapid a fortune, so
little merited, could not fail to excite public envy; and however men's
hatred might have been suspended for a moment, while the duke's conduct
seemed to gratify their passions and their prejudices, it was impossible
for him long to preserve the affections of the people. His influence
over the modesty of Charles exceeded even that which he had acquired
over the weakness of James; nor was any public measure conducted but
by his counsel and direction. His vehement temper prompted him to raise
suddenly, to the highest elevation, his flatterers and dependants; and
upon the least occasion of displeasure, he threw them down with equal
impetuosity and violence. Implacable in his hatred, fickle in his
friendships, all men were either regarded as his enemies, or dreaded
soon to become such. The whole power of the kingdom was grasped by his
insatiable hand; while he both engrossed the entire confidence of his
master, and held invested in his single person the most considerable
offices of the crown.
However the ill humor of the commons might have been increased by these
considerations, we are not to suppose them the sole motives. The last
parliament of James, amidst all their joy and festivity, had given him
a supply very disproportioned to his demand, and to the occasion. And as
every house of commons which was elected during forty years, succeeded
to all the passions and principles of their predecessors, we ought
rather to account for this obstinacy from the general situation of the
kingdom during that whole period, than from any circumstances which
attended this particular conjuncture.
The nation was very little accustomed at that time to the burden of
taxes, and had never opened their purses in any degree for supporting
their sovereign. Even Elizabeth, notwithstanding her vigor and
frugality, and the necessary wars in which she was engaged, had reason
to complain of the commons in this particular; nor could the authority
of that princess, which was otherwise almost absolute, ever extort from
them the requisite supplies. Habits, more than reason, we find in every
thing to be the governing principle of mankind. In this view, likewise,
the sinking of the value of subsidies must be considered as a loss to
the king. The parliament, swayed by custom, would not augment their
number in the same proportion.
The Puritanical party, though disguised, had a great authority over the
kingdom; and many of the leaders among the commons had secretly embraced
the rigid tenets of that sect. All these were disgusted with the court,
both by the prevalence of the principles of civil liberty essential to
their party, and on account of the restraint under which they were held
by the established hierarchy. In order to fortify himself against the
resentment of James, Buckingham had affected popularity, and entered
into the cabals of the Puritans: but, being secure of the confidence of
Charles, he had since abandoned this party; and on that account was
the more exposed to their hatred and resentment. Though the religious
schemes of many of the Puritans, when explained, appear pretty
frivolous, we are not thence to imagine that they were pursued by none
but persons of weak understandings. Some men of the greatest parts and
most extensive knowledge that the nation at this time produced, could
not enjoy any peace of mind, because obliged to hear prayers offered up
to the Divinity by a priest covered with a white linen vestment.
The match with France, and the articles in favor of Catholics which were
suspected to be in the treaty, were likewise causes of disgust to this
whole party: though it must be remarked, that the connections with that
crown were much less obnoxious to the Protestants, and less agreeable to
the Catholics, than the alliance formerly projected with Spain, and were
therefore received rather with pleasure than dissatisfaction.
To all these causes we must yet add another, of considerable moment. The
house of commons, we may observe, was almost entirely governed by a set
of men of the most uncommon capacity and the largest views; men who were
now formed into a regular party, and united, as well by fixed aims
and projects, as by the hardships which some of them had undergone in
prosecution of them. Among these we may mention the names of Sir Edward
Coke, Sir Edwin Sandys, Sir Robert Philips, Sir Francis Seymour, Sir
Dudley Digges, Sir John Elliot, Sir Thomas Wentworth, Mr. Selden, and
Mr. Pym. Animated with a warm regard to liberty, these generous patriots
saw with regret an unbounded power exercised by the crown, and were
resolved to seize the opportunity which the king's necessities offered
them, of reducing the prerogative within more reasonable compass.
Though their ancestors had blindly given way to practices and precedents
favorable to kingly power, and had been able, notwithstanding, to
preserve some small remains of liberty, it would be impossible, they
thought, when all these pretensions were methodised, and prosecuted by
the increasing knowledge of the age, to maintain any shadow of popular
government, in opposition to such unlimited authority in the sovereign.
It was necessary to fix a choice; either to abandon entirely the
privileges of the people, or to secure them by firmer and more precise
barriers than the constitution had hitherto provided for them. In this
dilemma, men of such aspiring geniuses, and such independent fortunes,
could not long deliberate: they boldly embraced the side of freedom,
and resolved to grant no supplies to their necessitous prince, without
extorting concessions in favor of civil liberty. The end they esteemed
beneficent and noble; the means, regular and constitutional. To grant or
refuse supplies was the undoubted privilege of the commons. And as all
human governments, particularly those of a mixed frame, are in continual
fluctuation, it was as natural, in their opinion, and allowable, for
popular assemblies to take advantage of favorable incidents, in order
to secure the subject, as for monarchs, in order to extend their own
authority. With pleasure they beheld the king involved in a foreign war,
which rendered him every day more dependent on the parliament; while at
the same time the situation of the kingdom, even without any military
preparations, gave it sufficient security against all invasion from
foreigners. Perhaps, too, it had partly proceeded from expectations of
this nature, that the popular leaders had been so urgent for a rupture
with Spain; nor is it credible, that religious zeal could so far have
blinded all of them, as to make them discover, in such a measure, any
appearance of necessity, or any hopes of success.
But, however natural all these sentiments might appear to the country
party, it is not to be imagined that Charles would entertain the same
ideas. Strongly prejudiced in favor of the duke, whom he had heard so
highly extolled in parliament, he could not conjecture the cause of
so sudden an alteration in their opinions. And when the war which
they themselves had so earnestly solicited, was at last commenced,
the immediate desertion of their sovereign could not but seem very
unaccountable. Even though no further motive had been suspected, the
refusal of supply in such circumstances would naturally to him appear
cruel and deceitful: but when he perceived that this measure proceeded
from an intention of encroaching on his authority, he failed not to
regard these aims as highly criminal and traitorous. Those lofty ideas
of monarchical power which were very commonly adopted during that age,
and to which the ambiguous nature of the English constitution gave so
plausible an appearance, were firmly rivetted in Charles; and however
moderate his temper, the natural and unavoidable prepossessions
of self-love, joined to the late uniform precedents in favor of
prerogative, had made him regard his political tenets as certain
and uncontroverted. Taught to consider even the ancient laws and
constitution more as lines to direct his conduct, than barriers to
withstand his power; a conspiracy to erect new ramparts, in order
to straiten his authority, appeared but one degree removed from open
sedition and rebellion. So atrocious in his eyes was such a design, that
he seems even unwilling to impute it to the commons; and though he was
constrained to adjourn the parliament by reason of the plague, which at
that time raged in London, he immediately reassembled them at Oxford,
and made a new attempt to gain from them some supplies in such an urgent
necessity.
Charles now found himself obliged to depart from that delicacy which he
had formerly maintained. By himself or his ministers he entered into a
particular detail, both of the alliances which he had formed, and of the
military operations which he had projected.[*]
* Dugdale, p. 25, 26.
He told the parliament, that, by a promise of subsidies, he had engaged
the king of Denmark to take part in the war; that this monarch intended
to enter Germany by the north, and to rouse to arms those princes who
impatiently longed for an opportunity of asserting the liberty of the
empire; that Mansfeldt had undertaken to penetrate with an English army
into the Palatinate, and by that quarter to excite the members of the
evangelical unions that the states must be supported in the unequal
warfare which they maintained with Spain; that no less a sum than seven
hundred thousand pounds a year had been found, by computation, requisite
for all these purposes; that the maintenance of the fleet, and the
defence of Ireland, demanded an annual expense of four hundred thousand
pounds; that he himself had already exhausted and anticipated, in the
public service, his whole revenue, and had scarcely left sufficient
for the daily subsistence of himself and his family;[*] that on his
accession to the crown, he found a debt of above three hundred thousand
pounds, contracted by his father in support of the palatine; and that
while prince of Wales, he had himself contracted debts, notwithstanding
his great frugality, to the amount of seventy thousand pounds, which he
had expended entirely on naval and military armaments. After mentioning
all these facts, the king even condescended to use entreaties. He said,
that this request was the first that he had ever made them: that he was
young, and in the commencement of his reign; and if he now met with kind
and dutiful usage, it would endear to him the use of parliaments, and
would forever preserve an entire harmony between him and his people.[**]
To these reasons the commons remained inexorable. Notwithstanding that
the king's measures, on the supposition of a foreign war, which they had
constantly demanded, were altogether unexceptionable, they obstinately
refused any further aid. Some members, favorable to the court, having
insisted on an addition of two fifteenths to the former supply, even
this pittance was refused;[***] though it was known that a fleet and
army were lying at Portsmouth, in great want of pay and provisions;
and that Buckingham, the admiral, and the treasurer of the navy, had
advanced on their own credit near a hundred thousand pounds for the sea
service.[****]
* Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 396.
** Rush, vol. i. p. 177, 178, etc. Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p.
399. Franklyn, p. 108, 109. Journ. 10th Aug. 1625.
*** Rush, vol. i. p. 190.
**** Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 390.
Besides all their other motives, the house of commons had made a
discovery, which, as they wanted but a pretence for their refusal,
inflamed them against the court and against the duke of Buckingham. When
James deserted the Spanish alliance, and courted that of France, he had
promised to furnish Lewis, who was entirely destitute of naval force,
with one ship of war, together with seven armed vessels hired from
the merchants. These the French court had pretended they would employ
against the Genoese, who, being firm and useful allies to the Spanish
monarchy, were naturally regarded with an evil eye, both by the king of
France and of England. When these vessels, by Charles's orders, arrived
at Dieppe, there arose a strong suspicion that they were to serve
against Rochelle. The sailors were inflamed. That race of men, who are
at present both careless and ignorant in all matters of religion, were
at that time only ignorant. They drew up a remonstrance to Pennington,
their commander, and signing all their names in a circle, lest he should
discover the ringleaders, they laid it under his prayer-book. Pennington
declared that he would rather be hanged in England for disobedience,
than fight against his brother Protestants in France. The whole squadron
sailed immediately to the Downs. There they received new orders from
Buckingham, lord admiral, to return to Dieppe. As the duke knew that
authority alone would not suffice, he employed much art and many
subtleties to engage them to obedience; and a rumor which was spread,
that peace had been concluded between the French king and the Hugonots,
assisted him in his purpose. When they arrived at Dieppe, they found
that they had been deceived. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who commanded one of
the vessels, broke through and returned to England. All the officers and
sailors of all the other ships, notwithstanding great offers made them
by the French, immediately deserted. One gunner alone preferred duty
towards his king to the cause of religion; and he was afterwards killed
in charging a cannon before Rochelle.[*] The care which historians have
taken to record this frivolous event, proves with what pleasure the news
was received by the nation.
* Franklyn, p. 09. Rush. vol. i. p. 175, 176, etc., 325,
326, etc.
The house of commons, when informed of these transactions, showed the
same attachment with the sailors for the Protestant religion; nor was
their zeal much better guided by reason and sound policy. It was not
considered that it was highly probable the king and the duke themselves
had here been deceived by the artifices of France, nor had they any
hostile intention against the Hugonots; that, were it otherwise yet
might their measures be justified by the most obvious and most received
maxims of civil policy; that, if the force of Spain were really so
exorbitant as the commons imagined, the French monarch was the only
prince that could oppose its progress, and preserve the balance of
Europe; that his power was at present fettered by the Hugonots, who,
being possessed of many privileges, and even of fortified towns, formed
an empire within his empire, and kept him in perpetual jealousy and
inquietude; that an insurrection had been at that time wantonly and
voluntarily formed by their leaders, who, being disgusted in some court
intrigue, took advantage of the never failing pretence of religion,
in order to cover their rebellion, that the Dutch, influenced by these
views, had ordered a squadron of twenty ships to join the French fleet
employed against the inhabitants of Rochelle;[*] that the Spanish
monarch, sensible of the same consequences, secretly supported the
Protestants in France; and that all princes had ever sacrificed to
reasons of state the interests of their religion in foreign countries.
All these obvious considerations had no influence. Great murmurs and
discontents still prevailed in parliament. The Hugonots, though they had
no ground of complaint against the French court, were thought to be as
much entitled to assistance from England, as if they had taken arms in
defence of their liberties and religion against the persecuting rage
of the Catholics. And it plainly appears from this incident, as well
as from many others, that, of all European nations, the British were
at that time, and till long after, the most under the influence of that
religious spirit which tends rather to inflame bigotry than increase
peace and mutual charity.
On this occasion, the commons renewed their eternal complaints against
the growth of Popery, which was ever the chief of their grievances, and
now their only one.[**] They demanded a strict execution of the penal
laws against the Catholics, and remonstrated against some late pardons
granted to priests.[***] They attacked Montague, one of the king's
chaplains, on account of a moderate book which he had lately published,
and which, to their great disgust, saved virtuous Catholics, as well as
other Christians, from eternal torments.[****]
* Journ. 18th April, 1626.
** Franklyn, p. 3, etc.
*** Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 374. Journ. 1st Aug. 1625.
**** Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 353 Journ. 7th July 1625.
Charles gave them a gracious and a compliant answer to all their
remonstrances. He was, however, in his heart, extremely averse to these
furious measures. Though a determined Protestant, by principle as well
as inclination, he had entertained no violent horror against Popery: and
a little humanity, he thought, was due by the nation to the religion
of their ancestors. That degree of liberty which is now indulged to
Catholics, though a party much more obnoxious than during the reign of
the Stuarts, it suited neither with Charles's sentiments nor the humor
of the age to allow them. An abatement of the more rigorous laws was all
he intended; and his engagements with France, notwithstanding that their
regular execution had never been promised or expected, required of him
some indulgence. But so unfortunate was this prince, that no measure
embraced during his whole reign, was ever attended with more unhappy and
more fatal consequences.
The extreme rage against Popery was a sure characteristic of Puritanism.
The house of commons discovered other infallible symptoms of the
prevalence of that party. They petitioned the king for replacing
such able clergy as had been silenced for want of conformity to the
ceremonies.[*] They also enacted laws for the strict observance of
Sunday, which the Puritans affected to call the Sabbath, and which they
sanctified by the most melancholy indolence.[**] It is to be remarked,
that the different appellations of this festival were at that time known
symbols of the different parties.
The king, finding that the parliament was resolved to grant him no
supply, and would furnish him with nothing but empty protestations of
duty,[***] or disagreeable complaints of grievances, took advantage of
the plague,[****] which began to appear at Oxford, and on that pretence
immediately dissolved them. By finishing the session with a dissolution,
instead of a prorogation, he sufficiently expressed his displeasure at
their conduct.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 281.
** 1 Car. I. cap. 1. Journ. 21st June, 1625.
*** Franklyn, p. 113. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 190.
**** The plague was really so violent, that it had been
moved in the house, at the beginning of the session, to
petition the king to adjourn them. (Journ. 21st June, 1625.)
So it was impossible to enter upon grievances, even if there
had been any. The only business of the parliament was to
give supply, which was so much wanted by the king, in order
to carry on the war in which they had engaged him.
To supply the want of parliamentary aids, Charles issued privy seals
for borrowing money from his subjects.[*] The advantage reaped by this
expedient was a small compensation for the disgust which it occasioned.
By means, however, of that supply, and by other expedients, he was,
though with difficulty, enabled to equip his fleet. It consisted of
eighty vessels, great and small; and carried an board an army of ten
thousand men. Sir Edward Cecil, lately created Viscount Wimbleton, was
intrusted with the command. He sailed immediately for Cadiz, and found
the bay full of Spanish ships of great value. He either neglected to
attack these ships or attempted it preposterously. The army was landed,
and a fort taken; but the undisciplined soldiers, finding store of wine,
could not be restrained from the utmost excesses. Further stay appearing
fruitless, they were reembarked; and the fleet put to sea with an
intention of intercepting the Spanish galleons. But the plague having
seized the seamen and soldiers, they were obliged to abandon all hopes
of this prize, and return to England. Loud complaints were made against
the court for intrusting so important a command to a man like Cecil,
whom, though he possessed great experience, the people, judging by the
event, esteemed of slender capacity,[**]
{1626.} Charles, having failed of so rich a prize, was obliged again to
have recourse to a parliament. Though the ill success of his enterprises
diminished his authority, and showed every day more plainly the
imprudence of the Spanish war; though the increase of his necessities
rendered him more dependent, and more exposed to the encroachments
of the commons, he was resolved to try once more that regular and
constitutional expedient for supply. Perhaps, too, a little political
art, which at that time he practised, was much trusted to. He had named
four popular leaders, sheriffs of counties; Sir Edward Coke, Sir Robert
Philips, Sir Thomas Wentworth, and Sir Francis Seymour; and, though the
question had been formerly much contested,[***] he thought that he had
by that means incapacitated them from being elected members. But his
intention, being so evident, rather put the commons more upon their
guard. Enow of patriots still remained to keep up the ill humor of the
house; and men needed but little instruction or rhetoric to recommend to
them practices which increased their own importance and consideration.
The weakness of the court, also, could not more evidently appear, than
by its being reduced to use so ineffectual an expedient, in order to
obtain an influence over the commons.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 192. Parl. Hist, vol. vi. p. 407.
** Franklyn, p. 113. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 196.
*** It is always an express clause in the writ of summons,
that no sheriff shall be chosen; but the contrary practice
had often prevailed D'Ewes, p. 38. Yet still great doubts
were entertained on this head. See Journ. 9th April, 1614.
The views, therefore, of the last parliament were immediately adopted;
as if the same men had been every where elected, and no time had
intervened since their meeting. When the king laid before the house
his necessities, and asked for supply, they immediately voted him three
subsidies and three fifteenths; and though they afterwards added one
subsidy more, the sum was little proportioned to the greatness of the
occasion, and ill fitted to promote those views of success and glory,
for which the young prince, in his first enterprise, so ardently longed.
But this circumstance was not the most disagreeable one. The supply
was only voted by the commons. The passing of that vote into a law was
reserved till the end of the session.[*] A condition was thereby made,
in a very undisguised manner, with their sovereign. Under color of
redressing grievances, which during this short reign could not be very
numerous, they were to proceed in regulating and controlling every part
of government which displeased them; and if the king either cut them
short in this undertaking, or refused compliance with their demands, he
must not expect any supply from the commons. Great dissatisfaction
was expressed by Charles at a treatment which he deemed so harsh and
undutiful.[**] But his urgent necessities obliged him to submit; and he
waited with patience, observing to what side they would turn themselves.
The duke of Buckingham, formerly obnoxious to the public, became every
day more unpopular, by the symptoms which appeared both of his want
of temper and prudence, and of the uncontrolled ascendant which he had
acquired over his master.[***]
* Journ. 27th March, 1626.
** Parliamentary History, vol. vi. p. 449. Rushworth, vol. i.
p. 224.
*** His credit with the king had given him such influence,
that he had no less than twenty proxies granted him this
parliament by so many peers; which occasioned a vote, that
no peer should have above two proxies. The earl of
Leicester, in 1585, had once ten proxies D'Ewes, p. 314.
Two violent attacks he was obliged this session to sustain, one from the
earl of Bristol, another from the house of commons.
As long as James lived, Bristol, secure of the concealed favor of that
monarch, had expressed all duty and obedience; in expectation that an
opportunity would offer of reinstating himself in his former credit and
authority. Even after Charles's accession he despaired not. He submitted
to the king's commands of remaining at his country seat, and of
absenting himself from parliament. Many trials he made to regain
the good opinion of his master; but finding them all fruitless, and
observing Charles to be entirely governed by Buckingham, his implacable
enemy, he resolved no longer to keep any measures with the court. A new
spirit he saw, and a new power arising in the nation; and to these he
was determined for the future to trust for his security and protection.
When the parliament was summoned, Charles, by a stretch of prerogative,
had given orders that no writ, as is customary, should be sent to
Bristol.[*] That nobleman applied to the house of lords by petition; and
craved their good offices with the king for obtaining what was his due
as a peer of the realm. His writ was sent him, but accompanied with
a letter from the lord keeper Coventry, commanding him, in the king's
name, to absent himself from parliament. This letter Bristol conveyed
to the lords, and asked advice how to proceed in so delicate a
situation.[**] The king's prohibition was withdrawn, and Bristol took
his seat. Provoked at these repeated instances of vigor, which the court
denominated contumacy, Charles ordered his attorney-general to enter an
accusation of high treason against him. By way of recrimination, Bristol
accused Buckingham of high treason. Both the earl's defence of himself
and accusation of the duke remain;[***] and, together with some original
letters still extant, contain the fullest and most authentic account
of all the negotiations with the house of Austria. From the whole, the
great imprudence of the duke evidently appears, and the sway of his
ungovernable passions; but it would be difficult to collect thence any
action which, in the eye of the law, could be deemed a crime, much less
could subject him to the penalty of treason.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 236.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 237. Franklyn, p. 120, etc.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p.[**inserted '.'] 256, 262, 263,
etc. Franklyn, p. 123, etc
The impeachment of the commons was still less dangerous to the duke,
were it estimated by the standard of law and equity. The house, after
having voted, upon some queries of Dr. Turner's, "that common fame was
a sufficient ground of accusation by the commons,"[*] proceeded to frame
regular articles against Buckingham. They accused him of having united
many offices in his person; of having bought two of them; of neglecting
to guard the seas, insomuch that many merchant ships had fallen into the
hands of the enemy; of delivering ships to the French king in order to
serve against the Hugonots; of being employed in the sale of honors and
offices; of accepting extensive grants from the crown; of procuring many
titles of honor for his kindred; and of administering physic to the late
king without acquainting his physicians. All these articles appear, from
comparing the accusation and reply, to be either frivolous or false,
or both.[**] The only charge which could be regarded as important, was,
that he had extorted a sum of ten thousand pounds from the East India
company, and that he had confiscated some goods belonging to French
merchants, on pretence of their being the property of Spanish. The
impeachment never came to a full determination; so that it is difficult
for us to give a decisive opinion with regard to these articles: but it
must be confessed that the duke's answer in these particulars, as in all
the rest, is so clear and satisfactory, that it is impossible to refuse
our assent to it.[***] His faults and blemishes were, in many respects,
very great; but rapacity and avarice were vices with which he was
entirely unacquainted.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 217. Whitloeke, p. 5.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 306, etc., 375, etc. Journ. 25th
March, 1626.
*** Whitlocke, p. 7.
It is remarkable that the commons, though so much at a loss to
find articles of charge against Buckingham, never adopted Bristol's
accusation, or impeached the duke for his conduct in the Spanish treaty,
the most blamable circumstance in his whole life. He had reason to
believe the Spaniards sincere in their professions; yet, in order to
gratify his private passions, he had hurried his master and his
country into a war pernicious to the interests of both. But so rivetted
throughout the nation were the prejudices with regard to Spanish deceit
and falsehood, that very few of the commons seem as yet to have been
convinced that they had been seduced by Buckingham's narrative: a
certain proof that a discovery of this nature was not, as is imagined by
several historians, the cause of so sudden and surprising a variation in
the measures of the parliament.[*] [1]
While the commons were thus warmly engaged against Buckingham, the king
seemed desirous of embracing every opportunity by which he could express
a contempt and disregard for them. No one was at that time sufficiently
sensible of the great weight which the commons bore in the balance of
the constitution. The history of England had never hitherto afforded one
instance where any great movement or revolution had proceeded from
the lower house. And as their rank, both considered in a body and as
individuals, was but the second in the kingdom, nothing less than fatal
experience could engage the English princes to pay a due regard to the
inclinations of that formidable assembly.
The earl of Suffolk, chancellor of the university of Cambridge, dying
about this time, Buckingham, though lying under impeachment was yet, by
means of court interest, chosen in his place. The commons resented and
loudly complained of this affront; and the more to enrage them, the king
himself wrote a letter to the university, extolling the duke, and giving
them thanks for his election.[**]
The lord keeper, in the king's name, expressly commanded the house not
to meddle with his minister and servant, Buckingham; and ordered them to
finish, in a few days, the bill which they had begun for the subsidies,
and to make some addition to them; otherwise they must not expect to sit
any longer.[***] And though these harsh commands were endeavored to
be explained and mollified, a few days after, by a speech of
Buckingham's,[****] they failed not to leave a disagreeable impression
behind them.
* See note A, at the end of the volume.
** Rush worth, vol. i. p. 371.
*** Parliament. Hist. vol. vi. p. 444.
**** Parliament. Hist. vol. vi. p 451. Rushworth. vol. i. p.
225. Franklyn, p. 118.
Besides a more stately style which Charles in general affected to
this parliament than to the last, he went so far, in a message, as to
threaten the commons that, if they did not furnish him with supplies, he
should be obliged to try new "counsels." This language was sufficiently
clear: yet lest any ambiguity should remain, Sir Dudley Carleton,
vice-chamberlain, took care to explain it. "I pray you, consider," said
he, "what these new counsels are, or may be. I fear to declare those
that I conceive. In all Christian kingdoms, you know that parliaments
were in use anciently, by which those kingdoms were governed in a most
flourishing manner; until the monarchs began to know their own strength,
and seeing the turbulent spirit of their parliaments, at length they,
by little and little, began to stand on their prerogatives, and at last
overthrew the parliaments, throughout Christendom, except here only
with us. Let us be careful then to preserve the king's good opinion of
parliaments, which bringeth such happiness to this nation, and makes us
envied of all others, while there is this sweetness between his majesty
and the commons; lest we lose the repute of a free people by our
turbulency in parliament."[*] These imprudent suggestions rather gave
warning than struck terror. A precarious liberty, the commons thought,
which was to be preserved by unlimited complaisance, was no liberty
at all. And it was necessary, while yet in their power, to secure the
constitution by such invincible barriers, that no king or minister
should ever, for the future, dare to speak such a language to any
parliament, or even entertain such a project against them.
Two members of the house, Sir Dudley Digges and Sir John Elliot, who
had been employed as managers of the impeachment against the duke, were
thrown into prison.[**] The commons immediately declared, that they
would proceed no further upon business till they had satisfaction
in their privileges. Charles alleged, as the reason of this measure,
certain seditious expressions, which, he said, had, in their accusation
of the duke, dropped from these members. Upon inquiry, it appeared that
no such expressions had been used.[***] The members were released; and
the king reaped no other benefit from this attempt than to exasperate
the house still, and to show some degree of precipitancy and
indiscretion.
Moved by this example, the house of peers were roused from their
inactivity; and claimed liberty for the earl of Arundel, who had been
lately confined in the Tower. After many fruitless evasions, the king,
though somewhat ungracefully, was at last obliged to comply.[****] And
in this incident it sufficiently appeared, that the lords, how little
soever inclined to popular courses, were not wanting in a just sense of
their own dignity.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 359. Whitlocke, p. 6.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 356.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 358, 361. Franklyn, p. 180.
**** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 363, 364, etc. Franklyn, p. 181.
The ill humor of the commons, thus wantonly irritated by the court, and
finding no gratification in the legal impeachment of Buckingham, sought
other objects on which it might exert itself. The never-failing cry of
Popery here served them in stead. They again claimed the execution of
the penal laws against Catholics; and they presented to the king a list
of persons intrusted with offices, most of them insignificant who were
either convicted or suspected recusants.[*] In this particular they had,
perhaps, some reason to blame the king's conduct. He had promised to the
last house of commons a redress of this religious grievance: but he was
apt, in imitation of his father, to imagine that the parliament, when
they failed of supplying his necessities, had, on their part, freed him
from the obligation of a strict performance. A new odium, likewise, by
these representations, was attempted to be thrown upon Buckingham. His
mother, who had great influence over him, was a professed Catholic; his
wife was not free from suspicion: and the indulgence given to Catholics
was of course supposed to proceed entirely from his credit and
authority. So violent was the bigotry of the times, that it was thought
a sufficient reason for disqualifying any one from holding an office,
that his wife, or relations, or companions were Papists, though he
himself were a conformist.[**]
It is remarkable, that persecution was here chiefly pushed on by laymen;
and that the church was willing to have granted more liberty than would
be allowed by the commons. The reconciling doctrines, likewise, of
Montague failed not anew to meet with severe censures from that zealous
assembly.[***]
* Franklyn, p. 195. Rushworth.
** See the list in Franklyn and Rushworth.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 209.
The next attack made by the commons, had it prevailed, would have proved
decisive. They were preparing a remonstranace against the levying
of tonnage and poundage without consent of parliament. This article,
together with the new impositions laid on merchandise by James,
constituted near half of the crown revenues; and by depriving the king
of these resources, they would have reduced him to total subjection
and dependence. While they retained such a pledge, besides the supply
already promised, they were sure that nothing could be refused them.
Though, after canvassing the matter near three ninths, they found
themselves utterly incapable of fixing any legal crime upon the duke,
they regarded him as an unable, and perhaps a dangerous minister;
and they intended to present a petition, which would then have been
equivalent to a command, for removing him from his majesty's person and
councils.[*]
The king was alarmed at the yoke which he saw prepared for him.
Buckingham's sole guilt, he thought, was the being his friend and
favorite.[**]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 400 Franklyn, p. 199.
** Franklyn, p. 178.
All the other complaints against him were mere pretences. A little
before, he was the idol of the people. No new crime had since been
discovered. After the most diligent inquiry, prompted by the greatest
malice, the smallest appearance of guilt could not be fixed upon him.
What idea, he asked, must all mankind entertain of his honor, should he
sacrifice his innocent friend to pecuniary considerations? What further
authority should he retain in the nation, were he capable, in the
beginning of his reign, to give, in so signal an instance, such matter
of triumph to his enemies, and discouragement to his adherents? To-day
the commons pretend to wrest his minister from him: to-morrow they
will attack some branch of his prerogative. By their remonstrances, and
promises, and protestations, they had engaged the crown in a war.
As soon as they saw a retreat impossible, without waiting for new
incidents, without covering themselves with new pretences, they
immediately deserted him, and refused him all reasonable supply. It
was evident, that they desired nothing so much as to see him plunged in
inextricable difficulties, of which they intended to take advantage. To
such deep perfidy, to such unbounded usurpations, it was necessary to
oppose a proper firmness and resolution. All encroachments on supreme
power could only be resisted successfully on the first attempt. The
sovereign authority was, with some difficulty, reduced from its ancient
and legal height, but when once pushed downwards, it soon became
contemptible, and would easily, by the continuance of the same effort,
now encouraged by success, be carried to the lowest extremity.
Prompted by these plausible motives, Charles was determined immediately
to dissolve the parliament. When this resolution was known, the house
of peers, whose compliant behavior entitled them to some authority with
him, endeavored to interpose;[*] and they petitioned him, that he would
allow the parliament to sit some time longer. "Not a moment longer,"
cried the king hastily;[**] and he soon after ended the session by a
dissolution.
As this measure was foreseen, the commons took care to finish and
disperse their remonstrance, which they intended as a justification of
their conduct to the people. The king likewise, on his part, published
a declaration, in which he gave the reasons of his disagreement with
the parliament, and of their sudden dissolution, before they had time to
conclude any one act.[***] These papers furnished the partisans on
both sides with ample matter of apology or of recrimination. But all
impartial men judged, "that the commons, though they had not as yet
violated any law, yet, by their unpliableness and independence, were
insensibly changing, perhaps improving, the spirit and genius, while
they preserved the form of the constitution and that the king was acting
altogether without any plan; running on in a road surrounded on all
sides with the most dangerous precipices, and concerting no proper
measures, either for submitting to the obstinacy of the commons, or for
subduing it."
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 398.
** Sanderson's Life of Charles I., p. 58.
*** Franklyn, p. 203, etc Parliament. Hist. vol. vii p. 300
After a breach with the parliament, which seemed so difficult to repair,
the only rational counsel which Charles could pursue, was immediately to
conclude a peace with Spain, and to render himself, as far as possible,
independent of his people, who discovered so little inclination to
support him, or rather who seemed to have formed a determined resolution
to abridge his authority. Nothing could be more easy in the execution
than this measure, nor more agreeable to his own and to national
interest. But, besides the treaties and engagements which he had entered
into with Holland and Denmark, the king's thoughts were at this time
averse to pacific counsels. There are two circumstances in Charles's
character, seemingly incompatible, which attended him during the whole
course of his reign, and were in part the cause of his misfortunes: he
was very steady, and even obstinate in his purpose; and he was easily
governed, by reason of his facility, and of his deference to men much
inferior to himself both in morals and understanding. His great ends
he inflexibly maintained; but the means of attaining them he readily
received from his ministers and favorites, though not always fortunate
in his choice. The violent, impetuous Buckingham, inflamed with a desire
of revenge for injuries which he himself had committed, and animated
with a love of glory which he had not talents to merit, had at
this time, notwithstanding his profuse licentious life, acquired an
invincible ascendant over the virtuous and gentle temper of the king.
The "new counsels," which Charles had mentioned to the parliament, were
now to be tried, in order to supply his necessities. Had he possessed
any military force on which he could rely, it is not improbable, that
he had at once taken off the mask, and governed without any regard to
parliamentary privileges: so high an idea had he received of kingly
prerogative, and so contemptible a notion of the rights of those popular
assemblies, from which, he very naturally thought, he had met with such
ill usage. But his army was new levied, ill paid, and worse disciplined;
nowise superior to the militia, who were much more numerous, and who
were in a great measure under the influence of the country gentlemen.
It behoved him, therefore, to proceed cautiously, and to cover his
enterprises under the pretence of ancient precedents, which, considering
the great authority commonly enjoyed by his predecessors, could not be
wanting to him.
A commission was openly granted to compound with the Catholics, and
agree for dispensing with the penal laws enacted against them.[*] By
this expedient, the king both filled his coffers, and gratified his
inclination of giving indulgence to these religionists; but he could
not have employed any branch of prerogative which would have been
more disagreeable, or would have appeared more exceptionable to his
Protestant subjects.
From the nobility he desired assistance: from the city he required a
loan of one hundred thousand pounds. The former contributed slowly; but
the latter, covering themselves under many pretences and excuses, gave
him at last a flat refusal.[**]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 413. Whitlocke, p. 7.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 415. Franklyn, p. 206.
In order to equip a fleet, a distribution, by order of council, was
made to all the maritime towns; and each of them was required, with
the assistance of the adjacent counties, to arm so many vessels as were
appointed them.[*] The city of London was rated at twenty ships. This
is the first appearance, in Charles's reign, of ship-money; a taxation
which had once been imposed by Elizabeth, but which afterwards, when
carried some steps further by Charles, created such violent discontents.
Of some, loans were required:[**] to others the way of benevolence was
proposed: methods supported by precedent, but always invidious, even in
times more submissive and compliant. In the most absolute governments,
such expedients would be regarded as irregular and unequal.
These counsels for supply were conducted with some moderation; till news
arrived, that a great battle was fought between the king of Denmark
and Count Tilly, the imperial general; in which the former was totally
defeated. Money now more than ever, became necessary, in order to repair
so great a breach in the alliance, and to support a prince who was so
nearly allied to Charles, and who had been engaged in the war chiefly by
the intrigues, solicitations, and promises of the English monarch. After
some deliberation, an act of council was passed, importing, that as the
urgency of affairs admitted not the way of parliament, the most speedy,
equal, and convenient method of supply was by a "general loan" from the
subject, according as every man was assessed in the rolls of the last
subsidy. That precise sum was required which each would have paid, had
the vote of four subsidies passed into a law: but care was taken
to inform the people, that the sums exacted were not to be called
subsidies, but loans.[***] Had any doubt remained, whether forced loans,
however authorized by precedent, and even by statute, were a violation
of liberty, and must, by necessary consequence, render all parliaments
superfluous, this was the proper expedient for opening the eyes of the
whole nation. The example of Henry VIII., who had once, in his arbitrary
reign, practiced a like method of levying a regular supply, was
generally deemed a very insufficient authority.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 415.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 416.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 418. Whitlocke, p. 8.
The commissioners appointed to levy these loans, among other articles
of secret instruction, were enjoined, "If any shall refuse to lend, and
shall make delays or excuses, and persist in his obstinacy, that they
examine him upon oath, whether he has been dealt with to deny or refuse
to lend, or make an [excuse] for not lending? Who has dealt with him,
and what speeches or persuasions were used to that purpose? And that
they also shall charge every such person, in his majesty's name, upon
his allegiance, not to disclose to any one what his answer was."[*] So
violent an inquisitorial power, so impracticable an attempt at secrecy,
were the objects of indignation, and even, in some degree, of ridicule.
That religious prejudices might support civil authority, sermons were
preached by Sibthorpe and Manwaring, in favor of the general loan; and
the court industriously spread them over the kingdom. Passive obedience
was there recommended in its full extent, the whole authority of
the state was represented as belonging to the king alone, and all
limitations of law and a constitution were rejected as seditious and
impious.[**] So openly was this doctrine espoused by the court, that
Archbishop Abbot, a popular and virtuous prelate, was, because he
refused to license Sibthorpe's sermon, suspended from the exercise of
his office, banished from London, and confined to one of his country
seats.[***] Abbot's principles of liberty, and his opposition to
Buckingham, had always rendered him very ungracious at court, and had
acquired him the character of a Puritan. For it is remarkable, that
this party made the privileges of the nation as much a part of their
religion, as the church party did the prerogatives of the crown: and
nothing tended further to recommend among the people, who always take
opinions in the lump, the whole system and all the principles of the
former sect. The king soon found by fatal experience, that this
engine of religion, which with so little necessity was introduced into
politics, falling under more fortunate management, was played with the
most terrible success against him.
While the king, instigated by anger and necessity, thus employed the
whole extent of his prerogative, the spirit of the people was far from
being subdued. Throughout England, many refused these loans; some were
even active in encouraging their neighbors to insist upon their common
rights and privileges. By warrant of the council, these were thrown into
prison.[****]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419. Franklyn, p. 207.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 422. Franklyn, p. 208.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 431.
**** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 429. Franklyn, p. 210.
Most of them with patience submitted to confinement, or applied by
petition to the king, who commonly released them. Five gentlemen
alone, Sir Thomas Darnel, Sir John Corbet, Sir Walter Earl, Sir John
Heveningham, and Sir Edmond Hambden, had spirit enough, at their own
hazard and expense, to defend the public liberties, and to demand
releasement, not as a favor from the court, but as their due, by the
laws of their country.[*] No particular cause was assigned of their
commitment. The special command alone of the king and council was
pleaded. And it was asserted, that, by law, this was not sufficient
reason for refusing bail or releasement to the prisoners.
[Illustration: 1-623-hampden.jpg Sir Edmond Hambden]
This question was brought to a solemn trial, before the king's bench;
and the whole kingdom was attentive to the issue of a cause which was of
much greater consequence than the event of many battles.
By the debates on this subject, it appeared, beyond controversy, to the
nation, that their ancestors had been so jealous of personal liberty,
as to secure it against arbitrary power in the crown, by six[**] several
statutes, and by an article[***] of the Great Charter itself, the
most sacred foundation of the laws and constitution. But the kings of
England, who had not been able to prevent the enacting of these laws,
had sufficient authority, when the tide of liberty was spent, to
obstruct their regular execution; and they deemed it superfluous
to attempt the formal repeal of statutes which they found so many
expedients and pretences to elude.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 458. Franklyn, p. 224. Whitlocke, p.
8.
** 25 Edw. III. cap. 4. 28 Edw. III. cap, 3. 37 Edw. III.
cap. 18 88 Edw. III. cap. 9 42 Edw. III. cap. 3. 1 Richard
II. cap. 12.
*** Chap. 29
Turbulent and seditious times frequently occurred, when the safety of
the people absolutely required the confinement of factious leaders;
and by the genius of the old constitution, the prince, of himself,
was accustomed to assume every branch of prerogative which was found
necessary for the preservation of public peace and of his own authority.
Expediency, at other times, would cover itself under the appearance of
necessity; and, in proportion as precedents multiplied, the will alone
of the sovereign was sufficient to supply the place of expediency, of
which he constituted himself the sole judge. In an age and nation where
the power of a turbulent nobility prevailed, and where the king had no
settled military force, the only means that could maintain public peace,
was the exertion of such prompt and discretionary powers in the crown;
and the public itself had become so sensible of the necessity, that
those ancient laws in favor of personal liberty, while often violated,
had never been challenged or revived during the course of near three
centuries. Though rebellious subjects had frequently, in the open field,
resisted the king's authority, no person had been found so bold, while
confined and at mercy, as to set himself in opposition to regal power,
and to claim the protection of the constitution against the will of
the sovereign. It was not till this age, when the spirit of liberty
was universally diffused, when the principles of government were nearly
reduced to a system, when the tempers of men, more civilized, seemed
less to require those violent exertions of prerogative, that these five
gentlemen above mentioned, by a noble effort, ventured, in this national
cause, to bring the question to a final determination. And the king was
astonished to observe, that a power exercised by his predecessors almost
without interruption, was found, upon trial, to be directly opposite to
the clearest laws, and supported by few undoubted precedents in courts
of judicature. These had scarcely in any instance refused bail upon
commitments by special command of the king, because the persons
committed had seldom or never dared to demand it, at least to insist on
their demand.
{1627.} Sir Randolf Crew, chief justice, had been displaced, as
unfit for the purposes of the court: Sir Nicholas Hyde, esteemed more
obsequious, had obtained that high office: yet the judges, by his
direction, went no further than to remand the gentlemen to prison, and
refuse the bail which was offered.[*] Heathe, the attorney-general,
insisted that the court, in imitation of the judges in the thirty-fourth
of Elizabeth,[**] should enter a general judgment, that no bail could
be granted upon a commitment by the king or council.[***] But the judges
wisely declined complying. The nation, they saw, was already to the last
degree exasperated. In the present disposition of men's minds, universal
complaints prevailed, as if the kingdom were reduced to slavery. And
the most invidious prerogative of the crown, it was said, that of
imprisoning the subject, is here openly, and solemnly, and in numerous
instances, exercised for the most invidious purpose; in order to extort
loans, or rather subsidies, without consent of parliament.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 462.
** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 147.
*** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 161.
But this was not the only hardship of which the nation thought they had
reason to complain. The army which had made the fruitless expedition to
Cadiz, was dispersed throughout the kingdom; and money was levied upon
the counties for the payment of their quarters.[*]
The soldiers were billeted upon private houses, contrary to custom,
which required that, in all ordinary cases, they should be quartered in
inns and public houses.[**]
Those who had refused or delayed the loan, were sure to be loaded with a
great number of these dangerous and disorderly guests.
Many too, of low condition, who had shown a refractory disposition, were
pressed into the service, and enlisted in the fleet or army,[***] Sir
Peter Hayman, for the same reason, was despatched on an errand to the
Palatinate.[****] Glanville, an eminent lawyer, had been obliged,
during the former interval of parliament, to accept of an office in the
navy.[v]
The soldiers, ill paid and undisciplined, committed many crimes and
outrages, and much increased the public discontents. To prevent these
disorders, martial law, so requisite to the support of discipline, was
exercised upon the soldiers. By a contradiction which is natural when
the people are exasperated, the outrages of the army were complained
of; the remedy was thought still more intolerable.[v*] Though the
expediency, if we are not rather to say the necessity, of martial law
had formerly been deemed of itself a sufficient ground for establishing
it, men, now become more jealous of liberty, and more refined reasoners
in questions of government, regarded as illegal and arbitrary every
exercise of authority which was not supported by express statute or
uninterrupted precedent.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 422.
**** Rushworth, vol i. p. 481.
v Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 310.
v** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419. Whitlocke, p. 7.
It may safely be affirmed, that, except a few courtiers or
ecclesiastics, all men were displeased with this high exertion of
prerogative, and this new spirit of administration. Though ancient
precedents were pleaded in favor of the king's measures, a considerable
difference, upon comparison, was observed between the cases. Acts of
power, however irregular, might casually, and at intervals, be exercised
by a prince, for the sake of despatch or expediency, and yet liberty
still subsist in some tolerable degree under his administration.
But where all these were reduced into a system, were exerted without
interruption, were studiously sought for, in order to supply the
place of laws, and subdue the refractory spirit of the nation, it was
necessary to find some speedy remedy, or finally to abandon all hopes of
preserving the freedom of the constitution. Nor did moderate men esteem
the provocation which the king had received, though great, sufficient
to warrant all these violent measures. The commons as yet had nowise
invaded his authority: they had only exercised, as best pleased them,
their own privileges. Was he justifiable, because from one house of
parliament he had met with harsh and unkind treatment, to make, in
revenge, an invasion on the rights and liberties of the whole nation?
But great was at this time the surprise of all men, when Charles,
baffled in every attempt against the Austrian dominions, embroiled with
his own subjects, unsupplied with any treasure but what he extorted
by the most invidious and most dangerous measures; as if the half of
Europe, now his enemy, were not sufficient for the exercise of military
prowess; wantonly attacked France, the other great kingdom in his
neighborhood, and engaged at once in war against these two powers, whose
interests were hitherto deemed so incompatible that they could never,
it was thought, agree either in the same friendships or enmities. All
authentic memoirs, both foreign and domestic, ascribe to Buckingham's
counsels this war with France, and represent him as actuated by motives
which would appear incredible, were we not acquainted with the violence
and temerity of his character.
The three great monarchies of Europe were at this time ruled by young
princes, Philip, Louis, and Charles, who were nearly of the same
age, and who had resigned the government of themselves, and of their
kingdoms, to their creatures and ministers, Olivarez, Richelieu, and
Buckingham. The people, whom the moderate temper or narrow genius of
their princes would have allowed to remain forever in tranquillity, were
strongly agitated by the emulation and jealousy of the ministers. Above
all, the towering spirit of Richelieu, incapable of rest, promised an
active age, and gave indications of great revolutions throughout all
Europe.
This man had no sooner, by suppleness and intrigue, gotten possession of
the reins of government, than he formed at once three mighty projects;
to subdue the turbulent spirits of the great, to reduce the rebellious
Hugonots, and to curb the encroaching power of the house of Austria.
Undaunted and implacable, prudent and active, he braved all the
opposition of the French princes and nobles in the prosecution of his
vengeance; he discovered and dissipated all their secret cabals and
conspiracies. His sovereign himself he held in subjection, while
he exalted the throne. The people, while they lost their liberties,
acquired, by means of his administration, learning, order, discipline,
and renown. That confused and inaccurate genius of government, of which
France partook in common with other European kingdoms, he changed into
a simple monarchy; at the very time when the incapacity of Buckingham
encouraged the free spirit of the commons to establish in England a
regular system of liberty.
However unequal the comparison between these ministers, Buckingham had
entertained a mighty jealousy against Richelieu; a jealousy not founded
on rivalship of power and politics, but of love and gallantry; where the
duke was as much superior to the cardinal, as he was inferior in every
other particular.
At the time when Charles married by proxy the princess Henrietta,
the duke of Buckingham had been sent to France, in order to grace the
nuptials, and conduct the new queen into England. The eyes of the French
court were directed by curiosity towards that man who had enjoyed the
unlimited favor of two successive monarchs, and who, from a private
station, had mounted, in the earliest youth, to the absolute government
of three kingdoms. The beauty of his person, the gracefulness of his
air, the splendor of his equipage, his fine taste in dress, festivals,
and carousals, corresponded to the prepossessions entertained in his
favor: the affability of his behavior, the gayety of his manners,
the magnificence of his expense, increased still further the general
admiration which was paid him. All business being already concerted, the
time was entirely spent in mirth and entertainments; and during those
splendid scenes among that gay people, the duke found himself in a
situation where he was perfectly qualified to excel.[*]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 38.
But his great success at Paris proved as fatal as his former failure
at Madrid. Encouraged by the smiles of the court, he dared to carry
his ambitious addresses to the queen herself; and he failed not to
make impression on a heart not undisposed to the tender passions. That
attachment at least of the mind, which appears so delicious, and is so
dangerous, seems to have been encouraged by the princess; and the
duke presumed so far on her good graces, that, after his departure, he
secretly returned upon some pretence, and, paying a visit to the queen,
was dismissed with a reproof which savored more of kindness than of
anger.[*]
Information of this correspondence was soon carried to Richelieu. The
vigilance of that minister was here further roused by jealousy. He, too,
either from vanity or politics, had ventured to pay his addresses to
the queen. But a priest, past middle age, of a severe character, and
occupied in the most extensive plans of ambition or vengeance, was
but an unequal match, in that contest, for a young courtier, entirely
disposed to gayety and gallantry. The cardinal's disappointment strongly
inclined him to counterwork the amorous projects of his rival. When the
duke was making preparations for a new embassy to Paris, a message was
sent him from Louis, that he must not think of such a journey. In a
romantic passion he swore, "That he would see the queen, in spite of
all the power of France;" and, from that moment, he determined to engage
England in a war with that kingdom.[**]
He first took advantage of some quarrels excited by the queen of
England's attendants; and he persuaded Charles to dismiss at once
all her French servants, contrary to the articles of the marriage
treaty.[***] He encouraged the English ships of war and privateers to
seize vessels belonging to French merchants; and these he forthwith
condemned as prizes, by a sentence of the court of admiralty. But
finding that all these injuries produced only remonstrances and
embassies, or at most reprisals, on the part of France, he resolved to
second the intrigues of the duke of Soubize, and to undertake at once a
military expedition against that kingdom.
* Memoires de Mad. de Motteville.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 38
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 423, 424.
Soubize, who, with his brother, the duke of Rohan, was the leader of
the Hugonot faction, was at that time in London, and strongly solicited
Charles to embrace the protection of these distressed religionists. He
represented, that after the inhabitants of Rochelle had been repressed
by the combined squadrons of England and Holland, after peace was
concluded with the French king under Charles's mediation, the ambitious
cardinal was still meditating the destruction of the Hugonots: that
preparations were silently making in every province of France for the
suppression of their religion; that forts were erected in order to
bridle Rochelle, the most considerable bulwark of the Protestants; that
the reformed in France cast their eyes on Charles as the head of their
faith, and considered him as a prince engaged by interest, as well as
inclination, to support them; that so long as their party subsisted,
Charles might rely on their attachment as much as on that of his own
subjects; but if their liberties were once ravished from them, the power
of France, freed from this impediment, would soon become formidable to
England, and to all the neighboring nations.
Though Charles probably bore but small favor to the Hugonots, who so
much resembled the Puritans in discipline and worship, in religion
and politics, he yet allowed himself to be gained by these arguments,
enforced by the solicitations of Buckingham. A fleet of a hundred sail,
and an army of seven thousand men, were fitted out for the invasion of
France, and both of them intrusted to the command of the duke, who
was altogether unacquainted both with land and sea service. The fleet
appeared before Rochelle; but so ill concerted were Buckingham's
measures, that the inhabitants of that city shut their gates and refused
to admit allies of whose coming they were not previously informed.[*]
All his military operations showed equal incapacity and inexperience.
Instead of attacking Oleron, a fertile island, and defenceless, he bent
his course to the Isle of Rhe, which was well garrisoned and fortified:
having landed his men, though with some loss, he followed not the blow,
but allowed Toiras, the French governor, five days' respite, during
which St. Martin was victualled and provided for a siege.[**]
* Rushworth, vol i. p. 426.
** Whitlocke, p. 8. Sir Philip Warwick, p. 25.
He left behind him the small fort of Prie, which could at first have
made no manner of resistance: though resolved to starve St. Martin, he
guarded the sea negligently, and allowed provisions and ammunition to
be thrown into it: despairing to reduce it by famine, he attacked it
without having made any breach, and rashly threw away the lives of
the soldiers: having found that a French army had stolen over in small
divisions, and had landed at Prie, the fort which he had at first
overlooked, he began to think of a retreat; but made it so unskilfully,
that it was equivalent to a total rout; he was the last of the army that
embarked; and he returned to England, having lost two thirds of his
land forces; totally discredited both as an admiral and a general; and
bringing no praise with him, but the vulgar one of courage and personal
bravery.
The duke of Rohan, who had taken arms as soon as Buckingham appeared
upon the coast, discovered the dangerous spirit of the sect, without
being able to do any mischief; the inhabitants of Rochelle, who had at
last been induced to join the English, hastened the vengeance of their
master, exhausted their provisions in supplying their allies, and were
threatened with an immediate siege. Such were the fruits of Buckingham's
expedition against France.
CHAPTER LI.
CHARLES I.
{1628.} There was reason to apprehend some disorder or insurrection
from the discontents which prevailed among the people in England.
Their liberties, they believed, were ravished from them; illegal taxes
extorted; their commerce which had met with a severe check from the
Spanish, was totally annihilated by the French war; those military
honors transmitted to them from their ancestors, had received a grievous
stain by two unsuccessful and ill-conducted expeditions; scarce an
illustrious family but mourned, from the last of them, the loss of a
son or brother; greater calamities were dreaded from the war with these
powerful monarchies, concurring with the internal disorders under which
the nation labored. And these ills were ascribed, not to the refractory
disposition of the two former parliaments, to which they were partly
owing, but solely to Charles's obstinacy in adhering to the counsels of
Buckingham, a man nowise entitled by his birth, age, services, or merit,
to that unlimited confidence reposed in him. To be sacrificed to the
interest, policy, and ambition of the great, is so much the common lot
of the people, that they may appear unreasonable who would pretend to
complain of it: but to be the victim of the frivolous gallantry of a
favorite, and of his boyish caprices, seemed the object of peculiar
indignation.
In this situation, it may be imagined the king and the duke dreaded,
above all things, the assembling of a parliament; but so little
foresight had they possessed in their enterprising schemes, that
they found themselves under an absolute necessity of embracing that
expedient. The money levied, or rather extorted, under color of
prerogative, had come in very slowly, and had left such ill humor in the
nation, that it appeared dangerous to renew the experiment. The absolute
necessity of supply, it was hoped, would engage the commons to forget
all past injuries; and, having experienced the ill effects of former
obstinacy, they would probably assemble with a resolution of making some
reasonable compliances. The more to soften them, it was concerted,
by Sir Robert Cotton's advice,[*] that Buckingham should be the first
person that proposed in council the calling of a new parliament.
Having laid in this stock of merit, he expected that all his former
misdemeanors would be overlooked and forgiven; and that, instead of a
tyrant and oppressor, he should be regarded as the first patriot in the
nation.
The views of the popular leaders were much more judicious and profound.
When the commons assembled, they appeared to be men of the same
independent spirit with their predecessors, and possessed of such
riches, that their property was computed to surpass three times that
of the house of peers;[**] they were deputed by boroughs and counties,
inflamed all of them by the late violations of liberty; many of the
members themselves had been cast into prison, and had suffered by the
measures of the court; yet, notwithstanding these circumstances, which
might prompt them to embrace violent resolutions, they entered upon
business with perfect temper and decorum. They considered that the king,
disgusted at these popular assemblies, and little prepossessed in favor
of their privileges, wanted but a fair pretence for breaking with them,
and would seize the first opportunity offered by any incident, or any
undutiful behavior of the members. He fairly told them in his first
speech, that, "If they should not do their duties in contributing to the
necessities of the state, he must, in discharge of his conscience, use
those other means which God had put into his hands, in order to save
that which the follies of some particular men may otherwise put in
danger. Take not this for a threatening," added the king, "for I scorn
to threaten any but my equals; but as an admonition from him who,
by nature and duty, has most care of your preservation and
prosperity."[***] The lord keeper, by the king's direction, subjoined,
"This way of parliamentary supplies as his majesty told you, he hath
chosen, not as the only way, but as the fittest; not because he is
destitute of others, but because it is most agreeable to the goodness
of his own most gracious disposition, and to the desire and weal of his
people. If this be deferred, necessity and the sword of the enemy make
way for the others. Remember his majesty's admonition. I say, remember
it."[****]
* Franklyn, p. 230.
** Sanderson, p. 106. Walker, p. 339
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 477. Franklyn, p. 233.
**** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 479. Franklyn, p. 234
From these avowed maxims, the commons foresaw that, if the least handle
were afforded, the king would immediately dissolve them, and would
thenceforward deem himself justified for violating, in a manner still
more open, all the ancient forms of the constitution. No remedy could
then be looked for but from insurrections and civil war, of which the
issue would be extremely uncertain, and which must, in all events,
prove calamitous to the nation. To correct the late disorders in the
administration required some new laws, which would, no doubt, appear
harsh to a prince so enamored of his prerogative; and it was requisite
to temper, by the decency and moderation of their debates, the rigor
which must necessarily attend their determinations. Nothing can give us
a higher idea of the capacity of those men who now guided the commons,
and of the great authority which they had acquired, than the forming and
executing of so judicious and so difficult a plan of operations.
The decency, however, which the popular leaders had prescribed to
themselves, and recommended to others, hindered them not from making the
loudest and most vigorous complaints against the grievances under which
the nation had lately labored. Sir Francis Seymour said, "This is the
great council of the kingdom; and here with certainty, if not here only,
his majesty may see, as in a true glass, the state of the kingdom. We
are called hither by his writs, in order to give him faithful counsel;
such as may stand with his honor: and this we must do without flattery.
We are also sent hither by the people, in order to deliver their just
grievances: and this we must do without fear. Let us not act like
Cambyses's judges, who, when their approbation was demanded by the
prince to some illegal measure, said, that 'Though there was a written
law, the Persian kings might follow their own will and pleasure.' This
was base flattery, fitter for our reproof than our imitation; and as
fear, so flattery, taketh away the judgment. For my part, I shall shun
both; and speak my mind with as much duty as any man to his majesty,
without neglecting the public.
"But how can we express our affections while we retain our fears; or
speak of giving, till we know whether we have any thing to give? For if
his majesty may be persuaded to take what he will, what need we give?
"That this hath been done, appeareth by the billeting of soldiers, a
thing nowise advantageous to the king's service, and a burden to the
commonwealth: by the imprisonment of gentlemen for refusing the loan,
who, if they had done the contrary for fear, had been as blamable as the
projector of that oppressive measure. To countenance these proceedings,
hath it not been preached in the pulpit, or rather prated, that 'All we
have is the king's by divine right'? But when preachers forsake their
own calling, and turn ignorant statesmen, we see how willing they are to
exchange a good conscience for a bishopric.
"He, I must confess, is no good subject, who would not willingly and
cheerfully lay down his life, when that sacrifice may promote the
interests of his sovereign, and the good of the commonwealth. But he is
not a good subject, he is a slave, who will allow his goods to be taken
from him against his will, and his liberty against the laws of the
kingdom. By opposing these practices, we shall but tread in the steps
of our forefathers, who still preferred the public before their private
interest, nay, before their very lives. It will in us be a wrong done
to ourselves, to our posterities, to our consciences, if we forego this
claim and pretension."[*]
* Franklyn p. 243. Rushworth, vol. i, p. 499.
"I read of a custom," said Sir Robert Philips, "among the old Romans,
that once every year they held a solemn festival, in which their slaves
had liberty, without exception, to speak what they pleased, in order to
ease their afflicted minds; and, on the conclusion of the festival, the
slaves severally returned to their former servitudes.
"This institution may, with some distinction, well set forth our present
state and condition. After the revolution of some time, and the grievous
sufferance of many violent oppressions, we have now at last, as those
slaves, obtained, for a day, some liberty of speech; but shall not, I
trust, be hereafter slaves: for we are born free. Yet what new illegal
burdens our estates and persons have groaned under, my heart yearns to
think of, my tongue falters to utter.----
"The grievances by which we are oppressed, I draw under two heads; acts
of power against law, and the judgments of lawyers against our liberty."
Having mentioned three illegal judgments passed within his memory; that
by which the Scots, born after James's accession, were admitted to all
the privileges of English subjects;[** semi-colon inserted, not in scan]
that by which the new impositions had been warranted; and the late one,
by which arbitrary imprisonments were authorized; he thus proceeded:--
"I can live, though another, who has no right, be put to live along with
me; nay, I can live, though burdened with impositions beyond what at
present I labor under: but to have my liberty, which is the soul of
my life, ravished from me to have my person pent up in a jail, without
relief by law, and to be so adjudged,--O, improvident ancestors!
O, unwise forefathers! to be so curious in providing for the quiet
possession of our lands, and the liberties of parliament; and at the
same time to neglect our personal liberty, and let us lie in prison, and
that during pleasure, without redress or remedy! If this be law, why
do we talk of liberties? why trouble ourselves with disputes about a
constitution, franchises, property of goods, and the like? What may any
man call his own, if not the liberty of his person?
"I am weary of treading these ways; and therefore conclude to have
a select committee, in order to frame a petition to his majesty for
redress of these grievances. And this petition, being read, examined,
and approved, may be delivered to the king; of whose gracious answer we
have no cause to doubt, our desires being so reasonable, our intentions
so loyal, and the manner so dutiful. Neither need we fear that this is
the critical parliament, as has been insinuated; or that this is the way
to distraction: but assure ourselves of a happy issue. Then shall the
king, as he calls us his great council, find us his true council, and
own us his good council."[*]
* Franklyn, p. 245. Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 363. Rushworth,
vol i. p. 502.
The same topics were enforced by Sir Thomas Wentworth. After mentioning
projectors and ill ministers of state, "These," said he, "have
introduced a privy council, ravishing at once the spheres of all ancient
government; destroying all liberty; imprisoning us without bail or bond.
They have taken from us--What shall I say? Indeed, what have they left
us? By tearing up the roots of all property, they have taken from us
every means of supplying the king, and of ingratiating ourselves by
voluntary proofs of our duty and attachment towards him.
"To the making whole all these breaches I shall apply myself, and to all
these diseases shall propound a remedy. By one and the same thing have
the king and the people been hurt, and by the same must they be cured.
We must vindicate--what? New things? No: our ancient, legal, and vital
liberties; by reenforcing the laws enacted by our ancestors; by setting
such a stamp upon them, that no licentious spirit shall dare henceforth
to invade them. And shall we think this a way to break a parliament? No:
our desires are modest and just. I speak both for the interest of king
and people. If we enjoy not these rights, it will be impossible for us
to relieve him. Let us never, therefore, doubt of a favorable reception
from his goodness."[*]
These sentiments were unanimously embraced by the whole house. Even the
court party pretended not to plead, in defence of the late measures,
any thing but the necessity to which the king had been reduced by the
obstinacy of the two former parliaments. A vote, therefore, was
passed, without opposition, against arbitrary imprisonments and forced
loans.[**] And the spirit of liberty having obtained some contentment
by this exertion, the reiterated messages of the king, who pressed for
supply, were attended to with more temper. Five subsidies were voted
him; with which, though much inferior to his wants, he declared himself
well satisfied; and even tears of affection started in his eye when
he was informed of this concession. The duke's approbation too was
mentioned by Secretary Coke; but the conjunction of a subject with the
sovereign was ill received by the house.[***] Though disgusted with the
king, the jealousy which they felt for his honor was more sensible than
that which his unbounded confidence in the duke would allow even himself
to entertain.
* Franklyn, p 243. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 500.
** Franklyn, p. 251. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 513. Whitlocke,
p. 9
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 526, Whitlocke, p. 9.
The supply, though voted, was not as yet passed into a law; and the
commons resolved to employ the interval in providing some barriers to
their rights and liberties so lately violated. They knew that their
own vote, declaring the illegality of the former measures, had not, of
itself, sufficient authority to secure the constitution against future
invasion. Some act to that purpose must receive the sanction of the
whole legislature; and they appointed a committee to prepare the model
of so important a law. By collecting into one effort all the dangerous
and oppressive claims of his prerogative, Charles had exposed them to
the hazard of one assault and had further, by presenting a nearer view
of the consequences attending them, roused the independent genius of
the commons. Forced loans, benevolences, taxes without consent of
parliament, arbitrary imprisonments, the billeting of soldiers, martial
law; these were the grievances complained of, and against these an
eternal remedy was to be provided. The commons pretended not, as they
affirmed, to any unusual powers or privileges: they aimed only at
securing those which had been transmitted them from their ancestors: and
their law they resolved to call a Petition of Right; as implying that
it contained a corroboration or explanation of the ancient constitution,
not any infringement of royal prerogative, or acquisition of new
liberties.
While the committee was employed in framing the petition of right, the
favorers of each party, both in parliament and throughout the nation,
were engaged in disputes about this bill, which, in all likelihood, was
to form a memorable era in the English government.
That the statutes, said the partisans of the commons, which secure
English liberty, are not become obsolete, appears hence, that the
English have ever been free, and have ever been governed by law and a
limited constitution. Privileges in particular, which are founded on
the Great Charter, must always remain in force, because derived from
a source of never-failing authority, regarded in all ages as the most
sacred contract between king and people. Such attention was paid to this
charter by our generous ancestors, that they got the confirmation of it
reiterated thirty several times; and even secured it by a rule which,
though vulgarly received, seems in the execution impracticable. They
have established it as a maxim "That even a statute which should be
enacted in contradiction to any article of that charter, cannot have
force or validity." But with regard to that important article which
secures personal liberty, so far from attempting at any time any legal
infringement of it, they have corroborated it by six statutes, and put
it out of all doubt and controversy. If in practice it has often been
violated, abuses can never come in the place of rules; nor can any
rights or legal powers be derived from injury and injustice. But the
title of the subject to personal liberty not only is founded on ancient,
and, therefore, the most sacred laws; it is confirmed by the whole
analogy of the government and constitution. A free monarchy in which
every individual is a slave, is a glaring contradiction: and it is
requisite, where the laws assign privileges to the different orders of
the state, that it likewise secure the independence of the members.
If any difference could be made in this particular, it were better to
abandon even life or property to the arbitrary will of the prince; nor
would such immediate danger ensue, from that concession, to the laws
and to the privileges of the people. To bereave of his life a man not
condemned by any legal trial, is so egregious an exercise of tyranny,
that it must at once shock the natural humanity of princes, and convey
an alarm throughout the whole commonwealth. To confiscate a man's
fortune, besides its being a most atrocious act of violence, exposes the
monarch so much to the imputation of avarice and rapacity, that it will
seldom be attempted in any civilized government. But confinement, though
a less striking, is no less severe a punishment; nor is there any spirit
so erect and independent, as not to be broken by the long continuance
of the silent and inglorious sufferings of a jail. The power of
imprisonment, therefore, being the most natural and potent engine of
arbitrary government, it is absolutely necessary to remove it from a
government which is free and legal.
The partisans of the court reasoned after a different manner. The true
rule of government, said they, during any period, is that to which the
people, from time immemorial, have been accustomed, and to which they
naturally pay a prompt obedience. A practice which has ever struck their
senses, and of which they have seen and heard innumerable precedents,
has an authority with them much superior to that which attends maxims
derived from antiquated statutes and mouldy records. In vain do the
lawyers establish it as a principle, that a statute can never be
abrogated by opposite custom; but requires to be expressly repealed by
a contrary statute: while they pretend to inculcate an axiom peculiar to
English jurisprudence, they violate the most established principles of
human nature; and even by necessary consequence reason in contradiction
to law itself, which they would represent as so sacred and inviolable. A
law, to have any authority must be derived from a legislature which has
right. And whence do all legislatures derive their right, but from long
custom and established practice? If a statute contrary to public good
has at any time been rashly voted and assented to, either from the
violence of faction or the inexperience of senates and princes, it
cannot be more effectually abrogated by a train of contrary precedents,
which prove, that by common consent it has been tacitly set aside, as
inconvenient and impracticable. Such has been the case with all those
statutes enacted during turbulent times, in order to limit royal
prerogative, and cramp the sovereign in his protection of the public,
and his execution of the laws. But above all branches of prerogative,
that which is most necessary to be preserved, is the power of
imprisonment. Faction and discontent, like diseases, frequently arise in
every political body; and during these disorders, it is by the salutary
exercise alone of this discretionary power, that rebellions and civil
wars can be prevented. To circumscribe this power, is to destroy its
nature: entirely to abrogate it, is impracticable; and the attempt
itself must prove dangerous, if not pernicious to the public. The
supreme magistrate, in critical and turbulent times, will never,
agreeably either to prudence or duty, allow the state to perish, while
there remains a remedy which, how irregular soever, it is still in his
power to apply. And if, moved by a regard to public good, he employs any
exercise of power condemned by recent and express statute, how greedily,
in such dangerous times, will factious leaders seize this pretence of
throwing on his government the imputation of tyranny and despotism! Were
the alternative quite necessary, it were surely much better for human
society to be deprived of liberty than to be destitute of government.
Impartial reasoners will confess that this subject is not, on both
sides, without its difficulties. Where a general and rigid law is
enacted against arbitrary imprisonment, it would appear that government
cannot, in times of sedition and faction, be conducted but by temporary
suspensions of the law; and such an expedient was never thought of
during the age of Charles.[**period inserted] The meetings of parliament
were too precarious, and their determinations might be too dilatory, to
serve in cases of urgent necessity. Nor was it then conceived, that the
king did not possess of himself sufficient power for the security
and protection of his people, or that the authority of these popular
assemblies was ever to become so absolute, that the prince must always
conform himself to it, and could never have any occasion to guard
against their practices, as well as against those of his other subjects.
Though the house of lords was not insensible to the reasons urged in
favor of the pretensions of the commons, they deemed the arguments
pleaded in favor of the crown still more cogent and convincing. That
assembly seems, during this whole period, to have acted, in the main, a
reasonable and a moderate part; and if their bias inclined a little
too much, as is natural, to the side of monarchy, they were far from
entertaining any design of sacrificing to arbitrary will the liberties
and privileges of the nation. Ashley, the king's serjeant, having
asserted, in pleading before the peers, that the king must sometimes
govern by acts of state as well as by law, this position gave such
offence, that he was immediately committed to prison, and was not
released but upon his recantation and submission.[*] Being, however,
afraid lest the commons should go too far in their projected petition,
the peers proposed a plan of one more moderate, which they recommended
to the consideration of the other house. It consisted merely in a
general declaration, that the Great Charter, and the six statutes
conceived to be explanations of it, stand still in force, to all intents
and purposes; that, in consequence of the charter and the statutes, and
by the tenor of the ancient customs and laws of the realm, every subject
has a fundamental property in his goods, and a fundamental liberty of
his person; that this property and liberty are as entire at present as
during any former period of the English government; that in all common
cases, the common law ought to be the standard of proceedings: "And in
case that, for the security of his majesty's person, the general safety
of his people, or the peaceable government of the kingdom, the king
shall find just cause, for reasons of state, to imprison or restrain
any man's person, he was petitioned graciously to declare that, within
a convenient time, he shall and will express the cause of the commitment
or restraint, either general or special, and, upon a cause so expressed,
will leave the prisoner immediately to be tried according to the common
law of the land."[**]
* Whitlocke, p. 10.
** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 187. Rushworth, vol. i. p.
548.
Archbishop Abbot was employed by the lords to recommend, in a
conference, this plan of a petition to the house of commons. The
prelate, as was no doubt foreseen, from his known principles, was not
extremely urgent in his applications; and the lower house was fully
convinced that the general declarations signified nothing, and that
the latter clause left their liberties rather in a worse condition than
before. They proceeded, therefore, with great zeal, in framing, the
model of a petition which should contain expressions more precise, and
more favorable to public freedom.
The king could easily see the consequence of these proceedings. Though
he had offered, at the beginning of the session, to give his consent to
any law for the security of the rights and liberties of the people, he
had not expected that such inroads would be made on his prerogative. In
order, therefore, to divert the commons from their intention, he sent
a message, wherein he acknowledged past errors, and promised that
hereafter there should be no just cause of complaint. And he added,
"That the affairs of the kingdom press him so, that he could not
continue the session above a week or two longer: and if the house be not
ready by that time to do what is fit for themselves, it shall be their
own fault."[*] On a subsequent occasion, he asked them, "Why demand
explanations, if you doubt not the performance of the statutes according
to their true meaning? Explanations will hazard an encroachment upon the
prerogative; and it may well be said, What need a new law to confirm an
old, if you repose confidence in the declarations which his majesty
made to both houses?"[**] The truth is, the Great Charter and the old
statutes were sufficiently clear in favor of personal liberty: but as
all kings of England had ever, in cases of necessity or expediency, been
accustomed at intervals to elude them; and as Charles, in a complication
of instances, had lately violated them; the commons judged it requisite
to enact a new law, which might not be eluded or violated by any
interpretation, construction, or contrary precedent. Nor was it
sufficient, they thought, that the king promised to return into the way
of his predecessors. His predecessors in all times had enjoyed too much
discretionary power; and by his recent abuse of it, the whole world had
reason to see the necessity of entirely retrenching it.
The king still persevered in his endeavors to elude the petition. He
sent a letter to the house of lords, in which he went so far as to make
a particular declaration, "That neither he nor his privy council
shall or will, at any time hereafter, commit or command to prison, or
otherwise restrain, any man for not lending money, or for any other
cause which, in his conscience,[**joined-up though no hyphen] he thought
not to concern the public good, and the safety of king and people." And
he further declared, "That he never would be guilty of so base an action
as to pretend any cause of whose truth he was not fully satisfied."[***]
But this promise, though enforced to the commons by the recommendation
of the upper house, made no more impression than all the former
messages.
* State Trials, vol. vii. p. 193.
** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 196. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 556
*** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 198. Rushworth, vol. i. p.
560, Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 111.
Among the other evasions of the king, we may reckon the proposal of
the house of peers, to subjoin to the intended petition of right the
following clause: "We humbly present this petition to your majesty, not
only with a care of preserving our own liberties, but with due regard to
leave entire that sovereign power with which your majesty is intrusted
for the protection, safety, and happiness of your people."[*] Less
penetration than was possessed by the leaders of the house of commons,
could easily discover how captious this clause was, and how much it was
calculated to elude the whole force of the petition.
These obstacles, therefore, being surmounted, the petition of right
passed the commons, and was sent to the upper house.[**] [2] The peers,
who were probably well pleased in secret that all their solicitations
had been eluded by the commons, quickly passed the petition without any
material alteration; and nothing but the royal assent was wanting to
give it the force of a law. The king accordingly came to the house of
peers; sent for the commons; and, being seated in his chair of state,
the petition was read to him. Great was now the astonishment of all men,
when, instead of the usual concise and clear form by which a bill is
either confirmed or rejected Charles said, in answer to the petition,
"The king willeth, that right be done according to the laws and customs
of the realm, and that the statutes be put into execution; that his
subjects may have no cause to complain of any wrong or oppression,
contrary to their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof
he holds himself in conscience as much obliged as of his own
prerogative."[***]
* State Trials, vol. vii. p. 199. Ruskworth, vol. i. p. 561.
Parl Hist. vol. viii. p. 116. Whitlocke, p. 10.
** See note B, at the end of the volume.
*** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 212. Rushworth, vol. i. p.
500.
It is surprising that Charles, who had seen so many instances of the
jealousy of the commons, who had himself so much roused that jealousy
by his frequent evasive messages during this session, could imagine that
they would rest satisfied with an answer so vague and undeterminate. It
was evident, that the unusual form alone of the answer must excite their
attention; that the disappointment must inflame their anger; and that
therefore it was necessary, as the petition seemed to bear hard on royal
prerogative, to come early to some fixed resolution, either gracefully
to comply with it, or courageously to reject it.
It happened as might have been foreseen. The commons returned in very
ill humor. Usually, when in that disposition, their zeal for religion,
and their enmity against the unfortunate Catholics, ran extremely high.
But they had already, in the beginning of the session, presented their
petition of religion and had received a satisfactory answer; though they
expected that the execution of the laws against Papists would, for the
future, be no more exact and rigid than they had hitherto found it.
To give vent to their present indignation, they fell with their utmost
force on Dr. Manwaring.
There is nothing which tends more to excuse, if not to justify,
the extreme rigor of the commons towards Charles, than his open
encouragement and avowal of such general principles as were altogether
incompatible with a limited government. Manwaring had preached a sermon
which the commons found, upon inquiry, to be printed by special command
of the king;[*] and when this sermon was looked into, it contained
doctrines subversive of all civil liberty. It taught, that, though
property was commonly lodged in the subject, yet, whenever any exigency
required supply, all property was transferred to the sovereign; that the
consent of parliament was not necessary for the imposition of taxes;
and that the divine laws required compliance with every demand, how
irregular soever, which the prince should make upon his subjects[**] For
these doctrines the commons impeached Manwaring. The sentence pronounced
upon him by the peers was, that he should be imprisoned during the
pleasure of the house, be fined a thousand pounds to the king, make
submission and acknowledgment of his offence, be suspended during three
years, be incapable of holding any ecclesiastical dignity or secular
office, and that his book be called in and burnt.[***]
* Parliament. Hist. vol. viii. p. 206.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 585, 594. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p.
168, 169, 170, etc. Welwood, p. 44.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 65. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 212.
It may be worthy of notice, that no sooner was the session ended, than
this man, so justly obnoxious to both houses received a pardon, and was
promoted to a living of considerable value.[*] Some years after, he was
raised to the see of St. Asaph. If the republican spirit of the commons
increased beyond all reasonable bounds, the monarchical spirit of the
court, this latter, carried to so high a pitch, tended still further to
augment the former. And thus extremes were every where affected, and the
just medium was gradually deserted by all men.
From Manwaring, the house of commons proceeded to censure the conduct
of Buckingham, whose name hitherto they had cautiously forborne to
mention.[**] In vain did the king send them a message, in which he told
them that the session was drawing near to a conclusion; and desired that
they would not enter upon new business, nor cast any aspersions on his
government and ministry.[***] Though the court endeavored to explain and
soften this message by a subsequent message,[****] as Charles was apt
hastily to correct any hasty step which he had taken, it served
rather to inflame than appease the commons; as if the method of their
proceedings had here been prescribed to them. It was foreseen that a
great tempest was ready to burst on the duke; and in order to divert
it, the king thought proper, upon a joint application of the lords and
commons,[v] to endeavor giving them satisfaction with regard to the
petition of right. He came, therefore, to the house of peers, and
pronouncing the usual form of words, "Let it be law, as is desired,"
gave full sanction and authority to the petition. The acclamations
with which the house resounded, and the universal joy diffused over the
nation, showed how much this petition had been the object of all men's
vows and expectations[v*]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 635. Whitlocke, p. 11.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 607.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 605.
**** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 610. Parl. Hist vol. viii. p.
197.
v Rushworth, vol. i. p. 613, Journ. 7th June, 1628. Parl.
Hist. vol. viii. p. 201.
v* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 613.
It may be affirmed, without any exaggeration, that the king's assent to
the petition of right produced such a change in the government, as was
almost equivalent to a revolution; and by circumscribing, in so
many articles, the royal prerogative gave additional security to the
liberties of the subject. Yet were the commons far from being satisfied
with this important concession. Their ill humor had been so much
irritated by the king's frequent evasions and delays, that it could not
be presently appeased by an assent which he allowed to be so reluctantly
extorted from him. Perhaps, too, the popular leaders, implacable and
artful, saw the opportunity favorable; and, turning against the king
those very weapons with which he had furnished them, resolved to pursue
the victory. The bill, however, for five subsidies, which had been
formerly voted, immediately passed the house; because the granting of
that supply was, in a manner, tacitly contracted for, upon the royal
assent to the petition; and had faith been here violated, no further
confidence could have subsisted between king and parliament. Having
made this concession, the commons continued to carry their scrutiny
into every part of government. In some particulars, their industry was
laudable; in some, it may be liable to censure.
A little after writs were issued for summoning this parliament, a
commission had been granted to Sir Thomas Coventry, lord keeper, the
earl of Marlborough, treasurer, the earl of Manchester, president of the
council, the earl of Worcester, privy seal, the duke of Buckingham, high
admiral, and all the considerable officers of the crown; in the whole,
thirty-three. By this commission, which, from the number of persons
named in it, could be no secret, the commissioners were empowered to
meet, and to concert among themselves the methods of levying money by
impositions, or otherwise; "Where form and circumstance," as expressed
in the commission, "must be dispensed with, rather than the substance
be lost or hazarded."[*] In other words, this was a scheme for finding
expedients which might raise the prerogative to the greatest height, and
render parliaments entirely useless. The commons applied for cancelling
the commission;[**] and were, no doubt, desirous that all the world
should conclude the king's principles to be extremely arbitrary,
and should observe what little regard he was disposed to pay to the
liberties and privileges of his people.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 614. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 214.
** Journ. 13th June, 1628.
A commission had likewise been granted, and some money remitted, in
order to raise a thousand German horse, and transport them into England.
These were supposed to be levied in order to support the projected
impositions or excises, though the number seems insufficient for such a
purpose,[*] The house took notice of this design in severe terms: and no
measure, surely, could be projected more generally odious to the whole
nation. It must, however, be confessed, that the king was so far
right, that he had now at last fallen on the only effectual method for
supporting his prerogative. But at the same time, he should have been
sensible that, till provided with a sufficient military force, all his
attempts in opposition to the rising spirit of the nation, must in
the end prove wholly fruitless; and that the higher he screwed up the
springs of government, while he had so little real power to retain them
in that forced situation, with more fatal violence must they fly out,
when any accident occurred to restore them to their natural action.
The commons next resumed their censure of Buckingham's conduct and
behavior, against whom they were implacable. They agreed to present
a remonstrance to the king, in which they recapitulated all national
grievances and misfortunes, and omitted no circumstance which could
render the whole administration despicable and odious. The compositions
with Catholics, they said, amounted to no less than a toleration,
hateful to God, full of dishonor and disprofit to his majesty, and of
extreme scandal and grief to his good people: they took notice of the
violations of liberty above mentioned, against which the petition of
right seems to have provided a sufficient remedy: they mentioned the
decay of trade, the unsuccessful expeditions to Cadiz and the Isle
of Rhe, the encouragement given to Arminians, the commission for
transporting German horse, that for levying illegal impositions; and all
these grievances they ascribed solely to the ill conduct of the duke of
Buckingham.[**] This remonstrance was, perhaps, not the less provoking
to Charles, because, joined to the extreme acrimony of the subject,
there were preserved in it, as in most of the remonstrances of that age,
an affected civility and submission in the language. And as it was the
first return which he met with for his late beneficial concessions, and
for his sacrifices of prerogative,--the greatest by far ever made by an
English sovereign,--nothing could be more the object of just and natural
indignation.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 612.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 619. Parl. Hist. vol viii. p. 219,
220, etc.
It was not without good grounds that the commons were so fierce and
assuming. Though they had already granted the king the supply of five
subsidies, they still retained a pledge in their hands, which they
thought insured them success in all their applications. Tonnage and
poundage had not yet been granted by parliament; and the commons had
artfully, this session, concealed their intention of invading that
branch of revenue, till the royal assent had been obtained to the
petition of right, which they justly deemed of such importance. They
then openly asserted, that the levying of tonnage and poundage without
consent of parliament, was a palpable violation of the ancient liberties
of the people, and an open infringement of the petition of right, so
lately granted.[*] The king, in order to prevent the finishing and
presenting this remonstrance, came suddenly to the parliament, and ended
this session by a prorogation.[**]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 628. Journ. 18th 20th June, 1628.
** Journ, 26th June, 1628.
Being freed for some time from the embarrassment of this assembly,
Charles began to look towards foreign wars, where all his efforts were
equally unsuccessful as in his domestic government. The earl of Denbigh,
brother-in-law to Buckingham, was despatched to the relief of Rochelle,
now closely besieged by land, and threatened with a blockade by sea: but
he returned without effecting any thing; and having declined to attack
the enemy's fleet, he brought on the English arms the imputation either
of cowardice or ill conduct. In order to repair this dishonor, the duke
went to Portsmouth, where he had prepared a considerable fleet and army,
on which all the subsidies given by parliament had been expended. This
supply had very much disappointed the king's expectations. The same
mutinous spirit which prevailed in the house of commons had diffused
itself over the nation; and the commissioners appointed for making the
assessments had connived at all frauds which might diminish the supply,
and reduce the crown to still greater necessities. This national
discontent, communicated to a desperate enthusiast, soon broke out in an
event which may be considered as remarkable.
There was one Felton, of a good family, but of an ardent, melancholic
temper, who had served under the duke in the station of lieutenant.
His captain being killed in the retreat at the Isle of Rhe, Felton
had applied for the company; and when disappointed, he threw up his
commission, and retired in discontent from the army. While private
resentment was boiling in his sullen, unsociable mind, he heard the
nation resound with complaints against the duke; and he met with the
remonstrance of the commons, in which his enemy was represented as the
cause of every national grievance, and as the great enemy of the public.
Religious fanaticism further inflamed these vindictive reflections; and
he fancied that he should do Heaven acceptable service, if at one blow
he despatched this dangerous foe to religion and to his country.[*] Full
of these dark views, he secretly arrived at Portsmouth at the same time
with the duke, and watched for an opportunity of effecting his bloody
purpose.
* May's Hist. of the Parliament, p. 12.
Buckingham had been engaged in conversation with Soubize and other
French gentlemen; and a difference of sentiment having arisen, the
dispute, though conducted with temper and decency, had produced some of
those vehement gesticulations and lively exertions of voice, in which
that nation, more than the English, are apt to indulge themselves. The
conversation being finished, the duke drew towards the door; and in that
passage, turning himself to speak to Sir Thomas Friar, a colonel in the
army, he was on the sudden, over Sir Thomas's shoulder, struck upon the
breast with a knife. Without uttering other words than, "The villain has
killed me," in the same moment pulling out the knife, he breathed his
last.
No man had seen the blow, nor the person who gave it, but in the
confusion every one made his own conjecture; and all agreed that the
murder had been committed by the French gentlemen whose angry tone of
voice had been heard, while their words had not been understood by the
bystanders. In the hurry of revenge, they had instantly been put to
death, had they not been saved by some of more temper and judgment,
who, though they had the same opinion of their guilt, thought proper to
reserve them for a judicial trial and examination.
Near the door there was found a hat, in the inside of which was sewed a
paper, containing four or five lines of that remonstrance of the commons
which declared Buckingham an enemy to the kingdom; and under these lines
was a short ejaculation, or attempt towards a prayer. It was easily
concluded that this hat belonged to the assassin: but the difficulty
still remained, who that person should be; for the writing discovered
not the same; and whoever he was, it was natural to believe that he had
already fled far enough not to be found without a hat.
In this hurry, a man without a hat was seen walking very composedly
before the door. One crying out, "Here is the fellow who killed the
duke;" every body ran to ask, "Which is he?" The man very sedately
answered, "I am he." The more furious immediately rushed upon him with
drawn swords: others, more deliberate, defended and protected him: he
himself, with open arms, calmly and cheerfully exposed his breast to the
swords of the most enraged; being willing to fall a sudden sacrifice to
their anger, rather than be reserved for that public justice which he
knew must be executed upon him.
He was now known to be that Felton who had served in the army. Being
carried into a private room, it was thought proper so far to dissemble
as to tell him, that Buckingham was only grievously wounded, but not
without hopes of recovery. Felton smiled, and told them, that the duke,
he knew full well, had received a blow which had terminated all their
hopes. When asked at whose instigation he had performed the horrid deed,
he replied, that they needed not to trouble themselves in that inquiry;
that no man living had credit enough with him to have disposed him to
such an action; that he had not even intrusted his purpose to any one;
that the resolution proceeded only from himself, and the impulse of
his own conscience; and that his motives would appear, if his hat were
found; for that, believing he should perish in the attempt, he had there
taken care to explain them.[*]
When the king was informed of this assassination, he received the
news in public with an unmoved and undisturbed countenance; and the
courtiers, who studied his looks, concluded, that secretly he was
not displeased to be rid of a minister so generally odious to the
nation.[**]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 27, 20.
** Warwick, p. 34.
But Charles's command of himself proceeded entirely from the gravity and
composure of his temper. He was still as much as ever attached to
his favorite; and during his whole life he retained an affection for
Buckingham's friends, and a prejudice against his enemies. He urged too,
that Felton should be put to the question, in order to extort from him a
discovery of his accomplices; but the judges declared, that though that
practice had formerly been very usual, it was altogether illegal: so
much reasoners, with regard to law, had they become from the jealous
scruples of the house of commons.
Meanwhile the distress of Rochelle had risen to the utmost extremity.
That vast genius of Richelieu, which made him form the greatest
enterprises, led him to attempt their execution by means equally great
and extraordinary. In order to deprive Rochelle of all succor, he had
dared to project the throwing across the harbor a mole of a mile's
extent in that boisterous ocean; and having executed his project, he now
held the town closely blockaded on all sides. The inhabitants, though
pressed with the greatest rigors of famine, still refused to submit;
being supported, partly by the lectures of their zealous preachers,
partly by the daily hopes of relief from England. After Buckingham's
death, the command of the fleet and army was conferred on the earl of
Lindesey; who, arriving before Rochelle, made some attempts to break
through the mole, and force his way into the harbor: but by the delays
of the English, that work was now fully finished and fortified; and
the Rochellers, finding their last hopes to fail them, were reduced
to surrender at discretion, even in sight of the English admiral.
Of fifteen thousand persons shut up in the city, four thousand alone
survived the fatigues and famine which they had undergone.[*]
* Rushworth, vol. 1. p. 636.
This was the first necessary step towards the prosperity of France.
Foreign enemies, as well as domestic factions, being deprived of this
resource, that kingdom began now to shine forth in its full splendor. By
a steady prosecution of wise plans, both of war and policy, it gradually
gained an ascendant over the rival power of Spain; and every order of
the state, and every sect, were reduced to pay submission to the lawful
authority of the sovereign. The victory, however, over the Hugonots, was
at first pushed by the French king with great moderation. A toleration
was still continued to them; the only avowed and open toleration which
at that time was granted in any European kingdom.
{1629.} The failure of an enterprise in which the English nation,
from religious sympathy, so much interested themselves, could not but
diminish the king's authority in the parliament during the approaching
session: but the commons, when assembled, found many other causes of
complaint. Buckingham's conduct and character with some had afforded a
reason, with others a pretence, for discontent against public measures
but after his death there wanted not new reasons and new pretences for
general dissatisfaction. Manwaring's pardon and promotion were taken
notice of: Sibthorpe and Cosins, two clergymen, who, for like reasons,
were no less obnoxious to the commons, had met with like favor from
the king: Montague, who had been censured for moderation towards
the Catholics, the greatest of crimes, had been created bishop of
Chichester. They found likewise, upon inquiry, that all the copies of
the petition of right which were dispersed, had, by the king's orders,
annexed to them the first answer, which had given so little satisfaction
to the commons;[*] an expedient by which Charles endeavored to persuade
the people that he had nowise receded from his former claims and
pretensions, particularly with regard to the levying of tonnage and
poundage. Selden also complained in the house, that one Savage, contrary
to the petition of right, had been punished with the loss of his ears,
by a discretionary or arbitrary sentence of the star chamber:[**] so apt
were they, on their part, to stretch the petition into such consequences
as might deprive the crown of powers which, from immemorial custom, were
supposed inherent in it.
But the great article on which the house of commons broke with the king,
and which finally created in Charles a disgust to all parliaments,
was their claim with regard to tonnage and poundage. On this occasion,
therefore, it is necessary to give an account of the controversy.
The duty of tonnage and poundage, in more ancient times, had been
commonly a temporary grant of parliament; but it had been conferred
on Henry V., and all the succeeding princes, during life, in order to
enable them to maintain a naval force for the defence of the kingdom.
The necessity of levying this duty had been so apparent, that each king
had ever claimed it from the moment of his accession; and the first
parliament of each reign had usually by vote conferred on the prince
what they found him already in possession of. Agreeably to the
inaccurate genius of the old constitution, this abuse, however
considerable, had never been perceived nor remedied; though nothing
could have been easier than for the parliament to have prevented
it.[***]
* State Trials, vol. vii. p. 216. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 643.
** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 216. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p.
246.
*** Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 339, 343.
By granting this duty to each prince during his own life, and for a
year after his demise to the successor, all inconveniencies had been
obviated; and yet the duty had never for a moment been levied without
proper authority. But contrivances of that nature were not thought of
during those rude ages; and as so complicated and jealous a government
as the English cannot subsist without many such refinements, it is easy
to see how favorable every inaccuracy must formerly have proved to
royal authority, which, on all emergencies, was obliged to supply, by
discretionary power, the great deficiency of the laws.
The parliament did not grant the duty of tonnage and poundage to Henry
VIII. till the sixth of his reign: yet this prince, who had not then
raised his power to its greatest height, continued during that whole
time to levy the imposition; the parliament, in their very grant, blame
the merchants who had neglected to make payment to the crown; and though
one expression of that bill may seem ambiguous, they employ the plainest
terms in calling tonnage and poundage the king's due, even before that
duty was conferred on him by parliamentary authority.[*] Four reigns,
and above a whole century, had since elapsed; and this revenue had
still been levied before it was voted by parliament: so long had the
inaccuracy continued, without being remarked or corrected.
During that short interval which passed between Charles's accession and
his first parliament, he had followed the example of his predecessors;
and no fault was found with his conduct in this particular. But what was
most remarkable in the proceedings of that house of commons, and what
proved beyond controversy that they had seriously formed a plan for
reducing their prince to subjection, was, that instead of granting this
supply during the king's lifetime, as it had been enjoyed by all his
immediate predecessors, they voted it only for a year; and, after that
should be elapsed, reserved to themselves the power of renewing or
refusing the same concession.[**] But the house of peers, who saw that
this duty was now become more necessary than ever to supply the growing
necessities of the crown, and who did not approve of this encroaching
spirit in the commons, rejected the bill; and the dissolution of that
parliament followed so soon after, that no attempt seems to have been
made for obtaining tonnage and poundage in any other form.[***] [3]
* 6 Henry VIII. cap. 14.
** Journ. 5th July, 1625.
*** See note C, at the end of the volume.
Charles, meanwhile, continued still to levy this duty by his own
authority, and the nation was so accustomed to that exertion of royal
power, that no scruple was at first entertained of submitting to it. But
the succeeding parliament excited doubts in every one. The commons
took there some steps towards declaring it illegal to levy tonnage and
poundage without consent of parliament; and they openly showed their
intention of employing this engine, in order to extort from the crown
concessions of the most important nature. But Charles was not yet
sufficiently tamed to compliance; and the abrupt dissolution of that
parliament, as above related, put an end, for the time, to their further
pretensions.
The following interval between the second and third parliament, was
distinguished by so many exertions of prerogative, that men had little
leisure to attend to the affair of tonnage and poundage, where the abuse
of power in the crown might seem to be of a more disputable nature. But
after the commons, during the precedent session, had remedied all these
grievances by means of their petition of right, which they deemed
so necessary, they afterwards proceeded to take the matter into
consideration, and they showed the same intention as formerly,
of exacting, in return for the grant of this revenue, very large
compliances on the part of the crown. Their sudden profulgation
prevented them from bringing their pretensions to a full conclusion.
When Charles opened this session, he had foreseen that the same
controversy would arise; and he therefore took care very early, among
many mild and reconciling expressions, to inform the commons, "That
he had not taken these duties as appertaining to his hereditary
prerogative; but that it ever was, and still is, his meaning to enjoy
them as a gift of his people: and that, if he had hitherto levied
tonnage and poundage he pretended to justify himself only by the
necessity of so doing, not by any right which he assumed."[*]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 644 Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 256,
346.
This concession, which probably arose from the king's moderate temper,
now freed from the impulse of Buckingham's violent counsels, might have
satisfied the commons, had they entertained no other view than that of
ascertaining their own powers and privileges. But they carried their
pretensions much higher. They insisted, as a necessary preliminary, that
the king should once entirely desist from levying these duties; after
which they were to take it into consideration, how far they would
restore, him to the possession of a revenue of which he had clearly
divested himself. But, besides that this extreme rigor had never
been exercised towards any of his predecessors, and many obvious
inconveniencies must follow from the intermission of the customs, there
were other reasons which deterred Charles from complying with so hard
a condition. It was probable, that the commons might renew their former
project of making this revenue only temporary, and thereby reducing
their prince to perpetual dependence; they certainly would cut off the
new impositions which Mary and Elizabeth, but especially James, had
levied, and which formed no despicable part of the public revenue:
and they openly declared, that they had at present many important
pretensions, chiefly with regard to religion; and if compliance were
refused, no supply must be expected from the commons.
It is easy to see in what an inextricable labyrinth Charles was now
involved. By his own concessions, by the general principles of the
English government, and by the form of every bill which had granted this
duty, tonnage and poundage was derived entirely from the free gift of
the people; and, consequently, might be withdrawn at their pleasure. If
unreasonable in their refusal, they still refused nothing but what was
their own. If public necessity required this supply, it might be thought
also to require the king's compliance with those conditions which were
the price of obtaining it. Though the motive for granting it had been
the enabling of the king to guard the seas, it did not follow, that
because he guarded the seas, he was therefore entitled to this revenue
without further formality: since the people had still reserved to
themselves the right of judging how far that service merited such a
supply. But Charles, notwithstanding his public declaration, was
far from assenting to this conclusion in its full extent. The plain
consequence, he saw, of all these rigors, and refinements, and
inferences, was, that he, without any public necessity, and without any
fault of his own, must of a sudden, even from his accession, become a
magistrate of a very different nature from any of his predecessors, and
must fall into a total dependence on subjects over whom former kings,
especially those immediately preceding, had exercised an authority
almost unlimited. Entangled in a chain of consequences which he could
not easily break, he was inclined to go higher, and rather deny the
first principle, than admit of conclusions which to him appeared so
absurd and unreasonable. Agree-* to the ideas hitherto entertained both
by natives and foreigners, the monarch he esteemed the essence and
soul of the English government: and whatever other power pretended to
annihilate or even abridge, the royal authority, must necessarily, he
thought, either in its nature or exercise, be deemed no better than a
usurpation. Willing to preserve the ancient harmony of the constitution,
he had ever intended to comply as far as he easily could, with the
ancient forms of administration; but when these forms appeared to him,
by the inveterate obstinacy of the commons, to have no other tendency
than to disturb that harmony, and to introduce a new constitution, he
concluded that, in this violent situation, what was subordinate must
necessarily yield to what was principal, and the privileges of the
people, for a time, give place to royal prerogative. From the rank of
a monarch, to be degraded into a slave of his insolent, ungrateful
subjects, seemed of all indignities the greatest; and nothing, in his
judgment, could exceed the humiliation attending such a state, but the
meanness of tamely submitting to it, without making some efforts to
preserve the authority transmitted to him by his predecessors.
Though these were the king's reflections and resolutions before the
parliament assembled, he did not immediately break with them upon their
delay in voting him this supply. He thought that he could better justify
any strong measure which he might afterwards be obliged to take, if he
allowed them to carry to the utmost extremities their attacks upon his
government and prerogative.[*] He contented himself, for the present,
with soliciting the house by messages and speeches. But the commons,
instead of hearkening to his solicitations proceeded to carry their
scrutiny into his management of religion,[**] which was the only
grievance to which, in their opinion, they had not as yet, by their
petition of right, applied a sufficient remedy.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 642.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 651. Whitlocke, p. 12.
It was not possible that this century, so fertile in religious sects
and disputes, could escape the controversy concerning fatalism and free
will, which, being strongly interwoven both with philosophy and theology
had, in all ages, thrown every school and every church into such
inextricable doubt and perplexity. The first reformers in England, as
in other European countries, had embraced the most rigid tenets of
predestination and absolute decrees, and had composed upon that, system
all the articles of their religious creed. But these principles having
met with opposition from Arminius and his sectaries, the controversy
was soon brought into this island and began here to diffuse itself. The
Arminians, finding more encouragement from the superstitious spirit
of the church than from the fanaticism of the Puritans, gradually
incorporated themselves with the former; and some of that sect, by the
indulgence of James and Charles, had attained the highest preferments in
the hierarchy. But their success with the public had not been altogether
answerable to that which they met with in the church and the court.
Throughout the nation, they still lay under the reproach of innovation
and heresy. The commons now levelled against them their formidable
censures, and made them the objects of daily invective and declamation.
Their protectors were stigmatized; their tenets canvassed; their views
represented as dangerous and pernicious. To impartial spectators surely,
if any such had been at that time in England, it must have given great
entertainment to see a popular assembly, inflamed with faction
and enthusiasm, pretend to discuss questions to which the greatest
philosophers, in the tranquillity of retreat, had never hitherto been
able to find any satisfactory solution.
Amidst that complication of disputes in which men were then involved,
we may observe, that the appellation "Puritan" stood for three parties,
which, though commonly united, were yet actuated by very different
views and motives. There were the political Puritans, who maintained
the highest principles of civil liberty; the Puritans in discipline, who
were averse to the ceremonies and Episcopal government of the church;
and the doctrinal Puritans, who rigidly defended the speculative system
of the first reformers. In opposition to all these stood the court
party, the hierarchy, and the Arminians; only with this distinction,
that the latter sect, being introduced a few years before, did not
as yet comprehend all those who were favorable to the church and to
monarchy. But, as the controversies on every subject grew daily warmer,
men united themselves more intimately with their friends, and separated
themselves wider from their antagonists; and the distinction gradually
became quite uniform and regular.
This house of commons, which, like all the preceding, during the reigns
of James and Charles, and even of Elizabeth, was much governed by the
Puritanical party, thought that they could not better serve their cause
than by branding and punishing the Arminian sect, which, introducing an
innovation in the church, were the least favored and least powerful of
all their antagonists. From this measure, it was easily foreseen, that,
besides gratifying the animosity of the doctrinal Puritans, both the
Puritans in discipline and those in politics would reap considerable
advantages. Laud, Neile, Montague, and other bishops, who were the chief
supporters of Episcopal government, and the most zealous partisans of
the discipline and ceremonies of the church, were all supposed to be
tainted with Arminianism. The same men and their disciples were the
strenuous preachers of passive obedience, and of entire submission to
princes; and if these could once be censured, and be expelled the church
and court, it was concluded, that the hierarchy would receive a mortal
blow, the ceremonies be less rigidly insisted on, and the king, deprived
of his most faithful friends, be obliged to abate those high claims of
prerogative on which at present he insisted.
But Charles, besides a view of the political consequences which must
result from a compliance with such pretensions, was strongly determined,
from principles of piety and conscience, to oppose them. Neither the
dissipation incident to youth, nor the pleasures attending a high
fortune, had been able to prevent this virtuous prince from embracing
the most sincere sentiments of religion: and that character, which in
that religious age should have been of infinite advantage to him, proved
in the end the chief cause of his ruin; merely because the religion
adopted by him was not of that precise mode and sect which began to
prevail among his subjects. His piety, though remote from Popery, had a
tincture of superstition in it; and, being averse to the gloomy
spirit of the Puritans, was represented by them as tending towards the
abominations of Antichrist. Laud also had unfortunately acquired a great
ascendant over him; and as all those prelates obnoxious to the commons,
were regarded as his chief friends and most favored courtiers, he was
resolved not to disarm and dishonor himself by abandoning them to the
resentment of his enemies. Being totally unprovided with military
force, and finding a refractory, independent spirit to prevail among the
people, the most solid basis of his authority, he thought consisted in
the support which he received from the hierarchy.
In the debates of the commons, which are transmitted to us, it is
easy to discern so early some sparks of that enthusiastic fire which
afterwards set the whole nation in combustion. One Rouse made use of
an allusion which, though familiar seems to have been borrowed from the
writings of Lord Bacon.[*] "If a man meet a dog alone," said he, "the
dog is fearful, though ever so fierce by nature: but if the dog have
his master with him, he will set upon that man from whom he fled before.
This shows, that lower natures, being backed by higher, increase in
courage and strength; and certainly man, being backed with Omnipotency,
is a kind of omnipotent creature. All things are possible to him
that believes; and where all things are possible, there is a kind of
omnipotency. Wherefore, let it be the unanimous consent and resolution
of us all, to make a vow and covenant henceforth to hold fast our God
and our religion; and then shall we henceforth expect with certainty
happiness in this world."[**]
Oliver Cromwell, at that time a young man of no account in the nation,
is mentioned in these debates, as complaining of one who, he was told,
preached flat Popery.[***] It is amusing to observe the first words of
this fanatical hypocrite correspond so exactly to his character.
The inquiries and debates concerning tonnage and poundage went hand in
hand with these theological or metaphysical controversies. The officers
of the custom-house were summoned before the commons, to give an account
by what authority they had seized the goods of merchants who had
refused to pay these duties: the barons of the exchequer were questioned
concerning their decrees on that head.[****] One of the sheriffs of
London was committed to the Tower for his activity in supporting the
officers of the custom-house: the goods of Rolles, a merchant, and
member of the house, being seized for his refusal to pay the duties,
complaints were made of this violence as if it were a breach of
privilege:[v] Charles supported his officers in all these measures;
and the quarrel grew every day higher between him and the commons.[v*]
Mention was made in the house of impeaching Sir Richard Weston the
treasurer;[v**] and the king began to entertain thoughts of finishing
the session by a dissolution.
* Essay of Atheism.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 646. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 260.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 655. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p.
289.
**** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 654. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p.
301.
v Rushworth, vol. i. p. 653.
v* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 659.
v** Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 326.
Sir John Elliot framed a remonstrance against levying tonnage and
poundage without consent of parliament, and offered it to the clerk to
read. It was refused. He read it himself. The question being then called
for, the speaker, Sir John Finch, said, "That he had a command from the
king to adjourn, and to put no question;"[*] upon which he rose and left
the chair. The whole house was in an uproar. The speaker was pushed back
into the chair, and forcibly held in it by Hollis and Valentine, till a
short remonstrance was framed, and was passed by acclamation rather than
by vote. Papists and Arminians were there declared capital enemies to
the commonwealth. Those who levied tonnage and poundage were branded
with the same epithet. And even the merchant who should voluntarily pay
these duties, were denominated betrayers of English liberty, and public
enemies. The doom, being locked, the gentleman usher of the house of
lords, who was sent by the king, could not get admittance till this
remonstrance was finished. By the king's order, he took the mace from
the table, which ended their proceedings,[**] and a few days after the
parliament was dissolved.
The discontents of the nation ran high, on account of this violent
rupture between the king and parliament. These discontents Charles
inflamed by his affectation of a severity which he had not power, nor
probably inclination, to carry to extremities. Sir Miles Hobart, Sir
Peter Heyman, Selden, Coriton, Long, Strode, were committed to prison on
account of the last tumult in the house, which was called sedition.[***]
* The king's power of adjourning, as well as proroguing the
parliament, was and is never questioned. In the nineteenth
of the late king, the judges determined, that the
adjournment by the king kept the parliament in statu quo
until the next sitting, but that then no committees were to
meet; but if the adjournment be by the house then the
committees and other matters do continue. Parl. Hist, vol v.
p. 466.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 660. Whitlocke, p. 12.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 661, 681. Parl. Hist. vol. viii.
p. 354 May, p. 13
With great difficulty, and after several delays, they were released; and
the law was generally supposed to be wrested in order to prolong their
imprisonment. Sir John Elliot, Hollis, and Valentine, were summoned to
their trial in the king's bench, for seditious speeches and behavior in
parliament; but refusing to answer before an inferior court for their
conduct as members of a superior, they were condemned to be imprisoned
during the king's pleasure, to find sureties for their good behavior,
and to be fined, the two former a thousand pounds apiece, the latter
five hundred.[*] This sentence, procured by the influence of the
crown, served only to show the king's disregard to the privileges
of parliament, and to acquire an immense stock of popularity to the
sufferers who had so bravely, in opposition to arbitrary power, defended
the liberties of their native country. The commons of England, though
an immense body, and possessed of the greater part of national property,
were naturally somewhat defenceless, because of their personal
equality, and their want of leaders: but the king's severity, if these
prosecutions deserve the name, here pointed out leaders to them, whose
resentment was inflamed, and whose courage was nowise daunted, by the
hardships which they had undergone in so honorable a cause.
So much did these prisoners glory in their sufferings, that, though they
were promised liberty on that condition, they would not condescend even
to present a petition to the king, expressing their sorrow for having
offended him.[**] They unanimously refused to find sureties for their
good behavior, and disdained to accept of deliverance on such easy
terms. Nay, Hollis was so industrious to continue his meritorious
distress, that when one offered to bail him, he would not yield to the
rule of court, and be himself bound with his friend. Even Long, who
had actually found sureties in the chief justice's chamber, declared in
court that his sureties should no longer continue.[***] Yet because Sir
John Elliot Happened to die while in custody, a great clamor was raised
against the administration; and he was universally regarded as a martyr
to the liberties of England.[****]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 684, 691.
** Whitlocke, p. *13.
*** Kennet vol. iii. p. 49.
**** Rushworth, vol. v. p. 440.
CHAPTER LII
CHARLES I.
{1629.} There now opens to us a new scene. Charles naturally disgusted
with parliaments, who, he found, were determined to proceed against him
with unmitigated rigor, both in invading his prerogative and refusing
him all supply, resolved not to call any more, till he should see
greater indications of a compliant disposition in the nation. Having
lost his great favorite, Buckingham, he became his own minister and
never afterwards reposed in any one such unlimited confidence. As
he chiefly follows his own genius and disposition, his measures
are henceforth less rash and hasty; though the general tenor of his
administration still wants somewhat of being entirely legal, and perhaps
more of being entirely prudent.
We shall endeavor to exhibit a just idea of the events which followed
for some years, so far as they regard foreign affairs, the state of
the court, and the government of the nation. The incidents are neither
numerous nor illustrious; but the knowledge of them is necessary for
understanding the subsequent transactions which are so memorable.
Charles, destitute of all supply, was necessarily reduced to embrace a
measure which ought to have been the result of reason and sound policy:
he made peace with the two crowns against which he had hitherto waged
a war, entered into without necessity, and conducted without glory.
Notwithstanding the distracted and helpless condition of England, no
attempt was made either by France or Spain to invade their enemy nor did
they entertain any further project than to defend themselves against the
feeble and ill-concerted expeditions of that kingdom. Pleased that the
jealousies and quarrels, between king and parliament had disarmed so
formidable a power, they carefully avoided any enterprise which might
rouse either the terror or anger of the English, and dispose them to
domestic union and submission. The endeavors to regain the good will of
the nation were carried so far by the king of Spain, that he generously
released and sent home all the English prisoners taken in the expedition
against Cadiz. The example was imitated by France after the retreat of
the English from the Isle of Rhe. When princes were in such
dispositions, and had so few pretensions on each other, it could not be
difficult to conclude a peace. The treaty was first signed with
France.[*] The situation of the king's affairs did not entitle him to
demand any conditions for the Hugonots, and they were abandoned to the
will of their sovereign.
{1630.} Peace was afterwards
concluded with Spain, where no conditions were made in favor of the
palatine, except that Spain promised in general to use their good
offices for his restoration.[**] The influence of these two wars on
domestic affairs, and on the dispositions of king and people, was of the
utmost consequence; but no alteration was made by them on the foreign
interests of the kingdom.
* Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 23, 24.
** Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 75. Whitlocke, p. 14.
Nothing more happy can be imagined than the situation in which England
then stood with regard to foreign affairs. Europe was divided between
the rival families of Bourbon and Austria, whose opposite interests, and
still more, their mutual jealousies, secured the tranquillity of this
island. Their forces were so nearly counterpoised, that no apprehensions
were entertained of any event which could suddenly disturb the balance
of power between them. The Spanish monarch, deemed the most powerful,
lay at greatest distance; and the English, by that means, possessed the
advantage of being engaged by political motives into a more intimate
union and confederacy with the neighboring potentate. The dispersed
situation of the Spanish dominions rendered the naval power of England
formidable to them, and kept that empire in continual dependence. France,
more vigorous and more compact, was every day rising in policy and
discipline; and reached at last an equality of power with the house of
Austria; but her progress, slow and gradual, left it still in the power
of England, by a timely interposition, to check her superiority.
And thus Charles, could he have avoided all dissensions with his own
subjects, was in a situation to make himself be courted and respected by
every power in Europe; and, what has scarcely ever since been attained
by the princes of this island, he could either be active with dignity,
or neutral with security.
A neutrality was embraced by the king; and during the rest of his reign,
he seems to have little regarded foreign affairs, except so far as he
was engaged by honor and by friendship for his sister and the palatine,
to endeavor the procuring of some relief for that unhappy family. He
joined his good offices to those of France, and mediated a peace between
the kings of Sweden and Poland, in hopes of engaging the former to
embrace the protection of the oppressed Protestants in the empire. This
was the famed Gustavus, whose heroic genius, seconded by the wisest
policy, made him in a little time the most distinguished monarch of the
age, and rendered his country, formerly unknown and neglected, of great
weight in the balance of Europe. To encourage and assist him in his
projected invasion of Germany, Charles agreed to furnish him with six
thousand men; but, that he might preserve the appearance of neutrality,
he made use of the marquis of Hamilton's name.[*]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 46, 53, 62. 83.
That nobleman entered into an engagement with Gustavus; and enlisting
these troops in England and Scotland, at Charles's expense, he landed
them in the Elbe. The decisive battle of Leipsic was fought soon after,
where the conduct of Tilly and the valor of the imperialists were
overcome by the superior conduct of Gustavus and the superior valor of
the Swedes. What remained of this hero's life was one continued series
of victory, for which he was less beholden to fortune than to those
personal endowments which he derived from nature and from industry. That
rapid progress of conquest which we so much admire in ancient history,
was here renewed in modern annals; and without that cause to which,
in former ages, it had ever been owing. Military nations were not now
engaged against an undisciplined and unwarlike people; nor heroes set in
opposition to cowards. The veteran troops of Ferdinand, conducted by the
most celebrated generals of the age, were foiled in every encounter; and
all Germany was overrun in an instant by the victorious Swede. But by
this extraordinary and unexpected success of his ally, Charles failed
of the purpose for which he framed the alliance. Gustavus, elated by
prosperity, began to form more extensive plans of ambition; and in
freeing Germany from the yoke of Ferdinand, he intended to reduce it
to subjection under his own. He refused to restore the palatine to his
principality, except on conditions which would have kept him in total
dependence.[*] And thus the negotiation was protracted, till the battle
of Lutzen, where the Swedish monarch perished in the midst of a complete
victory which he obtained over his enemies.
We have carried on these transactions a few years beyond the present
period, that we might not be obliged to return to them, nor be
henceforth interrupted in our account of Charles's court and kingdoms.
* Franklyn, vol. i. p. 415.
When we consider Charles as presiding in his court, as associating
with his family, it is difficult to imagine a character at once more
respectable and more amiable. A kind husband, an indulgent father, a
gentle master, a steadfast friend; to all these eulogies his conduct
in private life fully entitled him. As a monarch too, in the exterior
qualities, he excelled; in the essential, he was not defective.
His address and manner, though perhaps inclining a little towards
stateliness and formality, in the main corresponded to his high rank,
and gave grace to that reserve and gravity which were natural to him.
The moderation and equity which shone forth in his temper seemed to
secure him against rash and dangerous enterprises: the good sense which
he displayed in his discourse and conversation, seemed to warrant his
success in every reasonable undertaking. Other endowments likewise he
had attained, which, in a private gentleman, would have been highly
ornamental, and which, in a great monarch, might have proved extremely
useful to his people. He was possessed of an excellent taste in all
the fine arts; and the love of painting was in some degree his favorite
passion. Learned beyond what is common in princes, he was a good judge
of writing in others, and enjoyed himself no mean talent in composition.
In any other age or nation, this monarch had been secure of a prosperous
and a happy reign. But the high idea of his own authority which he had
imbibed, made him incapable of giving way to the spirit of liberty which
began to prevail among his subjects. His politics were not supported
by such vigor and foresight as might enable him to subdue their
pretensions, and maintain his prerogative at the high pitch to which
it had been raised by his predecessors. And, above all, the spirit of
enthusiasm, being universally diffused, disappointed all the views
of human prudence, and disturbed the operation of every motive which
usually influences society.
But the misfortunes arising from these
causes were yet remote. Charles now enjoyed himself in the full
exercise of his authority, in a social intercourse with his friends
and courtiers, and in a moderate use of those pleasures which he most
affected.
After the death of Buckingham, who had somewhat alienated Charles from
the queen, she is to be considered as his chief friend and favorite.
That rustic contempt of the fair sex which James affected, and which,
banishing them from his court, made it resemble more a fair or
an exchange than the seat of a great prince, was very wide of the
disposition of this monarch. But though full of complaisance to the
whole sex, Charles reserved all his passion for his consort, to whom he
attached himself with unshaken fidelity and confidence. By her sense
and spirit, as well as by her beauty, she justified the fondness of
her husband; though it is allowed that, being somewhat of a passionate
temper, she precipitated him into hasty and imprudent measures. Her
religion likewise, to which she was much addicted, must be regarded as
a great misfortune; since it augmented the jealousy which prevailed
against the court, and engaged her to procure for the Catholics some
indulgences which were generally distasteful to the nation.[*]
In the former situation of the English government, when the sovereign
was in a great measure independent of his subjects, the king chose
his ministers either from personal favor, or from an opinion of their
abilities, without any regard to their parliamentary interest or
talents. It has since been the maxim of princes, wherever popular
leaders encroach too much on royal authority, to confer offices on them,
in expectation that they will afterwards become more careful not to
diminish that power which has become their own. These politics were now
embraced by Charles; a sure proof that a secret revolution had happened
in the constitution, and had necessitated the prince to adopt new maxims
of government.[**]
* May, p 21.
** Sir Edw. Walker, p. 328.
But the views of the king were at this time so repugnant to those of
the Puritans, that the leaders whom he gained, lost from that moment
all interest with their party, and were even pursued as traitors with
implacable hatred and resentment. This was the case with Sir Thomas
Wentworth, whom the king created, first a baron, then a viscount, and
afterwards earl of Strafford; made him president of the council of
York, and deputy of Ireland; and regarded him as his chief minister and
counsellor. By his eminent talents and abilities, Strafford merited
all the confidence which his master reposed in him: his character
was stately and austere; more fitted to procure esteem than love:
his fidelity to the king was unshaken; but as he now employed all his
counsels to support the prerogative, which he had formerly bent all his
endeavors to diminish his virtue seems not to have been entirely pure,
but to have been susceptible of strong impressions from private interest
and ambition. Sir Dudley Digges was about the same time created master
of the rolls; Noy, attorney-general; Littleton, solicitor-general. All
these had likewise been parliamentary leaders, and were men eminent in
their profession.[*]
* Whitlocke, p. 13. May, p. 20.
[Illustration: 1-647-strafford.jpg EARL OF STRAFFORD]
In all ecclesiastical affairs, and even in many civil, Laud, bishop of
London, had great influence over the king. This man was virtuous, if
severity of manners alone, and abstinence from pleasure, could deserve
that name. He was learned, if polemical knowledge could entitle him
to that praise. He was disinterested; but with unceasing industry he
studied to exalt the priestly and prelatical character, which was his
own. His zeal was unrelenting in the cause of religion; that is, in
imposing by rigorous measures his own tenets and pious ceremonies on
the obstinate Puritans, who had profanely dared to oppose him.
In prosecution of his holy purposes, he overlooked every human
consideration; or, in other words, the heat and indiscretion of his
temper made him neglect the views of prudence and rules of good manners.
He was in this respect happy, that all his enemies were also imagined
by him the declared enemies to loyalty and true piety, and that every
exercise of his anger by that means became in his eyes a merit and
a virtue. This was the man who acquired so great an ascendant over
Charles, and who led him, by the facility of his temper, into a conduct
which proved so fatal to himself and to his kingdoms.
The humor of the nation ran at that time into the extreme opposite to
superstition; and it was with difficulty that the ancient ceremonies
to which men had been accustomed, and which had been sanctified by the
practice of the first reformers, could be retained in divine service:
yet was this the time which Laud chose for the introduction of new
ceremonies and observances. Besides that these were sure to displease
as innovations, there lay, in the opinion of the public, another very
forcible objection against them. Laud, and the other prelates who
embraced his measures, were generally well instructed in sacred
antiquity, and had adopted many of those religious sentiments which
prevailed during the fourth and fifth centuries; when the Christian
church, as is well known, was already sunk into those superstitions
which were afterwards continued and augmented by the policy of Rome. The
revival, therefore, of the ideas and practices of that age, could not
fail of giving the English faith and liturgy some resemblance to the
Catholic superstition, which the kingdom in general, and the Puritans in
particular, held in the greatest horror and detestation. Men also were
apt to think, that, without some secret purpose, such insignificant
observances would not be imposed with such unrelenting zeal on the
refractory nation; and that Laud's scheme was, to lead back the English
by gradual steps to the religion of their ancestors. They considered
not, that the very insignificancy of these ceremonies recommended them
to the superstitious prelate, and made them appear the more peculiarly
sacred and religious, as they could serve to no other purpose. Nor was
the resemblance to the Romish ritual any objection, but rather a merit
with Laud and his brethren; who bore a much greater kindness to
the mother church, as they called her, than to the sectaries and
Presbyterians, and frequently recommended her as a true Christian
church; an appellation which they refused, or at least scrupled to give
to the others.[*] So openly were these tenets espoused, that not only
the discontented Puritans believed the church of England to be relapsing
fast into Romish superstition: the court of Rome itself entertained
hopes of regaining its authority in this island; and, in order to
forward Laud's supposed good intentions, an offer was twice made him in
private of a cardinal's hat, which he declined accepting.[**] His answer
was, as he says himself, "That something dwelt within him, which would
not suffer his compliance, till Rome were other than it is."[***]
* May, p. 25.
** Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 190. Welwood, p. 61.
*** Rushworth, vol. iii. p. 1327. Whitlocke, p. 97.
A court lady, daughter of the earl of Devonshire, having turned
Catholic, was asked by Laud the reason of her conversion: "'Tis
chiefly," said she, "because I hate to travel in a crowd." The meaning
of this expression being demanded, she replied, "I perceive your grace
and many others are making haste to Rome; and therefore, in order to
prevent my being crowded, I have gone before you." It must be confessed,
that though Laud deserved not the appellation of Papist, the genius of
his religion was, though in a less degree, the same with that of
the Romish: the same profound respect was exacted to the sacerdotal
character, the same submission required to the creeds and decrees of
synods and councils; the same pomp and ceremony was affected in
worship; and the same superstitious regard to days, postures, meats, and
vestments. No wonder, therefore, that this prelate was every where among
the Puritans regarded with horror, as the forerunner of Antichrist.
As a specimen of the new ceremonies to which Laud sacrificed his own
quiet and that of the nation, it may not be amiss to relate those which
he was accused of employing in the consecration of St. Catharine's
church, and which were the object of such general scandal and offence.
On the bishop's approach to the west door of the church, a loud voice
cried, "Open, open, ye everlasting doors, that the king of glory may
enter in!" Immediately the doors of the church flew open, and the bishop
entered. Falling upon his knees, with eyes elevated and arms expanded,
he uttered these words: "This place is holy; the ground is holy: in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I pronounce it holy."
Going towards the chancel, he several times took up from the floor
some of the dust, and threw it in the air. When he approached, with his
attendants, near to the communion table, he bowed frequently towards
it; and on their return, they went round the church, repeating, as they
marched along, some of the psalms; and then said a form of prayer, which
concluded with these words: "We consecrate this church, and separate it
unto thee as holy ground, not to be profaned any more to common uses."
After this, the bishop, standing near the communion table solemnly
pronounced many imprecations upon such as should afterwards pollute that
holy place by musters of soldiers, or keeping in it profane law-courts,
or carrying burdens through it. On the conclusion of every curse, he
bowed towards the east, and cried, "Let all the people say, Amen."
The imprecations being all so piously finished, there were poured out
a number of blessings upon such as had any hand in framing and building
that sacred and beautiful edifice, and on such as had given, or should
hereafter give to it, any chalices, plate, ornaments, or utensils. At
every benediction he in like manner bowed towards the east, and cried,
"Let all the people say, Amen."
The sermon followed; after which the bishop consecrated and administered
the sacrament in the following manner.
As he approached the communion table, he made many lowly reverences;
and coming up to that part of the table where the bread and wine lay, he
bowed seven times. After the reading of many prayers, he approached the
sacramental elements, and gently lifted up the corner of the napkin in
which the bread was placed. When he beheld the bread, he suddenly let
fall the napkin, flew back a step or two, bowed three several times
towards the bread; then he drew nigh again, opened the napkin, and bowed
as before.
Next he laid his hand on the cup, which had a cover upon it, and was
filled with wine. He let go the cup, fell back, and bowed thrice towards
it. He approached again; and lifting op the cover, peeped into the
cup. Seeing the wine, he let fall the cover, started back, and bowed as
before. Then he received the sacrament, and gave it to others. And many
prayers being said, the solemnity of the consecration ended. The walls,
and floor, and roof of the fabric were then supposed to be sufficiently
holy.[*]
Orders were given, and rigorously insisted on, that the communion table
should be removed from the middle of the area where it hitherto stood in
all churches, except in cathedrals.[**] It was placed at the east end,
railed in, and denominated an "altar;" as the clergyman who officiated
received commonly the appellation of "priest." It is not easy to imagine
the discontents excited by this innovation, and the suspicions which it
gave rise to.
* Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 76, 77. Welwood, p. 275. Franklyn,
p. 386.
** Rushworth, vol ii. p. 207. Whitlocke, p. 24.
The kneeling at the altar, and the using of copes, a species of
embroidered vestment, in administering the sacrament, were also known
to be great objects of scandal, as being Popish practices; but the
opposition rather increased than abated the zeal of the prelate for the
introduction of these habits and ceremonies.
All kinds of ornament, especially pictures, were necessary for
supporting that mechanical devotion which was purposed to be raised in
this model of religion: but as these had been so much employed by the
church of Rome, and had given rise to so much superstition, or what
the Puritans called idolatry it was impossible to introduce them into
English churches without exciting general murmurs and complaints. But
Laud possessed of present authority, persisted in his purpose, and made
several attempts towards acquiring these ornaments. Some of the pictures
introduced by him were also found, upon inquiry, to be the very same
that might be met with in the mass-book. The crucifix too, that eternal
consolation of all pious Catholics, and terror to all sound Protestants,
was not forgotten on this occasion.[*]
It was much remarked, that Sheffield, the recorder of Salisbury, was
tried in the star chamber, for having broken, contrary to the bishop of
Salisbury's express injunctions, a painted window of St. Edmond's
church in that city. He boasted that he had destroyed these monuments
of idolatry: but for this effort of his zeal, he was fined five
hundred pounds, removed from his office, condemned to make a public
acknowledgment, and be bound to his good behavior.[**]
Not only such of the clergy as neglected to observe every ceremony were
suspended and deprived by the high commission court: oaths were, by many
of the bishops, imposed or the churchwardens; and they were sworn
to inform against any one who acted contrary to the ecclesiastical
canons.[***] Such a measure, though practised during the reign of
Elizabeth, gave much offence, as resembling too nearly the practice of
the Romish inquisition.
To show the greater alienation from the churches reformed after the
Presbyterian model, Laud advised that the discipline and worship of the
church should be imposed on the English regiments and trading companies
abroad.[****] All foreigners of the Dutch and Walloon congregations were
commanded to attend the established church; and indulgence was granted
to none after the children of the first denizens.[v]
* Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 272, 273.
** Rushworth, Vol. ii. p. 152. State Trials, vol. v. p 46.
Franklyn, p. 410, 411, 412.
*** Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 186.
**** Rushworth, vol, ii. p. 249. Franklyn, p. 451.
v Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 272
Scudamore, too, the king's ambassador at Paris, had orders to withdraw
himself from the communion of the Hugonots. Even men of sense were apt
to blame this conduct, not only because it gave offence in England, but
because, in foreign countries, it lost the crown the advantage of being
considered as the head and support of the reformation.[*]
On pretence of pacifying disputes, orders were issued from the council,
forbidding on both sides all preaching and printing with regard to
the controverted points of predestination and free will. But it was
complained of, and probably with reason that the impartiality was
altogether confined to the orders, and that the execution of them was
only meant against the Calvinists.
In return for Charles's indulgence towards the church, Laud and his
followers took care to magnify, on every occasion, the regal authority,
and to treat with the utmost disdain or detestation all Puritanical
pretensions to a free and independent constitution. But while these
prelates were so liberal in raising the crown at the expense of public
liberty, they made no scruple of encroaching, themselves, on the royal
rights the most incontestable, in order to exalt the hierarchy, and
procure to their own order dominion and independence. All the doctrines
which the Romish church had borrowed from some of the fathers, and which
freed the spiritual from subordination to the civil power, were now
adopted by the church of England, and interwoven with her political
and religious tenets. A divine and apostolical charter was insisted on,
preferably to a legal and parliamentary one.[**]
* State Papers collected by the earl of Clarendon, p 338.
** Whitlocke, p. 22.
The sacerdotal character was magnified as sacred and indefeasible: all
right to spiritual authority, or even to private judgment in spiritual
subjects, was refused to profane laymen: ecclesiastical courts were held
by the bishops in their own name, without any notice taken of the king's
authority: and Charles, though extremely jealous of every claim in
popular assemblies, seemed rather to encourage than repress those
encroachments of his clergy. Having felt many sensible inconveniencies
from the independent spirit of parliaments, he attached himself entirely
to those who professed a devoted obedience to his crown and person;
nor did he foresee, that the ecclesiastical power which he exalted, not
admitting of any precise boundary, might in time become more dangerous
to public peace, and no less fatal to royal prerogative, than the other.
So early as the coronation, Laud was the person, according to general
opinion, that introduced a novelty which, though overlooked by Charles,
made a deep impression on many of the bystanders. After the usual
ceremonies, these words were recited to the king: "Stand and hold fast,
from henceforth the place to which you have been heir by the succession
of your forefathers, being now delivered to you by the authority of
Almighty God, and by the hands of us and all the bishops and servants of
God. And, as you see the clergy to come nearer the altar than others,
so remember that, in all places convenient, you give them greater honor;
that the Mediator of God and man may establish you on the kingly throne,
to be a mediator betwixt the clergy and the laity; and that you may
reign forever with Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords."
[*]
The principles which exalted prerogative, were not entertained by the
king merely as soft and agreeable to his royal ears; they were also put
in practice during the time that he ruled without parliaments. Though
frugal and regular in his expense, he wanted money for the support of
government; and he levied it, either by the revival of obsolete laws, or
by violations, some more open, some more disguised, of the privileges of
the nation. Though humane and gentle in his temper, he gave way to a
few severities in the star chamber and high commission, which seemed
necessary in order to support the present mode of administration, and
repress the rising spirit of liberty throughout the kingdom. Under these
two heads may be reduced all the remarkable transactions of this reign
during some years; for, in peaceable and prosperous times, where
a neutrality in foreign affairs is observed, scarcely any thing is
remarkable, but what is in some degree blamed or blamable. And, lest the
hope of relief or protection from parliament might encourage opposition,
Charles issued a proclamation, in which he declared, "That whereas, for
several ill ends, the calling again of a parliament is divulged; though
his majesty has shown, by frequent meetings with his people, his love to
the use of parliaments: yet the late abuse having for the present driven
him unwillingly out of that course; he will account it presumption
for anyone to prescribe to him any time for the calling of that
assembly."[**]
* Franklyn, p. 114. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 201.
** Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 389. Rush. vol. ii. p. 3.
This was generally construed as a declaration, that during this reign no
more parliaments were intended to be summoned.[*] And every measure of
the king's confirmed a suspicion so disagreeable to the generality of
the people.
Tonnage and poundage continued to be levied by the royal authority
alone. The former additional impositions were still exacted. Even new
impositions were laid on several kinds of merchandise.[**]
The custom-house officers received orders from the council to enter into
any house, warehouse, or cellar; to search any trunk or chest; and to
break any bulk whatever; in default of the payment of customs.[***]
In order to exercise the militia, and to keep them in good order, each
county, by an edict of the council, was assessed in a certain sum, for
maintaining a muster-master, appointed for that service.[****]
Compositions were openly made with recusants, and the Popish religion
became a regular part of the revenue. This was all the persecution which
it underwent during the reign of Charles.[v]
A commission was granted for compounding with such as were possessed of
crown lands upon defective titles; and on this pretence some money was
exacted from the people.[v*]
There was a law of Edward II.,[v**] that whoever was possessed of twenty
pounds a year in land, should be obliged, when summoned, to appear and
to receive the order of knighthood. Twenty pounds at that time, partly
by the change of denomination, partly by that in the value of money,
were equivalent to two hundred in the seventeenth century; and it seemed
just that the king should not strictly insist on the letter of the law,
and oblige people of so small revenue to accept of that expensive honor.
Edward VI,[v***] and Queen Elizabeth,[v****] who had both of them made
use of this expedient for raising money, had summoned only those who
were possessed of forty pounds a year and upwards to receive knighthood,
or compound for their neglect; and Charles imitated their example, in
granting the same indulgence.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 4. May, p. 14.
** Rush. vol. ii. p. 8. May, p. 16.
*** Rush. vol. ii. p. 9.
**** Rush. vol. ii. p. 10.
v Rush. vol. ii. p. 11, 12, 13, 247.
v* Rush. vol. ii: p. 49.
v** Statutum de militibus.
v*** Rymer, tom. xv. p. 124.
v**** Rymer, tom. xv. p. 493, 504.
Commissioners were appointed for fixing the rates of composition; and
instructions were given to these commissioners not to accept of a less
sum than would have been due by the party upon a tax of three subsidies
and a half.[*] Nothing proves more plainly how ill disposed the people
were to the measures of the crown, than to observe that they loudly
complained of an expedient founded on positive statute, and warranted
by such recent precedents. The law was pretended to be obsolete; though
only one reign had intervened since the last execution of it.
Barnard, lecturer of St. Sepulchre's, London, used this expression in
his prayer before sermon: "Lord, open the eyes of the queen's majesty,
that she may see Jesus Christ, whom she has pierced with her infidelity,
superstition, and idolatry." He was questioned in the high commission
court for this insult on the queen; but, upon his submission,
dismissed.[**] Leighton, who had written libels against the king, the
queen, the bishops, and the whole administration, was condemned by
a very severe, if not a cruel sentence; but the execution of it was
suspended for some time, in expectation of his submission.[***] All
the severities, indeed, of this reign were exercised against those
who triumphed in their sufferings, who courted persecution, and braved
authority; and on that account their punishment may be deemed the more
just, but the less prudent. To have neglected them entirely, had it been
consistent with order and public safety, had been the wisest measure
that could have been embraced; as perhaps it had been the most severe
punishment that could have been inflicted on these zealots.
{1631.} In order to gratify the clergy with a magnificent fabric,
subscriptions were set on foot for repairing and rebuilding St. Paul's;
and the king, by his countenance and example, encouraged this laudable
undertaking.[****] By order of the privy council, St. Gregory's
church was removed, as an impediment to the project of extending and
beautifying the cathedral. Some houses and shops likewise were pulled
down, and compensation was made to the owners.[v]
* Rush. vol. ii. p. 70, 71, 72. May, p. 16.
** Rush vol. ii. p. 32.
*** Kennets Complete Hist. vol. iii. p. 60. Whitlocke, p.
15.
**** Whitlocke, p. 17.
v Rush. vol. ii. p. 88, 89, 90, 207, 462 718.
As there was no immediate prospect of assembling a parliament, such acts
of power in the king became necessary; and in no former age would the
people have entertained any scruple with regard to them. It must be
remarked, that the Puritans were extremely averse to the raising of
this ornament to the capital. It savored, as they pretended, of Popish
superstition.
A stamp duty was imposed on cards; a new tax, which of itself was liable
to no objection, but appeared of dangerous consequence when considered
as arbitrary and illegal.[*]
Monopolies were revived; an oppressive method of levying money, being
unlimited, as well as destructive of industry. The last parliament of
James, which abolished monopolies, had left an equitable exception in
favor of new inventions; and on pretence of these, and of erecting
new companies and corporations, was this grievance now renewed. The
manufacture of soap was given to a company who paid a sum for their
patent.[**] Leather, salt, and many other commodities, even down to
linen rags, were likewise put under restrictions.
It is affirmed by Clarendon, that so little benefit was reaped from
these projects, that of two hundred thousand pounds thereby levied on
the people, scarcely one thousand five hundred came into the king's
coffers. Though we ought not to suspect the noble historian of
exaggerations to the disadvantage of Charles's measures, this fact, it
must be owned, appears somewhat incredible. The same author adds, that
the king's intention was to teach his subjects how unthrifty a thing it
was to refuse reasonable supplies to the crown: an imprudent project:
to offend a whole nation under the view of punishment: and to hope
by acts of violence to break their refractory spirits, without being
possessed of any force to prevent resistance.
{1632.} The council of York had been first erected, after a rebellion,
by a patent from Henry VIII., without any authority of parliament; and
this exercise cf power, like many others, was indulged to that arbitrary
monarch. This council had long acted chiefly as a criminal court; but,
besides some innovations introduced by James, Charles thought proper
some time after Wentworth was made president, to extend its powers,
and to give it a large civil jurisdiction, and that in some respects
discretionary.[***]
* Rush. vol. ii. p. 103.
** Rush. vol. ii. p. 136, 142, 189, 252.
*** Rush. vol. ii. p, 158, 159, etc. Franklyn, p. 412.
It is not improbable, that the king's intention was only to prevent
inconveniencies, which arose from the bringing of every cause, from
the most distant parts of the kingdom, into Westminster Hall: but the
consequence, in the mean time, of this measure, was the putting of
all the northern counties out of the protection of ordinary law, and
subjecting them to an authority somewhat arbitrary. Some irregular acts
of that council were this year complained of.[*]
{1633.} The court of star chamber extended its authority; and it was
matter of complaint that it encroached upon the jurisdiction of the
other courts; imposing heavy fines and inflicting severe punishment,
beyond the usual course of justice. Sir David Foulis was fined
five thousand pounds, chiefly because he had dissuaded a friend
from compounding with the commissioners of knighthood.[**]
* Rush. vol. ii. p. 202, 203.
** Rush, vol. ii. p. 215, 216, etc.
Prynne, a barrister of Lincoln's Inn, had written an enormous quarto of
a thousand pages, which he called Histrio-Mastyx. Its professed purpose
was to decry stage-plays, comedies, interludes, music, dancing; but
the author likewise took occasion to declaim against hunting, public
festivals, Christmas-keeping, bonfires, and may-poles. His zeal against
all these levities, he says, was first moved by observing that plays
sold better than the choicest sermons, and that they were frequently
printed on finer paper than the Bible itself. Besides, that the players
were often Papists, and desperately wicked; the play-houses, he affirms,
are Satan's chapels; the play-haunters little better than incarnate
devils; and so many steps in a dance, so many paces to hell. The chief
crime of Nero, he represents to have been his frequenting and acting of
plays; and those who nobly conspired his death, were principally moved
to it, as he affirms, by their indignation at that enormity. The rest of
his thousand pages is of a like strain. He had obtained a license from
Archbishop Abbot's chaplain; yet was he indicted in the star chamber as
a libeller. It was thought somewhat hard that general invectives against
plays should be interpreted into satires against the king and queen,
merely because they frequented these amusements, and because the
queen sometimes acted a part in pastorals and interludes which were
represented at court. The author, it must be owned, had, in plainer
terms, blamed the hierarchy, the ceremonies, the innovations in
religious worship, and the new superstitions introduced by Laud;[*]
and this, probably, together with the obstinacy and petulance of his
behavior before the star chamber, was the reason why his sentence was so
severe. He was condemned to be put from the bar; to stand on the pillory
in two places, Westminster and Cheapside; to lose both his ears, one
in each place; to pay five thousand pounds' fine to the king; and to be
imprisoned during life.[**]
This same Prynne was a great hero among the Puritans; and it was
chiefly with a view of mortifying that sect, that though of an honorable
profession, he was condemned by the star chamber to so ignominious a
punishment. The thorough-paced Puritans were distinguishable by the
sourness and austerity of their manners, and by their aversion to
all pleasure and society.[***] To inspire them with better humor was
certainly, both for their own sake and that of the public, a laudable
intention in the court; but whether pillories, fines and prisons were
proper expedients for that purpose, may admit of some question.
Another expedient which the king tried, in order to infuse cheerfulness
into the national devotion, was not much more successful. He renewed his
father's edict for allowing sports and recreations on Sunday to such
as attended public worship; and he ordered his proclamation for that
purpose to be publicly read by the clergy after divine service.[****]
Those who were Puritanically affected refused obedience, and were
punished by suspension or deprivation. The differences between the
sects were before sufficiently great; nor was it necessary to widen them
further by these inventions.
Some encouragement and protection which the king and the bishops gave
to wakes, church ales, bride ales, and other cheerful festivals of the
common people, were the objects of like scandal to the Puritans.[v]
* Rush. vol. ii. p. 223.
** Rush. vol. ii. p. 220, 221, etc.
*** Dugdale, p. 2.
**** Rush, vol. ii. p. 193, 459. Whitlocke, p. 16, 17.
Franklyn, p. 431*.
v Rush. vol. ii. p. 191, 192. May, p. 2.
The music in the churches he affirmed not to be the noise of men, but a
bleating of brute beasts; choristers bellow the tenor, as it were oxen;
bark a counterpart, as it were a kennel of dogs; roar out a treble, as
it were a sort of bulls; and grunt out a bass, as it were a number of
hogs: Christmas, as it is kept, is the devil's Christmas: and Prynne
employed a great number of pages to persuade men to affect the name
of "Puritan," as if Christ had been a Puritan; and so he saith in his
index.
This year, Charles made a journey to Scotland, attended by the court,
in order to hold a parliament there, and to pass through the ceremony of
his coronation. The nobility and gentry of both kingdoms rivalled each
other in expressing all duty and respect to the king, and in showing
mutual friendship and regard to each other. No one could have suspected,
from exterior appearances, that such dreadful scenes were approaching.
One chief article of business, (for it deserves the name,) which the
king transacted in this parliament, was, besides obtaining some supply,
to procure authority for ordering the habits of clergymen.[*] The act
did not pass without opposition and difficulty. The dreadful surplice
was before men's eyes, and they apprehended, with some reason, that
under sanction of this law, it would soon be introduced among them.
Though the king believed that his prerogative entitled him to a power,
in general, of directing whatever belonged to the exterior government
of the church, this was deemed a matter of too great importance to be
ordered without the sanction of a particular statute.
Immediately after the king's return to England, he heard of Archbishop
Abbot's death; and, without delay, he conferred that dignity on his
favorite, Laud; who, by this accession of authority, was now enabled to
maintain ecclesiastical discipline with greater rigor, and to aggravate
the general discontent of the nation.
Laud obtained the bishopric of London for his friend Juxon: and, about
a year after the death of Sir Richard Weston, created earl of Portland,
had interest enough to engage the king to make that prelate high
treasurer. Juxon was a person of great integrity, mildness, and
humanity, and endued with a good understanding.[**] Yet did this last
promotion give general offence. His birth and character were deemed too
obscure for a man raised to one of the highest offices of the crown.
And the clergy, it was thought, were already too much elated by former
instances of the king's attachment to them, and needed not this further
encouragement to assume dominion over the laity.[***] The Puritans,
likewise, were much dissatisfied with Juxon, notwithstanding his eminent
virtues, because he was a lover of profane field sports and hunting.
* Bushworth, vol. ii. p. 183.
** Whitlocke, p. 23. Clarendon, vol. i. p. 99.
*** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 97. May, p. 23.
{1634.} Ship money was now introduced. The first writs of this kind had
been directed to seaport towns only: but ship money was at this time
levied on the whole kingdom; and each county was rated at a particular
sum, which was after wards assessed upon individuals.[*] The amount of
the whole tax was very moderate, little exceeding two hundred thousand
pounds: it was levied upon the people with equality: the money was
entirely expended on the navy, to the great honor and advantage of the
kingdom: as England had no military force, while all the other powers of
Europe were strongly armed, a fleet seemed absolutely necessary for her
security; and it was obvious, that a navy must be built and equipped at
leisure, during peace; nor could it possibly be fitted out on a sudden
emergence, when the danger became urgent; yet all these considerations
could not reconcile the people to the imposition. It was entirely
arbitrary: by the same right any other tax might be imposed: and men
thought a powerful fleet, though very desirable both for the credit and
safety of the kingdom, but an unequal recompense for their liberties,
which, they apprehended, were thus sacrificed to the obtaining of it.
England, it must be owned, was in this respect unhappy in its present
situation, that the king had entertained a very different idea of the
constitution, from that which began in general to prevail among his
subjects. He did not regard national privileges as so sacred and
inviolable, that nothing but the most extreme necessity could justify an
infringement of them. He considered himself as the supreme magistrate,
to whose care Heaven, by his birthright, had committed his people; whose
duty it was to provide for their security and happiness, and who was
vested with ample discretionary powers for that salutary purpose. If the
observance of ancient laws and customs was consistent with the present
convenience of government, he thought himself obliged to comply with
that rule, as the easiest, the safest, and what procured the most prompt
and willing obedience. But when a change of circumstances, especially
if derived from the obstinacy of the people, required a new plan of
administration, national privileges, he thought, must yield to supreme
power; nor could any order of the state oppose any right to the will of
the sovereign, directed to the good of the public.[**]
* Rush. vol. ii. p. 257, 258, etc.
** Rush. vol. iv p 535, 542.
That these principles of government were derived from the uniform tenor
of the English laws, it would be rash to affirm. The fluctuating nature
of the constitution, the impatient humor of the people, and the variety
of events, had, no doubt, in different ages, produced exceptions and
contradictions. These observations alone may be established on both
sides, that the appearances were sufficiently strong in favor of the
king to apologize for his following such maxims; and that public liberty
must be so precarious under this exorbitant prerogative, as to render an
opposition not only excusable, but laudable in the people.[*] [4]
Some laws had been enacted, during the reign of Henry VII., against
depopulation, or the converting of arable lands into pasture. By a
decree of the star chamber, Sir Anthony Roper was fined four thousand
pounds for an offence of that nature.[**] This severe sentence was
intended to terrify others into composition; and above thirty thousand
pounds were levied by that expedient.[***] Like compositions, or, in
default of them, heavy fines, were required for encroachments on the
king's forests, whose bounds, by decrees deemed arbitrary, were extended
much beyond what was usual.[****] The bounds of one forest, that
of Rockingham, were increased from six miles to sixty.[v] The same
refractory humor which made the people refuse to the king voluntary
supplies, disposed them, with better reason, to murmur against these
irregular methods of taxation.
Morley was fined ten thousand pounds for reviling, challenging, and
striking, in the court of Whitehall, Sir George Theobald, one of the
king's servants.[v*] This fine was thought exorbitant; but whether it
was compounded, as was usual in fines imposed by the star chamber, we
are not informed.
* See note D, at the end of the volume.
** Rush. vol. ii. p. 270; vol. iii. App. p. 106.
*** Rush. vol. iii. p. 333. Franklyn, p. 478.
**** May, p. 16.
v Strafford's Letters and Despatches, vol. ii. p. 117.
v* Rush. vol. ii. p. 270.
Allison had reported, that the archbishop of York had incurred the
king's displeasure, by asking a limited toleration for the Catholics,
and an allowance to build some churches for the exercise of their
religion. For this slander against the archbishop, he was condemned in
the star chamber to be fined one thousand pounds, to be committed to
prison, to be bound to his good behavior during life, to be whipped,
and to be set on the pillory at Westminster, and in three other towns in
England. Robins, who had been an accomplice in the guilt, was condemned
by a sentence equally severe.[*] Such events are rather to be considered
as rare and detached incidents, collected by the severe scrutiny of
historians, than as proofs of the prevailing genius of the king's
administration which seems to have been more gentle and equitable than,
that of most of his predecessors: there were, on the whole, only five
or six such instances of rigor during the course of fifteen years,
which elapsed before the meeting of the long parliament. And it is also
certain, that scandal against the great, though seldom prosecuted at
present, is, however, in the eye of the law, a great crime, and subjects
the offender to very heavy penalties.
There are other instances of the high respect paid to the nobility and
to the great in that age, when the powers of monarchy, though disputed,
still maintained themselves in their pristine vigor. Clarendon[**] tells
us a pleasant incident to this purpose: a waterman, belonging to a man
of quality, having a squabble with a citizen about his fare, showed his
badge, the crest of his master, which happened to be a swan; and thence
insisted on better treatment from the citizen. But the other replied
carelessly, that he did not trouble his head about that goose. For
this offence, he was summoned before the marshal's court; was fined, as
having opprobriously defamed the nobleman's crest, by calling the swan a
goose; and was in effect reduced to beggary.
Sir Richard Granville had thought himself ill used by the earl of Suffolk
in a lawsuit; and he was accused before the star chamber of having said
of that nobleman, that he was a base lord. The evidence against him was
somewhat lame; yet for this slight offence, insufficiently proved, he
was condemned to pay a fine of eight thousand pounds; one half to the
earl, the other to the king.[***]
* Bush. vol. u. p, 269.
** Life of Clarendon, vol. i. p. 72.
*** Lord Lansdown, p. 514.
Sir George Markham, following a chase where Lord Darcy's huntsman was
exercising his hounds, kept closer to the dogs than was thought proper
by the huntsman, who, besides other rudeness, gave him foul language,
which Sir George returned with a stroke of his whip. The fellow
threatened to complain to his master: the knight replied, "If his master
should justify such insolence, he would serve him in the same manner;" or
words to that effect. Sir George was summoned before the Star chamber,
and fined ten thousand pounds: "So fine a thing was it in those days to
be a lord!"--a natural reflection of Lord Lansdown's in relating
this incident.[*] The people, in vindicating their liberties from the
authority of the crown, threw off also the yoke of the nobility. It is
proper to remark that this last incident happened early in the reign of
James. The present practice of the star chamber was far from being an
innovation; though the present dispositions of the people made them
repine more at this servitude.
{1635.} Charles had imitated the example of Elizabeth and James, and had
issued proclamations forbidding the landed gentlemen and the nobility
to live idly in London, and ordering them to retire to their country
seats.[**] For disobedience to this edict, many were indicted by
the attorney-general, and were fined in the star chamber.[***] This
occasioned discontents; and the sentences were complained of as illegal.
But if proclamations had authority, of which nobody pretended to doubt,
must they not be put in execution? In no instance I must confess, does
it more evidently appear, what confused and uncertain ideas were during
that age entertained concerning the English constitution.
Ray, having exported fuller's earth, contrary to the king's
proclamation, was, besides the pillory, condemned in the star chamber
to a fine of two thousand pounds.[****] Like fines were levied on
Terry, Eman, and others, for disobeying a proclamation which forbade
the exportation of gold.[v] In order to account for the subsequent
convulsions, even these incidents are not to be overlooked as frivolous
or contemptible. Such severities were afterwards magnified into the
greatest enormities.
There remains a proclamation of this year, prohibiting hackney coaches
from standing in the street.[v*] We are told, that there were not above
twenty coaches of that kind in London. There are at present near eight
hundred.
* Lord Lansdown, p. 515. This story is told differently in
Hobart's Reports, p. 120. It there appears, that Markham was
fined only five hundred pounds, and very deservedly; for he
gave the lie and wrote a challenge to Lord Darcy. James was
anxious to discourage the practice of duelling, which was
then very prevalent.
** Rush. vol. ii. p. 144.
*** Rush. vol. ii, p. 288.
**** Rush. vol. ii. p. 348.
v Rush. vol. ii. p. 360.
v* Rush. vol. ii. p. 316.
{1636.} The effects of ship money began now to appear. A formidable
fleet of sixty sail, the greatest that England had ever known, was
equipped under the earl of Northumberland, who had orders to attack
the herring busses of the Dutch, which fished in what were called the
British seas. The Dutch were content to pay thirty thousand pounds for
a license during this year. They openly denied, however, the claim of
dominion in the seas beyond the friths, bays, and shores; and it may be
questioned whether the laws of nations warrant any further pretensions.
This year, the king sent a squadron against Sallee; and, with the
assistance of the emperor of Morocco, destroyed that receptacle of
pirates, by whom the English commerce, and even the English coasts, had
long been infested.
{1637.} Burton, a divine, and Bastwick, a physician, were tried in the
star chamber for seditious and schismatical libels, and were condemned
to the same punishment that had been inflicted on Prynne. Prynne himself
was tried for a new offence; and, together with another fine of five
thousand pounds, was condemned to lose what remained of his ears.
Besides that these writers had attacked with great severity, and even an
intemperate zeal, the ceremonies, rites, and government of the church,
the very answers which they gave in to the court were so full of
contumacy and of invectives against the prelates, that no lawyer
could be prevailed on to sign them.[*] The rigors, however, which they
underwent, being so unworthy men of their profession, gave general
offence; and the patience, or rather alacrity, with which they suffered,
increased still further the indignation of the public.[**]
* Rush. vol. ii. p. 381, 382, etc. State Trials, vol. v. p.
66.
** State Trials, vol. v. p. 80.
The severity of the star chamber, which was generally ascribed to Laud's
passionate disposition, was, perhaps, in itself somewhat blamable;
but will naturally, to us, appear enormous, who enjoy, in the utmost
latitude, that liberty of the press, which is esteemed so necessary
in every monarchy, confined by strict legal limitations. But as these
limitations were not regularly fixed during the age of Charles, nor at
any time before, so was this liberty totally unknown, and was generally
deemed, as well as religious toleration, incompatible with all good
government. No age or nation among the moderns had ever set an example
of such an indulgence; and it seems unreasonable to judge of the
measures embraced during one period by the maxims which prevail in
another.
Burton, in his book where he complained of innovations mentioned, among
others, that a certain Wednesday had been appointed for a fast, and
that the fast was ordered to be celebrated without any sermons.[*] The
intention, as he pretended, of that novelty was, by the example of
a fast without sermons, to suppress all the Wednesday's lectures in
London. It is observable, that the church of Rome and that of England,
being both of them lovers of form, and ceremony, and order, are more
friends to prayer than preaching; while the Puritanical sectaries, who
find that the latter method of address, being directed to a numerous
audience present and visible, is more inflaming and animating,
have always regarded it as the chief part of divine service. Such
circumstances, though minute, it may not be improper to transmit to
posterity; and those who are curious of tracing the history of the human
mind, may remark how far its several singularities coincide in different
ages.
Certain zealots had erected themselves into a society for buying in of
impropriations, and transferring them to the church; and great sums of
money had been bequeathed to the society for these purposes. But it was
soon observed, that the only use which they made of their funds was to
establish lecturers in all the considerable churches; men who, without
being subjected to Episcopal authority, employed themselves entirely
in preaching and spreading the fire of Puritanism. Laud took care, by
a decree which was passed in the court of exchequer, and which was much
complained of, to abolish this society, and to stop their progress.[**]
It was, however, still observed, that throughout England the lecturers
were all of them Puritanically affected; and from them the clergymen,
who contented themselves with reading prayers and homilies to the
people, commonly received the reproachful appellation of "dumb dogs."
* State Trials, vol. v. p. 74. Franklyn, p. 839.
** Rush. vol. ii. p. 150, 151. Whitlocke, p. 15. History of
the Life Sufferings of Laud, p. 211, 212.
The Puritans, restrained in England, shipped themselves off for America,
and laid there the foundations of a government which possessed all
the liberty, both civil and religious, of which they found themselves
bereaved in their native country.
But their enemies, unwilling that they
should any where enjoy ease and contentment, and dreading, perhaps, the
dangerous consequences of so disaffected a colony, prevailed on the king
to issue a proclamation, debarring these devotees access even into those
inhospitable deserts.[*] Eight ships, lying in the Thames, and ready to
sail, were detained by order of the council; and in these were embarked
Sir Arthur Hazelrig, John Hambden, John Pym, and Oliver Cromwell,[**]
who had resolved forever to abandon their native country, and fly to
the other extremity of the globe; where they might enjoy lectures
and discourses of any length or form which pleased them. The king had
afterwards full leisure to repent this exercise of his authority.
The bishop of Norwich, by rigorously insisting on uniformity, had
banished many industrious tradesmen from that city, and chased them
into Holland.[***] The Dutch began to be more intent on commerce than on
orthodoxy; and thought that the knowledge of useful arts and obedience
to the laws formed a good citizen; though attended with errors in
subjects where it is not allowable for human nature to expect any
positive truth or certainty.
Complaints about this time were made, that the petition of right was
in some instances violated; and that, upon a commitment by the king and
council, bail or releasement had been refused to Jennings, Pargiter, and
Danvers.[****]
Williams, bishop of Lincoln, a man of spirit and learning, a popular
prelate, and who had been lord keeper, was fined ten thousand pounds by
the star chamber, committed to the Tower during the king's pleasure, and
suspended from his office. This severe sentence was founded on frivolous
pretences, and was more ascribed to Laud's vengeance, than to any guilt
of the bishop.[v] Laud, however, had owed his first promotion to the
good offices of that prelate with King James. But so implacable was the
haughty primate, that he raised up a new prosecution against Williams,
on the strangest pretence imaginable.
* Rush. vol. ii. p. 409, 418.
** Mather's History of New England, book i. Dugdale. Bates
Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, vol. i. p. 42.
This last quoted author puts the fact beyond controversy.
And it is a curious fact, as well with regard to the
characters of the men, as of the times. Can any one doubt
that the ensuing quarrel was almost entirety theological,
not political? What might be expected of the populace when
such was the character of the most enlightened Readers?
*** May, p. 82.
**** Rush. vol. ii. p. 414.
v Rush. vol. ii. p. 416, etc.
In order to levy the fine above mentioned, some officers had been sent
to seize all the furniture and books of his episcopal palace of Lincoln;
and in rummaging the house, they found in a corner some neglected
letters, which had been thrown by as useless. These letters were written
by one Osbaldistone, a schoolmaster, and were directed to Williams.
Mention was there made of "a little great man;" and in another passage,
the same person was denominated "a little urchin." By inferences and
constructions, these epithets were applied to Laud; and on no better
foundation was Williams tried anew, as having received scandalous
letters, and not discovering that private correspondence. For this
offence, another fine of eight thousand pounds was levied on him:
Osbaldistone was likewise brought to trial, and condemned to pay a fine
of five thousand pounds, and to have his ears nailed to the pillory
before his own school. He saved himself by flight; and left a note in
his study, wherein he said, "that he was gone beyond Canterbury."[*]
These prosecutions of Williams seem to have been the most iniquitous
measure pursued by the court during the time that the use of parliaments
was suspended. Williams had been indebted for all his fortune to the
favor of James; but having quarrelled, first with Buckingham, then with
Laud, he threw himself into the country party; and with great firmness
and vigor opposed all the measures of the king. A creature of the court
to become its obstinate enemy, a bishop to countenance Puritans; these
circumstances excited indignation, and engaged the ministers in those
severe measures. Not to mention, what some writers relate, that, before
the sentence was pronounced against him, Williams was offered a pardon
upon his submission, which he refused to make; the court was apt to
think, that so refractory a spirit must by any expedient be broken and
subdued.
In a former trial which Williams underwent,[**] (for these were not the
first,) there was mentioned in court a story, which, as it discovers the
genius of parties, may be worth relating. Sir John Lambe urging him to
prosecute the Puritans, the prelate asked what sort of people these same
Puritans were. Sir John replied, "that to the world they seemed to be
such as would not swear, whore, or be drunk; out they would lie, cozen,
and deceive; that they would frequently hear two sermons a day, and
repeat them too, and that some, times they would fast all day long."
This character must be conceived to be satirical; yet it may be allowed,
that that sect was more averse to such irregularities as proceed from
the excess of gayety and pleasure, than to those enormities which are
the most destructive of society, The former were opposite to the
very genius and spirit of their religion; the latter were only a
transgression of its precepts: and it was not difficult for a gloomy
enthusiast to convince himself, that a strict observance of the one
would atone for any violation of the other.
* Rush. voL ii. p. 803, etc. Whittocke, p. 25.
** Rush. vol. ii. p. 416.
In 1632, the treasurer Portland had insisted with the vintners, that
they should submit to a tax of a penny a quart upon all the wine which
they retailed; but they rejected the demand, In order to punish them, a
decree suddenly, without much inquiry or examination, passed in the star
chamber, prohibiting them to sell or dress victuals in their houses.[*]
Two years after, they were questioned for the breach of this decree; and
in order to avoid punishment, they agreed to lend the king six thousand
pounds. Being threatened, during the subsequent years, with fines and
prosecutions, they at last compounded the matter, and submitted to pay
half of that duty which was at first demanded of them.[**] It required
little foresight to perceive, that the king's right of issuing
proclamations must, if prosecuted, draw on a power of taxation.
* Rash. vol. ii p. 197.
** Rush. vol. ii, p. 45.
Lilburne was accused before the star chamber of publishing and
dispersing seditious pamphlets. He was ordered to be examined; but
refused to take the oath usual in that court that he would answer
interrogatories, even though they might lead him to accuse himself. For
this contempt, as it was interpreted, he was condemned to be whipped,
pilloried, and imprisoned. While he was whipped at the cart, and stood
on the pillory, he harangued the populace, and declaimed violently
against the tyranny of bishops. From his pockets also he scattered
pamphlets, said to be seditious, because they attacked the hierarchy.
The star chamber, which was sitting at that very time, ordered him
immediately to be gagged. He ceased not, however, though both gagged and
pilloried, to stamp with his foot and gesticulate, in order to show the
people that, if he had it in his power, he would still harangue them.
This behavior gave fresh provocation to the star chamber; and they
condemned him to be imprisoned in a dungeon, and to be loaded with
irons.[*] It was found difficult to break the spirits of men who placed
both their honor and their conscience in suffering.
The jealousy of the church appeared in another instance less tragical.
Archy, the king's fool, who by his office had the privilege of jesting
on his master and the whole court, happened unluckily to try his wit
upon Laud, who was too sacred a person to be played with. News having
arrived from Scotland of the first commotions excited by the liturgy,
Archy, seeing the primate pass by, called to him, "Who's fool now, my
lord?" For this offence Archy was ordered, by sentence of the council,
to have his coat pulled over his head and to be dismissed the king's
service.[**]
Here is another instance of that rigorous subjection in which all men
were held by Laud. Some young gentlemen of Lincoln's Inn, heated by
their cups, having drunk confusion to the archbishop, were at his
instigation cited before the star chamber. They applied to the earl of
Dorset for protection. "Who bears witness against you?" said Dorset.
"One of the drawers," they said. "Where did he stand when you were
supposed to drink this health?" subjoined the earl, "He was at the
door," they replied, "going out of the room." "Tush!" cried he, "the
drawer must be mistaken: you drank confusion to the archbishop of
Canterbury's enemies and the fellow was gone before you pronounced the
last word." This hint supplied the young gentlemen with a new method of
defence: and being advised by Dorset to behave with great humility and
great submission to the primate, the modesty of their carriage, the
ingenuity of their apology, with the patronage of that noble lord, saved
them from any severer punishment than a reproof and admonition, with
which they were dismissed.[***]
* Rush. vol. ii. p. 465, 466, 467.
** Rush. voL ii. p. 470. Welwood, p. 278.
*** Rush. vol. iii. p. 180.
This year, John Hambden acquired, by his spirit and courage, universal
popularity throughout the nation, and has merited great renown with
posterity, for the bold stand which he made in defence of the laws and
liberties of his country. After the imposing of ship money, Charles, in
order to discourage all opposition, had proposed this question to
the judges: "Whether, in a case of necessity, for the defence of the
kingdom, he might not impose this taxation; and whether he were not sole
judge of the necessity." These guardians of law and liberty replied,
with great complaisance, "that in a case of necessity he might impose
that taxation, and that he was sole judge of the necessity."[*] Hambden
had been rated at twenty shillings for an estate which he possessed in
the county of Buckingham: yet, notwithstanding this declared opinion
of the judges, notwithstanding the great power and sometimes rigorous
maxims of the crown, notwithstanding the small prospect of relief from
parliament, he resolved, rather than tamely submit to so illegal an
imposition, to stand a legal prosecution, and expose himself to all the
indignation of the court. The case was argued during twelve days, in
the exchequer chamber, before all the judges of England; and the nation
regarded, with the utmost anxiety, every circumstance of this
celebrated trial. The event was easily foreseen: but the principles, and
reasonings, and behavior of the parties engaged in the trial, were much
canvassed and inquired into; and nothing could equal the favor paid to
the one side, except the hatred which attended the other.
* Rush. vol. ii. p. 355. Whitlocke, p. 24.
It was urged by Hambden's counsel, and by his partisans in the nation,
that the plea of necessity was in vain introduced into a trial of
law; since it was the nature of necessity to abolish all law, and, by
irresistible violence, to dissolve all the weaker and more artificial
ties of human society. Not only the prince, in cases of extreme
distress, is exempted from the ordinary rules of administration: all
orders of men are then levelled; and any individual may consult the
public safety by any expedient which his situation enables him to
employ. But to produce so violent an effect, and so hazardous to every
community, an ordinary danger or difficulty is not sufficient; much less
a necessity which is merely fictitious and pretended. Where the peril is
urgent and extreme, it will be palpable to every member of the society;
and though all ancient rules of government are in that case abrogated,
men will readily, of themselves, submit to that irregular authority
which is exerted for their preservation. But what is there in common
between such suppositions and the present condition of the nation?
England enjoys a profound peace with al her neighbors; and what is
more, all her neighbors are engaged in furious and bloody wars
among themselves, and by their mutual enmities further insure their
tranquillity. The very writs themselves, which are issued for the
levying of ship money, contradict the supposition of necessity, and
pretend only that the seas are infested with pirates; a slight and
temporary inconvenience, which may well await a legal supply from
parliament. The writs likewise allow several months for equipping the
ships; which proves a very calm and deliberate species of necessity,
and one that admits of delay much beyond the forty days requisite for
summoning that assembly. It is strange, too, that an extreme necessity,
which is always apparent, and usually comes to a sudden crisis, should
now have continued without interruption for near four years, and should
have remained during so long a time invisible to the whole kingdom. And
as to the pretension, that the king is sole judge of the necessity, what
is this but to subject all the privileges of the nation to his arbitrary
will and pleasure? To expect that the public will be convinced by such
reasoning, must aggravate the general indignation, by adding to violence
against men's persons, and their property, so cruel a mockery of their
understanding.
In vain are precedents of ancient writs produced: these writs, when
examined, are only found to require the seaports, sometimes at their own
charge, sometimes at the charge of the counties, to send their ships
for the defence of the nation. Even the prerogative which empowered the
crown to issue such writs is abolished, and its exercise almost entirely
discontinued from the time of Edward III.;[*] and all the authority
which remained, or was afterwards exercised, was to press ships into the
public service, to be paid for by the public.
* State Trials, vol. v. p. 245, 255.
How wide are these precedents from a power of obliging the people, at
their own charge, to build new ships, to victual and pay them, for
the public; nay, to furnish money to the crown for that purpose? What
security either against the further extension of this claim, or against
diverting to other purposes the public money so levied? The plea of
necessity would warrant any other taxation as well as that of ship
money; wherever any difficulty shall occur, the administration, instead
of endeavoring to elude or overcome it by gentle and prudent measures,
will instantly represent it as a reason for infringing all ancient laws
and institutions: and if such maxims and such practices prevail, what
has become of national liberty? What authority is left to the Great
Charter, to the statutes, and to the very petition of right, which in
the present reign had been so solemnly enacted by the concurrence of the
whole legislature?
The defenceless condition of the kingdom while unprovided with a navy;
the inability of the king, from his established revenues, with the
utmost care and frugality, to equip and maintain one; the impossibility
of obtaining, on reasonable terms, any voluntary supply from parliament;
all these are reasons of state, not topics of law. If these reasons
appear to the king so urgent as to dispense with the legal rules of
government, let him enforce his edicts by his court of star chamber, the
proper instrument of irregular and absolute power, not prostitute the
character of his judges by a decree which is not, and cannot possibly
be legal. By this means, the boundaries, at least, will be kept
more distinct between ordinary law and extraordinary exertions of
prerogative; and men will know, that the national constitution is only
suspended during a present and difficult emergence, but has not under
gone a total and fundamental alteration.
Notwithstanding these reasons, the prejudiced judges, four[*] excepted,
gave sentence in favor of the crown. Hambden, however, obtained by the
trial the end for which he had so generously sacrificed his safety
and his quiet: the people were roused from their lethargy, and became
sensible of the danger to which their liberties were exposed.
* See State Trials, article, Ship Money, which contains the
speeches of four judges in favor of Hambden.
These national questions were canvassed in every company; and the more
they were examined, the more evidently did it appear to many, that
liberty was totally subverted, and an unusual and arbitrary authority
exercised over the kingdom. Slavish principles they said, concur with
illegal practices; ecclesiastical tyranny gives aid to civil usurpation;
iniquitous taxes are supported by arbitrary punishments; and all the
privileges of the nation, transmitted through so many ages, secured by
so many laws and purchased by the blood of so many heroes and patriots,
now lie prostrate at the feet of the monarch. What though public
peace and national industry increased the commerce and opulence of
the kingdom? This advantage was temporary, and due alone, not to any
encouragement given by the crown, but to the spirit of the English, the
remains of their ancient freedom. What though the personal character of
the king amidst all his misguided counsels, might merit indulgence, or
even praise? He was but one man; and the privileges of the people,
the inheritance of millions, were too valuable to be sacrificed to
his prejudices and mistakes. Such, or more severe, were the sentiments
promoted by a great party in the nation: no excuse on the king's
part, or alleviation, how reasonable soever, could be hearkened to or
admitted: and to redress these grievances, a parliament was impatiently
longed for; or any other incident, however calamitous, that might secure
the people against these oppressions which they felt, or the greater
ills which they apprehended from the combined encroachments of church
and state.
CHAPTER LIII
CHARLES I.
{1637.} The grievances under which the English labored when considered
in themselves, without regard to the constitution, scarcely deserve the
name; nor were they either burdensome on the people's properties, or
anywise shocking to the natural humanity of mankind. Even the imposition
of ship money, independent of the consequences, was a great and evident
advantage to the public, by the judicious use which the king made of the
money levied by that expedient. And though it was justly apprehended,
that such precedents, if patiently submitted to, would end in a total
disuse of parliaments, and in the establishment of arbitrary authority,
Charles dreaded no opposition from the people, who are not commonly much
affected with consequences, and require some striking motive to engage
them in a resistance of established government. All ecclesiastical
affairs were settled by law and uninterrupted precedent; and the church
was become a considerable barrier to the power, both legal and illegal,
of the crown. Peace too, industry, commerce, opulence; nay, even justice
and lenity of administration, notwithstanding some very few exceptions;
all these were enjoyed by the people; and every other blessing of
government, except liberty, or rather the present exercise of liberty
and its proper security.[*] It seemed probable, therefore, that affairs
might long have continued on the same footing in England, had it not
been for the neighborhood of Scotland; a country more turbulent, and
less disposed to submission and obedience. It was thence the commotions
first arose; and is therefore time for us to return thither, and to give
an account of the state of affairs in that kingdom.
* Clarendon, p. 74, 75. May, p. 18. Warwick, p. 62.
Though the pacific, and not unskilful government of James, and the great
authority which he had acquired, had much allayed the feuds among
the great families, and had established law and order throughout the
kingdom, the Scottish nobility were still possessed of the chief power
and influence over the people. Their property was extensive; their
hereditary jurisdictions and the feudal tenures increased their
authority; and the attachment of the gentry to the heads of families
established a kind of voluntary servitude under the chieftains. Besides
that long absence had much loosened the King's connections with the
nobility, who resided chiefly at their country seats, they were in
general, at this time, though from slight causes, much disgusted with
the court. Charles, from the natural piety or superstition of his
temper, was extremely attached to the ecclesiastics; and as it is
natural for men to persuade themselves that their interest coincides
with their inclination, he had established it as a fixed maxim of
policy, to increase the power and authority of that order. The prelates,
he thought, established regularity and discipline among the clergy; the
clergy inculcated obedience and loyalty among the people; and as that
rank of men had no separate authority and no dependence but on the
crown, the royal power, it would seem, might with the greater safety be
intrusted in their hands. Many of the prelates, therefore, were raised
to the chief dignities of the state;[*] Spotswood, archbishop of
St. Andrews, was created chancellor: nine of the bishops were privy
councillors: the bishop of Ross aspired to the office of treasurer:
some of the prelates possessed places in the exchequer: and it was even
endeavored to revive the first institution of the college of justice,
and to share equally between the clergy and laity the whole judicial
authority.[**]
* Rush. vol. ii. p. 386. May, p. 29.
** Guthry's Memoirs, p. 14 Burnet's Mem. p. 29, 30.
These advantages, possessed by the church, and which the bishops did not
always enjoy with suitable modesty, disgusted the haughty nobility, who,
deeming themselves much superior in rank and quality to this new
order of men, were displeased to find themselves inferior in power and
influence. Interest joined itself to ambition, and begat a jealousy lest
the episcopal sees, which at the reformation had been pillaged by the
nobles, should again be enriched at the expense of that order. By a most
useful and beneficial law, the impropriations had already been ravished
from the great men: competent salaries had been assigned to the
impoverished clergy from the tithes of each parish: and what remained,
the proprietor of the land was empowered to purchase at a low
valuation.[*] The king likewise, warranted by ancient law and practice,
had declared for a general resumption of all crown lands alienated by
his predecessors; and though he took no step towards the execution of
this project, the very pretension to such power had excited jealousy and
discontent.[**]
Notwithstanding the tender regard which Charles bore to the whole
church, he had been able in Scotland to acquire only the affection of
the superior rank among the clergy. The ministers in general equalled,
if not exceeded, the nobility in their prejudices against the court,
against the prelates, and against episcopal authority.[***] Though the
establishment of the hierarchy might seem advantageous to the inferior
clergy, both as it erected dignities to which all of them might aspire,
and as it bestowed a lustre on the whole body, and allured men of family
into it, these views had no influence on the Scottish ecclesiastics. In
the present disposition of men's minds, there was another circumstance
which drew consideration, and counterbalanced power and riches, the
usual foundations of distinction among men; and that was the fervor of
piety, and the rhetoric, however barbarous, of religious lectures and
discourses. Checked by the prelates in the license of preaching,
the clergy regarded episcopal jurisdiction both as a tyranny and a
usurpation, and maintained a parity among ecclesiastics to be a divine
privilege, which no human law could alter or infringe. While such ideas
prevailed, the most moderate exercise of authority would have given
disgust; much more, that extensive power which the king's indulgence
encouraged the prelates to assume. The jurisdiction of presbyteries,
synods, and other democratical courts, was in a manner abolished by
the bishops; and the general assembly itself had not been summoned for
several years.[****] A new oath was arbitrarily imposed on intrants,
by which they swore to observe the articles of Perth, and submit to
the liturgy and canons. And in a word, the whole system of church
government, during a course of thirty years, had been changed by means
of the innovations introduced by James and Charles.
* King's Declaration, p. 7. Franklyn, p, 611.
** King's Declaration, p. 6.
*** Burnet's Mem., p. 29, 30.
**** May, p. 29.
The people, under the influence of the nobility and clergy, could not
fail to partake of the discontents which prevailed among these two
orders; and where real grounds of complaint were wanting, they greedily
laid hold of imaginary ones. The same horror against Popery with which
the English Puritans were possessed, was observable among the
populace in Scotland; and among these, as being more uncultivated
and uncivilized, seemed rather to be inflamed into a higher degree of
ferocity. The genius of religion which prevailed in the court and among
the prelates, was of an opposite nature; and having some affinity to the
Romish worship, led them to mollify, as much as possible, these severe
prejudices, and to speak of the Catholics in more charitable language,
and with more reconciling expressions. From this foundation a panic
fear of Popery was easily raised; and every new ceremony or ornament
introduced into divine service, was part of that great mystery of
iniquity, which, from the encouragement of the king and the bishops, was
to overspread the nation.[*] The few innovations which James had made,
were considered as preparatives to this grand design; and the
further alterations attempted by Charles, were represented as a plain
declaration of his intentions. Through the whole course of this reign,
nothing had more fatal influence, in both kingdoms, than this groundless
apprehension, which with so much industry was propagated, and with so
much credulity was embraced, by all ranks of men.
* Burnet's Mem. p. 29, 30, 31.
Amidst these dangerous complaints and terrors of religious innovation,
the civil and ecclesiastical liberties of the nation were imagined, and
with some reason, not to be altogether free from invasion.
The establishment of the high commission by James, without any authority
of law, seemed a considerable encroachment of the crown, and erected
the most dangerous and arbitrary of all courts, by a method equally
dangerous and arbitrary. All the steps towards the settlement of
Episcopacy had indeed been taken with consent of parliament: the
articles of Perth were confirmed in 1621: in 1633, the king had obtained
a general ratification of every ecclesiastical establishment: but these
laws had less authority with the nation, as they were known to have
passed contrary to the sentiments even of those who voted for them,
and were in reality extorted by the authority and importunity of
the sovereign. The means, however, which both James and Charles had
employed, in order to influence the parliament, were entirely regular,
and no reasonable pretence had been afforded for representing these laws
as null or invalid.
But there prevailed among the greater part of the nation another
principle, of the most important and most dangerous nature; and which,
if admitted, destroyed entirely the validity of all such statutes. The
ecclesiastical authority was supposed totally independent of the civil;
and no act of parliament, nothing but the consent of the church itself,
was represented as sufficient ground for the introduction of any change
in religious worship or discipline. And though James had obtained the
vote of assemblies for receiving Episcopacy and his new rites; it must
be confessed, that such irregularities had prevailed in constituting
these ecclesiastical courts, and such violence in conducting them, that
there were some grounds for denying the authority of all their acts.
Charles, sensible that an extorted consent, attended with such invidious
circumstances, would rather be prejudicial to his measures, had wholly
laid aside the use of assemblies, and was resolved, in conjunction with
the bishops, to govern the church by an authority to which he thought
himself fully entitled, and which he believed inherent in the crown.
The king's great aim was to complete the work so happily begun by his
father; to establish discipline upon a regular system of canons,
to introduce a liturgy into public worship, and to render the
ecclesiastical government of all his kingdoms regular and uniform.
Some views of policy might move him to this undertaking; but his chief
motives were derived from principles of zeal and conscience.
The canons for establishing ecclesiastical jurisdiction were promulgated
in 1635; and were received by the nation, though without much appearing
opposition, yet with great inward apprehension and discontent. Men felt
displeasure at seeing the royal authority highly exalted by them, and
represented as absolute and uncontrollable. They saw these speculative
principles reduced to practice, and a whole body of ecclesiastical laws
established without any previous consent either of church or state.[*]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 106.
They dreaded lest, by a parity of reason, like arbitrary authority, from
like pretences and principles, would be assumed in civil matters: they
remarked, that the delicate boundaries which separate church and state
were already passed, and many civil ordinances established by the
canons, under color of ecclesiastical institutions: and they were apt
to deride the negligence with which these important edicts had been
compiled, when they found that the new liturgy or service-book was every
where, under severe penalties, enjoined by them, though it had not yet
been composed or published.[*] It was, however, soon expected; and in
the reception of it, as the people are always most affected by what is
external and exposed to the senses, it was apprehended that the chief
difficulty would consist.
The liturgy which the king, from his own authority, imposed on Scotland,
was copied from that of England: but, lest a servile imitation might
shock the pride of his ancient kingdom, a few alterations, in order to
save appearances, were made in it; and in that shape it was transmitted
to the bishops at Edinburgh.[**] But the Scots had universally
entertained a notion, that, though riches and worldly glory had been
shared out to them with a sparing hand, they could boast of spiritual
treasures more abundant and more genuine than were enjoyed by any
nation under heaven. Even their southern neighbors, they thought, though
separated from Rome, still retained a great tincture of the primitive
pollution; and their liturgy was represented as a species of mass,
though with some less show and embroidery.[***] Great prejudices,
therefore, were entertained against it, even considered in itself; much
more when regarded as a preparative, which was soon to introduce into
Scotland all the abominations of Popery. And as the very few alterations
which distinguished the new liturgy from the English, seemed to approach
nearer to the doctrine of the real presence, this circumstance was
deemed an undoubted confirmation of every suspicion with which the
people were possessed.[****]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 105.
** King's Decl. p. 18. May, p. 32.
*** King's Decl. p. 20.
**** Burnet's Mem. p. *8*1. Rush. vol. ii. p. 396. May, p.
31.
Easter-day was, by proclamation, appointed for the first reading of
the service in Edinburgh: but in order to judge more surely of men's
dispositions, the council delayed the matter till the twenty-third of
July; and they even gave notice, the Sunday before, of their intention
to commence the use of the new liturgy. As no considerable symptoms
of discontent appeared, they thought that they might safely proceed in
their purpose; and accordingly, in the cathedral church of St. Giles,
the dean of Edinburgh, arrayed in his surplice, began the service;
the bishop himself and many of the privy council being present. But
no sooner had the dean opened the book than a multitude of the meanest
sort, most of them women, clapping their hands, cursing, and crying out,
"A pope, a pope! Antichrist! stone him!" raised such a tumult that it
was impossible to proceed with the service. The bishop, mounting the
pulpit in order to appease the populace, had a stool thrown at him; the
council was insulted: and it was with difficulty that the magistrates
were able, partly by authority, partly by force, to expel the rabble,
and to shut the doors against them. The tumult, however, still continued
without: stones were thrown at the doors and windows: and when the
service was ended, the bishop, going home, was attacked, and narrowly
escaped from the hands of the enraged multitude. In the afternoon, the
privy seal, because he carried the bishop in his coach, was so pelted
with stones, and hooted at with execrations, and pressed upon by the
eager populace, that if his servants with drawn swords had not kept them
off, the bishop's life had been exposed to the utmost danger.[*]
Though it was violently suspected that the low populace, who alone
appeared, had been instigated by some of higher condition, yet no proof
of it could be produced; and every one spake with disapprobation of
the licentiousness of the giddy multitude.[**] It was not thought safe,
however, to hazard a new insult by any new attempt to read the liturgy;
and the people seemed for the time to be appeased and satisfied. But it
being known that the king still persevered in his intentions of imposing
that mode of worship, men fortified themselves still further in their
prejudices against it; and great multitudes resorted to Edinburgh, in
order to oppose the introduction of so hated a novelty.[***]
* King's Decl. p. 22. Clarendon, vol. i. p. 108. Rush, vol.
ii. p. 387.
** King's Decl. p. 23, 24, 25. Rush. vol. ii. p. 388.
*** King's Decl. p. 26, 30. Clarendon, vol. i. p. 109.
It was not long before they broke, out in the most violent disorder.
The bishop of Galloway was attacked in the streets, and chased into
the chamber where the privy council was sitting. The council itself
was besieged and violently attacked: the town council met with the same
fate: and nothing could have saved the lives of all of them, but their
application to some popular lords, who protected them, and dispersed the
multitude. In this sedition, the actors were of some better condition
than in the former; though nobody of rank seemed as yet to countenance
them.[*]
All men, however, began to unice and to encourage each other in
opposition to the religious innovations introduced into the kingdom.
Petitions to the council were signed and presented by persons of the
highest quality: the women took part, and, as was usual, with violence:
the clergy every where loudly declaimed against Popery and the liturgy,
which they represented as the same: the pulpits resounded with vehement
invectives against Antichrist: and the populace, who first opposed the
service, was often compared to Balaam's ass, an animal in itself stupid
and senseless, but whose mouth had been opened by the Lord, to the
admiration of the whole world. In short, fanaticism mingling with
faction, private interest with the spirit of liberty, symptoms appeared
on all hands of the most dangerous insurrection and disorder.
* King's Decl. p. 35, 36 etc. Rush. vol. ii. p. 404.
The primate, a man of wisdom and prudence, who was all along averse to
the introduction of the liturgy, represented to the king the state of
the nation: the earl of Traquaire, the treasurer, set out for London,
in order to lay the matter more fully before him: every circumstance,
whether the condition of England or of Scotland were considered, should
have engaged him to desist from so hazardous an attempt: yet was Charles
inflexible. In his whole conduct of this affair, there appear no marks
of the good sense with which he was endowed: a lively instance of that
species of character so frequently to be met with; where there are found
parts and judgment in every discourse and opinion; in many actions,
indiscretion and imprudence. Men's views of things are the result
of their understanding alone: their conduct is regulated by their
understanding, their temper, and their passions.
{1638.} To so violent a combination of a whole kingdom, Charles had
nothing to oppose but a proclamation; in which he pardoned all past
offences, and exhorted the people to be more obedient for the future,
and to submit peaceably to the use of the liturgy. This proclamation was
instantly encountered with a public protestation, presented by the earl
of Hume and Lindesey: and this was the first time that men of quality
had appeared in any violent act of opposition.[*] But this proved a
crisis. The insurrection, which had been advancing by a gradual and slow
progress, now blazed up at once. No disorder, however, attended it. On
the contrary, a new order immediately took place. Four "tables," as
they were called, were formed in Edinburgh. One consisted of nobility,
another of gentry, a third of ministers, a fourth of burgesses. The
table of gentry was divided into many subordinate tables, according
to their different counties. In the hands of the four tables the whole
authority of the kingdom was placed. Orders were issued by them, and
every where obeyed with the utmost regularity.[**] And among the first
acts of their government was the production of the "Covenant."
This famous covenant consisted first of a renunciation of Popery,
formerly signed by James in his youth, and composed of many invectives,
fitted to inflame the minds of men against their fellow-creatures, whom
Heaven has enjoined them to cherish and to love. There followed a
bond of union, by which the subscribers obliged themselves to resist
religious innovations, and to defend each other against all opposition
whatsoever: and all this, for the greater glory of God, and the greater
honor and advantage of their king and country.[***] The people,
without distinction of rank or condition, of age or sex, flocked to the
subscription of this covenant: few in their judgment disapproved of
it; and still fewer durst openly condemn it. The king's ministers
and counsellors themselves were most of them seized by the general
contagion. And none but rebels to God, and traitors to their country, it
was thought, would withdraw themselves from so salutary and so pious a
combination.
* King's Decl. p. 47, 48, etc. Guthry, p. 28. May, p. 37.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 111. Rush. vol. ii. p. 734.
*** King's Decl. p. 57, 58. Rush. vol. ii. p. 734. May, p.
38.
The treacherous, the cruel, the unrelenting Philip, accompanied with all
the terrors of a Spanish inquisition, was scarcely, during the preceding
century, opposed in the Low Countries with more determined fury, than
was now, by the Scots, the mild, the humane Charles, attended with his
inoffensive liturgy.
The king began to apprehend the consequences. He sent the marquis of
Hamilton, as commissioner, with authority to treat with the Covenanters.
He required the covenant to be renounced and recalled: and he thought,
that on his part he had made very satisfactory concessions, when he
offered to suspend the canons and the liturgy, till in a fair and legal
way they could be received; and so to model the high commission, that
it should no longer give offence to his subjects.[*] Such general
declarations could not well give content to any, much less to those
who carried so much higher their pretensions. The Covenanters found
themselves seconded by the zeal of the whole nation. Above sixty
thousand people were assembled in a tumultuous manner in Edinburgh and
the neighborhood. Charles possessed no regular forces in either of his
kingdoms. And the discontents in England, though secret, were believed
so violent, that the king, it was thought, would find it very difficult
to employ in such a cause the power of that kingdom. The more,
therefore, the popular leaders in Scotland considered their situation,
the less apprehension did they entertain of royal power, and the
more rigorously did they insist on entire satisfaction. In answer to
Hamilton's demand of renouncing the covenant, they plainly told him that
they would sooner renounce their baptism.[**] And the clergy invited the
commissioner himself to subscribe it, by informing him "with what
peace and comfort it had filled the hearts of all God's people; what
resolutions and beginnings of reformation of manners were sensibly
perceived in all parts of the nation, above any measure they had ever
before found or could have expected; how great glory the Lord had
received thereby; and what confidence they had that God would make
Scotland a blessed kingdom."[***]
Hamilton returned to London; made another fruitless journey, with new
concessions, to Edinburgh; returned again to London; and was immediately
sent back with still more satisfactory concessions. The king was now
willing entirely to abolish the canons, the liturgy, and the high
commission court. He was even resolved to limit extremely the power of
the bishops, and was content if on any terms he could retain that
order in the church of Scotland.[****] And to insure all these gracious
offers, he gave Hamilton authority to summon first an assembly, then
a parliament, where every national grievance might be redressed and
remedied.
* Rush, vol. ii. p. 137, etc.
** King's Decl. p. 87.
*** King's Decl. p. 88. Rush, vol. ii. p. 751.
**** King's Decl. p. 137. Rush, vol. ii. p. 762.
These successive concessions of the king, which yet came still short
of the rising demands of the malecontents, discovered his own weakness,
encouraged their insolence, and gave no satisfaction. The offer,
however, of an assembly and a parliament, in which they expected to be
entirely masters, was willingly embraced by the Covenanters.
Charles, perceiving what advantage his enemies had reaped from their
covenant, resolved to have a covenant on his side; and he ordered one
to be drawn up for that purpose. It consisted of the same violent
renunciation of Popery above mentioned; which, though the king did not
approve of it, he thought it safest to adopt, in order to remove all the
suspicions entertained against him. As the Covenanters, in their bond
of mutual defence against all opposition, had been careful not to
except the king, Charles had formed a bond, which was annexed to
this renunciation, and which expressed the duty and loyalty of the
subscribers to his majesty.[*] But the Covenanters, perceiving that this
new covenant was only meant to weaken and divide them, received it with
the utmost scorn and detestation. And without delay they proceeded
to model the future assembly, from which such great achievments were
expected.[**]
The genius of that religion which prevailed in Scotland, and which every
day was secretly gaining ground in England, was far front inculcating
deference and submission to the ecclesiastics, merely as such; or
rather, by nourishing in every individual the highest raptures and
ecstasies of devotion, it consecrated, in a manner, every individual,
and in his own eyes bestowed a character on him much superior to what
forms and ceremonious institutions could alone confer. The clergy of
Scotland, though such tumult was excited about religious worship and
discipline, were both poor and in small numbers; nor are they in general
to be considered, at least in the beginning, as the ringleaders of the
sedition which was raised on their account. On the contrary, the
laity, apprehending, from several instances which occurred, a spirit of
moderation in that order, resolved to domineer entirely in the assembly
which was summoned, and to hurry on the ecclesiastics by the same
furious zeal with which they were themselves transported.[***]
* King's Decl. p. 140, etc.
** Rush. vol. ii. p. 772.
*** King's Decl. p. 188, 189. Rush. voL ii. p. 761.
It had been usual, before the establishment of prelacy, for each
presbytery to send to the assembly, besides two or three ministers,
one lay commissioner;[*] and, as all the boroughs and universities sent
likewise commissioners, the lay members in that ecclesiastical court
nearly equalled the ecclesiastics. Not only this institution, which
James, apprehensive of zeal in the laity, had abolished, was now revived
by the Covenanters; they also introduced an innovation, which served
still further to reduce the clergy to subjection. By an edict of the
tables, whose authority was supreme, an elder from each parish was
ordered to attend the presbytery, and to give his vote in the choice
both of the commissioners and ministers who should be deputed to the
assembly. As it is not usual for the ministers, who are put in the list
of candidates, to claim a vote, all the elections by that means fell
into the hands of the laity: the most furious of all ranks were chosen:
and the more to overawe the clergy, a new device was fallen upon, of
choosing to every commissioner four or five lay assessors, who, though
they could have no vote, might yet interpose with their advice and
authority in the assembly.[**]
The assembly met at Glasgow; and, besides a great concourse of the
people, all the nobility and gentry of any family or interest were
present, either as members, assessors, or spectators; and it was
apparent that the resolutions taken by the Covenanters could here meet
with no manner of opposition. A firm determination had been entered into
of utterly abolishing episcopacy; and as a preparative to it, there was
laid before the presbytery of Edinburgh, and solemnly read in all the
churches of the kingdom, an accusation against the bishops, as guilty,
all of them, of heresy, simony, bribery, perjury, cheating, incest,
adultery, fornication, common swearing, drunkenness, gaming, breach
of the Sabbath, and every other crime that had occurred to the
accusers.[***] The bishops sent a protest, declining the authority of
the assembly: the commissioner, too, protested against the court, as
illegally constituted and elected; and, in his majesty's name, dissolved
it. This measure was foreseen, and little regarded. The court still
continued to sit, and to finish their business.[****]
* A presbytery in Scotland is an inferior ecclesiastical
court, the same that was afterwards called a classis in
England, and is composed of the clergy of the neighboring
parishes, to the number commonly of between twelve and
twenty.
** King's Decl. p. 190, 191, 290. Guthry, p. 39, etc.
*** King's Decl. p. 218. Rush. vol. ii p. 787.
**** May, p. 44.
All the acts of assembly, since the accession of James to the crown
of England, were, upon pretty reasonable grounds, declared null and
invalid. The acts of parliament which affected ecclesiastical affairs
were supposed, on that very account, to have no manner of authority. And
thus episcopacy, the high commission, the articles of Perth, the canons,
and the liturgy, were abolished and declared unlawful; and the whole
fabric which Jamas and Charles, in a long course of years, had been
rearing with so much care and policy, fell at once to the ground.
{1639.} The covenant, likewise, was ordered to be signed by every one,
under pain of excommunication.[*]
The independency of the ecclesiastical upon the civil power, was the
old Presbyterian principle, which had been zealously adopted at the
reformation, and which, though James and Charles had obliged the church
publicly to disclaim it, had secretly been adhered to by all ranks of
people. It was commonly asked whether Christ or the king were superior;
and as the answer seemed obvious, it was inferred, that the assembly,
being Christ's council, was superior in all spiritual matters to the
parliament, which was only the king's. But as the Covenanters were
sensible that this consequence, though it seemed to them irrefragable,
would not be assented to by the king, it became necessary to maintain
their religious tenets by military force, and not to trust entirely to
supernatural assistance, of which, however, they held themselves well
assured. They cast their eyes on all sides, abroad and at home, whence
ever they could expect any aid or support.
After France and Holland had entered into a league against Spain, and
framed a treaty of partition, by which they were to conquer and to
divide between them the Low Country provinces, England was invited to
preserve a neutrality between the contending parties, while the French
and Dutch should attack the maritime towns of Flanders. But the king
replied to D'Estrades, the French ambassador, who opened the proposal,
that he had a squadron ready, and would cross the seas, if necessary,
with an army of fifteen thousand men, in order to prevent these
projected conquests.[**] This answer, which proves that Charles though
he expressed his mind with an imprudent candor, had at last acquired
a just idea of national interest irritated Cardinal Richelieu; and, in
revenge, that politic and enterprising minister carefully fomented the
first commotions in Scotland, and secretly supplied the Covenanters with
money and arms, in order to encourage them in their opposition against
their sovereign.
* King's Decl. p. 317.
** Mem. D'Estrades, vol. i.
But the chief resource of the Scottish malecontents was in themselves,
and in their own vigor and abilities. No regular established
commonwealth could take juster measures, or execute them with greater
promptitude, than did this tumultuous combination, inflamed with bigotry
for religious trifles, and faction without a reasonable object. The
whole kingdom was in a manner engaged, and the men of greatest abilities
soon acquired the ascendant, which their family interest enabled them to
maintain. The earl of Argyle, though he long seemed to temporize, had
at last embraced the covenant; and he became the chief leader of that
party; a man equally supple and inflexible, cautious and determined,
and entirely qualified to make a figure during a factious and turbulent
period. The earls of Rothes, Cassils, Montrose, Lothian, the lords
Lindesey, Louden, Yester, Balmerino, distinguished themselves in that
party. Many Scotch officers had acquired reputation in the German wars,
particularly under Gustavus; and these were invited over to assist their
country in her present necessity. The command was intrusted to Lesley, a
soldier of experience and abilities. Forces were regularly enlisted and
disciplined. Arms were commissioned and imported from foreign countries.
A few castles which belonged to the king, being unprovided with
victuals, ammunition, and garrisons, were soon seized. And the whole
country, except a small part, where the marquis of Huntley still adhered
to the king, being in the hands of the Covenanters, was in a very little
time put in a tolerable posture of defence.[*]
The fortifications of Leith were begun and carried on with great
rapidity. Besides the inferior sort, and those who labored for pay,
incredible numbers of volunteers, even noblemen and gentlemen, put their
hand to the work, and deemed the most abject employment to be dignified
by the sanctity of the cause. Women, too, of rank and condition,
forgetting the delicacy of their sex and the decorum of their character
were intermingled with the lowest rabble, and carried on their shoulders
the rubbish requisite for completing the fortifications.[**]
* May, p. 49.
** Guthry's Memoirs, p. 46.
We must not omit another auxiliary of the Covenanters and no
inconsiderable one; a prophetess, who was much followed and admired by
all ranks of people. Her name Michelson, a woman full of whimseys partly
hysterical, partly religious; and inflamed with a zealous concern for
the ecclesiastical discipline of the Presbyterians. She spoke at certain
times only, and had often interruptions of days and weeks: but when she
began to renew her ecstasies, warning of the happy event was conveyed
over the whole country; thousands crowded about her house; and every
word which she uttered was received with veneration, as the most
sacred oracles. The covenant was her perpetual theme. The true, genuine
covenant, she said, was ratified in heaven: the king's covenant was an
invention of Satan: when she spoke of Christ, she usually gave him the
name of the Covenanting Jesus. Rollo, a popular preacher, and zealous
Covenanter, was her great favorite, and paid her, on his part, no less
veneration. Being desired by the spectators to pray with her, and
speak to her, he answered, "that he durst not; and that it would be
ill manners in him to speak while his master, Christ, was speaking in
her."[*]
* King's Declaration at large, p. 227. Burnet's Memoirs of
Hamilton.
Charles had agreed to reduce episcopal authority so much, that it
would no longer have been of any service to support the crown; and
this sacrifice of his own interests he was willing to make, in order to
attain public peace and tranquillity. But he could not consent entirely
to abolish an order which he thought as essential to the being of a
Christian church, as his Scottish subjects deemed it incompatible
with that sacred institution. This narrowness of mind, if we would be
impartial, we must either blame or excuse equally on both sides; and
thereby anticipate, by a little reflection, that judgment which time, by
introducing new subjects of controversy, will undoubtedly render quite
familiar to posterity.
So great was Charles's aversion to violent and sanguinary measures, and
so strong his affection to his native kingdom that it is probable the
contest in his breast would be nearly equal between these laudable
passions and his attachment to the hierarchy. The latter affection,
however, prevailed for the time, and made him hasten those military
preparations which he had projected for subduing the refractory spirit
of the Scottish nation. By regular economy, he had not only paid all the
debts contracted during the Spanish and French wars, but had amassed
a sum of two hundred thousand pounds, which he reserved for any sudden
exigency. The queen had great interest with the Catholics, both from the
sympathy of religion, and from the favors and indulgences which she had
been able to procure to them. She now employed her credit, and persuaded
them that it was reasonable to give large contributions, as a mark of
their duty to the king, during this urgent necessity.[*] A considerable
supply was obtained by this means; to the great scandal of the Puritans,
who were offended at seeing the king on such good terms with the
Papists, and repined that others should give what they themselves were
disposed to refuse him.
Charles's fleet was formidable and well supplied. Having put five
thousand land forces on board, he intrusted it to the marquis of
Hamilton, who had orders to sail to the Frith of Forth, and to cause a
diversion in the forces of the malecontents. An army was levied of near
twenty thousand foot, and above three thousand horse; and was put under
the command of the earl of Arundel, a nobleman of great family, but
celebrated neither for military nor political abilities. The earl of
Essex, a man of strict honor, and extremely popular, especially among
the soldiery, was appointed lieutenant-general: the earl of Holland was
general of the horse. The king himself joined the army, and he summoned
all the peers of England to attend him. The whole had the appearance
of a splendid court, rather than of a military armament; and in this
situation, carrying more show than real force with it, the camp arrived
at Berwick.[**]
The Scottish army was as numerous as that of the king, but inferior
in cavalry. The officers had more reputation and experience; and the
soldiers, though undisciplined and ill armed, were animated, as well by
the national aversion to England, and the dread of becoming a province
to their old enemy, as by an unsurmountable fervor of religion. The
pulpits had extremely assisted the officers in levying recruits, and had
thundered out anathemas against all those "who went not out to assist
the Lord against the mighty."[***] Yet so prudent were the leaders of
the malecontents, that they immediately sent submissive messages to the
king, and craved to be admitted to a treaty.
* Rush. vol. iii. p. 1329. Franklyn, p. 767.
** Clarendon, vol. i p. 115, 116, 117.
*** Burnet's Memoirs of Hamilton.
Charles knew that the force of the Covenanters was considerable, their
spirits high, their zeal furious; and that, as they were not yet daunted
by any ill success, no reasonable terms could be expected from them.
With regard therefore to a treaty, great difficulties occurred on both
sides. Should he submit to the pretensions of the malecontents, (besides
that the prelacy must be sacrificed to their religious prejudices,) such
a check would be given to royal authority, which had very lately, and
with much difficulty, been thoroughly established in Scotland, that
he must expect ever after to retain in that kingdom no more than the
appearance of majesty. The great men, having proved by so sensible a
trial the impotence of law and prerogative, would return to their former
licentiousness: the preachers would retain their innate arrogance: and
the people, unprotected by justice, would recognize no other authority
than that which they found to domineer over them. England also, it was
much to be feared, would imitate so bad an example; and having already
a strong propensity towards republican and Puritanical factions, would
expect, by the same seditious practices, to attain the same indulgence.
To advance so far, without bringing the rebels to a total submission,
at least to reasonable concessions, was to promise them, in all future
time, an impunity for rebellion.
On the other hand, Charles considered that Scotland was never before,
under any of his ancestors, so united and so animated in its own
defence; yet had often been able to foil or elude the force of England,
combined heartily in one cause, and inured by long practice to the use
of arms. How much greater difficulty should he find, at present, to
subdue by violence a people inflamed with religious prejudices; while he
could only oppose to them a nation enervated by long peace, and lukewarm
in his service; or, what was more to be dreaded, many of them engaged in
the same party with the rebels?[*]
* Rush. vol. iii. p. 936.
Should the war be only protracted beyond a campaign, (and who could
expect to finish it in that period?) his treasures would fail him; and
for supply he must have recourse to an English parliament, which,
by fatal experience, he had ever found more ready to encroach on the
prerogatives, than to supply the necessities of the crown. And what if
he receive a defeat from the rebel army? This misfortune was far from
being impossible. They were engaged in a national cause, and strongly
actuated by mistaken principles. His army was retained entirely by pay,
and looked on the quarrel with the same indifference which naturally
belongs to mercenary troops without possessing the discipline by which
such troops are commonly distinguished. And the consequences of a
defeat, while Scotland was enraged and England discontented, were so
dreadful, that no motive should persuade him to hazard it.
It is evident, that Charles had fallen into such a situation, that
whichever side he embraced, his errors must be dangerous. No wonder,
therefore, he was in great perplexity. But he did worse than embrace
the worst side; for, properly speaking, he embraced no side at all. He
concluded a sudden pacification, in which it was stipulated, that he
should withdraw his fleet and army; that within eight and forty hours
the Scots should dismiss their forces; that the king's forts should be
restored to him; his authority be acknowledged; and a general assembly
and a parliament be immediately summoned, in order to compose all
differences.[*] What were the reasons which engaged the king to admit
such strange articles of peace, it is in vain to inquire; for there
scarcely could be any. The causes of that event may admit of a more easy
explication.
* Rush vol. iii. p. 945.
The malecontents had been very industrious in representing to the
English the grievances under which Scotland labored, and the ill
counsels which had been suggested to their sovereign. Their liberties,
they said, were invaded; the prerogatives of the crown extended beyond
all former precedent; illegal courts erected; the hierarchy exalted
at the expense of national privileges; and so many new superstitions
introduced by the haughty, tyrannical prelates, as begat a just
suspicion that a project was seriously formed for the restoration of
Popery. The king's conduct, surely, in Scotland, had been in every
thing, except in establishing the ecclesiastical canons, more legal than
in England; yet was there such a general resemblance in the complaints
of both kingdoms, that the English readily assented to all the
representations of the Scottish malecontents, and believed that nation
to have been driven by oppression into the violent counsels which they
had embraced. So far, therefore, from being willing to second the
king in subduing the free spirit of the Scots, they rather pitied that
unhappy people, who had been pushed to those extremities; and
they thought, that the example of such neighbors, as well as their
assistance, might some time be advantageous to England, and encourage
her to recover, by a vigorous effort, her violated laws and liberties.
The gentry and nobility, who, without attachment to the court, without
command in the army, attended in great numbers the English camp,
greedily seized, and propagated, and gave authority to these sentiments:
a retreat, very little honorable, which the earl of Holland, with
a considerable detachment of the English forces, had made before a
detachment of the Scottish, caused all these humors to blaze up at once:
and the king, whose character was not sufficiently vigorous or decisive,
and who was apt from facility to embrace hasty counsels, suddenly
assented to a measure which was recommended by all about him, and which
favored his natural propension towards the misguided subjects of his
native kingdom.[*]
Charles, having so far advanced in pacific measures, ought, with a
steady resolution, to have prosecuted them, and have submitted to every
tolerable condition demanded by the assembly and parliament; nor should
he have recommenced hostilities, but on account of such enormous and
unexpected pretensions as would have justified his cause, if possible,
to the whole English nation. So far, indeed, he adopted this plan, that
he agreed, not only to confirm his former concessions, of abrogating the
canons, the liturgy, the high commission, and the articles of Perth,
but also to abolish the order itself of bishops, for which he had so
zealously contended.[**] But this concession was gained by the utmost
violence which he could impose on his disposition and prejudices: he
even secretly retained an intention of seizing favorable opportunities,
in order to: recover the ground which he had lost.[***] And one step
farther he could not prevail with himself to advance. The assembly, when
it met, paid no deference to the king's prepossessions, but gave full
indulgence to their own. They voted episcopacy to be unlawful in
the church of Scotland: he was willing to allow it contrary to the
constitutions of that church. They stigmatized the liturgy and canons
as Popish: he agreed simply to abolish them. They denominated the high
commission, tyranny: he was content to set it aside.[****]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 122, 123. May, p. 46.
** Rush. vol. iii. p. 946.
*** Burnet's Memoirs, p. 154 Rush. vol. iii. p. 951.
**** Rush. vol. iii. p. 958, etc.
The parliament, which sat after the assembly, advanced pretensions which
tended to diminish the civil power of the monarch; and, what probably
affected Charles still more, they were proceeding to ratify the acts
of assembly, when, by the king's instructions,[*] Traquaire, the
commissioner, prorogued them. And on account of these claims, which
might have been foreseen, was the war renewed; with great advantages on
the side of the Covenanters and disadvantages on that of the king.
No sooner had Charles concluded the pacification without conditions
than the necessity of his affairs and his want of money obliged him to
disband his army; and as the soldiers had been held together solely
by mercenary views, it was not possible, without great trouble, and
expense, and loss of time, again to assemble them. The more prudent
Covenanters had concluded, that their pretensions being so contrary to
the interests, and still more to the inclinations, of the king, it was
likely that they should again be obliged to support their cause by arms;
and they were therefore careful, in dismissing their troops, to preserve
nothing but the appearance of a pacific disposition. The officers had
orders to be ready on the first summons: the soldiers were warned not to
think the nation secure from an English invasion: and the religious
zeal which animated all ranks of men, made them immediately fly to their
standards as soon as the trumpet was sounded by their spiritual and
temporal leaders. The credit which in their last expedition they
had acquired, by obliging their sovereign to depart from all his
pretensions, gave courage to every one in undertaking this new
enterprise.[**]
* Rush vol. iii. p. 955.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 125. Rush vol. iii. p. 1023.
{1640.} The king, with great difficulty, found means to draw together an
army; but soon discovered that all savings being gone, and great debts
contracted, his revenue would be insufficient to support them. An
English parliament, therefore, formerly so unkind and intractable, must
now, after above eleven years' intermission, after the king had tried
many irregular methods of taxation, after multiplied disgusts given to
the Puritanical party, be summoned to assemble, amidst the must pressing
necessities of the crown.
As the king resolved to try whether this house of commons would be
more compliant than their predecessors, and grant him supply on any
reasonable terms, the time appointed for the meeting of parliament was
late, and very near the time allotted for opening the campaign against
the Scots. After the past experience of their ill humor, and of their
encroaching disposition, he thought that he could not in prudence trust
them with a long session, till he had seen some better proofs of their
good intentions: the urgency of the occasion, and the little time
allowed for debate, were reasons which he reserved against the
malecontents in the house; and an incident had happened, which, he
believed, had now furnished him with still more cogent arguments.
The earl of Traquaire had intercepted a letter written to the king of
France by the Scottish malecontents, and had conveyed this letter to
the king. Charles, partly repenting of the large concessions made to the
Scots, partly disgusted at their fresh insolence and pretensions, seized
this opportunity of breaking with them. He had thrown into the Tower
Lord Loudon, commissioner from the Covenanters, one of the persons who
had signed the treasonable letter.[*] And he now laid the matter before
the parliament, whom he hoped to inflame by the resentment, and alarm by
the danger, of this application to a foreign power.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 129. Rush. vol. iii. p 956. May, p.
56.
By the mouth of the lord keeper Finch, he discovered his wants, and
informed them, that he had been able to assemble his army, and to
subsist them, not by any revenue which he possessed, but by means of
a large debt of above three hundred thousand pounds, which he had
contracted, and for which he had given security upon the crown lands. He
represented, that it was necessary to grant supplies for the immediate
and urgent demands of his military armaments: that the season was
far advanced, the time precious, and none of it must be lost in
deliberation; that though his coffers were empty, they had not been
exhausted by unnecessary pomp, or sumptuous buildings, or any other kind
of magnificence: that whatever supplies had been levied on his subjects,
had been employed for their advantage and preservation; and, like vapors
rising out of the earth, and gathered into a cloud, had fallen in sweet
and refreshing showers on the same fields from which they had at first
been exhaled: that though he desired such immediate assistance as might
prevent for the time a total disorder in the government he was far from
any intention of precluding them from their right to inquire into the
state of the kingdom, and to offer his petitions for the redress of
their grievances: that as much as was possible of this season should
afterwards be allowed them for that purpose: that as he expected only
such supply at present as the current service necessarily required, it
would be requisite to assemble them again next winter, when they should
have full leisure to conclude whatever business had this session been
left imperfect and unfinished: that the parliament of Ireland had twice
put such trust in his good intentions as to grant him, in the beginning
of the session, a large supply, and had ever experienced good effects
from the confidence reposed in him: and that; in every circumstance, his
people should find his conduct suitable to a just, pious, and gracious
king; and such as was calculated to promote an entire harmony between
prince and parliament.[*]
* Rush. vol. iii. p. 1114.
However plausible these topics, they made small impression on the house
of commons. By some illegal, and several suspicious measures of the
crown, and by the courageous opposition which particular persons, amidst
dangers and hardships, had made to them, the minds of men, throughout
the nation, had taken such a turn, as to ascribe every honor to the
refractory opposers of the king and the ministers. These were the
only patriots, the only lovers of their country, the only heroes, and
perhaps, too, the only true Christians. A reasonable compliance with the
court was slavish dependence; a regard to the king, servile flattery; a
confidence in his promises, shameful prostitution. This general cast
of thought, which has more or less prevailed in England during near a
century and a half, and which has been the cause of much good and much
ill in public affairs, never predominated more than during the reign
of Charles. The present house of commons, being entirely composed
of country gentlemen, who came into parliament with all their native
prejudices about them, and whom the crown had no means of influencing,
could not fail to contain a majority of these stubborn patriots.
Affairs likewise, by means of the Scottish insurrection and the general
discontents in England, were drawing so near to a crisis, that the
leaders of the house, sagacious and penetrating, began to foresee the
consequences, and to hope that the time so long wished for was now come,
when royal authority must fall into a total subordination under popular
assemblies, and when public liberty must acquire a full ascendant. By
reducing the crown to necessities, they had hitherto found that the king
had been pushed into violent counsels, which had served extremely the
purposes of his adversaries: and by multiplying these necessities, it
was foreseen that his prerogative, undermined on all sides, must at
last be overthrown, and be no longer dangerous to the privileges of the
people. Whatever, therefore, tended to compose the differences between
king and parliament, and to preserve the government uniformly in its
present channel, was zealously opposed by these popular leaders; and
their past conduct and sufferings gave them credit sufficient to effect
all their purposes.
The house of commons, moved by these and many other obvious reasons,
instead of taking notice of the king's complaints against his Scottish
subjects, or his applications for supply, entered immediately upon
grievances; and a speech which Pym made them on that subject was much
more hearkened to, than that which the lord keeper had delivered to them
in the name of their sovereign. The subject of Pym's harangue has
been sufficiently explained above; where we gave an account of all the
grievances, imaginary in the church, more real in the state, of which
the nation at that time so loudly complained.[*] The house began
with examining the behavior of the speaker the last day of the former
parliament; when he refused, on account of the king's command, to put
the question: and they declared it a breach of privilege. They proceeded
next to inquire into the imprisonment and prosecution of Sir John
Elliot, Hollis, and Valentine:[**] the affair of ship money was
canvassed: and plentiful subject of inquiry was suggested on all hands.
Grievances were regularly classed under three heads; those with regard
to privileges of parliament, to the property of the subject, and to
religion.[***]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 133. Rush. vol. iii. p. 1131. May,
p. 60.
** Rush. vol. iii p. 1136.
*** Rush. vol. iii. p. 1147.
The king, seeing a large and inexhaustible field opened, pressed them
again for supply; and finding his message ineffectual, he came to the
house of peers, and desired their good offices with the commons. The
peers were sensible of the king's urgent necessities; and thought that
supply on this occasion ought, both in reason and in decency, to go
before grievances. They ventured to represent their sense of the matter
to the commons; but their intercession did harm. The commons had always
claimed, as their peculiar province the granting of supplies; and,
though the peers had here gone no further than offering advice, the
lower house immediately thought proper to vote so unprecedented an
interposition to be a breach of privilege.[*] Charles, in order to bring
the matter of supply to some issue, solicited the house by new messages:
and finding that ship money gave great alarm and disgust; besides
informing them, that he never intended to make a constant revenue of
it, that all the money levied had been regularly, with other great sums,
expended on equipping the navy; he now went so far as to offer them a
total abolition of that obnoxious claim, by any law which the commons
should think proper to present to him. In return, he only asked for his
necessities a supply of twelve subsidies,--about six hundred thousand
pounds,--and that payable in three years; but at the same time he let
them know, that, considering the situation of his affairs, a delay would
be equivalent to a denial.[**] The king though the majority was against
him, never had more friends in any house of commons; and the debate was
carried on for two days, with great zeal and warmth on both sides.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 134.
** Clarendon, vol. 1. p. 135. Rush. vol. iii p. 1154.
It was urged by the partisans of the court, that the happiest occasion
which the fondest wishes could suggest, was now presented for removing
all disgusts and jealousies between king and people, and for reconciling
their sovereign forever to the use of parliaments: that if they, on
their part, laid aside all enormous claims and pretensions, and provided
in a reasonable manner for the public necessities, they needed entertain
no suspicion of any insatiable ambition or illegal usurpation in the
crown: that though due regard had not always been paid, during this
reign, to the rights of the people, yet no invasion of them had been
altogether deliberate and voluntary; much less the result of wanton
tyranny and injustice; and still less of a formal design to subvert the
constitution. That to repose a reasonable confidence in the king, and
generously to supply his present wants, which proceeded neither from
prodigality nor misconduct, would be the true means of gaining on his
generous nature, and extorting, by a gentle violence, such concessions
as were requisite for the establishment of public liberty: that he
had promised, not only on the word of a prince, but also on that of
a gentleman, (the expression which he had been pleased to use,) that,
after the supply was granted the parliament should still have liberty
to continue their deliberations: could it be suspected that any man, any
prince much less such a one, whose word was as yet sacred and inviolate,
would, for so small a motive forfeit his honor, and, with it, all future
trust and confidence, by breaking a promise so public and so solemn?
that even if the parliament should be deceived in reposing this
confidence in him, they neither lost any thing, nor incurred any danger;
since it was evidently necessary, for the security of public peace, to
supply him with money, in order to suppress the Scottish rebellion: that
he had so far suited his first demands to their prejudices, that he only
asked a supply for a few months, and was willing, after so short a trust
from them, to fall again into dependence, and to trust them for his
further support and subsistence: that if he now seemed to desire
something further, he also made them, in return, a considerable offer,
and was willing, for the future, to depend on them for a revenue which
was quite necessary for public honor and security: that the nature of
the English constitution supposed a mutual confidence between king and
parliament: and if they should refuse it on their part, especially with
circumstances of such outrage and indignity, what could be expected but
a total dissolution of government, and violent factions, followed by the
most dangerous convulsions and intestine disorders?
In opposition to these arguments, it was urged by the malecontent party,
that the court had discovered, on their part, but few symptoms of that
mutual confidence to which they now so kindly invited the commons: that
eleven years' intermission of parliaments--the longest that was to be
found in the English annals--was a sufficient indication of the jealousy
entertained against the people; or rather of designs formed for the
suppression of all their liberties and privileges: that the ministers
might well plead necessity, nor could any thing, indeed, be a stronger
proof of some invincible necessity, than their embracing a measure for
which they had conceived so violent an aversion, as the assembling of
an English parliament: that this necessity, however, was purely
ministerial, not national; and if the same grievances, ecclesiastical
and civil, under which this nation itself labored, had pushed the Scots
to extremities, was it requisite that the English should forge their own
chains, by imposing chains on their unhappy neighbors? that the ancient
practice of parliament was to give grievances the precedency of supply;
and this order, so carefully observed by their ancestors, was founded
on a jealousy inherent in the constitution, and was never interpreted as
any peculiar diffidence of the present sovereign: that a practice which
had been upheld during times the most favorable to liberty, could not,
in common prudence, be departed from, where such undeniable reasons
for suspicion had been afforded: that it was ridiculous to plead the
advanced season, and the urgent occasion for supply; when it plainly
appeared that, in order to afford a pretence for this topic, and to
seduce the commons, great political contrivance had been employed: that
the writs for elections were issued early in the winter; and if the
meeting of parliament had not purposely been delayed till so near the
commencement of military operations, there had been leisure sufficient
to have redressed all national grievances, and to have proceeded
afterwards to an examination of the king's occasion for supply: that
the intention of so gross an artifice was to engage the commons, under
pretence of necessity, to violate the regular order of parliament; and
a precedent of that kind being once established, no inquiry into public
measures would afterwards be permitted: that scarcely any argument more
unfavorable could be pleaded for supply, than an offer to abolish ship
money; a taxation the most illegal and the most dangerous that had ever,
in any reign, been imposed upon the nation: and that, by bargaining for
the remission of that duty, the commons would in a manner ratify the
authority by which it had been levied; at least give encouragement for
advancing new pretensions of a like nature, in hopes of resigning them
on like advantageous conditions.
These reasons, joined to so many occasions of ill humor, seemed to sway
with the greater number: but, to make the matter worse, Sir Harry Vane,
the secretary, told the commons, without any authority from the
king, that nothing less than twelve subsidies would be accepted as a
compensation for the abolition of ship money. This assertion, proceeding
from the indiscretion, if we are not rather to call it the treachery of
Vane, displeased the house, by showing a stiffness and rigidity in the
king, which, in a claim so ill grounded, was deemed inexcusable.[*] We
are informed likewise, that some men, who were thought to understand the
state of the nation, affirmed in the house, that the amount of twelve
subsidies was a greater sum than could be found in all England: such
were the happy ignorance and inexperience of those times with regard to
taxes.[**]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 138.
** Clarendon, vol. *i. p. 136.
The king was in great doubt and perplexity. He saw that his friends in
the house were outnumbered by his enemies, and that the same
counsels were still prevalent which had ever bred such opposition and
disturbance. Instead of hoping that any supply would be granted him to
carry on war against the Scots, whom the majority of the house regarded
as their best friends and firmest allies; he expected every day that
they would present him an address for making peace with those rebels.
And if the house met again, a vote, he was informed, would certainly
pass, to blast his revenue of ship money; and thereby renew all the
opposition which, with so much difficulty, he had surmounted in levying
that taxation. Where great evils lie on all sides, it is difficult
to follow the best counsel; nor is it any wonder that the king, whose
capacity was not equal to situations of such extreme delicacy, should
hastily have formed and executed the resolution of dissolving this
parliament: a measure, however, of which he soon after repented, and
which the subsequent events, more than any convincing reason, inclined
every one to condemn. The last parliament, which ended with such rigor
and violence, had yet at first covered their intentions with greater
appearance of moderation than this parliament had hitherto assumed.
An abrupt and violent dissolution naturally excites discontents among
the people, who usually put entire confidence in their representatives,
and expect from them the redress of all grievances. As if there were not
already sufficient grounds of complaint, the king persevered still in
those counsels which, from experience, he might have been sensible were
so dangerous and unpopular. Bellasis and Sir John Hotham were summoned
before the council; and, refusing to give any account of their
conduct in parliament, were committed to prison. All the petitions
and complaints which had been sent to the committee of religion, were
demanded from Crew, chairman of that committee; and on his refusal
to deliver them, he was sent to the Tower. The studies, and even the
pockets of the earl of Warwick and Lord Broke, before the expiration of
privilege, were searched, in expectation of finding treasonable papers.
These acts of authority were interpreted, with some appearance of
reason, to be invasions on the right of national assemblies.[*] But the
king, after the first provocation which he met with, never sufficiently
respected the privileges of parliament; and, by his example, he further
confirmed their resolution, when they should acquire power, to pay like
disregard to the prerogatives of the crown.
* Rush. vol. iii. p. 1167. May, p. 61.
Though the parliament was dissolved, the convocation was still allowed
to sit; a practice of which, since the reformation, there were but
few instances,[*] and which was for that reason supposed by many to be
irregular. Besides granting to the king a supply from the spirituality,
and framing many canons, the convocation, jealous of like innovations
with those which had taken place in Scotland, imposed an oath on the
clergy and the graduates in the universities, by which every one swore
to maintain the established government of the church by archbishops,
bishops, deans, chapters, etc.[**] These steps, in the present
discontented humor of the nation, were commonly deemed illegal; because
not ratified by consent of parliament, in whom all authority was now
supposed to be centred. And nothing, besides, could afford more subject
of ridicule, than an oath which contained an "et caetera," in the midst
of it.
The people, who generally abhorred the convocation as much as they
revered the parliament, could scarcely be restrained from insulting and
abusing this assembly; and the king was obliged to give them guards, in
order to protect them.[***] An attack too was made during the night upon
Laud, in his palace of Lambeth, by above five hundred persons; and
he found it necessary to fortify himself for his defence.[****] A
multitude, consisting of two thousand secretaries, entered St. Paul's,
where the high commission then sat, tore down the benches, and cried
out, "No bishop; no high commission."[v] All these instances of
discontent were presages of some great revolution, had the court
possessed sufficient skill to discern the danger, or sufficient power to
provide against it.
In this disposition of men's minds, it was in vain that the king issued
a declaration, in order to convince his people of the necessity which he
lay under of dissolving the last parliament.[v*]
* There was one in 1586: see History of Archbishop Laud, p.
80. The authority of the convocation was, indeed, in most
respects, independent of the parliament: and there was no
reason which required the one to be dissolved upon the
dissolution of the other.
** Whitlocke, p. 33.
*** Whitlocke, p. 33.
**** Dugdale, p. 62. Clarendon, vol. i. p. 143.
v Dugdale, p. 65.
V* Rush. vol. iii. p. 1165.
The chief topic on which he insisted was, that the commons imitated the
bad example of all then predecessors of late years, in making continual
encroachments on his authority, in censuring his whole administration
and conduct, in discussing every circumstance of public government, and
in their indirect bargaining and contracting with their king for supply;
as if nothing ought to be given him but what he should purchase, either
by quitting somewhat of his royal prerogative, or by diminishing and
lessening his standing revenue. These practices, he said, were contrary
to the maxims of their ancestors; and these practices were totally
incompatible with monarchy.[*] [5]
The king, disappointed of parliamentary subsidies, was obliged to have
recourse to other expedients, in order to supply his urgent necessities.
The ecclesiastical subsidies served him in some stead; and it seemed
but just that the clergy should contribute to a war which was in a great
measure of their own raising.[**] He borrowed money from his ministers
and courtiers; and so much was he beloved among them, that above three
hundred thousand pounds were subscribed in a few days; though nothing
surely could be more disagreeable to a prince full of dignity, than
to be a burden on his friends instead of being a support to them. Some
attempts were made towards forcing a loan from the citizens; but
still repelled by the spirit of liberty, which was now become
unconquerable.[***] A loan of forty thousand pounds was extorted from
the Spanish merchants, who had bullion in the Tower exposed to the
attempts of the king. Coat and conduct money for the soldiery was levied
on the counties; an ancient practice,[****] but supposed to be abolished
by the petition of right. All the pepper was bought from the East India
Company upon trust, and sold at a great discount for ready money.[v] A
scheme was proposed for coining two or three hundred thousand pounds of
base money:[v*] such were the extremities to which Charles was reduced.
The fresh difficulties which, amidst the present distresses, were every
day raised with regard to the payment of ship money, obliged him to
exert continual acts of authority, augmented the discontents of the
people, and increased his indigence and necessities.[v**]
* See note E, at the end of the volume.
** May, p. 48.
*** Rush. vol. iii. p. 1181.
**** Rush. vol. i. p. 168.
v May, p. 63.
v* Rush. vol. iii. p. 1216. May, p. 63.
v** Rush. vol. iii. p. 1173, 1182, 1184, 1199, 1200, 1203,
1204.
The present expedients, however, enabled the king, though with great
difficulty, to march his army, consisting of nineteen thousand foot and
two thousand horse.[*] The earl of Northumberland was appointed
general; the earl of Strafford, who was called over from Ireland,
lieutenant-general; Lord Conway, general of the horse. A small fleet was
thought sufficient to serve the purposes of this expedition.
So great are the effects of zeal and unanimity, that the Scottish army,
though somewhat superior, were sooner ready than the king's; and they
marched to the borders of England. To engage them to proceed, besides
their general knowledge of the secret discontents of that kingdom,
Lord Saville had forged a letter, in the name of six noblemen the most
considerable of England, by which the Scots were invited to assist their
neighbors in procuring a redress of grievances.[**] Notwithstanding
these warlike preparations and hostile attempts, the Covenanters still
preserved the most pathetic and most submissive language; and entered
England, they said, with no other view than to obtain access to the
king's presence, and lay their humble petition at his royal feet. At
Newburn upon Tyne, they were opposed by a detachment of four thousand
five hundred men under Conway, who seemed resolute to dispute with them
the passage of the river. The Scots first entreated them, with great
civility, not to stop them in their march to their gracious sovereign;
and then attacked them with great bravery, killed several, and chased
the rest from their ground. Such a panic seized the whole English army,
that the forces at Newcastle fled immediately to Durham; and not yet
thinking themselves safe, they deserted that town, end retreated into
Yorkshire.[***]
The Scots took possession of Newcastle; and though sufficiently elated
with their victory, they preserved exact discipline, and persevered in
their resolution of paying for every thing, in order still to maintain
the appearance of an amicable correspondence with England. They also
despatched messengers to the king, who was arrived at York; and they
took care, after the advantage which they had obtained, to redouble
their expressions of loyalty, duty, and submission to his person; and
they even made apologies, full of sorrow and contrition for their late
victory.[****]
* Rush. vol. iii. p. 1279.
** Nalson, vol. ii. p. 427.
*** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 143.
**** Rush. vol. iii. p. 1255.
Charles was in a very distressed condition. The nation was universally
and highly discontented. The army was discouraged, and began likewise to
be discontented, both from the contagion of general disgust, and as an
excuse for their misbehavior, which they were desirous of representing
rather as want of will than of courage to fight. The treasury too was
quite exhausted, and every expedient for supply had been tried to the
uttermost. No event had happened, but what might have been foreseen as
necessary, at least as very probable; yet such was the king's situation,
that no provision could be made, nor was even any resolution taken
against such an exigency.
In order to prevent the advance of the Scots upon him, the king agreed
to a treaty, and named sixteen English noblemen, who met with eleven
Scottish commissioners at Rippon. The earls of Hertford, Bedford,
Salisbury, Warwick, Essex, Holland, Bristol, and Berkshire, the lords
Kimbolton, Wharton. Dunsmore, Paget, Broke Saville, Paulet, and
Howard of Escric, were chosen by the king; all of them popular men
and consequently supposed nowise averse to the Scottish invasion, or
unacceptable to that nation.[*]
An address arrived from the city of London, petitioning for a
parliament; the great point to which all men's projects at this
time tended.[**] Twelve noblemen presented a petition to the same
purpose.[***] But the king contented himself with summoning a great
council of the peers at York; a measure which had formerly been taken
in cases of sudden emergency, but which at present could serve to little
purpose. Perhaps the king, who dreaded above all things the house of
commons, and who expected no supply from them on any reasonable terms,
thought that, in his present distresses, he might be enabled to levy
supplies by the authority of the peers alone. But the employing so long
the plea of a necessity which appeared distant and doubtful, rendered it
impossible for him to avail himself of a necessity which was now at last
become real, urgent, and inevitable.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 155.
** Rush. vol. iii. p. 1263.
*** Clarendon, vol. i. p, 146. Rush. vol. iii. p. 1260. May,
p. 66. Warwick, p. 151.
By Northumberland's sickness, the command of the army had devolved on
Strafford. This nobleman possessed more vigor of mind than the king or
any of the council. He advised Charles rather to put all to hazard, than
submit to unworthy terms as were likely to be imposed upon him.
The loss sustained at Newburn, he said, was inconsiderable and though a
panic had for the time seized the army, that event was nothing strange
among new levied troops and the Scots, being in the same condition,
would no doubt be liable in their turn to a like accident. His opinion
therefore was, that the king should push forward and attack the Scots,
and bring the affair to a quick decision; and, if he were ever so
unsuccessful, nothing worse could befall him than what from his
inactivity he would certainly be exposed to.[*] To show how easy it
would be to execute this project, he ordered an assault to be made on
some quarters of the Scots, and he gained an advantage over them. No
cessation of arms had as yet been agreed to during the treaty at Rippon;
yet great clamor prevailed on account of this act of hostility. And when
it was known that the officer who conducted the attack was a Papist, a
violent outcry was raised against the king for employing that hated sect
in the murder of his Protestant subjects.[**]
It may be worthy of remark, that several mutinies had arisen among the
English troops when marching to join the army; and some officers had
been murdered merely on suspicion of their being Papists.[***] The
petition of right had abolished all martial law; and by an inconvenience
which naturally attended the plan, as yet new and unformed, of regular
and rigid liberty, it was found absolutely impossible for the generals
to govern the army by all the authority which the king could legally
confer upon them. The lawyers had declared, that martial law could not
be exercised, except in the very presence of an enemy; and because it
had been found necessary to execute a mutineer, the generals thought it
advisable, for their own safety, to apply for a pardon from the crown.
This weakness, however, was carefully concealed from the army, and Lord
Conway said, that if any lawyer were so imprudent as to discover the
secret to the soldiers, it would be necessary instantly to refute it,
and to hang the lawyer himself by sentence of a court martial.[****]
* Nalson, vol. ii. p. 5.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 159.
*** Rush. vol. iii. 1190, 1191, 1192, etc. May, p. 64.
**** Rush. vol. iii. p 1199.
An army new levied, undisciplined, frightened, seditious, ill paid,
and governed by no proper authority, was very unfit for withstanding
a victorious and high-spirited enemy, and retaining in subjection a
discontented and zealous nation.
Charles, in despair of being able to stem the torrent, at last
determined to yield to it: and as he foresaw that the great council of
the peers would advise him to call a parliament, he told them, in his
first speech, that he had already taken this resolution. He informed
them likewise, that the queen, in a letter which she had written to him,
had very earnestly recommended that measure. This good prince, who was
extremely attached to his consort, and who passionately wished to render
her popular in the nation, forgot not, amidst all his distress, the
interests of his domestic tenderness.[*]
In order to subsist both armies, (for the king was obliged, in order to
save the northern counties, to pay his enemies,) Charles wrote to the
city, desiring a loan of two hundred thousand pounds. And the peers at
York, whose authority was now much greater than that of their sovereign,
joined in the same request:[**] so low was this prince already fallen in
the eyes of his own subjects.
As many difficulties occurred in the negotiation with the Scots, it
was proposed to transfer the treaty from Rippon to London; a proposal
willingly embraced by that nation, who were now sure of treating with
advantage in a place where the king, they foresaw, would be in a manner
a prisoner, in the midst of his implacable enemies, and their determined
friends.[***]
* Clarendon, vol. 1. p. 154. Bush. vol. iii. p. 1275.
** Rush. vol. iii. p 1279.
*** Rush, vol. iii. p 1805.
CHAPTER LIV.
CHARLES I
{1640.} The causes of disgust which for above thirty years had daily
been multiplying in England, were now come to full maturity, and
threatened the kingdom with some great revolution or convulsion. The
uncertain and undefined limits of prerogative and privilege had been
eagerly disputed during that whole period; and in every controversy
between prince and people, the question, however doubtful, had always
been decided by each party in favor of its own pretensions. Too lightly,
perhaps, moved by the appearance of necessity, the king had even assumed
powers incompatible with the principles of limited government, and
had rendered it impossible for his most zealous partisans entirely to
justify his conduct, except by topics so unpopular, that they were
more fitted, in the present disposition of men's minds, to inflame
than appease the general discontent. Those great supports of public
authority, law and religion, had likewise, by the unbounded compliance
of judges and prelates, lost much of their influence over the people;
or rather had, in a great measure, gone over to the side of faction, and
authorized the spirit of opposition and rebellion. The nobility, also,
whom the king had no means of retaining by offices and preferments
suitable to their rank, had been seized with the general discontent, and
unwarily threw themselves into the scale which already began too much
to preponderate. Sensible of some encroachments which had been made
by royal authority, men entertained no jealousy of the commons, whose
enterprises for the acquisition of power had ever been covered with the
appearance of public good, and had hitherto gone no further than
some disappointed efforts and endeavors. The progress of the Scottish
malecontents reduced the crown to an entire dependence for supply:
their union with the popular party in England brought great accession of
authority to the latter: the near prospect of success roused all latent
murmurs and pretensions, which had hitherto been held in such violent
constraint; and the torrent of general inclination and opinion ran so
strongly against the court, that the king was in no situation to refuse
any reasonable demands of the popular leaders either for defining or
limiting the powers of his prerogative. Even many exorbitant claims, in
his present situation, would probably be made, and must necessarily be
complied with.
The triumph of the malecontents over the church was not yet so immediate
or certain. Though the political and religious Puritans mutually lent
assistance to each other, there were many who joined the former,
yet declined all connection with the latter. The hierarchy had been
established in England ever since the reformation: the Romish church,
in all ages, had carefully maintained that form of ecclesiastical
government: the ancient fathers too bore testimony to episcopal
jurisdiction; and though parity may seem at first to have had place
among Christian pastors, the period during which it prevailed was so
short, that few undisputed traces of it remained in history. The
bishops and their more zealous partisans inferred, thence the divine,
indefeasible right of prelacy: others regarded that institution as
venerable and useful; and if the love of novelty led some to adopt the
new rites and discipline of the Puritans, the reverence to antiquity
retained many in their attachment to the liturgy and government of the
church. It behoved, therefore, the zealous innovators in parliament to
proceed with some caution and reserve. By promoting all measures which
reduced the powers of the crown, they hoped to disarm the king, whom
they justly regarded, from principle, inclination, and policy, to be the
determined patron of the hierarchy. By declaiming against the supposed
encroachments and tyranny of the prelates, they endeavored to carry the
nation, from a hatred of their persons, to an opposition against their
office and character. And when men were enlisted in party, it would not
be difficult, they thought, to lead them by degrees into many measures
for which they formerly entertained the greatest aversion. Though the
new sectaries composed not at first the majority of the nation, they
were inflamed, as is usual among innovators, with extreme zeal for their
opinions. Their unsurmountable passion, disguised to themselves as well
as to others under the appearance of holy fervors, was well qualified to
make proselytes, and to seize the minds of the ignorant multitude. And
one furious enthusiast was able, by his active industry, to surmount the
indolent efforts of many sober and reasonable antagonists.
When the nation, therefore, was so generally discontented and little
suspicion was entertained of any design to subvert the church and
monarchy, no wonder that almost all elections ran in favor of those who,
by their high pretensions to piety and patriotism, had encouraged the
national prejudices. It is a usual compliment to regard the king's
inclination in the choice of a speaker; and Charles had intended to
advance Gardiner, recorder of London, to that important trust; but so
little interest did the crown at that time possess in the nation, that
Gardiner was disappointed of his election, not only in London, but in
every other place where it was attempted; and the king was obliged to
make the choice of speaker fail on Lenthal, a lawyer of some character,
but not sufficiently qualified for so high and difficult an office.[*]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 169.
The eager expectations of men with regard to a parliament, summoned
at so critical a juncture, and during such general discontents; a
parliament which, from the situation of public affairs, could not be
abruptly dissolved, and which was to execute every thing left unfinished
by former parliaments; these motives, so important and interesting,
engaged the attendance of all the members; and the house of commons was
never observed to be from the beginning so full and numerous. Without
any interval, therefore, they entered upon business, and by unanimous
consent they immediately struck a blow which may in a manner be regarded
as decisive.
The earl of Strafford was considered as chief minister, both on account
of the credit which he possessed with his master, and of his own great
and uncommon vigor and capacity. By a concurrence of accidents, this man
labored under the severe hatred of all the three nations which composed
the British monarchy. The Scots, whose authority now ran extremely
high, looked on him as the capital enemy of their country and one whose
counsels and influence they had most reason to apprehend. He had engaged
the parliament of Ireland to advance large subsidies, in order to
support a war against them: he had levied an army of nine thousand men,
with which he had menaced all their western coast: he had obliged the
Scots who lived under his government, to renounce the Covenant, their
national idol: he had in Ireland proclaimed the Scottish Covenanters
rebels and traitors, even before the king had issued any such
declaration against them in England, and he had ever dissuaded his
master against the late treaty and suspension of arms, which he regarded
as dangerous and dishonorable. So avowed and violent were the Scots in
their resentment of all these measures, that they had refused to send
commissioners to treat at York, as was at first proposed; because, they
said, the lieutenant of Ireland, their capital enemy, being general of
the king's forces, had there the chief command and authority.
Strafford, first as deputy, then as lord lieutenant, had governed
Ireland during eight years with great vigilance, activity, and prudence,
but with very little popularity. In a nation so averse to the English
government and religion, these very virtues were sufficient to draw on
him the public hatred. The manners too and character of this great man,
though to all full of courtesy, and to his friends full of affection,
were at bottom haughty, rigid, and severe. His authority and influence
during the time of his government had been unlimited; but no sooner did
adversity seize him, than the concealed aversion of the nation blazed up
at once, and the Irish parliament used every expedient to aggravate the
charge against him.
The universal discontent which prevailed in England against the court,
was all pointed towards the earl of Strafford; though without any
particular reason, but because he was the minister of state whom the
king most favored and most trusted. His extraction was honorable, his
paternal fortune considerable, yet envy attended his sudden and great
elevation. And his former associates in popular counsels, finding that
he owed his advancement to the desertion of their cause, represented
him as the great apostate of the commonwealth, whom it behoved them to
sacrifice as a victim to public justice.
Strafford, sensible of the load of popular prejudices under which he
labored, would gladly have declined attendance in parliament; and he
begged the king's permission to withdraw himself to his government of
Ireland, at least to remain at the head of the army in Yorkshire; where
many opportunities, he hoped, would offer, by reason of his distance, to
elude the attacks of his enemies. But Charles, who had entire confidence
in the earl's capacity, thought that his counsels would be extremely
useful during the critical session which approached. And when Strafford
still insisted on the danger of his appearing amidst so many enraged
enemies, the king, little apprehensive that his own authority was so
suddenly to expire, promised him protection, and assured him that not a
hair of his head should be touched by the parliament.[*]
No sooner was Strafford's arrival known, than a concerted attack was
made upon him in the house of commons. Pym, in a long studied discourse,
divided into many heads, after his manner, enumerated all the grievances
under which the nation labored; and, from a complication of such
oppressions, inferred that a deliberate plan had been formed of changing
entirely the frame of government, and subverting the ancient laws and
liberties of the kingdom.[**] Could any thing, he said, increase our
indignation against so enormous and criminal a project, it would be to
find that, during the reign of the best of princes, the constitution had
been endangered by the worst of ministers, and that the virtues of the
king had been seduced by wicked and pernicious counsel. We must inquire,
added he, from what fountain these waters of bitterness flow; and though
doubtless many evil counsellors will be found to have contributed their
endeavors, yet there is one who challenges the infamous preeminence, and
who, by his courage, enterprise, and capacity, is entitled to the
first place among these betrayers of their country. He is the earl of
Strafford, lieutenant of Ireland, and president of the council of
York, who, in both places, and in all other provinces where he has been
intrusted with authority, has raised ample monuments of tyranny, and
will appear, from a survey of his actions, to be the chief promoter of
every arbitrary counsel. Some instances of imperious expressions, as
well as actions, were given by Pym; who afterwards entered into a more
personal attack of that minister, and endeavored to expose his whole
character and manners. The austere genius of Strafford, occupied in
the pursuits of ambition, had not rendered his breast altogether
inaccessible to the tender passions, or secured him from the dominion
of the fair; and in that sullen age, when the irregularities of pleasure
were more reproachful than the most odious crimes, these weaknesses were
thought worthy of being mentioned, together with his treasons, before
so great an assembly. And, upon the whole, the orator concluded, that it
belonged to the house to provide a remedy proportionable to the disease,
and to prevent the further mischiefs justly to be apprehended from the
influence which this man had acquired over the measures and counsels of
their sovereign.[***]
* Whitlocke, p. 36.
** Whitlocke, p. 36
*** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 172.
Sir John Clotworthy, an Irish gentleman, Sir John Hotham of Yorkshire,
and many others, entered into the same topics, and after several hours
spent in bitter invective, when the doors were locked, in order to
prevent all discovery of their purpose, it was moved, in consequence
of the resolution secretly taken, that Strafford should immediately
be impeached of high treason. This motion was received with universal
approbation; nor was there, in all the debate, one person who offered
to stop the torrent by any testimony in favor of the earls conduct. Lord
Falkland alone, though known to be his enemy, modestly desired the
house to consider whether it would not better suit the gravity of their
proceedings, first to digest by a committee many of those particulars
which had been mentioned, before they sent up an accusation against him.
It was ingeniously answered by Pym, that such a delay might probably
blast all their hopes, and put it out of their power to proceed any
further in the prosecution: that when Strafford should learn that so
many of his enormities were discovered, his conscience would dictate
his condemnation; and so great was his power and credit, he would
immediately procure the dissolution of the parliament, or attempt some
other desperate measure for his own preservation: that the commons
were only accusers, not judges; and it was the province of the peers to
determine whether such a complication of enormous crimes in one person,
did not amount to the highest crime known by the law.[*] Without further
debate, the impeachment was voted: Pym was chosen to carry it up to the
lords: most of the house accompanied him on so agreeable an errand;
and Strafford, who had just entered the house of peers, and who little
expected so speedy a prosecution was immediately, upon this general
charge, ordered into custody, with several symptoms of violent prejudice
in his judges as well as in his prosecutors.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 174.
In the inquiry concerning grievances, and in the censure of past
measures, Laud could not long escape the severe scrutiny of the commons;
who were led too, in their accusation of that prelate, as well by their
prejudices against his whole order, as by the extreme antipathy which
his intemperate zeal had drawn upon him. After a deliberation which
scarcely lasted half an hour, an impeachment of high treason was voted
against this subject, the first both in rank and in favor throughout the
kingdom. Though this incident, considering the example of Stratford's
impeachment, and the present disposition of the nation and parliament,
needed be no surprise to him, yet was he betrayed into some passion when
the accusation was presented. "The commons themselves," he said, "though
his accusers, did not believe him guilty of the crimes with which
they charged him;" an indiscretion which, next day, upon more mature
deliberation, he desired leave to retract; but so little favorable were
the peers, that they refused him this advantage or indulgence. Laud also
was immediately, upon this general charge, sequestered from parliament,
and committed to custody.[*]
The capital article insisted on against these two great men, was the
design which the commons supposed to have been formed of subverting
the laws and constitution of England, and introducing arbitrary and
unlimited authority into the kingdom. Of all the king's ministers, no
one was so obnoxious in this respect as the lord keeper Finch. He it was
who, being speaker in the king's third parliament, had left the
chair, and refused to put the question when ordered by the house. The
extrajudicial opinion of the judges in the case of ship money had
been procured by his intrigues, persuasions, and even menaces. In all
unpopular and illegal measures, he was ever most active; and he was even
believed to have declared publicly, that, while he was keeper, an order
of council should always with him be equivalent to a law. To appease the
rising displeasure of the commons, he desired to be heard at their bar.
He prostrated himself with all humility before them; but this submission
availed him nothing. An impeachment was resolved on; and in order to
escape their fury, he thought proper secretly to withdraw, and retire
into Holland. As he was not esteemed equal to Stratford, or even to
Laud, either in capacity or in fidelity to his master, it was
generally believed that his escape had been connived at by the popular
leaders.[**] His impeachment, however, in his absence, was carried up to
the house of peers.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 177. Whitlocke, p. 38, Rush. vol.
iii. p. 1365.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 177. Whitlocke, p. 38. Rush. vol.
i. p 129.
Sir Francis Windebank, the secretary, was a creature of Laud's; a
sufficient reason for his being extremely obnoxious to the commons.
He was secretly suspected too of the crime of Popery; and it was known
that, from complaisance to the queen, and indeed in compliance with
the king's maxims of government, he had granted many indulgences to
Catholics, and had signed warrants for the pardon of priests, and their
delivery from confinement. Grimstone, a popular member, called him,
in the house, the very pander and broker to the whore of Babylon.[*]
Finding that the scrutiny of the commons was pointing towards him, and
being sensible that England was no longer a place of safety for men of
his character, he suddenly made his escape into France.[**]
Thus in a few weeks this house of commons, not opposed, or rather
seconded by the peers, had produced such a revolution in the government,
that the two most powerful and most favored ministers of the king were
thrown into the Tower, and daily expected to be tried for their life:
two other ministers had, by flight alone, saved themselves from a like
fate: all the king's servants saw that no protection could be given
them by their master: a new jurisdiction was erected in the nation; and
before that tribunal all those trembled who had before exulted most in
their credit and authority.
* Rush, vol. v. p. 122.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 178. Whitlocke, p. 37.
What rendered the power of the commons more formidable was, the extreme
prudence with which it was conducted. Not content with the authority
which they had acquired by attacking these great ministers, they were
resolved to render the most considerable bodies of the nation obnoxious
to them. Though the idol of the people, they determined to fortify
themselves likewise with terrors, and to overawe those who might still
be inclined to support the falling ruins of monarchy.
During the late military operations, several powers had been exercised
by the lieutenants and deputy lieutenants of counties; and these powers,
though necessary for the defence of the nation, and even warranted by
all former precedent yet not being authorized by statute, were now
voted to be illegal, and the persons who had assumed them declared
delinquents. This term was newly come into vogue, and expressed a degree
and species of guilt not exactly known or ascertained. In consequence of
that determination, many of the nobility and prime gentry of the
nation, while only exerting as they justly thought, the legal powers
of magistracy unexpectedly found themselves involved in the crime of
delinquency. And the commons reaped this multiplied advantage by their
vote: they disarmed the crown; they established the maxims of rigid law
and liberty; and they spread the terror of their own authority.[*]
The writs for ship money had been directed to the sheriffs, who were
required, and even obliged, under severe penalties, to assess the sums
upon individuals, and to levy them by their authority: yet were all the
sheriffs, and all those who had been employed in that illegal service,
voted, by a very rigorous sentence, to be delinquents. The king, by
the maxims of law, could do no wrong: his ministers and servants, of
whatever degree, in case cf any violation of the constitution, were
alone culpable.[**]
All the farmers and officers of the customs, who had been employed
during so many years in levying tonnage and poundage and the new
impositions, were likewise declared criminals, and were afterwards
glad to compound for a pardon by paying a fine of one hundred and fifty
thousand pounds.
Every discretionary or arbitrary sentence of the star chamber and high
commission, courts which, from their very constitution, were arbitrary,
underwent a severe scrutiny; and all those who had concurred in such
sentences were voted to be liable to the penalties of law.[***] No
minister of the king, no member of the council, but found himself
exposed by this decision.
The judges who had given their vote against Hambden in the trial of ship
money, were accused before the peers, and obliged to find surety for
their appearance. Berkeley, a judge of the king's bench, was seized by
order of the house, even when sitting in his tribunal; and all men
saw with astonishment the irresistible authority of their
jurisdiction.[****]
The sanction of the lords and commons, as well as that of the king, was
declared necessary for the confirmation of ecclesiastical canons.[v]
And this judgment, it must be confessed, however reasonable, at least
useful, it would have been difficult to justify by any precedent.[v*]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 176.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 176.
*** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 177.
**** Whitlocke, p. 39.
v Nalson, vol. i. p. 673.
v* An act of parliament, 25th Henry VIII., cap. 19,
allowed the convocation with the king's consent to make
canons. By the famous act of submission to that prince, the
clergy bound themselves to enact no canons without the
king's consent. The parliament was never mentioned nor
thought of. Such pretensions as the commons advanced at
present, would in any former age have been deemed strange
usurpations.
But the present was no time for question or dispute. That decision which
abolished all legislative power except that of parliament, was requisite
for completing the new plan of liberty, and rendering it quite uniform
and systematical. Almost all the bench of bishops, and the most
considerable of the inferior clergy, who had voted in the late
convocation, found themselves exposed by these new principles to the
imputation of delinquency.[*]
The most unpopular of all Charles's measures, and the least justifiable,
was the revival of monopolies, so solemnly abolished, after reiterated
endeavors, by a recent act of parliament. Sensible of this unhappy
measure, the king had of himself recalled, during the time of his first
expedition against Scotland, many of these oppressive patents; and the
rest were now annulled by authority of parliament, and every one who was
concerned in them declared delinquents. The commons carried so far their
detestation of this odious measure, that they assumed a power which had
formerly been seldom practised,[**] and they expelled all their members
who were monopolists or projectors; an artifice by which, besides
increasing their own privileges, they weakened still further the very
small party which the king secretly retained in the house. Mildmay,
a notorious monopolist, yet having associated himself with the ruling
party, was still allowed to keep his seat. In all questions, indeed, of
elections, no steady rule of decision was observed; and nothing further
was regarded than the affections and attachments of the parties.[***]
Men's passions were too much heated to be shocked with any instance of
injustice, which served ends so popular as those which were pursued by
this house of commons.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 206. Whitlocke, p. 37. Rush. vol. v.
p. 235, 359. Nalson, vol. i. p. 807.
** Lord Clarendon says it was entirely new; but there are
instances of it in the reign of Elizabeth. D'Ewes, p. 296,
352. There are also instances in the reign of James.
*** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 176.
The whole sovereign power being thus in a manner transferred to the
commons, and the government, without any seeming violence or disorder,
being changed in a moment from a monarchy almost absolute to a pure
democracy, the popular leaders seemed willing for some time to suspend
their active vigor, and to consolidate their authority, ere they
proceeded to any violent exercise of it. Every day produced some new
harangue on past grievances. The detestation of former usurpations was
further enlivened; the jealousy of liberty roused; and, agreeably to the
spirit of free government, no less indignation was excited by the view
of a violated constitution, than by the ravages of the most enormous
tyranny.
This was the time when genius and capacity of all kinds, freed from the
restraint of authority, and nourished by unbounded hopes and projects,
began to exert themselves, and be distinguished by the public. Then
was celebrated the sagacity of Pym, more fitted for use than ornament;
matured, not chilled, by his advanced age and long experience: then
was displayed the mighty ambition of Hambden, taught disguise, not
moderation, from former constraint; supported by courage, conducted by
prudence, embellished by modesty; but whether founded in a love of power
or zeal for liberty, is still, from his untimely end, left doubtful and
uncertain: then too were known the dark, ardent, and dangerous character
of St. John; the impetuous spirit of Hollis, violent and sincere, open
and entire in his enmities and in his friendships; the enthusiastic
genius of young Vane, extravagant in the ends which he pursued,
sagacious and profound in the means which he employed; incited by the
appearances of religion, negligent of the duties of morality.
So little apology would be received for past measures, so contagious
the general spirit of discontent, that even men of the most moderate
tempers, and the most attached to the church and monarchy, exerted
themselves with the utmost vigor in the redress of grievances, and in
prosecuting the authors of them. The lively and animated Digby displayed
his eloquence on this occasion; the firm and undaunted Capel, the modest
and candid Palmer. In this list too of patriot royalists are found the
virtuous names of Hyde and Falkland. Though in their ultimate views and
intentions these men differed widely from the former, in their present
actions and discourses an entire concurrence and unanimity was observed.
By the daily harangues and invectives against illegal usurpations, not
only the house of commons inflamed themselves with the highest animosity
against the court: the nation caught new fire from the popular leaders,
and seemed now to have made the first discovery of the many supposed
disorders in the government. While the law in several instances seemed
to be violated, they went no further than some secret and calm murmurs;
but mounted up into rage and fury as soon as the constitution was
thought to be restored to its former integrity and vigor. The capital
especially, being the seat of parliament, was highly animated with the
spirit of mutiny and disaffection. Tumults were daily raised; seditious
assemblies encouraged; and every man, neglecting his own business,
was wholly intent on the defence of liberty and religion. By stronger
contagion, the popular affections were communicated from breast to
breast in this place of general rendezvous and society.
The harangues of members, now first published and dispersed, kept
alive the discontents against the king's administration. The pulpits,
delivered over to Puritanical preachers and lecturers, whom the commons
arbitrarily settled in all the considerable churches, resounded with
faction and fanaticism. Vengeance was fully taken for the long
silence and constraint in which, by the authority of Laud and the high
commission, these preachers had been retained. The press, freed from all
fear or reserve, swarmed with productions, dangerous by their seditious
zeal and calumny, more than by any art or eloquence of composition.
Noise and fury, cant and hypocrisy, formed the sole rhetoric which,
during this tumult of various prejudices and passions, could be heard or
attended to.
The sentence which had been executed against Prynne, Bastwic, and
Burton, now suffered a revisal from parliament. These libellers, far
from being tamed by the rigorous punishments which they had undergone,
showed still a disposition of repeating their offence; and the ministers
were afraid lest new satires should issue from their prisons, and still
further inflame the prevailing discontents. By an order, therefore, of
council, they had been carried to remote prisons; Bastwic to Scilly,
Prynne to Jersey, Burton to Guernsey; all access to them was denied;
and the use of books, and of pen, ink and paper, was refused them. The
sentence for these additional punishments was immediately reversed,
in an arbitrary manner, by the commons: even the first sentence, upon
examination, was declared illegal; and the judges who passed it were
ordered to make reparation to the sufferers.[*]
* Nalson, vol. i. p 783. May, p. 79.
When the prisoners landed in England, they were received and entertained
with the highest demonstrations of affection; were attended by a mighty
confluence of company, their charges were borne with great magnificence,
and liberal presents bestowed on them. On their approach to any
town, all the inhabitants crowded to receive them, and welcomed their
reception with shouts and acclamations. Their train still increased as
they drew nigh to London. Some miles from the city, the zealots of
their party met them in great multitudes, and attended their triumphant
entrance: boughs were carried in this tumultuous procession; the roads
were strewed with flowers; and amidst the highest exultations of joy,
were intermingled loud and virulent invectives against the prelates,
who had so cruelly persecuted such godly personages.[*] The more ignoble
these men were, the more sensible was the insult upon royal authority,
and the more dangerous was the spirit of disaffection and mutiny which
it discovered among the people.
Lilburne, Leighton, and every one that had been punished for seditious
libels during the preceding administration, now recovered their liberty,
and were decreed damages from the judges and ministers of justice.[**]
Not only the present disposition of the nation insured impunity to all
libellers: a new method of framing and dispersing libels was invented by
the leaders of popular discontent. Petitions to parliament were drawn,
craving redress against particular grievances; and when a sufficient
number of subscriptions was procured, the petitions were presented to
the commons, and immediately published. These petitions became secret
bonds of association among the subscribers, and seemed to give undoubted
sanction and authority to the complaints which they contained.
It is pretended by historians favorable to the royal cause,[***] and is
even asserted by the king himself in a declaration,[****] that a most
disingenuous, or rather criminal, practice prevailed in conducting many
of these addresses. A petition was first framed; moderate, reasonable,
such as men of character willingly subscribed. The names were afterwards
torn off and affixed to another petition which served better the
purposes of the popular faction. We may judge of the wild fury which
prevailed throughout the nation, when so scandalous an imposture, which
affected such numbers of people, could be openly practised without
drawing infamy and ruin upon the managers.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 199, 200, etc. Nalson, vol. i. p.
570. May p. 80.
** Rushworth, vol. v. p 228. Nalson, vol. i. p. 800.
*** Dugdale. Clarendon, vol i. p. 203.
**** Husb. Col. p. 536.
So many grievances were offered, both by the members and by petitions
without doors, that the house was divided into above forty committees,
charged each of them with the examination of some particular violation
of law and liberty which had been complained of. Besides the general
committees of religion, trade, privileges, laws, many subdivisions of
these were framed, and a strict scrutiny was every where carried on. It
is to be remarked that, before the beginning of this century, when the
commons assumed less influence and authority, complaints of grievances
were usually presented to the house by any members who had had
particular opportunity of observing them. These general committees,
which were a kind of inquisitorial courts, had not then been
established; and we find that the king, in a former declaration.[*]
complains loudly of this innovation, so little favorable to royal
authority. But never was so much multiplied, as at present, the use
of these committees; and the commons, though themselves the greatest
innovators, employed the usual artifice of complaining against
innovations, and pretending to recover the ancient and established
government.
* Published on dissolving the third parliament. See Parl.
Hist, vol. viii. p. 347.
From the reports of their committees, the house daily passed votes
which mortified and astonished the court, and inflamed and animated
the nation. Ship money was declared illegal and arbitrary; the sentence
against Hambden cancelled; the court of York abolished; compositions
for knighthood stigmatized; the enlargement of the forests
condemned; patents for monopolies annulled; and every late measure of
administration treated with reproach and obloquy. To-day a sentence of
the star chamber was exclaimed against; to-morrow a decree of the
high commission. Every discretionary act of council was represented
as arbitrary and tyrannical; and the general inference was still
inculcated, that a formed design had been laid to subvert the laws and
constitution of the kingdom.
From necessity the king remained entirely passive during all these
violent operations. The few servants who continued faithful to him, were
seized with astonishment at the rapid progress made by the commons in
power and popularity, and were glad, by their inactive and inoffensive
behavior, to compound for impunity. The torrent rising to so dreadful
and unexpected a height, despair seized all those who from interest or
habit were most attached to monarchy. And as for those who maintained
their duty to the king merely from their regard to the constitution,
they seemed by their concurrence to swell that inundation which began
already to deluge every thing. "You have taken the whole machine of
government in pieces," said Charles, in a discourse to the parliament;
"a practice frequent with skilful artists, when they desire to clear
the wheels from any rust which may have grown upon them. The engine,"
continued he, "may again be restored to its former use and motions,
provided it be put up entire, so as not a pin of it be wanting." But
this was far from the intention of the commons. The machine, they
thought, with some reason, was encumbered with many wheels and springs
which retarded and crossed its operations, and destroyed its utility.
Happy! had they proceeded with moderation, and been contented, in their
present plenitude of power, to remove such parts only as might justly be
deemed superfluous and incongruous.
In order to maintain that high authority which they had acquired, the
commons, besides confounding and overawing their opponents, judged
it requisite to inspire courage into their friends and adherents;
particularly into the Scots, and the religious Puritans, to whose
assistance and good offices they were already so much beholden.
No sooner were the Scots masters of the northern counties, than they
laid aside their first professions, which they had not indeed means
to support, of paying for every thing; and in order to prevent the
destructive expedient of plunder and free quarters, the country
consented to give them a regular contribution of eight hundred and fifty
pounds a day, in full of their subsistence.[*]
* Rush. vol. iii. p. 1295.
The parliament, that they might relieve the northern counties from so
grievous a burden, agreed to remit pay to the Scottish as well as to the
English army; and because subsidies would be levied too slowly for
so urgent an occasion, money was borrowed from the citizens upon the
security of particular members. Two subsidies, a very small sum,[*] were
at first voted; and as the intention of this supply was to indemnify the
members who by their private had supported public credit, this pretence
was immediately laid hold of, and the money was ordered to be paid,
not into the treasury, but to commissioners appointed by parliament;
a practice which as it diminished the authority of the crown, was
willingly embraced, and was afterwards continued by the commons with
regard to every branch of revenue which they granted to the king. The
invasion of the Scots had evidently been the cause of assembling the
parliament: the presence of their army reduced the king to that total
subjection in which he was now held: the commons, for this reason,
openly professed their intention of retaining these invaders, till all
their own enemies should be suppressed, and all their purposes effected.
"We cannot yet spare the Scots," said Strode plainly in the house,
"the sons of Zeruiah are still too strong for us;"[**] an allusion to a
passage of Scripture, according to the mode of that age. Eighty thousand
pounds a month were requisite for the subsistence of the two armies; a
sum much greater than the subject had ever been accustomed in any former
period to pay to the public. And though several subsidies, together
with a poll-tax, were from time to time voted to answer the charge,
the commons still took care to be in debt, in order to render the
continuance of the session the more necessary.
* It appears that a subsidy was now fallen to fifty thousand
pounds.
** Dugdale, p. 71.
The Scots being such useful allies to the malecontent party in England,
no wonder they were courted with the most unlimited complaisance and
the most important services. The king, having in his first speech called
them rebels, observed that he had given great offence to the parliament;
and he was immediately obliged to soften, and even retract the
expression.
The Scottish commissioners, of whom the most considerable were the earl
of Rothes and Lord Loudon, found every advantage in conducting their
treaty; yet made no haste in bringing it to an issue. They were lodged
in the city, and kept an intimate correspondence, as well with the
magistrates who were extremely disaffected, as with the popular leaders
in both houses. St. Antholine's church was assigned them for their
devotions; and their chaplains here began openly to practise the
Presbyterian form of worship, which, except in foreign languages, had
never hitherto been allowed any indulgence or toleration. So violent was
the general propensity towards this new religion, that multitudes of all
ranks crowded to the church. Those who were so happy as to find access
early in the morning, kept their places the whole day, those who were
excluded clung to the doors or windows, in hopes of catching at least
some distant murmur or broken phrases of the holy rhetoric.[*] All the
eloquence of parliament, now well refined from pedantry, animated with
the spirit of liberty and employed in the most important interests, was
not attended to with such insatiable avidity, as were these lectures,
delivered with ridiculous cant and a provincial accent, full of
barbarism and of ignorance.
The most effectual expedient for paying court to the zealous Scots, was
to promote the Presbyterian discipline and worship throughout England;
and to this innovation the popular leaders among the commons, as well as
their more devoted partisans, were of themselves sufficiently inclined.
The Puritanical party, whose progress, though secret, had hitherto been
gradual in the kingdom, taking advantage of the present disorders,
began openly to profess their tenets, and to make furious attacks on
the established religion. The prevalence of that sect in the parliament
discovered itself, from the beginning, by insensible but decisive
symptoms. Marshall and Burgess, two Puritanical clergymen, were chosen
to preach before them, and entertained them with discourses seven hours
in length.[**] It being the custom of the house always to take the
sacrament before they enter upon business, they ordered, as a necessary
preliminary, that the communion table should be removed from the east
end of St. Margaret's into the middle of the area.[***] The name of the
"spiritual lords" was commonly left out in acts of parliament; and the
laws ran in the name of king, lords, and commons. The clerk of the upper
house, in reading bills, turned his back on the bench of bishops; nor
was his insolence ever taken notice of.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 189.
** Nalson, vol. i. p. 530, 533.
*** Nalson, voL i. p. 537
On a day appointed for a solemn fast and humiliation, all the orders
of temporal peers, contrary to former practice, in going to church took
place of the spiritual; and Lord Spencer remarked that the humiliation
that day seemed confined alone to the prelates.
Every meeting of the commons produced some vehement harangue against
the usurpations of the bishops, against the high commission, against the
late convocation, against the new canons. So disgusted were all lovers
of civil liberty at the doctrines promoted by the clergy, that these
invectives were received without control; and no distinction at first
appeared between such as desired only to repress the exorbitancies of
the hierarchy, and such as pretended totally to annihilate episcopal
jurisdiction. Encouraged by these favorable appearances, petitions
against the church were framed in different parts of the kingdom. The
epithet of the ignorant and vicious priesthood was commonly applied to
all churchmen addicted to the established discipline and worship; though
the episcopal clergy in England, during that age, seem to have been,
as they are at present, sufficiently learned and exemplary. An address
against episcopacy was presented by twelve clergymen to the committee of
religion, and pretended to be signed by many hundreds of the Puritanical
persuasion. But what made most noise was, the city petition for a total
alteration of church government; a petition to which fifteen thousand
subscriptions were annexed, and which was presented by Alderman
Pennington, the city member.[*] It is remarkable that, among the many
ecclesiastical abuses there complained of, an allowance given by the
licensers of books to publish a translation of Ovid's Art of Love, is
not forgotten by these rustic censors.[**]
Notwithstanding the favorable disposition of the people, the leaders in
the house resolved to proceed with caution. They introduced a bill
for prohibiting all clergymen the exercise of any civil office. As a
consequence, the bishops were to be deprived of their seats in the house
of peers; a measure not unacceptable to the zealous friends of liberty,
who observed with regret the devoted attachment of that order to the
will of the monarch. But when this bill was presented to the peers, it
was rejected by a great majority;[***] the first check which the commons
had received in their popular career, and a prognostic of what they
might afterwards expect from the upper house, whose inclinations and
interests could never be totally separated from the throne.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 203. Whitlocke, p. 37. Nalson, vol.
i. p. 666.
** Rush. vol. v. p. 171.
*** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 237.
But to show how little they were discouraged, the Puritans immediately
brought in another bill for the total abolition of episcopacy; though
they thought proper to let that bill sleep at present, in expectation of
a more favorable opportunity of reviving it.[*]
Among other acts of regal executive power which the commons were every
day assuming, they issued orders for demolishing all images, altars,
crucifixes. The zealous Sir Robert Harley, to whom the execution of
these orders was committed, removed all crosses even out of streets and
markets; and, from his abhorrence of that superstitious figure, would
not any where allow one piece of wood or stone to lie over another at
right angles.[**]
The bishop of Ely and other clergymen were attacked on account of
innovations.[***] Cozens, who had long been obnoxious, was exposed
to new censures. This clergyman, who was dean of Peterborough, was
extremely zealous for ecclesiastical ceremonies: and so far from
permitting the communicants to break the sacramental bread with their
fingers, a privilege on which the Puritans strenuously insisted, he
would not so much as allow it to be cut with an ordinary household
instrument. A consecrated knife must perform that sacred office, and
must never afterwards be profaned by any vulgar service.[****]
Cozens likewise was accused of having said, "The king has no more
authority in ecclesiastical matters, than the boy who rubs my horse's
heels."[v] The expression was violent: but it is certain that all
those high churchmen, who were so industrious in reducing the laity
to submission, were extremely fond of their own privileges and
independency, and were desirous of exempting the mitre from all
subjection to the crown.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 237.
** Whitlocke, p. 45.
*** Rush. vol. v. p. 351.
**** Rush. vol. v. p. 203.
v Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 282. Rush. vol. v. p. 209.
A committee was elected by the lower house as a court of inquisition
upon the clergy, and was commonly denominated the committee of
"scandalous ministers." The politicians among the commons were apprised
of the great importance of the pulpit for guiding the people; the bigots
were enraged against the prelatical clergy; and both of them knew that
no established government could be overthrown by strictly observing the
principles of justice, equity, or clemency. The proceedings, therefore,
of this famous committee, which continued for several years, were
cruel and arbitrary, and made great havoc both on the church and the
universities. They began with harassing, imprisoning, and molesting the
clergy; and ended with sequestrating and ejecting them. In order to
join contumely to cruelty, they gave the sufferers the epithet of
"scandalous," and endeavored to render them as odious as they were
miserable.[*] The greatest vices, however, which they could reproach
to a great part of them, were, bowing at the name of Jesus, placing the
communion table in the east, reading the king's orders for sports on
Sunday, and other practices which the established government, both in
church and state, had strictly enjoined them.
It may be worth observing, that all historians who lived near that age,
or, what perhaps is more decisive, all authors who have casually
made mention of those public transactions, still represent the civil
disorders and convulsions as proceeding from religious controversy,
and consider the political disputes about power and liberty as entirely
subordinate to the other. It is true, had the king been able to support
government, and at the same time to abstain from all invasion of
national privileges, it seems not probable that the Puritans ever could
have acquired such authority as to overturn the whole constitution: yet
so entire was the subjection into which Charles was now fallen, that,
had not the wound been poisoned by the infusion of theological hatred,
it must have admitted of an easy remedy. Disuse of parliaments,
imprisonments and prosecution of members, ship money, an arbitrary
administration; these were loudly complained of; but the grievances
which tended chiefly to inflame the parliament and nation, especially
the latter, were the surplice, the rails placed about the altar, the
bows exacted on approaching it, the liturgy, the breach of the Sabbath,
embroidered copes, lawn sleeves, the use of the ring in marriage, and
of the cross in baptism. On account of these were the popular leaders
content to throw the government into such violent convulsions; and, to
the disgrace of that age and of this island, it must be acknowledged,
that the disorders in Scotland entirely, and those in England mostly
proceeded from so mean and contemptible an origin.[**]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 199. Whitlocke, p. 122. May, p. 81.
** Lord Clarendon (vol. i. p. 233) says, that the
parliamentary party were not agreed about the entire
abolition of episcopacy: they were only the root and branch
men, as they were called, who insisted on that measure. But
those who were willing to retain bishops, insisted on
reducing their authority to a low ebb, as well as on
abolishing the ceremonies of worship and vestments of the
clergy. The controversy therefore, between the parties was
almost wholly theological, and that of the most frivolous
and ridiculous kind.
Some persons, partial to the patriots of this age, have ventured to put
them in a balance with the most illustrious characters of antiquity; and
mentioned the names of Pym, Hambden, Vane, as a just parallel to those
of Cato, Brutus, Cassius. Profound capacity, indeed, undaunted courage,
extensive enterprise; in these particulars, perhaps, the Roman do not
much surpass the English worthies: but what a difference, when the
discourse, conduct, conversation, and private as well as public behavior
of both are inspected! Compare only one circumstance, and consider its
consequences. The leisure of those noble ancients was totally employed
in the study of Grecian eloquence and philosophy; in the cultivation of
polite letters and civilized society: the whole discourse and language
of the moderns were polluted with mysterious jargon, and full of the
lowest and most vulgar hypocrisy.
The laws, as they stood at present, protected the church but they
exposed the Catholics to the utmost rage of the Puritans; and these
unhappy religionists, so obnoxious to the prevailing sect, could not
hope to remain long unmolested. The voluntary contribution, which they
had made, in order to assist the king in his war against the Scottish
Covenanters, was inquired into, and represented as the greatest
enormity.[*] By an address from the commons, all officers of that
religion were removed from the army, and application was made to the
king for seizing two thirds of the lands of recusants; a proportion to
which by law he was entitled, but which he had always allowed them to
possess upon easy compositions. The execution of the severe and bloody
laws against priests was insisted on; and one Goodman, a Jesuit, who
was found in prison, was condemned to a capital punishment. Charles,
however, agreeably to his usual principles, scrupled to sign the warrant
for his execution; and the commons expressed great resentment on the
occasion.[**] There remains a singular petition of Goodman, begging to
be hanged, rather than prove a source of contention between the king and
his people.[***]
* Rush, vol. v. p. 160.
** Rush. vol. v. p. 158, 159. Nalson, vol. i. p. 739.
*** Rush. vol. v. p. 166. Nalson, vol. i. p. 749.
He escaped with his life; but it seems more probable, that he was
overlooked amidst affairs of greater consequence, than that such
unrelenting hatred would be softened by any consideration of his courage
and generosity.
For some years Con, a Scotchman, afterwards Rosetti, an Italian, had
openly resided at London, and frequented the court, as vested with a
commission from the pope. The queen's zeal, and her authority with her
husband, had been the cause of this imprudence, so offensive to the
nation.[*] But the spirit of bigotry now rose too high to permit any
longer such indulgences.[**]
Hayward, a justice of peace, having been wounded, when employed in the
exercise of his office, by one James, a Catholic madman, this enormity
was ascribed to the Popery, not to the frenzy of the assassin; and great
alarms seized the nation and parliament.[***] A universal conspiracy
of the Papists was supposed to have taken place; and every man for some
days imagined that he had a sword at his throat. Though some persons of
family and distinction were still attached to the Catholic superstition,
it is certain that the numbers of that sect did not amount to the
fortieth part of the nation: and the frequent panics to which men,
during this period, were so subject on account of the Catholics, were
less the effects of fear, than of extreme rage and aversion entertained
against them.
* It is now known from the Clarendon papers, that the king
had also an authorized agent who resided at Rome. His name
was Bret, and his chief business was to negotiate with the
pope concerning indulgences to the Catholics, and to engage
the Catholics, in return, to be good and loyal subjects. But
this whole matter, though very innocent, was most carefully
kept secret. The king says, that he believed Bret to be as
much his as any Papist could be. See p. 348, 354.
** Bush. vol. v. p. 301.
*** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 249 Rush. vol. v. p. 57.
The queen mother of France, having been forced into banishment by some
court intrigues, had retired into England; and expected shelter, amidst
her present distresses, in the dominions of her daughter and son-in-law,
But though she behaved in the most inoffensive manner, she was insulted
by the populace on account of her religion, and was even threatened
with worse treatment. The earl of Holland, lieutenant of Middlesex, had
ordered a hundred musketeers to guard her; but finding that they had
imbibed the same prejudices with the rest of their countrymen, and were
unwillingly employed in such a service, he laid the case before the
house of peers, for the king's authority was now entirely annihilated.
He represented the indignity of the action, that so great a princess,
mother to the king of France and to the queens of Spain and England,
should be affronted by the multitude. He observed the indelible reproach
which would fall upon the nation, if that unfortunate queen should
suffer any violence from the misguided zeal of the people. He urged the
sacred rights of hospitality, due to every one, much more to a person
in distress, of so high a rank, with whom the nation was so nearly
connected. The peers thought proper to communicate the matter to the
commons, whose authority over the people was absolute. The commons
agreed to the necessity of protecting the queen mother; but at the same
time prayed that she might be desired to depart the kingdom, "for the
quieting those jealousies in the hearts of his majesty's well-affected
subjects, occasioned by some ill instruments about that queen's person,
by the flowing of priests and Papists to her house, and by the use
and practice of the idolatry of the mass, and exercise of other
superstitious services of the Romish church, to the great scandal of
true religion."[*]
Charles, in the former part of his reign, had endeavored to overcome the
intractable and encroaching spirit of the commons, by a perseverance in
his own measures, by a stately dignity of behavior, and by maintaining
at their utmost height, and even perhaps stretching beyond former
precedent, the rights of his prerogative. Finding, by experience, how
unsuccessful those measures had proved, and observing the low condition
to which he was now reduced, he resolved to alter his whole conduct, and
to regain the confidence of his people by pliableness, by concessions,
and by a total conformity to their inclinations and prejudices. It may
safely be averred, that this new extreme into which the king, for want
of proper counsel or support, was fallen, became no less dangerous to
the constitution, and pernicious to public peace, than the other, in
which he had so long and so unfortunately persevered.
The pretensions with regard to tonnage and poundage were revived, and
with certain assurance of success, by the commons.[**]
* Rush, vol. v. p. 267.
* It appears not that the commons, though now entirely
masters, abolished the new impositions of James, against
which they had formerly so loudly complained; a certain
proof that the rates of customs settled by that prince, were
in most instances just, and proportioned to the new price of
commodities. They seem rather to have been low. See Journ.
10th Aug. 1625.
The levying of these duties as formerly, without consent of parliament,
and even increasing them at pleasure, was such an incongruity in a free
constitution, where the people by their fundamental privileges cannot be
taxed but by their own consent, as could no longer be endured by these
jealous patrons of liberty. In the preamble, therefore, to the bill by
which the commons granted these duties to the king, they took care,
in the strongest and most positive terms, to assert their own right of
bestowing this gift, and to divest the crown of all independent title
of assuming it. And that they might increase, or rather finally fix, the
entire dependence and subjection of the king, they voted these duties
only for two months; and afterwards, from time to time, renewed their
grant for very short periods.[*] Charles, in order to show that he
entertained no intention ever again to separate himself from his
parliament, passed this important bill without any scruple or
hesitation.[**]
* It was an instruction given by the house to the committee
which framed one of these bills, to take care that the rates
upon exportation may be as light as possible, and upon
importation as heavy as trade will bear; a proof that the
nature of commerce began now to be understood. Journ. 1st
June, 1641
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 208.
With regard to the bill for triennial parliaments, he made a little
difficulty. By an old statute, passed during the reign of Edward III.,
it had been enacted, that parliaments should be held once every year, or
more frequently if necessary: but as no provision had been made in
case of failure, and no precise method pointed out for execution, this
statute had been considered merely as a general declaration, and was
dispensed with at pleasure. The defect was supplied by those vigilant
patriots who now assumed the reins of government. It was enacted, that
if the chancellor, who was first bound under severe penalties, failed to
issue writs by the third of September in every third year, any twelve
or more of the peers should be empowered to exert this authority; in
default of the peers, that the sheriffs, mayors, bailiffs, etc., should
summon the voters; and in their default, that the voters themselves
should meet and proceed to the election of members, in the same manner
as if writs had been regularly issued from the crown. Nor could
the parliament, after it was assembled, be adjourned, prorogued, or
dissolved, without their own consent, during the space of fifty days.
By this bill, some of the noblest and most valuable prerogatives of
the crown were retrenched; but at the same time nothing could be more
necessary than such a statute, for completing a regular plan of law and
liberty. A great reluctance to assemble parliaments must be expected in
the king, where these assemblies, as of late, establish it as a maxim
to carry their scrutiny into every part of government. During long
intermissions of parliament, grievances and abuses, as was found by
recent experience, would naturally creep in; and it would even become
necessary for the king and council to exert a great discretionary
authority, and by acts of state to supply, in every emergence, the
legislative power, whose meeting was so uncertain and precarious.
Charles, finding that nothing less would satisfy his parliament and
people, at last gave his assent to this bill which produced so great an
innovation in the constitution.[*] Solemn thanks were presented him
by both houses. Great rejoicings were expressed both in the city and
throughout the nation. And mighty professions were every where made of
gratitude and mutual returns of supply and confidence. This concession
of the king, it must be owned, was not entirely voluntary: it was of
a nature too important to be voluntary. The sole inference which his
partisans were entitled to draw from the submissions so frankly made
to present necessity was, that he had certainly adopted a new plan of
government, and for the future was resolved, by every indulgence, to
acquire the confidence and affections of his people.
Charles thought, that what concessions were made to the public were of
little consequence, if no gratifications were bestowed on individuals
who had acquired the direction of public counsels and determinations. A
change of ministers, as well as of measures, was therefore resolved
on. In one day, several new privy counsellors were sworn; the earls of
Hertford Bedford, Essex, Bristol; the lords Say, Saville, Kimbolton.
within a few days after was admitted the earl of Warwick.[**] All these
noblemen were of the popular party; and some of them afterwards, when
matters were pushed to extremities by the commons, proved the greatest
support of monarchy.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 209. Whitlocke, p. 39. Rush. vol. v.
p, 189.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 195.
Juxon, bishop of London, who had never desired the treasurer's staff,
now earnestly solicited for leave to resign it, and retire to the care
of that turbulent diocese committed to him. The king gave his consent;
and it is remarkable that, during all the severe inquiries carried on
against the conduct of ministers and prelates, the mild and prudent
virtues of this man who bore both these invidious characters, remained
unmolested.[*] It was intended that Bedford, a popular man, of great
authority, as well as wisdom and moderation, should succeed Juxon; but
that nobleman, unfortunately both for king and people, died about this
very time. By some promotions, place was made for St. John, who was
created solicitor-general. Hollis was to be made secretary of state, in
the room of Windebank, who had fled: Pym, chancellor of the exchequer,
in the room of Lord Cottington, who had resigned: Lord Say, master
of the wards, in the room of the same nobleman: the earl of Essex,
governor, and Hambden, tutor to the prince.[**]
* Warwick, p, 95.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 210, 211.
What retarded the execution of these projected changes, was the
difficulty of satisfying all those who, from their activity and
authority in parliament, had pretensions for offices, and who still had
it in their power to embarrass and distress the public measures. Their
associates too in popularity, whom the king intended to distinguish by
his favor, were unwilling to undergo the reproach of having driven a
separate bargain, and of sacrificing to their own ambitious views the
cause of the nation. And as they were sensible that they must owe their
preferment entirely to their weight and consideration in parliament,
they were most of them resolved still to adhere to that assembly, and
both to promote its authority, and to preserve their own credit in it.
On all occasions, they had no other advice to give the king, than to
allow himself to be directed by his great council; or, in other words,
to resign himself passively to their guidance and government. And
Charles found, that instead of acquiring friends by the honors and
offices which he should bestow, he should only arm his enemies with more
power to hurt him.
The end on which the king was most intent in changing ministers was,
to save the life of the earl of Strafford, and to mollify, by these
indulgences, the rage of his most furious prosecutors. But so high was
that nobleman's reputation for experience and capacity, that all the new
counsellors and intended ministers plainly saw, that if he escaped their
vengeance, he must return into favor and authority; and they regarded
his death as the only security which they could have, both for the
establishment of their present power, and for success in their future
enterprises. His impeachment, therefore, was pushed on with the utmost
vigor; and, after long and solemn preparations, was brought to a final
issue.
Immediately after Strafford was sequestered from parliament, and
confined in the Tower, a committee of thirteen was chosen by the lower
house, and intrusted with the office of preparing a charge against him.
These, joined to a small committee of lords, were vested with authority
to examine all witnesses, to call for every paper, and to use any
means of scrutiny, with regard to any part of the earl's behavior and
conduct.[*] After so general and unbounded an inquisition, exercised by
such powerful and implacable enemies, a man must have been very cautious
or very innocent, not to afford, during the whole course of his life,
some matter of accusation against him.
This committee, by direction from both houses, took an oath of
secrecy; a practice very unusual, and which gave them the appearance of
conspirators, more than ministers of justice.[**] But the intention of
this strictness was, to render it more difficult for the earl to elude
their search, or prepare for his justification.
Application was made to the king, that he would allow this committee
to examine privy counsellors with regard to opinions delivered at the
board: a concession which Charles unwarily made, and which thenceforth
banished all mutual confidence from the deliberations of council; where
every man is supposed to have entire freedom, without fear of future
punishment or inquiry, of proposing any expedient, questioning any
opinion, or supporting any argument.[***]
Sir George Ratcliffe, the earl's intimate friend and confidant, was
accused of high treason, sent for from Ireland, and committed to close
custody. As no charge ever appeared or was prosecuted against him, it
is impossible to give a more charitable interpretation to this measure,
than that the commons thereby intended to deprive Strafford, in his
present distress, of the assistance of his best friend, who was most
enabled, by his testimony, to justify the innocence of his patron's
conduct and behavior.[****]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 192.
** Whitlocke, p. 37.
*** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 193.
**** Clarendon, vol. i. p 214.
When intelligence arrived in Ireland of the plans laid for Stafford's
ruin, the Irish house of commons, though they had very lately bestowed
ample praises on his administration, entered into all the violent
counsels against him, and prepared a representation of the miserable
state into which, by his misconduct, they supposed the kingdom to
be fallen. They sent over a committee to London, to assist in the
prosecution of their unfortunate governor; and by intimations from this
committee, who entered into close confederacy with the popular leaders
in England, was every measure of the Irish parliament governed and
directed. Impeachments, which were never prosecuted, were carried up
against Sir Richard Bolton, the chancellor, Sir Gerard Louther, chief
justice, and Bramhall, bishop of Derry.[*] This step, which was an
exact counterpart to the proceedings in England, served also the same
purposes: it deprived the king of the ministers whom he most trusted; it
discouraged and terrified all the other ministers and it prevented those
persons who were best acquainted with Strafford's counsels from giving
evidence in his favor before the English parliament.
{1641.} The bishops, being forbidden by the ancient canons to assist in
trials for life, and being unwilling by any opposition to irritate the
commons, who were already much prejudiced against them, thought
proper of themselves to withdraw.[**] The commons also voted, that the
new-created peers ought to have no voice in this trial; because the
accusation being agreed to while they were commoners, their consent to
it was implied with that of all the commons of England. Notwithstanding
this decision, which was meant only to deprive Strafford of so many
friends, Lord Seymour and some others still continued to keep their
seat; nor was their right to it any further questioned.[***]
To bestow the greater solemnity on this important trial scaffolds were
erected in Westminster Hall; where both houses sat, the one as accusers,
the other as judges. Besides the chair of state, a close gallery
was prepared for the king and queen, who attended during the whole
trial.[****]
* Rush. vol. v. p. 214.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p 216.
*** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 216.
****Whitlocke, p. 40. Rush. vol. iv. p. 11., May. p. 90.
An accusation carried on by the united effort of three kingdoms against
one man, unprotected by power, unassisted by counsel, discountenanced by
authority, was likely to prove a very unequal contest; yet such were
the capacity, genius presence of mind, displayed by this magnanimous
statesman, that, while argument, and reason, and law had any place, he
obtained an undisputed victory. And *he perished at last, overwhelmed,
and still unsubdued, by the open violence of his fierce and unrelenting
antagonists.
The articles of impeachment against Strafford are twenty-eight in
number; and regard his conduct, as president of the council of York,
as deputy or lieutenant of Ireland, and as counsellor or commander in
England. But though four months were employed by the managers in framing
the accusation, and all Strafford's answers were extemporary, it appears
from comparison, not only that he was free from the crime of treason,
of which there is not the least appearance, but that his conduct, making
allowance for human infirmities, exposed to such severe scrutiny, was
innocent, and even laudable.
The powers of the northern council, while he was president, had been
extended by the king's instructions beyond what formerly had been
practised: but that court being at first instituted by a stretch
of royal prerogative, it had been usual for the prince to vary his
instructions; and the largest authority committed to it was altogether
as legal as the most moderate and most limited. Nor was it reasonable
to conclude, that Strafford had used any art to procure those extensive
powers; since he never once sat as president, or exercised one act
of jurisdiction, after he was invested with the authority so much
complained of.[*]
In the government of Ireland, his administration had been equally
promotive of his master's interest, and that of the subjects committed
to his care. A large debt he had paid off: he had left a considerable
sum in the exchequer: the revenue, which never before answered the
charges of government, was now raised to be equal to them.[**] A
small standing army, formerly kept in no order, was augmented, and was
governed by exact discipline; and a great force was there raised and
paid for the support of the king's authority against the Scottish
covenanters.
* Bush. vol. iv, p. 145.
** Bush. vol. v. p. 120, 247. Warwick, p. 115.
Industry and all the arts of peace were introduced among that rude
people; the shipping of the kingdom augmented a hundred fold;[*] the
customs tripled upon the same rates: the exports double in value to
the imports; manufactures, particularly that of linen, introduced
and promoted;[**] agriculture, by means of the English and Scottish
plantations, gradually advancing; the Protestant religion encouraged,
without the persecution or discontent of the Catholics.
* Nelson, vol. ii. p. 45.
** Rush. vol. iv. p. 124., Warwick, p. 115.
The springs of authority he had enforced without overstraining them.
Discretionary acts of jurisdiction, indeed, he had often exerted, by
holding courts martial, billetting soldiers, deciding causes upon paper
petitions before the council, issuing proclamations, and punishing their
infraction. But discretionary authority during that age was usually
exercised even in England. In Ireland, it was still more requisite,
among a rude people, not yet thoroughly subdued, averse to the religion
and manners of their conquerors, ready on all occasions to relapse into
rebellion and disorder. While the managers of the commons demanded every
moment, that the deputy's conduct should be examined by the line of
rigid law and severe principles, he appealed still to the practice
of all former deputies, and to the uncontrollable necessity of his
situation.
So great was his art of managing elections and balancing parties, that
he had engaged the Irish parliament to vote whatever was necessary, both
for the payment of former debts, and for support of the new-levied army;
nor had he ever been reduced to the illegal expedients practised in
England for the supply of public necessities. No imputation of rapacity
could justly lie against his administration. Some instances of imperious
expressions, and even actions, may be met with. The case of Lord
Mountnorris, of all those which were collected with so much industry, is
the most flagrant and the least excusable.
It had been reported at the table of Lord Chancellor Loftus, that
Annesley, one of the deputy's attendants, in moving a stool, had sorely
hurt his master's foot, who was at that time afflicted with the gout.
"Perhaps," said Mountnorris, who was present at table, "it was done in
revenge of that public affront which my lord deputy formerly put upon
him: but he has a brother who would not have taken such a revenge."
This casual, and seemingly innocent, at least ambiguous expression,
was reported to Stafford; who, on pretence that such a suggestion
might prompt Annesley to avenge himself in another manner, ordered
Mountnorris, who was an officer to be tried by a court martial for
mutiny and sedition against his general. The court, which consisted
of the chief officers of the army, found the crime to be capital, and
condemned that nobleman to lose his head.[*]
In vain did Strafford plead in his own defence against this article of
impeachment, that the sentence of Mountnorris was the deed, and that too
unanimous, of the court, not the act of the deputy; that he spake not
to a member of the court, nor voted in the cause, but sat uncovered as
a party, and then immediately withdrew, to leave them to their freedom;
that, sensible of the iniquity of the sentence, he procured his
majesty's free pardon to Mountnorris; and that he did not even keep that
nobleman a moment in suspense with regard to his fate, but instantly
told him, that he himself would sooner lose his right hand than execute
such a sentence, nor was his lordship's life in any danger. In vain did
Strafford's friends add, as a further apology, that Mountnorris was a
man of an infamous character, who paid court by the lowest adulation to
all deputies while present, and blackened their character by the vilest
calumnies when recalled; and that Strafford, expecting like treatment,
had used this expedient for no other purpose than to subdue the petulant
spirit of the man. These excuses alleviate the guilt; but there still
remains enough to prove, that the mind of the deputy, though great and
firm, had been not a little debauched by the riot of absolute power and
uncontrolled authority.
When Strafford was called over to England, he found every thing falling
into such confusion, by the open rebellion of the Scots, and the secret
discontents of the English, that, if he had counselled or executed any
violent measure, he might perhaps have been able to apologize for his
conduct from the great law of necessity, which admits not, while the
necessity is extreme, of any scruple, ceremony, or delay.[**] But, in
fact, no illegal advice or action was proved against him; and the whole
amount of his guilt, during this period, was some peevish, or at most
imperious expressions, which, amidst such desperate extremities, and
during a bad state of health, had unhappily fallen from him.
* Rush. vol. iv. p. 187.
** Rush. vol. iv. p. 559.
If Strafford's apology was in the main so satisfactory when he pleaded
to each particular article of the charge, his victory was still more
decisive when he brought the whole together, and repelled the imputation
of treason; the crime which the commons would infer from the full view
of his conduct and behavior. Of all species of guilt, the law of England
had with the most scrupulous exactness defined that of treason; because
on that side it was found most necessary to protect the subject against
the violence of the king and of his ministers. In the famous statute of
Edward III., all the kinds of treason are enumerated; and every other
crime, besides such as are there expressly mentioned, is carefully
excluded from that appellation. But with regard to this guilt, "an
endeavor to subvert the fundamental laws," the statute of treasons
is totally silent: and arbitrarily to introduce it into the fatal
catalogue, is itself a subversion of all law; and under color of
defending liberty, reverses a statute the best calculated for the
security of liberty that had ever been enacted by an English parliament.
As this species of treason, discovered by the commons, is entirely
new and unknown to the laws, so is the species of proof by which they
pretend to fix that guilt upon the prisoner. They have invented a kind
of accumulative or constructive evidence, by which many actions either
totally innocent in themselves, or criminal in a much inferior degree,
shall, when united, amount to treason, and subject the person to the
highest penalties inflicted by the law. A hasty and unguarded word,
a rash and passionate action, assisted by the malevolent fancy of the
accuser, and tortured by doubtful constructions, is transmuted into the
deepest guilt; and the lives and fortunes of the whole nation, no longer
protected by justice, are subjected to arbitrary will and pleasure.
"Where has this species of guilt lain so long concealed?" said Strafford
in conclusion. "Where has this fire been so long buried during so many
centuries, that no smoke should appear till it burst out at once to
consume me and my children? Better it were to live under no law at all,
and by the maxims of cautious prudence to conform ourselves the best we
can to the arbitrary will of a master, than fancy we have a law on which
we can rely, and find at last, that this law shall inflict a punishment
precedent to the promulgation, and try us by maxims unheard of till the
very moment of the prosecution. If I sail on the Thames, and split my
vessel on an anchor, in case there be no buoy to give warning, the
party shall pay me damages: but if the anchor be marked out, then is the
striking on it at my own peril. Where is the mark set upon this crime?
where the token by which I should discover it? It has lain concealed
under water; and no human prudence, no human innocence, could save me
from the destruction with which I am at present threatened.
"It is now full two hundred and forty years since treasons were defined;
and so long has it been since any man was touched to this extent upon
this crime before myself. We have lived, my lords, happily to ourselves
at home: we have lived gloriously abroad to the world: let us be content
with what our fathers have left us.*let not our ambition carry us to be
more learned than they were in these killing and destructive arts. Great
wisdom it will be in your lordships, and just providence for yourselves,
for your posterities, for the whole kingdom, to cast from you into the
fire these bloody and mysterious volumes of arbitrary and constructive
treasons, as the primitive Christians did their books of curious arts,
and betake yourselves to the plain letter of the statute, which tells
you where the crime is, and points out to you the path by which you may
avoid it.
"Let us not, to our own destruction, awake those sleeping lions, by
rattling up a company of old records which have lain for so many ages by
the wall, forgotten and neglected. To all my afflictions, add not this,
my lords, the most severe of any; that I, for my other sins, not for my
treasons, be the means of introducing a precedent so pernicious to the
laws and liberties of my native country.
"However, these gentlemen at the bar say they speak for the
commonwealth, and they believe so; yet, under favor, it is I who, in
this particular, speak for the commonwealth. Precedents like those
which are endeavored to be established against me, must draw along such
inconveniencies and miseries, that in a few years the kingdom will be in
the condition expressed in a statute of Henry IV.; and no man shall know
by what rule to govern his words and actions.
"Impose not, my lords, difficulties insurmountable upon ministers of
state, nor disable them from serving with cheerfulness their king and
country. If you examine them, and under such severe penalties, by every
grain, by every little weight, the scrutiny will be intolerable. The
public affairs of the kingdom must be left waste; and no wise man,
who has any honor or fortune to lose, will ever engage himself in such
dreadful, such unknown perils.
"My lords, I have now troubled your lordships a great deal longer than I
should have done. Were it not for the interest of these pledges, which
a saint in heaven left me, I should be loath--" (Here he pointed to his
children, and his weeping stopped him.) "What I forfeit for myself,
it is nothing: but, I confess, that my indiscretion should forfeit
for them, it wounds me very deeply. You will be pleased to pardon my
infirmity: something I should have said; but I see I shall not be able,
and therefore I shall leave it.
"And now, my lords, I thank God, I have been by his blessing
sufficiently instructed in the extreme vanity of all temporary
enjoyments, compared to the importance of our eternal duration. And so,
my lords, even so, with all humility, and with all tranquillity of
mind, I submit, clearly and freely, to your judgments: and whether that
righteous doom shall be to life or death, I shall repose myself, full
of gratitude and confidence, in the arms of the great Author of my
existence."[*]
"Certainly," says Whitlocke,[**] with his usual candor, "never any man
acted such a part, on such a theatre, with more wisdom, constancy, and
eloquence, with greater reason, judgment, and temper, and with a better
grace in all his words and actions, than did this great and excellent
person; and he moved the hearts of all his auditors, some few excepted,
to remorse and pity." It is remarkable, that the historian who expresses
himself in these terms, was himself chairman of that committee which
conducted the impeachment against this unfortunate statesman. The
accusation and defence lasted eighteen days. The managers divided the
several articles among them, and attacked the prisoner with all the
weight of authority, with all the vehemence of rhetoric, with all
the accuracy of long preparation. Strafford was obliged to speak with
deference and reserve towards his most inveterate enemies, the commons,
the Scottish nation, and the Irish parliament. He took only a very
short time on each article to recollect himself: yet he alone, without
assistance, mixing modesty and humility with firmness and vigor,
made such a defence that the commons saw it impossible, by a legal
prosecution, ever to obtain a sentence against him.
* Rush. vol. iv. p *59, etc.
** Page 41.
But the death of Stafford was too important a stroke of party to be left
unattempted by any expedient, however extraordinary. Besides the great
genius and authority of that minister, he had threatened some of the
popular leaders with an impeachment; and, had he not himself been
suddenly prevented by the impeachment of the commons, he had that very
day, it was thought, charged Pym, Hambden, and others with treason,
for having invited the Scots to invade England. A bill of attainder was
therefore brought into the lower house immediately after finishing these
pleadings; and, preparatory to it, a new proof of the earl's guilt was
produced, in order to remove such scruples as might be entertained with
regard to a method of proceeding so unusual and irregular.
Sir Henry Vane, secretary, had taken some notes of a debate in council,
after the dissolution of the last parliament; and being at a distance,
he had sent the keys of his cabinet, as was pretended, to his son Sir
Henry, in order to search for some papers which were necessary for
completing a marriage settlement. Young Vane, falling upon this paper
of notes, deemed the matter of the utmost importance; and immediately
communicated it to Pym, who now produced the paper before the house of
commons. The question before the council was, "Offensive or defensive
war with the Scots." The king proposes this difficulty, "But how can I
undertake offensive war, if I have no more money?" The answer ascribed
to Strafford was in these words: "Borrow of the city a hundred thousand
pounds: go on vigorously to levy ship money. Your majesty having tried
the affections of your people, you are absolved and loose from all rules
of government, and may do what power will admit. Your majesty, having
tried all ways, shall be acquitted before God and man. And you have
an army in Ireland, which you may employ to reduce this kingdom to
obedience: for I am confident the Scots cannot hold out five months."
There followed some counsels of Laud and Cottington, equally
violent with regard to the king's being absolved from all rules of
government.[*]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 223, 229, 230, etc. Whitlocke, p.
41. May p. 93.
This paper, with all the circumstances of its discovery and
communication, was pretended to be equivalent to two witnesses, and to
be an unanswerable proof of those pernicious counsels of Strafford which
tended to the subversion of the laws and constitution. It was replied
by Strafford and his friends, that old Vane was his most inveterate
and declared enemy; and if the secretary himself, as was by far most
probable, had willingly delivered to his son this paper of notes, to be
communicated to Pym, this implied such a breach of oaths and of trust
as rendered him totally unworthy of all credit: that the secretary's
deposition was at first exceedingly dubious: upon two examinations, he
could not remember any such words: even the third time, his testimony
was not positive, but imported only, that Strafford had spoken such or
suchlike words; and words may be very like in sound, and differ much in
sense; nor ought the lives of men to depend upon grammatical criticisms
of any expressions, much less of those which had been delivered by the
speaker without premeditation, and committed by the hearer for any time
however short, to the uncertain record of memory: that, in the present
case, changing this kingdom into that kingdom a very slight alteration,
the earl's discourse could regard nothing but Scotland, and implies
no advice unworthy of an English counsellor: that even retaining
the expression, this kingdom, the words may fairly be understood of
Scotland, which alone was the kingdom that the debate regarded,
and which alone had thrown off allegiance, and could be reduced to
obedience: that it could be proved, as well by the evidence of all the
king's ministers, as by the known disposition of the forces, that the
intention never was to land the Irish army in England, but in Scotland:
that of six other counsellors present, Laud and Windebank could give
no evidence; Northumberland, Hamilton, Cottington, and Juxon, could
recollect no such expression; and the advice was too remarkable to be
easily forgotten: that it was nowise probable such a desperate counsel
would be openly delivered at the board, and before Northumberland, a
person of that high rank, and whose attachments to the court were
so much weaker than his connections with the country. That though
Northumberland, and he alone, had recollected some such expression
as that of "being absolved from rules of government," yet, in such
desperate extremities as those into which the king and kingdom were
then fallen, a maxim of that nature, allowing it to be delivered by
Strafford, may be defended upon principles the most favorable to law
and liberty and that nothing could be more iniquitous than to extract
an accusation of treason from an opinion simply proposed at the council
table; where all freedom of debate ought to be permitted, and where it
was not unusual for the members, in order to draw forth the sentiments
of others, to propose counsels very remote from their own secret advice
and judgment.[*]
The evidence of Secretary Vane, though exposed to such unsurmountable
objections, was the real cause of Strafford' unhappy fate; and made the
bill of attainder pass the commons with no greater opposition than that
of fifty-nine dissenting votes. But there remained two other branches of
the legislature, the king and the lords, whose assent was requisite;
and these, if left to their free judgment, it was easily foreseen,
would reject the bill without scruple or deliberation. To overcome this
difficulty, the popular leaders employed expedients for which they were
beholden partly to their own industry, partly to the indiscretion of
their adversaries.
Next Sunday, after the bill passed the commons, the Puritanical pulpits
resounded with declamations concerning the necessity of executing
justice upon great delinquents.[**] The populace took the alarm. About
six thousand men, armed with swords and cudgels, flocked from the
city, and surrounded the houses of parliament.[***] The names of the
fifty-nine commoners who had voted against the bill of attainder, were
posted up under the title of "Straffordians, and betrayers of their
country." These were exposed to all the insults of the ungovernable
multitude. When any of the lords passed, the cry for justice against
Strafford resounded in their ears; and such as were suspected of
friendship to that obnoxious minister, were sure to meet with menaces,
not unaccompanied with symptoms of the most desperate resolutions in the
furious populace.[****]
Complaints in the house of commons being made against these violences,
as the most flagrant breach of privilege, the ruling members, by their
affected coolness and indifference, showed plainly, that the popular
tumults were not disagreeable to them.[v] But a new discovery, made
about this time, served to throw every thing into still greater flame
and combustion.
* Rush. vol. iv. p. 560.
** Whitlocke, p. 43.
*** Whitlocke, p. 43.
**** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 232, 256. Rush. vol. v. p. 248,
1279.
v Whitlocke, ut supra.
Some principal officers, Piercy, Jermyn, O'Neale, Goring, Wilmot,
Pollard, Ashburnham, partly attached to the court, partly disgusted with
the parliament, had formed a plan of engaging into the king's service
the English army, whom they observed to be displeased at some marks of
preference given by the commons to the Scots. For this purpose, they
entered into an association, took an oath of secrecy, and kept a close
correspondence with some of the king's servants. The form of a petition
to the king and parliament was concerted; and it was intended to get
this petition subscribed by the army. The petitioners there represent
the great and unexampled concessions made by the king for the security
of public peace and liberty; the endless demands of certain insatiable
and turbulent spirits, whom nothing less will content than a total
subversion of the ancient constitution; the frequent tumults which these
factious malecontents had excited, and which endangered the liberty of
parliament. To prevent these mischiefs, the army offered to come up and
guard that assembly, "So shall the nation," as they express themselves
in the conclusion, "not only be vindicated from preceding innovations,
but be secured from the future, which are threatened, and which are
likely to produce more dangerous effects than the former."[*] The
draught of this petition being conveyed to the king, he was prevailed
on, somewhat imprudently, to countersign it himself, as a mark of his
approbation. But as several difficulties occurred, the project was laid
aside two months before any public discovery was made of it.
It was Goring who betrayed the secret to the popular leaders. The alarm
may easily be imagined which this intelligence conveyed. Petitions from
the military to the civil power are always looked on as disguised or
rather undisguised commands, and are of a nature widely different from
petitions presented by any other rank of men. Pym opened the matter in
the house.[**] On the first intimation of a discovery, Piercy concealed
himself, and Jermyn withdrew beyond sea. This further confirmed the
suspicion of a dangerous conspiracy. Goring delivered his evidence
before the house: Piercy wrote a letter to his brother, Northumberland,
confessing most of the particulars.[***] Both their testimonies agree
with regard to the oath of secrecy; and as this circumstance had been
denied by Pollard, Ashburnham, and Wilmot, in all their examinations, it
was regarded as a new proof of some desperate resolutions which had been
taken.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 247. Whitlocke, p. 43.
** Rush, vol v. p. 240.
*** Rush. vol. v. p. 255.
To convey more quickly the terror and indignation at this plot, the
commons voted that a protestation should be signed by all the members.
It was sent up to the lords, and signed by all of them, except
Southampton and Robarts. Orders were given by the commons alone, without
other authority that it should be subscribed by the whole nation. The
protestation was in itself very inoffensive, even insignificant; and
contained nothing but general declarations, that the subscribers would
defend their religion and liberties.[*] But it tended to increase the
popular panic, and intimated, what was more expressly declared in the
preamble, that these blessings were now exposed to the utmost peril.
Alarms were every day given of new conspiracies.[**] In Lancashire,
great multitudes of Papists were assembling: secret meetings were held
by them in caves and under ground in Surrey: they had entered into
a plot to blow up the river with gunpowder, in order to drown the
city:[***] provisions of arms were making beyond sea: sometimes France,
sometimes Denmark, was forming designs against the kingdom; and the
populace, who are always terrified with present, and enraged with
distant dangers, were still further animated in their demands of justice
against the unfortunate Strafford.
The king came to the house of lords: and though he expressed his
resolution, for which he offered them any security, never again to
employ Strafford in any branch of public business, he professed himself
totally dissatisfied with regard to the circumstance of treason, and on
that account declared his difficulty in giving his assent to the bill
of attainder.[****] The commons took fire, and voted it a breach of
privilege for the king to take notice of any bill depending before the
houses, Charles did not perceive that his attachment to Strafford was
the chief motive for the bill; and that the greater proofs he gave of
anxious concern for this minister, the more inevitable did he render his
destruction.
About eighty peers had constantly attended Strafford's trial; but such
apprehensions were entertained on account of the popular tumults, that
only forty-five were present when the bill of attainder was brought into
the house. Yet of these nineteen had the courage to vote against it;[v]
a certain proof that if entire freedom had been allowed, the bill had
been rejected by a great majority.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 252. Rush. vol. v. p. 241. Warwick,
p. 180.
** Dugdale, p. 69. Franklyn, p. 901.
*** Sir Edward Walker p. 349.
**** Rush. vol. v. p. 239.
v Whitlocke, p. 43.
In carrying up the bill to the lords, St. John, the solicitor-general,
advanced two topics well suited to the fury of the times; that though
the testimony against Strafford were not clear, yet, in this way of
bill, private satisfaction to each man's conscience was sufficient, even
should no evidence at all be produced; and that the earl had no title to
plead law, because he had broken the law. It is true, added he, we give
law to hares and deer, for they are beasts of chase: but it was never
accounted either cruel or unfair to destroy foxes or wolves wherever
they can be found, for they are beasts of prey.[*]
After popular violence had prevailed over the lords, the same battery
was next applied to force the king's assent. The populace flocked about
Whitehall, and accompanied their demand of justice with the loudest
clamors and most open menaces. Rumors of conspiracies against the
parliament were anew spread abroad; invasions and insurrections talked
of; and the whole nation was raised into such a ferment, as threatened
some great and imminent convulsion. On whichever side the king cast his
eyes, he saw no resource or security. All his servants, consulting their
own safety, rather than their master's honor, declined interposing with
their advice between him and his parliament. The queen, terrified with
the appearance of so mighty a danger, and bearing formerly no good will
to Strafford, was in tears, and pressed him to satisfy his people in
this demand, which, it was hoped, would finally content them. Juxon,
alone, whose courage was not inferior to his other virtues, ventured to
advise him, if in his conscience he did not approve of the bill, by no
means to assent to it.[**]
Strafford, hearing of Charles's irresolution and anxiety, took a very
extraordinary step: he wrote a letter, in which he entreated the king,
for the sake of public peace, to put an end to his unfortunate, however
innocent life, and to quiet the tumultuous people by granting them the
request for which they were so importunate.[***]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 232.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 257. Warwick, p. 160.
*** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 258. Rush. vol. v. p. 251.
"In this," added he, "my consent will more acquit you to God than all
the world can do besides. To a willing man there is no injury. And as,
by God's grace, I forgive all the world, with a calmness and meekness of
infinite contentment to my dislodging soul, so, sir, to you I can resign
the life of this world with all imaginable cheerfulness, in the just
acknowledgment of your exceeding favors." Perhaps Strafford hoped, that
this unusual instance of generosity would engage the king still more
strenuously to protect him: perhaps he gave his life for lost; and
finding himself in the hands of his enemies, and observing that Balfour,
the lieutenant of the Tower, was devoted to the popular party,[*] he
absolutely despaired of ever escaping the multiplied dangers with which
he was every way environed. We might ascribe this step to a noble effort
of disinterestedness, not unworthy the great mind of Strafford, if the
measure which he advised had not been, in the event, as pernicious to
his master, as it was immediately fatal to himself.[**] [6]
* Whitlocke, p. 44. Franklyn, p. 896.
** See note F, at the end of the volume.
After the most violent anxiety and doubt, Charles at last granted a
commission to four noblemen to give the royal assent in his name to the
bill; flattering himself probably, in this extremity of distress, that
as neither his will consented to the deed, nor was his hand immediately
engaged in it, he was the more free from all the guilt which attended
it. These commissioners he empowered, at the same time, to give his
assent to the bill which rendered the parliament perpetual.
The commons, from policy rather than necessity, had embraced the
expedient of paying the two armies by borrowing money from the city; and
these loans they had repaid afterwards by taxes levied upon the people.
The citizens, either of themselves or by suggestion, began to start
difficulties with regard to a further loan, which was demanded. We make
no scruple of trusting the parliament, said they, were we certain that
the parliament were to continue till our repayment. But in the present
precarious situation of affairs, what security can be given us for our
money? In pretence of obviating this objection, a bill was suddenly
brought into the house, and passed with great unanimity and rapidity,
that the parliament should not be dissolved, prorogued, or adjourned,
without their own consent. It was hurried in like manner through the
house of peers, and was instantly carried to the king for his assent.
Charles, in the agony of grief, shame, and remorse for Strafford's doom,
perceived not that this other bill was of still more fatal consequence
to his authority, and rendered the power of his enemies perpetual, as it
was already uncontrollable.[*] In comparison of the bill of attainder,
by which he deemed himself an accomplice in his friend's murder, this
concession made no figure in his eyes;[**] [7] a circumstance which, if
it lessen our idea of his resolution or penetration serves to prove the
integrity of his heart, and the goodness of his disposition. It is
indeed certain, that strong compunction for his consent to Strafford's
execution attended this unfortunate prince during the remainder of his
life; and even at his own fatal end, the memory of this guilt, with
great sorrow and remorse, recurred upon him. All men were so sensible of
the extreme violence which was done him, that he suffered the less, both
in character and interest, from this unhappy measure; and though he
abandoned his best friend, yet was he still able to preserve, in some
degree, the attachment of all his adherents.
Secretary Carleton was sent by the king to inform Strafford of the
final resolution which necessity had extorted from him. The earl seemed
surprised, and starting up, exclaimed, in the words of Scripture, "Put
not your trust in princes, nor in the sons of men, for in them there is
no salvation."[***] He was soon able, however, to collect his courage;
and he prepared himself to suffer the fatal sentence. Only three days'
interval was allowed him. The king, who made a new effort in his behalf,
and sent by the hands of the young prince a letter addressed to the
peers, in which he entreated them to confer with the commons about a
mitigation of Strafford's sentence, and begged at least for some delay,
was refused in both requests.[****]
Strafford, in passing from his apartment to Tower Hill, where the
scaffold was erected, stopped under Laud's windows, with whom he had
long lived in intimate friendship, and entreated the assistance of his
prayers in those awful moments which were approaching. The aged primate
dissolved in tears; and having pronounced, with a broken voice, a
tender blessing on his departing friend, sunk into the arms of his
attendants.[v] Stafford, still superior to his fate, moved on with an
elated countenance, and with an air even of greater dignity than what
usually attended him.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 261, 262. Rush. vol. v. p. 264.
** See note G, at the end of the volume
*** Whitlocke, p. 44.
**** Rush. vol. v. p. 265.
v Nalson, vol. ii. p. 198.
He wanted that consolation which commonly supports those who perish by
the stroke of injustice and oppression: he was not buoyed up by glory,
nor by the affectionate compassion of the spectators; yet his mind,
erect and undaunted, found resources within itself, and maintained its
unbroken resolution amidst the terrors of death, and the triumphant
exultations of his misguided enemies. His discourse on the scaffold was
full of decency and courage. "He feared," he said, "that the omen was
bad for the intended reformation of the state, that it commenced with
the shedding of innocent blood." Having bid a last adieu to his brother
and friends who attended him, and having sent a blessing to his nearer
relations who were absent, "And now," said he, "I have nigh done! One
stroke will make my wife a widow, my dear children fatherless, deprive
my poor servants of their indulgent master, and separate me from my
affectionate brother and all my friends! But let God be to you and them
all in all!" Going to disrobe and prepare himself for the block, "I
thank God," said he, "that I am nowise afraid of death, nor am daunted
with any terrors; but do as cheerfully lay down my head at this time as
ever I did when going to repose!" With one blow was a period put to his
life by the executioner.[*]
Thus perished, in the forty-ninth year of his age, the earl of
Strafford, one of the most eminent personages that has appeared in
England. Though his death was loudly demanded as a satisfaction to
justice, and an atonement for the many violations of the constitution,
it may safely be affirmed, that the sentence by which he fell was an
enormity greater than the worst of those which his implacable enemies
prosecuted with so much cruel industry. The people, in their rage,
had totally mistaken the proper object of their resentment. All the
necessities, or, more properly speaking, the difficulties by which the
king had been induced to use violent expedients for raising supply, were
the result of measures previous to Strafford's favor; and if they arose
from ill conduct, he at least was entirely innocent. Even those
violent expedients themselves, which occasioned the complaint that the
constitution was subverted, had been, all of them, conducted, so far as
appeared, without his counsel or assistance. And whatever his private
advice might be,[**] this salutary maxim he failed not often and
publicly to inculcate in the king's presence, that, if any inevitable
necessity ever obliged the sovereign to violate the laws, this license
ought to be practised with extreme reserve, and, as soon as possible, a
just atonement be made to the constitution for any injury which it might
sustain from such dangerous precedents.[***] The first parliament after
the restoration reversed the bill of attainder; and even a few weeks
after Strafford's execution, this very parliament remitted to his
children the more severe consequences of his sentence; as if conscious
of the violence with which the prosecution had been conducted.
* Rush, vol, v. p. 267.
** That Strafford was secretly no enemy to arbitrary
counsels, appears from some of his letters and despatches,
particularly vol. ii. p. 60, where he seems to wish that a
standing army were established.
*** Rush. vol. iv. p. 567, 568, 569, 570.
In vain did Charles expect, as a return for so many instances of
unbounded compliance, that the parliament would at last show him some
indulgence, and would cordially fall into that unanimity to which, at
the expense of his own power and of his friend's life, he so earnestly
courted them. All his concessions were poisoned by their suspicion of
his want of cordiality; and the supposed attempt to engage the army
against them, served with many as a confirmation of this jealousy. It
was natural for the king to seek some resource, while all the world
seemed to desert him, or combine against him; and this probably was the
utmost of that embryo scheme which was formed with regard to the army.
But the popular leaders still insisted, that a desperate plot was
laid to bring up the forces immediately, and offer violence to the
parliament; a design of which Piercy's evidence acquits the king,
and which the near neighborhood of the Scottish army seems to render
absolutely impracticable.[*] By means, however, of these suspicions, was
the same implacable spirit still kept alive; and the commons, without
giving the king any satisfaction in the settlement of his revenue,
proceeded to carry their inroads with great vigor into his now
defenceless prerogative.[**]
* The project of bringing up the army to London, according
to Piercy, was proposed to the king: but he rejected it as
foolish; because the Scots, who were in arms, and lying in
their neighborhood, must be at London as soon as the English
army. This reason is so solid and convincing, that it leaves
no room to doubt of the veracity of Piercy's evidence; and
consequently acquits the king of this terrible plot of
bringing up the army, which made such a noise at the time,
and was a pretence for so many violences.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 266.
The two ruling passions of this parliament were, zeal for liberty, and
an aversion to the church; and to both of these, nothing could appear
more exceptionable than the court of high commission, whose institution
rendered it entirely arbitrary, and assigned to it the defence of the
ecclesiastical establishment. The star chamber also was a court which
exerted high discretionary powers and had no precise rule or limit,
either with regard to the causes which came under its jurisdiction, or
the decisions which it formed. A bill unanimously passed the houses to
abolish these two courts; and in them to annihilate the principal and
most dangerous articles of the king's prerogative. By the same bill,
the jurisdiction of the council was regulated, and its authority
abridged.[*] Charles hesitated before he gave his assent. But finding
that he had gone too far to retreat, and that he possessed no resource
in case of a rupture, he at last affixed the royal sanction to this
excellent bill. But to show the parliament that he was sufficiently
apprised of the importance of his grant, he observed to them, that this
statute altered in a great measure the fundamental laws, ecclesiastical
and civil, which many of his predecessors had established.[**]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 283, 284. Whitlocke, p. 47. Rush.
vol. iii. p. 1383, 1384.
** Rush. vol. v. p. 30.
By removing the star chamber, the king's power of binding the people by
his proclamations was indirectly abolished; and that important branch of
prerogative, the strong symbol of arbitrary power, and unintelligible
in a limited constitution, being at last removed, left the system of
government more consistent and uniform. The star chamber alone was
accustomed to punish infractions of the king's edicts: but as no courts
of judicature now remained except those in Westminster Hall, which take
cognizance only of common and statute law, the king may thenceforth
issue proclamations, but no man is bound to obey them, It must, however,
be confessed, that the experiment here made by the parliament was not a
little rash and adventurous. No government at that time appeared in the
world, nor is perhaps to be found in the records of any history, which
subsisted without the mixture of some arbitrary authority committed to
some magistrate; and it might reasonably, beforehand, appear doubtful,
whether human society could ever reach that state of perfection, as to
support itself with no other control than the general and rigid maxims
of law and equity. But the parliament justly thought, that the king was
too eminent a magistrate to be trusted with discretionary power, which
he might so easily turn to the destruction of liberty. And in the event,
it has hitherto been found, that, though some sensible inconveniencies
arise from the maxim of adhering strictly to law, yet the advantages
overbalance them, and should render the English grateful to the memory
of their ancestors, who, after repeated contests, at last established
that noble, though dangerous principle.
At the request of the parliament, Charles, instead of the patents during
pleasure, gave all the judges patents during their good behavior;[*] a
circumstance of the greatest moment towards securing their independency,
and barring the entrance of arbitrary power into the ordinary courts of
judicature.
The marshal's court, which took cognizance of offensive, words, and
was not thought sufficiently limited by law, was also for that reason
abolished.[**] The stannary courts, which exercised jurisdiction over
the miners, being liable to a like objection, underwent a like fate. The
abolition of the council of the north and the council of Wales followed
from the same principles. The authority of the clerk of the market, who
had a general inspection over the weights and measures throughout
the kingdom, was transferred to the mayors, sheriffs, and ordinary
magistrates.
* May, p. 107.
** Nalson, vol. i p. 778.
In short, if we take a survey of the transactions of this memorable
parliament during the first period of its operations, we shall find
that, excepting Strafford's attainder, which was a complication of
cruel iniquity, their merits in other respects so much outweigh their
mistakes, as to entitle them to praise, from all lovers of liberty.
Not only were former abuses remedied, and grievances redressed; great
provision for the future was made by law against the return of like
complaints. And if the means by which they obtained such advantages
savor often of artifice, sometimes of violence, it is to be considered,
that revolutions of government cannot be effected by the mere force of
argument and reasoning; and that factions being once excited, men can
neither so firmly regulate the tempers of others, nor their own, as to
insure themselves against all exorbitances.
The parliament now came to a pause. The king had promised his Scottish
subjects that he would this summer pay them a visit, in order to settle
their government; and though the English parliament was very importunate
with him, that he should lay aside that journey, they could not prevail
with him so much as to delay it. As he must necessarily, in his journey,
have passed through the troops of both nations, the commons seem to have
entertained great jealousy on that account, and to have now hurried
on, as much as they formerly delayed, the disbanding of the armies. The
arrears, therefore, of the Scots were fully paid them; and those of the
English in part. The Scots returned home, and the English were separated
into their several counties, and dismissed.
After this, the parliament adjourned to the twentieth of October; and
a committee of both houses--a thing unprecedented--was appointed to sit
during the recess, with very ample powers.[*] Pym was elected chairman
of the committee of the lower house. Further attempts were made by the
parliament while it sat, and even by the commons alone for assuming
sovereign executive powers, and publishing their ordinances, as they
called them, instead of laws. The committee too, on their part, was
ready to imitate the example.
A small committee of both houses was appointed to attend the king
into Scotland, in order, as was pretended, to see that the articles of
pacification were executed; but really to be spies upon him, and extend
still further the ideas of parliamentary authority, as well as eclipse
the majesty of the king. The earl of Bedford, Lord Howard, Sir Philip
Stapleton, Sir William Armyne, Fiennes, and Hambden, were the persons
chosen.[**]
* Rush. vol. v. p. 387.
** Rush. vol. v. p. 376
Endeavors were used, before Charles's departure, to have a protector of
the kingdom appointed, with a power to pass laws without having recourse
to the king: so little regard was now paid to royal authority, or to the
established constitution of the kingdom.
Amidst the great variety of affairs which occurred during this busy
period, we have almost overlooked the marriage of the princess Mary with
William, prince of Orange. The king concluded not this alliance without
communicating his intentions to the parliament, who received the
proposal with satisfaction.[*] This was the commencement of the
connections with the family of Orange; connections which were afterwards
attended with the most important consequences, both to the kingdom and
to the house of Stuart.
* Whitlocke, p. 38.
CHAPTER LV.
CHARLES I.
{1641.} THE Scots, who began these fatal commotions, thought that
they had finished a very perilous undertaking much to their profit and
reputation. Besides the large pay voted them for lying in good quarters
during a twelvemonth, the English parliament had conferred on them
a present of three hundred thousand pounds for their brotherly
assistance.[*] In the articles of pacification, they were declared
to have ever been good subjects; and their military expeditions were
approved of, as enterprises calculated and intended for his majesty's
honor and advantage. To carry further the triumph over their sovereign,
these terms, so ignominious to him, were ordered by a vote of parliament
to be read in all churches, upon a day of thanksgiving appointed for
the national pacification;[**] all their claims for the restriction of
prerogative were agreed to be ratified; and, what they more valued
than all these advantages, they had a near prospect of spreading the
Presbyterian discipline in England and Ireland, from the seeds which
they had scattered of their religious principles. Never did refined
Athens so exult in diffusing the sciences and liberal arts over a savage
world, never did generous Rome so please herself in the view of law and
order established by her victorious arms, as the Scots now rejoiced
in communicating their barbarous zeal and theological fervor to the
neighboring nations.
* Nalson, vol. i. p. 747. May, p. 104.
** Rush. vol. v. p. 365. Clarendon, vol. ii p. 293.
Charles, despoiled in England of a considerable part of his authority,
and dreading still further encroachments upon him, arrived in Scotland,
with an intention of abdicating almost entirely the small share of
power which there remained to him, and of giving full satisfaction, if
possible, to his restless subjects in that kingdom.
The lords of articles were an ancient institution in the Scottish
parliament. They were constituted after this manner: The temporal lords
chose eight bishops: the bishops elected eight temporal lords: these
sixteen named eight commissioners of counties, and eight burgesses, and
without the previous consent of the thirty-two, who were denominated
lords of articles, no motion could be made in parliament. As the bishops
were entirely devoted to the court, it is evident, that all the lords of
articles, by necessary consequence, depended on the king's nomination;
and the prince, besides one negative after the bills had passed through
parliament, possessed indirectly another before their introduction; a
prerogative of much greater consequence than the former. The bench
of bishops being now abolished, the parliament laid hold of the
opportunity, and totally set aside the lords of articles: and till this
important point was obtained, the nation, properly speaking, could not
be said to enjoy any regular freedom.[*]
It is remarkable that, notwithstanding this institution, to which there
is no parallel in England, the royal authority was always deemed much
lower in Scotland than in the former kingdom. Bacon represents it as
one advantage to be expected from the union, that the too extensive
prerogative of England would be abridged by the example of Scotland, and
the too narrow prerogative of Scotland be enlarged from the imitation of
England. The English were at that time a civilized people, and obedient
to the laws; but among the Scots it was of little consequence how the
laws were framed, or by whom voted, while the exorbitant aristocracy had
it so much in their power to prevent their regular execution.
The peers and commons formed only one house in the Scottish parliament:
and as it had been the practice of James, continued by Charles, to
grace English gentlemen with Scottish titles, all the determinations of
parliament, it was to be feared, would in time depend upon the prince,
by means of these votes of foreigners, who had no interest or property
in the nation. It was therefore a law deserving approbation, that no man
should be created a Scotch peer, who possessed not ten thousand marks
(above five hundred pounds) of annual rent in the kingdom.[**]
A law for triennial parliaments was likewise passed; and it was
ordained, that the last act of every parliament should be to appoint the
time and place for holding the parliament next ensuing.[***]
* Burnet, Mem.
** Burnet, Mem.
*** Burnet, Mem.
The king was deprived of that power formerly exercised of issuing
proclamations which enjoined obedience under the penalty of treason;
a prerogative which invested him with the whole legislative authority,
even in matters of the highest importance.[*]
So far was laudable: but the most fatal blow given to royal authority,
and what in a manner dethroned the prince, was the article, that no
member of the privy council, in whose hands during the king's absence
the whole administration lay, no officer of state, none of the judges,
should be appointed but by advice and approbation of parliament. Charles
even agreed to deprive of their seats four judges who had adhered to his
interests; and their place was supplied by others more agreeable to the
ruling party. Several of the Covenanters were also sworn of the privy
council. And all the ministers of state, counsellors, and judges, were
by law to hold their places during life or good behavior.[**]
The king while in Scotland conformed himself entirely to the established
church, and assisted with great gravity at the long prayers and longer
sermons with which the Presbyterians endeavored to regale him. He
bestowed pensions and preferments on Henderson, Gillespy, and other
popular preachers, and practised every art to soften, if not to gain,
his greatest enemies. The earl of Argyle was created a marquis,
Lord Loudon an earl, Lesley was dignified with the title of earl of
Leven.[***] His friends he was obliged for the present to neglect
and overlook: some of them were disgusted; and his enemies were not
reconciled, but ascribed all his caresses and favors to artifice and
necessity.
* Burnet, Mem.
** Burnet, Mem.
*** Clarendon, vol. ii p. 309.
Argyle and Hamilton, being seized with an apprehension, real or
pretended, that the earl of Crawfurd and others meant to assassinate
them, left the parliament suddenly, and retired into the country; but
upon invitation and assurances, returned in a few days. This event,
which had neither cause nor effect that was visible, nor purpose, nor
consequence, was commonly denominated the incident. But though the
incident had no effect In Scotland; what was not expected, it was
attended with consequences in England. The English parliament, which
was now assembled, being willing to awaken the people's tenderness
by exciting their fears, immediately took the alarm; as if the
malignants--so they called the king's party--had had laid a plot at
once to murder them and all the godly in both kingdoms. They applied
therefore to Essex, whom the king had left general in the south of
England; and he ordered a guard to attend them.[*]
But while the king was employed in pacifying the commotions in Scotland,
and was preparing to return to England, in order to apply himself to
the same salutary work in that kingdom, he received intelligence of a
dangerous rebellion broken but in Ireland, with circumstances of
the utmost horror, bloodshed, and devastation. On every side this
unfortunate prince was pursued with murmurs, discontent, faction, and
civil wars, and the fire from all quarters, even by the most independent
accidents, at once blazed up about him.
The great plan of James in the administration of Ireland, continued by
Charles, was, by justice and peace to reconcile that turbulent people to
the authority of laws; and, introducing art and industry among them,
to cure them of that sloth and barbarism to which they had ever been
subject. In order to serve both these purposes, and at the same time
secure the dominion of Ireland to the English crown, great colonies of
British had been carried over, and, being intermixed with the Irish, had
every where introduced a new face of things into that country. During a
peace of near forty years, the inveterate quarrels between the nations
seemed, in a great measure, to be obliterated; and though much of the
landed property forfeited by rebellion had been conferred on the new
planters, a more than equal return had been made, by their instructing
the natives in tillage, building, manufactures, and all the civilized
arts of life.[**] This had been the course of things during the
successive administrations of Chichester, Grandison, Falkland, and,
above all, of Strafford. Under the government of this latter nobleman,
the pacific plans, now come to great maturity, and forwarded by his
vigor and industry, seemed to have operated with full success, and to
have bestowed at last on that savage country the face of a European
settlement.
* Whitlocke, p. 40. Dugdale, p. 72. Burnet's Memoirs of the
House of Hamilton, p. 184, 185. Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 299.
** Sir John Temple's Irish Rebellion, p. 12.
After Strafford fell a victim to popular rage, the humors excited
in Ireland by that great event could not suddenly be composed, but
continued to produce the greatest innovations in the government.
The British Protestants transplanted into Ireland, having every moment
before their eyes all the horrors of Popery, had naturally been carried
into the opposite extreme, and had universally adopted the highest
principles and practices of the Puritans. Monarchy, as well as the
hierarchy, was become odious to them; and every method of limiting
the authority of the crown, and detaching themselves from the king of
England, was greedily adopted and pursued. They considered not, that
as they scarcely formed the sixth part of the people, and were secretly
obnoxious to the ancient inhabitants, their only method of supporting
themselves was by maintaining royal authority, and preserving a great
dependence on their mother country. The English commons, likewise, in
their furious persecution of Strafford, had overlooked the most
obvious consequences; and, while they imputed to him as a crime every
discretionary act of authority, they despoiled all succeeding governors
of that power by which alone the Irish could be retained in subjection.
And so strong was the current for popular government in all the three
kingdoms, that the most established maxims of policy were every where
abandoned, in order to gratify this ruling passion.
Charles, unable to resist, had been obliged to yield to the Irish, as
to the Scottish and English parliaments; and found, too, that their
encroachments still rose in proportion to his concessions. Those
subsidies which themselves had voted, they reduced, by a subsequent
vote, to a fourth part; the court of high commission was determined to
be a grievance; martial law abolished; the jurisdiction of the council
annihilated; proclamations and acts of state declared of no authority;
every order or institution which depended on monarchy was invaded;
and the prince was despoiled of all his prerogative, without the least
pretext of any violence or illegality in his administration.
The standing army of Ireland was usually about three thousand men; but,
in order to assist the king in suppressing the Scottish Covenanters,
Strafford had raised eight thousand more, and had incorporated with
them a thousand men drawn from the old army; a necessary expedient for
bestowing older and discipline on the new-levied soldiers. The private
men in this army were all Catholics; but the officers, both commission
and non-commission, were Protestants, and could entirely be depended on
by Charles. The English commons entertained the greatest apprehensions
on account of this army, and never ceased soliciting the king till he
agreed to break it. Nor they consent to any proposal for augmenting
the standing army to five thousand men; a number which the king deemed
necessary for retaining Ireland in obedience.
Charles, thinking it dangerous that eight thousand men accustomed to
idleness, and trained to the use of arms, should be dispersed among a
nation so turbulent and unsettled, agreed with the Spanish ambassador
to have them transported into Flanders, and enlisted in his master's
service. The English commons, pretending apprehensions, lest regular
bodies of troops, disciplined in the Low Countries, should prove still
more dangerous, showed some aversion to this expedient; and the king
reduced his allowance to four thousand men. But when the Spaniards had
hired ships for transporting these troops, and the men were ready to
embark, the commons, willing to show their power, and not displeased
with an opportunity of curbing and affronting the king, prohibited
every one from furnishing vessels for that service. And thus the
project formed by Charles, of freeing the country from these men was
unfortunately disappointed.[*]
The old Irish remarked all these false steps of the English, and
resolved to take advantage of them. Though their animosity against
that nation, for want of an occasion to exert itself, seemed to be
extinguished, it was only composed into a temporary and deceitful
tranquillity.[**] Their interests, both with regard to property and
religion, secretly stimulated them to a revolt. No individual of
any sept, according to the ancient customs, had the property of
any particular estate; but as the whole sept had a title to a whole
territory, they ignorantly preferred this barbarous community before the
more secure and narrower possessions assigned them by the English. An
indulgence, amounting almost to a toleration, had been given to the
Catholic religion: but so long as the churches and the ecclesiastical
revenues were kept from the priests, and they were obliged to endure the
neighborhood of profane heretics, being themselves discontented, they
continually endeavored to retard any cordial reconciliation between the
English and the Irish nations.
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 281. Rush. vol. v. p, 381. Dugdale,
p. 78 May, book ii. p. 3.
** Temple, p. 14
There was a gentleman called Roger More, who, though of a narrow
fortune, was descended from an ancient Irish family and was much
celebrated among his countrymen for valor and capacity. This man
first formed the project of expelling the English, and asserting the
independency of his native country.[*]
* Nalson, vol. iii. p. 543.
He secretly went from chieftain to chieftain, and roused up every latent
principle of discontent. He maintained a close correspondence with Lord
Maguire and Sir Phelim O'Neale, the most powerful of the old Irish.
By conversation, by letters, by his emissaries, he represented to his
countrymen the motives of a revolt. He observed to them, that, by
the rebellion of the Scots, and factions of the English, the king's
authority in Britain was reduced to so low a condition, that he never
could exert himself with any vigor in maintaining the English dominion
over Ireland: that the Catholics in the Irish house of commons, assisted
by the Protestants, had so diminished the royal prerogative and the
power of the lieutenant, as would much facilitate the conducting to its
desired effect any conspiracy or combination which could be formed: that
the Scots, having so successfully thrown off dependence on the crown
of England, and assumed the government into their own hands, had set an
example to the Irish, who had so much greater oppressions to complain
of: that the English planters, who had expelled them their possessions,
suppressed their religion, and bereaved them of their liberties were
but a handful in comparison of the natives: that they lived in the most
supine security, interspersed with their numerous enemies, trusting
to the protection of a small army, which was itself scattered in
inconsiderable divisions through out the whole kingdom: that a great
body of men, disciplined by the government, were now thrown loose,
and were ready for any daring or desperate enterprise: that though the
Catholics had hitherto enjoyed, in some tolerable measure, the exercise
of their religion, from the moderation of their indulgent prince, they
must henceforth expect that the government will be conducted by other
maxims and other principles: that the Puritanical parliament, having
at length subdued their sovereign, would no doubt, as soon as they had
consolidated their authority, extend their ambitious enterprises to
Ireland, and make the Catholics in that kingdom feel the same furious
persecution, to which their brethren in England were at present exposed:
and that a revolt in the Irish, tending only to vindicate their native
liberty against the violence of foreign invaders, could never at any
time be deemed rebellion, much less during the present confusions, when
their prince was in a manner a prisoner, and obedience must be paid,
not to him, but to those who had traitorously usurped his lawful
authority.[*]
By these considerations, More engaged all the heads of the native Irish
into the conspiracy. The English of the pale, as they were called,
or the old English planters, being all Catholics, it was hoped would
afterwards join the party which restored their religion to its ancient
splendor and authority. The intention was, that Sir Phelim O'Neale
and the other conspirators should begin an insurrection on one day
throughout the provinces, and should attack all the English settlements;
and that, on the same day, Lord Maguire and Roger More should surprise
the Castle of Dublin. The commencement of the revolt was fixed on the
approach of winter, that there might be more difficulty in transporting
forces from England. Succors to themselves and supplies of arms they
expected from France, in consequence of a promise made them by Cardinal
Richelieu. And many Irish officers, who served in the Spanish troops,
had engaged to join them, as soon as they saw an insurrection entered
upon by their Catholic brethren. News, which every day arrived from
England, of the fury expressed by the commons against all Papists,
struck fresh terror into the Irish nation, and both stimulated the
conspirators to execute their fatal purpose, and gave them assured hopes
of the concurrence of all their country men.[**]
Such propensity to a revolt was discovered in all the Irish, that it was
deemed unnecessary, as it was dangerous to intrust the secret to many
hands; and the appointed day drew nigh, nor had any discovery been yet
made to the government. The king, indeed, had received information from
his ambassadors, that something was in agitation among the Irish in
foreign parts; but though he gave warning to the administration in
Ireland, the intelligence was entirely neglected.[***]
* Temple, p. 72, 73, 78. Dugdale, p. 73.
** Dugdale, p. 74.
*** Bush vol. v. p. 408. Nalson, vol ii. p. 565.
Secret rumors likewise were heard of some approaching conspiracy; but
no attention was paid to them. The earl of Leicester, whom the king had
appointed lieutenant, remained in London, The two justices, Sir William
Parsons and Sir John Borlace, were men of small abilities; and, by an
inconvenience common to all factious times, owed their advancement
to nothing but their zeal for the party by whom every thing was now
governed. Tranquil from their ignorance and inexperience, these men
indulged themselves in the most profound repose, on the very brink of
destruction.
But they were awakened from their security on the very day before that
which was appointed for the commencement of hostilities. The Castle
of Dublin, by which the capital was commanded, contained arms for ten
thousand men, with thirty-five pieces of cannon, and a proportionable
quantity of ammunition; yet was this important place guarded, and that
too without any care, by no greater force than fifty men. Maguire and
More were already in town with a numerous band of their partisans;
others were expected that night and next morning they were to enter upon
what they esteemed the easiest of all enterprises, the surprisal of
the castle. O'Conolly, an Irishman, but a Protestant, betrayed the
conspiracy to Parsons.[*] The justices and council fled immediately
for safety into the castle, and reenforced the guards. The alarm was
conveyed to the city, and all the Protestants prepared for defence. More
escaped; Maguire was taken; and Mahone, one of the conspirators, being
likewise seized, first discovered to the justices the project of a
general insurrection, and redoubled the apprehensions which already were
universally diffused throughout Dublin.[**]
But though O'Conolly's discovery saved the castle from a surprise, the
confession extorted from Mahone came too late to prevent the intended
insurrection. O'Neale and his Confederates had already taken arms in
Ulster. The Irish, every where intermingled with the English, needed
but a hint from their leaders and priests to begin hostilities against
a people whom they hated on account of their religion, and envied for
their riches and prosperity.[***]
* Rush, vol. v. p. 399. Nalson, vol. ii. p. 520. May, book
ii p. 6
** Temple p 17, 18, 19, 20. Rush. vol. v p. 400.
*** Ten ple, p. 39, 40, 79.
The houses, cattle, goods, of the unwary English were first seized.
Those who heard of the commotions in their neighborhood, instead of
deserting their habitations, and assembling for mutual protection,
remained at home in hopes of defending their property, and fell thus
separately into the hands of their enemies.[*] After rapacity had
fully exerted itself, cruelty, and the most barbarous that ever in any
nation was known or heard of, began its operations. A universal massacre
commenced of the English, now defenceless, and passively resigned to
their inhuman foes. No age, no sex, no condition was spared. The wife
weeping for her butchered husband, and embracing her helpless children,
was pierced with them, and perished by the same stroke.[**] The old,
the young, the vigorous, the infirm, underwent a like fate, and were
confounded in one common ruin. In vain did flight save from the first
assault: destruction was every where let loose, and met the hunted
victims at every turn. In vain was recourse had to relations, to
companions, to friends: all connections were dissolved, and death was
dealt by that hand from which protection was implored and expected.
Without provocation, without opposition, the astonished English, living
in profound peace and full security were massacred by their nearest
neighbors, with whom they had long upheld a continued intercourse of
kindness and good offices.[***]
But death was the lightest punishment inflicted by those rebels. All the
tortures which wanton cruelty could devise all the lingering pains of
body, the anguish of mind, the agonies of despair, could not satiate
revenge excited without injury, and cruelty derived from no cause. To
enter into particulars would shock the least delicate humanity. Such
enormities, though attested by undoubted evidence, appear almost
incredible. Depraved nature, even perverted religion encouraged by the
utmost license, reach not to such a pitch of ferocity, unless the pity
inherent in human breasts be destroyed by that contagion of example
which transports men beyond all the usual motives of conduct and
behavior.
The weaker sex themselves, naturally tender to their own sufferings,
and compassionate to those of others, here emulated their more robust
companions in the practice of every cruelty.[****] Even children, taught
by the example and encouraged by the exhortation of their parents,
essayed their feeble blows on the dead carcasses or defenceless children
of the English.[v]
* Temple, p. 42.
** Temple, p. 40.
*** Temple, p. 39, 40
**** Temple, p. 96, 101. Rush. vol. v. p. 415.
v Temple, p. 100
The very avarice of the Irish was not a sufficient restraint to their
cruelty. Such was their frenzy, that the cattle which they had seized,
and by rapine made their own, yet, because they bore the name of
English, were wantonly slaughtered, or, when covered with wounds, turned
loose into the woods or deserts.[*]
The stately buildings or commodious habitations of the planters, as if
upbraiding the sloth and ignorance of the natives, were consumed with
fire, or laid level with the ground. And where the miserable owners,
shut up in their houses, and preparing for defence, perished in the
flames, together with their wives and children, a double triumph was
afforded to their insulting foes.[**]
If any where a number assembled together, and, assuming courage from
despair, were resolved to sweeten death by revenge on their assassins,
they were disarmed by capitulations and promises of safety, confirmed
by the most solemn oaths. But no sooner had they surrendered, than the
rebels, with perfidy equal to their cruelty, made them share the fate of
their unhappy countrymen.[***]
Others, more ingenious still in their barbarity, tempted their
prisoners, by the fond love of life, to imbrue their hands in the blood
of friends, brothers, parents; and having thus rendered them accomplices
in guilt, gave them that death which they sought to shun by deserving
it.[****]
Amidst all these enormities, the sacred name of religion resounded on
every side; not to stop the hands of these murderers, but to enforce
their blows, and to steel their hearts against every movement of human
or social sympathy. The English, as heretics, abhorred of God and
detestable to all holy men, were marked out by the priests for
slaughter; and of all actions, to rid the world of these declared
enemies to Catholic faith and piety, was represented as the most
meritorious.[v] Nature, which in that rude people was sufficiently
inclined to atrocious deeds, was further stimulated by precept: and
national prejudices empoisoned by those aversions, more deadly and
incurable, which arose from an enraged superstition. While death
finished the sufferings of each victim, the bigoted assassins, with joy
and exultation, still echoed in his expiring ears, that these agonies
were but the commencement of torments infinite and eternal.[v*]
* Temple, p. 84.
** Temple, p. 99, 106. Rash. vol. v. p. 414
*** Whitlocke, p. 47. Rush. vol. v. p. 416.
**** Temple, p 100.
v Temple, p. 85, 106.
v* Temple, p 94, 107, 108. Rush. vol. v. p. 407.
Such were the barbarities by which Sir Phelim O'Neale and the Irish in
Ulster signalized their rebellion; an event memorable in the annals
of human kind, and worthy to be held in perpetual detestation and
abhorrence. The generous nature of More was shocked at the recital of
such enormous cruelties. He flew to O'Neale's camp; but found that his
authority, which was sufficient to excite the Irish to an insurrection,
was too feeble to restrain their inhumanity. Soon after, he abandoned
a cause polluted by so many crimes; and he retired into Flanders. Sir
Phelim, recommended by the greatness of his family, and perhaps too by
the unrestrained brutality of his nature, though without any courage or
capacity, acquired the entire ascendent over the northern rebels.[*] The
English colonies were totally annihilated in the open country of Ulster:
the Scots at first met with more favorable treatment. In order to engage
them to a passive neutrality, the Irish pretended to distinguish between
the British nations; and, claiming friendship and consanguinity with the
Scots, extended not over them the fury of their massacres. Many of them
found an opportunity to fly the country; others retired into places of
security, and prepared themselves for defence; and by this means the
Scottish planters, most of them at least, escaped with their lives.[**]
From Ulster the flames of rebellion diffused themselves in an instant
over the other three provinces of Ireland. In all places, death and
slaughter were not uncommon; though the Irish in these other provinces
pretended to act with moderation and humanity. But cruel and barbarous
was their humanity! Not content with expelling the English their
houses, with despoiling them of their goodly manors, with wasting their
cultivated fields, they stripped them of their very clothes, and
turned them out, naked and defenceless, to all the severities of the
season.[***] The heavens themselves, as if conspiring against that
unhappy people, were armed with cold and tempest unusual to the climate,
and executed what the merciless sword had left unfinished.[****] The
roads were covered with crowds of naked English, hastening towards
Dublin and the other cities which yet remained in the hands of their
countrymen. The feeble age of children, the tender sex of women, soon
sunk under the multiplied rigors of cold and hunger.
* Temple, p. 44.
** Temple, p. 41 Rush, i. p. 416.
*** Temple, p. 42.
**** Temple, p. 64
Here the husband, bidding a final adieu to his expiring family, envied
them that fate which, he himself expected so soon to share: there the
son, having long supported his aged parent, with reluctance obeyed his
last commands, and, abandoning him in this uttermost distress, reserved
himself to the hopes of avenging that death which all his efforts
could not prevent nor delay. The astonishing greatness of the calamity
deprived the sufferers of any relief from the view of companions in
affliction. With silent tears, or lamentable cries, they hurried on
through the hostile territories, and found every heart which was not
steeled by native barbarity, guarded by the more implacable furies of
mistaken piety and religion.[*]
The saving of Dublin preserved in Ireland the remains of the English
name. The gates of that city, though timorously opened, received the
wretched supplicants, and presented to the view a scene of human misery
beyond what any eye had ever before beheld.[**] Compassion seized the
amazed inhabitants, aggravated with the fear of like calamities; while
they observed the numerous foes, without and within, which every where
environed them, and reflected on the weak resources by which they were
themselves supported. The more vigorous of the unhappy fugitives, to the
number of three thousand, were enlisted into three regiments; the rest
were distributed into the houses; and all care was taken, by diet and
warmth, to recruit their feeble and torpid limbs. Diseases of unknown
name and species, derived from these multiplied distresses, seized many
of them, and put a speedy period to their lives: others, having now
leisure to reflect on their mighty loss of friends and fortune, cursed
that being which they had saved. Abandoning themselves to despair,
refusing all succor, they expired; without other consolation than that
of receiving among their countrymen the honors of a grave, which,
to their slaughtered companions, had been denied by the inhuman
barbarians.[***]
* Temple, p. 88.
** Temple, p. 62.
**** Temple, p. 43, 62.
By some computations, those who perished by all these cruelties are
supposed to be a hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand: by the most
moderate, and probably the most reasonable account, they are made to
amount to forty thousand; if this estimation itself be not, as is usual
in such cases, somewhat exaggerated.
The justices ordered to Dublin all the bodies of the army which were
not surrounded by the rebels; and they assembled a force of one thousand
five hundred veterans. They soon enlisted and armed from the magazines
above four thousand men more. They despatched a body of six hundred men
to throw relief into Tredah, besieged by the Irish. But these troops,
attacked by the enemy, were seized with a panic, and were most of them
put to the sword. Their arms, falling into the hands of the Irish,
supplied them with what they most wanted.[*] The justices, willing
to foment the rebel lion in a view of profiting by the multiplied
forfeitures, henceforth thought of nothing more than providing for their
own present security and that of the capital. The earl of Ormond, their
general, remonstrated against such timid, not to say base and interested
counsels; but was obliged to submit to authority.
The English of the pale, who probably were not at first in the secret,
pretended to blame the insurrection, and to detest the barbarity with
which it was accompanied.[**] By their protestations and declarations,
they engaged the justices to supply them with arms, which they promised
to employ in defence of the government.[***] But in a little time, the
interests of religion were found more prevalent over them than regard
and duty to their mother country. They chose Lord Gormanstone their
leader; and, joining the old Irish, rivalled them in every act of
violence towards the English Protestants. Besides many smaller bodies
dispersed over the kingdom, the principal army of the rebels amounted
to twenty thousand men, and threatened Dublin with an immediate
siege.[****]
Both the English and Irish rebels conspired in one imposture, with which
they seduced many of their deluded countrymen: they pretended authority
from the king and queen, but chiefly from the latter, for their
insurrection; and they affirmed, that the cause of their taking arms
was to vindicate royal prerogative, now invaded by the Puritanical
parliament.[v] Sir Phelim O'Neale, having found a royal patent in Lord
Caulfield's house, whom he had murdered, tore off the seal, and affixed
it to a commission which he had forged for himself.[v*]
* Nalson, vol. ii. p. 905.
** Temple, p. 33. Rush. vol. v. p. 402.
*** Temple, p. 60. Borlase, Hist. p. 28.
**** Whitlocke, p. 49.
v Rush. vol. v. p. 400, 401.
v* Rush. vol. v. p. 402.
The king received an account of this insurrection by a messenger
despatched from the north of Ireland. He immediately communicated his
intelligence to the Scottish parliament. He expected that the mighty
zeal expressed by the Scots for the Protestant religion, would
immediately engage them to fly to its defence where it was so violently
invaded; he hoped that their horror against Popery, a religion which now
appeared in its most horrible aspect, would second all his exhortations:
he had observed with what alacrity they had twice run to arms, and
assembled troops in opposition to the rights of their sovereign: he saw
with how much greater facility they could now collect forces which
had been very lately disbanded, and which had been so long inured
to military discipline. The cries of their affrighted and distressed
brethren in Ireland, he promised himself, would powerfully incite them
to send over succors, which could arrive so quickly, and aid them with
such promptitude in this uttermost distress. But the zeal of the Scots,
as is usual among religious sects, was very feeble when not stimulated
either by faction or by interest. They now considered themselves
entirely as a republic, and made no account of the authority of their
prince, which they had utterly annihilated. Conceiving hopes from the
present distresses of Ireland, they resolved to make an advantageous
bargain for the succors with which they should supply their neighboring
nation. And they cast their eye towards the English parliament, with
whom they were already so closely connected, and who could alone fulfil
any articles which might be agreed on. Except despatching a small body
to support the Scottish colonies in Ulster, they would therefore go
no further at present than sending commissioners to London in order to
treat with that power to whom the sovereign authority was now in reality
transferred.[*]
* Rush. vol. v. p. 407.
The king, too, sensible of his utter inability to subdue the Irish
rebels, found himself obliged, in this exigency, to have recourse to
the English parliament, and depend on their assistance for supply.
After communicating to them the intelligence which he had received, he
informed them, that the insurrection was not, in his opinion, the result
of any rash enterprise, but of a formed conspiracy against the crown of
England. To their care and wisdom, therefore, he said, he committed the
conduct and prosecution of the war, which, in a cause so important
to national and religious interests, must of necessity be immediately
entered upon, and vigorously pursued.[*]
* Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 301.
The English parliament was now assembled, and discovered in every vote
the same dispositions in which they had separated. The exalting of their
own authority, the diminishing of the king's, were still the objects
pursued by the majority. Every attempt which had been made to gain the
popular leaders, and by offices to attach them to the crown, had failed
of success, either for want of skill in conducting it, or by reason of
the slender preferments which it was then in the king's power to confer.
The ambitious and enterprising patriots disdained to accept, in detail,
of a precarious power, while they deemed it so easy, by one bold
and vigorous assault, to possess themselves forever of the entire
sovereignty. Sensible that the measures which they had hitherto pursued
rendered them extremely obnoxious to the king; were many of them in
themselves exceptionable; some of them, strictly speaking, illegal; they
resolved to seek their own security, as well as greatness, by enlarging
popular authority in England. The great necessities to which the king
was reduced; the violent prejudices which generally, throughout the
nation, prevailed against him; his facility in making the most important
concessions; the example of the Scots, whose encroachments had totally
subverted monarchy; all these circumstances further instigated the
commons in their invasion of royal prerogative. And the danger to which
the constitution seemed to have been so lately exposed, persuaded many
that it never could be sufficiently secured, but by the entire abolition
of that authority which had invaded it.
But this project it had not been in the power, scarcely in the intention
of the popular leaders to execute, had it not been for the passion
which seized the nation for Presbyterian discipline, and for the wild
enthusiasm which at that time accompanied it. The license which the
parliament had bestowed on this spirit, by checking ecclesiastical
authority; the countenance and encouragement with which they had honored
it; had already diffused its influence to a wonderful degree; and
all orders of men had drunk deep of the intoxicating poison. In every
discourse or conversation this mode of religion entered; in all
business it had a share; every elegant pleasure or amusement it utterly
annihilated; many vices or corruptions of mind it promoted: even
diseases and bodily distempers were not totally exempted from it; and
it became requisite, we are told, for all physicians to be expert in the
spiritual profession, and by theological considerations to allay those
religious terrors with which their patients were so generally haunted.
Learning itself, which tends so much to enlarge the mind and humanize
the temper, rather served on this occasion to exalt that epidemical
frenzy which prevailed. Rude as yet, and imperfect, it supplied the
dismal fanaticism with a variety of views, founded it on some coherency
of system, enriched it with different figures of elocution; advantages
with which a people totally ignorant and barbarous had been happily
unacquainted.
From policy, at first, and inclination, now from necessity the king
attached himself extremely to the hierarchy: for like reasons, his
enemies were determined, by one and the same effort, to overpower the
church and monarchy.
While the commons were in this disposition, the Irish rebellion was the
event which tended most to promote the views in which all their measures
terminated. A horror against the Papists, however innocent, they had
constantly encouraged, a terror from the conspiracies of that sect,
however improbable, they had at all times endeavored to excite. Here
was broken out a rebellion, dreadful and unexpected; accompanied with
circumstances the most detestable of which there ever was any record;
and what was the peculiar guilt of the Irish Catholics, it was no
difficult matter, in the present disposition of men's minds, to
attribute to that whole sect, who were already so much the object of
general abhorrence. Accustomed in all invectives to join the
prelatical party with the Papists, the people immediately supposed this
insurrection to be the result of their united counsels. And when they
heard that the Irish rebels pleaded the king's commission for all
their acts of violence, bigotry, ever credulous and malignant, assented
without scruple to that gross imposture, and loaded the unhappy prince
with the whole enormity of a contrivance so barbarous and inhuman.[*]
[8]
* See note H. at the end of the volume
By the difficulties and distresses of the crown, the commons, who
possessed alone the power of supply, had aggrandized themselves; and it
seemed a peculiar happiness, that the Irish rebellion had succeeded at
so critical a juncture to the pacification of Scotland. That expression
of the king's, by which he committed to them the care of Ireland, they
immediately laid hold of, and interpreted in the most, unlimited sense.
They had on other occasions been gradually encroaching on the executive
power of the crown, which forms its principal and most natural branch
of authority; but with regard to Ireland, they at once assumed it,
fully and entirely, as if delivered over to them by a regular gift or
assignment. And to this usurpation the king was obliged passively to
submit; both because of his inability to resist, and lest he should
still more expose himself to the reproach of favoring the progress of
that odious rebellion.
The project of introducing further innovations in England being
once formed by the leaders among the commons, it became a necessary
consequence, that their operations with regard to Ireland should, all of
them, be considered as subordinate to the former, on whose success,
when once undertaken, their own grandeur, security, and even being, must
entirely depend. While they pretended the utmost zeal against the Irish
insurrection, they took no steps towards its suppression, but such as
likewise tended to give them the superiority in those commotions which,
they foresaw, must so soon be excited in England.[*]
* Clarendon, vol. ii. p, 435. Sir Ed. Walker p 6.< |
