46) in favour of Usher"s scheme, that each county should be a diocese, and that there should be a governing college or presbytery, consisting of twelve, under the presidency of a bishop: Sir E. Dering spoke in favour of this, though his own bill went much farther. Nalson, ii.

294; Neal, 703. I cannot find the vote in the journals; it pa.s.sed, therefore, I suppose, in the committee, and was not reported to the house.

[197] _Parl. Hist._ 774, 794, 817, 910, 1087. The Lords had previously come to resolutions, that bishops should sit in the House of Lords, but not in the privy council, nor be in any commission of the peace.

_Id._ 814.

The king was very unwilling to give his consent to the bill excluding the bishops from parliament, and was, of course, dissuaded by Hyde from doing so. He was then at Newmarket on his way to the north, and had nothing but war in his head. The queen, however, and Sir John Colepepper, prevailed on him to consent. Clarendon, _History_, ii. 247 (1826); _Life_, 51. The queen could not be expected to have much tenderness for a protestant episcopacy; and it is to be said in favour of Colepepper"s advice, who was pretty indifferent in ecclesiastical matters, that the bishops had rendered themselves odious to many of those who wished well to the royal cause. See the very remarkable conversation of Hyde with Sir Edward Verney, who was killed at the battle of Edgehill, where the latter declares his reluctance to fight for the bishops, whose quarrel he took it to be, though bound by grat.i.tude not to desert the king. Clarendon"s _Life_, p. 68.

This author represents Lord Falkland as having been misled by Hampden to take an unexpected part in favour of the first bill for excluding the bishops from parliament. "The house was so marvellously delighted to see the two inseparable friends divided in so important a point, that they could not contain from a kind of rejoicing; and the more because they saw Mr. Hyde was much surprised with the contradiction, as in truth he was, having never discovered the least inclination in the other towards such a compliance."--i. 413. There is, however, an earlier speech of Falkland in print, against the London pet.i.tion; wherein, while objecting to the abolition of the order, he intimates his willingness to take away their votes in parliament, with all other temporal authority. _Speeches of the Happy Parliament_, p. 188 (published in 1641). Johnstone of Wariston says there were but four or five votes against taking away civil places and seats in parliament from the bishops. Dalrymple"s _Memorials_, ii. 116. But in the journals of the Commons (10th March 1640-1) it is said to be resolved, after a long and mature debate, that the legislative power of bishops is a hindrance to their function.

[198] "The higher house," says Baillie, "have made an order, which was read in the churches, that none presume of their own head to alter any customs established by law: this procured ordinance does not discourage any one."--P. 237. Some rioters, however, who had pulled down rails about the altar, etc., were committed by order of the Lords in June. Nalson, ii. 275.

[199] _Parl. Hist._ 868. By the hands of this zealous knight fell the beautiful crosses at Charing and Cheap, to the lasting regret of all faithful lovers of antiquities and architecture.

[200] _Parl. Hist._ 907; Commons" Journals, Sept. 1, 1641. It was carried at the time on a division by 55 to 37, that the committee "should propound an addition to this order for preventing all contempt and abuse of the book of Common Prayer, and all tumultuous disorders that might arise in the church thereupon." This is a proof that the church party were sometimes victorious in the house. But they did not long retain this casual advantage. For, the Lords having sent down a copy of their order of 16th January above mentioned, requesting the Commons" concurrence, they resolved (Sept. 9) "that the house do not consent to this order; it being thought unreasonable at this time to urge the severe execution of the said laws." They contented themselves with "expecting that the Commons of this realm do, in the meantime, quietly attend the reformation intended, without any tumultuous disturbance of the worship of G.o.d and peace of the realm." _See_ Nalson, ii. 484.

[201] May, p. 75. See this pa.s.sage, which is very judicious. The disunion, however, had in some measure began not long after the meeting of parliament; the court wanted, in December 1640, to have given the treasurer"s staff to Hertford, whose brother was created a peer by the t.i.tle of Lord Seymour. Bedford was the favourite with the Commons for the same office, and would doubtless have been a fitter man at the time, notwithstanding the other"s eminent virtues. _Sidney Letters_, ii. 665, 666. See also what Baillie says of the introduction of seven lords, "all commonwealth"s men," into the council, though, as generally happens, he is soon discontented with some of them. P. 246, 247. There was even some jealousy of Say, as favouring Strafford.

[202] Whitelock, p. 46. Bedford was to have been lord treasurer, with Pym, whom he had brought into parliament for Tavistock, as his chancellor of the exchequer; Hollis secretary of state. Hampden is said, but not perhaps on good authority, to have sought the office of governor to the Prince of Wales; which Hume, not very candidly, brings as a proof of his ambition. It seems probable that, if Charles had at that time (May 1641) carried these plans into execution, and ceased to listen to the queen, or to those persons about his bed-chamber, who were perpetually leading him astray, he would have escaped the exorbitant demands which were afterwards made upon him, and even saved his favourite episcopacy. But, after the death of the Earl of Bedford, who had not been hostile to the church, there was no man of rank in that party whom he liked to trust; Northumberland having acted, as he thought, very ungratefully, Say being a known enemy to episcopacy, and Ess.e.x, though of the highest honour, not being of a capacity to retain much influence over the leaders of the other house. Clarendon insinuates that, even as late as March 1642, the princ.i.p.al patriots, with a few exceptions, would have been content with coming themselves into power under the king, and on this condition would have left his remaining prerogative untouched (ii. 326). But it seems more probable that, after the accusation of the five members, no measure of this kind would have been of any service to Charles.

[203] Commons" Journals, 22nd November. On a second division the same night, whether the remonstrance should be printed, the popular side lost it by 124 to 101. But on 15th December the printing was carried by 135 to 83. Several divisions on important subjects about this time show that the royalist minority was very formidable. But the attendance, especially on that side, seems to have been irregular; and in general, when we consider the immense importance of these debates, we are surprised to find the house so deficient in numbers as many divisions show it to have been. Clarendon frequently complains of the supineness of his party; a fault invariably imputed to their friends by the zealous supporters of established authority, who forget that sluggish, lukewarm, and thoughtless tempers must always exist, and that such will naturally belong to their side. I find in the short pencil notes taken by Sir Ralph Verney, with a copy of which I have been favoured by Mr. Serjeant D"Oyly, the following entry on the 7th of August, before the king"s journey to Scotland: "A remonstrance to be made how we found the kingdom and the church, and how the state of it now stands." This is not adverted to in Nalson, nor in the Journals at this time. But Clarendon says, in a suppressed pa.s.sage (vol. ii.

Append. 591) that "at the beginning of the parliament, or shortly after, when all men were inflamed with the pressures and illegalities which had been exercised upon them, a committee was appointed to prepare a remonstrance of the state of the kingdom, to be presented to his majesty, in which the several grievances might be recited; which committee had never brought any report to the house; most men conceiving, and very reasonably, that the quick and effectual progress his majesty made for the reparation of those grievances, and prevention of the like for the future, had rendered that work needless. But as soon as the intelligence came of his majesty being on his way from Scotland towards London, that committee was, with great earnestness and importunity, called upon to bring in the draft of such remonstrance," etc. I find a slight notice of this origin of the remonstrance in the Journals, Nov. 17, 1640.

In another place, also suppressed in the common editions, Clarendon says: "This debate held many hours, in which the framers and contrivers of the declaration said very little, or answered any reasons that were alleged to the contrary; the only end of pa.s.sing it, which was to incline the people to sedition, being a reason not to be given; but called still for the question, presuming their number, if not their reason, would serve to carry it; and after two in the morning (for so long the debate continued, if that can be called a debate, when those only of one opinion argued), etc., it was put to the question." What a strange memory this author had! I have now before me Sir Ralph Verney"s MS. note of the debate, whence it appears that Pym, Hampden, Hollis, Glyn, and Maynard, spoke in favour of the remonstrance; nay, as far as these brief memoranda go, Hyde himself seems not to have warmly opposed it.

[204] The letters of Sir Edward Nicholas, published as a supplement to Evelyn"s _Diary_, show how generally the apprehensions of popish influence were entertained. It is well for superficial pretenders to lay these on calumny and misrepresentation; but such as have read our historical doc.u.ments, know that the royalists were almost as jealous of the king in this respect as the puritans. See what Nicholas says to the king himself, pp. 22, 25, 29. Indeed he gives several hints to a discerning reader, that he was not satisfied with the soundness of the king"s intentions, especially as to O"Neale"s tampering with the army, p. 77. Nicholas, however, became afterwards a very decided supporter of the royal cause; and in the council at Oxford, just before the treaty of Uxbridge, was the only one who voted according to the king"s wish, not to give the members at Westminster the appellation of a parliament. P. 90.

[205] The king"s speech about Goodman, Baillie tells us, gave great satisfaction to all; "with _much humming_ was it received."--P. 240.

Goodman pet.i.tioned the house that he might be executed, rather than become the occasion of differences between the king and parliament.

This was earlier in time, and at least equal in generosity, to Lord Strafford"s famous letter; or perhaps rather more so, since, though it turned out otherwise, he had greater reason to expect that he should be taken at his word. It is remarkable, that the king says in his answer to the Commons, that no priest had been executed merely for religion, either by his father or Elizabeth, which, though well meant, was quite untrue. _Parl. Hist._ 712; Butler, ii. 5.

[206] See what Clarendon says of the effect produced at Westminster by the Incident, in one of the suppressed pa.s.sages. Vol. ii. Append, p.

575, edit. 1826.

[207] Nalson, ii. 788, 792, 804; Clarendon, ii. 84. The queen"s behaviour had been extraordinarily imprudent from the very beginning.

So early as Feb. 17, 1641, the French amba.s.sador writes word: "La reine d"Angleterre dit publiquement qu"il y a une treve arrestee pour trois ans entre la France et l"Espagne, et que ces deux couronnes vont unir leurs forces pour la defendre et pour venger les catholiques."

Mazure, _Hist. de la Revol. en 1688_, ii. 419. She was very desirous to go to France, doubtless to interest her brother and the queen in the cause of royalty. Lord Holland, who seems to have been the medium between the parliamentary chiefs and the French court, signified how much this would be dreaded by the former; and Richelieu took care to keep her away; of which she bitterly complained. This was in February.

Her majesty"s letter, which M. Mazure has been malicious enough to print verbatim, is a curious specimen of orthography. _Id._ p. 416.

Her own party were equally averse to this step, which was chiefly the effect of cowardice; for Henrietta was by no means the high-spirited woman that some have fancied. It is well known that a few months afterwards she pretended to require the waters of Spa for her health; but was induced to give up her journey.

[208] Clarendon, ii. 81. This writer intimates that the Tower was looked upon by the court as a bridle upon the city.

[209] Nalson, ii. 810, and other writers, ascribe this accusation of Lord Kimbolton in the peers, and of the five members, as they are commonly called, Pym, Hollis, Hampden, Haslerig, and Strode, to secret information obtained by the king in Scotland of their former intrigues with that nation. This is rendered in some measure probable by a part of the written charge preferred by the attorney-general before the House of Lords, and by expressions that fell from the king; such as, "it was a treason which they should all thank him for discovering."

Clarendon, however, hardly hints at this; and gives, at least, a hasty reader to understand that the accusation was solely grounded on their parliamentary conduct. Probably he was aware that the act of oblivion pa.s.sed last year afforded a sufficient legal defence to the charge of corresponding with the Scots in 1640. In my judgment, they had an abundant justification in the eyes of their country for intrigues which, though legally treasonable, had been the means of overthrowing despotic power. The king and courtiers had been elated by the applause he received when he went into the city to dine with the lord mayor on his return from Scotland; and Madame de Motteville says plainly, that he determined to avail himself of it in order to seize the leaders in parliament (i. 264).

Nothing could be more irregular than the mode of Charles"s proceedings in this case. He sends a message by the serjeant-at-arms to require of the speaker that five members should be given up to him on a charge of high treason; no magistrate"s or counsellor"s warrant appeared; it was the king acting singly, without the intervention of the law. It is idle to allege, like Clarendon, that privilege of parliament does not extend to treason; the breach of privilege, and of all const.i.tutional law, was in the mode of proceeding. In fact, the king was guided by bad private advice, and cared not to let any of his privy council know his intention, lest he should encounter opposition.

The following account of the king"s coming to the house on this occasion is copied from the pencil notes of Sir R. Verney. It has been already printed by Mr. Hatsell (_Precedents_, iv. 106), but with no great correctness. What Sir R. V. says of the transactions of Jan. 3 is much the same as we read in the Journals. He thus proceeds: "Tuesday, January 4, 1641. The five gentlemen which were to be accused came into the house, and there was information that they should be taken away by force. Upon this, the house sent to the lord mayor, aldermen, and common council to let them know how their privileges were like to be broken, and the city put into danger, and advised them to look to their security.

"Likewise some members were sent to the inns of court to let them know how they heard they were tampered withal to a.s.sist the king against them, and therefore they desired them not to come to Westminster.

"Then the house adjourned till one of the clock.

"As soon as the house met again, it was moved, considering there was an intention to take these five members away by force, to avoid all tumult, let them be commanded to absent themselves; upon this the house gave them leave to absent themselves, but entered no order for it. And then the five gentlemen went out of the house.

"A little after the king came with all his guard, and all his pensioners, and two or three hundred soldiers and gentlemen. The king commanded the soldiers to stay in the hall, and sent us word he was at the door. The speaker was commanded to sit still with the mace lying before him, and then the king came to the door, and took the palsgrave in with him, and commanded all that came with him upon their lives not to come in. So the doors were kept open, and the Earl of Roxburgh stood within the door, leaning upon it. Then the king came upwards towards the chair with his hat off, and the speaker stepped out to meet him; then the king stepped up to his place, and stood upon the step, but sat not down in the chair.

"And after he had looked a great while, he told us he would not break our privileges, but treason had no privilege; he came for those five gentlemen, for he expected obedience yesterday, and not an answer.

Then he called Mr. Pym and Mr. Hollis by name, but no answer was made.

Then he asked the speaker if they were here, or where they were? Upon this the speaker fell on his knees, and desired his excuse, for he was a servant to the house, and had neither eyes nor tongue to see or say anything, but what they commanded him: then the king told him he thought his own eyes were as good as his, and then said his birds were flown, but he did expect the house should send them to him; and if they did not, he would seek them himself, for their treason was foul, and such a one as they would all thank him to discover: then he a.s.sured us they should have a fair trial; and so went out, pulling off his hat till he came to the door.

"Upon this the house did instantly resolve to adjourn till to-morrow at one of the clock, and in the interim they might consider what to do.

"Wednesday, 5th Jan. 1641.--The house ordered a committee to sit at Guildhall in London, and all that would come had voices. This was to consider and advise how to right the house in point of privilege broken by the king"s coming yesterday with a force to take members out of our house. They allowed the Irish committee to sit, but would meddle with no other business till this were ended; they acquainted the Lords in a message with what they had done, and then they adjourned the house till Tuesday next."

The author of these memoranda in pencil, which extend, at intervals of time, from the meeting of the parliament to April 1642, though mistaken by Mr. Hatsell for Sir Edmund Verney, member for the county of Bucks, and killed at the battle of Edgehill, has been ascertained by my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant D"Oyly, to be his brother Sir Ralph, member for Aylesbury. He continued at Westminster, and took the covenant; but afterwards retired to France, and was disabled to sit by a vote of the house, Sept. 22, 1645.

[210] _Mem. de Motteville_, i. 264. Clarendon has hardly been ingenuous in throwing so much of the blame of this affair on Lord Digby. Indeed, he insinuates in one place, that the queen"s apprehension of being impeached, with which some one in the confidence of the parliamentary leaders (either Lord Holland or Lady Carlisle) had inspired her, led to the scheme of antic.i.p.ating them (ii. 232). It has been generally supposed that Lady Carlisle gave the five members a hint to absent themselves. The French amba.s.sador, however, Montereuil, takes the credit to himself. "J"avois prevenu mes amis, et ils s"etoient mis en srete." Mazure, p. 429. It is probable that he was in communication with that intriguing lady.

[211] Pp. 159, 180.

[212] The earliest proof that the Commons gave of their intention to take the militia into their hands was immediately upon the discovery of Percy"s plot, 5th May 1641, when an order was made that the members of each county, etc., should meet to consider in what state the places for which they serve are in respect of arms and ammunition, and whether the deputy lieutenants and lord lieutenants are persons well affected to the religion and the public peace, and to present their names to the house, and who are the governors of forts and castles in their counties. Commons" Journals. Not long afterwards, or at least before the king"s journey to Scotland, Sir Arthur Haslerig, as Clarendon informs us, proposed a bill for settling the militia in such hands as they should nominate, which was seconded by St. John, and read once, "but with so universal a dislike, that it was never called upon a second time." Clarendon, i. 488. I can find nothing of this in the Journals, and believe it to be one of the anachronisms into which this author has fallen, in consequence of writing at a distance from authentic materials. The bill to which he alludes must, I conceive, be that brought in by Haslerig long after (7th Dec. 1641), not, as he terms it, for settling the militia, but for making certain persons, leaving their names in blank, "lords general of all the forces within England and Wales, and lord admiral of England." The persons intended seem to have been Ess.e.x, Holland, and Northumberland. The Commons had for some time planned to give the two former earls a supreme command over the trained bands north and south of Trent (Journals, Nov. 15 and 16); which was afterwards changed into the scheme of lord lieutenants of their own nomination for each county. The bill above mentioned having been once read, it was moved that it be rejected, which was negatived by 158 to 125. Commons" Journals, 7th Dec. Nalson, ii. 719, has made a mistake about these numbers. The bill, however, was laid aside, a new plan having been devised. It was ordered (31st Dec. 1641) "that the house be resolved into a committee on Monday next (Jan. 3), to take into consideration the militia of the kingdom." That Monday (Jan. 3) was the famous day of the king"s message about the five members; and on Jan. 13 a declaration for putting the kingdom in a state of defence pa.s.sed the Commons, by which "all officers, magistrates, etc., were enjoined to take care that no soldiers be raised, nor any castles or arms given up, _without his majesty"s pleasure, signified by both houses of parliament_." Commons" Journals; _Parl. Hist._ 1035. The Lords at the time refused to concur in this declaration, which was afterwards changed into the ordinance for the militia; but 32 peers signed a protest (_Id._ 1049), and the house not many days afterwards came to an opposite vote, joining with the Commons in their demand of the militia. _Id._ 1072, 1091.

[213] Rymer, sub Edw. I. et II. _pa.s.sim_. Thus, in 1297, a writ to the sheriff of Yorkshire directs him to make known to all, qui habent 20 libratas terrae et reditus per annum, tam illis qui non tenent de n.o.bis in capite quam illis qui tenent, ut de equis et armis sibi provideant et se probarent indilate; ita quod sint prompti et parati ad veniendum ad nos et eundum c.u.m propria persona nostra, pro defensione ipsorum et totius regni nostri praedicti quandocunque pro ipsis duxerimus demandandum. ii. 864.

[214] Stat. 1 Edw. III. c. 5.

[215] 25 Edw. III. c. 8. 4 H. IV. c. 13.

[216] 4 and 5 Philip and Mary, c. 3. The Harleian ma.n.u.scripts are the best authority for the practice of pressing soldiers to serve in Ireland or elsewhere, and are full of instances. The Mouldys and Bullcalfs were in frequent requisition. See vols. 309, 1926, 2219, and others. Thanks to Humphrey Wanley"s diligence, the a.n.a.lysis of these papers in the catalogue will save the enquirer the trouble of reading, or the mortification of finding he cannot read, the terrible scrawl in which they are generally written.

[217] Wilkins"s _Leges Anglo-Saxonicae_, p. 333; Lyttleton"s _Henry II._, iii. 354.

[218] Stat. 13 E. I.

[219] 5 Philip and Mary, c. 2.

[220] 1 Jac. c. 25, -- 46. An order of council, in Dec. 1638, that every man having lands of inheritance to the clear yearly value of 200 should be chargeable to furnish a light-horse man, every one of 300 estate to furnish a lance, at the discretion of the lord lieutenant, was unwarranted by any existing law, and must be reckoned among the violent stretches of the prerogative at that time. Rushw.

Abr. ii. 500.

[221] Rymer, xix. 310.

[222] Grose"s _Military Antiquities_, i. 150. The word artillery was used in that age for the long-bow.

[223] Whitelock maintained, both on this occasion, and at the treaty of Uxbridge, that the power of the militia resided in the king and two houses jointly. Pp. 55, 129. This, though not very well expressed, can only mean that it required an act of parliament to determine and regulate it.

[224] See the list of those recommended, _Parl. Hist._ 1083. Some of these were royalists; but on the whole, three-fourths of the military force of England would have been in the hands of persons, who, though men of rank, and attached to the monarchy, had given Charles no reason to hope that they would decline to obey any order which the parliament might issue, however derogatory or displeasing to himself.

[225] "When this bill had been with much ado accepted, and first read, there were few men who imagined it would ever receive further countenance; but now there were very few who did not believe it to be a very necessary provision for the peace and safety of the kingdom. So great an impression had the late proceedings made upon them, that with little opposition it pa.s.sed the Commons, and was sent up to the Lords." Clarend. ii. 180.